Future Urban Habitation

The challenge, then, is to find common ground between the competing groups. This is not an easy task, as local‐foreigner differences often overlap with class differences, including spatial differences, such as the rich living in gated communities. This amplifies the notions of difference (Pow 2011).

The challenge of future cities, open as they are to the world, is to ensure that globalization's flows of talent and inequalities do not make individuals or specific groups feel they are excluded. The search for shared national values is one potential solution, especially the search for those national values emphasizing a shared humanity.

Voluntary associations, including religious centres, hobby clubs, sport clubs and the like, are major sources of contact diversity. When a person joins an association, the probability of meeting new friends and contacts increases significantly (Kalmijn and Flap 2001). Members of an association share some kind of common interest, but at the same time, members may differ in their occupations and other social positions, making it easy to form ties to people different from themselves.

An association cannot add much to network diversity if the association is homogenous, as many are (McPherson and Smith‐Lovin 1987). Large associations are likely to include many people similar to the focal person, who can follow the homophily principle and make new ties with similar others instead of adding to diversity (McPherson and Smith‐Lovin 1987).

Smaller, more active, and more socially mixed groups are the best sources of diversity. Associations with more member activities give members more chances to get to know each other. Within organizations, the activities designed by leaders create a context for friendships to form: for example, when childcare organizations make it mandatory for parents to help organize excursions, parents invariably meet other parents. Since different kinds of associations recruit from different demographic categories, the richest of all sources of social capital is membership in multiple kinds of associations (Erickson 2004). When associations are themselves linked with other associations, members in both get a chance to meet one another. In short, institutional links foster individual links (Small 2009).

Some might argue that associations are usually interest‐based and therefore cannot be inclusive. But all associations, even homogeneous ones, draw on an ethos of cooperation, focus on accomplishing objectives together and treat fellow members with decency. Therefore, an association is simultaneously a site for social learning and a training ground for relational skills. Gerometta, Haussermann and Longo (Gerometta et al. 2005, p. 2019) put it well when they say:

The theoretical construction of a civil society, that could play an important role in fighting exclusion, remains paradoxical to a certain extent: self‐help and associations are usually built on common interests of the group members and, in such a perspective, they represent particular interests. But they all have to refer to a common frame of mutual respect and acknowledgement, and this means in the last instance a reference to the overall constitution of a coherent society, sharing some common values of non‐violent cooperation and social cohesion ( Gemeinwohl ). So each particular group also has non‐particular interests and orientations, which must be stressed in forming an integrated civil society.

In a sense, associations are similar to guilds. Guilds are sites of craftsmanship, with members investing in training and learning to relate to each other. They gain mastery in their craft over time. Their knowledge is ‘experience‐based rather than propositional or objectified’. It is tacit knowledge. By the same token, associations offer ‘numerous small workshops’ where members hone their civic skills. Each member is an apprentice. The primary impact of associational life is local, with ‘tacit knowledge transferred from person to person’ (Epstein and Prak 2008, pp. 5, 6, and 11).

Research on Singapore suggests associations play a substantial role in generating diversity. People who participate in associations have more diverse networks (Chua et al. 2017). They are also more likely to have a broader set of contacts that include friendship ties (Chua 2013).

In sum, associations are key ‘social infrastructures’ that bring people together (Klinenberg 2018). Tocqueville observed that associations are the bedrock of social life (Damrosch 2010; also see Putnam 1993). As sites of discussion, dialogue and action, they are fundamental to the democratic ethos of present and future cities. Multiple memberships are especially valuable because this suggests a network that spans a variety of different associations, and this, in turn, bodes well for social cohesion (Paxton 2007).

I've argued for the importance of common frames of reference, including shared values. But shared values alone will not build an inclusive society, if not buttressed by boundary spanning social relationships. On the one hand, in Singapore, the state plays a pivotal role in promulgating a sense of national identity, mobilizing the instruments of education, the media, culture and the like as part of a top‐down process (Gellner 1983). The cultural intelligentsia also play a role: cultural elites interpret the nation (including its history) and re‐present it to the people, whether in theatrical productions, documentaries, or popular culture (including comics) (Hutchinson 1992). On the other hand, social relationships represent a critical foundation of nationhood. National identities, like other forms of identity, are ‘socially constructed through interaction among agents’ (Hopf 2016, p. 4). The human relations aspects of nation building must be recognized and affirmed.

In my study of Singapore mentioned earlier, I found bridging social capital correlated significantly with national identity and with the trust of other groups (Chua et al. 2017). I concluded that those with ties to people from different parts of the social structure show an increased sensitivity to other cultures and milieus and an ability to understand different perspectives. This brings them to think in national terms, not just in terms of their own groups.

The study considered several forms of bridging social capital, including ties between people of different races/ethnicities, religions, and classes, but the strongest links to national identity turned out to be those centred on class diversity. More specifically, the ties between elites and non‐elites were the most significantly related to national identity. This underscores my point that bridging elite and non‐elite circles and disrupting the social closures that separate them have a substantial payoff.

Class divisions have grown in many cities around the world, not just in Singapore. The future city needs to face that reality and emerge stronger for it. Arguably, the human instinct is to form class silos and fence off others, i.e. ‘homophily’ or the like‐of‐the‐same (McPherson et al. 2001). But intentional efforts to bridge the divide by encouraging intergroup contact and relationships will pay off in a heightened sense of inclusivity, including a deepened sense of belongingness to the nation connecting all groups.

I end the chapter with the following quotation from Pico Iyer, novelist and travel writer:

Singapore is a city of the future now more than ever. In the last 15 years, it has become a fashion‐forward, cool, hip city that has surged into the future. It accelerated past other cities in the world and they look to Singapore as offering a model for where they want to go. The design and architecture are beyond anything I have seen. Every new building is so sleek, every old one is so beautifully preserved. In that way, Crazy Rich Asians is a real expression for how Singapore has arrived. I would say Singapore is ahead of New York by 20 years in terms of fashion, coolness and forward thinking, and it has a more coherent vision – thanks to your initial leaders – than Shanghai and Tokyo can ever have. That is a great benefit in an age where cities are making themselves up as they go along.