where we live is ‘a contributory marker of identity and difference’

We don’t just choose out of the blue, where we live. It is influenced to a certain degree by factors of social differences and who we are, our identity.
In the first part of this essay I will examine, what factors influence the choice of place of residence and what ‘place’ is or in other words, the meanings of ‘place’ and how they are constructed. Secondly, through the illustration of how places are constructed, which I illustrate by the example of gated communities, and by outlining the ‘mechanism’ of how they get linked to a certain representation, I will address some of the inequalities associated with ‘place’ and reputation to add evidence to the statement, that where we live is ‘a contributory marker of identity and difference’.
The conclusion will sum up the evidence in favour of the statement by recapitulating the key points and providing a condensed version of the essay’s core arguments, outlining the importance of places in our lives in relation to who we are and how we see the world around us.

At the beginning of this essay it seems important to me, to have a quick look at the terms of social difference and identity in the context of the statement. Social difference is not such a strong term as social division which describes more hierarchical or value differences. Social difference is more about different activities of individuals like being members of different social groups e.g. in the field of politics or environment, in everyday life with less impact on our life-chances than divisions such as e.g. class or gender.
Identity is strongly connected to social divisions. Divisions as gender, race and nationality are intersecting dimensions of identity and thus interconnected, influencing the choice where we live. An example of ‘place’
as a contributory marker of identity are communities like Little Italy in Manhattan USA, where people with the same Identity (Italian ancestry) settled in the late 1800s when unemployment and poverty in their home country forced them to move, giving this place special meanings regarding culture, activities and habits. Today the meaning of the place changed and you are more likely to stumble into an Ohio-American than an Italian-American along the crowded, touristy strip but you still know for sure where you are if only because of the green, white, and red parking meters in this area.
Meanings of ‘place’ may vary by different groups and leading to a conflict over who’s meaning counts in like Little Italy which is now more or less a part of the financial district in Manhattan.
The choice of where we life is influenced by many factors, socially and geographically. We may be attracted to a certain place by cultural diversity, social exchange or increased privacy, for economic reasons or proximity between home and work. Thus, places are a geographical manifestation of social constructions. They can even be completely detached from physical space like internet communities e.g. second life (http://secondlife.com/). Basically, places are actively made, contested and remade by social groups, interacting in an environment of changing structural opportunities and restrictions.
Through that, they are also, to a certain extent geographical manifestation of social divisions and inequalities e.g. in the field of housing, employment, health and education. These differences, divisions and inequalities, mean different qualifications of places.
Agencies, private and public, collect information and construct meanings about people based on their place of residence e.g. through systems like ACORN. A geodemographic system, which classifies residential neighbourhoods providing description that summarize their households’ demographic and socioeconomic profile. This example is powerful evidence to support the claim of Janes and Mooney, that where we live influences our life chances. The link of particular representations with places has an often underestimated influence on its inhabitants, leading to different assumptions and through these different assumptions to further divisions and inequalities in access to education, employment and health care. The quote of Lawless and Smith, presented by Janes and Mooney (Janes and Mooney in Braham and Janes, 2002 p. 23) illustrates how the negative representation of place stops the writer, putting the name of his place of residence on letters of application. In this context, place is indeed a contributory marker of difference and identity, where we, to a greater or lesser extend choose to live.
As I mentioned above in my essay, places are a geographical manifestation of active social constructions and related to social differences and divisions. The example of gated communities is further evidence of how meanings of ‘place’ are constructed. These special communities have usually developed in response of fears of crime in areas like Los Angeles or Johannesburg, with big material inequalities and social divisions, including residents on the basis of wealth and social status. This is an extreme example of active construction of place on the bases of unequal and hierarchical social division but show more or less the ‘how’, places are constructed mainly on the bases of inclusion and exclusion, and unequal, hierarchical social divisions constructing and reinforcing inequalities. The above mentioned example proves in another way the statement, that where we live is ‘a contributory marker of identity and difference’ by giving the ‘included’ an identity of being wealthy and special and certainly different from the excluded outside the walls and fences.
Places are constructed as outlined above and Janes and Mooney show us by the example of Séan Damer’s extract ‘Problem places and problem people’ (Damer in Braham and Janes, 2002 p.42 - 45), that whole areas can be linked with a particular representation through e.g. class and ethnicity based reputations like poverty and violence. Sources to create such reputations are not only local folk wisdoms but also the state, the police and law enforcement agencies and most powerful, the media. The illustrated example by Damer, the reputation from the housing estate The Moorkpark coming to be known as the ‘Wine Alley’, based on the dependency of state funded programs for its rather poor inhabitants is evidence of how places become linked to particular representations and the mechanism behind it. We all know similar examples in our area we live in. A part of Zurich came to be known in recent years for its inhabitants of mostly Balkan origin. Its consequent association with poverty and higher crime rate resulted in the moving out of other Swiss citizens. The meaning of this place changed because of new activities and cultural aspects of the new majority of inhabitants. The particular representation of poverty and high crime rate resulted in a low diversity of different ethnicities, further stigmatisation of this place lessening the chances on the job market and, in this example higher health insurance costs for the inhabitants because of statistical evidence of high healthcare costs of this group of people.
Such representations of ‘place’ have far reaching consequences for its inhabitants. Chances on the job marked diminish considerable if you are known to live in a place linked to particular representations like e.g. the ‘Wine Alley’. These inequalities, directly associated to the place, support the statement ‘that where we live is a contributory marker of identity and difference’ because of direct economical and financial disadvantages in the form of lesser chances on the job marked. The probability of economical success and thus expectancy of a higher standard of living, in other words different lifestyle and identity are slim due to these restrictions. With only small chances of raising the income, moving to another place with different representation is often not possible and thus adding to the representation of this place with all the others, stock for the same reasons without perspectives. Further evidence to the significance and influence of ‘place’ on individuals is the practice of financial institutes, to limit the allocation of credit to poorer social groups and poorer places or excluded them totally, consequently robbing them of another possibility e.g. by the way of education through credit, to improve their situation and lessen the social differences or changing their identity.
Not only the above examples show, how much of a contributory marker ‘place’ is and support the statement of Janes and Mooney with evidence. Another powerful evidence to support that claim is the relationship between place and patterns of ill health and death rates investigated through data collected along the postcode lines. Data like this not only adds to representations of places, they also produce a wide array of evidence to link places of residence to patterns of morbidity and mortality (Shaw in Braham and Janes, 2002 p. 17).

Our perception of place is important, how we see the world around us with its differences, divisions and inequalities. Places are geographical manifestations of social constructions, actively made, contested and remade by social groups given meaning by their activities. The example of little Italy in Manhattan shows how the meanings of ‘place’ can be constructed through culture, activities and habits.
Particular representations of places have a big influence on its inhabitants as Janes and Mooney with the example of the geodemographic system ACORN demonstrate. The resulting differences, divisions and inequalities of such representations lead to different assumptions and through these to different access to education, employment and health care as shown by the close relationship of place of residence and patterns of morbidity and mortality.
The meanings and construction of ‘place’ and the corresponding representations result in inequalities, differences and divisions, all interconnected, making our place of residence ‘a contributory marker of identity and difference’. Where we live influences our life chances to a greater or lesser extent.
(1584 words)

References
Braham, P. and Janes, L. (2002) Introduction, in Braham, P. and Janes, L., (eds), (2002), social differences and divisions, Milton Keynes, Open University.

Damer, S. (1989) From Moorpark to ‘Wine Alley’: The Rise and Fall of a Glasgow Housing Scheme, University of Glasgow, Centre for Housing Research, Discussion Paper no, 37 in Braham, P. and Janes, L., (eds), (2002), social differences and divisions, Milton Keynes, Open University.

Janes, L. and Mooney. (2002) Place, lifestyle and social divisions, in Braham, P. and Janes, L., (eds), (2002), social differences and divisions, Milton Keynes, Open University.

Lawless, P. and Smith, Y. (1998) ‘Poverty, inequality and exclusion in the contemporary city’ in Lawless, P., Martin, R. and Hardy, S. (eds) Unemployment and Social Exclusion, London, Jessica Kingsley.

Shaw, M., Dorling, D., Gordon, D. and Smith, G.D. (1999) The Widening Gap, Bristol, Policy Press in Braham, P. and Janes, L., (eds), (2002), social differences and divisions, Milton Keynes, Open University.