Crow

22/1/2002

4:37 pm

Page 127

Neither Busybodies nor Nobodies: Managing

Proximity and Distance in Neighbourly
Relations

Graham Crow
Department of Sociology and Social Policy, University of Southampton

Graham Allan

Negotiating Social Boundaries

Sociology
Copyright 2002
BSA Publications Ltd
Volume 36(1): 127145
[0038-0385(200202)36:1;127145;020973]
SAGE Publications
London,Thousand Oaks,
New Delhi

School of Social Relations, Keele University

Marcia Summers
Department of General Studies, Isle of Wight College

AB ST RAC T

This article reflects on empirical findings from research into neighbour relations
conducted in a small town on the south coast of England. Competing accounts
exist of the changing nature of relations between neighbours, and of the sources
of pressures for relations with neighbours to combine privacy and sociability. The
empirical findings reported on here shed light on the reasons behind peoples
involvement with or detachment from neighbours, in the process revealing their
conceptions of a good neighbour.The article argues that it is a skilful accomplishment for neighbours to establish and maintain a workable balance between keeping ones distance and being there when needed. Little evidence was found of
face-to-face relationships between neighbours conforming to the stereotypes of
intrusive nosy neighbours or people who reclusively keep themselves to themselves. The article concludes that analyses of neighbouring relationships need to
capture the interplay of forces which allow individuals greater freedom from community control than was found in the past but which do not herald the redundancy of neighbourhood ties implied in theories of privatization, individualization
and globalization. As a result, analysis will need to go beyond the busybody/nobody
dichotomy.
K E Y WORDS

community / neighbours / privacy / reciprocity

127

Crow

22/1/2002

128

4:37 pm

Sociology

Page 128

Volume 36

Number 1

February 2002

n his overview of patterns of change and continuity in the way we live,

Hoggart refers to the remarkable continuance of neighbourliness, describing it as the single most sustaining communal practice in English society
(1995: 32930). He suggests that this continuance is remarkable because neighbourliness has the potential to be harmful as well as helpful (as, for example,
when neighbourly concern becomes extended into intrusiveness) and because
neighbourliness can no longer be explained solely as a reaction to common
hardship (1995: 329). Hoggarts earlier (1958) evocation of the working-class
community life of an older generation presented local social solidarity as a
product of economic necessity, although even here this was not a sufficient
explanation, as has been widely noted (Crow and Allan, 1994: ch. 2; Martin,
1981: ch.4; Roberts, 1995: ch.11).
Other writers have suggested that neighbourhood relations are of declining
significance in an age characterized by macro-level forces such as globalization,
individualization and detraditionalization. Within this alternative scenario,
place matters less than it once did, and local ties play a relatively small part in
shaping individuals lives. Beck is a prominent theorist whose work emphasizes
the corrosive effects of contemporary trends on traditional social arrangements.
Becks account of individuals no longer being obligated and forced into
togetherness (1997: 97) and of community relationships being dissolved in the
acid bath of competition (1992: 94) may employ distinctive imagery, but the
underlying theme of neighbour relations becoming redundant is a common one.
Sennett, for example, describes how mobility can lead to neighbours having
only weak ties to one another (1998: 138), and Albrow (1997) advances a
similar argument about globalizations transformation of community.
Parallels can be drawn between these discussions and earlier debates.
Claims about the decline of community and the increasingly privatized character of social life are not new, and neither are controversies about how best
to study local social solidarities. Over 30 years ago the Affluent Worker team
identified a trend towards a pattern of social life which is centred on, and
indeed largely restricted to, the home and the conjugal family (Goldthorpe et
al., 1969: 97), and this idea also figured in the Lynds (1929) classic community
study Middletown 40 years earlier. Criticisms of such writers for their misinterpretation of the decline of a particular type of community relationships as
evidence of the decline of community per se have an equally long history.
Current research on neighbouring goes beyond these previous debates in
important respects, not least because theoretical and methodological developments have placed new issues on the agenda (Crow, 1997). Rejecting the stark
opposition between presence or absence of community allows recognition that
several styles of neighbouring are possible. Neighbours do not have to be either
intrusive busybodies or distance-keeping nobodies, as typologies like that
developed by Richards (1990: ch. 9) demonstrate. Another key issue is the
extent to which these various neighbouring styles are actively constructed and
chosen by individuals, rather than being a given feature of the local social structure to which community members are compelled to conform. And if it cannot

Crow

22/1/2002

4:37 pm

Page 129

Neither busybodies nor nobodies Crow, Allan & Summers

be presumed that local conceptions of good neighbourliness will automatically

be adhered to, then attention needs to be paid to the factors that influence
peoples capacity and preparedness to engage in more or less supportive relationships with their neighbours. The findings of our research into neighbouring
in a small town in southern England are relevant to these wider debates.
Empirical evidence allows abstract theorization to be interrogated, and the
research reported on here provides such evidence in relation to four issues: the
extent to which neighbours are important in peoples lives, whether the content
of neighbour relations is experienced as positive or negative, how understandings of good neighbours are constructed, and how best to explain the patterns
that can be identified.
The existence of diversity in relations between neighbours does not rule out
the development of sociological generalizations (Keller, 1968). Once it is recognized that spatial proximity makes the management of relations potentially
problematic, diverse outcomes would be expected to emerge. As Abrams noted,
the combination of physical closeness and social distance generates complex
and contradictory processes (Bulmer, 1986). Similarly, Willmott observed that
neighbour relations involve ambiguities that are inherent in the attempt to combine elements of friendship with the maintenance of exclusive boundaries
around domestic life. As a result, people lay emphasis on the need for privacy
and reserve, alongside the general disposition towards friendliness (Willmott,
1986: 55). To the extent that these conditions hold true, a good neighbour can
be described in general terms as someone who respects others rights to privacy
but who at the same time makes herself or himself available to be called upon
if necessary.
Willmotts (1986) review of the literature also noted that the norm of
friendly distance between neighbours is open to contrasting interpretations
and expressions in different contexts, varying according to the social class,
gender, age and household type of the people involved and the location of their
housing in urban, suburban or rural settings. Subsequent studies have broadly
confirmed the significance of these influences on the way in which neighbour
relations are expressed, even if they are subject to change over time. This is
illustrated by the impact on neighbour relations of the growth of womens
employment, household change and ageing (Devine, 1992; Phillipson et al.,
1999; Richards, 1990), of global mobility (Albrow, 1997; Massey, 1994;
Wellman, 1999) and, most contentiously, of the growth of owner-occupation
(Pahl and Wallace, 1988; Saunders, 1990). These are all important starting
points in the examination of contemporary neighbour relationships.

The Study Population

The main body of the article is devoted to reporting the findings of research into
neighbour relations conducted in 1997 in a seaside town of some 6000 people
on the Isle of Wight, here given the pseudonym Steeptown. Tape-recorded

129

Crow

22/1/2002

130

4:37 pm

Sociology

Page 130

Volume 36

Number 1

February 2002

semi-structured interviews were conducted with residents in three parts of the

town, chosen for their contrasting spatial and socio-economic characteristics.
One area close to the centre of town comprised mainly older and smaller
privately owned terraced and semi-detached housing fronting on to the street,
while the two other areas were closer to the town boundaries but at opposite
ends of the socio-economic spectrum; one of these was an exclusive area of
expensive owner-occupied properties, while the other was an area of mixed
housing including local authority built properties, some of which had been
purchased under right to buy legislation. These three areas will be called,
respectively, Centreville, Lakeside and Downton.
Letters outlining the purposes of the study were put through peoples doors
in each of these areas, and later our researcher called back to ask whether
recipients would be prepared to be interviewed. As the fieldwork proceeded,
some snowball sampling was used to increase the proportion of respondents
who had been born in the town. In total, 100 letters outlining the study were
delivered, and the fieldwork was ended when the target of 40 interviews had
been achieved (the other 60 addresses being accounted for by 34 occupants
declining to be interviewed, 24 not being in at any of the times when the
researcher called [including, we were to discover, some properties which were
unoccupied], and two not being in when the researcher called back to undertake an interview at an arranged time).
Of the 40 respondents, 22 were female and 18 male. Thirteen had been
born locally and either stayed in the town or left and returned subsequently,
while seven of the 27 in-migrants had lived in the town for more than 20 years,
11 for between 10 and 20 years, and nine for under 10 years. Six of the
respondents had previously lived and worked abroad. Reflecting in part the
generally older make-up of the towns population in which over one in three
households contained only pensioners (OPCS, 1993), 13 of the sample were
aged under 50, 13 between 50 and 64, and 14 were over 64. Census data from
the same source indicate that ethnic groups other than white have only a minimal presence in the town, making it unsurprising that they did not feature in
the study. Respondents were in a range of household types, including 12 singleperson households, 12 couples (including one household of two friends), eight
households of parent or parents and dependent children, and eight households
of parent or parents and independent children. Only three of the 40 respondents
were tenants, so that this tenure type was under-represented, even allowing for
the fact that the Isle of Wight has a rate of owner-occupation (79 percent) that
is significantly higher than the national average. Respondents properties
ranged from detached houses (7), through semi-detached houses (18) and
terraced houses (8) to flats, either purpose-built or converted (7). The 40
respondents fell as evenly as such a number can into the three contrasting areas
of the town in which the fieldwork was conducted.
The respondents should not be treated as either typical or representative of
wider populations; like all communities, Steeptown has some characteristics
which make it unusual or unique, and others which are remarkably ordinary.

Crow

22/1/2002

4:37 pm

Page 131

Neither busybodies nor nobodies Crow, Allan & Summers

The fact that the towns population is skewed towards older people was
reflected in the sample, and this matters to the experience of neighbouring
because pensioners are more likely to be at home during the working day. The
lower number of respondents living with dependent children also makes the
sample distinctive; this is an important consideration in terms of both children
as a common focus of neighbour disputes and the limited time available for
parents of dependent children to devote to activities beyond the household.
Third, it is noteworthy that, while Steeptown (and the Isle of Wight generally)
have income levels below the average for south-east England, the living conditions here are not on a par with areas of concentrated deprivation like those
of Powers (1999) Estates on the Edge. Despite these caveats, our findings
are pertinent to debates about general trends such as individualization and
privatization. Empirical research is necessary if such debates are to transcend
the speculative formulations through which they are commonly expressed.
Relations between neighbours are more nuanced than is suggested by sweeping
generalizations couched in terms of ineluctable processes. Data such as those
relating to Steeptown are required in order to explore the suggested linkage of
globalization with the destruction of local communities (Beck, 2000: 50), or
the older but still influential notion that privatized lifestyles make neighbour
relations redundant.

Privatized or Individualized Lifestyles?

In the three decades since the trend towards more privatized lifestyles was
posited by the Affluent Worker team (Goldthorpe et al., 1969), numerous
reservations have been expressed about the idea of relations between neighbours becoming increasingly unimportant. Patterns of neighbour relations have
undergone significant change since the heyday of traditional working-class
communities, but the concept of privatization captures this only partly at best.
Even in apparently inauspicious settings, relations between neighbours have
turned out to be more enduring, more extensive and more meaningful than the
privatization model suggests (Crow and Allan, 1994; Devine, 1992; Procter,
1990; Richards, 1990). It is therefore somewhat surprising that the idea of the
social redundancy of neighbours continues to feature in the writings of contemporary social theorists like Beck and Sennett. Our findings provide several
grounds for scepticism about the suggestion that neighbour relations have been
eclipsed by such processes as privatization, individualization and globalization.
Regarding the extent of neighbour knowledge, households containing
members who had no or few connections with those around them were in a
definite minority. When asked to say how many people in their street other than
relatives they knew by name, five respondents replied between one and four, six
between five and 10, 13 between 11 and 20, 13 between 21 and 50, one 60,
and two said, simply, all of them (understandably, perhaps, in the case of the
one of these who worked for the Post Office). Knowing someones name does

131

Crow

22/1/2002

132

4:37 pm

Sociology

Page 132

Volume 36

Number 1

February 2002

not indicate any great depth to the relationship, and so the follow-up question
asked how many of these were known well enough for the respondent to call
them friends, mindful that the notion of friend can be problematic (Allan,
1989). Seven respondents replied that they had no friends in the street in which
they lived, but nine identified 10 or more, and the mean number of friends in
the same street for the 40 respondents was over 5.
Moreover, nine respondents identified three or more of their five best friends
as living in their street, with the mean figure for all 40 respondents being just
under 1.5 and the majority (22) identifying at least 1. This is at odds with the
idea of lifestyles becoming privatized around family and home, or with the
alternative idea of individualized friendships being developed beyond the locality. Rather what it suggests is that potential exists for depth in at least some
neighbour relations. Respondents who lived alone and those who were retired
were more likely than others to identify best friends living in the same street,
but it was by no means only the old and alone who did so. The majority of the
22 respondents in paid work also had at least one of their best friends in the
same street, for example. Richards (1990) is right to argue that peoples closest
friendships (outside of the household) are usually developed with others living
away from their immediate locality, but neighbourhoods can still provide the
basis for friendship. This may be more marked for those whose lives are
restricted to the locality, but it is true for others too.
Respondents were also asked whether they regarded their home as a private
place just for themselves and their family or whether they liked to have neighbours and other people popping in. Replies to this question produced an even
split between those who adhered to the more privatized, family-centred notion
of home and those who drew less tight boundaries around home access. Neither
gender nor housing location appeared to be significant in this, despite expectations to the contrary produced by the relevant literature. People of both sexes,
different ages, and from all three fieldwork areas could be found who regarded
their houses as open to others rather than as private spaces with restricted
access, as the following four quotations illustrate:
All the back gardens are linked, so the children sometimes play in our garden and
people just pop round all the time.
(R [=Respondent] 7, M [=Male], aged 67, Centreville)
With my work [as a childminder] I like the children to treat it as a home from home
which includes their parents popping in, but I do like it to be private after work.
(R 9, F [=Female], aged 37, Centreville)
I like to have people popping in. I dont regard it as a fortress.
(R 27, M, aged 68, Lakeside)
The house is open, as long as Im not doing anything. Open house.
(R 39, M, aged 28, Downton)

It was equally possible to find more a privatized outlook among members

of the different groups. Again, four quotations illustrate the point:

Crow

22/1/2002

4:37 pm

Page 133

Neither busybodies nor nobodies Crow, Allan & Summers

Its my sanctuary, as Im working with members of the public all day, I like a bit of
privacy when I come home.
(R 1, M, aged 38, Centreville)
My son-in-law talks about his space. Some people like to be on their own. I do
actually, after all these years, listening to babble. I like my space.
(R 5, M, aged 72, Centreville)
I dont like visitors who just turn up, I need warning. Yes, its private.
(R 22, F, aged 45, Lakeside)
Were quite reclusive, really, just a few friends and relations visiting periodically.
Were not one for running in and out of other peoples house, no. We enjoy our own
company.
(R 36, M, aged 57, Downton)

The overall conclusion regarding privatization would be that while it is possible

to construct a continuum with privatized lifestyles at one end of it, it would be
difficult on the basis of these data to locate anything more than a small minority of Steeptown residents as being close to the ideal-typical extreme in which
the limited nature of community involvement is a predominant feature. Nor do
the data support the idea that a more individualized culture has dissolved the
foundations of sociability between neighbours.

Neighbours From Hell?

Our research was concerned not only with the extent of contact between neighbours but also the quality of these relationships, given that community can have
associations with social control and conflict as well as with social support.
While the fieldwork was in progress the theme of problem neighbours or
neighbours from hell was receiving extensive airing in the mass media, but
there were also more conventional academic reasons for focusing on neighbour
problems (Karn et al., 1993). It was therefore appropriate to ask our respondents the question Have you ever had any serious difficulties with neighbours,
either here or elsewhere?.
Once again gender was not particularly prominent, since of the 16 respondents who reported having had serious difficulties with neighbours at some point
in their lives, nine were women and seven men. More of a connection was evident to the three areas of the town, with only four of the 14 Lakeside residents
and five of the 13 Centreville residents saying that they had had serious difficulties with neighbours, compared to seven of the 13 Downton residents. Given
that the latter group were generally younger than the other two groups (the
average ages of Lakeside, Centreville and Downton residents were 61, 57 and
50 respectively, and the average ages of those reporting having had serious
difficulty were 57, 62 and 45 respectively), this suggests that likelihood of
experiencing difficulties with neighbours is associated more with the character
of the housing in which a person lives than it is with how old they are. Other

133

Crow

22/1/2002

134

4:37 pm

Sociology

Page 134

Volume 36

Number 1

February 2002

research findings that report the greater likelihood of disputes in areas of higher
housing density may also be interpreted in this way (Karn et al., 1993).
While 16 (40 percent) of the respondents reported having had serious difficulties with neighbours at some point in their lives, only three said that they
did not get on very well with most or all of their current neighbours, while 29
said they got on well with all of them. The 11 currently experiencing anything
other than good relations with all their neighbours were spread evenly between
the three areas of the town, and the age categories into which respondents fell.
Seven of these 11 were men. Four of the 11 were parents who had dependent
children (of whom there were eight in the sample altogether), and this may be
linked to Karn et al.s (1993: 3) finding that childrens noise was the sixth most
important cause of nuisance to neighbours. As with Karns study, too, household noise and noisy pets also figured in accounts of difficulties, as did more
intangible matters such as intolerance, aloofness and unwillingness to fit in with
established local practices. Where problems were identified, accounts were
sometimes preceded by recognition that the issues could be considered quite
trivial, just stupid things as one respondent put it:
It would seem that we dont get on very well. Just the odd hello. Theres not a
lot of contact.
(R 2, F, aged 46, Centreville)

Noise was the commonest problem mentioned:

We do have one neighbour who, as the parking is quite tricky, just hoots her horn
until someone moves.
(R 12, M, aged 53, Lakeside)
Uncontrollable dogs! When youre out in the garden on a nice day its yap, yap, yap!
The dog is blind and the woman is deaf, so she doesnt hear it. Its all relative
because its so quiet here.
(R 14, M, aged 69, Lakeside)
This one [neighbour] doesnt like any noise. If I play my record player she comes in
or sends her husband in to tell me to put it off. Im not allowed to have any music here.
Shes one of these people who, you know, has gotta be obeyed a fussy sort of
woman. Seems to come from somewhere where they act all lah-di-dah all the time.
(R 29, F, aged 78, Centreville)

A range of other behaviours were identified as problems:

I dont get on with them at all, you know, for instance theres Smith down there, if
you ask him Could I borrow the lawn mower? hed say No.
(R 16, F, aged 75, Lakeside)
They were always trying to tell me how to bring my kids up, it was interfering
neighbours.
(R 32, F, aged 40, Downton).
She talks a hell of a lot, you cant just go out in the garden and say hello and get
on with your gardening, its constant talking. But other than that shes alright.
(R 37, F, aged 52, Downton)

Crow

22/1/2002

4:37 pm

Page 135

Neither busybodies nor nobodies Crow, Allan & Summers

Responses to questions about neighbouring difficulties made it clear that

no consensus exists on precisely what constitutes a bad neighbour. Respondents
looked for different things in neighbours. For the most part, though, what was
striking was the infrequency with which neighbouring difficulties were cited.
More commonly the interviews conveyed respondents satisfaction with being
part of good, or at least workable, relations with neighbours.
Ive never had a bad neighbour Ive been very lucky.
(R 3, F, aged 74, Centreville)
Excellent. We havent got any bad neighbours.
(R 20, F, aged 51, Lakeside)
Theyre always concerned if Im not well or anything I dont know any bad
neighbours, no, Ive never come across any of those. Noisy neighbours, you know,
or anything like that.
(R 25, F, aged 77, Downton)

To the extent that neighbours from hell figured at all in these accounts, they did
so as a negative stereotype against which most peoples experiences, certainly in
the present but also in the past, could be contrasted extremely favourably.

The Skilful Achievement of Friendly Distance

Relations between neighbours in Steeptown are more extensive in scope and
more positive in content than theories of privatization and individualization
would lead us to expect. The findings are also surprising in the light of the
expectation that the norm of friendly distance would be difficult to manage.
Studies of relations between neighbours in traditional working-class communities note how hard it was to achieve privacy when living at close quarters
(Bourke, 1994; Hoggart, 1958; Martin, 1981). Sometimes knowledge of the
activities of people next door came unwanted. In response to this situation,
Individuals coped with the lack of privacy by various distancing mechanisms
(Bourke, 1994: 142), which involved setting the boundaries around the matters
of conversation and the physical spaces with which it was appropriate for
neighbours to be concerned. The general purpose of such distancing mechanisms as a means of preserving at least a degree of privacy was widely
appreciated, but they sat somewhat uneasily alongside the expectation that
neighbours should be co-operative and friendly towards each other, and what
has been called the delicate balance (Willmott, 1986: 55) of friendly distance
was not always easy to strike.
If the conditions that prevailed in traditional working-class communities
have by and large been superseded, the ambiguities of friendly distance have
proved more enduring. This was readily apparent in the responses given to
the question In general terms, what sorts of things would you say are important parts of being a good neighbour? and to the follow-up question about
bad neighbours. As might be expected, the ambiguities surrounding good

135

Crow

22/1/2002

136

4:37 pm

Sociology

Page 136

Volume 36

Number 1

February 2002

neighbouring turned out to be keenly felt. Distancing mechanisms were certainly in evidence, but so too was an awareness of the need to signal a friendly
disposition if perception of aloofness or excessive distance is to be avoided.
There was frequent expression of the idea that good neighbours would respect
privacy and not be intrusive or nosy:
Minding your own business.
(R 15, M, aged 79, Lakeside)
Theyre not intrusive, they dont pry in your business, which is what I like. I dont like
that side of it, you know, Im a pretty private person, I dont like people interfering.
(R 31, M, aged 38, Downton)

Conversely, a bad neighbour could be characterized as someone

Interfering, poking your nose in when not wanted.
(R 40, M, aged 64, Lakeside)

Alongside this construction of the ideal of a good neighbour as someone

who recognized the need not to overstep boundaries around privacy was a
theme running through the interviews that good neighbours needed to show
an active concern for others around them:
Talking to them, noticing that theyre there, especially the older ones. Offering help.
(R 8, F, aged 40, Centreville)
Being available in times of trouble, being friendly and being a bit of a giver. You
know, if you see someone going along with a shopping basket you give them a lift,
or offer.
(R 16, F, aged 75, Lakeside)

Several responses brought out the delicacy of the balance involved between
respecting neighbours privacy and at the same time making ones positive predisposition known. Thus good neighbours should aim to strike a balance:
Not being obtrusive, letting you live your life. Being friendly but not imposing. Not
hanging over the garden fence to see what people are up to.
(R 11, F, aged 57, Lakeside)
Not being constantly in each others pockets, but being available, being there if
youre needed.
(R 21, M, aged 57, Lakeside)
Look after one another but we dont go interfering, if you know what I mean.
You dont need to be in one anothers doors to help out when needed.
(R 37, F, aged 52, Downton)

Respondents often employed distancing mechanisms which had a spatial

reference point, most obviously the idea that there needs to be a special reason
to enter a neighbours house. One respondents wariness of getting too involved
with neighbours related to past neighbours preparedness to gossip:
My wifes family, her mum has always had the neighbours in for tea and coffee and
stuff like that. My family I come from we didnt, because we always considered it

Crow

22/1/2002

4:37 pm

Page 137

Neither busybodies nor nobodies Crow, Allan & Summers

not a good thing. Its nice to be, you know, friendly and neighbourly to them if they
need help, fair enough. But Ive always found if you do have immediate neighbours
in people start to talk, or they might pick up on little things that really are not any
of their business. So you just dont do it.
(R 31, M, aged 38, Downton)

In Steeptown, as in the traditional working-class communities of the past, distancing mechanisms are skilfully deployed in the management of relations with
neighbours.

The Scope of Limited Reciprocity

Steeptowns patterns of neighbouring might be taken to embody the notion of
limited liability which has been employed to describe community relationships
in which participation is a voluntary choice rather than one prescribed on
the basis of residence alone (Suttles, 1972: 59). Analysis of the data collected
revealed that answers to the question: How would you respond if new neighbours moved in next door to you who did not behave in what you considered
to be a neighbourly way for example by being noisy late at night? contained
several instructive comments about the extent of perceived obligations between
neighbours. One woman related how
My husband just bangs on the wall! We did actually have someone, you know, who
used to beat his partner up quite violently, and you try and turn a blind eye, dont
you? You just listen to it because in this house you cant help that, at 2 or 3 oclock
in the morning. Then he started doing it early in the evening when the children were
awake, so we had no choice but to call the police. Its none of our business, but
when the children are in, then thats something else, isnt it? We assumed it was
drink.
(R 6, F, aged 35, Centreville)

The view of domestic violence as something normal and something with

which others should not interfere can be found in accounts of traditional
working-class communities (Sarsby, 1988), as can evidence of conjugal solidarity overriding solidarity between women (Lewis, 1986). This respondents
account reproduces these ideas, but qualifies them by reference to her childrens
wellbeing which she took to outweigh her neighbours rights to privacy. The
construction of a good neighbour as someone who is prepared to condone
domestic violence highlights the tension that exists between the ideal of privacy
and independence and the reality of having to respond in some way to the often
intimate knowledge of neighbours lives that proximity necessarily brings.
Other answers revealed the absence of consensus among respondents about
precisely how to balance individuals rights to privacy with other considerations. The hypothetical arrival of noisy neighbours elicited some suggestions
that a quick action would be called for:
I would complain. I would do something about it.
(R 4, F, aged 54, Centreville)

137

Crow

22/1/2002

138

4:37 pm

Sociology

Page 138

Volume 36

Number 1

February 2002

Id let them know straightaway, obviously starting off the nice way. Id have to let
them know.
(R 39, M, aged 28, Downton)

More frequently, however, responses conveyed a sense of the need to allow

appropriate time to pass before considering taking action:
Tolerate it for a certain length of time.
(R 7, M, aged 67, Centreville)
Give it time, give it time, dont form a hasty judgement.
(R 27, M, aged 68, Lakeside)
Id put up with it for a little while but if it went on and on Id probably it depends
on the people, some people you can ask not to make so much noise when it gets
up to 12 oclock [midnight] and after that, then I would get a bit grotty about it.
(R 35, F, aged 65, Downton)

The reasoning behind approaching neighbour problems with patience and

flexibility was partly because of awareness that neighbour disputes have the
potential to escalate:
Any aggression would be responded to by aggression.
(R 12, M, aged 53, Lakeside)

Another compelling source of such reasoning was the recognition that neighbours are necessarily interdependent, which one respondent expressed in almost
religious language:
Give people space, dont get into other peoples space, as you wouldnt like them to
get into yours.
(R 33, M, aged 48, Downton)

There was a similar flavour to the advice proffered by one respondent about
how best to deal with neighbour nuisance:
Always remember, they may find your family just as annoying.
(R 27, M, aged 68, Lakeside)

At various other points besides these, comments showed a keen awareness

that rules of reciprocity apply in neighbourly relations, and an appreciation of
the benefits attached to non-individualistic behaviour. One respondent, mindful
of how a neighbour dispute in the past had just ended up that neither won and
neither lost, saw good neighbouring as:
Being friendly, if they want anything and Ive got it, or I want something I can go to
them.
(R 29, F, aged 78, Centreville)

Such exchanges were usually informal, and sometimes surprisingly long-term,

as in the case of the respondent who helped her now elderly and disabled neighbour who had been helpful in the past:

Crow

22/1/2002

4:37 pm

Page 139

Neither busybodies nor nobodies Crow, Allan & Summers

The neighbour next door, I get her shopping, and if its a wet day Ill go and get her
paper when she was able to, when we went on holiday she used to look after the
house. She used to water our greenhouse for us, that sort of thing. And also she
used to babysit my daughter [now in her 20s] when she was young.
(R 26, F, aged 52, Downton)

Another respondent drew the distinction between neighbourly exchanges and

monetary exchanges, describing the former as a system which had the character of an unwritten set of rules to which in the main people knowingly adhered.
Thus newly arrived neighbours who were noisy
Would be mucking up the system, which I cant define but you know exactly what
I mean. I mean, people look after each others houses when they go away, one
takes an old lady shopping, just neighbourly, no more. As a neighbourly act;
theres no money involved.
(R 20, F, aged 51, Lakeside)

The interviews contain frequent references to the existence of local norms

guiding how things are done, as in they dont do that round here (R 35, F, aged
65, Downton), here people dont do that (R 16, F, aged 75, Lakeside), or this
being not the kind of street where we get noisy people (R 8, F, aged 40,
Centreville). Neighbours who behaved differently were open to the accusation
of flouting such norms, and particular hostility was directed at people who did
not adjust to the local norms of reciprocity (as the respondents understood
them): seems like they come from the suburbs up in London way, and maybe
thats how they live up there (R 29, F, aged 78, Centreville), they continue to
behave like they come from some kind of pit village (R 19, F, aged 50,
Lakeside).
Just as problems often originated in some quite trivial matter, so too the
point was made that good neighbouring did not entail extensive involvement,
but could be expressed quite adequately in small ways. When asked what sorts
of things they did for their neighbours or what their neighbours did for them,
only 16 of the 40 identified more than two ways in which they helped their
neighbours, and only 10 identified more than two ways in which their neighbours helped them. These things were sometimes practical matters such as
gardening, shopping and giving/receiving lifts, but they also included the less
specific keeping a look out for each other and the equally general we look
after each other. Allowing for the fact that studies of reciprocity invariably
elicit higher reporting of things given than things received, these findings suggest that good neighbouring is understood by Steeptown residents as a relationship of limited reciprocity, captured in the expressions were a very neighbourly
set up here in lots of little ways (R 21, M, aged 57, Lakeside) and any little
odd jobs (R 31, M, aged 38, Downton).
Only six of the 22 respondents who had relatives in Steeptown were
involved in helping their neighbours in three or more ways compared to 10 of
the 18 whose nearest relative (beyond those in their household) lived further
away. This finding is consistent with the view that local kin will have priority

139

Crow

22/1/2002

140

4:37 pm

Sociology

Page 140

Volume 36

Number 1

February 2002

over neighbours in peoples social networks. Less expected were the findings
that, of the 16 respondents most involved in helping neighbours, seven were
men, ten had paid work, and eight had children still living at home. These findings go against the expectations that neighbour relations are far more likely to
involve women than men, and less likely to involve people with employment
and childcare commitments than those without them. Only one of the 16
involved more extensively with neighbours lived on her own, a point which
might be seen to support Beck and Beck-Gernsheims (1995) association of
single-person households with individualization. Alternatively it may be accounted for by the fact that nine of the 12 respondents who lived on their own
were retired and limited by their age in what they could do.
The fact that reciprocity is expected, but is expected to be a limited
phenomenon, can make it difficult to manage. For a start, peoples notions of
what is enough either to give or to receive do not necessarily coincide, particularly when the person helping her or his neighbour takes stock of the situation.
A number of small things can add up to a significant commitment, a point
which lay behind the comment that:
They might not be big things, but they might be sort of time-consuming.
(R 30, F, aged 46, Downton)

Another was aware that commitments such as providing transport for elderly
neighbours have the potential to grow over time to unreasonable proportions:
Im trying not to get too involved in that way because it does get rather out of hand.
(R 35, F, aged 65, Downton)

Despite this, most respondents were at pains to point out that they would
not refuse any reasonable request for help. In reply to the question about
whether they helped neighbours out in any way, willingness to help was the predominant theme:
If I was asked to, yes.
(R 2, F, aged 46, Centreville)
Yes, if anybodys ill Ill do the shopping or help them out.
(R 22, F, aged 45, Lakeside)
If anybody asks me anything within reason I will do it.
(R 30, F, aged 46, Downton)

This theme of preparedness to help is linked with a second difficulty in the

management of reciprocity, that of knowing whether to ask for help or to wait
for it be offered, and whether to offer help or wait to be asked. This issue can
be considered to be a concrete expression of the balance discussed earlier
between being friendly and not interfering. It is necessary to show some commitment to neighbourliness, but it is equally important not to give the impression of interfering, since interference compromises the others privacy which is,
as has been seen above, highly prized. To ask for help runs the risk of being

Crow

22/1/2002

4:37 pm

Page 141

Neither busybodies nor nobodies Crow, Allan & Summers

refused, as in the case of respondent 16 who was quoted earlier as saying that
she knew any request to borrow her neighbours lawn mower would be turned
down, which she took to be unneighbourly. At the same time, the offer of help
carries with it the possible imputation that neighbours are considered less than
fully independent, with all the negative implications which that carries. The
ideal is perhaps when a potential request for help is anticipated, as was the case
for the respondent who:
used to have three dogs. At one time they [the neighbours] used to let the dogs
out into the back garden when we were at work. We didnt ask them to, they
offered.
(R 36, M, aged 57, Downton)

This arrangement was workable because the help could easily be reciprocated
by the respondents preparedness to get anything for them that they want from
the shops, and because the neighbours had already established themselves as
totally trustworthy.

Conclusion
Several conclusions can be drawn from this research. The first lesson suggested
by the analysis presented above is that relationships between neighbours continue to confound predictions of their redundancy. The anticipated demise of
neighbouring is no more in evidence in Steeptown than it is in Dempseys (1990)
Smalltown, where neighbourliness is an essential part of local community life
being deemed friendly. Respect for the privacy of neighbours domestic lives
did not prohibit meaningful ties between neighbours, and indeed can be interpreted as being a necessary part of the friendly distance that characterizes
these relationships.
Second, it can be concluded that contemporary neighbourliness is distinct
from the compulsory solidarity which many social historians have argued arose
out of the shared disadvantage of past communities. Steeptown life is far
removed from the former pattern of life described by Newby in which inhabitants formed a community because they had to; they were imprisoned by constraints of various kinds, including poverty, so that reciprocal aid became a
necessity (1980: 154). The fact that the degree of dependence on neighbours is
less marked than it was in such circumstances has an effect on the character of
neighbouring relationships, not least through changing the nature of the processes whereby the boundaries of involvement are established. Acknowledgement does need to be given to the extensive body of research evidence which
documents serious difficulties in relations between many neighbours, particularly in deprived inner-city locations (Foster, 1996; Karn et al., 1993; Power,
1999), but neighbours from hell should not be seen as having eclipsed good
neighbouring. Indeed, the extreme behaviour to which publicity has been given
may even reinforce the norm of friendly distance.

141

Crow

22/1/2002

142

4:37 pm

Sociology

Page 142

Volume 36

Number 1

February 2002

The third general point is that the construction of the idea of good
neighbouring around the principles of friendly distance makes a degree of
uncertainty over how best to behave inevitable. The problematic nature of
boundaries between households and the wider society (or home and community) is discussed in a good deal of the literature related to neighbouring
(Dempsey, 1990; Martin, 1981; Saunders, 1990). There is no clear-cut dividing
line between supportiveness and either interference on one side (being a busybody) or detachment on the other (being a nobody). The instability of
relations between neighbours is heightened where geographical mobility is a
prominent feature of local populations, as it is in Steeptown. In such circumstances, there are no cumulative attachments of long residence or family ties
and life there demands great skill in befriending and managing personal relationships (Chandler, 1990: 87). In the main, the Steeptown respondents came
across as skilled managers of relations with their neighbours, not least through
taking the long-term view of reciprocity by recognizing that things have a
tendency to balance out over time if appropriate limits are set to the content of
neighbourly relations.
The final concluding point relates to what the shortcomings of the busybody/nobody dichotomy reveal about contemporary community relations. Such
a framework fails to capture the large area of middle ground occupied by
almost all Steeptowners. It is possible to interpret busybodies as the product
of encapsulated communities where people are forced together, while privatized
nobodies emerge from fragmented communities in which there is nothing to
hold people together. If such a line of thought were to be followed, more attention would need to be paid to the outcome of situations like that in Steeptown
where neither encapsulation nor fragmentation prevails. People are not forced
into dependency on their neighbours, but nor do they behave like Becks single
individual (1992: 116) who eschews enduring commitments to others.
The critique of Beck in Wardes (1994, 1997) Durkheimian examination of
communification as a counter-tendency to the trend towards individualization holds much promise. Warde suggests that the danger of individualized
lifestyles constructed around choice is that they may leave people bereft of
social attachments. In response to the lack of a sense of belonging associated
with the excessive individualism of the modern condition (1997: 13) meaning
for life is sought through community membership, and this necessarily restricts
the range of choices open to individuals. While autonomy is a valued part of
Steeptowners lives, so is the friendliness of the town, and the friendly distance
which characterizes neighbourly relations can be understood as a balanced outcome of the two forces of individualization and communification, the latter
involving some expectation that local norms will be observed. Steeptowners
were aware that personal preferences could be problematic if expressed through
lifestyles which impinged on others around them, and that conformity to established practices within the communities of which they sought to be a part
reduces the likelihood of problems with neighbours occurring. In this way
Steeptowners patterns of neighbouring can be considered to be monitored and

Crow

22/1/2002

4:37 pm

Page 143

Neither busybodies nor nobodies Crow, Allan & Summers

regulated by others but nevertheless chosen in a more real sense than the
collectively imposed and socially controlling moral order of the New York
suburb studied by Baumgartner (1988).
There is, of course, also a need to bear in mind the scope which such a local
social system allows for individual differences. At various points during the
interviews respondents made allowance for the peculiarities and eccentricities
of various local characters (especially if they could claim the status of being
a long-established local person), and allowance was also made for different
personal circumstances such as life course stage, involvement with local kin,
work commitments and disabilities. These all figured in the give and take
which good neighbouring required, and could be used to help place respondents
into a typology akin to that devised by Richards (1990), in which she distinguishes between family lifers, local jokers, good neighbours, functional
friends, triers and distance keepers. The difference would be that whereas
Richards found that neighbour relations normally are not close (1990: 215)
and that a good deal of loneliness and dissatisfaction resulted from this, for
the Steeptown sample a happier story about the delicate negotiation of friendly
distance can be told.

References
Albrow, M. (1997) Travelling Beyond Local Cultures, pp. 3755 in J. Eade (ed.)
Living the Global City. London: Routledge.
Allan, G. (1989) Friendship. Hemel Hempstead: Harvester Wheatsheaf.
Baumgartner, M. (1988) The Moral Order of a Suburb. New York: Oxford
University Press.
Beck, U. (1992) Risk Society. London: Sage.
Beck, U. (1997) The Reinvention of Politics. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Beck, U. (2000) What is Globalization? Cambridge: Polity Press.
Beck, U. and E. Beck-Gernsheim (1995) The Normal Chaos of Love. Cambridge:
Polity Press.
Bourke, J. (1994) Working-Class Cultures in Britain 18901960. London:
Routledge.
Bulmer, M. (1986) Neighbours. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Chandler, J. (1990) Women Without Husbands. Basingstoke: Macmillan.
Crow, G. (1997) What do we Know About the Neighbours?, pp. 1730 in P.
Hoggett (ed.) Contested Communities. Bristol: Policy Press.
Crow, G. and G. Allan (1994) Community Life. Hemel Hempstead: Harvester
Wheatsheaf.
Dempsey, K. (1990) Smalltown. Melbourne: Oxford University Press.
Devine, F. (1992) Affluent Workers Revisited. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University
Press.
Foster, J. (1996) Island Homes for Island People, pp. 14868 in C. Sampson and N.
South (eds) The Social Construction of Social Policy. Basingstoke: Macmillan.
Goldthorpe, J., D. Lockwood, F. Bechhofer and J. Platt (1969) The Affluent Worker
in the Class Structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

143

Crow

22/1/2002

144

4:37 pm

Sociology

Page 144

Volume 36

Number 1

February 2002

Hoggart, R. (1958) The Uses of Literacy. Harmondsworth: Penguin.

Hoggart, R. (1995) The Way We Live Now. London: Pimlico.
Karn, V., R. Lickiss, D. Hughes and J. Crawley (1993) Neighbour Disputes.
Coventry: Institute of Housing.
Keller, S. (1968) The Urban Neighbourhood. New York: Random House.
Lewis, J. (1986) Introduction, pp. 124 in J. Lewis (ed.) Labour and Love. Oxford:
Blackwell.
Lynd, R. and H. Lynd (1929) Middletown. London: Constable.
Martin, B. (1981) A Sociology of Contemporary Cultural Change. Oxford: Basil
Blackwell.
Massey, D. (1994) Space, Place and Gender. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Newby, H. (1980) Green and Pleasant Land? Harmondsworth: Penguin.
Office of Population Censuses and Surveys (OPCS) (1993) 1991 Census: Isle of
Wight. London: OPCS.
Pahl, R. and C. Wallace (1988) Neither Angels in Marble nor Rebels in Red, pp.
12749 in D. Rose (ed.) Social Stratification and Economic Change. London:
Hutchinson.
Phillipson, C., M. Bernard, J. Phillips and J. Ogg (1999) Older People in Three
Urban Areas, pp. 22947 in S. McRae (ed.) Changing Britain. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Power, A. (1999) Estates on the Edge. Basingstoke: Macmillan.
Procter, I. (1990) The Privatisation of Working-Class Life, British Journal of
Sociology 41: 15780.
Richards, L. (1990) Nobodys Home. Melbourne: Oxford University Press.
Roberts, E. (1995) Women and Families. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Sarsby, J. (1988) Missuses and Mouldrunners. Milton Keynes: Open University
Press.
Saunders, P. (1990) A Nation of Home Owners. London: Unwin Hyman.
Sennett, R. (1998) The Corrosion of Character. New York: Norton.
Suttles, G. (1972) The Social Construction of Communities. Chicago, IL: University
of Chicago Press.
Warde, A. (1994) Consumption, Identify-Formation and Uncertainty, Sociology
28(4): 87798.
Warde, A. (1997) Consumption, Food and Taste. London: Sage.
Wellman, B. (ed.) (1999) Networks in the Global Village. Boulder, CO: Westview.
Willmott, P. (1986) Social Networks, Informal Care and Public Policy. London:
Policy Studies Institute.

Graham Crow
Is a Reader in the Department of Sociology and Social Policy at the University of
Southampton where he has worked since 1983. His recent publications include Social
Solidarities (Open University Press, 2002). In 2001, his co-authored book (with Graham
Allan) Families, Households and Society (Macmillan) was published.
Address: Department of Sociology and Social Policy, University of Southampton,
Southampton SO17 1BJ, UK.

Crow

22/1/2002

4:37 pm

Page 145

Neither busybodies nor nobodies Crow, Allan & Summers

Graham Allan
Is a Professor in the School of Social Relations at Keele University. His main teaching
and research interests continue to be concerned with informal social relationships. He
is particularly interested in the sociology of friendship, family and domestic life, kinship,
and community. He is editor of Sociology for a Changing World, a British Sociological
Association series published by Palgrave.
Address: School of Social Relations, Keele University, Keele, Staffordshire ST5 5BG, UK.

Marcia Summers
Is a lecturer at the Isle of Wight College. Her interests include gender and feminist
theory.
Address: Isle of Wight College, Medina Way, Newport, Isle of Wight PO30 5TA, UK.

145