Transnationalism in the Global City Intensive Programme, Odense, 27th June – 9th July 2010, University of Southern Denmark Center for Social Practices and Cognition

CULTURAL DIVERSITY IN THE TRANSNATIONAL CITY – FEAR OF GLOBALISATION AND EXCLUSIVE SPATIAL DEMARCATION OF IMMIGRANTS?

Matjaz Ursic, Centre for Spatial Sociology, Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Source: UN Introduction – Cities, cultural diversity and the urban way of life

• Henri Lefebvre (1974) – The production of space • Georg Simmel (1901) – The metropolis and mental Life • Louis Wirth (1938) – “Urbanism as a way of life” New Localism and Globalisation

FLOWS: LOCAL SPECIALTIES: -of ideas -lifestyles -of goods,artefacts, products -built environment -information -natural environment -people Analytical OLD NEW LOCALISM dimension LOCALISM

Connectedness Autonomy/ Autonomy/ independence choice

Characteristics Specialties/ Specialties/ exclusion integration

Source: Mlinar, 2001 To what extent is cultural diversity welcomed in (global) cities? • The concept of Common culture – The thesis of common culture found in sociology and anthropology assumes that a “a coherent culture, or dominant ideology, plays a crucial role in sustaining social order and integration” • In what form exist a common, shared understanding of what is expected to be „normal‟ in a specific environment. • Williams, R. (1976) • Parsons, T. (1964) • Featherstone, M. (1991) Diminshment in diversity and “exclusive spatial demarcation”

• Tim Edensor (2000) – Exclusive vs. inclusive spatial demarcation • Donald James (1999) - Appolinic (dyonisic) vs. disciplinary • Richard Sennet (1996) - Confrontation and stress as part of urban experience Culture = Production of space

• “Culture should be understood as the medium through which people transform mundane phenomena of the material world into a world of significant symbols to which they give meaning and attach value” (Cosgrove, Jackson, 1987) • “Culture is the level at which social groups develop distinct patterns of life and hence are maps of meaning through which the world is made intelligible” (Jackson, 1989) Jean Nouvel – Arab Institute The case of and Ljubljana 1953 1961 1971 1981 1991 2001 Slovene 96,52 95,65 94,04 90,77 88,31 83,06 Population by Italian 0,06 0,19 0,18 0,12 0,15 0,11 Hungarian 0,75 0,66 0,53 0,48 0,42 0,32 ethnic affiliation Roma 0,12 0,01 0,06 0,08 0,12 0,17 (declared ethnical Albanian 0,01 0,02 0,08 0,11 0,18 0,31 Austrian 0,02 0,02 0,02 0,01 0,01 0,01 affiliation) Bulgarian 0,00 0,01 0,01 0,01 0,01 0,01 Bosnian … … … … … 1,10 Czech 0,06 0,04 0,03 0,02 0,02 0,01 Montenegran 0,09 0,09 0,12 0,17 0,23 0,14 Greek 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 Croat 1,23 1,97 2,47 2,93 2,76 1,81 Jewish 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 Macedonian 0,04 0,06 0,09 0,18 0,23 0,20 Muslim 0,11 0,03 0,19 0,73 1,39 0,53 German 0,11 0,05 0,02 0,02 0,02 0,03 Polish 0,02 0,01 0,01 0,01 0,01 0,01 Romanian 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,01 0,01 0,01 Russian 0,04 0,02 0,02 0,01 0,01 0,02 Russinian 0,00 0,02 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 Slovak 0,01 0,00 0,00 0,01 0,01 0,01 Serbian 0,77 0,86 1,20 2,27 2,48 1,98 Turkish 0,01 0,01 0,00 0,00 0,01 0,01 Others 0,02 0,03 0,02 0,03 0,05 0,08 Number of inhabitants and net migration increase (MI) in Slovenia - projection 2001-2036

Projection Variant Year Constant Low Middle High 1 2 3 4 5 6 Number 1.990.094 1.990.094 1.990.094 1.990.094 2001 MI 0 0 0 0 Number 1.964.806 1.969.205 1.970.986 1.976.612 2011 MI 31.869 32.407 34.188 35.571 Number 1.886.681 1.908.769 1.936.316 1.971.876 2021 MI 65.383 71.101 87.860 102.203 Number 1.676.902 1.748.679 1.877.436 2.008.483 2036 MI 113.702 146.214 217.943 292.819

Source: Malačič, 2003 Stigmatisation of Neighbourhood Fužine If you could choose freely, in which And which area would be at residential area in Ljubljana or the the bottom of your list? surroundings would you prefer to live?

Total Total Vic 3,8% Vic 2,2% Bezigrad 3,0% Bezigrad 2,7% 0,9% Rudnik 0,8% Siska 1,9% Siska 5,7% Center 46,8% Center 6,7% Murgle 2,8% Murgle 0,3% Rozna dolina 10,9% Stepanjsko naselje 8,1% Kodeljevo 1,1% Kodeljevo 0,5% 0,6% Moste 18,9% Trnovo 10,5% Fuzine 41,0% okolica Tivolija 0,6% Trnovo 1,1% Krakovo 0,9% okolica Lj 3,5% okolica Lj 4,7% Rakova Jelsa 1,6% Prule 7,1% 0,5% Polje 0,2% Nove Jarse 1,9% 0,2% 1,6% Grad 0,2% 0,3% 0,9% Crnuce 1,1% Koseze 1,1% Barje 0,8% Crnuce 0,6% 0,5% Barje 0,6% Tomacevo 0,3% Sostro 0,2% 0,4%

Source: RE.Urban Mobil , 2004 Who would you prefer not to be your neighbour? Categories of people In percent Drug addicts 79,1 % Drinkers 75,8 % Homosexuals 55,1 % Right-wing extremists 51,3 % Left-wing extremists 48,4 % Roma 48,3 % Judicially punished 46,7 % People with aids 46,4 % Emotionally unstable people 40,9 % Muslims 29,0 % Immigrants, foreign workers 28,8 % Jews 22,1 % People of other races 20,1 % People with big families 10,4 % The problematic of “cultural planning” in space

• Legality and Legitimacy in the organisation of urban space • Multiculturalism or Cosmopolitanism The origins of cultural economies?

Max Weber 1864-1920.

Religion and economic success Key issues of new approaches in revitalization of cities:

• How cultural factors affect the economy? • How do cultural differences / similarities affect economic exchange?

– The impact of migration on trade and capital flows? Cultural economies and diversity

Hypothesis 1: "Cultural economies require the existence of diversity“

Hypothesis 2: "Cultural economies and diversity threaten cultural traditions" The Economic Value of Cultural Diversity? • “Love of variety” in preferences (Fujita et al, 1999) • The value of cultural diversity in classic framework of demand-supply (Borjas, 1994-2003; Card, 1990; Saiz, 2003) • Diversity and urban agglomeration (Jacobs, 1969; Sassen, 1884; Florida, 2003)