Attachment to the space

Allotment gardens and its users are strongly connected to the particular and strictly limited space – allotments which has been formed by subdividing piece of land into a several parcels and one garden can consist 100 or even 500 different micro-gardens. Therefore, the question of gardeners ‘identity’ and attachment to their little gardens individually or to the garden as a whole can help to understand this community and the way in which allotment gardens exist in cities and communicate with the closest environment. Is this particular space a container for social relation that could develop social ties within the community?

If we assume that the mental proximity of allotment gardeners is high along with identity of gardeners and attachment to the space as well and number of existing networks, then the community of gardeners can be a well-functioning community that is able to fight for its place in the city. They are not afraid of letting others in and create social places (f. e., sharing their plots for community purposes). It is worth asking question on how social relations are being formed within the space of gardens and in what capacity. It would be helpful to analyse the concept of trust and to answer whether this particular space is a container for social relationships that could develop social ties within the community.

According to Lefebvre (1990), social relationships are produced in the organization of space not a space itself and community is continuously performed through daily urban practices and organization of networks within it (Putnam, 1995). Physical proximity provides local interaction but can’t guarantee that relationship will be formed (Bauman, 2000).  If we assume that a mental proximity of allotment gardeners is high, along with the identity of gardeners and their attachment to the space and existing networks, then the community of gardeners can be a well-functioning community that is able to fight for its place in the city. They are not afraid of letting others in and create social places (i.e. sharing their plots for community purposes).

In the context of identity, Weber (1978) pointed to the “technical conditions of ease to unite” and the creation of a “community of interests” which is possible to identify according to allotment gardener’s community. The similarity of living conditions and social position does not automatically ensure joint action. In order for unity, usually similar individuals must first transform into a unanimous community that is capable of opposing some problem. In this context, demonstrating the possession of the gardens towards ‘the city,’ by taking the form of district management boards, development spatial plans, urban architectural offices or developers may provide the reason and the technical conditions for unifying the gardeners’ community.

These state bodies and entities occasionally raise the issue of the liquidation of gardens for new development or the conversion of gardens into public parks (Warsaw 2017, 2019, Berlin 2015, 2019). Here an interesting thing can happen, just as it did in the case of the Obrońców Pokoju garden in Warsaw. The community of gardeners organized demonstrations, started to write petitions and began to participate in all social consultations regarding new spatial development for the Wierzbno district, where the garden is located. Above all, the community realized that a greater opening of the garden is their only chance to keep the garden in the urban space. This was demonstrated by the garden’s board organizing a series of open events and workshops for the residents of Wierzbno. Paradoxically, the initial closure of the garden with a padlock and the elimination of gates as a defence against the intruder-resident, has been turned into a need to open the garden in defence of the greater threat ‘the city.’ The technical conditions for unity and identity building may have been met.

According to Bauman, identity building is a never-ending and always an unfinished process. The main principles in the life policy around the struggle for identity are self-creation, self-determination and freedom of choice. Having an allotment garden in the city sphere is strongly associated with a substitute for ordaining, owning and being an owner (Sulima, 2000) as well as a whole range of voluntary work and participation in allotment board meetings might facilitate the process of self-creation and self-identity.

The second thing that is helpful in the self-identification process is the trend for city gardens, characterized especially within a younger generation (Bell 2016). This can be seen as a consequence of a growing pressure put on the current generation to be less reliant on the global food industry due to its environmental impact, in contrast to the post-war generation which was delighted with plastic foil and instant coffee. Now, a young generation is returning to the traditions of grandparents and finding their own nature in the city environment. That need may also be reflected in the missing and irretrievably lost Gemeinschaft (Bauman, 2000).

References:

Bauman Z. (2000) Liquid modernity, Polity: Cambridge
Bell S. et al. (2016) Urban Allotment Gardens in Europe
Blokland T. (2017) Community as Urban Practice, Polity: Cambridge
Lefebvre, H. (1995) The production of space. Blackwell: Malden, MA.
Putnam, R.D (1995) Bowling alone: America’s Declining Social Capital. Journal of Democracy
Sulima Roch (2000) Antropologia codzienności, WUJ, Kraków
Sztompka, P. (1999) Trust: A sociological Theory. CamBridge University Press: Cambridge
Weber Max (1978) Economy and Society, University of California Press