E-mail: dale.southerton@lineone.net

1. Introduction

Eminent in contemporary debates regarding profound social change is the process of 'de-traditionalisation' (Lash et al 1996) whereby 'time-space' distanciation and the inescapable ambivalence and contingency of late or post-modern societies resullts in the impossibility to sustain or even coherently trace normatively regulated group attachments. Consumption and its symbolic capabilities, is held as the arena in which sometimes playful (Featherstone 1991), at other times provoking anxiety (Beck 1992; Bauman 1988), has become the medium through which any group based association and senses of identity can and must be formed (Giddens 1991). Such groups are not normatively regulated, the only rules and basis for understanding association is through shared consumption styles and the required image to present that 'style' to anonymous others. The reaction of others is of little relavance as group attachments can be altered with little social consequence. Alternatively, social groups in the form of class, age, gender and ethnicity, are held to retain their structural positions as ordering the social world in ways which makes social identification and classification readable to all (Bourdieu 1984; Lamont 1992; Savage 1995; Warde 1994). Such group attachments come with regulative norms, or in Bourdieu's case dispositions, which guide social practices and judgments which in turn pattern the form of social group affiliation, and are the principle social bases for understanding social relations.

Positioned within this debate, this article identifies three locality based groups and assesses the form and type of social classifications that they draw in the process of association. Employing Lamont's (1992) analytical framework of 'symbolic boundaries', the three groups are compared in order to ascertain senses and criteria for the judgment of similarity and difference. The extent of association highlights the contemporary significance of social identification, and provides insights to the operationalisation and degree of constraints which any group based social norms offer. By tackling senses of group association, the social bases for differentiation is explored in an attempt to understand the mechanisms at play in the process of identification. Possible social bases include individual lifestyles and neo-tribes, or class, age, gender and ethnicity.

1.1 The three groups

The sample group of this empirical study all live within a rapidly developed suburban new town, located on the edge of a major city in the south-west of England. Being developed in two distinct stages the town has a local status division, marked by uniform terraced housing in the south and more heterogeneous housing in the north (Southerton, 1995). In-depth semi-structured interviews (lasting between 2 and 4 hours) were conducted with 15 residents from two streets in the south, and 20 residents from three streets in the north of the town. Interviewing people of various ages (although most between ages 35-55), including couples, and men and women alone, three distinct groups can be identified:

Bowland Road residents

Living within the south side of the town, these respondents hold the lowest levels of economic (wealth), cultural (education) and social capital. Social capital is interpreted through the form of social networks, this group being highly privatised and admitting to not knowing the names of their neighbours and in most cases, few social networks beyond the extended family. Nearly all residents in this group are skilled manual workers, with employment outside of the town, hence workplace friendships are not significant.

Cartmel Street residents

Located in the north of the town, these respondents have higher levels of economic capital and longer range of geographical mobility than Bowland residents. Being geographically removed from extended family, this group is also privatised, but did describe greater social interaction between neighbours, and had a tendency to develop friendships with infrequent interaction. Like Bowland residents, all heads of households are semi-skilled manual workers, but earn higher wages as a consequence of long term stable employment, or as a result of re-location incentives such as wage increases.

Lonsdale Avenue residents

The final group comprises two streets and their defining feature is that they all have professional or managerial occupations, sharing high economic and cultural capital. All have experienced long range geographical mobility but depending upon how recent this mobility has been, the group varies in forms of social capital. Social mobility also varied within this group, and leads to a broad distinction between established residents who have all lived within the street for over five years and most are second or third generation professionals, and the 'newcomers' to the street who are mostly first generation professionals. However, all valued privacy, most socialise with neighbours and enjoy frequent interaction within extensive social networks, mostly obtained through membership to local clubs, associations and community organisations.

2. Boundaries and boundary work

When thinking about communities or social groups, the immediate question arises as to how they operate in relation to differentiation. The concept of symbolic boundaries is often evoked to provide a way of describing the parameters of social identification, as Cohen (1985: 12) explains:

'By definition, the boundary marks the beginning and the end of a community… boundary encapsulates the identity of the community and, like the identity of an individual, is called into being by the exigencies of social interaction. Boundaries are marked because communities interact in some way or other with entities from which they are, or wish to be, distinguished'.

Boundaries therefore presuppose inclusion and exclusion. This is not simply a case of defining who is and is not alike, people can be alike and not alike simultaneously. In response to this conceptual blur, Zerubavel (1991) constructs a model (see figure 2.1) concerning the form of boundaries in which a third zone of 'indifference', acts to create a grey area where neither 'inclusion' or 'exclusion' operates.

To exclude in this model requires the establishment of social distance, rather than simply a lack of similarity. Boundaries are constructed through 'elements' such as social practices, attitudes or values which through interaction (or lack of it), affirms and re-affirms the location of competing boundaries either side of the 'indifference zone' (Zerubavel 1991; Lamont 1992). In this sense, the process of becoming included (belonging) is one which requires 'boundary work', the active maintenance and negotiation with others (whether imagined or in practice) of the guiding frameworks for inclusion. This is the basis for Lamont's (1992: 11) claim that boundaries are:

'an intrinsic part of the process of constituting the self; they emerge when we try to define who we are: we constantly draw inferences concerning our similarities to, and differences from, others, indirectly producing typification systems' (Lamont 1992: 11).

Lamont's reference to 'typification systems', indicates how boundary work acts to order and organise perceptions of groups into social categories. Through empirical research, Lamont identifies three orientating categories (socio-economic, cultural and moral) which for heuristic purposes, allows for analytical comparison of salient boundaries of inclusion and exclusion. It is this boundary work which will be analysed in relation to the most salient narratives of difference advanced by respondents, before assessing the most significant social bases for association and differentiation.

1. Socio-economic boundaries

Lamont (1992) describes socio-economic boundaries as drawn according to judgments of social position in relation to wealth, power and occupational success. In addition, such boundaries relate to social mobility, perceptions of the importance and valuing of money, and descriptions of social status as orientated by material values.

Bowland road

The most salient narratives for this group focused around mis-placed status resulting from a false local housing hierarchy, Jack (aged 58) explains: "People over there, well they move there for the name don't they, its seen as a move up but many of these houses are actually bigger" . Economic prudence anchored justifications of false material status evaluations, again through comparisons with north Yate housing, according to Mavis (aged 55): "people in north Yate… would come out to a house like this and turn their nose up…. And yet in actual fact, I think sometimes that we've actually got more than they've got because its all on credit". For men, housing snobbery and the subsequent financial instability was explained as attempts to symbolise occupational status. For women, a distinction between ‘new’ and ‘old’ money was more prominent: "people who have more recently come into money, and brought this four bed detached and suddenly think they are, like, well, above the likes of us" (Claire, aged 38).

Age differences produced another internal variation in the extent of emphasis placed upon economy over extravagance (cf. Warde, 1997). Respondents aged over 50 elaborated on a much wider concern with consumer culture and credit, expressed as a form of excessive materialism generalised to younger generations and north Yate residents. To be unimpressed by consumer culture is a reaction against senses of material greed in the form of 'insatiable wants', and the classification of 'consumer dupes' who place too much importance upon consumption at the expense of moral values.

Narratives of socio-economic boundaries for this group demonstrate a form of social distancing, without an overt hierarchy. This social distancing in relation to money allows for the production of an array of stories that illustrate why they, as both individuals and a group, are different. Despite variations of emphasis according to gender and age, the socio-economic boundaries most salient for all Bowland respondents share certain qualities: the association of materialism to snobbery; the betrayal of economy for extravagance; an excessive concern with social status; and failed attempts of emulation and social distancing through money. Perhaps the most often cited phrase when discussing material wealth sums up these monetary orientations: "we're happy with what we've got" (Wendy, aged 57).

Cartmel street

Monetary boundaries received equal attention from this group, although narratives were ambivalent, viewing their location within the local housing hierarchy positively, whilst advancing narratives not substantively dissimilar from Bowland discussions of money and false status. The main distinction between the groups revolve around money as a resource. Cartmel respondents emphasised their affluence through their ability to move into the 'better' areas of town, and away from the 'physical decay' of 'poor' and 'rough' areas. Angela (aged 48) provides an example: "This side seems a bit more tidier, I don't mean to sound snobby, but ... as your driving around the houses, I mean every other house has got a broken car, and the garage hasn't been painted and the walls are falling down, its just, a bit, well rough." Another great 'prize' of housing location was access to better schools: "nobody from north Yate wants to send their kids to south Yate schools… they carry that stigma of south Yate." Nicola (aged 37) is absolutely correct, every Cartmel resident (with or without dependent children), discussed the educational superiority of north Yate schools as a consequence of 'catchment area', rather than superior teaching standards.

Awareness of position within this local housing hierarchy was acute, they are not at the top extravagant end, but somewhere within the 'respectable' middle strata. Note the similarity with Bowland housing narratives in Angela's reference to Brimsham Park (a new, more expensive and adjacent housing estate): " they're so small aren't they… I mean this is a big house for a three bedroom semi." All respondents discussed Brimsham Park with the same sentiment, but with less vigour than the Bowland emphasis upon false status. Economic house values was the central criteria for the spatial mapping of the Town, as Andrew (aged 44) explains when discussing the neighbouring town of Chipping Sodbury: "When we first moved here we asked the estate agent 'what's the difference between north Yate and Chipping Sodbury', and he said 'about £10,000, apart from that its all the same’". Ambivalence is not lost here, Anthony (aged 37) and Christine (aged 36) confessing that: "Chipping Sodbury has more snob value, which is why its more expensive", Anthony responds: "Yeah, but being honest, we'd like to live there wouldn't we… call me a snob if you want [pause] 'cause you'd be right [both laugh in agreement]… if honest, everyone around here would say the same."

The social map of Yate's housing system was relatively straight forward for the 'Us' and 'Them' categories of Bowland respondents. This system becomes more complicated in Cartmel narratives due to the tricky negotiation between emphasising housing mobility, whilst avoiding the extravagance over economy trap. The binding criteria which avoids reduction of ambivalence to incomprehensible complexity, was shared housing consumption selection, again Christine explains: "I think the big attraction for people here is that, well like, for example, we like this street as it is on the edge of Yate, with the woods to the back and no-one overlooking us. I think being slightly up hill makes you feel like its not in the estate." Shared housing selection provides the 'get-out' clause of the extravagance - economy trap, living in Cartmel street may be more expensive than south Yate but worth it for the rewards of the location, a value shared by their non-extravagant neighbours (see cultural competence, page 6).

Lonsdale Avenue

Again, position within the housing hierarchy was most prominent for this group, but emphasis varied internally according to levels of social mobility. Established professional middle class households took a liberal stance, emphasising 'privilege' rather than overt status in housing classifications. Anne (aged 44) explains: "most, all of us up here have two cars, if not three or four… I mean its far too extravagant really, but you don't realise it until perhaps you go to places like south Yate". In contrast, the upwardly socially mobile preferred social distancing in relation to a direct association between money and social values. In this sense, they shared with Cartmel respondents a perception of housing status as indicative of the distinction between 'rough' and 'respectable': "South Yate, all you see is garages and cars, it looks an absolute tip... there is a difference, its decaying, yes this part is different, space and look and feel, you know its uhh, it feels tidier, safer up here, not so many problem families or crime, vandalism." (Tom, aged 50)

Schooling was again the 'prize' of social mobility (rather than of housing mobility, as was the case in Cartmel), although in contrast to the previous group, Yate schools are not desirable. Charlotte (aged 37) explains in her survey of Yate's senior schools, beginning with south Yate:

"its got its place and does a good job for the kids who haven't got it upstairs… Brimsham [north] is better educationally, but has some, well shall I say less desirable kids there… no we shall send ours to either KLB or Colston [both outside Yate], they are the best schools"

Established Lonsdale respondents preferred to discuss their children's academic abilities, rather than school status per se.

Despite mobility variations all respondents agreed upon the relationship between material wealth, 'success' and social status: "if you are successful in your chosen career then that will show, through things like your car, house, type of holidays and amount of holidays" (James aged 50). Narratives of ‘success’, the most salient socio-economic boundary of this group, was without exception directly associated to occupational status: "we are all, or most of us around here are professionals … we may have different backgrounds, but we have also earned our right to live in the better area" (Tom).

2. Cultural boundaries

For Lamont, cultural boundaries are drawn on the basis of levels of education, intelligence, manners, taste and command of high culture. Whilst Lamont develops these categories from her interviews with upper class French and American men, additional categories of orientation towards cultural practices, narratives of refinement, distance from mass and common culture and the skills or cultural competencies required to 'belong', apply to this research sample.

Bowland road

Cultural exclusion received the least attention of any boundary category discussed by Bowland residents. Moreover, those drawn tended to ground cultural differentiation in socio-economic categories of materialism as cultural snobbery, advanced through disdain for cosmopolitanism by respondents aged below fifty, and custom over novelty for those above fifty (cf. Warde 1997). Lamont (1992) describes cosmopolitanism as a disposition towards broadening cultural experiences through, for example, travel and foreign cuisine. Disdain of cosmopolitanism came through perceptions of 'showing-off', Patrick (aged 39) illustrates: "going to the 'south of France' [said in a haughty tone] just to say you've been there, or 'Brittany' that's the favourite, there's a bloke who comes to the garage and he's been to 'Brittany'". Cosmopolitanism was also discussed as direct attempts to display cultural superiority and exclude others. Preference for custom is illustrated by Arthur (aged 68): "I like to recognise what's on my plate" and resonates with anti-cosmopolitanism in the sense of an aversion to cultural experimentation "for the sake of it", as Jack explains. The distinction in articulation fails to hide the collective interpretations of cultural snobbery, and its relationship to the much vaunted value of economy:

"I'm a pie and chips man, and the foreign stuff, its probably very nice don't get me wrong, but we tend to be more practical, look at our money and think, I'm not paying that just to say I've eaten chop suey from Thailand… around here we're pretty much the same… I don't know anyone who's like, flashy and into all that" (Robert, aged 39).

The low valuing of cultural boundaries is best illustrated by the insignificance attached to taste, good and bad taste only being discussed through reference to the wonderfully extravagant, or the totally ridiculous (Southerton 1998). Moreover, narratives of social class framed taste generalisations, many women arguing that extravagance (bad taste) comes with 'new' money. Men claiming that non-manual workers are over aggressive in their leisure pursuits (Martin aged 40), and both sexes agree that the middle classes "take things too seriously" (Robert) due to their "competitive nature" (Sheila aged 47).

Cartmel street

Distance from common and mass culture were salient cultural boundaries for this group. Common culture refers to cultural practices such as smoking, frequenting public houses and gambling, and is illustrated by Andrew when describing breakfast time at a hotel:

"these scousers sat at the breakfast table with a can of beer in their hands, now I mean that is rough, its verging on being uncivilised, do you know what I mean, I'd be very surprised to catch someone from this side of Yate doing that. I would be less surprised to see someone from south Yate doing that though."

Mass culture was discussed as an aversion to standardisation in consumption and expressed as the principle means of judging bad taste, Sarah (aged 37) explains: "the like cottage style kitchen… I like them but, well in a new house that looks dreadful, and to keep clean would be impossible. Saying that, the sort of cheaper standard white kitchens are naff." Like Bowland narratives, cultural boundaries were grounded in the socio-economic distinction between extravagance and economy and again, for this group the distinction is ambivalent.

Custom over novelty was again prominent for older respondents: "we're more conventional and boring, we like what we know " (Margaret aged 64). However, unlike their Bowland counterparts, younger Cartmel respondents did not mention custom or cosmopolitanism and their distancing from mass and common culture was the closest they came to discussing novelty.

The most salient cultural boundary for this group related to inclusion and a particularly strong emphasis upon street based shared cultural competence, best described as not 'sticking out'. Consider the following:

"if you look at people’s gardens, they might tell you what the person is likely to have their house like inside, you know if its really flashy… a real mess, or just well looked after. And I think around here everybody looks after their garden, there are very few who have really spectacular gardens, in fact I can’t think of any in this street, but very few which are untidy" (Angela). Andrew points out that: "Generally, 'round here everyone keeps to the white Georgian windows… people don't want to stick out." Material judgments of housing status and senses of cultural competence demonstrate the relationship between socio-economic and cultural boundaries, satellite dishes and cars being other prominent material examples. Shared cultural competence and distancing from mass and common culture appeared as expressions of middle class respectability, direct associations with class were absent, although clear in implication.

Lonsdale Avenue

Cultural boundaries were most salient of all boundaries for Lonsdale residents, but again varied according to patterns of mobility. Those with high social mobility emphasised distance from mass culture in the same fashion as Cartmel interviewees, whereas established professionals edged toward distance from common culture. A further distinction came in the form of prominent narratives of cultural refinement. Self refinement, an emphasis upon cosmopolitanism and self-actualisation (the desire to continually better oneself within any given practice), was salient for newcomers to the street and discussed mainly by women with regards to taste. Whilst employing similar narratives, established residents preferred to emphasise refinement through descriptions of their friends: "our friends like good wine… and we like good conversation. They all have good senses of humour, mainly witty… and yeah we all appreciate those things" (Judith, aged 37). Senses of refinement (both self and social) also encorporate cultural competence, in this case referring less to 'not sticking out' and more towards the mastery of contextual norms. A common example voiced was the timing and company in which 'contentious' issues could be discussed, for example Tracey (aged 31) explains the contextual rules of when her husband's boss came for dinner: good taste in wine, careful custody of manners in the early stages of the meal and a willingness to broach contentious issues in the later stages. Furthermore, avoidance of 'contention' was taken as a sign of lacking intelligence and made for "dull evenings" (Alex aged 37).

Important in relation to the other groups, was Lonsdale respondents discussions of good and bad taste as a form of socio-spatial mapping: bad taste is either making no effort, lack of individual imagination (i.e. mass culture), or misinterpreting the rules of stylistic unity (i.e. colour schemes), and illustrated via presumptions of south Yate. 'Over-doing' stylisation, or following mass culture was the mistake of other social groups, although not explicitly associated with the Cartmel area. Taste was also seen as expressive through demeanour and everyday conduct. Charlotte provides the most explicit explicit example of a sentiment which received least attention from established residents:

"if you stand behind somebody in Tesco's its blatantly obvious where they are living, because of the way, there's a different dress code… you look at someone and think gosh, she's in Marks & Spencers clothes, you can see it. But you've got this south Yate sort of, almost down-trodden image… there is definitely 'Us' and 'Them'… even the kids are different, the behaviour, the noise, the way they play."

Varied political opinions, cultural interests, ages or stages of the life course, made senses of belonging to the Lonsdale neighbourhood less homogeneous than for the other groups. What binds these people are upbringing, education and their professional status. Colin (aged 45) describes his neighbours:

"professional people, who are, dare I say it, they’re more educated for a start... they’ve basically had a better cultural background and upbringing… around here we are professionals who have gone beyond the slagging matches over the garden fence... there just seems a better understanding amongst us, so is it culture, is it background, is it reading, is it money, is it jobs, is it status, you know, is it housing, is it employment you know they’re all there and everyone, its a mixture of them all."

3. Moral boundaries

Moral boundaries are described by Lamont (1992) as relating to personal characteristics such as honesty, work ethic, personal integrity and the consideration of others. Widening this outline, moral boundaries can be associated to social values which indicate intrinsic orientations towards the principle features of individual everyday conduct.

Bowland road

Moral boundaries were particularly salient and remarkably coherent for all respondents. Personal characteristics of being 'down-to-earth’, a strong work ethic, and honesty dominated, as Patrick summarises: "If I had to say what I like most about the people 'round here, its that there on the level, down-to-earth sorts." Being 'down-to-earth' was associated with 'anti-phonyism', Claire explains: "I'll get on with anyone, what you get is what you get and that's me." Jack and Sandra absolutely agree: "people must take us as they find us", Jack adds: "we'll drink with anyone... there's no point in trying to fit in".

Cartmel street

Given the similar emphasis, although diverse contents, of socio-economic and cultural boundaries between this and the Bowland group, it is surprising that Cartmel respondents place little and vague emphasis upon moral boundaries. 'Pride in the home' was most prominent and links to housing status and cultural competence. In this sense, 'home pride' was used to morally legitimate socio-economic and cultural classifications: "as far as pride, that's one thing up here, the vast majority of people look after what they have… and put work into it." (Margaret). A second category of notable emphasis was implicit reference to family values, 'quality family time' and family centredness being vocal examples, as Anthony says: "all the things we do are centred around the kids, the family". Schooling was another example: "there's a lot of people who don't care less what their kids do, and don't take any interest in the school. There's quite a few like that, even from north Yate" (John, aged 37). The phrase 'even form north Yate' is telling, it implies that family values are not simply the result of affluence but moral convictions, and whilst you 'would not expect it', even within north Yate there are 'some' who do not share this conviction.

Lonsdale Avenue

Two salient moral boundaries received attention from this group. Family values are the first, although here the emphasis was upon meaningful family interaction and child development: "we all put our families first, so we are active with the kids schooling and everything that goes with it... we all view our roles as parents in the same way… we let our kids learn new things, we talk to them and make time for them, and we all see that as very, very important." (Barbara, aged--). Community responsibility was the second vaunted moral value: "this street has a very high reputation for its community involvement, everyone is involved in various community orientated projects" (Beatrice, aged 36).

4. Summarising boundary work: social categorisation

4. Conclusion: Identification and asymmetry in a local social world

By exploring the boundary work of three locality based groups, levels of capital are crucial in framing the judgment of social differentiation. Cultural capital is particularly significant, Holt's mechanisms of local frames and the capacity for critical abstraction being instructive for explaining the prominence placed on either cultural, socio-economic or moral boundaries. In this sense, local frames of reference draw direct classifications from within the local socio-spatial system that are associated with generic social categories, in these cases, related to social class, gender and age. In contrast, the capacity for critical abstraction results in the employment of the local socio-spatial system to illustrate generic categories but through more 'considered' and nuanced articulations of cultural differentiation. Patterns of mobility are also crucial in relation to social capital, established and frequent social networks allowing for greater certainty and the reassurance from significant others, that boundary work is an accurate depiction of social differentiation.