COMMUNITY ACTIVISM IN OAK PARK: COMPETING AGENDAS ...

identifies a specific cluster of individuals, whereas psychologically it indicates shared
interests, shared social characteristics, and social interaction; but, however, geographic
proximity and similar interests do not make a community” (Hutchinson et al. 1996:201).
The frequency and intensity of interaction and segregation among residents are the main
ingredients that determine community identity (Ibid). Within these localities, the daily
ways of life of community residents can be observed. “Community life can be
understood as the life people live in dense, multiplex, relatively autonomous networks of
social relationships” (Calhoun 1988:225). And although residents live in the same
community, many may not define and use their community similarly. “Community is
thus not a place, or simply a small-scale aggregate, but is a mode of relating” (Ibid.).
Residents may live in the same community but may not associate with and may even fear
their neighbors.
Public spaces such as streets, parks, and sidewalks are also of theoretical interest
to researchers. From afar, they seem as though they belong to no one particularly, and
therefore belong to everyone. But closer observation reveals that these public spaces are
places where social avoidance occurs. “Physical and social disorder in public spaces are
fundamental to a general understanding of urban neighborhoods” claims Sampson and
Raudenbush (1999:604). “The urban ‘ghetto,’ the social isolated inner city, and the
‘underclass’ neighborhood have all become powerful phrases in the popular discourse on
race and urbanism” and “they are grounded firmly in American consciousness, and carry
a strong, value-laden understanding of citizenship, individual responsibility, and
normative social behavior” (Venkatesh 1997:82).
16