{"id":477,"date":"2018-09-24T15:45:48","date_gmt":"2018-09-24T14:45:48","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/blogs.ncl.ac.uk\/alisonstenning\/?p=477"},"modified":"2018-09-24T16:53:38","modified_gmt":"2018-09-24T15:53:38","slug":"potential-space-play-parents-and-streets-a-blog-of-a-preliminary-paper","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.ncl.ac.uk\/alisonstenning\/potential-space-play-parents-and-streets-a-blog-of-a-preliminary-paper\/","title":{"rendered":"Potential Space? Play, Parents and Streets – A Blog of a Preliminary Paper"},"content":{"rendered":"

[Disclaimer: This is a very early take on my ongoing research<\/a>.\u00a0 I haven\u2019t yet had a chance to work in detail with the interview transcripts or fully analyse the questionnaires \u2013 this post is based on my immediate reflections on the research as it progressed and as I began to identify themes and ideas. It is based on a paper presented<\/a> at the RGS-IBG Annual Conference in Cardiff in August 2018.]<\/p>\n

Introduction<\/strong><\/h1>\n

The \u201cplaying out<\/a>\u201d movement started around 2009 in Bristol, created by two mothers, Alice and Amy, on their street, in the hope that their children might have some of the same opportunities to play out, on their doorsteps, as Alice and Amy did. By July 2018, over 800 streets had started playing out regularly, across 77 UK local authority areas, including Hackney, Brighton, Leeds, Hull, Edinburgh, and North Tyneside, and the\u00a0movement had also spread to towns and cities in Australia, the US, Spain, Romania, Germany and more. The playing out model rests on short, regular, licensed and stewarded road closures, giving children\u00a0the chance to play safely near home and giving neighbours the chance to meet right on their streets.\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

The rise of “playing out”, as a movement, reflects the documented decline in autonomous street play, as the risks (Gill 2007<\/a>) of cars, strangers and pollution, in particular, and growing pressures on children’s and parents’ free time (Holloway and Pimlott-Wilson 2014<\/a>, 2018<\/a>) seem to have reduced parents’ inclination to allow or enable their children to play out on their streets. Within a generation or two, the possibility for children to play out freely and safely has all but disappeared in\u00a0many parts of the country (though this appears to be a pattern refracted by class and by built environment, in different ways).<\/p>\n

There has already been a considerable amount of research<\/a> about the renewed playing out phenomenon, documenting the benefits for children’s levels of physical activity and health, for their friendships, for the very local environment, and for the sense of community and belonging on the streets involved. The project on which this blog post reports picks up on this final aspect in particular and shifts the focus slightly away from children and their geographies to think about adult participants too, to ask how regular playing out sessions change the nature of everyday relationships on the streets involved.<\/p>\n

The Research Context<\/strong><\/h1>\n

At the heart of this project is an idea of everyday relationships<\/strong>.\u00a0Borrowing ideas from the British object relations school<\/a>, I use a conceptualisation of relationships, with intimate and imagined others, as the environment within which we find ways of going on being. As Gomez (1997, 2<\/a>) argues:\u00a0\u201cthe need for relationship is primary\u201d. In this conception, it is the relationships around us that contain and facilitate us, help us to go on being. This is an idea developed, within geography, by Steve Pile (1996<\/a>, 12) who explores the building of \u2018secure personal geographies\u2019, such that a \u201csense of a solid, shared world and stable sense of ourselves within that world leads to psychic and physical survival\u201d. These ideas are developed here alongside\u00a0a considerable literature which highlights and explores the key connection between children, play and streets and their everyday relationships. The articulation between community and play has been the focus of series of reports<\/a> by Play England in the context of their annual Play Day events, and this has been explored more and more through debates around the child- or family-friendly cities.\u00a0Rather than review the literature as a whole, there are a number of ideas to draw out here:<\/p>\n

Firstly, it is argued that there is a symbiotic relationship between play and our recognition of and participation in our everyday spaces and environments \u2013 our own streets are at the heart of our explorations of and relationships with the world and the ability to play in them is critical to our sense of belonging to and learning within them. Stuart Lester and Wendy Russell state clearly that\u00a0\u201cplay is the principal way in which children participate within their own communities\u201d (Lester and Russell, 2010<\/a>, x) and Tim Gill, in a quote cited regularly in support of street play<\/a>, insists that “the street is the starting point\u00a0for all journeys.\u201d<\/p>\n

Secondly, as Bornat<\/a> (2016, 115) argues, children\u2019s presence in the street and other community spaces is seen as a generator of social space: children\u2019s everyday play can animate streets as they occupy pavements, gardens and driveways, and move between each other\u2019s homes. Children playing out can draw adults out, as they watch, talk to, and care for their children. Where children play, adults meet. As Sam Williams argues, in the context of child-friendly cities, there is \u201cenormous potential for child-centred activities such as play streets to bring people and places together\u201d (Williams, 2017<\/a>). Krista\u00a0Cowman<\/a>\u2019s historical work draws attention to the key role of streets as \u201dsocial and play spaces in urban environments\u201d (2017, 234), such that \u201cmothers \u2026 saw play street orders as the best means to preserve them as a safe social space for themselves and their children<\/em>\u201d (251, emphasis added)<\/p>\n

Thirdly, play itself has been identified as a catalyst for community such that the space, freedom, intergenerationality and looseness of play have the potential to create the space for connection\u00a0(Play England 2015<\/a>); as Play Wales (2015) suggest in a review of mental health and play<\/a>, play can be seen, amongst other things, as ‘connection’ and\u00a0\u2018taking notice\u2019.<\/p>\n

Lastly, there is a need to think about and tease out\u00a0the importance of children<\/strong> and of play<\/strong> \u2013 are they independent catalysts of relationships \u2013 i.e. is the presence of children enough, or is play essential too? In the context of street play, is it the children or the play that has the potential to generate \u2018community\u2019?<\/p>\n

The Research<\/strong><\/h1>\n

This post is based on a small-scale, qualitative, (auto)ethnographic and participatory project, developed with the existing North Tyneside street play organisers. It integrates data from a preliminary questionnaires, with both local and national participants, interviews with seven street activators in North Tyneside, running my own street play sessions, engaging in participant observation in others, and being involved in PlayMeetStreet North Tyneside<\/a>, a voluntary group promoting and developing street play in the borough. As I mentioned above, this is very much an early take on the material reflecting really preliminary analyses \u2013 I haven\u2019t yet had a chance to work in detail with the interview transcripts or fully analyse the questionnaires \u2013 this post is based on my immediate reflections on the research as it progressed and as I began to identify themes and ideas<\/p>\n

Donald Winnicott and Potential Space<\/strong><\/h1>\n

In thinking about all of these questions, I\u2019m working with the ideas of Donald Winnicott, a paediatrician and psychoanalyst who was profoundly engaged in ideas about space, play and everyday relationships.\u00a0Potential space is defined as:<\/p>\n

\u201can inviting and safe interpersonal field in which one can be spontaneously playful while at the same time connected to others\u201d (Casement, 1985<\/a>, 162).<\/p>\n

It is a liminal space, between (or perhaps across) an individual and their environment, located between or across the internal and external such that, for example, whilst at the theatre, we find ourselves simultaneously in the physical space of the theatre, in the imaginative space of the play, and in the internal, emotional space of our minds. Potential space is, of course, a space full of potential, where new relationships with ourselves and with others can be created. It is an area of experiencing, living, culture, creating \u2013 and, importantly, of\u00a0relating and playing<\/b>. To reiterate the quote above, it is a space in which we are \u201cspontaneously playful while at the same time connected to others\u201d, and in this we can identify an\u00a0innate connection between play and relationships in potential space. The importance of play is founded on the presence of others\u00a0who can receive, respond to, facilitate, witness, join in, celebrate, remember and enjoy\u00a0the play and creativity, and playfulness creates an openness to new object relationships.\u00a0Winnicott saw an innate connection between play and relationships, through the idea of potential space, which he saw as a space between people \u2013 children and adults \u2013 that is playful, safe, trustful, and creative. He believed play to be vital for those of all ages, seeing adult play \u2013 in art, creativity, humour, conversation \u2013 as equally important as children\u2019s play in creating a liveable life.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

I\u2019m now going to shift to explore some of the key themes I\u2019m beginning to identify in my research, organised around the idea of \u2018hanging out\u2019, of \u2019knowing your neighbours\u2019 and of \u2018crossing boundaries\u2019.<\/p>\n

Hanging Out<\/strong><\/h1>\n

The idea and experience of hanging out is something which has garnered considerable attention from geographers of young people (see, amongst others,\u00a0Fotel 2009<\/a>; Pyyry and Tani 2017<\/a>; Tani 2015<\/a>;\u00a0Tani 2016<\/a>). In these literatures, hanging out is seen as a collective practice of appropriating streets, the creation of a liminal space for socialization with peers.\u00a0The spaces of hanging out are theorised as \u201cloose spaces\u201d (Tani 2015) which enable those hanging out to deepen relationships with the city and \u201crework the atmosphere of the city\u201d (Pyyry and Tani, 2017, 5) through deeply affectual \u201cmoments of joyous togetherness\u201d (Pyyry and Tani, 2017, 5). Yet, these are also often spaces and practices which are\u00a0theorised as the rejection of adult supervision and an escape from the adult world, which challenges the possibility of adult hanging out.<\/p>\n

During a street play session, all that is expected of parents (or other adults) is that they are present on the street. The ‘playing out’ model assumes that parents are always present and responsible for their own children. Parents may play, with their children or own their own, but part of the ethos of street play is for autonomous child-led play, such that parents often stand back, at the side, letting the children get on with playing.<\/p>\n

So adults hang out together, perching on walls, bringing out garden chairs, or sitting on curbs. Often they cluster around one house (often that of the organiser), where there may be drinks and snacks.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a> \"\"<\/a>Parents are brought together, they\u2019re present together, sharing a collective, familiar, public space, in a way that is legitimised by the presence of children, and in a space that is open, loose \u2013 and, of course, playful. As Cathy, who has been running sessions on her street for more than five years, explained when describing what a street play session feels like the sense of space is key:<\/p>\n

\u201cOh, it feels lovely, it feels wide, I mean that\u2019s the first thing we all noticed the first time we did it, was how wide the street was \u2026 it\u2019s quite a big space, normally it feels quite cramped and restrictive and dangerous. So, yeah, I think the feeling of space was the first thing.\u201d<\/p>\n

But parents also experience a different sense of time, a change of rhythm, a slowing down, in contrast to the routines of their everyday lives. Annie, for example, celebrated the slowed time of playing out sessions, where people can sit and chat and hang out, in contrast to the more ordinary experience:<\/p>\n

\u201cpeople are so busy, people don\u2019t really have time for conversations, when you\u2019re dashing to work and to school and things\u201d<\/p>\n

These were also spaces of play for adults too \u2013 playing with children, but playing with each other as well \u2013 scooter races, water fights, skipping, football, chalking, all of which appeared to allow for a different, looser kind of sociability than ordinary, highlighting the relationship between play and potential, play and others, and play and relationships.<\/p>\n

As I\u2019ve suggested, the presence of children seemed also to be key \u2013 adults were out because children were out and hanging out seemed to become problematic without children. Jenny illustrated this dilemma as she discussed how, towards the end of a street play session, she realised that her kids were no longer playing out (they\u2019d gone to a neighbour\u2019s) and suddenly she felt uncomfortable, being on the street, hanging out, without good reason.<\/p>\n

Much of this resonates with Krista Cowman’s account of mid-20th century street play in which \u201cchildren\u2019s outdoor play facilitated women\u2019s sociability and encouraged their use of the street\u201d (p.236), enacted by women sitting on low walls, watching children play, and taking a break. In Cowman’s work and in the evidence presented here there are three key ideas: adults’ use of space; their use of time; and the presence of children.<\/p>\n

Knowing your Neighbours<\/strong><\/h1>\n

Here we turn to the question of what happens in these loose spaces of hanging out: what do the practices of hanging out do and what do they enable in the context of street play? It appears, following Tani and Pyyry (2017), that they reshape the spaces and atmospheres of the street, producing a particular kind of relationship between neighbours. In many cases, what is produced and remarked upon in questionnaire responses (see below) is a low-level notion of \u2018knowing\u2019 and \u2018being known\u2019, which appears to describe a level of recognition and familiarity of other faces on the street, between adults, between children, and between children and adults.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a> \"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

All sort of events, practices, moments emerge out of this knowing, but I want to focus in particular on the sense of safety experienced in this recognition. Respondents felt that they could address each other for help, of all kinds, and that their kids too would know neighbouring adults who they could approach for help.\u00a0In interview, this was especially strong for those whose partners worked long hours or away, through a sense that they were known, seen, recognised on the street, and in this sense looked after, or contained. Annie explained:<\/p>\n

\u201cI like to know that if anybody needed, you know, help, you can go and call on anybody, my husband works long hours, I like to know that, you know, if we had some sort of emergency, I might just run down or across the street, give them a call\u201d<\/p>\n

In the immediate reports of change, then, a very particular kind of relationship dominated, but there were also many instances \u201cwhen good neighbours become good friends<\/a>\u201d to quote a 1980s TV series. Relationships deepened, became more multi-stranded, and there was considerable socialising \u2013 between adults and children \u2013 outwith street play sessions, in homes, at the pub etc.. This step\u00a0\u2013 the development of friendships \u2013 depended on and reflected much more personal connections, and was both enriching and excluding.<\/p>\n

Crossing Boundaries<\/strong><\/h1>\n

In the step between \u2018knowing\u2019 and \u2018befriending\u2019 boundaries, physical, social and emotional, became clear and flagged questions of what happens to those who aren\u2019t included or don\u2019t want to be? We see boundaries emerging in the delineation of friends and neighbours, but we can also see boundaries blurring and being crossed in the spaces of street play.<\/p>\n

In a sense, we can characterise the street in this context as a micro-public space, following Amin (2002<\/a>) \u2013 the street is a public space, it is not necessarily an intimate space, but it is at the same time a familiar space, an in-between, third space \u2013 between the internal and external, as Winnicott might have put it. The particular context of street play seems to make these boundaries more fluid, as there is license to move between the street and neighbours\u2019 homes. Street play seemed to extend the publicness of the street to neighbours’ homes, to remove the barriers of invitation, but also seemed to domesticate the street by extending the atmosphere of the living room out. Living Streets (2009<\/a>) describes our streets as \u201cour extended front rooms\u201d \u2013 street play extends our front rooms to the street and the street to our homes and gardens.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

Amongst other transformations, interviewees reported:<\/p>\n