Neighborhood

The word neighborhood can be defined in two related ways. Physically it can refer to a place, generally residential, whose boundaries are recognizable in some way, whether through its overall design, road system or some natural feature. Socially it can refer to a set of ties established by people within a specified territory, sometimes because of their homogeneity or the existence of local institutions—such as a shopping center, schools or churches—that draw them together. Though the second meaning has been highlighted more in recent research, people’s residential setting—especially the block-length section of the street on which they live—continues to play a part in developing relationships.

In general the word refers to a piece of territory in which persons residing had some sense of common identity and some acquaintance with or knowledge of each other. Sometimes neighborhoods had long histories or traditions, with many of the same families or occupations continuing over several generations or even centuries. Although the industrial and then technological revolutions led to a weakening of this (even as they have opened up new ways of experiencing what a neighborhood provided), in advanced postindustrial societies neighborhoods in the traditional sense survive. This is still the case in some inner-city areas—one thinks of the African-American use of the word hood or Hispanic barrio. Women working at home and working-class people generally still have a stronger sense of neighborhood and more strongly developed relationships with neighbors than others. So do some places which have a predominantly homogeneous lifestyle, such as Greenwich Village or Venice Beach. Catholic congregations have also tended to continue regarding their neighborhoods as an extension of the parish. Occasionally a relatively stable part of a suburb or town has a similar character.

Neighborhoods come in many sizes and forms, but similarities between them appear in many parts of a country. In his book The Clustering of America Michael Jones provides a vivid portrait of as many as forty different neighborhood types that can be identified throughout the United States, each with its own distinctive values, lifestyles and eccentricities. Among the types he documents are what he calls blue-blood estates, money and brains, young influentials, God’s country, blue-chip blues, bohemian mix, gray power, black enterprise, new homesteaders, rank and file, towns and gowns, new melting pot, middle America, shotguns and pickups, coaltown and cornburg, agribusiness, emergent minorities, single-city blues, back country folks, grain belt, heavy industry, Hispanic mix, and public assistance. This list reminds us how varied neighborhoods can be, even more so when we realize that many of the above are in transition and that over a long period of time all tend to undergo significant change.

The Changing Nature of Neighborhood

Many factors have changed the nature of neighborhoods. Greater mobility means that families do not stay as long in a given area, breaking relationships and weakening stability. Also contributing to this is the severing of the link between where people live and where they work. The breakup of families through divorce also disrupts some members’ connections with their locality. Inventions such as the telephone and automobile have increased the distances people can travel and reduced the time spent in their localities. Meanwhile radio and especially television keep people inside their homes more. The growing use of computers and the coming of the Information Superhighway means that people do not even have to leave their homes, let alone talk to their neighbors, to communicate with others. Even the use of fences and the grid system of streets plays a part in shaping the nature of the neighborhood.

In the light of all these changes, it is not surprising that laments for the loss of neighborhood are many and deeply felt. But some changes have resulted in a mutation of neighborhood rather than its disappearance. This takes many forms, but I give just two examples.

First, it has generally been believed that the flight from the inner city to the suburbs led to people’s becoming less neighborly than they were in their more impoverished urban settings. Studies suggest, however, that this is not usually the case. The move, even in working-class suburbs, generally led to people spending as much, if not more, time with their new neighbors as with their old ones. It could be argued that this was at the expense of the neighborhoods that they left, but this is not entirely true. Sometimes many people left around the same time for nearby suburbs and continued some of their former links. Also neighborhoods go through cycles when by natural attrition ties get weakened or broken, and in many cases inner-city neighborhoods have been undergoing renovation as others move in and establish new neighborhood patterns. Nor should we forget that part of what encouraged traditional neighborhoods was people working in close proximity to one another: the close social relations people often develop in their workplaces separate from their homes is not so much a new form of neighborhood as simply the part of the old form relocated. Some evidence for this comes from the fact that women who work outside the home do not develop stronger links with neighbors than men who do so, though they may have more focused ones.

Second, the extending of lines of communication through the telephone, automobile and now personal computer have also created new links between people, or strengthened existing ones. This expands people’s sense of neighborhood but does not necessarily mean that they spend more time making contact with such people than they would in previous times walking from one house or farm to another. It does not necessarily mean that they see the people they are mainly in contact with any less frequently or for shorter periods of time. Nor does it mean that the relationships they develop are any less intense. It may mean one or all of these things but not always or necessarily. However, because of the increasing busyness (see Time) in modern society and what appears to be growing individualism (see Community; Individual), people do need to be more intentional about maintaining and deepening their neighborly links or relationships. This extended sense of neighborhood should not be alien to Christians, who prize highly Jesus’ story of the good Samaritan with its challenging definition of neighbor (Luke 10:25-37).

Neighbor in Bible and Theology

The parable of the good Samaritan is far from the only injunction in Scripture about our responsibilities in this area. In the Old Testament the word neighbor refers almost exclusively to a fellow Israelite. Neighbor relationships assume certain moral obligations based on the command “Love your neighbor as yourself” (Leviticus 19:18) and play a significant role in the detail of the Old Testament Law. In the Ten Commandments we are forbidden to “give false witness against [our] neighbor” or “covet [our] neighbor’s house” (Exodus 20:16-17). We are to respect our neighbor’s property (Exodus 22:14) and show mercy to our neighbor (Exodus 22:26-27). In other law codes we are warned against cheating our neighbor or endangering our neighbor’s life, and required to confront rather than take revenge on a neighbor who has wronged us (Leviticus 19:13-18). We are to show charity to our neighbor (Deut. 15:11) and have a concern for one another’s welfare (Deut. 22:1-4). Elsewhere in the Old Testament we are advised not to hurt our neighbor but to strengthen the relationship of trust between us, and not fend our neighbor off but share with a neighbor when requested to do so (Proverbs 3:27-29). Where justice and compassion are absent in a neighborhood, God’s judgment is severe. It is directed against anyone who would slander (Psalm 101:5), cheat (Jeremiah 22:13) or defile (Habakkuk 2:15) a neighbor, as well as against anyone who would kill (Exodus 21:14).

In the New Testament, Jesus reiterates the need to “to love your neighbor as yourself” (Matthew 19:19). As already mentioned, in his teaching he redefines the term neighbor to reflect the inclusive nature of the kingdom he had come to establish (Luke 10:29-30). Much of his earthly ministry was neighborhood-centered as he wandered from village to village and ministered in houses and streets (Matthew 8:14-17; Luke 7:12). Many of his parables were drawn from aspects of neighborhood life, illustrating the presence and challenge of God “in our own back yard” (Luke 6:46-49; Luke 11:5-10; Luke 15). Elsewhere in the New Testament the command to “love your neighbor as yourself” is restated no less than nine times. Paul describes this injunction as a summary of “the entire law” (Romans 13:9; Galatians 5:14), and James as the “royal law” (James 2:8).

These injunctions should color all proximate relationships, whether with those at some distance or those who are close by. Among theologians it is probably Karl Barth who has highlighted the importance of neighbor as a criterion for our behavior. He argues that our responsibility to our neighbor is the concrete form that the Word of God, especially concerning reconciliation, takes in our daily life. This concern and compassion for our neighbors takes us beyond our inherent capacity for self-interest, leads us to repentance since we so often fail those around us, challenges us to do what is lawful and right for us to do, and allows us to see our neighbor as a witness, messenger, reminder and confirmation of our Lord. The centrality of the neighbor is also a constant reminder to us that issues of morality have a personal face.

Tending the Residential Neighborhood

Although the meaning of neighborhood is being extended or redefined in many ways, we should not abandon all responsibility to the physical neighborhood in which we live. In the first place this is counterproductive. Unless there is some sense of local identity and pride, neighborhoods tend to lose important services. Unless local parks are used, they often become centers for drug handling or undesirable, even threatening, behavior. It is precisely because so many neighborhoods are empty during the day or at certain times in the year that crime increases within them. When crises happen at home, neighbors are often the only ones close enough to call for help, and if we do not know them this is more difficult to do. In more general ways neighborhoods are also an underappreciated source of community. The importance of the mosaic of small encounters they make possible—greeting one another over the back fence or in the street, assisting each other in small ways when some difficulty arises, fraternizing and sometimes cooperating when everyone is affected by the same difficult conditions, borrowing or loaning some household or garden item, keeping an eye on each other’s property when people are away—should not be underestimated.

For these and other reasons there has actually been a reviving commitment to local areas at the grassroots level (in the form of neighborhood watches, residents’ associations, neighborhood councils and neighborhood coalitions), at the intermediate-level community (advisory committees, district councils or priority boards) and at the highest level (departments of neighborhoods, citizens advisory boards, divisions of neighborhood affairs and offices of neighborhood associations). While people’s involvement in these is sometimes primarily self-regarding—they are concerned about their own safety or property values—in other cases it is also or mainly other-regarding, motivated by concern for those who are less fortunate than themselves or for the welfare of the neighborhood as a whole.

As individuals and families we can do several things to encourage or enhance our local area: sit out in our front yard or on our porch so we have more contact with neighbors; invite neighbors for a drink, barbecue or meal from time to time; go for walks regularly around the neighborhood, especially at times when people are more likely to be home, so we will encounter neighbors and begin to develop an acquaintance with them; welcome new neighbors, and arrange farewells for departing ones; hold annual block parties, encourage Halloween visits or organize neighborhood caroling at Christmas, drawing in some neighbors to plan these events; offer our home as the local polling booth if we have the opportunity; support local shops, services, schools and churches to build up stronger neighborhood connections; establish neighborhood hobby groups or exhibitions for those who have common interests; and develop voluntary associations for raising local issues or helping needy neighbors.

As members of churches we could not only endorse these kinds of activities but make a special effort to become part of our immediate neighborhood by these additional means: hold some meetings in members’ homes rather than concentrating them all on the church grounds; encourage some members to live near one another so that they can engage in joint ministry to those around them; become involved as a congregation in addressing justice issues and social needs in the neighborhood; put before some members a vision for taking up civic responsibilities; make our buildings available for community meetings and activities as well as for congregational use; set up on the church property a small neighborhood park, drop-in center, counseling service, preschool, or Christian bookstore and coffeehouse; and visit the neighborhood and ask in what ways the church could be of practical service to the people in it.

These are only some of the possibilities open to us that can lead the way to more Christlike attitudes and actions toward our neighbors.

» See also: City

» See also: Community

» See also: Small Towns

References and Resources

C. S. Fischer, To Dwell Among Friends: Personal Networks in Towns and City (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1982); C. S. Fischer, The Urban Experience (New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1984); F. M. Lappe and P. M. Du Bois, The Quickening of America: Rebuilding Our Nation, Remaking Our Lives (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1994); M. Slattery and M. Droel, Christians in Their Neighborhood (Chicago: Southwest Catholic Cluster, n.d.); M. J. Weiss, The Clustering of America (New York: Harper & Row, 1988).

—Robert Banks