Summary Of Urban Danger: Life In A Neighborhood Of Strangers

Sally Engle Merry’s “Urban Danger: Life in a Neighborhood of Strangers” explores the urban danger associated with living in a neighborhood with “strangers.” The ethnographic study centralizes around a multiethnic housing project in a neighborhood with high crime; Dover Square Project. She emphasizes the relevance of social groups and the impact it maintains in promoting the idea of danger in urbanites. Merry focuses her attention on the impression the residents’ have, which is “that they live in a world of dangerous and unpredictable strangers.” Throughout the article, she clarifies this misconception and explores how the boundaries between ethnic groups promote anonymity, which then in response fosters opportunities for crime.

While, a young black woman and some young men did not act with such caution and vigilance; they carried on their days without any inhibitions. Whereas, a young man who was extremely familiar with his neighborhood expressed how he did not feel any fear since he was well acquainted with the people. In the same retrospect, a Chinese man said to be skilled in martial arts was able to walk freely without any disturbances (124). Although, they all had in common the same fear of danger, they acted in response to the situation differently. Merry says, the fear in the individual is due to the “interpretation of the surrounding environment” (124). Each individual has different concerns attached to their fears. Their fears vary from the loss of property, personal harm, or humiliation from social figures. Nonetheless, the neighborhood of strangers causes anomie. So, there is a “sense of normless, both in the sense of the individual’s lack of attachment of a moral code and a collective loss of moral consensus” (116). This shows that the residents cope in different ways. Essentially, their defensive strategies barricades

In actuality though, it was actually a common place for robberies. A lot of people even claimed their side of the neighborhood was safe and expressed their fears to go to the other side, which was supposedly more dangerous. While, people that lived in the center tried to not go around the edges. On the other hand, those that lived on the periphery considered the center to be dangerous. This shows the different in mentalities and beliefs. Based on the victimization survey, however, this turned out to not be the case in which there were no difference in robberies. The explanation for this is that “the notions of safe and dangerous places do not simply reflect crime rates, but take into account ideas about territory, ethnic hostilities and conflicts, the presence of hostile strangers, familiarity, the availability of allies, and the design of spaces” (126), which alludes to how their defense mechanisms are the sole reason for these misconceptions. This then prompts the question of whether or not Merry told the residents about these information? It would be interesting to know their reaction as well as whether or not