Steven Pinker reminded me in his recent book, Better Angels of Our Nature, that good fences make good neighbours...
Fences in the suburbs demarcate ownership but also carve out privacy. Whilst suburban life is not the cheek-by-jowl existence of the inner city, it is still fairly busy (about 180,000 people live in my borough compared with 250,000 in my previous city centre location, both taking up about the same geographical space). And the move to the suburbs is in part an attempt to increase one's territorial footprint and enjoy more focused contemplation on one's own or with family. So when an existing boundary is violated it can be keenly felt.
Recently our neighbours have decided to remove a six-foot shed that backed onto our five foot fence. It has been moved from a place where there are no tall shrubs and climbing plants on our side. Their garden is a little over two feet in elevation above our own. In place of the shed they have installed an eight-foot by five trampoline. Children now bounce to ten foot above us, being nosey as only kids can be, and the adults can look straight down on us as they gaze upon the endeavours of their children. Suddenly we are exposed to line of sight, but also an incessant squeaking, for the trampoline has been poorly maintained. Moreover, on its outward expansion it bangs clumsily against our fence, causing it to bulge.
Within 24 hours of this rearrangement I spoke with my neighbours and pointed out the problem, gently suggesting that they too were somewhat exposed. I asked what solutions they might come up with to solve this. The answer was that they would measure up and put in a larger fence panel to obscure this issue. This was a good response. However, a further 24 hours on and more children have visited and we have felt even more invaded. We realize that this is not a long period of time to resolve the issue, but a small part of us wishes they would refrain from bouncing until they have the new panel. But of course they are kids, and not really thinking about this kind of stuff.
Here is how I see this game.
The utility is privacy. That utility had been established by the previous fencing. We have now been deprived of that utility.
Initially it would seem as if all is now in the gift of our neighbours. They can restore privacy for us, or not. Moreover, that restoration need not be total. A larger fence panel will still bend on contact with the trampoline. But at least a deal of the noise would be reflected back and line of sight would be reduced to close to zero.
So, this seems asymmetric. They have the resource we want. And, so far, I have been fairly dove-like in my negotiations with them. I have contemplated a more hawkish strategy - say, antisocial barbecuing directly below the trampoline - but it is almost certain that we will interact again in the future and I have no idea when those interactions will cease. Given this, any tit-for-tat interactions may become stressful and counterproductive over time. Whilst this is like an iterated prisoner's dilemma game, I do not think it is one. The game is leaky because we are embedded within a broader community. Alliances can be formed in the local pub with longer term consequences etc. And, more importantly, it is not clear that the punishment would be directly understood as such, and bring reciprocity to the fore. That all depends upon how they saw their initial actions - were they aware of the consequences or simply maximizing their own garden? Do they see privacy as a shared resource or a public good? Data are required but for now there is a chance that both sides would simply accrue costs.
To stop the asymmetry we could construct a new fence panel, or even build a feature wall. That would incur a cost for us, and we would be paying for their decisions. But a good boundary would reduce the stress and good neighbours would prevail once more. So this could be seen as a dove-like investment in our future, or a standard bourgeois strategy as we own the boundary and will aggressively build a wall, taking back our privacy. So our ownership also introduces an asymmetry.
When you start thinking like this it becomes clear that privacy is the utility and walls or fences the means to that utility. We don't own privacy, but the situation makes it feel as if we do and this triggers some uncomfortable psychology in us.
I have thought about having just this discussion with my neighbours, perhaps even more formally modelling it, but I suspect that would come across as extremely bourgeois - "I own Jason Donovan Space."
Is the concern more that the absolute level of privacy obtaining before the trampoline move be restored, or that the cooperation required for anyone to enjoy privacy be explicitly acknowledged?
ReplyDeleteIf I may take advantage of my insider knowledge of the case, it must be of interest to determine whether it was action by the people on the other side of the neighbours you mention that caused the rearrangement that was to your detriment.
My personal concern is the restoration of privacy. It is a reason for living where and how I do. The explicit acknowledgement of cooperation would be one way to possibly achieve that and also build in some robustness to the situation so that future interactions are good.
DeleteAs to the neighbours on the other side it appears they are not in the loop. Their garden is at the same height - so no elevation issues - and they have a wall between them which is clearly a more effective barrier. The move was made to enhance the space in the garden and increase light into a room on the ground floor, it turns out.
The latter revelation shows how important it is to disentangle our own response and its effect on imputed motivations, which can lead easily to unintended escalation. The 'uncomfortable psychology' you mention.
DeleteThis is very true. Conspiracy theories are easily generated to fit all the possible interstices of any game. And, as a result, they can seem very plausible. So one's mind runs riot after a violation, unless checked, and this can ramp up the emotion. I suspect individual differences are at work here with some folk being much more paranoid than others, either dispositionally or through experience, or both. This relates back to error management ideas, that I discussed previously:
Deletehttp://tomsnonacademicwork.blogspot.co.uk/2013/01/error-management-and-chickens.html
Highly paranoid individuals are perhaps more likely to rapidly escalate to hawkish moves. That will have consequences. For example, if this is a stable strategy I cannot imagine such individuals having large social networks and high social capital. The literature seems to support this view.
All we can do in this case is focus upon the behaviour. However, if the response is non-cooperative then our theories about subsequent interests and motivations gain some currency. In this situation, I suspect the focal interest was the garden, and the wider consequences were not properly modelled. Now they have information about our preference and consequently some calculus to do. A full reversion seems unlikely, as my intuition tells me once a preference is played out then people become somewhat bound to it and see fewer alternatives. This means they have to calculate the minimum costs they are prepared to accept to stick with the first decision. I also doubt they will tolerate too many moves beyond any first offer they make. So we would be wise to take an early offer and then suck up the costs for a full solution later on.
It is possibly the case that such constrained focal interests are both a consequence of the desire for suburban privacy and the very definition of antisocial behaviour. This is one instance of many that will not come under any third party scrutiny and as a consequence conflict resolution is bound to falter. The two outcomes are either the one outlined above - so marginal compliance but really others pay the costs for our decisions - or stringent hawks and the unsettling of the neighbourhood. Either way, cooperation is broken in its pure form.