In sum, associations are key ‘social infrastructures’ that bring people together (Klinenberg 2018). Tocqueville observed that associations are the bedrock of social life (Damrosch 2010; also see Putnam 1993). As sites of discussion, dialogue and action, they are fundamental to the democratic ethos of present and future cities. Multiple memberships are especially valuable because this suggests a network that spans a variety of different associations, and this, in turn, bodes well for social cohesion (Paxton 2007).
Personal Communities Based on the Principles of Diversity
I've argued for the importance of common frames of reference, including shared values. But shared values alone will not build an inclusive society, if not buttressed by boundary spanning social relationships. On the one hand, in Singapore, the state plays a pivotal role in promulgating a sense of national identity, mobilizing the instruments of education, the media, culture and the like as part of a top‐down process (Gellner 1983). The cultural intelligentsia also play a role: cultural elites interpret the nation (including its history) and re‐present it to the people, whether in theatrical productions, documentaries, or popular culture (including comics) (Hutchinson 1992). On the other hand, social relationships represent a critical foundation of nationhood. National identities, like other forms of identity, are ‘socially constructed through interaction among agents’ (Hopf 2016, p. 4). The human relations aspects of nation building must be recognized and affirmed.
In my study of Singapore mentioned earlier, I found bridging social capital correlated significantly with national identity and with the trust of other groups (Chua et al. 2017). I concluded that those with ties to people from different parts of the social structure show an increased sensitivity to other cultures and milieus and an ability to understand different perspectives. This brings them to think in national terms, not just in terms of their own groups.
The study considered several forms of bridging social capital, including ties between people of different races/ethnicities, religions, and classes, but the strongest links to national identity turned out to be those centred on class diversity. More specifically, the ties between elites and non‐elites were the most significantly related to national identity. This underscores my point that bridging elite and non‐elite circles and disrupting the social closures that separate them have a substantial payoff.
Class divisions have grown in many cities around the world, not just in Singapore. The future city needs to face that reality and emerge stronger for it. Arguably, the human instinct is to form class silos and fence off others, i.e. ‘homophily’ or the like‐of‐the‐same (McPherson et al. 2001). But intentional efforts to bridge the divide by encouraging intergroup contact and relationships will pay off in a heightened sense of inclusivity, including a deepened sense of belongingness to the nation connecting all groups.
Conclusion
I end the chapter with the following quotation from Pico Iyer, novelist and travel writer:
Singapore is a city of the future now more than ever. In the last 15 years, it has become a fashion‐forward, cool, hip city that has surged into the future. It accelerated past other cities in the world and they look to Singapore as offering a model for where they want to go. The design and architecture are beyond anything I have seen. Every new building is so sleek, every old one is so beautifully preserved. In that way, Crazy Rich Asians is a real expression for how Singapore has arrived. I would say Singapore is ahead of New York by 20 years in terms of fashion, coolness and forward thinking, and it has a more coherent vision – thanks to your initial leaders – than Shanghai and Tokyo can ever have. That is a great benefit in an age where cities are making themselves up as they go along.
To this, let me simply add that while future cities, including Singapore, may be ‘crazy rich’, their citizens should not find themselves segregated into social groups based on class.
References
1 Alabrese, E., Becker, S., Fetzerand, T., and Novy, D. (2019). Who voted for Brexit? Individual and regional data combined. European Journal of Political Economy 56 (January): 132–150.
2 Appiah, A.K. (2006). Cosmopolitanism: Ethics in a World of Strangers. New York: W. W. Norton & Co.
3 Batty, M. (2018). Inventing Future Cities. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
4 Beatley, T. (2011). Biophilic Cities: Integrating Nature into Urban Design and Planning. Washington, DC: Island Press.
5 Beaverstock, J.V. (2002). Transnational elites in global cities: British expatriates in Singapore's Financial District. Geoforum 33 (4): 525–538.
6 Beggs, John J., Haines, Valerie A., and Hurlbert, Jeanne S. (1996). Revisiting the rural‐urban contrast: personal networks in nonmetropolitan and metropolitan settings. Rural Sociology 61(2): 306–325.
7 Bonacich, E. (1972). A theory of ethnic antagonism: the split labour market. American Sociological Review 37 (5): 547–559.
8 Castells, M. (1996). The Rise of the Network Society. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell Publishers.
9 Channel New Asia. (2019). Why Singapore was chosen as a filming location for HBO's hit series Westworld. www.channelnewsasia.com/news/lifestyle/westworld‐season‐3‐singapore‐11706008
10 Charney, I. (2007). The politics of design: architecture, tall buildings and the skyline of Central London. Area 39 (2): 195–205.
11 Chua, V. (2013). Categorical sources of varieties of network inequalities. Social Science Research 42 (5): 1236–1253.
12 Chua, V., Madej, J., and Wellman, B. (2011). The world according to me. In: Sage Handbook of Social Network Analysis (eds. J. Scott and P.J. Carrington), 101–115. London: Sage Publications.
13 Chua, V., Tan, E.S., and Koh, G. (2017). A Study on Social Capital in Singapore (Phase 2). Singapore: Institute of Policy Studies.
14 Chua, V., Axhausen, K.W., and Tan, T. (2018). Who do you know, where? Social investments in Faraway contacts. Research in Transportation Economics 68 (August): 38–45.
15 Chua, V., Swee, E., and Wellman, B. (2019). Getting ahead in Singapore: the differential ways that neighborhoods, gender and ethnicity affect enrollment into elite schools. Sociology of Education 92 (2): 176–198.
16 Coser, R.L. (1975). The complexity of roles as a seedbed of individual autonomy. In: The Idea of Social Structure: Papers in Honor of Robert K. Merton (ed. L.A. Coser), 237–264. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
17 Damrosch, L. (2010). Tocqueville's Discovery of America. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
18 Epstein, S.R. and Prak, M. (eds.) (2008). Guilds, Innovation and the European Economy, 1400–1800. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
19 Erickson, B. (2004). The distribution of gendered social capital in Canada. In: Creation and Returns of Social Capital: A New Research Program (eds. H. Flap and B. Völker), 27–50. London: Routledge.
20 Gehl, J. (1986). ‘Soft edges’ in residential streets. Scandinavian Housing and Planning Research 3 (2): 89–102.
21 Gellner, E. (1983). Nations and Nationalism. Ithaca, N.Y: Cornell University Press.
22 Gerometta, J., Haussermann, H., and Longo, G. (2005). Social Innovation and Civil Society in Urban Governance: strategies for an Inclusive City. Urban Studies 42 (11): 2007–2021.
23 Granovetter, M. (1973). The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology 78 (6): 1360–1380.
24 Hayes, C. (2012). Twilight of the Elites: America after Meritocracy. New York: Broadway Paperbacks.
25 Hobolt, S.B. (2016). The Brexit vote: a divided nation, a divided continent. Journal of European Public Policy 23 (9): 1259–1277.
26 Hochschild, A.R. (2016). Strangers in their Own Land: Anger and Mourning on the American Right. New York: The New Press.
27 Hopf,