The other day HBOS (Halifax and Bank of Scotland) got publicity for some research they had commissioned, which showed that noise was by far the most common cause of disagreements with neighbours. I suspect, but can't be sure, that the research covers England only.
I'm feeling grumpy because some kids woke me, making a racket outside late last night, so I'm gonna be picky here. (And here's Hogarth's Enraged musician, a better choice of pic for this post).
The headline is hardly surprising really but we should note the slackness of some of the language our media like to use. The question asked of respondents by researchers used the phrase 'Have you ever had a disagreement with a neighbour over...' A disagreement is not necessarily a row, or a dispute, or a conflict, or a 'falling-out'. All four of these terms were preferred by the Independent in its headline and the first two sentences of its coverage.
So I think we can pass quietly over some of the media excitement about the finding that 64% identified noise as an issue on which we may have had a disagreement.
Meanwhile, according to the Independent:
"Other research suggests neighbour disputes may also arise because people have no relationship with those living closest to them. Four per cent of people said they would not recognise their neighbours if they came to the front door."
That's more interesting and a good question to ask, although it could do with a bit more detail. Would you recognise all your neighbours? If you didn't recognise them and they weren't immediate neighbours, would you be inclined to redefine 'neighbour'? I've lived in the same house for the best part of twenty years, and I'm a committed pedestrian, but I only recently met one of my neighbours three doors along, two years after she'd moved in. But all the others I'd recognise, and several who are fifteen or twenty houses away round the corner.
In terms of a resource as the basis for collective action in time of need, recognition at the door might be a rather more interesting measure than, say, questions about socialising in each others' houses, which always seem to me to be more about friendship and not necessarily about neighbouring. However, like much of our 'responsible' media, the Independent is not very good at informing us about its sources. Does anyone know where this finding came from?
One last thought about the HBOS findings. Some 25% of people identified 'pets leaving mess in the garden' as a cause of disagreement. This hides the seldom-acknowledged problem of cats. In my experience they are a far worse problem than dogs in this respect, being so unamenable to control, and yet in many cases you cannot know who the owner is, so how could you have a disagreement with them about it? People with young children can usually fence dogs out of their gardens so that kids can safely play, but cats are a different matter and it's pretty unpleasant when one comes up against cat mess. This is of course a matter of indifference to cat owners, who for some reason don't tend to see themselves as anti-social at all.
Four percent of people not recognizing their neighbors if they came to the door hardly seems cause for concern; i.e., 96% of people do recognize their neighbors. And what was the margin of error? +/- 3%?
On the other hand, 64% citing noise as the main source of disagreements with their neighbors would seem to argue against high-density development, where people are packed cheek-by-jowl. I know I've always preferred living on the top floor of apartment buildings so as not to be sandwiched by noisy neighbors and to avoid having folks stomping around above me. Higher densities may use less land, but who wants to listen to their neighbor's music, TV, or domestic squabbles (or clock radio going off at top volume at 3:00am on the other side of the bedroom wall)? I'd rather not if I can afford it.
Posted by: John Downen | Monday, 15 May 2006 at 22:25