Monday, 16 December 2013

Not borrowing sugar and blaming technology

Cup of sugarThanks to the simple efficiency of google alerts, my attention was drawn to this peculiar statement:

‘In many ways, technology has erased the proverbial world in which if a person ran out of sugar, he or she would go next door to borrow a cup from a neighbor.’ (Source).

I don't think the idea of online technology erasing neighbourly relations has much basis in reality. I think the author might be taking one ‘proverbial’ world - if the word (which means 'well-known') is used ecccentrically in the sense of ‘imaginary’ – to conjure another ‘proverbial’ (imaginary) world.

I’d love to hear if there is any known instance in recent history of someone finding themselves in unexpected need of a cup of sugar, and falling back on the generosity of a neighbour to supply it? It sounds like fairly unusual behaviour; but rather more probable than the erasure of neighbourly relations through online technology.

 

16 Dec 2013 15:21:21 | Neighbourhood relations, networked neighbourhoods

The comments to this entry are closed.

NEXT POST
Informal networks save public money The Neighbourhood Network schemes in Leeds have an enviable reputation. The first was established in 1985 and it’s clear the city is getting a return for its foresight and investment over the years. Mick Ward, a Social Care Commissioner with Leeds City Council, told the following story yesterday at an ippr event in London. I was struck by it partly because I’ve recently been writing about the interdependence of informal and formal care (this used to be called ‘interweaving’). It had been noticed that an elderly resident was putting in frequent appearances at A&E in a very distressed, highly agitated state, usually in the evening. A volunteer from the local scheme went to visit her for a chat. As they made a cuppa in the kitchen, the volunteer noticed accumulated cans of Red Bull. It became apparent that the patient had a habit of getting through up to 14 tubes of the stuff in a day – hence the trips to the hospital. Mick observed drily that the £1.40 bus fare expenses claimed by the volunteer to help resolve the issue compared favourably with the cost of the fourteen visits to A&E.
PREVIOUS POST
What do we mean by overcrowding? The Building and Social Housing Foundation has published the results of research using focus groups, investigating public understandings of space in the home and overcrowding. The research explored how a minimum space standard might be meaningfully described. Among the conclusions was the assertion that ‘Every home should allow space for all members of the household to eat together or for a small number of friends or family members to visit.’ There was widespread agreement across the focus groups that different types of household would have different needs in terms of health and development, social interaction and essential items. The focus groups explored these issues by developing a list of space requirements for three case study households: Couple with two young children Couple over 60 Single working-age man without children. Participants were asked to agree the furniture and other possessions, activities and levels of privacy needed in the home. According to the focus group discussions, ‘a couple with one child require a minimum of 65 m2 of usable floor area. In England, 14 per cent of families with children live in homes smaller than this.’

Kevin Harris

Search

My Other Accounts

Recent Comments