Skip to navigation – Site map

HomeThemed issues25VariaDifferences, commons and rhythms:...

Varia

Differences, commons and rhythms: Towards an urbanism of temporalities

Vincent Kaufmann, Yves Pedrazzini and Guillaume Drevon

Abstract

A main challenge facing the city of the future is that of social cohesion between the poor and the rich, generations, genders and lifestyles. In addition to issues of professional opportunities and access to resources in general (housing, shops, services, nature), spatial cohesion is also a key factor that urban sociology can help remedy by proposing new policy, tools, and concepts.

In this article, we approach these issues based on the concepts of differences and commons with regard to life rhythms. The study of synchrony in terms of urban rhythms allows us to renew the thinking of urban studies on inequalities and social ties. This article proposes an original framework that explores the notions of difference and commonality, using urban rhythms as the foundation to renew approaches of urban sociology.

Top of page

Full text

The authors would like to thank the Swiss National Science Foundation for its support for the Diff_Urb research project, of which this article is a part. Grant: CRSII5_198565 / 1

Introduction

1A main challenge facing the city of the future is that of social cohesion between the poor and the rich, generations, genders and lifestyles. In addition to issues of professional opportunities and access to resources in general (housing, shops, services, nature), spatial cohesion is also a key factor that urban sociology can help remedy by proposing new policy, tools, and concepts. Cohesion here refers to the peaceful, no-conflictual cohabitation of individuals from different cultures with divergent lifestyles and/or beliefs. It also refers to spatial cohesion between residential locations with unequal access to amenities, inequalities which can prevent the development of certain neighborhoods. The major risk is the potential conflict such inequalities can engender.

2In this article, we will approach the issues of social and spatial cohesion based on the concepts of differences and commons with regard to life rhythms. The study of synchrony in terms of urban rhythms allows us to renew the thinking of urban studies on inequalities and social ties. This article proposes an original framework that explores the notions of difference and commonality, using urban rhythms as the foundation to renew approaches of urban sociology.

3We would also like to emphasize that this text is above all an essay. We consider that in order to to renew approaches to urban planning, we must move away from the specialized expertise developed in various disciplines and return to the heuristic spirit of the Chicago School, and in particular that of Louis Wirth’s landmark text ‘Urbanism as a Way of Life’, published in 1938. It is essential to revisit such a macroscopic vision in order to rethink how we plan territories. In this sense, our text is a theoretical proposal that requires further refining and testing. More specifically, it aims to give concrete form to Henry Lefebvre’s concept of rhythanalysis by rooting it in space and giving it empirical foundations (Lefebvre 1992). The notion of rhythm as a plural phenomenon seems particularly pertinent for describing individual differences and commons structured by the varying intensities of urban life.

4This article outlines a research program that puts movement, in all its forms, at the heart of urban planning. It focuses on the differences produced by the movement of things and people, and the common ground that movement helps to build.

Cities: places of differences

5While cities have always been home to diverse populations (Wirth 1938) and have fostered interaction (Claval, 1982), this diversity has reached unprecedented levels today. Never before have so many people from different social, cultural and religious backgrounds lived side by side within the same territory (Sandercock 2000). Thus, the question of social cohesion arises with new urgency, raising questions about its forms and the challenges it poses to territorial governance and urban policy in particular.

6While cities have been home to a wide variety of populations for a long time (Wirth 1938) and tend to favor interactions (Claval 1982), this diversity has reached unprecedented levels today: more than ever, people from different social, cultural and religious backgrounds live side by side within the same territory (Sandercock 2000). This diversity is reflected in the highly contrasting rhythms of life. This multiplication of rhythms is linked to globalized capitalism, affecting the speed at which activities are carried out and the way in which digitalization reconfigures proximities. It has also resulted in many people needing to migrate in order to ensure decent living conditions. Thus, the question of social cohesion arises with new urgency in terms of its forms, as does the challenges it poses in terms of territorial governance and urban policy more particularly.

The concept of difference in urban areas

7Cities are extremely diverse places in terms of their populations and the activities that take place within them. They can also be fraught with tensions that can escalate into conflict when underlying issues such as inequality, belonging, and identity are at play (Vertovec 2007; Tasan-Kok et al. 2013). In order to avoid conflict, social cohesion must be cultivated at several key levels.

  • The first relates to multi-affiliation, a distinctive feature of contemporary Western urban societies. Fundamentally, it is a process of individuation whereby people develop affiliations based on political beliefs or affinities (Cattacin 2009). With regard to cities, cohesion refers to finding a balance between these different facets of multi-affiliation. Is one facet predominant? If so, is this strong sense of belonging shared, or is it limited to specific groups? If not, how do the different facets fit together? More specifically, is their diversity spatially balanced throughout the territory or, on the contrary, localized in specific neighborhoods, at specific times (weekly gatherings of specific social, cultural, etc.) or concern specific interest groups? Urban cross border regions are particularly interesting in this respect. A strong local identity that transcends borders and fosters a sense of belonging offers a solid foundation for social cohesion. However, achieving balanced cohesion on both sides of a border can be challenging (Clément et al. 2023).

  • The second level concerns the standardization of urban policies. The tendency to standardize and ‘technicize’ urban policies silences debate around urban issues. The widespread adoption of fixed models of globalized cities, based on capitalist ideals and combining innovation, creativity and sustainable development, have become a kind of inescapable tenet of urban policy programs. For cities, non-compliance with this model can mean being less competitive when it comes to attracting investors. Convention centers, sports megacomplexes, pedestrian zones, museums and iconic architectural objects are all hallmarks of this tenet. The result is not only less creative constructions, but also a disregard for emotional attachments, collective memory and certain forms of sociability in the public space. This hampers the development of local urban affordances (in the sense of Gibson, 1979), which allow inhabitants to build attachment and to identify with their city (Çağlar 2016).

  • Finally, the third level concerns domination and inequality. The city becomes a stage for hierarchy and discrimination. Contrary to the idea of a mutual disengagement between the haves and the have-nots (Bauman 2000), cities epitomize ongoing and ever-increasing social stratification. Undeclared work is essential to the survival of numerous economic sectors. Yet, undocumented workers and their reality contribute as much to the creation of urbanity as the ostentatious wealth to which many aspire. This situation is even more pronounced in urban regions due to the presence of a border (or urban borders) and potential resource differentials (Leitner et al. 2007). Indeed, transborder contexts strongly reflect the modalities of social integration in Europe and its underlying tensions that underlie them.

8Many concepts have been used to describe and analyze the challenges cities are facing with regard to social cohesion, including diversity, social mix, otherness, multiculturalism, miscegenation and creolization. In our opinion, the concept of difference offers significant advantages as relates to these concepts. Difference can be seen as a social and political process of relational categorization, both a product of power relations and a tool for resistance, which structures inclusion and exclusion dynamics in contemporary (Cattacin 2009). When understood this way, this concept presents two advantages.

  • Firstly, it does not presuppose the social nature of differentiations associated with categories that have clear hierarchical boundaries (e.g. social classes or urban morphologies) nor with horizontal attributes (e.g. mobility skills or rhythms of life) (Kaufmann 2011).

  • Secondly, it helps us to view individuals as sets of social data and attributes, some of which may be socially significant and others insignificant (for instance, the intersectionality of a minority female migrant worker). The notion of difference does not assume a pre-existing hierarchy of individual attributes, but instead prioritizes exploring their interactions and the cumulative effects of intersectionality.

9Based on these considerations, one of the key questions facing urban sociology is, How can urban differences contribute to the urbanization process? This is a crucial question to raise with political and institutional actors who will shape tomorrow’s cities, whether they are in positions of power or must live with their decisions. We must move away from urban planning not only fails to recognize differences, but also divides and rules over the modern capitalist city by creating competition among its constituent parts. However, associating differences could serve in the sharing of resources amid competition between the public and private sectors. Once we accept the principle of reciprocal influence of ‘human’/social differences and spatial/urban differences, including non-human influences (animal, vegetable and material), the question becomes understanding the mutual and dialectical impact amongst different forms of social and spatial organization. As Cattacin (2009) demonstrated in his literature review on difference as applied to urban planning, this notion encompasses both taking vulnerabilities and singularities into account and the desire for inclusive collaborations. Inclusive urbanism is therefore also democratic (participative), raising the question of how to ensure the effective use of the concept of difference in urban projects, and large-scale architectural projects in particular? Who are they designed for? Are such projects designed to enrich the urban fabric, cities, neighborhoods and infrastructure for all users, regardless of their intrinsic differences?

10While identifying and recognizing differences in an urban area is essential politically speaking, it is important avoid ‘essentializing’ them by disregarding their social and cultural context.

A genealogy of the notion of difference and its implications

11This raises a number of questions regarding the origins of modern urban planning in the 19th-century (for example, Haussmann in France or Cerda in Spain). As both a science and an ideology, urban planning has always taken a liberal stance on differences between people, and between humans, animals and plants. In this case, the notion of ‘liberal’ by far predates its association with the ultimate stages of capitalism. Here, ‘liberal’ refers to verticalization, hierarchization and even instrumentalization (i.e. creating competition and even strife), much akin to Darwinism. However, moving away from the ideas of both Darwin and Albert Jacquart in the 1970s (1978), the liberal, productivist, capitalist praise of differences poorly masks the valorization of the process of differentiation as a useful way of maintaining order though social and spatial sorting. In other words, differences should be eradicated or preserved and capitalized upon. Unfortunately, over the past century, this founding vision of urbanism has become embedded in either the differential distribution of spaces or the spatial distribution of differences. Either way, these processes discriminate by differentiating social spaces based on verticalized, hierarchical principles (as opposed to horizontal principles, whereby each difference is considered separately according to its potential value). The challenge now is to rekindle the original concept of a large city that is both plural and politically and urbanistically coherent. This requires social and spatial coherence to safeguard social cohesion for inhabitants and coherency of the city’s spatial organization.

12The concept of difference has become an organizing principle of urban space among urban professionals, politicians and academics. However, these different actors have yet to accept another, more controversial concept: urban and social diversity. The notion of diversity has been hijacked politically and economically, disproving Giuseppe Tomasi di Lampedusa’s assertion in his novel, The Leopard (originally published in Italian in 1958), that everything must change for everything to remain the same. As with diversity, the notion of difference has been widely accepted. In other words, nowadays, differences are taken into account, and public policies aim to guarantee their respect and foster peaceful and productive cohabitation. This can be referred to as ‘social cohesion,’ provided that each group or population can express its identity and live a lifestyle suited to it. In contrast, the capitalist city hierarchizes differences, making it impossible to value them equally and creating unequal relationships of power and domination. This is particularly evident in life rhythms, their spatial scope and temporalities. These findings tie in with those of Spanish sociologist Manuel Castells’ on the opposition between the space of places and the space of flows (Castells 1996), which he analyzed in terms of speed and co-occurrence.

However, how does the process of differentiation inherently create a hierarchy of social and spatial differences, thereby structuring urbanism to reflect classic capitalist ideals? Through this process, ‘differences’ constitute the added value of any city that can integrate them culturally, beyond each of the few neighborhoods ‘differentiated’ by the global land market alone. This market is always on the lookout for the opportunities created first by the most innovative actors of the so-called ‘creative class’ at a very local level (Pedrazzini 2020).

13‘Urban differentiation’ here refers to this new phase of advanced capitalism. The differentiation of urban spaces through master plans and other tools of spatial inequality is a process of social hierarchization based on vertically differentiated spaces. To better understand how to change the way we build spaces, we will apply these concepts to urban policies using the concept of commonalities.

The importance of urban commons

14While the concept of difference enables us to outline aspirations with regard to urban policies, the concept of commonalities allows us to identify potential cohesive characteristics in highly contrasting populations. These characteristics can refer to common features within a population, as well as to attachments to places and social practices that transcend social, economic and cultural differences, and which are inherent to spaces. The concept of commonalities nonetheless carries a double risk of essentialization and reification (Berger 2022, p. 67). To avoid these risks, identifying commonalities requires an in-depth analysis of social relationships, as well as lifestyles and the potential for integration they offer in cities are elsewhere.

15Commonalities can be defined in three ways. Each meaning offers opportunities to implement difference-oriented urbanism.

Commons as a shared resource

16The concept of commons is used in numerous disciplines to describe a multitude of objects (Kebir, Nahrath & Wallet 2018). It was strongly shaped by the work of Elinor Ostrom, who defines commons as shared resources (Ostrom & Hess 2007). Having extensively studied communities, she also considers commons a self-organized resource that is independent of markets and states (Gardner, Ostrom, & Walker 1990). She also introduces the theory that social dilemmas arise when personal and/or immediate interests prevail over collective interests (Weinstein 2013). This approach to commons is particularly well suited to forms of negotiated self-organization around natural resources such as water or wood. The management methods developed by groups that use the resource are designed to ensure its sustainability and maintenance, in contexts where rivalry between community members is immediately neutralized by the more pressing need for survival. This conception of commons manifests in the form of struggles that oppose the development of infrastructure whose impact is detrimental to the environment. Anti-capitalist movements aiming to provide an alternative societal model based on the shared and collective management of the community and its resources emerge from these struggles.

Common goods

17The aforementioned social movements offer another conception of commons with regard to socio-political models of resource management for the common good (Laval and Dardot 2015). This conception supports the first by emphasizing the sociological dynamics of co-management that emerge from collective maintenance of the resources necessary for community cohesion and survival. Thus, as material elements, commons are the glue that holds communities together and act as a catalyst for social interactions. This catalysis, which results from the materiality of commons, shapes the complex relationships that bind individuals to one another and to the collective. The reasons behind the struggle underlying the creation of commons are not limited to environmental defense. They also emerge in urban areas amidst struggles against the predatory neoliberal conception of land resources (Juan 2018). In response, communities organize to defend alternative cultural spaces, particularly in the form of squat culture, a co-management model that opposes the neoliberal city.

18The second conception of commons contextualizes their origins. Thus, struggles and resistance augur well for contexts favorable to the material commons perspective and the emergence of co-management models. They also reveal more complex forms of urban commons that transcend the issue of public space alone.

Urban Commons

19The third conception explores social and spatial belonging to a culture or territory through the notion of commons, as proposed by certain authors in the field of urban studies (Declève et al. 2022). The concept of commons helps us to identify common characteristics in populations that are otherwise differentiated based on socio-economic and demographic criteria.

20From this perspective, a city or urban area can be considered a common, a configuration of shared social relations and density (Kornberger & Borch 2015). This approach draws on the work of the Chicago School, taking an interactionist approach to the city inspired by the work of Georg Simmel. Louis Wirth (Wirth 1938) considered the city a blend resulting from interactions within social networks, as well as atmospheres and ambiences (Wirth 1938). For Wirth, urban commons stem from individuals’ practices, experiences and aspirations – in other words, from lifestyles – as well as from strategic productions with political and/or economic purposes (Kornberger & Borch 2015). In this third dimension, identifying commons requires a detailed examination of social relationships and lifestyles, and how these are experienced in urban areas.

  • 1 It should be noted that Putnam's conception of social capital is very different from that of Bourdi (...)

21Robert Putnam’s social capital approach has inspired work on urban commons with respect to social relationships (Putnam 2000). Putnam argues that the United States has experienced a progressive decline in civic, social, associational and political life since the 1960s – in other words, a decline in social capital1. In his analysis, Putnam distinguishes between two types of social capital: bonding and bridging. Bonding capital refers to socialization between people with shared characteristics (e.g. age, ethnicity, religion, etc.). He observes that in the most diverse urban societies, bonding capital does not ensure social cohesion between social groups (Putnam 2000, Putnam 2007). He believes that for this cohesion to develop, bridging capital is necessary (i.e. social ties between people who are different but share activities or interests (e.g. fans of a particular soccer team).

22The approach to lifestyles and how they are received in an urban space, fueled by work on urban commons, clearly draws on Wirth’s approach (Wirth 1938) and has led to the concept of ‘location’ (Çağlar 2016). Location describes spaces in which the city is hospitable to a given way of life. This hospitality can be open or restricted, largely depending on the sedimentation of a territory’s political and economic past (e.g. material or immaterial artefacts such as buildings, accessibility, employment conditions, and/or social practices). In this case, urban commons result from the interaction between lifestyles and a given territory (Kornberger and Borch 2015). When conceptualized in this way, the notion of urban commons enables the study of social cohesion within a territory without necessarily referring to functional integration (Declève et al. 2022, Galland 1993).

Deploying places where rhythms meet

23From an urban planning perspective, urban commons should above all be seen as potential space-times in which people meet and share spaces synchronously. Urban planning that is attentive to differences thus refers to potential common and hospitable spaces for people with different statuses and positions. This leads to the concept of rhythm.

24From an urban planning perspective, urban commons should primarily be considered as spaces in which people can meet and share experiences simultaneously. Urban planning that considers differences should therefore refer to potential common and hospitable spaces for people with different statuses and positions. This observation leads to the concept of rhythm as a potential space-time for encounters; for example, the potential for synchronous co-presence is implied (Drevon 2019). Given the diversity of lifestyles within the population, this requires the identification of idiorythmic forms (Antionioli et al. 2022).

25The concept of rhythm is ideal for describing an increasingly unstable world. Rhythm signifies different ways of experiencing time and space. It can be defined as ‘the sum of the ways of flowing’ (Antonioli et al. 2022). It incorporates the notions of irregularity, spontaneous movement, order and disorder into regularity – in other words, life and human experience, and how we ‘inhabit time.’ Nowadays, the issue of rhythm (i.e. the acceleration of time and movement) intersects with that of our relationships with others, of living together more generally, and of citizenship. Activities flow from one to the next. The private and professional spheres merge. We work remotely at home and check our work emails at any time of day or night. We receive personal calls at the office and are constantly in contact with our partners via text messaging. The lives of individuals and of society in general are dictated by rhythms: our very breath, the ritornellos of daily life, fleeting moments of aesthetic experience and the reorganization of communal orders. Analyzing cities through the lens of rhythms, and their link to questions of difference and commons, allows us to reconsider the issues of emancipation and domination.

Rhythm in the social sciences

26The concept of rhythm, already present in Plato’s work, has evolved in both its use and conceptualization. Since the early 20th century, it has been present in various fields, fueling a long line of ‘rhythmanalytic’ theories. In philosophy, the analysis of rhythm first appeared with Gaston Bachelard in 1936 and then with Henri Maldiney in 1973. Alongside philosophical approaches, the concept of rhythm has also been present in sociology since the early 20th century. For example, Georg Simmel (1900) highlighted the gradual separation between cyclical rhythms in nature, such as seasons and fluctuating food supplies, and the rhythms of human activity. He underscored the role that city life, the commodification of time and the individualization of lifestyles through the division of labor played in this separation. This detachment from natural rhythm in urban settings also invites to transform lives geared toward material reproduction into lives freed from constraints and guided by curiosity in search of transformation whenever and wherever we desire it.

27Simmel observed that the rhythm of life, meaning the ‘sum of actions’, was more sustained among city dwellers. He described an ‘intensification of nervous life’ in particular. This intensification also impacts the way we look at urban spaces, which become works of art to be captured, beautified and transformed through artistic practice (Simmel 1984 [1903]).

28Hartmut Rosa also uses the sum of actions as an analytical prism of rhythm. For him, rhythm can be defined as the number of episodes of action and experience per unit of time. This perspective highlights the experiential and creative dimensions described by Simmel (Rosa 2010).

  • 2 Henri Lefebvre introduced the notion of rythmanalysis in 1981 in the third volume of his Critique d (...)

29In his work, Henri Lefebvre explores two types of rhythm2. The first is cyclical and refers to natural and cosmic rhythms. The second is linear and relates to technology. Lefebvre proposed building a sociology of everyday life by simultaneously considering time and space within a unique rhythmology project, which aims to analyze the organization of social time and how its usage. These arrangements can thus be defined as rhythms that reveal the spatial and temporal dimensions of ways of life (Drevon 2019). Moreover, Lefebvre links the rhythms of freedom to creativity in his critique of the consequences of industrialization on the city (Lefebvre, 1992). Rythmanalysis has inspired numerous works in recent years and has enjoyed significant success in the English-speaking world.

30Other research also draws on the concept of rhythms in order to analyze paces and the experience of the body in public spaces (Edensor 2012), periods of social synchronization (Launay et al. 2016) and the production of territorialities and forms of sociality. Considering the diversity of research fields and subjects, some authors feel that these relatively heterogeneous reflections should be integrated into a general science of territorialization and socialization processes, examining the melodies and refrains of territories and social relations (Brighenti & Kärrholm 2018). Rhythm is also seen as a means of regulating pressures on natural and urban environments (Drevon et al. 2020) and of alleviating the various forms of saturation present in our lives and cities (Antonioli et al. 2020).

Exploring rhythms to identify differences and commons

31Rhythm is particularly relevant when it comes to situating dynamics of differentiation and the production of commons in urban spaces. The rhythm approach reveals differences through the propagation of asynchronous or synchronous phenomena between people. Rhythm also highlights differences between human and non-human phenomena. Finally, it underscores the regular, disruptive and unpredictable phenomena that drive differentiation and pooling.

32Based on this, we will compare four life rhythms to illustrate the fluctuations between differences and commons, with a detailed description using the perspectives afforded by these two concepts. A wide range of interdisciplinary research, which we will not describe in detail here, has naturally explored these different rhythmic situations (e.g. Drevon et al. 2020, Gwiazdzinski 2016). However, they all illustrate the fluctuation between differences and commons through different life rhythms.

33Urban nights: Urban nights have both differences and commons; they are ephemeral yet regular. Nighttime atmostpheres encourage freedom, partying and cultural activities, as well as transgressive practices, and attract specific communities to specific places. However, this can generate conflict due to lifestyle preferences (e.g. those who sleep and work in the city vs. those who enjoy nightlife and leisure). Research on nocturnal activities highlights recurring conflicts between urban nightlife and the need for quiet (Gwiazdzinski et al., 2020). Those whose daily lives deviate from the norm are therefore likely to both cause and experience interpersonal conflicts over rhythms, as incompatibilities lead to disturbances and obstacles. Examples include children who need to sleep and neighbours who party, people who work at night and sleep during the day and are disturbed by city noise during their off-hours, and people with medical conditions who live on irregular schedules. Pets can also give rise to interpersonal conflicts related to rhythms, such as dogs barking in the garden at night or early in the morning.

34Urban days: The rhythms of daily life still seem to be largely defined by the expression ‘métro, boulot, dodo’ (lit. commute, work sleep: i.e. the daily grind), suggesting a strong sense of synchronization in urban rhythms and commonality among working men and women. However, a close analysis of daily rhythms shows that they are highly asynchronous depending on factors such as gender, social class and neighborhood. Social groups can thus be distinguished by their rhythm, and are distributed across the city in diverse ways, thus revealing distinct uses of the city (Drevon 2019).

35Major urban events: At once vectors of disruption and commons, major urban events both unite and divide people. On the one hand, concerts and sporting events bring together individuals who would not usually mingle. On the other hand, urban events are disruptive in that they cause major disturbances on a local scale by creating tension, overcrowding and conflicting uses of the city. Pascal Viot’s work on major events sheds light on this issue. By facilitating shared, collective, and emotional experiences, major events enable individuals from diverse backgrounds and identity groups to temporarily come together, transcending their differences through rituals, symbols, and active participation in the same social narrative (Viot 2013).

36Touristic practices: Notably the frequency and rhythm of tourism are also important factors in differentiation and commons. Differentiation often is based on the tourists’ origins, as is reflected in their culture and language. Pace (e.g. walking speed) can also vary according to the culture, season and the purpose of the visit. Commons emerge through the reification of symbols, events and urban monuments that attract tourists. This process creates commons for both tourists and residents, establishing a collective memory and imaginary. John Urry’s work on tourism highlighted this as early as the 1990s. In The Tourist Gaze (1990), he demonstrated that tourism is built on a specific shared regard – the tourist gaze – that transforms places, landscapes and cultures into objects of visual and symbolic consumption. These are shaped by social expectations, media representations and discriminatory practices.

Concluding remarks and opening

37Whether it is a shared resource, a common struggle or forging of a sense of belonging or attachment, commons can help to overcome differences and foster inclusive urbanism. This allows us to reconsider the issue of difference relative to spaces, shifting the focus from difference as a basis for managing complex human relationships (multiple affiliations, intersectionality and vulnerabilities) to reflection on urban public spaces (amenities, rhythms, identity, collective memory) as commons.

38In this essay, we have explored the differences and commons in the physical and political relationship to urban space, whether specific or generic. While we can make some assumptions regarding the relationship between spaces of difference and spaces of commons in urban contexts, ‘proving’ the existence of a dialectical link between the shape of a particular city, as writers such as Gracq and Pasolini have described it, and the differences between particular places within that city. It is therefore also difficult to ‘prove’ the ‘non-difference’ we call commons. Any commonalities that emerge between one urban sequence and another within a city would prove nothing more than the existence of similarities, not of a community project. If differential urbanism is capable of establishing a horizontal ‘ranking’ of differences based on power, is it then politically conceivable to imagine a process of common differentiation in which differences allow for collective connection rather than definitive ontological separation for the benefit of the capitalist city? To paraphrase Richard Sennett (2019), urban planning that is attentive to differences must be attentive to the rhythms of life, and therefore modest and reflective. Only in this way can it enable people to come together despite differences and give rise to new forms of solidarity.

39Based on these considerations, our text offers several research areas.

40The first concerns differences. As we noted in the first part of this article, in urban planning, the concept of difference refers to both the consideration of vulnerabilities and singularities, and to the desire for inclusive collaborations (Cattacin 2009). Therefore, the question is how to deconstruct the mechanisms whereby difference leads to segregation, domination or exclusion.

41The second concerns commons. The various definitions of the notion of commons indicate how differential urbanism could be used to embrace difference and mutualise commons. For urban planning, the question then becomes identifying the conditions in which vulnerabilities and diversity can thrive in spaces and times that facilitate interactions that transcend community boundaries.

42The third concerns spatialization. Creating opportunities for people to meet in spaces requires them to be in the same place at the same time. This idiorythmia has largely been lost due to the diversification of lifestyles within the population and requires us to consider spatial arrangements. Alongside programmes, it is a matter of inspiring people to rediscover rituals that bring us together despite our differences.

43The third concerns spatialization. Creating opportunities for people to meet requires them to be in the same place at the same time. This idiorythmia has largely been lost due to the diversification of lifestyles within the population, which requires us to consider spatial arrangements. Besides programmes, it is a matter of inspiring people to rediscover rituals that bring us together despite our differences.

44The points we have just mentioned demonstrate how ‘difference-oriented’ urbanism challenges the ‘modern monotony’ and ‘homogeneity’ of contemporary models by building upon the work of Henri Lefebvre (1970) and critically examining Rem Koolhaas’ concepts of ‘Junkspace’ (2002) and ‘Generic City’ (1995). More radically still, we could explore the critical materialist theories of the Frankfurt School.

Better still, we can reformulate the urban dilemma by considering social difference not only as a new solution to all types of urban governance problems, but also as an unwanted by-product of the ‘negative differentiation’ of spaces and people. This ‘negative differentiation’ may be the root cause of these problems, which are political as well as technical and urban planning issues. Political actors must therefore resolve these problems politically, and not just leave it to scientists to solve them scientifically. This applies to urban planners, sociologists and rhythmologists.

Top of page

Bibliography

Antonioli, M., Drevon, G., Gwiazdzinski, L., Kaufmann, V., & Pattaroni, L. 2020. Manifeste pour une politique des rythmes. Lausanne, EPFL Press.

Bachelard, G. 1936. La dialectique de la durée. Paris, Boivin.

Bauman, Z. 2000. Liquid Modernity. London, Polity.

Berger, M. 2022. Malentendus autour des communs. Dans B. Declève, M. Declève, V. Kaufmann, A. Mezoued & C. Salembier (dir.), La ville en communs (pp. 67–70). Genève, MétisPresses.

Bonnani, N. 2022. Que défaire ? Pour retrouver des perspectives révolutionnaires. Grenoble, Le Monde à l’envers.

Borch, C., & Kornberger, M. 2015. Urban Commons. Dans M. Kornberger & C. Borch (dir.), Urban Commons: Rethinking the City (pp. 11–31). London–New York, Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9,781,315,780,597

Brighenti, A. M., & Kärrholm, M. 2018. Beyond rhythmanalysis… City, Territory and Architecture, 5(1), 4. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40410-018-0080-x

Çağlar, A. 2016. Still ‘migrants’ after all those years… Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 42(6), 952–969. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369183×.2015.1126085

Castells, M. 1996. The Rise of the Network Society. Cambridge (MA) / Oxford (UK), Blackwell.

Cattacin, S. 2009. Differences in the City. Dans J. L. Hochschild & J. H. Mollenkopf (dir.), Bringing Outsiders In (pp. 250–259). Ithaca, Cornell University Press.

Claval, P. 2003. City and culture. Ekistics, 70(418/419), 36–41. Athens, Athens Center of Ekistics.

Clément, G., Gumy, A., Audikana, A., Drevon, G., Kaufmann, V., & Daffe, L. 2023. Sociétés frontalières. Lausanne, EPFL Press.

Declève, B., Declève, M., Kaufmann, V., Mezoued, A., & Salembier, C. 2022. La ville en communs — récits d’urbanisme. Genève, MétisPresses.

Drevon, G. 2019. Proposition pour une rythmologie… Neuchâtel, Alphil Presses universitaires suisses.

Drevon, G., Gumy, A., & Kaufmann, V. 2020. Pour une approche rythmique… Espaces et sociétés. https://infoscience.epfl.ch/record/265133

Drevon, G., Pattaroni, L., Delley, L., Jacot-Descombes, F., Hamel, N., & coll. 2020. Rhythmanalysis of Urban Events… Urban Planning, 5(2), 280–295.

Edensor, T. 2012. Geographies of Rhythm. London, Ashgate Publishing.

Galland, B. 1993. Identités urbaines : Genève–Lausanne, duo ou duel ? Genève, Georg.

Gamba, F. 2019. L’information comme bien commun… Pertinence.

Gardner, R., Ostrom, E., & Walker, J. M. 1990. The Nature of Common-Pool Resource Problems. Rationality and Society, 2(3), 335–358. https://doi.org/10.1177/1043463190002003005

Gibson, C. G. 1979. Singular Points of Smooth Mappings. London, Pitman.

Goeury, D. 2018. Les espaces ruraux… Dans Les Espaces ruraux en France (pp. 149–158). Paris, Atlande. https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01950359

Gwiazdzinski, L. 2016. La Nuit, dernière frontière de la ville (2e éd.). Paris, Rhuthmos.

Gwiazdzinski, L., Maggioli, M., & Straw, W. (dir.) 2020. Night Studies. Paris, Elya Éditions.

Jacquart, A. 1978. Éloge de la différence. Paris, Seuil.

Juan, M. 2018. Les communs urbains à Barcelone. Espaces et sociétés, 175(4), 35–49.

Kaufmann, V. 2011. Rethinking the City: Urban Dynamics and Motility. Lausanne, EPFL Press.

Kebir, L., Nahrath, S., & Wallet, F. 2018. Éditorial. Espaces et sociétés, 175(4), 7–17.

Koolhaas, R. 1995. The Generic City. New York, Monacelli Press.

Koolhaas, R. 2002. Junkspace. October, 100, 175–190. Cambridge (MA), MIT Press.

Launay, J., Tarr, B., & Dunbar, R. I. M. 2016. Synchrony as an Adaptive Mechanism… Ethology, 122(10), 779–789. https://doi.org/10.1111/eth.12528

Laval, P., & Dardot, C. 2015. Commun. Paris, La Découverte.

Lefebvre, H. 1981. Critique de la vie quotidienne. Paris, Arché Éditeur.

Lefebvre, H. 1992. Éléments de rythmanalyse. Paris, Syllepse.

Leitner, H., Peck, J., & Sheppard, E. S. (dir.) 2007. Contesting Neoliberalism. London–New York, Guildford Press.

Maldiney, H. 1973. L’esthétique des rythmes. Dans Regard Parole Espace. Lausanne, L’Âge d’Homme.

Mezoued, A.-M., Kaufmann, V., & Nasdrovisky, B. 2018. Vers un retour de la lenteur… Espaces et sociétés, 175(4), 123–141.

Ostrom, E., & Hess, C. 2007. Private and Common Property Rights. Rochester (NY), SSRN. https://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=1304699

Pattaroni, L. (dir.) 2020. La contre-culture domestiquée. Genève, Métis Presses.

Pedrazzini, Y. 2020. Punkspace… In L. Pattaroni (dir.), La contre-culture domestiquée (pp. 253–273). Genève, Métis Presses.

Putnam, R. D. 2007. E Pluribus Unum. Scandinavian Political Studies, 30(2), 137–174. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9477.2007.00176.x

Putnam, R. D., Putnam, P., & IMP of PPRD. 2000. Bowling Alone. New York, Simon & Schuster.

Rosa, H. 2010. Alienation and Acceleration. Oslo, NSU Press.

Rumford, C. 2007. Does Europe Have Cosmopolitan Borders? Globalizations, 4(3), 327–339. https://doi.org/10.1080/14747730701532419

Sandercock, L. 2000. When Strangers Become Neighbours. Planning Theory and Practice, 1(1), 13–30.

Sennett, R. 2019. Bâtir et habiter. Paris, Albin Michel.

Simmel, G. 1900. Psychologie de l’argent. Paris, Allia.

Simmel, G. 1984. Die Großstädte und das Geistesleben. In G. Simmel & O. Rammstedt (dir.), Individualismus der modernen Zeit (pp. 192–204). Frankfurt am Main, Suhrkamp Verlag.

Tasan-Kok, T., Van Kempen, R., Raco, M., & Bolt, G. 2013. Towards Hyper-Diversified European Cities. Utrecht, Utrecht University.

Tomasi di Lampedusa, G. 1958. Il Gattopardo. Milan, Feltrinelli. [1991. The Leopard. New York, Pantheon]

Urry, J. 1990. The Tourist Gaze. London, Sage.

Vertovec, S. 2007. Super-diversity and its implications. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 30(6), 1024–1054.

Viot, P. 2013. Le territoire sécurisé des grandes manifestations contemporaines. Thèse EPFL, Lausanne.

Weinstein, O. 2013. Comment comprendre les « communs ». Revue de la régulation, 14. http://regulation.revues.org/10452

Wirth, L. 1938. Urbanism as a Way of Life. American Journal of Sociology, 44(1), 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1086/217913

Top of page

Notes

1 It should be noted that Putnam's conception of social capital is very different from that of Bourdieu. For Bourdieu, social capital corresponds to relationships that can be used to improve one's social position. For Putnam, social capital is similar to social links.

2 Henri Lefebvre introduced the notion of rythmanalysis in 1981 in the third volume of his Critique de la vie quotidienne (Lefebvre 1981), then developed it further in his posthumous 1992 work Éléments de rythmanalyse: introduction à la connaissance des rythmes (Lefebvre 1992).

Top of page

References

Electronic reference

Vincent Kaufmann, Yves Pedrazzini and Guillaume Drevon, “Differences, commons and rhythms: Towards an urbanism of temporalities”Articulo - Journal of Urban Research [Online], 25 | 2025, Online since 15 December 2025, connection on 23 January 2026. URL: http://journals.openedition.org/articulo/6070; DOI: https://doi.org/10.4000/15er3

Top of page

About the authors

Vincent Kaufmann

École polytechnique fédérale de Lausanne, LASUR, orcid.org/0000-0001-9927-8333

By this author

Yves Pedrazzini

baaus buró arquitectura_ambiente_urbanismo_sociales ; chercheur associé au LASUR

Guillaume Drevon

École polytechnique fédérale de Lausanne, LASUR, orcid.org/0000-0002-9671-3560

Top of page

Copyright

CC-BY-NC-ND-4.0

The text only may be used under licence CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. All other elements (illustrations, imported files) may be subject to specific use terms.

Top of page
Search OpenEdition Search

You will be redirected to OpenEdition Search