2 Link by Link: Blurring the Lines and Creating an Inclusive Society in Singapore

       Vincent Chua

       Department of Sociology, National University of Singapore, Singapore

      Lisa Joy, the American screenwriter, co‐creator, and executive producer of HBO's science‐fiction series, Westworld, decided to film the show's third season in Singapore, saying in an interview with Channel News Asia: ‘Your architecture is so spectacular and quite singular and unique. There is a poetic shape to the skyline of Singapore that no other city has. There is a beautiful curvature to it that is really unique and interesting.’ In the same interview, she declared: ‘We need to create a world of fiction that was immersive, new, beautiful, gripping and fascinating. Looking outside the window at Singapore right now, where else would we go after seeing this?’ (Channel New Asia, 11 July 2019). This chapter is about that city.

      Looking beyond the stunning skyline, breathtaking architecture, and beautiful greenery which, in isomorphic fashion, have become standard features in many other global cities (Khondker 2005; Charney 2007; Beatley 2011), I argue that an ‘inclusive urbanism’, by which I mean the melding of diverse social groups and cultures into a loosely integrated whole (Granovetter 1973), is critical to the present and future success of Singapore. And not just of Singapore – of all global cities.

      At the level of everyday life, global cities stand out for the possibilities they create for human interactions. For one, they are heterogeneous; situated at the confluence of global flows of people, goods, and capital, they bring different peoples, cultures, and ideas together (Castells 1996). For another, they have critical mass and density, creating opportunities for intercultural contact (Sassen 1991; Batty 2018). But do these opportunities translate into actual social ties? And how can cities of the future ensure peace, cohesion, and conviviality in the midst of diversity?

      This chapter identifies a challenge and offers a solution. The challenge is the polarization manifesting in mature economies, with a growing social divide between class groups – the (global) elites and the rest (the so‐called 1% versus the 99%) (Beaverstock 2002; Hayes 2012; Khan 2012). Responding to this challenge, I propose three ways to foster an inclusive society amidst forces of fragmentation. First, the establishment of common frames of reference has the potential to unite diverse groups. Second, the promotion of voluntary associational life contributes to social learning, sociability, and a more extensive connectivity between sectors of society. Third, the intentional building of personal communities based on the principles of diversity can produce, as the eventual outcome, a more inclusive and cohesive society manifesting as a shared sense of national belongingness.

A City's Relational Opportunities

      As ‘a relatively large, dense, and permanent settlement of socially heterogeneous individuals’ (Wirth 1938, p. 8), a city opens up opportunities for social networking. These three qualities – size, density, and heterogeneity – inevitably increase the number of possible interactions: ‘the potential number of people we can select from increases as the square of the population of the city itself’ (Batty 2018, p. 4). And it isn't simply numbers of possible contacts that increase. The city also offers a wide range of types of contact: ‘the personal traits, the occupations, the cultural life, and the ideas of members of an urban community, may therefore, be expected to range between more widely separated poles than those of rural inhabitants’ (Wirth 1938, p. 11).

      Urbanites have more latitude when selecting contacts. They may choose to ‘acquire membership in widely divergent groups, each of which functions only with reference to a single segment of his personality’ (Wirth 1938, p. 16). Wellman (2001) terms this: ‘networked individualism’. Conventional wisdom says communities are spatially bounded entities when, in fact, communities today are personal and unique to individuals.

      Personal in two senses of the word. First, every person has a personal network to call his/her own, made up of friends, family, and others, who may or may not be living in close proximity to the person. Communities today comprise ties both near and far (Chua et al. 2018). Second, every person is assumed to be responsible for cultivating his/her own network. Rainie and Wellman (2012) put it this way: ‘Networked individualism downloads the responsibility – and the burden – of maintaining personal networks on the individual. Active networking is