It is frequently claimed that cultural agents are necessary to sustain and strengthen the social fabric, to guarantee economic growth and social development and to consolidate knowledge economies based on innovation. These arguments tend to avoid inquiring what kind of sociality these cultural actors are enacting. To address this point, we researched three Mexican midsize cities: Puebla, Tijuana, and Monterrey, between 1984 and 2017. Sociality produced by cultural dynamics, sponsored either by the public (cultural policy) or the private sector (cultural market), is generally characterised by a focus on social order, the construction of local identity, a hygienic view of public space and disempowerment of local actors. Differing from these views, our research has found a new form of sociality that we call ‘rough sociality’, produced by cultural agents from civil society. This sociality is conflictive, ephemeral, spatially bounded and affective, which has implications not only for the cultural work but, most importantly, for the social relations and the being/doing-togetherness that such work may enact and reproduce.
AhmedS (2000) Strange Encounters. Embodied Others in Post-Coloniality. London and New York: Routledge.
2.
Alcaraz-MoralesOSalgado-GalarzaAC (coords) (2015) Patrimonio, turismo y algo más…Mexico City: Universidad Autónoma de Guerrero y Juan Pablos Editor.
3.
AminAThriftN (2002) Cities. Reimagining the Urban. Cambridge: Polity.
4.
AtaçIRygielKStierlM (2021) Building transversal solidarities in European cities: Open harbours, safe communities, home. Critical Sociology. Epub ahead of print 4January2021. DOI: 10.1177/0896920520980522.
5.
BainALLandauF (2017) Artist intermediaries in Berlin: Cultural intermediation as an interscalar strategy of self-organizational survival. Urban Research & Practice11(3): 247–262.
6.
BarsadeSGKnightAP (2015) Group affect. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior2(1): 21–46.
7.
BookmanS (2013) Brands and urban life: Specialty coffee, consumers, and the co-creation of urban café sociality. Space and Culture17(1): 85–99.
8.
BorénTYoungC (2016) Artists and creative city policy: Resistance, the mundane and engagement in Stockholm, Sweden. City, Culture and Society8: 21–26.
9.
BregazziHJacksonM (2018) Agonism, critical political geography, and the new geographies of peace. Progress in Human Geography42(1): 72–91.
10.
CaldeiraTPR (2017) Peripheral urbanization: Autoconstruction, transversal logics, and politics in cities of the global south. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space35(1): 3–20.
11.
CameronSCoaffeeJ (2005) Art, gentrification and regeneration – From artist as pioneer to public arts. European Journal of Housing Policy5(1): 39–58.
12.
Campos-DelgadoAEHernández-HernándezA (2015) Vivir en la frontera. Una mirada a las prácticas socioculturales en la región Tijuana-San Diego. In: Hernández-Hernández A and Campos-Delgado AE (coords)Líneas, límites y colindancias. Mirada a las fronteras desde América Latina. Mexico City: CIESAS and COLEF, pp. 143–176.
13.
CarrizosaP (2021) Talleristas y asistentes del teatro Recek denuncian desaires y desvíos burocráticos por parte del IMACP. La Jornada de Oriente, 4February.
14.
ChangTC (2016) ‘New uses need old buildings’: Gentrification aesthetics and the arts in Singapore. Urban Studies53(3): 524–539.
15.
CohendetPGrandadamDSimonL (2010) The anatomy of the creative city. Industry and Innovation17(1): 91–111.
16.
ComunianR (2011) Rethinking the creative city: The role of complexity, networks and interactions in the urban creative economy. Urban Studies48(6): 1157–1169.
17.
Contreras-DelgadoC (2015) Monterrey a través de sus calles. Una revisión desde las ciencias sociales. Monterrey: CONARTE, COLEF and CONACULTA.
18.
CrangM (2000) Public space, urban space and electronic space: Would the real city please stand up?Urban Studies37(2): 301–317.
19.
DaviesSRSelinCGanoG, et al. (2012) Citizen engagement and urban change: Three case studies of material deliberation. Cities29(6): 351–357.
20.
DekelTMeirAAlfasiN (2019) Formalizing infrastructures, civic networks and production of space: Bedouin informal settlements in Be'er-Sheva metropolis. Land Use Policy81: 91–99.
21.
DeLandaM (2006) A New Philosophy of Society. Assemblage Theory and Social Complexity. London and New York: Continuum.
22.
DuffC (2010) On the role of affect and practice in the production of place. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space28: 881–895.
23.
FloridaR (2017) The New Urban Crisis. Gentrification, Housing Bubbles, Growing Inequality, and What We Can Do About It. London: Oneworld.
24.
FollmannAViehoffV (2014) A green garden on red clay: Creating a new urban common as a form of political gardening in Cologne, Germany. Local Environment20(10): 1148–1174.
25.
García-CancliniN (1995) Mexico: Cultural globalization in a disintegrating city. American Ethnologist22(4): 743–755.
26.
García-CancliniN (1998) ¿Ciudades multiculturales o ciudades segregadas?Debate Feminista17: 3–19.
27.
GibsonC (2003) Cultures at work: Why ‘culture’ matters in research on the ‘cultural’ industries. Social & Cultural Geography4(2): 201–215.
28.
GibsonCHomanS (2004) Urban redevelopment, live music and public space. International Journal of Cultural Policy10(1): 67–84.
29.
GiménezG (2019) Las culturas urbanas como procesos de interculturación generalizada. In: Giménez G and Gutiérrez-Chong N (comp)Las Culturas Hoy. Mexico City: IIS-UNAM, pp. 13–50.
30.
GranovetterMS (1973) The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology78(6): 1360–1380.
31.
GrodachC (2009) Art spaces, public space, and the link to community development. Community Development Journal45(4): 474–493.
32.
GrodachCFosterNMurdochJ (2018) Gentrification, displacement and the arts: Untangling the relationship between arts industries and place change. Urban Studies55(4): 807–825.
33.
HarveyDCHawkinsHThomasNJ (2012) Thinking creative clusters beyond the city: People, places and networks. Geoforum43: 529–539.
34.
HawkinsH (2012) Geography and art. An expanding field: Site, the body and practice. Progress in Human Geography37(1): 52–71.
35.
HawkinsH (2014) For Creative Geographies. Geography, Visual Arts and the Making of Worlds. London and New York: Routledge.
36.
HemmingsC (2005) Invoking affect. Cultural theory and the ontological turn. Cultural Studies19(5): 548–567.
37.
HolstonJ (2009) Insurgent citizenship in an era of global urban peripheries. City & Society21(2): 245–267.
38.
Iglesias-PrietoN (2014) Tijuana provocadora. Transfronteridad y procesos creativos. In: Valenzuela-Arce JM (coord.)Transfronteras. Fronteras del mundo y procesos culturales. México City: COLEF, pp. 97–127.
39.
Ismael-SimentalEKurjenojaALópez CuencaA, et al. (2019) Building the city through culture: Puebla’s cultural urban assemblage (1987–2017). Social & Cultural Geography. Epub ahead of print 2December2019. DOI: 10.1080/14649365.2019.1698759.
40.
JacobsJM (1998) Staging difference: Aestheticization and the politics of difference in contemporary cities. In: FincherRJacobsM (eds) Cities of Difference. New York: Guilford, pp. 252–278.
41.
JovchelovitchSPriego-HernándezJ (2013) Underground Sociabilities. Identity, Culture and Resistance in Rio de Janeiro’s Favelas. Brasilia: UNESCO.
42.
JulierG (2005) Urban designscapes and the production of aesthetic consent. Urban Studies 42(5–6): 869–887.
43.
KathiraveluLBunnellT (2018) Introduction: Urban friendship networks: Affective negotiations and potentialities of care. Urban Studies55(3): 491–504.
44.
LathamALaytonJ (2019) Social infrastructure and the public life of cities: Studying urban sociality and public spaces. Geography Compass13(7): 1–15.
45.
LeyD (2003) Artists, aestheticisation and the field of gentrification. Urban Studies40(12): 2527–2544.
46.
LoboM (2018) Re-framing the creative city: Fragile friendships and affective art spaces in Darwin, Australia. Urban Studies55(3): 623–638.
47.
LongNJMooreHL (eds) (2013) Sociality. New Directions. New York and London: Berghahn Books.
48.
LovellV (2020) Artists and the public spaces of the city. Built Environment46(2): 54–68.
49.
LowS (2017) Spatializing Culture. The Ethnography of Space and Place. London and New York: Routledge.
50.
MadanipourA (2018) Temporary use of space: Urban processes between flexibility, opportunity and precarity. Urban Studies55(5): 1093–1110.
51.
MayblinLValentineGKossakF, et al. (2015) Experimenting with spaces of encounter: Creative interventions to develop meaningful contact. Geoforum63: 67–80.
52.
MbayeJDinardiC (2019) Ins and outs of the cultural polis: Informality, culture and governance in the global South. Urban Studies56(3): 578–593.
53.
Méndez-LlopisC (coord.) (2015) La Otra Ciudad. Recorridos de una Gráfica Disidente. Ciudad Juárez: UACJ.
54.
MerkelJ (2019) ‘Freelance isn’t free.’ Co-working as a critical urban practice to cope with informality in creative labour markets. Urban Studies56(3): 426–547.
55.
MiddletonJ (2018) The socialities of everyday urban walking and the ‘right to the city’. Urban Studies55(2): 296–315.
56.
MilbourneP (2012) Everyday (in)justices and ordinary environmentalisms: Community gardening in disadvantaged urban neighbourhoods. Local Environment17(9): 943–957.
57.
MillerTYúdiceG (2002) Cultural Policy. London: SAGE.
58.
Mubi BrighentiA (2013) Urban Interstices: The Aesthetics and the Politics of the In-between. Farnham: Ashgate.
59.
MüllerA-L (2019) Voices in the city. On the role of arts, artists and urban space for a just city. Cities91: 49–57.
60.
MüllerMTrubinaE (2020) Improvising urban spaces, inhabiting the in-between. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space38(4): 664–681.
61.
MunroIJordanS (2013) ‘Living space’ at the Edinburgh festival fringe: Spatial tactics and the politics of smooth space. Human Relations66(11): 1497–1525.
62.
MurrayMJ (2017) The Urbanism of Exception. The Dynamic of Global City Building in the Twenty-First Century. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
63.
O’ConnorJShawK (2014) What next for the creative city?City, Culture and Society5(3): 165–170.
64.
OkvatHAZautraAJ (2011) Community gardening: A parsimonious path to individual, community, and environmental resilience. American Journal of Community Psychology47: 374–387.
65.
ParkerS (2004) Urban Theory and the Urban Experience. Encountering the City. London: Routledge.
66.
PileS (2010) Emotions and affect in recent human geography. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers35(1): 5–20.
67.
RadiceM (2018) Putting the public in public art: An ethnographic approach to two temporary art installations. City & Society30(1): 45–67.
68.
SennettR (2018) Building and Dwelling. Ethics for the City. London: Allen Lane.
69.
SharmaDTygstrupF (2015) Structures of Feeling. Affectivity and the Study of Culture. Berlin, Munich and Boston: De Gruyter.
70.
SharpJPollockVPaddisonR (2005) Just art for a just city: Public art and social inclusion in urban regeneration. Urban Studies42(5–6): 1001–1023.
71.
ShawK (2005) The place of alternative culture and the politics of its protection in Berlin, Amsterdam and Melbourne. Planning Theory & Practice6(2): 149–169.
72.
StackT (2011) Beyond the state? Civil sociality and other notions of citizenship. Citizenship Studies16(7): 871–885.
73.
TonkissF (2013) Austerity urbanism and the makeshift city. City17(3): 312–324.
74.
TurriniMChicchiF (2013) Precarious subjectivities are not for sale: The loss of the measurability of labour for performing arts workers. Global Discourse 3(3–4): 507–521.
75.
VallanceSDupuisAThornsD, et al. (2017) Temporary use and the onto-politics of ‘public’ space. Cities70: 83–90.
76.
WatsonS (2009) The magic of the marketplace: Sociality in a neglected public space. Urban Studies46(8): 1577–1591.
77.
WatsonS (2015) Mundane objects in the city: Laundry practices and the making and remaking of public/private sociality and space in London and New York. Urban Studies52(5): 876–890.
78.
WolfE (2004) Kinship, friendship and patron–client relations in complex societies. In: BantonM (ed.) Social Anthropology of Complex Societies. London: Routledge, pp. 1–22.
