Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.14279/30212
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorKouros, Theodoros-
dc.date.accessioned2023-09-12T07:10:26Z-
dc.date.available2023-09-12T07:10:26Z-
dc.date.issued2021-
dc.identifier.citationAnthropology of East Europe Review, 2021, vol. 37, iss. 1en_US
dc.identifier.issn21532931-
dc.identifier.issn10544720-
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/20.500.14279/30212-
dc.description.abstractHome is a nodal point in a series of polarities, including family-community; space-place; inside-outside; private-public; domestic-social. These may not be stable but seem both solidified and undermined as they play out their meaning and practice in and through the home. The “public” is traditionally the state’s domain, while the “private” the citizens’. But where does “private” end and “public” begin? Can a border or boundary be placed between the two? Is such a boundary culture-specific or universal? Is it static or dynamic? Scholars often perceive borders as barriers and bridges, porous and impenetrable, and border studies have shown that urban entities have their own internal and external borders. I argue that such internal urban micro-boundaries can be found in the domain of domestic space, separating the private from the public, and that they are dynamic and constantly negotiated. Not necessarily marked, they are acknowledged by a mutual and tacit agreement, a social and cultural consensus. In this paper, I focus on common expansions of private into public space in Limassol, Cyprus, and the ways in which, this social consensus is achieved through the use of several tactics. As I illustrate, all these tactics seem to transform public space into private, on a symbolic level. The paper’s contribution lies in the examination of this type of boundary, which has received little academic attention, as well as in the introduction of the term “tactics of inhibition.”en_US
dc.language.isoenen_US
dc.relation.ispartofAnthropology of East Europe Reviewen_US
dc.rights© Anthropology of East Europe Reviewen_US
dc.rights.urihttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/*
dc.subjectTactics of inhibitionen_US
dc.subjectSymbolic boundariesen_US
dc.subjectDomestic spaceen_US
dc.subjectUrban sidewalken_US
dc.subjectCyprusen_US
dc.titleWhose Sidewalk?en_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
dc.collaborationUniversity of Cyprusen_US
dc.subject.categorySOCIAL SCIENCESen_US
dc.journalsOpen Accessen_US
dc.countryCyprusen_US
dc.subject.fieldSocial Sciencesen_US
dc.publicationPeer Revieweden_US
dc.identifier.doi10.14434/aeer.v37i1.32020en_US
dc.identifier.urlhttp://dx.doi.org/10.14434/aeer.v37i1.32020-
dc.relation.issue1en_US
dc.relation.volume37en_US
cut.common.academicyear2021-2022en_US
dc.identifier.external116128064-
item.languageiso639-1en-
item.openairecristypehttp://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_6501-
item.fulltextNo Fulltext-
item.grantfulltextnone-
item.openairetypearticle-
item.cerifentitytypePublications-
crisitem.author.deptDepartment of Communication and Internet Studies-
crisitem.author.facultyFaculty of Communication and Media Studies-
crisitem.author.orcid0000-0003-2742-1158-
crisitem.author.parentorgFaculty of Communication and Media Studies-
Appears in Collections:Άρθρα/Articles
CORE Recommender
Show simple item record

Page view(s)

114
Last Week
4
Last month
5
checked on Jul 26, 2024

Google ScholarTM

Check

Altmetric


This item is licensed under a Creative Commons License Creative Commons