Berkley Center

The barbed wire-entwined fences, metal spike-clad rock walls, and gated houses with extensive security systems caught my attention during my first week in South Africa. While I run past houses, businesses, and residences decked out with these foreboding accessories every morning, the phenomenon continues to puzzle me. The images force me to question the concept of security. What does it mean to be secure? Is there a difference between being secure and feeling secure? How do the erection of barriers and the outfitting of structures with weapons contribute to or hinder a sense of security within Stellenbosch? How do the security measures taken affect the social cohesion and community structure in the town?

While some deem urbanization a problem that hinders sustainability completely, one cannot ignore the exponential growth in urbanization in recent years. In South Africa in particular, the World Bank approximated that 62 percent of the population lived in urban areas in 2012. The World Health Organization predicts that by 2050, 75 percent of the world’s population will live in cities. Thus, rather than fighting the phenomenon, it is necessary to consider the effect the combination of the natural and built environment in Stellenbosch contributes to the ethos of the town. Urbanization and cities do not refer to the spatial construction and design of buildings and streets only, but rather also address the social interactions and community formation that occurs within an urban center. Cities are about mixing. They demarcate a place where you encounter difference, and civitas arises when an individual develops a sense of belonging—being part of the community. The statement highlights the effect the design and layout of a city have on the level, quality, and sustainability of social cohesion—the sense of civitas—within an area.

The intense security measures I have witnessed around Stellenbosch and within Cape Town prove reminiscent of the apartheid legacy of separation. Walking, running, or driving past a house ensconced by a high gate topped with barbed wire sends a clear message: “Keep out. You are not wanted.” Thus, these security measures do not contribute to or enhance the social cohesion within these urban locations. Although I understand the need to feel safe, the use of barbed wire evokes suspicion. I question what the residents of the houses and owners of the businesses want to keep out. Will it ever be possible to jettison the loss of trust, sense of fear, and suspicion that serve as the impetus for undertaking such severe safety measures?

The erection of barriers creates a definite divide between “us” and “them.” The people within the armed fortresses subconsciously identify individuals without similar amenities as the “other.” The process thwarts attempts to foster and build on a healthy sense of community, for the human-constructed barriers force people not only to view their fellow community members with suspicion but also to question with whom they can and should interact. Security barriers may be viable, but they aren’t sustainable; they may be bearable, but they are not equitable. If cities truly possess the capacity to provoke relations of all kinds, it is necessary to embrace the inhabitants’ common humanity, rather than identifying them by their differences.