ABSTRACT
Neighbourhoods such as Kensington are commonly referred to as ‘failed’, ‘problematic’, ‘run down’ etc., as if this were self-evident. Yet these neighbourhood perceptions constitute arbitrary views, no matter how such ‘problem areas’ may appear to the ‘naked eye’. The thing to note about these arbitrary views of Kensington is that their constitution from methodological distance (that is, from the social and spatial distance of the town hall research and statistics office) is what provides them with their legitimacy. Indeed this is what has provided the justification for regeneration initiatives such as ‘housing market renewal’ (HMR), which is discussed in the next part of the book. Suffice it to say, for the time being, that knowledge constituted at such a social and spatial distance from Kensington has no justification for presenting itself as objective. On the contrary it is born of a form of involvement that, as distant, can understand Kensington only through the knowledge that is produced at such a distance. Such knowledge constitutes little more than ‘representations’ that are particular to the positions in social space from which they originate as forms of understanding.
