Weaving territory: scenes of accusation and social unmixing in children’s drawings of their neighborhoods ^{1 2 3 4}

Abstract

This study analyzed the drawings of 92 children representing their neighborhoods in Curitiba, Brazil, noticing the differences depending on where they live (south/far south) and where they are (center/outskirt). We concluded that children from a south neighborhood and part of the city’s far south showed varied and personalized spaces, demonstrating a non-social mixing while using the neighborhood. On the other hand, children from the farthest part in the far south complained about sedentariness and subalternity toward the space shared with adults, and hostile people and locations; school seems central to those. Thus, in general, children in the research highlight that territory is woven in the web of human interdependencies, contrived from different gradients of power and status, according to the roles played by children and their families play in the configuration of neighborhoods and the city.

Keywords
child; neighborhood; drawing; spatial mobility; social mixing

Resumo

Discutem-se aqui as representações que 92 crianças da Rede Municipal de Ensino de Curitiba fazem sobre os seus bairros de moradia, verificando diferenças a depender do bairro em que moram (sul/extremo sul) e da parte dele em que estão (central/periférica). Conclui-se que crianças do sul e da parte central do extremo sul utilizam espaços variados, mas bem personalizados, demonstrando uma não mistura social. Já crianças da parte periférica do bairro do extremo sul denunciam o sedentarismo e a subalternidade da partilha do espaço com adultos, pessoas e locais hostis; para estas a escola aparece como central. Assim, de modo geral, as crianças da pesquisa evidenciam que o território é tecido nas urdiduras das interdependências humanas, tramado a partir de diferentes gradientes de poder e status e de acordo com as posições que elas e suas famílias ocupam na configuração do bairro e da cidade.

Palavras-chave
criança; bairro; desenho; mobilidade espacial; mistura social

Resumen

Este artículo ofrece una discusión a partir de las representaciones que 92 peques de la Red Municipal de Ensino de Curitiba hacen acerca de sus barrios, señalando diferencias según cada uno de los barrios en los que viven (al sur/al extremo sur) y de las zonas en las que se desplazan (centro/periferia). Se concluye que los peques que viven al sur y de la zona central del extremo sur utilizan espacios múltiples y a la vez personalizados, lo que refuerza una no mezcla social. Sin embargo, los niños de la zona periférica del barrio del extremo sur denuncian el sedentarismo y la subordinación delante de la posibilidad de compartir los espacios con los adultos, personas y locales hostiles; para ellos la escuela aparece como central. Así, en general, los peques ponen énfasis acerca de cómo el territorio es tejido en las urdimbres de las interdependencias humanas, una tela hecha de distintos gradientes de poder y status, mediante las posiciones que los chavales y sus familias ocupan en la configuración del barrio y de la ciudad.

Palabras clave
peques; barrio; dibujo; movilidad espacial; mezcla social

Introduction

This text discusses data from a research study that has been trying to understand the influence of spatial dimension -especially the neighborhood space- in children’s networks of interdependencies. The starting point is the understanding that space is neither a scenario that simply reflects economic, political, and social aspects nor an autonomous category because there is a fine line between spatial forms and social hierarchy. Thus, we consider space as both produced by people and as leaving its mark on societies. Its influence is not deterministic but probabilistic and, many times, unpredictable (Remy, 2015). We understand ‘neighborhood’ as “a producing entity owning unique properties that affect ‘the course of human actions’, and, especially, on individuals’ ways of inhabiting and cohabiting”. (Authier, 2006, p. 209⁵).

In turn, the territory is seen “from a focus on power relations, either power in its most strictly material effects, in a political-economic sphere (…), or in its more symbolic, cultural articulation” (Haesbaert & Mondardo, 2010, p. 30), such as the concept of landscape, also inherently connected to the notions of power and status (Robertson and Richards in FINN, 2010).

We also propose that the analysis of children’s experiences in space should be carried out from the understanding of children are in social figurations. Elias develops this concept of figuration (for instance in 1994a, 2008) as a solution to the dichotomy in the sociological field of studying reality either focusing on the analyses of society, as a generic abstract entity, or on the individual, as someone who acts independently from the social realm. Therefore, to rupture with these analyses that separate individual and society, Elias proposed the understanding of individuals –including children– as interdependent, in networks forming social figurations.

For the author, these networks are not only strong, tensioning individuals’ lives, but also elastic enough to give them the freedom to choose and bypass. In this study, it is not possible to explain the relationship between children and the urban environment without analyzing the webs of relations they keep with the people they live with, the different places they attend, and the tactics and resistances they produce in their everyday experiences in space. We need to consider both the power relations, the pressures and tensions that happen in their networks (related to space itself, class, gender, race, and other issues), and the fact that each child creates his/her meanings, and makes different choices before the pressures in his/her network.

From this understanding, we carried out a multiscale research study, producing quantitative and qualitative data and safeguarding ethical aspects of research with children⁶. From a quantitative view, we worked with a questionnaire distributed to 1,600 families of children who studied in public schools in Curitiba, aiming to have a global perspective of a large number of city neighborhoods and to explain to the families the research we wished to conduct with the children. This text is going to bring, when appropriate, some of these quantitative data. For the qualitative data, we had talks with some children in the schools, photographed and observed the neighborhoods, and the children drew the neighborhoods they lived in.

In this text, we analyze some drawings produced and, when appropriate, some quantitative data. The latter will help establish children’s spatial configuration⁷ and highlight the dissonances and consonances between what adults believed to be children’s use of the neighborhood and what children reported doing through their drawings.

As for drawings, they are understood herein as cultural artifacts (Gobbi, 2014a), documents that bring important clues about configurations. They may be observed -somewhat as Elias (1994b) did when analyzing manuals on table manners- as bringing typical aspects of a given society, its tensions, traditions, taboos, and customs. In short, as emotion and behavior testimonies of a given time offered by those producing them.

The objective of this text is to unveil how the children depicted the neighborhoods they lived in, questioning if there are representation differences, depending on their place in the neighborhood and the city. What did children tell about the territories they drew? What clues did they reveal about their social configurations?

To explain the selection criteria of drawings, first we need to explain some methodological aspects of the general research study. To produce the study’s quantitative data, we selected one neighborhood from each of the nine boroughs in the city of Curitiba at the time (nowadays, the city has ten administrative boroughs). Then, we chose three public schools situated in different regions within this neighborhood. One school well-located in the neighborhood (close to stores and major avenues, access to buses, and other important facilities in the neighborhood center), called Profile 1 in the study. A second school located in a more distant part of the neighborhood (with few facilities, far from major avenues, and/or in spaces that are considered regions of social vulnerability or slums) called Profile 3 in the study. A third intermediate school, neither very near nor very far from the neighborhood center, is called Profile 2 in the study.

The families responded to the questionnaire based on their children enrolled in the 4^th and 5^th Years of Elementary School (aged from 9 to 11). After that, in a second visit to the schools, while these children were drawing pictures about their neighborhoods (using the methodology that will be explained soon), some of them talked to researchers.

Therefore, the drawing selection is related to some analyses conducted in the quantitative part of the research. The first analysis was called “inter-neighborhoods” (Ferreira & Ferreira, 2020) and grouped the profile data of the three neighborhoods, revealing meaningful differences among the neighborhoods. In that analysis, it was evident that children who lived in the northern and central regions of the city (and neighborhoods with better socioeconomic statuses and more white families), had very different experiences from those from the south and far south (with lower-income neighborhoods and more black families). The former had at their disposal a greater variety of consolidated spaces of leisure and culture (parks, museums, theater, etc.), and greater spatial mobility to close neighborhoods and the city, among other aspects that will be discussed when necessary. The children from the south and far south had more autonomy to circulate in their neighborhood region but attended fewer spaces outside it, thus, mobility only inside the neighborhood.

Regarding the intra-neighborhood data (existing differences in each neighborhood), the study also demonstrated great differences (Ferreira & Fernandes, in press). While many Profile 3 children (from the more distant region in the neighborhood) traveled alone and on foot with certain autonomy and thus got closer to the neighborhood’s everyday life, those in Profile 1, and to a certain extent those in Profile 2 (from more central regions in the neighborhood), traveled more often with adults and by car. Profile 3 children also pointed out serious hindrances to a greater mobility within the neighborhood, related to drug dealing and violence, which imposes this relative autonomy. We made other analyses from quantitative data that showed important aspects that directly tension children’s interdependence networks, such as inequalities of gender (Ferreira & Fiorese, 2021), race (Santos et al., 2019), time living in the neighborhood, and the families’ geographical origin (Ferreira et al., 2018).

Based on such unequal data among the city neighborhoods and even within the same neighborhood, we chose to work, in this text, with drawings of children who live in the south and far south of the city from Profiles 1 and 3. We chose to understand their neighborhood in a part of the city that lacks consolidated spaces for leisure and culture (parks, theaters, etc.). We also wanted to analyze the types of difference exist between those from the south region (closer to lower income classes) to those in the far south, with a higher rate of lower income families from living in even more unsafe and unequal situations (unemployment, housing instability, unhealthy conditions, etc.). By looking at the neighborhood itself, we can also understand if cultural contexts are different from those living in its central area (Profile 1) or in the poor outskirts (Profile 3). Thus, we selected 92 children’s drawings from Profiles 1 and 3 (23 drawings from each profile⁸) in the south boroughs (Neighborhood of Xaxim in Boqueirão borough) and in the far south (Neighborhood of Tatuquara, currently in the Tatuquara borough).

As for the drawing methodology, the children were asked to draw the neighborhoods they lived in as if they were presenting the neighborhood to someone who did not know it. Very few of them did not want to draw and chose to write). The drawings were so interesting that we chose to bring excerpts of each depiction in this text, this way reader can a small part of each child’s work, and relate the drawings to the methodology used in the general research study emerged from profiles, neighborhoods, and boroughs. At another moment, we will work with a fewer number of drawings analyzing them entirely, and associating them with the conversations with the children.

Interpreting what children draw is not an easy task. For a long time, there was a predominance of analyses that tried to relate children’s drawing – stronger or weaker lines, color choices – with their development or psychological state. Cognitivist or essentialist interpretations started from the idea that “drawing would naturally go through stages of development, predictable in some ways, according to the age range” (Gobbi, 2014b, p.151). However, nowadays, studies in Sociology and Anthropology have been presenting “fruitful contributions that can contrapose and problematize certain aspects concerning psychological studies, which prevailed for a long period” (p. 151). Regarding children’s drawings about space, the fields of Geography, Architecture, and Urban Sociology have also invested in this type of methodology.

Researchers identified with childhood studies consider drawing an important methodology to carefully listen what children have to say (Gobbi, 1997, 2014a e b; Sarmento, 2011, among others). On one hand, we cannot interpret drawings with an adult logic but from a child’s perspective, as they interpret and represent the world. In the other hand, we cannot interpret the drawing out of context but to consider the production time and space. This means, for this research – and maybe this can be a contribution to the field – that it is possible to analyze drawings as an expression of a social configuration. In this pathway, we can deal with relationships, tensions, and power accumulation typical of children’s networks in this historic moment, their choices, and positions faced with these pressures. Therefore, the data from the drawings herein presented must remain open to other possible interpretations.

Contextualizing some socioeconomic aspects of children’s neighborhoods in the research

Overall, the average monthly income of permanent private households in Curitiba was 4.5 minimum wage (IBGE, 2010). Families with higher monthly income were located in the city’s downtown area, according to the map from IPPUC (Urban Planning and Research Department of Curitiba) produced with IBGE data (IPPUC, 2012). Average-income families were in the downtown area, in the north, and a little below downtown. Those with lower incomes, on the other hand, were found in the borders of the city and, more markedly, in the south and far south. Data obtained from the questionnaires with the families coincided with this situation. Regarding the neighborhoods we analyzed, families from the neighborhood Xaxim in the south, as expected, presented higher income than those from Tatuquara in the far south. Analyzing by profile, Profiles 1 and 3 from the south along with Profile 1 from the far south presented higher income than Profile 3 in the far south (situated in a region of greater poverty).

Regarding racial aspects, both Curitiba’s general data (DIEESE -Inter-union Department of Statistics and Socioeconomic Research-, 2016, from aggregated neighborhoods), and those from the questionnaires show that the neighborhoods with a higher number of black residents (summing up the categories black and mixed-race - pardo in Portuguese) were situated in the south, far south, southwest and southeast of the city. In Xaxim, south, the percentage of black children was 28.4%, in Tatuquara, far south, it was 34.5%. As families’ educational level, Xaxim’s grandparents and parents had higher schooling than those in Tatuquara.

About time of residency in the neighborhood, Xaxim presented a higher rate of families who have been there long (it is an older neighborhood in the city). Before living there, they came mostly from other neighborhoods in Curitiba. On the other hand, Tatuquara families were more recent residents (the neighborhood is also more recent). Before this neighborhood, many families came from surrounding cities and other cities in the state of Paraná. About profiles, overall, Profile 3 families were more recent residents and Profile 1 older ones.

In this way, a first scenario is outlined which needs to be considered in the drawings analyses. In general, children who drew the neighborhood of Xaxim (11 kilometers from downtown) had higher incomes, more schooled parents, families who lived longer in the neighborhood, and a lower rate of black families when compared to Tatuquara residents, which is 20 kilometers from downtown, in the far south.

The data follow this same direction regarding the place in the neighborhood where children lived. Children’s families, who lived in the central areas of the neighborhoods (Profile 1), in general , had a higher level of education and schooling. There were also fewer black people in the area when compared to families from more distant areas (Profile 3).

“Unmixed” landscapes

In many aspects, children’s perspective depicted in the drawings was different from that of adults. They claimed their space, questioned the established image of the neighborhood, and expressed their spatial experiences. However, the drawings also showed differences depending on the region of the city and of the neighborhood they lived. Here, we will analyze in detail these differences, based on the aspects they chose to draw and present the neighborhood.

Commerce

The use of neighborhood commerce coincided in the views of adults and children views. We knew, due to the quantitative research, that children frequented the neighborhood commerce, and that the more southern you would go, the more small businesses gained prominence and the lower the attendance in these places. This was also seen in children’s drawings.

Overall, commercial spaces appeared in 81.5% of the drawings. Many of the places mentioned were, obviously, those that interest children, such as the kite and firework store, the candy shop, and the bakery. The latter was the most drawn business after grocery stores. However, we find differences when we observe the drawings by profile or region. Whereas Profiles 1 and 3 in the south and Profile 1 in the far south included shops in most drawings, only half of the drawings from Profile 3 in the far south portrayed them.

Profile 1 children from Xaxim usually presented the neighborhood between major avenues and large and well-known stores. On the other hand, Profile 3 children, from the same neighborhood but living in a more distant area, drew small businesses in detail. See below some excerpts of drawings that showed the variety of stores in this south neighborhood:

In Tatuquara, far south of the city, big stores or shopping malls no longer appeared. The places were named more generically (“grocery store” and “shoe store”). In the Profile 1 drawings, the small shops compete for space with a multitude of houses, as we will see later. In Profile 3 drawings, there were few depictions of commercial spaces. See below some excerpts:

Children repeatedly drew bakeries were drawn, coinciding with the quantitative data. The questionnaires showed that 79.3% of children went alone and with friends to only to one place in the neighborhood, in 61% of these cases this outing was to bakeries. Profile 3 children in the south and Profile 1 in the far south were the ones who largely depicted this space with several details, as it can be seen in the following drawings:

Grocery stores appeared often and were drawn as central elements or the only elements in many of them (twice as many, in the case of Profile 1). Whereas Profile 1 in the south only drew big grocery stores, both Profile 3 in the same neighborhood and Profile 1 in the far south drew small neighborhood grocery stores. Profile 3 in the far south, on the other hand, seldom drew this type of business (among those who did, it was simply called “grocery store”). There were 13, 9, and 20 drawings with grocery stores in the first cases and only 4 for Profile 3 in the far south.

Though families mentioned shopping malls in the questionnaires as the most visited place of all in the city (72.9% of families said that their children used to go there), they were not commonly depicted in the drawings. Only the south children did so, since they have a small shopping mall nearby (Shopping & Sports) but also a low number 28.2%. Profile 1 children in that neighborhood, with higher income, drew it three times more than those in Profile 3 in the same neighborhood. Nevertheless, in some aspect, the mall would be an interstitial space, in which children from both profiles could meet. Only one child from the far south drew it.

When we observe the people included in the drawings, which seemed to give the neighborhood real life, most scenes depicted people entering or leaving commercial buildings. South children drew twice as many people in this trade situation when compared to those in the far south.

What we have seen so far is that presenting the neighborhood indicates that children’s choices to present their neighborhood from its commerce is typical of their historical moment, a consumerist culture (Featherstone, 1995). However, the drawings have also shown that the further the families live in the neighborhood or the city families, the less they participate in these consumer performances and the specific cultural codes of that society.

So, what influence do certain symbols and commercial spaces have in children’s networks of interdependencies? For instance, Profile 1 children in the south told researchers that they went to the movie theater and the bowling alley in the mall, and saved money for such outings. Therefore, they used to go to a homogenous (as for the constant light, the smells, the landscape) and safe space. However, this is private security that controls who can enter, and who must leave, as we can perceive from the different stories of low-income children and youngsters, who were forbidden to enter. The use of such private spaces, with no history or memory related to community life, and that does not promote diversity ends up transmitting social and economic meanings woven into children’s networks of interdependencies. Something similar happens to some storeowners drawn by the children. While they circulate political ideals in WhatsApp groups, for instance, they gain visibility because of the great influence these stores have within the neighborhoods.

In general, Profile 1 children used to go to different spaces than those from Profile 3 in the same neighborhood. Some went to pet stores, others to poultry stores; some went to Havan – a large department store-, others to a small neighborhood stores. We may think about networks of interaction and interdependencies that promote certain social and physical escapism (Castells, 1999), a separation from more modest people and populational groups. Thus, we would have personalized routes and “unmixed” spaces, that is, in which social mixing among children with different incomes, races, or neighborhood regions are almost nonexistent.

One last aspect to consider is that there does not seem to be spaces in the neighborhood for flânerie, the “gastronomy of the eye” (Balzac, quoted by Paquot, 2009, p. 108), or for meeting and for collective practices. If “the choice for open and welcoming urban spaces is a political act” (Paquot, 2009, p. 105), in general, the neighborhoods are lacking in this aspect. Overall, the neighborhoods are lacking a city development with use value and not exchange value⁹, as Lefebvre (2008) reminded us when he defended the right of everyone to the city back in the 1960s.

Streets and avenues

Jane Jacobs, a feminist journalist and great scholar of city life, argued back in the 1960s about the importance of the use of streets and sidewalks for people’s interaction in the neighborhood and in the city. For her, “no normal person can spend his life in some artificial haven, and this includes children. Everyone must use the streets” (2011 p. 36). However, in great cities’ realities, though children’s use of streets and sidewalks has become increasingly restricted (Huguenin-Richard, 2010), most children drew streets (70%). Some of the streets depicted by them were extremely busy, near shopping malls and grocery stores, whereas others were narrow and surrounded by small businesses. Only Profile 1 children from Xaxim, south named their home streets or very busy streets (60.8% of cases), demonstrating the importance of this information for the neighborhood depiction. The other profiles did not write street names.

Whereas Profile 3 children in the far south drew streets in only half of the cases, in the other three profiles nearly 80% of children drew them. This limited presence of streets depicted by children who lived in a great poverty region seems to demonstrate not only that streets, crossings and avenues did not compose their everyday landscape, but also that streets were not safe spaces. At the end of this text, other pieces of information about this profile’s drawings will deepen this analysis. For now, we should turn to Jacobs on the issue of security on the streets and sidewalks: “When people say that a city, or a part of it, is dangerous or is a jungle what they mean primarily is that they do not feel safe on the sidewalks” (Jacobs, 2011, p. 30). For the author, a safe sidewalk would be one that has “users on it fairly continuously” adding to “the number of effective eyes” of shopkeepers and residents who would watch those spaces “as continuously as possible” (p. 35-36).

The children who drew streets to compose the neighborhood depiction did it in a rich and detailed way, causing intense feelings in the observer. The four following drawings show the street as one of the landscape’s central elements. The first, in the south of the city, illustrates one of the most important and central streets in the neighborhood and the landscape causes the feeling of intense movement and noise. The second, in a more distant region in the same neighborhood, shows streets, buildings, a river, and a bridge (recurrent in this profile’s drawings), with water as a powerful visual impression. The third drawing, in the far south of the city, depicts streets, a river, and two small bridges amidst human overpopulation in that part of the neighborhood (which will be further analyzed), causing a feeling of compression. The fourth one shows a street with flowerbeds, a walkway, houses, and green areas, creating a feeling of functionality and organization of space by a great avenue.

When analyzing the people included in the drawings, they emerge on the streets, either waking, listening to music, or doing other actions. However, it is interesting to see that we could only identify this on Profile 3 drawings (out of 5 drawings, four were from Profile 3 far south). On the one hand, this might indicate an interesting neighborhood appropriation, smaller and safer streets where children could circulate. On the other hand, these actions seem to occur in specific places in the neighborhood (maybe sidewalks in front of a condominium, or a square), this might indicate that they are pushed out of their cramped houses and tiny pieces of land, as we will see further. The absence of people in Profile 1 drawings may indicate that, by living close to major avenues, such places end up being avoided by children, or that what they know about the streets is based on cars, with little experience as pedestrians. We can also imagine, such as in the case of Profile 1 drawing from the south (above), that there is a certain child’s apprehension to cross the street (drawn in the landscape center), who is depicted as very small between the grocery store Big, the large businesses nearby, and an avenue.

Regarding mobility around the neighborhood and out of it, several drawings included a regular bus stop or a tubular bus stop (typical bus stop of the city – tubo de ligeirinho in Portuguese). Among the profiles, Profile 1 children in the south drew only one bus stop, which could indicate that the children moved around the neighborhood by car more often, confirmed by the drawings of high-speed vehicles. The low incidence of bus stops by Profile 3 children in the far south might indicate the isolation (or containment) of families in the poverty threshold in the neighborhood itself. The other two profiles (Profile 3 in the south and Profile 1 in the far south) were the ones that drew most regular stops, tubular stops, and bus terminals, with various details and precision.

As for other means of transportation, south children drew twice as many cars when compared to the ones from the far south. Profile 1 also drew twice as many cars when compared to Profile 3. On the other hand, whereas Profile 1 children drew two bicycles, Profile 3 drew five, and a wheelchair user, as it can be observed in the bellow:

The street, which could be drawn statically, comes to life in children’s depictions, showing the journeys children know, their apprehensions, and in the end, the lack of circulation in certain neighborhoods. However, another aspect seems to be highlighted. Faced with our current moment, in which mobility has become a capital (VIARD, 2011), people who may move around, who live in central areas, or who count on good transportation systems, are considered hypermobile. On the other hand, there are those who do not have many transportation possibilities, as seems to be the case of Profile 3 children from the far south whose families live in distant places with difficult access in hierarchically subordinated areas, and who feel symbolically and spatially segregated. The children mentioned problems with public transportation, and reported the lack of money for fuel, the lack of adequate bike lanes, and bicycle thefts. This is confirmed in the following section.

Housing

Nearly half of the children included houses in their neighborhood landscape. Children from the south drew fewer houses than those from the far south (36.9% against 58,6%)). In three far south drawings (Profile 3), grandparents’ houses appeared as the central or only aspect in the drawings, confirming that those have been important people in children’s networks of interdependencies. On the other hand, choosing to present the neighborhood from their grandparents’ houses may also give clues that their daily routines are spatially restricted, going from school to their grandparents’ houses and vice versa, as confirmed in many talks.

South children drew far fewer houses than those from the far south (36.9% against 58.6%). Drawings from the south portrayed diverse business places, with few houses. When houses appeared, as we will see in the following drawings, they were often far apart from each other. On the other hand, far south Profile 1 children drew a very large number of houses among businesses, demonstrating a repetitive landscape with standardized houses, side by side, in a tense scenario. Some Profile 3 children also drew this type of landscape, but others depicted their houses in a deserted scenario, far from everything or everyone.

Specifically, in this last Profile, 40% of the drawings depict only one place as the neighborhood representative (for instance, the house, the school, the woods, the mall, the skate park, the bakery, and the middle school building), raising some questions about why the neighborhood depiction lies on one specific aspect and not in a more diversified and geographically extended way. Did they not know much about the neighborhood? Was the place they lived more populated by houses, schools, and few commercial spaces? Did the idea of representing the neighborhood have the same meaning as did to other children? These hypotheses make some sense when added to violence issues that deprive children of leaving home, as reported by many of them.

The isolated space also reveals that there is a political choice to build low-income housing far from the city’s urban area, without adequate infrastructure (Carvalho, 2014; Fonseca, 2019). Thus, in the following drawings, it is clear that the further one goes from south, the more the children denounce this repetition and landscape homogeneity. When we reach the far south Profile 3, the child depicts only his/her house and that of the neighbors next door.

The issue of housing is problematic in cities all around Brazil. In Curitiba, the housing deficit is large¹⁰, and poor families are often forced to the borders or to the south and far south¹¹. As Rolnik (2017, p. 141) asserts, “there is no city that works when its qualities are privileges for the few and most people are condemned to live in ‘city annexes’”.

Thus, there seems to be a denouncement of the overpopulation of people and houses in far south children’s drawings. This neighborhood overpopulation produces several problems reported or drawn by them (some of them will be seen ahead). Hence, whereas south children’s networks of interdependencies could be woven while preserving a little more of their privacy, as there was space between houses and lands were wider, in many cases, far south children had their private lives publicized because neighbors can hear what is discussed at home. Thus, children reported embarrassment and impatience about the degree of interpenetration between public and private.

Institutions

In the quantitative research, several institutions were mentioned. Whereas Profile 1 children (Profile 2, in some cases) attended many of them in their own neighborhood or in the city (many private ones), those in Profile 3 used to do far fewer activities and many of them were projects connected to NGOs. The further south, the less variety of institutions.

In the case of the drawings, the diversity of places and institutions represented by the children in the first three profiles (1 and 2 in the south, and 1 in the far south) highlighted the experience of “multiterritorialities”, whereas far south Profile 3 children had far fewer diversified experiences. About this multiple character of culture and its territories, and the varied terms that demonstrate this movement, Haesbaert and Mondarlo (2010) pondered that they seem to arise “at the moment in which the intensification of mobility and the multiplicity of space configure a great potential for trades in cultural scales that point to a ‘new’ socio-spatial reality, revealing of this reinvention of territorialities” (p. 21). Considering children’s networks of interdependencies, this variety of institutions also means that children have to deal with different contradictions and tensions, an issue that will not be discussed here.

Composing this multiplicity of territories, the neighborhood institutions were spaces that, for many children, seemed to constitute strong identity marks. Thus, after commercial spaces, streets and houses, the most depicted place was the school (sometimes a day care center or a state school nearby, etc.). Far south Profile 3 children also drew more than twice as many schools when compared to the other three profiles, demonstrating the centrality of schools for them, and their relationship with the neighborhood (there were 17 drawings in this profile, against the average of seven for the others). Profile 3 children were both the only ones who drew people attending the school, and those who more often drew people working at school or in other establishments¹² (10 drawings against 2 from Profile 1).

Another institution depicted is the Church. Whereas it appeared as the second most attended place in the neighborhood in the questionnaires (70.9%, second only to shopping malls), in the drawings only 17.3% of children included it. Profile 3 south and Profile 1 far south drew churches more often (Profile 3 south drew churches in nearly half of the drawings, most of them were appointed as “Catholic”). On the extremes, Profile 1 south drew only one church, and Profile 3 far south drew none, which was a surprise, because in the talks with children, in the questionnaire data, and in the neighborhood photographs, churches of different denominations are always very present, especially in Profile 3 regions.

Farol do Saber (Knowledge Lighthouse), a space in Curitiba that houses a community library, was drawn only by south children, and the Public Health Clinic was much more depicted by far south children (yet by Profile 1).

Another space that was highly depicted by the children was the fitness center, which demonstrates not only the value given by contemporary society to aesthetics and health, but also to fighting and self-defense sports. These were mostly drawn based on private spaces more (fitness centers in a shopping mall, for instance) than it was on public spaces (e.g. outdoor fitness centers, with exercise equipment targeting adults and senior citizens, a standard in several neighborhoods in the city). Whereas south children drew five private spaces and no public one, in the far south Profile 1, they were divided between public and private (six drawings of private spaces versus three of public), and Profile 3 drew only one public space.

Even though the children in each profile drew institutions according to the neighborhood area they lived (their schools, Farol do Saber, their Public Health Clinic), it was different with fitness centers. Both south Profiles 1 and 3, and far south Profile 1 drew the same fitness center in the shopping mall (just as what happened with the shopping mall itself, seen in the item about commerce). Therefore, we imagine this could be a place that integrates people from different neighborhood regions or even neighborhoods. However, this integration would only happen among those who could afford the activity, that is, it would be another space that promotes homogeneity and not diversification. About this, we should remember that “it is in the public spaces that the ‘self’ experiences the ‘other’. It is in these so-called public spaces that each one perceives, in the strangeness of the ‘other’, the guarantee of his/her own difference” (Paquot, 2009, p. 7).

In this way, it becomes more and more difficult to suppose a possible social mixing among children from different areas meeting at the same place from these institutions. The experienced multi-territorialities seem to compose a palette of places and journeys that are very personalized and do not coincide among most of the profiles.

Squares, courts, and playgrounds

Different studies have shown that children have been excluded from the streets, the sidewalks, and public spaces in general. Either they have been confined to their houses, or they attend private spaces more often (Lehman-Frisch et al., 2012). In this scenario, where in the neighborhood can they play? In the quantitative research with families, when we asked about children’s activities and games after school, most families said that the children played at home and watched TV, more than they played on the street. Many families included in the questionnaire that they could not let their children go out by themselves because the neighborhood was dangerous (“we can’t let them go even to the playground because security is awful. Our only possibility is staying indoors- questionnaire n.740, far south)”.

In the drawings, data followed the same direction: only 17.3% of children included playgrounds in the landscape. Regarding the regions, far south children drew these spaces three times more than those from the south. However, Profile 3 far south was responsible for most of the drawings, demonstrating that those children use these places in their favor as much as they can, considering the bareness of the neighborhood.

About the people included in the drawings, after the commerce (29 people) and people on the streets (18 people), there are children playing but only 12 children, in most cases drawn by Profile 3. The playground near the shopping mall seems to be a territory shared by south Profiles 1 and 3 (check the previous first two drawings, with the tree and the tire), as well as, possibly, the square drawn by far south children.

Some children also remembered about the squares, showing that, when there are no parks in the neighborhood (unlike the northern and central regions of the city, which have many green spaces), squares are one of the few spaces they can count on. According to Jacobs (2011), a square or a park is successful when it is used at different times during the day, by a very diversified neighborhood, and the spaces themselves are really varied, offering different activities, which makes them secure. In the questionnaire data, the frequency to squares was one of the lowest (only 43.4%). In the drawings, only 10.8% of the children included them (four drawings in the south and six in the far south).

Drawings of two far south Profile 3 children indicated a happy landscape in a skate park in the region, which demonstrates an intense use, and a network of friends:

Regarding sidewalks, Jacobs (2011) said that if they were wider, very attractive and safe for children, there would be no need to provide separate spaces for them, such as parks and squares. According to the author, the latter did not perceive adults’ attentive look, as it occurred on the sidewalks (children playing under the watch of storekeepers, neighbors, and passers-by). However, in the current cities, sidewalks commonly remain narrow and dangerous. In children’s drawings, sidewalks were almost not included, and when they were, they did not seem safe. Other experiences in those spaces will also be discussed in the last section.

Denouncement landscapes

A final aspect to be highlighted, and perhaps one of the most difficult, is that several drawings depicted very objective denouncements of neighborhood problems. South Profile 1 children, for instance, while presenting an active business life in the region, also drew very small children on the sidewalks, in front of large buildings and very busy avenues. In those drawings, the streets seem to be used by high-speed cars in a “perspective of movement” (Lynch, 1997). On the other hand, south Profile 3, besides depicting these streets as somewhat intimidating (in one of the drawings, there is even a car accident in front of the grocery store), brought another concerning aspect: the security issue. Houses and businesses are surrounded by walls, fences, or with garage doors closed. In one of the drawings, the neighborhood is depicted as a house surrounded by a strong fence plus an electric fence beside a car wash. In another drawing, there are several gated houses with gates and a house with a leashed dog, which may indicate that the dog would guard the house. The house beside it has a fence with sharp spikes on top, confirming the concern with security. As reported by many children because of this worrying territory, they spend a long time confined and isolated at home, which may contribute to inflate their private lives and set back their public lives.

In Tatuquara’s far south Profile 1, the very busy streets decrease significantly in number, but the concerns with security appear much more than in south Profile 3. Almost all the houses were drawn with very evident gates. The police station appeared in five drawings. The insistence of indicating the “junkyard” amid other unidentified houses makes us question if it might be a hostile place to children, or, at least that children are aware of it. The houses are so close that everyone hears not only the conversations, but also the fights and conflicts. In this case, private life seems to set back, because much of what is private becomes public.

In Tatuquara’s Profile 3, problems were even bigger. In addition to strong fences surrounding the houses and confined children alone, two other drawings (made by a girl and by a boy) were even more shocking and seem to question the lack of security in the neighborhood. Even though both drawings are full of important information about the neighborhood’s culture, such as (legal or illegal) graffiti and Brazilian Funk music, they also contained images of robbery and drug use, composing a denouncement landscape. Something in the interstice between culture and fear created an ironic and subversive scene that seemed to question the dominant view of the neighborhood. Thus, the children demanded the possibility of showing another landscape, hardly highlighted by the media, which has strengthened a predominantly white, and middle and upper-class public space when showing city neighborhoods. Perhaps through this tactics they are poetizing the space (Claval, 2020), as the Curitiba writer Dalton Trevisan (2003) asserts: “nothing like your official posh chauvinist Curitiba (…) about the other I know, John’s love chops blessed Mary¹³".

These tensions also appeared in part of the observations reported in the questionnaires, when families talked about these dangerous situations experienced in the neighborhood. They appeared even more strongly in the conversation with children, when the problems related to drug dealing, robberies and deaths were always reported as major impediments for them to leave the house and to use the neighborhood as they wished.

Another element was loud music. In three drawings, loud music seems to be a complicated issue for the community. As the houses they live are too close to each other, are small, and in small plots, many residents use the front of their houses or the street as a socializing spaces, leading to arguments. Such tensions also appeared in the following drawings:

Thus, these children’s networks of interdependencies expressed various layers of tension in the use of space, related to practices and customs, tastes and language (clothing, swearing, Brazilian Funk music -perhaps not accepted by everyone-, and how to listen to it). Thus, they seem to question their own subaltern positions toward space shared with adults, youngsters, and people/places related to violence. What is the repercussion of this feeling of dispossession of public space in their lives? How are their networks being woven in such stigmatized spaces?

Considering the amount of prejudice and fear that accompany discrimination and bolster it, overcoming residential discrimination is just that much harder if people feel unsafe on their sidewalks anyway. Overcoming residential discrimination comes hard where people have no means of keeping a civilized public life on a basically dignified public footing, and their private lives on a private footing

(Jacobs, 2011, p. 77).

The answer seems to be in the landscapes drawn. These show the different status of children’s experiences in the neighborhoods and the different gradients of power at stake in each of their networks. in order to deal with their territories and inform many of their subaltern positions facing the neighborhood.

Final remarks

Networks of interdependencies are difficult to capture. It takes a long time to grasp their intricate layers, threads, and tensions. However, children’s drawings brought some clues and indications that can help compose certain threads in this configuration.

The children from each of the profiles demonstrated very different ways of dealing with power games related to their territories. It is obvious that this is still a generalization because when we talked to the children, we observed different ways of life that also depended on other issues (gender, race, being the younger or older child, etc.) in each of these places. Therefore, what we wish to assert is that the effects of the neighborhoods in children’s lives “are neither mechanical, nor uniform, since they act differently according to individuals’ social properties” (Authier, 2006, p. 212). Hence, based on the dialogue with these other data, perhaps the neighborhood does not seem such a cohesive space, and the children also present themselves as even more multiterritorrialized and strategic, especially when observing the data about the diversity of experienced territories out of the neighborhood and in the city.

Nevertheless, we did learn more about the relationship between the children and their neighborhoods. First, these children have a sharp, detailed, and attentive look. They express themselves, explain, and denounce as a form of resistance, breach, and irony. Therefore, they are citizens of the city as any other. Nonetheless, when, in many moments, they deconstruct the image of the neighborhood depicted by adults, the children also articulated a specific childhood look. This look, notwithstanding, was not in unison either, because each one of them interpreted and mobilized different experiences to depict the neighborhood, depending on the region they lived. In this way, they highlighted characteristics of their own networks of interdependencies.

Thus, whereas south Profile 1 children revealed a life close to the effervescent consumption of the central area, those in Profile 3 in the same neighborhood displayed a daily routine immersed in small stores. In the far south, in a scenario of greater insecurity, whereas Profile 1 children reported a landscape packed with cramped houses, Profile 3 identified the school (in 73% of the cases) and grandparents’ houses as important places, even amid a terrifying emptiness.

Within the pressure that permeated their networks, a type of dance between public and private spaces evidenced a retreat of the public sphere - shrunken to small squares and playgrounds, where the children could still play-, but private spaces spreading mainly throughout neighborhoods and regions closer to middle-class groups. In children’s depictions, except for a few cases, nothing indicated the existence of spaces that could allow meetings or popular participation of children or parents. As Claval (1999) asserted, “the social participation of citizens takes place by means of the market, whereas their political participation takes place by means of the civil-bourgeois public space” (n.p.). Hence, public spaces that could fulfill the role of providing certain social mixing do not seem to have encouraged considerable interaction of residents from different parts of the neighborhood, or from different neighborhoods, establishing more borders than openings. Therefore, there is an “unmixing” of children who reside in those places.

Yet, we found some interstitial spaces in which south Profiles 1 and 3 children could meet, such as the playground close to a shopping mall or the private fitness center in another shopping mall. Furthermore, in the far south, the borders that appeared close to Profile 3 seemed to distance the most from the other Profiles. In this way, the further one goes to the outskirts of the city or the further one goes to the far areas in the neighborhood, the greater the distinctions of space use seem to demonstrate a hierarchy and a status. Children’s spatial mobility in the far south of the city seemed to be much lower, especially for those in Profile 3, who seemed sedentary, forced into confinement.

Presenting their own living frameworks, the researched neighborhoods seemed to be model-like, teaching poor peripheral children their regulations and positions from an early age. For the far south Profile 3 children, the lesson was one of isolation, whereas, for other profiles, it was one of broader mobility and new multiterritorial learning. Regarding the configurations formed by these networks of interdependencies - explained by Elias (1980) through the use of pronouns -, we could think: “I” go to Big (large grocery store), “you” to Ótimus (intermediate grocery store), “he” to the small grocery store, “we” do not leave, “they” do not meet. There are retreats and advances, but in a game that is usually played among peers.

In this way, children denounced the maintenance of such hierarchical and subaltern spaces that lead to a segregation of part of the population, the poorest, to deserted spaces with no space for coexistence. This separation also leads to a lack of awareness by part of the population of a large number of people who live in poor conditions. It reveals itself as a strong political strategy to allow the middle and upper classes to keep living their lives, circulating in the beautiful parts of their neighborhoods and the ignorance towards social inequality that ravages the cities.

Hence, the children’s drawings demonstrated that the territory is woven in the web of human interdependencies, plotted based on power and status games, according to the positions children and families hold in the figuration of the neighborhood and the city. Finally, thinking alongside Elias (2008), the important aspect to interpret the everyday life, or to know culture and consider it an open system is to see it as act and drama, word, and image. And the children’s images took us far!

• 2
  References correction and bibliographic normalization services: Vera Lúcia Fator Gouvêa Bonilha. - [e-mail]
• 3
  English translation: John Fiorese - [e-mail]
• 4
  English review: Viviane Ramos - [e-mail]
• 5
  Translations made by the author.
• 6
  We respected all the guidelines in the discussion instituted by the National Association of Graduate Studies and Research (abbreviated to ANPED in Portuguese) in the Working Group of the National Research Ethics Commission (CONEP in Portuguese); also, those in the Program of Graduate Studies in Education (PPGE in Portuguese) at Federal University of Paraná (UFPR in Portuguese); and those in the Municipal Office of Education in Curitiba (SME in Portuguese). First, we requested SME an authorization to contact the schools and ask the principals if they would like to participate in the research study. Most of the targeted schools agreed. Second, we explained to all subjects involved (class teachers, parents or guardians and especially the children) the research nature and its objectives. In addition, they were asked if they would like to participate in the research study. For that, we sent a letter explaining the research study along with a questionnaire for parents or guardians. The letter asked if they could respond to the questionnaire and if they allowed the researchers to talk to their children in the school about the neighborhood and the city. Parents or guardians responded through the school diary whether they allowed the researchers to talk to their children. We also explained to the children about the research study in detail, and they were asked if they would like to participate. Further, they were informed that if, at any given moment, they did not want to draw, or talk anymore, they could stop whenever they wished. The production of these data started at the beginning of 2015.
• 7
  According to Elias (1994a), to analyze social configuration we need an “aviator look” that presupposes a historic, broader, and distant perspective (here seen through the questionnaire) and a “swimmer look”, who dives in the continuous flow of facts (here, the data produced by children). Only by relating both looks, we could fully understand a certain configuration. For more details on the use of Elias to study children and their territories, see Ferreira (to be published).
• 8
  The choice of these specific neighborhoods and not others in the same regions was made because the set of drawings was more complete for these neighborhoods and their number was possible to be compared between profiles.
• 9
  To Lefebvre (2008), the city has been developing from industrialization as a market, always aiming at profit, implementing itself as an “exchange value”. Before this scenario, the author argued that people had to have the right to urban life, to the meeting place, and in order to achieve that, it was necessary to retrieve the city as “oeuvre”, in its capacity of integration and participation of everyone, that is, in its “use value”.
• 10
  In Curitiba, the housing deficit in 2010 was of 49.164 units (João Pinheiro Foundation, from IBGE data: Demographic Census, 2010 in: Fundação João …, 2013).
• 11
  Nascimento Neto (2019) demonstrates that, though irregular occupations in the city are distributed throughout the entire territory, SEHIS (abbreviation in Portuguese for Special Housing and Social Interest Sector) are restricted to poor peripheral areas in the south of the city, crystallizing the conception of poor peripheralization of the low-income population in areas with low accessibility to transportation, public equipment, and services.
• 12
  For instance, in the section we discussed commerce, a far south Profile 3 drawing depicts the inside of a grocery store, from the workers’ point of view in the check-out in front of a big fan, demonstrating the harshness of the work portrayed there.
• 13
  In the famous short story writer Dalton Trevisan’s fiction, John (João) and Mary (Maria) represent “the poor johns and maries who multiply ad infinitum, in their insignificance of marked stigmatized beings, predestined to small plots in the labyrinths of an everyday third class” (SIMÕES, 1980, n.p.).

Referências

• Authier, J-Y. (2006). La question des “effets de quartier” en France. Variations contextuelles et processus de socialization. In J-Y Authier, M-H Bacqué, & F. Guérin-Pace. Le Quartier: enjeux scientifiques, actions politiques et pratiques socials (p. 293). La Découverte.
• Carvalho, A de S. (2014). Vivendo às margens: habitação de interesse social e o processo da segregação socioespacial em Curitiba [Dissertação, Mestrado em Urbanismo, História e Arquitetura da Cidade – PGAU]. UFSC], Florianópolis. https://repositorio.ufsc.br/handle/123456789/129103
  » https://repositorio.ufsc.br/handle/123456789/129103
• Castells, M. (1999). A sociedade em rede (Vol. I). Paz e Terra.
• Claval, P. (1999, 2 de julho). L'approche culturelle en géographie [Conferência para l'A.P.H.G]. Université de Paris-Sorbonne. http://aphgcaen.free.fr/conferences/claval.htm
  » http://aphgcaen.free.fr/conferences/claval.htm
• Claval, P. (2020, 9 de setembro). 1º Evento Transversal UFPR: Palestra com Prof. Dr. Paul Claval. [Conferência]. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5O4lVR2UoEM
  » https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5O4lVR2UoEM
• Departamento Intersindical de Estatística e Estudos Socioeconômicos. (2016). Mapa da distribuição percentual da população negra em relação ao município, segundo bairros agregados, a partir do Censo/IBGE. In Observatório do Trabalho de Curitiba- Perfil Demográfico e Socioecono?mico dos Bairros Agregados de Curitiba, Curitiba. http://www.coreconpr.gov.br/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/bairros.pdf
  » http://www.coreconpr.gov.br/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/bairros.pdf
• Elias, N. (1980). Introdução à Sociologia Edições 70.
• Elias, N. (1994a). A sociedade dos indivíduos Jorge Zahar.
• Elias, N. (1994b). O processo civilizador 1: uma história dos costumes Zahar.
• Featherstone, M. (1995). Cultura de consumo e pós-modernismo Studio Nobel.
• Ferreira, V. M. R. (no prelo). Um passo para trás para ver melhor a cidade: uma análise configuracional de crianças em Curitiba. Civitas
• Ferreira, V. M. R., & Fernandes, S. M. (no prelo). Infância e justiça espacial: desigualdades inter e intrabairros no uso da cidade por crianças da rede municipal de ensino de Curitiba. Educação em Revista
• Ferreira, V. M. R., & Ferreira, S. P. (2020). Configurações da infância na cidade: desigualdade interbairros e nos usos dos tempos e espaços por crianças curitibanas. Revista Eletrônica de Educação, 14, 1-19. e3275060. http://dx.doi.org/10.14244/198271993275.
  » https://doi.org/10.14244/198271993275
• Ferreira, V. M. R., & Fiorese, S. (2021, set./dez.). “Elas ficam meio injustiçadas”: infância, gênero e desigualdade em bairros de Curitiba. Educação em Foco, 24(44), 230-258. https://revista.uemg.br/index.php/educacaoemfoco/article/view/5542/3957>.
  » https://revista.uemg.br/index.php/educacaoemfoco/article/view/5542/3957
• Ferreira, V. M. R., Ferreira, S. P., &; Santos, R. R. dos. (2018). Antiguidade de moradia no bairro, origem geográfica das famílias e sua relação com usos e vivências das crianças na cidade e no bairro. Anais do Colóquio Internacional Crianças e Territórios de Infância Brasília, UnB. https://www.even3.com.br/anais/territoriosdeinfancia/89176-antiguidade-de-moradia-no-bairro-origem-geografica-das-familias-e-sua-relacao-com-usos-e-vivencias-das-criancas-n/
  » https://www.even3.com.br/anais/territoriosdeinfancia/89176-antiguidade-de-moradia-no-bairro-origem-geografica-das-familias-e-sua-relacao-com-usos-e-vivencias-das-criancas-n/
• Fonseca, A. R. M. (2019). Infâncias aqui e lá: configurações sociais de crianças reassentadas na periferia de Curitiba 188f. [Dissertação, Mestrado em Educação]. Universidade Federal do Paraná, Curitiba. https://acervodigital.ufpr.br/handle/1884/67195
  » https://acervodigital.ufpr.br/handle/1884/67195
• Fundação João Pinheiro. (2013). Centro de Estatística e Informações Déficit habitacional municipal no Brasil Fundação João Pinheiro, Centro de Estatística e Informações. http://www.bibliotecadigital.mg.gov.br/consulta/verDocumento.php?iCodigo=76871&codUsuario=0
  » http://www.bibliotecadigital.mg.gov.br/consulta/verDocumento.php?iCodigo=76871&codUsuario=0
• Gobbi, M. A. (1997). Lápis vermelho e de mulherzinha: desenho infantil, relações de gênero e educação infantil145f. [Dissertação de Mestrado]. Universidade Estadual de Campinas, Faculdade de Educação, Campinas, SP.
• Gobbi, M. A. (2014a). Imaginação, culturas e fontes documentais em desenhos de meninas e meninos da Educação Infantil brasileira. University Press, Studi su lla formazione (pp. 151-164). https://www.researchgate.net/publication/307833578
  » https://www.researchgate.net/publication/307833578
• Gobbi, M. A. (2014b, jan./abr.). Mundos na ponta do lápis: desenhos de crianças pequenas ou de como estranhar o familiar quando o assunto é criação infantil. Linhas Críticas, 20(41), 147-165.
• Haesbaert, R., & Mondardo, M. (2010). Transterritorialidade e antropofagia: territorialidades de trânsito numa perspectiva brasileiro-latino-americana. GEOgraphia, 12(24), 19-50. https://periodicos.uff.br/geographia/article/view/13602
  » https://periodicos.uff.br/geographia/article/view/13602
• Huguenin-Richard, F. (2010, printemps). La mobilité des enfants à l’épreuve de la rue. Montréal: Enfances, familles, générations, 12, 66–87. https://www.erudit.org/fr/revues/efg/2010-n12-efg3899/044393ar/
  » https://www.erudit.org/fr/revues/efg/2010-n12-efg3899/044393ar/
• Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatística. (2010). Censo Demográfico do Brasil https://censo2010.ibge.gov.br/
  » https://censo2010.ibge.gov.br/
• Instituto de Pesquisa e Planejamento Urbano de Curitiba. (2012). Comparação Curitiba 2000 e 2010, comparação entre capitais, análise por bairro 2012 https://www.ippuc.org.br/visualizar.php?doc=https://admsite2013.ippuc.org.br/arquivos/documentos/D356/D356_005_BR.pdf
  » https://www.ippuc.org.br/visualizar.php?doc=https://admsite2013.ippuc.org.br/arquivos/documentos/D356/D356_005_BR.pdf
• Jacobs, J. (2011). Morte e vida nas grandes cidades (3. ed.). Martins Fontes.
• Lehman-Frisch, S., Authier, J-Y., & Dufaux, F. (2012). Les enfants et la mixité sociale dans les quartiers gentrifiés à Paris, Londres et San Francisco. [Rapport de Recherche]. CNAF, 2012. https://halshs.archives-ouvertes.fr/halshs-00974840/document
  » https://halshs.archives-ouvertes.fr/halshs-00974840/document
• Lynch, K. (1997). A imagem da cidade Martins Fontes.
• Nascimento Neto, P. (2019). A dimensão esquecida da política habitacional: reflexões a partir do caso da Área Metropolitana de Curitiba (PR). Cadernos Metrópole, 22(47). https://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?pid=S2236-9962020000100215&script=sci_abstract&tlng=pt
  » https://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?pid=S2236-9962020000100215&script=sci_abstract&tlng=pt
• Nicolato, R. (2002). Literatura e cidade: o universo urbano em Dalton Trevisan. [Dissertação de Mestrado em Estudos literários). Universidade Federal do Paraná, Curitiba, 2002
• Paquot T. (2009). L’espace public, Paris, La Découverte, coll Repères.
• Remy, J. (2015). L’espace, un objet central de la sociologie Éditions Erès.
• Rolnik, R. (2017). Guerra dos lugares: A colonização da terra e da moradia na era das finanças Boitempo.
• Santos, M. C., Fernandes, S. M., & Ferreira, V. M. R. (2019). Infância, raça e gênero em Curitiba. Anais do quinto Seminário Luso-Brasileiro de Educação Infantil e segundo Congresso Luso-Afro-Brasileiro de Infâncias e Educação, USP, São Paulo.: https://www.doity.com.br/anais/clabie2019/trabalho/133222
  » https://www.doity.com.br/anais/clabie2019/trabalho/133222
• Sarmento, M. J. (2011) Conhecer a infância: os desenhos das crianças como produções simbólicas. In A. J. Martins Filho, & P. D. Prado (Orgs.), Das pesquisas com crianças à complexidade da infância (pp. 27-60). Autores Associados.
• Trevisan, D. (2003). Em busca de Curitiba perdida (8a ed.) Record.
• Viard, J. (2011). Éloge de la mobilité: Essai sur le capital temps libre et la valeur travail Editions de l’Aube.
• Vigotsky, L. S. (1991). A formação social da mente (4a ed.). Martins Fontes.

1

Responsible editor: Carmen Lúcia Soares. https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4347-1924

Publication Dates

• Publication in this collection
  09 Dec 2022
• Date of issue
  2022

History

• Received
  05 Apr 2021
• Reviewed
  17 Sept 2021
• Accepted
  16 Oct 2021