Landscape Taste as a Symbol of Group Identity

James S. Duncan, Jr. has certainly taken an interesting approach to analyze the apparently voluntary segregation of the two predominate groups in Bedford Village, NY based on their landscape preferences. He "presents evidence that subtle variations in landscape tastes of two groups of nearly identical, high socioeconomic status are significant indicators of group identity."

I find myself questioning his conclusions. I desire more information.

How identical are the "nearly identical, high socioeconomic status"? I would like to know the average income in the alpha and beta landscapes. My guess is that the wealthiest people live predominately in the alpha landscape. The NY Social Register would seem to back me up here: "Of the 120... residents listed... 94.2 percent live in the alpha landscape."

I would like to know average property value in the two landscapes. Again my guess would be that property values are significantly higher in the alpha landscape.

How much is "landscape preference" determined by lot size? The most significant difference between the landscapes is one put in place by zoning - four plus acre lots in the alpha area and smaller lots - as small as 1/4 acre in the beta area. It would be difficult to achieve a beta landscape - emphasizing lawns, americana, and symmetrical shrubbery - on a four-plus acre lot. It would be equally difficult to create the asymmetrical "English gardens", low rock walls, pastures and woodlands giving the impression of a "picturesque... series of happy accidents" on a quarter acre lot. In both cases these landscaping efforts would look forced and out of place.

The distinct separation of social groups is also interesting. This also begs us to examine the claim that the residents of the two landscape area are of "nearly identical, high socioeconomic status". Socioeconomic as defined by Dictionary.com (Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1). Random House, Inc.) means: of, pertaining to, or signifying the combination or interaction of social and economic factors... So the fact that the two landscape areas are so clearly divided by their social networks in itself says that there are also two distinct socioeconomic groups.

The preferences for Americana is interesting. It seems that alphas think that their pastoral colonial landscapes already speak loudly enough, whereas the betas need to emphasize their colonial aspirations with eagles and ornate mailboxes.

I have to conclude that the separation between these two landscapes - while also showing landscape preferences - is clearly drawn by social and economic boundaries.

Both of this article and the Bickford article show how willing we are to segregate ourselves. Again, I would say that it is inherent human nature to seek associations and relationships with people of similar values, ideals and status. This article discussed the segregation of two white anglo-Saxon groups - I would say quite clearly based on socioeconomic status. Bickford’s article showed how the high value which we - as a society - put on privacy, safety, security, and comfort tends to insulate us from the rest of society and especially tends to segregate us from those who are different from us. The desire to associate primarily with other people like US innate and strong.