The contemporary western city attracts people with different cultures, values, backgrounds, beliefs, languages and traditions. Of course, I am stating the obvious and, in fact, this has been true for most cities, for most of the time. However, understanding how these differences can work together as a cosmopolitan whole, or whether they work in contest to cause suspicion, strife and resentment, is key to the promotion of respectful city living, to promoting urban cultures of respect for the ‘other’. For instance, different groups can have contested understandings of what is acceptable or unacceptable behaviour, with those seen as unacceptable being labelled as anti-social or disrespectful ‘others’. In urban spaces young people, particularly when in groups, are often seen as fitting this ‘disrespectful’ category and are regarded as a source of nuisance and incivility; similarly, street sex workers, the homeless, street people, those with mental health problems, or other problematic or challenging categories of ‘them’. In this chapter city living is considered as a contest of behavioural expectations, with different groups being more or less willing to have their expectations challenged. In anticipation of the conclusions, it is suggested that urban living should test our beliefs and expectations, that there needs to be an element of risk because this is what urban living is all about. It is argued that, rather than leading to contest and fear of the other, urban encounters can in fact help to nurture mutual respect; as Richard Sennett (1970: 108) suggested nearly 40 years ago, a more mature urban living is

A similar claim was made by Kevin Robins (1995: 48), that fear and anxiety are worth encountering as they are ‘the other side of the stimulation and challenge associated with cosmopolitanism’ (see also Bannister and Fyfe, 2001). Admittedly, there are numerous events that are painful, fearful or anxiety inducing and that are certainly not worth encountering; and such a ‘mature’ or ‘cosmopolitan’ perspective leans towards the utopian. However, in this chapter it is argued that mutuality of respect is possible and that this might require ‘a certain anarchy’.