This past week we have discussed the postmodern city paradigm, which argues that the historical processes and modes of production under capitalism, combined with new economic and social arrangements create landscapes that reflect past and present relations of power. This new way of looking at the development of cities is a departure from the Chicago School’s already established depiction of how cities develop.  This new paradigm pushes against the Chicago School by proposing that there is no singular or dominant approach to understanding contemporary city development and to suggest one is contradictory to the very notions of postmodernism. Contemporary urbanism, as a result of this new paradigm, posits very different forms that a city can take. One of these forms a city can take is a heteropolis.  A heteropolis is defined as a city that is characterized by a high degree of diversity. After reading, “The Changs Next Door to the Diazes” by Wendy Cheng, it became evident that one could categorize the West San Gabriel Valley, as described Cheng, as a heteropolis.  The West SGV is specifically characterized by its high degree of diversity of both Mexican-Americans and Asian Americans. My expert question based off of Cheng’s piece was focused on how the local government have tried and often failed to shape the cultural reputation of the GSV.  My question further explored how the large amount of diversity, possibly stemming from the heteropolis structure of the city, actually prohibited the West GSV from having one dominate cultural identity.

Throughout this course, we have seen how governmental policies have shaped the creation of certain residential areas such as the “iconic ghetto” and the suburbs. In Cheng’s piece she focuses on how a local governmental official tried to shape the cultural reputation of San Gabriel by proposing the creation of  the “Golden Mile” (151). Albert Hung, who was the sole Asian American on the city official council, put forth the “Golden Mile” proposal. Hung imagined the Golden Mile as a “ ‘destination district’ with an emphasis on its rich heritage and… Asian and fusion cultures” (153). Although Hung was viewed favorably on the council, his proposal received harsh opposition that was clearly expressed in racial terms. The opposition, which consisted primarily of Mexican-Americans and whites, believed that Hung’s proposal was not pushing diversity and instead was only celebrating the Asian community in San Gabriel. Ultimately, due to it’s hostile reaction, the “Golden Mile” proposal failed to materialize.

When reading about the resistance to Hung’s proposed “Golden Mile” it made me consider why the local government was having such a difficult time establishing a cultural reputation of the area. Although the federal government’s policies were not “intentionally” created to reproduce predominately black and white spaces, their implementation was much more successful in creating cultural reputations than the local governmental policies were in Cheng’s article.   These differing levels of success raised questions in my mind about the differences that the local and federal policies might have on communities. Was the local government less successful because their policies explicitly favored one ethnic group? Did the federal policies have more success because many would argue that their real racial intentions were masked? Is it easier to stop local government policy than federal because of the availability to get one’s voice heard?

However, after our class discussion on the postmodern city paradigm, I began to wonder if the difficulty in establishing a cultural reputation had nothing to do with the differences between local and federal implementation but rather with the structure of the heteropolis itself. While it was not a secret that Asian Americans and Mexican Americans heavily occupied the area, both groups were having trouble asserting their cultural dominance over the area. Ultimately, it boiled down to a battle of power dynamics within the area. Since none of the groups faced any sort of “social isolation” due to the high level of diversity in the area, they all had a vested interest in establishing the area’s cultural identity. The battle over who got to assert their dominance ironically precludes the West GSV from turning into an ethnic enclave because the heteropolis structure prevents one group from creating a majority. In this sense, this power struggle fits directly into the contemporary urbanism thesis since the present power relations within the community were directly reflecting the landscape or lack of cultural landscape in the West GSV.

This week’s discussion and readings by Murphy, Lee and Rios picked up on our previous conversations about the “iconic ghetto”. Elijah Anderson coined the term “iconic ghetto” and asserted that despite legislation that has made racial integration and incorporation possible, racial segregation persisted in neighborhoods, restaurants and schools throughout the United States. The “ghetto” in turn starts to become associated with the places “where blacks live.” When outside of “the ghetto,” African Americans have to figure out how to navigate these primary white and segregated spaces. In their works, Murphy, Lee and Rios explore how African Americans navigate not only these white spaces but also “the ghetto.” While each author highlights different passage through these areas, an underlying theme throughout all of these works is the notion of a resistance identity.  My expert question based off of these readings focused on how sociologists might be focusing too heavily on the negatives of the ghetto and are abandoning or ignoring cultural benefits of these communities such as resistance identities. 

Rios’ article “Dummy Smart” is the only article in which the concept of a resistance identity is explicitly mentioned. Resistance identities according to Rios, “are those identities created by subordinated populations in response to oppression” (102).  These identities are used as a way of creating a sense of agency and power within a society in which those included feel displaced or mistreated. In Rios study, the members of this society are Latino and Black men from Oakland, California. Rios examines how obtaining this sense of power and agency often becomes entangled with legal trouble. For example, in order to assert his dominance and power in the community over a local storeowner, Mike, a Latino teenager, steals a bag of chips when he feels as though he is being disrespected and mistreated by the owner. Mike had more than enough money to pay for the bag of chips but he was determined to prove a point to the members of the community that try and exclude him from mainstream society. By acting against the law and traditional norms of society, the young men are trying to “one-up” these “excluders”.   To the men living in Oakland, the notion of power and dignity is more significant than spending a few days in juvie.  Although I do not believe that sociologists should encourage or praise the criminal actions of these boys, it is impressive and important to note and explore how these men find spaces for themselves in a society that has marginalized them for years.

This idea of a resistance identity is further echoed in Murphy’s article about “litterers.” Murphy claims that those who litter are perceived by their community as being “outsiders and disreputable” (1). After readings Rios’ article, I began to examine the litterers in a broader context within the ghetto. When thinking about the litterers in this framework, I started to ask myself if littering could be used as a way of creating a resistance identity. Was it possible that by littering these members of the community felt as though they were taking control of their community and re-claiming their space? Was throwing trash on the ground and consequently disrespecting the physical space of the community, a mechanism for acquiring respect in the eyes of the litterer? The litterers in this community, feeling that the label of outsider has been placed upon them, could be determined to gain back a sense of power and respect. As a result, they are driven to cling onto these resistance identities, which propel them to rebel against societal norms. Ironically, by continuing the behavior that has warranted the reputation of “disreputable,” the litterers believe that they will be seen in a more esteemed manner.

It is easy to write off the litterers in this community as disrespectful but when examined in a larger context, it is important to think about the different ways in which people go about acquiring power and dignity and how the traditional forms of achieving these characteristics may not be equally available to everyone in society. The resistance identities, similar to the rap battles discussed by Lee, offer the people in the ghetto a sense of respect and almost a release from the daily burdens that they feel have been imposed on them. To the members of the ghetto, resistance identities are a way of reclaiming a feeling of pride that they rightfully believe have been stripped from them by mainstream white society.