This week, we discussed the persistence of the ghetto. We read sections of Patrick Sharkey’s “Stuck in Place: Urban Neighborhoods and the End of Progress Toward Racial Equality”. In these sections, he uses data to analyze the trend he refers to as “the inherited ghetto”.

I was at first, very critical of his research methods and the validity of his data. After the discussion in class, I definitely appreciate his approach. Looking back at the beginning of the reading, he writes about statistical portrayals of black communities in the media. I think this appropriately sets the scene for why he is so reliant on statistics in his writing. Statistics can often erase the actuality of situations, however, when used analytically, they can illuminate fascinating trends. I am still left wondering what can be done to improve these communities without leading to gentrification and displacement.

Sharkey writes about financially successful black families moving back to ghettos. Perhaps in some ways there is a sense of comfort when displacement, rising housing prices, and general competition over land is not a concern. We’ve learned a lot about the ways in which black people have been kept out of white neighborhoods, but less about the ways in which they have been kicked out. I’ve learned a little about the racist agendas of landlords to remove rent-stabilized tenants and sell apartments at market rate.   There are many unethical but legal ways in which landlords can treat their tenants to encourage them to move out. I wonder if ghettos lack that immediate fear of displacement and if that could also contribute to black families living in ghettos regardless of socioeconomic status.

It did not seem like we determined any concrete steps that the government could take in class. I was thinking a lot about community action during class and what roles community empowerment could play in improving ghettos. The government could fund and support community organizations to a greater degree. On my study abroad trip, I was able to visit a low-income community in São Paulo that had been pushed to the peripheries of the city. The government was going to take their land, displace the residents and build a park. Due to some impressive community organizing, the neighborhood determined a strategy: show the government their commitment to the environment and sustainability. They created community gardens, alternative waste disposal, and added environmental education to their school. They have now been recognized nationally as an eco-friendly community and the government funds many of their current projects. Residents claimed that this action made the community far safer, very engaged, and driven.

This is definitely a very idealistic story and places the burden of improvement on the shoulders of oppressed communities, but I do think it is a useful example of community empowerment and improvement. I felt as though this could also connect to the discussion of infrapolitics and resistance identities provided in “Punished: Policing the Lives of Black and Latino Boys”, by Victor Rios. I found an academic article titled “Reclaiming Urban Space as Resistance: The Infrapolitics of Gardening”, by Sandrine Baudry. The article describes the greening of a city by citizens not as governmental cooperation, but as active resistance. She uses terms like “guerrilla gardening” and the use of “seed bombs” to convey a type of resistance that actually benefits the community. This does not necessarily follow Rios’ definition of resistance identities. He describes an embrace of criminality as resistance that often has self-destructive effects despite a sense of freedom. I think that the form of resistance described by Baudry ,in favor of community, could serve as a viable solution to the problems that plague urban ghettos.

Baudry Sandrine, « Reclaiming Urban Space as Resistance: The Infrapolitics of Gardening », Revue française d’études américaines, 2012/1 (n° 131), p. 32-48. DOI : 10.3917/rfea.131.0032. URL : http://www.cairn.info/revue-francaise-d-etudes-americaines-2012-1-page-32.htm

This week we read and learned about the rise of the American suburb and the defining characteristics of these areas. Inherently tied to this history is the formation of redlining, zoning laws, and other federal policy that led to the degradation of certain urban communities. Herbert Gans uses his experience within a Levittowns to attempt to debunk some of the stereotypes that Levittowns are homogenous and culturally destructive. In addition to his atypical understanding of what qualifies an area as “diverse”, a thorough research and history provided by Kenneth Jackson reveals how these suburbs were not only relatively homogenous, but strategically created to be that way. The neighborly climate of Levittowns that Gans paints contrasts sharply with the divisive government policies constructed to limit housing options for minority populations.

I have been thinking about my question for the class of whether urban enclaves can also possess the characteristics of the suburbs because of their typical ethnic or racial homogeny. Based on my impression of suburban communities and Jackson’s piece, I find that I agree far more with the stereotypes of suburban communities that Gans delineates at the beginning of his argument. Gans writes that homogeny imposes a conformity that further reduces individuality. I have decided that although they may be homogenous, according to Simmel, the hyper-stimulation that defines cities leads to a blasé attitude and eventually personal freedom and the ability to be individual. Although pressures and social activity come with the suburbs, it is nowhere near the amount of violent stimuli that defines the city. Therefore, even though urban enclaves can be racially or ethnically homogenous, there is not the same pressure to conform that one finds in the suburbs.

I have also been thinking about is the rise of American capitalism and neoliberalism. I began thinking about this during our discussion of the outer city enclaves and industry towns. Industrial employees were required to live in these enclaves, were heavily inspected, and still had to pay rent. This treatment of workers as pawns is a slightly more overt depiction of capitalism, but I believe those living in Levittowns were restricted in comparable ways. The cookie-cutter, mass-produced, homogenous structures of Levittowns reek of capitalist conformity and control. Apart from some of the obvious physical restrictions described by Gans, like not being able to have a fence, they are socially isolated and federally confined.

Jackson writes that federal involvement in housing was seen as socialist. However, once federal housing policies became more prevalent, it was increasingly clear how far from socialism they actually were. The accelerated rate at which new homes were built due to the financial encouragement of the federal tax code to build new buildings rather than restore old ones, served to directly benefit privileged populations. The ways in which these policies quickly became racialized, seems reminiscent of the original creation of “race” as an American social construct. Colonizers initially brought white Europeans and Africans to America as slaves, but quickly realized they were outnumbered by those they were enslaving and had to devise a way to pin the two groups against each other. They created a racial hierarchy for economic and capitalistic gain. It is hard to not consider a similar conspiracy in the description of housing in the early 20th century. We discussed in class how cities used to not be defined by segregation. The government found ways to once again invade the minds of American citizens with neoliberal values and racism through housing policy. Jackson touches upon the ways in which HOLC appraisal standards and rankings contributed to notions of racial and ethnic worth. I wonder what psychological effects other federal housing policy has had.

One thing that I have found interesting about the readings and class so far is that although conditions for economically and racially marginalized groups are far worse, no one actually benefits completely from this segregation. In the Gold Coast, people live in constant fear of social ruin due to the pressures of homogeny; in cities, the wealthy experience anomie due to a lack of predictability; in the suburbs, people lose their sense of individuality and are forced to conform in very isolated, homogenous communities. Even those at the top of the social hierarchy are not necessarily happy with the effects of this hierarchy. A lack of satisfaction seems to tie all of these communities together.

“Levvittowns.” US History Scene, http://ushistoryscene.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/LevittownPA.jpg.