Sociologist Elijah Anderson speaks directly to the community saved framework, which demonstrates that to regenerate community in urban spheres, humans seek to organize around networks of kinship and common values in active constructions of community. He asserts that “cosmopolitan canopies” have developed in opposition to the “blasé attitude” (15) and distinct social barriers to connection and community strength that characterize the modern city. Cosmopolitan canopies, which Anderson discusses as products of community revitalization, are neutral social settings where diverse people can interact and enjoy the space.

I think it is interesting viewing how the community saved framework operates through a structural functionalist lens, which allows us to view modern community spaces and social groups as serving a greater function for the larger urban setting by cultivating resources and weak ties through which important needs are met. Spaces constructing community seem to serve vital functions for their participants, as well as existing as social and entertainment spaces. In Anderson’s description of The Terminal, a space he deems a cosmopolitan canopy, he demonstrates that the civility and relative diversity of the space allows people to “engage in folk ethnography and formulate or find evidence for their folk theories about others with whom they share the public space” (21). Therefore, the space serves a function of allowing people to consciously learn about each other. Aside from being a space of leisure and consumption, Anderson writes that “when diverse people are eating one another’s food, a social good is performed for those observing. As people become intimate through such shared experiences, certain barriers are prone to be broken”. (17) Therefore, his argument hinges upon the diversity of a space as central to its functionality.

Given this, how do we contend with spaces that lack such diversity, but still operate in line with the community saved framework? One example of this is the nightclub, “The Spot”, which sociologist Marcus Hunter discusses in his piece, The Nightly Round: Space, Social Capital, and Urban Black Nightlife. People used “The Spot”, both for entertainment and partner selection, and to access a network of weak ties that provided a variety of resources and opportunities to fulfill their basic living needs, demonstrating the complex hierarchy of functionality described by the community saved framework. He writes that “The nightly round–a process encompassing the social interactions, behaviors, and actions involved in going to, being in, and leaving the club–is used to mitigate the effects of social and spatial isolation, complementing the accomplishment of the daily round” (166). However, The Spot is used by predominantly black populations, which does not represent the diversity that Anderson spoke about in his description of cosmopolitan canopies. It is clear how this type of community illustrates the community saved framework in that it is actively constructed and utilized by its participants to fit their needs, but would it be considered a cosmopolitan canopy? Is a cosmopolitan canopy even necessary for community revitalization? The Spot doesn’t suggest it is.

In what ways does Anderson’s definition of a cosmopolitan canopy limit which spaces can serve the function that cosmopolitan spaces provide? As I contend with Anderson’s discussion of the neutrality of places like the Terminal, I struggle with whether a non-judgmental, truly liberated, and neutral space can exist. The Terminal may appear diverse, but it also has the potential to be a white space masquerading as a diverse canopy, in which class and racial divides still exist subtly. Are marginal identities inherently mapped on to individuals regardless of the setting, particularly in diverse spaces? Perhaps the cosmopolitan canopy Anderson describes serves to allow white individuals to learn more about people of other races and ethnicities, but I question whether it serves a similar function for non-white individuals in the space. It merely seems to put the onus of educating and sharing on people of color existing in the space.

Similarly, does there have to be some semblance of homogeneity for a community to fully function? The community saved framework shows how community revitalized through a shift towards active and need-based communities. Based on the examples through the readings, it seems that there must be a certain level of homogeneity within the community for it to operate in its true form. The nightclub was racially homogeneous, the Terminal economically homogeneous. Even the community of pigeon flyers, from Colin Ferolmack’s The Global Pigeon, demonstrated homogeneity in the gender identity of the flyers. Based on this analysis, Anderson’s theory of the cosmopolitan canopy seems incomplete in its lack of discussion about the need for a common source of connection.

Are there ways that diverse communities can form that represents heterogeneity in a genuine light? Is this important or necessary moving forward?