In the readings by Murphy, Lee, and Rios, they discuss and introduce different elements of culture that are prevalent in the “iconic ghetto.” In all three pieces, they display different yet important aspects of this culture by providing evidence through findings from first-hand, ethnographic study. While all three pieces illustrate portions of culture in these ghettos, there is also a strong undertone of racial tension and the troublesome relationship between racial groups in these areas. In addition to this tension, these readings also outline the quality of life for members of ghettos and the difficulties that arise as a result.
A central theme that presents itself throughout the readings is the concept of agency. Who has the privilege of agency in certain situations and who does not. The ways in which people try to obtain agency and what agency means to a Black or Latino teenager in these communities. In the reading by Rios, he shows how much agency means to these teenagers and the drastic measures they take in an effort to obtain it. He illuminates the idea that these young men feel as though they are operating in a system that is already stacked against them and, in order to gain some respect in their life, they need to show they are worthy of some aspect of power. The interesting catch of this idea, however, is how they choose to obtain it. For example, one may think that being respectful and exhibiting positive character would be the way to accumulate agency in a community yet, these teenagers often decide to put up a tough front and attempt to gain agency and respect through defiance. When they gave someone like a storeowner trouble for accusing them of stealing, they were confrontational and fled rather than explaining themselves because they believed that their explicit antagonism would cause the storeowner to not give them grief in their next encounter.
Similarly, in the case of the alleged “litterers” that Murphy highlighted, members of certain geographic affiliations are labeled as disreputable and indifferent towards the welfare and cleanliness of their community. This represents another instance where the agency does not lie with the individuals who are being accused of the downfall in their community. With the “litterers,” it can also be difficult to decipher whether the accusations are coming from a genuine place of concern for the welfare and hygiene of their space, or if the migration of an impoverished group has made longtime residents upset about the demographic moving into their neighborhood. The origin of this unrest will allude to residents acting on true feelings of discontent with community standards, or acting on racial stereotypes. To play devil’s advocate, it may be easy to think of the agency that lower class individuals have to clean up their space and resist the temptation to throw their waste on the ground however, would these actions lead to a change of heart by longtime residents? My contention would be that while there is clear and physical evidence to show the amount of littering and trash filling spaces where impoverished and lower class individuals live, there is also something to be said of the discourse surrounding these peoples and the impact that discourse plays. If someone moves into these neighborhoods and hears that longtime residents are ridiculing them for being main contributors to the low quality of the town and the accumulation of garbage before they establish themselves, what would prompt them to think they have power or agency over changing their situation?
Agency is certainly not the only prominent theme in these articles, but it is crucial to understand the presence of the notion, or at least the possibility of agency, and the role that it plays with people. In the case of the Latino teenagers from Oakland, they not only believed that they did not hold any agency, but, in fact, they knew that they didn’t and that the system was stacked against them. As a result, they did not try to improve their situation because they thought it would be useless to fight a system that is designed to work against them. Agency is a tool that can lead to upward mobility, which is something many of these lower class citizens would choose if they had the power.
-Wilson M.
Agency is an interesting angle for analyzing the Rios and Murphy articles. As Rios observed, many Latino teenagers in Oakland created resistance identities and agency defined in direct opposition to more mainstream forms, which are seemingly out of reach for them. Because their forms of agency are interpreted as disrespectful or criminal, this group of people have been relegated to areas, jobs, and social groups which accept or conform to similar forms of agency—which are likely neighborhoods or realms similar to the ones they may be trying to supersede. It seems like it would be quite a difficult cycle to break.
Additionally, I have been wondering how to directly tie or connect these oppositional forms of agency to the idea of place, specifically urban vs. suburban (as Rios’ piece focuses on the urban area of Oakland and Murphy’s piece focuses on a suburban neighborhood). To what extent, if any, are these resistance identities specific to an urban or suburban location/identity?
As Wilson stated, a central theme that presents itself throughout the Murphy, Lee and Rios readings is the concept of agency. However, I think I would define agency slightly differently than Wilson did. To me, agency is the ability to act independently and to make one’s own decisions. In the context of these readings, there are clearly several factors of influence that determine or limit one’s agency. As seen, social class, gender, ethnicity or customs can affect one’s decisions. Surely there are other factors that limit one’s agency, but these are the factors I found to be predominant in the readings.
Perhaps the most obvious example of gender and ethnicity influencing an agent’s decision is Ronny’s interview in the Rios reading. Ronny, a young, African American male, did not shake an older, white female’s hand following an interview. Ronny thought he was being respectful because he was taught, “not to shake a White lady’s hand” (100). As Wilson alluded to, Ronny thought he was exhibiting positive character by not shaking the interviewer’s hand, but in reality, his understandings of ethnicity and gender influenced his agency, causing him to remain unemployed.
Furthermore, social class and ethnicity influenced agency in the Murphy reading. Longtime residents of Penn Hill claim themselves to be moral, community insiders because they pick up litter. Meanwhile, they conclude that the poor, black renters are the one’s who litter because they lack respect for the community and are therefore disreputable people. However, the longtime residents have never seen any of these poor, black renters litter. Therefore, I think agency here has to do more with the longtime resident’s decision to make judgments and assumptions about others based on social class and ethnicity. Thus, I think Wilson is correct is recognizing that one’s source of agency plays a critical role in these three readings.
I agree that agency is a key theme in both our discussions and readings. In the context of Murphy, I think it’s especially interesting to consider how the built environment may affect agency and the processes through which residents can gain or lose it. Murphy, for example, mentions in passing that there were nearly no waste receptacles in the area that was heavily littered (Page 219). He also mentions that the neighborhood lacked amenities that may impact the quality and extent of social interactions on the street: “In a suburb that was not build for pedestrians, there are few public or private accommodations for how people are currently using public space” (Page 219). Given this, it seems to me that better urban design in the area would likely have a very large impact on littering behavior in the neighborhood. I’m curious how this might change our understanding of the relationship between littering behavior and agency. Aren’t the better resourced residents actually the people with the agency to solve this littering problem if a core cause is a lack of waste receptacles? In a similar vein, how would the influx of new populations be perceived differently if there were effective public spaces in which people of all classes, races, and tenure in the neighborhood could interact authentically and regularly?