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.