Last week in class, we discussed urban poverty and the persistence of the ghetto in U.S. cities. Although measures were taken by the government in the 1960’s to support desegregation and to prohibit discrimination in real estate, they were not a enough. We discussed three theories that could explain the persistence of urban inequality — Massey and Denton’s racial discrimination theory, William Julius Wilson’s economic structure theory, and finally Patrick Sharkey’s inheritance of the ghetto theory.
Our main focus was on Sharkey’s Stuck in Place: Urban neighborhoods and the End of Progress toward Racial Equality. These excerpts relied heavily on statistical analysis of urban data to demonstrate “the cumulative effects of a family’s neighborhood environments experienced over time” (133). In doing so, Sharkey demonstrates the complex, multigenerational effects the ghetto has on families.
After reading Sharkey’s work, I was left wondering what could be done implement positive, effective change that accounts for familial and community history. While the obvious answer seems to be increase diversity within the inner city and in suburbs outside the city, this sparks another important question. By “diversity” do we mean racial or economic? Although it is clear that race and economic status are extensively interconnected, which aspect should be our initial focus? How can either racial or economic diversity be implemented without creating inequitable amenities (e.g. “The Poor Door”) or gentrification? Perhaps this leads us to education.
By improving educational opportunities without relying on tax money (e.g. charter schools, curriculum changes, school voucher programs), children living in the ghetto could have improved opportunities to gain the personal agency and capital to achieve their own financial stability as an adult. While acknowledging access issues is important, some would argue that even small changes are better than no change. However, Sharkey demonstrates that middle class African Americans tend to remain in the ghetto despite personal attainment. Therefore, their children may continue to play with less educated friends, create emotional ties with their community despite the impoverished conditions, or even prioritize forms of “organic capital” and resistance as described by Rios.
Clearly, there is no clear, comprehensive solution. However, if schools are progressively improved in these areas, even if middle African American families continue choosing to stay in these neighborhoods, would the education level of the residents not collectively improve? I would think that the reproduction of culture could work in that vein as well. Therefore, smaller, localized structural changes could help catalyze change that’s better catered to specific communities.
In conclusion, examining statistics and quantitative data cannot be the only approach in addressing the persistence of urban inequality and the American ghetto. As shown throughout our class discussion, statistics may uncover surprising patterns and shed light on the true extent of inequality, but they do not lead us to feasible, holistic conclusions. In fact, policy makers who rely on statistics and lack personal attachment or firsthand knowledge of urban communities have repeatedly reinforced segregation and inequity. In order to break the pattern of detached officials, often with self or party-serving bias, constructing largely inefficient policies, more qualitative information needs to be taken into account. The opinions and experiences of African American residents, educators, and business owners would be invaluable in developing future modes of change.