Last week our discussion was focused on “the persistence of the ghetto” and readings and class discussions were centered around unpacking what the term “ghetto” means today, both as a noun and adjective and how the ghetto as a place continues to exist today.
Patrick Sharkey’s article, “Stuck in Place: Urban Neighborhoods and the End of Progress towards Racial Equality” proposed the urban ghetto as an inherited place and how poverty in the ghetto persists across generations due to a multitude of factors. While I did find this piece a little difficult to read at some times due to his focus on qualitative evidence, Sharkey does bring up some very interesting findings.
What I found to be Sharkey’s most surprising, but also compelling, finding is how the ghetto is often passed down to children even by parents who have left the ghetto to pursue higher education and good careers. In the section “The Lingering Influence of Childhood Neighborhoods” Sharkey examines the roots of racial inequalities by looking at the family environments in which children were raised. On page 116 Sharkey states, “While the black child’s parents may have the same amount of income and the same education as the parents of the white child, neighborhood inequality means that the black child is likely to be surrounded by peers who have been raised by parents with less education and fewer resources to devote to their children, less cultural capital and social connections to draw upon.” I think this finding is very interesting in the context of our readings for tomorrow (Sherman on rural poverty) and urban poverty. In both the Sharkey and the Sherman readings we see how people’s strong sense of place and connection to place can influence their decision to stay in an environment that may not provide them with the brightest future (by some standards). Sharkey focuses a good amount of his research on the economic mobility of blacks and whites and how neighborhood environments can influence the direction of mobility. Sharkey argues against the idea that poorer blacks are not economically mobile by showing that there actually is more mobility than people may perceive, but it is just not always a constant upward mobility. While some blacks living in urban ghettos may leave that place, due to their sense of community and connection to place, successful parents may return to the ghetto to raise their children because that is where the parents grew up and they have ties to that neighborhood. I think this example is a good show of the actual mobility because it shows that some residents of the ghetto may become upwardly economically mobile but that does not guarantee that their children will be upwardly mobile as well. Sharkey found that if parents return to the ghetto to raise their children, the children may end up following a trend of downward mobility due to their surroundings and trying to fit in with their peers (who may not have aspirations to leave the ghetto). The Sherman reading also focused on Golden Valley residents’ connection to place and how that shapes their lives. In many of Sherman’s interviews he cites residents’ emotional ties to their identities as Golden Valley residents (“being loggers, hunters and outdoorsmen, mothers, daughters and pivots of social and community life” p. 45) as being a primary driving force behind their continued residency in the Valley.
As someone who moved around a few times when I was younger, I can completely relate to the sense of place and how one would be drawn back to a certain community or compelled to stay in one that was maybe not so easy, both socially and economically, due to community ties. I think the ways that both Sharkey and Sherman have studied how these connections affect people’s social and economic statuses is very compelling and I look forward to studying this more.
This argument as well as Sharkey’s notion of the “inherited” ghetto interested me the most. It is because it highlights one of the fundamental reasons why this notion of ghetto and its connotation with Black America has persisted over time. Black Americans have historical been discouraged from moving to white suburban areas and for that reason, the construction of ghetto being synonymous with blackness in America. More than that black Americans themselves choosing to live in or very close to the “ghettos” they grew up and the internalized cultures of poverty among their children is something I had not considered. Upward mobility is also hindered in these communities because of the understanding of what their ghettos represent. While over several black generations there can be mobility it is not a linear progression. It is instead kind of warped and highlights historical and systematic roadblocks for black upward mobility .
I agree that Sharkey’s argument about inherited disadvantage is interesting, and begins to explain the trend towards downward economic mobility in predominantly black neighborhoods even with wealthier families. Sharkey touches on systemic issues that create barriers for residents in these neighborhood, but as you alluded to in your post, his article places emphasis on the benefits of black families moving to white neighborhoods in relationship with economic mobility. While I think that he has a valid point and presents legitimate evidence, his emphasis on environmental influence and inherited disadvantage places subtle blame on blackness as an identity. Karyn Lacy’s article, ‘Blue-Chip Black: Race, Class, and Status in the New Black Middle Class”, challenges this type of reasoning because it “characterizes a black racial identity as a liability” (151). While Sharkey briefly discusses connection to place and black identity as a factor in influencing families to stay in all-black neighborhoods, Lacy argues that families actively seek out living environments where their children can connect with their black identity, and see these locations as assets. Sharkey should look into this choice in depth to see how his argument for families to escape the “ghetto” to achieve economic mobility fails to discuss the benefits families receive by living in these places.
While reading Sharkey’s article, I could not help but think about the themes of familiarity and comfort. It was extremely surprising to me that African American parents returned to the ghetto with their children even though they were economically and socially able to live elsewhere. Yet, they moved back to the ghetto because they understood the ghetto’s culture and the environment; most importantly, African American parents knew that they would be accepted. I’m curious about the other ways in which individuals and families return to familiar places to feel more comfortable. Familiarity can mean both a physical space and the people who inhabit the space. Sharkey’s article reminded me a lot of Bowdoin’s campus. Bowdoin students share the same goal of being our best and succeeding in life; however, on campus I notice quite a bit of self-segregation amongst students. This may be done subconsciously or consciously, but regardless most students on campus befriend those who are racially and socioeconomically similar to them. I argue that this is because of our desire for comfort and acceptance.I don’t think Bowdoin students are too far off from the parents who move back to the ghetto. Bowdoin students are given the unique opportunity to meet people from all different backgrounds; yet, most of us choose to fall back on what’s familiar to us.