While many families in America feel a deep pride for their suburban towns where they reside, the readings for this week forced us to explore and reflect upon the shortcomings of suburbia. Both “Codes of the Suburb” by Jacques and Wright and “Blue-Chip Black” by Karyn Lacy highlight and analyze the level of dissatisfaction with suburban life felt by two groups: middle-class blacks and high school youth. Both have different ways of responding to what they feel is the inadequacy of suburbia; however, both coping mechanisms involve the formation of sub-communities to fill their respective cultural voids. These communities allow middle-class blacks and high school youth to forge interactions and construct personal identities rather than getting lost in an environment with little excitement and opportunity for self-expression. It is interesting to look at these sub-communities alongside one another and analyze the ways in which they do and do not reflect community as we defined it at the beginning of this course. Moreover, it is important to reflect on the suburban community itself as some of its members are feeling the need to create their own sub-communities to meet their needs.

For the middle-class blacks in our reading, living in suburbia requires them to “travel back and forth regularly between the black and white worlds” (Lacy 151). For instance, in Lakeview, a suburb that is (like many others) predominantly white, the black population frequently seeks out connection to the black world through participation in black churches, fraternities, and other social organizations. By doing so, they are able to participate in middle-class, predominantly white schools and workplaces, but also set themselves apart from these white spaces at the end of the day by reconnecting with their black communities. In the suburbs referenced in this reading, “seeking spaces where black identity is nurtured, a community where they can socialize and reconnect with other blacks after spending the bulk of their day in the white world” (Lacy 170). Middle class blacks in Lakeview form an ecological and symbolic sub-community to compensate for the lack of cultural stimulation in suburbia to construct and maintain black racial identities.

On the other hand, high school youth in Peachville respond to lack of stimuli in suburbia through drug consumption and dealing. The young population in Peachville does not have the “foremost signs of social status: a professional career that generates enough money to buy what they need and want” (Jacques and Wright, 5) and therefore must look for an immediate source of social capital- coolness. While Peachville seems to provide other outlets such as sports to achieve a ‘cool’ status, many of these adolescents turn to the drug world, as it allows them to demonstrate coolness. Moreover, it becomes clear that their desire to be cool is rooted in a much more fundamental issue they have with suburban life: “Drugs were the glue that bonded these adolescents’’ social lives. Drugs gave them something to do, a reason to be together. This provided them with an opportunity to interact with their peers and demonstrate their social desirability in the process, which in turn served to increase their perceived subcultural status” (Jacques and Wright, 21). It is interesting that the young people in Peachville must engage in drug use in order to forge these social bonds, and it points to the fact that their overarching suburban community is lacking stimulation. Like the middle-class blacks mentioned in Lacy’s reading, the Peachville high school students’ needs are not being met by suburbia so they feel the need to form this sub-community. Although the community formed by these students is fleeting and arguably not comprised of individuals with much more in common besides an interest in achieving a certain social status, they all feel a common frustration with the lack of entertainment and opportunity for social engagement with their fellow peers, which is something that nonetheless bonds them.

Although there is a difference in the sub-communities formed in response to the inadequacies of suburban life by both groups, the fact that two completely different social groups feel the need create them in the first place reveals something about the cultural and diverse stimuli that suburbia lacks. While suburban life does provide certain opportunities and a perceived community, these readings make us question whether or not a suburban town can serve as a community that will satisfy the needs of all its residents. Jacques, Wright and Lacy make us ponder that idea that perhaps social division and creation of sub-communities is inevitable and a reality of suburbia.

In Chapter 5 of On the Run, Goffman chronicles the apparent cycling of the 6th Street men through different levels of the penal system. One of the key ways that these young men deal with their criminalization is living life on the run, which includes learning to “run and hide when police are coming” (52), avoiding places where policing is heavy like hospitals and funerals, avoiding formal employment, cultivating unpredictability in their behavior and habits, and “taking legal risks on one another’s behalf” (126).

For the first part of my discussion question, I posed whether or not we could read On the Run through the lens of resistance identities, as described by Rios, and/or survival strategies, as described by Sherman. There was not much consensus in our class discussion on whether or not Rios’ resistance identities was an ideal framework. As Rios describes in “Dummy Smart,” resistance identities are those that are “created by subordinated populations in response to oppression” and can help “provide them with the necessary tools to survive in an environment where they have been left behind and…consistently criminalized” (102). So an important distinction raised during class may be defining what these men are resisting. Would the resistance identity be completing normal, everyday tasks even though they are often criminalized? Or, would the resistance identity be living on the run from the police, even though this seems to be the more prevalent approach among the 6th Street men?

I have yet to come to a definite conclusion, but I am leaning towards the idea that resistance identities can incorporate both: a general identity developed in response to the 6th Street men navigating life under the apparent omnipresence of the police and penal system–a balance between running and living a “normal” life under this surveillance. In Rios’ framework, the 6th Street men are a subordinated population who are using different survival strategies to navigate a world which has sought to criminalize their everyday habits and behavior. Sometimes their strategies are in opposition to what mainstream society may dictate as the “correct” way to deal or cooperate with police surveillance. But whether they run or stay, the unfortunate consequence often seems to be time spent in police custody, jail, or prison–so everything these men do can in some framework be defined as a type of resistance. Additionally, in Chapter 4 of On the Run, Goffman introduces the ways in which the 6th Street community actually use their involvement with legal authorities to their own benefit, whether that be using jail as a safe haven, the bail office as a bank, or the threat of snitching as a form of social control. This component may demonstrate how the 6th Street community can develop a form of agency under the surveillance of the police, showing that they are not just passive and “unwilling pawns of oppressive authorities” (91).

I am also interested in the degree to which we should address Goffman’s status as a white, middle/upper-class, educated woman in her analysis of 6th Street and its residents. To an extent, the Appendix helps to clarify how she came to be involved in the 6th Street community, how she viewed her relationships there, and, in part, how she addressed being an outsider of the community while conducting research. Despite these explanations, I am still left somewhat unsatisfied. As opposed to other ethnographers who embrace their outsider status, Goffman instead, sought to be a “participant observer” who would eventually be able to understand the “everyday worries and small triumphs from the inside” (243). But the main focus of her research became “life on the run,” which remained an elusive concept for a white women on 6th Street without actively putting herself in danger or explicitly attracting the attention of the police–which would likely ruin her rapport with the 6th Street men. So, Goffman claims it herself: she “missed a lot by not moving through the criminal justice system alongside them” (243). Even though she sought not to be an outsider, it seems to me that Goffman retained her outsider status on arguably the most integral part of her study.

Lastly, I am left wondering why we are posing this question for Goffman, even though it has yet to come up for previous ethnographers discussed. Does it have to do with her multi-pronged status as an outsider–as white, as highly educated, as middle/upper-class, and as a woman? I do think Goffman’s status is worth noting and discussing but why now and not before?

High poverty rates in Golden Valley are rooted in the loss of job security after the mill closed down as the result of federal policy to protect owl habitat. Though, Sherman argues that “it is likely that the forest industry would have continued to decline in Golden Valley even without the spotted owl ruling” (35). The circumstances in Golden Valley fit into a larger, nation-wide trend of de-industrialization and industrial restructuring. The community is “fiercely protective” of itself as a space for white, working class, rural families “isolated in time and space from the rapidly diversifying, mostly urban state” of California.

A strong sense of tradition pervades Golden Valley, especially in terms of conceptions of gender. Prior to the economic collapse, most men were employed in the “masculine” manual labor sector and were the sole household bread-winners; women were “focused on the maintenance of the family” (45). Out of necessity, these roles have begun to change; though most conceptions of the social structure of Golden Valley are rooted in romanticizations of the past. When asked why they choose to stay in Golden Valley despite hardship, the responses of the men tend to include a connection to the land for both work and leisure. The women tend to cite close familial and community ties. “The key to respectability”, Sherman argues, is “not necessarily wealth, but rather having a male earner who provided as much as he could through work” (58). Men in post-industrial Golden Valley tend to reject the type of employment that remains in town: service and administrative oriented, low-wage, part-time, “feminized” jobs. Instead, they prefer to supplement their livelihood via hunting, fishing, and working odd-jobs in the informal economy.

What is to be done in Golden Valley and similar de-industrialized communities around the US? This dilemma is especially pertinent, given that rural poverty is outpacing urban poverty and that the rural poor (and those who identify with this group) will increasingly drive US policy.

Sherman notes that “the receipt of welfare is absolutely incongruent with the work ethics of Golden Valley” and that the use of welfare is considered to have “only slightly less” moral capital “than selling drugs” (73). Unemployment and disability are deemed of higher moral value, because one has to have work in order to receive them. To protect their social capital, citizens of Golden Valley who are eligible for SNAP, travel almost two-hours in order to use their benefit cards. Allowing people to purchase approved items within their monthly limit on a normal debit card (rather than a stigmatized snap card) might encourage people to take advantage of this program. This solution, however, does not get at the larger macro-economic and socio-cultural forces that have created an economic environment where welfare is such a necessity.

As we stated in class, increased research on rural poverty is needed in order to prescribe appropriate, evidence-based policy. Though, as we can see from their fierce rejection of government assistance, many people living in Golden Valley would likely argue that the first job of the government is to leave them alone. In their minds, the government prioritized the spotted owl over people, would rightfully wary of subsequent efforts by the government outsiders to ‘fix it’. I still am left wondering what policies should actually be implemented in Golden Valley (and places like it). Does it boil down to two options? A. The government can bring jobs to Golden Valley via favorable tax policy? Or, B. Residents can choose to move to places where jobs are more readily available, thus, giving up their “traditional” way of life? Is there some favorable middle ground?

This week, we read about suburban life and the way it impacts different groups such as high school teenagers and African American families intent on holding on to their identity and culture. These readings highlighted the limitations and issues that arise from a suburban lifestyle and the ways that people altered their lives and spaces to accommodate their needs. For example, the young adults of Peachville could not find a suitable and enjoyable way to spend their time, so some of them decided to turn to dealing and consuming drugs. In the case of Sherwood Park residents, they were very particular in advising their children of which spaces and people to interact with in hopes of showing the importance of black identity. In both cases, we see the way suburban life has certain limitations and how people respond to fill their social and cultural desires.

The lack of stimuli in the suburbs was most apparent in visualizing how the middle class teenagers interacted with drugs. It is important to note that throughout the article, the true focus as to why drugs became a central part of these kids lifestyle is because it was a way to be social with friends and increase their status. There certainly was a large emphasis on consuming drugs and the spotlight that came along with it, but the true reason is that suburban life did not offer enough in terms of entertainment and stimulation for these individuals. In concept, the other large incentive to selling drugs is the economic incentive although many of the dealers expressed that was not as much of a factor in their decision to get involved with selling. What this shows is that these individuals were finding a way to cope with an underwhelming lifestyle rather than trying to make an economic gain or simply enjoying the effects. They experienced disdain with their situation and had to find something to fill the void. In this case, they turned to getting involved with drugs because it met all the criteria they needed for developing socially. They were looking for ways to spend time with their friends, acquire social capital, and become someone who was seen as “cool” by any means necessary. These teenagers latched onto selling and consuming drugs because they could not find anything in their suburban environment that produced all these needs.

With the neighborhoods that Lacy introduced, suburbia had the wrong kind of culture for some families and fell short in providing adequate stimuli for the development of their black identity. The mothers and fathers of Sherwood Park were extremely concerned with the lack of black culture exposure and wanted their kids to not spend as much time with white families and residents because of the hyper-exposure of white culture they received in suburban spaces. In certain instances, some families felt as though navigating the suburbs was harder than navigating less than privileged neighborhoods because they felt more comfortable with an environment that had a black identity. Living in a more middle class region, the shortcomings in terms of culture are exposed in neighborhoods like Sherwood Park and the necessity to alter their community becomes primary concern. It is true that, statistically, there is far less diversity in suburbia than in other regions however, these conflicts of culture stem from the struggle groups face in the lack of adequate culture by the suburbs.

Suburban life is supremely popular among families because it offers, in most cases, a safe and quaint neighborhood in which to raise a family. While there are distinct advantages to the more serene vibe suburbia life brings on, there is also the issue of a lack of stimuli and entertainment. The pieces by Jacques & Wright and Lacy, illuminate the struggles of living in suburbia and that its shortcomings require other elements to fill the needs of its residents.

-Wilson M.

This week’s readings by Murphy, Lee, and Rios presented themes on “The Iconic Ghetto” and the ways in which individuals navigate and interpret these spaces. Each set of readings, and their ethnographic studies therein, provided concrete evidence of the persistence of racial segregation in communities, and how this segregation, in turn, forces certain individuals to develop what Rios terms “organic capital.” In doing so, these individuals are unable to define themselves, and instead, are defined by societal perceptions.

I had never heard of the term organic capital prior to this reading, however, after reading Rios’ piece “Dummy Smart” it became clear that this notion persisted in the work of Murphy and Lee. First, in Murphy’s piece, we see how new members of the community are used as scapegoats for the on-going littering problem. As long-time community members had no one to blame the littering problem on, the turned to the poor black individuals who had recently moved to the neighborhood, arguing that they littered because they cared little about the health of the community (Murphy 211). This labeling, by white community members, had ramifications for the poor black ex-urbanites moving into the community. To me, it seemed like this stripped them of their identity, and instead of being able to redefine themselves in their new neighborhood, the community immediately labeled them as deviant and immoral. I thought this notion related well to our class discussion on housing programs and the rise of the suburbs. Murphy states that the Section 8 housing program was used to move poor families out of the city and into the suburbs (211). While in theory programs like these should cause few problems, Murphy’s study revealed how housing programs can often times do more harm than good. This made me think of a question posed in class, asking if federal housing policies have more positive or negative impacts. I think in this sense, and through this example, we see the negative impacts of such policies, as it allowed long time community residents to blame their persisting problems on poor blacks as they moved into the area. In doing this, these community members, unknowingly, were identifying individuals as deviant, careless, and immoral with no probable cause. In doing so, the newcomers felt rejected and unwanted within their social space.

The notion of organic capital was also evident in Lee’s piece on rap battling, and again, shows how certain individuals are stripped of their identity by the perceptions of society. The individuals who engaged in rap battles were often neglected by society, and were seen as deviant by locals, teachers, and administrators (Lee 594-595). Unsurprisingly, this made rap battles a form of organic capital, where these individuals could interact with one another outside the confines of society. To me, I thought this gave the rap battlers a new identity, as they were no longer ostracized by members of the larger community, bur rather, were identified by the smaller rap battling community, where everyone shared similar characteristics. Furthermore, this allowed them to escape from the unaccepting community, into a more private and hidden social space. This idea made me think of our discussion on cities, and how eventually over time, individuals form communities with whom they are most similar to. Often times this is based on race, as seen in the work of Massey and Denton, in which individuals congregate according to class and ethnicity. In this sense, the individuals neglected by society turned to rap battling to develop a sense of community in which they could temporarily take on new identities, and not those of society.

After these readings I was left wondering what could be done to move away from this notion of organic capital. Initially, I thought it this would be extremely difficult, and that most solutions would merely act as “Band-Aid” solutions that end up perpetuating the same problems over time. For example, we talked about an education reform in class, and how this might give these kids the opportunity to stay and school, and off of the streets. However, since public schools are funded through property taxes, to me, this reform would only temporarily solve the problem. While there is no easy way to solve this problem, reform efforts must be long-lasting and routinely monitored. Further, societal perceptions should not define communities from the outside looking in, but instead should work to help these individuals thrive in all social spaces.

This week’s discussion and readings by Murphy, Lee and Rios picked up on our previous conversations about the “iconic ghetto”. Elijah Anderson coined the term “iconic ghetto” and asserted that despite legislation that has made racial integration and incorporation possible, racial segregation persisted in neighborhoods, restaurants and schools throughout the United States. The “ghetto” in turn starts to become associated with the places “where blacks live.” When outside of “the ghetto,” African Americans have to figure out how to navigate these primary white and segregated spaces. In their works, Murphy, Lee and Rios explore how African Americans navigate not only these white spaces but also “the ghetto.” While each author highlights different passage through these areas, an underlying theme throughout all of these works is the notion of a resistance identity.  My expert question based off of these readings focused on how sociologists might be focusing too heavily on the negatives of the ghetto and are abandoning or ignoring cultural benefits of these communities such as resistance identities. 

Rios’ article “Dummy Smart” is the only article in which the concept of a resistance identity is explicitly mentioned. Resistance identities according to Rios, “are those identities created by subordinated populations in response to oppression” (102).  These identities are used as a way of creating a sense of agency and power within a society in which those included feel displaced or mistreated. In Rios study, the members of this society are Latino and Black men from Oakland, California. Rios examines how obtaining this sense of power and agency often becomes entangled with legal trouble. For example, in order to assert his dominance and power in the community over a local storeowner, Mike, a Latino teenager, steals a bag of chips when he feels as though he is being disrespected and mistreated by the owner. Mike had more than enough money to pay for the bag of chips but he was determined to prove a point to the members of the community that try and exclude him from mainstream society. By acting against the law and traditional norms of society, the young men are trying to “one-up” these “excluders”.   To the men living in Oakland, the notion of power and dignity is more significant than spending a few days in juvie.  Although I do not believe that sociologists should encourage or praise the criminal actions of these boys, it is impressive and important to note and explore how these men find spaces for themselves in a society that has marginalized them for years.

This idea of a resistance identity is further echoed in Murphy’s article about “litterers.” Murphy claims that those who litter are perceived by their community as being “outsiders and disreputable” (1). After readings Rios’ article, I began to examine the litterers in a broader context within the ghetto. When thinking about the litterers in this framework, I started to ask myself if littering could be used as a way of creating a resistance identity. Was it possible that by littering these members of the community felt as though they were taking control of their community and re-claiming their space? Was throwing trash on the ground and consequently disrespecting the physical space of the community, a mechanism for acquiring respect in the eyes of the litterer? The litterers in this community, feeling that the label of outsider has been placed upon them, could be determined to gain back a sense of power and respect. As a result, they are driven to cling onto these resistance identities, which propel them to rebel against societal norms. Ironically, by continuing the behavior that has warranted the reputation of “disreputable,” the litterers believe that they will be seen in a more esteemed manner.

It is easy to write off the litterers in this community as disrespectful but when examined in a larger context, it is important to think about the different ways in which people go about acquiring power and dignity and how the traditional forms of achieving these characteristics may not be equally available to everyone in society. The resistance identities, similar to the rap battles discussed by Lee, offer the people in the ghetto a sense of respect and almost a release from the daily burdens that they feel have been imposed on them. To the members of the ghetto, resistance identities are a way of reclaiming a feeling of pride that they rightfully believe have been stripped from them by mainstream white society.

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.

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 week, we discussed the persistence of the ghetto. We read sections of Patrick Sharkey’s “Stuck in Place: Urban Neighborhoods and the End of Progress Toward Racial Equality”. In these sections, he uses data to analyze the trend he refers to as “the inherited ghetto”.

I was at first, very critical of his research methods and the validity of his data. After the discussion in class, I definitely appreciate his approach. Looking back at the beginning of the reading, he writes about statistical portrayals of black communities in the media. I think this appropriately sets the scene for why he is so reliant on statistics in his writing. Statistics can often erase the actuality of situations, however, when used analytically, they can illuminate fascinating trends. I am still left wondering what can be done to improve these communities without leading to gentrification and displacement.

Sharkey writes about financially successful black families moving back to ghettos. Perhaps in some ways there is a sense of comfort when displacement, rising housing prices, and general competition over land is not a concern. We’ve learned a lot about the ways in which black people have been kept out of white neighborhoods, but less about the ways in which they have been kicked out. I’ve learned a little about the racist agendas of landlords to remove rent-stabilized tenants and sell apartments at market rate.   There are many unethical but legal ways in which landlords can treat their tenants to encourage them to move out. I wonder if ghettos lack that immediate fear of displacement and if that could also contribute to black families living in ghettos regardless of socioeconomic status.

It did not seem like we determined any concrete steps that the government could take in class. I was thinking a lot about community action during class and what roles community empowerment could play in improving ghettos. The government could fund and support community organizations to a greater degree. On my study abroad trip, I was able to visit a low-income community in São Paulo that had been pushed to the peripheries of the city. The government was going to take their land, displace the residents and build a park. Due to some impressive community organizing, the neighborhood determined a strategy: show the government their commitment to the environment and sustainability. They created community gardens, alternative waste disposal, and added environmental education to their school. They have now been recognized nationally as an eco-friendly community and the government funds many of their current projects. Residents claimed that this action made the community far safer, very engaged, and driven.

This is definitely a very idealistic story and places the burden of improvement on the shoulders of oppressed communities, but I do think it is a useful example of community empowerment and improvement. I felt as though this could also connect to the discussion of infrapolitics and resistance identities provided in “Punished: Policing the Lives of Black and Latino Boys”, by Victor Rios. I found an academic article titled “Reclaiming Urban Space as Resistance: The Infrapolitics of Gardening”, by Sandrine Baudry. The article describes the greening of a city by citizens not as governmental cooperation, but as active resistance. She uses terms like “guerrilla gardening” and the use of “seed bombs” to convey a type of resistance that actually benefits the community. This does not necessarily follow Rios’ definition of resistance identities. He describes an embrace of criminality as resistance that often has self-destructive effects despite a sense of freedom. I think that the form of resistance described by Baudry ,in favor of community, could serve as a viable solution to the problems that plague urban ghettos.

Baudry Sandrine, « Reclaiming Urban Space as Resistance: The Infrapolitics of Gardening », Revue française d’études américaines, 2012/1 (n° 131), p. 32-48. DOI : 10.3917/rfea.131.0032. URL : http://www.cairn.info/revue-francaise-d-etudes-americaines-2012-1-page-32.htm

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.