The Chicago School defines crime as the product of social disorganization, arising from the growth of secondary, anonymous ties. However in recent years, crime rates have declined in urban areas as a result of differing police tactics and social factors, such as the shrinkage of the teenage population. One factor that we discussed in class was “therapeutic policing”, which uses rehabilitation to help individuals avoid ending up in jail. Our reading on Skid Row in the book – “Down Out and Under Arrest” explores crime in this area in LA, and the social reasons behind it. In part two of this book, Forest Stuart uses ethnographic research to explore how the rise in therapeutic policing has forced the residents of Skid Row to find ways to avoid contact with the police in order to stay out of trouble, through using their “cop wise” knowledge. In the three chapters, Stuart researches three different groups: a group of men who create an insulated community through their weight pile, a group of street vendors, and finally an organisation called LACAN. All three groups are shown to have varying tactics to navigate the hyper control of the police.

My first question asked: “in order to improve the quality of living of those in Skid Row, is it more effective to work to avoid police interventions? Or instead to confront the police and try reform police policy as seen with the LACAN”. The men in the weight pile group avoided the police the most. However, their clean attire still attracted negative attention from the police, for example when one of the men was almost arrested after an officer assumed he was a drug dealer. On the opposite end of the spectrum, the LACAN were able to achieve legislative changes but often at the expense of their own safety. The definition of quality of living was brought up during the discussion. As members of the LACAN often jeopardise their own safety while filming police officers, questions can be raised regarding how their quality of living is affected in the short term, as they strive to create long lasting change. In class, we discussed that in light of neither tactic being perfect, both strategies need to happen together in order to maximise the benefits. As the LACAN had more long term benefits, the majority of those living in Skid Row would still need to use their “cop wise” knowledge in order to stay out of trouble in the short run.

My second question asked: “is it the social responsibility to those who are more knowledgeable to look out for others?”. I found it striking how the backgrounds of those living in Skid Row influenced how much they wanted to help those around them use tactics to avoid contact with the police. The differing reasons was also interesting. Although street vendors were very vigilant in telling groups to not loiter on their streets, this was more to take the “heat” off the streets, and minimise the vendors’ own interaction with the police. In connection to Robert Vargas’ book “Wounded City”, we see that it is very common for residents to share common knowledge within their community. In Little Village, the author writes how the “code of silence” prevents residents from calling the police in order to avoid retaliation from gangs. In both these areas, the police is perceived as the enemy and measures are taken to minimise contact with them. However, in Little Village, we see individuals looking out for each other less due to the mistrust created by the tensions between all the gangs in the area. It is clear that the sense of community makes people more inclined to look out for each other, particularly in areas where there are such clear divisions between the police and residents.

As I expressed in class last week, I found Stuart’s piece to be especially compelling as it effectively combined a historical perspective on Skid Row, a conceptual introduction of neoliberalism, and an incorporation of uniquely telling ethnography. Stuart expertly weaves the three together leaving the reader with a nuanced perspective on policing and social programming in Skid Row. Through this, we were able to unpack “therapeutic policing” and how the paternalistic practice did far more to repress non-productive members of the Skid Row community rather than promoting actual rehabilitation. Later in the second half of the book, Stuart discusses the interesting phenomena that results from this, such as community members actively policing the police as a measure of self-defense.

In this post though, I would like to revisit the slightly detached, hypothetical questions that I posed in class. They are listed below.

Another question a bit removed from the text itself, but I think one that is worth asking. I kinda jumbled my explanation of this question in class, but what made me think of this was our discussion of white fear of racial crime when the numbers show that the vast majority of crime occurs “black on black” or “white on white”. Still though, the sentiment of fear is a powerful one and is often a very effective political platform to run on. Republicans historically do very well when they run on crime. Trump took it to a whole different level, not just running on illegal immigrant crime, but running on an illegal immigrant INVASION. Spooky! But not very true. At all.

However, some have proposed a similar framework of thought when scrutinizing entrenched Democrats within urban districts. Democrats do very well when they run on social services and programming that are at least very normative and encouraging sounding. However, often times little change is experienced and still, these reps get elected time and time again. AOC disrupted this trend when she unseated former Democratic caucus chair and 10-term incumbent Joe Crowley. Anybody have any thoughts on this? Maybe you’ve seen this firsthand, on either side of the political aisle?

I thought our class discussion developed well towards the end of class and dug in depth into many of our expert questions. Throughout class we have been looking at ways in which a community is defined. In the book, Darrel often felt patronized by the non-profit organizations that he was sent to and that his needs were not attended to, which left him feeling isolated. The systems in place to help those living in Skid Row better their lives and move out, seem quite robotic and unpersonalized.

The question I posed to the class was, “Stuart defines actions taken by the police in Skid Row as “therapeutic policing”. How do we better the system so that people are more willing to accept help from, say, non-profit organizations without feeling belittled? Is there a top-down method rather than bottom-up that would be more beneficial; i.e. having government intervention or community-based aid?”.

Relating specifically to my question, I found that many people agreed on having a balance between more government mediation and community-based help. I think a part of my question that is still unanswered is, if government control and community-based aid should go hand in hand, how? In what ways? What would this look like specifically? Though, these are not easily answered questions. If there was more government control, would this be accepted by those living in Skid Row, or would they feel that this would be extremely invasive and continuing the vicious cycle of robotic “help”? On the other hand, would the surrounding communities be able to provide the aid and support that is needed to make a difference? Or would they feel that being involved with Skid Row lowers their identity status as a community?

Throughout reading “Down, Out, and Under Arrest” I have found my mind gravitating back to a central theme of the class: community. Upon being asked what community was during one of the first classes of the semester, I was immediately perplexed and I have kept circling back to that question. I have been intrigued by the complicatedness and variety of definitions of community, and when I sensed a seemingly unlikely community in crime-ridden Skid Row, I posed the following question to see if my classmates sensed this as well:

“Community” has been an overarching theme all semester, and there is definitely not one clear definition for it. How do Steel and his crew represent a paradoxical idea of community, given that they congregate with each other to stay out of trouble, but in an “effort to set themselves apart from the ‘typical’ Skid Row resident” (Stuart 128-129)? Can a “Purgatory” or “halfway point” truly be a community? What other paradoxical ideas does Chapter 3 present regarding how residents perceive and think about Skid Row once they live there as opposed to before they did?

The discussion around this question tied in with other topics of the lecture offered a variety of viewpoints and responses. In one way, Steele and his crew defy community because they aim to separate themselves from the rest of the geographically concentrated group of people in Skid Row. In another way, however, they create their own community within Skid Row by choosing to group up together by working out together to stay out of the way of the police and harm’s way. Even though Skid Row is described as a “purgatory” where people don’t typically choose to reside, once they are there, by choice or not, key aspects of community form through groups like Steel’s. Community is typically thought of as a place people choose to be, but parts of “Down, Out, and Under Arrest” challenge common notions and bring to light different ways in which community can be formed.

The discussion of Asian American immigration is huge in America, as a large population has immigrated for years. In the readings “A New Gold Mountain” and “A Quality Education for Whom?” we discussed the effects of Asian immigration to America. In class, we talked about how capitalists encouraged migration because of the expendable labor force from Asia. Back in the 1900s, Asians were thought as more skilled and needed minimal supervision to complete jobs; therefore, they were considered better workers than Blacks. With a massive influx of Asians entering America, the government started regulating and denying a chance of naturalization. America did not want Asian children; therefore, they banned all prostitutes and women from entering the United States. Which easily backfired as Asian men started having inter-racial babies. In 1917, the government banned all Asians from entering the United States. The government revoked that act in 1965. The reading actively discussed the segregation of Asian Americans in the 1950s and 1960s, my question for the class was, why did the negative view on Asian American’s suddenly change in 1970?

Asian American’s slowly infiltrated America as simple workers to community shareholders in Silicon Valley. The shift between being an immigrant to being a regular middle-class neighbor happened quickly, and before anyone could control it, Fremont became a community-driven by Asian Americans. The schools became one of the top and most competitive in the country. Some stereotypes from the early 1900s fall within the Asian American “persona” and continue today. The stereotypes that Asians are smarter, faster, and cleaner, have dragged on for decades. Fremont is a type of ethnic community discussed in class. Dan and Elaine talked about their adoration for the Asian community built around them. They talked about how people moved into Fremont, specifically for the living environment and market resources. It reminded people of their hometowns.

For my second question, I wanted to dive into the idea of good and bad segregation. It is a tough question, and people seemed to fall into the idea that Asian Americans enjoy their segregation. A lot of times, immigrants have language barriers they do not want to overcome. Living in an all Asian community like Chinatown allows people that do not speak English to live their lives normally. Everyone around them speaks and does the same things as them. A classmate talked about how his grandmother refused to move from her segregated Haitian neighborhood because she knew the people around her and felt the most at home. The one point brought up against this type of segregation was the lack of public transportation to and from these minority communities. For example, in San Francisco’s Chinatown, there is no transportation access to Union Square, blocking a lot of Asians from going in and out of their communities. This lack of transportation is an example of bad segregation because the government is purposely excluding a group of people from the rest of the city. I think there needs to be a balance in segregation and integration.

The work by Sherman highlights the importance of moral status, and the moral value of coping strategies in a rural setting. Living the majority of my life in a large city, I hadn’t been exposed to such ideas and frameworks, which have prompted some unique questions. 

The idea of moral status within a community is a complicated one. If one contributes and is a good member of the community, this community will be more apt to help them in times of struggle or hardship. Take the example of someone getting sick, and having to stay in the hospital for a week. The community members would likely offer to care for the kids while the parent was sick. Although, if the parents were viewed as bad or had low moral status, then there might be a greater hesitancy for the community to offer support. 

Within this idea there are further nuances regarding deserving versus undeserving poor. Government assistance and moral status have a polarizing relationship. Take the example of a physical laborer who has been in a factory setting for over 20 years, and one day they get seriously injured on the job. As a result of the injury, they are given disability assistance from the government. This would be viewed as a noble form of assistance given the individual had put in the physical work and time. They could be viewed as a deserving poor. In contrast, someone without a job and who is relying on welfare might get a comparable amount of money, but the associated moral value is different. This individual would be viewed as a “freeloader” and categorized as “undeserving poor”. Relying on welfare carries a negative cultural connotation, and as a result people distance themselves from those who carry this connotation. This speaks to a broader trend, namely that people don’t want to rely on something that will bring them negative cultural capital. Additionally it brings an association between their group relying on welfare which facilitates the production of problematic stereotypes and generalizations. At a distance, government assistance seems benign but looking further one realizes the cultural weight that it carries. 

A big component of city living is the sense of anonymity. With this anonymity comes increased agency and independence, At the same time, with city living comes a decrease in sense of community. This manifests in that people don’t know their neighbors. If something were to go wrong, they likely wouldn’t receive community support. Equally important, there is a decrease in the importance of moral status, as there aren’t people who see you routinely in the neighborhood or as often in common spaces. Being seen and known in a community can make people feel an innate pressure to do right by others and make a positive community impression. Whereas in a completely anonymous space it is easier to do wrong and not feel the social repercussions. 

There is a middle ground between the city and a rural setting, namely the suburbs. In the case of the Levittowns, we learned about the quasi-primary ties in which relations between neighbors are often a product of circumstance (kids, sports, school) rather than a sharing of values and deeper connections. As a result, people have a medium or “superficial” level of depth, which is less than the rural community but more than urban. 

I have been puzzling over the following question: Can moral status and moral value be established in cities and densely populated urban settings? As mentioned previously, the anonymity allows people to become a face among the crowd, and develop a strong independence. One can begin to wonder, within the larger urban city setting are there smaller communities in which moral status is of greater importance? Take the example of an ethnic community, such as Little Italy, or Chinatown. In these spaces there is greater homogeneity. Similarly, one could hypothesize there are greater connections with neighbors and the smaller communities within the larger city. As a result, people know of each other and personal circumstances in ways that are almost similar to the rural setting we discussed in the Golden Valley. These ethnic communities could represent the best of both small community and independent living. This is seen in that one can occupy space and identity within the greater city and at the same time have anonymity and independence from their smaller community. Although once they return, they will get the benefits from the more intimate community. I don’t know what the sentiments regarding moral values and moral status are in these ethnic communities but it would be interesting to look further into research on this topic.

After reading Lung-Aman’s chapters “The New Gold Mountain” and “A Quality Education for Whom” I find that I am still grappling with the ways in which Asian Americans disrupt the “Whites on top” narrative. I know from this reading, other classes I have taken here at Bowdoin, and personal experiences, Asian Americans “outperform” Whites in many ways – especially in schools. However, I find it interesting how Whiteness continues to operate as the supreme crème dela crème when that is known to be false. Whiteness has been painted in such a way that it is the standard for everything and all things. I wonder perhaps if this is why the plight of poor Whites in rural areas is often forgotten and / or completely undermined. It seems as though whiteness is associated only with perfection – the ultimate standard of success. By virtue of being born white, you can do no wrong. In this manner, I wonder on the parts of Asian Americans – is chasing the American Dream apart of chasing whiteness? Or perhaps Asian Americans are forcing Whites to realize the holes and the fallacies of their success and their place as the “top dog.” Does this then provide explanation as to why Whites feel in many ways threatened by Asian Americans? Does it explain why Whites continue to move and create their own homogenous communities?

A year or so ago I read an article (I can’t remember the source unfortunately) that argued Asian Americans were soon to be lumped into the category of whiteness. With the changing demographics of our country and the decreasing majority of White Americans, the author asserted that the boundaries of whiteness would be expanded. Lung-Aman’s work makes me ponder this idea more closely. I wonder, is that even possible? Is it possible that Asian Americans can become associated with whiteness? And have they already? I think back to the history of other European immigrant groups that were once marked as “other” (Irish were once regarded as Black!) and I am reminded as to how whiteness (which is a ticket to opportunity and privilege) was granted to all of those groups. Are Asian Americans next? Will this fear of Asian Americans and the threat they pose to Whites change the way in which we think about whiteness? Will it restructure the way we think about minority groups in the U.S.? Or will whiteness maintain the steadfast grip it has over U.S. politics as the dominant group by expanding the conception of whiteness? (In my mind this seems so unlikely but I curious to hear what you all think)

Asian Americans blur the lines and boundaries of race-based hierarchy and class-based hierarchy in the U.S. White people know it and yet they seem to make excuses for the success of Asian Americans. Grant it, Asian American is an umbrella term that does not capture the many identities and nationalities concealed in it. Nevertheless, I find it fascinating how mass perceptions of the plight of Asian Americans are created and excuses are made to explain their success rather than actually discuss the impact it is clearly having in the U.S.

        In class, we have discussed multiple arguments for the persistence of urban inequality. Massey and Denton believed that inequality was a result of structural inequalities due to federal and local policies keeping Black people segregated from economic opportunities. William Julius Wilson’s argument that deindustrialization is the principal cause of poverty is also compelling. He wrote that joblessness increased the rate of single-parent households and then led to the evaporation of the middle class in urban areas. Sharkey, on the other hand, produced a theory stating poverty or the ghetto as being inherited by families and passed down generations, thus creating generational exposure to inequality, poverty, and segregation. Sharkey examined families over time who lived in poor neighborhoods for multiple generations comparing them to families who had different circumstances. The results all proved that families who had lived for multiple generations in poverty were far more disadvantaged than those who may have lived in a poor neighborhood for one generation or none at all. Sharkey’s theory made me wonder whether or not the same conditions applied to immigrant children, as the son of immigrants myself, but also whether or not those children who come from generationally impoverished families could have the same negative effects of their less disadvantaged counterparts in terms of gentrification once they gain college degrees. 

        Both questions were used in class and some interesting responses arose. At first, the question of immigrant disadvantage introduced the fact that immigrants may bring some form of capital from their home countries to the United States but that may not transmit the same skills to their children. Another interesting point was racial attachment and how certain immigrant populations may stick to each other and create enclaves, some examples include Chinatowns and Washington Heights, or how in the case of Hispanics some may gravitate to white neighborhoods in order to avoid the association to black neighborhoods. One of the disadvantages no one brought up was the language barrier and its consequences for immigrants and their children. Sharkey probably would believe that immigrants are not as affected or impacted by the same structural inequalities that families of generational disadvantage have been because his argument is rooted in the idea of an inherited place. I could see the underclass thesis or culture of poverty to be rooted in people creating places of poverty in certain spaces thus including immigrants too. However, there would have to be more research to back my claim. 

        My second question was prompted by the idea of disadvantaged people gaining privilege through a college degree. I wondered if they could be the catalysts of gentrification like their less disadvantaged peers when moving back to low-income neighborhoods with the opportunity to have higher-paying jobs than their parents straight out of college. The class discussion prompted a uniform consensus to at first say that going back to one’s respective community could not be gentrification. However, a correction was made to that statement adding that generationally disadvantaged college grads could gentrify their communities if they do not keep their community in mind when moving back. Some examples included not supporting local businesses, not investing in community programs, or not being apart of community organizations. This question was also personal for me because I struggle with the thought of moving back to my neighborhood and not contributing to it positively but continuing a cycle of kicking less “desirable” occupants. The end of the discussion left students saying that these grads have a stake in the community to improve it without displacing residents.