Blackwell City Reader Part III Division and Difference

Marcel Mirzaei-Fard Blackwell City Reader Part III Student no.: 2519870 15/01-2013 Words: 1199

Blackwell City Reader Part III – Division and Difference

City Life – The battleground of diverse groups The question of social differentiation and difference has always been one of the classic sociological questions, and in the arena of the city, this is even more present than other areas. I will in this essay attempt to deal with these differences by first looking at some of the classic, and more obvious divisions: ethnicity, gender and sex. Secondly, I aim at analyzing the ways in which we – both as individuals and as society – chose to cope with this diversity in cities. Classic segregation lines For Massey & Denton (2010), race and ethnicity constitutes one of the most important lines of segregation. They studies discrimination on the basis of ethnic diversity in several states of U.S. However their data does not conclude that prejudice and discrimination leads to segregation, there seems to be evidence for the conclusion that racial segmentation is taking place (Massey 2010:181). Especially the urban housing market is said to be an important factor, but also inherently anti-black sentiments is still said to take place (Ibid.). Gender diversity, another aspect, might actually be a little more controversial topic in urban studies, even though it is a classic relevant variable. Using a feminist analysis, Watson argues, “urban design and built forms, though implicitly imbued with gendered assumptions, […] are rarely sensitive to the needs of women with children” (Watson 2010:237). The suburbs, for example, are designed on the idea of the classic housewife, and the women’s space is thus designed to be in the home and not in the public (Ibid:137f). The suburbs are designed so that the man can easily access downtown from his home. A problem is, that late modernity and its focus on flexibility and the general rising in information-heavy work (see for example Castells 2010) are not met by the design of the cities, she argues (Watson 2010:240f). In Chauncey’s paper (2010), the gay milieu in the 1920’s New York is the topic. Harlem and The Village became the rendezvous for gays, lesbians and drags that clustered together (Chauncey 2010:243f). Some of the pull-factors were the hope tolerance and the possibility of better life conditions such as a lower rent. However, neither Harlem nor Village could protect these groups from the face of intolerance and discrimination. Coping with diversity: A conflict perspective As we have seen now with just a few examples, city contains much contradiction and diversity. The question is, then, how do we as urbanites and society cope with this diversity when we are walking around the streets of diversity? To Mitchell (2010), the answer is: we attempt to recreate privacy. Inhabitants of cities “create” a bubble of silence and privacy – an 8-feet-distance-bubble – in order to avoid interaction with others: “ We do not wants to collide with one anther”, he states (Mitchell 2010:218). This is part of a discourse for safety, but, Mitchell worries, these kinds of regulations moves us away from the idea of cosmopolitanism in general. As we shall see, safety is one of the issues that affect our strategy of dealing with city diversity. Davis (2010) depicts how the authorities – police and politicians - of Los Angeles have sought to dispel homeless people out of the townscape by redesigning of city plans and increasing control of some areas (Davis 2010:197). Marcel Mirzaei-Fard Blackwell City Reader Part III Student no.: 2519870 15/01-2013

This must be seen in the context of the discourse of safety; in order to meet the middle class’ wish for safety and comfort. The result is instead clustering together homeless people in a specific area – but away from the sight of the middle class. In the eyes of Davis, this redesigning has resulted in: “a massively reproduced spatial apartheid”, as the middle class man can now walk through the streets without challenging any dangers or real strangers (Davis 2010:196). Both Davis and Mitchell both emphasize two important things: 1) the “public” is characterized by diversity and conflict, and 2) that our drive for safety and privacy has led to an altering of the cities public space. We do not need to get confronted with “types” we do not like, or from person from whom we differs. For Mitchell, the consequence is that we left without any “unscripted […] interactions” – we are floating bubbles (Mitchell 2010:215). Some of the discussion that Mitchell and Davis opens regards ideological and political questions, and many of these have also been articulated in the migration debate about assimilation vs. multiculturalism. The question is simply whether we should be optimistic or pessimistic about people distinctiveness? Iris Young (2010) states, that the answer could be to stop denying the differences and instead appreciate them (Young 2010:229). This implies the normative idea that one should be open to other’s distinctiveness instead trying to homogenizing (by for example Davis’ spatial apartheid). Social relations must simply embody this “otherness”, and: “the unoppressive city is thus defined as openness to unassimilated otherness” (Young 2010:234). Young seems to embrace the cities diversity and the possibility of meeting strangers. Gentrification Mitchell and Davis’ concern resembles some of the topics of Burgess’ and Smith (both 2010), who deals with the topic of gentrification. Smith states that gentrification is not on retreat but instead an increasingly relevant strategy in order to reconstruct cities. These strategies can involve some of the elements of Mitchell’s “spatial apartheid”; for example by arresting homeless people. Gentrification has been a way of making poor and bad looking areas into business areas and also areas with attractiveness for the creative class. (Smith 2010: 201ff) In the same vein, Burgess compares the development in cities (plan ecology) with a metaphor of human ecology, and introduces the concepts of succession and invasion. Succession denotes the continuing “battleground” which constitutes “the urban”, while invasion denotes an open space that is inhibited by migrants (not necessarily in the ethnic sense). Burgess’ perspective is a conflict perspective, as the ones we saw with Davis and Mitchell; the city is platform for competition and the clashing of different groups (Burgess 2010: 342). It could be compared to Smith’s concept of gentrification, but Burgess’ conceptualization seems to me to be less intentionally and politically founded that gentrification, but merely a functionalistic process. Conclusion My aim was to see how the contemporary city life is characterized by diversity. To do that, I looked first at the some of the classic differentials by looking at gender, ethnicity and sexuality. Massey & Denton showed

of 4 Marcel Mirzaei-Fard Blackwell City Reader Part III Student no.: 2519870 15/01-2013 that ethnic discrimination is still part of urban life, and that groups of people cluster together based on ethnic background. Watson shows that cities are designed in a gender-biased way, while Chauncey showed how gays and lesbians throughout the history have been discriminated. Second, I wanted to discuss how we as society as well as individuals handle this diversity. Most of the scholars I have here used, agree that safety and privacy is two important issues of contemporary life. They all provide a slightly pessimistic view that the city is a “battleground” for conflicts, which we try to cope with – all resulting in a loss of the cities distinctiveness and identity. Young is, of them all, the one who nurtures most hope for diversity in cities – however, only if we come to accept the each other differences.

of 4 Marcel Mirzaei-Fard Blackwell City Reader Part III Student no.: 2519870 15/01-2013

Bibliography

Burgess, E.W. 2010: “The Growth of the City”. In The Blackwell city reader, Bridge & Watson 2010

Chauncey, G. 2010: “Building Gay Neighbourhood Enclaves: the Village and Harlem”, in The Blackwell city reader, Bridge & Watson 2010

Davis, M. 2010: “City of Quartz: Excavating the Future in Los Angeles”, in The Blackwell city reader, by Bridge & Watson 2010

Massey, D. S. & D. 2010, Nancy A.: “The Continuing Causes of Segregation”, in The Blackwell city reader, by Bridge & Watson 2010

Mitchell, D. 2010: “The S.U.V. Model of Citizenship: Floating Bubbles, Buffer Zones, and the Rise of the “Purely Atomic” Individual”, in The Blackwell city reader, by Bridge & Watson 2010

Smith, N.. 2010: “After Tompkins Square Park: Degentrification and the Revanchist City”, in The Blackwell city reader, by Bridge & Watson 2010

Watson, S. 2010: “City A/Genders”, in The Blackwell city reader, by Bridge & Watson 2010

Wilson, W.J. 2010: “The Truly Disadvantaged: The Inner City, the Underclass and Public policy”, in The Blackwell city reader, by Bridge & Watson 2010

Young, Iris. 2010: “The Ideal of Community and the Politics of Difference”, in The Blackwell city reader, by Bridge & Watson 2010