C.Walsh Dissertation FINAL Revised

Home , Economic capital, Human Organization, Participant observation, Urban anthropology

GARDENING TOGETHER: SOCIAL CAPITAL AND THE CULTIVATION OF URBAN COMMUNITY

COLLEEN C. WALSH

Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements For the degree of Doctor of Philosophy

Department of Anthropology CASE WESTERN RESERVE UNIVERSITY May 2011

CASE WESTERN RESERVE UNIVERSITY

SCHOOL OF GRADUATE STUDIES

We hereby approve the thesis/dissertation of

_____Colleen C. Walsh______

candidate for the __Ph.D.______degree *.

(signed)______Janet W. McGrath, Ph.D.______(chair of the committee)

______Lawrence P. Greksa, Ph.D.______

______Jill E. Korbin, Ph.D.______

______Elaine Borawski, Ph.D.______

______

(date) ____January 12, 2011______

*We also certify that written approval has been obtained for any proprietary material contained therein.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

List of Tables 4

List of Figures 6

Acknowledgements 7

Abstract 10

Chapter 1: Introduction 12 Statement of the Research Problem 12 Research Objectives 15 Organization of the Dissertation Chapters 15

REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE AND PROJECT BACKGROUND Chapter 2: Social Capital 18 Introduction and Overview of the Chapter 18 Theoretical Foundations of ‘Social Capital’ 19 Critiques of ‘Social Capital’ – Fleshing out the Concept 28 Social Capital and Health 38 Anthropology and Social Capital 46 Lessons Learned and the Strength of Anthropological Approach 49 Three Fundamental Components of Social Capital: Reexamining Putnam’s Formulation 51

Chapter 3: Race, Class, Gender and Social Capital 54 Introduction 54 Health Inequalities 55 The Historical Production of Race 57 From Race to Culture to Class: The ‘Culture of Poverty’ Debate 59 Ethnicity or Race? Recent Discussions of Race and Racism in Anthropology 63 Approaches to Race and Health: Social Capital as a Means to Explore the ‘Residual Racial Effect’ 66

Chapter 4: Urban Community Gardens: Physical and Social Transformations of Neighborhoods 70 Community Gardens As Sites of Social Capital Promotion 70 Community Gardening In Cleveland, Ohio: Rich History and Future Hopes 74 Support for Community Gardens: Current Local Initiatives 75

RESEARCH PURPOSE AND METHODOLOGY Chapter 5: Research Objectives and Methodology 79 Research Design and Objectives 79 Operationalizing Variables 79

Phase I: Garden Leader Interviews 83 Phase II: Gardener Interviews and Participant Observation 85

DATA ANALYSIS AND RESULTS Chapter 6: Sample Descriptions: Participant and Neighborhood Characteristics 92 Research Site: Cleveland and Its Neighborhoods 92 Phase I: Garden Leaders 95 Phase II: Gardener Interviews at Four garden Sites 97

Chapter 7: Results and Analysis 107 Overview of the Chapter 107 Definitions of Social Capital 108 Social Networks and Community Gardens 112 Trust and Community Gardens 118 Community Engagement among Gardeners 125 Community Gardens and Connections in Communities 129 Other Factors that May Shape Social Capital: Religion, Education and Occupation 137 Community Gardens, Social Capital and Health 140 Summary: Key Findings 151

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS Chapter 8: Case Studies: Community Gardens, Social Capital and Inequality 154 Anita – How Race and Class Shapes Views of Race and Class in Communities 154 Lakisha – Whose Social Networks Matter? Bonding, Bridging and Linking Social 160 Capital Ben – The Social Benefits of Community Gardening 164 Iris – The Individual Benefits of Community Gardening and Psychosocial Measures of Social Capital 170

Chapter 9: Discussion: Gardening Together: Social Capital and the Cultivation of Urban Community 175 Discussion –Anita and Lakisha: Racial Segregation and the Influence of Race on Social Capital 175 Discussion – Ben and Iris: Community Gardens: Social Capital, Space and Health 182

Toward a Local and Contextualized Definition of Social Capital 188

Chapter 10: Conclusions: Community Connections that Create Trust: An Emic Definition of Social Capital 194

List of Appendices 199

Appendices 200

References 226

LIST OF TABLES Table 5.1: Research Variables 80 Table 5.2: Number of Gardeners Interviewed by Site 87 Table 6.1: Garden Leader Gender and Race/Ethnicity 95 Table 6.2: Garden Leader Employment/Occupation, Educational Attainment, and Household Income 96 Table 6.3: Number of Participants in Each of the Four Garden Sites 98 Table 6.4: Community Garden 1:Employment, Educational, and Household 99 Income Table 6.5: Community Garden‐2 Employment, Education, Household Income 101 Table 6.6: Community Garden 3: Employment, Education, Household Income 103 Table 6.7: Community Garden 4: Employment, Education, Household Income 105 Table 7.2: Frequency of Responses: Definitions of Social Capital 109 Table 7.1: Have you Ever Heard of the Term “Social Capital”? 109 Table 7.3: Frequency of Responses: Description of Social Networks in the Garden 113 Table 7.4: Frequency of Responses: Do you consider other gardeners to be friends? 114 Table 7.5: Frequency of Responses: Do you hang out outside of the garden? 115 Table 7.6: The Role of Gender and Race in Shaping Social Networks: by Garden and Gender 116 Table 7.7: Frequency of Responses: Definitions of Trust 118 Table 7.8: Frequency of Responses: Whom do you turn to when you have problems? 119 Table 7.9: Trust in Gardeners and Neighbors: by Race 120 Table 710: Frequency of Responses: Gardeners Trust the Garden Neighborhood 121 Table 7.11: The Role of Gender and Race in Who you Trust: by Garden and Gender 122 Table 7.12: Frequency of Responses: How Does Race Influence Who You Trust? 123 Table 7.13: Frequency of Responses: Definition of Community Engagement, by Race and Gender 125 Table 7.14: Frequency of Responses: Community Problems: by Garden 127 Table 7.15: Frequency of Responses: Does the Community Work on Issues Together? By Race, Gender 129 Table 7.16: Do Gardens Help Make Connections?, by Race, Gender 129 Table 7.17: Frequency of Responses: Gardens Help Neighbors Connect by Race, Gender 130 Table 7.18: Does Race Affect Views of Community?, by Race, Gender 131 Table 7.19: Frequency of Qualitative Responses: Race and Views of Community, by Race, Gender 132 Table 7.20: Frequency of Responses: Do People Talk about Race? By Race, Gender 136 Table 7.21: Education, Occupation, Religion and Social Capital: by Race, Gender 138 Table 7.22: Frequency of Responses: Greatest Benefit of Community Gardening: by Phase, Race, Gender 141 Table 7.23: Frequency of Responses: Like Best about Community Gardening, by Race, Gender 142 Table 7.24: Frequency of Responses: Meaning of the Garden, By Race, Gender 144

Table7.25: Frequency of Responses: Social Capital and Health 147 Table 7.26: Frequency of Responses: Why Care about Social Capital? by Race, Gender 149

LIST OF FIGURES Figure 6.1: Map of Cleveland Community Gardens by SPA 94

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

There is no more cogent reminder of the limit of language than trying to find the words to adequately express gratitude. During my graduate training and dissertation work, I relied upon the guidance and support of so many mentors, friends, and family members and I can honestly say that completion of this project would not have been possible without them.

First and foremost, I want to thank Dr. McGrath. You always believed in me, even when I did not believe in myself, encouraging me to keep going when I wanted to quit. I could always count on you to pick me up and put me back on track. Your sense of humor kept me laughing and your professionalism kept me focused. You are truly a consummate scholar and your ability to provide individual attention to so many students while juggling an impressive amount of work will always elude me, and inspire me to work harder. Your attention to detail and editor’s eye are remarkable and have surely made my work much stronger. I am forever grateful for the kindness and guidance you have offered me.

Dr. Korbin and Dr. Greksa, you stepped in to complete my committee at a time when I was in need of guidance, and your questions and concerns certainly helped me to focus this project and make the methodology stronger. Dr. Korbin you always have a kind smile and encouraging words and I thank you for that. Dr. Greksa, you gave me confidence by trusting in my work and your departmental leadership and support has helped me immensely. Both of you amaze me in your ability to continue to contribute to anthropology while excelling at your academic posts. Thank you for exemplifying hard work.

Dr. Borawski, thank you for stepping in right at the end to be my outside committee member. I have been thoroughly impressed and amazed by your work for the past few years and your insight and expertise in the field of health promotion in Cleveland is greatly appreciated and admired. I am honored to have you on my committee.

Many thanks to all the gardeners who welcomed me in their gardens and their homes, who fed me and nourished me during my fieldwork, and allowed me to experience a new way of seeing community. Your candor and generosity made my fieldwork and exceptionally enjoyable experience. Special thanks to Morgan Taggart at the Ohio State University Extension Cuyahoga County Community Gardening Program for your help and support during this research. Your help made recruitment possible and provided me much needed credibility among the community gardeners. Thank you also to the anthropology students who helped with interview transcription, particularly Ariel Cascio and Sarah Robinson. You worked so hard on those sometimes lengthy and difficult recordings and I am so grateful for your help.

I am forever grateful to Patti Choby and Mark Smith of Cobalt Group, Inc. for their professional, material and emotional support for this dissertation research. I have

worked at Cobalt during my entire tenure in graduate school and your flexibility and support allowed me to balance a career, graduate school and motherhood. Patti, you are my mentor, my cousin, my friend and I would not be the woman I am today if you had not taken me under your wing and helped me to grow. You pushed me to work harder and keep going. Thank you for all your generosity, kindness and faith.

I am grateful for the friendship of several amazing women during graduate school who made me laugh, let me cry, and kept me sane, in particular Marisa Abbe, Elizabeth Carpenter‐Song, Leah Curran Moon, Kate Masley, Michelle Nebergall, and Maggie Zraly. To my sisters of the SEA, I am eternally grateful for your love, support, and inspiration. I often turn to our writings and ongoing dialogue for encouragement and intellectual stimulation. You challenge me to go deeper and remind me of why we are anthropologists. I especially want to thank Kate who, even after moving away, has always checked in on me. You have been a doula to me not only in childbirth, but in this whole dissertation process and I thank you for that. Leah, you are like a sister to me. I am so grateful we could go through this process together and I cannot thank you enough for all your love. I also want to especially thank Dr. Rachel Chapman, particularly for your mentorship in the beginning of my graduate training in anthropology, as you are the reason I pursued this field. You taught me the importance of asking and listening, believing that great anthropology comes from the heart. You always believed that I knew when I said I did not. Thank you for nurturing my spirit and pulling me out from behind my apologies.

To all my family members, both biological and through marriage, that have stuck with me and supported me, thank you. My amazing brothers‐ and sisters‐in‐law, Ben, Tom, Tristan Bethia and Camilla, thanks for all your help taking care of my boys. Chris and Margaret Cullis, thank you too for help with my children, but also for your unwavering support and acknowledgement of how much work this really is. That recognition alone has been more helpful than I can express and your encouragement has been invaluable.

Many thanks to my Mom and Dad, Jim and Janet Walsh, my Aunt Arlene, my sister Shannon, and my niece Ava and nephew Aiden, also for caring for my boys while I worked on this dissertation, but mostly for you love and support throughout my life. To Shannon especially, thank you for taking care of my babies as if they are your own. I was able to focus and work knowing that they were cared for by someone who loves them dearly. Mom and Dad, thank you for providing me with so many opportunities and for encouraging my love of learning. Dad, your perspectives have challenged me to be more critical about my assumptions, make my arguments more cohesively, and helped me to develop my anthropologist’s skill of looking at the world through another’s eyes. Thanks for keeping me grounded. Mom, you have shown me nothing but unconditional love. Although you may not fully understand the path I have chosen, you support me, and I am very grateful for that. To my dear J.P. who I lost early in my training, thank you for watching over me. I often feel your spirit present and know you would be happy for me. I love all of you so very much.

To my boys, James and River, who came into this world during this long process. I love you more than you will ever know. Thank you for making me endlessly smile and reminding me of what is truly important in life. Last, but certainly not least, to my Oliver. You have been an amazing father and a wonderful husband and without your support this would not have been possible. You have encouraged me on this long journey and I am grateful to have found someone who equally loves to learn. There are no words, so I will just say thank you, and I love you.

Gardening Together: Social Capital and the Cultivation of Urban Community

Abstract

COLLEEN C. WALSH

This dissertation research is an ethnographic study of urban community gardeners in Cleveland, Ohio that seeks to develop a culturally informed and contextualized definition of ‘social capital.’ As a conceptual tool, social capital has been used as a way to assess the benefits of social connections and offered as a potential way to explain inequalities in health, yet its heuristic utility remains contested. This research examines the ways in which race, class and gender influence local perceptions of three key components of social capital ‐ social networks, trust, and community engagement ‐ to ground local definitions in a broader understanding of social inequality. Research was conducted in two phases: Phase I included semi‐structured interviews with garden leaders (N=23) from varied neighborhoods and racial and socioeconomic backgrounds.

Phase II included ethnographic observation and in‐depth interviews with gardeners in four Cleveland neighborhood garden sites (N=36) in four different communities.

The findings of this research suggest that social capital, operationalized as social networks, trust and community engagement, is shaped by race and class, but not gender in this sample. White gardeners were more likely than blacks to say that race influences who is a part of their social networks, whom they trust, and their overall view of community and connections between people. The ways in which gardeners described social networks, trust and community engagement differs from the ways in which they

are often discussed in the literature. African American and Caucasian gardeners explained these elements of social capital differently, with black gardeners frequently using religious language to talk about trust and community connections. Gardeners commonly emphasized the social aspects of community gardening as being important and beneficial to their health, which suggests the meaning of health in relation to social capital should be expanded beyond the lack of disease to include a general sense of individual and community well being. Trust is paramount in the emic definition of social capital that emerged. Therefore, social capital among this population of Cleveland community gardeners can be defined most simply as the connections between people that build trust and overcome perceived existing barriers.

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

STATEMENT OF THE RESEARCH PROBLEM

The purpose of this dissertation research is to construct an anthropologically informed conceptualization of ‘social capital’ that examines the impact of the intersection of the constructs of ‘race,’ ‘class’ and ‘gender’ on local experiences and formulations of social capital. This research explores the theoretical and practical applications of this concept through an examination of definitions and experiences of social capital among community gardeners in the city of Cleveland, Ohio. Ethnographic methods, including interviews and participant observation with Cleveland residents who participate in urban community gardening programs are employed as a means to explore the influence of race, class, and gender and underlying cultural processes on local conceptualizations of social capital.

Because the idea of social capital has been applied to a wide range of phenomena and explored by varying disciplines, it often lacks conceptual clarity and consensus.

Despite the critiques and shortcomings outlined in the vast literature on social capital, it is still widely utilized as a way to talk about the value of connections between people.

An anthropological voice, however, has been largely absent from these public discussions (Schneider 2006). In current public discourse, social capital is explored as one potential explanation for the ways in which race, class, and gender, as characteristics of individuals and communities, relate to a number of social problems including racial and ethnic disparities in health outcomes. Public health interventions

or community development projects such as community gardens that seek to encourage the formation of social capital are usually organized and promoted in economically disadvantaged communities of color because there is a perception of a lack of social capital or the existence of the ‘wrong’ kind of social capital in these communities

(Caughty et al 2003; Durrenberger 2002; Ziersch et al 2005). Authors such as Navarro

(2004a,b) critique these assumptions because they arise out of an ethnocentric view of social capital in which the values and norms of a dominant class are imposed upon the world as the template to which all groups should be compared.

Systematic analyses of the ways in which racial and ethnic identities and gender intersect with economic forces and social class differentials to produce inequalities are scant among current discussions of social capital. ‘Race,’ ‘class’ and ‘gender’ can be thought of not as disembodied social categories, but rather as socioculturally constructed corporeal identities that are imposed, resisted, transformed, and taken on

(Mullings 1997, 2001, 2005; Mullings and Wali 2001). Notable work in anthropology has stressed the multiplicative effects of race, class and gender on health and the need to understand these processes as mutually constitutive and dynamic (Brodkin 1989,

1998, 2000; Ginsburg and Rapp 1995; Harrison 1995, 1999; Morgen and Maskovsky

2003; Morsy 1996; Mukhopadhyay and Moses 1997; Mullings 1995, 1997; Mullings and

Wali 2001; Newman 1998; Ortner 1996; Stack 1974, 1994; Susser 1998, 2004;

Waterston 1993, 1999; Whiteford 1996; Williams 1992, 2001; Zavella 1996; Zinn 1989,

1997).

This research project explores the intersection of race, class, and gender while taking a critical look at the assumptions underlying etic, or outside, conceptualizations

of social capital and seeks to develop the emic, inside, perspectives. Ethnography is the work of describing culture, a way to examine the meaning of actions, events, stories, and experiences. Humans everywhere make use of these complex systems of meaning to organize their behavior, to make sense of their worlds and others around them. These systems of meaning constitute culture and ethnography implies a theory and examination of culture (Spradley 1979). Spradley (1979) describes culture as, “the acquired knowledge that people use to interpret their experience and generate social behavior” (5). In this research, culture is understood to be dynamic and shifting. As such, this study includes an understanding of how local culture and cultural processes shape discussions of social capital.

In this research, social capital is understood as a conceptual tool used to describe the value and benefits of social group membership and social networks. Therefore, it is defined broadly as the potential or actual resources one has access to as a result of group membership (Bourdieu and Wacquant 1992; Bourdieu, 1997). As the concept has been developed in the literature, several scholars have contributed to its conceptualization. The work of Robert Putnam (1993, 1995, 2000) is of note due to its far‐reaching impact in public discourse surrounding social capital. His conceptualization, as discussed in chapter 2, includes core ideas around trust, reciprocity and community participation (Putnam 1993, 1995, 2000). Because of the influence of Putnam’s work and the important response to it, this research employs these key elements of his notion of social capital as a means to explore how social group membership is experienced among gardeners from different backgrounds.

This dissertation research does not seek to measure or assess social capital among community gardeners, but rather to identify what the idea of social capital means to them. To do this, some fundamental components of the social capital concept have been pulled from the many definitions being utilized among the varied disciplines and theorists. Therefore, in this research, social capital is operationalized as ‘social networks,’ ‘trust,’ and ‘community engagement’, as defined by Putnam. This research uses ethnographic methods to unpack these three components of social capital. In doing so, this study explores what these attributes mean in a local context and seeks to elicit other locally‐defined characteristics of what constitutes social capital in a community.

RESEARCH OBJECTIVES

The overall objective of this research is to construct an ethnographically informed conceptualization of social capital as experienced by community gardeners in

Cleveland, Ohio. The specific objectives for this dissertation research are to:

1.) examine emic definitions of social capital and the commonly discussed attributes of trust, social networks and community engagement.

2.) examine how these emic conceptualizations differ by race, class, and gender.

3.) explore the role that community gardens play in shaping these varied definitions and experiences of social capital.

4.) identify local perceptions of the role of social capital in overcoming social and racial inequalities and improving community well being.

ORGANIZATION OF THE DISSERTATION CHAPTERS

The next chapter provides an overview of the theoretical development of the term ‘social capital’ and includes a discussion of the critiques and debates in the

literature. Social capital is then discussed in relation to it current usage as regards the social determinants of health and its potential as a means to understand health inequalities. Chapter 3 looks more closely at health inequalities by first providing a discussion of urban racial and ethnic health disparities and medical anthropologists’ approach to these health inequities. This leads to a discussion of race and racism in anthropology, outlining the analytic framework for understanding race, class and gender in this dissertation research. To further explore social capital, Chapter 4 provides a description of the use of social capital in studies of the individual and community benefits of community gardening. Community gardens represent a site of both social capital and health, making these shared spaces a key place to explore definitions of social capital and the three fundamental components of trust, social networks and community engagement. This chapter also describes the history of community gardening in Cleveland and provides the context for this research.

Chapter 5 begins with a discussion of the purpose and objectives of the research.

The specific research methods are then detailed for each phase of the research, followed by a discussion of data management and analysis. Chapter 6 describes the demographic characteristics of both phase I and phase II samples. Chapter 7 presents the results from qualitative and quantitative analysis of the interview data. These results are discussed in relation to the specific research objectives. Chapter 8 provides four case studies that illustrate the key findings of this research. Chapter 9 discusses case studies and research results, relating the findings to the literature in social capital and what these results contribute to the development of a locally‐informed conceptualization of the term. Finally, Chapter 10 offers conclusions about the heuristic

utility of social capital for understanding inequalities and how this term contributes to anthropology’s exploration of human interactions and culture.

CHAPTER 2

SOCIAL CAPITAL

INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW OF THE CHAPTER

Since the early 1990s, politicians, policy‐makers and various academic disciplines have adopted the concept of ‘social capital’ as a way to explain a wide array of social phenomena. Although developed and discussed primarily by sociologists and political scientists, ‘social capital’ surfaced in the health sciences as a potential method of exploring the social aspects of health and illness. Much of this literature investigates social capital as a potential mediator between socioeconomic inequality and differential health outcomes. Social capital promotion has also become a significant component of anti‐poverty programs, such as those developed at the World Bank (Grootaert 1997,

Grootaert et al 2004; Nichter 2008; World Bank 2005). Community development projects in the U.S., such as urban gardens, have been supported as important strategies to facilitate community organizing and empowerment to improve neighborhood well being and enhance a community’s social capital (Armstrong 2000). Because ‘social capital’ is applied to diverse contexts and utilized by a broad range of academic disciplines and policy programs, the term lacks conceptual clarity and consensus.

Whereas the argument to discard ‘social capital’ has been made in the extensive literature on the subject, this term is potentially useful for examining how social relationships and structural forces interact. As such, social capital may offer a way to examine how individuals interact with their social environment while also considering

how that social environment fits into the broader political economic context. A theoretically fleshed out social capital is potentially efficacious in public health as a means to help elucidate the mechanisms behind the production of health inequalities.

There is a need for qualitative studies and assessments of social capital to uncover more nuanced meanings and to illuminate the influence of local context and culture on how it is experienced (Schneider 2006; Dudwick et al 2006; Kingsley and Townsend 2006).

This chapter will first describe the theoretical development of social capital, providing a discussion of the three main theorists of the concept – Bourdieu, Coleman, and Putnam – and how they defined and utilized social capital. The various critiques of social capital are then presented to demonstrate the lack of consensus regarding the definitions and use of the term. This leads to a discussion of social capital in public health where it is often used to explore inequalities in health. This section provides a discussion of the different kinds of social capital offered in the literature and the ways in which social capital has been measured and assessed in both quantitative and qualitative studies. Next an anthropological approach to social capital is offered, making a case for this dissertation research. The chapter ends with an explanation of the three fundamental components of social capital explored in this research; trust, community engagement and social networks.

THEORETICAL FOUNDATIONS OF ‘SOCIAL CAPITAL’

In order to examine these debates and critiques and explore the potential utility of ‘social capital’ in anthropology, public health and the social sciences in general, the various definitions, theoretical underpinnings and conceptual development of social capital must first be discussed. ‘Social capital’ has been referred to as “one of the most

popular exports from sociological theory into everyday language” (Portes 1998:2). As sociological terms become part of public discourse, there is tendency for the original meaning and heuristic value of the term to become muddled (Portes 1998). Portes argues this is what has happened with ‘social capital;’ as it is increasingly applied to diverse contexts and events, its conceptual distinctiveness is becoming lost (Portes

1998). Political scientist Robert Putnam is largely responsible for popularizing ‘social capital’ and making it part of a mainstream vernacular. He, along with sociologists

James S. Coleman and Pierre Bourdieu are recognized being the primary contributors to the analytical development of the term.

Nearly every writing that takes up a discussion of ‘social capital,’ regardless of discipline or orientation, begins by attributing the concept to one or all of these three men. It should be noted that Bourdieu, Coleman and Putnam are not the only people to have used the term social capital. Its use can be traced back to Lyda Judson Hanifan in

1916, who used social capital to refer to, “goodwill, fellowship, mutual sympathy, and social intercourse among a group of individuals and families” (qtd. In Smith and

Kulynych 2002:154). Jane Jacobs also used the term in her famous work, The Death and

Life of the Great American Cities in 1961. But for the purposes here, the discussion will be limited to these three authors because their work has received the most analytical attention. Although similarities can be identified, there are important differences in the ways in which each man outlines the concept.

Bourdieu

Pierre Bourdieu was the first to produce a systematic analysis of ‘social capital.’

It must be noted, however, the ideas embodied by the term ‘social capital’ are not

necessarily new to sociology. Positive effects of social involvement and sociability can be traced back to Durkheim and Marx and represent insights present since the inception of the discipline. In some ways, it has become a fashionable way to talk about sociability (Portes 1998). That said, although Bourdieu is usually credited in social capital literature, his conceptualization is taken up least often in this body of work

(Portes 1998; Smith and Kulynych 2002; Foley and Edwards 1999). Some critics of current social capital literature claim that the lack of visibility of Bourdieu’s work is unfortunate since he arguably produced the most theoretically‐refined analysis (Portes

1998; Smith and Kulynych 2002; Natrajan and Ilhahiane 2003).

Bourdieu’s conceptualization of ‘social capital’ arose out of his body of work in the late 1960s and early 1970s that explored the ways in which the dynamic and creative processes of human cultural practice unfold in relation to larger social, economic and political structures. He developed a set of terms and concepts to elucidate the ways in which human agency and objective structures are mutually influential, without either being reduced to the other. For Bourdieu, “The social world is accumulated history,” and to explain how social worlds get reproduced, he uses a set of types of capital (Bourdieu 1997:46). In his Forms of Capital, Bourdieu speaks of economic, cultural (sometimes called ‘symbolic’) and social capital. For Bourdieu, economic capital is at the root of all other forms of capital and this is not always known by its possessors (Bourdieu 1997:54).

Bourdieu’s introduction of these other forms of capital is an attempt at uncovering the power structures that foster or inhibit the production and accumulation of economic capital under a capitalist system and to show how power inequalities get

reproduced in society (Smith and Kulynych 2002). Cultural capital is thought of as a form of value associated with culturally sanctioned skills, attributes, tastes, or consumption patterns (Webb et al 2002). Bourdieu sees cultural capital as occurring in three different states: an embodied state, such as “dispositions of the mind” (1997:47); an objectified state, like books or machinery; and an institutionalized state, such as educational qualifications (Bourdieu 1997).

Social capital then involves relationships and the ability to mobilize one’s networks, as well as the volume of economic and cultural capital of members of that network. As Bourdieu’s explains,

Social capital is the aggregate of actual or potential resources which are linked to possession of a durable network or more or less institutionalized relationships of mutual acquaintance and recognition – or in other words, to membership in a group – which provides each of its members with the backing of the collectively‐owned capital, a ‘credential’ which entitles them to credit, in the various senses of the word (Bourdieu 1997:51).

These types of capital are convertible and transferable to a certain extent. Bourdieu sees this convertibility as the basis for strategies aimed at the reproduction of capital and the maintenance of position in social space. Taken together, economic, cultural and social capital explain the structural dynamics of societies (Bourdieu and Wacquant

1992).

Coleman Like Bourdieu, James S. Coleman’s conceptualization of social capital involves the recognition of the ways in which social relationships can precipitate access to resources that may not have been available through access to financial capital alone

(Foley and Edwards 1999). Coleman’s formulation of social capital emerged from his

attempts at bridging insights from sociology to those in economics and is grounded in rational choice theory (Schuller et al 2000). In a theory of rational action, an actor has control and interest in certain resources and events, and social capital is seen as constituting one type of resource available to him (Coleman, 1988 1990). Coleman describes how physical capital, or the material form of capital, which relates to production, had been extended in economics to include human capital. Human capital is seen as created by changes in individuals such as the enhancement of capabilities and skills. If physical capital is wholly tangible and human capital is less tangible, “social capital is less tangible yet, for it exists in the relations among persons” (Coleman 1990:83, emphasis in original).

For Coleman, social capital is productive and fungible; a given form may be valuable in some instances, and useless or potentially harmful in others (Coleman 1988,

1990). Coleman sees social capital as a function of social relations. He writes, “Unlike other forms of capital, social capital inheres in the structure of relations between actors and among actors. It is not lodged either in the actors themselves or in physical implements of production” (Coleman 1990:82). By virtue of its location within social structures, the value of the concept lies in the notion that certain aspects of social structures can be identified by their function. According to Coleman, “The function identified by the concept of ‘social capital’ is the value of these aspects of social structure to actors as resources that they can use to achieve their interests” (1990:83).

Coleman’s definition of social capital has been criticized for failing to distinguish between resources themselves and the ability to obtain resources by virtue of membership (Portes 1998).

Rather than presenting social capital as a way to explain the reproduction of class, power and status as Bourdieu does, Coleman sees social capital as representing much more benign functions in society. Likewise, Coleman does not see social capital as ultimately rooted in economic capital. Social capital was more simply conceptualized as a resource that helps groups achieve common goals (Smith and Kulynych 2002).

This is important because the ‘social capital’ discussed in much of the contemporary literature, including the public health literature that utilizes the concept, is heavily influenced by Coleman. This influence is due largely to the fact that Coleman is an American sociologist, which made his work more accessible to American social scientists, in contrast to Bourdieu’s works, many of which were published in French and

German prior to wide circulation in English (Schuller et al 2000). The distinctions between Bourdieu and Coleman contribute to understandings of the political trajectory and implications of the concept of social capital and help frame the critiques of the concept that followed (Smith and Kulynych 2002).

Putnam

Robert Putnam extends Coleman’s empirical concerns for social capital to issues of child‐rearing, education, political participation, and democracy. His work on democracy in Italy and civic life in the United States has been widely disseminated through both academic and popular press, largely explaining the prominence of social capital in the agendas of political scientists, foundations, and civic leaders (Smith and

Kulynych 2002). His work caught the attention of President Bill Clinton, who discussed

Putnam’s work in his State of the Union address in 1995 (Portes 1998). Because of his

influence, it is worthwhile to discuss in some detail his major assertions regarding these phenomena.

In Bowling Alone: America’s Declining Social Capital (Putnam 1995), Putnam works from his declaration that “the vibrancy of American civil society has notably declined over the past several decades” (1995:65). Drawing on his work in different regions of Italy, Putnam argues that the quality of government in different regions varies depending upon the traditions of civic engagement or lack of it. He says that voter turnout, newspaper readership, membership in football societies and choral clubs were all found to be measures of a successful region (Putnam 1993, 1995). From this, he defines social capital as referring to “features of social organization such as networks, norms and social trust that facilitate coordination and cooperation for mutual benefit” (Putnam 1995:67). He argues that life is easier for members of communities with higher levels of social capital (1995).

Putnam, as a political scientist, is responsible for the addition of ‘civicness’ to the

‘social capital’ construct. Prior to his use, social capital in sociological analyses had been discussed in terms of relationships between actors or relationships between individuals and a group, and the benefits to actors of membership in a network or social structure

(Portes 1998). Ideas around ‘civicness’ brought to social capital concerns over trust, political engagement and norms of reciprocity, conceptualized on a group level. The

“generalized social trust” of which Putnam speaks is not the same as Coleman’s trust because for Coleman, trust was a feature of a specific social context (Foley and Edwards

1999:144).

In Bowling Alone, Putnam (1995, 2000) indicates that he does not wish to contribute to the theoretical development of the concept of social capital; rather, he uses the growing body of work on the topic to discuss the declines in America’s social capital. His argument is based on data showing declining voter turnouts in national elections, declining memberships in community organizations, in school‐based groups such as the PTA (Parent Teacher Association), in labor unions, and in fraternal and volunteer associations. Although he indicates that there are counter‐trends, including the increases in membership in national organizations such as the Sierra Club, National

Organization of Women (NOW) and the AARP (American Association of Retired

Persons), he calls these ‘tertiary’ organizations, and declares that they differ markedly from ‘secondary’ organizations in terms of social connectedness. For Putnam, these kinds of groups do not facilitate social trust, a major component of his notion of social capital theory (Putnam 1995).

According to Putnam, the most fundamental form of social capital is the family, and he says there is “massive evidence of the loosening of bonds within the family (both extended and nuclear)” and that this is “well known” (Putnam 1995:73). The theme of decreasing family bonds in the U.S. is for Putnam quite consistent with the theme of social decapitalization, or the loss of social capital, in American communities. In his argument, he presents national data that indicate how Americans are less neighborly and less trusting than in decades past. The first explanation he offers for why social capital is eroding in the U.S. is the movement of women into the labor force. The second possible explanation he offers is residential mobility, or the “re‐potting” hypothesis, whereby people move around and do not create firm roots in their communities. The

final one he provides is the technological transformation of leisure, meaning that

“privatizing” or “individualizing” of leisure time, which he says disrupts opportunities for social capital formation (Putnam 1995). Although Putnam himself warns against romanticizing small town, middle class American civic life of the 1950s, arguing there are costs and benefits to community engagement that need to be considered, his ideals around civic participation have been criticized for doing just that, romanticizing the past fraternal life of this time period in America (Putnam 1995, 2000).

Critics of Putnam often point to this contradiction and challenge him for what they argue is a value‐laden perspective on social capital (Navarro 2004b, Smith and

Kulynych 2002). Putnam’s characterization of the “American family” is rooted in a limited perspective on what constitutes kin and family form. Anthropologists have long demonstrated the varied nature of family structures and the ways in which family structures have shifted to accommodate changing political economic and social circumstances (Goode and Maskovsky 2001, Mullings 2001, Stack 1974, 1980, Stack and Burton 1991, Williams 2001). Likewise, the idea that women’s movement into the labor force can be blamed for declining social capital is problematic as many women have always been in the labor force, particularly women of lower socioeconomic status and women of color. The lack of consideration of gender, racial and economic inequalities in Putnam’s social capital in many ways frames the critiques of the concept as a whole.

Yet Putnam’s (2000) distinction between “bonding,” or inclusive social capital, and “bridging,” or exclusive social capital, has been recognized as an important contribution to the theoretical development of the concept, even among his critics.

Putnam (2000) describes “bonding” social capital as the strong bonds that exist between people based on some shared identity, for example, a women’s church group or an ethnic affiliation club. “Bridging” social capital creates linkages to external assets, whereby social networks exist across social cleavages, such as youth service organizations or civil rights movements (Putnam 2000). He makes the point that networks can be simultaneously “bonding” and “bridging’” and that these should not be thought of as ‘either‐or’ categories, but rather as a way to make comparisons between different forms of social capital (Putnam 2000). These concepts will be further discussed in the section on social capital and health as “bonding” and “bridging” social capital have been used to discuss the ways in which social capital can be used to talk about inequalities in health.

CRITIQUES OF ‘SOCIAL CAPITAL – FLESHING OUT THE CONCEPT

Critiques of social capital take place at a variety of levels. At the conceptual level, there is a range of criticisms about the way the concept has been formulated. On a more operational level, there are critiques of how social capital has been studied and assessed, with authors often pointing to examples where the appropriate level of analysis has been blurred (Roberts 2004). Related to this are criticisms of the over‐ versatility of social capital, whereby the concept is deployed to examine such a huge range of social issues, its utility is lost (Portes 1998; Schuller et al 2000). There are also those who are apprehensive over the use of the term because of the potential that

‘social capital’ might just be another way to examine social phenomena already being examined under existing rubric. Social capital has also been criticized for only looking at the positive aspects of social relationships. And then, there are critics who argue

against its use on a linguistic and ideological level because of the inherent baggage the term ‘capital’ carries with it and its potential underlying agenda (Schuller et al 2000;

Smith and Kulynych 2002).

Conceptual and Operational Critiques

Much of the above discussion on the differences between Bourdieu, Coleman, and Putnam’s formulation of social capital has drawn attention to the disagreements about how the term has been conceptualized. Discussions of research on social capital usually begin by describing whose definition of social capital is being employed, or which components of one man’s definition are being utilized. This sort of picking and choosing from the theoretical elements of social capital as drafted by Bourdieu,

Coleman and Putnam has resulted in conceptual inconsistency. Debates have also challenged whether or not the ideas inscribed by social capital can actually be called

‘capital’ which implies a quantitative measurement is possible (Adler and Kwon 1995).

Assessments of social capital use a variety of indicators and most measures have not been validated (Abbott 2009). Measurements are as varied as the conceptualizations presented in research of social capital. Without an agreed‐upon definition or framework for social capital, there is little option for comparative studies and systematic analyses across disciplinary boundaries (Baum and Ziersch 2003; Foley and

Edwards 1999; Schuller et al 2000; Smith and Kulynych 2002; Roberts 2004).

Similarly, the diversity of definitions has caused researchers to present inconsistent operationalizations and methodologies. Roberts (2004) explains that the debate is really about the level of analysis and which element of ‘social’ is being assessed. Many of these criticisms are aimed at Putnam in particular, primarily because

he has asserted and proclaimed far‐reaching ‘benefits’ of increased social capital. He maintains that social capital is a meta‐variable, useful for cross‐country comparison, while at the same time, social capital can be used to illustrate empirical particularities within a single country. In this sense, the methods behind social capital work have been labeled tautological (Portes 1998; Roberts 2004). As Roberts explains, “A region in question has ‘good’ social capital if it is successful in promoting trust and reciprocity because the region in question has ‘good’ social capital” (2004:473).

The circularity of these arguments is seen as a fundamental problem with

Putnam’s formulation; it is used simultaneously as cause and effect (Portes 1998). It is used retroactively to explain a result, for example an ‘unsuccessful’ city, and also used to explain all that has gone wrong to make that city ‘unsuccessful’. While Portes sees a potential value in conceptualizing social capital as a property of a large aggregate, he feels there is a need for more theoretical refinement than what has been done by

Putnam and others who uncritically use it as a feature of larger communities, societies and nations (Portes 1998).

OverVersatility

Closely related to these criticisms are those that are concerned with the over‐ versatile nature of social capital. Many authors have questioned social capital’s power as an explanatory tool because of the far‐reaching topics to which it has been empirically related. Schuller et al (2000), along with others, attempt to summarize the various uses of the term, resulting in paragraphs, tables and lists of research topics

(Adler and Kwon 1995, Portes 1998; Woolcock 1998). Woolcock (1998) categorizes the use of social capital into the following fields: social theory and economic development;

education and schooling issues; community life; families and child behavior problems; governance and democracy; work and organizations; and general cases of issues around collective action (Schuller et al 2000).

The World Bank’s website on Social Capital and Poverty links social capital to trade and economics, crime and violence, education, finance, the environment, water supply and sanitation, health and nutrition, and urban and community development

(World Bank 2005). When spoken about in this way, social capital looks like a universal remedy for all development problems, something critics of neoliberal policies are quick to point out (Nichter 2008). With such wide‐ranging issues, it is reasonable to question social capital’s versatility. That one analytical construct is used to help elucidate everything from population‐level health indicators (Kawachi et al 1997a,b) to economic performance in immigrant communities (Portes 1987) may say more about the numerous ways social capital is applied than the intrinsic attributes or value of the construct itself (Schuller et al 2000). By enveloping so many elements of social relationships into one concept and simultaneously seeing it as a normative indicator of healthy societies and democracy, the relationships between these ideas are oversimplified and the differences in their effects is obscured (Smith and Kulynych

2002).

Old Wine, New Bottle

Because it has been taken up to explore and explain so many features of social life, some critics are concerned that social capital has simply become a new way to discuss established social theoretical ideas (Smith and Kulynych 2002). Frane and

Roncevie (2004) argue that in many ways, social theory is being revised through the

lens of social capital. As has been noted, features of social capital can be traced back to early work in sociology. Marx’s analysis of emergent class‐consciousness among the proletariat, whereby workers identify with and support each other, forming solidarity from a sense of common fate, underlies much of the social capital literature that takes up notions of connectedness and shared ideals (Marx 1967 [1867]; Marx and Engels

1947 [1848]; Portes 1998). Themes around group inclusion and mutual reciprocity are reminiscent of Durkheim’s theory of social integration (1984 [1893]). Durkheim emphasizes group life as a remedy for anomie and self‐destruction. He also views all transactions and exchanges between actors as thoroughly embedded in the social structure. In this way, reciprocity is ensured by nature of the collectivity of the group

(Durkheim 1984 [1893]; Portes 1998). Similarly, Tonnies’s (1935 [1887]) concepts of

Gemeinschaft and Gesellschaft, used to describe an individual’s relationship to both his immediate community and to society as a whole, are reflective of social capital’s ideas around social norms and the role of social networks.

Others see significant overlap with the massive literature on ‘social networks,’ or

‘social support,’ which shares with ‘social capital,’ an interest in how social relationships and associations impact individual and group life. In fact, since each field’s inception, sociology and anthropology have been concerned with the nature and function of social relations. In this light, social capital is not necessarily a new and innovative concept. But if this insight has been around for so long, why has it resurfaced in the form of ‘social capital’ now? And where does the novelty and explanatory value in

‘social capital’ lie?

The full explanation for the current popularity of the term ‘social capital’ is not known. Some speculate, however, that it is because the term resonates so well with an

American intellectual class that reads about declining social capital and relates it to their inability to find time to spend with family or to be involved with other social events (Schuller et al 2000:13). Indeed, there does seem to be something about the importance of good social relationships that makes sense on a subjective and anecdotal level. The benefits of trust and mutual reciprocity seem to strike a chord, particularly for those in public health, who are trained to identify the social aspects of health and illness.

Others, however, see the use of ‘social capital’ as embedded in and reflective of the late‐twentieth century intellectual, economic and political environment in the U.S.

(Smith and Kulynych 2002). Similarly, Portes (1998) sees the novelty of social capital as a tool arising from two sources, the first being social capital’s emphasis on the positive aspects of sociability and simultaneous inattention to the less attractive features. The second involves the ways in which social capital allows for these positive consequences to be viewed as “sources of power and influence,” an idea returned to below (Portes 1998:1).

Accentuating the Positive

The overly positive operationalization of social capital of which Portes speaks, is yet another critique of the concept. Whereas recent works have tended to be much more cautious about this (Forbes and Wainwright 2001; Kunitz 2004), critics argue that

Putnam’s definition has often lead to overly optimistic claims of the outcomes

associated with increased social trust, mutual reciprocity, participation, and civic engagement. These claims, critics argue, are often made without consideration of any potentially negative aspects of social capital, such as exclusion and the demands of conformity (Foley and Edwards 1999; Forbes and Wainwright 2001; Granovetter 1973;

Kunitz 2004; Portes and Landolt 1996; Smith and Kulynych 2002). However, Putnam, in his discussion of “bonding” and “bridging” social capital, warned that, “Bonding social capital, by creating in‐group loyalty, may also create strong out‐group antagonism”

(2000:23). For this reason, bonding social capital could potentially result in negative external effects. Putnam goes on to say that despite this, both types of social capital can have immense positive social effects (Putnam 2000).

Still much of the work on social capital is focused narrowly on its positive implications and those taking a critical look at this have offered insight that contributes to the ongoing theoretical development of the term. In a critical examination of the relationship between social capital and health, Kunitz (2004) makes the case that the consequences of civic group formation and participation are complex and can be negative. Some groups are systematically excluded from voluntary and fraternal organizations, as was the case in early twentieth century America when organizations that served people of western European ancestry excluded African Americans from the south and Eastern European immigrants. This exclusion played a role in the creation and maintenance of urban poverty and segregation in northern U.S. cities. The religious and ethnic exclusivity of these groups in the early twentieth century helped to perpetuate deep divides between populations. Kunitz (2004) argues that, to make any claims about the positive consequences of membership to civic or voluntary

organizations, the history of population dynamics and places must be taken into consideration. Negative aspects of social capital, even if unintended, exist alongside positive aspects. Interventions aimed at promoting one group’s social capital may inadvertently facilitate the reproduction of social inequality, or inhibit another group’s social capital (Nichter 2008; Pearce and Davey Smith 2003).

Likewise, as the maintenance of personal and social networks has been demonstrated to be a form of survival, it has also been shown that family, friends and other immediate relationships can impose heavy burdens (Berkman et al 2000;

Muntaner and Lynch 1999; Newman 2001; Portes and Landolt 1996). Relationships are not always supportive. As Kunitz (2004) explains, relationships can be damaging, especially when people are coping with the stress of poverty, unemployment, lack of resources, or poor health (Kunitz 2004; Newman 2001). Social networks are different across social classes, and therefore a nuanced and contextualized conceptualization of social capital is necessary. Research has shown that women tend to be the community members largely responsible for creating and maintaining social networks and group membership. Many development or community health projects aimed at promoting social capital are indeed targeted at women (Nichter 2008). Studies have shown these burdens and responsibilities can have a negative effect on women’s mental health

(Osborne et al 2008).

In a similar analytical trajectory, there are those that do consider both positive and negative components of social capital by differentiating between ‘bad social capital’ and ‘good social capital’ (Caughty et al 2003; Durrenberger 2002; Ziersch et al 2005).

Gangs and the mafia are often presented in the literature as examples of this notion of

‘bad social capital.’ Both demonstrate strong integration, improved access to resources, and the enforcement of norms, but they have also been shown to inhibit upward mobility (Caughty et al 2003; Portes and Landolt 1996). Others have cited studies that have shown that isolating children from local community networks has, in some instances, increased the child’s likelihood of success (Caughty et al 2003).

Greenbaum’s (2002) work on social capital in public housing projects and the impact of the HOPE VI program problematizes the distinction between ‘good’ and ‘bad’ social capital. The HOPE VI Program is a revitalization effort by the U.S. Department of

Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to address severely distressed public housing that includes physical and management improvements and social services to address resident needs. This program demolishes dilapidated public housing structures and replaces them with mixed‐income housing development (HUD). Relocation aimed at de‐ concentration of poverty is said to improve social capital because moving to a different neighborhood with different classes of residents will allow for new opportunities.

However, this does not take into consideration the social costs of moving and the disruption of existing social ties and support arrangements. As Greenbaum argues

(2002), ethnography has long shown that contrary to the view that poor neighborhoods are ripe with social disorganization and negative social capital, social networks are often the strongest assets in the community. Social capital is often dependent upon stability, and relocation is contrary to this. Rather than seeing the social capital in public housing as negative or delinquent, it should be understood within the political economic structures that give meaning to social networks and collective action

(Greenbaum 2002). As an example, Bourgois’ (1995) work amongst crack dealers in

Harlem demonstrates the ways in which decisions to become involved in the underground economy are quite rational and that those relationships are an essential part of survival.

The Capitalist Agenda – Ideological Consequences and Implications

Durrenberger (2002) argues that social organization deemed to be ‘bad,’ such as a gang or public housing, might be seen differently by those whose prospects are restrained by the production and reproduction of social relations. Judgments about

‘good social capital’ and ‘bad social capital’ are dependent upon where one is in the system, he argues; in stratified systems where there is differential access to resources, there is no shared view‐point across the system as a whole (Durrenberger 2002).

Critics of neoliberal policies are skeptical of the positive aspects of social capital touted by policymakers because efforts aimed at the production of social capital might be adopted because they are less costly solutions to problems that are in need of economic capital (Portes 1998). For these critics, social capital is seen as a way to deflect attention from other issues and is sometimes used to obfuscate political and economic agendas (Fine 1999, 2001, 2002; Nichter 2008).

In a critical examination of social capital, Smith and Kulynych (2002) recognize this tension and argue that the term is so intimately linked to the intellectual, political and economic climate of the late twentieth century that it invokes certain ideals, sentiments and values. Their arguments are based in the complexity of language and the power that language and words have to shape the world and understandings of it.

Smith and Kulynych (2002) view social capital, and the images it invokes, as shaped by the larger context of economic imperialism. In this way, the language of social capital is

reflective of the global context, and with the pervasiveness of economic language, social capital, they argue, helps to legitimize capitalism through hegemonic ideological processes that treat capitalism as inevitable and natural (Smith and Kulynych 2002).

Critics who argue against use of the term because of its capitalist baggage are dubious about the World Bank’s promotion of social capital as a way to alleviate poverty and improve health in less developed countries (Hawe and Shiell 2000; Smith and Kulynych

2002). These critics are concerned that the World Bank’s agenda is to bolster capitalism, further concentrating economic power into the hands of the few under the cloak of promoting social capital (Hawe and Shiell 2000). Yet the World Bank has in many ways been a leader in developing comprehensive measurements of social capital, something that will be returned to in a later section.

The inconsistencies and conceptual problems with social capital that have been outlined are also seen in the use of the term in public health research and programs.

This dissertation seeks to add an understanding of the racial, socioeconomic, and gender dynamics to social capital, therefore, it is important to discuss how the concept has been used by health researchers interested in using social capital as a means to explore inequalities. The discussion now turns to an examination of its use and heuristic utility for health researchers.

SOCIAL CAPITAL AND HEALTH

The use of social capital in public health is as varied and problematic as is its use in other public and academic discourses. Despite these concerns, social capital is taken up in community health promotion initiatives and used to explain a variety of health‐

related issues and specific disease outcomes (see for example reviews in Baum and

Ziersch 2003 and Hawe and Shiell 2000; Kawachi et al 2008; Moore et al 2005;

Wakefield and Poland 2005). Much of the literature on social capital and health investigates ‘social capital’ as a mediator between socioeconomic inequality and differential health outcomes (Cattell 2001; Chappell and Funk 2010; Dominguez and

Arford 2010; Forbes and Wainwright 2001; Hawe and Shiell 2000; Islam et al 2006;

Lomas 1998; Macinko and Starfield 2001; Moore et al 2006; Muntaner et al 2003;

Navarro and Shi 2001; Szreter and Woolcock 2004). The emergence of social capital in public health can be traced to an interest in community participation in health promotion and to research on social support and health (Berkman et al 2000; Muntaner et al 2003).

Inconsistencies in operationalization and assessment of the concept lead some public health researchers to question its application to health promotion (Chappell and

Funk 2010; Forbes and Wainwright 2001; Pearce and Smith 2003). Others argue that the concept could be useful if it were theoretically fleshed out in the context of public health (Kawachi et al 2008; Muntaner et al 2003; Szreter and Woolcock 2004;

Wakefield and Poland 2005). Others call for contextualized indicators and for a social capital informed by qualitative methods (Abbott 2009; Altschuler et al 2004; Campbell and McClean 2002; Dudwick et al 2006; Edmondson 2003; Forbes and Wainwright

2001; Morrow 2002; Swann and Morgan 2002). Some debates on social capital and health try to resolve these problems and attempt to provide theoretical formulations of social capital grounded in public health knowledge (Szreter and Woolcock 2004 and subsequent responses; Moore et al 2005).

Cognitive Social Capital

In its current use in public health, there are two main schools of thought regarding the definition of social capital; the first set of definitions are referred to as cognitive social capital and the second, structural social capital. The first form of social capital, cognitive social capital, is influenced by Putnam and defines social capital as a community level resource, reflected in the structure of social relationships and indicated by norms, networks, trust, coordination and mutual benefit (Baum and

Ziersch 2003). Research in this stream investigates the psychosocial mechanisms involved in the relationship between social capital and health (Berkman 2000; Berkman et al 2000; Bruhn 2009; Kawachi and Berkman 2000; Kawachi and Kennedy 1997;

Kawachi et al 1997a,b; Kawachi et al 2008; Lochner et al 1999; Subramanian et al 2003,

Wilkinson 2000). In this work, social capital is largely an assessment of the level of social cohesion in a community and all of the physical, psychological and social benefits that come with it. This work explores resources available to individuals that may facilitate collective action (Lochner et al, 1999). As such, social capital can be measured through constructs such as collective efficacy, psychological sense of community, neighborhood cohesion and community competence (Lochner et al 1999).

Researchers using this definition have examined the effects of levels of civic trust and the density of associational memberships on overall mortality rates (Kawachi and

Kennedy 1997). These indicators of social capital have been used to explain the mechanisms by which income inequalities produce ill health. For researchers using these conceptualizations, cohesion and trust provide a buffer against the psycho‐

physiological harms of relative deprivation (Lomas 1998; Veenstra 2000, 2002;

Wilkinson 1999).

Measurements taken at the individual level through survey questions asking about trust in one’s neighbors are often aggregated and used to say something about whole neighborhoods, communities, regions, and even nations (Altschuler et al 2004;

Berkman 2000; Berkman et al 2000; Carlson 2004; Edmondson 2003; Kawachi and

Berkman 2000; Kawachi and Kennedy 1997; Kawachi et al 1997a,b; Lochner et al 2003;

Poortinga 2006; Reidpath 2003; Veenstra 2000, 2002). Because of this, studies using psychosocial measures of social capital are criticized as potentially falling prey to ecological fallacy (Foley and Edwards 1999). Critics of ‘cognitive’ approaches to social capital argue that in these measures, social capital is described as both cause and effect

(Portes 1998; Roberts 2004). Roberts (2004) argues that given this tautology, it is not always clear whether what is being assessed has created social capital or is the result of it.

Forbes and Wainwright (2001) also challenge the methodological approach of cognitive social capital. They argue that the data behind psychosocial theories is

“dangerously over‐stretched” and “question the generality of these propositions and highlight the risk that such assertions may lead to the stereotyping and psycho‐ pathologising of people who are at the negative end of the health inequalities spectrum”

(Forbes and Wainwright 2001:802). They argue that national survey instruments used in these types of studies are value‐bound and reveal more about those who design the instruments than those the data are said to represent (Forbes and Wainwright 2001).

Structural Social Capital

Critics say over‐emphasis on the internal dynamics of communities, without adequate attention given to the larger contextual and socio‐historical forces, can lead to

‘blaming the victim’, where communities are said to flourish if only their members would gain self‐esteem and be more cohesive (Forbes and Wainwright 2001; Muntaner et al 2003; Pearce and Smith 2003). Researchers who utilize structural definitions of social capital call for understandings of social capital in terms of class, power and income inequality, and the dynamics of cultural factors that give class meaning. These definitions are reminiscent of Bourdieu. Studies in this theoretical stream see social capital as facilitating access to material and social resources (Baum and Ziersch

2003:320).

Structural social capital is defined as a benefit of group membership accorded to individuals. As such, this research is concerned with the ways in which class position and market ideologies shape health and illness (Baum and Ziersch 2003). Much of this work criticizes cognitive social capital and is more theoretical in nature, aimed at formulations of social capital that can be employed as a critical analytical tool for public health research (Muntaner et al 2003; Pearce and Smith 2003). Although critical of

Putnam’s version of social capital, these authors try to expand his notions of “bonding” and “bridging” social capital (Putnam 2000) to make the concept of social capital more specific for public health (Altschuler et al 2004; Baum and Ziersch 2003; Macinko and

Starfield 2001; Szreter and Woolcock 2004)

Types of Social Capital: Bonding, Bridging and Linking Social Capital

“Bonding,” or “horizontal” social capital (Putnam 2000) refers to trusting and cooperative ties between members of a network who perceive themselves as sharing similar demographic characteristics. “Bridging” social capital is “vertical” in that it refers to relations across different socio‐demographic groups (Baum and Ziersch 2003;

Putnam 2000; Szreter and Woolcock 2004). Granovetter (1973) found that bonding relations without bridging relations in low‐income neighborhoods do little to improve economic opportunity. Even for critics of Putnam, “bonding” and “bridging” social capital potentially allow for a consideration of race, class and gender relations, which are seen as absent from psychosocial theories of social capital (Muntaner et al 2003:

Szreter 2000).

To these two forms of capital, Szreter (2000) adds “linking” social capital. It is used to describe relationships across power differentials and ties to representatives of formal institutions and allows for individuals to leverage resources outside of the community. “Linking” social capital is not thought of as an additional unit of analysis, but as an analytical subset of “bridging” social capital (Szreter 2000; Szreter and

Woolcock 2004). These forms of capital illustrate the varied nature of social networks; not all relationships are equal and “bonding,” “bridging” and “linking” social capital offer a way to assess the function of these relationships. Breaking the concept of social capital down into descriptive sub‐types permits a more contextualized or localized model of social capital. Some public health researchers argue for a local definition of social capital as a means to link social capital to health (Altschuler et al 2003;

Edmondson 2003, Whitley 2008).

Measuring Social Capital: Quantitative and Qualitative Measures

The majority of measures of social capital are quantitative (Abbott 2009;

Harpham et al 2002; Whitley 2008). Survey tools such as the World Bank’s Social

Capital Assessment Tool (SCAT) (Krishna and Shrader 2000), the World Bank’s Social

Capital Integrated Questionnaire (SC‐IQ) (Grootaert et al 2004) and the Adapted Social

Capital Assessment Tool (ASCAT) (Harpham et al 2002) were developed to measure both cognitive and structural social capital. The SCAT and ASCAT combine both quantitative and qualitative measures to social capital at the household, community and organizational level. The goal of these measures is to collect data that can be related to information on poverty and household welfare (World Bank). There is concern in the literature over the lack of validity of the various measures (Abbott 2009; Bowling 2005;

Harpham 2008). In a review of studies that examined social capital in relation to mental health, De Silva (2006) found that only 4 of the 28 included validity testing.

Another challenge to assessing social capital is that some measurement tools utilize individual measures of social capital and others use community level measures

(Van der Gaag and Webber 2008; Harpham 2008). Van der Gaag and Webber (2008) argue that development of systematic instruments should rely on individual level measurements because these are the simplest units of analysis, which will help to avoid interpretation issues that arise with using aggregate data. A methodology that looks at individual social capital is based largely on social network research. Because social network research is well established, they argue, it has a set of methodologies and methods already widely accepted (Van der Gaag and Webber 2008). Harpham (2008), on the other hand, says that in addition to individual level measurements, social capital

can also be assessed at the community level by aggregating individual data. She acknowledges, however, that questions remain about whether or not measuring something like trust on an individual level translates into an assessment of overall feeling of trust in a community and admits that the search for valid indicators of

‘ecological’ social capital remains (Harpham 2008).

Studies that rely on aggregate survey data to assess social capital are critiqued for failing to capture local meanings of social capital. As a result, there is a call to integrate qualitative research methods into public health studies of social capital

(Blaxter and Poland 2002; Campbell and McClean 2002; Cattell 2001; Cattell and

Herring 2002; Dudwick et al 2006; Forbes and Wainwright 2001; Morrow 2002;

Pevalin and Rose 2002; Popay et al 2003; Swann and Morgan 2002; Whitley 2008).

Qualitative research that seeks local meanings of social capital in different population permits a more contextualized and multifaceted conceptualization of the concept.

Facing criticisms and recognizing the potential limitations of exclusively using quantitative methods to assess a community’s social capital, the World Bank produced a companion paper to its 2004 paper on quantitative methods (Grootaert et al 2004), that offers a guide to using qualitative methods and data to assess social capital (Dudwick et al 2006). The authors explain the impetus for the development of this instrument was the need to look more closely at contextual nuances of relationships between individuals and groups. This tool was produced to serve as a guide for researchers to examine social capital in policy‐driven work (Dudwick et al 2006).

In a review of qualitative research on social capital and public health from 2000‐

2006, Whitley (2008) found eleven studies that utilized qualitative methods, a low

number relative to the amount of quantitative studies published annually in the same time period. The majority of these studies came out of the United Kingdom (N=6). Early in the decade, the British National Health Service’s Health Development Agency funded qualitative investigations of social capital and health with the objective of employing social capital as a potential means to articulate the relationship between health and community level social and economic factors (Swann and Morgan 2002).

Whitley (2008) found some common themes among the qualitative studies of social capital and health. Nearly all of the studies found that existing conceptualizations of social capital failed to capture salient features of local community life that impact overall health, such as fear of crime and the nuances of both familial and informal support networks. He also explains that many of these studies found that community participation is shaped by historical, socioeconomic and political forces that often result in further marginalization of low‐income communities. Another important finding of these qualitative studies is that different subgroups, even within one neighborhood or community, experience social capital differently (Whitley 2008). This is important as this dissertation research has set out to investigate this and identify the ways in which race, class, and gender shape these local definitions and experiences of social capital.

ANTHROPOLOGY AND SOCIAL CAPITAL

Although an anthropological voice in the debates around social capital has been limited, the importance of considering power relations and culture is highlighted in anthropology (Navarro 2008; Schneider 2008; Smart 2008). Some anthropologists such as Durrenberger (2002) make a case against the use of the term ‘social capital’ on

linguistic grounds, arguing that it is conceptually tricky, a way to make it appear as though people from all socioeconomic statuses have equal access to resources. He feels that often those who wish to be heard in the policy arena have a tendency to “speak the language” of economists and ‘social capital’ is an example of that (Durrenberger 2002).

Natrajan and Ilhahiane (2003) argue that Durrenberger’s reading of social capital does not fully consider the breadth of insights from Bourdieu, Coleman and Putnam. Natrajan and Ilhahiane (2003) argue that the term illustrates how inequalities are not only economic, but also symbolic, which is important for exploring social and health inequalities.

Anthropologists who favor Bourdieu’s conceptualizations of social capital do so because these help elucidate the production and reproduction of social inequalities

(Greenbaum 2002; Lopez and Stack 2001; Schneider 2004, 2006; Natrajan and

Ilhahiane 2003). Lopez and Stack (2001) illustrate that a significant anthropological contribution to research on social capital is the attention to cultural process, or the meaning and power relations that underlie everyday social practices. They borrow

“sociocultural capital” from Schneider (1998) to stress this point (Lopez and Stack

2001).

Schneider (1998) coins the term “sociocultural capital” to highlight the creation and maintenance of social capital within the larger political economic structures that give meaning to race, class, and gender identities. Stack’s (1970, 1974, 1996) work demonstrates how poor African Americans utilize social capital to develop survival strategies to cope with their circumstances. Lopez and Stack (2001) illustrate the importance of examining the impact of gender and race on social capital. Lopez and

Stack’s (2001) study of African American women in the rural South challenges the historical dominance of men as political and community leaders and highlights the importance of women’s contribution in bringing the community together and helping those in need. Newman’s (1999, 2001) work on the working poor of inner city neighborhoods highlights the need for a contextualized study of what constitutes social capital. In her study of caregiving among African American, Puerto Rican, and

Dominican respondents living in poor neighborhoods of New York City, Newman

(2001) argues that traditional measures of social capital that rely upon participation in formal institutions may not reflect local experiences of social and familial responsibility.

She argues that for people with more economic resources, philanthropic giving and volunteerism is a culturally approved means for participation in one’s community. She explains, “For urban minorities, particularly the poor among them, social responsibility is expressed in a different form, one that is paradoxically privatized and directed not at the general social good, but at those defined as “one’s own” (2001:158).

Newman’s (2001) research into the subjective dimension of obligation and responsibility demonstrates that, for these Puerto Rican, Dominican, and African

American participants, social responsibility starts most immediately with one’s own family then radiates out to other social spheres. Indeed this population expressed the idea that raising one’s children properly and tending to the safety of the streets contributes to the good of the community as a whole. As in Newman’s work, this dissertation research explores the subjective nature of social capital and variation in the ways in which people from different backgrounds talk about social connections in their communities.

LESSONS LEARNED AND THE STRENGTH OF AN ANTHROPOLOGICAL APPROACH

The critiques of social capital are well made and indeed it is reasonable to argue for the term to be discarded. However, the opposite can also be argued. It is possible that the use of economic discourse to explain social phenomena could work to highlight these contradictions and draw attention to the ways in which economic policies are experienced and embodied in symbolic and social form, as in Bourdieu’s forms of capital (Bourdieu 1997; Natrajan and Ilhiane 2003). Rather than rejecting social capital as too ideologically burdened, this dissertation research begins to unpack the term and find ways to talk about what it means to communities themselves. No matter how it is being defined, the work of creating social capital in urban communities is ongoing and therefore useful to understand.

In fact, it seems that the great value in ‘social capital’ resides in the debates and discussions it evokes. Social capital work is found in a multitude of disciplines and is used by people from wide‐ranging backgrounds. As a result, it provides a unique opportunity for intellectual exchange. The breadth of ideas examined and explained by social capital brings together insights that may not have been so seamlessly brought together without it.

Although there are many problems with the ways in which ‘social capital’ has been operationalized and the indicators used are often inconsistent, by drawing together diverse intellectual power, there is the potential for social capital to be fleshed out in a way that can satisfy the debates and criticisms discussed in the literature. An anthropological approach to social capital may help to develop a truly contextualized

notion of the concept. The limitations of large scale surveys and secondary analyses of aggregate data have been noted, and many recognize that qualitative approaches to measuring conceptual aspects of social capital are seen as essential if the term is to continue to be used an a heuristic tool.

If social capital is here to stay, and if its use in public health and community development is going to continue to flourish, then it will need to be conceptualized from the ground up. An anthropological approach to social capital begins with an understanding that community and social relations must be defined indigenously.

Anthropological approaches can provide this perspective and this dissertation serves as one contribution to this effort.

Given time, research, and continued dialogue, social capital has the potential to be developed into an analytical tool that captures the nuances of human social life. It must, however, evolve into a concept that both elucidates the impact of social relationships on individuals and groups, and captures the power structures in which they are embedded. To social capital, then must be added the consideration of resistance and the notion of local adaptation to the social environment. Although linking social capital is thought of as a way to explain relationships across power differentials, it does not show the ways in which people resist the hierarchies that exist in society.

Culture must also be added to social capital, to show the ways in which taken‐ for‐granted perceptions impact social relations and structural arrangements. It must be cautioned, however, that the addition of culture cannot be a way of blaming communities for their ill health. Social capital cannot be used as a way to put the sole

responsibility for the creation of poverty and ill health, as well as the solutions to them, back onto the community.

If social capital, informed by qualitative research, makes this conceptual evolution it could be useful for understanding inequalities in health. As the research on health disparities presses on in the U.S. and elsewhere, there is a nagging sense that something is missing. Social capital may help to establish what the less tangible, social aspects of health and illness are that may be contributing to these inequalities. Indeed, it has been known since the inception of epidemiology and public health that social relations and social structures have tremendous impacts on health and illness. Social capital could be useful in understanding what it is about being an ‘ethnic minority’ or being of ‘low socioeconomic status’ that causes ill health. It is believed that this is where the true potential value for social capital in public health resides; in its ability to bring together resources and explanations to help understand the production and consequences of health inequalities. This dissertation research serves as a contribution to the evolution of the term and its potential for both anthropology and public health by highlighting the experiences of people from different racial/ethnic and socioeconomic backgrounds who participate in local gardening projects to explore how they understand the concept.

THREE FUNDAMENTAL COMPONENTS OF SOCIAL CAPITAL: REEXAMINING PUTNAM’S FORMULATION

To begin to explore social capital as it is understood by community gardeners, the term must be operationalized for this research project in a way that can be broken down and critically examined in the interview questions. As has been discussed, the

concept of social capital has been criticized for its lack of consistency and the value‐ laden nature of its operationalization. Putnam’s formulations (1995, 2000) are often the subject of the harshest criticisms, yet his definition is widely used by researchers trying to explore the links between social capital and health. For these researchers, social capital is seen as a community level resource, reflected in the structure of social relationships and indicated by norms, networks, trust, coordination and mutual benefit

(Baum and Ziersch 2003).

Because Putnam has been largely responsible for mainstreaming the term, and because his definition is often used in public health research, it is important to examine his ideas more closely. This research set out to clarify and contextualize some of

Putnam’s defining characteristics, namely trust and civic engagement, to provide an ethnographic investigation of these terms by specifically examining how race, class and gender influence notions of social capital. As such, this research responds to critiques of

Putnam by Durrenberger (2002), Navarro (2004a,b), and others that Putnam’s work overlooks race, class and gender inequalities in society.

Rather than focusing narrowly on “civic engagement,” however, the definition was broadened to include community participation generally, or engagement in one’s community. All of the main theorists of social capital, Bourdieu, Coleman, and Putnam, have discussed the importance of social networks in relation to the concept, therefore social networks of community gardeners were explored in this research. This research did not try to map social networks, but rather sought to discover the relationship between social networks and participation in the garden. This research uses these three components to move the discussion around social capital forward by adding an

understanding of local conceptualizations of the term as a means to figure out what social capital is and whether it is a useful concept for understanding issues of community and health inequalities.

In taking up the concept of social capital, this dissertation research is in many ways a response to the conclusions Putnam has made regarding the decline of social capital; if social capital is measured in the way Putnam has measured it, then declines may be evident. However, if social capital is assessed using local and contextualized measures based on how communities’ view the role of trust, participation and social networks, then a different picture may emerge. While this research does not measure social capital, and therefore cannot specifically determine its presence or absence, it represents an initial step towards developing a way to assess social capital among

Cleveland neighborhoods by offering a locally informed definition that considers racial/ethnic, class and gender dynamics.

Because social capital is often used to explore racial and socioeconomic health disparities, the next chapter briefly reviews literature on health inequalities to explicate the importance of developing a nuanced and locally‐informed conceptualization of social capital. The chapter then also helps frame this discussion by exploring race, class and gender as dynamic social constructs, so as to place the concept of social capital within an understanding of social inequality. In doing so, it broadens the scope of ways in which health is conceptualized; if social capital helps to explain inequality, then health can be thought of in relation to overall community well being, something that will be returned to in Chapter 9.

CHAPTER 3

RACE, CLASS, GENDER AND SOCIAL CAPITAL

INTRODUCTION

As was outlined in the preceding chapter, social capital is being applied to understandings of racial and ethnic disparities, especially as relates to health, and this project set out to contribute to this research by adding a locally‐informed conceptualization of social capital. Social capital is said to mediate health outcomes and is proposed as one potential mechanism that helps to understand the links between poverty and ill health (Cattell 2001). Likewise, research has looked specifically at the relationship between race/ethnicity, social capital and health outcomes (Guzman et al

2010; Kim and Kawachi 2006; Ornelas et al 2009). Health disparities research highlights the need to explore in more depth the social determinants of health and to critically examine what race, class and gender mean in a given context; social capital provides one means to do so.

Systematic analyses of the ways in which racial and ethnic identities and gender intersect with economic forces and social class differentials to produce inequalities in the U.S. and the world are largely absent from current discussions of social capital. For social capital to be useful as a concept, the historical production of race, class and gender hierarchies must be considered and contested so as not to seem intrinsic and inevitable consequences of social organization. Anthropological epistemologies and methods are particularly suited for this. This chapter first provides a brief review of racial and ethnic health disparities to provide a context in which to think about social

capital in relation to racial and social inequality more broadly. The production of race and racism is discussed to provide a historical context for looking at issues of race, class and gender inequality, leading to the debate over the ‘culture of poverty’ concept as reflective of debates around the use of ‘social capital.’ The chapter ends with a discussion of contemporary approaches to looking at race and health, illustrating the ways in which social capital has been proposed to serve as a mediator between race and poverty and health.

HEALTH INEQUALITIES

Health disparities in the U.S. are well documented (AHRQ 2009). These disparities are discussed as occurring by race/ethnicity or by socioeconomic status. In the U.S., these descriptors cannot be separated from each other; racial and socioeconomic differences are intertwined, and it is difficult to pull them apart. It is generally agreed upon in studies of health disparities that: 1.) there are significant inequalities between blacks and whites in the U.S. that have increased over the last fifteen years; and 2.) these inequalities can be explained in part by socioeconomic status, but not completely (AHRQ 2009). Studies have repeatedly shown that even when controlling for socioeconomic variables, racial differences still exist.

Current racial relations in U.S. cities have evolved out of city‐specific historical circumstances that have shaped their physical, political, economic and social landscapes. As Brodkin (1998) explains, African Americans were systematically excluded from housing and employment opportunities after WWII through urban renewal programs, segregation, and Federal Housing Authority (FHA) redlining

practices as well as the FHA’s and Veteran Administration’s (VA) refusal to give loans to

African Americans. Jobs, businesses, and homes moved to the suburbs, leaving African

Americans stuck in the increasingly deteriorating inner city neighborhoods, with little means to improve these conditions (Brodkin 1998; Geronimus 2000). The restructuring from a manufacturing to a service economy, lack of adequate housing, and reductions in services that maintain public spaces have all intersected, leading to poverty and urban decay which then causes health deterioration and excess mortality (Geronimus 2000).

Geronimus et al. (1999) examined levels and causes of excess mortality among poor populations in regionally diverse areas in the U.S. Looking at black populations in both rural and urban settings, they found that across the board, African Americans experience a substantial annualized rate of excess mortality compared to whites. The magnitude of this excess is generally less in rural/southern populations compared to urban/northern. It is also less for women than men. The interpretation of their findings is complicated by the confounding relationship between race and socioeconomic status, but, tellingly, the authors could not even find a white poor population that was as poor as poor black populations, demonstrating the importance of the impact of race on health, even if the inequalities operate partially through economic characteristics

(Geronimus et al. 1999).

Richardus and Kunst (2001) also found racial differentials in infectious disease mortality between black and white Americans. They set out to determine whether these differences are explained by socioeconomic indicators, such as education and income, and to see if and to what extent infectious disease accounts for black‐white differences in all‐cause mortality. They determined that infectious disease accounted for 9.3% of

the difference in all‐cause mortality. This study demonstrates that health disparities cannot be explained fully by education and income differences between black and white communities (Richardus and Kunst 2001).

Silva et al. (2001) used vital statistics data on all‐cause mortality, communicable diseases, and birth outcomes to examine both black/white disparities and evaluate

Chicago’s efforts to close the gaps between blacks and whites. They found that despite declines in the city’s overall mortality rates, black people still died at increasingly disparate rates so that by 1998, low‐income and black people experienced at least twice the risk of their high‐income or white counterparts. The authors argue that although there has been general economic prosperity, public health campaigns, and advances in the medical field, the health status of black and poor people in Chicago worsened when compared to wealthier and white populations (Silva et al. 2001).

Documentation of health inequities continues to grow and national efforts continue to be aimed at specifically addressing them. In order to fully understand these persistent differences in health outcomes, an exploration into the meaning of race in

U.S. society is required. The next section briefly explores early work on race in the U.S., illustrating how anthropology has contributed to broader societal understandings of racial categories.

THE HISTORICAL PRODUCTION OF RACE

Historically anthropologists have played a role in the formation and re‐ formations of the concept of race, and therefore have considerably influenced the ways in which race and racism have been understood in the broader political and social

milieu. Cultural and physical anthropologists played an important role in efforts to dismantle and alter the dominant racial worldview by challenging the tenets of biological racism at the beginning of the twentieth century. As early as 1897, Boas disputed key components of the American racial ideology by questioning correlations between culture, biology and language (Mukhopadhyay and Moses 1997; Sanjek 1996;

Shanklin 1998). Boas and his contemporaries were working in a social and political context of racial segregation and deep ideological divides. As he confronted the eugenic work of other anthropologists, Boas and his students carved out a doctrine in anthropology that emphasized the need to understand the impact of environmental factors on human behaviors (Harrison 1995; Sanjek 1996; Shanklin 1998).

Anthropology was certainly not alone in its efforts to challenge American racism.

A number of prominent sociologists also played a salient role in debunking biological determinism. Among them was W.E.B. Du Bois whose seminal ethnographic work, The

Philadelphia Negro: A Social Study (1899) became one of the first American sociological studies. At the turn of the century, Du Bois famously noted, “The problem of the

Twentieth Century is the problem of the color‐line” (2003:3). His important works, including the influential The Souls of Black Folk (2003[1903]), challenged the deeply racist assumptions about ‘black culture,’ and elucidated the ways in which the racial hierarchy and racism impacted the daily lives of black people in the United States. Du

Bois (2003 [1903]) also illustrated the ways in which blacks in America coped with and resisted the atrocities that they routinely faced in the intensely hostile environments in which they lived.

In addition to Du Bois, early twentieth century sociologists at the Chicago School, studied ‘human ecology’ and race relations. The Chicago School refers to the type of urban sociology developed among Chicago areas scholars in the 1920s and 1930s that utilized an ethnographic approach to understanding how social and physical structures shaped human behaviors (Burgess and Bogue 1967). Park’s (2000) work emphasized the ways in which migrations of peoples and integration of cultures had taken place throughout history. This work highlighted the idea that learned ideas could impact human characteristics and behaviors. In this way, racial relations were seen as being made and remade through dynamic processes (Park 2000).

Work in both anthropology and sociology throughout the century continued to shape the way race and ethnicity were understood and perceived. Since the 1960s, there has been a shift in anthropology’s conceptualizations of race that reflects broader social and historical contexts and responds to the work that precedes it. For this reason, an understanding of current discussions of race and racism in relation to health requires an examination of the roots of these conceptualizations. A central target in today’s debates on inequality is Oscar Lewis whose work on the “culture of poverty” was highly influential in shaping public discourse on race and health (Lewis 1966). In many ways, the culture of poverty concept allowed the debates on inequality to avoid discussions of race and racism.

FROM RACE TO CULTURE TO CLASS: THE ‘CULTURE OF POVERTY’ DEBATE

The ‘culture of poverty’ debate resulted in shift from a focus on race to a focus on

‘culture.’ “Culture of poverty” referred to Lewis’ perception that the persistence of

poverty was related to individual and familial behaviors that are transmitted through generations; he viewed the culture of poverty as both a reaction to and adaptation of the poor to a marginal position in a capitalist, class‐stratified, highly individuated society (Lewis 1966, 1980). This concept was not about any specific race, but rather about the ‘culture’ of poor people in general. For Lewis, this culture of poverty is reflected in: the relationship between the ‘subculture’ and the larger society; the nature of the ‘slum’ community; the nature of the family; and the attitudes, character structure, and beliefs of the individual (Lewis 1980). Lewis made the distinction between poverty in developing countries, which he saw as an outgrowth of uneven capitalist development, and poverty in industrialized countries like the U.S., which he thought of as due to a ‘culture’ of poor peoples that reflected values and behaviors that create and perpetuate an impoverished life (Lewis 1966, 1980).

Because of his belief in the behavioral root of poverty, Lewis felt that solutions to

U.S. poverty were to be found in social work approaches that sought to change values and behaviors (Goode and Maskovsky 2001; Lewis 1966). The culture of poverty concept was utilized in the Moynihan Report to President Johnson in 1965 and therefore guided the War on Poverty policies for subsequent decades (Moynihan 1965).

Policy analysts used Lewis’ work to support their assumptions that the poor were destitute because of their own misbehaviors and actions and the culture of poverty concept was deployed to justify welfare programs that sought to intervene in the behaviors of poor people (Goode and Maskovsky 2001).

Eames and Goode (1980) expose the misapplication of culture of poverty and illustrate the ways in which people living in poverty develop creative ways to cope with

and negotiate their circumstances. In general, urban ethnographies at this time focused on either male‐dominated street societies or on impoverished African‐American women and their children. These works show how social networks in poor communities were a form of social organization, not the ‘breakdown’ as had been described (Goode and Maskovsky 2001). Although these early “ghetto ethnographies” attempted to be humanizing representations of the poor, Goode and Maskovsky (2001) argue that policies aimed at the alleviation of poverty in the decades that followed continued to focus on behaviors of individuals and families while ignoring structural constraints.

Much of the ethnographic work in U.S. urban anthropology for a decade after was in direct response to Lewis’ work. These works exposed the ways in which culture of poverty had come to be equated with race, as most discussions of ‘poor culture’ were referring to African Americans. Culture of poverty had deflected attention from issue of race and racism and these ethnographies served to highlight the lived effects of racism.

Anthropologists including Leacock (1971), Liebow (1967) and Stack (1974) conducted ethnographic research exploring the ways in which institutionalized racism, economic policies, and structural forces limit opportunities for the poor. Liebow’s (1967) work demonstrates the ways in which the values of African‐American street corner men in

Washington, D.C. are linked to and shaped by the values of the larger society and illustrates the adaptive nature of these men’s values. He challenges the culture of poverty notion by placing their adaptive behaviors within the local context (Liebow

1967). Liebow’s work challenges the idea of intergenerational transmission of so‐called bad values; Liebow writes, “Many similarities between the lower‐class Negro father and

son (or mother and daughter) do not result from ‘cultural transmission’ but from the fact that the son goes out and independently experiences the same failures, in the same areas, and for much the same reasons as his father” (Liebow 1967:223). In this way,

Liebow argues not for changing the behaviors or disrupting the communication between parent and child, but rather, he says, the changes should be made in the conditions that guarantee failure (Liebow 1967).

Culture of poverty was criticized as a self‐serving ideology that ‘blamed the victim.’ Critiques such as Stack’s (1974), showed that disadvantages faced by black

Americans were not because of some defective culture, but because of continued U.S. institutional racism. As a result, the debate was framed as a culture versus racism issue

(Massey and Denton 2001). According to Massey and Denton (2001), conservative theorists, such as Murray (1984), caught the public’s attention when they proposed a third possible cause of poverty – government welfare policy and programs. Murray’s

Losing Ground (1984) argues that anti‐poverty programs, many of which were established in the wake of the development of the culture of poverty, have created dependency and ultimately more poverty (Massey and Denton 2001).

The focus on economic explanations for poverty in the 1980s led to a shift away from discussions of both race and culture towards explanations that focused on class.

Wilson’s (1978, 1987) work argued for the increasing importance of class over race in shaping economic and social problems facing African Americans in the U.S. He developed the concept of the “underclass,” defined as the inner city, poor black population who disproportionately experienced a variety of economic shifts and therefore increased poverty (Wilson 1978, 1987, Massey and Denton 2001). As

mentioned in the previous chapter, HOPE VI was premised on Wilson’s work. This program sought to address urban decay through the de‐concentration of poverty, focusing efforts on the social behaviors of poor residents (Greenbaum 2002). As

Greenbaum (2002) explains, the explanations used to justify the HOPE VI program mirror the culture of poverty concept, with new models looking at social capital instead of enculturation and see public housing as an example of social bankruptcy.

ETHNICITY OR RACE?: RECENT DISCUSSIONS OF RACE AND RACISM IN ANTHROPOLOGY

Whether urban poverty is talked about in terms of a ‘culture of poverty,’ an

‘underclass,’ or as ‘lacking social capital,’ these discussions are entangled with issues of race and racism. Yet racism did not remain central to anthropology in the 1970s. Sanjek

(1996) argues that in the 1960s, anthropology took a liberal approach and affirmed that race as a biological construct did not exist. Yet the social effects of race ranking remained and anthropologists had little to say about racism. The lack of attention to race and racism in anthropology may have occurred as a backlash from the arguments being made against the culture of poverty concept (Sanjek 1996).

Anthropologists focused on ‘ethnicity,’ rather than ‘race’ stressing, “the expressive, internal cultural processes of group formation and the symbols of inclusion”

(Sanjek 1996:8). However Mullings (1978) and Ogbu (1978) argued that race or

‘minority’ legal status is not the same as ethnicity (Sanjek 1996). Nonetheless, the vast majority of anthropologists working in the United States continued to focus on ethnicity and ignore race, racism, and the political and economic inequalities that lay underneath

(Sanjek 1996). The focus on ethnicity rather than race served to obfuscate attention

away from the reality of racism, the system of oppression and subjugation based in beliefs and assumptions about real or perceived somatic characteristics. The consequences of this have been widely discussed. (Brodkin 1989, 1998, 2000; Sanjek

1996; Omi and Winant 1994; Mullings 2005; Harrison 1995, 1998; Lieberman 1997;

Williams 1992; Shanklin 1998).

Current anthropological discussions have featured the radical historicizing of the concepts of ‘race’ and ‘racism’ aimed at uncovering the racist legacy in anthropology

(Lieberman and Jackson 1995; Lieberman 1997; Mukhopodhyay and Moses 1997;

Harrison 1995, 1998; Shanklin 1998; Gregory and Sanjek 1996; Mullings 1997, 2005).

The knowledge brought to bear by feminist anthropologists and anthropologists of color has been integral to current knowledge‐building. From these works, the addition of class and gender to the understandings of racial oppression has become ubiquitous.

These discussions have been critical in medical anthropology’s exploration of the complexities involved in understanding racial and ethnic health disparities and the role that multiple forms of subjugation play in human health.

Mullings’ work (1997 2001, 2005; Mullings and Wali 2001) offers valuable insight into African American women’s experiences with work, kinship and their communities. She challenges the dominant images and ideologies of the black family in

America and unpacks the larger structural forces that shape these images. In her critical exploration of the economic and social policies and underlying ideologies that treat the female‐headed household as pathological, Mullings (1997) offers the concept of

“transformative work.” This concept provides a way to discuss the ways in which

African American women resist their multiple oppressions and sustain their communities through unseen and often devalued work (Mullings 1997, 2001, 2005).

“Transformative work” is described as collective action to oppose outside forces through efforts to ensure continuity within families and communities, while at the same time striving to make changes in circumstances that will aid in this continuity (Mullings

2001). She maintains that kin and nonkin networks continue to be important but are threatened by deteriorating circumstances in impoverished neighborhoods. Mullings

(2001) argues that for women of color in poor urban communities, the work of caring for the family has always coincided with work to transform and improve the community. Examples of this ‘transformative work’ can be seen among the community gardeners in this research project: in many ways, the work of creating or sustaining

“social capital” can be seen as examples of the “transformative work,” about which

Mullings speaks.

Mullings, and others have helped to define how ‘race,’ ‘class,’ and ‘gender’ are not disembodied social categories, but rather are socioculturally constructed corporeal identities that are imposed, resisted, transformed, and taken on (Cousins 1999;

Mullings 1997, 2001; Mullings and Wali 2001). Ethnographies document the lives of those who are oppressed because of their location in the race/class/gender matrix and expose the ways in which larger structural forces shape these positions. At the same time, the fluidity of these ‘categories’ is also uncovered and ethnographies demonstrate how people negotiate and mitigate them in a way that transforms their meanings both locally and globally (Bourgois 1995, 2002; Goode 1994; Hurston 1937; Mullings 1997,

2001; Mullings and Wali 2001; Mahler 1995; Newman 1998, 2001; Sharff 1998; Susser

1996; Waterston 1993, 1999; Williams 1996).

The shifting views of urban poverty from being about ‘culture,’ or ‘class’ ignored these insights of multiple oppressions. Likewise, a focus on ethnicity rather than race resulted in a distraction from the structural production and reproduction of these multiple oppressions. To avoid repeating these analytic trajectories and being reduced to either ‘culture’ or ‘class’, social capital must consider race, class and gender dynamics as well as the way that culture shapes local experiences.

APPROACHES TO RACE AND HEALTH: SOCIAL CAPITAL AS A WAY TO EXPLORE THE ‘RESIDUAL RACIAL EFFECT’ The recent production of anthropological knowledge regarding race and racism provides useful insight for the investigation of the links between race and health, and contributes to an understanding of ‘racial and ethnic health disparities’ and social inequality in general. In the early 1990s, medical anthropologists became critically engaged in the discussions of health inequalities (Barbee 1993, 1994; Chapman and

Berggren 2005; Dressler 1993; Jackson 1993; Harrison 1994; Hoff 1994; Reid 1994;

Page and Thomas 1994). In public health, early discussions around racial and ethnic health disparities focused largely on documenting these inequalities, which produced volumes of stark evidence regarding the persistent inequities of health care quality, access to care, and health and illness outcomes (Feachem 2000; AHRQ 2009; B. Smedley et al 2003). In the U.S., African Americans have consistently worse outcomes than Euro ‐

Americans on most health measures (AHRQ 2009). Outside of the United States, similar patterns exist (Gravlee and Sweet 2008).

When compared to the studies documenting the existence of health inequities, there has been much less research seeking to understand the root causes of health disparities and the social processes that produce and reproduce them. Part of the issue may be that “race,” “ethnicity,” “class,” and “gender” are not well understood in terms of the ways in which they impact daily lives and therefore health and illness. Indeed health inequalities are at “the center of contemporary scientific debate about the meaning of race” (Gravlee and Sweet 2008:27 emphasis added). ‘Race,’ ‘class,’ and ‘gender’ have been taken up in public health as largely demographic variables, categories under which individuals can be grouped. Contemporary debates, however, about the socially constructed nature of race challenges this approach for public health researchers

(Krieger et al 1997, 1999; Fullilove 1999; Bhopal and Donaldson 1998; Mays et al

2003).

When all other variables are controlled for, differences between racial groups persist and investigators have explored an array of environmental and sociocultural explanations for this, including neighborhood effects (Krieger 2003), the role of racial segregation (Acevedo‐Garcia and Osypuk 2008; Williams and Collins 2001), discrimination in health care (Dawna 2006), and health literacy (Osborn et al 2007).

The concept of race poses a challenge in health disparities investigations because of the difficulty of disentangling race from class in U.S. society. In his discussion of the limitations of using race or ethnicity as a proxy for socioeconomic position in relation to health status, Davey Smith (2000) challenges the commonly assumed conclusion that any residual racial effect that cannot be attributed to socioeconomic features is due to behavior, genes, or culture. Davey Smith (2000) argues that many studies assume that

socioeconomic indicators are correct markers of current social circumstances, yet SES indicators can have different meanings for members of different ethnic groups and area‐based measures of social circumstances may not be comparable across ethnic groups. Davey Smith (2000) argues that many studies neglect the role of racism, and its effects, which are experienced almost exclusively by ethnic minorities.

Recognizing the limited methodological and theoretical work that explores the influence of culture on health, Dressler and Bindon (2000) utilize the construct of

“cultural consonance” to explain the link between health status and cultural dimensions of individual behavior (Dressler 2004). Cultural consonance refers to “how closely an individual approximates in his or her own behavior [to] the guiding sensibilities of his or her own culture” (Dressler and Bindon 2000:246). Higher levels of cultural consonance resulted in lower blood pressure in the African American population in this study. They conclude that this might be a way to explore racial and ethnic health disparities (Dressler and Bindon 2000).

Social capital is often discussed as one way to explain the ‘residual racial effect’ because it allows for a broad discussion of the various social and environmental factors that may impact health. As in the development of methods to assess cultural consonance, a contextualized definition of social capital that considers issues of race, class and gender may offer a tool to understand this challenge and explore the role racism and social inequality plays in health. Ethnography, as the main tool of anthropology, elucidates the daily experiences of racial effects. Work on family, kin and fictive kin, and social support, for example, have offered insight into stress and resilience (Mullings and Wali 2001; Stack 1980; Stack and Burton 1993). Likewise

Mullings and Wali (2001) challenge anthropologists and health researchers to explore the specific ways that the interaction of race, class and gender impacts daily lives and therefore health, viewing these multiple oppressions in terms of an environmental stress paradigm. Gravlee (2009) argues that medical anthropologists can best contribute to the discussion on racial health inequalities by documenting how the sociocultural phenomenon of race has biological consequences.

While this dissertation research does not specifically investigate biological health outcomes, one objective is to explore how social capital relates to health and well being through the perspectives of community gardeners who were asked about the relationship between social capital and health. As will be seen in later chapters, gardeners’ views on health, community gardens and social capital allows for an expansion of the definition of health to include not just the absence of disease, but an overall sense of individual and community well being. A contextualized definition can be used to explore this broader meaning of health.

By specifically investigating the ways in which race, class and gender influence definitions and experiences of social capital, this research contributes to an understanding of the utility of the concept for looking at health inequalities. Another area to which social capital is being applied is in studies of the efficacy and impact of community‐based initiatives, such as community gardening projects. These projects are often aimed at having direct biological health impact, but the social health components are also presented as increasingly important. The next chapter will provide a review of the use of social capital in studies of community gardening.

CHAPTER 4

URBAN COMMUNITY GARDENS: PHYSICAL AND SOCIAL TRANSFORMATIONS OF NEIGHBORHOODS

COMMUNITY GARDENS AS SITES OF SOCIAL CAPITAL PROMOTION

Although much of the literature on community gardens emphasizes the direct health benefits to gardeners such as improved nutrition, increased physical activity, and reduced stress, there is considerable attention given to the indirect, less tangible individual and community benefits of gardens (Armstrong 2000; Glover 2004; Glover et al 2005 a,b; Hancock 2001; Landman 1993; Schmelzkopf 1996, Wakefield et al 2007).

Glover (2004), who has extensively studied community gardens in terms of leisure and recreation, argues that community gardens offer a compelling space in which to explore social capital because they serve as sites for community‐building, an integral component of social capital. He points to the lack of interpretive and qualitative studies of social capital and demonstrates the importance of these kinds of studies for understanding the subjective and experiential aspects of social capital (Glover 2004).

Hancock (2001) explains that community gardens build social capital because communities themselves create and manage them. Community gardens often serve as a symbolic focus for neighborhoods that can increase the aesthetics and therefore pride in a community. Armstrong (2000) argues that gardens decrease crime and drug use by occupying vacant lands previously used for criminal activities. As a result, community members may feel safer in their neighborhoods (Armstrong 2000).

Community gardens have become a component of comprehensive approaches to health promotion in urban communities. The California Healthy Cities and Communities program has incorporated community gardens into their efforts at addressing the environmental, social and economic dimensions of health. They have found that these projects have contributed to improved individual healthy behaviors, such as increased physical activity and increased consumption of fruits and vegetables, to systems changes including decreased code violations and the development of policies aimed at community beautification (Twiss et al 2003).

Teig et al (2009) examined the social processes underlying the connections between gardens, garden participation and health in Denver, Colorado. They found that community gardens may improve health by facilitating access to resources and encouraging social support which are said to protect against poor health. In addition, their research found that gardens might help to advance social norms that promote healthy communities. These include norms related to healthy food‐related practices, standards related to neighborhood and garden upkeep that may promote safe spaces, or participation in altruistic activities that serve the community (Teig et al 2009).

Wakefield and colleagues have studied the ways in which urban environments impact human health and the role that social capital may play in this (Center for Urban

Health Initiatives; Kane Speer 2008; Wakefield and Poland 2005; Wakefield et al 2007).

In their qualitative investigation into the health impacts of community gardening in

Toronto, they found that gardeners themselves reported a range of positive health benefits to gardening including better access to healthy foods, improved nutrition, increased levels of activity, and better mental health (Wakefield et al 2007). Gardens

were also found to benefit the broader community by increasing pride in the neighborhood, improving relationships between people, and providing an impetus for mobilization on community issues. Wakefield et al.’s (2007) study is noteworthy because it is one of very few research studies on this topic which asked gardeners directly about their experiences.

Schukoske (2000) discusses gardens as promising solutions to the issues associated with vacant lots and urban blight. She contends that community gardens often bring residents from different backgrounds together around common interests including neighborhood safety, health, community beautification, and local food production. In a survey of community gardens in upstate New York, Armstrong (2000) found that access to fresh foods, to enjoy nature, and general health benefits were the most common reasons given for why people participated. Community gardens have been found to provide a physical location for people to meet and socialize, to learn about community activities, and foster communication between diverse populations

(Armstrong 2000). Community gardens in urban areas are often said to encourage interaction and relationships between people of different races and ethnicities

(Schmelzkopf 1996; Shinew et al 2004).

Landman (1993) found that participants in community gardens in Washington,

DC felt the gardens fostered friendships and nurtured the neighborhoods in which they are situated. She found that these friendships continued throughout the year.

Community gardens have also been found to serve as a catalyst for activism and empowerment in lower income neighborhoods and have been shown to facilitate the

creation of social networks (Alaimo 2010, Armstrong 2000, Kingsley and Townsend

2006, Glover 2004, Glover et al 2005a,b).

Glover (2004) points to the lack of interpretive and qualitative studies of social capital and demonstrates the importance of these kinds of studies for understanding the subjective and experiential aspects of social capital. Glover’s exploration of social capital and the “lived experiences” of community gardeners found that the community garden did facilitate social capital, which he defines broadly as the resources embedded in social connections. It was not the garden itself that created social capital, but the social networks to which people had access by virtue of their participation.

Interestingly, he found that social groups in this study, which were organized generally by race and socioeconomic status, had unequal access to these resources rooted in the social networks. Glover explains:

In sum, certain social groups entered the garden network with an unequal footing because of their already disproportionate status in American society and their weak ties with “undesirables” in the neighborhood. Not surprisingly, the individuals with less valued resources and thus lower standings in the community experienced greater structural constraints (2004:158).

His research highlights the need to understand the role of power relations and the potential for unequal access to social capital in communities. As will be discussed in later chapters, this dissertation contributes to this knowledge by exploring power relations and racial segregation in relation to social capital among community gardeners.

COMMUNITY GARDENING IN CLEVELAND, OHIO: RICH HISTORY AND FUTURE HOPES Cleveland, Ohio has a long tradition of community gardening programs dating back to relief gardens during the Great Depression and the Victory Gardens during

World War II. Cleveland Public Schools began a horticultural program initiated early in the 20th century and trained generations of gardeners. The horticultural program continued until the 1970s but was dismantled as the schools were desegregated

(Cleveland Memory Project). Although the schools no longer include this program, many of the school sites are now community gardens as neighborhoods work with the

School District to utilize the land. Although not part of school district‐wide curricula, many of the gardens do have programs that teach children how to grow fruits and vegetables. Because Cleveland community gardens receive generous support from grassroots organizations, city government, non‐profits, and foundations, they have been quite successful. Although gardens could operate independently, most community gardens in the city are affiliated with the Ohio State University Cuyahoga County

Extension.

The Ohio State University Extension Cuyahoga County Community Gardening

Program has fostered horticulture education and technical support for community gardening in the County for 30 years. In partnership with the City of Cleveland’s

Summer Sprout program, the OSU Extension helps approximately 4,000 gardeners in nearly 200 community gardens, including nearly 20 market gardens, in the City of

Cleveland to put fresh food on their tables, into farmer’s markets, and into local food pantries. Gardens that participate in the Summer Sprout Program are eligible to receive seeds, starter plants, soil testing, humus, soil, and materials for the creation of raised

beds. Gardens are eligible to obtain permits from the city to use fire hydrants for watering. In addition, gardeners have access to research‐based educational workshops through the Extension (OSU Extension Cuyahoga County).

Each community garden has a garden leader who serves as the link between the garden members and City and Extension programs. Each garden is autonomous, defining its own rules for participation, physical layouts, and member fees, if any. Some gardens were created on vacant lots and are leased from private owners or the City, or may be obtained through the County Land Bank. Those on school properties are leased from the Cleveland Metropolitan School District. Others are attached to organizations such as churches, social service institutions, or ward/block clubs. Many gardens share a portion of their produce with hunger centers. The garden sizes and compositions are as varied as the neighborhoods in which they are situated and range from 4,000 square foot vacant lots to 3‐acre parcels with some gardens having only a few members while others have hundreds (Hassler and Gregor 1998).

SUPPORT FOR COMMUNITY GARDENS: CURRENT LOCAL INITIATIVES

The Cleveland/Cuyahoga County Food Policy Coalition (CCCFPC), a local food council, was established in 2007 to coordinate public‐private partnerships aimed at improving access to healthy food in urban neighborhoods and stimulating the overall local food system in Northeast Ohio. The primary goal of the Coalition is to cultivate a stronger and more sustainable local food system. Community gardens are often discussed as a key component to current and ongoing movements in Cleveland and

Northeast Ohio surrounding the push towards transforming the physical and social

environment. Leaders are beginning to acknowledge that given the prolonged declines in population coupled with the continued devastation of the foreclosure crisis, there is a need for a reevaluation of development policy for vacant land. The City of Cleveland has an estimated 17,000 vacant lots covering 3,300 acres. It is estimated that it costs the city approximately $1,000 per year to maintain one vacant lot. The vision of the CCCFPC is to promote the creation of a local food system that can utilize vacant land for gardening and farming so as to beautify the city, create jobs, improve health, and make the food system localized and sustainable.

The creation of zoning legislation for Urban Gardening Districts in March 2007, to protect communal spaces from private development, demonstrates strong governmental support for community gardens and urban agriculture in Cleveland.

Cleveland was the first city in the country to do this. In 2009, Cleveland City Council and the Mayor passed and signed legislation to allow residents to keep bees, chickens, or other small livestock in residential neighborhoods. More recent legislation has been introduced to create urban agriculture overlay districts and there are ongoing policy efforts at the State County level towards the re‐use of vacant and abandoned properties for community gardens and urban agriculture (CCCFPC; Cleveland City Planning

Commission).

Residents who receive training on gardening/farming through the Market

Gardener program at Cuyahoga County OSU Extension improve their skills and allow for the opportunity for entrepreneurial endeavors. To support this, the City’s

Department of Economic Development initiated the Gardening for Greenbacks program to provide small start‐up grants of up to $3,000 for urban gardeners who want to sell

their produce in local farmer’s markets. The OSU Extension, the New Agrarian Center, the Cleveland Department of Public Health, and the Ohio Farmers Union established

City Fresh, a community supported agriculture (CSA) program that organizes Fresh

Stops in neighborhoods to provide food shares of seasonally available, locally‐grown fruits and vegetables and provides nutrition and community education services

(CCCFPC).

These initiatives illustrate the City’s shift towards the development of policy that seeks to create innovative land use strategies that promote healthy and sustainable neighborhoods, while recognizing the economic benefits to the support of these skills and the potential to transform the local food system. In fact, Cleveland received national attention in this area when a web‐based media company, SustainLane, which develops an annual peer‐reviewed sustainability ranking of the largest 50 cities in the United

States, ranked Cleveland #2 in 2008 because of the ongoing efforts in the city.

This extensive local support is important because the literature has identified lack of political will and the absence of local policies that support community gardening to be an issue in many cities (Wakefield et al 2007). Many gardeners are concerned about insecure tenure because the land is often not owned by the community itself, something Cleveland legislation has tried to overcome. Gardeners have also been concerned over the safety of foods grown in urban environments and the lack of resources to buy seeds and plants (Wakefield et al 2007). The OSU Extension program overcomes this through soil testing, educational support, and seed dissemination. This dissertation research, by helping to understand social capital among community

gardeners, contributes to a better understanding of the importance of all these local efforts aimed at creating healthy and sustainable neighborhoods.

Given this local commitment and tested history, Cleveland community gardens provide an important context in which to explore social capital and investigate how definitions and perceptions vary by race, class and gender. The literature on community gardens shows that trust, social networks, and community engagement, as components of social capital, are often important aspects of community gardening projects. An objective of this research is to examine the role the garden plays in shaping these definitions and experiences, allowing for a contextual definition of social capital that can be used to broaden the discussion around individual and community health. The next chapter will detail the specific objectives and methodology used to explore these ideas.

CHAPTER 5

RESEARCH OBJECTIVES AND METHODOLOGY

RESEARCH DESIGN AND OBJECTIVES

This dissertation research is an ethnographic study of urban community gardeners that seeks to develop a nuanced, culturally informed and contextualized definition of social capital. In order to capture seasonal variation in the impact of community gardens on definitions and to collect a broad array of perspectives, this research was conducted in two phases. Phase I included semi‐structured interviews with garden leaders (N=23) from varied neighborhoods and racial and socioeconomic backgrounds. Phase II included ethnographic observation and in‐depth, open‐ended semi‐structured interviews with gardeners in four Cleveland neighborhood garden sites

(N=36) in four different communities. The specific objectives for this dissertation research are to:

1.) examine emic definitions of social capital and the commonly discussed attributes of trust, social networks and community engagement.

2.) examine how these emic conceptualizations differ by race, class, and gender.

3.) explore the role that community gardens play in shaping these varied definitions and experiences of social capital.

4.) identify local perceptions of the role of social capital in overcoming social and racial inequalities and improving community well being.

OPERATIONALIZING VARIABLES

One objective of this dissertation research was to contribute to an understanding of how daily experiences of being a certain race, class, and gender impact the ways in

which social capital is understood and articulated. In this research, these social identities are understood as dynamic and historically and culturally contingent. The constructs of ‘race,’ ‘class,’ and ‘gender’ are both conceptual and operational variables in this study (Bernard 2002). Another objective is to examine ‘trust,’ ‘social networks’ and

‘community engagement’ as components of social capital. Although these are not the only attributes of social capital, this research focuses on these elements so as to more fully explore these core components of Putnam’s conceptualization of social capital

(1995, 2000). In this research, these concepts are operational variables used to define social capital, which were unpacked during the interviews to elicit meanings, descriptions, and experiences (Bernard 2002). Although this research elicits participant definitions and explanations of each of these constructs, operational definitions were outlined to provide a framework for discussion (Table 5.1).

Table 5.1: Research Variables

Variable Operational Definition How Variable Is Assessed Race Self‐reported race or ethnicity Participants were asked how they describe themselves in terms of race or ethnicity Class SES in relation to community: Indicators such as median household income, Working class, middle class, highest grade level completed in school, professional class occupation, where they reside, and whether or not they own or rent their home. Gender Male or Female Interviewer selected male or female upon meeting participant Trust Confident expectation of something Participants were asked how they define trust or what makes someone trustworthy. Participants were asked about trust in their neighbors, other gardeners, and the community in general Social Set of social relationships an Participants were asked who participates with Networks individual has them, family members, friends, etc. They were also asked about the role of the garden in social life, whether or not they consider gardeners friends, and if they see gardeners outside of the garden. Community Participation in community, social Participants were asked about involvement in Engagement or civic events other activities and to identify the best ways to become involved in one’s community

Race ‘Race’ is conceptualized as a sociocultural category, based on phenotypic differences, which has meaning to persons within a given society. Race was determined by asking participants to self identify their race or ethnicity. Rather than providing predetermined categories, participants used their own words to ascribe racial or ethnic identity.

Class

Social class is conceptualized as a social relationship that is given meaning in relation to the economic structure, that is, a grouping of people based on their economic relationship to one another (Krieger et al 1997). In this research, ‘class’ was operationalized as one’s socioeconomic status in relation to one’s community.

Therefore it was assessed using socioeconomic indicators including household income, educational attainment, occupation, and place of residence. Based on these indicators, participants were grouped as working class, middle class or professional class.

‘Working class’ among these participants is defined by relatively low levels of educational attainment (high school or less), lower median household incomes (less than $30,000), and occupations (before retirement) in technical, skilled labor, manufacturing, retail or clerical fields. ‘Middle class’ participants were characterized as having relatively higher median household incomes (more than $30,000), college degrees or at least some college, and various skilled and unskilled occupations that provided higher incomes. Very few participants comprised the category ‘professional class.’ These participants included a lawyer, and several master’s level social workers or non‐profit organization leaders whose income was not necessarily higher, but who

often lived outside the communities in which they gardened and participated in the garden as a part of their employment.

Social Networks

‘Social networks,’ or the set of social relationships an individual has, were explored as a component of social capital (J. Schensul et al 1999). Based on the definition of social capital used in this research, social networks are fundamentally important to social capital and inquiry into the role of social networks on participants’ lives elicited cultural knowledge related to the concept. This research did not use information about social networks to undertake social network analysis. Rather, research participants were asked about their social relationships with other gardeners, how these relationships depend upon the garden and garden activities, and whether or not they thought one’s race, class, and gender influence social networks.

Trust In this research project, ‘trust’ is operationalized generally as the confident expectation of something. Participants were asked who they turn to in their lives when they need help. They were also asked to define trust and asked whether or not they trust individuals in the gardens and in their neighborhoods. Participants were also asked about whether or not they feel trust is influenced by race, class, or gender.

Community Engagement

‘Community engagement,’ or participation in social or civic events, was assessed not only through asking about participation in other traditional community and civic activities, but also through an exploration of other forms of engagement that are often overlooked in social capital literature. This research documents some of these informal activities that are believed to contribute to overall community well being as discussed

in greater detail in chapters 7 and 9. Participants were asked about what facilitates or inhibits participation and how this relates to community well‐being as well as how community engagement may be influenced by race, class, and gender.

PHASE I: GARDEN LEADER INTERVIEWS Fall 2007 – Spring 2009 (N=23)

The goal of the first phase of research was to collect initial data on definitions and experiences of social capital from a sample of garden leaders representing the varied racial/ethnic and socioeconomic composition of the city. This first phase allowed for a preliminary examination of ‘trust,’ ‘social networks’ and ‘community engagement’ as three components of the social capital concept. Thematic analysis of these interviews generated data that were used to form the questions for the more intensive interviews conducted in Phase II.

Sampling The sample of garden leaders interviewed for the first Phase of research was obtained from a database of community gardens kept by the Cuyahoga County Ohio

State University Extension who, in partnership with the City of Cleveland Summer

Sprout program, organizes and supports community gardens throughout the city. The

Cuyahoga County Ohio State University Extension (the Extension), served as an important resource throughout the research process (see APPENDIX A). They provided limited access to their community gardens database which documents demographic information on program participants such as: age, race, and gender; number of participants in each garden; and garden location, including neighborhood/Statistical

Planning Area (or SPA)1, and Ward. The database also includes site‐specific garden information including: years in existence; ties to organizations; sources of financial support; and whether or not a garden donates produce, how much, and total value of charitable donations.

From this database, a list of 88 garden leaders was generated, representing the neighborhoods with community gardens. A letter was mailed to each of these garden leaders asking for their participation. Multiple strategies were used to reach the proposed sample size including additional mailings, cold‐calling, and referrals from leaders who had participated to achieve a sample of garden leaders that was representative of those communities with gardens. A non‐probability, quota sample

(Babbie 2001; Bernard 2002) of 23 gardens representing the socioeconomic and racial diversity of Cleveland, as well as the varied nature of types of gardens in Cleveland, was established. The final Phase I sample (N=23) represented a broad range of types of community gardens: some older, well‐established gardens, some new ones; small gardens with fewer gardeners, others that had nearly 200 gardeners; gardens on the west side, south and east side of the city; and some who were local resident‐initiated, others that were tied to organizations such as homeless shelters, schools, or churches.

In addition to demographic data, these open‐ended, semi‐structured interviews explored the gardeners’ perspectives on community gardening, what the gardens mean to them and their neighborhood, social networks inside and outside of the gardens, perspectives on trust, and their perceptions of the issues facing their communities and how the community comes together to resolve them (see APPENDIX B). The interviews

1 The City of Cleveland’s Planning Commission aggregates Census Tracts into 36 Statistical Planning Areas (SPA). In most cases, each SPA is equivalent to a neighborhood.

with garden leaders led to adjustments in the interview tool for Phase II to address specific phenomena that emerged from the phase I data.

PHASE II: GARDENER INTERVIEWS AND PARTICIPANT OBSERVATION January 2009 – September 2009 (N=36)

The goal of the second phase of research was to explore the ways in which race, class, and gender influence understandings of social capital from the perspective of the gardeners. To meet the research objectives, the three components of ‘trust,’ ‘social networks’ and ‘community engagement’ were further examined and interviewees were asked how race, class and gender influence these concepts. Interviews also elicited data on the roles that the gardens play in the community, how social capital relates to health, and what social capital may be used to accomplish. This second phase of research included open‐ended semi‐structured interviews with thirty‐six (N=36) gardeners in each of these four garden sites and ethnographic observation in the gardens as the 2009 season opened and continued through the harvest (see APPENDIX C).

Participant observation was used to establish rapport, experience life in the gardens, and observe relationships (Bernard 2002; LeCompte and Schensul 1999; S.

Schensul et al 1999). In this research, participant observation predominantly meant visiting the gardens, having informal discussions with gardeners, and observing gardening activities in spaces designated for such leisure. It also entailed weeding, planting or watering in the gardens on rare occasions. Observations offered insight into the functioning of each garden and how a community garden starts and ends a growing season. Visiting the gardens throughout the season allowed for the documentation of

key differences between the garden research sites in terms of the roles these gardens play in their communities, highlighting the importance of context.

Sampling

After the Phase I interviews, four gardens located in four neighborhoods were selected to serve as sites for the remainder of the research. The initial strategy for selecting the four garden sites was to identify gardens that met specific criteria including, one new garden and one well‐established, east side, and west side, small and large, predominantly African American and one more ethnically diverse. Census indicators for the garden neighborhoods, the community garden databases, and data from Phase I interviews were reviewed to compile a list of several gardens that met these criteria.

Garden leaders whose gardens had these characteristics were re‐contacted and asked about the continuation of research in their garden. Four garden leaders expressed reservations about allowing continued research without consensus from fellow gardeners. This was the case in four east side, predominantly African‐American gardens. It took more effort and personal visits to the gardens to gain the trust of all the gardeners. After several attempts to pick specific gardens that met initial criteria, the sampling strategy was changed to allow for the inclusion of four gardens whose leaders self‐identified as willing to participate. As has been exemplified in the work of Chapman

(2003), social research often necessitates flexibility in sampling strategy to overcome distrust and meet local cultural expectations. She highlights that what may be lost in terms of random or purposive sampling can be gained in rapport and trust (Chapman

2003).

Due to differences in garden size, one site did not reach the targeted 10 members. Table 7.2 below shows the number of gardeners interviewed and the total number of gardeners in each site.

Table 5.2: Number of Gardeners Interviewed by Site

Garden Total Number of Gardeners* Number of Gardeners Interviewed (not including garden leaders) Black White Latino Black White Latino N (%) N (%) N (%) N (%) N (%) N (%)

Community N=200 N=13 Garden 1 8 (4%) 184 (92%) 8 (4%) 0 (0%) 13 (100%) 0 (0%)

Community N=10 N=3** Garden 2 0 (0%) 9 (90%) 1(10%) 0 (0%) 3 (100%) 0(0%)

Community N=99*** N=10 Garden 3 96 (97%) 1 (1%) 0 (0%) 10 (100%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%)

Community N=46 N=10 Garden 4 46 (100%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 10 (100%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) * These numbers are based on the OSU Extension’s 2007 garden database and may not reflect the total numbers for the gardening season observed in this research. Most members of CG‐1 said that there were no longer any African Americans in the garden. ** One member had been a garden leader at another location for her employment and was interviewed as part of the phase I, therefore, she is not included in this number. *** Remaining 3 gardeners’ race is unknown as it was not included in the OSU Extension database.

Recruitment of gardeners differed for each garden based on the variations in the leaders’ willingness to help. Chain referral sampling techniques (Bernard 2002) were utilized in some cases where either the garden leaders or other participants would tell fellow gardeners about the study and ask them to be interviewed. In most cases, however, convenience sampling was used where individuals were approached, the project was explained, and they were asked if they were willing to be interviewed and observed.

Human Subjects

For both phases of research, written informed consent was obtained from each participant before commencing the interview. Case Western Reserve University’s

Institutional Review Board reviewed and approved the research design protocol and procedures, interview tools, and all informed consent documents. All information has been kept confidential and identifiers kept for purposes of contacting participants will be destroyed at the end of the study. When the results of this research are discussed in later chapters, pseudonyms are used (see APPENDIX D for all informed consent documents).

Data Management and Analysis

Management: Codes and Attributes

All interviews were recorded using a digital audio recorder, transcribed and entered into QRS International’s Nvivo 2 software for analysis (NVivo QRS International

2002). Transcriptions from interviews were coded systematically to categorize qualitative responses to each question. Each question had a series of sub‐codes used to categorize the themes of the responses. These codes were collapsed and refined to ultimately produce over 500 codes. Because participants’ answers could be given more than one code, the codes for open‐ended questions are not mutually exclusive.

Therefore, when the results are presented in Chapter 7, the number of people who gave each response could add up to more than the total number of participants, because each answer had the potential to fall under more than one code. The results presented in the tables of Chapter 7 are derived from codes that represent the thematic categories of participant responses.

Analysis

The quantifiable data generated in Nvivo were exported to SPSS 19 statistical software (SPSS 19.0 IBM 2010). SPSS was used to calculate frequencies and descriptive statistics of the demographic variables for Phase I and Phase II samples. For the qualitative responses, thematic codes were analyzed by race, class and gender, to generate frequencies of responses by these characteristics. Code frequencies were used to make comparisons and determine, 1) how people define the three elements of social capital; 2) other themes in local definitions and experiences; and 3) if these themes vary by race, class and gender, and by garden characteristics.

Limitations

Sampling strategies may elicit samples of more engaged community members, therefore limiting the range of perceptions of social capital. Ideally, research would be conducted in which comparisons of definitions of social capital between various groups of more or less engaged or socially connected individuals could be made. Future projects may be extended to expand this examination into communities without gardens to determine whether definitions cross communities.

The sample of garden leaders was not random, but rather purposive in that it tried to capture the variation of community gardens throughout the city. However, given the recruitment techniques, the sample may represent more engaged individuals who were willing to participate which may in some ways limit the variation in definitions and experiences of social capital. To overcome this, individuals who did not volunteer after the initial letter was sent were called and invited to participate. This

technique did result in the participation of additional leaders, which may have offset any bias of the original willing participants.

In phase II, the samples in each of the four gardens were obtained utilizing different techniques. Garden leaders played a major role in recruitment in the two west side gardens. In Community Garden 1 in particular, the garden leader handpicked participants, making this sample susceptible to bias by the garden leader. He may have chosen individuals that were his closest friends or only people he knew well, which meant that the perspectives of those individuals and families who do not know him as well may have been missed. Although he assured me he was trying to get a representative sample, it is possible that personal relationships biased him in some ways, even if unintentional.

The sample size in the Community Garden 2 is small, which limits what is known about the garden as a whole and the range of perspectives. Community Garden 2 only had ten members total and two of the members had already been interviewed in the first phase; the garden leader and another member who was also a garden leader at another garden tied to a social service organization where she is employed. Two other members were a Hispanic couple who did not feel comfortable speaking English.

Although multiple attempts to contact and interview all other members were made, only three gardeners were interviewed at this site.

In the two east side gardens, sampling was more convenient than purposive.

Community Garden 3 and Community Garden 4 were visited frequently and available members were asked to participate in the research study. These samples then are limited by whether or not the diversity of participants of each garden was captured

through these techniques. To get a representative sample, the gardens were visited at different times of the day, different days of the week, and weekends so as to cover different times when gardeners tend their plots. In this way, the potential for bias was decreased and a range of perspectives on community gardens was obtained.

The resulting samples are described in the next chapter, which presents the demographic characteristics of research participants.

CHAPTER 6

SAMPLE DESCRIPTIONS: PARTICIPANT AND NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTERISTICS

RESEARCH SITE: CLEVELAND AND ITS NEIGHBORHOODS

As has been discussed, Cleveland, Ohio has a long tradition of community gardening and ongoing commitments to preserving these programs. Like many struggling cities in the U.S., Cleveland has a broad network of public and private agencies committed to community and economic development. Yet as with many cities struggling with population decline and a decreasing economic base, Cleveland social indicators continue to point to social and economic hardships for many residents.

According to the U.S. Census Bureau, by the end of 2009, 35% of Cleveland residents were living below the federal poverty line of $21,954 for a family of four. Cleveland is the second poorest big city in the U.S., behind Detroit (U.S. American Community Survey

2009). The burden of poverty is particularly heavy for children, with 51.3% of children growing up in poverty in the city. Families with female‐headed households are also particularly burdened with 43.7% living below the poverty line in 2009 (ACS 2009, U.S.

Census).

Many of the poor are African American who compose the majority of the city’s population (50.8%) (ACS 2009, U.S. Census Bureau). Cleveland is racially segregated, with much of the African American population residing on the city’s east side, and much of the Euro American population on the west, although the near west side has an increasing Latino population. According to the American Community Survey Census

Data (2009), 9.4% of Cleveland residents are Hispanic. The south side of the city is comprised of both African Americans as well as Euro‐Americans mainly of eastern

European descent (Census 2008).

Cleveland residents tend to be less educated than the broader County’s population. According to the 2009 American Community Survey Census data, 24% of residents have not graduated from high school. Only 9% of the population has a bachelor’s degree and 5% has a graduate or professional degree. The median household income is $25,091. The majority of residents are employed in the education, health care, and social assistance sectors with 28% of the employed population 16 and older identifying these as their occupational industry. Sixteen percent (16%) are employed in manufacturing. Forty‐six percent of homes in the city are owner‐occupied while renters occupy 54% of residences. The population is 53% female and 47% male (ACS 2009, US

Census) (See APPENDIX E for a summary of Cleveland Census Data).

Figure 6.1: Map of Cleveland Community Gardens by SPA

94 94

PHASE I: GARDEN LEADERS (N=23)

The map in Figure 6.1 shows the location of garden sites by the 36 Statistical

Planning Areas (SPA) or neighborhoods in Cleveland. Some neighborhoods have many gardens and some have only one or two. The sample of garden leaders represents 20 of the

35 SPA’s that were in the 2007 database, from which the sample was drawn, with some neighborhoods with many gardens represented by more than one garden leader participant. Eleven participants were leaders at gardens on the east side of the city

(Central (n=2), Corlett, Fairfax, Forest Hills, Glenville, Hough, Mt. Pleasant, Union Miles,

South Collinwood, and Lee Miles). Eight participants were from west side gardens (Clark‐

Fulton, Edgewater, Ohio City (n=2), Old Brooklyn Stockyards, Tremont, and West

Boulevard). Two garden leaders came from gardens in south side neighborhoods, (South

Broadway and North Broadway) and two were from a garden site Downtown.

Garden Leader: Age, Gender and Race

Table 6.1 presents the gender and race/ethnicity for the Phase I sample of garden leaders. The majority of garden leaders in this study were female (60.9%) and African

American (52.2%). Garden leaders tend to be older; 86.9% are over 50 years old, with

47.8% over the age of 60. The median age for this sample was 59 (mean=60) with ages ranging from 27 to 82 years.

Table 6.1: Garden Leader Gender and Race/Ethnicity N=23

GENDER N (%) Male 9 (39.1%) Female 14 (60.9%) RACE/ETHNICITY N (%) Black/African American 12 (52.2%) White/Caucasian/Euro American 10 (43.5%) Hispanic/Latino 1 (4.3%)

Garden Leader: Employment, Education and Income

The majority of this sample, 56.5%, was still working, with the remainder

(43.5%) being retired. Of those employed, 26.1% were employed as professionals and

17.4% were employed in non‐profit organizations in some capacity. Professional refers to participants who identified themselves as teachers, nurses, doctors, or lawyers. This category overlaps to some extent with the non‐profit category as some of those employed at non‐profit organizations have a professional degree (such as a Master in

Non‐profit Organization, or Master of Social Work), but not all. This garden leader sample is more educated than the general Cleveland population with 17.4% having a post‐graduate or professional degree and 21.7% completing a bachelor’s degree. Only one garden leader did not complete high school. Nearly half (47.8%) of garden leaders reported that their annual household income was under $30,000; no leader’s household income was reported to be above $105,000 (Table 6.2).

Table 6.2: Garden Leader Employment/Occupation, Educational Attainment, and Household Income

NUMBER PERCENT OF TOTAL (N=23) EMPLOYMENT/OCCUPATION Clerical 2 8.7% Technical/Skilled Labor/Manufacturing 1 4.3% Nonprofit 4 17.4% Professional 6 26.1% Retired 10 43.5% EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT Less than a high school degree 1 4.3% High school graduate or GED 3 13.0% Twoyear associate degree 4 17.4% Some college 6 26.1% Fouryear college grad/Bachelor’s degree 5 21.7% Postgraduate/Professional degree 4 17.4% ANNUAL HOUSEHOLD INCOME Less than $15,000 1 4.3% $15,000$30,000 10 43.5% $30,000$45,000 5 21.7% $45,000 $75,000 3 13.0% $75,000 $105,000 4 17.4%

Homeownership and Residential Tenure

The vast majority of garden leaders (82.6%) own the homes in which they live.

Many garden leaders (69.9%) live in the same neighborhood as the garden site, 69.6%, but 17.4% of them did not live in the city of Cleveland. Most participants living in a suburb became garden leaders as part of their employment. One garden leader was not employed in the neighborhood, but had previously lived there. Reflecting a general stability, 65.3% of Phase I participants had lived in their current home for 15 or more years with 26.1% having lived there for 40 or more years.

PHASE II: GARDENER INTERVIEWS IN FOUR GARDEN SITES (N=36)

A total of 36 individual gardeners in 4 garden sites were interviewed for the second phase of this research (Table 6.3). Phase II sample compositions illustrate the degree to which Cleveland remains a racially segregated city. In the west side garden sites, 100% of study participants were white (N=16) and in the east side gardens, 100% of study participants were black (N=20). It should be noted, however, that, in

Community Garden‐2 (abbreviated from here as CG‐2), two gardeners were Latino, although they did not participate in this study. In Community Garden‐1 (CG‐1), the garden leader, as well as many members of CG‐1 that were interviewed, highlighted the diverse nature of their garden members. Yet despite attempts to obtain a sample that represented this reported diversity, all CG‐1 gardeners interviewed were white. The racial segregation reflected in the research sample will be discussed in further detail in later sections of this dissertation.

Table 6.3: Number of Participants in Each of the Four Garden Sites

NUMBER OF GARDENERS INTERVIEWED West side of Community Garden 1 (CG1) 13 Cleveland Community Garden 2 (CG2) 3 East side of Community Garden 3 (CG3) 10 Cleveland Community Garden 4 (CG4) 10 TOTAL 36

In this section, the demographics will be presented for each of the four neighborhoods in which the research sites are located2. This will provide a context in which to situate demographic characteristics of the gardeners that comprised the four samples.

COMMUNITY GARDEN 1

Neighborhood Demographics

The neighborhood in which CG‐1 is located, is predominantly white/Euro‐

American/Caucasian, with over 90% white according to 2000 Census data. It is characterized largely as middle class with a median household income of more than

$45,000 in 2000 (NEO CANDO, US Census 2000). In CG‐1’s neighborhood, the poverty rate was much lower in 2000 than the city as a whole with only 11% of individuals and

12% of families with children living below the federal poverty line (U.S. Census, NEO

CANDO).

Gardener Demographics: Age, Gender and Race

Reflecting a trend in community gardens in general, more than half of CG‐1 participants (53.9%) are over the age of 60, with (46.2%) of individuals in their 70s.

This may reflect the fact that older retirees may have more time to be involved in

2 Awaiting 2010 Census data, and knowing that 2000 data is outdated and the city is changing, more recent data and projections are not provided at the neighborhood level, therefore these data will be used to discuss neighborhood characteristics.

community gardens. The median age for CG‐1 participants was 65, with ages ranging from 45 to 75 years. The CG‐1 sample is 53.8% male and 46.2% female and 100% white/Caucasian.

Education, Household Income, and Occupation

CG‐1 participants were mostly middle class with more than half (53.9%) of CG‐1 gardeners making more than $75,000 per household annually. Four (30.8%) individuals reported an annual household income of more than $105,000 and none reported making less than $15,000. Although one person did not complete high school, most CG‐

1 participants (69.3%) said they had completed at least some college. Nearly half

(46.2%) of CG‐1 participants are retired (Table 6.4).

Table 6.4: Community Garden 1: Employment, Educational, and Household Income

Number (Percent) N=13 Employment/Occupation Clerical 1 (7.7%) Technical/Skilled Labor/Manufacturing 1 (7.7%) Part time 1 (7.7%) Professional 2 (15.4%) Stay at home/House person 2 (15.4%) Retired 6 (46.2%) Educational Attainment Less than a high school degree 1 (7.7%) High school graduate or GED 2 (15.4%) Twoyear associate degree 1 (7.7%) Some college 4 (30.8%) Fouryear college grad/Bachelor’s degree 3 (23.1%) Postgraduate/Professional degree 2 (15.4%) Annual Household Income $15,000$30,000 2 (15.4%) $30,000$45,000 1 (7.7%) $45,000 $60,000 2 (15.4%) $60,000 $75,000 1 (7.7%) $75,000 $90,000 1 (7.7%) $90,000 $105,000 2 (15.4%) More than $105,000 4 (30.8%)

Homeownership and Roots in the Neighborhood

In CG‐1 all participants are homeowners and most have lived in their current homes for more than 20 years (53.9%). More than half, 53.8%, of participants in CG‐1 live outside of Cleveland in a suburban community, one (7.7%) lives in another neighborhood in Cleveland, and the remainder (38.5%) live in the same neighborhood as the garden. Many of the participants who now live in a suburb did grow up in the neighborhood or somewhere else in Cleveland with 61.5% indicating that they were raised in Cleveland. As will be discussed in later sections, this may influence the ways in which the gardeners from CG‐1 discuss ideas around social capital and the role that the garden plays in these perspectives.

Personal Characteristics

The vast majority of CG‐1 participants were married (92.3%) and had children

(92.3%). Additionally, 53.8% had grandchildren. All of the CG‐1 participants indentified themselves as either religious (76.9%) or spiritual (23.1%).

COMMUNITY GARDEN 2

Neighborhood Demographics

CG‐2, also located on the west side of Cleveland, is more than 75% white, but has been rapidly changing as more black and Latino residents move into the neighborhood.

Economic indicators for this community show that the median household income for residents of this neighborhood was well above the citywide median household income at more than $40,000 in 2000. This number can be misleading as this neighborhood is

100

experiencing increasing levels of poverty with more than 18% of individuals and 23% of families living below the federal poverty rate in 2000.

Gardener Demographics: Age, Gender and Race

CG‐2 participants are generally younger than the other garden samples with a median age of 52 years (mean=54, range 48 – 63 years). Of this small sample of three, 2 are female, 1 is male and all are white/Caucasian.

Education, Household Income, and Occupation

All CG‐2 participants have at least a bachelor’s degree and 2/3 of interviewees have a graduate or professional degree. CG‐2 gardeners have much lower household incomes when compared to the CG‐1 sample as all report making less than $45,000 annually. Because CG‐2 participants are younger on average, they are all employed at least part time (Table 6.5).

Table 6.5: Community Garden2 Employment, Education, Household Income

Number (Percent) N=3 Employment/Occupation Part time 1 (33.3% Professional 2 (66.7%) Educational Attainment Fouryear college grad/Bachelor’s 1 (33.3%) degree Postgraduate/Professional degree 2 (66.7%) Annual Household Income Less than $15,000 1 (33.3%) $15,000$30,000 1 (33.3%) $30,000$45,000 1 (33.3%)

Homeownership and Roots in the Neighborhood

All of CG‐2 participants own the homes in which they live. All but one gardener in CG‐2 lives in the garden neighborhood and all participants grew up in Cleveland with

101

2 of the 3 growing up in the same neighborhood as the garden. The one who does not live in the neighborhood has family members there who participate in the garden.

Personal Characteristics

Two of the three CG‐2 participants are married, but only one had a child, and no one has grandchildren. When asked if they considered themselves to be religious, 2 of the 3 said yes, while the other 1 self‐identified as spiritual.

COMMUNITY GARDEN 3

Neighborhood Demographics

Community Garden 3 (CG‐3) is located in a predominantly black/African

American neighborhood on the city’s east side. This neighborhood is more than 95% black with a median household income of $28,973 in 2000. Reflecting a high concentration of poverty, 38.5% of individuals were living below the federal poverty line in 2000 (NEO CANDO, Census 2000).

Gardener Demographics: Age, Gender and Race

All participants in CG‐3 are black/African American. Sixty (60%) percent of CG‐3 participants are female and 40% are male. Half of the gardeners interviewed are in their 70s (50%) with a median age of 67.5 years (mean=62, range 39 ‐75 years).

Education, Household Income, and Occupation

Although the majority of the CG‐3 sample had at least a high school degree, 20% did not complete high school. Half of the CG‐3 gardeners interviewed are retired. The majority of participants reported an annual household income of less than $30,000

102

(70%) and no participants reported a household income over $60,000 per year (Table

6.6).

Table 6.6: Community Garden 3: Employment, Education, Household Income

NUMBER (Percent) N=10 EMPLOYMENT/OCCUPATION Stay at Home/House person 1 (10%) Technical/Skilled 2 (20%) Labor/Manufacturing Disability 1 (10%) Professional 1 (10%) Retired 5 (50%) EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT Less than a high school degree 2 (20%) High school graduate or GED 3 (30%) Twoyear associate degree 1 (10%) Some college 4 (40%) ANNUAL HOUSEHOLD INCOME Less than $15,000 2 (20%) $15,000$30,000 5 (50%) $30,000$45,000 2 (20%) $45,000 $60,000 1 (10%)

Homeownership and Roots in the Neighborhood

The majority of CG‐3 participants owned their homes (70%) and most have lived in their current homes for more than 30 years (60%). Like so many African Americans in northern cities of the United States, many of these older black gardeners were born in a southern state and migrated to Cleveland as adolescents and adults. In CG‐3, half of participants (50%) were born in a southern state and 40% indicated that they were raised there, while 50% said they were raised in Cleveland.

Personal Characteristics

The vast majority of CG‐3 gardeners are married (60%) or widowed (10%) and

90% had children. Eighty (80%) percent also had grandchildren. All of the gardeners in

CG‐3 said they are religious (90%) or spiritual (10%).

103

COMMUNITY GARDEN 4

Neighborhood Demographics

On the city’s southeast side, the neighborhood in which CG‐4 is situated is more than 98% black with a slightly higher median household income than the city as a whole, $35,885 in 2000. Despite a higher median household income, nearly 1 in 5

(19.5%) individuals in this neighborhood were living below the federal poverty level.

These demographics illustrate the varied and disparate economic compositions of this neighborhood, which has traditionally had pockets of middle class African American families that were able to make their livings at manufacturing jobs that in many cases no longer exist.

Gardener Demographics: Age, Gender and Race

In CG‐4, 70% of participants are male and 30% are female, and all are African

American. Most participants were in their 70s (60%) and the median age for CG‐4 participants is 73 years (mean=69, range 56‐76 years).

Education, Household Income, and Occupation

Thirty percent (30%) of CG‐4 participants have less than a high school degree.

The majority of CG‐4 gardeners are retired (70%). Most of the CG‐4 participants reported an annual household income under $45,000 (70%) and no one reported an income greater than $90,000 per year (Table 6.7).

104

Table 6.7: Community Garden 4: Employment, Education, Household Income

Number (Percent) N=10 EMPLOYMENT/OCCUPATION Selfemployed 1 (10%) Professional 2 (20%) Retired 7 (70%) EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT Less than a high school degree 3 (30%) High school graduate or GED 4 (40%) Some college 2 (20%) Postgraduate/Professional degree 1 (10%) ANNUAL HOUSEHOLD INCOME $15,000$30,000 4 (40%) $30,000$45,000 3 (30%) $45,000 $60,000 1 (10%) $60,000 $75,000 1 (10%) $75,000 $90,000 1 (10%)

Homeownership and Neighborhood Roots

The vast majority (90%) CG‐4 participants owned their homes and 80% them have lived in their current homes for more than 30 years. In CG‐4, 90% of interviewees indicated that they were born in a southern U.S. state, and 70% of those said they were raised in that southern state, while the rest said they were raised in Cleveland. This historical context for African American gardeners in these two east side sites is important to frame the discussion of the role of race, class, and gender in shaping perceptions of social capital and will be elaborated upon in later discussions.

Personal Characteristics

Half of CG‐4 participants are married (50%) and 40% are widowed. The majority of them had children (90%) and grandchildren (90%). Ninety percent (90%) of the CG‐

4 sample described themselves as religious while 1 person (10%) said he was neither religious nor spiritual.

105

Descriptions of the garden samples shows that all participants in the west side gardeners are white and all participants in the east side are black. Therefore, as the results are presented in the next chapter, the garden sites will be used as proxies for race with CG‐1 and CG‐2 referring to Caucasians and CG‐3 and CG‐4 referring to African

Americans. Because there was little within sample variability in terms of measurements of class, the garden sites can also be thought of as proxies for class; generally speaking,

CG‐1 participants are mostly middle class from middle class communities while CG‐2,

CG‐3, and CG‐4 are nearly all working class.

106

CHAPTER 7

RESULTS AND ANALYSIS

The objectives for this dissertation research are to:

1.) examine emic definitions of social capital and the commonly discussed attributes of trust, social networks and community engagement.

2.) examine how these emic conceptualizations differ by race, class, and gender.

3.) explore the role that community gardens play in shaping these varied definitions and experiences of social capital.

4.) identify local perceptions of the role of social capital in overcoming social and racial inequalities and improving community well being.

OVERVIEW OF THE CHAPTER

This chapter presents the results of this research in terms of each of these four objectives so as to describe a local and contextualized conceptualization of social capital. As the data are presented, patterns in the responses by race and gender are offered. If no discernable patterns emerged during analysis and the answers are evenly dispersed among the demographic categories, no relationships are mentioned.

Some results are presented by garden site for phase II to demonstrate key differences between gardens that point to the importance of context in shaping perspectives on community gardens and social capital. The previous chapter highlighted the segregated nature of this sample, therefore, garden sites can be thought of as proxies for indicators of race and class in this research; CG‐1 and CG‐2 gardeners are white and CG‐3 and CG‐4 gardeners are black. The majority of all CG‐2, CG‐3 and CG‐

4 participants are working class whereas CG‐1 gardeners are generally middle class.

When comparisons between east side and west side gardens are made, the comparisons

107

are between black and white participants. Interview questions for garden leaders differed from questions asked of gardeners as the gardener interviews sought to expand upon key information discovered through interviews with garden leaders.

Therefore, garden leader responses are only listed when it was a question they were specifically asked. The tables will include a total number (N) to indicate how many individuals were asked the corresponding question. When the themes found in qualitative responses are presented, some tables include “other” to represent those answers that did not fall under the major categories. As explained in the Chapter 5, some questions permitted participants to give multiple responses, so in these cases that categories are not mutually exclusive. Therefore, as these responses are presented in the tables, they represent the frequency with which a response was given by respondents in that group. As a result, the total number of responses may add up to more than the number of respondents.

DEFINITIONS OF SOCIAL CAPITAL

All interviewees were asked if they had ever heard of “social capital.” This question was asked as a means to open the conversation and explore the ideas that the term evoked among the gardeners, rather than with the expectation that participants would have a clear understanding of the term as employed in this research. In posing this question in this way it is possible to get participants’ initial unprompted thoughts about social capital and how it may relate to community gardens.

The majority of all participants had never heard of the term (66%, N=38). As a result, there is no association between most of the study variables and having heard of the term ‘social capital.’ However, more educated participants were slightly more likely

108

to have heard of social capital. More garden leaders said they had heard of the term

(N=8, 34.8%) when compared to gardeners (N=2, 5.7%) (Table 7.1). This may be attributed to higher levels of educational attainment in the garden leader sample (see

Table 6.2)

Table 7.1: Have you Ever Heard of the Term “Social Capital”? Garden Leaders N=23 Gardeners N=35* TOTAL N=58 N (%) N (%) N (%) Yes 8 (34.8%) 2 (5.7%) 10 (17%) No 12 (52.2%) 26 (74.3%) 38 (66%) Don’t know/Not Sure 3 (13.0%) 7 (20.0%) 10 (17%) * One missing data point due to missing information in one Phase II interview

Definitions of Social Capital

Participants were asked how they would define social capital, even if they had never heard of it (Table 7.2).

Table 7.2: Frequency of Responses: Definitions of Social Capital Garden How Do You Define Social Capital? Leaders CG1 CG2 CG3 CG4 TOTAL (N=23) (N=13) (N=3) (N=10) (N=10) (N=59) N (%)* N (%)* N (%)* N (%)* N (%)* N (%)* Don’t know 4 (17.4) 1 (7.7) 1(33.3) 4 (40) 4 (40) 14 (23.7) People working on something together 5 (21.7) 1 (7.7) 0 0 1 (10) 7(11.9) Breaks down words ‘social’ then ‘capital’ 3 (13) 3 (23) 0 1 (10) 0 7(11.9) Communism or socialism 3 (13) 2 (15) 0 0 1 (10) 6 (10.2) Value of relationships or social interactions 1 (4.3) 1 (7.7) 2 (66.7) 0 1 (10) 5 (8.5) Socializing 0 1 (7.7) 0 4 (40) 0 5 (8.5) Knowing people/Who you know 4 (17.4) 0 0 0 0 4 (6.8) Having capital or the ability to make money 1 (4.3) 1 (7.7) 1(33.3) 0 1 (10) 4 (6.8) Sharing money with each other 0 1 (7.7) 0 2(20) 1 (10) 4 (6.8) Taking care of one another 2 (8.7) 0 0 1 (10) 0 3 (5.1) Academic word, unclear 0 1 (7.7) 0 0 1 (10) 2 (3.4) Wealth of neighborhood 1 (4.3) 1 (7.7) 0 0 0 2 (3.4) Faith in God and love for one another 1 (4.3) 0 0 0 0 1(2.7) Hierarchy 0 1 (7.7) 0 0 0 1(2.7) Reciprocity/Sharing 0 1 (7.7) 0 0 0 1(2.7) Social reward 0 1 (7.7) 0 0 0 1(2.7) *Percentages are the percent of participants in that category who gave that response. Because participants would give more than one response these do not add up to 100%.

109

The most frequent response was “I don’t know,” given by participants who did not venture to define it. The second most common sets of responses were ‘working on something together’ and those who separated the words “social” and “capital” to offer a definition. In an example of this, one garden leader said,

Capital, that’s like money in my mind. So it would be…social is what people can contribute (52‐year‐old, white, female garden leader).

Another said,

Well, social is interaction, with a community. And capital is whatever you got to trade, so I see that as our vegetables, you know. You come and watch my garden and I’ll give you three tomatoes. So, yeah, I see it like the barter system. Something becomes capital when there’s a need for it (65‐year‐old, white, female garden leader).

Another common theme represents those participants who felt that the term invoked socialism or communism. As one gardener put it,

I think it’s probably a bastardization between capitalism and socialism and you’re sort of picking the best parts of two systems. That would be my guess. (72‐year‐old white, male gardener).

Another said,

I don’t have the slightest idea, except socialism (76‐year‐old, black, male gardener).

Other participants highlighted the “capital” component and defined social capital as sharing money with each other in a community, and as the ability to make money or have capital.

Even though most participants indicated that they had not heard of it, many of the responses captured the essence of the term, using words that focused on relationships between people. These discussions provided a vehicle to understand what participants identified as important in this context and helped initiate the discussion of

110

locally salient terms. Gardeners defined social capital as people in a community coming together to work on something, the value of social relationships or social interactions, as simply socializing, as knowing people or whom you know, and as people taking care of one another. As one gardener explained,

Socialize, gathering. Wherever you are at...talking with whomever. Getting to know people, you know? (51‐year‐old black, female gardener).

Despite the lack of familiarity, many of the participants were quite accurate in defining social capital, articulating many of the key ideas of the concept. For example:

I’ve been doing it all along! You meet people, get out and meet people, do things for others. One person may have knowledge or information, resources you need, so you use your networks. You learn this as a child, as a human being! It’s part of life. You learn to take care. I think I’ve been doing it from day one, from birth. Different terms often mean the same thing (59‐ year‐old black, male garden leader).

Another garden leader, who said he had not heard of social capital, offered this potential definition:

Social capital might mean the benefits that might accrue to an organization or group of people through uh, their common efforts, common endeavors, and their willingness to benefit from working together. I didn’t think that out but uh, that’s social capital as far as I can see. And the positives that it would bring to a neighborhood or a group of people. (65‐ year‐old white male garden leader)

Another participant, who said she had not heard of the term, offered a definition of social capital in the garden and in her neighborhood captured this idea of reciprocity:

And so there’s just that, like the cooperation. If you don’t have the tool on you somebody’s got it. You know. I perennially forget to bring a knife with me on the first day. And I’ve got nothing to cut my string or my plastic with. And there’s always, those guys with the packs, who have it, let me borrow it, and say tuck it under the chair when you’re done. You know. And that’s social capital. In the neighborhood is probably the same idea, you know. A neighbor down the street, we babysit her kids, she babysits mine. Or at least lets them come over to play. Because they’re too old to be babysat anymore. (49‐year‐old white female gardener)

111

Most of the 14 participants who said they did not know how to define social capital were men (N=9), African American (N=12), had fewer years of school, (N=8), and have an annual household income under $45,000 (N=10). Caucasian participants were more likely to break down the words ‘social’ and ‘capital’ (N=6). African

Americans were more likely to say ‘socializing’ (N=4), and ‘taking care of one another’

(N=3). Men were more likely than women to indicate that social capital invoked communism or socialism (N=5). All participants who said ‘socializing’ were women.

SOCIAL NETWORKS AND COMMUNITY GARDENS

To begin to explore local perceptions of social capital, participants were asked a series of questions about their social networks to explore what role, if any, the garden played in their social life. Interviewees in both phases were first asked to describe the social networks in the garden (Table 7.3).

Nearly half of the gardeners interviewed in both phases of research indicated that immediate family members or extended relatives participated in the garden with them (N=29). Most of these were women (N=21). The second most frequent set of responses were those who said that even if they did not know gardeners before they began gardening, they got to know other members as time went on. About a quarter of the gardeners indicated that they had ‘good friends’ who participated. Six individuals said that they did not really know others in the garden and three said they did not participate to socialize, and therefore did not care to know others. The seven garden leaders whose responses were categorized as ‘Garden is not open to the neighborhood/Tied to Organization or Population’ were leaders at gardens that were either part of a social service organization, such as a homeless shelter, where the

112

Table 7.3: Frequency of Responses: Description of Social Networks in the Garden

How would you describe social Garden networks in the garden? Leaders CG1 CG2 CG3 CG4 TOTAL (N=23) (N=13) (N=3) (N=10) (N=10) (N=59) N (%)* N (%)* N (%)* N (%)* N (%)* N (%)* Family and relatives are involved in the garden 12 (52.2) 9 (69.2) 2(66.7) 5 (50) 1 (10) 29(49.2) We get to know each other in the garden 10 (43.5) 6 (46.2) 1 (33.3) 1 (10) 6 (60) 24(40.7) Good friends in the garden 9 (39.1) 3 (23.1) 0 3 (30) 1 (10) 16(27.1) Knew gardeners from the neighborhood/ Community activities 0 1 (7.7) 1 (33.3) 6 (60) 0 8 (13.6) Garden is not open to the neighborhood/Tied to organization or population 7 (30.4) 0 0 0 0 7(11.9) Children from the neighborhood participate 4 (17.4) 1 (7.7) 0 1 (10) 0 6(10.2) Don’t really know others in the garden 1 (4.3) 2 (15.4) 1 (33.3) 0 2 (20) 6(10.2) They are acquaintances/There is camaraderie 3 (13) 0 0 0 2 (20) 5 (8.5) Garden helps to create contacts in community 3 (13) 0 0 0 0 3 (5.1) I’m not there to socialize/Don’t participate for the social aspect 0 2 (15.4) 1 (33.3) 0 0 3 (5.1) Other 1 (4.3) 1 (7.7) 1 (33.3) 0 0 3 (5.1) *Percentages are the percent of participants in that category who gave that response. Because participants would give more than one response these do not add up to 100%.

gardeners did not interact with people from outside of their agency, or from family‐run gardens where only family members or close friends participated. There was no discernable pattern of responses by race. As a follow‐up, interviewees were asked whether or not they consider other gardeners to be ‘friends.’ Participants’ most frequent response was ‘yes, they are friends’ (Table 7.4).

113

Table 7.4: Frequency of Responses: Do you consider other gardeners to be friends? Garden Do you consider other gardeners to be Leaders CG1 CG2 CG3 CG4 TOTAL your friends? (N=23) (N=13) (N=3) (N=10) (N=10) (N=59) N (%)* N (%)* N (%)* N (%)* N (%)* N (%)* Yes they are friends/Good friends 3 (13) 2 (15.4) 1 (33.3) 8 (80) 5 (50) 19 (32.2) A few are friends/some friends 4 (17.4) 6 (46.2) 0 1 (10) 4 (40) 15 (25.4) ‘Friendly’/Acquaintances 1 (4.3) 5 (38.5) 1 (33.3) 0 1 (10) 8 (13.6) We only see each other in garden 3 (13) 0 0 3 (30) 0 6 (10.2) It’s a mix/It varies 5 (21.7) 0 0 0 0 5 (8.5) If we have things in common, then we hang outside 2 (8.7) 0 0 3 (30) 0 5 (8.5) Garden as gathering place/ties us together/garden is community involvement 4 (17.4) 0 0 1 (10) 0 5 (8.5) Not in it for social aspect 3 (13) 1 (7.7) 0 0 0 4(6.8) See each other at gardenrelated events 4 (17.4) 0 0 0 0 4(6.8) Other 2 (8.7) 1 (7.7) 0 1 (10) 1 (10) 5 (8.5) *Percentages are the percent of participants in that category who gave that response. Because participants would give more than one response these do not add up to 100%.

Notably, despite stating that other gardeners are their friends, most gardeners do not spend time with fellow gardeners outside of the garden (Table 7.5). These data indicate that the garden itself binds people together, fostering friendships and relationships that would not exist if not for the community garden. This is a key finding. Nearly all participants in the gardens considered other gardeners to be at least acquaintances. Yet nearly all also indicated that they only see other gardeners in the garden.

Further analysis reveals, however, that there is some diversity between gardens in regards to the degree to which gardeners interact outside of the garden. Participant observation revealed that gardeners in CG‐3 in particular considered other gardeners to be their dear friends and an important part of their social lives. Although most gardeners in CG‐3 said they only saw each other in the garden (N=7), it is important to note that these gardeners sat and socialized in the garden nearly everyday during the

114

season. As a result, they spent a significant amount of time with each other. As one woman in CG‐3 put it,

Yeah, they my friends! We all friends. We love one another. We very good friends! (73‐year‐old, African American woman).

Gardeners from the east side, predominantly black gardens, said they sometimes other gardeners out in the neighborhood at community activities or at church. In CG‐1, many gardeners no longer lived in the neighborhood and the garden itself was not frequently talked about as an important space for socializing. Even with the variability in garden sites these data suggest that the trust and connections that develop between gardeners are dependent upon the garden itself as a physical space for a shared activity.

Table 7.5: Frequency of Responses: Do you hang out outside of the garden? Do you hang out with them outside of the CG 1 CG 2 CG 3 CG4 TOTAL garden? (N=13) (N=3) (N=10) (N=10) (N=36) N (%)* N (%)* N (%)* N (%)* N (%)* No, just in the garden 12 (92.3) 3 (100) 7 (70) 7 (70) 29 (80.6) Some dear friends I see outside of the garden 4(30.8) 0 0 1 (10) 5 (13.9) We see each other at gardenrelated events or meetings 4(30.8) 0 0 1 (10) 5 (13.9) We see each other out in the neighborhood (at school, in the stores, work, etc.) 0 0 4 (40) 0 4 (11.1) Yes, the majority are my friends, so I see them 0 0 2 (20) 1 (10) 3(8.3) We might go get some food together, go fishing, etc. 4(30.8) 0 1 (10) 1 (10) 3(8.3) We see each other at Church/Fellowship 0 0 0 3 (30) 3(8.3) I see family members who also garden 4(30.8) 2 (66.7) 0 0 3(8.3) I’m too old to ‘hang out’ 0 0 2 (20) 0 2 (5.6) *Percentages are the percent of participants in that category who gave that response. Because participants would give more than one response these do not add up to 100%.

Race, Class, Gender and Social Networks

Gardeners were asked directly about the role they believe race and gender play in one’s social networks. Half of interviewees do not feel that gender plays a role in

115

shaping who is a part of your social network, stating often that they are friends with both men and women (N=18) (Table 7.6). Nine of the respondents said yes and the other nine were not sure or indicated that it depends in the situation. African American participants were more likely to say that they did not feel gender played a role in one’s social networks (N=14) as the majority who said they felt gender was important were male (N=6) and Caucasian (N=7).

Table 7.6: The Role of Gender and Race in Shaping Social Networks: by Garden and Gender CG1 CG2 CG3 CG4 MALES FEMALES TOTAL (N=13) (N=3) (N=10) (N=10) (N=18) (N=18) (N=36) GENDER AND SOCIAL NETWORKS: Does Gender Influence Social Networks? Yes 5 2 0 2 6 3 9 (25%) No 4 0 9 5 10 8 18 (50%) Maybe/Depends/ Not Sure 4 1 1 3 2 7 9 (25%) RACE AND SOCIAL NETWORKS: Does Race Influence Social Networks? Yes 11 1 5 6 12 11 23 (64%) No 1 0 4 4 5 4 9 (25%) Maybe/Depends/ Not Sure 1 2 1 0 1 3 4 (6%)

However, when asked if race or ethnicity plays a role in shaping who is a part of one’s social networks, 64% of the gardeners said yes (N=23) (Table 7.6). Seventy‐five percent

(75%) of white participants said yes, race does matter in relation to social networks

(N=12) compared to only 55% of black participants (N=11).

Many gardeners offered particular explanations for why they feel race does or does not influence social networks. Frequently gardeners said that race/ethnicity shapes one’s social networks because people are inclined to associate with people of similar background (N=9). White gardeners in particular offered this explanation.

White gardeners also offered a similar response in saying that one might tend to hang out with people of the same European ethnicity. This is not surprising coming from CG‐

116

1 participants as this neighborhood has long been characterized by its eastern

European residents. As one gardener explained how race influences social networks:

Sure. Sure it does. Well, familiarity is always comforting right? So you hang with what’s familiar. It’s a lot easier to talk food with an Italian than an Irish person, right? I mean, and my husband’s both. But like, I’m just being silly there. But certainly the thing is the commonality, the common background, makes all the difference in the world with how you get along with somebody. And if you have nothing in common, well, it’s perfectly normal not to hang out with somebody. I mean, the kids do it all the time. Well, you don’t like football? Well, I want to play football so, I’m gonna go hang out with the guys who do play football. And it’s not that I don’t like you, it’s just that, you don’t play what I want to play. So… (49‐ year‐old white, female gardener)

Although most African American participants, 55%, also agreed that race/ethnicity shapes social networks, 8 of the 9 participants who said, ‘no’ it does not, were black. Black gardeners talked about the changes they have seen in their lives and how old racial divides were not present among the younger generations. When asked if race plays a role in who is a part of one’s social network, one black gardener from CG‐3 explains:

Not anymore. Maybe once upon a time, but not anymore. Everybody has pretty much gone multicultured, you know? (39‐year‐old black woman).

Another gardener who said that race does not influence social networks puts it this way,

I would have at one time said yes. I probably would have said so about 10 years ago, maybe about 20 years ago said that, but not now. Not at all. What we have in common, commonality [is what’s important] (59‐year old black woman).

117

TRUST AND COMMUNITY GARDENS

Definitions of Trust

When asked to define ‘trust,’ the most frequent responses defined it as someone doing what they say they will do, or dependability (N=29) (Table 7.7).

Table 7.7: Frequency of Responses: Definitions of Trust How Do You Define Trust? Garden Leaders CG1 CG2 CG3 CG4 TOTAL (N=23) (N=13) (N=3) (N=10) (N=10) (N=59) N (%)* N (%)* N (%)* N (%)* N (%)* N (%)* Does what say they’ll do/Dependable/Consistent 12(52.2) 7(53.8) 2 (66.7) 4 (40) 4 (40) 29 (49.2) Honesty 4 (17.4) 3 (23.1) 1 (33.3) 2 (20) 3 (30) 13(22) Means you can talk to someone/communicate openly 1 (4.3) 4 (30.1) 0 3 (30) 4 (40) 12(20.3) Respect 3 (13) 1 (7.7) 0 1 (10) 0 5(8.5) Your word is your bond 2 (15.4) 0 0 1 (10) 1 (10) 4(6.8) Offers an example of trust 1 (4.3) 0 1 (33.3) 1 (10) 0 3(5.1) Obeying God/Faith 1 (4.3) 0 0 0 1 (10) 2(3.4) Give people a chance/something earned 2 (15.4) 0 0 0 0 2(3.4) Really knowing people 1 (4.3) 0 0 0 1 (10) 2(3.4) Willing to be hurt 1 (4.3) 0 0 0 1 (10) 2(3.4) I don’t trust anyone 1 (4.3) 0 1 (33.3) 0 0 2(3.4) Responsibility 1 (4.3) 0 0 0 0 1(1.7) Affection 1 (4.3) 0 0 0 0 1(1.7) Remove barriers 1 (4.3) 0 0 0 0 1(1.7) Not suspicious 1 (4.3) 0 0 0 0 1(1.7) Genuinely Caring/No other motives 1 (4.3) 0 0 0 0 1(1.7) Starts with yourself 0 0 0 1 (10) 0 1(1.7) Character 0 1 (7.7) 0 0 0 1(1.7) Empathetic 0 1 (7.7) 0 0 0 1(1.7) *Percentages are the percent of participants in that category who gave that response. Because participants would give more than one response these do not add up to 100%.

Interviewees frequently defined trust as honesty (N=13). They also said you can trust someone when you are able to talk to him/her and communicate openly (N=12). CG‐1 and CG‐2 gardeners are white and CG‐3 and CG‐4 are black. All of the responses that defined trust as ‘your word is your bond’ (N=4) and as obeying God or having faith

118

(N=2) were from African Americans. Women were more likely to define trust as

‘respect’ (N=4).

Gardeners were asked whom they turn to first when they have problems in their lives (Table 7.8). The responses to this question are salient because African American and Caucasian gardeners responded differently.

Table 7.8: Frequency of Responses: Whom do you turn to when you have problems?

Who do you turn to most CG1 CG2 CG3 CG4 MALES FEMALES TOTAL (N=13) (N=3) (N=10) (N=10) (N=18) (N=18) often when you have (N=36) problems in your life? N(%) Family members (parents, siblings, children) 6 2 1 5 8 6 14(38.9) Spouse 9 0 2 2 6 7 13(36.1) God/Jesus 0 0 5 5 5 5 10(27.8) Minister/Preacher/Pastor / Church 2 0 3 3 5 3 8 (22.2) Good friend 4 0 3 0 3 4 7 (19.4) Nobody 1 1 1 0 1 2 3(8.3) It Depends on the problem 2 0 0 0 1 1 2(5.6) I don’t have problems 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 (2.8) Therapist 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 (2.8) *Percentages are the percent of participants in that category who gave that response. Because participants would give more than one response these do not add up to 100%.

Most frequently, interviewees said that they turned to family members such as a mother, sibling, adult or adult child for help (N=14). The second most frequent response was a husband or wife (N=13). The majority of those who said that they turn to their spouse are white (N=9). Four (N=4) African American gardeners also said they turn to their spouse, but the most common answer offered by black participants was

God, or Jesus (N=10). As one black gardener explained,

First I take my problems to God, in prayers. That’s uh, number one. One thing the pastor tells us is always take your problems higher. Don’t take them to someone that might be on your level or lower because what they’ll do is, they’ll, they won’t look into the higher level. So what I do is I usually try to seek out somebody if I have a problem. But most times I turn to God,

119

most times I turn to God in prayer. Get quiet, get real silent. My trust is in God. Above man, oh my goodness yes (59‐year old, black, female gardener).

Likewise, most of the respondents who said they turn to their pastor or to the church in general were African American (N=6).

Trust in the Neighborhood and Each Other

Garden leaders were asked if they trust fellow gardeners. Eighty‐three percent

(83%, N=19) said yes, 4 (17%) said that they were not sure, but none said no. Likewise, most gardeners in phase II also said they trust other gardeners (N=29, 80.5%). One person said she does not trust anyone, other gardeners and neighbors included. But that majority of gardeners said they did trust their neighbors (N=23, 63.9%) (Table

7.9).

Table 7.9: Trust in Gardeners and Neighbors: by Race CG1 CG2 CG3 CG4 TOTAL (N=13) (N=3) (N=10) (N=10) (N=36) N(%) TRUST IN GARDENERS: Do you trust fellow gardeners? Yes 10 2 9 8 29 (80.5%) No 0 1 0 0 1 (2.8%) Maybe/Sometimes/ Depends 3 0 1 2 6 (16.7%) TRUST IN NEIGHBORS: Do you trust your neighbors? Yes 8 2 6 7 23 (63.9%) No 0 1 0 0 1 (2.8%) Maybe/Sometimes/ Depends 5 0 4 3 12 (33.3%)

Gardeners were then asked if they generally trust people living in the neighborhood immediately surrounding the garden. Most gardeners indicated that they do have trust in the surrounding neighborhood or said that they have not experienced any problems (N=19) (Table 7.10). Most of these responses, however, came from black gardeners (N=13).

120

For those who were wary of the neighborhood, they frequently discussed an experience of vandalism or theft. Notably, these responses came mostly from white gardeners (N=8), with all of CG‐2 participants responding as such. This is important because, as noted previously some of the gardeners in CG‐1 and CG‐2 on the west side no longer live in the same neighborhood as the garden.

Table 7.10: Frequency of Responses: Gardeners Trust the Garden Neighborhood Do you generally trust the neighborhood CG 1 CG 2 CG 3 CG4 TOTAL surrounding the garden? (N=13) (N=3) (N=10) (N=10) (N=36) N (%)* N (%)* N (%)* N (%)* N (%)* Yes/I’ve had no problems 6(46.2) 0 4 (40) 9 (90) 19(52.8) We’ve experienced vandalism/Theft 5(38.5) 3 (100) 1 (10) 1 (10) 10(27.8) I don’t know many people in the neighborhood 1(7.7) 0 4 (40) 1 (10) 6(16.7) No, not really 1(7.7) 0 1 (10) 1 (10) 3(8.3) Other 3(23.1) 1(33.3) 1 (10) 1 (10) 6(16.7) *Percentages are the percent of participants in that category who gave that response. Because participants would give more than one response these do not add up to 100%.

This idea of perception of trust and community ownership of the garden is key to understanding how the gardens shape the ‘social capital’ they are said to produce, something that will be returned to in chapter 9.

Garden leaders were asked how important they feel trust is in terms of overall community well‐being. Leaders were able to articulate why trust is important to a community. This is important because trust is often used as a gauge for social capital.

One garden leader put it this way,

If you don’t have any trust in your community, you don’t belong there (62‐ year, old, black male garden leader).

Another leader explained,

Well, when you trust people you have safety, you know, you can communicate with them and you trust them and you love (55‐year‐old, black female garden leader).

121

Another highlighted its importance to community health:

It’s [trust] second to respect. It is the second most important thing. You’ve gotta, in order to live in a community you have to trust someone, at least live healthily in a community. If you don’t’ trust anyone you can really become a hermit and paranoid and that’s not healthy at all. And to me, I just believe that trust will help you make friends and it’ll help you flourish. You never know what your neighbor can do. Or even for that matter who your neighbor is! (42‐year‐old black, female garden leader).

Race, Gender and Trust

Gardeners were asked directly how they feel race and gender influence trust.

Most participants did not feel that gender influenced whom they trust (N=22, 61%), although men and white gardeners from the west side were more likely to say gender does play a role (Table 7.11). Yet half of the participants indicated that race or ethnicity affects whom one trusts (N=18, 50%). White gardeners were more likely than black gardeners to say that race does play a role with 62.5% (N=10 in CG‐1 and CG‐2) of white gardeners saying yes compared to only 40% (N=8 in CG‐3 and CG‐4) of black gardeners.

Table 7.11: The Role of Gender and Race in Whom you Trust: by Garden and Gender

CG1 CG2 CG3 CG4 MALES FEMALES TOTAL (N=13) (N=3) (N=10) (N=10) (N=18) (N=18) (N=36) N(%) GENDER AND TRUST: Does gender influence whom you trust? Yes 5 2 1 2 7 3 10 (27.8%) No 5 1 9 7 9 13 22 (61.1%) Maybe/Sometimes/ Depends 3 0 0 1 2 2 4 (11.1%) RACE AND TRUST: Does race influence whom you trust? Yes 8 2 4 4 9 9 18 (50%) No 2 0 4 5 6 5 11 (30.6%) Maybe/Sometimes/ Depends 3 1 2 1 3 4 7 (19.4%)

122

While some participants simply answered ‘yes’ or ‘no,’ others offered a variety of reasons for why race does impact trust (Table 7.12). The most frequent explanation provided was that it is easier to trust your own race simply because you have something in common when you come from the same background (N=9).

Table 7.12: Frequency of Responses: How Does Race Influence Who You Trust? CG1 CG2 CG3 CG4 TOTAL

(N=18) Yes Race Matters: N=8 N=2 N=4 N=4 N(%) Tend to Trust your Own – if you have something in common, you trust 5 1 0 3 9 (50) Yes, race plays a role 2 0 1 1 4(22.2) Provide personal story or experience 2 0 1 1 4(22.2) I try to interact with others 4 0 0 0 4(22.2) It’s hard to overcome stereotypes/Based on how you were raised 2 1 0 0 3(16.7) Blacks can’t trust whites 0 0 2 0 4(22.2) (N=11) No, Race Does Not Matter: N=2 N=0 N=4 N=5 N(%) No, race does not play a role 1 0 3 4 8(72.7) I don’t trust everyone fully 0 0 1 1 2(18.2) Trust is something earned, no matter your race/Have to know them to trust 2 0 0 0 2(18.2) Race should not play a role because we are all human 0 0 0 1 1(.09)

As one gardener explains,

I do [think race plays a role]. Well, I guess, like Dorothy [pointing to friend], she’s a black lady. I can relate to her a little bit more because we’re both black people. On that kind of lines, you know. You often can relate to your race of people, you know, easier, because you’re black, or, same thing if Caucasian or white people, or Jewish, Italian, or whatever. They relate to each, you know, their own kind of people, race of people. A lot of times we think alike, you know, different people, you know. Not necessarily [that] you have to think alike because you’re black or, you know… We have a lot in common (56‐year‐old black female).

123

Both African American and Caucasian gardeners echoed this response, explaining that there is a tendency to mistrust each other:

Yeah. I think on both sides, we have a tendency not to trust each other. It’s not black or white, it’s just, that’s just the way it is. Until you get to know em, then you build some trust in em. But right off, I think both sides have a tendency not to trust the different (73‐year‐old black male).

White gardeners in particular talked about how difficult it is to overcome stereotypes:

Sure. Um. Well, we all grow up with stereotypes no matter how open minded our parents may have been. We still grow up with them. They’re in the press. They’re all around you. They’re in the people you talk to, they’re in your friends. Um. Everything in life influences what you trust and who you trust and how you view the world. And again, what you’re familiar with, you trust. What you’re not familiar with, you’re cautious on (49‐year‐old white female).

These data are related to the discussions surrounding the role that race/ethnicity plays in one’s social networks; in general, people tend to be friends with people like themselves and therefore tend to trust them more. Overall, the results of these questions about social networks and trust among community gardeners highlight the integral role the garden plays in the creation and maintenance of friendships. These valued relationships are dependent upon the gardens themselves. The racial reality of social networks and the influence of race on trust among these networks invokes the concepts of bonding and bridging social capital. Trust appears to be an important component of a local and contextualized definition of social capital and it is shaped by views of race in community. These findings will be discussed in relation to a contextualized definition of social capital in the next chapter.

124

COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT AMONG GARDENERS

The third element of social capital explored in this dissertation is community engagement, or participation in one’s community. To investigate local perceptions, garden leaders and gardeners were asked what kinds of things come to mind when they hear ‘community engagement’ (Table 7.13). Most frequently, participants talked about attending community festivals and block parties as a way to be engaged in their community (N= 15). This was common among both African American and Caucasian participants.

Table 7.13: Frequency of Responses: Definition of Community Engagement, by Race and Gender When you hear ‘community African engagement,’ what comes to mind? Americans Caucasians Males Females TOTAL (N=32) (N=27)* (N=27) (N=32) (N=59) N(%) Festivities or Community Activities 8 7 5 10 15 (25.4) General concern for your community/ Wanting to improve your community/Being informed 7 6 7 6 13(22) Being active in your community/Volunteering/ Just participating 5 6 5 6 11(18.6) Being a good neighbor/Taking care of your home/property 1 8 1 8 9 (15.3) Collaboration/Working together 4 4 0 8 8(13.6) Street/Neighborhood/Ward club 4 3 3 4 7(11.9) Organizing around issues 4 2 5 1 6 (10.2) There is no community engagement/I’m not active 2 2 3 1 4(6.8) Going to Church/Churchrelated activities 1 2 3 0 3(5.1) Attending civic events (city hall, elections) 1 2 1 2 3(5.1) Other 3 1 2 2 4(6.8) * Includes the 1 Latino garden leader. She identified herself as Latino and was non‐black Hispanic. She represents the only participant that was neither black nor white. To simplify the presentation of this information, she is included as white.

125

Community engagement was often simply defined as concern for one’s community or the desire to improve one’s community (N=13). One garden leader put it this way,

Respect and concern. It’s not so much obligation as motivated out of, you know, a heartfelt concern (53‐year‐old white female).

Gardeners also said that just being active, or simply participating, in whatever form that may take (N=11):

For me, the members of the neighborhood or community that, um, turn the TV off. Actually participate (47‐tear‐old white female from CG‐1).

Some gardeners, mostly Caucasian women, also considered community participation as being a good neighbor and maintaining your property, or cleaning up the neighborhood

(N=9). One garden leader’s definition of community engagement exemplified this:

Everybody being involved. Not necessarily with everything and not necessarily that you’re in other people’s business, but just making the world a little bit better. I think one cute little story, the first summer I lived here, this house hadn’t been lived in for about 4 years before I bought the house. So I was very active in the yard, I always sweep the street and keep it clean. I can’t do it now here lately cause of my arthritis and stuff. So this young teenage couple, they’re just driving around, so finally, I was sweeping the street around and cleaning out the gutter, they stopped and they go, “lady why are you sweeping the street” and I said because it’s my neighborhood and that’s what you do. And they said “oh that’s cool!” they were very polite and they were so curious why somebody would do that and they had to stop and ask why somebody would do that. And it showed...I led by example. It was just pure and simple. I never meant to, but I did (54‐year‐old white female).

Issues in the Community

Discussions of community engagement also included questions that explored which issues the gardeners identified to be the most pressing problems their communities face (Table 7.14). Given the extent to which Cleveland has been burdened

126

by increasing foreclosures and the recession, it is not surprising that gardeners frequently discussed vacant properties and declining property values (N=17). Crime and violence are of concern, particularly among African American participants (N=9).

African American participants also frequently mentioned the behaviors of youth or the lack of activities for them in their communities as problematic (N=7). Lack of jobs, the general economy and increased poverty were also problems that gardeners mentioned

(N=7).

Table 7.14: Frequency of Responses: Community Problems: by Garden

What are the most pressing Issues CG 1 CG 2 CG 3 CG4 TOTAL facing your community? (N=13) (N=3) (N=10) (N=10) (N=36) N (%)* N (%)* N (%)* N (%)* N (%)* Vacant properties/ Declining property values/Foreclosures 11(84.6) 1 (33.3) 3 (30) 2(20) 17(47.2) Crime and Violence (Drugs, Gangs, Prostitution) 0 2 966.7) 6(60) 1(10) 9 (25) Economy/Need Jobs/Poverty 4 (30.8) 1 (33.3) 0 2(20) 7(19.4) Unruly Children/Nothing for kids to do 0 1 (33.3) 3 (30) 3 (30) 7(19.4) People Moving in are “different”/Neighborhood is “changing” 5(38.5) 0 0 0 5(38.5) Noise 1(7.7) 0 1(10) 2(20) 4(30.8) We don’t have many 1(10) 0 1(10) 2(20) 4(30.8) Maintenance/Elderly that can’t keep up properties 0 1 (33.3) 1(10) 1(10) 3(8.3) Education/schools 1(10) 1 (33.3) 0 1(10) 3(8.3) Mom and Pops closing 2(15.4) 0 0 0 2 (5.6) Other 3(23.1) 0 1(10) 0 4(30.8) *Percentages are the percent of participants in that category who gave that response. Because participants would give more than one response these do not add up to 100%.

A noteworthy result here is the 5 participants in CG‐1 who talked about the “change” their neighborhood was undergoing. These responses were often thinly veiled ways of saying that the poorer black residents who are moving into the neighborhood are causing the problems:

I think right now one of the biggest issues the community is facing is, um, a significant population shift. And I’m sure a lot of it is related to the

127

foreclosure crisis, but it’s been happening here since before it became a national issue. You know, I mean, it started here in Cleveland and so we’ve seen it here, the neighborhood, changes in population as families move out and suddenly the properties are rented. And obviously the home values have gone down because of everything, the whole foreclosure stuff. So I think a population shift is a big issue. It’s one of those touchy ones though, because, again, you want to give everybody the benefit of the doubt, that they’re gonna do the right thing by the neighborhood, that they want their investment to pay off, and that they enjoy living in a peaceful place well, not everybody does. And then, you know, you go to the next step and you have your crime watch meeting. You confront them through the appropriate means and try to settle things down. (49‐year‐old white female)

Other times, these kinds of responses were more overt. For example, after a long pause, one woman says:

Um...boy, I’m trying to think. II worry that um, there’s quite a big turnover, lately, in housing. We’ve had, let’s see, that was a foreclosure...three, four foreclosures, right here. And this neighborhood is pretty stable. And then I worry about the people who move in. It’s obvious they’re coming from poorer neighborhoods and they need to be taught how... the different standards of cleanliness, the different way...the different standards to show respect for your neighbors. You don’t just start a gang fight in uh, in the uh park up there by the ball park and, and, and tape it on your cell phone. Rather than these people coming in and dragging the neighborhood down, I would like for the neighborhood to bring them up. And if they wanted to escape the ghetto then, please, leave it there and bring a better version of yourself to the neighborhood (45‐year‐old white female).

After discussing these issues, gardeners were asked if the community works together to solve these problems (Table 7.15). The most frequent response was, “yes,” (N=13) that the community does try to resolve issues, but 9 say no and 8 say sometimes it is only the few people who are always involved in the neighborhood.

128

Table 7.15: Frequency of Responses: Does the Community Work on Issues Together? By Race, Gender

Does the community work CG1 CG2 CG3 CG4 MALES FEMALES TOTAL together to try and solve (N=13) (N=3) (N=10) (N=10) (N=18) (N=18) (N=36) these problems? N(%) Yes, we do 2 2 4 5 3 10 13 (36) No/Not that I know of/Don’t know 6 0 2 1 6 3 9(25) Some of us do/Only a few people 6 1 1 0 4 4 8(22.2) Street/Block club and neighborhood meetings 1 0 2 1 3 1 4(11.1) Depends on the problem 1 0 1 0 1 1 2(5.6) We call the police 0 0 0 1 0 1 1(2.8)

COMMUNITY GARDENS AND CONNECTIONS IN COMMUNITIES

Regardless of race or gender, the vast majority of all gardeners, 86%, said that they felt that community gardens are a good way to make connections in communities (N=31)

(Table 7.16).

Table 7.16: Do Gardens Help Make Connections?, by Race, Gender Do Gardens Help Neighbors CG1 CG2 CG3 CG4 MALES FEMALES TOTAL Connect? (N=13) (N=3) (N=10) (N=10) (N=18) (N=18) (N=36) N(%) Yes 10 3 10 8 16 15 31 (86%) No 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (0%) Don’t Know/ Somewhat/Maybe 3 0 0 2 2 3 5 (14%)

The most frequent explanation given for how gardens help neighbors connect is that it provides a way for people to interact, get to know one another, and learn from each other (N=19) (Table 7.17). For instance,

Well, one thing is uh, people in the neighborhood they see, uh, the produce growin’. They come and ask questions. You’d be surprised that a lot of older people have never been involved with a garden, et cetera. And always someone you can take the time to explain this and what happened. So, it’s...that’s one way. And you get to know the people. Sometimes by just coming and being questioned, being nosey and, you know, you take the time to talk to ‘em (73‐year‐old black male from CG‐4).

129

Gardeners talked about being excited to see one another in the garden and learning from each other. Older gardeners especially talked about the garden providing something to do to get them out of the house and connected to other people. These connections may not go beyond the garden, but the interactions are important to them:

Yes. There’s a better understanding. There’s something, you know, to be out here for. Look forward to coming out here, hearing new stories and everything. Sometimes you come out here, and you’re not feeling bad [anymore]. Why, I had a broken ankle [and] I’d hop all the way over here from my house and sit right here, just to be out here (49‐year‐old male from CG‐3).

Table 7.17: Frequency of Responses: Gardens Help Neighbors Connect by Race, Gender How gardens help neighbors CG1 CG2 CG3 CG4 MALES FEMALE TOTAL connect (N=13) (N=3) (N=10) (N=10) (N=18) S (N=36) (N=18) N (%) Help get know each other/share information 10 2 5 2 11 8 19(52.8) Gives people something to do 2 0 4 0 2 4 6(16.7) Unity/Brings people together 1 0 1 2 0 4 4(11.1) Give to the neighborhood (i.e. produce) 0 0 1 2 2 1 3(8.3) If we solve problems in garden, then solve problems in the neighborhood 0 1 0 1 1 1 2(5.6) Gardeners don’t live in garden neighborhood or city 2 0 0 0 1 1 2(5.6) Only as much as they are willing to 1 0 0 0 1 0 1(2.8)

Race and Community Connections

When asked if race or ethnicity has any effect on the way they view community and connections between people, the responses were almost evenly split between ‘yes’

130

(47%) and ‘no’ (44%) (Table 7.18). The majority of those who said ‘yes,’ race does influence perceptions of community and the connections between people, were white

(N=10) and the majority of those who said ‘no’ were black (N=13).

Table 7.18: Does Race Affect Views of Community?, by Race, Gender Do you think your CG1 CG2 CG3 CG4 MALES FEMALES TOTAL race/ethnicity shapes how (N=13) (N=3) (N=10) (N=10) (N=18) (N=18) (N=36) you view community and N(%) connections between people? Yes 8 2 3 4 11 6 17 (47%) No 3 0 7 6 7 9 16 (44%) Don’t Know/ Somewhat/Maybe 2 1 0 0 0 3 3 (9%)

While many participants simply answered ‘no, not to me’ or ‘no, not really,’ others offered more detailed explanations for how race or ethnicity can influence one’s view of community and relationships (Table 7.19). Responses were varied and complex, as participants often described personal situations or stories to relay how their experiences shaped their views of the interpersonal relationships in communities and neighborhoods. Frequently gardeners discussed their families’ ethnic heritage and connections to the past as shaping their views of community (N=5). Many of these responses linked to those who said it was about age or generation (N=4). For example:

I not trying to be coy here, but I think being a certain ethnic group and certain upbringing, I think it gives me a different perspective than somebody. I could have been German, but my upbringing governs the way I look at somebody else probably. Rightfully or wrongfully, you judge by some standard that you were set up with. That, parent’s taught me this... so again, are there Ukrainians that understand this...I don’t thinks so. I would say maybe European, but maybe European, I think its old guard perhaps. The old generations standards. I probably have those. I am kind of conservative by nature. I don’t like some of the stuff that is liberal; I don’t like liberalism. Probably typical of age. So, again, I view my neighbors from that perspective. That’s because that was how I was brought up. (70‐year‐old white male from CG‐1).

131

All of those who said that they were taught to accept people of all races were African

American (N=4). For example:

Not really, not for me. I can’t speak for anyone else but for me, as I said earlier, I try to see every man as I see myself. I don’t look at no colors because colors come in everything. You can get any kind of car any kind of color you want, it’s still a car. And people are the same. You know, some people want to rate people higher than others. God made us all. And it’s said he made us to his liking. That don’t mean I gotta like you or you gotta like me, but we should get along. That’s the way I see it (75‐year‐old black male from CG‐3).

Table 7.19: Frequency of Qualitative Responses: Race and Views of Community, by Race, Gender Do you think your race/ethnicity CG1 CG2 CG3 CG4 MALES FEMALE TOTAL shapes how you view community (N=13) (N=3) (N=10) (N=10) (N=18) S (N=36) and connections between people? (N=18) N(%) No, not to me/Not really 2 0 2 3 2 5 7 (19.4) Connection to past 4 0 0 1 4 1 5(13.9) I was taught to love everyone/Equality 0 0 2 3 4 1 5(13.9) More about age or generation 2 1 1 0 3 1 4(11.1) Everyone’s AfricanAmerican in the garden/neighborhood 0 0 1 3 2 2 4(11.1) There are no African Americans in the garden/neighborhood 4 0 0 0 2 2 4(11.1) I’m proud of my race/Happy 1 0 2 0 0 3 3 (8.3) Personal Story about Race 0 1 1 1 2 1 3 (8.3) Neighborhood is diverse/there are many ethnicities 3 0 0 0 2 1 3 (8.3) Different people grow different foods 1 0 0 1 2 0 2 (5.6) There’s a definite racial divide 0 0 1 1 2 0 2 (5.6) I’m not accepted everywhere 0 0 2 0 0 2 2 (5.6) Races stick together 1 0 0 1 2 0 2 (5.6) Experiences with African Americans shaped my perspective 1 1 0 0 0 2 2 (5.6) Everyone’s a little prejudice 0 0 0 1 1 0 1(2.8) Whites are more prejudice than blacks 0 0 0 1 1 0 1(2.8) I come from a prejudice family 1 0 0 0 0 1 1(2.8) Don’t know/never thought about it 1 0 0 0 0 1 1(2.8) It’s more about culture than race 0 1 0 0 0 1 1(2.8)

132

The segregated nature of the garden samples, reflecting the city as a whole, is evident in these responses with whites acknowledging the lack of black gardeners in their community and garden and blacks acknowledging the lack of whites in their garden and neighborhood. As one black gardener explains,

No. Everybody that live in my neighborhood is AfricanAmerican except maybe 2% (73‐year‐old black male from CG‐4).

Similarly, a white gardener said,

I don’t know. Every community I’ve ever lived in has been predominantly white. So, I suppose if I was taken out of a community with that mix, and put into another community, I’d probably feel differently (45‐year‐old white female from CG‐1).

But some gardeners would say that despite the lack of people of other races in their garden, race would still not matter because it is the garden that brings them together:

No. No well. Being that the community garden that I’m in, it’s, uh, everybody there is all black. But I’m sure if a person that was Hispanic or a person who was white, if they came, and they offered knowledge, and they shared and they talked…I don’t look at this as being just a black thing. I look at it more as just being the garden, you know (59‐year old black female from CG‐4).

Similarly, even if they said there was a potential role for race to play in how they view community, gardening would still be a common bond:

Well, it [race] may connect in some way. Dependin on neighborhoods, dependin on peoples, ok. Over here is mostly black folk, ok? Uh, they’re not around the other races or peoples. They tend to be sort of subtle. Where as they may get along with anybody, in any given neighborhood but you don’t participate goin over to the west side, tryin to see what they’re doin. Uh, they don’t necessarily come over here to see what you’re doin. Uh, but you still all gardeners. Likes and dislikes (74‐year‐old black male from CG‐4).

133

Many responses from African Americans, however, were poignant in their descriptions of the role that race plays in their communities:

Well I would view, as being black, I realize that there are certain communities where I won’t be accepted into so I am not going to fight my way in it there. There are some people that do, I am comfortable with helping others, I am comfortable with my community as a black community because I don’t want to have to go to work and come home because everybody else is okay but there is one person, a white person, they feel that ‘I don’t want this black person in our neighborhood.’ You go through a lot. A lot of black people have to fight. This is a free country. I have a right to be where I want to be. I feel like I don’t have to go through that. I should live where I want to live at. Where I am accepted and where I want to be, so I don’t have to force myself to live in a neighborhood where I am not accepted at. I don’t have to go through a lot of headaches just getting in and out of my car. I don’t like that. Because I may have somebody that don’t want me, they even had preachers, you know, they bombed their house and did all those things to their house. They still say ‘I have the right to live here.’ But why put you and your family through all that? There is plenty of room to live in nice [black] neighborhoods without going through that. (53‐ year‐old black female from CG‐3).

Another woman told of her experiences breaking racial barriers before desegregation and the Civil Rights Movement:

When my daughter was born, 1960, what was that park? Euclid Beach? Was it Euclid Beach? Where they had the...[CW: With the amusement park?] Right. I remember, I broke the barrier with that. I forgot my baby’s food. So they told me I couldn’t come in there to feed my baby. And you know what, I did, I say, “y’all gonna let me in here to feed my baby.” And my brothers, I got 14 of them, they said how come you not gonna let her in. They said, “Yeah I’m gonna let you in but I’m not gonna let nobody else in.” I wasn’t worried about nobody else, I just wanted to feed the baby you know, some potatoes, you know, something like mashed potatoes, and feed her. And ever since that they’ve been letting blacks in. That was in the restaurant. Blacks couldn’t go in there. I came up around a lot of stuff. I was so happy, you know. They got seats for the senior citizens [on the bus]. I don’t sit in ‘em. I don’t sit way back. I remember one time when you had to sit way back, they put blacks way in the back. I sit, you know, in the front, and my grandson loves to go way in the back, I said, “No, you gonna sit [here].” I’m so glad I can sit in the front of the bus. He don’t know (75‐year‐ old black female from CG‐3).

134

Both African American and Caucasian gardeners offered personal stories or explained how their own experiences shaped their views of other races. One white garden from CG‐2 said,

I don’t know. I taught in the public schools for so many years. I think that you can see there [are] differences in your expectations. Especially with kidsraising children, the expectations of what behavior should be and what the responsibility should be is very different with these different ethnic groups around the city. As a school teacher you know you’re very aware of that, too. Look, these guys who started the garden of Puerto Rican descent, they have ideas about women that we don’t share. That’s how they are! (63‐year‐old white female from CG‐2).

Likewise, a black gardener discusses his experience with men from work:

It’s different. I think, and I say this with all sincerity, I think black people as a whole, most of us are not as prejudice as white people. As a whole, we accept, like me, I, on my job, before I retired, I associated with the, I connected with other race better than I did with my race on some issues. You know our goals were, you know, the same. Some of the guys, they’ve invited me to their homes and took me on fishing trips and things like that. But it’s still, it’s still there. I work with one guy, he live, I don’t know, in 82, off of 82, was about like your goin to Macedonia out that way, and he go out you know where Spitzer Ford, Spitzer Chevrolet on 82? It’s a settlement back in there. And this one guy, they got a huge fishin lake in the back, and this guy, he invited me and another white guy down to fish, and you know his neighbors, he had to stop us from fishin because they neighbors didn’t want us to fish there... That was their little piece of land and that was it. It don’t, like I said, it really don’t make sense (76‐year‐old black male from CG‐4)

He goes on to explain that there have also been incidents in his neighborhood where white people were discriminated against by blacks. He feels these tensions seem ridiculous because,

when you look at it, you may not want to accept it,… you gonna find that there’s really no pure race in America (76‐year‐old black male from CG‐4).

135

Gardeners were then asked if people talk about race in their communities or in the gardens. The most frequent response, was ‘no, we don’t talk about it’ (N=18)(Table

7.20). But again, others offered instances where race does get discussed, providing examples of when race is an issue (N=9). One African American woman explains some racial tension:

Yeah. Well they talk about the, well, the white women taking black men. They talk about white people after the black rich people for his money. The brothers learn one day. You know, they say well the job situation, ‘if I was white I would be able to get a job.’ They say ‘well if I had a decent house I would get a white girl. All I have to [do is] get a decent house and a job.’ You know, it’s a bad...which is now it became a lot more accepted more than it used to be even though it’s not a criminal thing. It shouldn’t be about race and stuff like that now. They always felt that if you have a friend, a black person has a friend that is white, they would be their friend until they need them to stand by their side. After that, they won’t be friends or talk no more. That is one of the sticklers right there (59‐year‐old black female from CG‐ 3).

Table 7.20: Frequency of Responses: Do People Talk about Race? By Race, Gender Do people talk about race in your CG1 CG2 CG3 CG4 MALES FEMALES TOTAL community or in the garden? (N=13) (N=3) (N=10) (N=10) (N=18) (N=18) (N=36) N (%) No, we don’t talk about it 4 2 4 8 9 9 18 (50) Race is an issue 4 1 3 1 5 4 9(25) Ethnic traditions/Food 4 0 0 1 3 2 5 (13.9) Not about race, about behaviors 3 1 0 1 2 3 5 (13.9) Try to get past race as issue 0 1 1 1 2 1 3(8.3) Talk about how we were raised/History 0 0 2 0 1 1 2(5.6) Sometimes 1 0 1 0 1 1 2(5.6) Other people talk, not me 0 0 1 1 1 1 2(5.6) Neighborhood changing 2 0 0 0 1 1 2(5.6) Take care of our own 0 0 1 0 1 0 1(2.8) Concern with political correctness 1 0 0 0 0 1 1(2.8) Not blackwhite, but other European ethnicities 1 0 0 0 1 0 1(2.8) We are diverse 0 1 0 0 0 1 1(2.8) Everyone here is black 0 0 0 1 1 0 1(2.8) I think everyone is white 0 1 0 0 0 1 1(2.8)

136

When asked, do people talk about race, there was an candid exchange between the interviewer and an older Caucasian man:

Oh, of course. Oh, of course. Whether you want to believe it, or not, that is still a factor in this country. Until my generation dies off, it’ll continue to be a factor. We are not racehaters, we just hate what they do. CW: “Who’s ‘they’?” Anybody who breaks the law. CW: “Do you attribute changes in the neighborhood to changes in the racial makeup?” Oh, we have colored people on this street. Yeah, that’s not a problem. If we... we have, uh, I think a couple Orientals. I don’t again, see, they’re so different than I am...I will nod and I will say, ‘Hi,’ to them. But that’s the extent. Pretty much the extent of my, uh, socializing with, uh, the people I don’t know. I only know a few (75‐year‐old white male from CG‐1).

OTHER FACTORS THAT MAY SHAPE SOCIAL CAPITAL: RELIGION, EDUCATION, AND OCCUPATION

After these discussions of the ways in which race and gender influence the components of social capital, gardeners were asked about other potential factors that may influence how one views trust, social networks and community in general. To gain their perspectives on class in relation to these concepts, gardeners were asked if they thought education and occupation shape the way people think about and experience these aspects of social capital (Table 7.21).

Gardeners were also asked if they feel religion plays a role. Questions around religion were included in this research because it is often overlooked in the social capital literature as something that may shape individual and community perspectives.

Most frequently, gardeners indicated, yes, that education (N=22), occupation (N=29), and religion (N=18) all influence these aspects of social capital.

137

Table 7.21: Education, Occupation, Religion and Social Capital: by Race, Gender CG1 CG2 CG3 CG4 MALES FEMALES TOTAL* Does education play a role? (N=32) N (%) Yes 9 1 8 4 9 13 22(68.8) No 1 1 0 5 4 3 7(21.9) Maybe/Somewhat/ Not Sure 2 0 1 0 3 0 3(9.4) Does occupation or what you do for a living play a role? (N=33) Yes 12 2 7 8 13 16 29(87.9) No 0 0 2 1 2 1 3(9.1) Maybe/Somewhat/ Not Sure 0 0 1 0 1 0 1(3) Does religion play a role? (N=31) Yes 7 1 4 6 8 10 18(58.1) No 4 1 2 0 3 4 7(22.6) Maybe/Somewhat/ Not Sure 1 0 3 2 5 1 6((19.4) *Missing data – some participants were not asked these questions. N is given for each question.

On the relationship between education and social capital, one gardener answered,

Yes, automatically you are in that category. Like, if you were a lawyer, I kind of doubt as a lawyer you would come hanging out down there, you know (53‐year‐old black female from CG‐3).

Exemplifying responses in terms of the influence of occupation on ‘social capital,’ another gardener talked about it being a function of how much time is spent with people at work:

Uh, yeah well, it will. And that’s a function of spending a lot of time with the person, you become more connected to them. The more time you spend, even if you dislike them. If you see them outside of that situation and they need some help, or something, you would feel more compelled to help them because you feel more connected to them in a weird way (45‐year‐old white female from CG‐1).

Many of those who said that religion did not play a role nonetheless used religious faith in their reasoning, saying that because they were taught to love and respect everyone regardless of religion, it was not important. For example:

138

I don’t really think so. Uh. Because I think if a person, if you have love and respect for all of God’s creatures, all of God’s children, you won’t have no problem. But now, if I feel just because you are Catholic and I’m a Baptist that we’re different, I’m trying to play God’s part. He don’t need no help in it. Who have more money, or who have less money. Sometimes it hard for me to understand why I’m poor and some people are rich, but then again I turn around and I think about it. Some of those people got all that money is not as happy as me. They’re miserable because, every time they see a dollar, they want it. It don’t bother me because I’ve never had a lot of money so I don’t know what I’d do if I got a hold of it. I’m just happy to be alive (75‐ year‐old black male from CG‐3).

Interestingly, those who said that religion did influence ‘social capital’ also used religious terms and reasoning:

Oh yeah. I think some of my closest friends are the one’s that um...that are willing... that are interested in finding God’s truth, that are willing to follow what God says. And, and actually want to support and encourage each other on the path. And I think that cuts through all the gender and race and stuff. Because if you know that somebody’s trying to live a right life through, um, what God tells you is the right way to live, then you can trust them because God has our best interest at heart. But that doesn’t mean you can go and put yourself in a compromising situation or look temptation in the face. If your best friend is a man who happens to be a Christian, that doesn’t mean you should be out alone with him in the middle of the day when your husband’s not around (45‐year‐old white female from CG‐1).

These responses demonstrate that overall, these elements of social capital – trust, social networks and community participation – are shaped by individual and community histories, culture and socioeconomic conditions. As one gardener summed up,

In most cases I think that people hang around with people like themselves. It seems more the rule than the exception (51‐year‐old white female from CG‐1).

While this is not surprising, it is important in the sense that efforts to create programs and policies aimed at promoting ‘social capital’ must take this into account. Often these efforts try to bring people of different backgrounds together. As will be discussed in the

139

Chapter 9, this goal of promoting diversity may overlook the realities of existing community networks and expectations.

COMMUNITY GARDENS, SOCIAL CAPITAL AND HEALTH

The final objective of this research is to explore the role that social capital may play in individual and community health and well being. While it was outside the scope of this research to assess participant health, gardeners were asked to identify the links they perceive between social capital and their health. Questions regarding the overall benefits to community gardening also offer insight into these links and demonstrate the importance of community gardening to the participants. Gardeners were asked what they believe to be the greatest individual benefit of community gardening to them

(Table 7.22). Not surprisingly, many gardeners said that they enjoyed the fresh food they grow (N=19).

Interestingly, the second most frequent response was meeting new people, or interacting with new people (N=12). Other responses, such as working with people or children in the neighborhood (N=8), learning from others and sharing information with other gardeners (N=6), also highlighted the social aspect of community gardening as being of great benefit. As one gardener from CG‐2 explained,

I guess the social aspect would be the greatest benefit. It binds neighbors together, people get to know each other, call on each other for different things. And then the healthy food and supplementing your food budget (52‐ year‐old white male).

140

Table 7.22: Frequency of Responses: Greatest Benefit of Community Gardening: by Race, Gender

What is the greatest Garden CG1 CG2 CG3 CG4 Males Females TOTAL benefit to you of Leaders (N=13) (N=3) (N=10) (N=10) (N=27) (N=32) (N=59) community gardening? (N=23) N (%) Fresh food 3 4 2 5 5 11 8 19 (32.2) Meeting new people/Interacting with people 4 3 2 1 2 7 5 12 (20.3) Therapeutic/ Spiritual 3 3 2 1 0 2 7 9(15.3) Working with people/kids 8 0 0 0 0 2 6 8(13.6) Learn about gardens/Share knowledge 2 1 0 0 3 2 4 6(10.2) Give back to community 3 1 0 0 1 4 1 5(8.5) Natural resources/ Sunlight/land 2 2 0 0 0 1 3 4 (6.8) Physical Activity 1 1 0 0 2 4 0 4 (6.8) Watching things grow 1 0 0 3 0 3 1 4 (6.8) Saving money on food 0 0 1 2 1 1 3 4 (6.8) Gives me something to do 0 0 0 0 3 2 1 3(5.1) Provides safety and security 2 0 0 0 0 1 1 2(3.4) Sense of accomplishment/ Fulfillment 1 1 0 0 0 0 2 2(3.4) Kids’ enjoyment 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 2(3.4) Creativity/Positivity 2 0 0 0 0 1 1 2(3.4)

In a similar question, gardeners in both phases were asked what they liked best about community gardening (Table 7.23). Gardeners often talked about the social interactions that the garden facilitates (N=20). As one garden leader put it,

I think what I like best, more than...it’s the social aspect, talking to people, having conversations. I like planting, I like to watch stuff grow. I get lazy when it’s time to harvest, but I do it! I like peoples (72‐year‐old black male).

141

Table 7.23: Frequency of Responses: Like Best about Community Gardening, by Race, Gender What do you like best Garden about being part of the Leaders CG1 CG2 CG3 CG4 Males Females TOTAL community garden? (N=23) (N=13) (N=3) (N=10) (N=10) (N=27) (N=32) (N=59) N(%) Interacting with people/meeting new people 6 3 2 6 3 10 10 20(33.9) Watching things grow 3 5 1 3 6 11 7 18(30.5) Eating fresh food 5 6 2 3 2 9 9 18(30.5) Healing/Therapy/ Relaxing 7 3 0 2 1 3 10 13(22) Educational/ Working with kids 7 0 0 0 0 1 6 7 (11.9) Donating Produce to Needy 2 3 0 0 1 3 3 6(10.2) Community Building/ Connections 2 1 0 0 0 1 2 3(5.1) Helping People 2 0 0 1 0 3 0 3(5.1) Learning about gardening/ Experimenting 1 0 0 1 1 1 2 3(5.1) Natural Beauty 1 2 0 0 0 1 2 3(5.1) Positive attitude in people 2 0 0 0 0 1 1 2(3.4) Garden is the pride of street 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1(1.7) Keeps me active 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1(1.7) Makes the community safe 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1(1.7) Sense of Satisfaction 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1(1.7)

Again gardeners liked getting fresh food from the garden (N=18) and many talked about the actual process of gardening saying that they just like to watch things grow

(N=18).

It’s to see things, see things grow. I love to see… it always amazes me how what God put in the ground, and what really what, what makes that plant, you know you put down one collard and you eat off it all summer. It continue to bear. I mean it just, it’s just amazing to me. I just love to see stuff grow. I give most all it away. Family, friends, church members (73‐ year‐old black male from CG‐4).

142

Most of the interviewees who talked about the spiritual and therapeutic aspects of community gardening were women (N=10):

It is relaxing. I love to see things grow. It is very relaxing. It is a place where you can go and you don’t have to have anyone with you. You can be by yourself and enjoy. That is what I mostly like about it (51‐year‐old black female from CG‐3).

Another woman put it this way:

Well, the good part is the planting. That’s always good. And, and naturally, the harvesting. But for me it’s really great like, um...I’m off on Thursdays and Saturdays and the serenity of it. I go out at 7:00 in the morning and, and you know uh...weed and pray and cry, you know, get yourself together to get going again. And it makes it...you can do that. You can do that. That’s a good thing that I like about it. Because it’s close to me, I can go out there and be alone, you know? (79‐year‐old black female garden leader).

These therapeutic benefits to community gardening were also highlighted when gardeners were asked what the garden means to them (Table 7.24). White women were more likely to talk about the therapeutic and healing aspects of community gardening.

For a few participants, gardening has become a very key part of their lives and their response reflected this intensity. As one woman explains,

Yeah I’d miss it. It was like a peaceful, place [to exhale]. It just, it’s just digging in the dirt, I can’t say that I have an aversion to weeding. It’s calming. And for the longest time I couldn’t really garden in my backyard, it was this total emptiness. It was like I have to grow something, even though I had tons of potted plants for the winter. It’s very much, I don’t know if everybody is at that [level of] importance. It’s almost as important as water. I don’t know, it’s a calming agent, I need to grow stuff, I need to dig in the dirt. I don’t know if that makes any sense or if it’s weird (48‐year‐old white woman from CG‐2).

143

Table 7.24: Frequency of Responses: Meaning of the Garden, By Race, Gender What does the garden Garden mean to you? Would Leaders CG1 CG2 CG3 CG4 Males Females TOTAL you miss it if it weren’t (N=23) (N=13) (N=3) (N=10) (N=10) (N=27) (N=32) (N=59) there? N(%) It provides something to do 2 1 0 3 5 9 2 11(18.6) Yes, I would miss it 0 2 0 3 2 3 4 7 (11.9) Healing/Therapeutic /Relaxing 2 2 2 0 0 1 5 6(10.2) I like meeting and talking to people 1 1 1 1 2 3 3 6(10.2) I can’t grow at home 0 4 1 0 0 3 2 5(8.5) Sense of fulfillment 2 1 0 0 0 0 3 3(5.1) Love watching things grow 1 1 0 0 1 1 2 3(5.1) Provides an attachment to the community 1 1 1 0 0 1 2 3(5.1) I’d do something else 0 0 0 2 1 0 3 3(5.1) Exercise/Activity 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 2(3.4) I need an outlet 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1(1.7) I’m able to have small scale farm 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1(1.7) Learn about gardening 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1(1.7) Being able to provide good food to my family 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1(1.7) Something to share with my father 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1(1.7) The garden means everything to me 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1(1.7) I can teach my children about growing food 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1(1.7)

Another woman in CG‐2 also had an incredibly intense relationship with the garden. She had lost her son and the garden was a memorial to him. As she explains,

My mother has died, and I’m really alonemyself. My son’s death just left me totally devastated. My mother died last year, so I’m pretty much alone, I have no one to turn to. It’s been very hard. He died [in] April 2005, so that’ll be 4 years in April. So I’ve been gardening those last 3 years and it’s meant everything to me, I’m not kidding when I say it. It’s just hard (62‐ year‐old white female from CG‐2).

144

Another garden leader at a social service agency that houses adolescents with severe behavioral and emotional difficulties relayed the following story:

I have a story that talks about the therapeutic qualities of the garden and how if we did not have a gardening program, this boy probably would not have worked through these issues. He was a young boy who witnessed the murder of his father in their home. And he jumped out of the second story window to save himself. And we came to us he was sulky and pouty. Just not talking a whole lot. To try and talk about that trauma in his life was really hard for him. He started in the gardening program and he had a few plants and he would do what was asked of him and maintaining it. But I noticed, every time he had a vegetable it would disappear. I could not figure out if someone was stealing it, which is part of my responsibility, to make sure that they are successful. I noticed him one day he took the pepper, picked it, and he buried it in the ground. I said, “Joey, why are you burying the pepper in the ground. Why wouldn’t you eat it? You’ve been working hard..” and he said, “I want to see what happens to it when it dies.” It was through that experience that I shared with his therapists and started dialogue about death. So, he was working out some pretty important issues up there. He didn’t feel he could really ask being the kind of kid he was. This allowed him to be able to do that (51‐year‐old white female garden leader).

Because so many gardeners are older and retired, they said that the garden gives them something to do, gets them out of the house, and generally provides something to look forward to. African American men in particular offered these types of answers.

It’s a big part of me because I think it’s a part of my livelihood. Because if I wasn’t doing this, my mind probably would run away with me. Like I said I’ve always been a doer, not a sitter, and it’s hard for me to just accept sitting and doing nothing. So I’ll spend my time here. When I’m not here and somebody come by my house and they don’t see my truck in the yard they, “I know where he’s at. He’s fishing” (75‐year‐old black male gardener from CG‐3).

Responses to these questions are salient because they demonstrate the often intangible but important benefits to community gardening and the social connectedness they foster. Yet these are very difficult to measure. It is easier to assess how many fruits and vegetables get consumed because of participation in community gardens and

145

relating these measurement to health outcomes, such as lack of certain chronic diseases; it is much more difficult to capture the psychosocial and emotional benefits that may accrue from participating in a garden. A contextualized definition of social capital may be one tool used to overcome this difficulty.

Perceptions of Social Capital in Relation to Health

When asked directly about the connection between health and the three fundamental components of social capital explored in this research, gardeners’ replies reflected the link between gardening and health, rather than social capital and health.

Responses focused on ideas such as ‘gardening helps you feel better’ (N=11), with white women again using spiritual language to talk about the healing or therapeutic benefits.

Gardeners frequently identified the ability to eat fresh food (N=10) and physical activity

(N=6) as beneficial to their health (Table 7.25). Whether or not the gardener was referring to the health benefits of gardening or the health benefits of social capital, the answers again captured the value of interacting and connecting with others (N=9), having people to count on to help you when you need it (N=7), and wide ranging healing and mental health benefits from stress relief to improved self efficacy (Table

7.25).

The recognition that alienation is detrimental to your health gets at the crux of what some of the social capital literature says about psychosocial factors in relation to health. One gardener articulates this:

Oh absolutely [it plays a role in health]. Absolutely. There is nothing that makes a person ill faster than being isolated or feeling isolated. You might not be, but if you feel that way, I mean, that’s why we have suicides right? Um, so, absolutely. And your perception of that social capital, like I said, just feeling isolated even if you’re not, could make all the difference in the world (49‐year‐old white female from CG‐1).

146

Table7.25: Frequency of Responses: Social Capital and Health

Do you think social Garden TOTAL capital can play a role Leaders CG1 CG2 CG3 CG4 Males Females (N=59) in your health? If so, (N=23) (N=13) (N=3) (N=10) (N=10) (N=27) (N=32) N(%) how? Helps you feel better/ Promotes healing 6 3 1 1 0 2 9 11(18.6) You eat healthy food 6 2 0 1 1 2 8 10(16.9) You’re not alienated, part of community 3 3 2 0 1 5 4 9(15.3) Stress relief 1 3 0 2 2 4 4 8(13.6) Know more people to help out/Take care of one another 2 1 1 3 0 3 4 7(11.9) Physical activity 2 4 0 0 0 4 2 6(10.2) The habits of who you hang out with affect your habits and health 0 2 1 2 1 1 5 6(10.2) Gives you something to do/Productive to society 3 0 0 2 0 3 2 5(8.5) Mental health/ Empowerment, self efficacy 2 1 0 0 2 3 2 5(8.5) Don’t know how/Not sure that it does 0 2 0 1 1 3 1 4(6.8) Clean up neighborhood/ Improve the neighborhood/ Safety/Overcome fears 2 1 0 0 0 1 2 3(5.1) When you have enough money to take care of yourself 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 2(3.4)

Gardeners often said that this was particularly important for older people who may not have other ways to interact with people.

I think just talking with people and hearing their views and I think, especially, with the elderly. Getting out of the house and getting them just talking is better than them just sitting at home watching TV. A guy at work has a mother that’s eighty years old said he

147

can tell when she hasn’t talked to anybody for days, ‘cause when he goes out and visits her she’s almost lapsing back into the oldthe older people need some the stimulation and conversation (46‐year‐old white male from CG‐1).

One garden leader whose family had been a part of her community garden for decades said that she noticed that more older gardeners died during the winter months and that they rarely had a gardener die during the growing season.

An interesting set of responses were those that explained the link between the individuals’ behaviors and the habits of people in their social networks. In these responses, one’s social networks can either be beneficial to your health, or harmful. As one gardener explains,

It could play... it could either help you or hurt you. If you trust somebody and they deceive you, that could be very emotional for you, but also people that you speak with can encourage you and lift you up. It could go either or (51‐year‐old black female from CG‐3).

Gardeners mentioned having friends to walk with could help you engage in more healthy behaviors. Likewise, if you have friends that have unhealthy habits, you might have those too:

Yes. Okay, just like with me. I don’t smoke, if I hang around with people who smoke. That can affect my health. I could get lung cancer. People that drinking, if I am hanging around with drinking and drugs, that gives, that could affect me physically. Mentally too, affect me. Also that is a social type of thing, affect which, you can classify it as that too. Because if you are hanging around crack heads, if I am a prostitute. If I am hanging with other prostitutes, hanging out on the street has a lot to do with that. That can affect your health (53‐year‐old black female from CG‐3)

148

Why Care about Social Capital?

At the end of the interviews, after the terms had been discussed and broken down, gardeners were asked if why anyone should care about a community’s social capital (Table 7.26). Participants said it was important to understand these concepts

Table 7.26: Frequency of Responses: Why Care about Social Capital? by Race, Gender

Why should anyone care CG1 CG2 CG3 CG4 MALES FEMALES TOTAL about a community’s (N=13) (N=3) (N=10) (N=10) (N=18) (N=18) (N=36) social capital? What can N(%) it be used to accomplish? Help each other/Solve problems together 4 0 4 3 5 6 11(30.6) Important to contribute to your community/ Have concern for community 4 2 2 2 4 6 10(27.8) Need to know surroundings 4 0 1 1 2 4 6(16.7) Connections make people healthier/Grow stronger together 2 0 2 1 2 3 5(13.9) A bad neighborhood affects everyone 0 1 0 2 1 2 3(8.3) I don’t totally understand it 2 0 0 0 2 0 2(5.6) Provide a standard to follow 0 0 1 1 1 1 2(5.6) It is not important 1 0 1 0 1 1 2(5.6) because they allow for an understanding of relationships between people. They said it was important because neighbors might need to help each other, or solve problems together (N=11). For example,

They should care because, I may have to go to my neighbor one day. I might get sick and have two kids in there. You gotta turn to your neighbors for help sometimes. ‘Cause I ain’t gonna live by myself (75‐year‐old black female from CG‐3).

149

Gardeners explained the importance of having concern for one’s community (N=10).

One gardener explains that this concern for the actual people is what is most important:

If you want to breathe life into the city, you better know where to breathe it. I mean let’s face it, you can build all the convention centers and hotels and rock and roll halls of fame you want. But if people don’t want to live here, it doesn’t matter. Um, I don’t know who I’m quoting here, so don’t quote me, I’m quoting them. It might have been something I read. But it’s to the point that you have to make a place the way you want it to be so you want to live in it. You know a place, to build it the way you want it to live in it. And then people will come to it because it’s liveable. But if you just build stuff, you know, you want to build a new shopping plaza…well that’s lovely, but if nobody wants to live here, to shop at those stores, what have you gained? You’ve just, you know, spent resources for naught. So yeah, social capital is vital, because that’s what keeps a community alive. That’s what keeps in moving. All those births and deaths and graduations and honor rolls and retirements. That’s life. That’s the community. And when you have a community where nobody cares anymore, that’s called a slum (49yearold white female from CG1).

These responses illuminate the need for connections between people in communities to benefit all its members and lift the community as a whole. The garden itself was viewed as an important facilitator of this because it provides a common space in which to make these connections.

Um, yeah I think it is. I think a lot of communities are falling apart because we don’t care about each other enough. And I would agree that community gardening is one way to get people together. Um, there...people are not gonna just stop and talk to each other on the street, for no reason. But if they have a common activity then they will. It’s funny, at the uh, meeting last night. The one guy who was running the meeting said, ‘Yeah, I talked to the priest yesterday, um, I couldn’t find him anywhere. And I was leaving the parking lot and I saw him out in the back washing his car. So I went and talked to him as he was washing his car and he said, you know, it was the best talk I ever had with him.’ Because he was busy doing something! (45‐ year‐old white female from CG‐1).

150

SUMMARY: KEY FINDINGS

Several themes emerged from the findings presented in this chapter:

1). The racial homogeneity of the garden samples in many ways reflects the segregation of the city. This challenges not only the literature on community gardens which says that they tend to bring people from different backgrounds together, but the perception specifically among CG‐1 members, that the garden population is diverse.

Existing social networks reflect racial and socioeconomic homogeneity in communities.

Ideas around ‘bonding,’ ‘bridging’ and ‘linking’ social capital may help to explore these relationships and the ways in which views of these components of social capital differ based upon whether one is a member of a particular community or not. Bourdieu’s cultural capital may also be a useful concept to employ because it allows for a critical view of the ways in which value is ascribed to social and cultural capital.

2). Race shapes experiences and perspectives of social capital but gender does not in this sample. There are differences in responses between black and white gardeners regarding the role of race in views of trust, social networks and community engagement. The majority of participants agreed that race, but not gender, shapes who is a part of one’s social network and influences whom one trusts. White gardeners were more likely than black gardeners to indicate the importance of race in shaping trust, social networks and community engagement. African American gardeners are slightly more trusting of other gardeners and their neighbors when compared to Caucasians.

3). The ways in which gardeners described social networks, trust and community engagement differs from the ways in which they are often discussed in the literature on social capital. Community engagement is thought of as more informal

151

connections in communities and concern for one another rather than participation in formal organizations, as portrayed in Putnam’s work (1995, 2000). African American gardeners frequently used religious language to talk about trust and community engagement. Caucasian women often used spiritual and therapeutic language to talk about the benefits of gardening. These findings reflect cultural nuances which are important for developing a local definition of social capital.

4). Although participants mentioned food and exercise, many gardeners emphasized the social aspects of community gardening as being very important, highly valued, and beneficial to their health. Yet the friendships between gardeners are dependent upon the garden, highlighting the importance of the garden as a physical space in which to foster social capital.

5.) Gardeners believe that community gardens are a good way to make connections in community and promote health. The less tangible benefits of community gardening are important and psychosocial measures used in cognitive approaches to social capital may be useful for understanding these. These measures of trust and social support should reflect the cultural meanings ascribed to these notions, such as the use of religious language among African Americans and spiritual language among Caucasian women.

6.) Because gardeners identified the social aspects of gardening as beneficial to their health, the meaning of health in relation to social capital can be expanded beyond the lack of disease or biological health outcomes to include a general sense of individual and community well being, which gardeners suggest can be fostered through community gardens.

152

7.) Trust is paramount in the emic definition of social capital that has emerged.

Social capital among this population of Cleveland community gardeners can be defined most simply as the connections between people that build trust and overcome perceived existing barriers. Trust as described in this research is less like Putnam’s

(1995, 2000) generalized trust in society and more reminiscent of Coleman’s (1988,

1990) contextual trust.

Given these results, this dissertation will now turn to a discussion of this local and contextualized definition of social capital and how it may be useful in helping to understand inequalities and improve individual and community health by first discussing some of these themes by using several case studies. The case studies will be presented consecutively in Chapter 8, followed by a discussion in Chapter 9 of what they illustrate about social capital and how they represent the major findings of this research.

153

CHAPTER 8

CASE STUDIES: COMMUNITY GARDENS, SOCIAL CAPITAL AND INEQUALITY

ANITA (AND FRANK)

HOW RACE AND CLASS SHAPES VIEWS OF RACE AND CLASS IN COMMUNITIES

This case study provides a way to talk about the racial homogeneity of the gardener samples so as to explore how race shapes perspectives of the three elements of social capital. White gardeners were more likely than black gardeners to indicate the importance of race in shaping trust, social networks and community engagement. Anita no longer lives in the west side garden neighborhood, but her discussions of her father’s

(Frank) views on race in contrast to her own feelings and perceptions of her community provide insights into issues of race, class and social capital. In the discussion, Anita’s perspective is compared to the next case study, Lakisha, to contrast the differing views of race, trust and social networks in communities. These two case studies expose the entanglement of race and class and evoke discussions of the culture of poverty debate.

These stories also serve to illustrate the importance of trust as an emic indicator of social capital in this research.

“ Most of the people over there are not there to be in a diverse area. They are there to get away from the people that are different. And it’s starting to move in.”

Anita is a 51‐year‐old white woman who grew up in the west side neighborhood in which Community Garden 1 is situated, but has since moved to Cleveland Heights, an

154

inner ring suburb. Her parents still live in the neighborhood and I interviewed her father before her. Frank is a 75‐year‐old, Italian‐American man. Anita tells me that he is the reason she gardens; she wants to spend time with her father and having this activity brings them together and provides an opportunity to talk. This family has been a part of the garden for over 40 years as Anita and her siblings gardened there as elementary school students. As we sit around her kitchen table on a cold winter morning, she explains what gardening means to her and her dad:

And plus, you know, you are not going to be telling him this are you? [CW – no]. This is something that he and I get to do together. You know, my mother and I, you know, have always been close and my dad is not like a big talker or anything. And it kinda gives him like a meaning, because he is starting to get to the point where, you know, he is getting to the point in his life where he doesn’t see a lot of reason for hanging around here. And I keep giving him the grandchildren stuff and that helps. But one day, you know, he said something about, I maybe I took him out for his birthday or something, and he said you know he was not going to be around for much longer and I said Daddy we have a lot more gardening to do and you are not going anywhere. And it touched him really deep down.

She explains that her father has strong social ties to some of the men in the garden and that this has been important for him. She says that she knows a couple of guys and will say ‘hi,’ but in general, she always felt too busy to stop and talk to people in the garden.

Anita has ties to the garden neighborhood because her parents still live there.

She is in a unique position to comment on both the community she currently lives in and the garden community, where her father lives and she used to live. When asked about issues facing her community, she first tells me about problems in her city, which is in a suburb of Cleveland.

Um...why I think in the heights things are ...things are kinda going downhill. Um... this used to be place where people wanted to come to live in a, you know, diverse area and people are reasonably tolerant of each other but it doesn’t seem to be that way anymore. You know the schools are getting to

155

the point where they are well over 50% African American. The people with money don’t send their kids to public schools; my kids go to public school. I don’t think they’re addressing the problems... they’re so on top of us [the ones] that pay the taxes and everything to keep our properties up and everything, but then you drive around Cleveland Heights and there are places that look like slums. And it’s like you know you have to hold everyone up to the same standards if you want this to be an integrated community. So I’ve got some problems with that.

After asking if she could comment on the garden neighborhood, she describes issues in that neighborhood in which she grew up:

Well... see there it’s another whole story. Most of the people over there are not there to be in a diverse area. They are there to get away from the people that are different. And it’s starting to move in. You know [name] Road and all of those areas down there, it is not just African Americans, it’s you know Hispanic and just lower income people that are encroaching in that neighborhood. I think that it’s not going to be pretty because the white people that are there are not your open minded kinds of white people. And you know there is, there is not one African American that has a garden [in CG‐1] as far as I can tell. I have never seen one.

Anita’s description of the garden neighborhood as changing is also reflected her father’s assessment of the neighborhood. When I asked Frank this same question, he explained:

Well, all right...let’s kinda make a splitting point. Uh, since, since I started here, all the way up to let’s say about, roughly about five or ten years ago. This has been one of the nicest, greatest neighborhoods and a wonderful experience just living here. ‘Cause people were friendly, everything. Uh, it kind of ...how would you say, if you was gonna write a movie script, you would probably choose this place, okay? For the uh, typical American town. Uh, but lately we have, and I think the whole country is having a uhuh problem with people...just becoming, excuse my term, rectums. (laughs). Okay. They just are, uh, and theythey do things that one...just don’t even make sense. Okay, and you wonder, how the hell can they continue to do this?

Frank goes on to attribute much of the changes in the community to changes in the racial composition of the neighborhood. From Anita’s perspective, people like her father

156

living in that neighborhood are not tolerant of other races and Frank admitted that race is an issue among people of his generation (as discussed in chapter 7):

In fact, in her interview, Anita referred to her family as prejudiced. She explained, however, that she has made it a point in her life not to be, which is one of the reasons they chose to live in the suburb where they live. When I ask her if she thinks being white has shaped her views of community and connections between people, she replies:

Um... I don’t think so...because that was always my main goal. Was to accept people for who they were. You know, my parents were not thrilled that we moved over here. [My husband’s] parents were not thrilled we moved over here. I came from you know a pretty racially prejudiced family. And it was basically college that opened my eyes to looking at people for who they were and um... you know so I am very aware of all of the racial differences practically since I taught in an inner city too essentially, [another] inner ring suburb school for 14 years. And watched it get worse and worse as more and more low income African American kids came in with parents who were less and less involved and the administration had to be more and more lenient of… but ummm...but you know I cannot say that I don’t have any racial prejudice anymore because I have seen too much in the school district and so I don’t look at somebody just because they are black I say you’re a slime ball, but if they prove to me they are, I mean I know white slime balls as well, but I just have problems with people who don’t take responsibility for their own actions and don’t have a work ethic and don’t raise their children they just bring them into the world and you know whatever and all of that sort of stuff. So yeah, I am really very prejudice against people like that. But, you know, the people across the street right here, two...two...a black couple are they are just amazing. Both have really good jobs, they keep a better yard than anybody else in the entire neighborhood. They’re out there at 7:30 in the morning on Saturday cutting the grass when I am like still in bed. You know, so I think I’ve got a pretty good handle on you know, on looking at people for who they are.

She makes a point to say it is not all African Americans, but rather those who in her eyes act like “slime balls,” black or white. Interestingly, her father, who she

157

essentially sees as prejudiced, also made this distinction when he told me, “We are not racehaters, we just hate what they do.” When I asked who “they” are? He replied,

“Anybody who breaks the law.” I then asked, “Do you attribute changes in the neighborhood to changes in the racial makeup?” Frank answered:

Oh, we have colored people on this street. Yeah, that’s not a problem. If we... we have, uh, I think a couple Orientals. I don’t again, see, they’re so different than I am...I will nod and I will say, ‘Hi,’ to them. But that’s the extent. Pretty much the extent of my, uh, socializing with, uh, the people I don’t know. I only know a few.

Having distinguished herself from her father’s prejudice, Anita goes on to discuss issues in her suburban neighborhood as more about culture than race:

Well most of the time, at least with the people I know around here, it is very taboo to say anything negative about anybody who is African American. You know, most of the people around here will not say anything about what is going on next door here. And or they are very, very politically correct. You know. And it’s like I’m sorry, it’s not because they are African American that they are doing this, it’s because they are in generation poverty and they’ve never known anything but throwing garbage around and not working you know and all of that stuff. But it doesn’t make it any better for me to have them next door to me. It’s not like you can’t figure out what you are supposed to be doing. So yeah, around here it’s pretty, you know, you don’t say it a lot.

She goes on to explain the challenge of public schools and the desire to have her children educated in a diverse environment while still protecting them from what she sees as negative behaviors of some of the black students. She then makes a point to tell me that there are African American families in her neighborhood who do not behave this way:

These folks next door are quite welltodo. The husband is a lawyer, although now he is teaching at Case law school. His wife does not work outside of the home as far as I know. And ah... they, they both went to heights high and now their oldest son is there and he is you know doing fine. He is in of course all honors classes and he plays an instrument and all of that.

158

When I asked Anita about any potentially negative aspects to social capital, she again discussed “slum culture” as an example of negative social capital:

Um... yeah. In the case of culture like the ... the African American slum culture, um... the kids they don’t want to act white because they equate being good, caring about grades, you know all of that sort of stuff with being white rather than just being the way you are supposed to be. I mean that’s the problem I have with people like next door is that the black culture is, you know, ‘I am the way I am, I speak like an idiot and don’t work and don’t care you know about this or that or the other thing’ and that is like reinforced when you’re with a bunch of people that are like that…You are either a decent person who wants to support themselves and their families or you want to just be a worthless piece of shit, if you will excuse me, that you know everybody owes things to. Yeah, so I guess what it is, a negative social connotation, it just perpetuates it.

At the end of our conversation Anita said that the concept of social capital might be useful for understanding how to overcome these issues of reproducing “slum culture:”

Well... I think that if we’re going to fix a lot of the social problems, that would be the way to do it. I mean, the only way you are ever going to change this cycle of, of at least in the slum culture of bringing children into the world that you know, you are not married and you don’t have the means to support them or the mental capacity to support them and all that kind of stuff. That has to come from within the social group and other difficulties that we have, you know, people like not caring about what’s going on around them, old people being by themselves and no neighbors you know coming you know check on them and things just becoming less and less of a reality than it used to be and stuff like that. If we don’t understand what’s going on in this network then we are not going to be able to fix any of the problems.

Anita’s interview provides an example of the forthright discussions of race that took place during this research. Many of the west side, white gardeners were very open and candid views of race. They may have felt more comfortable being honest because I am white and middle class. Black gardeners on the east side offered poignant stories of how race shapes their lives and many were forthcoming in their discussions, but it is likely that my race influenced the conversation in some way. This is a challenge in

159

anthropology; we know that in asking, informants are answering us, based on their perception of what we may want to know. There is always some translation taking place, even within the same language. Nevertheless, the next case study brings the perspective of a black woman who, like Anita, was also quite open in her discussions of race and class in her community, albeit from a very different perspective.

LAKISHA

WHOSE NETWORKS MATTER? BONDING, BRIDGING, AND LINKING SOCIAL CAPITAL

This case study provides a context to explore just how race and class position frames views of social capital in communities. Lakisha’s description of life in her public housing complex provides a different perspective on race and class than the one offered by Anita. Lakisha’s experiences exemplify discussions of ‘good’ versus ‘bad’ social capital and provide a way to discuss bonding, bridging and linking social capital

(Putnam 2000; Szreter 2000). Lakisha and Anita illustrate the differences on views of social networks, trust and community engagement between black and white gardeners in this study. In doing so, these experiences serve to illustrate how segregation influences community gardening projects and challenges the perception that gardens bring people of different backgrounds together. They also demonstrate the importance of trust in community and how trust shapes how one views her community.

“If you want to call it the ghetto, or whatever you want to call it, but still, it is secure.”

Lakisha is a 53‐year‐old African American gardener from Community Garden 3.

She does not live in the immediate garden neighborhood. She lives in a nearby public

160

housing complex and found out about the garden from a deacon at her church who has been a member for years. She and her sister decided to garden together and this was her first year. As we sit in old chairs under a large bush for shade, she tells me that she loves meeting new people in the garden. She says she’s younger than many of the other gardeners and she thinks the older ones enjoy having someone to listen, saying “I will sit down and talk to them. It will do them so much good!”

What is most interesting about Lakisha’s interview was not what she said about the garden, but rather what she revealed about where she lived and the importance of social networks within her public housing complex. When I asked her what issues her community is facing, she replied,

Yeah a lot of, what happens is people, young guys, come from other estates [public housing projects] over to, over there, and they would get involved. They want to fight to get something. They would fight and stuff like that…They think they are our protectors. That is why I say I feel more secure there than in my house. Because they don’t steal cars from us. No cars have been stolen or broken in to. And there isn’t anybody else coming over and breaking into our cars either. Or our house. They come and mess with somebody down there then you got the whole apartment to deal with. Especially there. They come and ask “what’s going on, what’s the problem with him. What’s the problem with her.” Whatever. One other girl came from somewhere else and she was going to fight another girl who lives there. She brought a couple of her girls down. And we, and they all jumped in because they got jumped by three or four, and the whole projects. Because they came to somebody house. You don’t bring ...Like I said, you hate that, but I like the fact the community is protecting each other. They don’t allow anybody to come in and mess with anybody. That is why I say I want a house but I am kind of scared because of the break ins and that stuff. They make me feel comfortable. If you want to call it the ghetto, or whatever you want to call it, but still, it is secure. The people are safe.

She goes on to explain that this protection of those who live in the community goes beyond racial divides. The exchange brought to the surface my race:

[To CW] Is it safe to say you’re Caucasian? We have Caucasian people who live there. But you aren’t going to find anybody coming and messing with

161

them. They are a part of the community. That is an example. If somebody black who comes from somewhere else who tries to start business because you are white or whatever. Well he will have people to deal with because he is a part of the community or whatever. Like I said, it is really secure. I have been there since 96 and other than that I probably would not have, I feel secure. I come in at any time of the night. “What are you doing out here this time of night?” but I feel comfortable.

Lakisha says that she feels safer in her community than she has felt in other places in which she has lived because she knows that she is protected. She explains:

Actually, when I was going to my daughter’s house [in another neighborhood], I use to feel a little leery getting out of the car. I would jump in the house right quick. I do whatever I want [by my house], go to the store. I feel comfortable….I am not living there because I have to live there, I just want a clarify that. If I wanted to move out to the heights or the suburbs, I really can. I am there because I want to be. That is one of the things; they say “oh she is there because she has to be there.” Also, I owned a house in Cleveland Heights I didn’t feel any more secure than I am now. So, I am not that enthused, I am not sticking with suburbs. I want to get a house local, in the city area. I don’t want to be way out. I am comfortable inside the city.

Lakisha explains that another reason she likes living where she lives is because she has access to a wide array of supportive services. She did not have this institutional support when she lived in the suburb. When I asked her about access to services in her neighborhood, she tells me:

Oh no, they have all kind of services…When I was in Cleveland Heights, I didn’t have that. That’s because they don’t offer stuff like that in the suburbs. You could get like, when I went to school to get my degree, they paid for my school. Now Cleveland Heights, they didn’t have that. You had to afford that yourself…That was called HOPE. We also got approved by the HOPE program it helps you buy your house. If you buy a house out there, they give you like $9,000 to $10,000 towards the house, towards the tax reductions because you are living in that area. I mean all kind of help. School, if you have a problem paying for your rent, they have advocates for that. Kids need clothes. And also furniture…All that kind of stuff…That is why they say if you are in inner city, you got, you get an opportunity. It really is, because anything you want to do. If you want to go to school, go to school. You can do anything. They even have summer jobs. They go door to door offering the teenagers jobs…That is why I am saying…

162

Lakisha’s perspective on the influence of race on views of community was highlighted in the previous chapter. She spoke of being comfortable with her community as a black community:

When asked about how social capital links to health, Lakisha said that the connection involved the relationships between an individual’s behaviors and the unhealthy behaviors of people in their social networks. She said “if you hang around crackheads and prostitutes on the street, that can affect your health.” Lakisha was not alone in making this connection between the components of social capital and health

(N=6). Respondents also mentioned the behaviors and habits of those around you as a potentially negative aspect to social capital. This case study resonates with the discussions of ‘good’ and ‘bad’ social capital and critiques of a value‐laden approach to defining or measuring social capital. Lakisha trusts her community, even though she recognizes that someone from the outside would view her housing complex from a

163

different perspective. Her strong bonding social capital creates trust and allows Lakisha to feel safe whereas Anita does not trust a black family in her neighborhood, a family she sees as not conforming to her community’s standards of behavior.

The next case study explores another theme of this research. Ben’s story highlights the social benefits of community gardening and illustrates the important role the garden itself plays in the creation of social networks and friendships among community gardeners.

BEN

THE SOCIAL BENEFITS OF COMMUNITY GARDENING

As the previous chapter noted, one of the major findings of this study is that gardeners frequently described the social aspects of community gardening as beneficial to individual health and to the health of the community. This finding shows the need for an expansion of the definition of health to one that includes a broader understanding of well being for both individuals and communities. Ben is a garden leader from the first phase of research. His experiences as garden leader in his neighborhood provides an insightful perspective on the importance of the garden to the community and the ways in which the garden helps neighbors to connect, and therefore ‘produce’ social capital.

“People talk to each other once they get to, get comfortable, and for some reason people get comfortable when they sitting around the vegetable garden.”

Ben is a 62 year‐old African American garden leader from the city’s southeast side. In many ways, his description of the meaning of the garden, not only to the participants, but to the community as whole, exemplifies the importance of this shared

164

community space. Like so many of the older African American gardeners in this study,

Ben was born in the south, Birmingham Alabama, at “a hospital for Negro people,” he noted. His garden was started by the street club, of which he is a committed member.

On a sunny summer day, Ben and I sat in his garden, only two blocks from his house, and talked about the garden and the neighborhood for several hours. Ben was candid and genuinely interested in helping me to understand what he thinks the garden means to the community.

Having never heard of social capital, the definition he offered was “Fidel Castro,” with a laugh. When I asked him about social networks in an out of the garden, he said,

You at least know the individual through the garden. Now whether or not you are going to socialize with that person on a regular basis, going out to the clubs, a party, what have you, that would be a different entity, but the conversation basically is around what is taking place in your neighborhood. It brings about people to express an interest of concern or openness about problems they are having, and you share those problems. And for instance, there’s a lady on [name] street, she has a daughter who is confined to a wheelchair that prevents her from having access, uh, to go out because she’s at home all the time so I take her vegetables, we sit on the porch and we talk and if she needs something done around the house I might do it. I would have never done that if she didn’t join the street club, I would’ve never known it. Not only that, she would’ve never told me about her problem with her daughter because I didn’t belong to her family, I wasn’t someone she would confide in. People talk to each other once they get to, get comfortable, and for some reason people get comfortable when they sitting around the vegetable garden.

Ben goes on to point to all the surrounding houses, to people walking down the

street, and to businesses nearby, explaining their connections to the garden, saying

that he would never have known any of them, or anything about them, if not for the

garden. He starts,

The guy next door, Bob, and I would’ve never known him, and like I said, I’ve been here for 20 years… And all these years I’ve been walking through

165

this neighborhood, seeing that man in his yard. Never had a conversation with him ‘till I started participating in this garden.

He describes the women who stop by the garden to “blow off steam” and vent about

problems they are having with the men in their lives. He also describes two women

who used to get off the same bus after work, but walk home on separate sides of the

streets to their respective houses, until they met each other in the garden. Now,

when those two women get off the bus, they are still talking, walking down the same

side of the street together, until they reach their homes. He tells me another story of

a man from the neighborhood who brings his elderly mother to the garden:

A man, I don’t even know his name, he came by here a couple of times, offered to pay me for something, what was he wanting, tomatoes or peppers or something. Anyways I wouldn’t take no money. His mother last year was 82 years old, she was in a nursing home. He brought her by here because she had an urge to see an actual garden again, again, because she could remember when she was growing up down south, but she couldn’t remember yesterday, you know what I’m saying? There’s something wrong with her, whatever you call it. But we let her walk through, we let her, pick her tomatoes, gave her a couple peppers, you know, we gave her a cabbage, but he held it, she couldn’t hold it. I promised him that if she were here this year, that I wanted him to bring her down here. So, I don’t know what nursing home she’s in, I don’t know what area he’s from, but it’s that type of thing that makes it worthwhile.

While we were sitting in the garden, a woman from the neighborhood, who was not a part of the garden, walked by and asked if it she could borrow a rake to use in her own front yard. Ben tells her “yes, of course,” and to come by on her way back to get it.

Then he turns to me and explains:

She has cancer, I don’ t know her name, the only conversations we have are here. And she’s getting treatment for it. That’s that communication you were talking about. I don’t know where that woman is, I don’t know who that man is. But she’s got kids. She can use the tools. 4 or 5 years ago she wouldn’t have said hello. But because I’m behind this fence, there’s vegetables in the garden...you are allowed, you are allowed! It is permissible because of the vegetable garden. It’s permissible to be kind, to

166

show generosity. It’s permissible because of this garden. If I was mowing my lawn, she would not have said a word, not one word. She’d walked up and down this street and never say hello. But it’s permissible with the garden here, see. It’s okay. I can talk to him. That’s how come I know she got cancer. It’s something I wouldn’t tell you, maybe I would, I don’t know, but I do know she has cancer. I never asked her her name, I never got around to it, but... And she may never come back to get a rake, but...

Ben’s descriptions of the social networks that have been created because of the community garden demonstrate the critical role the garden plays in facilitating these connections. The presence of the garden allowed for conversations that would not have taken place. He explains how people felt comfortable sharing what would often be considered highly personal information about struggles and burdens within families; there was something about having this shared space that allowed for this. This is because the garden helps to create trust. For Ben, trust is the most important thing in a community.

I have to [trust]. I don’t give that a second thought. ‘Cause see if I didn’t, it wouldn’t be here. There are enough, I want to keep emphasizing the kids. Teenagers walking up and down these streets with nothing else to do but come in here and vandalize this.

He points to a beautiful mural painted on a wall that forms one side of the garden. He then points to some houses with boarded up windows and graffiti. He then explains how easy it would be for the kids in the neighborhood to jump over the fence and vandalize that wall or the garden itself. He then says,

That’s the point I’m stressing as far as trust…There are no cameras up here…It’s not a trust the gardeners, it’s not even about trusting the gardeners, it’s about the neighborhood. Trusting the entire neighborhood because it has to have an unseen relationship to the community because there’s an unseen relationship to the entire community. When these tomatoes are up and growing, who’s to stop somebody from taking them. But there will be people coming by saying “I’d love to have some green tomatoes, I love them.” When they come back by I have ‘em packed. You ready for them tomatoes?”… But that’s what I’m saying, you don’t

167

know who you don’t and who you do trust, but you know there has to be general sense of trust. There’s some bad kids around here now, they’re not bad, they just mischief, be looking for something to get into. But they’ve never jumped this fence, never since day one.

He highlights the ways in which the garden helps youth in the community to take ownership. This in turn is good for the neighborhood that fears the unruly behaviors of teenagers. The children that participate in the garden are creating roots in the community that their parents may not have. He explains:

But it’s fascinating that this type of interaction could come about, you wouldn’t even believe it. You’d have to experience it to know it. Kids that you would think were people out selling, even if they selling drugs, they got time to talk to you and then, you know. They don’t mind showing respect after going through this type of situation, they really don’t. Their whole attitude changed and that’s basically what it’s about, especially about. Because now you looking at the next generation in your neighborhood. People may move into the neighborhood on a temporary basis, “I’m not going to be there long, I’m just renting a house.” But you give those kids of theirs two summers in the garden and the kid has roots. Now he’s doing something outside of the house. He’s doing something that says “I want to be there.” So his momma decides to move 5 blocks away, the kid will walk back, he’ll come back every time.

For Ben, and many other gardeners in this research, the social support and trust created from the networks fostered in the garden translate into a community‐wide phenomenon. It creates a sense of safety that allows people to feel comfortable living in their communities:

It creates an atmosphere of “lets live.” I’m not afraid to walk around, I’m not afraid to be out at night, I’m not afraid to sit on my porch. I walk my dog at 2 in the morning. That type, because I’m not afraid of somebody doing something to me because whether I know them or not, they know me. So it brings a living, it’s the living.

Later he goes on to finish our interview by explaining to me just why this is important:

And that’s what’s happening. That’s that living thing that’s coming back. And it’s getting contagious, it’s just growing and growing and growing and that makes me want to stay, I don’t think about going to Alabama, my dad

168

left me some land down there, do you understand what I’m saying? People take an interest and when people have a stake in where they are, that sense of investment becomes real strong, especially in people that live a majority of their lives knowing they don’t have anything to live for, in the area or neighborhood where they live...it’s not so much they can’t go to school or they didn’t get any opportunity, they do, they do, but the neighborhood offers an opportunity they’re not aware of, that they never experienced before. Somebody’s saying “hello,” somebody’s cutting the grass, somebody’s telling you this or that, and you don’t have this or that before, that’s something that makes a person change in the way they think and their outlook on life changes all of that, changes all of that. It’s tearing down that barrier, that was once established, where you don’t tell, you don’t talk, you don’t do this, you don’t go to the police. That’s gone, that’s the change because people are looking out for themselves. They learn that inter community where people are living, they also police themselves. I don’t need the police to tell you your son’s doing something wrong. You know and I know it too.

Ben views the garden as a respected and valued place for a community, something that facilitates a “contagious” atmosphere of community ownership, which to him, can transform lives. Ben’s interview demonstrates how the benefits of community gardening take place at the community level by breaking down existing barriers to create trust. The data illustrate that the relationships fostered are dependent upon the garden as a common and shared activity. But what Ben’s story demonstrates is that trust as an indicator of social capital allows for the manifestation of social capital beyond the garden. If social capital is locally defined predominantly by trust, then it does not matter if gardeners socialize with other gardeners outside the garden; if you have trust in them and in the community, then you are building social capital.

169

IRIS

INDIVIDUAL BENEFITS OF COMMUNITY GARDENS AND PSYCHOSOCIAL MEASURES OF SOCIAL CAPITAL

Whereas Ben’s perspective helps illustrate the community benefits of gardens and importance of shared social space, Iris’ story highlights the benefits to the individual gardener. In developing a local and contextual definition of social capital, it is important to consider both structural approaches to looking at issues of race, class and gender (as was seen in Anita and Lakisha’s stories), but also the cognitive approaches that seek to understand how feelings and perceptions of community life, social support and trust impact health. While this research found that African

Americans use Christian religious language to talk about these ideas around community gardening and the components of social capital, Caucasian women frequently used spiritual and therapeutic language to discuss the benefits of community gardening. A local definition must take into account these cultural dimensions of social capital; therefore if social capital is locally defined as the connections between people that create trust, there must be a recognition of the differences between black and white gardeners in how they talked about trust while placing it in the broader political economic context that gives race, class and gender meaning in a given setting.

“That garden saved my life.”

Iris is a 61 year‐old white woman who lives in a west‐side neighborhood. She identifies herself as a product of the sixties [1960s], a genuinely service‐oriented person who has always wanted to do good for the community. She has lived in this home with her husband for 31 years. Iris describes her community as “changing” and

170

“intransition,” but also “dirty and polluted.” “We’re cutoff. We’re isolated,” she explains.

“We’re not part of any one neighborhood. I think we’ve been forgotten.”

Iris has lost her son. She tells me how they thought he just had a cold. Then one evening, David came out of his room in the house he had lived in his whole life with his parents and collapsed in his mother’s arms. Iris tells me this story as we walk through the garden. It was a bitter cold day in February, and the ground was brown and still frozen, though not covered in snow. The garden is closed for the winter, and the plots have been cleaned up. Iris’ plot is by far the neatest, something she tells me later that she takes great pride in. “This garden is a memorial to my son,” she says with a sad smile.

Iris taught in the Cleveland public schools for 20 years before she became too

“burned out.” Her real passion is music. She tells me, “I’m a harpist with no harp,” and she said she would love to find a job where she can play music. During the several hours

I spent with Iris is the community’s library, I learn that the issue of her husband was a touchy one; whenever he came up, Iris would change the subject saying, “I’m not going to talk about him.” In fact, when I arrived at her house for the interview, she said we should go somewhere else because her husband is not well. When I pressed about what was wrong with him, she told me he just sleeps all day and stays up all night and has been doing so since he quit working six years ago. In many of the things Iris told me about her life with him, I suspected she was abused. At some point, I asked her if she is safe. She replied,

I’ve been with him forty years. I know him. I know him. And he’s not going to bite the hand that feeds him. I’m still worth more alive than dead. We won’t talk about him. He has nothing to do with the garden or anything.

171

Although I was not put at ease by her response, I decided not to press too much on the subject beyond telling her I was available if she needed help.

During the hours spent with Iris, the story of a hard and sometimes tragic life is revealed. She has lost her only son, who was very much a part of her daily life for all his years since he had some minor disabilities. She lives in a home that is in disrepair in a neighborhood devastated by the foreclosure crisis and increasing poverty with a man who may abuse her, if not physically, certainly emotionally. She does not feel safe in her neighborhood and has a hard time trusting anyone, which is understandable given the fact that she was attacked and raped in her own home while her husband and son were at a baseball game. In fact Iris was the only participant in this study to say “no,” she did not trust other gardeners or her neighbors. She lost her mother, the only other relative she had, two years after her son died.

It was during these hard years at an unexpected point that Bev, the garden leader, and some of the other gardeners came into Iris’s life. Iris had a tree in her yard that needed to be taken down; she had been putting it off, and it was a project for her and her son to work on once the weather warmed. The neighborhood, of course, had heard about her loss. Bev and some of the strong men of the garden knocked on Iris’s door and told her how sorry they were to hear about her son and asked if they could help with her tree. Iris, grief‐stricken, was surprised and delighted by their kind gesture.

Iris had always gardened at her home, but like many lots in Cleveland, shade trees covered too much of her yard, so she asked Bev if she could grow tomatoes over in

172

the community garden. She said she knew there were a lot of gardens in the neighborhood,

but I never walked around the corner, I never went over there. I had in common with some of these people. My son was a good kid, and there were all these people selling drugs and carrying on an alternate lifestyle next door, down the street. So I just would get home and go in the house or go in my yard.

The garden is in many ways more meaningful to Iris because of the connection between the garden and the loss of her son. Iris tries to explain just how important is has been to her:

My son died and I really don’t have anything but my garden. It’s strange but this is really kind of a funny story: My first year, we have a neighbor [John] who has one of those rototillers, and he went in and tilled up some of the gardens and mine too, and this was like… in August. And I got really bent out of shape because he tilled up some of my plants I thought might still have some more… I mean I wasn’t yelling or anything, but I went home and I was crying. Well, I had just lost my son so I was out of it. So I said to John, “well you have your grandchildren but all I have is my zucchini!” and I was serious. “It’s all I have, is my zucchini, why did you plow my zucchini!”

Iris tells me that when her son died, everything changed. She explained, “my son died and I stopped playing [music]. I just stopped doing everything.” She went on to tell me,

I think it’s a miracle that I’m alive and the garden saved my life. Period. I would not be here today if it wouldn’t have been for that garden. I really believe that. And several close friends.”

These close friends are those ladies in the garden that she says did not let her die, that did not let her be alone, even when she thought that is what she wanted most of all. She told me she was not “one of these social gardeners.” She liked to go to the garden for solitude, to meditate, to have some place to go that is truly beautiful, a way to

173

get back to nature. She tells me that at first she shunned everyone in the garden and did not want to be a part of it socially. Iris explains:

Over the years, I really came to like some of these people and at first, I just shunned, not shunned…it’s just that I was not able. Bev’s aunt…her aunt and I got to be really friendly. Aunt Edna, she’s 92 now. This little old lady was living with Bev and she used to wander over and she’d be pulling weeds and finding something to be useful. And she’d sit there and she’d chitchat with me, you know, and ah, I still call her. She saved my life. That garden saved my life. She’d come and talk to me. My own mother was so far away from me, but she was always there every single day. And she’d say “oh Iris, how are you today?” and she’s still like that. She’s 92 living on her own. She moved away…I liked her so much. She used to come and talk to me. I couldn’t get away from her and after a while, I just started to look forward to seeing her and talking to her. And over the years, I came to like some of the other gardeners very much.

While Iris’ story may not typify the meaning of the gardens to participants, it provides a way to discuss the less tangible benefits of community gardening. Iris’ story, unlike Ben’s, illustrates the benefits to the individual, rather than the community as a whole. Her interview also speaks to the use of psychosocial measures of social capital in relation to health; Iris came to trust the other gardeners, to open herself up to creating friendships that would help her to heal.

The link amongst these four case studies is the importance of trust. In constructing an emic definition of social capital in this cohort, therefore, the results of this study point to trust as a central feature of this conceptualization. The next chapter discusses this and the other key findings.

174

CHAPTER 9

DISCUSSION: Gardening Together: Social Capital and the Cultivation of Urban Community

DISCUSSION: ANITA AND LAKISHA

RACIAL SEGREGATION AND THE INFLUENCE OF RACE AND CLASS ON SOCIAL CAPITAL

Although previous research has indicated that gardens tend to bring people of different racial backgrounds together in urban areas (Schmelzkopf 1996; Shinew et al

2004), in this study all participants in the east side garden sites were African American and all on the west side were Caucasian. The gardens generally reflect the communities in which they are situated and, therefore, although there are some community gardens in Cleveland that are not racially and ethnically homogeneous, particularly in the near‐ west side communities, for the most part the gardens reflect the racial segregation of the city overall. This reality serves to problematize the often‐indirect goal of many community development and public health programs of promoting diversity and creating connections between dissimilar groups in urban areas; this research has identified the central need to recognize context and place.

Black and white gardeners differed in their views on the influence of race on trust, social networks and community in general. Although the majority of all participants indicated that they were generally trusting of both fellow gardeners

(80.5%) and their neighbors (63.9%), African Americans were slightly more trusting than Caucasians. Eighty‐five percent (85%) of blacks and 75% of whites said they

175

trusted other gardeners and 65% of black gardeners said they trust their neighbors compared to 62.5% of whites.

Many participants feel that race does shape those components of social capital explored in this research. White gardeners were more likely to say that race influenced who is a part of their social networks than blacks (75% of whites compared to 55% of blacks). Whites were also more likely than blacks to say race influences whom they trust (62.5% of whites compared to 40% of blacks). Likewise, 62.5% of white gardeners said that race influences their overall view of community and connections between people compared to 36% of black gardeners who said that it does.

Anita and Lakisha provide two different perspectives on race and class in relation to the features of social capital examined in this study, but both highlight the role that one’s background has in framing these perspectives. Anita’s responses in many ways typified the discussions about race with gardeners from Community Garden 1. CG‐

1 gardeners were often very open about their reservations about the neighborhood

“changing” and the role of race and class in these changes. Some were overt in their distrust of non‐white people moving in, others were more subtle. Anita claims to have rejected the prejudices of her family and people still living in the garden neighborhood, yet her descriptions of her own community and “slum culture” reflect perhaps not a

‘racist’ point of view, but in many ways, a ‘classist’ perspective, even if unintentional. As a member of the professional class, she says that she has made it a point to avoid racial stereotypes, but her discussions of the poorer black families that move in reflect biases against them and she perceives their negative behaviors as shaped by their socioeconomic status.

176

In many ways, Lakisha is living a life that Anita might characterize as “slum culture.” She talked openly about preferring to live in public housing, espousing the benefits of the public support offered to residents. She spoke of the violence endemic to the housing projects and how the networks within one public housing complex were distinct from others, something which might be seen as ‘gang’ mentality to outsiders.

Lakisha describes being content with her community as a black community, saying she would not want to fight to be somewhere where she is not welcome. For her, life is easier among people like herself, who will watch out for her and her property.

Lakisha, rather than being typical of CG‐3 gardeners, stands out in her unique discussion of race and social networks in communities. Her story offers insight into the complicated nature of social networks and illustrates how perceptions of community, and race, differ for people from different backgrounds. Lakisha, as an insider, views her strong social networks as protective and beneficial. Often social networks in housing projects are viewed as pathological and negative (Greenbaum 2002). But anthropological studies of poor communities have demonstrated that the kin and non‐ kin networks are often the most important assets to impoverished people and provide a buffer against the harmful effects of institutional racism and economic inequalities

(Stack 1974; Stack and Burton 1993).

These two case studies evoke the debates around the culture of poverty. Anita’s discussion of “slum culture,” which she says is not about race, is reminiscent of both

Lewis’ (1966) “culture of poverty” and Wilson’s (1978, 1987) notion of the

“underclass.” Lewis’ (1966) work explored cultural explanations for intergenerational poverty and described a persistent “subculture” that developed to adapt to

177

impoverished conditions. Wilson (1978) argued that class and the lack of economic opportunity, more than race, limited the opportunities for the predominantly black populations who have become largely isolated in inner city communities.

Lakisha’s story also very concretely brings to mind Greenbaum’s (2002) work on the HOPE VI program, which Lakisha mentions by name. The HOPE VI project, as has been described, has been aimed at moving residents out of dilapidated public housing structures into mixed income housing. HOPE VI is based largely on Wilson’s (1978,

1987) work and sociological explanations for poverty, which argue that exposure to the social conditions in housing projects cause unhealthy survival strategies and diminished chances for personal success. Greenbaum (2002) argues that in these models, “the social relationships, institutions, family values, customs, habits, practices, arrangements and aspirations residing in these places are taken to be both damaged and damaging” (12). If the social capital in public housing is seen as a negative resource, then the perceived appropriate policy is to eliminate it (Greenbaum 2002). Relocation of residents is based on the idea that residents should be exposed to middle class ways of life as something to “model.” As Greenbaum (2002) has found in her work, this program undermines the social networks created in public housing communities, which are often viewed on the outside as delinquent.

As in Greenbaum’s (2002) work, Lakisha describes very strong social networks that are valuable to her. Lakisha’s interview illustrates the complicated nature of social capital and exemplifies the debate in the literature around ‘good’ versus ‘bad’ social capital. Lakisha’s description of the housing projects and her views about race in her community support discussions in the literature on “bonding,” “bridging,” and “linking”

178

social capital (Putnam 2000; Szreter 2000). The strong networks within the apartment complex are examples of bonding social capital. She describes how important these relationships are. In an environment where violence is a common occurrence, she feels safe because she is ‘an insider,’ a member of a social network that routinely punishes those who are not in this network for visiting their community.

This is reminiscent of the idea of collective efficacy in relation to social capital and the role that it plays in shaping the experiences of living in impoverished communities (Sampson 2004; Sampson et al 1997, 2005). Sampson and colleague’s

(1997) work on collective efficacy found that residential stability is an important contributor to collective efficacy, which is defined as social cohesion among community members coupled with a willingness to act on behalf of the collective good. Increased levels of collective efficacy resulted in lower levels of interpersonal crime. In turn, the effects of concentrated poverty and residential instability are mediated by collective efficacy, (Sampson et al 1997, 2005). Therefore, the stability and trust created in public housing that is eliminated through HOPE VI programs and often the target of criticism as “bad” or “negative social capital” has been found to be measurably beneficial to residents. This challenges the assumption that this form of social capital is less valuable than social capital in other settings.

Lakisha is describing strong bonding social capital, but seemingly weak bridging capital. It is interesting that she makes a point to tell me that living in this public housing complex is her choice, “I am not living there because I have to live there, I just want a clarify that. If I wanted to move out to the heights or the suburbs, I really can.” It is interesting because this seems to be evidence that she perceives herself as having

179

strong bridging, or even linking social capital, where she has access to the resources to get out of public housing. Granovetter’s (1973) work shows that, for low‐income populations, bonding without bridging social capital does little to create economic opportunities. But if Lakisha has access to the resources needed to move out of her community, which by definition as a public housing complex is designed to be temporary, but chooses not to, it provides an interesting challenge to the idea that social capital is about access to material resources. If she ‘possesses’ bridging or linking social capital, but chooses not to utilize it, what does that mean?

Some might interpret this as evidence of a “culture” of inner city life. But rather than talking about a ‘culture of poverty,’ or ‘underclass,’ this research supports the idea from Lopez and Stack (2001) and Schenider’s (2006) work that calls for an understanding of the role of Bourdieu’s cultural capital when talking about social capital (Bourdieu and Wacquant 1992; Bourdieu 1997). There is a need to understand both race and culture, without reducing one to another, as so often happens in work on urban poverty (Small and Newman 2001). As Small and Newman (2001) point out, there has been an ongoing debate about whether or not there is a homogenous, inner city culture to speak of. These case studies show that in many ways, the argument is moot; whether there is one or not, there is often a perception of one from the outside.

Anita, while not specifically talking about Lakisha, describes what can be thought of as a lack of cultural capital among some African Americans who move from the inner city to suburban communities, only to find that they are not viewed as being compliant with the norms and values of that community (Bourdieu and Wacquant 1992; Bourdieu,

1997; Lopez and Stack 2001). Lakisha tried living in a suburban community but

180

explained that she felt less safe there. While she may have had the economic capital, or even the social capital, she may have lacked the cultural capital that provided her with guidelines for living in a community that was so different than what she was accustomed to.

This points to the critiques in the literature on social capital that argue that the

‘value’ is dependent upon where one is in the system (Durenberger 2002; Navarro

2004b). Cultural capital is useful for this because it is used as a way to describe how some cultural attributes are valued while others are simultaneously devalued. As has been argued in the literature, the overall power structure as it relates to the reproduction of social inequality needs to be considered when talking about social capital. This serves not only to understand how low‐income people of color fit into this system, but also how the perception of low‐income people of color is produced and reproduced and what this means for people at all socioeconomic levels (Bourdieu and

Wacquant 1992; Bourdieu 1997;).

Dressler’s (1985, 1993, 2004) work is useful for linking these ideas around social capital to health. His works has focused on the corporeal manifestations of racism based on skin color in the form of high blood pressure and the role that social support plays in mediating health problems. Dressler (1993) shows that socioeconomic explanations do not account for racial and ethnic disparities in health because black

Americans do not have the same experience with socioeconomic mobility as white

Americans. This is one possible reason why controlling for socioeconomic indicators does not remove the differences observed between blacks and whites on most measures of health status (Dressler 1993; Dressler and Bindon 2000).

181

Dressler and colleagues have developed a methodological approach to measuring cultural consonance (Dressler et al 2005). By first using cultural consensus and domain analysis to develop shared cultural models of social support and lifestyles, this cultural consonance model avoids using etic perspectives on what constitutes culture in a given setting. This same methodology could be applied to the development of a culturally contextualized and appropriate measurement of social capital, defined as connections that create trust. That is, an assessment tool rooted in cultural understandings of trust and placed in the broader political economic context that measures perceptions of trust and the role trust plays in community connections can be developed. Before exploring this idea more closely, the stories presented by Ben and

Iris will be discussed in relation to key findings of this research to look more closely at the link between social capital and health and the role the garden plays in this link.

DISCUSSION: BEN AND IRIS

COMMUNITY GARDENS: SOCIAL CAPITAL, SPACE, AND HEALTH

Nearly all participants in this study said that they considered other gardeners to be friends, or at least acquaintances. Yet these relationships are almost completely dependent upon the garden because most gardeners only socialized with each other in the garden or at garden‐related activities. Community gardens represent the creation of shared community space to foster relationships that might not have developed if not for this common neighborhood activity. Through the ethnographic observation and interviews, it became clear that there were salient differences between garden sites in terms of the prominence of the garden in participants’ social life.

182

Anita, like several of the CG‐1 gardeners interviewed, no longer lives in the garden community. CG‐1 is very large and many gardeners came from other communities and suburbs to garden there. CG‐2 is very small, and the gardeners are largely from the garden neighborhood. Both west side gardens were not gated, but I rarely saw people gardening when I would visit at random. On the east side, CG‐3 had a gate, but it was open from morning until evening, and people from the neighborhood were in and out of the garden all day. No matter what day or time I visited CG‐3, I always found people there, gardening, or just socializing in the shade. As noted, Lakisha did not live in the immediate neighborhood of CG‐3, but she lived nearby and often found herself socializing with the older gardeners who were ever‐present. In contrast,

CG‐4 was gated and locked. Only gardeners who had been members for two or more years received a key for access. Most times I visited, there would only be one or two people there at a time.

It seems reasonable to assume that the varying levels of openness shaped how social capital is defined and experienced. CG‐3 gardeners were most likely to talk about loving other gardeners. For many of them, the garden is a central part of their everyday lives; they get up and go to the garden. This is in contrast to CG‐1 where participants stopped by the garden after work to water, or spoke about trying to find time to tend to their plots. Despite the range of experiences and varying degrees of interactions, most gardeners found the social aspects of community gardening to be beneficial and rewarding. Ben and Iris’ stories both show how these often‐unexpected relationships that develop because of the garden are valuable to both individuals and the community as a whole.

183

Analysis from this research indicates that the majority of participants (86%) regardless of race or gender, believe that community gardens are a good way to make connections in communities (N=31). This finding is exemplified in Ben’s story, which supports previous research on the ways in which community gardens create social capital. As was discussed in Chapter 4, research has explored physical health benefits of community gardening, but also the less tangible individual community benefits

(Armstrong 2000; Glover 2004; Glover et al 2005 a,b; Hancock 2001; Landman 1993;

Schmelzkopf 1996; Wakefield et al 2007). As in Hancock’s (2001) work, Ben describes his garden as a valued community space, a symbolic focus for the neighborhood, something he describes as creating pride and ownership, particularly among the youth.

Several garden leaders indicated the value of working with children in the neighborhood through the community garden (N=7 of 23) identifying this as one of the greatest benefits of community gardening (Table 7.23). Likewise, this garden, and most others in this study, was started by committed community members interested in investing in their neighborhood. As was found in Armstrong’s (2000) study, Ben said that his involvement in the garden made him feel safe in his neighborhood. These results also support previous research of how gardens create networks and provide a source of empowerment, particularly in low‐income neighborhoods (Alaimo 2010;

Armstrong 2000; Kingsley and Townsend 2006; Glover 2004; Glover et al 2005 a,b).

As previously noted, a major finding is that nearly all of the gardeners in this research said that they considered other gardeners to be friends, yet very few saw each other outside of the garden. This in contrast to Landman’s (1993) work that found that the friendships created in the gardens continued throughout the year and seeped into

184

other areas of community life. Glover (2004) argues that it is not the garden itself that creates social capital, but rather the social networks that result from participation in the garden. For Glover (2004), social capital is defined as the resources embedded in social connections, therefore one’s network creates access to resources. For Glover, this is social capital.

The results of this study suggest that whether or not the garden creates social networks, the garden itself may be of value to not only the individual gardeners, but to the broader community. As was seen in Ben’s case, the garden created conversations in the community even among non‐gardeners. His story and many others point to the prominence of trust in an emic definition of social capital. If the relationships are dependent upon the garden, then the networks are not necessarily as important as the trust that the connections create. Recent research on social capital has also noted the importance of trust, finding that it was the domain of social capital that most clearly related to measures of health (Chappell and Funk 2010).

The gardens become community assets that have meaning in their communities and trust appears to be an underlying factor of this meaning. There is trust between gardeners, and trust between the gardeners and the broader neighborhood. If a garden is gated and locked, this may tell the community that surrounds the garden that they cannot be trusted to respect the garden. If it is open, this may allow for a feeling of trust in the community and both members and nonmembers may view the garden as a shared community space, something of which they can take ownership. Given the differences in functioning between garden sites that emerged in this research, it is

185

important to consider variations in gardens and the role that context plays in these ideas around social capital.

Ben’s story and the data from this research suggest that there may be something about a garden as a common community space that helps to breaks down barriers between people in a neighborhood and create trust. Of course, this study is limited in only obtaining the perspectives of gardeners, but Ben’s story offered some insight into how the garden might be beneficial to the whole neighborhood. He talked about the garden providing a space where people felt comfortable talking to one another or sharing, saying, “It's permissible to be kind, to show generosity. It's permissible because of this garden.” He said that the woman would have never stopped to ask to borrow a rake if he had been in his own yard, mowing the lawn.

Through both Iris and Ben’s stories, it becomes clear that even if the relationships and friendships that develop are only acted upon in the garden, this is enough for creating important social interactions and trust that have meaning both to individuals and community members. For Ben and other gardeners, gardens offer a way to connect to others and keep from being isolated. In the questions surrounding the benefits of community gardening, reasons for gardening, and the meaning of the garden, most responses captured the importance of the social aspects of community gardening (Tables 7.22, 7.23, 7.24, 7.25). Like Ben, many gardeners value the interactions between people and feel it is important to know what is going on in one’s own community (Table 7.26).

Another finding of this research is that gardeners’ views on the relationship between the elements of social capital, community gardening and health allows for an

186

expansion of the definition of health beyond physical outcomes and absence of disease to include a broader understanding of individual and community well being. Iris perceives a very direct connection between her health and well being and the garden.

The friendships she made with those few ladies that talked to her everyday as they planted and weeded was enough to help her survive one of the most unimaginably painful ordeals in life. She was able to find strength and healing because those women cared and provided support when she had no one else. It is important not to romanticize these relationships or impose more meaning to them than is warranted. In

Iris’s case, however, these relationships were exceedingly important.

Iris’ story exemplifies why it is so difficult to assess the health benefits that can be attributed to social capital and illustrates the need to think about health more broadly. In this research, gardeners talked about the garden providing something to do, which was seen as important particularly for older, retired adults who may not have as many opportunities for social interaction. Like Iris, gardeners also talked about the therapeutic and healing benefits to community gardening; white women in particular used spiritual and therapeutic language. When asked about how the components of social capital links to health, gardeners said that it helps them to feel better and that it keeps them from feeling isolated (Table 7.25).

The local definition of social capital among community gardeners that emerged in this study supports cognitive approaches that utilize psychosocial measures of social capital in relation to health. These measures focus more on the meaning and feelings surrounding trust and social support (Harpham 2008). Given the discussions on the importance of race and class in shaping these components of social capital, it is

187

important to also consider the measures of structural social capital. This research focused on one formulation of social capital, based largely in Putnam’s (1995, 2000) work. As such, it did not assess structural social capital in terms of access to resources within social networks. More recent work on social capital and health consider both types while also recognizing the need to differentiate structural from cognitive measures because they relate differently to health outcomes (Harpham 2008; Kawachi et al 2008; Kim et al 2008). Harpham (2008) argues that social networks need to be looked at in terms of the presence and intensity of informal and formal networks and also in terms of the perceived support they provide. The gardeners talked less about the networks as providing access to resources and more about the social support they provided.

TOWARD A LOCAL AND CONTEXTUALIZED DEFINITION OF SOCIAL CAPITAL

In this exploration of social networks, trust and community engagement as components of social capital, trust emerges as a salient indicator of social capital. Social capital among Cleveland community gardeners, therefore, can be defined most simply as the connections between people that build trust and overcome perceived existing barriers. In this study the perceived barriers to trust included perceptions of race and class, as people from different backgrounds defined and experienced these elements of social capital differently. The findings also point to the need to include understandings of culture when thinking about trust as an indicator of social capital.

As noted above, African American and Caucasian gardeners differed in their perspectives on the role of race in social networks, trust, and community in general.

188

Likewise there were differences in the ways blacks and whites defined trust and community engagement. Most notably, many of the results illustrated the importance of

Christian faith among African American participants.

The prominence of the church in black communities has been well documented

(Barnes 2005; Billingsley 1968; Dressler and Bindon 2000; Du Bois 2003[1903];

Pattillo‐McCoy 1998; Taylor et al 2005). What seems particularly relevant in this research is the use of religious language to talk about community engagement, social networks and trust. Black gardeners most often said they turned to God or Jesus first when they have problems; if not God, a pastor or other members of their church. They used religious language to define trust as “your word is your bond” or as having faith and obeying God. Their social lives were connected to their church as discussions of social networks and other community activities were often entwined with their congregations.

Black gardeners described community engagement as concern for each other, often using biblical language to refer to taking care of one another. I learned early on not to try and recruit many people on Sundays as this was the Lords’ day, not a day to work in the garden. When black gardeners were asked about the meaning of the garden,

I often heard about the miracle of watching things grow, how you can put one seed into

God’s green earth and get a whole plant which will nourish and feed you. My fieldwork experience consisted of praying with gardeners, talking about faith, and discussing the links between having faith and being healthy. The use of religious language to talk about these elements of social capital was scattered throughout the conversations with black

189

gardeners, so no one story exemplifies this finding. Rather, it emerged as an overall theme that ran through the interviews with African Americans.

Spradley (1979) describes culture as, “the acquired knowledge that people use to interpret their experience and generate social behavior” (5). If culture can be thought of as shared knowledge that shapes meaning and experiences, then Christian faith is very much a part of the culture of the predominantly older, African American gardeners that were interviewed for this research. It shapes their experiences with each other and with the community as a whole.

In adding an understanding of culture to social capital, the local and contextualized definition of social capital in these African American gardening communities must consider the ways in which the church, not only as a social institution, but as a faith and worldview, shapes experiences of community. In developing ways to assess social capital locally, measures of trust among African

American community gardeners must consider the salience of Christian faith and the use of religious language. In Dressler’ work, the church was determined to be one of the most important social institutions in the black community (Dressler and Bindon 2000).

Participation in the church was one measure of cultural consonance, with leadership positions in the church seen as demonstrating a particularly successful life (Dressler and Bindon 2000).

Notably, this research found that both black and white gardeners, religious and non‐religious, felt that religion played a role in shaping components of social capital.

Rather than using language rooted in Christian faith, however, many white female gardeners used spiritual language to talk about community gardens. In describing the

190

meaning of the gardens, women said that they found the garden to be peaceful, relaxing place, and that the natural beauty and working with the earth was important to them.

They also used spiritual and therapeutic language to talk about the links between social capital and health, referring to the ways in which it can promote healing and the human need for meaningful connections to each other.

Among both black and white participants, community engagement was discussed in ways that differ markedly from Putnam’s (2000) formulation of social capital and civic engagement that looked at such measures as voter data, newspaper readership and PTA involvement. Gardeners said that community festivities, block or street clubs, and volunteering constituted community participation. But they also offered less tangible components such as being informed of what is going on in the neighborhood, getting to know the neighbors, and genuinely caring about the community. Gardeners also defined community engagement as being a good neighbor by taking care of your property and cleaning up the community.

This is reminiscent of Newman’s (2001) work on caregiving that found that among the Dominican, African American and Puerto Rican residents she interviewed, social responsibility was first and foremost about taking care of one’s own. She found that traditional measures of social capital that looked at participation in formal institutions overlooked local perceptions of what being a good community member means. These notions of social capital included being a good neighbor and raising one’s children well (Newman 2001).

Somewhat surprising in this research is the lack of variability in responses between men and women. Except for the abovementioned use of spiritual language

191

among white women, most themes in the responses were evenly distributed among males and females. Among black and white participants, only 25% felt that gender influenced social networks and 27.8% said gender influenced whom they trust. While the data do not provide clear insight into why this might be, perhaps community gardens offer an even ground for men and women and that the role of gardener is not as gendered as other roles in our society. It would be interesting to investigate if gender differences in perceptions of social capital exist outside of the garden context.

Mullings’ (2001) concept of transformative work has been discussed. In many ways, the work of creating continuity in communities, which is gendered and often devalued, is the work of producing social capital as it has been described in this study.

Although the effect of gender is not reflected in the responses in a meaningful way, through fieldwork I was able to see the transformative work in Community Garden 3 neighborhood in particular. The older women of CG‐3 often bring their grandchildren with them to the garden, because they are the primary caretakers for these children.

Mrs. Williams, the informal garden leader in CG‐3, has a disabled adult daughter that needs full time care. The women gardeners in this community are the lunch ladies and school counselors at the nearby elementary school, who nurture and guide the children of the neighborhood. These women are the eyes and ears of the community, knowing everyone’s business and keeping the neighbors “in line”. This is arguably one of the most important kinds of social capital as it helps to create a feeling of security in a community. Future research outside of a garden setting might explore ‘transformative work’ as social capital.

192

This discussion illustrates the ways in which social capital must be understood as a nuanced and contextual concept. What has emerged from this dissertation research is a definition of social capital that considers the importance of race, class and religion in shaping trust, social networks and community engagement. The final chapter will provide a brief summary of what the findings of this research have uncovered about social capital among community gardeners and the use of this term for understanding health disparities.

193

CHAPTER 10

CONCLUSIONS: COMMUNITY CONNECTIONS THAT CREATE TRUST: AN EMIC DEFINITION OF SOCIAL CAPITAL

This dissertation set out to examine social capital as a contested concept with the objective to develop a conceptualization based in local experiences of community gardeners that considers the roles of race, class, and gender in shaping these experiences and perceptions. The findings of this research suggest that social capital, operationalized as social networks, trust and community engagement, is shaped by race, religion, and class, but not gender in this sample. Although few gardeners had heard the term ‘social capital,’ these three elements emerged in this research as important to communities. The definitions of these elements offered by gardeners differ from Putnam’s (1995, 2000) formulation in meaningful ways, as discussed above.

Additionally, this research supports the utility of using a cognitive approach to measuring social capital. Trust appears to be the most important element of social capital as it is the underlying feature of the key findings. From this research, social capital can be defined contextually as the connections that create trust and overcome existing barriers. This trust, however, is less like Putnam’s (1995, 2000) generalized social trust and more like Coleman’s (1988, 1990) view of trust as dependent upon the context and function of social relationships.

The findings of this study suggest that the ideas underlying social capital are important and therefore the term ‘social capital’ has heuristic utility for researchers interested in understanding the importance of community connections. Further, a

194

locally defined conceptualization of social capital can be a promising means to explore the links between community features and health. The social aspects of community gardening are described as valued and important by gardeners and they state the connection between these social benefits and their health, indicating that community gardening provides healing and prevents isolation. In this respect, this research points to the need to expand definitions of health to include the broader social well being.

Similar to the work of others who have taken up the concept of social capital, I have found that Bourdieu’s (1997) understanding of the relationship between social, cultural and economic capital is useful for exploring culture as it relates to the production and reproduction of social inequality. Cultural capital in particular is useful for examining the ways in which perceptions of the role of race and class in community challenge the facilitation of trust. Further, although this study only explored social capital as outlined by Putnam (1995, 2000), the results support the idea that both cognitive and structural models of social capital ought to be considered when looking at social capital as it relates to health. That is, one must look at individual‐level psychosocial measures of social support and trust, while placing these measures and outcomes within the socioeconomic structures in which they are situated. Concepts of bonding, bridging, and linking social capital may be useful, but must be defined based on the local realities of existing social networks. In this research, the social networks of the gardens reflect the racial segregation of the city as whole. This challenges previous work that presumes that community gardens bring people from different backgrounds together; thus this research identifies the need to make place and context central to analyses of social capital.

195

Among the community gardeners in this sample, friendships and connections created in the garden are meaningful, even if they are dependent upon the garden itself.

Trust is also viewed as important and most gardeners are trusting of each other and their neighbors. Trust is frequently defined in terms of dependability, but African

American gardeners also use religious language to talk about trust and community engagement. White women used spiritual language to discuss the meaning of the gardens. Participation in one’s community is not participation in the formal institutions about which Putnam (1995, 2000) wrote, but rather is about taking care of one another and having a concern for one’s community. Community gardens are important sites for creating community connections that gardeners feel they are beneficial to their health.

Because this research found that the garden itself plays a vital role in shaping these perspectives and creating community connections, it is important to consider both individual and community‐level measurements of social capital.

The emic conceptualization of social capital as connections that create trust, must be grounded in local culture as well as power structures that give meaning to race, class and gender. Given the findings of this research, it seems that, if social capital is to be useful for understanding health inequalities, a local and contextual definition of social capital must be utilized. As in Dressler’s use of cultural consonance as means to understand racial and ethnic health disparities, a measurement of social capital grounded in local cultural models is of vital importance to efforts to explain social determinants of health. Definitive claims about how best to measure social capital in relation to health inequities in Cleveland neighborhoods cannot be made from this

196

exploratory project. However, these results suggests a valuable starting point for efforts to create a measurement tool that may be useful for doing so.

In future research, a concerted effort to develop an appropriate measure of social capital could be developed using insight from the literature and these research findings. This measure can then be used to see whether social capital, or the lack of it, accounts for observed racial disparities in health outcomes. The conceptualization of social capital developed in this research is limited by the fact that only gardeners participated in the study. Ideally, the perspectives on social capital of community gardeners can be compared with non‐gardeners in the neighborhood to explore differences and similarities. This could result in a community‐wide definition of social capital and concomitant measuring tool that may be useful for exploring neighborhood effects on health.

This study is also limited by a small sample size and by a lack of racial and ethnic variability beyond black and white, thus not including other ethnic and immigrant populations that comprise portions of the city’s population. Additionally, most gardeners are older, therefore this sample is limited to perspectives on social capital from largely older, retired adults.

By exploring the meaning of the garden to the gardeners, this study contributes to an understanding of the cultural aspects of community gardening which highlights the value the gardeners place on the social aspects of a shared activity. In many ways, an exploration of social capital as a concept is an investigation into what anthropologists have long been interested in uncovering, namely the relationship between human social interactions and culture. By exploring this concept, this research

197

contributes to the body of work on urban poverty and urban health that seeks to understand community organization, social structures, the role of race in shaping individual and community perspectives, and the meaning of social support in urban environments.

198

LIST OF APPENDICES

APPENDIX A: Letter of Support from the OSU Extension, Cuyahoga County APPENDIX B: Phase I Garden Leader Interview Tool APPENDIX C: Phase II Gardener Interview Tool APPENDIX D: Informed Consent Documents APPENDIX E: Cleveland Census Profile: 2009 American Community Survey

199

APPENDIX A:

Letter of Support Cuyahoga County Ohio State University Extension Community Gardening Program

Cuyahoga County Extension 9127 Miles Ave Cleveland, OH 44105

Phone (216) 429‐ 8200 Fax (216) 429‐3146

July 26, 2007

Department of Anthropology Case Western Reserve University 10900 Euclid Avenue Cleveland OH 44106‐7125

Dear Colleen Walsh,

This letter is in support of your dissertation research project titled, Social Capital and Urban Community Gardens: Toward an Anthropologically Informed Conceptualization of a Contested Concept. OSU Extension Cuyahoga County can serve as a resource for you during your research. I am happy to assist you with recruitment of participants by helping to put you in contact with garden leaders. You may also have access to the community garden database which includes demographic information on program participants, garden locations, and site specific garden information. We look forward to working with you on this project and will provide support and resources to assist you in any way that we can.

Sincerely,

Morgan Taggart Program Assistant Community Gardening Program

200

APPENDIX B: PHASE I GARDEN LEADER INTERVIEW TOOL

Social Capital and Urban Community Gardens: Toward an Anthropologically Informed Conceptualization of a Contested Concept

Interview Location:______Garden:______Date:______Time begin:______Time end:______

201

PART I: DEMOGRAPHICS

1) ___Male ___Female

2) How old are you?_____

3.) In terms of race or ethnicity, how would you describe yourself?

4.) What was the highest grade level or year you completed in school?

___ 1. Less than high school [IF YES, WHAT GRADE] ___ grade ___ 2. High school graduate or GED ___ 3. Technical or vocational program ___ 4. Two‐year associate degree program ___ 5. Some college ___ 6. Four‐year college graduate ___ 7. Post‐college graduate or professional degree

5.) Can you describe the type of work you do now?

___ No Response

[CHECK ALL THAT APPLY] ___ 1. Stay at Home ___ 2. Unemployed ___ 3. Volunteer in the Community or at Church ___ 4. Retired or Semi‐retired ___ 5. Business Owner ___ 6. Student ___ 7. Professional (for example, teacher, nurse, doctor, lawyer) ___ 8. Clerical (for example, secretary, administrative assistant, receptionist) ___ 9. Retail (for example, clerk, customer service rep.) ___ 10. Technical or Skilled Laborer, Manufacturing ___ 11. Unskilled Laborer ___ 12. Other ______

202

6.) I am going to read possible ranges of household income to you. I know this is a very personal question. But if you could tell me which range best describes your approximate annual household income, it would help me answer my research questions. ___ 1. Less than $15,000 ___ 2. $15,000 to $30,000 ___ 3. $30,000 to $45,000 ___ 4. $45,000 to $60,000 ___ 5. $60,000 to $75,000 ___ 6. $75,000 to $90,000 ___ 7. More than $90,000

7.) Where do you live?

8.) Do you own the home you live in?

9.) How long have you lived there?

10.) How far do you travel to get to the garden?

11.) How do you get there? Do you walk, drive a car, take a bus, etc.?

12.) Where did you live before this residence?

___ Same neighborhood ___ Another neighborhood in Cleveland ___ Another neighborhood in Cuyahoga County ___ Somewhere else in Ohio ___ Another state ___ Another country

Part II: Garden Participation and Background

1) Can you tell me the history of this garden? Probes: How long has this garden been around? How did it get started? Who started it? Why?

2) How long have you been a part of this garden?

203

3) How did you first get started with the garden?

4) How did you become the garden leader?

5) What do you have to do as the garden leader? Probe: What are some of your responsibilities? How much of a commitment has it been?

6) How much time do you spend in the garden? Probes: to work? to socialize?

7) What do you like best about being a part of the community garden?

8) What is most challenging about the community gardens? Probes: Have you had any problems or difficulties?

9) Can you share any stories or experiences in the garden that stand out in your memory?

Part III: Unpacking the Components of Social Capital

I’m now going to ask you some questions that begin to explore this notion of social capital. While there is not one clear definition, social capital is a term used to talk about the potential or actual benefits of belonging to a group or being involved in social activities. For example, you may know someone who might help you get a job somewhere and this would be considered using your “social capital” to help improve your economic situation. In my study, I am trying to understand your experiences of being a part of a community garden and how participating in this and other social activities may mean you have access to ‘social capital.’ At the same time, I want to get your definition and understanding of this concept and what opportunities you might feel you have because of social activities like gardening.

Let me begin by asking:

1) Have you ever heard of the term ‘social capital’?

204

2) What do you think is meant by this term social capital? Probes: What does it mean to you? How do you define it?

While not everyone agrees on the exact definition of this term, most people who use it agree that ‘social networks,’ ‘trust’ and ‘community engagement’ are important features of this concept. As part of my research, I am trying to understand how community gardeners define and experience these three components and what role the gardens might play in people’s perceptions.

‘Social networks’ simply means people you know and interact with, including family, friends, co‐workers, neighbors, but may also include people you don’t know well, but someone you know might know them well.

3) How would you describe social networks within your garden? Probes: Do most gardeners know each other? Do you think of people in your garden as friends? Do any of your relatives participate?

4) Would you say most people know each other outside of the garden, or just as fellow gardeners? Probe: How strong are the friendships amongst the gardeners?

5) Do people hang out with each other outside of the garden?

6) Because the community garden is affected by the changing season in Cleveland, do you think this affects these friendships and social connections? Probes: when the garden is closed in the winter, do gardeners still hang out or get together with each other? Are there activities all year long that people see each other at?

7) What about your social network, what role does the garden play in your social life?

205

Probes: Do you have family members that also participate in the garden? Friends? Neighbors?

8) As the garden leader, do you have connections with community organizations? Probes: organizations like churches, community development organizations, political leaders, or foundations/funders? if so, which ones? In what capacity or in what way? How do they help?

9) With other garden leaders in the city?

10) In your opinion, how do social networks impact overall community well being? Probes: In other words, how important is who you know?

Now let’s turn to the concept of trust.

1) How do you define trust? Probes: when you hear the word ‘trust,’ what comes to mind?

2) Do you trust other gardeners?

3) Do you think the gardeners generally trust each other?

4) Do gardeners trust the people in the neighborhood? 5) Why or why not?

6) Do you think there is a sense of trust in the neighborhood or community among neighbors? 7) Why or why not?

206

8) Do think people trust organizations in your neighborhood? 9) Do you trust them?

10) What about the local government, do people have trust in the City and/or County? 11) Do you?

12) How important is trust in terms of the overall well being of the community?

Let’s now turn to community engagement. Community engagement simply means participation in any community activities.

1) When I say ‘community engagement’ or ‘community participation’ what comes to mind?

2) What do you think is the best way for people to become involved in their community?

3) What other groups or organizations do you participate in? Probes: This includes things such as church, school‐related functions or block club meetings. Do you go to church or participate in any of these activities? Do you volunteer?

4) What did you do before you became a part of the community garden?

5) How would things be different for you if you if you did not have the garden and the responsibilities of being a garden leader? Probes: what else would you do? How else would you be involved?

207

6) Is there anything that you wish did, or wish you had time for that you don’t do?

7) What impact does your community garden have on the neighborhood? On the broader community?

8) Based on how you describe “community engagement” do you think gardeners are active in their communities?

IV: General Questions and Conclusions

1) In general what are the benefits to community gardening: a. On you as the leader and active gardener? b. On other gardeners? c. On the neighborhood? d. On the broader community? a. b. c. d.

2) Given our discussion of social capital, do you have a different view of what it is?

3) Given your perspective, do you think gardens promote social capital? If so, how? In what way?

208

4) Based on your perception of social capital, how do you think it relates to community health and well being?

5) Are there any negative aspects of social capital? Probes: are there are any downsides to being a part of a group? For example, can social activities and social networks cause stress?

6) What can social capital be used to accomplish? In other words, why should anyone care about a community’s social capital?

Do you have any questions for me?

If not, thank you so much for your time!

209

APPENDIX C:

PHASE II GARDENER INTERVIEW TOOL

Social Capital and Urban Community Gardens: Toward an Anthropologically Informed Conceptualization of a Contested Concept

Interview Location:______Garden:______Date:______Time begin:______Time end:______Interview ID Number: ______

210

Part I: BACKGROUND AND DEMOGRAPHICS Let’s begin by you telling me a little bit about yourself. My first set of questions will help me get to know you better.

1. Male ______Female ______(Interviewee should answer through observation unless interviewee is transgender, then ask “What gender do you consider yourself?)

2. Where do you (stay) live right now?

3. How long have you lived in this home?

4. Do you own the home you live in now? Yes ____ No _____

5. Where were you born?

6. Where were you raised? [if different than above]

7. How long have you lived in this neighborhood? [if not already answered above]

8. How would you describe your neighborhood?

9. What do you like or dislike about your neighborhood? [PROBES: Do you like where you live? Do you know your neighbors well?]

10. Are you married or in a long‐term relationship? Yes ______No ______Divorced ______Widowed ______

11. If I may ask, how old are you?

12. Do you have children?

What are the ages of your children?

13. Do you have grandchildren? [if appropriate]

211

What are the ages of your grandchildren?

14. In terms of race or ethnicity, how do you describe yourself?

15. What about religion or spirituality, do you consider yourself to be a religious person? A spiritual person?

16. If yes, do you go to church/religious services? Where do you go to worship?

17. What type of work do you do now? 18.

19. What about education; what is the highest grade level you completed or year you finished in school? ___ Less than high school [IF YES, WHAT GRADE] _____ grade ___ High school graduate or earned a GED ___ Technical or vocational program ___ Two‐year associate degree program ___ Some college ___ Four‐year college graduate ___ Post‐college graduate or professional degree

20. I am going to read possible ranges of household income to you. I know this is a very personal question. But if you could tell me which range best describes your approximate annual household income, it would help me answer my research questions. ___ 1. Less than $15,000 ___ 2. $15,000 to $30,000 ___ 3. $30,000 to $45,000 ___ 4. $45,000 to $60,000 ___ 5. $60,000 to $75,000 ___ 6. $75,000 to $90,000 ___ 7. $90,000 to $105,000 ___ 8. More than $105,000

212

Part II: GARDEN NARRATIVE

Now let me ask you a few questions about the garden.

21. Can you tell me how you first became involved in the garden? When and how did you get started? [PROBES: Why do you participate? Did you start gardening because of friends or neighbors? How long have you been a part of this garden? How did you become interested in joining the garden?]

22. How much time do you think you spend in the garden in a given week? [PROBES: How much time is spent working in your patch? How much time do you socialize or talk with fellow gardeners?]

23. What do you like best about being a part of the garden?

24. What does the garden mean to you? [PROBES: Why do you belong to this garden? Would you miss the garden if you couldn’t go there?]

25. What do you think is the greatest benefit of community gardening to you?

26. Is there anything about the garden that you don’t like? Is there anything you would change?

Part III: UNPACKING THE COMPONENTS OF SOCIAL CAPITAL

I’m now going to ask you some questions that begin to look at this idea of “social capital,” a term that has been discussed a lot in community research. Let me begin by asking:

27. Have you ever heard of the term ‘social capital’?

213

28. What do you think “social capital” means? Remember there’s no wrong answer here! [Probes: When you hear this term, what comes to mind? What does it mean to you? How would you define it?]

This question is really at the heart of my project. I am trying to understand how people who are involved in community gardens talk about and understand this notion and some of the key ideas around it.

While there doesn’t seem to be one clear definition, social capital is a term used generally to talk about the possible benefits of belonging to a group or being involved in common activities, like community gardening. Most people who use this term agree if you are talking about social capital you’re really talking about ‘social networks,’ ‘trust’ and ‘community engagement.’

So let’s start with a discussion of your social network, or the people you know, and the garden.

29. How would you describe social networks within your garden? [Probes: Do any of your family members participate? Do most gardeners know each other from activities outside of the garden or do people only know each other because of the garden?]

30. Do you think of people in the garden as friends? Do you hang out with other gardeners outside of the garden? [NOTE To Interviewer: Adjust if they already explained their friendships in questions in previous sections.]

31. If so, what do you do? [PROBES: Do you hang out socially? Do you participate in any other community activities with other gardeners? Which activities?]

32. How has belonging to the garden changed your social life?

214

Now let’s turn to the concept of trust. 33. Who do you turn to most often when you have problems?

34. Who do you and others in the community turn to when there’s a problem to resolve in the neighborhood? In other words, what individuals, groups, or organizations help with neighborhood issues?

35. How do you define trust? What does trust mean to you?[Probes: when you hear the word ‘trust,’ what comes to mind? What makes someone trustworthy?]

36. Do you trust your neighbors?

37. Do you trust other gardeners?

38. Do you and the other gardeners generally trust the people in the surrounding neighborhood? Why or why not?

39. Do you trust organizations in your neighborhood? (i.e. community organizations, churches, non‐profits, businesses)

Let’s now talk a little bit about community engagement or community participation.

40. What do you consider to be the most pressing issues facing your community? (PROBES: What are some problems you experience in your neighborhood? What are some of the major issues your community faces?)

41. Do community members work together to try to solve these problems? Why or why not?

215

42. How do you get information about things going on in the community? (word‐of‐ mouth, newspapers, newsletters, from churches or other organizations?)

43. Who are the leaders in your community? Who plays a leadership role in mobilizing or organizing people in the neighborhood?

44. To what institutions, formal or informal, do people in the community turn when they have individual or family problems or need help? Do you feel like people in the community have access to supportive resources? (for example, help finding a job, help with schooling, financial help)

45. When I say ‘community engagement’ or ‘community participation’ what comes to mind?

46. What other groups, activities or organizations do you participate in? [Probes: This includes things such as church, school‐related functions or block club meetings. Do you go to church or participate in any of these activities? Do you volunteer?]

PART IV: SOCIAL CAPITAL IN THE COMMUNITY GARDEN: RACE, GENDER, & HEALTH

47. Do you think the garden helps neighbors connect? If so, in what way? How are these connections made?

48. Besides the garden, how are connections made in your community?

49. At the beginning of our interview, I asked how you describe your self in terms of race or ethnic background. Do you think being ______has any effect on the way you view community and connections between people? If so, in what way?

216

If not, why not?

50. Do people talk about race in your community? What about in the garden? What do people say? What role does race and ethnicity play in daily life here?

51. Do you think race or ethnicity influences people’s social networks?

52. What about trust? How so?

53. What about gender? Does being a ______influence who is a part of your social network? How so?

54. Does gender affect whom you trust? How, in what ways?

55. What other factors do you think shape the way people think about and experience these aspects of social capital?

56. For example: Does religion play a role?

57. What about a person’s level of education?

58. Where you work? Or what you do for a living?

59. In previous research I did in four eastside neighborhoods, we asked people to define health. From that research, we found that people talk about health in terms of physical health, mental, spiritual , economic and social health. They would often link ‘health’ to their social and physical environments – in other words, to what was going on in their families and in their neighborhoods. So let me ask you, do you think social capital can play a role in your health? If so, how? [PROBES: how can these features of social capital we discussed be linked to your individual health?]

217

60. Can you think of any downsides to social capital? In other words, when we talk about this idea of connections in the community, do you think there are any negative aspects to this?

61. What are some threats to social capital in your community? Does anything keep trust and social connections from developing and growing stronger?

62. Given our discussion of social capital and what it is, do you think it is important to understand the social capital of a community? In other words, why should anyone care about this idea? [PROBES: what can social capital be used to accomplish? Is it useful to know about the networks, trust and participation in a given community? Why?]

Do you have any questions for me?

Thank you for your time!

218

APPENDIX D:

INFORMED CONSENT DOCUMENTS

219

220

221

222

APPENDIX E:

CLEVELAND CENSUS PROFILE: 2009 AMERICAN COMMUNITY SURVEY

Cleveland city, Ohio Population and Housing Narrative Profile: 2009 2009 American Community Survey 1Year Estimates American Community Survey

NOTE. Although the American Community Survey (ACS) produces population, demographic and housing unit estimates, it is the Census Bureau's Population Estimates Program that produces and disseminates the official estimates of the population for the nation, states, counties, cities and towns and estimates of housing units for states and counties.

For more information on confidentiality protection, sampling error, nonsampling error, and definitions, see Survey Methodology.

HOUSEHOLDS AND FAMILIES: In 2009 there were 185,000 households in Cleveland city. The average household size was 2.2 people. Families made up 51 percent of the households in Cleveland city. This figure includes both married‐couple families (21 percent) and other families (30 percent). Nonfamily households made up 49 percent of all households in Cleveland city. Most of the nonfamily households were people living alone, but some were composed of people living in households in which no one was related to the householder.

NATIVITY AND LANGUAGE: Four percent of the people living in Cleveland city in 2009 were foreign born. Ninety‐six percent was native, including 72 percent who were born in Ohio.

Among people at least five years old living in Cleveland city in 2009, 12 percent spoke a language other than English at home. Of those speaking a language other than English at home, 61 percent spoke Spanish and 39 percent spoke some other language; 41 percent reported that they did not speak English "very well."

GEOGRAPHIC MOBILITY: In 2009, 79 percent of the people at least one year old living in Cleveland city were living in the same residence one year earlier; 18 percent had moved during the past year from another residence in the same county, 1 percent from another county in the same state, 1 percent from another state, and 1 percent from abroad.

EDUCATION: In 2009, 76 percent of people 25 years and over had at least graduated from high school and 14 percent had a bachelor's degree or higher. Twenty‐four percent were dropouts; they were not enrolled in school and had not graduated from high school.

223

The total school enrollment in Cleveland city was 107,000 in 2009. Nursery school and kindergarten enrollment was 11,000 and elementary or high school enrollment was 69,000 children. College or graduate school enrollment was 27,000.

DISABILITY: In Cleveland city, among people at least five years old in 2009, 21 percent reported a disability. The likelihood of having a disability varied by age ‐ from 7 percent of people 5 to 15 years old, to 20 percent of people 16 to 64 years old, and to 50 percent of those 65 and older.

INDUSTRIES: In 2009, for the employed population 16 years and older, the leading industries in Cleveland city were Educational services, and health care, and social assistance, 26 percent, and Manufacturing, 13 percent.

OCCUPATIONS AND TYPE OF EMPLOYER: Among the most common occupations were: Service occupations, 28 percent; Management, professional, and related occupations, 25 percent; Sales and office occupations, 24 percent; Production, transportation, and material moving occupations, 16 percent; and Construction, extraction, maintenance, and repair occupations, 7 percent. Eighty percent of the people employed were Private wage and salary workers; 16 percent was Federal, state, or local government workers; and 3 percent was Self‐employed in own not incorporated business workers.

TRAVEL TO WORK: Seventy percent of Cleveland city workers drove to work alone in 2009, 11 percent carpooled, 11 percent took public transportation, and 6 percent used other means. The remaining 3 percent worked at home. Among those who commuted to work, it took them on average 24.7 minutes to get to work.

INCOME: The median income of households in Cleveland city was $25,091. Sixty‐nine percent of the households received earnings and 15 percent received retirement income other than Social Security. Twenty‐seven percent of the households received Social Security. The average income from Social Security was $12,219. These income sources are not mutually exclusive; that is, some households received income from more than one source.

POVERTY AND PARTICIPATION IN GOVERNMENT PROGRAMS: In 2009, 35 percent of people were in poverty. Fifty‐two percent of related children under 18 were below the poverty level, compared with 20 percent of people 65 years old and over. Twenty‐ nine percent of all families and 44 percent of families with a female householder and no husband present had incomes below the poverty level.

POPULATION OF Cleveland city: In 2009, Cleveland city had a total population of 431,000 ‐ 230,000 (53 percent) females and 202,000 (47 percent) males. The median age was 36.9 years. Twenty‐three percent of the population was under 18 years and 13 percent was 65 years and older.

224

For people reporting one race alone, 44 percent was White; 51 percent was Black or African American; less than 0.5 percent was American Indian and Alaska Native; 2 percent was Asian; less than 0.5 percent was Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander, and 2 percent was Some other race. Two percent reported Two or more races. Ten percent of the people in Cleveland city was Hispanic. Thirty‐eight percent of the people in Cleveland city was White non‐Hispanic. People of Hispanic origin may be of any race.

HOUSING CHARACTERISTICS: In 2009, Cleveland city had a total of 232,000 housing units, 20 percent of which were vacant. Of the total housing units, 53 percent was in single‐unit structures, 47 percent was in multi‐unit structures, and 1 percent was mobile homes. Seven percent of the housing units were built since 1990.

OCCUPIED HOUSING UNIT CHARACTERISTICS: In 2009, Cleveland city had 185,000 occupied housing units ‐ 86,000 (46 percent) owner occupied and 100,000 (54 percent) renter occupied. Three percent of the households did not have telephone service and 24 percent of the households did not have access to a car, truck, or van for private use. Twenty‐three percent had two vehicles and another 7 percent had three or more.

HOUSING COSTS: The median monthly housing costs for mortgaged owners was $1,065, nonmortgaged owners $384, and renters $602. Forty‐six percent of owners with mortgages, 23 percent of owners without mortgages, and 58 percent of renters in Cleveland city spent 30 percent or more of household income on housing.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2009 American Community Survey

The U.S. Census Bureau's Population Estimates Program produces the official population estimates for the nation, states, counties and places, and the official estimates of housing units for states and counties. The population and housing characteristics included above are derived from the American Community Survey.

Notes: · Detail may not add to totals due to rounding. · Percentages are based on unrounded numbers.

225

REFERENCES

Abbott, Stephen. 2009. Social capital and health: The problematic roles of social networks and social surveys. Health Sociology Review, 18(3): 297‐306.

Acevedo‐Garcia, Dolores and Theresa L. Osypuk. 2008. "Invited Commentary: Residential Segregation and Health‐‐The Complexity of Modeling Separate Social Contexts." American Journal of Epidemiology 168, no. 11: 1255.

Adler, Paul S, and Seok‐woo Kwon. 1995. SOCIAL CAPITAL: PROSPECTS FOR A NEW CONCEPT. The Academy of Management Review, Vol. 27, No. 1 (Jan., 2002), pp. 17‐40

(ACS) American Community Survey. 2009. ACS, U.S. Census Bureau – Profile, Cleveland, Ohio http://www.factfinder.census.gov/servlet/ACSSAFFFacts?_event=ChangeGeoContext& geo_id=16000US3916000&_geoContext=&_street=&_county=Cleveland&_cityTown=Cle veland&_state=04000US39&_zip=&_lang=en&_sse=on&ActiveGeoDiv=&_useEV=&pctxt =fph&pgsl=010&_submenuId=factsheet_1&ds_name=ACS_2009_5YR_SAFF&_ci_nbr=nul l&qr_name=null®=null%3Anull&_keyword=&_industry=

AHRQ. 2009. Agency for Health Care Research and Quality. 2009 National Healthcare Quality & Disparities Reports http://www.ahrq.gov/qual/qrdr09.htm

Alaimo, Katherine, Thomas M Reischl, and Julie Ober. 2010. COMMUNITY GARDENING, NEIGHBORHOOD MEETINGS , AND SOCIAL CAPITAL. Community Health 38, no. 4: 497‐514. doi:10.1002/jcop.

Altschuler, Andrea, Carol P. Somkin, and Nancy E. Adler. 2004. Local Services and Amenities, Neighborhood Social Capital, and Health. Social Science & Medicine, 59(2004):1219‐1229.

Armstrong, Donna. 2000. A Survey of Community Gardens in Upstate New York: Implications for Health Promotion and Community Development. Health and Place, 6(200):319‐327.

Babbie, Earl. 2001. The Practice of Social Research. 9th Edition. Stamford, CT: Wadsworth/Thomson Learning.

Barbee, Evelyn L. 1993. Racism and Gender in U.S. Health Care. Medical Anthropology Quarterly 7(4):323‐324. ‐‐‐‐ 1994. Reply [to Commentaries on “Race, Gender, Class and Health” Issue]. Medical Anthropology Quarterly, 8(1):116‐118.

226

Barnes, Sandra L. Action Culture and Community Black Church. 2005. Social Forces 15. 84(2):967‐994.

Baum, Fran and Anna Ziersch. 2003. Social Capital. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 57(5):320‐323.

Berkman, Lisa F. 2000. Social Support, Social Networks, Social Cohesion and Health. Social Work in Health Care 31(2):3‐15.

Berkman, Lisa, Thomas Glass, Ian Brissette, and Teresa E. Seeman. 2000. From Social Integration to Health: Durkheim in the New Millennium. Social Science & Medicine 51(2000):843‐857.

Bernard, H. Russell. 2002. Research Methods in Anthropology: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches. 3rd Edition. Walnut Creek, CA: Altamira Press.

Bhopal, Raj and Liam Donaldson. 1998. White, European, Caucasian, or What? Inappropriate Labeling in Research on Race, Ethnicity, and Health. American Journal of Public Health, 88(9): 1303‐1307.

Billingsley, Andrew. 1968. Black Families in White America. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice‐Hall.

Blaxter, Mildred and Fiona Poland. 2002. Moving Beyond the Survey in Exploring Social Capital. In Social Capital for Health: Insights from Qualitative Research. Health Development Agency, Pp. 87‐108. Available online at: http://www.hda‐ online.org.uk/downloads/pdfs/social_capital_complete_jul02.pdf

Bourdieu, Pierre. 1997 [1986]. Forms of Capital. In Education: Culture, Economy, and Society. Halsey, Lauder, Brown and Stuart Wells, Eds. Pp. 46‐58. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Bourdieu, Pierre and Loic Wacquant. 1992. An Introduction to Reflexive Sociology. Chicago: Chicago University Press.

Bourgois, Philippe. 1995. In Search of respect: Selling Crack in El Barrio. New York: Camrbidge University Press. ‐‐‐2002. Understanding Inner‐City Poverty: Resistance and Self‐Destruction under U.S. Apartheid. In Exotic No More: Anthropology on the Front Lines. Jeremy MacClancy, Ed. Pp. 15‐32. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Brodkin, Karen. 1989. Toward a Unified Theory of Class, Race, and Gender. American Ethnologist, 16(3):534‐550. ‐‐‐ 1998. “How Jews Became White,” in Race, Class, and Gender in the United States, Edited by Paula Rothenberg, Pp. 30‐45.

227

‐‐‐ 2000. Global Capitalism: What’s Race Got To Do With It? American Ethnologist. 27(2):237‐256.

Bruhn, John G. 2009. The Group Effect: Social Cohesion and Health Outcomes. New York: Springer.

Burgess, Erness W. and Donald J. Bogue., Eds. 1967. Urban Sociology. Chicago, University of Chicago Press.

Campbell, Catherine and Carl McClean. 2002. “Social Capital, Exclusion and Health: Factors Shaping African‐Caribbean Participation in Local Community Networks,” in Social Capital for Health: Insights from Qualitative Research. Edited by C. Swann and A. Morgan, Pp. 29‐46. U.K.: Health Development Agency, Available online at: http://www.hda‐online.org.uk/downloads/pdfs/social_capital_complete_jul02.pdf

Carlson, Per. 2004. The European Health Divide: A Matter of Financial or Social Capital? Social Science & Medicine, 59(2004):1985‐1992.

Cattell, Vicky. 2001. Poor People, Poor Places, and Poor Health: The Mediating Role of Social Networks and Social Capital. Social Science & Medicine, 52(2001):1501‐ 1516.

Cattell, Vicky and Rachel Herring. 2002. Social Capital, Generations and Health in east London. In Social Capital for Health: Insights from Qualitative Research. Health Development Agency, Pp. 61‐86. Available online at: http://www.hda‐online.org.uk/downloads/pdfs/social_capital_complete_jul02.pdf

Caughty, Margaret O’Brien, Patricia J. O’Campo, and Carles Muntaner. 2003. When Being Alone Might Be Better: Neighborhood, Poverty, Social Capital and Child Mental Health. Social Science & Medicine, 57(2003):227‐237.

Census 2000. U.S. Census Bureau. http://www.census.gov/main/www/cen2000.html

Center for Urban Health Initiatives, University of Toronto. http://www.utoronto.ca/cuhi/index.html

Chapman, Rachel R. 2003. Endangering safe motherhood in Mozambique: prenatal care as pregnancy risk. Social Science & Medicine 57: 355‐374.

Chapman, Rachel and Berggren, Jean. 2005. Radical Contextualization: Contributions to an Anthropology of Racial/Ethnic Health Disparities. Health: An Interdisciplinary Journal for the Social Study of Health, Illness and Medicine. 9(2), 145‐167.

Chappell, Neena L. and Laura M. Funk. 2010. Social Capital: Does it Add to the Health Inequalities Debate? Social Indicators Research 99, no. 3:357 – 373.

228

Cleveland City Planning Commission. http://planning.city.cleveland.oh.us/

Cleveland‐Cuyahoga County Food Policy Coalition (CCCFPC). http://cccfoodpolicy.org/

Cleveland Memory Project. Feeding Cleveland: Urban Agriculture. http://www.clevelandmemory.org/urbag/community.html

Coleman, James S. 1988. Social Capital in the Creation of Human Capital. American Journal of Sociology, 94(1988):95‐120. ‐‐‐‐‐1990. Foundations of Social Theory. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The Belknap Press.

Cousins, Linwood. 1999. Playing between Classes: America’s Troubles with Class, Race and Gender. Anthropology and Education Quarterly 30(3): 294‐316.

CWRU NEO CANDO. Northeast Ohio Community and Neighborhood Data for Organizing, Center on Urban Poverty and Community Development, Mandel School of Applied Social Sciences. Electronic resource available at: http://neocando.case.edu/cando/index.jsp?tPage=about

Dawna, Thomas M. 2006. "Unequal Treatment in Healthcare: Understanding Disparities and What We Can Do." Diversity Factor 14, no. 1: 5‐13.

De Sliva, Mary J. 2006. A Systematic Review of the Methods used in Studies of Social Capital and Mental Health. In Social Capital and Mental Health, Kwame McKenzie and Trudy Harpham, Eds. London, Jessica Kingsley.

Dressler, William W. and James R. Bindon. 2000. The Health Consequences of Cultural Consonance: Cultural Dimensions of Lifestyle, Social Support, and Arterial Blood Pressure in an African American Community. American Anthropologist. New Series, Vol. 102, No. 2 (Jun., 2000), pp. 244‐260

Dressler, William. 1993. Health in the African American Community: Accounting for Health Inequalities. Medical Anthropology Quarterly 7(4):325‐345. ‐‐‐‐2004. Culture and the risk of disease. British medical bulletin 69 (January): 21‐31. doi:10.1093/bmb/ldh020. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15226194.

Dressler, William W., Camila D. Borges, Mauro C. Balieiro, and José Ernesto dos Santos. 2005. Measuring Cultural Consonance: Examples with Special Reference to Measurement Theory in Anthropology Field Methods November 2005 17: 331‐ 355, doi:10.1177/1525822X05279899

Domínguez, Silvia, and Tammi Arford. 2010. It is all about who you know: Social capital and health in low‐income communities. Health Sociology Review 19, no. 1 (April): 114‐129. doi:10.5172/hesr.2010.19.1.114. http://www.atypon‐ link.com/EMP/doi/abs/10.5172/hesr.2010.19.1.114.

229

Du Bois, W. E. B. 1899. The Philadelphia Negro: A Social Study. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. ‐‐‐‐‐2003 [1903]. The Souls of Black Folk. New York: Barnes and Noble Classics.

Dudwick, Nora, Kathleen Kuehnast, Veronica Nyhan Jones, and Michael Woolcock. 2006. Analyizing Social Capital in Context: A Guide to Using Qualitative Methods. World Bank Institute, Washington, D.C.

Durkheim, Emile. 1984[1893].The Division of Labor in Society. New York Free Press.

Durrenberger, Paul. 2002. Why the Idea of Social Capital is a Bad Idea. Newsletter, Society for Applied Anthropology, August 2002, 13(3):3‐4.

Eames, Edwin and Judith Goode. 1980. The Culture of Poverty: A Misapplication of Anthropology to Contemporary Issues. In Urban Life: Readings in Urban Anthropology, First Edition. G. Gmelch and W.P. Zenner, Eds. Prospect Height, IL: Waveland Press.

Edmondson, Ricca. 2003. Social Capital: A Strategy for Enhancing Health? Social Science & Medicine, 57(2003):1723‐1733.

Feachem, Richard. 2000. Poverty and Equity: A Proper Focus for our New Century. Bulletin of the World Health Organization, no. 0140.

Fine, B. 1999. The Development State is Dead ‐ Long Live Social Capital? Development and Change, 30(1‐19). ‐‐‐‐‐. 2001. Social Capital Vs. Social Theory. London: Routledge. ‐‐‐‐‐2002. They F**k You up those Social Capitalists. Antipode, 34:796‐799.

Foley, Michael W. and Bob Edwards. 1997. Editors’ Introduction: Escape from Politics? Social Theory and the Social Capital Debate. American Behavioral Scientist, 40(5):550‐561. ‐‐‐‐‐ 1999. Is It Time to Disinvest in Social Capital? Journal of Public Policy, 19(2):141‐ 173.

Forbes, Angus, Steven P. Wainwright. 2001. On the Methodological, Theoretical and Philosophical Context of Health Inequalities Research: A Critique. Social Science & Medicine, 53(2001):801‐816.

Frane, Adam and Borut Roncevie. 2004. Social Capital: Recent Debates and Research Trends. Social Science Information, 42(2):155‐183.

Fullilove, Mindy Thompson. 1999. Promoting Social Cohesion to Improve Health. Medical Women’s Association, 53(2):72‐76.

230

Ginsburg, Faye and Rayna Rapp, eds. 1995. Conceiving the New World Order: The Global Politics of Reproduction. Berkley: University of California Press.

Geronimus, Arline. 2000. To Mitigate, Resist, or Undo: Addressing Structural Influences on the Health of Urban Populations. American Journal of Public Health 90(6): 867‐872.

Geronimus, Arline, John Bound, and Timothy Waidmann. 1999. Poverty, Time, and Place: Variation in Excess Mortality across Selected US Populations, 1980‐1990. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health 53(6): 325‐334.

Glover, Troy D. 2004. Social Capital in the Lived Experiences of Community Gardeners. Seminar, no. November 2002: 143‐162. doi:10.1080/01490400490432064.

Glover, Troy D, and Diana C Parry. 2005a. Building Relationships , Accessing Resources : Mobilizing Social Capital in Community Garden Contexts. Building 31, no. 4: 450‐ 474.

Glover, Troy D, Kimberly J Shinew, and Diana C Parry. 2005b. Association , Sociability , and Civic Culture : The Democratic Effect of Community Gardening. Leisure Studies: 75‐92. doi:10.1080/01490400590886060.

Goode, Judith. 1994. Reshaping Ethnic and Racial Relations in Philadelphia. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

Goode, Judith and Jeff Maskovsky, Eds. 2001. The New Poverty Studies: The Ethnography of Power, Politics, and Impoverished People in the United States. New York: New York University Press.

Granovetter, Mark S. 1973. The Strength of Weak Ties. American Journal of Sociology. Vol. 78(6):1360‐1380.

Gravlee, Clarence C. 2009. How Race Become Biology: The Embodiment of Social Inequality. American Journal of Physical Anthropology . 139(1):47‐57.

Gravlee, Clarence C., and Elizabeth Sweet. 2008. Race, Ethnicity, and Racism in Medical Anthropology, 1977‐2002. Medical Anthropological Quarterly 22 (1): 27‐51.

Greenbaum, Susan D. 2002. Report from the Field: Social Capital and Deconcentration: Theoretical and Policy Paradoxes of the HOPE VI Program. North American Dialogue, 5(1):9‐13.

Gregory, Steven and Roger Sanjek, eds.. 1996. Race. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.

231

Grootaert, Christiaan. 1997. Social Capital: The Missing Link? In World Bank, Expanding the Measure of Wealth: Indicators of Environmentally Sustainable Development. Washington, DC: World Bank.

Grootaert, Christiaan, Deepa Narayan, Veronica Nyhan Jones, and Michael Woolcock. 2004. Measuring social capital: An integrated questionnaire. World Bank Working Paper No. 18. World Bank, Washington, DC. http://povlibrary.worldbank.org/files/11998_WP18‐Web.pdf.

Guzman, Cirila Estela Vasquez, Gilbert Mireles, Neal Christopherson, and Michelle Janning. 2010. "CLASS AND RACE HEALTH DISPARITIES AND HEALTH INFORMATION SEEKING BEHAVIORS: THE ROLE OF SOCIAL CAPITAL." Research in the Sociology of Health Care 28, 127‐149.

Hancock, Trevor. 2001. People, Partnerships and Human Progress; Building Community Capital. Health Promotion International, 16(3):275‐280.

Harpham, Trudy, Emma Grant and Elizabeth Thomas. 2002. Measuring Social Capital within Health Surveys: Key Issues. Health Policy and Planning, 17(1):106‐111.

Harpham, Trudy. 2008. The Measurement of Community Social Capital through Surveys. . In Social Capital and Health, Ichiro Kawachi, S.V. Subramanian, and Daniel Kim, Eds. Pp. 51‐62. New York, Springer.

Harrison, Faye V. 1995. The Persistent Power of “Race” in the Cultural and Political Economy of Racism. Annual Review of Anthropology, 24:47‐74. ‐‐‐ 1999. Introduction: Expanding the Discourse on “Race.” American Anthropology 100(3):609‐631.

Hassler, David and Lynn Gregor. 1998. A Place to Grow: Voices and Images of Urban Gardeners. Cleveland, OH: The Pilgrim Press.

Hawe, P. and A. Shiell. 2000. Social Capital and Health Promotion: A Review. Social Science & Medicine, 51:871‐885.

Hoff, Lee Ann. 1994. Comments on Race, Gender, and Class Bias in Nursing. Medical Anthropology Quarterly, 8(1):96‐99.

HUD. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. HOPE VI Program http://www.hud.gov/offices/pih/programs/ph/hope6/index.cfm

Hurston, Zora Neale. 1937. Their Eyes Were Watching God. New York: Harper‐Collins.

Islam, M Kamrul, Juan Merlo, Ichiro Kawachi, Martin Lindström, and Ulf‐G Gerdtham. 2006. Social capital and health: does egalitarianism matter? A literature review. International journal for equity in health 5 (January): 3. doi:10.1186/1475‐

232

9276‐5‐3. http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1524772&tool=pmcentre z&rendertype=abstract.

Jackson, Eileen. 1993. Whiting‐out Difference: Why U. S. Nursing Research Fails Black Families. Medical Anthropology Quarterly, 7(4):363‐385.

Kane Speer, Alexis. 2008. Space for Healthy Communities: An Exploration of the Social Pathways Between Public Space and Health. Masters Thesis, Graduate Department of Geography and Planning, University of Toronto. Available at: http://www.utoronto.ca/cuhi/research/neighbourhoodrig.html#Anchor‐2821

Kawachi, Ichiro and Lisa Berkman. 2000. Social Cohesion, Social Capital, and Health. In Social Epidemiology, Lisa Berkman and Ichiro Kawachi, eds. New York: Oxford University Press.

Kawachi, Ichiro and Bruce P. Kennedy. 1997. Socioeconomic Determinants of Health: Health and Social Cohesion: Why Care About Income Inequality? British Medical Journal, 1997(1037):314‐?

Kawachi, Ichiro, Bruce Kennedy, and Kimberly Lochner. 1997a. Long Live Community: Social Capital As Public Health. The American Prospect 35 (November 1, 1997):56

Kawachi, Ichiro, Bruce P. Kennedy, and D. Prothrow‐Stith. 1997b. Social Capital, Income Inequality, and Mortality. American Journal of Public Health, 87:1491‐1498.

Kawachi, Ichiro, S.V. Subramanian, and Daniel Kim, Eds. 2008. Social Capital and Health. New York, Springer.

Kim, Daniel and Ichiro Kawachi. 2006."A Multilevel Analysis of Key Forms of Community‐ and Individual‐Level Social Capital as Predictors of Self‐Rated Health in the United States." Journal of Urban Health 83, no. 5: 813‐826.

Kingsley, Jonathan “Yotti,” and Mardie Townsend. 2006. “Dig In” to Social Capital: Community Gardens as Mechanisms for Growing Urban Social Connectedness. Urban Policy and Research 24, no. 4: 525‐537. doi:10.1080/08111140601035200. http://www.informaworld.com/openurl?genre=article&doi=10.1080/0811114060103 5200&magic=crossref||D404A21C5BB053405B1A640AFFD44AE3.

Krieger, N, D R Williams, and N E Moss. 1997. Measuring social class in US public health research: concepts, methodologies, and guidelines. Annual review of public health 18 (January): 341‐78. doi:10.1146/annurev.publhealth.18.1.341. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9143723.

233

Krieger, Nancy, David Williams, and Sally Zierler. 1999. Whiting Out White Privilege. American Journal of Public Health, 89(5): 782.

Krishna, A. and E. Shrader. 2000. Cross‐Cultural Measures of Social Capital: A Tool and Results from India and Panama. Social Capital Initiative Working Paper No. 21, Washington, DC: World Bank.

Kunitz, Stephen J. 2004. Social Capital and Health. British Medical Bulletin, 69:61‐73.

Leacock, Eleanor Burke, Ed. 1971. The Culture of Poverty: A Critique. New York: Simon and Schuster.

Lewis, Oscar. 1966. La Vida: A Puerto Rican Family in the Culture of Poverty, San Juan and New York. New York: Vintage. ‐‐‐‐. 1980. The Culture of Poverty. In Urban Life: Readings in Urban Anthropology (First Edition). Pp. 393‐404. Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press.

Landman, Ruth. 1993. Creating Community in the City. Westport, CT: Bergin and Garvey.

LeCompte, Margaret D. and Jean J. Schensul. 1999.Designing and Conducting Ethnographic Research. Walnut Creek, CA: Altamira Press.

Lieberman, Leonard. 1997. Gender and the Deconstruction of the Race Concept. American Anthropologist, 99(3):545‐558.

Leiberman, Leonard and Fatimah Linda C. Jackson. 1995. Race and Three Models of Human Origins. American Anthropologist. 97(2):213‐242.

Liebow, Elliot. 1967. Tally’s Corner: Study of Negro Streetcorner Men. Boston: Little, Brown and Company.

Lochner, Kimberly, Ichiro Kawachi and Bruce Kennedy. 1999. Social Capital: A Guide to its Measurement. Health & Place 5(1999):259‐270.

Lochner, Kimberly, Ichiro Kawachi, Robert Brennan, and Stephen Buka. 2003. Social Capital and Neighborhood Mortality Rates in Chicago. Social Science & Medicine, 56:1797‐1805.

Lomas, Jonathan. 1998. Social Capital and Health: Implications for Public Health and Epidemiology. Social Science & Medicine, 47:1181‐1188.

Lopez, M. Lisette and Carol Stack. 2001. Social Capital and the Culture of Power: Lessons from the Field, in Social Capital and Poor Communities. Edited by S. Saegert, J.P. Thompson, and M. Warren, pp. 31‐59. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

234

Macinko, J. and B. Starfield. 2001. The Utility of Social Capital in Research on Health Determinants. The Millbank Quarterly, 79:387‐427.

Mahler, Sarah J, 1995. American Dreaming: Immigrant Life on the Margins. Princeton University Press.

Marx, Karl. 1967[1867]. Capital, vol. 1. New York: International Publishers.

Marx, Karl and Friedrich Engels. 1947[1848]. The German Ideology. New York: I nternational.

Massey, Douglas and Nancy Denton. 2001[1993]. American Apartheid: Segregation and the Making of the Underclass. In Social Stratification: Class, Race, and Gender in Sociological Perspective, 2nd Edition. Grusky, ed. Pp. 660‐670. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Mays, Vickie, Ninez Ponce, Donna Washington, and Susan Cochran. 2003. Classification of Race and Ethnicity: Implications for Public Health. Annual Review of Public Health, 24:83‐220.

Moore, Spencer, Alan Shiell, Penelope Hawe, and Valerie A Haines. 2005. The privileging of communitarian ideas: citation practices and the translation of social capital into public health research. American journal of public health 95, no. 8: 1330‐7. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2004.046094. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=17783304.

Morgen, Sandra and Jeff Maskovsky. 2003. The Anthropology of Welfare “Reform”: New Perspectives in U.S. Urban Poverty in the Post‐Welfare Era. Annual Review of Anthropology, 2003(32):315‐338.

Morrow, Virginia. 2002. Children’s Experiences of ‘Community’: Implications of Social Capital Discourses. In Social Capital for Health: Insights from Qualitative Research. Health Development Agency, Pp. 9‐28. Available online at: http://www.hda‐online.org.uk/downloads/pdfs/social_capital_complete_jul02.pdf

Morsy, Soheir. 1996. “Political Economy in Medical Anthropology,” In Handbook of Medical Anthropology: Contemporary Theory and Methods, Revised edition. Edited by Carolyn Sargent and Thomas Johnson, Pp. 21‐40. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.

Moynihan, Daniel Patrick. 1965. The Negro Family: The Case For National Action. Office of Policy Planning and Research United States Department of Labor. Washington DC. http://www.dol.gov/oasam/programs/history/webid‐meynihan.htm

Mukhopadhyay, C.C. and Y. T Moses. 1997. Reestablishing “Race” in Anthropological Discourse. American Anthropologist, 99(3):517‐533.

235

Mullings, Leith. 1978 Ethnicity and Stratification in the Urban United States. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 218:10‐22. ‐‐‐‐1995. “Households Headed by Women: The Politics of Class, Race and Gender,” in Conceiving the New World Order: The Global Politics of Reproduction. Edited by Faye Ginsburg and Rayna Rap, Pp. 122‐139. Berkeley: University of California Press. ‐‐‐ 1997. On Our Own Terms: Race, Class and Gender in the Lives of African American Women. New York: Routledge. ‐‐‐ 2001. “Households Headed by Women: The Politics of Class, Race and Gender,” In The New Poverty Studies: The Ethnography of Power, Politics and Impoverished People in the United States. Edited by Goode and Maskovsky, Pp. 37‐56. New York: New York University Press. ‐‐‐ 2005. Interrogating Racism: Toward an Anti‐Racist Anthropology. Annual Review of Anthropology, 34:667‐693.

Mullings, Leith and Alaka Wali. 2001. Stress and Resilience: The Social Context of Reproduction in Central Harlem. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers.

Muntaner, Carles and John Lynch. 1999. Income Inequality, Social Cohesion, and Class Relations: A Critique of Wilkinson’s New‐Durkheimian Reseach program. International Journal of Health Services, 29(1):59‐81.

Muntaner, Carles, John W. Lynch, and George Davey Smith. 2003. Social Capital and the Third Way in Public Health. In Health and Social Justice: Politics, Ideology, and Inequality in the Distribution of Disease. Richard Hofrichter, ed. San Francisco: Jossey‐Bass. Pp. 285‐304.

Murray, Charles. 1984. Losing Ground: American Social Policy, 1950‐1980. New York: Basic Books.

Natrajan, Balmurli and Hsain Ilhahiane. 2003. Oui, Paul, Mais: The Uses of Social and Cultural Capital. Anthropology News, October 2003, 44(7):4.

Navarro, Vincent. 2001. A Critique of Social Capital. International Journal of Health Services, 32:424‐432. ‐‐‐‐‐. 2004a. The Politics of Health Inequalities research in the United States. International Journal of Health Services, 34:87‐99. ‐‐‐‐‐. 2004b. Commentary: Is Capital the Solution or the Problem? International Journal of Epidemiology, 33:672‐674. ‐‐‐‐. 2008. Why “Social Capital” (Like “Disparities”) is Fashionable. Anthropologica, 50(2):423‐425.

Navarro, Vicente and Leiyu Shi. 2001. The Political Context of Social Inequalities and Health. Social Science & Medicine, 52(2001):481‐491.

236

Newman, Katherine S. 1998. No Shame in My Game: The Working Poor in the Inner City. New York: Vintage Books. ‐‐‐‐. 2001. Local Caring: Social Capital and Social Responsibility in New York’s Minority Neighborhoods. In Caring and Doing for Others: Social Responsibility in the Domains of Family, Work, and Community, Alice S. Rossi, Ed. Chicago, The University of Chicago Press.

Nichter, Mark. 2008. Global Health: Why Cultural Perceptions, Social Representations, and Biopolitics Matter. Tucson, University of Arizona Press.

NVivo qualitative data analysis software; QSR International Pty Ltd. Version 2, 2002.

Ogbu, John. 1978. Minority Education and Caste: The American System in Cross‐cultural Perspective. New York: Academic Press.

The Ohio State University Extension, Cuyahoga County. Community Gardening Program. http://cuyahoga.osu.edu/topics/agriculture‐and‐natural‐resources/community‐ gardening

Omi, Michael and Howard Winant. 1994. Racial Formation in the United States from the 1960s to the 1990s, 2nd Edition. New York: Routledge.

Ornelas, India J., et al. 2009. Understanding African American Men's Perceptions of Racism, Male Gender Socialization, and Social Capital Through Photovoice. Qualitative Health Research 19, no. 4:552‐565.

Ortner, Sherry. 1996. “Making Gender: Toward a Feminist, Minority, Postcolonial, Subaltern, etc., Theory of Practice,” In Making Gender: The Politics and Erotics of Gender. Pp. 1‐20. Boston: Beacon Press.

Osborn, Chandra Y., Michael K. Paasche‐Orlow, Terry C. Davis, and Michael S. Wolf. 2007. "Health Literacy: An Overlooked Factor in Understanding HIV Health Disparities." American Journal of Preventive Medicine 33, no. 5: 374‐378.

Osborne, Katy, Fran Baum, and Anna Ziersch. 2009. Negative Consequences of Community Group Participation for Women’s Mental Health and Well‐Being : Implications for Gender Aware Social Capital Building. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology 224, no. December 2008: 212‐224. doi:10.1002/casp.

Page, Helan and R. Brooke Thomas. 1994. White Public Space and the Construction of White Privilege in U.S. Health Care: Fresh Concepts and a New Model of Analysis. Medical Anthropology Quarterly, 8(1):109‐116.

Park, Robert E. 2000. The Nature of Race Relations. In Theories of Race and Racism: A Reader, Back and Solomos, eds. Pp. 105‐112. London: Routledge.

237

Pattillo‐McCoy, Mary. 1998. Church Culture as a Strategy of Action in the Black Community. AmericanSociological Review 63: 767‐84.

Pearce, N. and G. Davey Smith. 2003. Is Social Capital the key to Inequalities in Health? American Journal of Public Health, 93:122‐129.

Pevalin, David J. and David Rose. 2002. Social Capital for Health: Investigating the Links between Social Capital and Health Using the British Household Panel Survey. Health Development Agency, UK. Available online at: http://www.hda.nhs.uk/downloads/pdfs/choosing_health/CHB21‐social‐capital.pdf

Poortinga, Wouter. 2006. Social Relations of Social Capital? Individual and Community Health Effects of Bonding Social Capital. Social Science & Medicine, 63(2006):255‐270.

Popay, Jennie, Gareth Williams, Carol Thomas, and Anthony Gatrell. 2003. Theorizing Inequalities in Health: The Place of Lay Knowledge. In Health and Social Justice: Politics, Ideology, and Inequality in the Distribution of Disease. Richard Hofrichter, ed. San Francisco: Jossey‐Bass. Pp. 385‐409.

Portes, Alejandro. 1998. Social Capital: Its Origins and Applications in Modern Society. Annual Review of Sociology, 24(1998):1‐24.

Portes, Alejandro and P. Landolt. 1996.The Downside of Social Capital. American Prospect, 26:18‐21.

Putnam, Robert D. 1993. Making Democracy Work: Civic Traditions in Modern Italy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. ‐ ‐ ‐ 1995. Bowling Alone: America’s Declining Social Capital. Journal of Democracy, 6(1995):65‐78. ‐ ‐ ‐ 2000. Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community. New York: Simon and Schuster.

Reid, Pamela Trotman. 1994. Identifying Racism is Necessary but not Sufficient for the Future. Medical Anthropology Quarterly, 8(1): 100‐102.

Reidpath, Daniel D. 2003. ‘Love thy Neighbor” – It’s Good for Your Health: A Study of Racial Homogeneity, Mortality and Social Cohesion in the United States. Social Science & Medicine 57(2):253‐263.

Richardus, Jan and Anton Kunst. 2001. Black‐White Differences in Infectious Disease Mortality in the United States. American Journal of Public Health 91(8): 1251‐ 1253.

Roberts, John Michael. 2004. What’s ‘Social’ about ‘Social Capital’? BJPIR, 6:471‐493

238

Sampson, Robert J., Stephen W. Raudenbush, Felton EarlsSource. 1997. Science, New Series, Vol. 277, No. 5328 (Aug. 15, 1997), pp. 918‐924.

Sampson, Robert J. 2004. Neighborhood and Community: Collective Efficacy and Communty Safety. New Economy 11:106‐113.

Sampson, Robert J., Doung McAdam, Heather MacIndoe, and Simon Weffer‐Elizondo. 2005. The Durable Nature and Community Structure of Collective Civic Action. American Journal of Sociology 111:673‐714.

Sanjek, Roger. 1996. The Enduring Inequalities of Race. In Race. Steven Gregory and Roger Sanjek, eds. Pp.1‐17. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers.

Schensul, Stephen L, Jean J. Schensul, and Margaret D. LeCompte. 1999. Essential Ethnographic Methods: Observations, Interviews, and Questionnaires. Walnut Creek, CA: Altamira Press.

Schensul, Jean J, Margaret LeCompte, Robert T. Trotter II, Ellen Cromley, and Merrill Singer. 1999. Mapping Social Networks, Spatial Data, & Hidden Populations. Walnut creek, CA: Altamira Press.

Schmelzkopf, Karen. 1996. Urban Community Gardens as Contested Space. Geographical Review 85(3):364‐392.

Schneider, Jo Anne. 1998. “Social Capital and Welfare Reform: Examples from Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.” Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Anthropological Association, Philadelphia, December. ‐‐‐ 2004. The Role of Social Capital in Building Healthy Communities. Policy Paper produced for the Annie E. Casey Foundation, November 2004. http://www.aecf.org/initiatives/mc/readingroom/documents/Social.Capital04.pdf. ‐‐‐ 2006. Anthropological Relevance and Social Capital. Anthropology News, March 2006:4‐5. ‐‐‐2008. Social Capital, Civic Engagement and Trust. Anthropologica, 50(2):425‐428.

Schukoske, Jane. 2000. Community Development through Gardening: State and Local Policies Transforming Urban Open Space. Legislation and Public Policy, Vol. 3: 351‐392.

Schuller, Tom, Stephen Baron, and John Field. 2000. Social Capital: A Review and Critique. In Social Capital: Critical Perspectives. Baron, Field and Schuller, Eds. Pp. 1‐38. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Shanklin, Eugenia. 1998. The Professions of the Color‐Blind: Sociocultural Anthropology and Racism in the 21st Century. American Anthropologist, 100(3):669‐679.

239

Sharff, Jagna Wojcicka. 1998. King Kong on 4th Street: Families and the Violence of Poverty on the Lower East Side. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Shinew, Kimberly. J., Glover, T.D., & Parry, D. C. 2004. Leisure spaces as potential sites for interracial interaction: Community gardens in urban areas. Journal of Leisure Research, 36, 336‐355.

Silva, Abigail, Steven Whitman, Helen Margellos, and David Ansell. 2001. Evaluating Chicago’s Success in Reaching the Healthy People 2000 Goal of Reducing Health Disparities. Public Health Reports 116: 484‐494.

Small, Mario Luis and Katherine Newman. 2001. Urban Poverty after The Truly Disadvantaged: The Rediscovery of the Family, the Neighborhood and Culture. Annual Review of Sociology, 27:23‐45.

Smart, Alan. 2008. Social Capital. Anthropologica, 50(2):409‐416.

Smedley, Brian D., Adrienne Stith, and Alan Nelson, Eds. 2003. Unequal Treatment: Confronting Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Health Care. Washington: National Academies Press.

Smith, George Davey. 2000. Learning to Live With Complexity: Ethnicity, Socioeconomic Position, and Health in Britain and the United States. American Journal of Public Health 90(11):1694‐1698.

Smith, Stephen Samuel and Jessica Kulynych. 2002. It May Be Social, but Why Is It Capital? The Social Construction of Social Capital and the Politics of Language. Politics & Society, 30(1):149‐186.

Spradley, James P. 1979. The Ethnographic Interview. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Group.

SPSS. IBM SPSS Statistics 19.0 – released August 2010.

Stack, Carol. 1970. “The Kindred of Viola Jackson: Residence and Family Organization of an Urban Black American Family,” in AfroAmerican Anthropology: Contemporary Perspectives. Edited by N. Whitten, Jr. and J. Szwed. New York: Free Press. ‐‐‐. 1974. All Our Kin: Strategies for Survival in a Black Community. New York: Harper and Row. ‐‐‐‐1980. The Kindred of Viola Jackson: Residence and Family Organization of an Urban Black Family. In Urban Life: Readings in Urban Anthropology (First Edition) George Gmelch and Walter Zenner, Eds. Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press. ‐‐‐ 1994. “Different Voices, Different Visions: Gender, Culture and Moral Reasoning,” In Women of Color in U.S. Society, Edited by Baca Zinn and Thornton Dill, Pp. 291‐ 302. Philadelphia: Temple University Press. ‐‐‐ 1996. Call to Home: African Americans Reclaim the Rural South. New York: Basic Books.

240

Stack, Carol and Linda Burton. 1993. Kinscripts. Journal of Comparative Family Studies. Pp. 157‐172.

Subramanian, SV, Kimberly Lochner, and Ichiro Kawachi. 2003. Neighborhood Differences in Social Capital: A Compositional Construct or a Contextual Construct? Health and Place, 9:33‐44.

Susser, Ida. 1998. Inequality, Violence, and Gender Relations in a Global City: New York, 1986‐1996. Identities 5(2):219‐247. ‐‐‐ 2004. “Poverty and Homelessness in U.S. Cities,” In Cultural Diversity in the United States. Edited by Ida Susser and Thomas Patterson, Pp. 229‐249. Malden, MA: Blackwell.

Swann, Catherine and Antony Morgan, Eds. 2002. Social Capital for Health: Insights from Qualitative Research. Health Development Agency. Available online at: http://www.hda‐online.org.uk/downloads/pdfs/social_capital_complete_jul02.pdf

Szreter, Simon. 2000. The State of Social Capital: Bringing Back In Power, Politics and History. Theory and Society, 31:572‐621.

Szreter, Simon and Michael Woolcock. 2004. Health by Association? Social Capital, Social Theory, and the Political Economy of Public Health. International Journal of Epidemiology, 33:650‐667.

Teig, Ellen, Joy Amulya, Lisa Bardwell, Michael Buchenau, Julie A. Marshall, and Jill S. Litt. 2009. Collective efficacy in Denver, Colorado: Strengthening neighborhoods and health through community gardens. Health & Place (2009), doi:10.1016/j.healthplace.2009.06.003.

Tonnies, Ferdinand. 1935 [1887]. Gemeinschaft und Gesellschaft, Leipzig: Fues's Verlag, 2nd ed. 1912, 8th edition, Leipzig: Buske.

Twiss, Joan, Joy Dickinson, Shirley Duma, Tanya Kleinman, Heather Paulsen, and Liz Rilveria. 2003. Community Gardens: Lessons Learned from California Healthy Cities and Communities. American Journal of Public Health, 93(9):1435‐1438.

Van der Gaag, Martin and Martin Webber. 2008. Measurement of Individual Social Capital: Questions, Instruments, and Measures. In Social Capital and Health, Ichiro Kawachi, S.V. Subramanian, and Daniel Kim, Eds. Pp. 29‐50. New York, Springer.

Veenstra, Gerry. 2000. Social Capital, SES and Health: An Individual‐Level Analysis. Social Science & Medicine, 50(2000):619‐629. ‐‐‐‐‐. 2002. Social Capital and Health (Plus Wealth, Income Inequality and Regional Health Governance). Social Science & Medicine, 54(2002):849‐868.

241

Wakefield, Sarah and Blake Poland. 2005. Family, Friend or Foe? Critical reflections on the Relevance and Role of Social Capital in Health Promotion and Community Development. Social Science & Medicine, 60(2005):2819‐2832.

Wakefield, S., Yeudall, F., Taron, C., Reynolds, J., Skinner, A. 2007. Growing Urban Health: Community Gardening in South‐east Toronto. Health Promotion International 22(2): 92‐101. http://www.utoronto.ca/cuhi/publications/index.html

Waterston, Alisse. 1993. Street Addicts in the Political Economy. Philadelphia: Temple University Press. ‐‐‐ 1999. Love, Sorrow and Rage: Destitute Women in a Manhattan Residence. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

Webb, Jen, Tony Schirato, and Geoff Danaher. 2002. Understanding Bourdieu. London: Sage Publication.

Whitley, Rob. 2008. Social Capital and Public Health: Qualitative and Ethnographic Approaches. In Social Capital and Health, Ichiro Kawachi, S.V. Subramanian, and Daniel Kim, Eds. Pp. 95‐116. New York, Springer.

Wilkinson, Richard G. 1999. Income Inequality, Social Cohesion and Health: Clarifying the Theory. A Reply to Muntaner and Lynch. International Journal of Health Sciences, 29(3):525‐543. ‐‐‐‐. 2000. Deeper than “Neoliberalism”: A Reply to David Coburn. Social Science & Medicine, 51:997‐1000.

Wilson, William Julius. 1978. The Declining Significance of Race: Blacks and Changing American Institutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. ‐‐‐‐1987. The Truly Disadvantaged. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Whiteford, Linda. 1996. “Political Economy, Gender and the Social Production of Health and Illness,” in Gender and Health: An International Perspective. Edited by Carolyn Sargent and Caroline Brettell, Pp. 242‐259. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice‐Hall.

Williams, Brett. 1992. Poverty Among African Americans in the Urban United States. Human Organization, 51(2):164‐174. ‐‐‐ 2001. “What’s Debt Got To Do With It?” In The New Poverty Studies: The Ethnography of Power, Politics, and Impoverished People in the United States. Edited by Judith Goode and Jeff Maskovsky, pp. 79‐102. New York: New York University Press

Williams, David R. and Chiquita Collins. 2001. Racial Residential Segregation: A Fundamental Cause of Racial Disparities in Health. Public Health Reports, Vol. 116, No. 5, Health Disparities (Sep. ‐ Oct., 2001), pp. 404‐416.

242

Woolcock, Michael. 1998. Social Capital and Economic Development : Toward and Theoretical Synthesis and Policy Framework. Theory and Society, 27:151‐208.

World Bank. Social Capital for Development Home Page. Available at: http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/TOPICS/EXTSOCIALDEVELOPMENT/ EXTTSOCIALCAPITAL/0,,menuPK:401021~pagePK:149018~piPK:149093~theSitePK: 401015,00.html

Zavella, Patricia. 1996. “Reflections on Diversity among Chicanas,” In Race. Edited by Steven Gregory and Roger Sanjek, pp199‐212.

Ziersch, Anna M., Fran E. Baum, Colin MacDougall, Christine Putland. 2005. Neighbourhood Life and Social Capital: The Implications for Health. Social Science & Medicine, 60(2005):71‐86.

Zinn, Maxine Baca. 1989. Family, Race and Poverty in the Eighties. Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 14(4):1‐19. ‐‐‐ 1997. “Feminist Rethinking from Racial‐Ethnic Families,” In Women of Color in U.S. Society, edited by Baca Zinn and Thornton Dill, Pp. 303‐314. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

243