Oppression is a difficult word to define, often subjective to the group being oppressed. In “Five Faces of Oppression,” Iris Marion Young attempts at creating an objective definition through the explanation of five different concepts: exploitation, marginalization, powerlessness, cultural imperialism, and violence. The Marxist theory of exploitation explains how class structure exists despite any clearly states distinctions. According to Young, exploitation is “a steady process of the transfer of the results of the labor of one social group to benefit the other” (330). Furthermore, it extends from class distinctions to sexual and racial oppression as well. Marginalization refers to the process that limits the resources and rights of people that “the labor cannot or will not use” (331). Powerlessness, often stemming from exploitation and marginilazation, mainly deals with the status of professional and nonprofessionals, the latter of which often face this kind of oppression. Cultural imperialism has a lot to do with privilege and the establishment “dominant group’s experiences” as the norm of society (333). Lastly, violence refers to the systemic oppression many groups have to fear, which include but are not limited to random attacks, damaged property, harassment, and humiliation.

In her last section, Young states, “the presence of any of these five conditions is sufficient for calling a group oppressed”. Reading this in context of mental health, those dealing with mental health issues deal with most, if not all five of the conditions. However, they are most impacted by marginalization. Mental illnesses are often debilitating, leaving individuals dependent on family, friends, and the government. As Young describes, they are (indirectly) excluded from equal citizenship rights. They are subjected to ill-treatment by both policies and people, and to the authority of others, leaving them powerless.

The idea of privilege also plays into the mental health system. In “Privileged Places” Gregory D. Squires and Charis E. Kubrin highlight spatial and racial inequalities, which are associated with the access to all products and services of “the good life”. Reading into the history of how mental health has been dealt with over the past century, mentally ill individuals are highly deprived. Prior to the 1900s, most were isolated from the community and placed in asylums or poor housing. Today, they are often incarcerated. Wherever they end up, they are not given the services they need to heal. Furthermore, the idea of “location location location” can be applied here. The uneven development of communties Squires and Kubrin highlight reinforce not only the system of privilege, but also the system of oppression Young discusses.

Discussion Question: How do we combat these disparities? This system has been in place for hundreds of years, so where exactly do we start?

Harold DeRienzo distinguishes between neighborhood and community in “Community Organizing for Power and Democracy: Lessons Learned from a Life in the Trenches.” Neighborhoods are based on geography, while communities are based on the social ties that exist between the people. Reflecting on my past, I realized I’ve often mixed up the two words. I viewed community as the definition mentioned above, but specifically with the individuals in my neighborhood, which I never had. I’ve moved 4 times in my life, 3 of which have occurred in the past 6 years. As a result, I was never able to develop a “community” within my neighborhood. After reading this piece however, I’ve realized that my community extends far beyond the physical region I reside in. It extends to the organizations I am a part of, the friendships I have made across the country due to the organizations, and much more. This community has indeed given me the opportunity to reach my aspirations and goals, as James DeFilippis and Susan Saegert highlighted in “Communities Develop: The Question is, How?” However, this fact has made me question whether there was a set definition of community, and I do not believe there is. In that case, how does one find his/her community? I think the answer to that is using the resources available to you.

Linking this to the mental health system in the city, I believe there is a lack of resources for individuals dealing with mental health issues to create a community. They are often marginalized and isolated from the public. DeFilippis and Saegert state, “communities are the sites for our housing, education, health care, daily convenience shopping, and the other activities that sustain us physically, emotionally, socially, and psychologically”. When reviewing the history of mental health in New York City, individuals facing mental health issues were not given adequate housing, education, or health care. Even today, many do not have access to these resources, and as a result they are hurt physically, emotionally, socially, and psychologically.

Recognizing the importance of community is the first step in tackling mental health issues. ThriveNYC has specified an initiative to increase such resources, so I believe we’re going in the right direction.

Much of what Angotti mentions in the first chapter accurately describes the situation in Flushing West. As Angotti mentions, social injustice and the differences in perception of land use are some of the factors that give birth to community planning. In terms of social injustice, many of the redevelopment projects mainly affect the poor in the area. Flushing community members currently face problems such as overcrowding, a lack of community centers, jobs, and affordable housing, and displacement among many other problems; yet, little is done by the city to fix these problems. These common problems that have persisted is what motivates community members to become more active in bringing about change in their community. However, in addition to sharing common goals, another likely reason for these community planning efforts is the meaning that land holds. To the developers, land is a tool for generating profit but to community members, it’s more than that. Community land is significant because it’s where they settle down and  build their lives.

Another thing mentioned by Angotti was affordable housing and how workers often need affordable housing. This is the main issue that community members in Flushing have been focusing on. With the current rezoning, they have successfully pushed for more affordable housing units through the MIH or Mandatory Inclusionary Housing, where an additional option has been added to provide affordable housing to more people. Even so, there are still concerns that some Flushing residents won’t have access because of income issues and  the current overcrowding that is occurring in Flushing.

Many of these problems arise due to conflicting interests. Developers want to maximize profit but having more affordable housing units limits that. Residents want more affordable housing units but at the same time are in danger of facing the consequences of gentrification. Is there a medium between the two? Can both sides be satisfied?

“From Environmental Justice to Community Planning” shows the unfair treatment of neighborhoods. A waste-management facility will never be seen in a rich, upscale neighborhood. As a matter of fact, better-off neighborhoods won’t even be considered. That decision wasn’t from any comprehensive plan or from local input. Poor neighborhoods or communities of color, on the other hand, will most likely get the unwanted facilities. In 1989, there was a city charter revision that incorporated the fair-share principle so “that no neighborhood should have more than its share of burdensome facilities” (133), but the lack of strict regulations prevented the principle from being enforced. In 1994, Executive Order 12898 was ordered on environmental justice to address disproportionate environmental burdens, but it was ignored by the subsequent administration. The not-in-my-backyard (NIMBY) philosophy was used to justify the unfairness.

Angotti mentions the South Bronx. In 1991, the Bronx Lebanon Medical Waste Incinerator was “built in a low-income neighborhood near a public housing project and several schools” (137), an example of low-income neighborhoods getting LULUs (local unwanted lands uses). Toxic air is frequently discharged, but the official environmental review concluded that “there would be no significant negative environmental impact” (138). Engineers also did not consider “that even a single failure in operations could have a catastrophic effect on the people living around the facility” (138). Reading the South Bronx reminded me of the tour our community contact, Mychal Johnson, gave us. Even though the South Bronx Clean Air Coalition was successful in closing the medical waste incinerator, there was still a chemical smell in the air. Mychal also told us that a Con Edison electricity plant explosion caused residents to lose power. The land erodes every time it rains and may flood during big storms. With incoming stronger storms caused by climate change and a lack of water mitigation, it really looks as if the engineers didn’t put too much consideration for the local residents in case something goes wrong at the waterfront facilities.

Discussion: If a low-income neighborhood with LULUs is gentrified, then what will happen to the facilities? Will the facilities be given subsidies to relocate to another low-income neighborhood because the current neighborhood is now upscale and deserves NIMBY philosophy?

Collective Capacity, which in the article is defined as ‘commonality and interdependence’, is completely ignored in the Flushing West community. Collective capacity involves community engagement in order to accomplish goals that are better for the group and requires community members to work together. Another aspect of a community is interdependence. Interdependence states that the members of a community depend on the government and economy in order to remain stable and unified. The government and economy, on the other hand, depend on its citizens in order to keep a well-balanced economy. A good combination of both these features will create a good standing community.

In the our group’s attendance of the Minkwon Center hearing, we were able to see that the community members of Flushing West are involved in collective capacity. They are working together to make sure that they all aren’t displaced and want to make sure that they do not receive unreasonable increases in rent. However, the aspect of interdependence is missing in this community. The government fails to realize that they are very much so dependent on their citizens. Because of this, they decided to continue to allow the current rezoning plan as is. However, if they fail to comply to some of the community members desires, they will end up hurting their own community. The economic balance may take a hit, thus revealing the reasons for which this current approved plan should have been stopped.

Through “Five Faces of Oppression,” I. M, Young elaborates on the five fundamental aspects of oppression. Following a Marxist approach of class structure, she explains that exploitation, marginalization, powerlessness, cultural imperialism, and violence fuel oppression. Of course she does state that these five “faces” are objective and only act as factors that support the idea that a group is oppressed. An example for this would be when Young states that the working-class people are exploited and powerless and that old people and disabled people are oppressed through marginalization and cultural imperialism.

Applying this to the group looking into mental health, we have to look at how those with declining mental health are oppressed (assuming that they are). Utilizing Young’s passage as a reference, one can say that those with issues of mental health go through cultural imperialism which in turn results to being marginalized and powerless.
The main cause of oppression would be cultural imperialism. As defined in the text, cultural imperialism is when a certain culture is established as the norm. In regards to mental health, it wasn’t until recently that mental health issues such as depression was even brought up as a problem. The whole stigma around it was that it either didn’t exist or that it wasn’t important. The standard before was that everyone was mentally stable. With the old norm being set in place, it caused many to be marginalized and powerless since the problem wasn’t seen as a problem in the first place.
Therefore under Young’s five “faces” of oppression, those with mental health disorders can be determined as oppressed. The next question is, “How can this be changed?” That is what Thrive NYC is for. As for how effective Thrive NYC will be, only time will tell.

Discussion Question: Will there ever be a point where oppression will cease to exist?

“Community development emerges in the context of the current limitations of the capitalist political economy to fulfill the needs and desires of the community.” (DeFelippis and Saergert, 5)

That is what the authors believe that community development should be used for. This does not seem to hold true in the case of  the Flushing West rezoning. DeBlasio has stated the rezoning across the city is done to improve the community, but that is not what the community needs. Communities are important for the well being of the workforce, but the local workforce in Flushing is still stuck with low wage jobs.

The development only had the input of the wealthy. The local institutions didn’t give power to the poorer minorities. The organizations that the community does have ties with don’t have the power to affect the rezoning. The City Council has voted to approve DeBlasio’s plan, despite the Community Boards advising them to veto it. Activists in other areas affected by rezoning have called for giving the Community Boards veto power in land use cases. The people of Flushing will have maximize their collective capacity, and use all their resources to protect their community.

The multitude of processes that make up progressive community planning all have the elements stated in the title. All of these elements are also seen in the community’s attempts to change the rezoning of Flushing West. The Flushing community wants more housing and a cleaner waterfront, but real estate investors want to build for luxury housing and the locals will not be able to afford it. The worst part is that the developers are taking advantage of the public subsidies for affordable housing, but they aren’t building enough affordable housing. Community Board 7 (CB7) members want to further incite building affordable housing, but the tax breaks are no longer in effect and they allow the developers to build higher due to being so close the LaGuardia Airport.

Upzoning Flushing West is supposed to be best for the whole area, but it doesn’t represent the diverse interests of its residents. However, adding more people will worsen the overcrowding problem that already exists in Flushing. The plan will have contrary effects than it’s supposed to. The needs of Flushing conflict with what developers want, but the latter are the ones that have a greater voice in the rezoning. Now that the City Council has approved the rezoning, the Flushing community will have to take action to make their voices heard. This problem does not have a simple solution; there are upsides and downsides to different solutions. That is why the residents of Flushing need to be informed to make sure they have power in their community.

This week’s reading by Susan Frainstein focuses on urban justice goals. Mainly she breaks down her urban planning method into three categories, democracy, diversity, and equity. She also points out that planning theory is flawed because it doesn’t take the urban space that it affects into context.

For democracy she says that decisions in shaping the city should not be made by only a handful of social welfare workers and city planners. Their decisions usually do not take into consideration the opinions and interests of residents and therefore causes a dispute. She suggests a democratic approach towards urban planning so that the opinions of those that are usually not heard can finally be heard and taken into consideration. Her argument for diversity is yet a complex one. She first justifies why the term diversity is best used in this context. Then she explains that her idea of urban diversity is such as the ideas presented by Jane Jacobs; that the city should have more diverse structures and streets. She argues that “urban diversity stimulates creativity, which in turn causes economic growth.” Finally for equity she explains that it is mostly spotted in housing policies.

The proposal of the BQX can be related to this reading. Again, the argument that the BQX is focused solely for economic growth of the city and does not take into consideration how the lives of the residents around the area will be affected can be pointed out. The BQX can be seen as a tool for urban planning. I think Susan Frainstein’s ideas should be implemented for this proposal before it is carried out. Meaning, that city officials and planners should look into how the neighborhoods around the proposed line will be affected and take their opinions into consideration. Also they should question whether or not the BQX will help diversify the city. Finally, they should make a conclusion on whether or not this proposal is just based on this feedback then construct the line or not based on their conclusion.

Social justice has, in recent years, been disparaged and demonized. However, social justice is what allows big cities like New York to evolve and meet the needs of its residents. As Squires and Kuprin point out, big cities are characterized by uneven growth, which is concurrent with spatial inequality. Often, cities develop along patterns of segregation, where minority-majority communities often have less access to services, employment, and education.

For the purpose of our group, it’s important to consider these limitations to accessible mental healthcare. In low-income, often minority-majority communities, access to mental health services often means leaving the community and utilizing many forms of public transportation to attend weekly therapy sessions. The recurring cost of transportation adds up to make attending therapy a financial burden for clients. This makes it exceedingly difficult to reach low-income clients when existing symptoms and possible side effects from medication may make it difficult for the clients to leave their homes. It’s no secret that mental healthcare is a profession that is disproportionately white and middle class. In order to change this trend, social justice tactics to destigmatize mental health and create comprehensive pathways to care must, as Squires and Kuprin point out, be class-based and race-based.

Thrive NYC is, in concept, a good way to reach out to New Yorkers in need of mental health services. Its ideal of inclusion and simplification of pathways to care sound like noble causes. Our issue is that we still haven’t seen these changes. What we’ve discovered through reaching out to our many community contacts is that even among professionals, there is a lack of awareness that the government is even trying to change the mental health system or—more realistically—build one in the first place.

Discussion question: How is place privilege eliminated? How do we expand services to low-income, predominantly minority communities and ensure that these services are of equal or comparable quality to services in middle and upper-class communities?