All posts by Corrin Chow

Reading Response

On PAR

When reading the Picture the Homeless report on Homelessness and real estate speculation, I was very inspired by the sleep outs. “Sleep outs” is the name of PTH’s public education demonstrations. In these instances, individuals actually slept on the streets in front of abandoned buildings. They also engaged the community in conversation about homelessness, gentrification, and vacancies. How cool would it look like to perhaps stage another sleep out to do a public education piece for City College. Recently, the unknown number of homeless CCNY students was brought to attention on the CCNY Secrets Facebook page. In order to bring the issue of homelessness back to home base, it would be quite the movement to stage a sleep out on the front steps of our college.

Like Morris Justice, knowledge can only be valid if it has impact on people’s lives. The key phrase here is people. A lot of the time, policy often removes the human impact in its strive to achieve its economic or political goals. What I really liked about the Morris Justice explanation of valid knowledge was the fact it created room for different voices to express their different or similar experiences. Valid knowledge is, “produced only in collaboration and in action, and that those typically “studied” should be architects of the process”.

The public engagement of sleeping on the streets is a compelling way of gathering that type of valid knowledge. Especially if the issue is unknown to the majority of individuals. At that point, it’s a perfect opportunity to explore why there was a information blackout. How does the denial and access of information inform the citizen as they make their political choices? Participatory Action Research is a wonderful method of uncovering the layers of a complex issue, generating a scenario, and then not proposing a reductivist solution.

Reading Response

The Right to the/Just City

“We live in a world where the rights of private property and profit rate trump all other notions of rights.”  

That above quote, by David Harvey, describes what the 21st century worldview is like. What happens in this kind of society is that our morality is no longer based upon human relations, but in material objects. All that was unquantifiable — water, land, housing, treatment of other humans — suddenly becomes commodified. What can be commodified can suddenly be exploited for our benefit. Our perspectives and beliefs of this world are based on these very notions until we become what Harvey describes as neoliberal individualists.

These kind of individuals see their life’s purpose as appropriating more wealth. We’re faced with the Faustian dilemma – “reinvest to get more money, or consume surplus”. There’s no room for thinking about the other person as someone with equal footing. You’re constantly thinking about how your interactions satisfy those two requirements – making or spending money. In a neoliberal society, capitalism and urbanization feed into each other. Which means that the in order for one to grow, there needs to be an expansion in the other. Capitalism is inherently imperialistic, and that’s a problem, eventually there’s going to be nothing left to conquer.

I thought Susan Fainstein’s article was a great complement to Harvey’s chapter. Harvey talks a lot about what it looks when the “intense possessive individualism can be a template for human personality socialization”. Basically, he’s saying that you can’t live in a society and not be personally effected. But while Harvey’s chapter leaves us own a downside, Fainstein proposes several actions that would appear to break this vicious cycle.

Fainstein begins with the political divorce of public policy determination from political influence. This divide between politics and administration was because of the noble belief that experts could develop policies in isolation from selfish interests. But, as they say, good intentions line the pathway to hell. This traditional belief is based on a classical, rational ideology – the assumption that humans will always make logical, patterned, and expected choices. Obviously, this is not the case. As Harvey as demonstrated, neoliberalism is what the traditional political attitude got us. Fainstein, however, is trying to reconnect what was formerly divided. In her planning theory, she’s especially keen on looking at the background, effects, and underlying principles. Her theory isn’t just about what’s rational – it’s about the irrational – human nature.

Taking into consideration what our current society is like, both Harvey and Fainstein agree that to claim a right to the city, you have to claim some kind of shaping power. Therefore, we need a way to redistribute power to the disenfranchised. Fainstein’s ladder of citizenship participation argues for a stronger role of the disadvantaged groups in formulating + implementing policy. “Without redistribution of decisional power, there is no redistribution of benefits.” This is what grassroots initiatives like Picture the Homeless are trying to do. By rallying together homeless people, and having these folks express their needs and suggest policies, the disadvantaged are creating a stronger voice.

Of course, a strong voice is one thing, but to what extent does the political system need to be re-evaluated? The disadvantaged might not be following the neoliberal ethic, but the politicians might. What are specific ways that the public can demand for reform without revolt?

Reading Response: “Privileged Places”

The Politics of Place, Oppression, and Privilege

The inseparable relationship between underdevelopment and race is made clear in Squires and Kubrin’s argument. Both authors asses the nature of spatial and racial inequality and put forth possible solutions to this social problem. The history of uneven development has its roots in post-World War II years – where sprawl, concentrated poverty, and segregation were the descriptors of metropolitan development. Squires and Kubrin continue to make the connection between the sprawl, concentrated poverty, and racial segregation and the conceived “concentration effects” of privileges in different neighborhoods and racial groups. These “concentration effects shape opportunities and lifestyles throughout the life cycle and across generations” (349). It’s a kind of generational curse that keeps cycling on. According to the authors, the way out comes in the form of an uncommon allies, “coalitions that cut across interest groups and racial groups” (352).  Examples of such allies would be anti-poverty groups and affordable housing advocates to address the issue of the housing crisis. Another example was school choice and fair housing groups.

I agree with Squires and Kubrin’s “uncommon allies” suggestion. In the grander scheme of things, we have to acknowledge our global crisis. In a system of neoliberal capitalism, there’s so such thing as stopping to solve the root problem. It’s apparent in the way our government has even handled our 2008 financial crisis. We kept pushing back the budget problem because the focus was on maintaining the economy. The issue of uneven development finds its macro-roots to the rise of industry. Everything became a commodity, even basic needs. Therefore, in order to challenge the present system, there’s a strong argument against solving capitalism crisis with capitalist solutions – because it’s an impossible task. The very nature of neoliberalism is to expand profit making in a forceful way. Solutions shouldn’t carry that intent. “Uncommon allies” suggests a method of breaking down the profit-lust that our society seeps in. No longer are coalitions self-focused in that they’re only concerned with promoting their agenda. But in coming together as a collective group to champion the same goals, that will lead to smarter answers.

Public Health

A Time of Crisis

In Political Science there’s something called the “conflict trap” where as violence within a country worsens, human security declines, which causes more violence, until the state can no longer uplift itself from this vicious cycle. It’s not hard to see this very same phenomena being explained in the Wallace-Wallace “Origins of Collapse”. In the conflict trap trajectory, a state is no longer structurally able to provide for its people. Without any sort of outside intervention, it will fail. 

Similarly in the “Origins of Collapse” piece, Wallace and Wallace calls for “a coordinated and comprehensive program to stem contagious urban decay reverse social disintegration” (Wallace and Wallace, p.428). There is a tendency to forget how contagious human feelings are. When analyzing the issue of public housing, economists and urban planners will often want to look at the “most rational” answer. “Most rational” sometimes excluding the unpredictability of human nature and focuses on merely the cost-benefits. Providing more jobs or more housing does little to solve the actual psychological problems of urban decay. There might be more employment opportunities, but the retention rate is next to nothing. 

Humans find meaning and value in their possessions.  Recalling the words from Fried’s analysis of the impact on individuals from a community’s destruction, “I felt as though I lost everything.” “I felt like my heart was taken out of me.” (Wallace and Wallace, p.407). The comprehensive and coordinated program Wallace and Wallace seek should involve encouraging members of the fringe society to take ownership of their capability to find a solution. A program like this needs to act from the bottom-up. 

This proposition comes from experience with a service organization called Hands at Work. Hands’ policy is to provide the financial, hard labor, psychological, and spiritual support to the local community in South Africa. Many times, in the midst of upheaval and poverty in a community, local members will rise up to offer “care services”. These members are usually grandmothers, aunts, and/or sisters who provide child care in exchange for monies or food. Hands at Work looks to support these organic social constructions. It encourages the community to 1) acknowledge their problem 2) motivates them to seek a solution 3) creates an ownership over their solution. Charity is needed, but not sustainable if we’re talking about renewing a society. This method would be the best way to promote sustainable development.