From Underclass to Entrepreneur – Katz

Leave a reply

From Katz’s piece, it sees as though the term “underclass” went through a metamorphosis of meanings. From the 1970s to the 21st century, it found associations with everything from negativity and pity to spirited hope amidst adverse conditions.

To begin, I found that a key part of defining or even mentioning the underclass in academia, newspapers, and other media stemmed from the allocation of funds through public policy.  Where public money is spent, there follows harsh criticism and a need for evaluation. It is almost as though an entire social science category was born out of the need to explain the question of poverty in regards to culture, environment, and the distribution of money (welfare). The result of integrating research and public policy is the polarization of perceptions because even amidst objective research, results are skewed by private agendas (whether conservative or liberal) to advocate a cause. The direct result of such polarization is likely the reason our “underclass” in the 21st century carries a different meaning than the “underclass” forty years ago.

In the 1970s, the underclass was typically viewed as undeserving poor whose circumstance was a function of their own behavior. Researchers attempted to explain that social isolation, or lack of supervision and role models, bred a culture of poverty. In addition, the most common image of poverty was of an African American woman raising her children through the support of welfare. As much as anthropologist tried to remove the image and supplant it with an objective framework to judge the cause of poverty, private agendas continued to anchor perceptions. A prime example is the work of Oscar Lewis, who discussed the “culture of poverty” in hopes of stirring activists for his cause. He achieved no such feat and the term became a speaking point that advocated punitive public policy. Yet, we now live in a culture where the underclass is labeled as undeserving poor, but rather, as those lacking the right opportunity to escape their circumstance.

To continue, the emergence of new springboard projects that give those in poverty a means of overcoming is the product of a changing perception. Whether the tool is microfinance or government supported initiatives, people in adverse economic situations have proven their capacity to progress. With this in mind, true characterization of the poor can only be attributed after opportunity is granted. Hence, it is imperative that programs be in place because it is then that behavior truly becomes responsible for a person’s economic circumstance.

Katz- Response

Leave a reply

In Katz’s reading, what caught my attention was the categorization of the poor. Katz wrote how Ken Auletta wrote an article about four types of poor: passive, hostile, hustler, and traumatized. Each category of the poor seems to degrade them in general. However, Auletta does not focus on those who are poor because they are immigrants, do not have much education in America, but are still working hard to move upward. Auletta, in my opinion seems to criticize all the poor in general, and saying how lazy, violent, unlawful, and useless they are. But there are many people who are poor that do not deserve that kind of harsh criticism.

What was interesting was the New York City’s Charity Organization Society, which wanted to deal with the issue of poverty. It said poverty must be drained and purified rather than “walling it about.” However, I am not quite sure what this means, though I do agree poverty should be dealt with. I believe there is no way to completely wipe out poverty, but it can be diminished and the negative affects that come with it can be lessened as well. In Peopling of New York City, my class kept mentioning the importance of education, which I also agree is the foundation and support which without can lead to poverty.

Katz finally mentions two categories of poor: undeserving and deserving. What I still do not understand is why are the widows under deserving poor? They do try their best to keep work and raise children. The only Katz mentions is that they failed to save money for possible situations of losing a spouse (“episode of dependence”). If that is true, but the widows are still trying to find a job to have an income and try to raise a family simultaneously, I do not think the widows are deserving of poverty. To me, deserving poor are the ones who choose to not get an education, choose to get involved in drugs and illegal activities, and those who do not work hard.

To continue on about importance of education, Katz even mentions how the War of Poverty targeted schooling rather than helping people in the labor market. This reminds me of the quote “Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime.” If you help provide cheap yet helpful education to people, they can learn and develop skills that can help them in the labor market. Instead of finding them one job, education and skills can help people get multiple of jobs. In addition, this method helps people to not be so dependent on the government. People still have to work hard in school to get where they want to go in life.

With that in mind, I do not think the government today is helping in that way. Tuition rates constantly rise, with no additional benefits. Adding on to that, it is more and more difficult to get a job when one graduates from college, and thus it makes sense that there was and is the constant dilemma of the large economic class gap. More people are falling into the middle and lower class, and some still in the poverty level because of family circumstances, than moving upward. Action truly must be taken by the government to fix this situation, or I believe poverty might worsen.

“Underclass to Entrepreneur” Response

Leave a reply

In “From Underclass to Entrepreneur: New Technologies of Poverty Work in Urban America,” Katz talks about the transformation of the term “underclass.” It started out as a derogatory term used towards black people dominating the crumbling core of the nation’s inner cities. It eventually grew as being the culture of the poor. However, I find it interesting that Katz is celebrating the entrepreneurial energy and talent within poor people who were waiting for the chance to improve their lives. This transformation resulted from the increase in support and aid given to the poor. This help gave them the ability to focus on making something out of themselves rather than remain in poverty.

The example of Muhammad Yunus and his support for people in poverty is a perfect way of helping them climb out of their unfortunate circumstance. I also agree with the rejection the belief that the underclass hurt the safety, health, and prosperity of America’s inner cities. Instead, I think that these effects are brought about by a lack of effort to help the people in poverty, which sometimes causes them to use alternative methods in making a living.

I think that many of the issues that defined the underclass at the time are still persistant today. For example, prominent drugs, crime, teenage pregnancy, and high unemployment, not necessarily poverty, defined the underclass. The people who are thought of as being underclass are also very similar. They are usually young and minorities. All of these qualities of the urban underclass would make anyone to think that they would make up the highly disproportionate number of the nation’s juvenile delinquents, school dropouts, drug addicts and welfare mothers, and much of the adult crime, family disruption, urban decay, and demand for social expenditures.

The programs set in place for the underclass played a large role in why it took so long for them to rise from poverty. The poorhouses that were put in place to despise and neglect the underclass. Even the public schools that were created to educate the children of the urban underclass were not effective. They were less effective than the the smaller schools of the past were. I feel like the struggles that these people faced were a big reason why the current underclass is so willing to work hard to get out of poverty.

I think that the idea of micro-finance is very good since it recognizes the importance of saving to poor people. According to me, the U.S. government tries to help build individual assets, but it is not as effective as it probably can be. It helps the people who already in the upperclass increase their wealth, such as paying interest on mortgages being tax deductible and since the upperclassmen tend to have higher mortgages, they benefit from such a program. I think that there should be more programs that direct their help specifically to the people who are in poverty and are trying to better their living conditions.

Neighborhood Effects in a Changing ‘Hood

Leave a reply

In this piece, the author is writing about a side of gentrification I never
considered. Usually, gentrification has been taught to be the reigning force for
the minority. While it might be beneficial to the neighborhood from an outsider
and policy maker’s point of view, how the neighbors might feel when new people
start coming in is a topic left relatively unexplored. Very little literature
has touched the subject. The piece brings in a point of view I have not seen but
it makes sense when it is explained.

Wilson’s view of gentrification has been taught to me in another IDC class. The
idea that having the middle class come in increases social ties makes a lot of
sense intuitively. The author interviewed a resident and talked about the
interactions between the long term residents and the gentrifiers. In his
interview, the resident said they don’t interact with one another much. While
the community might be benefit in terms of real estate, it seems community feel
decreases at the same time.

For the sake of a lively community, I wonder if gentrification is better even if
it destroys that feeling. Logically, the people that affect how you act the most
are the people who you hang out with. As I read what the author writes, the more
I feel the long term residents are the driving force behind neighborhood change
rather than new residents. For me, my neighborhood doesn’t have any events. My
nephew neighborhood used to have a block party and he and his neighborhoods
definitely seem closer to me.

I thought it was a bit funny when Jennifer, a black woman who obtained a
building used by the neighbor residents before, was called “white” out of
resentment by another black woman. As the author noted, I am sure the woman met
to use “white” to denote outsider status. Although her background isn’t typical
of a gentrifier, she can still be considered an outsider. The more I read the
interviews, the more I feel the ones making a difference in the neighborhoods
aren’t the gentrifiers and instead the old residents. The person who recently
turned Christian said how the one to stop little kids from selling drugs is to
have a job himself to offer.

However, I guess depending on the goals the gentry can help the residents or
hinder them. The piece definitely made me think about whether or not
gentrification is the best way to approach neighborhood change. Policy makers
should read this piece when thinking what is best for a neighborhood. I think
some statistics on who feels the gentry are outsiders would be good too.

Response to Freeman

Leave a reply

Freeman analysis of the gentrification of New York is a rather non-conventional outlook of an often demonized topic. Freeman also used an interest technique to develop and contexualize his ideas. Freeman treats gentrification as a metaphor for america’s once great frontier. Just as America’s frontier was once conquered by intrepid pioneers so too were the once desolate urban neighborhoods now undergoing gentrification. While I believe the metaphor served its purpose in describing gentrification and paralleling it with the history of American expansion, I am still at odds with Freeman’s assertion that features of gentrified neighborhoods actually encompassed elements of the old west.

Gentrification is still an ever-present phenomena and is still hotly debated today. The idea is relatively simply. The process occurs when individuals of means move into low-income neighborhoods. While generally the neighborhood sees many material improvements, often as a result these neighborhoods experience a rise rents or home values, which push less fortunate individuals out. The end result is a more prosperous neighborhood, yet with a very new and different culture and demographic.

In many ways neighborhoods that became gentrified were quite similar to the wild west or new frontier. These areas were relatively underdeveloped nor well understood. In addition, they share many of the same elements of danger such as high crime. Even less access to basic health resources pervade both areas. “The taming of the wild west” is a commonly used refrain by Freeman, which works well with how gentrified neighborhoods take on more docile persona. Just as the old west was once dominated by bandits and criminal though slowly materialized into orderly cities and communities, so to a gentrified neighborhood usually rids itself of its criminalized past.

I was in way kind of baffled by Freeman’s assertion that gentrified neighborhoods literally internalized elements of the old west. Freeman repeatedly points to locations, business establishments, and public places in gentrified neighborhoods which bare names which reference the old west. Additionally, he uses a source which identifies new residences of gentrified neighborhoods as “urban cowboys.” While this may make for an interesting point, I can see no scientific reason for these references, other than the fact that residences enjoy their appearances as pioneers. The argument seems to me rather a coincidence than an reliable fact concerning gentrified neighborhoods.

Overall, I enjoyed Freeman exploration of gentrified neighborhoods as a metaphor for the new frontier and the parallels it shares with the old west. Freeman made several intriguing points, and rather cleverly paints the metaphor well. Yet, I am still rather skeptical regarding the internal perception of gentrified neighborhoods as pioneers. In fact, I feel the label is rather disrespectful to the original residences of these areas.

Building the Frontier Myth/Neighborhood Effects in Changing Hood

Leave a reply

Although I do not have a strong opinion about gentrification, I believe that the success of gentrification depends heavily on the people of the neighborhood. Freeman mentions that to create mixed communities gentrification has the greatest potential. Most gentrification would be of middle class people moving to relatively poor neighborhoods. (126) By creating mixed communities, the neighborhood would rise in value and attraction, thus benefiting the lower-income families. In a review of literature, gentrification gives hope to “improving the housing stock, increasing the tax base,…improving quality of services.” (126) Although it is wonderful to improve a relatively poor neighborhood, it feels as though changing the neighborhood slowly forces previous lower-income residents to leave. If the lifestyle of the neighborhood increases in value, lower-income families would not be able to afford to continue living there.

Freeman mentions that gentrification would help with social ties, and thus would help the lower-income families move up in socially. With middle-income families moving into neighborhoods with lower-income families, the lower-income family would have a chance to obtain information that would help with jobs and other financial activity. However, there was not much change in mobility, because of limited access to resources. (146) Although some women were able to receive benefits through socializing, there was not much change that would benefit the families long-term. I do not think that social ties would do much for lower-income families, especially in our current period. From my experience living in several apartments, there is not much conversation with neighbors. So, in today’s time I do not think that social ties would be a benefit from gentrification.

Smith mentions many neighborhoods in New York City transformed through gentrification, which are now some of the most mainstream areas of Manhattan. He first mentions the Lower East Side and the account of a couple moving down to Ludlow street. This couple had never even heard of Ludlow street before moving in, indicating how infrequently they visited the Lower East Side. Presently, the Lower East Side is filled with many people and businesses. This illustrates how gentrification turned out successful in this neighborhood in increasing attraction.

In addition to the Lower East Side, Smith mentions SoHo that was gentrified in that 1960s and 1970s. In the past SoHo was an area filled with artists lofts and galleries. It also had many unique stores that demonstrated gentrification with the unique products it sold, such as Navajo rugs. Now, SoHo is a shopping destination with many retail stores lined up along Broadway. I find it hard to imagine SoHo gentrified, but do not find it hard to believe that it had been gentrified. With all the chain retail stores in the area, I find it believable that the neighborhood was gentrified.

From Smith’s article, I found out that two neighborhoods in New York City were gentrified. However, I feel that presently this gentrification has raised the costs of living in the area. In a way these two neighborhoods could be considered hubs, which would result in increasing cost of apartments in the area. Thus, this would provide more space for middle-income families and force lower-income families to move out.

Smith “Building the Frontier Myth”

Leave a reply

From this class reading “Building the Frontier Myth” by Neil Smith, I noticed some interesting features that I have never learned before.

First, what is interesting is the way New York looked at the City back then, when it was yet to be developed, as a “frontier” and new settlers, as “urban pioneers.” It was amazing to see the way people, or rather newspaper, with their news-breaking titles and articles, look at “unknown” neighborhood with curiosity and fear: “Ludlow Street. No one we know would think of living here. No one we know has ever heard of Ludlow Street.” Even with neighborhood so familiar to us today, such as W 42nd St, was regarded by the “new settlers” as the untamed “Wild Wild West” that was to be “domesticated” by “trailblazers.” The Western Territory point of view in old cowboy movie made New York a more mythical place to live in, thus drove flocks of curious pionniers to explore the new frontier back then, making New York City the fully-and-over-capacity place that it is today. Throughout the first 2 pages of the articles, references of old cowboy movies like “Crocodile Dundee” proliferated: “optimism,” “hostile landscapes,” “natives,” “wilderness,” and the most outstanding reference of all – “manifest destiny.”

Second was the analogy made by the author about myth, as an event that achieves its long standing in history through the removal of historic and geographical context, altogether making up a cliche. The frontier myth of New York was becoming increasingly prevalent among the new settlers due to the erection of buildings named “The Dakota Apartments,” “Colorado,” “Savannah,” and “New West” with no comment about the consistency between New York and the Wild Wild West.

Third was the integration of businesses into the myth. The fable of the Wild Wild West transformed not only the buildings and facades of the City, but alo its businesses. Introduction of Tex-Mex restaurants, desert decor, and cowboy chic intoxicated the consumption of the day, along with SoHo stores selling Navajo Indian rugs, Santa Fe jewelry, terra-cotta pottery with plain store signs in front as if they were pieces of wood indifferently painted over by white paint (like in the movie). New Yorker did not only look “Western” but ate and dressed that way too.

Fourth was the fact that the frontier myth was also regarded as a “naturalization of urban history” and a place where nature was taken back to its original state.

I thought to myself that if I were to live during such an interesting episode of New York City, I would be wearing full brown leather clothes completed with boots and cowboy hat, with a toothpick half-chewed on my mouth. It would be hilarious. Yet from reading article I realized that the whole facade of the “frontier myth” was only a way for age-old New Yorkers of the day to escape “modernization” and “capitalist development” of the New World, deliberately ignoring contemporary social conflicts for the sake of “urban harmony” back in the days. It was pitiful.

Building the Frontier Myth-Smith

Leave a reply

In the article, “Building the Frontier Myth,” author Neil Smith discusses the concept of gentrification and how certain neighborhoods have developed over time. He describes how certain areas have evolved from run down and low income neighborhoods, occupied by working-class residents to affluent communities, dominated by high end fashion boutiques and upper-class citizens. Throughout the article, Smith compares the gentrification of New York City to the “Frontier Myth” or “Taming the Wild West” in order to represent the attitudes of the residents of New York City, as well as the “pioneers” who claim to have been the first settlers who started the transformation of these neighborhoods.

One thing that I found to be very interesting was the way the author described the transformation of the Lower East Side. During that time period, there were many people who were afraid of neighborhoods such as the Lower East Side. To them, it was an undiscovered territory marked by danger and the unknown. For example, in the article he provides a statement from a couple who moved to the Lower East Side, who compare themselves to “pioneers crossing the Rockies.” They believed that they were embarking on a journey, attempting to discover unchartered territories. They viewed themselves as visionaries or “urban pioneers. However, through gentrification, the Lower East Side has been transformed into a chic neighborhood, characterized by bars, restaurants and fashion boutiques. Rents are at their all time high and artists or small retailers are being replaced by high-end national tenants. Due to its increasing traffic and popularity it has replaced low income residents, with wealthy families.

Throughout the article, Smith compares many New York City neighborhoods, in particular Soho and the Lower East Side, to the Western frontier and the jungles of Africa. He explains that this transformation has occurred both in ideology and in the style of the fashion boutiques. In terms of ideology, he mentions that the gentrification of these neighborhoods can be compared to the discovery of the Wild West. He explains that he city is “oozing with optimism.” Areas that were viewed as run-down and low-income were being reinvigorated and replaced with up-beat middle-class neighborhoods. The working-class residents were kicked out or forced to move due to rising real estate prices, thereby transforming the neighborhood into one that was gentrified.

Furthermore, the frontier ideology also transformed the fashion and style of many of the high-end boutiques. Many stores in Soho were selling items such as Navajo rugs or terra-cotta pottery, things that characterized the Western frontier. One store even sold a bleached buffalo skull for $500. The city was taking on a new, rugged identity and it was exemplified throughout. New York City was also adopting an African jungle theme, to the point where many stores were organized to look like jungles. Ralph Lauren created a collection depicting the “Safari woman.” One point that Smith mentioned that I found extremely interesting was the fact that during that time, most New Yorkers couldn’t even fathom what was going on in Africa. It was an area that was underdeveloped, lacked capital and full of famine and war. However, people saw it as a remarkable, exotic fantasy and as an escape from the “gentrified city.”

At the end of the article Smith points a major fault of this frontier philosophy. In the myth the poor are seen as “uncivil” or savages. They are pictured as a group of people who don’t understand social norms and must be tamed and controlled by the civil, affluent and proper upper class. Although I believe that in some cases gentrification may prove to be great, by redeveloping and advancing certain areas, in some cases its consequences may outweigh its benefits. The number of people it displaces may outweigh the amount of good it produces. Therefore, I believe that we must look at each situation and neighborhood in its entirety in order to consider the possible effects that gentrification may have.

 

“Building the Frontier Myth” – Response

Leave a reply

Gentrification is a highly controversial issue in urban planning and development. Revitalization of neighborhoods and their economies is contrasted with the uprooting of existing populations and the pricing out of small businesses to create a debate with valid arguments on both sides. Neil Smith’s “Building the Frontier Myth” makes the point that the WIld West myth has been co-opted by the media to characterize urban gentrification as the work of brave “pioneers,” so as to generate a favorable image of the practice among the public.

There is something to be said for the romanticization of Manifest Destiny in American history. Home buyers and business investors would certainly feel happier about being a part of the gentrification of a neighborhood if they could be convinced that they were following in the path of the great frontiersmen who “tamed” the West. I found the excerpt about Times Square to be very interesting.  In that case, the marketing strategy has obviously worked very well. Times Square is probably unrecognizable from what it was in the 80’s and it would be ridiculous to think that people would need any motivation to grab an opportunity to invest there.

One main concern that the author expresses is that equating gentrification to the settling of the West obliterates some fundamental differences between the two movements such as the geographical location and challenges, to name one example. He writes, “Frontier is as much a style as a place.” Urban “cowboys” buy into the myth and completely seize the opportunity to imitate the media-generated, idealized image of the Wild Wild West. Perhaps, in doing so, they show disrespect to the seriousness and magnitude of that time in history. 

Further, as society gets caught up in this exciting myth, real social issues that surround gentrification will be pushed to the side. Gentrification gives rise to a significant social conflict. When local businesses and long-time residents get priced out of their own neighborhoods, only to see the new incumbents being praised for revitalizing, even “saving” the neighborhood as it were, it is a problem. Obviously, to romanticize a policy that gives rise to such serious concerns is not appropriate.

From my personal experience with reading about gentrification, I don’t believe that the Wild West jargon is as prevalently used anymore. But  gentrification is still accorded a degree of superiority i.e., gentrification is seen as something that “improves” a neighborhood. That may be true from a certain perspective but I am not convinced that gentrification “improves” a neighborhood so much as it “replaces” it with a middle-class ideal.

Building the Frontier Myth response

Leave a reply

In the reading “Building the Frontier Myth” Smith gives an overview of how certain neighborhoods had evolved from time to time. The reading talks about various example of NYC neighborhood, such as Lower East Side, SoHo, Ludlow Street and etc. This reading really surprised me. It shows me how gentrification has changed certain neighborhood physically as well as how it changed people’s attitude toward these neighborhoods.

Real estate people were using the phrase “The Taming of the Wild Wild West” to describe their project of building new condominium two blocks west of Times Square. They declared, “West 42nd Street has been tamed, domesticated and polished into the most exciting freshest, most energetic new neighborhood in all of New York.” Times Square has gone through many large transformations. From a neighborhood where people didn’t even want to go at night, to today the most glamorous area of the city. It caused the nearby property value to increase, and eventually there weren’t a lot of people who can afford to live there.

Another interesting part of the reading is about the gentrification process took place in SoHo. I had been to SoHo couple times, but I didn’t really like it. It has so many fashion boutiques and art galleries. It was interesting to know that SoHo has gone through gentrification, yet some of the surrounding neighborhoods still seem to be not affected by this process. I know Chinatown is near SoHo area, however, I am not sure if gentrification of SoHo has significant impacts in certain area of Chinatown’s property value or other nearby neighborhoods. Compare to many years ago, when SoHo first got famous, it might have increased the nearby property value.

This reading also talks about frontier, which is constantly changing. “The new urban frontier motif encodes not only the physical transformation of the built environment.“ Smith says that the changing of frontier does not occur only through the physical transformation. At the same time, through the process of gentrification, people’s attitude toward certain neighborhood also changes. Eventually people started to accept them, and want to live in the area where they didn’t wanted to live before.

Gentrification has happened in many part of New York City neighborhoods. As Smith mentioned in his chapter, areas include Lower East Side, Ludlow Street, SoHo, and etc. Gentrification was mostly a result of upper class or middle class buying a lower class area of the city, and renovates them to completely change their property value. Because of change in the property value these lower class people couldn’t afford to live there anymore; usually they were forced to move out. I think somehow, gentrification is good to certain neighborhoods because it may promote diversity. And gentrification also resulted in change of attitude toward certain neighborhoods of the city, which I think is a good thing for the city as a whole.