In this text, Peter Marcuse discusses the implications of the enclave, citadel and ghetto in post 1960-70 cities. He first makes it a point to define each system of division, and continues on in familiarizing the reader with each concentration of people by sharing the taxonomy behind each concentration, ranging from “spatial formation” to the “identifying characteristics” of any one peoples.

Ghetto: “A spatially concentrated area used to seperate and to limit a particular involuntarily defined population group held to be and treated as, inferior by the dominant society.”

• Outcast Ghetto: “A ghetto of the excluded, rather than of the dominated and exploited.”

Enclave: “Generally seen as positive; members of a particular population group…congregate as a means of enhancing their economical, social, political and cultural development.”

Citadel: “A spatially concentrated area in which members of a particular population group, defined by its position of superiority, in power wealth, or status, in relation to its neighbors, congregate as a means of protecting or enhancing that position.”

After grasping these core definitions, I realized that communities around me possess one or many of these attributes, and could be characterized accordingly (though the lines between ghettos and enclaves can very easily blur.)

Though the text discusses many features of the ghetto, enclave and citadel, I was most intrigued by the economic relationship that each concentration of people shared both within their communities and outside of their immediate areas. Marcuse, throughout the text, explores the economic impact of the outcast ghetto. Where a traditional ghetto is seen as inferior by the majority of people residing in the area surrounding it, and outcast ghetto builds upon this definition and is almost ignored, especially when looking at the outcast ghetto from an economic standpoint. A traditional ghetto is not necessarily separated from the mainstream economy (in terms of being occupied outside the ghetto, or using services such as grocery stores or laundromats). An outcast ghetto, however, provides little to no economic advantage to its surrounding area, and burdens the area rather than adding to it. It is in this way that divisions are deepened, and the internal economy of an outcast ghetto is perpetuated. This is especially detrimental to the outcast ghetto if its economy is already sub par with little growth.

When looking to the enclave, the economic relationship between the concentrated population and its surrounding area is different that that of the outcast ghetto. Since enclaves are typically composed of immigrants or cultural groups (in terms of religion, etc.), rather than blacks, they are perceived somewhat differently. Since enclaves are largely seen as voluntary congregations rather than exclusions, they are free to participate in the outside economy, but many choose not to simply because of the prosperity already existing within their enclave. In many cases, immigrants/ cultural groups have chosen to expand their businesses outside of their enclaves, and in the process familiarize the outside population with their culture, opening the door to potential integration. Where outcast ghettos are seen as a burden, enclaves can present a wealth of economic opportunity, and sometimes are essential to the upkeep of the mainstream economy of an area.

Lastly, the citadel differs from both the ghetto and enclave in that it is always “defined by its position of superiority.” Inhabitants of a citadel are afraid of being adversely influenced by sub par economic conditions outside their realm, and thus attempt to “shut in” their economic wealth and success.

I was surprised that the ghetto, enclave and citadel could be characterized in terms of economic condition, and economic relations both within their realms and outside. I came away from reading this text with a few questions: Do any of the communities I’m familiar with in the NYC area display these economic typifications? Do I routinely overlook examples that I may come into contact with on a day to day basis? For example, I take the bus through Flushing, NY every morning on my commute to Queens College. Flushing appears to resemble an enclave; the Asian-Americans who reside in Flushing are largely a congregation of immigrants who have flocked together in one area for cultural, socioeconomic, and political support. I have noted over the years that the majority of shops and services offered in Flushing are Asian-oriented, from restaurants to hairdressers. I’m interested in looking into the economic statistics of the area as we go through the semester.