In the article, “The Enclave, the Citadel, and the Ghetto: What has Changed in the Post-Fordist US City”, Peter Marcuse defines an “enclave”, a “citadel” and “the ghetto”. He introduces implications of the enclave, citadel and ghetto.. Not only but he also discusses differences, specifically ghetto and an outcast ghetto. According to Marcus, a ghetto is a concentrated area used to seperate and to limit a particular population group treated as inferior by society. This article illustrates that the word ghetto has a more significant meaning that certain groups of people who find this term to be “derogatory” or misleading.

Marcuse stated that people do not voluntarily live in ghettos, whereas people voluntarily living in enclaves. However, Black people have a right and the option to live wherever they want, even though they pick the “ghetto” areas.  The reason is because other blacks are concentrated in the “ghetto” areas so they feel comfortable living in that area.

Marcuse did a good job of characterizing ghetto, enclave and citadel by economic condition and the economic relations they play with their surroundings.  Also, we can see the residential segregation that exists among “ghettos”, “enclaves”, and “citadels.” n example of a “citadel” would be the luxurious apartments on Manhattan’s Upper East Side.  Certain areas of Manhattan and Bronx would be the “ghetto”  because of their large Black population whereas Chinatown is considered to be the enclave because with thriving immigrant population.

As a result of Marcuse’s article, I’ve gained knowledge and learned that race as well as ethnicity is very important in creating the “areas” such as the ghetto, citadels, or enclaves, that make up the city for what it is now.

In Logan and Zhang’s “Global Neighborhoods: New Pathways to Diversity and Separation,” they expanded on a phenomenon in cities that they called the buffer effect. Put simply, it says that communities of white and black people will not last for long because the white people of that community will leave if they feel there is too large of a black presence. The only time that white and black people will live together in a community is if Latinos and Asians move into the white community first. For some reason, this makes it more appealing for blacks to move into what used to be mostly white communities. These mixed communities are said to be unstable because the white populations eventually leave after the blacks come.

As I read about this, several familiar neighborhoods came to mind. One that is close to home in my case is a development complex called LeFrak City. LeFrak City is a collection of 20 apartment buildings that was built in the 1960s to bring some of luxurious aspects of city living into Queens. The development had a pool, a park, a grocery store, and many other such luxuries that attracted some of the wealthier people of Queens. At first, the majority of the residents were wealthy and Jewish. This was the case until Mayor Lindsay designated parts of the complex as affordable housing and he worked to incorporate welfare recipients into the apartments.

The majority of the new tenants that came pouring into Lefrak were low-income blacks. The wealthy Jewish people who lived there beforehand fled in large numbers. In my childhood in Elmhurst, I’ve met many people who currently live in LeFrak, and I’ve noted that the majority of the tenants are black or Hispanic. I’ve also noted a hesitance from other white people to go too close to LeFrak because of a perception of danger that they have about the area.

Through the years, the population of LeFrak has changed from mostly black to nearly half black and half Hispanic. Since this has been true, I feel like there is a slightly better perception of LeFrak by whites in the area. This is obviously different from the view they held of LeFrak in the 1970s, when the buildings were utterly crime and drug ridden. This change in perception bothers me somewhat because it implies that race plays a key role, but nonetheless, it is a clear cut example of how the buffer effect plays a role in tensions between white and black populations in a community.

Global Neighborhoods: New Pathways to Diversity and Separation offered interesting insight on how whites and minorities interact in different neighborhoods, and the sudden disappearance of formerly all white tracts in global cities. This study uncovers an odd phenomenon about how whites and minorities, particularly black people, interact with each other. Research has shown that white people are more likely to leave a neighborhood when black people enter into it, but less likely to do the same when Asians or Hispanics move into their neighborhood. In addition to that, the study also shows another phenomenon called the “buffering hypothesis.” White people are less likely to leave a neighborhood when black people enter a neighborhood if there exists a presence of another minority, Hispanic and Asian people. Also the study notes that only five previously all white tracts made a change from a predominantly white to white-black. In contrast, the number of Hispanic or Asian entry into a previously predominant white society without the entry of blacks was larger than 400.

This study was an eye opener for me, I never once thought about how whites react to minorities moving into their previously all white neighborhoods. The number of all white neighborhoods has taken a big dip from 1980 to 2000 alone. A study done by Freidman notes that predominantly white neighborhoods dropped from a large 54% to just 28%. The future patterns of how white people will choose to live in the future are a mystery, but I believe it will, or may, eventually change. In metropolitan areas, the diversity of neighborhoods has changed how scholars view each area. There are a lot more neighborhoods now that go beyond the white-black tracts and the more common sight is one filled with whites, blacks, Asians, and Hispanics. The concept of buffering of white and black tracts by Asian and Hispanic minorities cannot really be proven to be true, but it’s a concept that should be accepted based on the trends that we see in every in metropolitan areas.

Marcuse spends a great deal of his essay discussing the differences between a ghetto and an outcast ghetto. He claims that in a ghetto, the dwellers of the ghetto are incorporated in the mainstream economy, but in an outcast ghetto, they are not. In other words, Marcuse is saying that people living in the ghetto have more value to the society in which they live. This claim is so interesting because in the examples Marcuse gives, when people had a lower view of people, meaning they felt more superior, it was not outcast ghettos that formed, but regular ghettos. For example, he talked about the Venetian Jewish ghetto, in which non-Jews forced the Jews to live in a specific area, but the Jews had businesses outside of the ghetto and contributed to the economy. Most black ghettos now are outcast ghettos, different than the ghettos in which the Jews resided. However, in general, people do not look down upon blacks in the way people looked down upon Jews. Yet, blacks in the ghettos are economically outcaste. This does not make sense.

I would like to understand why people in black ghettos have not been able to incorporate themselves into the economy. I understand Marcuse’s point when he says that you cannot say immigrants living in the enclaves can incorporate themselves, so therefore blacks should too. Blacks are fully American, and have been here for so long. I would like to know if it is the attitudes towards blacks living in ghettos coming from people in the outside or the attitudes from people living in the inside that have hindered Blacks from branching outside of the ghettos; maybe it is both and one attitude affects the other.

One part of this essay that confused me was Marcuse’s statement that people do not voluntarily live in ghettos, whereas people voluntarily living in enclaves. There is no legal segregation, so Blacks can choose to live in places that are not ghettos, but Marcuse talks about the inability for Blacks to move out of ghettos. There are other places that are affordable. Maybe there are enclave characteristics of ghettos that keep people in ghettos (living there is more comforting), and living in ghettos is actually voluntary for some.

Upon completing the readings, the article that fascinated me the most was The Enclave, The Citadel, and the Ghetto authored by Peter Marcus from Columbia University. The word ghetto is often nonchalantly thrown around by those of my generation. It is not uncommon to hear one of my peers say, “That’s really ghetto” in reference to something that they deem of crappy quality. I would be lying if I said I wasn’t guilty of this “political incorrectness.” The word has also become synonymous of minority groups living in the projects.  Although this utilization of the word remains more true to the actual meaning of the word, it still has a negative connotation.  According to Marcus, a ghetto is 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. In any case, this piece illustrated that the word ghetto has a more significant meaning that certain groups of people might find offensive given the misused context.

Having read all three pieces because I will be leading the classroom discussion on Immigrant Neighborhoods in Global Cities, I decided to reflect here on my reaction to the piece that I found most fascinating: “The Enclave, the Citadel, and the Ghetto: What has Changed in the Post-Fordist US City.” As neither a minority nor an immigrant nor an upscale elitist, it seems odd that this piece would speak to me. Yet as I read it, I understood that such spatial clusterings reflected stagnation, or worse, regression, in our society. Marcuse accurately describes how the black ghetto causes the inhabitants to be outcasts in society, how the immigrants in their enclave are more of a congregation, and how the upscale arrogantly choose to dwell in citadels. One would expect that such social confinement and inflexibility were archaic and a thing of the past, and yet here Marcuse highlights how it is very much present in our society.

One piece that particularly stood out was the reference to the Jewish ghettos. Marcuse quotes a bishop’s explanation that the rationale was to makes Jews feel special once outside of the ghetto. This explanation is severely misleading and highlights the terrible nature of the ghetto. The placement of Jews in their own ghettos, or quarters as they are sometimes called, stemmed not from special treatment, but from unadulterated Anti-Semitism. To apply the bishop’s logic to the ghetto inhabitants nowadays: blacks are placed together because when they leave, they will feel special once they enter an all white town. The problem nowadays is even worse, because the blacks in the ghetto are considered outcasts and are practically shunned from general interaction. The truth is that placing blacks in their own ghettos stems from racism. And nearly every time Jews were placed in ghettos, they were tormented or killed; any marginalized people are vulnerable to this exact fate. The notion that a ghetto still exists in a country that prides itself on every citizen having personal rights is frightening; Marcuse notes that the concept of having ghettos for blacks stems from the post Civil War, when they were trying to figure out what to do with former slaves. Essentially, this special enclosure is an extension of maintaining control over blacks as they were when they were slaves. The ghettos must be stopped lest history (slavery, torture, and mass killings) repeat itself.

When reading Global Neighborhoods: New Pathways to Diversity and Separation, Logan and Zhang stated that, “… whites remain in neighborhoods where they constitute a large majority and where other conditions…suggest an attractive housing market…new minorities are able to enter when conditions suggest that the neighborhood is no longer attractive…” Upon reading this sentence, I recalled reading President Obama’s novel, Dreams from my Father, published before he became the President. In one section, Obama had worked as a community organizer, and he wrote about how many of the white residents had moved away from the neighborhood as African-Americans residents moved in. The property values fell, and the general area diminished in quality. This resulted in many of the current residents moving out, and the same white residents moving back in, buying up the lands at a cheaper price. When using that information as the context to this article, it is easy to see that this problem is not an isolated one, nor is it a recent one. This issue has been happening as new immigrants have moved in. The white population has been moving out and further away, either to other cities or to the suburbs. Logan and Zhang also assert that in no way do global communities make any racial divides disappear; in fact, the most common example of this would be on the subway. As we board the train and it winds through the boroughs, there are neighborhoods where one ethnicity or one race tend to gather. Though New York City itself is a global city, there are still invisible divides, however minute.

In Enclaves, Citadels and Ghettos, Marcuse states that there are significant differences between the three. Marcuse also explains the difference between a ghetto-which would be an area where residents are involuntarily made to be inferior to other members outside of the ghetto, and enclaves. There are two types of enclaves: an immigrant enclave and a cultural enclave. Perhaps the most prominent ghetto in New York City that comes to mind is Harlem; Marcuse states that while Harlem was the center for black culture, it has changed. “42% of Harlem’s residents live below the poverty line” and “the death rate in that area is higher than any other place in the city”. When taking enclaves, citadels and ghettos into consideration, one must also remember that the richest areas in New York City-the Upper East and Upper West Sides: homes that go for tens, hundreds of millions- and one of the poorest ares in the entire nation-Harlem- are only separated by a few blocks, with a common route that cuts through both: Broadway.

Finally, in Immigration and the Global City Hypothesis, Samers explains the origins of immigrants the mark they left on the city. Samers alludes to the fact that many of the new residents took up jobs in manufacturing, and we see that it is because of their participation in jobs like clothes manufacturing that the city was allowed to change and develop, for better and for worst. All three of these works have gone to show the origins of neighborhood developments in New York City, and what the results were of industrialization and immigration on current and arriving residents.

In the article, “The Enclave, the Citadel, and the Ghetto: What has Changed in the Post-Fordist US City”, Peter Marcuse accurately describes an “enclave”, a “citadel” and “the ghetto”. Marcuse provides an extremely engaging in depth analysis of the various characteristics of each of these “social spaces” or “spatial clustering” that define and distinguish them from one another. For example, the article draws a very clear line between immigrant enclaves and the black ghettos. I cannot say much about the black ghettos of New York City but as an immigrant, I can confirm the article’s claim that most immigrant communities are established voluntarily to provide support to one another so that everyone can achieve upward mobility in the American society is very on point. Marcuse makes another interesting observation that that the residents of Black ghettos rarely ventured out to participate in mainstream economic activity. Meanwhile, immigrant entrepreneurs used their business as a means of communication with the non-immigrant world. Although this observation about the “black ghettos” might be relevant in economic terms, I think that not all black neighborhoods are secluded from society. In fact, they are an integral part of the mainstream society and do exert a major influence on culture. For example, rap music is indeed a very popular music genre and has had a significant impact on our mainstream music industry. Therefore, I learned that while this article reports some very interesting facts, not all points discussed apply to all urban black ghettos.

Also, instead of just merely reporting facts such as high crime and unemployment rates, this highly informative article further explains why these “outcast black ghettos” are in their current state. These new ghettos, which emerged in the Post-Fordist cities, were subject to social and economic segregation. According to the article, the residents of the “citadel” (the upper wealthy class) labeled the black ghettos as “a leper society” mainly because they provide little or no benefit to the economy. Instead, it is assumed that they drain the public and private resources. This labeling could be a reason why residents rarely established businesses outside their ghettos. But once again, this observation may be flawed because such characteristics are not shared by every black neighborhood, especially in such a diverse city like New York.

Out of the assigned readings, the article that most stood out to me was the one titled Global Neighborhoods: New Pathways to Diversity and Seperation. Last year in high school I based my Macaulay Honors college essay on reasons for Hispanics and Blacks having the lowest college graduation rate of all ethnic groups. Some possible causes of these daunting statistics were income, conformity and stereotypes. One of the points that I found interesting while reading this article, was where the author stated that evidence suggests that Hispanic share predicts Black entry into white tracts, but that White exodus increases with the share of Hispanics, Blacks and Asians. Based on the research I did for my college essay, I wonder if economic status or similarities in their experiences with society are some of the reasons while Blacks feel more comfortable moving into White neighborhoods if Hispanics are present. In addition to this, another thought that I had while reading the article was that it did not do a good job of explaining the reasons as to why Whites are more likely to leave areas that primarily inhabited by minorities. Why is it that people of different cultures such as Asians, Blacks and Hispanics are more likely stay in one neighborhood together, but on the hand Whites are less likely to remain in that neighborhood? What is it about the arrival of Hispanics and Asians that has kept Blacks from depopulating certain cities? Furthermore, although, according to the article, there is still some white-black segregation, it was fascinating to read about how diverse a lot of cities have still managed to become. Having been born and raised in Queens, I have always noticed its unique diversity in comparison to other cities. It was interesting to read about how this trend of diversity is spreading to other places as well. However, it was upsetting to find out that researchers have not yet discovered a clear process to bring Whites back into minority-filled neighborhoods. This indicates to me, that there will never be a way to increase the diversity of White, Blacks, Asians, and Hispanics in EVERY city. This, I believe prevents those city residents from having the opportunity of interacting with people of different cultures, in the way that I have been able to during all my years that I have lived in New York.

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.