Students:
Someone asked me about a timeline for finishing the paper on time, and here was my reply. I realize many of you work best under pressure/fully plan on procrastinating. So take this as a suggestion.
This week. Pick your authors and outline their arguments.
Next week. Come in to office hours with those outlines and just your
thoughts about why you like these authors. Out line each author in terms
of our weekly theoretical categories. Think about what
assumptions/implications they have in common, and how they differ.
Week 9. If you haven't been to office hours yet definitely come this week. Develop a thesis statement and outline the paper. Run a first draft if possible.
Week 10. Bring a draft to office hours [with your questions about it--I won't read drafts]. Revise and turn in on Friday.
But I encourage all of you to come to my office hours, even if it's just to bounce ideas around. I feel that that part of the process is much more important than the writing. If you sit down to write this paper and haven't thought about it, you're probably going to stare at the screen a while.
Monday, May 11, 2009
Thursday, May 7, 2009
Weeks 7-9 posts
Students:
I apologize for not posting my Weber comments until the last minute, I think they would have been helpful for your assignment. As a result, here are my comments on Weeks 7-9.
You're on your own for Week 10--I know that many of you are already familiar with New Urbanism, so you shouldn't need my help.
WEEK 7
Remember that this week’s readings focus on the relationship between cities and CAPITALISM, or larger economic structures.
Ullman
Vocab: areal does not mean “not real,” but is an adjective meaning, “of or relating to or involving an area”
I
A nice overview of the work that has come before him, and why it’s unsatisfying for the question he wants to answer.
II
Keep in mind Ullman is both relating, and critiquing, Christaller’s theory about the distribution and location of cities.
For those who have taken USP1 or 2, much of the discussion about cites and their surroundings should be review—despite the fancy graphs—because this section emphasizes the relationship between city and “tributary area” or hinterland.
• What is the relationship posed by this theory?
o Where ‘should’ cities be placed in a productive area according to the theory?
o How far apart should cities be?
o What kinds of cities does the theory recognize, and how are their locations theorized?
• What assumptions about land does this theory make? How does it presume the economy works?
• Can you think of cities that do & do not meet these assumptions? Where does the author suggest this theory is accurate to actual urban locations? Why might this be true for THOSE places?
III
How is ‘centrality’ measured by Christaller? What alternatives does Ullman suggest, and what might you suggest for today’s cities?
IV
Ponder the types of “modifiers” that Ullman makes to central place theory.
For example, with the example of Latin American “Sunday towns,” I’m sure many of you are familiar with the story of Junipero Serra and the California missions. Why are they where they are, and what explains their distance from one another?
Ullman further recognizes that the theory is static and has to reflect changing empirical reality like the development of road systems. What other features of contemporary society [technological, economic etc] would you suggest affects where cities are?
V
Ullman suggests the theory does apply to the “non-industrial” areas of the U.S., and points toward Iowa as an example. California’s version of Iowa, I suppose, is the Central Valley. Would you say it works there? I encourage you to consult google maps or some other data and see if the theory seems to fit.
David Harvey, The Right to the City
David Harvey is one of the most original and influential social scientists of the past 50 years. In addition, he’s not just an ivory tower thinker but someone who cares deeply about the real world.
Even if you don’t care about that, I hope you enjoy this video of David Harvey’s recent appearance on Democracy Now! He addresses many questions about our current crisis, and offers an overview of his argument in The Right to the City.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HkTMO93Jyp0&feature=player_embedded
You can find the rest of the interview here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uQ9dpuyx3Ps&feature=player_embedded
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yq6S-RCwg80&feature=player_embedded
But don’t think that watching an interview gets you off the hook for reading what might be your favorite essay of the quarter! For those of you who took USP2 with Prof. Pezzoli, you might remember the argument that city-regions could be the scale for a new form of citizenship. Here Harvey takes up a similar argument, suggesting that instead of the rights under capitalism—private property and profit—we extend the notion of human rights to democratize our cities.
You might also remember Molotch and Weber’s arguments when you read Harvey, to think about whom cities have historically served.
Spend some time with the first few pages, and ponder Harvey’s point that “The right to the city…is a right to change ourselves by changing the city” (23).
Harvey analyzes the formation and growth of cities [the process of urbanization] as tied to the creation and reinvestment of surplus [for our purposes profit]—which precedes, but becomes intertwined with the capitalist process. This is why he considers cities a “class phenomenon” (24).
Most of the introductory section is devoted to the incessant dynamism necessary for capitalism, that profits must endlessly be reinvested and any barriers to this cycle be overcome. Take the time to understand his arguments, as they are key to setting up his main point that “urbanization has played a particularly active role, alongside such phenomena as military expenditures, in absorbing the surplus product that capitalists perpetually produce in their search for profits” (25). This means he sees the process of urbanization as aiding capitalism itself.
Urban revolutions
Given that we’re in a capitalist crisis, and we’re considering remaking our cities—the ‘green revolution’—consider his analysis of 1850s Paris and the postwar U.S. under Robert Moses.
--What do these examples say about why, and how, cities get built and rebuilt?
--Pay attention to his analysis of scale, in particular how each crisis involved a larger scale than previously conceived.
--Also keep in mind that each crisis is resolved through new debt and financing techniques that never work forever but end in collapse.
Girding the globe
For those of you looking for answers to our current capitalist crisis, pay close attention to Harvey’s analysis. We just lived through a period in which urbanization, especially the home ownership, was a means of capitalist expansion. But this, like all other periods of capitalist growth, ended in crisis.
Property and pacification
Again, take a second to think through his comment that urban lifestyles, and the city itself, have become commodities—things that are bought and sold for profit. Many of you may recognize the urban features of division he describes on (32)—many are certainly in La Jolla! Consider the possibilities for a democratized city under these conditions, as Harvey says are much less likely, but much more important.
Dispossessions
Keep in mind the central point here, that because the “economic necessity”—i.e. capitalist crisis—eternally occurs, so too does the process of urban reorganization. And, because this is a class project, urbanization happens at the expense of those most marginalized. Of course, urbanization preceded capitalism, but it takes a certain form, operates by the logic of “accumulation by dispossession,” under the capitalist mode of development. Here Harvey is arguing that dispossession of the poor—literally kicking them out either through eminent domain or by pricing them out of areas—is tantamount to the absorption of surplus, or the ability to realize higher profits on the same land. This is how urbanization aids capitalism.
Formulating demands
I hope you have enjoyed the piece up to this far, as it is a clear-eyed examination of many recent urban & economic situations with which you may be already familiar. Now, similar to Molotch’s conclusion, consider the prospects for movements which might challenge the capitalist process of urbanization.
Spend some time with his closing point that focusing on the right to the city matters “precisely because it focuses on the question of who commands the necessary connection between urbanization and surplus production and use” (40).
**This is the crux of his argument about rethinking the rights to the city**
p.s. for all of you pissed about 165$ million in AIG bailout bonuses, keep in mind the figure for 2007—a banner year for capitalist failure--$32 BILLION.
WEEK 8 GLOBAL CITIES
For those of you who took USP2, when Prof. Pezzoli would say things like certain cities have “command and control capabilities” over the world economy, he was referring to the arguments made by people like Friedmann and Sassen.
Friedmann, The World City Hypothesis
Spend some time slowly reading and re-reading the first page and a quarter. Among other things, you’ll note that
• He indicates that Zorbaugh and others’ view of cities as social ecologies has been thoroughly repudiated—cities do not grow ‘naturally’
• He intends this article NOT as a theory
o world cities are not all in the same, but have similar economic roles
o these roles relate to what he calls the “new international division of labor”—What do you think he means by this term?
o in particular, world cities perform key functions in managing the contradictions between a ‘global’ economy and national/territorial states
1. What does Friedman say determines structural changes in cities? How does he define a city?
i. VOCAB articulation = “to join”
2. What criteria does Friedman use to create a hierarchy of cities? Does the map based on his hierarchy seem true today?
3. What are the main industries in world cities [remember this is 1986], and what kinds of labor forces exist in such places? How do more peripheral cities differ?
4. .
5. How does Friedmann explain migration and immigration both in terms of why and where to people move?
6. Again this should be familiar to USP2 vets, but take a second to think through Friedman’s point about multiple, simultaneous, scales of inequality. How does he pose the relationship between class and spatial polarization? How does class polarization differ in core and peripheral areas, and in what ways are they similar? Finally, how does he explain the process of social polarization? Spend some time with Figure 2 to appreciate his argument here.
7. What are the economic costs, and social consequences, of the growth of world cities? Do you see parallels to Harvey’s argument here?
Overall, the goal here is to understand the patterns Friedmann sees. These economic/social/political patterns are the basis upon which he suggests the world city concept. Remember he doesn’t think all world cities are the same, that they are one thing, but that they have important features in common. Know these and you get his point.
p.s. for those of you who are interested in USP grad programs, I think Friedmann—who advised Prof. Pezzoli—is still at UCLA. People say he’s quite nice in person.
Saskia Sassen
We’re reading Sassen’s remarks regarding a revised edition of her book “The Global City.” So pay attention to the final paragraph of these introductory comments so that you know what she’s up to, and what perceptions she’s arguing against.
A New Conceptual…
This section is crucial to understand her argument:
• What trends does she say are significant, and motivate her study?
• What does she say is new about the world, and what is not new?
• What does she mean by “re-scaling”?
• Why did she use the term ‘global city’?
The Global City Model
Spend some time with these 7 hypotheses, and think about them in terms of empirical trends in the real world that motivate her theorizing about the emergence and importance of ‘global cities.’
• Keep in mind that some of these empirical trends are seemingly contradictory. Number 1, for example, discusses how firms have greater need for centralized coordination because their operations are increasingly geographically dispersed.
• Follow her hypotheses along, and get an understanding of what kinds of activities characterize contermporary firms, what challenges and economic pressures they face, and how this dictates where they locate?
o For example, think about her arguments regarding the location and even importance of corporate headquarters vs. their specialized service outsourcers. Where do these organizations locate, and why? What connections between cities does she see and why?
• (xxii) Again pay close attention here as Sassen lays out the point of her argument, and what she’s arguing against. In particular, what does she think is new about globalization vs. what’s not, and what does she mean by “the need to produce” global control capabilities? These are essential to her point.
The Global City Model
I think you need to pay close attention to the beginning of this section, and can skim the rest (354-ff).
Make sure you read (346-53) closely, focusing in particular on how she distinguishes herself from Friedmann’s “world city” hypothesis.
• What’s the difference between a global city and world city (349)? Which concept, and the meaning its author gives to each, do you think explains more about the world?
• What similarities are there between the processes of social and spatial inequality seen by Friedmann and Sassen (361-2)?
WEEK 9
Iris Marion Young
Feel free to start with the very last paragraph of the essay to get a quick understanding of her point. She’s going to critique the value/norm/ideal of community, and argue for a different standpoint, or perspective, from which to think about how we’d like cities to be. In particular, she’s going to explore the potential of difference, something she feels has much to offer cities but is erased in conceptions of community.
This is also a long piece, and all we have for the week, so I suggest breaking your reading of it into 2 sessions at minimum. This article has a lot to offer, so give it the time it deserves.
Pay close attention to the quote from Jane Jacobs! Reflect on the meaning of her statement, and remember it as you go through the essay.
Right away also notice that Young is making an argument about why theory is important, what it allows us to do.
Then look for the substance of her position:
• Why does she critique the ideal of community?
• What does she offer instead?
o Take a moment to think about the vision she offers—even if you yourself value community, try to imagine effective city life without it.
o Keep an eye out for the new concepts she tells us she’s going to introduce.
The Opposition…
Here Young is setting up two positions, liberals who praise individualism, and critics who praise community. You don’t have to know both of these positions thoroughly, but make sure you understand her point at the end that people having this argument presume that it is a two-sided debate, with no other alternatives.
• What does she mean that “indidivualism and community have a common logic underlying their polarity, which makes it possibly for them to define each other negatively” (228-9)
The Rousseauist…
Though her language can get pretty heady at times, keep in mind her basic point here. What is the dream, the goal of people who theorize about the benefits of community?
VOCAB shared subjectivity = fancy way of saying people share a point of view, or see the world the same way. Same goes for “mutual intersubjective transcendance,” which for us means multiple people reaching a shared world view/point of view.
Keep in mind her final point as well: the dream of community has “serious political consequences” (232).
Privileging…
What vision of politics does the ideal of community posit (232-3)? What kind of interactions and political process does it praise?
Why does she argue this vision “avoids politics” (233-4)?
• What is the “important political question” (234)? This is key to the alternative to community she’s going to build in the essay…
Undesirable…
What is the central consequence of the community ideal?
What is the process by which Young suggests commmuity has such consequences (234-5)?
What space does Young allow for the positive benefits of building community, and what limits does she suggest are important (236)?
City Life as Normative…
This is a very important section. You should be well-familiar with her review of how all too often authors are nostalgic for Gemeinschaft even though it’s totally unrealistic for most of humanity that lives in big cities. This is why Young insists we have to start with a realistic portrayal of modern urban existence if we are to have effective theories about it.
• How does Young define “city life” (237)?
o How does this differ from traditional visions of community?
• What virtues does city life offer (238-40)? Do you agree with these, see others?
o Pay close attention to her vision of politics. Strive to understand her goal that differences are “unassimilated”—how does that differ from “transcending them,” often the goal of community?
Social Injustice
Young recognizes that among the virtues of contemporary city life there are horrific inequalities, injustices.
What are the three processes she identifies as generating these issues?
How do these compare to arguments made by Molotch, Harvey, or Friedmann/Sassen?
Empowerment without Autonomy
Follow Young closely here: she agrees with others that democratizing decisions is good, but argues against the ideal of “small autonomous local communities” (248)? Why?
How does she define empowerment, and how does it produce a different vision from autonomy (251-5)?
• What are the roles of regions in her analysis, and why does she argue for regional governance?
I apologize for not posting my Weber comments until the last minute, I think they would have been helpful for your assignment. As a result, here are my comments on Weeks 7-9.
You're on your own for Week 10--I know that many of you are already familiar with New Urbanism, so you shouldn't need my help.
WEEK 7
Remember that this week’s readings focus on the relationship between cities and CAPITALISM, or larger economic structures.
Ullman
Vocab: areal does not mean “not real,” but is an adjective meaning, “of or relating to or involving an area”
I
A nice overview of the work that has come before him, and why it’s unsatisfying for the question he wants to answer.
II
Keep in mind Ullman is both relating, and critiquing, Christaller’s theory about the distribution and location of cities.
For those who have taken USP1 or 2, much of the discussion about cites and their surroundings should be review—despite the fancy graphs—because this section emphasizes the relationship between city and “tributary area” or hinterland.
• What is the relationship posed by this theory?
o Where ‘should’ cities be placed in a productive area according to the theory?
o How far apart should cities be?
o What kinds of cities does the theory recognize, and how are their locations theorized?
• What assumptions about land does this theory make? How does it presume the economy works?
• Can you think of cities that do & do not meet these assumptions? Where does the author suggest this theory is accurate to actual urban locations? Why might this be true for THOSE places?
III
How is ‘centrality’ measured by Christaller? What alternatives does Ullman suggest, and what might you suggest for today’s cities?
IV
Ponder the types of “modifiers” that Ullman makes to central place theory.
For example, with the example of Latin American “Sunday towns,” I’m sure many of you are familiar with the story of Junipero Serra and the California missions. Why are they where they are, and what explains their distance from one another?
Ullman further recognizes that the theory is static and has to reflect changing empirical reality like the development of road systems. What other features of contemporary society [technological, economic etc] would you suggest affects where cities are?
V
Ullman suggests the theory does apply to the “non-industrial” areas of the U.S., and points toward Iowa as an example. California’s version of Iowa, I suppose, is the Central Valley. Would you say it works there? I encourage you to consult google maps or some other data and see if the theory seems to fit.
David Harvey, The Right to the City
David Harvey is one of the most original and influential social scientists of the past 50 years. In addition, he’s not just an ivory tower thinker but someone who cares deeply about the real world.
Even if you don’t care about that, I hope you enjoy this video of David Harvey’s recent appearance on Democracy Now! He addresses many questions about our current crisis, and offers an overview of his argument in The Right to the City.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HkTMO93Jyp0&feature=player_embedded
You can find the rest of the interview here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uQ9dpuyx3Ps&feature=player_embedded
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yq6S-RCwg80&feature=player_embedded
But don’t think that watching an interview gets you off the hook for reading what might be your favorite essay of the quarter! For those of you who took USP2 with Prof. Pezzoli, you might remember the argument that city-regions could be the scale for a new form of citizenship. Here Harvey takes up a similar argument, suggesting that instead of the rights under capitalism—private property and profit—we extend the notion of human rights to democratize our cities.
You might also remember Molotch and Weber’s arguments when you read Harvey, to think about whom cities have historically served.
Spend some time with the first few pages, and ponder Harvey’s point that “The right to the city…is a right to change ourselves by changing the city” (23).
Harvey analyzes the formation and growth of cities [the process of urbanization] as tied to the creation and reinvestment of surplus [for our purposes profit]—which precedes, but becomes intertwined with the capitalist process. This is why he considers cities a “class phenomenon” (24).
Most of the introductory section is devoted to the incessant dynamism necessary for capitalism, that profits must endlessly be reinvested and any barriers to this cycle be overcome. Take the time to understand his arguments, as they are key to setting up his main point that “urbanization has played a particularly active role, alongside such phenomena as military expenditures, in absorbing the surplus product that capitalists perpetually produce in their search for profits” (25). This means he sees the process of urbanization as aiding capitalism itself.
Urban revolutions
Given that we’re in a capitalist crisis, and we’re considering remaking our cities—the ‘green revolution’—consider his analysis of 1850s Paris and the postwar U.S. under Robert Moses.
--What do these examples say about why, and how, cities get built and rebuilt?
--Pay attention to his analysis of scale, in particular how each crisis involved a larger scale than previously conceived.
--Also keep in mind that each crisis is resolved through new debt and financing techniques that never work forever but end in collapse.
Girding the globe
For those of you looking for answers to our current capitalist crisis, pay close attention to Harvey’s analysis. We just lived through a period in which urbanization, especially the home ownership, was a means of capitalist expansion. But this, like all other periods of capitalist growth, ended in crisis.
Property and pacification
Again, take a second to think through his comment that urban lifestyles, and the city itself, have become commodities—things that are bought and sold for profit. Many of you may recognize the urban features of division he describes on (32)—many are certainly in La Jolla! Consider the possibilities for a democratized city under these conditions, as Harvey says are much less likely, but much more important.
Dispossessions
Keep in mind the central point here, that because the “economic necessity”—i.e. capitalist crisis—eternally occurs, so too does the process of urban reorganization. And, because this is a class project, urbanization happens at the expense of those most marginalized. Of course, urbanization preceded capitalism, but it takes a certain form, operates by the logic of “accumulation by dispossession,” under the capitalist mode of development. Here Harvey is arguing that dispossession of the poor—literally kicking them out either through eminent domain or by pricing them out of areas—is tantamount to the absorption of surplus, or the ability to realize higher profits on the same land. This is how urbanization aids capitalism.
Formulating demands
I hope you have enjoyed the piece up to this far, as it is a clear-eyed examination of many recent urban & economic situations with which you may be already familiar. Now, similar to Molotch’s conclusion, consider the prospects for movements which might challenge the capitalist process of urbanization.
Spend some time with his closing point that focusing on the right to the city matters “precisely because it focuses on the question of who commands the necessary connection between urbanization and surplus production and use” (40).
**This is the crux of his argument about rethinking the rights to the city**
p.s. for all of you pissed about 165$ million in AIG bailout bonuses, keep in mind the figure for 2007—a banner year for capitalist failure--$32 BILLION.
WEEK 8 GLOBAL CITIES
For those of you who took USP2, when Prof. Pezzoli would say things like certain cities have “command and control capabilities” over the world economy, he was referring to the arguments made by people like Friedmann and Sassen.
Friedmann, The World City Hypothesis
Spend some time slowly reading and re-reading the first page and a quarter. Among other things, you’ll note that
• He indicates that Zorbaugh and others’ view of cities as social ecologies has been thoroughly repudiated—cities do not grow ‘naturally’
• He intends this article NOT as a theory
o world cities are not all in the same, but have similar economic roles
o these roles relate to what he calls the “new international division of labor”—What do you think he means by this term?
o in particular, world cities perform key functions in managing the contradictions between a ‘global’ economy and national/territorial states
1. What does Friedman say determines structural changes in cities? How does he define a city?
i. VOCAB articulation = “to join”
2. What criteria does Friedman use to create a hierarchy of cities? Does the map based on his hierarchy seem true today?
3. What are the main industries in world cities [remember this is 1986], and what kinds of labor forces exist in such places? How do more peripheral cities differ?
4. .
5. How does Friedmann explain migration and immigration both in terms of why and where to people move?
6. Again this should be familiar to USP2 vets, but take a second to think through Friedman’s point about multiple, simultaneous, scales of inequality. How does he pose the relationship between class and spatial polarization? How does class polarization differ in core and peripheral areas, and in what ways are they similar? Finally, how does he explain the process of social polarization? Spend some time with Figure 2 to appreciate his argument here.
7. What are the economic costs, and social consequences, of the growth of world cities? Do you see parallels to Harvey’s argument here?
Overall, the goal here is to understand the patterns Friedmann sees. These economic/social/political patterns are the basis upon which he suggests the world city concept. Remember he doesn’t think all world cities are the same, that they are one thing, but that they have important features in common. Know these and you get his point.
p.s. for those of you who are interested in USP grad programs, I think Friedmann—who advised Prof. Pezzoli—is still at UCLA. People say he’s quite nice in person.
Saskia Sassen
We’re reading Sassen’s remarks regarding a revised edition of her book “The Global City.” So pay attention to the final paragraph of these introductory comments so that you know what she’s up to, and what perceptions she’s arguing against.
A New Conceptual…
This section is crucial to understand her argument:
• What trends does she say are significant, and motivate her study?
• What does she say is new about the world, and what is not new?
• What does she mean by “re-scaling”?
• Why did she use the term ‘global city’?
The Global City Model
Spend some time with these 7 hypotheses, and think about them in terms of empirical trends in the real world that motivate her theorizing about the emergence and importance of ‘global cities.’
• Keep in mind that some of these empirical trends are seemingly contradictory. Number 1, for example, discusses how firms have greater need for centralized coordination because their operations are increasingly geographically dispersed.
• Follow her hypotheses along, and get an understanding of what kinds of activities characterize contermporary firms, what challenges and economic pressures they face, and how this dictates where they locate?
o For example, think about her arguments regarding the location and even importance of corporate headquarters vs. their specialized service outsourcers. Where do these organizations locate, and why? What connections between cities does she see and why?
• (xxii) Again pay close attention here as Sassen lays out the point of her argument, and what she’s arguing against. In particular, what does she think is new about globalization vs. what’s not, and what does she mean by “the need to produce” global control capabilities? These are essential to her point.
The Global City Model
I think you need to pay close attention to the beginning of this section, and can skim the rest (354-ff).
Make sure you read (346-53) closely, focusing in particular on how she distinguishes herself from Friedmann’s “world city” hypothesis.
• What’s the difference between a global city and world city (349)? Which concept, and the meaning its author gives to each, do you think explains more about the world?
• What similarities are there between the processes of social and spatial inequality seen by Friedmann and Sassen (361-2)?
WEEK 9
Iris Marion Young
Feel free to start with the very last paragraph of the essay to get a quick understanding of her point. She’s going to critique the value/norm/ideal of community, and argue for a different standpoint, or perspective, from which to think about how we’d like cities to be. In particular, she’s going to explore the potential of difference, something she feels has much to offer cities but is erased in conceptions of community.
This is also a long piece, and all we have for the week, so I suggest breaking your reading of it into 2 sessions at minimum. This article has a lot to offer, so give it the time it deserves.
Pay close attention to the quote from Jane Jacobs! Reflect on the meaning of her statement, and remember it as you go through the essay.
Right away also notice that Young is making an argument about why theory is important, what it allows us to do.
Then look for the substance of her position:
• Why does she critique the ideal of community?
• What does she offer instead?
o Take a moment to think about the vision she offers—even if you yourself value community, try to imagine effective city life without it.
o Keep an eye out for the new concepts she tells us she’s going to introduce.
The Opposition…
Here Young is setting up two positions, liberals who praise individualism, and critics who praise community. You don’t have to know both of these positions thoroughly, but make sure you understand her point at the end that people having this argument presume that it is a two-sided debate, with no other alternatives.
• What does she mean that “indidivualism and community have a common logic underlying their polarity, which makes it possibly for them to define each other negatively” (228-9)
The Rousseauist…
Though her language can get pretty heady at times, keep in mind her basic point here. What is the dream, the goal of people who theorize about the benefits of community?
VOCAB shared subjectivity = fancy way of saying people share a point of view, or see the world the same way. Same goes for “mutual intersubjective transcendance,” which for us means multiple people reaching a shared world view/point of view.
Keep in mind her final point as well: the dream of community has “serious political consequences” (232).
Privileging…
What vision of politics does the ideal of community posit (232-3)? What kind of interactions and political process does it praise?
Why does she argue this vision “avoids politics” (233-4)?
• What is the “important political question” (234)? This is key to the alternative to community she’s going to build in the essay…
Undesirable…
What is the central consequence of the community ideal?
What is the process by which Young suggests commmuity has such consequences (234-5)?
What space does Young allow for the positive benefits of building community, and what limits does she suggest are important (236)?
City Life as Normative…
This is a very important section. You should be well-familiar with her review of how all too often authors are nostalgic for Gemeinschaft even though it’s totally unrealistic for most of humanity that lives in big cities. This is why Young insists we have to start with a realistic portrayal of modern urban existence if we are to have effective theories about it.
• How does Young define “city life” (237)?
o How does this differ from traditional visions of community?
• What virtues does city life offer (238-40)? Do you agree with these, see others?
o Pay close attention to her vision of politics. Strive to understand her goal that differences are “unassimilated”—how does that differ from “transcending them,” often the goal of community?
Social Injustice
Young recognizes that among the virtues of contemporary city life there are horrific inequalities, injustices.
What are the three processes she identifies as generating these issues?
How do these compare to arguments made by Molotch, Harvey, or Friedmann/Sassen?
Empowerment without Autonomy
Follow Young closely here: she agrees with others that democratizing decisions is good, but argues against the ideal of “small autonomous local communities” (248)? Why?
How does she define empowerment, and how does it produce a different vision from autonomy (251-5)?
• What are the roles of regions in her analysis, and why does she argue for regional governance?
Sunday, May 3, 2009
Week 6 Reading Notes
WEEK 6
Weber
Reading Weber can often seem like listening to your grandfather drone on about a bunch of seemingly unrelated topics, and you never really know what the point is. So my comments are geared to help you find the thread through his argument.
First, some vocab.
Polis= Greek city-state. Think Athens.
Occident= west/Europe, i.e. not the orient, which ~ Middle East + Asia
Proletariat= contemporary conception of the working class. Not just workers, but workers like us who don’t own the means of production [tools, computers, etc] but go to work for a capitalist boss.
State= national government
Most important, look for clues to Weber’s argument that citizenship
• Is a particular historical creation, i.e. it hasn’t been around forever
• Varies by time and place in which it has existed, i.e. isn’t always the same thing
• Is fundamentally tied to the emergence of cities
How is the city NOT defined for Weber, and then how does he define it [hint “certain ultimate fundamental facts”] (235-6)?
What is the significance of fortification, i.e. walls? (235)
Why did citizenship, and cities, arise in the west and not in the orient according to Weber (237-8)? Attempt a sketch of his model of occidental and oriental development.
What characterized citizenship, and cities, in the ancient [Greek], as well as medieval periods? (239-45). I suggest you develop a two-column table to capture the similarities and differences Weber lays out between the two eras. The following questions are meant as a beginning
• What changed with the advent of democracy?
• What organizations did one have to be a member of to be a citizen?
• What were the economic relations in each era?
• What changes in military techniques [i.e. who mattered for military victory] reduced the role of soldiers and heightened the importance of artisan’s guilds (245)? Understanding Weber’s comments about the military on 240 & 245 are key to understanding his historical argument regarding citizenship and the city.
• Finally, how was urban freedom lost in each era? What does Weber say about the relationship between cities and the larger political/economic systems they inhabit during different historical periods? [hint it’s a similar story but cities lose out to different larger entities, with different consequences for capitalism]
Take a second to soak in this last point about the development of the modern nation-state, an organizational form we all take for granted. How do we conceive of our citizenship? What does it mean to be an American?
Even if you feel you don’t fully understand everything in this piece, take the time to try and answer most of these questions, because when you do that you’ll have the basics down, and then lecture and section will reinforce the important themes.
Peterson, The Interests of the Limited City
Right away Peterson lays out his thesis: “we can speak of the interests of that structured system of social interactions of a city” (17). Our task now is to figure out what that means.
Beginning with the first major section, what does this NOT mean (17)?
For those of you who did not like, or understand, Tiebout, enjoy pp 18-20. Read the bottom of 20-top 21 carefully to catch Peterson’s definition, and model, of a city’s interest.
What analogy does he make to compare cities with? Do you buy it?
NOTE that although he insists that cities seek to improve their position along three axes, he’ll only discuss economic interests. If he had chosen social or political interests, could his analysis reach the same conclusions?
Nevertheless, let’s follow his argument.
22-4 What is the primary economic interest of the city?
How does that interest dictate how cities behave toward the three primary factors of production? What variations are there between cities’ ability to control/affect these factors? (24-9)
• Land
• Labor
o How are modern cities different than medieval, and different than nation-states
o What kind of labor do cities want, and how can they get such workers? What tools do they have to do so?
• Capital
o How can cities attract capital [i.e. investment money]?
(30) What problem do suburbs raise for his theory, and how does he acknowledge this?
(32-4) Again, enjoy and pay close attention to Peterson’s critique of Tiebout. Keep these critiques in mind as you read from the bottom of 34 through the end of the article. The arguments he raises against Tiebout’s model of reality are the basis of his conclusions about the limited interests of cities.
Peterson’s conclusions are quite dismal for cities that try to redistribute wealth to create equality, why?
Weber
Reading Weber can often seem like listening to your grandfather drone on about a bunch of seemingly unrelated topics, and you never really know what the point is. So my comments are geared to help you find the thread through his argument.
First, some vocab.
Polis= Greek city-state. Think Athens.
Occident= west/Europe, i.e. not the orient, which ~ Middle East + Asia
Proletariat= contemporary conception of the working class. Not just workers, but workers like us who don’t own the means of production [tools, computers, etc] but go to work for a capitalist boss.
State= national government
Most important, look for clues to Weber’s argument that citizenship
• Is a particular historical creation, i.e. it hasn’t been around forever
• Varies by time and place in which it has existed, i.e. isn’t always the same thing
• Is fundamentally tied to the emergence of cities
How is the city NOT defined for Weber, and then how does he define it [hint “certain ultimate fundamental facts”] (235-6)?
What is the significance of fortification, i.e. walls? (235)
Why did citizenship, and cities, arise in the west and not in the orient according to Weber (237-8)? Attempt a sketch of his model of occidental and oriental development.
What characterized citizenship, and cities, in the ancient [Greek], as well as medieval periods? (239-45). I suggest you develop a two-column table to capture the similarities and differences Weber lays out between the two eras. The following questions are meant as a beginning
• What changed with the advent of democracy?
- Why does Weber argue democracy occurred?
• What organizations did one have to be a member of to be a citizen?
• What were the economic relations in each era?
- What were the major sources of income in each?
- What were the relations between city and country/rural?
- What were the major classes in each?
- What characterized political freedoms in each era?
• What changes in military techniques [i.e. who mattered for military victory] reduced the role of soldiers and heightened the importance of artisan’s guilds (245)? Understanding Weber’s comments about the military on 240 & 245 are key to understanding his historical argument regarding citizenship and the city.
• Finally, how was urban freedom lost in each era? What does Weber say about the relationship between cities and the larger political/economic systems they inhabit during different historical periods? [hint it’s a similar story but cities lose out to different larger entities, with different consequences for capitalism]
Take a second to soak in this last point about the development of the modern nation-state, an organizational form we all take for granted. How do we conceive of our citizenship? What does it mean to be an American?
Even if you feel you don’t fully understand everything in this piece, take the time to try and answer most of these questions, because when you do that you’ll have the basics down, and then lecture and section will reinforce the important themes.
Peterson, The Interests of the Limited City
Right away Peterson lays out his thesis: “we can speak of the interests of that structured system of social interactions of a city” (17). Our task now is to figure out what that means.
Beginning with the first major section, what does this NOT mean (17)?
For those of you who did not like, or understand, Tiebout, enjoy pp 18-20. Read the bottom of 20-top 21 carefully to catch Peterson’s definition, and model, of a city’s interest.
What analogy does he make to compare cities with? Do you buy it?
NOTE that although he insists that cities seek to improve their position along three axes, he’ll only discuss economic interests. If he had chosen social or political interests, could his analysis reach the same conclusions?
Nevertheless, let’s follow his argument.
22-4 What is the primary economic interest of the city?
How does that interest dictate how cities behave toward the three primary factors of production? What variations are there between cities’ ability to control/affect these factors? (24-9)
• Land
• Labor
o How are modern cities different than medieval, and different than nation-states
o What kind of labor do cities want, and how can they get such workers? What tools do they have to do so?
• Capital
o How can cities attract capital [i.e. investment money]?
(30) What problem do suburbs raise for his theory, and how does he acknowledge this?
(32-4) Again, enjoy and pay close attention to Peterson’s critique of Tiebout. Keep these critiques in mind as you read from the bottom of 34 through the end of the article. The arguments he raises against Tiebout’s model of reality are the basis of his conclusions about the limited interests of cities.
Peterson’s conclusions are quite dismal for cities that try to redistribute wealth to create equality, why?
Sunday, April 26, 2009
Week 5 Reading Notes
WEEK 5
Tiebout
Again we have an instance of an author working through a set of formalistic models—with explicit assumptions about human behavior/reality—that might seem very off-putting to you as a reader. I know I had a hard time with this piece. At least it’s short.
When you read it, keep in mind this week's assignment: In this theory whom does city government serve? What issues get considered, and who, if anyone, loses?
I suggest you begin with the conclusion so you can get a handle on what Tiebout is arguing AGAINST. From this section, as well as the introduction [esp 417-8] I think his point is to figure out if and how local governments [i.e. cities] can best meet the needs of their citizenry.
How does he define a public good? (417) What services qualify as a public good (418)?
How does he define a citizen-voter (418)?
Scrutinize the assumptions of his model: keep in mind his theory on citizen behavior:
What does he presume city residents do if they’re unhappy (420)?
What goal does he suggest cities aim to achieve? What does he suggest cities do if they are above/below/at their goal?
Does his analogy of the marketplace (421-2) seem workable to you? Does this model offer a reliable rendering of how
• Cities make taxing and spending decisions?
• People decide where to live?
For those of you who’d like a quick overview of his model, in this case I think wikipedia is a useful source:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiebout_model
Molotch
First of all pay particular attention to the title of this article. You should do this everytime you read a piece, as a good title is a window into someone’s analysis. In this case I think this is an exemplary title:
The City as a Growth Machine: Toward a Political Economy of Place.
What do we already know from this title? How does Molotch conceive of cities and the role of place in particular?
Right away Molotch cites Wirth, and argues that he omits “a crucial dimension of social structure: power and social class hierarchy” (309).
The next portion of the essay (310-8) describes the “growth machine”: who’s in the machine, who’s out of it? How does Molotch explain how land is used, how political coalitions are formed, how city government works and even what the function of city newspapers or universities is?
• Other questions include who participates in local politics and the role of “boosterism” (314)?
• What’s the importance of land values and speculation (317)?
Molotch next critiques the stated advantages of growth (318-25).
• What problems does growth produce?
• Who benefits from growth, and who pays?
• Why is the stated claim of job creation a lie? First understand Molotch’s argument (320), and then look at the evidence he uses to back up his case.
• Once you get his position, try to understand how he critiques Tiebout (bottom of 319) and Zorbaugh (325-6).
Last, how does he evaluate challenges to growth machines? For those of you familiar with Santa Barbara or other places that have fought growth, what consequences does it have for land, which is Molotch’s main concern?
When you’re done, take a step back and think about how Molotch sees cities’ ability to serve its residents: are cities democratic, can they be?
Oliver, The Rise of a Suburban Demos
Again I’ll give away the first level of reading—comprehension—for you. His main point is that “suburbs are bad for democracy.” Now that we have that out of the way, here are questions and comments to lead you deeper into the text.
After reading his introduction, what are his key research questions (4-5)?
• How does he distinguish his position from other authors who have argued a similar conclusion?
• What transformation does he argue takes place with suburbanization (5-7)? This is crucial to his overall argument.
How does he define a suburb (8-11)? Does this definition work for those of you who grew up in one?
What characteristics does Oliver say can distinguish suburbs from central cities, and each other? (12-15)?
• Why does he choose these, and what tradeoffs do they involve?
• Do you buy his analogy to a physician (14)?
Pay close attention to (15-17) where Oliver addresses both Tiebout and Molotch [partially in footnotes].
• How does he define democracy (18)?
• How does he measure “local civic activity” (19-21)? What does he omit?
• Crucially, how does he argue suburbs affect local participation (22-5)? Attempt a sketch of his model on (24-5).
• What data does he use—does it seem convincing for the argument he previews?
Last, and this argument should remind USP2 vets of Prof. Pezzoli’s emphasis on ‘regional governance,’ what real-world recommendations does Oliver offer based on his study?
Remember Oliver is offering an inherently ecological argument [that there is something particular to the form of suburbs that hurts democracy—what similarities or differences would you draw with Toonies/Wirth/Molotch?
Tiebout
Again we have an instance of an author working through a set of formalistic models—with explicit assumptions about human behavior/reality—that might seem very off-putting to you as a reader. I know I had a hard time with this piece. At least it’s short.
When you read it, keep in mind this week's assignment: In this theory whom does city government serve? What issues get considered, and who, if anyone, loses?
I suggest you begin with the conclusion so you can get a handle on what Tiebout is arguing AGAINST. From this section, as well as the introduction [esp 417-8] I think his point is to figure out if and how local governments [i.e. cities] can best meet the needs of their citizenry.
How does he define a public good? (417) What services qualify as a public good (418)?
How does he define a citizen-voter (418)?
Scrutinize the assumptions of his model: keep in mind his theory on citizen behavior:
What does he presume city residents do if they’re unhappy (420)?
What goal does he suggest cities aim to achieve? What does he suggest cities do if they are above/below/at their goal?
Does his analogy of the marketplace (421-2) seem workable to you? Does this model offer a reliable rendering of how
• Cities make taxing and spending decisions?
• People decide where to live?
For those of you who’d like a quick overview of his model, in this case I think wikipedia is a useful source:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiebout_model
Molotch
First of all pay particular attention to the title of this article. You should do this everytime you read a piece, as a good title is a window into someone’s analysis. In this case I think this is an exemplary title:
The City as a Growth Machine: Toward a Political Economy of Place.
What do we already know from this title? How does Molotch conceive of cities and the role of place in particular?
Right away Molotch cites Wirth, and argues that he omits “a crucial dimension of social structure: power and social class hierarchy” (309).
The next portion of the essay (310-8) describes the “growth machine”: who’s in the machine, who’s out of it? How does Molotch explain how land is used, how political coalitions are formed, how city government works and even what the function of city newspapers or universities is?
• Other questions include who participates in local politics and the role of “boosterism” (314)?
• What’s the importance of land values and speculation (317)?
Molotch next critiques the stated advantages of growth (318-25).
• What problems does growth produce?
• Who benefits from growth, and who pays?
• Why is the stated claim of job creation a lie? First understand Molotch’s argument (320), and then look at the evidence he uses to back up his case.
• Once you get his position, try to understand how he critiques Tiebout (bottom of 319) and Zorbaugh (325-6).
Last, how does he evaluate challenges to growth machines? For those of you familiar with Santa Barbara or other places that have fought growth, what consequences does it have for land, which is Molotch’s main concern?
When you’re done, take a step back and think about how Molotch sees cities’ ability to serve its residents: are cities democratic, can they be?
Oliver, The Rise of a Suburban Demos
Again I’ll give away the first level of reading—comprehension—for you. His main point is that “suburbs are bad for democracy.” Now that we have that out of the way, here are questions and comments to lead you deeper into the text.
After reading his introduction, what are his key research questions (4-5)?
• How does he distinguish his position from other authors who have argued a similar conclusion?
• What transformation does he argue takes place with suburbanization (5-7)? This is crucial to his overall argument.
How does he define a suburb (8-11)? Does this definition work for those of you who grew up in one?
What characteristics does Oliver say can distinguish suburbs from central cities, and each other? (12-15)?
• Why does he choose these, and what tradeoffs do they involve?
• Do you buy his analogy to a physician (14)?
Pay close attention to (15-17) where Oliver addresses both Tiebout and Molotch [partially in footnotes].
• How does he define democracy (18)?
• How does he measure “local civic activity” (19-21)? What does he omit?
• Crucially, how does he argue suburbs affect local participation (22-5)? Attempt a sketch of his model on (24-5).
• What data does he use—does it seem convincing for the argument he previews?
Last, and this argument should remind USP2 vets of Prof. Pezzoli’s emphasis on ‘regional governance,’ what real-world recommendations does Oliver offer based on his study?
Remember Oliver is offering an inherently ecological argument [that there is something particular to the form of suburbs that hurts democracy—what similarities or differences would you draw with Toonies/Wirth/Molotch?
Saturday, April 18, 2009
Week 4 Reading Notes
WEEK 4
All of these readings deal with how people end up in certain areas of the city and not in others, and how to explain this pattern. Again the readings offer discernibly contradictory positions, so keep that in mind during your reading. Look for how these authors approach this question, and afterwards strive to set up your own view.
Zorbaugh
Take a minute to ponder the opening section: what does Zorbaugh mean when he says “The city is discovered to be an organization displaying certain typical processes of growth. Knowledge of these processes makes possible prediction of the direction, rate, and nature of its growth. That is, the city is found to be no an artifact but a natural phenomenon” (220-1)?
• Are we in control of our cities? He is implying here, especially through the examples of failed reform efforts, that cities have their own logic partially outside of our control.
• This is reflected in his theory of the “natural areas” of the city.
o Attempt to map out his model of the city as given on pp221-2. What are the main features of cities for Zorbaugh?
o What is the role of “impersonal competition” (222), land values, and segregation in creating distinctive “cultural areas” that match natural areas (222-3)?
o Reflect on the “plant ecology” metaphor (223). What does this analogy mean for his theory of urban development?
o Explain Zorbaugh’s notion of succession, as it is his theory of urban change.
• What are the consequences of the differences between natural and administrative areas of the city? Do you see this played out in San Diego?
Does Zorbaugh’s model of urban development make sense to you? Can it be used to explain San Diego, Los Angeles, or cities in the Bay Area?
Schelling
In this article Schelling outlines a number of MODELS of reality—motivated by actual histories of actual processes of racial change in neighborhoods [such as we read about blockbusting etc in USP1], and it is important to keep that distinction in mind. In order to create these models, the author makes many assumptions about reality—so if you disagree keep a running tally and save them for your critique. Still, articles like these are very interesting because they allow us to think about social processes by modeling them.
In particular, keep in mind Professor Martin’s point about Schelling having a contractual/marketplace view of racial discrimination as the result of a collection of individual decisions. That relates to his view of whether people are rational or irrational actors. But also keep in mind his views on social or individual ontology [i.e. which he thinks are real], and how he thinks order is achieved [i.e. consensus or conflict].
What kinds of evidence does he say we can use on this topic? If he had chosen the other kind of evidence, how would his analysis differ?
What is the definition of tipping? How might the notion of tipping differ if you looked at schools rather than neighborhoods [hint think about the difference between percentage and position]?
DON'T GET LOST IN THE MATH AND THE TECHNICAL LANGUAGE IN THE NEXT SECTION. KEEP THESE IN MIND: What does it mean for tipping to be a “threshold” or “continuous” phenomenon (159-65)? How do cities or neighborhoods differ based upon these different curves--i.e. different points at which neighborhoods tip?
What is a “crossover point” and why does it have important policy implications (166-8)?
What is the difference between tipping in and out?
173-83 Here the author returns to less formalistic, and more realistic/historical scenarios of tipping. Who are other actors involved in tipping, what are the effects of speculation and neighborhood composition, and what are possible non-racial forms of tipping?
Loic Wacquant
Wacquant offers a blistering critique of the kind of “natural” theory of how people come to live in certain areas rather than others. In his analysis of areas of “advanced marginality,” he focuses on notions of discourse, especially stigmatization, race, and space vs. place. As you read this article, keep in mind Professor Martin's point about Wacquant's emphasis on domination as explaining racial segregation. Where does this place him on the questions of action and social ontology?
What is the process by which areas of advanced marginality come to be stigmatized (67-8)?
Does it matter if the stories about these places are true? Why or why not?
What are the effects of such beliefs about these places
• On residents themselves (68)
• On policy makers with the power to affect social structures (69)?
Pp69-70. Here Wacquant argues paradoxically that even though areas of advanced marginality acquire incredibly strong and damaging reputations, they LOSE their sense of place.
• Describe the process by which these PLACES become SPACES.
• What are the consequences of this transition—make reference to his historical portrayal of how American black ghettoes have evolved (70).
Pp71-3. Finally, Wacquant offers a number of reasons why this problem is so difficult to address. Don’t get caught up with his use of “precariat”: it's a word he's made up to make a point. Keep in mind the contrast between whom he's calling the precariat, and the proletariat, or the working class. Marx predicted that the proletariat would be a political force--"workers of the world unite" was a famous line of his--predicting that workers would unite to topple capitalism and usher in communism. Wacquant's basic point, by contrast, is that these groups are fundamentally prevented from working together to improve their condition.
• Why do residents of marginal areas have so few resources [i.e. hinterland] to fall back upon?
• What is the importance of this group lacking “a language, a repertoire of shared images and signs” with which to describe itself (72)?
All of these readings deal with how people end up in certain areas of the city and not in others, and how to explain this pattern. Again the readings offer discernibly contradictory positions, so keep that in mind during your reading. Look for how these authors approach this question, and afterwards strive to set up your own view.
Zorbaugh
Take a minute to ponder the opening section: what does Zorbaugh mean when he says “The city is discovered to be an organization displaying certain typical processes of growth. Knowledge of these processes makes possible prediction of the direction, rate, and nature of its growth. That is, the city is found to be no an artifact but a natural phenomenon” (220-1)?
• Are we in control of our cities? He is implying here, especially through the examples of failed reform efforts, that cities have their own logic partially outside of our control.
• This is reflected in his theory of the “natural areas” of the city.
o Attempt to map out his model of the city as given on pp221-2. What are the main features of cities for Zorbaugh?
o What is the role of “impersonal competition” (222), land values, and segregation in creating distinctive “cultural areas” that match natural areas (222-3)?
o Reflect on the “plant ecology” metaphor (223). What does this analogy mean for his theory of urban development?
o Explain Zorbaugh’s notion of succession, as it is his theory of urban change.
• What are the consequences of the differences between natural and administrative areas of the city? Do you see this played out in San Diego?
Does Zorbaugh’s model of urban development make sense to you? Can it be used to explain San Diego, Los Angeles, or cities in the Bay Area?
Schelling
In this article Schelling outlines a number of MODELS of reality—motivated by actual histories of actual processes of racial change in neighborhoods [such as we read about blockbusting etc in USP1], and it is important to keep that distinction in mind. In order to create these models, the author makes many assumptions about reality—so if you disagree keep a running tally and save them for your critique. Still, articles like these are very interesting because they allow us to think about social processes by modeling them.
In particular, keep in mind Professor Martin’s point about Schelling having a contractual/marketplace view of racial discrimination as the result of a collection of individual decisions. That relates to his view of whether people are rational or irrational actors. But also keep in mind his views on social or individual ontology [i.e. which he thinks are real], and how he thinks order is achieved [i.e. consensus or conflict].
What kinds of evidence does he say we can use on this topic? If he had chosen the other kind of evidence, how would his analysis differ?
What is the definition of tipping? How might the notion of tipping differ if you looked at schools rather than neighborhoods [hint think about the difference between percentage and position]?
DON'T GET LOST IN THE MATH AND THE TECHNICAL LANGUAGE IN THE NEXT SECTION. KEEP THESE IN MIND: What does it mean for tipping to be a “threshold” or “continuous” phenomenon (159-65)? How do cities or neighborhoods differ based upon these different curves--i.e. different points at which neighborhoods tip?
What is a “crossover point” and why does it have important policy implications (166-8)?
What is the difference between tipping in and out?
173-83 Here the author returns to less formalistic, and more realistic/historical scenarios of tipping. Who are other actors involved in tipping, what are the effects of speculation and neighborhood composition, and what are possible non-racial forms of tipping?
Loic Wacquant
Wacquant offers a blistering critique of the kind of “natural” theory of how people come to live in certain areas rather than others. In his analysis of areas of “advanced marginality,” he focuses on notions of discourse, especially stigmatization, race, and space vs. place. As you read this article, keep in mind Professor Martin's point about Wacquant's emphasis on domination as explaining racial segregation. Where does this place him on the questions of action and social ontology?
What is the process by which areas of advanced marginality come to be stigmatized (67-8)?
Does it matter if the stories about these places are true? Why or why not?
What are the effects of such beliefs about these places
• On residents themselves (68)
• On policy makers with the power to affect social structures (69)?
Pp69-70. Here Wacquant argues paradoxically that even though areas of advanced marginality acquire incredibly strong and damaging reputations, they LOSE their sense of place.
• Describe the process by which these PLACES become SPACES.
• What are the consequences of this transition—make reference to his historical portrayal of how American black ghettoes have evolved (70).
Pp71-3. Finally, Wacquant offers a number of reasons why this problem is so difficult to address. Don’t get caught up with his use of “precariat”: it's a word he's made up to make a point. Keep in mind the contrast between whom he's calling the precariat, and the proletariat, or the working class. Marx predicted that the proletariat would be a political force--"workers of the world unite" was a famous line of his--predicting that workers would unite to topple capitalism and usher in communism. Wacquant's basic point, by contrast, is that these groups are fundamentally prevented from working together to improve their condition.
• Why do residents of marginal areas have so few resources [i.e. hinterland] to fall back upon?
• What is the importance of this group lacking “a language, a repertoire of shared images and signs” with which to describe itself (72)?
Sunday, April 12, 2009
Author Invite
Students:
Sorry for the delay, but I have invited you all to be authors of this blog. This is a way for those of you who do not like to speak in class to participate. That can take a variety of forms, including posting questions about readings, notes or thoughts about lectures or readings, and/or news items that remind you of class topics. Or anything else related to class.
I hope you're having a good weekend, and I'll see you tomorrow to discuss the Wirth essay.
Cheers
AC
Sorry for the delay, but I have invited you all to be authors of this blog. This is a way for those of you who do not like to speak in class to participate. That can take a variety of forms, including posting questions about readings, notes or thoughts about lectures or readings, and/or news items that remind you of class topics. Or anything else related to class.
I hope you're having a good weekend, and I'll see you tomorrow to discuss the Wirth essay.
Cheers
AC
Thursday, April 9, 2009
Add/Drop
Students:
At this point there are still 2 students who seek to add into our class.
If anyone is seriously considering dropping the class, please do so before midnight tonight so that they can be added to our class.
Even though tomorrow is the actual deadline, all drops must happen before tomorrow according to the way they wrote the online registration rules.
Thanks!
Andrew
At this point there are still 2 students who seek to add into our class.
If anyone is seriously considering dropping the class, please do so before midnight tonight so that they can be added to our class.
Even though tomorrow is the actual deadline, all drops must happen before tomorrow according to the way they wrote the online registration rules.
Thanks!
Andrew
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)