Hi All,
This week I decided to comment on a blog post by Patricia Villareal.
Hi there,
I just wanted to comment on your blog post. I think that Santa Monica was an excellent place to choose to study because it is iconic of Southern California, and yet is not always representative of most of the areas in Los Angeles. Thus, it brings about both a social examination of this one specific area while giving food for thought as to the applicability of social difference in one place in terms of other places.
I very much enjoyed your descriptions of Third Street, and agree that it is a pleasant, picturesque place to visit, full of commercial and recreational activity. It is an icon of Southern California, and of Los Angeles, and provides much of the images of sunny skies, blue waters, and beautiful beaches that the original promoters of Southern California used to attract people to move here. This attraction definitely brings a wide variety of people from different places to this one location, thus bringing about an eclectic social and ethnic mix on the streets. I also thought your description of the bus ride very entertaining, and certainly descriptive of daily life for thousands upon thousands of people on a daily basis. However, I cannot help but wish you had gone further into depth about what the social implications of such places were, and perhaps compared these social patterns to those in less iconic areas.
Santa Monica, while being eclectic and unique, cannot fully represent the social patterns of most areas in Los Angeles, as most suburbs, city centers, barrios, etc., are not necessarily "iconic" of the city. For example, while there may be a mix of people in the city streets, we are mostly talking about tourists, visiting the beach or shopping in the higher priced stores along the Third Street Promenade. And while I agree with your reference to Watson's suggestions of the gender-selective nature of the area, meaning that it appeals to women because of its higher amounts of lighting, higher safety levels, etc., I think we can also say that not everyone feels the same level of comfort in this area. The shops and restaurants in this area almost certainly appeal to middle class and higher personas, perhaps making those of lower income level not feel welcome to shop or dine (a reference to the carceral archipelago, perhaps?). This class "segregation," if you will, goes across racial lines, but certainly has racial tones to it, making the social difference it manifests rather personal for those who feel it. We can also see the use of "bum-proof" benches and other anti-homeless tactics being used to maintain the area as a "cleaner," "safer," "higher class" area. This, as Sibley would maintain, is the manifestation of social control and differentiation that is common to areas that want to keep such "contamination" from reaching their areas. What I would like to ask is, If Santa Monica is iconic of Los Angeles, are these practices present within the area also representative of Los Angeles? Can we really make a fair comparison from this place to others that perhaps have far different social, economic, and ethnic makeups? I say that it is unfair to compare Santa Monica to most other areas in Los Angeles as most other cities do not have the same status, attractions, fame, etc., that Santa Monica does, and thus these associations affect the way in which the city operates, subsequently affecting the social makeup of the area.
Additionally, I would have loved to hear you develop the bus ride a little more. Is the bus ride crucial to the auto-centric city of Los Angeles? What does the integration of so many cultures, languages, occupations, ages, etc., in one place mean? In my experience, despite the connection through the use of the bus, people rarely talk to one another, socialize, or integrate when traveling. Thus, I think that while the bus may be crucial to providing many people of different social types a way to travel and function on a daily basis, it is not necessarily ameliorating the manifestations of social difference that occur in cities like LA.
These are both important places to Southern California, in my opinion. Many people visit Santa Monica each day, and many people use the bus on a regular basis. As we examine them, I think it's important not to think of them as just things, but as functions of society. Perhaps, even, we can use what we learned from Stuart Hall and floating signifiers to recognize that over time these places will change in meaning, and that understanding their importance and effect now will give us greater insight into what they will mean in the future. As Santa Monica and the bus gain meaning from the people that use them and function them, they will in turn affect their users, giving cultural and symbolic meaning that changes over time. As someone who occasionally uses the bus, and often visits Santa Monica, I find this fascinating.
Overall, I thank you for the fantastic blog post, and for sharing your experiences of these two places. While I have visited Santa Monica multiple times, and used the bus several times, I always find new and fascinating ways to think about the movement and spaciation of people, and how our lives are affected by this geography. Your post has given me one such new way.
Wednesday 28 November 2012
Wednesday 21 November 2012
Blogging on Social Difference in LA: Week 8 - Comment on Laiza's Blog
Hey All,
This week I chose to comment on Laiza's blog post about environmental development and toxicity.
Hey Laiza,
I loved reading your blog post about Montebello and the environmental (and health) hazards that industrialism can impose. I really liked how you related the post to Harvey's commentary on the unfortunate (and often unwanted) placement of these sites. Considering the toxins, chemicals, and other harmful things that are usually bi-products of industrialization in an area, there are considerable dangers posed to those who live in the area. I think you addressed it correctly by supposing that the residents of Montebello probably had no say in the industrialization of their area into an oil field. According to Harvey, the rich would have been able to move away from it, or move it away from them at least, and the poor would have been unable to say no because of their fiscal insecurity. This all reminds me very much of a literary work I read in a social geography class here at UCLA written by Laura Pulido. The piece, titled "Rethinking Environmental Racism:White Privilege and Urban Development in Southern California," also commented on the unfortunate pattern of placing environmentally toxic sites in areas of denser minority populations. While many believe that these sites are put in these locations based on race, thus making the issue one of environmental racism, Pulido suggested that it was rather than the sites were placed randomly, and that it just happened to be certain races who lived closer to them because they couldn't afford to live further away. Thus, groups that were affected by these sites were not categorized by race so much as they were categorized and segregated by income. I think that this helps to reinforce Harvey's idea of the poor being unable to avoid the hazards of the sites, and often times indebted to the job opportunity, while the rich can move farther away.
I think, also, that your trip to Montebello also has importance in regards to the readings regarding Geothe's Faust and Karl Marx's Manifesto. In Faust, we can see the inherent need of modernism to develop further and further, attempting to create human enhancement and power. This development is how we modernize ourselves and move away from the old, traditional lifestyle. Yet, wherever there is development, as shown in Faust's case, there is also destruction, pain, and anguish (as shown by the destruction of the old couple who wanted to maintain their simple ways). Marx also comments on this paradox in his Manifesto as he talks of the paradoxical nature in which the bourgeois develop capital and production, and yet the benefits of such production are always accompanied by destruction and pain for others. Thus, we can see that the toxic sites provide both benefit and cost to those who surround them.
I think it is important to see that by living in modern society, we endeavor to partake in all of the benefits of such society, be they medical, technological, or philosophical. And yet, we must remember that rarely, in this world of finite resources and infinite competition, is there ever development without accompanying destruction and desolation. Thus, as we go through our lives, we can examine our efforts and the efforts of others not just in terms of their immediate or personal costs, but in terms of their long-term and overarching costs.
Overall, I very much enjoyed your post. It has given me much food for thought. I would love to see if your trips to other cities and areas echo such patterns of the cost-benefits of development, or if we are, perhaps, making an effort to remove ourselves from such "modern conditions".
This week I chose to comment on Laiza's blog post about environmental development and toxicity.
Hey Laiza,
I loved reading your blog post about Montebello and the environmental (and health) hazards that industrialism can impose. I really liked how you related the post to Harvey's commentary on the unfortunate (and often unwanted) placement of these sites. Considering the toxins, chemicals, and other harmful things that are usually bi-products of industrialization in an area, there are considerable dangers posed to those who live in the area. I think you addressed it correctly by supposing that the residents of Montebello probably had no say in the industrialization of their area into an oil field. According to Harvey, the rich would have been able to move away from it, or move it away from them at least, and the poor would have been unable to say no because of their fiscal insecurity. This all reminds me very much of a literary work I read in a social geography class here at UCLA written by Laura Pulido. The piece, titled "Rethinking Environmental Racism:White Privilege and Urban Development in Southern California," also commented on the unfortunate pattern of placing environmentally toxic sites in areas of denser minority populations. While many believe that these sites are put in these locations based on race, thus making the issue one of environmental racism, Pulido suggested that it was rather than the sites were placed randomly, and that it just happened to be certain races who lived closer to them because they couldn't afford to live further away. Thus, groups that were affected by these sites were not categorized by race so much as they were categorized and segregated by income. I think that this helps to reinforce Harvey's idea of the poor being unable to avoid the hazards of the sites, and often times indebted to the job opportunity, while the rich can move farther away.
I think, also, that your trip to Montebello also has importance in regards to the readings regarding Geothe's Faust and Karl Marx's Manifesto. In Faust, we can see the inherent need of modernism to develop further and further, attempting to create human enhancement and power. This development is how we modernize ourselves and move away from the old, traditional lifestyle. Yet, wherever there is development, as shown in Faust's case, there is also destruction, pain, and anguish (as shown by the destruction of the old couple who wanted to maintain their simple ways). Marx also comments on this paradox in his Manifesto as he talks of the paradoxical nature in which the bourgeois develop capital and production, and yet the benefits of such production are always accompanied by destruction and pain for others. Thus, we can see that the toxic sites provide both benefit and cost to those who surround them.
I think it is important to see that by living in modern society, we endeavor to partake in all of the benefits of such society, be they medical, technological, or philosophical. And yet, we must remember that rarely, in this world of finite resources and infinite competition, is there ever development without accompanying destruction and desolation. Thus, as we go through our lives, we can examine our efforts and the efforts of others not just in terms of their immediate or personal costs, but in terms of their long-term and overarching costs.
Overall, I very much enjoyed your post. It has given me much food for thought. I would love to see if your trips to other cities and areas echo such patterns of the cost-benefits of development, or if we are, perhaps, making an effort to remove ourselves from such "modern conditions".
Tuesday 13 November 2012
Blogging on Social Difference in LA- Week 7: Response to Eva and Pasadena
This week, I took the opportunity to respond to Eva's blog post from last week about Pasadena. It was great food for thought and I really enjoyed commenting!
Hi Eva,
I found your blog post very entertaining, and thought I would comment on it. I myself have only been to Pasadena a handful of times, and never on an intimate scale (unless you count football games at the Rose Bowl), and thus would have the same perceptions and impressions of the city as you would. Your comments on the inevitable disaster of mobility in the city is certainly one that is common to most areas of Los Angeles, as the entire region was (historically) based around the use and development of the automobile. Thus, we have large, inter-looping freeways, suburbs spread out far from the city center, and decentralized city layouts. I think you hit it on the head when you allude to how separated and distinct Old Town feels from the rest of Pasadena. My own experiences of the area also lead to me believe that, like Bel Air, the area is more autonomous and developed out of a different function than neighboring areas in Pasadena, thus giving it a specific function- consumerism. This coincides with your address of this area of Pasadena as being part of the 4th Urban Revolution, as we can see the development of such areas only possible when the center of the city becomes the home, when the automobile allows the disillusionment of center-periphery relationships, and when there is a shift from focusing on production to focusing on consumption. Heck, it seems like everything just comes back to Marx in the end, doesn't it? :/
This brings me to your comment on the high spending habits of people on themselves, and their stinginess with those of need. I myself am perplexed by this constant paradox of society- the overall moral imperative that we do well onto others, and yet the actual lack of implementation of said doctrines. It reminds me of the ever continuing cycle of differentiation discussed in class, the article on the disadvantage of the inner city written by Julius Wilson, and the naturalization of difference. If we examine the cycle of differentiation, I think we can see that the social problems of welfare, homelessness, and overall depravity represented by those outside the shops begging for change are manifestations of the complexity that arises in society from density of humans. Certainly, I think, we can all see the strains that growing populations put upon institutions, tax resources, and housing availability. Thus, when complexity arises, society "solves" the social issues presented by differentiating, which in this case usually means the creation of welfare projects, homeless shelters, etc. And yet, despite the efforts of these programs to remove the social issues at hand, we cannot but accept that the stigmatization that comes with such differentiation leaves the disadvantaged (in this case, the homeless) perpetually without. Thus, the shopper does not see a person in need, but sees the stigma associated with the homeless of being uneducated, dirty, diseased, etc., and withholds their charity. Wilson exemplifies this very trait in society in his article, "The Truly Disadvantaged," by discussing the similar plight of African Americans and other minorities who cannot escape the stigma and lack of opportunities forced upon them in their geography. Wilson comments on this when he writes, " Today's ghetto neighborhoods are populated almost exclusively by the most disadvantaged segments of the black urban community, that heterogenous group of families and individuals who are outside the mainstream of the American occupational system," referencing to their distinct and alienated status as outside of the realm of all other citizens (187). He continues to say that " certain groups are stigmatized by the label 'underclass,' just as some people who live in depressed central-city communities are stigmatized by the term 'ghetto' or 'inner-city'," which underlines the sincere nature of a stigmatized impression of a person to affect that person's livelihood and identity (187). Another set of authors that perfectly describe the effects of stigmatization in limiting the ability of the disadvantaged in receiving help and reform are Johnson, Cloke, and May who describe the negative effects of stigmatization on the homeless in their work, " Day Centers for Homeless People: Spaces of Care or Fear?". In it, they recognize that despite the best efforts of social reforms and social programs to "rehabilitate" the needy and destitute, the stigma that becomes associated with them completely removes them from the public sphere, turning them into an "other" that socially differentiates and alienates them. Lastly, I think it important to recognize that the space placed between the shopper and the disadvantaged could be a result of the naturalization of difference, whereby the disregard of the needy is naturalized as a part of social interaction. In this case, it could be that we live in a world where our social order creates a pathology that allows us to believe that the disadvantaged state of the person begging outside of the shop is natural, and thus to be tolerated. While Marx and Engels would never have agreed with this, we can certainly see how modern day policies, media, and institutions may have lead to this (unintentional) naturalization.
It is my belief, then, that the example of such behavior in a modern decentralized town like Pasadena is a clue to our understanding of the world. While not every city is exactly like Pasadena, noticing these aspects of the city can become universal towards our understanding of social relations and differences within that set of norms. While I wish that you had addressed some other points in regards to your observations, such as the relativity of such social dichotomies in Pasadena to other cities, whether the auto-centricity of the city has anything to do with the density of disadvantaged in the city, etc., I highly enjoyed your post and its inspiration for thought.
Hi Eva,
I found your blog post very entertaining, and thought I would comment on it. I myself have only been to Pasadena a handful of times, and never on an intimate scale (unless you count football games at the Rose Bowl), and thus would have the same perceptions and impressions of the city as you would. Your comments on the inevitable disaster of mobility in the city is certainly one that is common to most areas of Los Angeles, as the entire region was (historically) based around the use and development of the automobile. Thus, we have large, inter-looping freeways, suburbs spread out far from the city center, and decentralized city layouts. I think you hit it on the head when you allude to how separated and distinct Old Town feels from the rest of Pasadena. My own experiences of the area also lead to me believe that, like Bel Air, the area is more autonomous and developed out of a different function than neighboring areas in Pasadena, thus giving it a specific function- consumerism. This coincides with your address of this area of Pasadena as being part of the 4th Urban Revolution, as we can see the development of such areas only possible when the center of the city becomes the home, when the automobile allows the disillusionment of center-periphery relationships, and when there is a shift from focusing on production to focusing on consumption. Heck, it seems like everything just comes back to Marx in the end, doesn't it? :/
This brings me to your comment on the high spending habits of people on themselves, and their stinginess with those of need. I myself am perplexed by this constant paradox of society- the overall moral imperative that we do well onto others, and yet the actual lack of implementation of said doctrines. It reminds me of the ever continuing cycle of differentiation discussed in class, the article on the disadvantage of the inner city written by Julius Wilson, and the naturalization of difference. If we examine the cycle of differentiation, I think we can see that the social problems of welfare, homelessness, and overall depravity represented by those outside the shops begging for change are manifestations of the complexity that arises in society from density of humans. Certainly, I think, we can all see the strains that growing populations put upon institutions, tax resources, and housing availability. Thus, when complexity arises, society "solves" the social issues presented by differentiating, which in this case usually means the creation of welfare projects, homeless shelters, etc. And yet, despite the efforts of these programs to remove the social issues at hand, we cannot but accept that the stigmatization that comes with such differentiation leaves the disadvantaged (in this case, the homeless) perpetually without. Thus, the shopper does not see a person in need, but sees the stigma associated with the homeless of being uneducated, dirty, diseased, etc., and withholds their charity. Wilson exemplifies this very trait in society in his article, "The Truly Disadvantaged," by discussing the similar plight of African Americans and other minorities who cannot escape the stigma and lack of opportunities forced upon them in their geography. Wilson comments on this when he writes, " Today's ghetto neighborhoods are populated almost exclusively by the most disadvantaged segments of the black urban community, that heterogenous group of families and individuals who are outside the mainstream of the American occupational system," referencing to their distinct and alienated status as outside of the realm of all other citizens (187). He continues to say that " certain groups are stigmatized by the label 'underclass,' just as some people who live in depressed central-city communities are stigmatized by the term 'ghetto' or 'inner-city'," which underlines the sincere nature of a stigmatized impression of a person to affect that person's livelihood and identity (187). Another set of authors that perfectly describe the effects of stigmatization in limiting the ability of the disadvantaged in receiving help and reform are Johnson, Cloke, and May who describe the negative effects of stigmatization on the homeless in their work, " Day Centers for Homeless People: Spaces of Care or Fear?". In it, they recognize that despite the best efforts of social reforms and social programs to "rehabilitate" the needy and destitute, the stigma that becomes associated with them completely removes them from the public sphere, turning them into an "other" that socially differentiates and alienates them. Lastly, I think it important to recognize that the space placed between the shopper and the disadvantaged could be a result of the naturalization of difference, whereby the disregard of the needy is naturalized as a part of social interaction. In this case, it could be that we live in a world where our social order creates a pathology that allows us to believe that the disadvantaged state of the person begging outside of the shop is natural, and thus to be tolerated. While Marx and Engels would never have agreed with this, we can certainly see how modern day policies, media, and institutions may have lead to this (unintentional) naturalization.
It is my belief, then, that the example of such behavior in a modern decentralized town like Pasadena is a clue to our understanding of the world. While not every city is exactly like Pasadena, noticing these aspects of the city can become universal towards our understanding of social relations and differences within that set of norms. While I wish that you had addressed some other points in regards to your observations, such as the relativity of such social dichotomies in Pasadena to other cities, whether the auto-centricity of the city has anything to do with the density of disadvantaged in the city, etc., I highly enjoyed your post and its inspiration for thought.
Friday 9 November 2012
Blogging on Social Difference in LA: Week 6 - Cerritos, A Nice Place to Visit
On this week's blog adventure, I decided to go to Cerritos, and venture around this fair city. Cerritos, which is located approximately 30 miles away at the meeting point of Artesia, Long Beach, and Lakewood, has an extremely interesting diversity of people and cultures. In my opinion, the city is one of the better examples of the creation of a society from the coming together of different, specialized people (Durkheim), and shows the real value to understanding the extent and impact of social difference within the city.
My trip to Cerritos started with the drive. The city is quite a ways away from Los Angeles, and the drive can be quite terrible in LA Traffic. After traveling across the 405, the 105, the 91, and then finally the 605, you enter into the city of Cerritos. Upon exiting the freeway, you can't help but notice two of the more famous points of interest for the city: the Cerritos Auto Square and the Cerritos Shopping Mall. That these are some of the first things you encounter when entering the city references the Marxian view of suburbia: a place for the storage and distribution of overproduction and accumulation of goods. This characteristic of suburbia at first scared me into believing that Cerritos would be yet another example of a city containing the debilitating, segregation, and alienating social aspects common to many suburbs throughout the Los Angeles Metropolitan Area. Thankfully, my fears were soon put to rest.
My first stop in Cerritos was the area on Pioneer Street commonly known as "Little India". Located only a few blocks from the Cerritos Shopping Mall, this small stretch of street is jam packed with shops, restaurants, and jewelers who proudly promote their Indian heritage. That all of these people came together in one area suggests to me that they not only found the need to agglomerate because they are all specialized in certain services and aspects of their culture (be it food, clothing, technology, etc), but because they all had similar webs of significance (Weber). Living in Cerritos meant nothing to them without the context of their heritage to color and shape their endeavors. Thus, the restaurant packed full of people who wanted to buy mango lassi, dal, and naan was not just another restaurant, but one that represented the plight of the individual as an immigrant trying to make a life for themselves, the family trying to maintain their ancestors' culture, and the community that finds freedom and solace in maintaining their culture despite the homogenizing and assimilating effects of American life. Thus, social aspects that marked this cultural group as being "different" did not in fact separate them
My next stop in Cerritos was the public library. This library is an amazingly beautiful library. A huge, impressive structure of titanium panels and concrete, the library stands for a possible future where social difference does not have to exist, and where it cannot limit peoples' potential. This library, built to entertain all ages, had within it people of all races, studying and reading near one another.
The social restriction that sometimes comes about in the city, as in the case of the carceral archipelago, was not present in this location as all felt welcome to enter, to participate in the amenities provided, and to enhance themselves through study or reading. Because the city is so diverse in it's ethnic make up (61/5% Asian, 16.6% White, 12% Hispanic, 8% Black, http://www.city-data.com/city/Cerritos-California.html), the library was a focal meeting point for people to come and enjoy themselves without feeling like they were unwelcome or unwanted. Thus, the Cerritos Library becomes a beautiful tool that removed the import of social difference, allowing all types of people to feel comfortable crossing city or county lines in order to participate in and gain the benefits of public outreach.
Considering that the city does not have really well defined boundaries, it is very easy to find yourself in one city one moment, and the neighboring city the next, sometimes without ever having meant to change locations. This, however, is beneficial rather than harmful to the people living in the city, as it allows them greater opportunities of mobility and integration with those around them. There are less physical barriers to the inhabitants and visitors since they now can freely access the amenities within this city, and through a short drive or walk, the amenities in another city. I think that this is a perfect counterargument to Robert Park's assertion that "The City is a mosaic of little worlds which touch but do not interpenetrate.” Rather, Cerritos is a great example of how cities can "interpenetrate," allowing those in the city to enjoy their own residence and to travel to other residences so as to experience new things. While there are still parts of Cerritos that may keep it from fully disproving Park's assertion, I still believe that the city holds many of the important characteristics that can help us to better understand how to move away from a society that so heavily produces social difference to one that no longer leaves people better or worse off than others.
My trip to Cerritos started with the drive. The city is quite a ways away from Los Angeles, and the drive can be quite terrible in LA Traffic. After traveling across the 405, the 105, the 91, and then finally the 605, you enter into the city of Cerritos. Upon exiting the freeway, you can't help but notice two of the more famous points of interest for the city: the Cerritos Auto Square and the Cerritos Shopping Mall. That these are some of the first things you encounter when entering the city references the Marxian view of suburbia: a place for the storage and distribution of overproduction and accumulation of goods. This characteristic of suburbia at first scared me into believing that Cerritos would be yet another example of a city containing the debilitating, segregation, and alienating social aspects common to many suburbs throughout the Los Angeles Metropolitan Area. Thankfully, my fears were soon put to rest.
My next stop in Cerritos was the public library. This library is an amazingly beautiful library. A huge, impressive structure of titanium panels and concrete, the library stands for a possible future where social difference does not have to exist, and where it cannot limit peoples' potential. This library, built to entertain all ages, had within it people of all races, studying and reading near one another.
The social restriction that sometimes comes about in the city, as in the case of the carceral archipelago, was not present in this location as all felt welcome to enter, to participate in the amenities provided, and to enhance themselves through study or reading. Because the city is so diverse in it's ethnic make up (61/5% Asian, 16.6% White, 12% Hispanic, 8% Black, http://www.city-data.com/city/Cerritos-California.html), the library was a focal meeting point for people to come and enjoy themselves without feeling like they were unwelcome or unwanted. Thus, the Cerritos Library becomes a beautiful tool that removed the import of social difference, allowing all types of people to feel comfortable crossing city or county lines in order to participate in and gain the benefits of public outreach.
Considering that the city does not have really well defined boundaries, it is very easy to find yourself in one city one moment, and the neighboring city the next, sometimes without ever having meant to change locations. This, however, is beneficial rather than harmful to the people living in the city, as it allows them greater opportunities of mobility and integration with those around them. There are less physical barriers to the inhabitants and visitors since they now can freely access the amenities within this city, and through a short drive or walk, the amenities in another city. I think that this is a perfect counterargument to Robert Park's assertion that "The City is a mosaic of little worlds which touch but do not interpenetrate.” Rather, Cerritos is a great example of how cities can "interpenetrate," allowing those in the city to enjoy their own residence and to travel to other residences so as to experience new things. While there are still parts of Cerritos that may keep it from fully disproving Park's assertion, I still believe that the city holds many of the important characteristics that can help us to better understand how to move away from a society that so heavily produces social difference to one that no longer leaves people better or worse off than others.
Friday 2 November 2012
Blogging Social Difference in LA: Week 5 -- Surf City, USA and its Romantic Perfection
Southern California is world-renowned for its idealic and utopic reputation. Starting with the pioneers of California who marketed Los Angeles as the utopic haven of perfect climate and freedom, to the cultural revolution instigated by the Beach Boys in the 1960s, Southern California has always retained its unbreakable image of beautiful weather, clean beaches, and socio-economic liberty. Kling, Olin, and Poster described Orange County as "a trouble-free, healthy life for families...modern housing, rural open space, high-quality schools, superb amenities, and a temperate climate that permitted an easy-going outdoor life year-round," thus painting an utopic image of the area. Yet, we know that this image of serenity and beauty is only really applicable to a few areas of the Southern California geography, leaving the rest of the area struggling with socio-economic differences. One such example of the utopic image of Southern California is Huntington Beach, or as it's more commonly known, "Surf City, USA".
Huntington Beach, located in southern Orange County, is a beautiful city, covered in palm trees, clean streets, and well-organized landscaping. The city is relatively large, containing a population of nearly 200,000 people. It is also easily accesible from several major freeways (405, PCH) and thus draws a lot attraction from tourism, especially for its beaches and surf-worthy waves. The sun is always shining, and the smell of the ocean rolling through this coastline city truly gives it its paradisal feeling.
As I walked through the streets and drove around the city, I noticed, however, that the city is not entirely perfect in its socio-economic spatiality. The city is rather homogenous in its ethnic makeup, as most people in the city seem to be caucasian, middle class, and relatively well-off. While there is not necessarily anything wrong with this, I couldn't help by wonder why there were so few minority families strolling the beach along with the white ones, or why there only seemed to be white teenagers milling around the downtown area. Why were minorities so few and scarce in this city? Why was it that the only minorities present in Huntington Beach, an affluent suburb of Southern California, seemed to be those present in its service sector?
Thus, I came to the conclusion after considerable observation, that social difference is a large part of what comes to play in the makeup of this city. Looking at several variables on Simply Maps, it becomes evident that Huntington Beach is an affluent suburb, with higher than average housing prices, a higher than standard consumer price index, and overall higher incomes per household. As we covered in lecture, these variables are often used as ways of controlling the social makeup of a city, allowing only certain types of socio-economic groups into the city. For example, the higher than average house prices means that only higher than average income families can afford housing in the area, which is evidenced in the maps. As you can see in the map below, very few areas of Huntington Beach have an average household income of less than $75,000, reaffirming the higher average income status of the area.
Additionally, the city is only accessible if you have access to a car, as everything is extremely spread out and the public transportation system is not nearly sufficient. Thus, those without access to cars do not have access to the city, and move to areas closer to their socio-economic means. This concept of the social division caused by economic means follows closely to the discussion in lecture of the restriction of access to the city through physical, social, or consumption means. Huntington Beach, full of gated communities, higher than average priced products, and overal feeling of white-affluence, keeps minorities out of the city, creating an indirect relationship of social difference between its residents and those of neighboring cities.
A large part of the creation of this social difference within Huntington Beach can be seen in the work written by Kling, Olin, and Poster in their work, "The Emergence of Postsuburbia". The authors comment on the growth of Orange County as a homogenous, well-off suburb that espoused post-WWII ideals of a family, affluence, and the American Dream, alluding to the influence of these ideals on modern-day Orange County. The area is still dominated by the ideas of creating homogeneity within neighborhoods, and of allowing the home to be the center of city, rather than a working area or shopping area. Kling, Olin, and Poster also comment on the automobile-centricity of Orange County, reaffirming that Orange County is only really accessible to those who have cars. Finally, the authors indicate that Orange County is largely based upon a consumption lifestyle whereby the resident does not interact with others, but focuses on their shopping needs without sociality, and moves on to other areas of the city. Thus, Huntington Beach is a creation of the expression of social differentiation in the American suburb. All of these various differentiating and segregating aspects of Huntington Beach remind us that social difference is still a common aspect of modern society. Despite the advances made in social and civil rights, or the efforts of liberals and conservatives to ameliorate the stark economic and social differences present in the modern city, there still exists a strong pattern of segregation and distanciation in the spatiality of people within cities. Yet, but looking deeper into these differences, and trying to understand them, we can hopefully one day overcome them.
Huntington Beach, located in southern Orange County, is a beautiful city, covered in palm trees, clean streets, and well-organized landscaping. The city is relatively large, containing a population of nearly 200,000 people. It is also easily accesible from several major freeways (405, PCH) and thus draws a lot attraction from tourism, especially for its beaches and surf-worthy waves. The sun is always shining, and the smell of the ocean rolling through this coastline city truly gives it its paradisal feeling.
As I walked through the streets and drove around the city, I noticed, however, that the city is not entirely perfect in its socio-economic spatiality. The city is rather homogenous in its ethnic makeup, as most people in the city seem to be caucasian, middle class, and relatively well-off. While there is not necessarily anything wrong with this, I couldn't help by wonder why there were so few minority families strolling the beach along with the white ones, or why there only seemed to be white teenagers milling around the downtown area. Why were minorities so few and scarce in this city? Why was it that the only minorities present in Huntington Beach, an affluent suburb of Southern California, seemed to be those present in its service sector?
Thus, I came to the conclusion after considerable observation, that social difference is a large part of what comes to play in the makeup of this city. Looking at several variables on Simply Maps, it becomes evident that Huntington Beach is an affluent suburb, with higher than average housing prices, a higher than standard consumer price index, and overall higher incomes per household. As we covered in lecture, these variables are often used as ways of controlling the social makeup of a city, allowing only certain types of socio-economic groups into the city. For example, the higher than average house prices means that only higher than average income families can afford housing in the area, which is evidenced in the maps. As you can see in the map below, very few areas of Huntington Beach have an average household income of less than $75,000, reaffirming the higher average income status of the area.
Additionally, the city is only accessible if you have access to a car, as everything is extremely spread out and the public transportation system is not nearly sufficient. Thus, those without access to cars do not have access to the city, and move to areas closer to their socio-economic means. This concept of the social division caused by economic means follows closely to the discussion in lecture of the restriction of access to the city through physical, social, or consumption means. Huntington Beach, full of gated communities, higher than average priced products, and overal feeling of white-affluence, keeps minorities out of the city, creating an indirect relationship of social difference between its residents and those of neighboring cities.
A large part of the creation of this social difference within Huntington Beach can be seen in the work written by Kling, Olin, and Poster in their work, "The Emergence of Postsuburbia". The authors comment on the growth of Orange County as a homogenous, well-off suburb that espoused post-WWII ideals of a family, affluence, and the American Dream, alluding to the influence of these ideals on modern-day Orange County. The area is still dominated by the ideas of creating homogeneity within neighborhoods, and of allowing the home to be the center of city, rather than a working area or shopping area. Kling, Olin, and Poster also comment on the automobile-centricity of Orange County, reaffirming that Orange County is only really accessible to those who have cars. Finally, the authors indicate that Orange County is largely based upon a consumption lifestyle whereby the resident does not interact with others, but focuses on their shopping needs without sociality, and moves on to other areas of the city. Thus, Huntington Beach is a creation of the expression of social differentiation in the American suburb. All of these various differentiating and segregating aspects of Huntington Beach remind us that social difference is still a common aspect of modern society. Despite the advances made in social and civil rights, or the efforts of liberals and conservatives to ameliorate the stark economic and social differences present in the modern city, there still exists a strong pattern of segregation and distanciation in the spatiality of people within cities. Yet, but looking deeper into these differences, and trying to understand them, we can hopefully one day overcome them.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)