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.
No comments:
Post a Comment