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.
No comments:
Post a Comment