Critical theory approach to education

McLeod's chapter on education again outlined the differences between the Hangers and Brothers.  for the most part, I saw that these differences, again, were most dramatic in how each group approached their future.  For the Hangers, little hope is given to their future and a more realistic approach to school is taken.  So, because the hangers realize that even with a high school diploma or good marks in school,  advancing out of poverty is still highly unlikely, so effort in school makes little difference.  The brothers on the other hand are hopeful that their futures will bring them out of poverty.  this hope can be accredited to their more intact family structures and the presence of male role models.  The brothers therefore work earnestly in school, despite being able to make high marks.  If LHS took a critical theory approach to education ( proponents of this theory see that schools are institutions set forth by the middle class and meant to keep a group of people oppressed) and worked to help the oppressed rise rather than inflicting middle class norms on the lower class, the hangers might be more likely to stay in school because it is a more realistic approach to education.

Keeping a Lid on Hope

In common ground we discussed as a potential action plan bringing legal and employment agencies to light for communities that needed help getting work.  We talked about how there are many difference companies and organizations that can provide aid to people that are unemployed, but the people looking for jobs just don't know about them.  I thought that these agencies could be useful to kids like the Hallway hangers and the Brothers, but after gaining a little more insight on their personalities, I realized that they would probably reject any help from a third party source, not wanting to rely on anyone they don't trust.  There is a complicated balance between the egos and aspirations of these young boys, and while they all seem to have some idea of what they want out of their lives, none of them explains how they plan on achieving these goals.  The hangers, who don't have a lot of good role models, all have a more realistic sense of their future employment status, and have mostly all held a number of jobs before.  The brothers seem to have higher aspirations, especially in field that they are not terribly educated.  One of them claims to want to be a motocross racer, and has only ever seen one motorcycle race and ridden a small motorbike.  Another expresses interest in designing video games, claiming that it would be a fun job, but has no education in computer programming or graphic design.  The one hanger who wants to open a pizza shop seems to be the only one with a realistic goal and who put any effort forward to achieve his dream.  The rest of the boys, some of whom are content with dealing drugs, claiming it makes them a reasonable amount of money, just want jobs that will not keep them on their feet all day, or that are suited for a "moron"

The Origins of Divergent Aspirations

            The key surprise of chapter five in Ain’t No Makin’ It is that the Brothers do not share the Hallway Hangers’ dismal attitudes about their future occupational prospects.  Although MacLeod tells us that he will “unravel this paradox” in a later chapter, I think it would be instructive for us to attempt to unravel it ourselves (82). As the author notes, the primarily-black Brothers must struggle against both classism and racism to make an eventual place for themselves in the American middle class; judging by this fact alone, one may assume that the outlooks of the Brothers and the Hallway Hangers should be reversed. On the other hand, one might assume that the stark and concentrated poverty of Clarendon Heights would prevent any of its young residents from developing strong aspirations, but most of the Brothers are confident that they will acquire good jobs if they make themselves skillful enough to hold them, and some of their older siblings have successfully gone on to college. Most of the Hallway Hangers’ older siblings are or have been incarcerated.

            What factors, therefore do you think have contributed most to the divergent aspirations of these two groups? Why are most of the elder siblings of the Hallway Hangers trapped in lives of crime while several of the Brothers’ elder siblings have gone on successfully to college? 

 

Family, The Wire, and MacLeod

            It truly is the truth when Dr. Jamerson said Ain’t No Makin It correlates extremely well with season 4 of The Wire.  That being said, here’s a little bit of character analysis. 

            Randy might be my favorite character of the four seasons thus far.  For one, he walks the line of code-switching (throwback to Anderson).  His friends are all mostly street and he even participates some in the drug trade.  However, his near mastery of the underground economy (throwback to Venkatesh) is largely in response to his broken family.  A mother strung out on drugs, an overflowing household to which he must be the 8^th grader parent, and yet still Randy has at least some academic aspirations.  He is a bright kid but for him, survival comes first and thus he skips class to make a few bucks here and there.  He has very little support networks available for him despite his seemingly apt intelligence.  Unfortuantely, the observation “I can’t really say [his] parents are bad, but their parents aren’t helping any” fits Randy in full effect (MacLeod 59).

            On the other hand, you’ve got a guy like Namond who epitomizes street culture.  He’s an extreme case and even amongst the 10 extreme street kids Colvin pulled out, Namond has truly be put in an individualized “solitary hole” as he called the special class.  His parents are highly influencial on his aspirations but not by the middle-class norms of the educational institution.  Through episode seven, I’m not sure yet if Namond has what it takes to be a drug dealer, but his mother and father are doing everything to groom him in that way of life.  While his parents “exercise a good deal of authority over him” (MacLeod 59), this authority both equates and contrasts to that of the Brothers’ parents.  Both parents enforce time and productivity, in that the Brothers have extra-curriculars and curfews, while Namond is either learning from the books or learning from the corner with no exceptions.  However, the Brothers have prospects after their teenage years.  Namond’s prospects for mobility are likened to that of Hallway Hangers.

Family Life

As MacLeod describes the differences in the family lives between the Hallway Hangers and the Brothers, many distinct characteristics can be found such as differences in length of residence in Clarendon Heights and the presence or absence of positive, successful or semi-successful role models. One aspect I found particularly interesting was that many of the Brothers had parents that were not originally from Clarendon Heights or even from areas close to Clarendon Heights. Many of the Bothers’ parents were from other states or immigrated from another country. Perhaps the fact that their parents had come from other areas and countries may influence the Brothers’ more hopeful outlooks on their future because their parents were able to make a change in their lives, even if it did not significantly allow them social mobility. Thus, the Brothers may have more hope that their lives do not have to follow those of their parents. Also, the idea of immigrants coming to America for a better life pervades our culture and probably is something the Brothers, in part, believe in or at least hope is true.

Another interesting aspect of the family life, particularly with respect to the Hallway Hangers, was the difference in the proposed and observed approaches parents use to reconcile their children’s prospects for social mobility. On one hand there is the “premise that lower class parents project their frustrated ambitions onto their children in an attempt to reach their goals vicariously” (MacLeod 59). However, MacLeod challenges this theory because he actually observes that parents refrain from encouraging their children from dreaming to big because they fear that they will fail and be left with “disappointment, frustration, and feelings of failure and inadequacy” (MacLeod 58).

 However, when watching the Wire, particularly as the relationship between Bubbles and Sherrod develops, I found that parents probably experience a mix of both of these emotions. Bubbles and Sherrod form a family unit and in many ways, Bubbles begins to act as a parental figure toward Sherrod. On one hand, Bubbles encourages Sherrod to go to school and pretends to be his uncle so that he can be enrolled. Also, he questions the schools policy of social promotion where Sherrod will be place in eight grade even though he has missed three years of school because of understaffing and lack of resources. Bubbles clearly cares about Sherrod’s ability to succeed, but he lacks the cultural capital to actually argue against the school’s administration. Also, after Bubbles is attacked, he tells Sherrod that he can stay the night with him but that he cannot come back unless he goes to school the next day. On the other hand though, Bubbles chooses not to say anything to Sherrod as Sherrod pretends to be studying saying that a French book is the workbook for his algebra book. Although Bubbles clearly doesn’t buy this lie, he lets it slide, perhaps because he realizes that it probably won’t matter if he calls Sherrod out on his bluff. Sherrod may deny the Bubbles knows what he is talking about and will probably not be motivated to do any actual work. Also, by not calling him out, Bubbles allows Sherrod to feel successful, even just in tricking Bubbles.

Barriers to success

I was interested to read chapter 5 of Ain’t No Makin’ It because MacLeod seemed to analyze more individual or personal barriers to success rather than the systemic barriers we often read about. This was made particularly evident by juxtaposing the attitudes of the Hallway Hangers and the Brothers on their perceptions of the job market. While the Brothers seemed to maintain a hopeful and confident attitude about finding a “good” job, the Hallway Hangers seemed to have given up hope before even beginning.

This idea of perceptions playing a large role in finding a job was very interesting to me. Based upon their limited experiences in the job market and the experiences of their parents, “hangers” seem to have constructed the idea that the job market, or middle class jobs, is open to only those with privilege. Whether this is an accurate assumption or not, the fact that the hangers have adopted this as a universal understanding of the labor market serves as a barrier to success in and of itself. When compared with the Brothers, who come from largely the same circumstances, the hangers seemed to put a large amount of constraint upon them and have in a way predetermined their own professional success.

This is not to discount the harsh structural barriers to success imposed upon individuals born into lower-class neighborhoods though Macleod’s analysis seems to indicate that personal barriers might also play a role within the job market.

On a separate and unrelated note, another aspect of the reading I found really interesting was how often these groups seemed to resort to military service when in need of a job. This was something I hadn’t previously considered but would like to learn more about the number of military recruits who join the service out of necessity. 

Opposing aspirations

I found the chapter about the aspirations of the teenagers of Clarendon Heights to be particularly interesting.  I thought that the Hallway Hangers possess a more realistic view with their aspirations.  While I dont think its right that the economic system is designed to keep the people at the bottom from having upward mobility, I think the fact that the Hangers actually realize this and come to terms with this is interesting.  I would have thought that their coming to terms with this fact would result in much more anger but they seem rather ambivalent about the whole structure of society.  Perhaps this is because of the low expectations put on them by their parents and the fact that they come from mostly "broken families" with little to know male guidance.  On the other hand I find the optimism of the Brothers to be a bit troubling simply for the fact that statistically speaking they will probably not reach their high aspirations.  I wonder if their hope of attaining the American Dream could result in a downward spiral once they realize the considerable barriers they are facing to achieve their goals.  Does hope actually take a role in achieving ones aspirations or is it better to cut ones losses and face the reality of the situation?  I also noticed that the Hangers and Brothers really represent the dichotomy of street and decent.  Regarding this, are street people more likely to grasp a firm hold on reality, which forces them to turn to street activities?  Does the hope that decent people hold amount to anything?

Relevant Video

Hey guys,

 I think this compliments what we talked about it class today. I first saw this in Prof. McKinney's African American History class when we talked about education. Check it out if you get a chance, it's pretty good.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zDZFcDGpL4U

Another song about subdivisions.

Sprawling on the fringes of the city
In geometric order
An insulated border
In between the bright lights
And the far unlit unknown

Growing up it all seems so one-sided
Opinions all provided
The future pre-decided
Detached and subdivided
In the mass production zone

Nowhere is the dreamer or the misfit so alone

Subdivisions --
In the high school halls
In the shopping malls
Conform or be cast out
Subdivisions --
In the basement bars
In the backs of cars
Be cool or be cast out
Any escape might help to smooth
The unattractive truth
But the suburbs have no charms to soothe
The restless dreams of youth

Drawn like moths we drift into the city
The timeless old attraction
Cruising for the action
Lit up like a firefly
Just to feel the living night

Some will sell their dreams for small desires
Or lose the race to rats
Get caught in ticking traps
And start to dream of somewhere
To relax their restless flight

Somewhere out of a memory of lighted streets on quiet nights...

Downwardly Mobile

In introduction to sociology I was surprised when I learned that the future of someone's economic success can likely be measured by the socioeconomic standing of their parents and the environment in which they were raised.  I, like MacLeod, had been under the impression that the American Dream was on everyone's mind, and that with hard work, goals could be attained.  Then I realized that this was just my social and cultural capital speaking, and that although depressing, the points Freddie was making made sense with his background and the lifestyles to which he was accustomed.  It was interesting to see the perspectives of some of MacLeod's older interviewees in comparison to Freddie's blunt observations, but I was not surprised that there were people who were coming from this background with high aspirations and hopes of having a well-paying job and the ability to establish a comfortable life for themselves.  The Hallway Hangers also gave the impression that they knew once they grew up they would have to start acting more "seriously," and I was intrigued by their impression that seventeen years old is a grown up.  For kids who have such set expectations for their futures they haven't seemed to do anything positive or sustainable that will help them succeed in the long run.  Seeing the interactions between the Brothers was also interesting, as groups such as themselves are not usually expected to arise from this particular socioeconomic situation.  While they all attend school, the language and grammar you can pick up in their speaking does not seem very refined at all, and although they seem to have higher aspirations than the Hangers, the impression MacLeod gives of their actions and intentions makes it seem as though they are more concerned about this point in their lives than the future.  Although the Hangers do not necessarily come off as more intelligent or likely to succeed than the Brothers, they have a street smart sense that, given their background, might come more in handy than the things the Brothers learn in school.

Theory In MacLeod

Feel free to call me a nerd and beat me up after class, but I really enjoyed the theory section of Ain’t No Making It. I think the dilemma between structure and agency is important, fascinating, and particularly pertinent to our topics of discussion. The reading discussed the Pierre Bourdieu’s work on Cultural Capital and Habitus, as one component in this ongoing sociological debate. I have never read any Bourdieu, but I have certainly heard of him and have previously been exposed to his theory of Cultural Capital in my intro sociology class freshman year, but as I was reading that section of Ain’t No Making It, I began to think of the connections between Bourdieu’s theory of Habitus, and 2 other theories/theorists I have read and discussed in other classes. According to Wikipedia (super credible right?): Habitus refers to lifestyle, the values, the dispositions and expectation of particular social groups that are acquired through the activities and experiences of everyday life, and in the book MacLeod quotes Bourdieu saying, “Objective structures tend to produce structured subjective dispositions that produce structured actions which, in turn, tend to reproduce objective structure.” This immediately made me think of two other theories: Marx’s ideas about “false consciousness” forming within/out of the super-structure created by capitalism, and Berger and Luckman’s Ideas about how “Reification” results from the complex interplay of “expression,” “Internalization/socialization,” and “institutionalization.” All three of these theories for the connection of structure and action posit various levels of determinism, and allow for various levels of agency, but I am not fully sure about their connections, similarities, and nuances. I think bridging this structure/agency gap is one of the most challenging and important tasks within sociology, and I am excited to see how MacLeod, and the Hallway Hangers/Brothers do so.

Gangsta Gardeners

I recently came across this TED talk:

http://www.ted.com/talks/ron_finley_a_guerilla_gardener_in_south_central_la.html

I found the plan super interesting and possible, but I still have reservations over how much this type of plan would actually change a neighborhood. I find it hard to believe that this type of program could change a neighborhood culture to believe that gardening was gangster rather than such things like drug dealing. How do you all feel about adapting the neighborhood culture? Is it possible?

 My favorite part of this TED talk was the plan to take the vacant lots and turn them into gardens for the community. Do you think this idea is possible - let alone sustainable? Also, do you think a community garden would help solve food deserts and nutrition problems?

Community Class and Ideas about Racial Diversity

            In this week’s readings, I have found the varying ideas that different classes hold about racial diversity in their communities (and the underlying causes for their views) very interesting.  I was particularly struck by the theory MacLeod mentioned in the third chapter of Ain’t No Makin’ It, which argues that “racism in lower-class communities stems from competition for scarce economic resources” (42). Obviously, other social factors also contribute to the development of racist attitudes, but I think that some of the truth of that theory reveals itself when we think about both the Hallway Hangers and the social preservationists.

As MacLeod notes, the racism of many of the Hallway Hangers is informed by their belief that African-Americans and other people of color are being disproportionately hired for local jobs. Accordingly, it is not illogical to assume that many of the Hangers would choose to live in a predominately white area if they could. Social preservationists, on the other hand, choose to move to “ethnic” towns and neighborhoods as a means of developing close, community-based bonds like those that exists between the Hangers. Social preservationists may not be especially wealthy themselves, but they must be better off in general than anyone living in Clarendon Heights. Thusly removed from the economic frustration of the lower classes, they value the ethnic and economic character of the neighborhoods they move into to the point of romanticization. Are stable beliefs in racial equality, therefore, a kind of luxury that only upper- and middle-class people tend to be able to afford (even if they settle for somewhat delusional anti-racism, as the social preservationists tend to do)?

The Hallway Hangers vs. the Brothers

As I was reading about the Hallway Hangers in "Ain't No Makin' It", all I could really think about was how hard it would be to be hopeful when growing up in the projects mostly due to the bad reputations that are inherently put on the residents by society and the lack of opportunity available geographically and academically. MacLeod describes the Hallway Hangers as very cynical, pessimistic, and hopeless across the board while the way he describes the Brothers is almost completely on the opposite side of the spectrum. I am so curious as to what exactly makes these groups so different from one another. How can such a dichotomy develop? They were all raised in the same projects and attended the same schools which discounts most explanations of such differences. MacLeod even says that the only apparent difference between the two groups is the racial make-up. These two groups interest me so much because most of the explanations for why people develop certain perspectives of life is completely shattered with the fact that otherwise, they are very similar foundationally. I want to find out why the Hallway Hangers have accepted their lives in the projects while the Brothers believe that they can and will find a way out.

Promoting Mobility

There seems to be such a contrast between how the media portrays the American Dream and actuality. An unemployed man struggling to feed his young children earns a recording contract on a singing competition. Politicians and celebrities have risen to their current wealth, notoriety, and status from a childhood of poverty through their hard work and dedication. Even our president is one of these success stories. What I feel like we don’t see are people like the Brothers, who are staying in school and working hard toward future ambitions instead of using drugs, dropping out of school, and envisioning themselves in prison like the Hallway Hangers, that I suspect won’t actually achieve the success they imagine for themselves. Perhaps this distorted, false perception is why a majority of Americans believe that the American Dream can be realized with hard work, determination, and perseverance. However, as MacLeod points out, the meritocracy is a fallacy because there are insurmountable structural barriers that people must first overcome. Also, though education is thought of a “the great equalizer,” other factors like cultural capital, social capital, and race inhibit or encourage mobility.

Thus, as I was reading about the Brothers and Hallway Hangers, who are older boys, I started to recognize how ineffective the programs touted to encourage social mobility really are. For example, state lottery scholarships, like the HOPE in Tennessee, and federal Pell Grants claim to provide an opportunity for everyone who does well in high school to attend college. However, these programs not only ignore factors that contribute to a person’s ability to do well in high school but disregard aspects like the accumulation of social capital. For the boys in the book, particularly the Hangers, college financial aid would probably not significantly alter their social status. Perhaps focusing efforts on a preschool program for all children would be a good start toward creating a true land of opportunity. Particularly I am thinking of a program like the écoles maternelles system in France. This program is free to all French children and nearly all parents actually enroll their children in the program. Not only would primary school children be able to start out on somewhat equal footing, but in a preschool system, more emphasis can be place upon accruing cultural capital. When there are not as many academic benchmarks that teachers must reach, there may be more time for activities like field trips. Also, in the écoles maternelles system, for example, mealtime provides a valuable lesson because all the children work together to serve a meal to each other which they eat on real plates with real silverware and clean it up together afterward. Although instituting a similar system in the United States would not solve all issues stifling social mobility and would certainly receive significant resistance, I believe that this kind of program could be a more positive step towards creating real social mobility.

Florida Recants!

Ha. Not recounts.. for once! -Pun...

Anyway,

I saw this article this afternoon on the news site, The Daily Beast - which now owns Newsweek. I thought it was incredibly pertinent to our discussion of gentrification. Everyone should check it out but, essentially the main point is that Richard Florida, the pusher of the need for a creative class in city revitalization, has conceded that the efforts cities take to attract the hip and cool out way the benefits they bring to the neighborhoods into which they move.  'His [Florida's] reasonable and fairly brave, if belated, takeaway: “On close inspection, talent clustering provides little in the way of trickle-down benefits.”' 

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/03/20/richard-florida-concedes-the-limits-of-the-creative-class.html

Now, the article is written from a staunch critic of Florida so some of the language is a little stronger than perhaps necessary. But, nevertheless, a very interesting critique of the mainstream urban planning thought.

Elaboration of Cultural Capital

While I appreciate that in Chapter 2, MacLeod outlines the theoretical framework that will allow us to better analyze and generalize the experiences of the Hangers and the Brothers, I don't think he does a good job of providing concrete examples. For example, although he explains the points of view of the various theorists, he doesn't use examples to back up their points. I understand that since the rest of the book is mostly empirical the author may find it unnecessary, but I think it would be useful for understanding what he means by, say, cultural capital.
That said, I think we can all draw examples of this concept in our own lives. I'm going to generalize here and say that most Rhodes students come from similar socioeconomic backgrounds (middle- to upper-class) and educational tracks (Gifted, Target, Advanced, or Magnet anyone...?). Even the way we interact with our professors is representative of what Bernstein explains as elaborated linguistic codes. We've been socialized as children to question and to respond to questions posed by authorities rather than just responding to directives. I wonder what the results would look like if a study analyzed who takes the most advantage of office hours...working-class kids or "privileged" kids--I'd take a gander that it would be the latter.
So, it's interesting that MacLeod points out that schools don't cater to working-class students, because even on the most basic level of conversation it is true. What would a school look like that does cater to all socioeconomic groups, I wonder?

Possible Speaker for Class

 
Class,

I may have found a speaker to talk to our class on the 4th. Emily Jackson, one of the members of our common ground group, may be able to come and talk to our class, but she has to check her schedule, said she would contact me if she is available. Ms. Emily, an 80 year old lifelong Memphis resident, has had a fascinating life, having been raised in Foote Homes, rode on segregated busses, attended Lemoyne Owen College, been part of the Memphis civil rights movement, and had many other interesting experiences. As the other members of our group can attest, not only is she a living piece of Memphis history with a fascinating and storied life, but she is also very well spoken speaker and an excellent story-teller. I truly believe that our class would benefit from and enjoy her presence and her experiences.

Nathan

"Walkability" Plans for Riverfront

I heard a planner named Jeff Speck talk about walkability and downtown development yesterday. His report is pretty interesting. I thought you may all be interested in checking it out. They are his "quick fixes" for making the riverfront a destination and revitalization of downtown. I have my own opinions, but here are his. Many of his make sense.  Speck talked about Bass Pro & the Pinch, selling off 4 acres of riverside real estate, Mud Island, and Beale Street Landing-things that we have also talked about-

Good Intentions: a Moot Point

We have briefly discussed at times the recent apparent white middle class investment in rougher areas of Memphis, I know at least with the Sears Crosstown building. It has become somewhat of a trend among, as the articles say, young educated professionals to move into lower income and frankly unlikely areas. Memphis is paying more and more attention to blighted areas with residents who cannot themselves improve their surrounding neighborhoods. This attention has been and is widely considered positive, but as these articles point out, many improvements we celebrate make the area unlivable for the people who actually live there.

Whatever the intentions of the outsiders making these investments, Brown-Saracino is making the argument that the consequences of their actions cannot be good. Distinguishing between gentrifiers and social preservationists is moot, because even social preservationists cannot en masse have a positive or preservative effect on their surrounding communities. So, the question is, would Brown-Seracino argue that social preservationists should be discouraged? I would say yes. Even after detailing the good intentions of social preservationists, Brown-Seracino points to responses of this group regarding how they separate themselves from “old-timers.” Social preservationists said they could identify old-timers often by race or occupation.

It looks to me as though Brown-Seracino's terminology turns on appearances. Gentrifiers appear disinterested in the benefit of the preexisting communities they join. Social preservationists appear to join communities on the pretense of enjoying those communities. But the effects are the same: the preexisting communities are changed and driven out. And, because of that, the intentions are moot, and neither should exist.

Gentrifiers vs. social preservationists

I find Brown-Saracino's distinction between social preservationists and gentrifiers fascinating, and it both puts into words and helps explain some observations that I've had in my neighborhood at home and in Memphis. Whenever I have observed the gentrification process of a community (like the Munjoy Hill area in Portland, ME that Brown-Saracino described -- which is about a mile from my own neighborhood), it seems that there is a conflict between the social preservationists and gentrifiers, typically over space. The gentrifiers seek redevelopment of space, with some exceptions for historically significant buildings. Social preservationists seem to be more concerned about the "old-timer" residents, yes, but while presumably taking the old-timers' concerns into consideration, the way that the social preservationists define who is an old-timer can complicate the situation. 

For instance, like Brown-Saracino mentioned, Munjoy Hill was populated by white working class families as well as Sudanese and Somali families, many of whom had come to Maine with refugee status in the 90s and early 2000s. When gentrification really kicked into gear, who would be considered an "old-timer"? Whose space and livelihood would be considered authentic and worth preserving? The white middle class families had lived on "The Hill" for generations, and family names are well-known by the community. The African families, on the other hand, were more recent additions to the neighborhood scene. Their close-knit ties to each other, the schools, and community services as well as their own local businesses had quickly established a strong connection between these families and the Hill.  I don't really know the answer to this, but as I question the process of gentrification of Munjoy Hill, I venture to assume that if old-timers' needs were taken into account, it was those of the white working class families. I do know that now, a majority of Somali and Sudanese families live outside downtown Portland, far from resources, in a secluded area of public housing. 

These readings, along with many we've read for this class so far, were very frustrating to process and reconcile. The major question I'm left with is: how can social preservationists and gentrifiers, who must mean well, ensure that all their pioneering and preserving does not hurt or displace anyone who had ties to the old community?

Preservationists in the city

I thought that Brown's article about preservationists versus newcomers was a fresh approach that changed my mindset a little bit about the idea of gentrification.  In big cities, it seems that there is often very little push back from gentrifying a neighborhood.  It seems to be an inevitable shift that happens in many communities.  It seems that there are so many aspects that promote gentrification (economic, social, businesses, etc) and there seem to be very few forces trying to push back and create more diverse communities or maintain them as they are.  However, in rural areas this seems to be the opposite.  There is a very strong push-back against newcomers and they are often never fully incorporated into the communities.  In this situation (for example in Brown's descriptions of Leyden and Provincetown, MA) the residents themselves seem to be pushing back against the newcomers.  This made me think about the possibility of this occurring in a big city where neighborhoods are being gentrified frequently.  However, if residents in these communities (particularly if they were poor minorities) pushed back against an influx of newcomers they would probably be seen as hostile rather than "social preservationists."   There also doesn't seem to be the same sense of pride in most city neighborhoods because the populations are changing so frequently.  Is it possible for this idea of social preservation to occur positively and productively in inner city neighborhoods?

Hipster Cities

So while reading Lloyd and Brown, I could not help but be amused by the ironic connections that gentrification and social preservation link in to the hipster community of their times. Time and time again, Lloyd and Brown referenced the authenticity of communities both in rural and urban areas. I could not help but chuckle at imagining the different groups discussed who are angry about more middle class white residents moving into an impoverished human neighborhood, though without really taking into account the responses from "authentic natives". It seems that the only voices heard are from the middle class who have the social and economic mobility to locate themselves to a place such as Andersonville or Wicker Park. Consequentially, there is a failure to discuss the race factors at play in the gentrification, from an African American perspective.

It is possible to get caught up in the aesthetically pleasing elements of a small town or an urban neighborhood, while completely dismissing the existing social, economic, and political ties existing in the neighborhood. While it may seem like the answer is social preservationist, I would also argue that they dismiss the fluidity of people and often create an entitled, selective perspective on the history of place. Both social preservationists and gentrifiers stake their claims in a community and assign tenets for the value and standard of a community that is not theirs to begin with.

Ideally, there could be a community that is formed without the staking claims on authenticity, but a collaboration of various heritages, flavors and walks of life. Both groups seem to be more invested in their own definitions of what the community is supposed to be than improving the conditions for all members of the community. Is it possible that comfort and preference have trumped the discussions of the presence of poor in a community? Why can't there be a collective bond over a community's common interests and improvement than the competition for ownership and "I was here before it was cool"? Is it possible that communities like Wicker Park, Argyle, and Leyden are overly focused on establishing an image or identity that is exclusive and non-penetratable for outsiders, that the insiders in the community may often lose out from a thriving community?