Title: The enclave, the citadel, and the ghetto.

Subject(s): SOClOLOGY. Urban; INNER cities

Source: Urhml A[fairs Review, Nov97. Vol. 33 Issue 2.0228. 37Q. :? charts

Authol-(s): Marcuse. Peter

Abstract: Defines several fonns of spatial separation in urban areas. Classic ghetto; Immigrantand cultural enclaves; Citadels; Similarities and differences between these types ofspatial separation.

AN: 9711030262

ISSN: 1078-0874

Database: Academic Search Elite

Print: ~ Click here to mark for print.

f Best Part

THE ÊNCLAVE, THE CITADEL, AND THE GHETTO

What Bas Changed in the Post-Fordist U.S. City

The au!hor define~ ~):!-"-,,ic-ebettG as the :esult o~the- i.nvolunt~ sDatial segregation 0[:! OT()UD th~tstands lT1 a subordlI1ate T)OII[ICardl1d soc1:!1 relatlonshi!.J lU Il:S :)urrounamg SOcIety, lne f.de(dvt:~ aVO11111tanlv develoDedc:natlal concenlrauun1!fa group lor puIposes of promoting the Weltare- of itsmembers, and th~~_~~re~ted by a dominant group to protect or enhanceits superior Do..sition.'Jhe author descnbes a new phenomenon, conI1ected to global economic changes: the )lltcácSt- -

~ inhaQited by those ~~luded fromthe mainstream economy.by the for.ces .ofm~nomicuevelopments.The distinctlon among these aiftenng fonns of spafIal separatlon IS crucIal for anumber ofpublic policies.

The foIlowing four major points constitute the basis ofthis article:

~,

1. The black ghetto oftoday is a substantia1ly different ghetto frorn the classic ghetto: It is anoutcast ghetto, and those within it are subject to exclusion frorn the rnainstrearn of the econornic,social, and poli:..~icallife ofthe city;

2. The imrnigimr ánd cultural encla.ves of rnany cities differ fundarnentally frorn the ghetto in itsclassic forrn and in its outcast forrn;

3. Citadels established by higher-incorne, higher status groups, in turn, differ frorn such enclaves;and

4. The distinctions between these different forms of ethnically and class-defined spatialconcentrations of population are crucial for public policy.

Space and race play a new role in the dynamics ofurban poverty in the United States today. Theoutcast ghetto,(l] the ghetto ofthe excluded, is one ofits chiefnew characteristics.(2] It reflects anew process of exclusion of a portion of the population from the mainstream of society. It is part ofa broader pattem that makes up the post-Fordist city,(3] a termI use here as shorthand to describeat least the major cities oftechnologically developed countries since the late 1960s or early 1970s,the cities variously characterized as postindustrial, post-Keynesian, in the global era, postwelfare,dual, and quartered. Such cities are influenced by four linked processes in new forms and directionstoday: technological change, intemationalization, concentration of ownership, and privatization ofthe public sphere. Space and race determine how these processes will affect their victims. Here, Ilook at the consequences, rather than the causes, ofthese processes.(4]

of26 21/01/200014:41

\vysi wyg :1/bodyframe.128Ihttp:1 I eh. ..=Marcuse%20and%20 Peter&fuzzyT ernl=EBSCE)host Full Display

The argument presented here is as follows: Space and race have been combined in the UnitedStates today to produce a new ghetto that is different from the ghettos of the past and from theimmigrant enclaves ofthe past and present. The U.S. ghetto today is an outcast ghetto, differing inits definition and role from the historic black ghettos in that its inhabitants are the excluded and thecastawa-lj rather thanthe subordinated and restricted. It also differs dramatically from the enclave,which is a quite different spatial concentration that also has various forms: imperial enclaves,exclusionary enclaves, immigrant enclaves, and cultural enclaves. The role of the state in thecontemoorary .pro~ss of soatial separation is also new~ it reinforces and hardensthe etlectol ~

lnarketforces rather tha~ as has sometiffiëSDeen {ne case under various pressures, trying to counterthem. Thus the differentiation between a ghetto and an enclave is crucial for policy; the currentdiscussion around Empowerment Zones is an exarnple.

Two points need to be emphasized. First, no forrn of ghettoization or enclave formation is entirelvnew (see Marcuse 1993b). Ghettos and enclaves fi'áve existed, in various form!, since time ~

~emorial. Some ofthe causes ofthe new outcast ghetto are indeed new, but other ingredients inits composition are old: Racism is not new, exploitation is not new, and differentiation by class andstatus are not new. Thus some of the remedies are likely not new as well--to be ones that weresuggested earlier but not carded out. ~olic~ res~onse5 cannot be only to what is new; they mustalso address longer duration and more deeply seated roots. Nevertheless, the focus here is on whatis new, because problems cannot be dealt with in general but only in their specific and concretesettings. Those settings, together with the precise way those problems are manifest, must beunderstood for.:.effective analysis. The chances are that a thorough remedy will involve some curesthat are old andsome that are new.

The second point needing emphasis is that ~f ghetto or enclave is entir~l~ "pure;: Each is amix; the outcast ghetto will have characterishcs of the classic ghetto, and its resldents will not allbé excluded from the life ofthe city's mainstream. Every ghetto will have some features ofanenclave, and every enclave will have some features of a ghetto. The minimum characteristic of theghetto is that it is a sQatial)v s~parate ~~Yet that description lacks two other key components:what group or g r Q ups are involved and what the relations of the area, the space, is to the rest of thecity.[5] Without these components, the spatially separate area ofmovie stars in Beverly Hills or ofthe elderly in retirement comrnunities could be described as a ghetto; those within Washington'sBeltway could be described as living in the ghetto in which the commander-in-chief lives, and theprivates in Fort Dix could be considered ghettoized.--

1The term hy.perghettQ presents a different problem, in some usages. Wacquant (1993,367) hassuggested~e term as the description of a "reconfigured, decentred and spatially differentiatedghetto." However, that description specifically excises the spatial component: If a ghetto can bedecentered, it no longer refers to a place or set ofplaces but, rather, to a set 9f.p~r~o.I!s.[6] Yetprecisely because ofthat switch, the description also makes an importanfpósihve contrihution:Because it is n9t spimply space that defines the ghetto, it must be some relationship of a set ofpersons--a gro~o others and to the society at large that is the ghetto's unifying characteristic.That relationship is one of subjection, of inferiority; the ghetto relationship is one imposed fromthe outside by those with more power upon those with less,.the spatial segregation heing a part ofthat pattem. (Other uses ofthe term hyperghetto are considered later.) Further, the inferiority ofthegroup in the classic ghetto is not one based on ability, roerit, natural weakness, or culture. Theghetto cannot be defined as the spatiallocation ofthose involved in a culture ofpoverty. Wilson(1985,158) disposed ofthe culture-o.f-poverty arguments succinctly and eloquently:

"'-

1

Different ethnic behaviors and outcomes are largely due to different opportunities and extemalobstacles against advancement--which were determined by different historical and materialcircumstances. ...[C]ultural values do not ultimately determine behavior or success. Rather,cultural values emerge from specific circumstances and life chances and ref1ect one's position inthe class structure. ...[B]ehavior described as socially pathological and associated with lower-classminorities should be analyzed not as a cultural aberration but as a symptom of class inequality. ...As Herbert Gans states: "Some behavioral norms are more persistent than others, but over the longrun, all of the norms and aspirations by which people live are non-persistent: they rise and fall with

changes in situations."

The negative aspect ofthe culture ofthe ghetto is defined by external forces, not by either thechoice or the voluntary actions ofthe ghetto's residents.

71/01/200014:41.',..f.'~

wysiwyg:/ /bodyframe. 12 8/http:/ /eh.. .=Marcuse%2 Oand%20 Peter&fuzzyT erm=EBSC()host FuU Display

Another characteristic ofthe classic ghetto, as that tenn has been historically understood, is thatthe'group that is ghettoized is defined by some characteristic defined by the outside world and not amatter of choice for those thtls separated out. Race is the typical example, in all the vagtleness ofthat term; national origin, color, facial features, embedded religiotls traditions, langtlage, andethnicity will also do, Members of the grotlp are not free to change that characteristic, to opt to beout of the group. No individtlal action puts them within it, and no individual action can take themout. Thtls a prison is, in a sense, the confined location of a group held to be inferior by thesurrotlnding society, but prisoners are there, at least in legal theory , becatlse of their individtlal acts,not their group characteristics. In this sense, there are no artists' ghettos or white-collar ghettoscamparabIe ta black, Jewish, or "native" gh'ettas in calcinial cauntries.

A full definition of ghetto, then, would necessarily include three elements: spatial separation,inferiority, and involuntary definition of identity, usually as racial. Thus a fonn~al definition of aghetto, as the term is used here,[7] is as follows: .

A ghetto is a spatially concentrated area used to separate and to limit a particular involuntarilydefined population group (usually by race) held to be, and treated as, inferior by the dominant

society.

This definition leaves open a number of quantitative questions. Two variables are often considered:the percentage that a particular group forms of the total population of a given area and thepercentage of that population group that resides in that or such areas. Thus the Department ofHousing and Urban Development considers an area racially impacted (ghettoized) if a majority ofits residents are ofa particular group. Massey and Denton's (1993, 18) definition, "a set ofneighborhoods that are exclusively inhabited by mernbers of one group, within which virtually allm~mbers of that group live," requires high figures for both: "virtually all" rnernbers of a populationgtoup must live in areas "exclusively" occupied by rnembers ofthat group. Both factors are clearlyrelevant; the precise figures chosen for each wil1 depend on the context[8] and the purpose of theuse and will necessarily be largely arbitrary.[9]

THE OUTCAST GHETTO

The black ghettos ofmajor U.S. cities today add something new to the definition ofthe classicghetto. An examination of the literature reveals that the attitudes toward the ghetto have changedwithin the last 50 years. Little ofthe recent writing on the subject has focused on the qualitativechange that the ghetto in the United States has undergone in the transition from the Fordist to thepost-Fordist city. In two ofthe best recent books, the focus was more on the persistence andintensity of segregation and ghettoization than on changes in its character (Massey and Denton1993).[10] Although some scholars (e.g., Goldsmith and Blakely 1992) link the ghetto with theLatino barrio, most view the ghetto in the United States as strictly a phenomenon ofblackresidence. Thu!, Massey and Denton (1993, 18-19) could say that "no ethnic or racial group in thehistory ofthe,t4~ted States,/except one, has ever experienced ghettoization, even briefly. For urbanblacks, the ghetto has been the paradigmatic residential configuration for at least eighty years."

That there have been recent changes within these spacial concentrations of racial/ethnic groups hasbeen little explored. Adding "hyper" to ghetto, however, suggests that something new ishappening; hypersegregation might be considered as referring to a new stage in the development ofthe United States ghetto. Yet that is not how the ternl has generally been used; rather, it has comeinto use to differentiate, in purely quantitative ternls, areas of extreme differentiation on one ormore scales from areas of lesser differentiation.[ 11] The worsening patterns that Massey andDenton (1993) demonstrated and discussed do, however, lend credence to the beliefthat alsocomes through in their careful study, that something new is happening.

~ilson (1985, 1990) focused attention on changes in the character ofthe ghetto in the 1970s and,In a detailed but somewhat neglected portion ofhis major study, pointed to their deeper causes inthe economic changes ofthe middle ofthe postwarperiod. The debates he generated, however,focused more on short-term issues. Wilson emphasized that the out-migration ofmiddle-classblacks from older areas ofracial concentration in the 1970s as aresult ofthe fair housing successesof the civil rights movement of the 1960s left behind a new form of ghetto that produced what hefirst called the u~derclass<-Wilson 1985) and more recently called the ghetto poor (Wilson 1990).Thus, a~though Wilson began his explanatory account ofthe new ghetto with the major economicand soclal changes that are often characterized as the advent ofpost-Fordism, he also directed the

21/01/200014:41

wysi wyg:1 /bod y frame. 128/http :1 leh. ..=Marcuse%20and%20Peter&fuzzyT enn=EBSCOhost Full Display

explanation for changes in the role of the ghetto to narrower issues of demographics and populationmovement. And that more limited explanation has unleashed its own controversy; some haveargued that the out-migration he referenced is largely a chimera and that middle-class blacksremain segregated within black ghettos as much as poor blacks (see, e.g., Fainstein 1993; Masseyand Denton 1993). The debate is an important one, and I shall return to it.

I wish to argue here that the post-Fordist ghetto is new[12] in that it has become what might becalled an outcast ghetto, a ghetto ofthe excluded, rather than ofthe dominated and exploited or ofthose ol1ly marginally useful.[13] The outcast ghetto adds a new dimension to the classic ghetto: aspecific relationship between the particular .population group and the dominant society that isecol1omically as weil as spatially exclusionary.[14]

A historicaloverview is perhaps the best way to make the point. In the past, ghetto residents havebeen segregated spatially but not excluded from playing a role in the economy"1n which they 1ivedal1d worked. In Sennett's (1994) fascinating account ofthe origins, in 1516, ofthe ghetto that added.the word to the language[15]--the ghetto ofVenice--it is clear that Jews left the ghetto eachrnoming to transact business in Venice, retuming to the ghetto only in the evening, and were anessential part ofthe Venetian economy. Indeed, there was a significantnumber ofnon-Jews whocarne into the ghetto each day to work or on business; in 1638, according to Lestchinsky(1930-1935), 4,000 Christians worked in Jewish factories there. The Venice ghetto was noUnoutcast ghetto; indeed, it had precisely the two characteristics th.at distinguish the older ghetto fromthe new outca~t ghetto: tiesto the mainstreani of economic life in the outside society and intemalresources (partly as a consequence), permitting its residents to draw strength from their veryghettoization. Thus, as Sennett (1994, 12) wrote, the story ofthe Jews ofVenice "is the story ofapeople who were segregated against their will, but who then made new forms of community from1r~eir separateness and who acquired an interest, as social actors, in being segregated."

I

Those inthe ghetto were separated, indeed, and were held inferior by the construction ofthe ghetto,but they remained a key part ofthe 1arger society and were not cast out ofit. It was indeedcharacteristic of premodem societies that social separation and economic integration were not seenas inconsistent. Anderson (1991, 81) wrote about "cornmon citizenship" as a component of thecontemporary imagined communities, along with nation-states and republican institutions, asopposed to their conceptua1 opposites, "subjecthoods, serfdoms, and ghettos." Subjects, serfs, andthe ghettoized are riot citizens, but they are essentia1 components of the societies whose econorniesthey serve. In the outcast ghetto, the pattem is reversed; those confined there are perhaps forma11ycitizens, but they are not part ofthe mainstream economy. Their relation to the fringes oftheinformal economy is discussed later, in the comparison with the imrnigrant enclave.

In the earliest full discussion ofthe ghetto in the sociologicalliterature in the United States, Wirth( 1928,85, 98 [also cited in King 1976, 4D]) described the ghetto in almost glowing tenns:

The ghetto ...,m.dicates the ways in which cultural groups give expression to their own heritagewhen transplanted to astrange habitat; it evidences ...the forces through which the communityrnaintains its integrity and continuity [T]he spatially separated and socially isolated communityseemed to offer the best opportunity for following their religious precepts, their established ritualand diet, and the numerous functions which tied the individual to familial and communalinstitutions. ...The ghetto ...was a self-perpetuating group to-such an extent that it may be properlycalled a closed community. ...[I]t is ...a cultural community [and] can be completely understoodonly if it is viewed as a sociopsychological, as well as an ecological phenomenon: for it is notmerely a physical fact, but also a state ofmind.

Wirth had in mind the immigrant concentrations of cities like Chicago and, in this sense, wasreferring more to what is here called an enclave than a ghetto. But that very fact is noteworthy. Bythe time he-was writing, Harlem had already achieved international recognition as the center ofblack life, and the South Side of Chicago was clearly Negroo As Weaver (1948,3) wrote, "By theoutbreak ofWorld War I, the larger centers ofNegro population in the North had establishedsegregated community facilities ofvarious types. 0.. Black BeIts had appeared." By 1925, densiotiesofblack areas in Chicago were twice the density ofwhites; in Philadelphia, almost four times; rnManhattan, one and a half times. Yet Wirth did not deern it necessary to pay attention to thedifferences between the classic immigrant enclaves he described and the black ghettos ofthesecities.

?1!1)1 !?1)1)0 14-41d"fJh

wysiwyg:/ /bodyframe. 128/http:/ /eh. ..=Marcuse%20and%20 Peter &fuzzyT enn=EBSCOhost Full Display

1I1terestingly enough, one might argue that in the United States, the ghetto did not arise until therewas, in reality, a claim by the fom1er slaves to full"common citizenship." As Myrdal (1944,621)pointed out in his landmark study, thepatterns of segregation were quite different in the antebellumSouth than in the post-civil-war North: "Southern whites do not want Negroes to be completelyIsolated from them: they derive many advantages from their proximity. ...[T]here is alsosegregation, but the segregation is based on what we may tem1 'ceremonial' distance rather thanspatial distance."

"What Myrdal called the racial etiquette of the South, understood by both blacks and whites, wassufficient to maintain the relationships of subordination and domination. When that breaks down,as it did after Reconstruction-when the claim to equal treatment, equal access, and equal rightsbecomes prevalent among blacks--the necessity for ghettoization in its classic fonns arises. Abrams(1955, 18ff[as summarized by Morrill1965, 339-40]), for instance, argued, r

During the nineteenth century the American Negro population, in this country ftom the beginningbut accustomed to servitude, remained predominantly southem and rural, and those who did movelived in small spatial concentrations about the cities. The Negro ghetto did not exist. Even insouthem cities the Negroes, largely in the service ofwhites, lived side by side with the whitemajority. Rather suddenly, with thesocial upheaval and employment opportunities ofWorld WarII, Negro discontent grew, and large-scale migration began from the rural south to the urban

north.[ 16]

This new and fuller sense ofhaving a fonnal claim on full participation, ofbeing artificiallyseparated spatially from that ofwhich they are apart economically and socially, can be seen inWeaverrs (1948,7) definition, given what was perhaps the last moment that fu1l integration ofblacks into U.S. society seemed a practical goal, imrnediately after the end ofWorld War II:

The modem Arnerican ghetto is ...not, as the ghetto of old, an area which houses a peopleconcemed with perpetuation ofa peculiar (and different) culture. lt is no longer composed ofblackpeople almost all ofwhom are too poor to afford decent shelter. The Negro ghetto oftoday is madeup ofpeople who are Arnerican to the core, who are apart ofthe national culture and who share acommon language with the majority of Arnericans. ...lts inhabitants are better prepared and moreanxious than ever before to enter the main strearn of Arnerican Life. Residential segregation, morethan any other single institution, is an impediment to their realization ofthis American Dream.

Thus Weaver implicitly argued that two ofthe three reasons--poverty, ethnic attachrnent, andenforced segregation--that Myrdal (1944,619) gave fotthe existence ofblack ghettos no longerexisted: lts only reason for continued existence, after World War II, was enforced segregation.Positive aspects could indeed still be attributed to the ghetto, but as responses to an undesirable andhopefully dwindling reality: the racism ofwhite society. Thus Drake and Cayton (1945 [cited inBoa11976, 47}) presented the ghetto as a place where black people could "escape from the tensionsof contact wit1i~ite people;" atension that was itselfthe subject of attack and was hoped woulddisappear. Even Clark (1965), in his later and much more pessimistic view ofthe ghetto, wrote that"there is considerable psychological safety in the Ighetto': there one lives among one's own anddoes not risk rejection among strangers." That is not presented as any reason to preserve the ghetto,however; its dissolution remains the objective. The tradition is that presented in Park, Burgess, andMcKenzie ([1925] 1984) in which all ethnic groups in U.S. cities were seen as passing through aseries of stages from contact and competition to conflict to assimilation as the ultimate (andpositively valued) end result, a11 as part of a natural and "organic" development process.

1) description ofthe ghetto 17 years after Weaver's (1948) presented amoreClark's (1965, 1somber picture:

The dark ghetto's invisible walls have been erected by the white society, by those who have power,both to confine those who have no power and to perpetuate their powerlessness. The dark ghettosare social, political, educational, and--above all--economic colonies. Their inhabitants are subjectpeoples, victims ofthe greed, cruelty, insensitivity, guilt, and fear oftheir masters.

Clark wrote of the ghetto presciently, just at the point when its character was beginning to change.Powerlessness was no part ofthe feeling ofWeaver's ghetto--and certainly not of Harlem, thecapita!. of black America in the 1920s.[17] It became characteristic of pictures of the ghetto by thelate 1960s but still in an integrationist context. Clark had, after all, given key support for the

?1/01/?0 00 14.41

wysi wyg:/ /bod y frame. 12 8/http:/ /eh. ..=Marcuse%20and%20 Peter &fuzzyT effi1=EBSC;Ohost Full Display

plaintiffs in the school desegregation cases that outlawed legal segregation ofpublic schools in1955. The colonies are linked to the colonizers; the masters have an interest in (profit from) thework ofthe subject peoples. That is what has changed in the post-Fordist city. Those in today'sblack ghettos are not productmT5r their masters; their masters get no benefit fromtheirëxlStEnce.As far as the dominant society is concemed, they are only a drain on public and private resources,they are a threat to social peace, and they fulfill no useful social role. They are outcasts; hence theteml outcast ghetto. rhe appropriate historical analogy fuLth~put<?ast gnetto Tsmore the lepercolony than ti~~ medieval Jewish ghetto.

Figures tell part of the story .In the area des'ignated as an empowerrnent zone in Harlem and theBronx in New York City, for instance, 42% of all residents lived below the poverty level, 18%were officially counted as unemployed, and a much higher percentage wasdiscouraged and noteven looking for jobs: only 51% were actually in the labor force. Of all households, 27% wereheaded by a single woman, and more than one-third of all households were re(!;~iving public ,

assistance. The death rate was much higher than in the city as a whole; black men living in Harlemwere less likely to reach the age of 65 than men in Bangladesh.[18] New York City is hardly alone:asolidrecent study of Philadelphia, for instance, shows that, in 1980,47.5% ofblacks living in theghetto were on public assistance, 17% ofmen aged 25-44 years were unemployed, and 33.3% werenot in the labor force (Jargowsky and Bane 1991,248); 44.3% ofblack families had single parellts(p. 246). Figures on rates of incarceration through the judicial system, on victimization by crime,on drug abuse, or limited education, could be cited endlessly in support.

Beyond the figures, howeyer, the composition ofthe outcast ghetto differs from its predecessorsand from the immigrant and ethnic enclaves discussed later, as wel1 as in the crucial area of socialorganization. Wacquant (1993,368) has described some ofthe key characteristics ofthe outcastghetto elegantly; he wrote about "l~ck o~o~al potency ...low organization density ...the massiveinferiority ofits resident institutions ...de-solidarïzing effects ...an impossible community, --

perpetually divided against [itself]."[19]

The distinction from the earlier descriptions ofHarlem in, for example, the biographies of AdamClayton Powell, is clear.[20] In Chicago, according to Wood (1992,3),

the black ghetto ...was still a functioning community as late as 1966. Blacks still provided most ofthe community services, they still owned the small shops and businesses, and black professionalsstill provided help to black citizens. There was a vertical integration.

Af ter that period, the Chicago ghetto becarne the examp1e Wi1son ( 1990, 3) used for the socia11y

destructive ghetto.

A peculiar irony accompanies the evolution of the outcast ghetto. As its residents are more and~ore cast out, marginalized, unemployed, and unwanted by the dominant forces in society, theirintemal cohe~ioD. is weakened, but the importance of place to them may even be strengthened. AsrëaTeconomic bonds--bonds of a common and viable education, culturallife, work and communitybuilding--are eroded, the bonds a common residential area might provide increase. Thus, even ifthe formal intemal organizational structure ofHarlem appears weakened, its residents' turfallegiance is strengthened--defensively, it is true, and as a last resort, perhaps, but nevertheless.Displacement from a neighborhood was not a concern in the early slum clearance projects ofthe1930s; slums became fiercely contested terrain just as their internal coherence and strengthweakened.[21 ]

l'

A parallel ambiguity exists as to the economic life of the outcast ghetto. The ghetto, of course, hasan economy; its residents would not survive without an extensive network of economic activity. Itis sometimes characterized as part ofthe infonnal economy, but that description is misleading.Some parts ofthe ghetto are indeed involved at the margins ofthe primary economy--in verylow-payingjobs, in part-time or occasionallabor, and in illegal activities dependent on t~e'm-arnstream market such as drug dealing. But the characteristic ofthe economy ofthe outcastghetto is its separation from that ofthe mainstream.. Merchants on 1.25th street in Harlem sell toresidentsorHarlem;livery cab services are used primarily north of 11 Oth street, largely by law;and trade and services are directed at the black market. It is not an inconsequential market, but it islargely aseparate one. Unlike in earlier times, Harlem is not a magnet for middle-class blacks whornay live elsewhere; it is isolated. The painful aspect ofthis development appears in the discussionsof econornic development in the ghetto, which is taken up briefly in the conclusion to this article:

6 of 26 21/01/200014:41

wysi wyg :I/bod y frame. 12 8/http:1 I eh. ..=Marcuse%20and%20 Peter &fuzzyT erIn=EBSCOhost Full Display

The best hope for il1creased il1comes for many in the ghetto may weIl appear to lie precisely in the-aevelopmel1t ofthose activities and enterprises that rely on separation from the mainstream to

establish their markets.

Frequently, ethnicity is defined as running as a vertical división across the horizontal divisions ofclass; each cellmay be defined as an ethclass (Glazer and Gordon 1964,53). Then, as Boal (1976,55) suggested, "each ethc1ass has the potential for residential segregation from other members ofthe same social-class on the basis of ethnic differences, and from other members of the same ethnicgroup on the basis ofsocial class." The outcast ghetto is an ethclass ghetto in a way in whichneither the earlier black ghetto nor the classic immigrant ghetto was an ethclass ghetto. The outcastghetto is new and unique in that it is differentiated horizontally and vertically, with each divisionbeing sharp--race perhaps as before but class in a new sense, connected with the exclusion thatcontemporary organization of the economic system has produced for a significant part of thepopulation.[22] Thus a formal definition ofthe outcast ghetto might be as follcfws:!

An outcast ghetto is a ghetto in which ethnicity is combined with classin a spatially concentratedarea with residents who are excluded from the mainstream of the economic life of the surroundingsociety, which does not profit significantly from its existence.

From abroad, Habennas ( 1970, 108-109) defined the situation accurately, drawing politicalconclusions:

Underprivilegêd groups are not social classes, nor do they ever even potentially represent the massofthe population. Their disfranchisement and pauperization no longer coincide with exploitation,because the system-does not live offtheir labor. They can represent at most a past phase 0!"exploitation. But they cannot through the withdrawal of cooperation attain the demands that theyle'gitimately put forward. That is why these demands retain an appellative character. In the case oflong-terrn nonconsideration of their legitimate demands underprivileged groups can in extremesituations react with desperate destruction and self-destruction. But as long as no coalitions aremade with privileged groups, such a civil war lacks the chance ofrevolutionary success that class

struggle possesses.

An important note bears repeating here. The concepts put forward are ideal types. No actual ghettowill have all the characteristics of either the classic or the outcast ghetto ( or of the enclave orcitadel, as hereafter discussed). There will always be a mix of characteri~tics. This is particularlytrue of the outcast ghetto. Even illtnemosfextreme of the outcast ghettos that now exist (as inNew York City, for example), there is much that is directly connected with the outside economy,with many middle-class and working-class individuals and families., with a substantial socialnetwork, and with many strong and stabIe institutions of social, economic, religious, and politicallife. The point is particularly important because ofthe danger ofthe use ofthe concept to discreditthe residents ofthose ghettos approaching the outcast status and to argue that either paternalistic orcustodial policie.s. are required toward them. The analysis might thus be used to oppose democraticself-governance: full political participation, and measures toward self-empowerment. That wouldbe a false conclusion to draw. AIso, as far as its spatial form is concerned, even those ghettos mostnearly approaching outcast status house many individuals who are in no sense excluded and whoare gainfully and productively employed in mainstream enterprises, public and private. Theformation of the outcast ghetto is a tendency, and a dynamic one at that. Conceiv~bly, thattendency might at some time reach the stage ofthe complete breakdown that Wilson (1990) orWacquant (1993) described, bilt that is far from the situation today. The outcast ghetto remains agrowing and dangerous tendency and is in danger of becoming overwhelming--but that is not yetthe case. ,

THE ENCLA VE AND THE GHETTO

Not every contemporary space of racial or ethnic concentration is a ghetto as I use the term h~re,however, and the differences are crucial for historic understanding and for public policy. The issueof immigrant ghettos has become highly visible recently, in part through more detailedexaminations of the complexities of Los Angeles and its riots and in part through work on specificimmigrant enclaves such as Cubans in Miami.[23] An understanding ofthe difference between the9lac.k ghettos and immigrant enclaves in the United States today is important both for analytic.s;lanty and for policy, because the assumption that blacks should behave like immigrants and thatblack ghettosou.ght to be stepping stones toward self-organization and upward mobility.1_~

?1/01/?000 14.41ï ~.. .'I';

wysiwyg:/ /bodyframe.128/http:/ / eh. ..=Marcuse%20and%20 Peter&f uzzyT erm~EBSCQhost Full Display

immigrant e1lclaves are thought to be, plays a major role in attitudes toward blacks. lts ultimateexpressio1l is blaming the victim: "IfKorea1ls ca1l do it, why can't blacks? It's their own fault iftheydc:m-lt... I usethe tem1black here, instead of African-American in this article to emphasize thepoint;[24] although African-America1l highlights a positive ethnic ide1ltity linked to a country orco1lti1lent of origi1l a1ld thus establishes a basis fo( identity and a claim for equality of treatmentthat has strong positive v~lue..the issue here is, rathe.r, the relationship with the dominant group(s).For that purpose, African-American ?uggests a similarity with Korean-American orItalian-American that is misleading. \Blacks are not immigrants, and their position is markedlydifferent from that ofmany other minority groups. The black ghetto is not likely to be similar to animmigrant enclave. .

The spatial pattems reflect the difference. Figure 1 shows the distrihution of the hlack population inNew Vork City; its concentration is striking. Figure 2 shows the distrihution ofthe Asianpopulation; it also has areas of concentration hut also shows much dispersion. t,he Asian pattem ismore that of a set of enclaves; the hlack pattem reflects gbettoization in its harsbest fonn.

Space is at the heart ofthe matter. If ethnic enclaves are not spatially defined at aU but are reaUyethnic economies not spatiaUy lirnited, segregation and ghettoization are not major issues.NonspatiaUy separated ethnic activities are by definition at least spatiaUy connected to nonethniceconomic activity--are at least economicaUy integrated into the wider economy. Thus Sanders andNee's (1987) definition, for statistical purposes, that aU Chinese living in San Francisco areroerobers of a (:;hinese ~ begs the central question here: ~ther spatial separation within thecity has a positive value. Likewise, Wacquant's (1993,367) sugges~~ce ofa "reconfigured, decentered and spatiaUy differentiated ghetto or 'hyperghetto,' "is provocative andpotentiaUy useful at least as a roetaphor, but it is beside the point if the specific question is the role

ofspatial separation.

The termenclave refers to those areas in which irnmigrants or other groups have congregated;enclaves are seen as having positive value, as compared to ghettos,Which have a clearly pejorativeconnotation. Historically, ghetto can have a positive aspect; for example, SeIttlett (1992,40)presented the ghetto as "a space at once a space ofrepression and a space ofidentification"-peoplehave pride in Harlem at the same time as they condemn segregation. By the same token, enclavecan have a negative aspect: lts original use, derived from the word enclosure, was to designate partofa city or country surrounded by foreign territory, typically an imperial enclave in a colonialcountry .lt was thus both dominant and defensive; it suggested power but also fear and

limitation.[251

f:')

Thus, although enclave and ghetto are two-sided concepts, enclave is here used to describe thosespaces with a primarily positive meaning for their residents,[26] and ghetto is used to denote thosewith a predominantly negative meaning. A formal definition (some ofthe nuances are spelled out

later) would b~ as follows:, :-- ---

An enclave is a spatially concentrated area in which members of a particular population group,self-definedby ethnicity or religion or otherwise, congregate as a means of enhancing theireconomic, social, political and/or cultural development.

It is important to recall again that aU spaces of concentrated activity share some characteristics of aghetto and some of an enclave.(27] Pure types do not exist. Any given spatial concentration wiUhave strengths and weaknesses for its residents.(28] Exarnples are numerous: the lewish ghetto ofWarsaw as a site both of control and of insurrection, the similar role of Casbahs in Algeria (Taber1970, 138), the divisions ofBelfast. and so forth. Hobsbawm (1969) and Piven and Cloward (1974)made similar, ifmore controversial, arguments as to the black ghetto in the United States.(29]Archer (1995,26) described in some detail how the residents ofBlack Town in North Calcuttafound it

in their larger interest that Europeans bedisinclined to venture into the "Black Town" too far or toooften. ...Not only would it help to sustain some economic advantage for Indian producers andtraders by discouraging direct European involvement (better to leave negotiations to a dubash orbanian). It also would deter Europeans from having the knowledge of the urban fabric and itspeople necessary for effective intervention and control.

Steps in the :rhird Empire ta break up thase warking-class districts in which cabbiestanes had been

?1/01/7000 14.4111 ~.. ,I:

wysiwyg:/ /bodyframe.128/http:/ /eh. ..=Marcuse%20and%20Peter&fuzzyTent1=EBSGOhost Full Display

used as balTicades in various revolutionary moments show awareness of the same potential to usespace for I. " Ba n ussmann's enemy was the

qllaliier t what

lil1derlies

The usage of terms here--the ghetto/enclave distinction--is not consistent with some historicalusage of the word ghetto. Many of what were always called Jewish ghettos were, oddly enough, asmuch el1claves,as ghettos. The first known legal segregation of Jews was in Speyer, where,according to Lestschinsky (1930-1935,649), the bishop, "in order to attract Jews to the city andthus 'add to its honor,' gave them the right to have aseparate residential quarter where 'they mightl1ot be readily disturbed by the insolence of the popu1ace.""

Immigrants have historically first settled in separate communities defined by their national origin,forrning enclaves providing mutual support and an orientation to the new land...rerhaps, becausesuch commurtities have always been seen as voluntary and transitional, their characteristics are notnonnally considered in the context of ghettoization or segregation. It was assumed that workersemployed in them eamed less than they would have ifthey had been in the mainstream workforceand that they submitted to superexploitation because they saw it as a likely way out of the enclaveand into the mainstream. In many cases, the immigrant networks supported the first entry ofimmigrants into contact with the mainstream, such as Korean grocery stores starting up innon-Korean neighborhoods and Chinese restaurants catering to non-Chinese clientele.[30]Immigrant net':!1orks created protected niches in which entrepreneurs could get started and build asecure base before moving into the outside world (Hannerz 1974). One finds the same phenomenonin cities throughout the world. For example, Richardson (1995,54) wrote about how inVladivostock, before World War I, the Chinese population lived apart from the Russian:

,Tl1e millionka district with its small shops, theaters, opium dens, brothels, and hideouts forsmugglers and thieves symbolized to many Russians and other Europeans all that was fascinatingand unsettling about the Chinese. The city's economy depended in great measure on the small-scaleservices ofthese merchants and businessmen who inhabited this mysterious community, yet at thesame time many Russians resented their success. On various occasions various local Tsaristofficials launched campaigns to expel the Chinese from the city or to limit their activities there, butthe Chinese remained an integral part ofVladivostok's commerciallife, while detached from itsofficial al1d legal establishment. Speaking a different language, with different traditions and adifferent culture, and living in their own ghetto, the Chinese were apart, yet apart from the city inwhich they flourished. But they, like the Koreans and Japanese, helped make Vladivostok a city

unique in the Russian Empire.

Il1 discussions about the ethnic enclaves oftoday, scholars are exploring a differ~nt aspect;[31] theyare discussing the comparison between those of enclave ethnicity living inside and living outsidethe enclave. E~hnic enclaves currently under discussion seem to show that those living in theenclave underto~ their economic activity within the enclave itselfbut earned more than theircompatriots, who were otherwisesimilarly situated but living outside ofthe enclave and employedoutside it. This was the finding ofWilson and Portes (1980), Portes and Bach (1985), and Portes,Stepick, and Fernandez-Kelly (1993), who studied the experience ofthe Cuban community inMiami. They speculated that there was a productive attenuation of class relationships within theel1clave, in which ties of ethnic solidarity resulted in employers' providing training, skills, andupward mobility in return for initially lower wages. Portes and Bach (1985,343) wrote that

Ethnic ties suffuse an otheIWise "bare" class relationship with a sense of collective purpose. ...Butthe utilization of ethnic solidarity in lieu of enforced discipline also entails reciprocal obligations.If employers can profit from the willing self-exploitation of fellow immigrants, they are alsoobliged to reserve for them ...supervisory positions ...to train them ...and to support their ...moveinto self-employment.

One might quarrel with the theoretical fonnulation of collective purpose as a modification of classrelationships, and there have certainly been arguments about the validity ofthe empirical findings(Waldinger 1993). In arecent study ofNew Vork City, for instance, Gilbertson (1995,657) foundthat at least for Hispanic women, "enclave employment provides women with low wages, minimalbenefits, and few opportunities for advancement. ...[E]thnic ties do not confer advantages towomenworkers."[37] More to the point here, however, is the relationship between ethnicenclaves[33J and the ghettoization of blacks.

21/01/200014:419 of 26

wysiwy~:/ /bodyframe .12 8/http:/ /eh. ..=Marcuse%20and%20 Peter &fuzzyT enn=EBSCQhost Full Display

The issue is whether the black ghetto should be seen as an enclave, differing from the immigrantenclave in degree but not in nature. The traditional answer has generally been an implicit yes,perhaps emphasizing that the difference in degree is vast, with residential segregation being theprimary culprit (see Massey and Denton 1993,2; Weaver 1948; Logan, Alba,and McNulty 1994,12, l6-17). And that answer is true, in part: There is an identity derived from the ghetto, ana1ogusto that claimed for immigrant enclaves;[34] as a localized space, a special culturaldevelopment,[J5] a support for politicalleadership, and a place in which economic gains fromretailing and services meet local needs. But,that the existence ofseparated spaces creates a net piusfor blacks is more and more questionable. The economies of immigrant enclaves are closely linkedto the economies ofthe cities in which they are located; thus Koreans open stores in non-Koreanneighborhoods, and Chinese open restaurants well outside Chinatown, but black ventures at acomparable scale, proportionately, cannot be found. Sassen (1990,484) flatly stated that the"recent development in immigrant cornmunities ...the expansion of an infoffi1á1: economy ...contrasts sharply with the growth of an underclass in black neighborhoods." Today's black ghetto isa ghetto, not an enclave, even ir those confined to it are sometimes able to marshal strength fromthat very confinement.

South Africa today presents the issue of ghetto versus enclave in particularly critical fann. Theenclave argument is strang: Accarding ta Scatt (1992, 97),

L":,

As South AfriQa moves into the twenty-flfst century, it is apparent that an increasing component ofthe urban fabric will be infonnal in character. ...Constructive efforts are required in both state andprivate sectors to create thelegal machinery that allows for place-based infonnal communities toestablish a sense of identitywhat could be harnessed as a constructive force in the creation of ad~mocratic society in the post-apartheid era.

The logic of building for the middle class in black townships was already suggested in the WhitePaperof 1986. That produced a racially defined ghetto crossing class lines; its enclave characterwas e.nhanced. Refusing to invest further in black townships--at least beyond immediateimprovements to bring conditions above some minimum threshold of sanitary services-stimulatesintegration ofthe black middle class into nonblack communities but produces U.S.-style ghettos inthe townships in which race and class come together in space.

All enclaves are not alike, and one might distinguish two broad categories: the immigrant ethnicenclave and the cultural, or lifestyle, enclave. The old Jewish Lower Bast Slde ofNew York <..::nyoiffërs-;Tor instance, from the gay-areasófGreêhwich Village, and the Korean sections of Queensdiffer from the Hasidic community ofWilliamsburg. Ih~ .former were transitional; the latter are-likely to be permanent. The former were seen as a way of moving toward integration and upwardmobility in the society as a whole, in which moving out ofthe enclave was seen as a sign ofsuccess; in the",-latter, people congregate because they wish to be together and generally to preserveand strengthen t~ separate characteristics that underlie their sense of ide.ntity. One might calrffiëTirs-ran immigrant enclave and the second, a cultural enclave. It should be emphasized that just aseach ghetto has some elements of an enclave in it and each enclave, some elements of a ghetto, sodoes each immigrant enclave have something of the cultural about it and each cultural enclave havesomething ofthe transitional feeling, even ifundesired, ofthe immigrant.

l-i'

THE CIT AD EL AND THE EN CLA VE

Enclave was not originally used to refer to immigrant areas of concentration hut, rather, to anygroup ofone ethnicity living in an area predominant I y ofanother ethnicity.(36] lts most frequentusage was as a description ofthe enclave estahlished by an imperial country in its colony. Thus onespoke of the British enclaves throughout the empire, such as the one in Canton, a protectedsettIement on an island in the Pearl River, or the one in Delhi, which became New Delhi (King1976, 1985). In this usage, it meant a place that was superior to its surroundings, a place thatdominated them.

That description of an imperial enclave is quite inconsistent with the picture of an immigrantenclave as I have used it here. Those in an immigrant enclave are struggling to make their way, areentering into the structures ofthe surrounding society, not trying to dominate or refashion it. Touse the word enclave to denote both the classic immigrant enclave and the imperial enclave isconfusing; it describes a physical arrangement of an area of spatial concentration of a population

21/01/200014:41lOof2ó

wysiwyg:/ /bodyframe.128/http:/ /eh. ..=Marcuse%20and%20Peter&fuzzyTerm==EBSCOhost Full Display

group but not the relationships that exist between those inside and those outside. If one wants tofind a teml that al1alogizes certain spatial arrangements within a contemporary city to those withinthe colol1ial city, the terrn enclave is misleading.

Friedmann and Wolff(1982, 325) intrQQ.!:!-ged the terrn citadel to mean precisely such an imperialal1-angement. But they used the terrn narrowly: "The citadel serves the specific needs ofthetransnational elites and their immediate retinues who rule the city's econornic life." Yet not onlythose at the very top of the international hierarchy have created special areas for themselves that aresyrnbolically or actually fortified against il1trusion by the poorer and lower status people outside.Both the sociological and the popular literature is replete with descriptions ofthe new gatedcommunities, in which private security guards, high-tech surveillance systems, and warning signsare all aimed at controlling entry and keeping "undesirables" OUt.[37] Generally, such fortifiedcommunities consist of one-family homes, and in some communities, specific higher-incomeneighborhoods are literally fenced off for the protection of their residents;[38r but one finds theexact equivalent il1luxury high-rise apartment buildings in New York City or Chicago or SanFrancisco: Outer doors controlled by closed-circuit television cameras, doorrnen who double assecurity personnel, controlled egress from elevators, and combination locks on entry toul1derground garage space serve to protect residents.

An altemate tenn for citadel that has come to be widely used to describe such places is fortified.Goetz (1996) wrote about the "[o~,up" ofthe AInerican urban landscape, Blakeley and Snyder(1995) titled their study Fortress-xrn-erica, and Judd (1995) titled his The New Walled Cities.Elséwhere, I have used the terriï-stockade to describe walls--literal, s6Ciál,and symbolic--erectedaround such areas and used the stockade's relationship to the fortress to justify the metaphor(Marcuse 1997). The fortress, as so used, is identical to what is referred to here as citadel. The(9nnal definition of a citadel, then, paralleling the definition of ghetto and enclave, would be asfollows:

A citadel is a spatially concentrated area in which members of a particular population group,defined by its position of superiority, in power, wealth, or status, in relation to its neighbors,congregate as a means of protecting or enhancing that position.

Among the various types of citadels that can be found in the contemporary United States, some areindeed at the pinnacle ofthe economic, social, and po1itical hierarchy: those areas Friedrnann andWolff ( 1982) designated as citadels. It may be usefu1 to distinguish these from those citadelserected by those who are high enough in the hierarchy to be privileged in the society but not at thepinnacle, who are insecure enough to want protection from those below. In New York, DonaldTrump's high-rise luxury condominiums on Fifth Avenue can be distinguished from theupper-middle-class apartment buildings on the upper west side ofManhattan; in\Califomia, theheavily guarded private estates ofthe very wealthy in Pacific Palisades or San Clemente are not thesame as the r~tirement walled cornrnunities or insular suburban developmentsofBrentwood andSan Diego. "L'he:-fermer servé to dominate and to protect bastions of power and influence, and thelatter serve simply to protect groups feeling vulnerable, by excluding those different fromthemselves. One might call those at the peak irnperial citadels and those below them exc1usionaryenclaves. The dividing line between the two is not a sharp one, but the ideal types are clearlydifferent.

~.'

The mixed characteristics of most forms of spatial concentration only apply in limited form here.Ghettos and enclaves share some characteristics, but the differentiation between citadels andghettos is stark: One is at the top ofa hierarchy; the other, at the bottom. Further, citadels are notsimplyan extreme form of an immigrant or a cultural enclave. Such enclaves do not have anexclusionary purpose. Strangers--nonimmigrants or those of different cultures--are not excluded,are not even unwelcome. There may be some element of discomfort for a stranger moving intosuch an enclave, hut in fact, most enclaves harbor many who do not belong to the majority group.Immigrant enclaves often have members with widely different national origins in their midst, andcultural enclaves are generally interspersed, although concentrated, in areas in which the majorityis often dissimilar. Citadels, hy contrast, are by their nature exclusionary; whatever culturalhomogeneity they may possess is more of class than of ethnicity or belief. Their relationship withthose outside is one of superiority, not simp I y of difference.

GHETTO. ENCLAVE. AND CITADEL: TOW ARD AT AXONOMY

?1/n1/?nnn 14-41"f'J~

EBSCOhost Full Display wys i wyg :I/bod y frame. 12 81http :1 I eh. ..=Marcuse%20and%20Peter &fuzzyT enn==

Il1 a systematic examil1ation oftl1e various historical forn1s ofspatial separation within urban areasol1e needs to consider a substantial number of factors.[39] A taxonomy is not an explanation; it is ,

al~ atte.mpt.tO: ~ystematize classifica.tion in aid of explanation. T~us far, I have presented the simpletrlpal11tedlVlslOn, ghetto/enclave/cltadel, but clearly the matter IS more compllcated than that, asthe discussiol1 has already shown. In the hope of developing a clarity in the use of tern1S and as anaid to further discussion, then, I suggest the taxonomy shown in Table I.[ 40] Each of the fivecharacteristics listed as column headings in the table require definition.[41]

SPATlAL FORMATION

Of course, a characteristic of all enclaves and ghettos, by definition, is that they are spatiallyseparated, but the physical fonn the separation takes, reflective of its economic and socialcharacteristics, will vary widely. Here, insular is used to meansharply separated by well-known,generally visible, boundaries that may be actual walls, as was the case with má'ny medieval ghettos;or physical demarcations such as highways, rivers, steep slopes, blocks ofbuildings; or legal, suchas group area boundaries in apartheid South Africa (Marcuse 1994a). Each ofthe spatialformations here listed is consistent with a variet y of different overall spatial patterns for the citiesor metropolitan areas in which they are located, which will be discussed later.

VOLUNTARYORINVOLUNTARY

Voluntariness is a matter of degree. There may be some who obtain pleasure in living in a fortifiedenclave that glves them a cornmanding position over their surroundings or who enjoy the status ofa citadel, but there may be many more who would, given their first preferences, rather live morefreely and less surrounded by walls. Likewise, some residents of a ghetto may find their inability tomove out in fact a blessing, removing challenges and creating a inescapable ~olidarity. In mostcases, vo.luntariness will be a matter of degree; enclaves, ghettos, and even cItadels have someadvantages and some disadvantages. At the extremes, however, the distinctions are clear.

ECONOMIC RELATIONSHIPS

A crude measure ofthe economic relations ofthose within the area and those without is in thelocation of employment: Are residents primarily or exclusively employed within the area or dothey use their residence within the area to increase their opportunities without? The VenetianJewish ghetto or Hasidic Williamsburg or Battery Park Cityare examples of outward-linked areas;Cuban Miami is largely inwardly oriented, and current Empowerrnent Zone legislation (Marcuse1994b) clearly contemplates inward linkages.

SOCIAL RELATIONSHIPS.

I.' ,

,.- 9 The term social relationships is meant to coyer the more or less hierarchical and more or lessoppressiye retát~nships between those within the area and those outside it. A wall may look thes~e surrounding an enclaye of luxury garden apartments or a public housing project; the decisiyed1fference is in the social (and economic and political) relationships between those on differentsides of the wall.

Minority and majority might seem to be a first approximation to the central distinction here, butthat is so only if the terms are not quantitatively but qualitatively defined. In general, those livingin a ghetto will be members ofa numerical minority, and those forming exclusionary enclaves maybe members ofa numerical majority. But the key question is relationship. IfYinger's (1965 [citedin boa11976, 43]) definition isused, that "a minority is defined as a group which, regardless ofwhere it is on the class ladder, faces barriers to the pursuit oflife's values that are greater than thebarriers faced by persons otherwise equally qualified," then the minority/majority distinctionbecomes directly usefu] here.[ 42]

Cultural differences, of course, do not have to be connected to hierarchical social differences--but itmay be doubted if the two are ever really separable. Thus Wirth (1928, 19), in writing about the.Jewish ghettos ofthe middle ages, stated that "the geographically separated and socially isolatedcommunity seemed to offer the best opportunity for following their religious precepts."

It may be questicned whether such an cppcrtunity was freely chcsen crwhether it insteadrepresented an adaptaticn tc an (undesired) hierarchical relaticnship with the ncn-Jewish

12of26 21/01/200014:41

wysiwyg://bodyframe.128/http://eh...=Marcuse%20and%20Peter&fuzzyTerm=EBSCPhost Full Display

surrounding power. On the other hand, many well-established and economically integrated groupsuse, according to Boal (1976, 49) "residential clustering as an aid to the conservation of ethniccharacteristics"; the examples are too numerous to require repetition. The key question about socialrelationships is not whether they are between groups that are different but whether those

differences reflect a hierarchical relationship.

IDENTIFYING CHARACTERISTIC

lt should be obvious that there is no inheren.t systematic relationship between the identifyingcharacteristics of a group and whether they are segregated. lt may seem, in the United States, thatrace or color correlates completely with the excluded ghetto, but functionally, race and color aresociologically defined. There are religious ghettos and religious enclaves; Chinese people may livein separated areas with quite different relationships to the outside in Hanoi or J.akarta than theyhave in New York City or San Francisco. Indeed, to argue otherwise would be taking seriouslyphysical definitions ofrace or ethnicity or origin--a racist form ofblaming the victim. Poverty andpower are socially created distinctions,[43] and correlate directly with the form ofseparateness ofaparticular space occupied by those thus characterized.

THE POLICY CONTEXT

The dominant public ideology in the United States has long been integrationist--that is, it has~umed integration as a positive value anda desirable goal for public-p.olicy.lntegr~tion meanssomething more than nonsegregation; it means a positive interaction, a mixing, an ongoingcommunication among groups. I use the terms integration, desegregation, segregation, andseparation as mutually exclusive terms, in what I hope is an intuitively evident sense. Table 2pr;ovides a formal statement ofthe terms' usage.[44] Spatial concentration is used as thecomprehensive term denoting, simply, an area ofspatial concentration ofa population group,whatever the pattem.

The arguments for integration have been many and various and will not be rehashed here. Theyrange from the simple civil rights argument that without integration, minority group memDerswillnot have the freedom to live where they wish to the uplift argument that deprived ghetto residentsneed rolemodels to stimulate self-irnprovernent to the hotbed concern that crowdingunderprivileged people breeds resentment and crime. Integration may be the dominant idec>logy,but-of course it is not the exclusive ideology. There'-are still a few majority group mernbers whoopenly advocate segregation as a way ofkeeping minority group mernbers under control and somerninority group members who argue that separation is advantageous for minority group membersand that integration's virtues are far exaggerated.

,~ AQQminant ideology is not necessarily the dominant practice--in the case of integration, itcertainly is not, as the history of govemmental actiorissupporting discrimination has shownthrough the decgdes (Goering 1986).[45] Many doubts have been raised, in increasing numbersagain in the last several years, about the likelihood or even the feasibility oftrue integration--fromGans's (1991) doubts about cross-class racial integration to Bell's (1991) conviction about thedeep-rootedness of racism in white society. And there is the central question about what divisionsare to be integrated: divisions by race, by ethnic group, by religion, by gender,.by sexualpreference, by age, and/or by location? Despite all these questions and qualifications, however,integration as a value has always been held out as a necessary constituent part ofU.S. democracy,whether the image used for it has been the melting pot, the mosaic, or the salad bo~l. Thearguments in favor of integration are almost second nature to U.S. citizens: leaming from diversity,teaching tolerance, essential to democracy, and good examples influencing bad (Galster 1992;

Goering 1986).

A new counterargument has recently arisen, however, with astrong spatial component that may bephrased as seeing in the ghetto the virtues of the enclave, using the terms as I have defined themearlier. This is not the Gans (1991) or the Bell (1991) argument about the difficulties ofintegration;it is, rather, an argument in which the existence of ghettos is considered a positive phenomenon.Most persons would agree that an enclave created voluntarily-at least to the extent that it is notexclusionary, which is a big qualification-is acceptable and can be consistent with a democraticsociety. T11e difficult question is whether officially created or reinforced separation and, certainlywhether involuntary separation, segregation, can have positive values for those thusseparated--whether, in other words, ghettos can be ultimatelyconsistent with a free and democratic

21/01/200014:4113of26

EBSCQhost Full Display wys i wyg :I/bod y frame. 128/http:/ 1 eh. ..=M arcuse%20and%2 O Peter&fuzzyT enn=

society.(46]

The values claimed for the ghetto by analogizing it to an enclave are economic, political, andsocial. The economic advantages are largely deduced from the concept of community economicdevelopment, an idea in good currency at least since the 1960s. The push to have blacks patronizeblack-owned businesses and to have blacks take over businesses in black communities, anargument with validity in its own right; is thus extended to endorsement of continuation of pattemsofspatial concentration that would encourage such mutual support activities. Likewise, in theul1derclass-ghetto poverty thesis that Wilsol:1 (1985, 1990) has elaborated, the argument is put forththat the departure of middle-class blacks from black ghettos helped to impoverish those ghettos--anargument debated on empirical grounds[47]-from which the conclusion might logically be drawnthat the black middle class should be encouraged to return to the ghetto. But that logic has not beenincorporated into public policy until very recently. The current empowerrnent ~ne legislationreveals the same logic; in perrnitting tax benefits only for jobs created within the ghetto forresidents ofthe ghetto, similar processes are presumed to take place in the ghetto as in the enclave,and this presumption reinforces spatial separation.

Arguments over va lues are, of course, hardly the decisive forces in shaping public policy. Behindpolicies promoting integration has historically been the sense, on the part ofthe leaders ofgovemment and business, that integration would promote social stability. That current is verystrong and, frequ~ntly, explicit in policies adopted toward immigrants in the United States since atleast the nineteenth century .Gans ( 1991) has traced the assimilationist( 48] objectives ofintegrationist policies toward various immigrant groups in some detail, and their linkage to theroots of city planning are clear (see Foglesong 1986; Scott 1992). Slum clearance, in England andin the United States, had as objectives not only the elimination ofunhealthy physical conditionsbuta~so the elimination of the undesirable social consequences of the aggregations of poverty--and,presumably, crime and immorality. In these slums, densely built concentrations ofresidents in theheart ofthe city, the residents in the United States were more likely to be immigrant thannativebom. Slum clearance thus incorporated an early version ofthe underclass hypothesis in itscrudest form. Even in the story of Benjamin Rush's generally progressive Committee onDecongestion of the Population in the days of the early housing reform movement in New YorkCity (see note 7), this undertone ofmoral improvement by dispersion is evident (Lubove 1962).Some accounts also relate the desire for dispersion to class relations; David Gordon (Alcaly andMermelstein 1977) argued, for instance, that putting workers in too closeproximity to each otherwas feared to promote the inclination to strike and certainly to spread knowledge ofworkerresistance to employment conditions. On a more generallevel, the finding of the split betweenresidential and workplace interests and loyalties (which builds on neighborhoods being classintegrated in a way that factories are not) has been examined as one ofthe roots ofthe lack ofradical militancy on the part ofworkers in the United States (Katznelson 1981). It has become partofthe conventional wisdom that--as Kwok (1996, 9) commenting on Rong Kong's planningpolicies, wrote--a "decentralized spatial pattem for population distribution proves to be cogent indissipating the grass-root coalition ofthe working class and political dissent."~

{

At least as to the black population, I do not believe this argument that integration reduces socialunrest holds sway any longer in the United States. Integration has indeed always encounteredresistance; the history of racially discriminatory housing actions, both public and private, is weIldocumented (see Massey and Denton 1993) But, at least since World War II, there has been astrong pro-integrationist trend, not only among blacks and middle-class liberals but also within theestablished power structure. Integration was thought to promise social peace, as it had in theslum-clearance movement; the President's Commission on Civil Disorders, established in theaftermath of the civil disturbances of the mid-1960s, warned against an II America that is two

nations" (Kemer Commission 1968, 1). But although antidiscrimination legislation is stilIon thebooks today, integration as a goal of public policy is not. The Department of Justice now sues toenjoin a housing development from maintaining a benign quota to preserve integration; publichousing authorities are increasingly forced to pursue policies that have al ready led to a publichousing program in which black residents constitute 87% ofthe population in effectivelysegregated projects.

Empowerrnent zone legislation, the only urban policy ofthe CUlTent U .S. administration,( 49] is aclassic example of the changed approach--and of its difficulties. Under the present empowerrnentzone legislation, six urban empowerrnent zones have been designated in the United States; Harlemis one.[ 50] In each zone, $100,000,000 in social service funds is available from the federal

14of26 211011200014:41"

govemment over 10 years, in addition to tax benefits for businesses within the zone that employszone residents. According to repeated statements of those most active in implementing the NewYork zone, a major focus is on making Harlem attractive for the black middle class, bringing themback into the community so that Harlem will once again be a viabIe, economically mixed, andcllltllrally rich place in the mainstream of America.

Emblematic ofthe change in the dominant policy approaches to the ghetto are these two aspects ofthe empowennent zones: limiting tax credits to jobs located within Harlem and attempting to bringback to Harlem those of the black middle class who have left it. Central to both aspects is thequestion of the residential pattem of the black middle class. Through the end of the 1970s, it wouldbe fair to say that the dominant fonnal public policy was open housing: expanding theopportunities for blacks to move out ofthe ghetto as their incomes rose, integrating the suburbs,and knocking down the barriers that kept blacks fromjobs in the mainstream ecpnomy. Today'spolicy is almost the reverse. The theoretical debate draws on Wilson's (1990) emphasis on theflight ofthe black middle class as a major component ofthe underclass--he no longer uses thetenn--ghetto. Integration by race is not a significant objective; the objective is, rather, integrationby class within assumed racial boundaries. Whereas Harry Belafonte was lauded for attempting toestablish a black-oriented theater outside the bounds ofthe ghetto on 86th street in the 1960s,Magic Johnson Theaters now seeks a location in the heart of Harlem on 125th street as acontrihution to the welfare of the same community .

In these new approaches, the ghetto is treated as a failed but permanent enclave. From the point ofview ofthe residents ofthe areas within empowerment zones and those desiring to work with andstrengthen them, ,the purpose ofthese new approaches is to build on the enclavelike characteristicsofthe ghetto: the mutual support and solidarity, the networking, the protected markets, the pollfiCalStFength, the cultural cohesion, and the common traditions and history .Their usage builds on theIicls, as emphasized earlier, that no ghetto is completely an outcast ghetto, and that even in itsmost extreme existing form, there are many sources of strength, connections with the mainstreameconomy, and many vital institutions within it. Nevertheless, the black ghetto is not an enclave. Itis created from the outside, and most of its residents are barred from participation in majormainstream areas in a way residents ofhistoric immigrant enclaves never were. The isolation oftheghetto is seen as a benefit by much ofthe outside white society, quite contrary to the earlier view ofthe isolation ofthe immigrant ghetto, which was seen as a danger by social leaders.

What the policy response should be'today, on the part of those concemed with social justice, is acomplex question, and this is not the place for a detailed discussion. The past open-housingapproach--assuming that the ghetto is like an immigrant enclave and thus investing to encourageupward and outward mobility for its residents, letting cultural traditions take care ofthemselves--isnot likely to work; the contemporary black ghetto is not a voluntary base of solidarity and upwardmobility. But the approach of accepting the pennanence of ghettoization, luring the middle classback in the hope that that wil1 improve the lot of the poor confined there, is not likely to workeither. Leaving (tSroe the question ofhow far such a strategy can realistical1y be implemented, itsbenefits for the poor, as long as they remain segregated in a segregated society, are doubtful. Theoutcast ghetto, combining race and class in a new fonn of separation and exclusion, needs to buildup its own strength and to break the bondage ofthat exclusion. That means both strengthening thecommunity, bringing the middle class back and reinforcing cultural ties, and breaking downsegregation, particularly for the poor, fighting for their integration into the mainstream of economicand political activity and power. More middle class in and more poor out: precisely the opposite of

the classic enclave pattem.

Policy issues around the handling of more voluntary forms of separation, of clustering, also requirereexamination. An enclave that is a source ofstrength to a group toward the bottorn ofthehierarchy workiilg its way up to equality and integration merits support in such matters as resistin.,gthe processes of gentrification. But helpful measures may be as profitably addressed to itsindividual mernbers as to its spatial structure, which is likely to be transitional. A nonexclusivecultural enclave may be a benefit to the community as a whole, as well as to its mernbers. Anexclusionary enclave--and certainly a citadel-runs counter to basic democratic conceptions of a justsociety; measures that strengthen it should be condemned by public policy.

Ghettas are nat enclaves, and enclaves are nat ghettas--even if each has same characteristics aftheather--and neither are citadels, althaugh citadels have same characteristics af the exclusive enclave.The understanding afthe differences amang these spatial farms is a critical issue afpublic palicy

for anyone concemed about the future direction ofurban societies. That is the policy context thatmakes changes in the nature of the ghetto, and the distinctions among these three superficiallysimilar fomls of spatial clustering, such an important issue today.