Introduction:TheRacializedUrbanGhetto During the last three decades of the twentieth century,most inner city communities inlarge urban areas of the United States experienced continuing social deterioration in terms ofincreasing rates of unemployment and poverty, violence and disease, drug trafficking and use,deteriorating housing and environmental conditions, inadequate educational resources, anddecliningavailabilityand/oraccessibility toadequatehealthandsocial services.As stated in thisbook’s introduction,when I arrived in theWashington, D.C. area in the fall of 1988, the publicconcernregardingtheseissuesseemedtoevengreaterthantheyhadbeensincetheWaronPovertyprogramsduring the 1960s. To better understand these issues, in the fall of 1989 I initiated theCultural Systems Analysis Group (CuSAG) at the University of Maryland, as an appliedethnographicresearchunitthatIwouldthenbeusedasaresearchvehicletocollectdatathatwouldhelpmetobetterunderstandtheseconditions.Between1990and1998,CuSAGcarriedoutmorethan a dozen ethnographic and qualitative research studies in low‑income communities in theBaltimoreWashingtonurbancorridor.Throughopen‑ended,group,andethnographicinterviews,andfullneighborhoodethnographies*,theCuSAGresearchexploredissuesrelatedtoemploymentand unemployment, drugs and drug trafficking, crime, violence and incarceration, male‑femalerelationships,sexuallytransmitteddiseasesandHIV/AIDS,povertyandneighborhoodconditions,and theavailabilityandaccessibilityofhealthcare, includingservices to those livingwithAIDS.We interviewedregular community residents,youngdrug traffickers,maleand femaleclientsofSTD clinics, incarcerated males and females,* health and human service personnel and vicepolicemen. IntheworkthatCuSAGteamshavecarriedoutincommunitiesintheWashington,D.C.area, we found it interesting that some of the residents who were 40 years and older wouldrepeatedlytalkabouthowthedeteriorationoftheirneighborhoodbeganwiththeriotsfollowingthemurderofMartinLutherKingin1968.Priortotheriotstheysay,thereweremorebusinesses,stores,andemploymentopportunities intheirneighborhoods,andaftertheywereburnedoutorforcedoutbythefalloutfromtheriots,theydidnotreturn. SincetheriotswerecarriedoutbyprimarilyAfricanAmericansintheirowncommunities,manyacademicandpopularobserversoftheriotsusedthetraditionaldeficitorʺblamingthevictimʹmodelthathaslongbeenusedtoexplainbehaviorsoflowincomeblacksthatwereconsideredbythemainstream tobeantisocialornihilistic (References tobeAdded). Thismodel supports theideaofpathologyonthepartofblacksforʺburningdowntheirownneighborhoods.ʺMoreseriousurbanscholars,however,while taking the riots intoaccount,places themaswell as theongoingsocialdeteriorationofthesecommunitiesintolargerstructuralcontextsandprocesses.Ratherthanseeingtheriotsasclusterofacts inastreamofpathologiespracticedby lowincomeblacks, theyviewthemasaresponse toconditions thathadbeenbroughtonbyforcespartiallybeyondtheirowncontrol*,suchasacontinuationofracistpoliciesandpracticesbythelargerAmericansociety,and shifts in the U.S. and the global economies. Such structural approaches are much moreilluminatinginhelpingustobetterunderstandwhy,despitethevariousWaronPovertyProgramsthatwereinitiatedbytheJohnsonandNixonadministrationsinthe1960stoaddressmanyoftheproblemsoftheinnercitypoor,wecontinuedtoseeincreasesduringthelastthreedecadesofthetwentiethcenturiesinnercitycommunitiesaspoverty,singleparentfamilies,poorworkhistoriesandlowerlevelsofeducationalachievementoffamilyheads,dependenceonpublicassistance,andratesofincarcerationofresidents.
4
Urban scholars and laypersons, including the residents of the poorest urbanneighborhoods,havelongreferredtotheseneighborhoodsas“ghettos.” As a graduate studentandyoungurbanresearcherduringthe1970sand1980s,Iwasnevercomfortablewiththeword.Myproblemwiththeconceptwasthatatthattime,mostsocialscientistswhostudiedtheso‑calledghetto usually discussed these neighborhoods in terms of the behavioral and attitudinalshortcomingsoftheirresidents,similartothedeficitmodeldiscussedabove.Again,therewerefewifanyattemptstoprovideacontextualanalysisofthebroaderstructuralfactorsthatcontributedtothecreationorconditionsoftheghetto,aswellastotheemergenceofthebehaviorsandattitudesofghettoresidentsthatwerebeingdescribed.Iwasalsouncomfortablewiththetermghettobecausealmost all of the people living in these neighborhoods were African Americans, and thedescriptionsoftheirlivestendedtocontinuethesimplisticdeficitorpathologymodels,mentionedearlier,thathadlongbeenusedinthesocialsciencestodescribethecircumstancesoflowincomeAfrican Americans. Moreover, there was a general tendency in ghetto studies at the time togeneralizeabouttheresidentsofthesecommunities, leavingreaderswiththeimpressionthatthebehavior and living conditions of all “ghetto dwellers” were the same. These studies gave noattentiontothefactthatallAfricanAmericanslivingintheghettowerenotpoor,butcontinuedtoliveinareasbeingdiscussedasghettos,eitherbecauseofpersonalpreference,orbecauseofracistattitudesofwhites living inotherareasof the city, their inabilities toafford living innon‑ghettoareas, or because of racist federal, state and local policies that promoted racial segregation, andinequitiesintermsofpublicservicesandresources. ThesestudiesalsogavelittleattentiontothefactthatnotevenallofthepoorpeoplelivingintheGhettoarethesame.Infactthereweresomepoorghetto dwellers who ran their lives with the same values as non‑poor Americans, and werecontinuallyfindingwaystopullthemselvesortheirchildrenfromtheconditionsofpoverty.Thislack of attention to individual and community agency helped me to understand a ghettocommunityactivistwhocommentedtomeyearslaterʺYoualljustcomeintoourcommunity,lookforallthedirtthatyoucanfind,thenwriteupallofthenegativethingsyoucanaboutus,andwenever hear from you again.We are about healing our communities, not about having someonecontinuouslytalkingabouthowsickweare.ʺ Soratherthanthewordghetto,Iadoptedthecommontermsusedbymosturbanscholarsof ʺinnerʺ or ʺcentralʺ city communities in discussing these urban neighborhoods strapped bypoverty.However,astheconditionsassociatedwiththesecommunitiesspreadbeyondtheinnerorcentralcity,itseemedtometobeinaccuratetocontinueusingsuchterminology.Forexample,theeasternneighborhoodsofWashington,D.C., inWards7and8,areamong thepoorest in thecity.They alsohave thehighest concentrations ofAfricanAmericans, 97 and 96percent respectively.During the 1970s and 1980s, many of the blacks who could afford tomove out of these urbanghettos to the suburbsofPrinceGeorges (PG)County,Marylanddid so.However,notonlyhasinnercityconditionsspreadtothesePGneighborhoods,butbytheyear2000,someoftheseinnercityproblems,suchaspercapitaormedianhouseholdincome,crowding,andviolentcrimes,arenowhigher insomeof thesePGcountyneighborhoods than theyare inWards7and8. It isnotonly theconcentratedpoverty that thesePGcountyneighborhoodssharewith theireasternD.C.ghetto neighborhoods, but over the past two decades, they have come to share a majoritypopulation of low income blacks, as they have undergone the economic and demographictransitionsthatinnerorcentralcitycommunitiesexperiencedfromthe1950sintotheearly1980s:theexodusofwhitesandalsoblackswhocouldaffordtomove,andtheinmigrationofmorepoorblacks.
5
As I observed the spread of these poverty related conditions from the inner cities tocommunities bordering these cities, I adopted the use of the phrase of “low income urbancommunities.”However,Ieventuallycametoseethatthisdescriptorwasnotaccuratetodescribethesitesofmyownwork.Myworkdidfocusonlowincomeurbancommunities,butnotalllowincome urban communities. The focus of my work has been in neighborhoods in which thepredominantresidentswerelowincomeAfricanAmericans,andveryseldomincommunitiesthatwerepredominantlywhite.Thisdifferentiationreflectstheroleofracehasplayedinthesettlementpatterns ofmostmetropolitan areas in theUnitedStates. For example inWashington,D.C., themajorityof black residents live in thoseneighborhoodson the eastern sideof the city,while themajorityofwhitesliveonthewesternside.InBaltimore,blackneighborhoodsarefoundmostlyinthewesternpartofthecity,whilethewesternsideofthecityisdominatedbyneighborhoodsthatare predominantly African American. Such patterns of racial segregation are found inmany ofAmerica’slargestmetropolitanareas,aconditionthatMasseyandDenton(1993)havereferredtoasaformof“Americanapartheid.”
So,despitemyearliertrepidationsregardingtheconceptoftheGhetto,Ieventuallycameto find itusefulasananalyticalconstruct fordiscussing theurbancommunities thatmostofmywork isbeingcarriedout,communities thathavebeengreatly influencedbytheroleofraceandclassinU.S.historyandsociety.BecausemyownworkfocusesonpredominantlyonlowincomeAfrican American urban neighborhoods, to not lose sight of race in the creation of theseneighborhoods, theconcept that Iuse todiscuss theseurbancommunities is theRacializedUrbanGhettos, or RUGs. I define RUGs as residential areas of 2,000 or more persons* found in largemetropolitanareas,middlesizedcities,orsmallertowns,andwhichthereisaconcentrationofthefollowing characteristics: (1) physical isolation characterized by race (or ethnicity) and class; (2)extreme poverty; (3) low employment opportunities and labor force participation; (4) low adulteducation levels; (5) high levels of crime, dilapidated housing and general environmentaldeterioration;(6)inadequateeducational,health,socialandotherhumanservices;(7)lowlevelsofsocialorganization;(8)andsocialandculturalisolation.ThepresentchapterdiscussestheseRUGcharacteristics, the social processes that contributed to RUG creation, and the impact of RUGcharacteristics on the youth living in these communities. In discussing the processes leading toRUGformation,Iwillbecoveringahistoricalperiodfromthelate1920suntilaboutthemid1980s.
PoliciesLeadingtotheFormationofthePhysicalIsolatedRacializedUrbanGhettointheUnitedStates RacializedurbanghettosarenotonlyurbanareaswhereinthemajorityoftheresidentsareAfricanAmericanswho are poor, in poverty, or in extremepoverty,* but the residents of theseareasarephysicallyisolatedfromnon‑poorresidentialareas.Physicalisolationischaracterizedbyʺ.... thedistancingof [RUG]*residents fromthesuburban locationswhere jobsarebeingcreated,and the racial isolation imposed by segregated housing patterns.ʺ (Peterson andHarrell 1992:1).This distancing of RUG residents from not only suburban areas, but also from more affluentsectionsofthecity,wasaprocessthatbeganasearlyasthe1930s,andwasstimulatedbyfederalpoliciesthatfavoredwhitestothedetrimentofblacks.Forexample,asearlyas1934,theFederalHousingAct,whichinitseffortstostimulatehomeownershiptomillionsofAmericancitizensbyproviding goverment support to private lenders to home buyers, created the Federal HousingAgency(FHA)whichdevelopedʺconfidentialcitysurveysandappraiserʹsmanualswithʺovertlyracist categories ...[that] channeled almost all of the loanmoney towardwhites and away fromcommunitiesofcolor.ʺ(Lipsitz2000:351‑352).
6
Thesepracticescontinuedintothe1940s,astheFHAcontinuetounderwritemortgagestopreventforeclosuresthataccruedwhilethecountrywasstillstrugglingtoovercometheeconomicdownturnsof theGreatDepression.(MasseyandDenton1993).At the same timehowever, thesepractices favoredwhitesbuyinghomes in thesuburbsanddiscriminatedagainstnon‑whitesandresidentsofmixedurbancommunities.SupportinbuyinghomesfromtheFHAandtheVeteransAdministration (e.g., the GI bill), not only favored whites, but encouraged urban white ethnicgroups, already concerned with the increasing number on non‑whites moving into theirneighborhoods, to join other whites in the suburbs. The policies of these agencies providedmortgage interest tax exemptions and veterans were provided mortgages, and constructioncompaniesinthesuburbswerestimulatedthroughʺquick,cheap,productionofmassiveamountsof tract housingʺ (Wilson 1996:46), while ʺfederal and state tax monies routinely funded theconstructionofwatersuppliesandsewagefacilitiesforraciallyexclusivesuburbancommunities...ʺ(Lipsitz2000:352). Aswhitesleftthecitiesforthesuburbs,citieslosttheirabilitiestoannextheirsuburbsthattheyhadhadsincetheturnofthetwentiethcentury,asthesuburbsdevelopedtheirownzoning,land‑use policies, covenants, and deed restrictions. These practices by suburban communitiesmadeitallbutimpossiblefornon‑whitestopenetratetheircommunitiesuntilthepublicpressuresfor integration in the 1960 (Wilson1996:46). Also by incorporating themselves as independentmunicipalities, theseexclusivelywhitesuburbancommunitieswereable togainaccess to federalfunds thatwere supposedly allocated for assistance to urban communities (Logan andMolotch1987). While the housing policies discussed above contributed to themovement ofmillions ofwhitesfromtheinnercityneighborhoodstothesuburbs,thereweresomewhiteswhoremainedincities, mostly in neighborhoods that were predominantly white. A continued process of urbansegregation was facilitated by federal and local housing policies. As summarized by Lipsitz(2000:352):
“For years, the General Services Administration routinely channeled thegovernment’s own rental and leasingbusiness to realtorswho engaged in racialdiscrimination, The Federal Housing Administration and the VeteransAdministration financedmore than $120 billionworth of new housing between1934 and 1962, but less than 2% of this real estate was available to non‑whitefamilies‑‑andmostofsmallamountwaslocatedinsegregatedareas”
In the meantime Racialized Urban Ghettos became increasingly black and poor, as themigrationofpoorblacksfromtheSouthcontinued,andtheymovedprimarilyintothesewerealso
7
moving into these neighborhoods. Moreover, the various housing policies that mandated thebuilding of public housing for the poor an moderate income contributed to a continuingsegregationofhousinginthesecommunitiesbyclassaswellasraceinthatrestrictedoccupancytothemosteconomicallydisadvantaged.
TheconceptoftheRacializedUrbanGhettothathasbeendiscussedthusfarisareferenceto those urban neighborhoods that have became predominantly black, as whites moved out. Itshouldbenotedhowever,thatoverthepasstwodecades,manyRUGneighborhoodshaveagainbecomemixedasmembersfromotherethnicgroupshavemovedin.However,ratherthanbeingmixedintermsofblackandwhite,thosemovinginhavebeenprimarilynon‑whites.Asmoreandmorewhitesweremovingoutofinnercitycommunities,morenon‑whites,ofvaryingethnicities,weremovingin.Mostofthesepeople,however,wereoflowincomes(Kasarda1988).ThisbringsustoanothercharacteristicoftheRacializedUrbanGhetto,andthatis,regardlessoftheethnicity,theseareurbanneighborhoodsthatareisolatednotonlybyrace,orethnicity,butalsobyclass,asthepoorestoftheurbanpoor,regardlessofethnicity,resideinthesespaces.
RUGsareCharacterizedByHighRatesofPovertyandExtremePoverty BythebeginningoftheCrackDecade(1985),overhalfofthenationʹspopulationlivingincentral cities were poor as compared to just one third in 1972 (Reichauer 1987; Kasarda 1992).Moreover,between1970and1985, thenumberofpeople living inextremeurbanpovertycensustracts (i.e., 40 percent of the residents fall below the poverty line), expanded by 66% (Bane andJargowsky1988) *.However,between1970and1980,PetersonandHarrell (1992:5) state that thetotalnumberofpeoplelivinginthepooresturbancensustracts increasedby230percent.Partofthis rise in urban poverty was due to declines in employment opportunities and rises inunemployment(discussedinmoredetaillater),declinesinthemedianincomeofthosemakingthelowest salaries in these communities*, the inmigration of more poor people into theseneighborhood*, immigrantswho become poor or poorer aftermoving into these neighborhoodswithfeweremploymentopportunities(Wilson1996:43),andtheoutmigrationofnotonlywhites,butmostmiddleclassblacksaswell(Moreonthislatterpointlater)(SeeWilson1987,1996)*.
RUGsareCharacterizedByIncreasesinUnemploymentandDeclinesinEmploymentOpportunities Oneoftheindicatorsoftenusedbyurbansociologistsasamajorreasonfortheincreasingrates of poverty among African American residents of inner city communities, and those areparticipationintheworkforce,andpoorworkhistories,particularlyonthepartofyoungAfricanAmericanmales. However,thisdecliningparticipationmustbeviewedinthecontextofanotherset of structural factors beyond the control of inner city residents: local, national and globaleconomicrestructuring.TheCuSAGstudyparticipantswerepartiallyrightinpointingtothe1960riotsasonecontributortosmallerbusinessesleavinginnercitycommunities,takingjobsaswellasservices to these communities.Butwhatprobablyhadamore significant impactwas the loss ofmillions of manufacturing jobs in large cities since the 1960s, and billions of dollars inmanufacturing incomes (Wilson 1887, 1996;Kasarda 1992, 1998). For example, as the number ofextremepovertyurbancensus tractsgreatly increasedbetween1970and1980,Kasarda (1992:47)pointsout that two thirdsof that increaseoccured in fourofAmericaʹs largest cities:NewYork,Chicago, Philadelphia, and Detroit. At the same time, ʺbetween 1967 and 1987, Chicago lost 60percentofitsmanufacturingjobs,Detroit51percent,NewYorkCity58percent,andPhiladelphia
8
64percent.Inabsolutenumbers,NewYorkCityʹsmanufacturingemploymentdeclinedby520,000jobsandChicagoʹsby226,000jobs.(Kasarda1992:71). The lost ofmanufacturing jobs in inner city communitieshad a significancebeyond justtheir economicwellbeing forAfricanAmericans residing in these communities,becauseof theirlong struggle against the barriers of discrimination, racism, and policies of segregation that hadkept them out of these jobs in the past. The first half of the twentieth century sawmillions ofAfricanAmericansmigrate from theAmericanSouth to the citiesof theNorthandWest for thebetter employment opportunities that seemed to exist in urban manufacturing. However thismigration often led to an expansion of racialized urban ghettos, as blacks were usually deniedaccess to these jobs,exceptas temporarystrikebreakers (whichonlyworked to inflame theanti‑black sentiments of white workers). After a half century of increasing exclusion from suchpositions,thistrendwasbrokenfollowingWorldWarIIandthelaborshortagesitbrought(Lane1991;1992).Bythe1950ʹs,manufacturingjobswereamajoremployerofworkingurbanblacks,andaccordingtoKasarda(1995:239,citedinWilson,1966:31):ʺAslateasthe1968‑70period,morethan70%ofallblacksworking inmetropolitanareasheldblue‑collar jobsat thesame time thatmorethan 50% of allmetropolitanworkers heldwhite‑collar jobs.Moreover, of the large numbers ofurbanblacksclassifiedasblue‑collarworkersduringthelate1960s,morethanhalfwereemployedingoods‑producingindustries.ʺ At thesame time,by1968,wewerealsoseeing thebeginningof theendof this ʺgoldenageʺ of urban African American economic growth, manufacturing jobs in inner city areas wereenteringtheirtwilightyearsduetoarestructuringtowardsamoreserviceeconomy(Kasarda1995).AsPetersonandHarrellcomment in introducingLaneʹsarticle in their1992volume,aftera longstruggletoovercomeracialdiscriminationtogainaccesstomanufacturingjobs,itwasasifʺblackworkers[hadbeen]beingʺpipedaboardasinkingship.ʺAfteronlytwodecadesofbeingabletotakeadvantageoftheemploymentopportunities,AfricanAmericansonceagainfoundthemselvesinasimilarpositionastheyhadbeenpriortoWorldWarII. As manufacturing employment opportunities left inner city areas, so did secondaryemploymentopportunities (e.g., those instores,supportservices,banks,andsoon).OurCuSAGstudy participants in the District of Columbia were of the opinion that the 1968 riots were theprimary reason that non‑manufacturing businesses that were in their neighborhoods before theriots (e.g. stores, banks, and so on) and were also employers, did not return after the riots.However,othercitiesthatdidnotexperiencedtheseriots(e.g.NewYorkandPhiladelphia)werealsolosingsuchbusinessesintheirinnercitycommunities.Theirdeparturewasprobablymoretheconsequence, asWilson (1996:35) suggestweredue to thedeparture of the large industrieswhopaid the salaries to local residents who used these smaller businesses. Many of these smallerbusinesses.
RUGsareCharacterizedByEmploymentandEducationalMismatches Prior to World War II, the primary entre that African Americans had to middle classincomesand/orlifestyleswerethroughAfricanAmericaninstitutionssuchasbusinessesthatwereowned by and catered to blacks, the black church, black schools and colleges that existed as aconsequence of Americaʹs segregated policies, and throughmenial civil service jobs. But by the1950s, employment in suchmajorU.S. industriesas steel, automobilemanufacture, shipbuilding,andtextiles,providednumbersofthemmiddleclasssalariesandlifestyleswithjustahighschool
9
diplomaorless.Butthedeclineofmanufacturingandtheriseofthehighskilledserviceeconomymeantmismatchesbetween theeducational levelsof theurbanpoorand theeducationand skilllevels demanded by this new economy. The number of jobs available for thosewithout a highschooleducationdroppeddramaticallyinmosturbanareas,whilegoodjobsbecameincreasinglyavailableinthehighskilledservicesectorthatwasbeingdrivenbynewtechnologicalinnovations.Andevenasmoreurbandwellersfinishedhighschool,theseimprovementsdidnotkeeppacewiththe increasing skill demands of the new economy (Karsada 1992)*. Moreover, says Kasarda(1992:79), innorthernU.S.citiesbetween1970and1980ʺ....muchof the job increase in the `somecollegeʹor`college‑graduateʹcategorieswasabsorbedbysuburbancommuters,manyjoblossesinthe `less‑than‑high school completeʹ or `high school‑onlyʹ categories were absorbed by cityresidents...ʺ
EmploymentOpportunitiesMovedFromCentralCitiestoMoreAffluentSectionsofMetropolitanAreas Similartotothemovementofwhitestothesuburbs,theemploymentopportunitiesintheneweconomytendedtoincreasinglyoccurinthemoreprosperoussectionsofthecity,thesuburbs,orintherapidlydevelopingʺedgecities*,**.AssuggestedbyBloch(1994:124,citedinWilson1996:)ʺ....newplants [aswell as secondary formsof employment]now tend to locate in the suburbs totakeadvantageofcheapland,accesstohighways,andlowcrimerates;inaddition,businessesshunurbanlocationstoavoidbuyinglandfromseveraldifferentowners;payinghighdemolitioncostsfor old buildings, and arranging parking for employees and customers.ʺ What this meant forresidents of low income inner city communities, was that as job opportunities were rapidlydecliningwheretherewerepredominantlyblacksandothernon‑whiteminoritiesreside,theywererapidly increasing in locations inwhich the percentage of of blacks andnon‑white ethnicswereminiscule*.For those inner citydwellerswhomighthave the skills ordesires for jobs in theneweconomynow locatedoutside their communites, therewerenow theproblemsof transportationandcommutingtimeandcosts.(Fernandez1991;Kasarda1992;PetersonandVroman1992).
TheExodusofMiddleClassBlacksfromRacializedUrbanGhettos Notonlydidjobsleavetheinnercity,butalsodidthoseresidents,blackaswellaswhite,whowerebettereducatedandhadhigherincomes(Wilson1987;1996).Theoutmigrationofmiddleclass blacks was prompted by the various processes of social deterioration that we have beendiscussingthusfar,andwillcontinuetodiscussinthispaper.PerhapsthebestdescriptionofblackmiddleclassexodusoffromsociallydeterioratinginnercityneighborhoodswasaquotefromoneofWilsonʹs(1996:6)respondentswhostated:
ʺIfyouliveinanarea....whereyouhavepeoplethatdonʹtwork,donʹthavenomeansofsupport, you know, donʹt have no jobs,whoʹre gonna break into your house to stealwhatyouhave,toselltogetthemsomemoney,thenyoucanʹtliveinaneighborhoodand try to conentrate on trying to get ahead, then you get towork and you have toworry if somebodyʹsbreaking intoyourhouseornot.So,youknow, itsbest to try tomoveinadecentarea,toliveinacommunitywithpeoplethatworks.ʺ
Wilson(1996:38)saysthatʺthepatternofblackmigrationtothesuburbsinthe1970swassimilartothatofwhitesduringthe1950sand1960sinthesensethatitwasconcentratedamongthebetter‑educated and younger city residents. However, in the 1970s thiswas evenmore true for
10
blacks, creating a situation inwhich the education and incomegaps between city and suburbanblacksseemedtoexpandatthesametimethatthedifferencesbetweencityandsuburbanwhitesseemedtocontract.ʺThemigrationofmoremiddleclassblacksfromcentralcityneighborhoodstotheonceprimarilywhitesuburbsduringtheearly1970swasalsofueledbyincreasingpressuresonthesecommunitiestointegrate.ButasWilson(1996:46)pointsoutthatʺsuburbschosetodiversifyby race rather than class. They retained zoning and other restrictions that allowed only affluentblacks(andinsomeinstancesJews)toenter,therebyintensifyingtheconcentrationandisolationofthepoor.ʺ
TheImmigrationofOtherEthicGroupsintoRacializedUrbanGhettosandIncreasedCompetitionforInadequateEmploymentOpportunities Theexodusofthemajorityofnon‑poorRUGresidentsmeanttheincreasingproportionsofthe poor in these neighborhoods. The increase in the proportion of non‑poor residents wasaccelerated by a continuing increase in the number of poor immigrants coming into RUGs. Inadditiontoincreasingproportionsofpoorresidentsintheseneighborhoodswasalsoanincreasinthecompetitionfordecreasingnumberemploymentopportunities(Mahan1995).Ofgreatconcernfor thepoorresidentsalreadyresiding inRUGswas the fact thatmanyof thosemoving inwerefromother countries. Competitionwas created forpoorly educatednativeworkers, particularlythosewithlessthanahighschooleducation,insomewhatcontrastingways.Firstmostimmigrantshad little formaleducationdepressed thewagesavailable forunskilledworkers,beingwilling totake less inwages+.Then therewere immigrantswhohadmuchmore formaleduation than lowincomeinnercityresidents,butbeingunabletogetjobsintheU.S.equaltotheirskilllevels,werehired at lower level jobs because of their better education or skill. (e.g., someone trained as anengineer intheirhomecountry,butwhomayworkasacabdriverorcarpenterʹsassistant intheU.S.).
ProblemsofRUGResidentsTakingAdvantageofEmploymentOpportunitiesinSuburbsorEdgeCities Wilson (1996:39‑40) discusses the various problems associated with low income urbandwellers attempting to get out towhere the jobs are: ʺAmong two carmiddle‑class and affluentfamilies, commuting is accepted as a fact of life; but it occurs in a context of safe schoolenviornmentsforchildren,moreavailableandaccessibledaycare,andhigherincomestosupportmobile,away‑from‑homelifestyles.Inamulti‑tieredjobmarketthatrequiressubstantialresourcesforparticipation,most‑inner‑cityminoritiesmustrelyonpublictransportationsystemsthatrarelyprovideeasyandquickaccess to suburban locations.ʺWilsonʹs respondentsgive reasonsaswhysometimestheyhavetoturnsuburanjobsdown:(1)Notowningacar;(2)havingtogetupat5amto be to work by 8, (one hour preparing for work; 2 hours travel time); (3) worse problems inwinter; (4) the timing of public transportation not in syncwith time needing to be atwork; (5)peoplenotknowingwhere the suburbs are, and somegetting lost trying toget out there.OtherproblemsaccordingtoWilson(1996:40‑40):(1)thecostofowningacar,whichismorethansimplythepurchasepricebutalsothecostofgas,maintenance,andinsurance;(2)theexpenseoftravellingto thesuburbs to look fora job thatyoumayverywellnotget;and (3) theprobabilityof facingracialharassmentwhenoneenterssuburbanwhitecommunities*. Wilson(1996:42)thencitestheworkofHolzerandcolleagues(1994)whoʺconcludedthat[givenalloftheseissues] itwasquiterational for [low income inner city] blacks to reject these search‑and‑and travel choices whenassessingtheirpositioninthejobmarket.ʺ
11
TheProblemofaHighIncidenceofFemaleHeadedHouseholdsinRacializedUrbanGhettos Another problem for the racialized urban ghetto that is related to their low income orpovertystatusandhighunemploymentrates,expeciallyamongRUGmales,isthehighnumberofhouseholdswith children that areheadedbywomen,particularlyAfricanAmericanhouseholdswith children. In the United States in general, between 1970 and 1985marriage rates declined(MareandWinship1991),whilethepercentageofhouseholdsheadedbysinglefemales(bothwithandwithout children) increased (See Jargowsky and Bane 1990, 1991. These patterns, however,were greater for African Americans than for other groups (Wilson 1987;Wacquant andWilson1989),andweregreatestamongAfricanAmericanhouseholds inracializedurbanghettos. Fromtheendofslaveryuptothe1960s,mostAfricanAmericanhouseholdswithchildrenwereheadedby both parents. For example, in 1890, eighty percent of African American households withchildren had both parents present, a proportion thatwas still 78% by 1960. (U.S. Bureau of theCensus(1980).Yetby1970,theproportionofAfricanAmericanhouseholdswithchildrenheadedbysinglefemales,havingonlybeen20percentin1960hadincreasedto33percent,to49percentin1980, and by 1990, had increased 57 percent. So ʺfor the first time in history, female‑headed[households]*outnumberedmarriedcouple*familieswithchildren.ʺ(Billingsley1992:36) Wilson (1987) has argued that the sharp increase in black male joblessness since 1970accounts in largemeasure for the rise in the rate of single‑parent families, and that since joblessratesarehighestintheinner‑cityghetto,ratesofsingleparenthoodarealsohighestthere.ʺWhilethe continuing loss of legal employment opportunities in RUGs from the 1970s through to thepresentday,hasnegativelyaffectedbothʺlow‑skilledmalesandfemales,theproblemofdecliningemploymenthasbeenconcentratedamonglow‑skilledmenʺ(Wilson1996:25).Thereemergedthecontinuinggrowthofanonworkingclassofmalesintheprimeoftheirlives(betweentheagesof22and58),alongwithʺa largenumberof thosewhoareoftenunemployedwhoworkpart‑time,orwhoworkintemporaryjobsisconcentratedamongthepoorlyeducated.ʺ(Wilson1996:26;AlsoseeKasarda1989andTienda1989). At the same time that jobopportunitiesweredeclining for lowskilledRUGmales,therewasanincreaseinjobopportunitiesforRUGfemales.Thisdifferenceingenderrelatedtojobopportunitieswasafunctionofthelostofbluecollarfactory,transportation,andconstructionjobs,traditionallyheldbymen,jobsinmanufacturing,whiletherewasanincreasein jobsforworkerswith limitededucationandexperience insupportandsocialservices,suchasclerical, and the health, education, and welfare industries), that had traditionally hired morewomen(SeeKasarda1991:67;Wilson1996:27).Moreover,innercitymaleswereslowtomoveintotheseposition. Wilson(1996:95)pointsoutthattherearenationalstudiesthatfindnoorlittlerelationshipbetweentheemploymentandthemaritalstatusofyoungblackmales.However,healsopointsoutthat these studies are based on national data,while the local data from theUrban Poverty andFamilyLifeStudyinChicago(UPFLS),showedlittlerelationshipbetweentheemploymentstausofblackmalesbetweentheagesof32and44,theydidshowthatemploymentstatuswasdefinitelyrelatedtoyoungerblackmales(18‑29)enteringmarriageafterthebirthofthechild.IntheCuSAGstudies,youngblackunmarriedfathersfrequentlytalkedaboutmarryingtheirchildrensʹmothersonce they can get a job thatwould allow them to support a family,while older (35‑60)marriedblack males talked about their getting married after having a steady job, while already havingfatheredoneormorechildren.Older(23to55)lowincomeblackfemalesintheCuSAGstudies,onthe other hand talked about having little time for males who could not afford a family.
12
Ethnographicstudies(e.g.Liebow1967;Hannerz1969;Valentine1972)havelongfoundproblemswithfindingstableemploymenttobeaprimaryfactorinthefamilymarginalizationofblackmales.Infact,studiesusingcensusdatatoshowthattheproportionofinnercityadultmalestofemalesdeclinedbetweenthe1960s to1980s (e.g.Kasarda1989,1991,1992,and1998),areusingpartiallyskewed data because the censusweremissingmillions ofmenwhowere not picked up by thecensusbecauseoftheirfamilymarginality.Thenthereweresomemenwhowerenotinthehomesbecauseofwelfarepoliciesthatwouldpunishtheirfamiliesiftheywereinthehome.
But regardless of the the factors leading to the rapid rise inAfricanAmerican householdswithchildrenheadedbysinglefemalesthatwereinplaceby1970,by1985,suchhouseholdswereofthemajorityintheracializedurbanghettosofmostthenationʹslargestcities.Whatisrelevantofthisform of household structure, is that they are Americaʹs ʺpoorest demographic groupʺ (Edin(1994:29).Moreover,theywerethehouseholdsthatwouldexperiencedthemostpersistentpoverty(having incomes below the poverty line during at least eight years in a ten year period‑‑Wilson1996:91). There are numerous reasons for the persistent poverty in households with childrenheaded by single females. First of all, the increase in households without fathers means morehouseholdswithoutthefathersincome,orthepotentialincomesofbothparentsintodayʹscommonpracticeoftwoincomefamilies.Inmanyinstances,ahouseholdwithchildren,particularlyyoungchildren,headedbysinglefemalesalonewithoutthepresenceofotheradults,willoftentimesnotevenhaveasingleincome,becauseofthelackofchildcare,eveniftheywantedtowork(Weicher1990)*.Butevenifsinglemothersdidfindemployment,theirchancesaregreaterforhavinglowerincomesthanhouseholdswithworkingmalesbecauseoflowercredentialsorlessworkexperiencethansuchmales,orbecausemanyemployersarestilldisposedtopaymalesmore,evenifawomanhas the same credentials, skills, and experiences*.As a consequence theworkingheadsof singlefemaleheadedhouseholdsinracializedurbanghettosʺseldomearnenoughtobringtheirfamiliesout ofpoverty andmost cannot get child support,medical benefits, housing subsidies, or cheapchildcare.ʺ(Edin1994:29,citedinWilson1996:91‑92).Giventhesevariousobstacles,singlefemaleheadsofhouseholdswithchildrenresidinginracializedurbanghettosfoundthemselveshavingtoturn increasingly towelfare to support their children, at the same time that the real value of ofwelfarebenefitswasdecliningduetothefactthatwelfarepaymentswerenotindexedtoinflation(Cocoran and Parrott 1992; Farley 1988; Gans 1995). This does not bode well for the futureprospectsofchildrengrowingupinsuchhouseholds,sincethereisresearchshowingthattheyare“more likely to be school dropouts, to receive lower earnings in young adulthood, and to berecipientsofwelfare.”(Wilson1996:2). Researchhas show that thereareotherproblems for childrengrowingup inhouseholdsheldbysinglefemales,otherthanandrelatedtotheirgreaterprobabilityofexperiencinggrowingup and continuing to live in poverty as adults. There is also evidence of children growingupwithoutanadultmaleparenthavingproblemswithsexroledevelopmentbecauseoftheabsenceofsamesexrolemodelsforboys,ormodelsofhealthyfemale‑malerelationshipsthatgirlsandboyscan emulate*. There is also research suggesting that boys growing upwithout the presence offatherrolemodelsaremorelikelytobehyper‑masculineandviolenceprone*.Finally,thereisalsothe associationwith crime as recent research on incarcerated juveniles find thatmore than twothirdsofthejuvenilesgrewupinhouseholdswherethefatherswereabsent*.
13
RacializedUrbanGhettosareCharacterizedbySocialDisorganizationandEcologicalDeterioration As residents of racialized urban ghettos becamemore physically isolated from the non‑poor, theseneighborhoodsalsobegan toexperiencemorerapidsocialdisorganization,ecologicaldeterioration, crime and violence. For a long time, sociologists studying the concept of socialdisorganization would simply define it in terms of female headed households. However, theeconomicfactorsandotherstructuralfactorsassociatedwiththiscondition,asdiscussedabove,hasnothingtodowithwhetherfamiliesaredisorganized,andinfactaconjugallyintactfamilymaybemoresociallydisorganizedthanonethatisheadedbyasinglefemale.Ipreferthemoreextendeddescriptionoftheconcept,particularlyasitappliestoRUGhouseholds,thathasbeenprovidedbyWilson.Followingisaamodificationsofhisdimensionsofsocialdisorganization(1996:20):
(1) the prevalence and quality of wider society (Wilson calls them ʺformalʺ)institutions and agencies (e.g. educational, political, and security institutions,health and human service agencies), ethnic, family and kinship organizations,voluntary associations (e.g., religious, work and political party organizations,block clubs, and parent‑teacher organizations), and informal networks (e.g.neighborhoodfriendsandacquaintances,co‑workers,maritalandparentalties);
(2) the level of support provided the various types of institutions, organizations,
(5) the extent to which neighborhood residents are able to realize their commongoalsandmaintaineffectivesocialcontrol
Asindustries,businessesandthebettereducatedandmoreaffluentresidentstheracializedurbanghettos,ithadanegativeimpactontheprevalenceand/orqualityofthethewidersocietalinstitutions and services that were left in these neighborhoods. For example schools in theracializedurbanghettoscametobecharactizedbyagedanddeterioatingschools,facilities,books,andequipment,overcrowdedclassrooms,unimaginativecurricula,andʺonlyasmallproportionofteacherswhohaveconfidenceintheirstudentsandexpectthemtolearn.(Wilson1996:xv).ThesefactorsofcoursebecamerelatedtothehigherschooldropoutratesforinnercityAfricanAmericanyouth, ranging from 30 to 50 percent during the 1970s and 1980s (See Kasarda 1992:79), andcontinuing poor academic performance for those who continued through high school (e.g., SeeHenderson 1984:18).During this period,we also saw similar deterioration in the health servicesavailabletotheresidentsofracializedurbangettos,asmosthealthprofessionalshadlittleinterestincontinuingtoservecommunitiesinwhichmostresidentshavenoinsuranceorothermeanstopay,andthebureaucracyandfeesofsuchpublicassistanceprogramsasMedicaidareconsiderednotworthenoughtobother.
14
Theexodusofindustries,businessesandthenon‑poorandbettereducatedresidentsfromracialized urban ghettos were also charactized by a decline in other essential services in theseneighborhoods, such as the quality of housing and transportation services, garbage pickup andpublic lighting,security(fireandpolice)services,andsoon.Inturn,thedeclineintheseservicescontributed to adecline in thegeneral environmental conditionsof racializedurbanghettos. Forexampleduringthe1970s,weseean increase inmostof the largernortheasternandmidwesterncitieswithracializedurbanghettoes,wesawadeclineinthehousingunitsavailabletothepoor,andanincreaseintheproportionofrentalasopposedtoownedhousingunits,higherrentalcosts,dilapidatedandcrowdedhousingunits,unitswithout centralheating,andvacantorabandonedunits.(e.g.seeWeicher1990). In addition to the increase in dilapidated and vacant housing units, racialized urbanghettosalsosawincreasesintheamountoflitterandgarbagefoundinandaroundthehouses,aswellas in the lots leftvacantbytheurbanrenewalefforts thatwerecarriedout insomeof theseneighborhoods.Indeedforbothresidentsandacademicsstudyingtheseneighborhoods,theycametoresembleʺwarzones.ʺ(Wilson1996:34).Atthesametimethatwewereseeingadeclineinthequalityofhousingand thegeneralenvironment in theseneighborhoods,wewerealso seeinganincrease in the rate of violence and crime, further contribution to theperceptionof themaswarzones.Violenceandcrimeinracializedurbanghettoswillbediscussedinmoredetaillater.Atthepresenttime,however,Iwanttopointoutthatadecliningpresenceofpoliceservicesintheseareas,orapolicepresencethatseemstomanyresidentsofthesecommunitiestobehostile,contributestotheincreaseincrimeandviolence*.AtnightthereismuchlesslightinginracializedurbanghettosasthereareinmoreaffluentareasofthelargeAmericancities,anotherfactorleadingtoincreasesincrime.Aspointedout tome in focusgroup interviewswithyoungdrug traffickers inSoutheastWashington,D.C.,whereRFKfootballstadiumwheretheWashingtonRedskinsplayedwhenIwascollectingthisdata:
ʺDrug dealers know that they can sell their drugs any other day beside Thursdays, becauseThursdaysistheonlydaythatthepolicemandrivethroughtheseneighborhoods.ʺ
Thereareanumberofreasonsgivenforthedeclineinvariousservicesleadingtohousingand environmental deterioration of racialized urban ghettos. First with the exit of industries,businesses,andthebettereducatednon‑poor,therewasalsothedepartureofataxbasetosupportthebasicservicesnecessarytoanadequatequalityoflifeforthoseleftbehind.Moreover,thoseleftbehind were in greater need of such services, but without the tax base to pay for them. As aconsequence,accordingto:
“...distressed[extremelypoor]householdsarebeingseparatedfromthegovernmentalinstitutions intended to support them. Municipal budget cutbacks have brought,among other things, a recentralization of social services, which threatens to add‘government’tothelistofinstitutionsnolongeraccessibleintheinnercity.”(Peterson&Harrell1992:7)
15
In addition to the loss of various public services in racialized urban ghettos, therewereotherfactorsthatcontributedtotheenvironmentaldeteriorationoftheseneighborhoods.Onewasthe housing polices and practices discussed earlier. We have discussed how federal and localhousing policies andpractices during the 1930s, 1940s, and 1950s, contributed to the creation ofRUGsbymakingmortgageloansforhomeownershipinthesuburbsveryeasyforwhites,whiledenying such loans to African Americans. Meanwhile in the inner city, unscrupulous realtors,mostlywhite,couldoverchargeAfricanAmericansandothernonwhitesmigrating into the innercitiestoliveineverincreasingsubstandardhousing,withoutanyfearsoflegalrecrimination.Astheseprocessescontinued,inthe1950s,transportationpolicies,ledtotheconstructionofhighwaysystems, to accommodate the suburbanites and the U.S. automobile industries, that ran rightthroughmanylowincomeinnercitycommunities.Notonlydidthisprocessdestroythehomesofmillionsofurbanresidents,butitalsotendedtocreatebarriersthatrestrictedthepoorintocertainsectionsofcentralcities. Asthenumberofhousingunitswasdecliningfortheselow‑incomepopulations,moreofthem were migrating in creating crowded and what would be considered urban slums. UrbanRenewal Programs were then created during the 1950s and 1960s supposedly to address slumconditionsandtheproblemsofhousingshortagesfortheurbanpoor.However,ninetypercentofthelow‑incomeunitsremovedthroughurbanrenewalwereneverreplaced(Lipsitz2000:353).Morethaneightypercentofthelandclearedthroughsuchprogramswasusedforcommercial,industrial,andmunicipalprojects,whilelessthan20percentwasallocatedforreplacementhousing(Lipsitz2000:353).Thebuildingofhigh‑risepublichousingwas supposed to address theproblemof thehousing shortage for thepoor, and the space needed for suchhousing. Theuse ofmuch of thisspaceforthenewcommercialenterprises,alongwiththeincreaselimitationonspaceincreasedthemonetaryʺvalueʺofurbanspace,andthusanincreaseinrentsandmortgagesformiddleandlow‑income families. Therewere also tax increases for these families due to increase in the value ofurbanspaceandthelossintaxrevenuesduetotaxabatementsgrantedthenewenterprises.(LoganandMolotch1987:168‑69). Thenin1968,therewastheHousingandUrbanDevelopment(HUD)Actof1968,whosepurpose supposedly was to provide more public housing for the urban poor, and to end thediscriminationinpubliclysponsoredmortgagelendingassistancebyauthorizingFHAmortgagesfor low income areas that did notmeet the usual eligibility criteria, and by subsidizing interestpaymentsbymoderateandlow‑incomefamilies.However,byrestrictingaccesstopublichousingto the most economically disadvantaged, and as a consequence contributed to the continuingsegregationofhousingbyraceandclass*.WhiletheguidelinesoftheHUDActmadeitpossiblefornon‑poor blacks and otherminorities to purchase homes in the in the inner cities,much of theavailablehousingstockwasnowofsubstandardquality.ThentheFHAallowedsomeitsofficials,accordingtoLipsitz(2000:353,citingtheworkofQuadagno1994,andMasseyandDenton1993)toaid:
“...unscrupulous realtors and speculators by arranging purchases of substandardhousing byminorities desperate to own their own homes. The resulting sales andmortgageforeclosuresbroughtgreatprofitstolenders(almostallofthemwhite),buttheiractions led toprice fixingandsubsequent inflationofhousingcosts in the1968and1972.Bankersthenforeclosedonthemortgagesofthousandsoftheseuninspectedand substand homes, ruining many inner‑city neighborhoods. In response, the
16
Department of Housing and Urban Development essentially red‑lined inner cities,makingtheminelgibleforfutureloans,adecisionthatdestroyedthevalueofinnercityforgenerationstocome.”
Such practices led to greater deterioration in the available housing stock present inRacialized Urban Ghettos, as well as to a declining investment in and abandonment of suchhousing,whichinturnbecamespacesusedfordrugsandother illegalactivities.TheseprocessesaredescribedbyWilson(1996:44‑46):
ʺ...the more rapid the neighborhood deterioration, the greater the institutionaldisinvestment. In the 1960s and 1970s, neighborhoods plagued by heavyabandonmentwerefrequentlyʺredlinedʺ(identifiedasareasthatshouldnotreceiveorberecommendedformortgageloansorinsurance);thisparalyzedthehousingmarket,loweredpropertyvalues,andfurtherencouragedlandlordabandonment...Abandonedbuildingsincreaseandoftenserveashavensforcrackuseandotherillegalenterprisesthatgivecriminalsfootholdsinthecommunity.ʺ
Theincreaseindrugsandothercriminalactivitiesbroughincreasesinviolenceasindicatedby the rises in assaults and homicides during the 1960s and 1970s. These deterioratingenvironmental features (increases in dilapidated and abandoned housing, criminal and drugactivities,andviolence)makesitdifficulttomaintainasenseofcommunity.Theyalsocontributeto the continued exodus of the non‑poor from these neighborhoods, as suggested by one ofWilsonʹs(1996:6)respondents:
ʺIfyouliveinanarea....whereyouhavepeoplethatdonʹtwork,donʹthavenomeansofsupport,youknow,donʹthavenojobs,whoʹregonnabreakintoyourhousetostealwhatyouhave,toselltogetthemsomemoney,thenyoucanʹtliveinaneighborhoodand try to conentrateon trying toget ahead, thenyouget toworkandyouhave toworryifsomebodyʹsbreakingintoyourhouseornot.So,youknow,itsbesttotrytomoveinadecentarea,toliveinacommunitywithpeoplethatworks.ʺ
These features of environmental deterioration then contributes to further decline inpopulationdensity,ʺthatmakesitevenmoredifficulttosustainordevelopasenseofcommunity.ʺ(Wilson1996:46).Crucialtothesenseofcommunityare:(1)thesupportprovidedbytheinstitutionsandorganizations that facilitate the survival andquality lifeof themembersof that community;and (2) the participation of community members in those institutions and organizations. Theabsenceofwidersocietalinstitutionsinracializedurbanghettos,asdiscussedabove,notonlyleadto a lack of support services, environmental deterioration, and a lower quality of life for theresidents of these neighborhoods, but the problem is exacerbated by the lack of residentparticipationintheseinstitutions.Forexample,Ifirstbegantonoticewhenmychildrenattendingan elementary school in the edge community of Reston, Virginia, that on the night of ParentTeacher Association (PTA), and other important schoolmeetings, one could not find a parkingplaceformanyblocksadjacenttotheschool.ThiswasinsharpcontrasttotheRUGcommunitiesinthe Baltimore‑Washington urban corridor where I carried out research and technical assistancework. There, parents rarely attended elementary school PTA and other schoolmeetings, and insomecases,PTAswerequiteinactive,becauseparentswerenotholdingtheschoolsaccountableformanyof itspracticesandpolicies,asdidsuburbanandedgecommunityparents*. Suchparentalinvolvement has been found to play a major role in the fact that the educational performance
17
amongmost studentswho reside in racializedurbanghettos, continue to fall significantlybelowmostofthestudentslivinginsuburbanandedgecommunities. Most RUG residents are less likely to participate in the political processes of thewidercommunityandsociety,which furtheraffects thequalityof lifegoals that theymighthave. Thepoorandthelittleeducated,characteristicsofmanyofthosewhoresideinracializedurbanghettos,aremuchlesslikelytovote,andtothuselectleaderswhodonotfeelanobligationstorespondtotheir needs. As a consequence, the life conditions of RUG residents are left prettymuch to thelargessofratheruncaringnon‑poor,non‑ghettodwellers.Thelackofparticipationinthepoliticalinstitutions of the wider community and society has not only been one contributor to theenvironmental deterioration of racializedurbanghettos. The lack of political power inRUGs, aswellasinotherpoorminoritycommunitiesalsoleadtothesecommunitiesbeingusedasdumpinggroundsforpublicandtoxicwaste.TheneglectgiventosomeofthehousingRUGs,andthefailuretoincriminatesomeofthoserentingsuchproperties,thechildreninthesecommunitieshavebeenexposedtoincreasinglevelssofleadpoison,asbestos,andradon.Theseneighborhoodshavealsobeen more frequently selected as sites for sewer treatment plants, garbage dumps, landfills,incinerators, hazardous waste disposal sites, lead smelters, and other noxious and high riskfacilities(SeeBullard1993a;Henderson1994).Forexampleinonecity,Houston,Texas,LoganandMolotoch(1987)documentedthat75%ofthemunicipalgarbageincineratorsand100%ofthepublicgarbagedumpsarelocatedinblackneighborhoods.Atthesametime,thosereceivingpenatltiesforpollutingsitesnearwhitepopulationsreceivepenaltiesthatwere500percenthigherthanpenaltiesimposedplacingpolluting sites inminority areas,whileminority communitieshavehad towaitlonger thanwhite communities to be placed on the national priority list for clean ups. (Bullard1994). Such environmental injustice have led to what Bullard (1990, 1993b) has described as asituationofgreaterenvironmental risks forchildren in low incomeminorityneighborhoods thanwefindforsomeanimalspeciesthathavebeenlabeledasendangered(citedinHenderson1994). It is not however, simply the lack of participation in institutions, organizations, and thepolitical processes of the wider society that keep RUG residents from reaching their goals andimprovingthequalityoftheir lives,butalsothelackofparticipationinsignificantethnic,family,and kinship organizations, voluntary associations such as work or fraternal organizations,community action organizations, etc.), and informal networks of friends and acquaintances. It iswelldocumentedthatsuchorganizations,associations,andnetworkshavebeenaprimaryvehicleforthesurvivalofAfricanAmericansthroughtheirlonghistoryofslavery,andthepoverty,racism,discrimination,andprejudicethattheyhavehadtoenduresincetheendofslavery.Veryearlyintheirhistory,AfricanAmericanspracticedextendedfamilyandkinshipstructures,includingfictivekinship ties, andkinship terminology to assist them survive slavery, and such slavepractices asbreaking up primary family units (parents, children, and siblings) through sales of familymembers*.Friendshipnetworkswereveryimportant,andfictivekinshipsystemswerestructuresinwhichoneʹsfriends,orfriendsofafamilymemberwerereferredtobyakinshipterm(e.g.,mother,father, brother, sister, etc.), with patterns of rights and obligations associated with suchterminology. Such practices continued into the post slave period, and on into the twentiethcentury,helpingblacks to survive in cities after thegreatmigrations from the rural south to thecitiesofthenorthandwest.Evenduringtheperiodofslavery,therewerefreeblackswhoinitiatedethnicassociationstoservetheirpeoples,associationsthatformerslavesand/ortheirdescendantsjoined after emancipation. Included among such voluntary associations was the black church,whichbecameapowerfulcommunalstructureintheruralsouthandtheurbannorthwellintothetwentiethcentury.
18
However,suchorganizations,associations,andnetworksbegantolosetheireffectivenessinracializedurbanghettos,astheseneighborhoodssufferedincreasingpovertyandenvironmentaldeterioration(Mahan1996:5).Itiswelldocumentedthattheurbanpoorarelesslikelytoparticipateintheactivitiesoflocalorganizationsthanarethenon‑poor(e.g.,seeFernandezandHarris1991,1992).Forexample,inthecaseoftheblackchurch,asstatedabovethechurchhaslongbeenabasefor social action in black communities in its attempts to meet the needs of its communities.However, during the last three decades of the twentieth century, black churches struggledwithhowtogetmoreyouthandyoungadultswhowereinneedsoftheirservicestoparticipateintheirprograms.Partoftheproblemisthatforyoururbanblacks,thenarrowreligiousdemandsofthechurchappeared tobeanachronistic and irrelevant.Otherproblemswere related to the fact thatwithincreasingratesofpovertyintheseareas,churches,liketheneighborhoodsthemselves,wereleftwithoutthefiscalbasethattheyhadhadinthepasttosupporttheircommunityactivities. Bythe1970s,inadditiontochurches,thereemergedinRUGs,numerouscommunitybasedactionorganizationsattemptingtomeettheneedsofRUGresidents.Whilesuchcommunitybasedorganizationshavecontinuedtoincreaseinnumber,theyfrequentlyhavecontinuallystrugglewithhowtogetcommunitymemberstoparticipateinandsupporttheiractivities.Partoftheproblemgoes back to the deterioration of neighborhood environments in terms of crime and violence.Wilson(1996)pointsoutthatthosewhoareemployedaremorelikelytobeinvolvedincommunityproblem solving problems than those who are not working. But for RUG residents who areworking, planning meetings of community action organizations must take place after workinghours,andforsometherearefearsaboutgoingoutincrimeriddenneighborhoodstoattendsuchmeetings.Andthentherearesomeworkingresidentswhomustworkmultiplejobs,leavinglittletimetoattendsuchmeetings. Theprocessesofsocialandenvironmentaldeteriorationthathavebeendiscussedthusfarin this section lead to an increasing inability of RUG communities to enact measures of socialcontrol that are important to themaintenanceof security inhumancommunities.The contextofdecliningsocialcontrolisexplainedbyWilson(1996:44)asfollows:
ʺAs the population drops and the proportion on nonworking adults rises, basicneighborhood institutions are more difficult to maintain: stores, banks, creditinstitutions, restaurants, dry cleaners, gas stations, medical doctors and so on loseregular and potential patrons. Churches experience dwindling numbers ofparishioners and shrinking resources; recreational facilities, block clubs, communitygroups,andother informalorganizationsalsosuffer. Astheseorganizationsdecline,themeansofformalandinformalsocialcontrolintheneighborhoodbecomeweaker.Levelsofcrimeandstreetviolenceincreaseasaresult,leadingtofurtherdeteriorationoftheneighborhood.ʺ
Social disorganization in RUGs then are related to structural and environmental factorsthat make it difficult to maintain a social fabric of institutional and organizational life that weconsidertoascommunity.Assuch,IwillrefertoRUGshereassociallydisorganizedurbanspaces,inwhich institutions andorganizations areweak, show low levels of interdependence, and thuscapableofshowinglittlesocialsupporttoRUGresidents,intheireffortstorealizecommongoalsandtomaintainsomesenseofsocialcontrol.AsWilsoncomments(1966:20‑21)comments:
19
“Neighborhoodsocialorganizationdependsontheextentof localfriendshipties,thedegree of social cohesion, the level of resident participation in formal and informalvoluntaryassociations,thedensityandstabilityofformalorganizations,andthenatureofinformalsocialcontrols.Neighborhoodsinwhichadultsareabletointeractintermsofobligations,expectations,andrelationshipsareinabetterpositiontosuperviseandcontrol the activities andbehavior of children. Inneighborhoodswithhigh levels ofsocialorganization,adultsareempowertoacttoimprovethequalityofneighborhoodlife‑‑for example, by breaking up congregations of youths on street corners and bysupervisingtheleisureactivitiesofyoungsters.”
RacializedUrbanGhettosareCharacterizedbySocialandCulturalIsolation As racialized urban ghettos became physically isolated by public housing policies andpractices, by rental agencies andmortgage lenders, and by the difficulties experienced by theirresidents taking advantage of employment opportunities elsewhere, they also became sociallyisolated.TheproblemofsocialisolationisacomponentofthelargerproblemofWilson’sconceptofsocialdisorganizationasdiscussed in theprevious section. In factPetersonandHarrelpointoutthatthesocialisolationofinnercityresidentsisaconstantthemeinWilsonʹswork(e.g.seeWilson1987, 1996, and Wacquant and Wilson 1996), which may be defined as ʺthe lack of contact orsustained interaction with the individuals or institutions that represent mainstream societyʺ(PetersonandHarrel1992:1).Partofthisisolationissaidtobeduetomainstreaminstitutionsandorganizations,whichhadprovidedsomeinterclasscontact,havingalsofollowedthejobsandmoreaffluent families to the more affluent sections of the larger metropolitan area. Wilson (1996)suggests thepossibleroleofsocial isolation in thepersistentunemploymentofblackresidentsofracializedurbanghettos.FromhisUPFLSdata,hepointsouthowotherethnicandclassgroupsusestableworkingnetworkstohelpthemfindsteadyemployment,networkstowhichsociallyisolatedblacksseemtohave lessaccess. *.At thesame time,Wilsonpointsout, the lackofcontactof thenon‑workingpoorwithmoretheworkingnon‑poor,orbystablenetworksfoundinemploymentsettings,resultinalackofaccesstootherresourcesofferedbysuchrelationships.(p.65). The type of social isolation described in the preceding paragraph is a result of a classhomogeneity(predominantlypoorandnon‑workingresidents)foundinracializedurbanghettos.FernandezandHarrisusedWilson’ssampleofinnercityChicagohouseholdstoformallytesttheconceptofsocialisolation.Theyfoundthatnotonlywerethenon‑workingpoorsignificantlylesslikely to regularly attend meetings of a wide variety of community, school, social, and churchorganizations,buttheyalsofoundthatasignificantnumberofthenon‑poorwomeninthestudysufferedextremesocialisolation,asindicatedbytheirreportingthattheyhadnofriendsthattheycouldturntoinanemergency(17.6percent).Forthosewomenwhoreportedhavingfriends,44.7percent, forty‑five percent of their friendswere, similar to themselves, on public assistance andoutsidethelaborforce,indicatingatendencytowardsaclosedcommunitybyclass.(FernandezandHarris1992) The fact that RUGs have predominantly low income, and frequently non‑workingresidents, does not mean that there are no working and middle class residents in theseneighborhoods, as there are. But, as pointed out by Fernandez andHarris (1991; 1992), the fewmiddleclassfamilieswhoareleftinpoorurbancommunitiesoftendonotinteractwithothersintheseneighborhoodsbecauseoffear(e.g.duetohighratesofcrimeordrugactivity),orbecauseoftheirnegativeassessmentsoftheneighborhoodand/ortheirneighbors.AssuggestedbyPeterson
20
andHarrell(1992:1),thislackofinteractionintheirowncommunitiesanditsresidentscontributestoitsownsocialisolationformiddleclassRUGresidentsofthesecommunities.Wilson(1996:64)remindsusthatwhenspeakingofsocialisolation,thatadistinctionshouldbemadebetweenthosefamileswhodeliberatelyisolatethemselvesfromotherfamiliesindangerousneighgborhoods,andthose who lack contact or sustained interaction with institutions, families, and individuals thatrepressentmaninstreamsociety.ʺ Thislatterformofsocialisolation,isolationfrommainstreamsociety,intimeleadtoasortof cultural isolation, and in fact, to the evolution of RUG sub‑cultures with values, or at leastbehaviorswhichruncountertomainstreamculturalvaluesandbehaviors.Theideaofthetypeofnon‑mainstream culture is perhaps best exemplified in lower incomeAfricanmales, who ElijahAndersonrefers toaspracticinga“streetwiseculture,”orwhatWhitehead(1992)refers toas theBigMan/LittleManComplex(BM/LMC).Intheseparadigms,youngRUGmalesaresaidtohaveadisdainforsuchmainstreamAmericanvaluesashardwork,thepursuitofformaleducation,legalemployment, and legal marriage, obeying authority (the “thug life.” In fact, in reading thedissertation ofWilliamMcKinney (2000), I got the sense that one of his study subjects, a blackprincipalinaPhiladelphiaRUG,viewededucatingtheyouthinhisschoolinmainstreamculturalvaluesashismostimportantrole.Andindeed,itmaybe.
21
ReferencesCited
(ThisCitationListwillbeCompletedLater)BaneandJargowsky1988)Billingsley,A.(1992).ClimbingJacobʹsLadder:TheEnduringLegacyofAfricanAmericanFamilies.NewYork:Simon&Schuster.Bloch(1994)Bullard(1990)Bullard(1993)Bullard(1993b)Bullard(1994).CocoranandParrott(1992;Edin(1994)Farley,R.andW.R.Allen. (1987).TheColorLineandtheQualityofLife inAmerica.NewYork:RussellSageFoundation.FernandezandHarris(1992)Gans1995).Hannerz,U.(1969).SoulSide:InquiriesIntoGhettoCultureandCommunity.NewYork:ColumbiaUniversityPress.Harrell, Adele & George Peterson (1992). Drugs, Crime and Social Isolation: Barriers to UrbanOpportunity.Washington,D.C.:theUrbanInstitutePress.Henderson(1994).(Holzer(1994)JargowskyandBane(1990)JargowskyandBane(1991)Kasarda(1988).
Lipsitz(2000).LoganandMolotch(1987).McKinney(2000)MareandWinship(1991)Mahan, Sue (1996), Crack Cocaine, Crime and Women: Legal, Social, and Treatment Issues.ThousandsOaks,Calif:Sage.Massey D. & Denton N. (1993). American Apartheid: Segregation and the Making of theUnderclass.Cambridge:HarvardUniversityPressPetersonandHarrell(1992)PetersonandVroman(1992).Quadagno(1994),Reichauer(1987Tienda(1989)U.S.BureauoftheCensus(1980).Valentine(1972)WacquantandWilson1989WacquantandWilson1996),Weicher(1990)
23
WhiteheadT(1992):ExpressionsofmasculinityinaJamaicansugartown:implicationsforfamilyplanning programs, in Whitehead T and Reid B (eds.): Gender Constructs and Social Issues.Chicago:UniversityofIllinoisPressWilson,W.J.(1987).TheTrulyDisadvantaged:TheInnerCity,TheUnderclass,andPublicPolicy.Chicago,IL:UniversityofChicagoPress.Wilson, W.J. (1996). WhenWork Disappears:TheWorld of the New Urban Poor. Chicago, IL:UniversityofChicagoPress.
