Gentrification and Class - Essay Example

Gentrification and John Arena’s argument on gentrification Gentrification refers to the shift within an urban community where the poor experience displacement due to the wealthy investing in the regions (Arena 29). Many argue that the process of gentrification usually affects the poorer residents caught up in the development aspects that may result from investment by the local government. Ideally, gentrification in some quarters tends to influence the average income rates for a community while the family unit decreases in this process. In these circumstances, two sides to the debate exist that include the non-gentrification residents and the gentrified residents. However, the upgrade tends to come with a price attached in which the resident that were pre-gentrified may not afford the new pay rates or property taxes. Driving out those cannot afford to pay the new rent rates and property taxes may be the most acceptable practice as the argument is that they could decrease revenues. In many cases, the transformation may include the conversion of old buildings to developed shops and areas of living, which translates to increased rents. However, John Arena negated this process in his book Driven from New Orleans in which African-Americans had to pave the way for the advancement of New Orleans after the devastating effects of Hurricane Katrina. After Katrina, the African Americans that were of local income levels did not receive financing to build and repair their homes, but instead demolitions took place (Arena 87). In his book, John Arena argues that the plan to demolish the old buildings in New Orleans began in the 1980s, long before the Hurricane hit the area meaning that the White Republicans conceived the gentrification plan before. Reasons why Arena says that the battle for public housing in New Orleans was a long struggle As the local community had named it, “the Negro removal” began in the 1960s in which the elite in New Orleans sought to upgrade the public houses at the cost of the low-income earners residing there (Arena 37). In essence, this neo-liberal economic activity is of the view that the low-income earners lived in impoverished states and it was their duty to help them. However, the residents of New Orleans viewed this to be a federal disaster as the hatching of this plan was national, but the implementation had to be at the federal level. Ideally, New Orleans became a city with the African American population being the highest in the late 1970s because of agricultural mechanization through those that were on their way route to Crescent City. From that time, New Orleans became significant in the fight against racial inequalities and protecting the rights of the poor hence making the demotions on the public houses to be a vital setback to the advancements that this population had managed to achieve. The white and the black elites saw the move to demolish the old buildings in New Orleans as the only way to eradicating poverty, but the African American population did not share the same views. The impact of Hurricane Katrina on the New Orleans city leaders’ desires to progress private development According to Arena, the African American elite and the leadership failed the residents of the New Orleans as they were not vocal enough to reverse the decision to demolish the old buildings that belonged to the people. The arena’s argument is that the non-governmental organizations, the elected officials from the African-American community, and other foundations had a hand in displacing the African American population of New Orleans. Many lost their homes because of the devastating Hurricane, but this did not deter the white Republicans from bringing down these structures in an attempt to establish modern day complexes. The arena’s view is that the demolition of the old buildings in New Orleans did not intend to benefit lower income earning African Americans from its onset, but it was rather immoral (Card & Raphael 112). The low income earners lost their affordable and low cost accommodation to the self interest of a few investors, who had for a long time viewed this as a possible investment venture. The ideology that Arena advocates for is that the foundation complex that existed in New Orleans played a significant role in the privatization program rather than advocate for the process to stop. Those that were in support of the gentrification program in New Orleans rallied behind the HOPE V1 policy launched under the Clinton regime in which the move aimed at demolishing old public buildings because they had become crime zones. According to Arena, Robert Taylor Homes of Chicago were symbolic of the crime infested nature that public buildings had become hence used this as a guide for bringing down the old buildings. In Arena’s view the winners are the selfish developers, the nonprofit organizations, and the black elected leaders while the poor lost their low cost housing units. In Essence, the African American population whose houses were in ruins after Katrina consented to their own eviction because the foundation complexes and the black politicians convinced them that it was the best move. 2. Class as viewed by Joan Arena Joan Acker is one of the chief contributors and analysts of gender and class in which her arguments had a basis of the feminist movement. Ideally, Acker notes that the class has taken precedence in the capitalist economy, which did not come as a surprise when the Greta Financial Crisis began in 2006. The implication of this according to Acker is that the inequality gap was slowly widening hence creating aspects of instability in the capitalist economy. In the first chapter, Acker shares her belief that the crash of the stock market in 2000 was the beginning of the New Economy Bubble, which heightened struggles in class and the margin widening (1). According to Acker, matters of class drew basis of gender and race hence growing rift in the Marxist economy, which was a negative way of illustrating diversity in a population. The initial meaning of class as intimated by Marxists related to production and the labor wages, but it did include distribution and the unpaid wages as Acker viewed it. In relation to the Marxism ideology, the view was that women were in a class of their own as they were ‘slaves’ to their families and nothing more. Acker shares a different view in which her argument is that race and gender were not invisible when discussing class because they were essential illustrating this notion (Acker 4). Therefore, Acker criticized the Marxist ideology while also negating the thinking that the popular feminists had adopted as they were both influencing inequality. Ideally, Ackers; views drew influence from various sources such as a book by Thompson E.P by the name The Making of the English Working Class as this book was influential in her thinking because it also did not support the Marxist theory on class. Subsequently, Acker advocates that race, gender and class aspects should be conjoined to each other when attempting to contextualize the three, which is a view that Brewer Rose also shared hence influencing this feminist ideology (Acker 36). Further, Acker decries the working class, the middle class, and the capitalist class as the used criteria when dividing provisions to the population hence intimating that there was inequality in the distribution (Acker 68). In this book, Acker traces the historical journey involving the gendering and racializing as class concepts in which discrimination in society might not be visible, but that does not imply that it is inexistent. The implication according to Acker is that discrimination may be illegal in terms of gender and race in class, but it is the most used practice in many capitalist economies (Champlin & Knoedler 187). Acker asserts that class is the basis for inequalities in which this aspect creates control over resources, authority, and the activities that may facilitate their recreationin which the society has accepted as natural and the propellant to functioning economies. The system that operates in the neoliberal society is one that exploits people in the name of class and control because of the global corporate culture. In essence, the only fraction of the population that enjoys the benefits and the resources is the capitalist class, while the other classes have to grapple with insecurity and anxiety because they do not access to the resources. Therefore, Acker shares the view that the restructuring process in order to fight inequality should first consider race and gender in this process in order for the marginalized groupings to be stakeholders in the project. Housing inequalities for immigrants The bursting of the housing bubble did not serve as a reprieve to bridge the inequality gap that was existent as the rates of unemployment and poverty rocketed contrary to the expectations of many. Over the years, housing inequality has been on the increasing trend in which at least 750, 000 people do not own their own homes. Specifically, the highest numbers of those that are homeless are men of color meaning that home ownership is racial attribute in which the whites receive the highest priorities. In essence, this supports Acker’s view in which class is a factor when it comes to home ownership in which home financing institutions are likely to finance whites as compared to other races. The ideology behind this thinking is that other races have for a long time had an association with poverty hence influencing the view that most immigrants may not afford to clear home financing debts. Sadly, this prejudice seems to have spread to African Americans that have had a good education in which they may also apply do not treat people from their ethnic communities. The discrimination cuts across gender in which women and men that are not white may not qualify for home ownership, but were able to access public housing options (Weir 890).In relation to Acker’s ideology, the rich in America cannot live with the poor in the same neighborhood making residential segregation to be on the increase basing on the class divisions. Just as Arena, Acker also asserts that income levels can also lead to class divisions that may lead the poor to feel that they cannot associate with the poor. Conclusion In the end, Arena and Acker are instrumental in highlighting the inequalities that the non- Americans and immigrants may experience while living in America. For one, Arena asserts that the New Orleans demolition of low cost housing units did not seek to benefit the low-income earners but instead sought to benefit the elite and the whites. On the other hand, Acker highlights how a class can influence the distribution of resources in terms of a person’s race or gender attributes denoting the acceptable capitalist culture. The implication of this is that a capitalist society does not have the interests of the low-income earners at heart, but instead to benefit the rich under the guise of poverty eradication. Therefore, Acker and Arena highlight facts that the capitalist economies have viewed as normal and they seek to correct historical injustices and inequalities that draw influence from race, gender, and class. Works cited Acker, Joan. Class Questions: Feminist Answers. Lanham, Md. [u.a.: Rowman & Littlefield, 2006. Print. Arena, John. Driven from New Orleans: How Nonprofits Betray Public Housing and Promote Privatization. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2012. Print. Card, David E, and Raphael, Steven. Immigration, Poverty, and Socioeconomic Inequality. , 2013. Print. Champlin, Dell P, and Knoedler, Janet T. The Institutionalist Tradition in Labor Economics. Armonk, NY [u.a.: Sharpe, 2004. Print. Weir, Robert E. Class in America: An Encyclopedia. Westport, Conn. [u.a.: Greenwood Press, n.d.. Print. Read More