What does this have to do with the price of tea in China? I found myself asking that very question while doing the readings this week, I even double checked to make sure I was reading the correct articles.
Oppression, The Other, Recognition, Activism? What does that have to do with community? With literacy? With Community Literacy? I wasn't sure… so I began to think outside the box…I think…
I found Young's two articles to be very insightful. I felt that Activist Challenges to Deliberative Democracy was very well put together, understandable, and insightful but it was very black and white. There seemed to be no middle ground, which isn't how things are in real life.
The way I see Activism vs. Deliberative Democracy is the deliberative democratic can be found in the middle of the spectrum. He or she is not extremely left or extremely right. The activist on the other hand is (or rather, can be) extremist---either to the left or right of the political spectrum. Obviously this theory isn't concrete and is most certainly open to criticism and exceptions.
At first, while reading this article I felt that the Activist was being portrayed negatively, but after reading further I changed my mind. My question is which character is more effective? Though I think that deliberative democracy has its place and can do good in many situations, I know that actions speak louder than words. Activist can get their issues out there for the people to hear about.
If in fact, communities don't exist without conflict, or at the very least, if communities are built around conflict then activism brings communities closer, and makes them stronger.
Deliberative democracy, on the other hand, brings two communities or a community and the opposing force, together to solve their issues.
I think this article could easily be read along side Fleming's book, identifying activism and deliberative democracy throughout the examples provided.
TO BE CONTINUED…
Sunday, February 21, 2010
Tuesday, February 16, 2010
Charlie Bit My Finger Again
This video just keeps popping up. On ViralVideoChart.com, "Charlie Bit My Finger" is the 16th most viral video of the last 24 hours and the 18th most viral video of all time. 18th is not as impressive as the first 17, but this video has a quality that others do not: repetition. Some how, Charlie and his biting baby brother continually go through a resurgence in the rate at which the video is shared. It will disappear for a while and then come back again. Unlike most of the videos ranked on the Viral Video Chart, Charlie appears through MySpace's video sharing platform and not YouTube. Even though 97% of 165,244,739 recorded views were through YouTube, where it is still consistently getting comments. Viral Video Chart describes the video in this way:
"There is some enjoyment that comes from watching a child who put his fingers in the baby's mouth scream in pain when the said baby cannibalizes the child's finger. A sadistic enjoyment maybe, but an enjoyment nonetheless. The video comes from a long line of home videos which portray cute/irritating children/animals being exploited (and in this case, bitten), for the benefit of their parents/owners YouTube view count."
Sadistic or not, it's getting results.
Monday, February 15, 2010
Handout for Article Presentation
Below are the notes on the articles I read for my article presentation.
Want to Cut Crime? It Takes a Neighborhood. Tim Harford 2008
Uses neighborhood as synonymous with Community
“Clear link between urban architecture and crime”
High rises=less “eyes on the street”=more crime
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/22/AR2008022202384.html
Compact Communities-Is Density Incompatible With Safety? Argument against Tim Harford
Population density brings “eyes on the street”
Density only possible with the use of high rises
Poses the question—At what building height does safety begin to diminish?
http://thegroundfloor.typepad.com/the_ground_floor/2008/02/compact-communi.html
Related to City of Rhetoric?
Each article discusses issues on link between urban architecture and crime as well as posing solutions to the issue.
The situations described in the articles could easily be the Chicago as described by Fleming.
Reviving Cities: Think Metropolitan---Linked to from Fleming’s Chapter Three Notes
Darkside of Metropolitan Areas
Decentralization of American cities
Metropolitan areas are hogging all of the economic growth—perpetuating the economic crisis in the cities
Detroit---Prime Example
“much more needs to be done at the federal level to reverse the polarizing trends”
“In places like Detroit, separate urban and suburban entities administer the public bus system, impeding the ability of urban low-income residents to reach suburban jobs and economic opportunities.”
Example of Segregation as an “achievement”
http://www.brookings.edu/papers/1998/06metropolitanpolicy_katz.aspx
Want to Cut Crime? It Takes a Neighborhood. Tim Harford 2008
Uses neighborhood as synonymous with Community
“Clear link between urban architecture and crime”
High rises=less “eyes on the street”=more crime
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/22/AR2008022202384.html
Compact Communities-Is Density Incompatible With Safety? Argument against Tim Harford
Population density brings “eyes on the street”
Density only possible with the use of high rises
Poses the question—At what building height does safety begin to diminish?
http://thegroundfloor.typepad.com/the_ground_floor/2008/02/compact-communi.html
Related to City of Rhetoric?
Each article discusses issues on link between urban architecture and crime as well as posing solutions to the issue.
The situations described in the articles could easily be the Chicago as described by Fleming.
Reviving Cities: Think Metropolitan---Linked to from Fleming’s Chapter Three Notes
Darkside of Metropolitan Areas
Decentralization of American cities
Metropolitan areas are hogging all of the economic growth—perpetuating the economic crisis in the cities
Detroit---Prime Example
“much more needs to be done at the federal level to reverse the polarizing trends”
“In places like Detroit, separate urban and suburban entities administer the public bus system, impeding the ability of urban low-income residents to reach suburban jobs and economic opportunities.”
Example of Segregation as an “achievement”
http://www.brookings.edu/papers/1998/06metropolitanpolicy_katz.aspx
Some thoughts about the U.S. Housing Act
At risk of sounding like a total jerk, I’d like to make a statement/pose a question. I ask that you hold off on any judgments in the interest of productive discussion. So, here goes…
City of Rhetoric makes mention of the U.S. Housing Act (of 1937 and of 1949), which got me thinking. I looked up some info on the Housing Acts, and I read through transcripts of some speeches, which made me wonder about a statement Harry Truman made in his State of the Union Address: "Five million families are still living in slums and firetraps. Three million families share their homes with others." Now, granted, living in slums and firetraps is definitely not a good thing, and safety is certainly a concern worth doing something about. However, I’m not sure why there is cause for concern because three million families share their homes. My family grew up sharing homes in the Chicago-area. Much of my family now still share homes with others—in fact, I recently shared a home with people. And my paternal grandparents and great-grandparents never owned homes; they lived in family groups and rented their entire lives. (And, no, I'm not getting all "bootstrappy" on you here...
I guess what I’m really wondering is why it was/is considered a right to live in a space that is exclusively one’s own. Also (and here is where I especially ask you not to judge…), is it also a right to own one’s own home? It almost seems that this way of thinking could have led to Flemings admonition that “We are the products of an insistent ‘privatism,’ a way of life focused on the individual, his or her family, and their private search for personal happiness” (14). Could this communal living (as generations of Americans had done) have assisted in teaching people “the art of living with different others…and rendering and negotiating difference?” (14). Seems like it might have. Seems like it might have taught us to “acknowledge, even celebrate conflict but also attempt to resolve that conflict through debate, deliberation, and adjudication” (14). But now, instead of having commonplaces at the most basic levels (shared homes), we are free to simply live alone, thus encouraging individualism and discouraging interdependence.
I also found the following passage of interest: “There appears to be a relationship between one’s tenure in a given location—the stability of one’s geographical experience, which is tied to such things as homeownership—and one’s involvement in local politics” (187). As I ponder this statement, I respond in various ways. On one hand, I think to myself: “Yeah, sure. That makes perfect sense. If one is tied to an area, and invested—both financially and emotionally—in the neighborhood/town/city/state, he or she is more likely to become involved in the governing of said neighborhood/town/city/state.”
On the other hand, I think I might get pissed off by the simple assumptions of this statement. I can only fall back on my prior experience living in Back of the Yards. The neighborhood was mostly Hispanic, and many homes on my block were owned by the residents. However, those on my block and in the immediate vicinity had a palpable fear of authority, and didn’t even feel comfortable calling the police in cases of emergency. For the most part, the neighborhood was not very involved in local politics. In fact, when a pregnant woman was killed by gunfire several doors down, people came from outside of the neighborhood to march and protest the violence. The residents stayed in their homes. Now, part of this might have to do with that fact than many of my neighbors were undocumented and had well-founded fears of deportation. However, I suspect a lot of it had to do with hegemony and the reluctance of those in power to “allow” others to step into the roles that rightfully belonged in the neighborhood.
I suppose it is possible that some of this hegemony took root because of a language difference; Mostly Spanish was spoken in the businesses, on the streets, in the library, and in the homes. Fleming, in his discussion of the ancient Greeks, states that "language...was a distinctly political way of being...it was...a social practice of simultaneous separation and connection" (13). This "way of being" for my neighbors might have placed them in a position of less power because of communication challenges that arose when they stepped outside of the community. But, the more I consider it, while the the problems in my old neighborhood were certainly exacerbated by a language barrier, it must be from more than just that. Some of the problems might also have stemmed from the lack of "an accessible, diverse, self-governing community, free from both external control (so that members could direct their collective future without interference) and internal domination (so that each member had an equal say in that future)" (13). I guess I wonder what good it did my neighbors to have had community organizations (of where there were some), if they had no way of successfully representing themselves to outsiders who assumed positions of power and represented the community. So, I guess what I'm getting at is that even if/though my neighbors did have decent and safe housing, it is/was still unlikely that they will become involved in local politics.
If you are interested, here is a bit of background on my old neighborhood (www.nhschicago.org):
Back of the Yards is a working class neighborhood best known as the setting for Upton
Sinclair’s novel, The Jungle, which exposed conditions in the slaughterhouses around the turn of the 20th century. The original Union Stockyard gate still stands at 42nd and Halsted as a permanent symbol of the neighborhood’s working class history.
Today, Back of the Yards is a racially and culturally diverse community that boasts a newly developed industrial park and thriving commercial center. The housing stock is mostly one-to-four unit frame buildings that offer ownership opportunities for working families priced out of other markets. Directly to the south is Garfield Boulevard, where large greystones and other interesting architectural housing stock on the boulevard and the immediate blocks to the north and south make it an attractive area for new
homeowners.
While the neighborhood offers many amenities, it faces several challenges as well. Deferred maintenance on the older, frame housing stock in Back of the Yards depresses housing values making it vulnerable to investors who buy buildings, do shoddy rehab, and act as absentee landlords. In both Back of the Yards and Garfield Boulevard, high rates of foreclosure contribute to the already large inventory of vacant and susceptible buildings, which promotes gang and drug activity.
City of Rhetoric makes mention of the U.S. Housing Act (of 1937 and of 1949), which got me thinking. I looked up some info on the Housing Acts, and I read through transcripts of some speeches, which made me wonder about a statement Harry Truman made in his State of the Union Address: "Five million families are still living in slums and firetraps. Three million families share their homes with others." Now, granted, living in slums and firetraps is definitely not a good thing, and safety is certainly a concern worth doing something about. However, I’m not sure why there is cause for concern because three million families share their homes. My family grew up sharing homes in the Chicago-area. Much of my family now still share homes with others—in fact, I recently shared a home with people. And my paternal grandparents and great-grandparents never owned homes; they lived in family groups and rented their entire lives. (And, no, I'm not getting all "bootstrappy" on you here...
I guess what I’m really wondering is why it was/is considered a right to live in a space that is exclusively one’s own. Also (and here is where I especially ask you not to judge…), is it also a right to own one’s own home? It almost seems that this way of thinking could have led to Flemings admonition that “We are the products of an insistent ‘privatism,’ a way of life focused on the individual, his or her family, and their private search for personal happiness” (14). Could this communal living (as generations of Americans had done) have assisted in teaching people “the art of living with different others…and rendering and negotiating difference?” (14). Seems like it might have. Seems like it might have taught us to “acknowledge, even celebrate conflict but also attempt to resolve that conflict through debate, deliberation, and adjudication” (14). But now, instead of having commonplaces at the most basic levels (shared homes), we are free to simply live alone, thus encouraging individualism and discouraging interdependence.
I also found the following passage of interest: “There appears to be a relationship between one’s tenure in a given location—the stability of one’s geographical experience, which is tied to such things as homeownership—and one’s involvement in local politics” (187). As I ponder this statement, I respond in various ways. On one hand, I think to myself: “Yeah, sure. That makes perfect sense. If one is tied to an area, and invested—both financially and emotionally—in the neighborhood/town/city/state, he or she is more likely to become involved in the governing of said neighborhood/town/city/state.”
On the other hand, I think I might get pissed off by the simple assumptions of this statement. I can only fall back on my prior experience living in Back of the Yards. The neighborhood was mostly Hispanic, and many homes on my block were owned by the residents. However, those on my block and in the immediate vicinity had a palpable fear of authority, and didn’t even feel comfortable calling the police in cases of emergency. For the most part, the neighborhood was not very involved in local politics. In fact, when a pregnant woman was killed by gunfire several doors down, people came from outside of the neighborhood to march and protest the violence. The residents stayed in their homes. Now, part of this might have to do with that fact than many of my neighbors were undocumented and had well-founded fears of deportation. However, I suspect a lot of it had to do with hegemony and the reluctance of those in power to “allow” others to step into the roles that rightfully belonged in the neighborhood.
I suppose it is possible that some of this hegemony took root because of a language difference; Mostly Spanish was spoken in the businesses, on the streets, in the library, and in the homes. Fleming, in his discussion of the ancient Greeks, states that "language...was a distinctly political way of being...it was...a social practice of simultaneous separation and connection" (13). This "way of being" for my neighbors might have placed them in a position of less power because of communication challenges that arose when they stepped outside of the community. But, the more I consider it, while the the problems in my old neighborhood were certainly exacerbated by a language barrier, it must be from more than just that. Some of the problems might also have stemmed from the lack of "an accessible, diverse, self-governing community, free from both external control (so that members could direct their collective future without interference) and internal domination (so that each member had an equal say in that future)" (13). I guess I wonder what good it did my neighbors to have had community organizations (of where there were some), if they had no way of successfully representing themselves to outsiders who assumed positions of power and represented the community. So, I guess what I'm getting at is that even if/though my neighbors did have decent and safe housing, it is/was still unlikely that they will become involved in local politics.
If you are interested, here is a bit of background on my old neighborhood (www.nhschicago.org):
Back of the Yards is a working class neighborhood best known as the setting for Upton
Sinclair’s novel, The Jungle, which exposed conditions in the slaughterhouses around the turn of the 20th century. The original Union Stockyard gate still stands at 42nd and Halsted as a permanent symbol of the neighborhood’s working class history.
Today, Back of the Yards is a racially and culturally diverse community that boasts a newly developed industrial park and thriving commercial center. The housing stock is mostly one-to-four unit frame buildings that offer ownership opportunities for working families priced out of other markets. Directly to the south is Garfield Boulevard, where large greystones and other interesting architectural housing stock on the boulevard and the immediate blocks to the north and south make it an attractive area for new
homeowners.
While the neighborhood offers many amenities, it faces several challenges as well. Deferred maintenance on the older, frame housing stock in Back of the Yards depresses housing values making it vulnerable to investors who buy buildings, do shoddy rehab, and act as absentee landlords. In both Back of the Yards and Garfield Boulevard, high rates of foreclosure contribute to the already large inventory of vacant and susceptible buildings, which promotes gang and drug activity.
Metropolis, Public Sphere, & Definitions
Alright, let me explain… No there is too much, let me sum up.
There are many concepts in this book that I would like to explore further. The “metropolis,” the Chicago “Public Sphere,” and how Fleming defines public, common places, and community.
Metropolis
First, the “metropolis” basically is my personal community environment. I live in Dewitt, work and go to school in East Lansing, shop at Meijer on Lake Lansing, shop at Walmart in Saint Johns, board my horses in Portland, go to church in Westphalia, and visit friends in Okemos. I am the Great Lansing Area.
Though all of these places are vastly different in their economic status and demographic makeup not to mention the obvious difference in location, I still consider them all to be a part of my community or rather I am a part of each of these communities. Am I wrong? If I am right, then am I any less a community member in each place since I belong to other communities? Or am I only a community member in the area where I perform my civic duties? Am I making any sense at all?
As Fleming defines it, a metropolis is “any geographical area comprising a large population nucleus… together with all adjacent communities.” All this time I thought that a metropolis had to be New York or Chicago. Nope. I think the Greater Lansing Area qualifies.
Chicago Public Sphere
“Nearly 100 percent of murders in Chicago public housing project occurred in public common spaces” “To be ‘in public’ in a place like this, in other words, is to be at risk for one’s life” (Fleming)
This fact is astonishing to me, yet I didn’t doubt its truth. The ghetto does in fact “silence its inhabitants.” Yet so often you will hear people say “why don’t they just help themselves?” or “why don’t they just move” referring to ways in which these people could “better their lives” when in fact the culture and community created in these areas isn’t like the ones others are familiar with. We created the mess and now blame them for it.
Definitions
Community “the compact face-to-face social group based on likeness, affinity, and proximity—what we often call ‘community’”
I have issues with the “face-to-face” part of this definition, perhaps because I have grown up with access to the internet and I feel like I have established community-like connections there on forums and such. And I feel that if these forums or virtual spaces function like a community can’t we just call it a community? If the shoe fits, where it. Yes, once upon a time it could be argued that community was “face-to-face” and based on proximity, but the world is shrinking and changing at an alarming rate and perhaps our ideas on community and connection should change with it.
“Common places” can link us to one another and the earth, but where we remain free and unique as individuals (Fleming) “where people can come together to discuss and negotiate their difference, where their freedom and equality can be enacted without either alienation and amalgamation.”
Do these places really exist? Besides in a classroom?
“Public” Coming together of persons (Fleming)
That’s it? So, the internet is public? I wish some people on facebook would realize that
There are many concepts in this book that I would like to explore further. The “metropolis,” the Chicago “Public Sphere,” and how Fleming defines public, common places, and community.
Metropolis
First, the “metropolis” basically is my personal community environment. I live in Dewitt, work and go to school in East Lansing, shop at Meijer on Lake Lansing, shop at Walmart in Saint Johns, board my horses in Portland, go to church in Westphalia, and visit friends in Okemos. I am the Great Lansing Area.
Though all of these places are vastly different in their economic status and demographic makeup not to mention the obvious difference in location, I still consider them all to be a part of my community or rather I am a part of each of these communities. Am I wrong? If I am right, then am I any less a community member in each place since I belong to other communities? Or am I only a community member in the area where I perform my civic duties? Am I making any sense at all?
As Fleming defines it, a metropolis is “any geographical area comprising a large population nucleus… together with all adjacent communities.” All this time I thought that a metropolis had to be New York or Chicago. Nope. I think the Greater Lansing Area qualifies.
Chicago Public Sphere
“Nearly 100 percent of murders in Chicago public housing project occurred in public common spaces” “To be ‘in public’ in a place like this, in other words, is to be at risk for one’s life” (Fleming)
This fact is astonishing to me, yet I didn’t doubt its truth. The ghetto does in fact “silence its inhabitants.” Yet so often you will hear people say “why don’t they just help themselves?” or “why don’t they just move” referring to ways in which these people could “better their lives” when in fact the culture and community created in these areas isn’t like the ones others are familiar with. We created the mess and now blame them for it.
Definitions
Community “the compact face-to-face social group based on likeness, affinity, and proximity—what we often call ‘community’”
I have issues with the “face-to-face” part of this definition, perhaps because I have grown up with access to the internet and I feel like I have established community-like connections there on forums and such. And I feel that if these forums or virtual spaces function like a community can’t we just call it a community? If the shoe fits, where it. Yes, once upon a time it could be argued that community was “face-to-face” and based on proximity, but the world is shrinking and changing at an alarming rate and perhaps our ideas on community and connection should change with it.
“Common places” can link us to one another and the earth, but where we remain free and unique as individuals (Fleming) “where people can come together to discuss and negotiate their difference, where their freedom and equality can be enacted without either alienation and amalgamation.”
Do these places really exist? Besides in a classroom?
“Public” Coming together of persons (Fleming)
That’s it? So, the internet is public? I wish some people on facebook would realize that
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)