Examining Community Commodification and Social Inequality

docx

School

University of Ottawa *

*We aren’t endorsed by this school

Course

2310

Subject

Sociology

Date

Feb 20, 2024

Type

docx

Pages

Uploaded by MegaLemurMaster701

University of Ottawa Looking Beyond Borders Exploring the Commodification of Community and its Impact on Social Inequality In modern society, the idea of community is somewhat varied, it’s a concept that extends beyond just what we know of geographical boundaries to encompass webs of social ties and belonging. And while communities are seen as spaces of inclusivity and well-being, the truth mostly reflects a different portrait. As Sampson (2012) advances, the quality of life for individuals is undeniably influenced by the neighbourhoods they inhabit, shaping their access to

essential services, amenities, and infrastructure. Though, the commodification of community, as highlighted by Anderson and Dean (2012), shows certain communities are turned into areas of luxury consumption, deep societal divisions as well as excluding marginalized populations. This individuality doesn’t only marginalize certain groups but also can create a reinforcement of inequality within a neoliberal, consumer-oriented framework. Moreover, as Burchard (2010) and Little (2002) debate, these exclusionary ways are further mixed by the forced actions of authorities, hindering the ability of marginalized citizens to access or utilize these spaces without facing intervention which can be seen as unjust in many cases. Many of these disparities and inclusion reflect more macrostructural wrongdoing from the state, highlighting the challenges of getting through a society where feelings of belonging and a sense of security are determined by social status and economic power. As such, when crime increases, the main conversation often shows the disadvantaged communities as criminals, thus fostering fear and mistrust in society. amidst the complexities of contemporary community dynamics, it becomes imperative to critically examine how formal and informal mechanisms of social control not only reflect but also exacerbate existing disparities, ultimately reinforcing the hegemony of neoliberal ideologies. When looking at the influence of geographic communities on individuals' quality of life, Sampson's (2012) draws out the impact of formation of neighborhood having access to essential resources and amenities. Neighborhoods, often regarded as the foundational units of community, serve as manifestation where social, economic, and infrastructural disparities are vividly manifested. As Sampson (2012) contends the quality of life for residents is intertwined with the neighborhood they inhabit with unevenness in access to services and amenities worsening inequalities and shaping people’s day to day experiences. That same feeling is something that we

also can see in Kelly Anderson's documentary "My Brooklyn" (2012), which loudly illustrates the transformation of once vibrant and social able communities into gentrified districts, where the flow of residents displaces long-standing residents and erodes the social fabric, the uniqueness, and vibrant livelihood of the neighborhood. This gentrification processes reshape the actual physical landscape but also complicates existing inequalities, rendering certain communities inaccessible to marginalized populations. To add, the commodification of community spaces, as depicted in Anderson's (2012) documentary, further shows some inequalities by transforming neighborhoods into these sorts of niches of luxury lifestyle and consumption, where exclusivity becomes a big characteristic. The commodification of community spaces not only reinforces socio-economic divides but also grows a culture of exclusion, wherein marginalized populations are systematically marginalized and deprived of essential resources. Anderson's (2012) Brooklyn's transformation serves as a reminder of the nature of gentrification, wherein the displacement of long-standing residents and the cultural landmarks cycles of inequality and exclusion. Similarly, Schneider's (2000) analysis highlights how organizational barriers impede marginalized communities from accessing vital resources and support systems, Borchard's (2010) examination of exclusionary dynamics of within commodified communities’ sheds light on the actions of authorities, which hinder marginalized population’s ability to access essential resources and services. Little's (2002) exploration of the intersection of race, class, and power dynamics further show how marginalized communities are systematically marginalized and disenfranchised, and therefore Keeping up cycles of inequality and exclusion. Consequently, as Schneider (2000) demonstrates, formal and informal mechanisms of social control mirror and reinforce existing disparities, perpetuating a cycle of disadvantage and exclusion within neoliberal, consumer-oriented societies.

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

When looking at the commodification of spaces used by the public, it becomes obvious that these patterns that are noticed significantly have an impact on marginalized groups' access to resources and opportunities within a given society. Gotham and Brumley's (2002) exploration of public housing developments shows the agency and identity that residents may get from the things around them. Nevertheless, these same spaces are often subject to neglect and stigmatization, contributing to the reinforcement of social inequalities. The placement of these resources in public housing communities is frequently inadequate and ends up reflecting a more macro pattern of socioeconomic disparity. Wasserman and Clair's (2011) study on the housing patterns of the homeless demonstrates the exclusionary nature of community spaces. Unfortunately, homeless populations are marginalized and pushed to the exterior views of society where they can be denied access to stable housing and even the most basic of services. Their experiences just show exactly how these formal and informal social control mechanisms create inequality by restricting marginalized groups' access to essentials. To add on, the spread of gated communities and luxury developments only intensifies the rift between the privileged and the marginalized. Anderson and Dean (2012) show the trend of community spaces becoming regions of luxury consumption, catering exclusively to prosperous residents while excluding those unable to afford entry. This in many cases is seen as strange considering that those same regions are majorly lived on by those later called marginalized groups and the wealthy are the minority in this case but are the affluent. Borchard (2010) underlines the same exclusionary nature of these communities, highlighting the challenges faced by marginalized citizens in accessing spaces without facing intervention from authorities and formal means of social control. The commodification of community spaces further reinforces inequality by prioritizing profit over social cohesion That

can be created from having more inclusive uses of the spaces. Furthermore, the framing of crime as the behaviour of threatening "others" serves to perpetuate social divisions and reinforce existing power structures. Schneider (2000) argues that while personal wealth may appear to help with safety, it is social capital and collective value that determine a community's gift to create a sense of security. However, marginalized communities are deprived and lack the resources and opportunities necessary to build social capital, continuing their vulnerability to crime and exclusion. When exploring the reinforcement of inequality through social control mechanisms, it's important to investigate the connection between formal regulations and their impact on marginalized communities. The application of policies such as the Safe Streets Act in Ontario back in 2000 is an example of the dynamic at play. This act was designed to address concerns about street safety more specifically it was meant to keep streets clear of squeegee kids and aggressive public beggars It. took a punitive formal approach towards marginalized groups, particularly those experiencing homelessness or poverty. Sue Ruddick's (2002) analysis in "Metamorphosis Revisited: Restricting Discourses of Citizenship" sheds light on how these kinds of legislation can promote inequality between social groups and classes. The Safe Streets Act purported to enhance public safety by penalizing behaviours such as panhandling and loitering, which were often associated with homelessness. Instead, rather than addressing the causes of social marginalization and looking at how to deal with it acceptably the Act criminalized individuals for merely existing in public spaces when they in fact had nowhere else to go making it almost a sort of full circle situation for many who called the streets home. This approach affected marginalized communities, adding to their vulnerability, and entrenching their exclusion from mainstream society. Ruddick highlights how such measures contribute to the

stigmatization and marginalization of already disadvantaged groups. Additionally, the enforcement of laws like this one reflects broader societal opinions toward homelessness. By criminalizing behaviours close to economic deprivation, the Safe Streets Act effectively shifted the burden of social issues onto those with the least resources or social power to bear it. Instead of addressing inequalities in access to resources and opportunities, the Act reinforced stereotypes and made punitive measures against marginalized individuals justifiable. Ruddick's analysis stresses how formal social control mechanisms can strengthen existing power structures rather than addressing it’s the root of the problem. Likewise, the enforcement of the Safe Streets Act showed the differential application of justice within society. The Safe Streets Act in Ontario highlights how formal social control mechanisms can deepen inequality within a neoliberal society. Instead of looking at the underlying problems of social marginalization these policies worsen gaps and reinforce stigma against marginalized peoples. By criminalizing poverty and homelessness, these laws help sustain existing power dynamics, further making the gap between those already on society's margins and the rest. To summarize, the exploration of community dynamics reveals a not-so-simple play between geographic communities, the commodification of spaces, and the reinforcement of inequality through social control mechanisms. The geographical location of individuals continues to impact people's access to services and infrastructure, highlighting the impact of geographic communities on the quality of life. Altogether, efforts to mandate certain favourable behaviours within communities, whether through formal rules or informal social norms, reflect existing inequalities inherent in neoliberal, consumer-oriented societies. This analysis shows the

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

necessity for a critical revaluation of societal values and priorities, emphasizing fostering inclusivity, dismantling exclusivity, as well as promoting access to resources and different opportunities for the population. Thus, it becomes evident that the current path of community dynamics necessitates a concerted effort towards fostering genuine inclusivity and collective well-being, goes above the confines of geography and socioeconomic status. References Borchard, K. (2010). Between Poverty and a Lifestyle: The Leisure Activities of Homeless People in Las Vegas. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 39(4), 441-466.

Garland, D. (2002). The culture of control: Crime and social order in contemporary society. University of Chicago Press. Gotham, K. F., & Brumley, K. (2002). Using Space: Agency and Identity in a Public-Housing Development. City & Community, 1(3), 267-289. Kelly Anderson. (2012). My Brooklyn [Film]. Brooklyn, New York. Little, N. (2012). Speaking Out: Down, Out, Crazy! In S. Hannem & C. Bruckert (Eds.), Stigma Revisited: Implications of the Mark (pp. 7-9). Ottawa: University of Ottawa Press. Ruddick, sue. (2002). 3. In Metamorphosis Revisited: Restricting Discourses of Citizenship (pp. 55–64). essay, Halifax: Fernwood Publishing. Sampson, R. J. (2012). What Community Supplies. In J. DeFilippis & S. Saegert (Eds.), The Community Development Reader (pp. 308-318). New York: Routledge. Schneider, S. (2000). vol 10 . In Organizational Obstacles to Participation in Community Crime Prevention Programs (Vol. 10, pp. 32–53). essay, College of health and human sciences .

Related Documents