CRM2310 Midterm Essay

pdf

School

University of Ottawa *

*We aren’t endorsed by this school

Course

2310

Subject

Sociology

Date

Jan 9, 2024

Type

pdf

Pages

6

Uploaded by DeanBison1170

Report
1 The Economic Prowess of Community Department of Criminology, University of Ottawa CRM2310: Community Action & Intervention in Criminology Dr. Kate Fletcher February 9th, 2023 An ideal community is a space with strong social ties and connections among a group of people. These ideal communities provide social networks that build an individual's sense of self,
2 trust, and support between the group, collective efficacy when dealing with problems, and a strong web of informal social control (Sampson, 2012). Through the formal and informal social control of “uncomfortable” or deviant behaviors, stigmatized communities become commodified into ideal neighborhoods through a process of gentrification. How spaces are used is changed directly to discriminate against minorities and struggling communities by pushing them out. Control within a community is done in two ways; formally and informally. Both forms of social control are necessary for a successful, cooperative community. Informal social control exists when the community has certain values in common which allow them to want to uphold those values within the group by attempting to minimize and restrain behaviors that go against the shared values. A lack of informal control can allow for crime and unwanted behaviors in the community. This shows a lack of social ties and cooperation in the community (Sampson, 2012). Informal social control assists government organizations (i.e. police) in executing a more formal type of control. The citizen views disorderly behavior and reports their concerns to the police, it is then the police's job to eradicate it from the area in order to make citizens feel safe and deter more crime from the area (Schnieder, 2000). Whilst these forms of control being seen used successfully in a community is a sign of fortitude and solidarity, they can be ‘misused’ and end up being harmful to others. It can lead to the discrimination and displacement of certain groups of people, either directly or indirectly. Discrimination caused by formal and informal control can be exemplified through the treatment of homeless people and the minority groups in Brooklyn who were pushed out of their communities in the early 2000s. Homelessness in commodified spaces is highly stigmatized. Whether they became homeless through uncontrollable forces or through their own life choice seems to be the only thing indiscriminatory about their situation; they are both viewed as a
3 problem to the space (Borchard, 2010). In commodified spaces, where the whole image is to sell leisure activities like casinos and bars, homeless people get sucked into things they should not be able to afford or spend their money on. But this is how they choose to spend their free time which leads to judgment and hate from the community. The homeless are often deemed an unruly and uncomfortable addition to an area, those who can actively participate in the commodified space do not want to witness the antisocial behaviors and perceive them as threats to their safety (Wasserman & Clair, 2010). The homeless become criminalized in high-traffic areas through laws that are meant to look neutral but directly target individuals (Ruddick, 2002). Brooklyn, in the early 2000s, was a lively community made up mainly of marginalized groups. There were strong social connections among residents, with plenty of small businesses and stores that were enjoyed by those who lived in the area. However, when outside visitors were asked their opinion on the popular places in the area, like the Fulton Mall, they had the opposite feelings. They stated not feeling enthralled by the options, and thoughts on the area being unsafe at night, some stated outwardly that they believe that the difference in opinion was due to race. Those individuals were not the only ones holding that sentiment, and soon Brooklyn had a re-branding. Within a few years, the original residents were priced out of their homes and business fronts for more desirable renovations (Dean & Anderson, 2012). What happens to the people who can not leave after being priced out? They are those who are going to be ‘unhoused’. Yet, they were there before the neighborhood was oriented towards commodification. Space is fundamental to any exercise of power (Foucault, 1993, as cited by, Fletcher, 2023). More specifically what is placed in the spaces in which community lies. That is why the geographic locations of neighborhoods are pertinent to how an individual will live their life. There is a show of race and economic inequality by neighborhood and an increase in poverty and
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
4 social dislocation as a result of political decisions. The local services in the area directly affect the well-being of the neighborhood (Gotham & Brumley, 2002). For example, grocery stores, health services, public transport, daycares, and banks. Oftentimes, in low-income neighborhoods, these services are not readily accessible financially or physically. This creates a cycle of poverty that is difficult to break and often paints the image that the community is unsafe and crime-riddled. Difficult living situations such as those can create isolated and contested spaces. In the pseudo-community Clara Court that is exactly the case. Gotham and Brumley, those who researched Clara Court, noticed that residents created an ‘us vs. them’ mentality by labeling different spaces as “safe” or “hot”. These safe spaces were described as, “providing a measure of security and protection against the risks of living in public housing” (Gotham & Brumley, p.274, 2002). Whereas the hot spaces were where the crime and deviant behaviors took place. People within the community wanted to disassociate themselves from the “hot spaces” and, as one would expect, did want those spaces gone. Those wants were heard and soon city planners began a revitalization process on Clara Court that created tensions between planners, and tenants as all of them fought to keep power over the area. Tenants are told they will only be relocated for a short time while the process happens and then they can return to their neighborhood (Gotham & Brumley, 2002). Oftentimes, there is a sense that when you are told that your neighborhood is going to be revitalized that it is inevitably a good thing, but people that live there will have conflicted feelings. The gentrification that happens ends up pushing out the very people that live in those neighborhoods so that more wealthy people can move in and create the image that they want. This process of gentrification is when areas of a city where property values are lower and infrastructure is poorer catch the eyes of wealthier people who have realized that they can go in
5 and make a profit. They recognize that if a new group moves in with more money then they too will be able to capitalize. In return, the existing community gets pushed out. The ability to commodify a community is what defines it as ‘good’ and holds power over its progress. In these commodified spaces feelings are turned into things that can be sold, and individuals want to be attached to what they purchase. Community is no longer about social value but economic value. If people are suspect in their ability to consume or ability to participate in the consumption activities then they will be formally excluded by pricing them out (Borchard, 2010). In conclusion, community actively excludes low-income groups, purposely allowing them to struggle for their own lucrative gains. Communities on a basis of social ties and empathy have the opportunity to help those in need, but instead, view those groups as challenges that need to be overcome. The control of deviant behaviors within spaces works directly to commodify a space and against struggling groups in order to create a community based, not just on social ties but economic possibilities. What becomes the foundation of a strong community is the economic prowess that those with power possess. Works Cited Borchard, K. (2010). Between Poverty and a Lifestyle: The Leisure Activities of Homeless
6 People in Las Vegas. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography , 39 (4), 441-466. Anderson, K., & Dean, A. L. (2015). My Brooklyn. Kanopy Streaming. Fletcher, K. (2023, January 18). Cultivating “Community” in Urban Spaces. Gotham, K. F., & Brumley, K. (2002). Using Space: Agency and Identity in a Public-Housing Development. City & Community , 1(3), 267-289. Sampson, R. J. (2012). What Community Supplies. In J. DeFilippis & S. Saegert (Eds.), The Community Development Reader (pp. 308-318). New York: Routledge. Ruddick, S. (2002). Metamorphosis Revisited: Restricting Discourses of Citizenship. In J. Hermer & J. Mosher (Eds.), Disorderly People: Law and the Politics of Exclusion in Ontario (pp. 55-64). Halifax: Fernwood Publishing. Wasserman, J. A. & Clair, J. M. (2011). Housing Patterns of Homeless People: The Ecology of the Street in the Era of Urban Renewal. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 40 (1), 71-101.
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