An architectural design for a prison, know as the Panopticon, is made up of circular cells with a tower in the middle. A guard placed at the top of the tower can see into every cell in order to keep an eye on the prisoners. The windows in the tower are tinted, so no one can see the guards. This notion was introduced by English Philosopher Jeremy Bentham in 1791.
In 1979, Michel Foucault wrote a book, Discipline and Punish, in which he discusses this type of architecture and how it has become a cultural norm for us today. He claims that “physical intimidation is hardly even relevant in an information society where people need to regulate their own behavior to escape the constant threat of detection”
(http://besser.tsoa.nyu.edu/impact/f96/projects/dengberg/ ). Anywhere we go today, we are being watched by cameras which ensure that people will regulate their behavior because they think they are being watched. One good example is stealing form a store: a person will not be tempted to shoplift if they see a camera that they believe is watching them, for fear of facing the consequences.
But are we really being watched? Just as the guards had tinted windows in their tower so that no one could tell if they were really being watched or not, many cameras that we think are watching us today are actually fake. There doesn’t need to be anyone watching over us; as long as we think we are being watched we will resist behaving in immoral or illegal ways.
Tuesday, May 5, 2009
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
Fourth World
The term “fourth world” was used to define people, generally in third world countries, who have absolutely no ties to any kind of outside world. Commonly slave laborers and slum dwellers, these fourth world inhabitants have no access to the vast amount of information that we luckily do. An example of this can be found in Lagos; although Nigeria is a third world country, the outskirts of Lagos would be considered fourth world because of the condition of the people living there. This is ironic because inner Lagos may be considered a semi-periphery country…very confusing.
Today I stumbled upon the term “fourth world” as used to define countries that have no voice, and are rendered invisible. The article “Fourth World: Invisible Countries” by John Moynihan ( http://www.tiraspoltimes.com/node/826 ) discusses how there are many countries in the world that are not recognized; they have no representative at the United Nations and a desire to become a free state.
These countries are similar in that “they all have in common is a burning desire for independence. They are peoples with common cultures, or histories, or languages, who seek to rule themselves entirely, to govern and legislate and tax and trade independently, to define their own borders and exercise power over who may cross those lines. This is the Fourth World: the stateless and the unrecognized.”
These fourth world countries have a lot in common with fourth world people it seems…
Today I stumbled upon the term “fourth world” as used to define countries that have no voice, and are rendered invisible. The article “Fourth World: Invisible Countries” by John Moynihan ( http://www.tiraspoltimes.com/node/826 ) discusses how there are many countries in the world that are not recognized; they have no representative at the United Nations and a desire to become a free state.
These countries are similar in that “they all have in common is a burning desire for independence. They are peoples with common cultures, or histories, or languages, who seek to rule themselves entirely, to govern and legislate and tax and trade independently, to define their own borders and exercise power over who may cross those lines. This is the Fourth World: the stateless and the unrecognized.”
These fourth world countries have a lot in common with fourth world people it seems…
Wednesday, April 15, 2009
Globalization
What kind of impact will globalization have on America? Negative aspects include:
-- Millions of Americans have lost jobs due to imports or production shifts abroad. Most find new jobs--that pay less.
-- Millions of others fear losing their jobs, especially at those companies operating under competitive pressure.
-- Workers face pay-cut demands from employers, which often threaten to export jobs.
-- Service and white-collar jobs are increasingly vulnerable to operations moving offshore.
-- U.S. employees can lose their comparative advantage when companies build advanced factories in low-wage countries, making them as productive as those at home.
(For more, check out “The Pros and Cons of Globalization” http://www.businessweek.com/2000/00_17/b3678003.htm)
So, it is understandable that it is cheaper to build a factory in China, for example, and have Chinese workers make a product (such as sneakers). It would cost more than it is worth to run an American factory with American factory workers making such menial products. This is an older example of the types of jobs that have been exported; however, this is a growing phenomenon due to the low cost of labor in other countries.
This raises an issue in America; it assumes that most people will become educated and enter into specialized careers. We will become doctors, lawyers, CEOs, etc. etc. What about the people who cannot afford the education necessary to attain these positions? What about the people who do not have the intellectual capabilities? Normally, these people would probably become service workers, but if these jobs are soon going to be outsourced this lower/middle class group will become the poor/lower class. And those who have the drive, the money, and the time will succeed. America will become a nation without a middle class.
-- Millions of Americans have lost jobs due to imports or production shifts abroad. Most find new jobs--that pay less.
-- Millions of others fear losing their jobs, especially at those companies operating under competitive pressure.
-- Workers face pay-cut demands from employers, which often threaten to export jobs.
-- Service and white-collar jobs are increasingly vulnerable to operations moving offshore.
-- U.S. employees can lose their comparative advantage when companies build advanced factories in low-wage countries, making them as productive as those at home.
(For more, check out “The Pros and Cons of Globalization” http://www.businessweek.com/2000/00_17/b3678003.htm)
So, it is understandable that it is cheaper to build a factory in China, for example, and have Chinese workers make a product (such as sneakers). It would cost more than it is worth to run an American factory with American factory workers making such menial products. This is an older example of the types of jobs that have been exported; however, this is a growing phenomenon due to the low cost of labor in other countries.
This raises an issue in America; it assumes that most people will become educated and enter into specialized careers. We will become doctors, lawyers, CEOs, etc. etc. What about the people who cannot afford the education necessary to attain these positions? What about the people who do not have the intellectual capabilities? Normally, these people would probably become service workers, but if these jobs are soon going to be outsourced this lower/middle class group will become the poor/lower class. And those who have the drive, the money, and the time will succeed. America will become a nation without a middle class.
Tuesday, April 7, 2009
Slums?
What is a slum exactly? After hearing in class that we do in fact have slums in the United States, I started wondering where they were, or what they were like. I know they existed in the past, but I kept thinking we were too rich of a country today to have slums, at least not like the slums that exist in some developing countries. When I started a Google search on slums, the term “slums of shaolin” automatically popped up. Knowing that this was a reference to Staten Island, I checked it out. Granted, this was a term made popular by rap group the Wu-Tang Clan, yet I was very surprised to find out that they (and many others) consider the North Shore of Staten Island to be “rough and tumble.” Port Richmond, West Brighton, Park Hill, Mariners Harbor…considered slums? I live there! I’ve grown up in these places and I’ve never in my life considered them to be slums; some are worse off than others as far as being low income/high crime areas, yet they would probably be paradise to people coming from slums in places like Lagos, or Mumbai.
In an article from the Boston Globe titled “Learning from Slums” (http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2009/03/01/learning_from_slums/?page=2) states that the term “slum” itself can take on different meaning depending upon the country it is in. I found out that, “In the United States, it is often used to refer simply to marginalized neighborhoods, but in developing countries, it usually means a settlement built in or near a city by the residents themselves, without official authorization or regulation. Housing is typically substandard, and the infrastructure and services range from nonexistent to improvised.” So, this made me feel a bit better, and a little less like a slum-dweller…at least the North Shore of Staten Island has clean drinking water, the ability to effectively get rid of waste, and a somewhat stable infrastructure.
“Learning from Slums” was a really good article actually, for anyone with any interest in the topic, check it out.
In an article from the Boston Globe titled “Learning from Slums” (http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2009/03/01/learning_from_slums/?page=2) states that the term “slum” itself can take on different meaning depending upon the country it is in. I found out that, “In the United States, it is often used to refer simply to marginalized neighborhoods, but in developing countries, it usually means a settlement built in or near a city by the residents themselves, without official authorization or regulation. Housing is typically substandard, and the infrastructure and services range from nonexistent to improvised.” So, this made me feel a bit better, and a little less like a slum-dweller…at least the North Shore of Staten Island has clean drinking water, the ability to effectively get rid of waste, and a somewhat stable infrastructure.
“Learning from Slums” was a really good article actually, for anyone with any interest in the topic, check it out.
Friday, April 3, 2009
It is presumed that ghettos emerged in Venice, Italy in the early 1500’s in order to separate the Jewish community from everyone else. They then spread to Poland and Germany and were particularly prevalent during World War II, when the Jewish community was forced into ghettos. Today, we still have ghettos in the U.S., yet those inhabiting them are probably forced to live there in a different way. They have no money, little chance of finding a job where they will make money, thus they cannot afford to live anywhere else.
If you want to get an idea of what ghettos in America look like, check out this blog (http://ghettoamerica.blogspot.com/) It contain numerous pictures ,some from as early as the 1980’s and many more recent. There are pictures from ghettos all over the country, and it can be rather devastating to see the conditions that many of these people have to live in. I would recommend checking out this blog if you are interested in seeing what some of these places look like, there are also a few blurbs that might make you think about what life in the ghetto could be like.
Friday, March 27, 2009
Necessity of the Rich
“Don’t Hate Them Because They’re Rich” is New York Magazine article title by Daniel Gross pleading that the non-rich see the importance of the super wealthy in our lives. (
http://nymag.com/nymetro/news/culture/features/11721/) Written in 2005, the article applies more aptly today than ever.
Gross points out how greatly the population of the wealthy has greatly increased in New York; there are no longer only recognizable wealthy names like Rockefeller because it appears than nearly everyone living in Manhattan these days has attained a similar amount of wealth. It had become nearly absurd for anyone of middle class to live in the city, with apartment prices soaring, as well as the daily cost of living.
Gross does not want us to blame the rich; he wants us instead to be grateful for their help in sustaining the economy. Without them, there would be no need for service jobs which employ so many people. Without the rich, there would be no need for chauffeurs, nannies, dry cleaners, restaurant workers and the like. Some of the people who hold these jobs in New York City are making six-figures a year, simply because of status of those they work for.
All of this money then goes back into the economy, and sustains it. Today, with the millionaires on Wall Street losing their jobs, service workers are being laid and no one is spending as much money as they had been. Thus, the economy is struggling and “regular” people cannot find jobs. So, I guess we need the rich afterall…?
http://nymag.com/nymetro/news/culture/features/11721/) Written in 2005, the article applies more aptly today than ever.
Gross points out how greatly the population of the wealthy has greatly increased in New York; there are no longer only recognizable wealthy names like Rockefeller because it appears than nearly everyone living in Manhattan these days has attained a similar amount of wealth. It had become nearly absurd for anyone of middle class to live in the city, with apartment prices soaring, as well as the daily cost of living.
Gross does not want us to blame the rich; he wants us instead to be grateful for their help in sustaining the economy. Without them, there would be no need for service jobs which employ so many people. Without the rich, there would be no need for chauffeurs, nannies, dry cleaners, restaurant workers and the like. Some of the people who hold these jobs in New York City are making six-figures a year, simply because of status of those they work for.
All of this money then goes back into the economy, and sustains it. Today, with the millionaires on Wall Street losing their jobs, service workers are being laid and no one is spending as much money as they had been. Thus, the economy is struggling and “regular” people cannot find jobs. So, I guess we need the rich afterall…?
Wednesday, March 11, 2009
Skid Row
Skid Rows are a natural element of a city. They are generally places for lower class, transient single men, possibly disenfranchised. The areas generally were not as strongly policed. This definition of a skid row makes it appear as if it is entirely harmless, which in many cities may be the case. It also appears to be a place where people live possibly when they are first starting out, beginning new jobs, and it is temporary because they plan on settling down in the near future, in a nicer community. All of this could very well be true in many places.
On Los Angeles’s San Julian Street, this is anything but the case. An article by Steve Lopez for an October 2005 issue of the LA Times chronicles the homeless of LA’s skid row (http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-lopez16oct16,1,2845629.column?page=1). The people he writes of are far worse off than “disenfranchised.” They are heroin addicts, crack heads, and prostitutes. The area may not be strongly policed, but paramedics are constantly there, rushing these homeless to the hospital.
I suggest reading this article for a view on how some homeless people are living. Hopefully things have gotten better since 2005, yet it is likely that the plight of the homeless has not improved in any city, just effectively hidden from view of the masses.
On Los Angeles’s San Julian Street, this is anything but the case. An article by Steve Lopez for an October 2005 issue of the LA Times chronicles the homeless of LA’s skid row (http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-lopez16oct16,1,2845629.column?page=1). The people he writes of are far worse off than “disenfranchised.” They are heroin addicts, crack heads, and prostitutes. The area may not be strongly policed, but paramedics are constantly there, rushing these homeless to the hospital.
I suggest reading this article for a view on how some homeless people are living. Hopefully things have gotten better since 2005, yet it is likely that the plight of the homeless has not improved in any city, just effectively hidden from view of the masses.
Friday, March 6, 2009
A Good Job?
After reading and researching the many different theories behind urban planning, I decided that Jane Jacobs’ theory of cities developing on their own for the good of the people is the most sensible and rational plan. Throughout my studies of urban sociology it seems that every time someone tries to improve upon a city by developing it, the outcome is always less beneficial to the people inhabiting the cities than it was meant to be. Haven’t people gotten the point yet? Let the cities be.
I was very surprised to find out that according to US News & World Report, “Urban Regional Planner” was voted one of the best jobs of 2009 ( http://www.usnews.com/articles/business/best-careers/2008/12/11/best-careers-2009-urban-regional-planner.html ). In an article by Marty Nemko from December of 2008, the career is highly praised and made to sound much more important than I believe it to be. It goes through “A Day in the Life of a Planner” plus a few different types of planners and their average salary range. People also made comments praising the career choice, or wishing they had opted for this career. I still wonder if it is at all necessary.
I was very surprised to find out that according to US News & World Report, “Urban Regional Planner” was voted one of the best jobs of 2009 ( http://www.usnews.com/articles/business/best-careers/2008/12/11/best-careers-2009-urban-regional-planner.html ). In an article by Marty Nemko from December of 2008, the career is highly praised and made to sound much more important than I believe it to be. It goes through “A Day in the Life of a Planner” plus a few different types of planners and their average salary range. People also made comments praising the career choice, or wishing they had opted for this career. I still wonder if it is at all necessary.
Friday, February 27, 2009
Safety in Numbers
The New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/25/books/25cnd-jacobs.html) article reporting the death of Jane Jacobs had this to say about her West Village neighborhood and lifestyle there:
“She puts out her garbage, children go to school, the drycleaner and barber open their shops, housewives come out to chat, longshoremen visit the local bar, teenagers return from school and change to go out on dates, and another day is played out. Sometimes odd things happen: a bagpiper shows up on a February night, and delighted listeners gather around. Whether neighbors or strangers, people are safer because they are almost never alone.”
How could someone imagine of bulldozing a neighborhood such as this? City planners often see unpleasant or older looking building and believe that they can improve upon it. That never seems to work; as Jacobs has tried to convey, people are what make the city, not the buildings or landscape. These people living their everyday lives and interacting with one another are what makes the city, New York in this case, what it is.
This neighborhood is diverse-there are people of all different professions, age groups, and probably ethnicities, that allow this neighborhood to function in this manner. The housing projects that Jacobs speaks out against are the downfall of our cities, and the origin of crime. There is no diversity, the people there are contained, and they are supplied with areas, such as parks, where there is no watching eye, no pedestrians to potentially stop them from committing crime.
So, maybe cities are something that should develop naturally. For hundreds of years they formed on their own, near resources, businesses and other people. Why do we now need to plan out how they will be set up when they have come about naturally for all this time?
“She puts out her garbage, children go to school, the drycleaner and barber open their shops, housewives come out to chat, longshoremen visit the local bar, teenagers return from school and change to go out on dates, and another day is played out. Sometimes odd things happen: a bagpiper shows up on a February night, and delighted listeners gather around. Whether neighbors or strangers, people are safer because they are almost never alone.”
How could someone imagine of bulldozing a neighborhood such as this? City planners often see unpleasant or older looking building and believe that they can improve upon it. That never seems to work; as Jacobs has tried to convey, people are what make the city, not the buildings or landscape. These people living their everyday lives and interacting with one another are what makes the city, New York in this case, what it is.
This neighborhood is diverse-there are people of all different professions, age groups, and probably ethnicities, that allow this neighborhood to function in this manner. The housing projects that Jacobs speaks out against are the downfall of our cities, and the origin of crime. There is no diversity, the people there are contained, and they are supplied with areas, such as parks, where there is no watching eye, no pedestrians to potentially stop them from committing crime.
So, maybe cities are something that should develop naturally. For hundreds of years they formed on their own, near resources, businesses and other people. Why do we now need to plan out how they will be set up when they have come about naturally for all this time?
Friday, February 20, 2009
No More Poverty
This photograph, titled “A Bandit’s Roost,” by Jacob Riis is part of a vast collection of his photos documenting the lives of the impoverished in New York City in the late 19th century. Riis’s work as a police reporter, and later social reformer, helped to draw the right attention to these travesties, and change was quickly drawn about. There is no longer poverty of this nature, or at least not as widespread, in New York City today.
Many people however, still view cities as places of immense poverty and rampant crime. Many imagine a sight very similar to the photograph when they think of a city; a dark alleyway, sunlight blocked by renters’ laundry, filled with gangsters waiting to mug the next intruder. It is frustrating that so many people fear a sight like this when they enter a city, clutching their purses. That is a completely inaccurate perception of cities, and people need to start realizing that and recognize that the suburbs aren’t exactly crime free.
Friday, February 13, 2009
City of Sentiment
Sociologist Robert E. Park wrote of cities “The city is a state of mind, a body of customs and traditions, and of organized attitudes and sentiments that inhere in this tradition. The city is not, in other words, merely a physical mechanism and an artificial construction. It is involved in the vital processes of the people who compose it, it is a product of nature and particularly of human nature.” (http://www.lib.uchicago.edu/projects/centcat/centcats/fac/facch17_01.html)
Cities happen. Hundreds of years ago no one had planned that Manhattan Island would be one of the greater, richer, more important cities of the world. Hundreds of years ago no one planned out numerous skyscrapers for this particularly small plot of land. Cities evolve. A few businesses started on this island, probably because it was near water, so people came. The people then started new businesses. All these businesses brought wealth. The wealth attracted other people, even some immigrants. And then, a lot of immigrants. In the mean time, more buildings were constructed to support the businesses as well as the swelling population. A city is the ultimate product of human nature; it was created to meet human needs to make money and socialize. The city was, and still is, where everything happens. That’s why people flock to them.
Park is urging his readers to look at the sentimental value cities hold. He is saying that cities were not artificial constructions because they were developed out of human needs, both basic needs and those triggered by emotions. People originally flocked to the cities out of a strong desire to make money. The same can be said today, only now there are many people who are in cities who stay because of sentimental value, or simply because it meets their natural human instinct to be where everything is happening.
Cities happen. Hundreds of years ago no one had planned that Manhattan Island would be one of the greater, richer, more important cities of the world. Hundreds of years ago no one planned out numerous skyscrapers for this particularly small plot of land. Cities evolve. A few businesses started on this island, probably because it was near water, so people came. The people then started new businesses. All these businesses brought wealth. The wealth attracted other people, even some immigrants. And then, a lot of immigrants. In the mean time, more buildings were constructed to support the businesses as well as the swelling population. A city is the ultimate product of human nature; it was created to meet human needs to make money and socialize. The city was, and still is, where everything happens. That’s why people flock to them.
Park is urging his readers to look at the sentimental value cities hold. He is saying that cities were not artificial constructions because they were developed out of human needs, both basic needs and those triggered by emotions. People originally flocked to the cities out of a strong desire to make money. The same can be said today, only now there are many people who are in cities who stay because of sentimental value, or simply because it meets their natural human instinct to be where everything is happening.
Sunday, February 8, 2009
The term “cottage industry” is defined as “An industry where the creation of products and services is home-based, rather than factory-based” (http://www.investorwords.com/1163/cottage_industry.html). Cottage industries surprisingly still exist today, although our country seems to be made up of one giant corporation after another. If you Google the term, many links will turn up for actual cottage industries, which provide creative ideas for homemakers and handicrafts.
This small scale, local production has stiff competition today from corporations, however; in the past these cottage industries were merely bought up, relocated in cities, and eventually turned into the corporations. Well, first they became factories, or what sounds a lot like sweatshops of today. These factories provided the setting for Mumford’s “The Beginnings of Coketown.” They turned already industrial towns into “dark hives, busily puffing, clanking, screeching, smoking for twelve and fourteen hours a day, sometimes going around the clock.”
According to the article “In defense of the suburbs” by Leo Boland, (http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2004/oct/06/urbandesign.politics) this type of city no longer exists where it had originated. The former “Coketown” is now a center of finance education and culture. Boland also points out however that Mumford stated that a suburb was not and could not become a city. What happened in that age of cottage industries then? When their production and labor was bought up, relocated, and formed the first cities, it seems to prove that a suburb (or something of that nature) can in fact become a city.
This small scale, local production has stiff competition today from corporations, however; in the past these cottage industries were merely bought up, relocated in cities, and eventually turned into the corporations. Well, first they became factories, or what sounds a lot like sweatshops of today. These factories provided the setting for Mumford’s “The Beginnings of Coketown.” They turned already industrial towns into “dark hives, busily puffing, clanking, screeching, smoking for twelve and fourteen hours a day, sometimes going around the clock.”
According to the article “In defense of the suburbs” by Leo Boland, (http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2004/oct/06/urbandesign.politics) this type of city no longer exists where it had originated. The former “Coketown” is now a center of finance education and culture. Boland also points out however that Mumford stated that a suburb was not and could not become a city. What happened in that age of cottage industries then? When their production and labor was bought up, relocated, and formed the first cities, it seems to prove that a suburb (or something of that nature) can in fact become a city.
Tuesday, February 3, 2009
"Blase Attitude"
What is a city symbolic of? Intellect? Power? Crime, poverty...money? A city can be symbolic of all these aspects, and each of these aspects has an affect on its inhabitants. Cities are widely known as centers of civilization; ironically they have only been around for the last 7,000 years of humanity's existence. Since cities are so recent to human development, why do those who live there appear much more civilized than most? And why do more and more people flock to cities?
In his essay, "The Metropolis and Mental Life," Georg Simmel takes a look at how all the aforementioned factors of city life affect the individual, and how they cope with it. The "blasé attitude" employed by most city dwellers is possibly what makes them seem more intellectual, more civilized than most. It is this coping mechanism that Simmel states helps them deal with "rapidly changing and closely compressed contrasting stimulations of the nerves." In other words, there is so much going on in a city at one time, that people eventually shut down and begin to ignore everything that is happening around them in order to stay sane in their environment.
So, what attracts people to this environment in the first place? It is where EVERYTHING is happening, all the time. People are drawn by the stimuli, the busy lifestyle, the nightlife, the culture and the diversity that can only be found in the city. Check out this piece by Kieran Healy http://crookedtimber.org/2009/01/11/the-metropolis-and-mental-life/ on the psychology of city life. Healy basically agrees with what Simmel says, but goes one step further in trying to prove that a prolonged exposure to an urban environment can impairs a person's basic mental processes. So are the stimuli that attract people actually dangerous? Or is the mechanism people use to cope with the stimuli dangerous? Quite possibly none of it is damaging, it is just a way of life so unique that many still find it hard to understand completely.
In his essay, "The Metropolis and Mental Life," Georg Simmel takes a look at how all the aforementioned factors of city life affect the individual, and how they cope with it. The "blasé attitude" employed by most city dwellers is possibly what makes them seem more intellectual, more civilized than most. It is this coping mechanism that Simmel states helps them deal with "rapidly changing and closely compressed contrasting stimulations of the nerves." In other words, there is so much going on in a city at one time, that people eventually shut down and begin to ignore everything that is happening around them in order to stay sane in their environment.
So, what attracts people to this environment in the first place? It is where EVERYTHING is happening, all the time. People are drawn by the stimuli, the busy lifestyle, the nightlife, the culture and the diversity that can only be found in the city. Check out this piece by Kieran Healy http://crookedtimber.org/2009/01/11/the-metropolis-and-mental-life/ on the psychology of city life. Healy basically agrees with what Simmel says, but goes one step further in trying to prove that a prolonged exposure to an urban environment can impairs a person's basic mental processes. So are the stimuli that attract people actually dangerous? Or is the mechanism people use to cope with the stimuli dangerous? Quite possibly none of it is damaging, it is just a way of life so unique that many still find it hard to understand completely.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)