There Goes the Neighborhood: Racial, Ethnic, and Class Tensions in Four Chicago Neighborhoods and Their Meaning for America
There Goes the Neighborhood: Racial, Ethnic, and Class Tensions in Four Chicago Neighborhoods and Their Meaning for America (ISBN: 9780679724186) was written by William Julius Wilson and Richard P. Taub in 2007.
They explore four specific neighborhoods of Chicago with a racial lens. A team of researchers embedded themselves in these neighborhoods for three years to conduct fieldwork by interviewing residents and business owners, and attend meetings of civic organizations.
The authors take efforts to anonymize the neighborhoods to shield their subjects from attention. All names here-in are false.
The authors repeatedly interrogate the role of institutions. A recurring theme is that whites feel a decline in civic culture as latinos and blacks move in. Some cite language barriers, others are upfront with their racism. Often it is school-oriented organizations that are the most stable and effective.
Authors contrast the experiences of Dover and Archer Park with regard to desegregation busing. The former saw a coalition emerge between whites and latinos, to the effect of campaigning against busing blacks in. The latter saw effectively no opposition to busing in large park because the schools were already overcrowded; blacks rather had to enroll in external schools.
Furthermore, there is a general lack of institutions in Archer Park, whereas they are central to Beltway and Dover. An interesting example is the local school council at the Garland School in Beltway. This organization was effectively run by "two families and their close friends" (p29). After years of dominance, the Garland Parents Alliance was established to counter the council's influence. They worked with the Chicago Board of Education and approached parents of students being bussed into the school. While largely being a white organization, there was noted diversity.
A recurring theme is generational differences. The first three neighborhoods explored by the authors were selected for how their white population has declined substantially (although Archer Park saw that decline many decades prior, whereas Beltway and Dover were actively experiencing it).
In these contexts, the older generations invoked fear as a motivator for opposing latinos and/or blacks moving in. They pointed to sensational stories about gang violence, but more generally to petty issues like graffiti, litter, and cars parked illegally. They expressed interest in authoritarian solutions; corporal punishment (in schools as well as neighbors intervening in other family's parenting), police presence; violence as 'self-defense'; and so on. They also invoked morality (i.e., barely concealed racism), fairness (e.g., the belief that whites pay taxes that support services like policing that prioritize non-white neighborhoods), and loneliness (as in, all their neighbors have moved away, neighborhoods are turning over from homeowners to renters, etc.).
Younger generations, by comparison, were mobile themselves and saw the problems as being about class rather than race.
Another recurring theme is fiscal incentives. Several people explained patterns of behavior as being about housing affordability (i.e., buying a 'starter home' in a cheaper neighborhood with every intention to move out after saving up enough money) or property values (i.e., the implicit belief that latinos and/or blacks moving in will depreciate property values). But most people did not volunteer this explanation for themselves.
Groveland is used as a counterexample. It had been completely transformed from a white neighborhood to a black neighborhood in the 1960s, and without any significant tensions. This is attributed to the relative wealth and education of the early black residents. Furthermore, there is ample evidence that the residents are aware of race in their neighborhood and between neighborhoods, but there is no activated racial politics. There is however concern about class, as the neighborhood is surrounded by ghettos.
The larger thesis of the book is to apply Hirschman's framework to these neighborhoods, see if they explain racial politics seen within.
The authors argue that Beltway featured strong loyalty, so opted for voice over exit. One structural reason is the fact that city employees must reside within city limits, and Beltway housed a large portion of city employees. More generally though, there was a culture of people having been 'forced' to exit before, and Beltway was the 'last stand'.
Dover and Archer Park do not feature much loyalty. This opened Dover up to latinos moving in, and only once blacks began to move in did any institutions mobilize. Archer Park meanwhile is not threatened by blacks moving in.
Groveland did feature significant loyalty, but not in a racial dimension; rather class preoccupied the minds of residents.
Authors argue that a broad coalition could be assembled to advocate for federal funding of city services, alleviating the competitions over scarse resources that fuel some of the racial tensions noted.
The authors also argue that the poor black ghettos pose such a severe problem that only federal monies could solve it.
Reading Notes
Institutions are a key factor in studying city politics. Institutions have inertia; once started they carry significant influence, but they are very difficult to start up. There has been greater success in establishing and maintaining school-oriented organizations, potentially because it is a salient issue space.
- Beltway is Clearing
- Dover is Brighton Park
- Archer Park is South Lawndale, specifically Little Village
- Groveland is Avalon Park