Summary Three

“The Edge and the Center Gated Communities and the Discourse of Urban Fear” by Setha M. Low

“The Edge and the Center Gated Communities and the Discourse of Urban Fear” by Setha M. Low focuses on why people have moved to Gated Communities. The false security that is created while living in a Gated Community is also addressed. There is one sickening concept that sticks out in the article, the way the poor are viewed. During the time period in which the article was written the amount of Gated Communities created were growing. One of the main reasons people decided to move into these communities was simple. They feared the change in their neighborhood and the people that they had to call neighbors. The article gives insight of the feelings of people living within gated communities and the falsehood that is created while living within a gated community.

The reason for the construction of gated communities was presented in the first few pages of the article. “This is reflected in an increasing fear of crime that is unrelated to actual crime trends or locations.” [Low, 133] It seems that the quote “people fear what they do not understand” can always be deemed valid. The people of these neighborhoods just assume the worst of the immigrants that move into their neighborhood.  “When Bloomingdale’s moved out and Kmart moved in, it just brought a different group of people…. And it wasn’t the safe place that it was… I think it’s safer having a gated community…. They are not going to steal my car in the garage.” [Low, 137] Sharon felt her community was no longer safe because the poor inhabited the space she had lived for most of her life. She has a very negative view of the poor and groups them into a criminal category. “First of all, it’s a false sense of safety.” [Low, 138] No matter where a person goes, there is always a chance to be robbed. Some criminals will stop at nothing to get what they want. The security guards are people and make mistakes. They may fall asleep or fail to notice things. A person cannot run from crime because it is everywhere.

I was thoroughly disgusted with this article. The mindset of these people made me want to vomit. There is crime everywhere, there is no escaping it. Just because someone is poor doesn’t mean that they will rob you. I couldn’t help, but smile when I read that Sharon’s car was stolen. I think she deserved it for saying that her neighborhood changed just because Kmart moved in. Everyone and anyone can shop at Kmart, not only poor people. Half way through the article, I wanted to stop reading I just couldn’t believe how these people viewed the poor.

“In Motion Transportation and Knowledge in Sao Paulo” by Derek Pardue

There are many different ways to analyze social differences. One popular way an anthropologist can study this is by focusing on space. However, in the article “In Motion Transportation and Knowledge in Sao Paulo”, Derek Pardue takes a very unique approach. One wouldn’t easily assume that social status could be determined by mode of transportation. In New York many people have cars yet they take the subway to work because it is convenient.  Yet in this article modes of transportation are very important to the people that are considered lower class. Modes of transportation are helpful in determining social status.

“As one moves further and further away from the center, basic services and social status significantly diminish.” [Pardue, 161] The center of Sao Paulo is where the upper class is located. Traveling further away from the center leads you to areas were the middle class and lower class reside. “This particularly effective with working-class people, because their trajectories are often longer, more varied, and more complex than those of middle-class laborers.” [Pardue, 162] According to Pardue simply talking about a person’s commute to and from work can provide very important information. A simple conversation about transportation can inform an anthropologist of their social status. In Sao Paulo, taking the bus shows higher status than taking the train. Taking the train is deemed the lowest mode of transportation. To Robson and his family taking the bus to various functions is considered far more decent than taking the train. “I can sometimes use the height and dream about another life scenario.” [Pardue, 162] In Robson’s view, taking the bus provides him with a sense of hope for the future. Even though he’s poor, he can still take the bus, and appear higher than those who own cars. When he takes the bus he can see various neighborhoods and cars. While taking the train represents “displacement” and nothing can be seen, but dull sites.

I found this article to be very interesting because I have never took the time to think about transportation in such a way. I never really considered taking the train only for those of low class. I think of the train as being convenient and cheaper than using a car to get around. I hate using buses because they make me sick. I suffer from motion sickness in cars and buses, but it isn’t so bad when I’m taking the train. This article made me think of how extremely different perceptions of transportation are in different countries.

“The Culture of Poverty” by Oscar Lewis

What is culture according to an anthropologist? “Culture provides human beings with a design for living, with a ready-made set of solutions for human problems so that individuals don’t have to begin all over again each generation.” [Lewis, 183] What is simplistic answer for the question? “The core of culture is its positive adaptive function.” [Lewis, 183] In the article, “The Culture of Poverty” by Oscar Lewis, he informs readers of the characteristics that make up a culture of poverty. He makes it clear that there is a difference between poverty and the culture of poverty. In this article by Lewis, he focuses on the characteristics of the culture of poverty.

“The culture of poverty refers to one way of life shared by poor people in given historical and social contexts.” [Lewis, 180] This is a basic definition of the culture of poverty. Lewis explains what conditions cause the culture of poverty to flourish. He gives six examples, the first being a cash economy, wages labor, and production for product; an area with a high unemployment and underemployment for unskilled laborers; low wages; the failure to provide social, political, and economic organizations for the low-income population; the existence of bilateral kinship, and the existence of a set of values in the dominant class that expands wealth and property, the possibility of upward mobility, and explains low economic status as the result of personal inadequacy and inferiority. [Lewis, 176] The cultural of poverty can be studied in urban or rural slums.

Lewis believes that the cultural of poverty is not only a reaction, but adaptation of the poor when living in a capitalistic society. It seems that the characteristics for the culture of poverty are never ending. However, Lewis does mention why certain people that are considered poor cannot be part of the culture of poverty. “Even the simplest food-gathering and hunting tribes have a considerable amount of organizations, bands and bands of chiefs, tribal councils, and local self-government-traits which are not in the culture of poverty.” [Lewis, 180] Those deem primitive are not part of the culture of poverty even though they do not have adequate technology and natural resources. It seems that Lewis really made sure to draw that line of distinction between the poor and the poor that are considered part of the culture of poverty.

The entire article seemed so bleak. Lewis made it seem that those who are part of the culture of poverty have no chance of escaping. Rather than describing them as struggling people, he makes them seem like lifeless beings just existing. Lewis makes them seem like people who have just given up on getting out of their situation because their forefathers couldn’t escape it. Some of the things that he claims are just disturbing.

Summary Two

“Student Fieldworkers in Villager and City” by Gmelch and Gmelch

                Anthropologists must face various adversities when gathering fieldwork. No matter where they venture, adversity will exist. In the article “Student Fieldworkers in Villager and City” by Gmelch and Gmelch, the various adversities are mentioned. The article differentiates between fieldwork in the city and in a village. Fieldwork is both areas are challenging, neither can be deemed easier than the other.  The area in which fieldwork is conducted has both negative and positives, but the main similarity that exists is a student’s ability to gain knowledge from interacting with others.

                The difference between fieldwork in cities and villages is blatant. The first blaring difference is home stays. The families in Barbados were working class and freed slaves. In Tasmania the people were middle classed, living in the suburbs. The differences between the families kept piling up. In Barbados, everyone in the village knew everyone else. They shared a common history and socialized with each other through work, church, and play. The people of the village seemed warm and willing to share amongst each other. However, there were draw backs to being so close knit. “Students also discovered to their dismay that they were sometimes the object of local gossip.” [Gmlech and Gmelch, 86] Students must face the blackening of their names within the village. The reputations that they try so hard to build can be tarnished within seconds. The people of small villages are nosey and do no respect boundaries.

                The negatives of fieldwork in the city seem to outweigh the negatives in the village. In the city students rarely encounter people in which they can gather research when walking around the neighborhood. While in the village, the students are not limited because there is always someone to speak with. However, it is not impossible to gain information through scheduled interviews. “Even by the end of the semester, few students know their host family’s immediate neighbors, and many of these people were probably unaware of their presence.” [Gmlech and Gmelch, 87] The one positive that can be seen through the negative is the fact that reputations are not tarnished. Many would happily work in a city where gathering information is slightly difficult, but not unattainable so they wouldn’t have to face that type of problem. ‘Both projects were well executed and produced some interesting findings.” [Gmlech and Gmelch, 89] The advantage of working in a village does not mean that students working in a city cannot produce work that is up to par.

                I believe that no matter where someone goes there will always be difficulties. Whether it be rumors or the fact that neighbors in a city ignore you. Anthropologists must work against the odds to gain information. Cities and villages have their ups and downs, but there will always be knowledge gained from the experience.

“Urbanism As a Way of Life” by Louis Wirth

In “Urbanism As a Way of Life” by Louis Wirth, the characteristics of a city is taken into consideration. What truly defines a city? What impact does a city have on the behaviors of the people? The negativity within the article is distasteful, but some accusations cannot be argued with. As a city dweller, it opened my eyes to how extremely impersonal living in a city can be. A city is a complex place, defined by many things, and affecting those that dwell in its confines.

A city cannot be defined by one aspect such as population, density, or heterogeneity. A city can be well defined, but not perfectly defined by considering all three characteristics. The size, movement, and mixture of people are what make a city a city. In the article it is considered “arbitrary” to consider an area to be a city just because one of these elements exists. A city can be considered “a small struggling town or a thriving metropolitan center.” [Wirth, 104] Every city has a different set of characteristics that affect social life.

Wirth believes that living in a city has affected our ways of communicating with each other. He considers city dwellers to be strangers sharing the same living area. The larger the amount of people living in the area, the harder it is to create relations, in Wirth’s point of view. “The contacts of the city may indeed be fact-to-face, but they are nevertheless impersonal, superficial, transitory, and segmental.” [Wirth, 108] The people of a city just don’t interact with the people that they see on a day to day basis. The people that travel on the train with them will remain strangers. Throughout the article, Wirth puts an emphasis on how impersonal it is living in a city.

When reading this article, I couldn’t disagree with a lot of things. However, not everything about the cities affect on social life is so negative. I have made friends with many different people outside of my race. However, I do not know my neighbors personally. Sometimes I see people in my building and I have no idea who they are. The city has its negatives and positives, like everything else in life.

“In Urban Danger” by Sally Engle Merry

“In Urban Danger” by Sally Engle Merry, she addresses crimes within an urban neighborhood. In the beginning she addresses Wirth’s article and in a way proves a point mentioned within his piece. “A city is a place of strangers.” [Merry. 199] This statement is only true because people make it true. By holding preconceptions, people make an urban neighborhood as dangerous or as safe as they want it. Perception of fear has a huge impact on how a person lives their life in a high crime urban neighborhood.

In Merry’s fieldwork, she made sure to question victims and criminals. That way she’d have opinions from both points of view.  The thing that stuck out was a person’s perception of danger. Who they thought was dangerous and where they thought was dangerous. Some residents feared for their lives while others walked around without fear. The Chinese residents believed that all the blacks living in the area were criminals which are the reason they lived their lives in fear. While, the blacks were able to single out who was dangerous and who wasn’t. That is the reason they felt little fear walking around the neighborhood at night. If people weren’t strangers towards one other, they would be able to live a somewhat peaceful life. It is hard because everyone holds preconceptions and they find it difficult to look past that.

This article proved to be very helpful because it helped me pick a topic for my ethnographic project. I want to focus on a well off area with a multiracial community in which most of the inhabitants believe that they are safe. I want to find out why they believe their area is so safe and if they would venture to other neighborhoods.

Summary One

The two articles “Anthropological Fieldwork in Cities” and “Networks, Neighborhoods, and Markets” can be considered introductory articles to anthropology for people with little knowledge of the subject. The first article by Foster and Kemper gives a brief history of the way Anthropology developed within America. The second article by Bestor focused on his fieldwork in Japan. It may seem that the articles would be loosely connected, but there is one specific topic that makes them very alike. In the two articles by Foster and Kemper and Bestor, it focuses on the importance of building networks to improve fieldwork.

“Although casual encounters may offer insights into city life, researchers must work at building a network of informants.” [Foster and Kemper, 13] By forming a network and gaining trust the fountain of information available for an anthropologist will grow. For example by gaining the trust and friendship of a local official is extremely beneficial. Through this friendship an anthropologist can gain access to various records and information about the area. The local official can offer information that those of the public may not be aware of. By forming a network an anthropologist increases the chances of gathering beneficial information for his/her studies.

In the article by Bestor, he proves how beneficial creating a network is. “Gradually getting introduced to others in the neighborhood by our friends the Machida’s, by the real estate agent, and by Mr. Fukuda and his family…Acting on Tuner’s advice, I followed where networks lead me.” [Bestor, 23] By forming a friendship with the Machida’s, Bestor was able to find an apartment and form a friendship with the landlord. Because of this friendship he attended various festivals in which he formed relations with the neighborhood leaders. By forming all these relations he was accepted and able to witness the culture and everyday lives of residents first hand.

These articles will prove to be helpful when gathering information for the Ethnographic Report. It shows how useful forming relations and creating networks are. By creating these bonds an anthropologist gains access to information first hand. They are able to experience culture rather than reading about it or viewing it from afar.