In the optional reading for this week, "West Hollywood as symbol: the significance of place in the construction of a gay identity," the author, Benjamin Forest, delves into a discussion centered on the role that place has on creating a symbolic identity of the people who live there. In particular, Forest highlights the role that LGBTQ+ media had on the incorporation of West Hollywood as a thriving gay city based off of the media's presentation of West Hollywood as having an idealized image (which included notions of creativity, aesthetic sensibility, entertainment, progressiveness, responsibility, maturity, and centrality).
When reading through this article, I was immediately connecting the themes of identity construction and inequitable development. While Forest was mainly focused on the concept of identity and sexuality in his article, I would like to expand his article to also discuss the implications of creating new identities in certain places as they relate to class struggle and misrepresentation.
I would like to use the ideas in Rosalyn Deutsche and Cara Gendel Ryan's article "The Fine Art of Gentrification" to combat those expressed in Forest's article (you may need to log into JStore with your OU login to view this article). In their article, Deutsche and Ryan argue against the idea of artistic gentrification - stating that when creative class (i.e. young, socially liberal, LGBTQ+) individuals move into an area to create a new identity and sense of place, they inevitably gentrify and displace older working class communities. I am not saying that this is exactly what occurred in West Hollywood, but the concept speaks to the wider level of the so-called "creative class" moving in and "revamping" their new neighborhoods with new identities and ideals. Deutsche and Ryan argue that the lifestyle ideals of "liberation" and "renewal" perpetrated by these gentrifiers actually creates this strategic urban arena wherein gentrifiers' (and gays) enthusiasm about moving into a new locale actually ignores the hard social realities of the environment that surrounds them. What makes this concept even more interesting is that it creates this dynamic paradox - creative class gentrifiers usually express socially- and environmentally-liberal views, but their action of moving into impoverished or inequitable neighborhoods is a complete contradiction of their beliefs (I believe this has been explored from an environmental justice framework in the case of Portland, Oregon). In short, if and when creative class/LGBTQ+ people move into new places to create new symbolic identities, they may be misrepresenting struggling neighborhoods as enlightened, idealized spaces. This casts a shadow on the struggles of the poor minorities, exacerbating a neighborhood's strategy of impoverishment for those in the lower class.
I believe that this connection between new identities and old places subtly connects the larger social themes of sexuality and class, and in general speaks to the volume of the immensity of interconnectedness between all social categories. While this is what presents itself in reality, it can become a bit dismal when you realize that it seems like no one can truly be "themselves" without harming the identity and wellbeing of someone else. While I am definitely someone who is incredibly pro-LGBTQ+ and also concerned about the livelihoods of the impoverished, it is tough to pick your battles. Who deserves to express themselves in this space? Gays, lesbians, bisexuals, and trans people? Who does not? The poor and impoverished? If one group has the right to "be," then how does this affect the others in the place? It's a murky subject! *Also, I understand that there are definitely LGBTQ+ people who do not have the privilege of "being themselves" due to family, institutional, or location-based structures - the LGBTQ+ group in this discussion is more focused on those who are white and affluent, and live in larger progressive cities such as those on the east and west coasts.
If you are interested in seeing this concept mapped spatially, I suggest going here to view creative class concentrations within the States. You can definitely tell by the map that these young and progressive individuals are moving in large numbers to cities such as San Francisco, Seattle, Denver, Boston, New York City, and Washington DC. What does this mean for the poor in these cities?
Also, if you are a Shameless fan like myself, then you will appreciate this clip from season five where Frank explains gentrification in the south side of Chicago to others (in the completely "Frank" type of way). For those who aren't familiar with the show, it centers on an impoverished, rather broken family in Chicago whose neighborhood has gradually been gentrified over the course of the show's seasons.
Cheers!
Comments
Post a Comment