Reviews for Social Sustainability in Urban Areas: Communities, Connectivity and the Urban Fabric

The average rating for Social Sustainability in Urban Areas: Communities, Connectivity and the Urban Fabric based on 2 reviews is 3.5 stars.

Review # 1 was written on 2018-12-23 00:00:00 Michael Stork In this review, I will share some critical thoughts I had of various chapters, hoping to engage in a dialog, at least with myself on these key issues. There is a lot to discuss and the book does have a lot of merits, in particular the author is clear and concise when developing arguments. In my own naivety, I was expecting something more immersive like a Sharon Zukin work but ended up with a more basic primer. When reading it did strike me that the work is highly favourable to the postmodern perspective (unjustly) and so therefore relies on a number of assumptions about urban and social change that I do not agree with. Other problems overall are minor but frustrating: the text required further editing to prune unnecessary words. Throughout the text, I was able to cross out superfluous instances of "the", "as", "of" and so on. Another problem overall is the embracing of the developing/developed dichotomy of understanding the world. As Hans Rosling notes in his famous TED talks, this conceptualisation of the world is increasingly mythological and outdated. Sustainability This chapter has numerous assumptions that go unchallenged mainly due to the time period in which it was produced. For example, Beck's risk society thesis alongside his reflexive modernity schtick is granted as a given. Everything is changing and risk is becoming insurmountable, especially since old scientific discourses no longer hold a monopoly to truth. This is definitely to be challenged. There is a section critiquing the notion of sustainability, but the critique seems to have no effect on the authorial message. The main critique is that sustainability is a buzz word, often vague and indeterminate. This is true and often there is a distinct blurring of political and societal issues. For some, sustainability means entirely reworking and changing the economy, to move from capitalism. For many, this is not a realistic and concrete proposal for sustenance, for it relies on abstract, pseudo revolutionary gibberish that is elusive enough to sound great without the analytical rigour that is required for genuine change to happen. The lack of attention to detail, not simply in Thorns treatment of the arguments, but the scholarly work in of itself, is something to behold. A genuine critique of sustainability rhetoric (from Wood 1993) was that it mirrors the logic of 'trickle down economics'. It is seen as problematic that the rhetoric of sustainability merely makes incremental change or effects change whilst maintaining the capitalist economy intact. Ironically then, it must be highlighted that for many, sustainability is another way of enacting utopian single minded political change. Not very sustainable. Luke (1995:21-2) is quoted as saying the following, which is a very cogent argument that needed more serious reflection. "Sustainable for how long? A generation, one hundred years, one thousand years? Sustainable for whom? Present generations, all future generations, all species of this generation, all species for all future generations?; sustainable under what conditions? Present western standards of living, small subsistence communities, some future Star Trek culture?; What ought to be sustained? Personal income, social and cultural diversity; GNP, bio-diversity, individual consumption, personal freedom and choice, material frugality?" Luke's argument should have began the chapter, for it asks us as Sociologists to consider the various layers of sustainability, that need to be addressed. If we don't understand what we are talking about, we cannot meaningfully have a discussion on the various assumptions appropriate or not, that underly these discourses. We cannot simply say we want sustainability and not be specific about what that entails. This means that the chapter does not meaningfully provide much substance or discussion on the debates, because we do not get beyond the definitional issues mentioned. The conclusion of the piece for example is that "sustainable development requires economic, social and environmental change for it to be successfully achieved", but we are still wondering what sustainability are we talking about? The argument of the piece is that it is not enough to engage with social justice, we also need to engage in environmental and ecological systems. Social justice here merely shuts people out of the debate and narrows the possibilities for solutions, since it is a perspective which is polarising as it presupposes radical change based often on political objectives, rather than genuine sustainability/development arguments. Sometimes the author is vague in a way that is indicative of the problems of social theory in general. For example in this chapter, the author notes: "The postmodern challenge to the epistemological foundations of 'enlightenment knowledge' has served to create greater uncertainty with respect to technological solutions and the capacity of conventional science to understand and explain the world" (203). Postmodernism merely challenged the "privileging" of scientific knowledge and introduced a relativistic way of understanding knowledge. The postmodern perspective here with its lack of scholarly depth, is presented as though it has incurred a societal crisis. What change what and when? Does the postmodern argument offer anything productive to the debate, or merely entangle us in loops that we cannot escape from, thus paralysing the discussion? Indigenous knowledge likewise is unexplained, sustainability in this perspective is presented as a return to traditional buildings and design. What exactly is sustainable here, other than a romanticisation of indigenous people? The Chicago school is unfairly represented in this chapter. For example, it is stated, "The explanation that they generated of city structure was largely a result of unconscious processes focused on biological or psychological rather than social or political processes" This is simply untrue as anyone familiar with the works of this period will be aware (such as the author of this text, who describes them more cogently in his chapter on Everyday Life in the city). The case studies presented are weak and not practically focused Everyday life in the city When approaching this chapter, I suspected from the title a different composition to what was offered. The sociology of everyday life was a nascent and important topic around 2002. Ben Highmore was writing extensively about this then. I expected discussions that were truly micrological. Part of the critique offered by these scholars is epistemological. It asserts that due to the exotic sampling procedures of sociologists, there is an unrealistic sense of what constitutes social reality. Academics, understandably are interested in the exotic and so sociologists rarely get the in-between accounts of what happens in the everyday lives of people. Studies of this nature typically involve ethnographies of cafes, or street behaviour studies, or depicting the sociology of routines. Instead, despite stating a focus on the micro, the author discusses large structural themes like social identity. Whilst interesting, the concept of the home and what it means in modern society, despite being related somewhat, is not studying everyday life. Similarly discussion of what constitutes community is again retaining itself on the macro level. A disappointing moment is when the author describes a 1955 study by Hillery, who described how the term "community" had ninety four different dimensions/definitions. This would have been an enticing discussion, even minimally, but the author does not elaborate the point. Community essentially means different things to different people and is becoming more digitalised. Again, the definitional problem slows the discussion to a standstill because we inadequately define our terms. Raymond Williams knows what I am talking about. The chapter then discuses the notion of a "reflexive community" from Lash (1999). I admire Lash's work, but find this concept to be lacking. The author for example explains that a reflexive community is a move from "I" values to "we" values. Tremendously nebulous. Boundaries are both spatial and symbolic. They can also be physical due to geographical features such as rivers, roads, hills and so on (113). As the author notes, these interconnections make the discussion of community complex. The notion of a defended neighbourhood (Suttles 1972) is described. The purpose of this seems to be community action and mobilising others around specific local causes. Is the ability to mobilise a condition of a healthy community? It is an intriguing argument, particularly in the global niche networked world we live in. Consumption It is almost as though the author has anticipated my critique by offering a section at the beginning here on defining consumption. The definition is as follows, "Consumption activity can be seen as any activity involving the selection, purchase, use, maintenance, repair and disposal of any product or service" (Campbell 1995:104 as quoted in Thorns 2002:121). Consumption is a dirty word for many because it represents unbridled individualism and materialism. It represents excess and hollowness. This is of course due to decades of cultural marxism instructing people that they are stupid and vacuous. The definition is incredibly broad and this is of course to make sure that the pompous fervour that typically develops from sectors of the left wing establishment can occur easier and faster. Weber and Veblen get nods, as their work is seminal here, for they described how consumption and status function outside of traditional class analysis. Global Cities This chapter begins with arguments derived from Giddens (1998), who noted that here has been three key changes (or revolutions) that have occurred due to the move from industrialisation to post-industrialisation. These are: Globalisation, the transformation of personal lives (in communities but also as individuals) and our relationship to nature. The change from a manufacturing dependent economy to a consumption based economy, has meant that information, "leisure, recreation and tourism" (69), are more important services than previously. The author describes how postmodernist debate has strongly affected the analysis we do of cities. A quote is provided to back this up from Soja (1993:484), the obscurantist geographer who sums up the postmodern approach by declaring a critique of "all modernist thought....a critique of totalising discourses, master narratives of essentialism, exposure of silences within the literature, a rethinking of the concept of difference and otherness, a critique of historicism...a new interest in hyper reality, hyperspace, simulation and simulacra". Therefore a clear argument is being assumed here. One of which is that cities started to reject the globalising idea (totalising discourses), which as any casual observer of the world will note, is absolute nonsense. If anything, the "totalizing" and "essentialist" types of discourse that Soja so vehemently rejects are as powerful as they always were. The problem with this type of thinking is simple. You reject the discourse or thought before it has even been developed. It is madness to reject a hypothetical discourse without listening to the context or content of the message. Cities are global as a result of the networked world we live in and often cities link together for the purposes of tourism, business ventures and so on. Further, the author notes that there has been a shift in focusing in on signs, rather than just structures (thus the semiotics debate). What is remarkable about postmodernist proclamations is often how vacuous they are. A new found focus on signs and simulations? Of course that is the case due to increases in technology and a marketplace that takes place on a global rather than local scale. Cities have always been concerned about signs and symbols. These are a few critiques (more could be fleshed out) that could have been fleshed out better in the book, but they don't appear at all. Absurd claims abound in this chapter. For example, in the section describing the "epistemological challenges" that postmodernism brings to positivism and realism, the author states the following about positivism: "[it is] ethnocentric and increasingly inappropriate in attempts to make sense of the global world" (77). Why is it inappropriate?, well because it is associated with "the enlightenment project's commitment to scientific discovery and the quest of truth" (76). The author's disdain for scientific knowledge is apparent everywhere, which explains this gem: "The postmodernist critique of both positivistic and realist urbanists is that there are no overall scientific explanations for events" (78) The author is clueless here in the sense that positivism shouldn't simply be rejected and postmodernism did not do a good job of dismantling it either. Positivism is a world view which is predicated on a specific theory of knowledge, which can be appropriate in many cases, particularly if the researcher believes in that world view. Positivism in seeing the external world as inherently knowable and independent of the researcher, is a maxim that can be applied to other contexts. It is absurd and deeply offensive to assert that because positivism is associated with the West that therefore it should be rejected (ethnocentrism). Positivism can be useful and we should encourage researchers to use whatever tools they feel comfortable with, which compliments their world view, in helping them get the best possible data. The author presents positivism as a historical relic, something that no longer exists except in the dusty textbooks of sociological analysis, to be laughed at for their naive views. This is of course false and research in urban sociology is still greatly influenced by quantitative (positivistic) approaches. Demographic Changes in the City Thorns begins his discussion here by describing carrying capacity and the need to make sure that "Malthus' dismal prophecy does not become a reality" (41). Malthusian approaches to population are widely discredited. A good review of these critiques can be found in Thomas Sowell's (2015) text, "Wealth, Poverty and Politics". Population policy has mostly been about birth control and family size regulations. It is unclear if the author endorses these particular outcomes or not. The framing of the discussion suggests he does, as he situates the first question of exploration as "what is likely to the the total population of the world which needs to be accommodated within settlements be they urban or rural". The author cites Bank's (1954) seminal work, "Prosperity and Parenthood", which links the reduction in family size in Britain, to increased opportunities to the children that are born, thus increasing affluence overall. Cultural as well as health factors have impacts, but critically so does geographical factors, something not elaborated on as much. There is a good discussion generally of migration patterns and the move to an urbanized world. Urban Social Inequality and Social Exclusion The purpose of this chapter was to explore the "debate and extent of urban social inequality and exclusion" (150). Social inequality in the city is "associated with spatial segregation, poverty, unemployment and lack of skills, rendering many individuals marginal to the workforce" (ibid). Three key discourses on social exclusion: re-distributional, moral underclass and social integrationist (Levitas 1998). The first of these is a focus on poverty/inequality and the distribution of wealth. The second is moral/behavioural delinquency of the excluded. The third is focused on integration (particularly from large organisations such as the EU). The author argues that there has been differences in the prominence of each discourse depending on the particular European country/context. France he notes, uses the integrationist approach more than the others. The integrationist approach is vague in this particular context (151). When defining social exclusion, the author quotes Castells (1998). The problem with this is the sheer expansion of the term, to be beyond the confines of attainable action. Castells says that exclusion is as follows, "The process by which certain individuals and groups are systematically barred from access to positions which would enable them to have an autonomous livelihood within the social standards framed by institutions and values in a given context" This no longer simply relates to exclusion on the basis of poverty but rather augments it into a context of opportunity. Autonomous livelihood can have many factors and being barred from one situation, does not presuppose others being attained. The author notes that the definition allows us to focus on structural and individual aspects of our cities, but the definition takes us away from these points by being expansive. An example is on page 153, the author says, "Social exclusion can take place at a number of levels, it can be about individuals access to work, training, buildings and facilities and public and private spaces or it can be about exclusion of particular neighbourhoods, cities and regions from access to economic and social development". Does this really just relate to refugees, homelessness and chronic unemployment? Somerville, an author he quotes suggests exclusion is also prevalent due to the restructuring of the labor market from a Fordist to a Post-fordist mode of production. Yes, really. Needing to change your skill set to keep up with a changing marketplace, is somehow indicative of social exclusion. Doctors routinely need to keep up to date with the latest medical procedures/medicines and health and safety regulations. Is that unfair, that they need to adapt to the new demands placed on them? The author discusses five aspects of urban social exclusion: 1)- socio/spatial separation/segregation, 2)- poverty, 3)- homelessness, 4)- crime and 5)- gentrification. In the first section, the author beautifully describes Marcuses work on New York city and in particular his discussion on walls, in a very clear and accessible way. This was extremely useful for my PhD chapter. The section on poverty is largely a standard discussion of relative/absolute poverty and the focus on the "developing world" vs the "developed world". The homelessness section focuses on individualistic concerns and the sociological ones, again the deserving and undeserving dichotomy which is a typical framing from those who adopt a radically individualistic perspective on vagrancy. The section makes a good link to Mills (1956) and the notion of private troubles/public issues. The political discussion is somewhat polarising as it attacks Regan for "containing" homelessness by introducing more homeless shelters. If Regan, cut homeless shelter funding and was undermining these provisions the same author would critique him on that too. What is needed is a bit of both: psychological/sociological framing with appropriate policy which is moral and decent in intention.

Review # 2 was written on 2015-05-25 00:00:00 Raphael Riordan a cool one in academic field...