\n<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
Contents<\/p>\n
Urban Contested Racialized Landscapes Global, \u00a0<\/p>\n \u00a0<\/p>\n The methodological and Drawing upon Foucault (1977), Lefebvre\u2019s (1991) well-known Other anthropological efforts Ethnographic approaches to urban The processes of racialization Landscapes of fear have become a Within urban anthropology, Translocal spaces are also produced by \u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n
\n Space studies: <\/span><\/span>1<\/span><\/a><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n
\n Urban Space. <\/span><\/span>1<\/span><\/a><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n
\n Space. <\/span><\/span>2<\/span><\/a><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n
\n of Fear: <\/span><\/span>2<\/span><\/a><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n
\n Transnational and Translocal Spaces. <\/span><\/span>2<\/span><\/a><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n
\ntheoretical use of spatiality within anthropology began with ethnographies that
\nexamined the relationship of architecture and culture. The concepts of space
\nand place emerged in urban ethnographies through the collective work of
\nanthropologists who employed material space as a strategy for interrogating the
\ncity (Bestor 2004; Cooper 1994; Holston 1989; Low 1999, 2000; Pellow 1996;
\nRotenberg and McDonogh 1993). Their work was directly influenced by French
\nsocial theorists who theorized space in terms of the power dynamics of spatial
\nrelations and the meaning of everyday places and practices.<\/p>\n
\nPaul Rabinow (1989) was one of the first anthropologists to link the growth of
\nmodern forms of political power with the evolution of aesthetic theories, and
\nto analyze how French colonists in North Africa exploited architectural and
\nurban planning principles to reflect their cultural superiority. James Holston
\n(1989) also examined the state-sponsored architecture and master planning of
\nBrasilia as a new form of spatial domination through which daily life became
\nthe target for state intervention.<\/p>\n
\nargument that space is never transparent, but must be queried through an analysis
\nof spatial representations, spatial practices, and spaces of representation
\nalso became the basis of many anthropological\u00a0
\n<\/span>analyses. Nancy Munn (1996), and Stuart Rockefeller (2010) draw upon\u00a0 <\/span>Lefebvre to link conceptual space to the
\ntangible by arguing that social space is both a field of action and a basis for
\naction.<\/p>\n
\nstarted with Bourdieu (1977) and focused on how meaning and action interact in
\ninterdependent ways to inculcate and reinforce cultural knowledge and behavior.
\nBourdieu\u2019s theory of practice provides the point of departure for Henrietta
\nMoore (1986) who concurs that space only acquires meaning when actors invoke
\nit. She argues that spaces are subject to multiple interpretations, such that
\nEndo men and women may share the same conceptual structure but enter into it in
\ndifferent positions and therefore subject it to different interpretations
\n(Moore 1986: 163). Margaret Rodman (1992) and Miles Richardson (1982), on the
\nother hand, relied on Merleau-Ponty\u2019s theories of phenomenology and lived space
\nto focus attention on how different actors construct,\u00a0\u00a0 <\/span>contest, and ground their personal
\nexperience. Alberto Cors\u00edn Jim\u00e9nez (2003) goes even further and insists that
\n\u201cspace is no longer a category of fixed and ontological attributes, but a
\nbecoming, an emergent property of social relationship. Put somewhat
\ndifferently, social relationships are inherently spatial, and space an
\ninstrument and dimension of space\u2019s sociality\u201d (2003: 140). <\/p>\n
\nspace are an important strategy for studying contestation and resistance in the
\ncity. When the appropriation of land for urban redevelopment threatens to limit
\naccess to or exclude certain groups from using public spaces, these plans may
\nbe contested by local segments of the population whose identity is variously
\nbound to the site (Cooper 1994). <\/p>\nRacialized Space<\/a><\/h3>\n
\nhave been studied primarily in US and South African cites, focused on different
\naspects of racism and racial segregation In the United States, the displacement
\nof Blacks through redlining and other real estate activities, analyses of
\ngentrification in African American neighborhoods, and studies of housing
\nabandonment by the city and federal government provide ethnographic
\nexplanations of American residential apartheid (Gregory 1998). <\/p>\nLandscapes of Fear:<\/a><\/h3>\n
\ncentral focus in the spatialities research within urban anthropology, producing
\nconsiderable debate about the nature of the fear and how it is produced. For
\nexample, Washington, DC\u2019s and New York City\u2019s emerging landscapes of fear are
\nbeing produced by new defensive spatial designs, the erosion of public space
\nthrough privatization and securitization, and memorials that constitute and
\nreinforce affective responses to the built environment. Hoffman goes so far as
\nto suggest that post-colonial African cities such as Freetown or Monrovia are
\norganized according to a \u201clogic of barracks\u201d creating \u201cspaces of the
\norganization and deployment of violent labor.\u201d For example, Bourgois (1995)
\ndescribes the fear and sense of vulnerability experienced by El Barrio
\nresidents and by anthropologists faced with the everyday violence of those who
\nsell crack in East Harlem, New York City.<\/p>\nGlobal, Transnational and Translocal Spaces<\/a><\/h3>\n
\ntransnational processes are defined by Ulf Hannerz (1992) based on cultural
\nflows organized by nations, markets, and movements. He criticizes world-systems
\nanalyses as being too simplified to reflect the complexity and fluidity of the
\n\u201ccreolization\u201d of postcolonial culture. From this perspective, global space is
\nconceived of as the flow of goods, people, and services \u2013 as well as capital,
\ntechnology, and ideas \u2013 across national borders and geographic regions,
\nresulting in the deterritorialization of space; that is space detached from
\nlocal places. Within anthropology, the term \u201ctransnational,\u201d was first used to
\ndescribe the way that immigrants \u201clive their lives across borders and maintain
\ntheir ties to home, even when their countries of origin and settlement are
\ngeographically distant\u201d (Schiller, Basch, and Blanc-Szanton 1992: ix). Part of
\nthis effort was to understand the implications of a multiplicity of social
\nrelations and involvements that span borders. Eric Wolf (1982) laid the
\ntheoretical groundwork in his landmark history of how the movement of capital
\nand labor has transformed global relations since the 1400s, dispelling the myth
\nthat globalization is a recent phenomenon. However, while Wolf\u2019s approach to
\nthe issue of global connections is seminal, it deals primarily with issues of
\npower and its allocation, and only indirectly with the spaces of daily life. It
\nis much later, through the detailed ethnographies of the rhythms of daily life
\nin transnational migrant communities, that a sense of transnational urban space
\nemerges.<\/span><\/p>\n
\nother forms of cultural deterritorialization such as travel, tourism, and
\nreligious diaspora. Marc Aug\u00e9 (1995) considers the airport a non-place, a space
\nof supermodernity, where \u00a0<\/span>customers,
\npassengers, and other users are identified by names, occupation, place of
\nbirth, and address, but only upon entering and leaving. Airports along with
\nsuperstores and railways stations are non-places that \u201cdo not contain any
\norganic society\u201d (1995: 112); social relations are suspended and this non-place
\nbecomes a site of coming and going. Studies of migration and translocality
\nemphasize the role of diaspora communities within the new geography of
\nglobalization. The technologies of time\u2013 space compression \u2013 such as the use of
\ninternational cellphones, the internet, and bargain airfares \u2013 enable diaspora
\ncommunities to survive, even at the margins of the global economy. The power of
\nthe internet to mediate transnational urbanism is a key element in the
\ncontinuity of culture and social relationships between less developed parts of
\nAfrica, Asia, and Latin America, with developed regions of North America and
\nAsia, but also between the metropole and the periphery. Secondary and mid-size
\ncities are becoming \u00a0<\/span>more important as
\nurban processes are seen as spaces of flows of information, labor, and capital.
\nIt is in these studies that urban anthropology returns to some of its earliest concerns
\nwith the urban to rural and migration circuits, but now drawing upon a new
\narsenal of theory and bolstered by a critical perspective based on political
\neconomic analysis and a spatialities framework as well as ethnographic sophistication.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n