Autumn, 1998, Vol. 5, No. 1

The Effects of Identity on Residential Segregation
Aubrey Spriggs: 2nd Year Administration

Examining residential segregation as a manifestation of individual identity differences between individuals provides concepts that are useful in analyzing certain social problems that arise in modern communities. In particular, when individuals self-identify or label others as belonging to a non-spatial group (such as the Black community, the poor community), spatial communities splinter according to the interests of these larger constituencies. Since these non-spatial group affiliations tend to be so strong, they often manifest themselves in geographic spatial separation. Although some groups may not choose to physically separate themselves into isolated communities, generally, those with the most power wish to isolate themselves from those with less power. This can be seen in the vigilance with which Whites have fought (and relocated) to keep Blacks out of their neighborhoods. Institutional and government practices, perpetuating segregation and isolation, have generated areas of highly concentrated minority, poor populations. Identities that emerge within restricted and constricted communities reinforce barriers and breed polarization.

In the early and mid twentieth century, theorists in urban sociology laid theoretical groundwork for the study of segregation later in the century. In particular, Ernest Burgess (1925) and Louis Wirth (1938) both inform the study of residential patterns as influenced by individual and group identity. First, Burgess's (1925) concept of urban concentric rings-- the gradation of residents' prosperity in rings (from poorer to richer) as one moves outward from the central city-- illustrates the spatial separation of communities along the lines of socioeconomic status. Black Metropolis (1945), an ethnography of the Chicago South Side Black community before the implementation of anti-segregation legislation, depicts the South Side Black community through this model, with lower income Blacks being closer to the central city and higher income Blacks being farthest away. Burgess's (1925) ideas about community succession-- people relocating outwards from the central city as their status rises-- also illustrates individuals' roles in shaping spatial communities along identity lines. Other urbanism theorists have portrayed Whites as fleeing further and further from the central city as the concentration of Blacks rose.

Wirth (1938) adds to the analysis by proposing that urban community splinters along interest group lines as a result of the community not being organized along family and kinship ties. According to Wirth (1938), interest groups are based on chosen affiliations-- employment or hobbies, for example. Applied to the issue of residential racial segregation, however, interest groups become ones people do not necessarily choose; people cannot choose their race or their economic class (in large part).

Certain institutionalized practices by professional and government groups have reinforced communities' tendencies of class and racial segregation, causing a further identity drift between polarized groups and more extreme spatial segregation. Before the Fair Housing Act, cities such as Chicago had in place strict segregation policies, in which Black residents were not permitted to move to White neighborhoods. This was furthered by the practice of building all-Black housing projects in Black areas and "sealing" these communities by placing major highways and railroads around their borders. After the Fair Housing Act, racial steering by real-estate agents, the differential mortgage and lending rates of banks, and the designation of certain areas by the Federal government as "high risk" maintained segregation, leading to further deleterious effects on the ability of Blacks to buy homes where they wished (Massey & Denton, 1993). The combination of these factors has led to entrenched spatial communities, segregated along race and class lines. Due to the historical, institutional, and social factors, these communities pose uniquely distinct challenges to the integrationist.

Critics of past integrationist interventions (persons from non-spatial communities being brought together in a physical, shared community area) assert that they failed to empower residents in identifying with their spatial communities. The first and strongest affiliations seem to be along class and race lines, with physical space being secondary or tertiary. As a result, different community groups that transcend the physical boundaries of the spatial community contest for community space. These groups define themselves and define others along racial and economic lines: Blacks and Whites, poor and non-poor (or working poor. Thus, the "integrated" spatial community becomes fragmented along the boundaries of these groups. Community groups bring their space-transcending power to bear on the physical locale, producing an "integrated" community which physically and socially segregates itself to mirror larger splintering of group affiliation. People, bringing these larger groups conflicts and social hierarchies into intra-community segregation, identify themselves with groups that are not limited to the shared community.

Policy-makers, seeking to truly integrate communities, should head the implications of these arguments. First, merely bringing people into physical proximity will not diminish non-spatial group affiliations and hierarchies. Although the goal of integrating communities serves an overall moral good, doing so only structurally without paying heed to the value and identity differences between affiliation groups is short-sighted. Lake Parc Place, a public housing project in Chicago that attempted to integrate Whites, Blacks, non-working poor and working poor residents, demonstrated that although people may be spatially close, they may still recreate micro-hierarchies among themselves based on extra-spatial affiliations. Residents were found to interact primarily with others that shared their non-spatial group affiliations. Second, goals for integration set by an agency outside the community (or one in the community without adequate community representation) most probably will not truly understand the different non-spatial affiliations that will impact the effectiveness of integrationist strategies. Massey and Denton (1993) illustrate this point in their characterization of integration attempts to move Blacks into predominantly White communities. Blacks rapidly replaced White residents, resulting in a resegregated community. Rapid community turnover followed by further segregation may result when planners remain unaware of different groups' preferences for integration or fail to educate residents on the benefits of certain levels of integration.
With criticism for integrationist efforts widespread, possible solutions in ameliorating difficulties may seem sparse. First, numerous Federal legislative efforts aimed at integrating communities seem to have failed to make much progress. Many theorists postulate that discrimination merely went underground in the real-estate market, with subtle racial steering. Second, using quotas as an integration control can be ethically and legally questionable. Schill (1997) and Johnson (1987) point out that trying to control integration through quotas, so communities do not "turn over", can have a discriminatory effect. "Because Blacks outnumber Whites on waiting lists at Atrium Village [an integrated housing complex], by nearly 9 to 1, they must wait longer for housing under the quota system, a practice the Justice Department contends is discriminatory" (Johnson, 1987, p. 14). Do attempts at controlling integration levels, to prevent rapid resegregation, merely serve Whites or people with higher socioeconomic status as they attempt to control the number of "others" in their community? Is the social engineering of class and racial residential integration more important than individual choice in choosing where to live? Whose individual choice is more important--those living in regulated integrated communities (who don't want to see them change) or those who cannot live there because they will "upset" the integration balance? Answers to these questions can be hard to find in any reliable source. Often, arguing that spatial separation of racial and class groups is not desirable, analysts criticize efforts that have been made thus far to integrate these communities, but they pose no possible positive alternatives. One might conclude they believe that no measure of structural or legal regulation will change the segregation of affiliation groups in communities, that segregation is an inevitable in modern society. This conclusion is neither desirable nor valid.

Criticisms for integrating neighborhood communities thus far have centered on the structure of these efforts, and not the process. They fail to address the either the top-down decision-making process in the Federal legislation or the quota systems, which in and of itself can quicken the pace of resistance to any integrationist strategy, no matter how it is structured. The main downfall of many integration efforts lies not in the structure of that ideal (i.e. what ratio of Blacks to Whites is optimal, what real estate practices are legal) but the process by which integration goals and methods are set. Without changing people's ideas and values around integration, and without seeking community members' input into the design of their spatial community, unchallenged sustainable integration will not exist.

References
Burgess, E. W. (1925). The growth of the city: An introduction to a research project. In R. LeGates & F, Stouts (Eds.), The inner city reader. (1996). New York: Routledge.

Drake, C. & Cayton, H. (1945). Black metropolis: A study of negro life in a northern city. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Johnson, D. (1987, July 24). U.S. Sues Integrated Housing Complex in Chicago on Use of Racial Quotas. The New York Times, p.14.

Massey, D.S. & Denton, N. A. (1993). American Apartheid: Segregation and the Making of the Underclass. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Schill, M.H. (1997). Chicago's Mixed-Income New Communities Strategy: The Future Face of Public Housing?" In W. Van Vliet (Ed.). Affordable Housing and Urban Redevelopment In the United States. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications.

Wirth, L. (1938). Urbanism as a way of life. In R. LeGates & F, Stouts (Eds.), The inner city reader. (1996). New York: Routledge

Return to the Table of Contents

Back to Adovocate's Forum