Washington,
DC is a global city not only because it is the capital of the United
States, one of the most powerful countries in the world, but also
because it shares many qualities with other 'global cities.' Columbia
University sociologist Saskia Sassen is one of the pioneers in the study
of global cities, demonstrating how in the current, post-1960s global
economy cities like New York, London, and Tokyo take on new roles as the
'brains' managing production that now takes place globally. These
global cities provide corporate and financial services performed by
highly paid professionals, who then depend on child care, restaurant,
entertainment, construction, and other services performed by poorly paid
workers. Since she wrote her book,
The Global City,
many other social scientists have argued that cities in the Global
South, such as Jakarta or Rio de Janeiro, are equally global, but in
ways different from New York, London, and Tokyo
(Goldman and Longhofer 2009). Washington, DC is yet again a different kind of global city.
Investments, labor, and ideas
flow through all these cities, but these resources are not distributed
evenly across cities or even within cities. Some cities are able to
attract large investments and highly-paid professionals (the "creative
classes" discussed by
Richard Florida) from around the world, while others, like Detroit, find this difficult. Thus, cities now compete with each other on a
global playing
field. On this competitive field, cities often create areas
particularly attractive to international investors and the creative
classes. In Washington, DC, examples include the new Waterfront in SW
DC, Barracks Row on Capitol Hill, and H St in NE. At the same time,
global cities have ever increasing inequalities, as discussed by
UN-HABITAT: "major cities in the United States, such as Atlanta, New
Orleans, Washington DC, Miami, and New York, have the highest levels of
inequality in the country, similar to those in Abidjan, Nairobi, Buenos
Aires, and Santiago"
(Bratman 2011:1546). The
reorientation of city politicians and elites toward global investors and
the globally oriented creative classes seems to distract them from the
needs of low-income constituents, such as the 50% of the DC households
making less than $54,000, and from responsibilities toward the national
government (though DC may be different on this last issue).
NYU anthropologist
Tom Looser has noticed that
professionals moving through global cities tend to be indifferent to
their local surroundings, local history, and local culture, and to feel
little responsibility for others and for local government in these
cities. I think that this is true but in a more complicated way than
Looser describes. First, paradoxically, the creative classes demand
"unique," "authentic," "local" experiences. So, they would not desire a
dinner at a McDonalds or other chain restaurants. However, many
restaurants, cafes, and events appear locally distinct, when, in fact,
they are owned by major global investors and reflect the global demand
of the "creative classes." As a result, we see similar "local" events
all around the world -- outdoor movies, gallery walks, business district
food fairs, etc.
Second, parts of the creative
classes are in fact engaged with DC government and the larger city, but
often in a hostile, superficial way. This hostile engagement also
follows global patterns. The wonderfully insightful CUNY geographer Neil
Smith described the new attitude of cities and professionals moving to
cities in the 1990s, a vengeful ("revanchist") attitude against those
who were perceived as destroying the city: African Americans, the
working class, the poor, recent immigrants, and so on: “The rallying cry
of the revanchist city might well be: ‘Who lost the city? And on whom
is revenge to be exacted?’” Public discussions in DC swirl around
criticisms of specific DC politicians, when we should also examine how
the current, post-1960s global economy and the desperate attempts by
cities to compete has shaped the District that undermined school
funding, reduced working class jobs (yes, there was a
working class in DC), and redirected money towards area of commercial development and away from other areas.
Bring
up the name "Marion Barry" to a group of professionals and there will
be little indifference. Yet, they will not actually engage with the fact
that Marion Barry allied early on with white and African American
professionals and developers functioning within the rapidly changing
global economy. At the same time, Marion Barry also formed a political
machine that helped many African Americans, including low-income
residents, who would find little support from later mayors. In
Black Power,
Stokely Carmichael (who partially developed his book's arguments while
living in DC) condemned political machines as not truly improving the
world for African Americans and/or low-income residents, and called
instead for real empowerment -- economic, political, and cultural. Yet,
the distortions of the city caused by global urban competition and the
fact that political machines were not replaced with a more inclusive
political system meant that low-income residents remain neglected in the
global city.
Professionals' vengeful attitude
towards minorities and the poor/low-income even has some similarities to
the attitudes of colonial rulers, similarities recognized by many,
including Stokely Carmichael in
Black Power and American University's
Eve Bratman. In his fascinating
Wizards & Scientists, former history professor at U of Maryland, College Park, Stephan Palmi
é demonstrates the similarities in elites' attitudes towards colonies and ghettos. I found this quotation about witch-hunts in colonial Cuba particularly haunting:
Yet
the...witch-hunts were not just expressions of racially structured
class conflicts (although they certainly were that, too). They were
also, perhaps to an extent not adequately acknowledged, the product of a
struggle on the part of Cuban intellectuals and social critics to
construe hitherto fairly vague conceptions of cultural Africanity into a
social pathogen
the extirpation [to pull out from the roots, to remove totally] of which
would form a precondition for the achievement of Cuban modernity. (Palmié 2002: 29-30)
This
quotation sounded so familiar to the discussions going on about the
future of DC. The "creative classes" sound much like the powerful
colonial Cuban intellectuals. The "creative classes" involved in public
discussions seem to desire to extirpate, to remove totally, low-income
African Americans as a social pathogen from the District that would
allow the District finally to flourish and be a truly modern, global
city. Is this the kind of city we wish to living in? Who
has a right to the city?
