{"title":"走出城市阴影:移民郊区的不平衡发展与空间政治","authors":"Willow S. Lung-Amam","doi":"10.1111/cico.12494","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"It is now well established that the concentric zone model, developed by Ernest Burgess and elaborated by others in the Chicago School of Sociology to explain the distribution of social groups in metropolitan areas, was wrong. In the past several decades, immigrants have not only moved out of the centers of U.S. metropolitan areas, many have bypassed central cities altogether and settled directly in suburbs. Increasingly, they have done so in nontraditional gateway cities, such as those in the American South and Rustbelt, and in smaller metropolitan or nonmetropolitan areas (Singer et al. 2008). Suburban settlement has also not clearly been associated with immigrants’ “move up” or integration into the so-called Americanmainstream, as Chicago school authors argued. In many rapidly growing metropolitan areas, rising housing prices have pushed many immigrants out of their historic urban neighborhoods. While post-World War II visions of the American Dream may still pull immigrants to suburbia, the communities into which many have settled hardly reflect that dream.While Asian immigrants have high rates of settlement in middle-class, affluent, and white suburban neighborhoods, other immigrants more commonly settle into suburbs with relatively high rates of foreclosure, poverty, segregation, and other measures of disadvantage (Farrell 2016; Logan 2014). These are not the touted “opportunity neighborhoods” that provide pathways to economic mobility. In fact, compared to central city ethnic enclaves, many provide less of the social, cultural and institutional supports that have traditionally promoted the economic advancement of immigrants and their children. Chicago School scholars also failed to account for the politics within suburbs that challenge not only immigrants’ ability to settle within particular communities, but also to achieve their own purposes and pursuits within them. My research on immigrants in suburbia has sought to fill some of these gaps. It has investigated the struggles of educated, professional Asian immigrants to establish a place for themselves within largely white, middle-class suburbs in Silicon Valley. In the Washington, DC suburbs, I have examined how lower-income, primarily Latino and African immigrants have fought to maintain a presence within redeveloping neighborhoods with rising gentrification and displacement pressures.","PeriodicalId":47486,"journal":{"name":"City & Community","volume":"19 2","pages":"303-309"},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2020-05-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1111/cico.12494","citationCount":"3","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Out of the Urban Shadows: Uneven Development and Spatial Politics in Immigrant Suburbs\",\"authors\":\"Willow S. Lung-Amam\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/cico.12494\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"It is now well established that the concentric zone model, developed by Ernest Burgess and elaborated by others in the Chicago School of Sociology to explain the distribution of social groups in metropolitan areas, was wrong. In the past several decades, immigrants have not only moved out of the centers of U.S. metropolitan areas, many have bypassed central cities altogether and settled directly in suburbs. Increasingly, they have done so in nontraditional gateway cities, such as those in the American South and Rustbelt, and in smaller metropolitan or nonmetropolitan areas (Singer et al. 2008). Suburban settlement has also not clearly been associated with immigrants’ “move up” or integration into the so-called Americanmainstream, as Chicago school authors argued. In many rapidly growing metropolitan areas, rising housing prices have pushed many immigrants out of their historic urban neighborhoods. While post-World War II visions of the American Dream may still pull immigrants to suburbia, the communities into which many have settled hardly reflect that dream.While Asian immigrants have high rates of settlement in middle-class, affluent, and white suburban neighborhoods, other immigrants more commonly settle into suburbs with relatively high rates of foreclosure, poverty, segregation, and other measures of disadvantage (Farrell 2016; Logan 2014). These are not the touted “opportunity neighborhoods” that provide pathways to economic mobility. In fact, compared to central city ethnic enclaves, many provide less of the social, cultural and institutional supports that have traditionally promoted the economic advancement of immigrants and their children. Chicago School scholars also failed to account for the politics within suburbs that challenge not only immigrants’ ability to settle within particular communities, but also to achieve their own purposes and pursuits within them. My research on immigrants in suburbia has sought to fill some of these gaps. It has investigated the struggles of educated, professional Asian immigrants to establish a place for themselves within largely white, middle-class suburbs in Silicon Valley. In the Washington, DC suburbs, I have examined how lower-income, primarily Latino and African immigrants have fought to maintain a presence within redeveloping neighborhoods with rising gentrification and displacement pressures.\",\"PeriodicalId\":47486,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"City & Community\",\"volume\":\"19 2\",\"pages\":\"303-309\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-05-25\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1111/cico.12494\",\"citationCount\":\"3\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"City & Community\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/cico.12494\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"SOCIOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"City & Community","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/cico.12494","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"SOCIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3
摘要
由欧内斯特·伯吉斯(Ernest Burgess)提出并由芝加哥社会学学派的其他人进一步阐述的同心区模型,现在已经被公认为是错误的,该模型用来解释大都市地区社会群体的分布。在过去的几十年里,移民不仅搬出了美国大都市区的中心,而且许多人完全绕过中心城市,直接在郊区定居。在非传统的门户城市,如美国南部和锈带,以及较小的大都市或非大都市地区,他们越来越多地这样做(Singer et al. 2008)。正如芝加哥学派的作者所言,郊区定居与移民的“向上移动”或融入所谓的美国主流之间也没有明显的联系。在许多快速发展的大都市地区,不断上涨的房价迫使许多移民离开了历史悠久的城市社区。尽管二战后的美国梦可能仍会把移民吸引到郊区,但许多人定居的社区很难反映出这个梦想。虽然亚洲移民在中产阶级、富人和白人郊区的定居率很高,但其他移民更普遍地定居在丧失抵押品赎回权、贫困、种族隔离和其他不利因素相对较高的郊区(Farrell 2016;洛根2014)。这些都不是被吹捧的“机会社区”,提供经济流动的途径。事实上,与中心城市的少数民族聚居区相比,许多聚居区提供的社会、文化和制度支持更少,而传统上,这些支持促进了移民及其子女的经济发展。芝加哥学派的学者们也没有考虑到郊区的政治,这不仅挑战了移民在特定社区定居的能力,也挑战了移民在社区内实现自己的目标和追求的能力。我对郊区移民的研究试图填补其中的一些空白。它调查了受过教育的专业亚洲移民在硅谷以白人中产阶级为主的郊区为自己争取一席之地的斗争。在华盛顿特区的郊区,我研究了低收入移民,主要是拉丁裔和非洲移民,是如何努力在重新开发的社区中保持存在的,这些社区面临着日益加剧的中产阶级化和流离失所的压力。
Out of the Urban Shadows: Uneven Development and Spatial Politics in Immigrant Suburbs
It is now well established that the concentric zone model, developed by Ernest Burgess and elaborated by others in the Chicago School of Sociology to explain the distribution of social groups in metropolitan areas, was wrong. In the past several decades, immigrants have not only moved out of the centers of U.S. metropolitan areas, many have bypassed central cities altogether and settled directly in suburbs. Increasingly, they have done so in nontraditional gateway cities, such as those in the American South and Rustbelt, and in smaller metropolitan or nonmetropolitan areas (Singer et al. 2008). Suburban settlement has also not clearly been associated with immigrants’ “move up” or integration into the so-called Americanmainstream, as Chicago school authors argued. In many rapidly growing metropolitan areas, rising housing prices have pushed many immigrants out of their historic urban neighborhoods. While post-World War II visions of the American Dream may still pull immigrants to suburbia, the communities into which many have settled hardly reflect that dream.While Asian immigrants have high rates of settlement in middle-class, affluent, and white suburban neighborhoods, other immigrants more commonly settle into suburbs with relatively high rates of foreclosure, poverty, segregation, and other measures of disadvantage (Farrell 2016; Logan 2014). These are not the touted “opportunity neighborhoods” that provide pathways to economic mobility. In fact, compared to central city ethnic enclaves, many provide less of the social, cultural and institutional supports that have traditionally promoted the economic advancement of immigrants and their children. Chicago School scholars also failed to account for the politics within suburbs that challenge not only immigrants’ ability to settle within particular communities, but also to achieve their own purposes and pursuits within them. My research on immigrants in suburbia has sought to fill some of these gaps. It has investigated the struggles of educated, professional Asian immigrants to establish a place for themselves within largely white, middle-class suburbs in Silicon Valley. In the Washington, DC suburbs, I have examined how lower-income, primarily Latino and African immigrants have fought to maintain a presence within redeveloping neighborhoods with rising gentrification and displacement pressures.