Being Poor Black And American Summary

In his article Being Poor, Black and American, William Julius Wilson discusses the political, economic and cultural forces that have led to concentrated poverty in neighborhoods. In his work, Wilson not only explores the social and economic inequalities rooting from social policies on neighborhoods, but also the changes on the labor market and collective culture. Similarly, on my tour to the East neighborhood, I also became aware of these political, economic and cultural factors that had affected the poor regions of Oakland. These included the infrastructure buildings like the freeways, the lack of stable jobs and the collective culture of inner city families.

In Being Poor, Black and American, Wilson describes the political factors that have

led to concentrated poverty in urban regions. According to Wilson, a political force is any social or political action that has been implanted by a larger system. This can include the 1937 Federal Housing Administration that prohibited house mortgages on the account of race, or the slum renewal programs that came with the Federal Transportation and High Way Policy. In his article, Wilson describes how each political force has contributed to poverty mainly by creating a barrier for poor neighborhoods and African Americans to achieve and solidify upper mobility. For instance, Wilson argues how the construction of freeways by the Federal Program impacted neighborhood because it spurred the relocation and segregated poor neighborhoods from better-off citizens. Consequently, Wilson claims that most poor neighborhoods did not end up suffering from an unequal provision of home taxes, but also from less funding and governmental support. (Wilson, 2011).
Thus, on my tour of the East Bay neighborhoods, I also became aware of this specific political force.

Even though, I had no way of knowing if the poor neighborhoods I transitioned were consequences of the Federal Housing System, it became visible to me that the areas I considered poor were intersected more by freeways and transits than the suburban regions. For example, both the Martin Luther King Avenue and the West Oakland neighborhood were crossed by the 880 freeway, whereas Montclair and Piedmont were not. Thus, the fact that the Oakland regions were intersected by the freeway roads could have resulted on the discrepancy between poor and rich neighborhoods. For instance, the 880 freeway creates a barrier between Oakland and other sections of the cities. As a result, this wall off already poor minority neighborhoods from central districts and suburbs, which paradoxically entails the most economic and social opportunities for workers. Furthermore, Wilson claims that freeways can also move economically secured citizens in other well-established neighborhoods (Wilson, 2011). Consequently, the freeway in the Oakland region may have created segregation through the movement of more secure citizens, leading to less diversity and poor public and tax investment on Oakland. That said, the 880 freeway could have specifically led to concentrated poverty in the Oakland regions as opposed to suburbia areas by causing segregation and by limiting economic and public investment in the

neighborhood.
In addition, economic forces such as the lack of a manufacturing industry could have also led to concentrated poverty in Oakland.

In his article, Wilson describes how the labor system has changed over the years from a manufacturing oriented industry to a more service sector. According to Wilson, not only this change in the market has occur, but also most industry jobs that were located prior in central cities has move markedly to the suburbs (Wilson, 2011). That said, Wilson mentions how these economic factors impacted urban workers who experience not only less stable and low paying jobs in the service sector, but also discrimination in the workforce (Wilson, 2011). Thus, when I transitioned in the bus to the poor areas of West Oakland and Martin Luther King avenue, I also became aware of this economic force. For example, I notice that Oakland did not only had fewer relatively industrial jobs, but that it didn’t have any jobs at all, even service sector jobs. Meanwhile, when I stopped at the suburban region of Montclair, I saw any type of employment, including private sector and even industrial jobs. Therefore, I could see how the lack of jobs could have led to the discrepancy between rich and poor neighborhoods. For example, the urban regions of Oakland have already experienced segregation and white flight. Thus, with the departure of high income families, only the least upwardly mobile and low income families remain in poor neighborhoods. As a result, working families do

not only have to experience decaying and deteriorated condition in their neighborhoods, but also poor access to jobs and other basic services that can help them solidify upper mobility. For instance, the semi urban Alameda county has 15.52% of workers employed in the public sector, whereas 50.43% of workers have jobs in the suburban Emeryville. Consequently, these economic factors, such as the lack of a manufacturing centers can contribute to the difference I saw on the poor and the rich neighborhoods by making economic and other social opportunities less accessible.
Finally, cultural forces can also account for the discrepancy between rich and poor neighborhoods. In Black, Poor and American, Wilson describes how residents of poor neighborhoods have adopted distinct cultural capital as a way to cope with the increasing poverty and stagnant social conditions in their living areas. Wilson defines these collective cultural capital as embodied and social dispositions that define the way inner city individuals see and act on the world. An example that Wilson lists of this distinct cultural force is the “street marked” behavior that many inner city workers have adopt to cope with the dangers of society (Wilson, 2011). According to Wilson, these street marked behaviors can consist of not only avoiding eye gaze to strangers, but also of wearing high brand clothing and adopting predatory attitudes to neighbors. Despite that Wilson claims that street marked behaviors has been a response to the poor conditions of neighborhoods, he argues that this has affected inner city workers by preventing them from performing well and integrating back to society (Wilson, 2011). During my bus tour, I also notice some of these cultural forces that Wilson described. Even though, I try not to generalize or make stereotypes about certain behavior, I found that the lack of eye gaze, the congregated circles and the use of urban fashion could have all led individuals from poor neighborhoods, like Oakland, from being refrain of social opportunities, like jobs and social services. Especially, with 13.52 % of jobs being public sector in Alameda county, having a good presentation and social skills can matter on which individuals get the job or not, in particular, with the current shift to service labor markets. Thus, Wilson’s cultural forces can contribute to the differences I saw on poor and rich neighborhoods since this could have prevented individuals from poor areas from obtaining jobs and other social opportunities that could have helped them and their neighborhoods from regaining social stability.
In summation, political, economic and cultural forces could have all explained why I saw differences in the poor regions of Oakland and the rich neighborhoods of Piedmont and Montclair.