Pardue + Lewis

 "In Motion" by Derek Pardue described an interesting type of fieldwork done in Sao Paulo, Brazil. He studied the people through the perspective of transportation (buses, trains). One quote that struck me was "We don't realize how connected we are to the space me occupy." The reason he probably chose transportation was because it brings many of the cities people together. Although 50% of the people in Sao Paulo lived in a type of slum some of them thought higher of themselves and just through their choice of transportation, you can see this.

                Pardue spent a great deal of time with Brazilian hip-hoppers; interviewing them and spending time with them and also with other middle class citizens. The way they traveled in some ways implies the type of person they are. A middle class man enjoyed taking the bus because it made him feel like a “higher” observer of all the city around him. He might even feel godly looking at others below him in a busy city. He described a train ride as “weird”.  Not seeing the city and passing by known places made this man uncomfortable. 

                To the hip hoppers traveling meant “a stepping stone to greater accomplishment”. They used it to increase the amount of places they occupied, “special occupation”, to increase people’s familiarity with them. Everyone had a different view of transportation.

“Culture of Poverty” by Oscar Lewis was much more interesting to me than Pardue’s writing.  He spoke about how poverty is passed down through generations. Children are taught what their parents show them and living in poverty is all they know. Lewis stated that there were two types of poor people; the nice and honest kinds and the evil & mean kind. He implies that the poor are victims in their society and it is their way of life. They cannot escape the fate.

I think Lewis is right in many aspects but not always because there all those people with extrememly poor backgrounds who are very successful later in life and no longer live in those communities in which they were raised.

Wirth + Merry

The two readings “Urbanism As a Way of Life” by Louis Wirth and “Urban Danger” by Sally Engle Merry, were probably the only thing I’ve ever read that made me think so much about how I interact with others. Wirth’s writing was mostly about his definition of a city and how city folks’ social interactions with people are superficial. His definition of a city was a highly populated, highly dense, heterogeneous place. Merry referred to Wirth in her writings but disagreed in some ways. She believed the Wirth was describing the effects of industrialization and not urbanization. Merry’s article focused on her research pertaining to the fear the residents possessed and how different their perceptions were.

                Wirth was a seemly gloomy person who saw the glass half empty instead of the glass half full. He had many ideas that city people would agree is true some of the time. He state that cities and divded based on race and ethnicity and there is limited social interaction between different races. He considers reactions between everyday people are superficial. People are living in a world of strangers and do not care to meet someone new unless it’s for their own selfish needs. There is a deep lack of trust that roots from the unfamiliarity of the people in the neighborhood.  He compares city life to a mosaic. Together the pieces make a painting but they are obviously separated. Cities have no type of get together for all and no tradition that binds people together.

                Merry’s findings were similar to Wirth’s. The idea that people are divided and only interact with their own race is shown in Merry’s findings. She also found the people would not greet their neighbors which supports Wirth as well. She did a study in a primarily Chinese housing project that had all types of nationalities. All these people lived in the same neighborhood and faced the same dangers but not all of them were afraid and some felt safe in their environment. There are so many things these people fear and the deep root of their fear is their unfamiliarity with the person. When the meet a stranger their danger light comes on and they expect for the worse. Meeting someone new is not an exciting experience for city people according to Merry.

                I don’t agree with some of Wirth’s ideas but there are many ideas I believe I cannot argue. I can identify with those scared feelings and those feelings of not wanting to talk to strangers unless I absolutely have to. Many of the suspicious activity Merry witnessed I witness myself in my own neighborhood. I can guess that many other cities also have this similar behavior. How can someone not be afraid when they are surrounded by unpredictable, rude, strangers? I do believe living in a city can be like a jail sentence, your freedom is limited.

Foster & Kemper + Bestor

After reading the articles by Foster & Kemper and Bestor, I got a true sense of what urban anthropology is all about.  The first reading was mostly about the history of anthropology and how it is relatively new to the world. The second was about anthropological fieldwork in japan. The passage written by Foster & Kemper basically shows the history of anthro and how it hasn’t changed much and the same tools are still used in recording research. The passage written by Bestor showed how living with the people that you are studying is ideal and trying to blend in with their environment.

                The “F&K” article focused primarily on anthropological research in cities. They considered anthropology to be very difficult since it involved full commitment. There are many different languages you would have to learn. They way to get the best research is to live with the subjects of interest. Building a relationship is very important. When you become close to the people you are studying you learn a great deal more. Spending long periods of time at the site was also ideal to get true insight on the society. Anthropology back in the days of its creation was especially difficult because travelling was harder and there was much less technology. Although many things have changed the greatest anthropological tools remain “the pencil and stenographers notebook.”

                The Bestor article followed the original idea that fieldwork would provide the best results. Fieldwork provides you with valuable insight that you wouldn’t notice otherwise or by watching from afar. Tokyo was an extremely populated city but was described as “not overwhelming as it seems”. There were many businesses there such as wholesale markets. Bestor claims that anthologists are not just observers they are “in” what they do they become part of it. Bestor had visited Japan before but his wife had not. He knew some of the locals including a real estate agent. He moved into the community and became part of their normal neighborhood activities. He interviewed several locals and in doing this he realized that interviewing isn’t always successful since some people don’t realize what information is valuable and they often leave it out.

                After reading these articles I realize that you cannot get a good sense of what a neighborhood or city is like until you move in and become part of it. Just observing from far can only provide you with limited information. Many times I have watched people at the park and outside my window and try to imagine what their life is like. The truth is you cannot know what their life is like just by watching. You can get a limited insight but not enough to truly know what is going on.  Ive tried to put myself in peoples shoes when they are in a difficult situations to see how I can help them  and now I know how to see life through their eyes.

Hope this makes you smile :)