Blog Response #11
I have found Sampson's Chapter 16 to be quite interesting. The economic crisis in 2008, gave me a lot to think about, as I am sure that it did for most people. I was so amazed especially in the drop in the housing market and the high number of home foreclosures. I have personally known many people who were hit hard by the economic crisis and were forced into home forclosure. I know many people who lost jobs and were hit with major hard times because of that. It was not a good situation for anyone, whether they lived in Las Vegas, Nevada or Chicago., Illinous.
I found another article entitled "
In the article, the students interviewed many professionals from various professionnals in the community, many being from the real estate and housing industry. They indicated that the beginning of the financial crisis was the real estate price bubble "popped", or as many referred to it as "the 'bottom fell out" of the housing market, in the middle of 2006. The housing market was one of the biggest hit areas of the recession. The second was unemployment.
As a result one of the biggest ways that cities and neighborhoods like Chicago were effected was by the high number of home forclosures and the number of jobs that were lost. Sampson said that when walked back through Chicago during the after math of the recession, in 2010, the largest difference that he could see was the number of vacant and boarded up homes and housing projects. It is incredible just how many many people were effected by the lose of employment and home forclosures. This obviously adversley effects the cohesiveness of a a neighborhood or community.
For the second question: "Why does violence unhinge some communities and draw others closer together?" Well I think that the reason this happens is because some communities are stronger and more fiancially stable then others. Communities that are stronger and more financially stable will be able to with stand difficult time and would be alot more inclined to go out and see if they could help others that are struggling, Where as communities that are weaker and not financially stable would be more inclined to fight and commit crimes in order to get what they need to service. It is a very interesting thing to think about and is why we should all strive to be as financially stable as possible.
As far as my presentation research is comming, I am still working on it, but at the moment I don't have much more to report at this time.
As always, great blog, but on the issue of crime, I do believe the opposite; vulnerable communities tend to band together and express strong attachments to their communities in response to violence. Rich suburban communities with little violence usually do not experience this type of action and in many cases they do not need to. Because challenges are not the same in every community, the nature of how collective efficacy evolves and how it unfolds over time varies.
ReplyDeleteI like what Ernst says here, and I agree. It makes sense to me that disadvantaged communities would respond to crisis differently than wealthier communities. The disadvantaged communities may lack resources, but they might also make up for their lack of resources with stronger collective efficacy and altruism for their community.
DeleteI agree with both comments. For me it's not about what community has the most money but more about what group of people have actually bought into the concept of community. The communities that have people that actually take part in the community and care about it are the ones that band together.
DeleteI liked your comments. Yes I agree that it depends on the community and the dynamics that are involved. Financial struggle vs Rich will have completely different scenarios and reactions to a crisis such as the 2008 crisis in Chicago whether it be in Chicago or anywhere else just like you mentioned. Good blog.
ReplyDelete