Fear and ammo on the other side of the electric fence

Why is it that so many people feel the need to live behind closed doors, with wired electric fences, barbed wire, security guards, and the ever-present alarm system? Why is it that people are ludicrously turning to live alligators to protect their properties in some parts of the States, and South Africans are increasingly living their lives behind electric fences?

I choose the two short clips below for their “shock factor”, and they are both perhaps a little extreme, but do give some insight into just how far the idea of fear has progressed in the United States.

Michael Moore’s rather charming clip on the history of America1 demonstrates the root problem of all too many modern issues: Fear. From the moment I owned my very own lollypop I was scared to lose it. And logically the more possessions we have, or the more valuable, the more scared we are that they will be stolen. We’re scared of change, of other cultures, of each other. In the presence of so many modern risks and dangers human instinct, as it always has, tells us to hide away in our caves, to arm ourselves with our clubs against intruders, to protect ourselves and our families as best we can. People all over the world are locking doors.

A popular way of doing exactly this are gated communities, which are cropping up all over the world, not just in so-called ‘first world’ countries, but increasingly in developing countries in the Middle East, South America, and Africa. They provide a means for a group of people to effectively place a barrier between themselves and all they may feel is wrong in the world. Though such communities may occur out of necessity (take for example fenced-off refugee camps or institutions), the most disturbing are those voluntarily started, and not always by the upper classes in a society.

In the Nevada Desert, near Las Vegas, a gated community is being built, the first of its kind, on the doorstep of a gun range. Front Sight2 is the inspiration of Doctor Ignatius Piazza, former chiropractor, who believes that if everyone is armed and well trained on how to use their weapon, there will be no more crime. He offers a one-day free machine-gunning class, and even encourages handling of weapons by children. Meanwhile, places in the compound are being advertised as homes in a community without crime, and the concept is already popular.

To me the idea of people actually wanting to live in a gun-zone is frightening – how could anyone possibly feel save in the midst of so many weapons? Promotion of gun ownership and use, especially in the US but increasingly over the whole globe are evidence to just how extreme fear and divisionism have become.

Aside from those voluntarily living in such obviously exclusionist communities, there are a vast numbers of other people who are forced into living “gated lives”3. I take this to mean, for example, those taken up in a religious cult, ethnic minority groups in large cities, military compounds, and even people who feel excluded on the basis of their sexual orientation or skin tone. Urban divisionism is as strongly outspoken today as ever before.

It seems that far from learning from political and social mistakes in the past, conflicts and tension are commonplace in the modern world. Such socio-economic division, rather than provide a solution to such problems, has merely agitated them. Such exclusionism seems to be a driving force of violence and in turn more fear.

In some cities, for example Aphaville and Tamboré in São Paulo4, crime is even seen to be higher in large gated communities on the city’s periphery. These areas are increasingly targeted as they do represent a concentration of wealth, and violence in these areas may even be out of a sense of injustice or affront.

So, the gated community does not offer a viable, sustainable solution to modern day fear. What does? We can only hope that in the future there will be a movement towards true globalism, and by this I mean a heightened understanding of cultures and lifestyles different to ones own. The first step may be inner-city rehabilitation, followed by putting down the gun and tearing down the electric fence.

1 Video – Bowling for Columbine – the history of America http://nl.youtube.com/watch?v=NPBHtjZmSpw
2 Video – Front Sight on Fox News 2
http://nl.youtube.com/watch?v=3WWbRvuoFJA
3 Stanley D. Brunn, 2006, Gated minds and gated lives as worlds of exclusion and fear, GeoJournal 66: 5-13
4 Martin Coy, 2006, Gated communities and urban fragmentation in Latin America: the Brazilian experience, GeoJournal 66: 121-132

 

Urban Fragmentation in Latin America

Martin Coy, 2006, Gated communities and urban fragmentation in Latin America: the Brazilian experience, GeoJournal 66: 121-132

Gated communities are becoming an increasingly popular concept in developing countries. Martin Coy’s article explores the nature of such constructions. He gives us an insight into which groups of people are both involved in and affected by such projects, as well as the consequences for further urban planning and development in Latin America. The article is based on case studies from Brasil.

Barrios cerrados (Argentina) – or condomínios fechados, as they are called in Brasil – have known a rapid expansion in many Latin American cities the past 30 years, and exist in various forms and sizes. Coy sees such developments as an essentially natural part of widespread changes in the region resulting in increasing social differentiation and urban fragmentation. Previous studies give vast numbers of gated communities in the Latin American megacities; some 450 cropped up in Buenos Aires during the 1990s alone. Brasil hosts some of the largest gated housing areas in the region; Aphaville in São Paulo has some 40,000 inhabitants.

With the introduction of neo-liberal political views, especially during the 1990s, there followed promotion of deregulation and privatization. The state reduced its direct influence on urban planning and development, and space was increasingly left open for the private capital interests of wealthy private investors and real estate agencies. Paired with this was the increased exposure to different cultures and economic classes which came with globalisation, resulting in a growing market that wished to move away from their traditional lifestyles and live the life of the global elite.

The consequences of all this are numerous. As gated communities are more often than not occupied by the wealthiest members of society, their expansion has directly led to an increase in socio-economic disparity in the cities. They form ‘islands of wealth’ satisfying the privacy and exclusion now increasingly demanded by their inhabitants. They effectively broaden the gap between private and public urban space.

According to Coy, the underlying causes for the success of such communities amongst the wealthy are threefold: status, lifestyle and security. This class of ‘dominant’ people tend to frequent a closed network of business parks, entertainment and shopping centres, and renewed areas. The ‘counter movement’ of the lower classes brought on by increasing marginalization, in turn, leads to an agglomeration of informal activities and squatter settlements. In São Paulo, this has led to such a spatial unbalance that the local authorities can do little more to encourage regulation.

One direct consequence of disparity and deterioration of living conditions is the increase in violence in these Latin American cities, which in turn drives people to want to live in gated communities, out of fear for crime. In São Paulo the homicide rate is an estimated 60 individuals per year per 100 000 inhabitants, and is highest amongst young men living in marginal areas. In turn kidnapping, assault and theft are known to be on the rise in the wealthier parts of the city. Vulnerability to such violence, too, is becoming increasingly dependant on a family’s income, as security is becoming more privatized.

There is, however, some hope for the further development of cities such as Sao Paulo. Coy puts forward 3 scenarios of urban development in Latin America. The first is a fragmented city, as is the case today in most megacities; the separation of the formal and informal sectors is widened, and the segregation of the wealthier residents increases. Paired with this is the increase in social tensions and the potential for conflict and violence. The State has only a much reduced power.

The second scenario is one of a correcting city, as has started in some cities over the last few years. This movement usually starts due to a reduction in urban expansion, so that the authorities become more aware of the urban problems and actively search for solutions locally. Actions are mostly aimed at a bettered integration of the informal sector into the city through regulation of informal housing. They do, however, also tackle the regulation of gated communities, as well as urban renewal and rehabilitation of public spaces.

In Sao Paulo, increased problems with crime within larger gated communities outside the centre, as well as the difficulties related to gated housing in suburban areas (traffic, long distances to workplaces), have led to the construction and popularity of smaller communities “condominios horizontais” within the inner-city. The city, with some 18 million inhabitants, has experienced a decrease in population growth in general, and losses in inner-city areas, while peripheral regions have continued to grow. This de-industrialisation has brought with it an increased importance of service industries. Whilst growth in the city has been extending to the south-west in peripheral housing areas (“jardins”) and business parks since the 1970s, the trend today extends to a rehabilitation of the inner city. In this way, the situation currently in Sao Paulo may be seen as a correcting city, and even as a ‘Brasilian success story’.

A third scenario, though not as yet in practice in any cities, is the re-integrating city. This is seen as a possible next positive step in urban development, and is based on an increase in solidarity and respect in the future. It focuses on decreasing social disparities by reducing the barriers between the formal and informal sectors in inner-city areas as well as between the city itself and its periphery. The success of such a movement is based on the realisation of good urban governance, however, and the existence of a more democratic city. Insofar as this will be possible in the coming years remains to be seen.

 

Beyond Skimpy Skirts: A Rare Debate On Identity In Dubai

Based on the article:  HASSAN M. FATTAH, Memo from Dubai: Beyond Skimpy Skirts, a Rare Debate on Identity, October 19, 2006, New York Times 

Dubai is a prime example of a modern “dreamworld” of investment.  It is seen as an economic success story in the Arab world; an example of all that can be accomplished in the Middle East.  For foreigners it offers a lifestyle most can only dream of.  The city now hosts more than 150 different nationalities, all drawn to the promises of luxury resorts, endless sunshine, job opportunities and a safe haven in the United Arab Emirates.  But with the expansion of the city, tensions are growing between the local citizens and the rapidly increasing number of expatriates.   What are the ethics of building such capitalist playgrounds?  Fattah’s article focuses on the question of local identity in the face of such globalisation; what are the limits on multiculturalism?  

A miniskirt walking around downtown is offensive, and may even violate a local ban, but such rules have been slackened.  Formerly strict rules on public behaviour included fines for skimpy dressing or breaking fast in daylight hours during Ramadan, and the possibility of being arrested for public kissing.  Though these laws are seen as part of the culture, they are often not enforced due to the high numbers of foreigners both living and holidaying in Dubai. The tension this brings is felt especially during Ramadan.  Locals complain of a “lack of spiritual tone”.  Shops now stay open throughout the day instead of closing during the afternoon as was usual during Ramadan, restaurants serve food during fasting hours, and hotels continue to sell alcohol. 

In October 2006, an article in the tabloid 7Days, with the headline “Show Some Respect” sparked the debate about Dubai’s cultural identity.  It seems that locals fear that expatriates are going to impose their own culture on them, and they are afraid of losing their own identity.   Currently, of a total population of 1.2 million people, only about 250, 000 are citizens.  The growth of the city has brought with it problems such as inflation, rises in crime and divorce rates and increased traffic.  With luxury buildings taking over, and property prices sky-rocketing, many Emiratis have been forced to look abroad, and many have been abandoning their traditions.   Whilst the local population hopes to preserve the culture – the “Emiratiness” – of the city, Western investments continue to be endorsed.  The presence of Western influences, too, are numerous and obvious, including international department stores, luxury hotels, and even christmas trees.  Some expatriates feel that the Westernisation of the city should not be seen as a problem, that it is a means of progress, that, for example, women should be allowed to wear what they wish to, and no longer be seen as second class citizens.  

Part of the problem lies in that there remains a firm barrier between locals and expatriates.  Foreigners are ineligible for citizenship, and tend to live apart from locals, with the bare minimum of social interaction.  They are often encouraged to “stick to their own kind”, as do the locals, and are given few opportunities to learn or assimilate the local culture (there is little exposure to emirate food and clothes for example).  Citizens fear that there is only a fine line between tolerance of foreign culture and defaulting on their own.  Over bridging the cultural divide should start with increased interaction, hopefully leading to a better understanding of each other.   

A more serious, underlying cause for the tensions lies in the socioeconomic stratification of the population.  Citizens are typically land owners, with Westerners often having the highest incomes, and immigrants from South Asia often being exploited as a cheap source of labour.  These workers may have even paid corrupt recruiters to be able to work on one of the many construction sites, and, on arrival, are made to live in cramped camps in the desert surrounding the city, whilst receiving minimal pay¹.  As inflation has set in, these economic divides have been deepened, and have in turn strengthened the cultural tensions. 

There are some organisations, however, that are looking to reduce the tension and misunderstanding of each other. The Sheik Mohammed Centre for Cultural Understanding, for example, has organized tours and meals in the homes of locals for expatriates, and college students are now organizing booths in shopping malls where expatriate shoppers and tourists can meet and talk to citizens.  A new museum built provides exhibitions and events on Dubai’s culture and history.   The citizens of Dubai remain proud of their city and their culture, and though this is indeed a rather artificial means of encouraging interaction it is, at least, a start. 

¹ HASSAN M. FATTAH In Dubai, an Outcry From Asians for Workplace Rights, March 26, 2006, New York Times