流离失所合法化:学术话语、领土污名化和绅士化

IF 4.2 1区 经济学 Q1 ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES
Richard Kirk
{"title":"流离失所合法化:学术话语、领土污名化和绅士化","authors":"Richard Kirk","doi":"10.1177/00420980241235015","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This article explores the territorial stigmatisation–gentrification nexus and how it is advanced by an intellectual pipeline between academics and policymakers in the USA. Despite much research revealing the pathologising narratives latent within displacement-inducing urban policies, little work has explicitly sought to underscore the influence of academic discourses in promoting these policies. Centring a triad of discourses surrounding concentrated disadvantage, social mix and neighbourhood effects – emergent namely from the academic fields of urban sociology, criminology, urban planning and urban economics – I provide an evidential linkage between academic discourse and displacement-causing US policymaking by conducting a document analysis of official reports related to two major US government programmes: the Moving to Opportunity for Fair Housing (MTO) Demonstration programme and the Housing Opportunities for People Everywhere (HOPE) VI programme. I suggest that these academic discourses operate to legitimise displacement via neighbourhood-centric framings which advance territorial stigmatisation and related gentrification. These discourses, I argue, reinforce the real estate state and the destructive capitalist force of uneven geographical development while working to facilitate the disregard of propositions that would effect structural change. I conclude with an explanation for the present configuration of the academy-to-policy pipeline and why it has failed to onboard critical, macro-structurally orientated scholarship, and issue a call for a direction forward.","PeriodicalId":51350,"journal":{"name":"Urban Studies","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Legitimising displacement: Academic discourse, territorial stigmatisation and gentrification\",\"authors\":\"Richard Kirk\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/00420980241235015\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This article explores the territorial stigmatisation–gentrification nexus and how it is advanced by an intellectual pipeline between academics and policymakers in the USA. Despite much research revealing the pathologising narratives latent within displacement-inducing urban policies, little work has explicitly sought to underscore the influence of academic discourses in promoting these policies. Centring a triad of discourses surrounding concentrated disadvantage, social mix and neighbourhood effects – emergent namely from the academic fields of urban sociology, criminology, urban planning and urban economics – I provide an evidential linkage between academic discourse and displacement-causing US policymaking by conducting a document analysis of official reports related to two major US government programmes: the Moving to Opportunity for Fair Housing (MTO) Demonstration programme and the Housing Opportunities for People Everywhere (HOPE) VI programme. I suggest that these academic discourses operate to legitimise displacement via neighbourhood-centric framings which advance territorial stigmatisation and related gentrification. These discourses, I argue, reinforce the real estate state and the destructive capitalist force of uneven geographical development while working to facilitate the disregard of propositions that would effect structural change. I conclude with an explanation for the present configuration of the academy-to-policy pipeline and why it has failed to onboard critical, macro-structurally orientated scholarship, and issue a call for a direction forward.\",\"PeriodicalId\":51350,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Urban Studies\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-03-18\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Urban Studies\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"96\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/00420980241235015\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"经济学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Urban Studies","FirstCategoryId":"96","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00420980241235015","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本文探讨了地域污名化与城市化之间的关系,以及美国学术界与政策制定者之间的知识管道是如何推动这种关系的。尽管有很多研究揭示了诱发流离失所的城市政策中潜藏的病理学叙事,但很少有研究明确强调学术话语在促进这些政策方面的影响。围绕集中的不利条件、社会组合和邻里效应--即城市社会学、犯罪学、城市规划和城市经济学等学术领域中出现的--的三重论述,我通过对与两个主要的美国政府计划有关的官方报告进行文件分析,提供了学术论述与导致流离失所的美国政策制定之间的证据联系:"为公平住房创造机会"(MTO)示范计划和 "为各地人民创造住房机会"(HOPE)第六阶段计划。我认为,这些学术话语通过以邻里为中心的框架,推动了地域鄙视和相关的绅士化,从而使流离失所合法化。我认为,这些论述强化了房地产国家和地域发展不平衡的破坏性资本主义力量,同时也助长了对能够实现结构性变革的主张的漠视。最后,我解释了从学术界到政策制定者的现有结构,以及为什么它未能采纳批判性的、以宏观结构为导向的学术研究,并发出了前进方向的呼吁。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Legitimising displacement: Academic discourse, territorial stigmatisation and gentrification
This article explores the territorial stigmatisation–gentrification nexus and how it is advanced by an intellectual pipeline between academics and policymakers in the USA. Despite much research revealing the pathologising narratives latent within displacement-inducing urban policies, little work has explicitly sought to underscore the influence of academic discourses in promoting these policies. Centring a triad of discourses surrounding concentrated disadvantage, social mix and neighbourhood effects – emergent namely from the academic fields of urban sociology, criminology, urban planning and urban economics – I provide an evidential linkage between academic discourse and displacement-causing US policymaking by conducting a document analysis of official reports related to two major US government programmes: the Moving to Opportunity for Fair Housing (MTO) Demonstration programme and the Housing Opportunities for People Everywhere (HOPE) VI programme. I suggest that these academic discourses operate to legitimise displacement via neighbourhood-centric framings which advance territorial stigmatisation and related gentrification. These discourses, I argue, reinforce the real estate state and the destructive capitalist force of uneven geographical development while working to facilitate the disregard of propositions that would effect structural change. I conclude with an explanation for the present configuration of the academy-to-policy pipeline and why it has failed to onboard critical, macro-structurally orientated scholarship, and issue a call for a direction forward.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Urban Studies
Urban Studies Multiple-
CiteScore
10.50
自引率
8.50%
发文量
150
期刊介绍: Urban Studies was first published in 1964 to provide an international forum of social and economic contributions to the fields of urban and regional planning. Since then, the Journal has expanded to encompass the increasing range of disciplines and approaches that have been brought to bear on urban and regional problems. Contents include original articles, notes and comments, and a comprehensive book review section. Regular contributions are drawn from the fields of economics, planning, political science, statistics, geography, sociology, population studies and public administration.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信