On Anti-Suburban Orthodoxy

In: Social science quarterly, Band 72, Heft 3, S. 478-490

Abstract

Antisuburban orthodoxy permeates much of the literature on US urban life & the status of suburbia, & presents suburbanites as affluent conformists trying to avoid responsibility for the problems of the central city. Here, biases of antisuburban scholars in their discussion of urban & suburban economics, classes, races, & politics are identified, & it is argued that "suburb-bashing" serves the political values of nonacademics & academics alike. In What, Me Hate the Suburbs? The Irrelevance of Anti-Suburban Orthodoxy, Max Neiman (U of California, Riverside) agrees that some scholars remain antisuburban, but insists that more contemporary treatments are more balanced, recognizing that the diversity of current suburbs renders blanket criticism of suburbia antiquated. In Blaming the Suburbs?, John R. Logan (State U of New York, Albany) contends that Hawkins & Perry have not presented any evidence to support their accusations that suburb-bashing is the predominant theme of urban research, nor any criteria by which others could evaluate urban researchers for their alleged biases against suburbs. The affluent, white, middle-class suburb is a myth that no one believes in anymore. In Rejoinder to Neiman and Logan Hawkins & Percy contend that the effects of antisuburban orthodoxy still persist, & central cities have yet to be examined under the same scrutiny applied to suburbs. 66 References. M. Pflum