Suchergebnisse

Ithaca: integration and post-identity politics -- San Luis Obispo: lesbian identity politics and community -- Portland: hybrid and hyphenated identity politics -- Greenfield: lesbian feminist longtimers and post-identity-politics newcomers -- How places make us

Drawing on an ethnography of lesbian, bisexual, and queer (LBQ) residents in Ithaca, New York; San Luis Obispo, California; Greenfield, Massachusetts; and Portland, Maine' How Places Make Us shows how LBQ migrants craft a unique sense of self that corresponds to their new homes. The book demonstrates that sexual identities are responsive to city ecology. Despite the fact that the LBQ residents of all four cities share many demographic and cultural traits, their approaches to sexual identity politics and to ties with other LBQ individuals and heterosexual residents vary markedly by where they live. Subtly distinct local ecologies shape what it feels like to be a sexual minority, including the degree to which one feels accepted, how many other LBQ individuals one encounters in daily life, and how often a city declares its embrace of difference. In short, city ecology shapes how one "does" LBQ in a specific place. Ultimately, the book reveals that there isn't one general way of approaching sexual identity because humans are not only social, but fundamentally local creatures. Places make us much more than we might think. -- Provided by publisher

pt. 1. What is gentrification? Definitions and key concepts -- pt. 2. How, where and when does gentrification occur? -- pt. 3. Who are gentrifiers and why do they engage in gentrification? -- pt. 4. What are the outcomes and consequences of gentrification?

Contemporary sociology offers competing images of the breadth and consequences of gentrification. One subset presents gentrification as a nearly unstoppable force that plays a prominent role in the spatial reorganization of urban life; another presents it as less monolithic and less momentous for marginalized residents, particularly racial minorities. Although neither camp is methodologically homogenous, more qualitative scholars, typically relying on micro-level analyses of individual neighborhoods, tend to present gentrification as increasingly endemic, advanced, and consequential, whereas more quantitative scholars, typically relying on macro analyses, tend to present it in less dire terms. These competing images of gentrification originate in the fact that each subset of research asks different questions, employs distinct methods, and produces particular answers. Exacerbating and partially driving these divergences are different responses to an anxiety within and beyond the academy about broader spatial and economic shifts, such as growing income inequality.