rain and the rhinoceros

I recently wrote this paper for an Urban Space course. It is based on my previous post “Globalization and Its Present Implications.”Cities, as areas comprised of a diversity of social groups, have always experienced spatial divisions. In general, people have always been “naturally” attracted to spaces in which they feel most comfortable, or at home. However, by no means do all people get the opportunity to live in the spaces of their choice; in fact, most do not. In cities driven by capital, within a larger national and international capitalist economy, most people do not have the liberty to live comfortably. From a broader economic perspective, it is evident that an ever-increasing gap between the rich and the poor has driven those in the latter category to the slums and ghettos of the city, and those in the former to walled citadels of security.Indeed, the problem and reality of deep spatial divisions within cities is full of complexities, some of which are more easily discernable than others. Of course, there are always many internal reasons for the partitioning of city spaces, which tend to focus on historical spatial developments. For instance, in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century the working-class resided in the Lower East Side of New York City, primarily because of its geographical location to industry and manufacturing factories, and other places of employment. As better forms of transportation developed in and around the Lower East Side, and as the employment field of manufacturing became obsolete, new spatial developments formed.Apart from internal changes and industrial developments, or perhaps parallel to them, there has been considerable external change, on the national and international level, that has played a significant role in deepening spatial divisions in cities. Some scholars have made a connection between the “commencement of globalization” and the deepened spatial divisions within cities since 1970. Marcuse and Van Kempen observe: “While cities have always been divided along lines of culture, function, and status, the pattern today is a new, and in many ways deeper-going, combination of these divisions.” The purpose of this essay is to further explore the effects of “globalization” on urban spatial and social divisions. This essay will argue that globalization deepens these divisions and that it has largely been fueled by an underlying and persistent problem, namely, the struggle for power. Of course, the reality of this struggle is not novel, but with the rise of globalization it has reached a new level.The primary concern of this essay is with the effects of globalization on spatial and social divisions in cities. It is necessary to first, define the term globalization before the discussion continues. The word globalization is being used to describe the growth in the international trade-market, particularly since World War II. Essentially, it is the existence of an active international or global laissez-faire capitalist system. Mega cities are most commonly the center and nexus around which the globalized economy operates and functions. Hence, we may speak of the globalization of a particular city, or the global city. Major cities such as New York, London, Tokyo, Paris, and Toronto have all been associated with the title “global cities.” Although there is no strict scholarly consensus as to exactly which cities can be properly called “global cities”, the largest, most “developed” cities have been the primary focus of research.The observation that the process of globalization has had a major effect on urban areas has been widely discussed in recent research. S. Sassen’s thesis shed light on the recent increase in social disparity and polarization in global cities. She has shown the strong connection between the increase in global mobility of capital and labor and urban income inequality. In global cities, she argues, the transnational corporations provide higher pay to less and less workers and have largely replaced the manufacturing employment sector. As a result, employment outside of the transnational corporate headquarters is to be found in the low paying service sector of the city. Sassen’s argument has guided much of the recent discussion concerning the effects of globalization on the city, including those on spatial divisions.Some scholars have argued that the deepening of social divisions, or what has been called “urban income inequality”, is translating into a deepening of spatial divisions, or social-class segregation. Others have argued the reverse situation is occurring, namely, that spatial divisions have isolated the poor from corporate employment opportunity, which has led to urban income inequality, and thereby greater social divisions. However, the two arguments are not mutually exclusive and do not occur in a vacuum. It seems that there is a sort of dialectical interaction between spatial segregation and urban income inequality. In many cases, spatial divisions are highly influenced and even demarcated by income level or social class. These spatial divisions do cause a degree of isolation from the higher paid corporate sector. Thus, there is a perpetual circle operating indefinitely. Of course, there are other reasons why spatial divisions occur and why income inequalities exist; the problem is extremely complex. However, it is evident that the process of globalization has led to a distinct increase in this dialectal interaction, and thereby, an accentuation of the problem.As mentioned already, cities have always experienced spatial divisions. The question thus arises: what distinguishes the effects of globalization from the spatial divisions of the past? Though recognizing the considerable differences between cities, Marcuse and Van Kempen have identified some “basic features” held in common. They include the following: “a spatial concentration within cities of a new urban poverty on the one hand, and of specialized “high-level” internationally connected business activities on the other, with increasing spatial divisions not only between each of them but also among segments of the “middle class” in between.” Marcuse and Van Kempen argue that globalization has led to a “new spatial order” in which social and even physical walls are being created at a rapid rate, and thereby, deepening spatial and social divisions.The decline and reduction of the manufacturing sector and the rise of the service sector has had a profound impact on social and spatial divisions. As a result, new social and spatial orders have been established. Because of the reduction of manufacturing, the working-class must accept jobs in the service industry, which has become the predominate structure of employment for the working-class, and is generally low-skill work for low pay.Although there is a high demand for workers in the service sector, the highly paid workers at the transnational and multinational corporations are less dependent on local service than ever. With the rise of information technology (e.g. the internet), the elite workers in the global corporations do not have as much reason to converse with the local working-class service sector. This has created distinct spatial divisions between the rich and the poor. The rich have less and less reason to live near the poor, for they are increasingly not bound by space at all. They are so oriented internationally that, in a sense, they could be described as being almost “non-spatial”. The rich, having an increased flexibility of choosing where they live, in many cases have turned to gated communities with high security. In contrast, the poor having become largely irrelevant to the global economy have been forced to the ghettos.The walls that have been created for security and protection of the rich, which operate as a force to push the poor to the ghettos, are a physical manifestation of an underlying human condition: the desire and struggle for power over others. The struggle for power is perhaps a natural and primitive instinct of human nature, or more broadly an animal instinct. Whatever the psychological or anthropological reasons, the desire for power over others is certainly evident in humans. It manifests itself in some way or another in every person, every culture, and in every period of history. It is the drive for wealth and prosperity, land and security. It is what Friedrich Nietzsche described as the “will to power,” or the unsurpassable übermensch. It is what Jesus of Nazareth spoke out against. Social and physical spatial divisions are just one manifestation of this much larger and underlying problem, which has and continues to cause estrangement, prejudice, inequality, and injustice.The struggle for power is operative in every society and culture. Power can take many forms and can be sought after in different ways. In the present age, power has taken the form of financial wealth. Globalization, or more specifically, the capitalist system, is the present manifestation of the struggle for power. It is a struggle that is advertised as being fair; it is defined by the idea of equal opportunity for all. But as is well known, in any struggle, there are “winners” and there are “losers”. Those who do not have a desire to participate in the struggle are set up to “lose”. Those who want to participate but cannot because of spatial and social divisions also “lose”. There are those who overcome these divisions and achieve great success, but this is rare. In many cases, those who achieve success, the “winners”, have done so at the expense of others. In fact, this is the nature of every struggle for power between humans.With the rise of globalization in recent decades, the mega-cities, or global cities have become the center for the struggle for power. In many ways, the “winners” of the struggle are more determined, or at least more discernable. In a global city, the poor, service-sector has become estranged from the world economy, and forced to the ghetto of the city. The deepening of the social and spatial divisions is evident and implies a degree of isolation and polarization. The dialectical interaction between the space and social divisions are perhaps more complex than ever. It is becoming increasingly more difficult for the poor to participate, much less gain success in the global economy. The “winners” of the struggle for power are clear and they define themselves with walls of security.