Spatial the social sciences that refers to a

 

Spatial
segregation of population groups is an old phenomenon and has been analysed
from different perspectives of different authors.  It is an important concept of the geography
and of the social sciences that refers to a variety of processes and
preparatory of the analysis of internal differences in cites through different
categories such as family or ethnic social status. For decades people have been
living segregated by socio-economic, religious and ethnic.  Spatial segregation implies the concepts of
concentration and separation of one or more groups from the rest of the
population in an urban area, in which there is an overrepresentation of the
group itself. Different perspectives of spatial segregation are traceable
through the concepts of ghetto and enclave as all three of them are somehow
linked with each other. Further aspects and the linkage between these concepts
and inclusion and exclusion in term of integration, assimilation and
segregation will be presented in this assignment.

 

According to Van Kempen and Özüekren
(1998), spatial segregation is the residential separation of groups within a
broader population.  It exists when an
area shows an underrepresentation or vice versa of an ethnic group. They introduced
the term of spatial concentration as implied by spatial segregation, which
indicates an area populated with a considerable number of a certain ethnic
group, in comparison to other areas of the city. These areas of concentration
of groups with time become more segregated groups called ghetto. Ghetto is defined
as the concentration of a community denigrate, excluded, from the rest of
population, thus mostly in position of minority, with shared features and
cultural characteristics in segregated areas (Cashmore 1996:148).

One of the
possibilities in which the cultural distance is high, segregation can take form
of a voluntary enclave, as a defensive strategy of the identity, or into an
involuntary ghetto, as a consequence of a rejection by the rest of the
population. Marcuse (1997) specify the characteristic features by defining
enclaves those areas in which the members of a group have spatially merged and
come together with the aim of increasing their socio-economical, political and
cultural situation, for example Chinatown in San Francisco and New York. Ghetto
is instead, defined as an area inhabited by individuals below the standard of
living and high level of crime (Van Kempen 1998).
In addition, ghettos are perceived as segregated areas, in which people are
excluded from the rest of population and principally from cultural growth,
developing advantage business, and financial employment. Indeed, Johnston et al
(1986 in Van Kempen 1998:1634) defines ghetto as a residential district that
preserve one ethnic or cultural group.

Ceri Peach
(2010) one of the most considered authors, analyzed these concepts of ghetto
and enclave deeply and interpreted them critically. He based his research on
the previous American literature of Chicago school. Given that their finding
has strong empirical emphasis, as their work was based on the African American
ghetto, therefore these concepts were described according to that group. He
argues the failure of theoretical literature of American sociology inherent to
Chicago school theory in distinguishing clearly the two concepts of ghetto and
enclave and linkage of ghetto as 3rd spatial stage. Peach (2010)
explains these concepts as part of the two basic models of incorporation. The
enclave as part of the assimilationist model (melting pot) predicted the
merging of different groups where dominant differences disappear. Therefore,
more inclusiveness compared to the ghetto, the latter, which can be either
forced or voluntarily, as part of multiculturalist (pluralistic) model, indicates
integration by accommodating while maintaining a separate identity, therefore, more exclusive from the host societies.

The Chicago
school that started the research in 1920s introduced the three generational
schema, which showed the progress of settlement of the first generation, in
inner city followed by second generations ´movement towards assimilation and
finally the third generation is totally diffused in suburbs and
assimilated.  Peach (2010) argues, considered
the ghetto as the first stage included immigrants in the process of
assimilation; where enclave was a stage of process, but ghetto was not.It was
an end in itself. As a result, ghetto and enclave were mixed up. The error made
by Chicago school, was recognizing ghetto as temporary phenomenon, which later
became permanent. Moreover, this model of three-stage cycles did not satisfy
the African American ghetto, as it was expected these steps to happen on after
the other as a natural process, but it never happened. Rather the ghetto is, in
most cases, relocated with African American but never fully transformed into
enclave or suburbs (Peach 2010:585,586).Moreover, the unclear fact among the
terms ghetto and enclave were not problematize and mixed up with assimilation
and integration.  In this case, the
research also included the African American ghetto. On this research Peach
(2010) marks the distinction between the African American ghetto and the ethnic
enclave defining the first one as dual segregation and negatively perceived.
African American ghetto was involuntary and plural, started in inner city, with
almost exclusive concentration of minority. Contrary to the expectation of
Chicago school theory, black ghetto opposed to the ethnic enclave, was defined
as dually diluted minority of ethnics and no area were associated to them.  Kenneth Clark (1975 in Van Kempen 1998:11)
stated that ghetto exist due to the consequences of deliberate policy of those
who have power in mainstream society. He took as an example the black ghetto,
stating that, “the dark ghetto´s invisible walls have been erected by the white
society, by those who have power, both to confine those who have no power and
to perpetuate their powerlessness” (Van Kempen 1998:11).

Another
definition of ghetto is given by Van Amersfoort (1980 in Van Kempen1998: 1634).
He describes ghetto as an “institutionalized” residential area whose
inhabitants belong to one single ethnicity, religion or race and they do not
live in any other area. He wanted to emphasize the fact that people somehow are
forced to live together and they choose neither their dwellings nor the area
themselves. An important clue to exclusive policy is given from Van Kempen
(2003), as an example, in the case of Swedish municipalities, where, as a
result of a considerable number of anti-immigrant votes; housing associations
discriminate indirectly by stating that they do not have available dwellings in
certain areas or by simply asking high fees of registration.

Assimilation is
a difficult process to describe; indeed this paradigm took root from the model
of migration and ethnic relation in US. The Chicago school of ethnic and
residential segregation described this phenomenon as a natural process
triggered by arrival of immigrants groups. These groups were locating at the bottom
of the economic ladder and settled in the poorer areas of city. Accordingly,
segregation was considered a preliminary and temporary phase, where individuals
lived very disorganized life without any contact with the rest of population.
Assimilation process in inclusiveness indicates one sided adaption of people
into the society willingly; that can happen in different ways which are:
culturally partial adoption (individuals or group come resemble to host
society) structural (primary relation with members of host society) identificational – results
more functional because the longer individual will stay in host country the
higher will become the potential to climb social ladder ( Massey et al 1985) –
martial, attitude (minority targeted ) behavioral( discrimination against the
minority) and civic – indicate total 
inclusion without conflicts (Gordon Milton 1964). Basically assimilation
argues disappearance through confirming the dominant structure or miring
different groups through a spatial diffusion (Peach 2010: 585).Integration
instead is positive net to accommodate minorities in wider societies, in spite
of higher risks of segregation, social encapsulation and residential
concentrations and separations remain. Jose´Diaz (1993) introduces the model of
integration defining it as the access of minorities in all fields of a society,
focusing, therefore, on social and networks relations that maintain proper
identity. He divided this process into primary and secondary integration. The
first one was described as partial or complete equalities with natives, while
the second one was the highest level of equality, having all the qualitative
characteristics for self-support. Integration is a form of inclusiveness of
individuals, into the host society while accommodating positively members of
different groups.

Segregation is
explained on the basis of the exogenous causes, as a consequence of attenuation
of rejection and of reciprocal ratios; and of endogenous cause such as forms of
solidarity, of assistance, reciprocity, within a group and preservation of
cultural activity. Therefore, the various perspectives of analysis have
highlighted the negative and the positive aspects, linked to the advantages and
disadvantages that spatial concentration can imply.  Thus is affects positively and negatively on exclusion, distinction and separation of individuals
or group in the same city often these people are victim of inequality in
opportunities and different social field in a group or society. If form one
hand, spatial segregation, as an advantage, results emergence and preservation
of minority cultures and helps to keep and to maintain ethnic networks
stimulating entrepreneurship among a group, 
From other hand, it impacts negatively on School system, for an instance
children with foreign background have less possibility to get good education if
they live in a concentration area. Therefore people will be limited in
intellect and will not be able to improve, instead it will become “harder for
children living in such areas to become fluent in the majority language”
(Ballard 1990 in Van Kempen 1998).  As a
result that area occupied by unique group with same characteristic culturally
and linguistically will not benefit their children, who will be obliged to
communicate with same skills, thus huge risk and disadvantage for further
integration into the host society. Furthermore, continued permanency in
stagnated areas will bring negative image to the district, by restricting the
social mobility of whole classes of people and it can also have an effect on
commercial facilities by limiting strongly any possibility to improve economic
situation.