Scaling Diversity Racial Mixing_ Segregation and Urban America iuo

Document Sample
Scaling Diversity Racial Mixing_ Segregation and Urban America iuo Powered By Docstoc
					                                         Steven R. Holloway
                                       Department of Geography
                                           University of Georgia

Thinking About Mixedness and Mixing: International and
              Interdisciplinary Dialogue
           ESRC Series, Seminar 1: Spaces and Places
       12 December 2008, London South Bank University
 Collaborators:
   Richard Wright, Geography, Dartmouth College
   Mark Ellis, Geography, U. of Washington
   Margaret East, Independent Scholar
   Serin Houston, Geography, Syracuse U.
 Funding:
   Russell Sage Foundation
   National Science Foundation
 Rebecca Acosta: essential assistance with
  data access
 This lecture reports the results of research and
  analysis undertaken while the authors held Special
  Sworn Status and were conducting research
  approved by the Center for Economic Studies at
  the U.S. Census Bureau. The materials presented
  here have undergone a review more limited in
  scope than that given to official Census Bureau
  publications. Research results and conclusions
  expressed are those of the authors and do not
  necessarily indicate concurrence by the Census
  Bureau. Reported results have been screened to
  insure that no confidential information is revealed.
Is the US Diverse Yet?
 Racial/Ethnic Diversity is Increasing:
   Nationally
   Across Regions:
     Historic Latino Immigration to the US South
   Across Metropolitan Landscapes:
     Central Cities & Suburbs
   Increasing Numbers of Mixed-Race Families and
   Prominent / Visible Multiracial People
Celebrating Diversity
 Obama as symbol of post-racial turn?
 Diversity connected to economic success
  through figures of racial mixing
   Marketing
   Richard Florida’s Creative Class
   High rise, high density public housing replaced
    with “mixed” neighborhoods
   New Urbanism celebrates “mixed” neighborhoods
Paradoxes Abound
 Old forms of racial inequalities persist:
   Residential segregation declines slowly (increases
    for Latinos)
 New forms of racial inequalities emerge:
   Incarceration
   Predatory lending
   Anti-Immigrant zeal resurges
 Inter-racial contact increases conflict and
  reduces social trust (Putnam & others, at
  least in the short run)
If “Separation” is the
Problem . . .
 DuBois’ 1903 The Souls of Black Folk
  contends that “The problem of the
  twentieth century is the problem of the
  color line”
 Myrdal’s 1944 An American Dilemma
  argues that the US must live up to its
  liberal beliefs (& promises) by granting
  full inclusion to Blacks
        . . . is “Together” the

   Desegregation
   Integration
   Mixing
   Diversity
   Multiculturalism
Our Response
 Foreground role of “racial mixing” in broader
  “diversity” discourse
 Examine how “racial mixing” manifests at
  multiple sites and spatial scales in the US
  urban context :
   Multiracial bodies
   Mixed-race households
   Racially plural neighborhoods and metropolitan
 Focus on the mixed-race household:
   Where do mixed-race families, once formed, “fit”
    within racially segregated metropolitan
   What impact does household racial mixing have:

     on the evolving racial structure of cities?
     on the formation of racial identities?
Underlying Framework
 “Race” as social construct with profound
  material impacts
   Not “Biological,” not “Natural”
   Racial hierarchy, enduring yet flexible, helps
    create and maintain white privilege and power
 Racial Projects / Racial Formations (Omi &
   Discursively Constituted: currently colorblind and
    coded (Bonilla-Silva Racism without Racists)
   Related to the State (Goldberg The Racial State)
    and Capitalism in the current era of Neoliberalism
Underlying Framework
 Race – Space: Mutually Constituted, Dialectic
 Racial Projects are necessarily Geographic,
  underlain with spatial tactics and strategies
 Geographies are Racialized: they are imbued
  with racial meanings and racialized identity
   Often in accord with hegemonic power
   Also transgressively claimed
   Contested and conflictual
Interracial Intimacies
 Myrdal (1944): interracial sex was the core
  element “around which the whole structure
  of segregation of the Negroes” was organized
   If not the actual cause, panic over racial purity was
    a major part of the anti-mixing (anti-integration,
    anti-desegregation) discourse
 Renee Romano (2003, p. 9) : “the erosion of
  the taboo against interracial relationships is
  crucial to understanding the workings of race
  in modern America. Because intimate
  relationships across the color line strike at the
  very core of racial identity . . .”

  Mildred Jeter and Richard Loving provided the case used by
the US Supreme Court in 1967 to void all remaining State anti
                                        -miscegenation laws.
 The case’s geography, not typically noted,
  is quite illustrative for our project:
   Virginia law forbade the couple to be married
   They married in DC, were arrested when they
    tried to move home to Virginia
   Their trial court banished them from Virginia
    for 25 years!
   The struggle over residential location animated
    the case that eventually removed all legal
 1990 & 2000 Census confidential long-form
  information (full 1-in-6 sample) with census
  tract identifiers
 12 (16 in 2000) large metropolitan areas
 Six most numerous mixed-race household
   • White-Latino      • White-Indian
   • White-Asian       • Black-Latino
   • White-Black       • Latino-Asian
 Opposite-sex married and partnered
Analytical Strategy
 Map mixed-race households to gage the
  racial character of neighborhoods
   Numerically
     Averages
     Statistical modeling
   Cartographically
     Requires a better way to “see” the racial character of
      urban space
 Tension between “segregation” and
Expected Patterns
 Historically, black-white couples were forced
  to live in, or very close to, segregated black
  neighborhoods (institutional discrimination,
  hostility, etc.)
   Gender inflected this pattern in a slight loosening
    of the constraints for white-male, black-female
    couples (patrilocal residence).
Expected Patterns
 3 Possibilities for Contemporary Patterns
   Assimilation – no observable difference between
    mixed-race and white households
   Pluralism – emergent “mixed” identity that transcends
    old racial categories, but with the end of a new
    category. Spatially, we would expect emergent
    enclaves of mixed-race households, perhaps like the
    emergent ethnoburbs
   Parodoxical Space – moving away from the racial
    binaries embedded within mixed-race partnering
 Both pluralism and paradoxical locations will
  result in mixed-race households living in more
  diverse neighborhoods
In the Most Diverse Neighborhoods
Mapping Diversity, Mapping
 Segregation and Diversity are related (non-
  orthogonal) yet distinct axes of racialized
  urban space – both are necessary and
  individually inadequate for visualization
 Start w/ standard index of diversity (scaled
  entropy), categorize into 3 levels (low,
  moderate, high).
 Layer on segregation by subcategorizing by
  racial group w/ largest share


Mapping Mixed-Race

 Overlay “Super Concentrations” of mixed-
  race household types
 Relative concentrations using Location
 LQkj = (HHkj / HH.j) / (HHk. / H..)
   Location quotient for mixed group K in tract J,
    based on the counts of households (HH). “Dots”
    indicate sums of counts
Atlanta: White-Black Households
     Major Concentrations
Atlanta: White-Black Households
       All Concentrations
Los Angeles: White-Black
Los Angeles: White-Black
Los Angeles: White-Black & White-
Asian Households
Los Angeles: White-Black, White-
Asian & White-Latino Households
BW Super-concentrations
(LQ>3) by Type of Tract
 No evidence for an emergent mixed-race
 For White-Black households, some evidence
  for “paradoxical” space – away from areas
  dominated by whites or blacks, and towards
  diverse areas
   Maps show a range of patterns
 For White-Latino and White-Asian
  households, an intermediate pattern
   Perhaps transitional towards Assimilation and the
    (spatial) expansion of whiteness
Effects on Segregation?

 Simplistically, mixed-race households
  increase diversity where ever where they go,
  because they decrease the concentration of
  individuals living in single-race households
 Upon reflection, however, we anticipate that
  without mixed-race household, evident
  patterns of racial segregation would have
  been worse than standard data analyses
Effects on Segregation?

 We examined the degree to which racially
  diverse households constitute the racial
  diversity of neighborhoods
   Racially diverse households constitute a non-
    trivial share of neighborhood-level diversity
   Racially diversity households are most important
    as a share of neighborhood diversity in the least
    diverse neighborhoods.
Segregation’s Effect on
Racial Claims
 We argue that racial socialization is a
  geographically contingent process whereby
  families make choices about how to prepare
  their multiracial children for a world in which
  racial distinctions till matter
   Beyond the preference that parents of multiracial
    children may have for the racial composition of
    neighborhoods, does the residential environment
    signal to parents how to think about and report
    the race of their children?
 It is tempting to celebrate the hard won
  freedom of people to love across artificial
  racial lines as indicative of true racial progress
 Without sounding a note too pessimistic, we
  join with Renee Romano and other race
  scholars with the caution that racial projects
  are not dead – indeed contemporary society
  is experiencing transformations that both
  open opportunities for some while closing
  opportunities for others
 The residential geographies of mixed-race
  households reveal much about the racial
  structuring of US cities, and how people
  navigate through these racialized structures
 Our analysis reveals that emergent patterns
  are not yet set, but that it appears that mixed
  -race households are well aware of the racial
  characteristics of neighborhoods, and
  function as grounded social geographers in
  their daily lives
 At the same time that racially diverse
  households navigate through racialized urban
  landscapes, they also transform these
  landscapes. They are still small in numbers
  overall, but have a profound compositional
  impact in some neighborhoods. Tellingly,
  they are most visible, and most important as
  bearers of racial difference, in the least
  diverse neighborhoods.
 My caution today is to treat the growth in
  mixed-race love as both a partial, still
  underway, victory against artificial racial
  distinctions, and as part of the increased
  cloaking of racial divisions in ideological
  narratives of a post-segregation, colorblind
Regression Models

 The models describe average tract
  characteristics of the places where BWs reside
 Comparisons made with households headed by
  same-race whites and blacks.
 The dependent variable = simple counts of BWs
  and their WW and BB counterparts by tract
 Negative binomial estimation
Independent variables
 Two controls: spatial lag variable to account for
  spatial autocorrelation and tract population to
  account for size.
 Neighborhood socio-economic status: median
  household income, percent lacking a high school
  diploma, and percent homeownership.
 Tract diversity: percent black, scaled entropy,
  percent of the tract that claimed a race other than
  black or white.
 Other variables:
   Percent foreign born.
   Percent of households not headed by a black-white partnership.
   Metropolitan areas entered as dummy variables.
Results: Entropy

 Neighborhood racial composition (entropy) -- net of
 other racial composition variables – is a powerful
 variable explaining the neighborhood geographies
 of households headed by both same- and mixed-
 race couples.
 It matters for white couples as well as black; in fact,
 it matters more for households headed by same-
 race black partners than it does for households
 headed by black-white mixed-race couples.
 (This result differs from descriptive analysis without
Results: tract percent
The model predicts:
    1) a 68 percent decrease in the count of households
    headed by same-race white couples with a one standard
    deviation increase in percentage black in a
    2) a 185 percent increase in the count of BBs across this
    metropolitan system with a one standard deviation
    increase in percentage black in a neighborhood.
    3) an 8 percent increase in the count of BWs if the
    percentage black in the neighborhood rises by one
    standard deviation.
   Results: Home ownership
The model predicts:
    1) a 30 percent increase in the count of households headed
    by same-race white couples with a one standard deviation
    increase in the percentage homeowners.
    2) a 15 percent increase in the count of BBs with a one
    standard deviation increase in the percentage homeowners.
    3) a 4 percent decrease in the count of BWs if the percentage
    proportion of home-owners rises by one standard deviation.
Future Research

 Refocus on individual metropolitan areas to drill
  deeper into place effects
 Gay v. straight couples: different spatial logics
 Mull neighborhood “diversity”

Shared By: