It’s funny to think that I had never consciously linked gentrification to colonialism. In many ways, the process of gentrification perfectly mirrors colonialism: a more endowed (endowed in weapons regarding colonialism and money regarding gentrification) population enters an area and wields its endowed powers to take over the resources of said area, taking those resources from the population initially inhabiting it, and in many cases forces that population to leave; the “invading” population justifies their imperial acts in various ways (in the case of colonialism, arguing that they are colonizing so as to “civilize the natives,” and in the case of gentrification, arguing that they are “ridding the neighborhood of crime”).
While the comparisons between gentrification and classic colonialism are not difficult to draw, it is more difficult to compare gentrification to “colonialism via ‘development,’” a process outlined by Ivan Illich in his speech, “To Hell with Good Intentions.” In his 1968 speech, Illich identified “development” and “service” trips of Americans to impoverished regions of foreign countries as a means of spreading American ideals and “colonizing” the mode of thought in these locations. This style of “colonialism via ‘development’” does hold similarities to gentrification and classic colonialism in that the relationships in all three fields are unequal and rooted in power dynamics (the dynamics in foreign development being in fact rooted in classic colonialism), and involves the more “powerful” population generally silencing the other population in a way which the dominating group see as well intentioned, but it also holds a distinct difference. The main difference I see between foreign volunteering and gentrification is that those who participate in the foreign volunteer work receive no, or very few physical benefits in their actions. While a traditional colonist attains land and wealth (at least hypothetically) through conquest and the gentrifier attains space through inexpensive purchase, the volunteer attains nothing besides experience, a potentially boosted ego, and maybe an increased level of respect among their peers. No individual does anything for purely altruistic purposes and thus even the volunteer will only volunteer as long as they are finding self-benefit in their actions. The difference between foreign volunteerism and gentrification/classic colonialism, in my opinion, is that, while the field of foreign volunteerism is typically expressed in ways confirming colonial mentalities (we must help these lost souls by introducing to them our superior ways), it doesn’t have to be this way. Since volunteers in these fields largely are participating because they genuinely like helping people and are seeking new cross-cultural experiences, the foreign volunteer field could be radically changed so that it is more controlled by the populations in which the work is taking place and thus less perpetuates a savior mentality so much as that of the volunteer as the humble helper, and people will still volunteer. Maybe fewer will volunteer once they see that a program will not allow them to assume an air of superiority through altruism, but if I am right in understanding why most individuals seek to volunteer abroad, I believe that there will remain a workforce, ready to exchange labor for experience and learning. Questions for Panelists:
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorStudent at the University of Washington, Sophie Aanerud, will be studying abroad in Berlin, Germany. Here are some of her thoughts . . . Archives
August 2017
Categories |