I almost wish that we had read these articles earlier in the semester since the ghetto has been made a commodity marketed and packaged by mainstream culture, rather than seen as a place that needs resources, not a microscope. Social isolation is hardly ever pointed to as a major contributing factor to the state of the ghetto today. Many times the government and private organizations think that simply lack of resources is what keeps people in the ghetto, when in fact mental prison is the real cause of the immobility of this class. In the media fueled glamorization of the ghetto I feel that people drift further and further away from the reality of what ghetto living entails. Those of other classes see rappers like Nelly and 50 Cent rapping about the ghetto and suddenly a glimmery picture in their minds is formed of an edgy place with naked dancing women, rappers with chains, and rhythmic music. The reality of the ghetto is a place where those with limited or no resources raised kids who in turn have limited resources and no social reach, a breeding ground for ignorance, desperation, and crime. Those in the ghetto tend to have no contacts outside of their immediate local area. This isolation is just as instrumental in the contributing to the emiseration of the ghetto as the lack of resources.
The Fernandez and Harris piece so eloquently delineates the amendments that need to be made to the social isolation theory in order for it to hold water. Perhaps the most important and interesting point made was that those in the ghetto have no access to those who are part of the “mainstream.” Those considered mainstream have stable employment and are not on public assistance. The fact that most ties in the ghetto are inbred means that the few close ties help by people are characterized by suspicion and multiplexity. It is interesting to see in the results, especially among poor females that tend to have the have the smallest networks. While women tended to be most often nonworking poor I was floored by the suggestion that their status as nonworking has much more to do with their isolation than the effects of poverty. When I thought about it, this makes sense. Most of those different from ourselves we meet at school or work, therefore, for those who do not have a job their networks seem are truly confined by the bounds of the neighborhood. According to Fernandez and Harris, the non working as a whole report less friends and more close kin ties. Those who work have significantly bigger vaster networks.
Question:
What type of programs could be implemented to combat the social isolation of the poor?
The second article by Marsden and Hurlbert is interesting because I completely thought that their findings on social isolation would completely support the Fernandez and Harris piece. Marseden and Hurlbert found no association between tie strength and mobility outcomes or access to social resources. That way it would appear as though there is no connection between the immobility of those in the ghetto vs. others. All the data presented on the structure and density of these networks suddenly pales in comparison to this data which suggests that there is particular pattern showing that more weak or strong ties affect one’s job obtaining ability. This leads me to wonder, if the findings of this study is in fact true, then what can be done to help those in without? Is it more of a luck of the draw thing than a systematic network mobilization? The finding that the effects of social measures are outcome specific was also a let down from my point of view. I was hoping for data specifically relating to the have-nots instead of the sample selected for this study.
Question:
If there is no association between tie strength and mobility of outcomes/ access to positions, look at your answer to question one and explain how your approach would now differ in response to the disparity in the ghettos.