Search

This visualization powerfully draws attention to a process of racial segregation based on the categorization and signification of a population as socially and materially toxic. Given this is an archival image and that such spatial segregation based on the objectification of certain populations as 'toxic' continues today we are reminded of how a racial purity discourse and white supremacist structure continues to violently oppress people, yet such is done in a way as to appear convivial and innocent even though it is anything but.

I found the caption evocative and it educated me about the study site while also contextualizing the discourses at work. The contextualization was necessary for me as a foreigner to get a clearer sense of the racial politics in the USA, and particularly at this study site. The most powerful ethnographic insight generated for me was how what can at first appear to be a convivial representation can be in fact deeply informed by an historically persistent binary logic of clean/unclean, purity/danger, subject/object, inclusion/exclusion, etc.

For me, the caption does the work that is necessary here. Of course, more detailed historical context would be helpful for a non-USA audience however then the caption would likely become less punchy. Combined with the image the caption enough information is provided to generate questions and reflection about toxicity, populations, place-making, representation, etc. 

The image is clear. It is a found image (archival). I would love to have seen another image of this poster being held up on-site at the present-day location - a performative image, if you will. However, it is likely that given it is an archival item that would not be possible. 

See previous comment about possible composition of a contrasting with archival representation and a present-day site image. 

This image tells us that toxics are historical, contingent, socially-constructed. It also underscores thepoint the violent systems of oppression are circulated through signifiers of purity, innocence, and conviviality. 

This combination of two found images is notable in how it creates a stark contrast between the deliberate targeting of SROs and a romanticized form of historical revisionism promoted by Columbia University on their website. Its double exposure aesthetic is slightly disorienting, which can be productive in how it makes the viewer reflect on how the ongoing toxicity of forced removal via notions of blight is or isn’t visible.

This visualization and caption advance ethnographic insight by giving a message of confrontation across two very different historical narratives—one, a white supremacist romanticization of a neighborhood, and two, the systematic targetting of SRO buildings to transition them to privatized land using oppressive and coercive tactics against low-income, racialized tenants. The image’s sentiment is bold as it creates the effect of the blurring of both histories, while the orange targetting of SROs suggests a violence in how particular buildings undergo systematic forced evictions.

This image can be enriched by increasing the contrast so that the SRO map is more visible, as well as increasing the overall size of the image. In its current size it is difficult to appreciate the important detail on the map of SROs being targeted, as well as the language used in Columbia’s historical description. Adding another visual of what is considered blight may also add to the image.

This visualization shows how  different conceptions of social and material toxicants play a pivotal role in strategic narrativizations of community. The opaque notions of blight and urban renewal are used to justify violent actions against raced classed and gendered tenants—thus, toxicity becomes a rationalization for oppression. Whether its actual existence is real or imagined, the supposed need for building material “renewal” obscures other violent motivations for tenant displacement.