REVIEW -- OCTOBER

SOCIOLOGY OF URBAN LIFE

AK/POLS/SOCI 3561 6.0A

{SYNOPSIS AND GENERAL OVERVIEW: THE SECOND SECTION OF THE COURSE HAS BEEN FOCUSED ON THE CRITICAL EXAMINATION OF URBAN POPULATIONS AND SELECT URBAN PROBLEMS. IT WAS DIVIDED INTO FOUR SUBJECT AREAS: (1) SOCIAL TIES AND COMMUNITY IN THE CITY, (2) IMMIGRATION AND URBAN MIGRATION PATTERNS, (3) STEREOTYPING IN THE CITY, AND (4) URBAN SOCIAL PROBLEMS

{THE SOCIOLOGICAL KEY === IN THIS SECOND SECTION OF THE COURSE WE FOCUSED ON THE UNDERSTANDING OF CITIES' SOCIAL ORGANIZATION – HOW THE CITY'S “SOCIAL ORDER” CAN BECOME A REFLECTION OF “SOCIAL INEQUALITY;” AND HOW SOCIAL INEQUALITY IN THE CITY IS A SOURCE OF SERIOUS “SOCIAL PROBLEMS” SUCH AS POVERTY, HOMELESSNESS, CRIME, AND RACIAL CONFLICT.

PART I – SOCIAL TIES AND COMMUNITY IN THE CITY

THERE ARE DISCERNIBLY DIFFERENT STAGES OF SOCIOLOGICAL THOUGHT REGARDING THE IMPACT OF THE CITY ON COMMUNITY, DUE TO COMPLEX SOCIETAL CHANGES ====> COMMUNITY HAS BEEN TRADITIONAL(LY) COMMUNITIES WERE DEFINED AS CONSISTING OF DENSELY KNIT RELATIONSHIPS WITH SIMILAR OTHERS INVOLVED IN EVERYDAY, PLACE-BASED INTERACTIONS ====> IN THE “POSTINDUSTRIAL” AGE ADVANCES IN TRANSPORTATION AND COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGIES LEAD TO THE DECENTRALIZATION OF SOCIAL RELATIONS, AND TRANSFORM THE DEFINITION OF COMMUNITY} ====> TODAY URBAN COMMUNITIES OFTEN CONSIST OF FAR-FLUNG SOCIAL NETWORKS OF KINSHIP, WORKPLACE, FRIENDSHIP, NEIGBOURHOOD, AND INTEREST GROUP TIES THAT TOGETHER FORM A SOCIAL NETWORK ({OUR TEXT} HAMPTON: 2004: 112) =====>

A) CLASSICAL SOCIAL THEORY OF INDUSTRIAL SOCIETY

FERDINAND TONNIES ====> GEMEINSCHAFT {SMALL TOWN COMMUNITY} = IS A TRADITIONAL SOCIETY IN WHICH SOCIAL RELATIONSHIPS ARE BASED ON PERSONAL BONDS OF FRIENDSHIP AND KINSHIP AND ON INTERGENERATIONAL STABILITY {SOCIAL RELATIONSHIPTS THAT INCLUDE NEIGHBOURLINESS, INFORMAL SOCIAL CONTROL, AND THE VALUES OF GROUP OVER INDIVIDUAL} =====> GESELLSCHAFT {CIVIL SOCIETY OR 'ASSOCIATION'} = IS A LARGE, “INDUSTRIAL” URBAN SOCIETY IN WHICH SOCIAL BONDS ARE BASED ON IMPERSONAL AND SPECIALIZED RELATIONSHIPS, WITH LITTLE LONG-TERM COMMITMENT TO THE GROUP OR CONSENSUS ON VALUES. {SOCIAL RELATIONSHIPS BASED ON AN ELABORATE DIVISION OF LABOR THAT INCLUDES LOOSE ASSOCIATIONS OF INDIVIDUALS ACTING IN THEIR OWN SELF INTEREST OVER [OR AS THE] GROUP CONNECTIONS. INTERACTIONS AMONG PEOPLE ARE BOTH RATIONAL AND CALCULATION}.

EMILE DURKHEIM =====> MECHANICAL SOLIDARITY REFERS TO SOCIAL COHESION IN PREINDUSTRIAL SOCIERIES, IN WHICH THERE IS MINIMAL DIVISION OF LABOUR AND PEOPLE FEEL UNITIED BY SHARED VALUSES AND COMMON SOCIAL BONDS (PEOPLE FEEL AN “AUTOMATIC” SENSE OF BELONGING =====> ORGANIC SOLIDARITY REFERS TO SOCIAL COHESION FOUND IN INDUSTRIAL (AND PERHAPS POSTINDUSTRIAL) SOCIETIES, IN WHICH PEOPLE PERFORM VERY SPECIALIZED TASKS AND FEEL UNITED BY THEIR MUTUAL DEPENDENCE (PEOPLE RELATE LIKE “ORGANS” OF THE BODY).

B) CONTEMPORARY SOCIAL THEORY OF POSTINDUSTRIAL SOCIETY

“POSTINDUSTRIAL” URBAN COMMUNITIES {ADVANCES IN TRANSPORTATION AND COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGIES THAT DECENTRALIZE SOCIAL RELATIONS, AND TRANSFORM THE DEFINITION OF COMMUNITY} CONSIST OF FAR-FLUNG SOCIAL NETWORKS OF KINSHIP, WORKPLACE, FRIENDSHIP, NEIGHBOURHOOD, AND INTEREST GROUP TIES THAT TOGETHER FORM A SOCIAL NETWORK – THIS NETWORK OF RELATIONS PROVIDES INDIVIDUALS WITH AID AND SUPPORT.

SOCIAL NETWORK ANALYSIS IS THE STUDY OF SOCIAL STRUCTURE BASED ON AN ANALYSIS OF THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN ACTORS – PEOPLE, ORGANIZATIONS, AND INSTITUTIONS.

RATIONALE: MODERN CITIES ARE EXTREMELY HETEROGENEOUS, RESIDENTS ARE HIGHLY MOBILE, AND PEOPLE REGULARLY COME IN CONTACT WITH DIVERSE OTHERS IN A VARIETY OF SETTINGS. THE DEVELOPMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGIES, SUCH AS PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION, THE AUTOMOBILE, THE TELEPHONE, AND THE INTERNET, FACILITATE THE FORMATION AND MAINTENANCE OF SOCIAL RELATIONSHIPS AT A DISTANCE. THESE TECHNOLOGICAL CHANGES HAVE CONTRIBUTED TO A DECENTRALIZATION OF SOCIAL RELATIONS – INDEED, MOST PEOPLE HAVE MORE FRIENDS OUTSIDE THEIR NEIGHBOURHOOD THAN WITHIN IT.

THE SOCIAL NETWORK PERSPECTIVE EXPLORE THE EXTENT TO WHICH SUPPORTIVE SOCIAL TIES EXIST BETWEEN INDIVIDUALS REGARDLESS OF LOCALITY.

{NOTE: IN CONTRAST TO HUMAN ECOLOGY, WHICH EXAMINES THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PEOPLE AND THEIR ENVIRONMENT, SOCIAL NETWORK ANALYSIS EXAMINES THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SOCIAL ACTORS – PEOPLE, ORGANIZATIONS, AND INSTITUTIONS}.

PART II – IMMIGRATION AND MIGRATION PATTERNS

THERE ARE THREE MAJOR IMPLICATIONS OF IMMIGRATION FOR MODERN URBAN LIFE {1} CITIES THAT RECEIVE IMMIGRANTS ARE BECOMING INCREASINGLY DIFFERENT FOR THOSE THAT DO NOT RECEIVE IMMIGRANTS ON A LARGE SCALE (THROUGH THE DIVERSIFICATION OF CULTURE); {2} RESIDENTIAL SEGREGATION OR THE SPATIAL CLUSTERING OF ETHNORACIAL GROUPS IS A PHENOMENON THAT OCCURS VOLUNTARILLY AND INVOLUNTARILY, AND; {3} THE CREATION OF ETHNIC VILLIAGES CONTRIBUTES TO THE ROBUST UNIQUENESS OF URBAN LIFE.

1) IMMIGRATION STREAMS

THE THREE PILLARS OR STREAMS OF IMMIGRATION

ECONOMIC CLASS - (A) ENTREPRENEURS

(B) INVESTORS

(C) SELF-EMPLOYED

FAMILY CLASS - (A) FAMILY SPONSORSHIPS

(B) INDEPENDENT IMMIGRANT APPLICATIONS *(INCLUDES ASSISTED RELATIVES/ SELECTED WORKERS = TECHNICALLY ECONOMIC CLASS)

HUMANITARIAN CLASS (A) REFUGEES (PERSECUTED ON THE BASIS OF (i) POLITICAL ASSOCIATION, (ii) MEMBERSHIP IN A SOCIAL GROUP, (iii) RELIGIOUS AFFILIATION, (iv) NATIONALITY, OR (v) RACE).

(B) PERSONS ELIGIBLE UNDER SPECIAL HUMANITARIAN MEASURES.

TEMPORARY (A) WORK VISA

RESIDENTS - (B) DOMESTIC

(C) STUDENT

(D) VISITORS

2) THE SOCIOLOGY OF IMMIGRATION

A) INSTRUMENT OF NATION-BUILDING == THEORETICAL UNDERPINNINGS; CANADIAN SOCIETY'S AVOWED COMMITMENT TO ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND PROSPERITY PLUS COMPASSION AND GENEROSITY TO THOSE IN NEED OF PROTECTION AND SANCTUARY.

B) POLICIES AND PRACTICE == FILM: “WHO GETS IN.” ===> ECOMONIC, FAMILY AND HUMANITARIAN

C) RELATIONS OF POWER AND SOCIAL STRATIFICATION {REFLECTED IN SOCIAL PROBLEMS LIKE “FOREIGN CREDENTIALISM;” WOMEN OF COLOUR “JOB- GHETTOS”}

PART III --- STEREOTYPES IN THE CITY

******ETHNOCENTRISM – STEREOTYPING – PREJUDICE – DISCRIMINATION IS THE MOST DESTRUCTIVE SOCIAL PROCESS OF CONTEMPORARY {PLURALISTIC} SOCIETY ======> RACISM, ETHNICISM, SEXISM, GENDERISM ETC. ======> EXPLOITATION, OPPRESSION, DEMONIZATION, ETHNIC CLEANSING, GENOCIDE ETC.

[TO SOCIOGICALLY ISOLATE STEREOTYPES WE HAVE TO BEGIN DISTINGUISHING “CATEGORIZATION” VERSUS “NEGATIVE AND POSITIVE STEREOTYPING” VERSUS “DIFFERENCES IN CULTURAL VALUES AND AESTHETIC TASTES”]

WE ASKED THE QUESTION === WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A GENERALIZATION AND A STEREOTYPE?

[SHORT ANSWER; “GENERALIZATIONS” ALLOW US TO ORDER OUR COMPLEX AND HIGHLY DIFFERENTIATED WORLD, AND SO, THEY GUIDE OUR BEHAVIOR BY ROUNDING-PEOPLE-OFF-TO-CATEGORIES IN ORDER TO NEGOTIATE OUR URBAN ENVIRONMENTS === “STEREOTYPES” ARE OVER-GENERALIZATIONS (THAT MAKE US INTO “EXAGGERATED CARACTERIZATIONS” OF OURSELVES) THAT DIMINISH AND DEMEAN PEOPLE]

A) GENERALIZATION – [SPECIFIC MEANING] TO ORDER OR IDENTIFY WITHOUT REGARD TO PARTICULARS. ----->

B) CATEGORIZATION – GENERALIZATIONS ALLOW US TO ARRANGE INTO THINGS INTO GROUPS OR CATEGORIES FOR THE PURPOSE OF INTERPRETATION (MAKING SENSE OF OUR WORLD) AND PREDICTABILITY.

***** IN THE CITY WE ARE CATEGORISERS BECAUSE WE NEED “BEHAVIOUR-PROBABILITY PROJECTIONS” === SO) WE (CITY PEOPLE) ORDER, UNDERSTAND AND ASSESS LIFE TYPICALLY AS FOLLOWS:

1) BODY --- PHYSICALITY

2) CLOTHS --- APPEARANCE

3) EXPRESSION --- VERBAL COMMUNICATION

4) GESTURES --- NONVERBAL COMMUICATION

WHEN DOES THE GENERALIZATION/CATEGORIZATION PROCESS BECOME BAD (“DISEASED==PATHOLOGICAL === EX 'CRASH' [REPLETE WITH PATHOLOGICAL THINKING THAT DEMEANS AND DEMONIZES THE 'OTHER'”)?

C) STEREOTYPE -- IS A SET OF BIASED GENERALIZATIONS ABOUT A GROUP OR CATEGORY OF PEOPLE THAT IS UNFAVORABLE, “EXAGGERATED” OR “OVER-SIMPLIFIED”.

(STEREOTYPES ARE BIASED JUDGEMENTS THAT ARE "IRRATIONAL" AND "RIGID" INSOFAR AS THEY ARE SUPPORTED BY LITTLE OR NO EVIDENCE).

D) SOCIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION/CONSEQUENCE: STEREOTYPES DON'T JUST IGNORE YOUR PARTICULARITY {LIKE A GENERALIZATION}THEY “DIMINISH” YOU.

STEREOTYPES DON'T HELP YOU ORDER SOCIAL LIFE {LIKE CATEGORIZATIONS} THEY SERVE TO “DEHUMANIZE” OTHERS ----->

[[[EX: “RACIAL PROFILING” === MILES DAVIS AND HIS LAMBORGINE === THE POSTER BOY FOR “DRIVING WHILE BLACK” === “THE MILES DAVIS SYNDROME” --- SAYS THAT SKIN COLOUR, WITH ITS ATTENDING NEGATIVE ASSOCIATIONS, BECOMES THE STANDARD BY WHICH PEOPLE OF COLOUR ARE MEASURED {“INFERIORIZING” OR “LEVELING” WITHOUT REGARD TO PARTICULARS}]]]

WHAT ARE THE DAMAGING CONSEQUENCES OF STEREOTYPES?

(i) THEY "CAN" REINFORCE POWER DYNAMICS OF SOCIETY - SUSTAIN THE PREVAILING RELATIONSHIPS OF CONTROL, EXCLUSION, AND EXPLOITATION.

(ii) THEY "CAN" INCREASE SUSPICION AND FEAR THAT ` UNDERLIES [ETHNIC AND RACIAL] GROUP LIFE.

(iii) CAN LEAD TARGETS/VICTIMS TO INTERNALIZE INFERIORITY.

(iv) LIMITS IMAGINATION AND VISION IN OTHERS AND OURSELVES.

(v) INHIBITS LIFE-CHANCES - EVERYTHING FROM THE OPPORTUNITY FOR A NUTRITIOUS BREAKFAST IN THE MORNING TO OPPORTUNITIES FOR A GOOD QUALITY LIFE- CHANCES, SOME CHILDREN WILL BE INTERMINABLY DISADVANTAGED.

(vi) OFTEN REFLECTS THE FACT THAT A PARTICULAR GROUP IS A "SCAPEGOAT" FOR ALL MANNER OF SOCIAL ILLS.

(vii) LAYS THE GROUNDWORK FOR – EXPLOITATION, OPPRESSION, DEMONIZATION, ETHNIC CLEANSING, GENOCIDE, AND ALL MANNER OF PATHOLOGICAL HUMAN INTERACTIONS.

VI) URBAN SOCIAL PROBLEMS

CLASSIC SOCIOLOGY CONSIDERED SOCIAL PROBLEMS TO BE THE RESULT OF THE DISINTEGRATING INFLUENCES OF THE CITY ======> THAT IS, THEY ARE TYPICALLY ASSOCIATED WITH THE DENSE, MIXED, HETEROGENEOUS, DISORDERLY POPULATIONS OF LARGE URBAN CENTRES.

MANY CONTEMPORARY SOCIAL THEORISTS ARGUE THAT URBAN SOCIETIES ARE INHERENTLY UNEQUAL {THEREFORE - “PROBLEM-PRONE”} SINCE THE SOCIAL PROCESSES THAT ALLOW THE GEOGRAPHIC CONCENTRATION OF PEOPLE ALSO INVOLVE THE SOCIAL CONCENTRATION OF WEALTH AND POWER.

CONTEMPORARY SOCIOLOGICAL THESIS: THE CITY'S “SOCIAL ORDER” PROBLEM(S) IS A REFLECTION OF A “SOCIAL INEQUALITY” PROBLEM =====> THAT IS, SOCIAL PROBLEMS ARE OFTEN ROOTED IN LARGERS SOCIAL ISSUES ====> TO UNDERSTAND WHAT GOES ON IN CITIES WE MUST LOOK AT THESE LARGER SOCIAL ISSUES AS WELL.

1) HOMELESSNESS IN CANADIAN CITIES

DEFINITION OF HOMELESSNESS: SOME ANALYSTS SAY "SLEEPING ROUGH ON THE STREETS" ====> ANOTHER FREQUENTLY USED ALTERNATIVE DEFINITION BASED ON "AFFORDABILITY CRITERIA", WHICH WOULD CATEGORIZE A HOUSEHOLD PAYING MORE THAN 50% OF INCOME TOWARDS RENT AS BEING "AT RISK OF HOMELESSNESS,"

UNITED NATIONS DEF'N OF HOMELESS ===> THOSE WHO HAVE NO HOME AND WHO LIVE EITHER OUTDOORS OR IN EMERGENCY SHELTERS OR HOSTELS, AND PEOPLE WHOSE HOMES DO NOT MEET BASIC STANDARDS OF ADEQUATE PROTECTION FROM THE ELEMENTS, ACCESS TO SAFE WATER AND SANITATION, AFFORDABLE PRICES, SECURE TENURE AND PERSONAL SAFETY, AND ACCESSIBILITY TO EMPLOYMENT, EDUCATION AND HEALTH CARE.

THESIS: THE FACT THAT AN INCREASING NUMBER OF WOMEN ARE NOW LIVING ON THE STREET IS CERTAINLY AN IMPORTANT INDICATOR OF A GROWING PROBLEM, BUT IT WOULD BE INAPPROPRIATE TO ANALYZE THE NATURE OF THE PROBLEM OF WOMEN'S HOMELESS IN TERMS OF STREET HOMELESSNESS

THE HOMELESSNESS CRISIS FACING WOMEN IS ALSO A POVERTY CRISIS AND CANNOT BE UNDERSTOOD MERELY IN RELATION TO SCARCITY OF APPROPRIATE HOUSING.

CONCLUSION: ALL OF VULNERABLE GROUPS OF WOMEN SHARE COMMON CHARACTERISTICS OF MARGINALIZATION FROM POLICY MAKING AND FROM POLITICAL POWER. THEIR HOUSING CRISES ARE EXPERIENCED IN ISOLATION FROM ONE ANOTHER, IN THE CONTEXT OF A SOCIETY IN WHICH WOMEN ARE MADE TO FEEL ASHAMED IF THEY CANNOT PAY THEIR RENT OR PROPERLY PROVIDE FOR THEIR CHILDREN. THE CHALLENGE OF UNDERSTANDING AND PROPERLY CONCEPTUALIZING WOMEN'S HOMELESSNESS IS TO COUNTERACT THE MARGINALIZATION OF THESE WOMEN'S EXPERIENCES, NOT ONLY WITHIN GOVERNMENT POLICY MAKING AND PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION, BUT ALSO WITHIN ADVOCACY MOVEMENTS ADDRESSING POVERTY, HOMELESSNESS OR HUMAN RIGHTS.

SOLUTIONS: AFFORDABLE RENTAL HOUSING, EVICTION PROTECTIONS, HOME OWNERSHIP, HOMELESSNESS SECRETARIAT, ABORIGINAL WOMEN AND HOUSING, INCOME ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS, NATIONAL CHILD BENEFIT SUPPLEMENT, EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE INITIATIVES

2) POVERTY IN CANADIAN CITIES

POVERTY CAN BE MEASURED IN TWO DISTINCT WAYS: ABSOLUTE AND RELATIVE.

ABSOLUTE POVERTY IS MEASURED BY COMPARING A PERSON’S TOTAL INCOME AGAINST THE TOTAL COST OF PURCHASING A SPECIFIC ‘BASKET’ OF GOODS AND SERVICES REPRESENTING THE ESSENTIALS OF DAILY LIFE. PEOPLE WITH INADEQUATE INCOME TO PURCHASE THIS BASKET OF ITEMS ARE CONSIDERED TO BE LIVING IN ABSOLUTE POVERTY.

RELATIVE POVERTY COMPARES A PERSON’S TOTAL INCOME AND SPENDING PATTERNS WITH THOSE OF THE GENERAL POPULATION. PEOPLE WITH LOWER INCOME WHO SPEND A LARGER PORTION OF THEIR INCOME ON A BASKET OF GOODS AND SERVICES, COMPARED WITH SOME THRESHOLD THAT IS MORE TYPICAL OF THE GENERAL POPULATION, ARE CONSIDERED TO BE LIVING IN RELATIVE POVERTY.

THE COMMON COMPONENT IN ANY MEASURE OF POVERTY IS THAT A PERSON’S INCOME AND CONSUMPTION LEVELS FALL BELOW A MINIMUM THRESHOLD NECESSARY TO MEET THEIR BASIC NEEDS. THE SPECIFIC DEFINITION OF POVERTY, HOWEVER, VARIES FROM COUNTRY TO COUNTRY.

LOW INCOME MEASURE (LIM) --- DRAWS THE LINE AT HALF THE MEDIAN INCOME OF THE AVERAGE CANADIAN FAMILY.

“LOW-INCOME CUT-OFF” LINE (LICO) --- COMPARES THE SPENDING ON NECESSITIES BY LOW-INCOME FAMILIES WITH THE SPENDING OF TYPICAL FAMILIES ==è STATS CANADA HAS CONSISTENTLY EMPHASIZED THAT THE LICO IS NOT A MEASURE OF POVERTY BUT A YARDSTICK THAT SIMPLY IDENTIFIES THOSE WHO ARE SUBSTANTIALLY WORSE OF THAN THE AVERAGE ==è POVERTY IS DEFINED AS IMPLICIT IN ANY HOUSEHOLD THAT SPENDS MORE THAN 55 PERCENT OF ITS INCOME ON FOOD, SHELTER, OR CLOTHING {BASED ON THREE BEDROOM APARTMENT, FAMILY OF FOUR?}

B) DIMENSIONS OF POVERTY

I) HUMAN POVERTY – THE LACK OF ESSENTIAL HUMAN CAPABILITIES SUCH AS LITERACY OR NOURISHMENT.

II) INCOME POVERTY – THELACK OF MINIMAL ADEQUATE INCOME.

III) EXTREME POVERTY – DESTITUTION FROM AN ABILITY TO SATISFY MINIMUM FOOD NEEDS

IV) OVERALL POVERTY – INABILITY TO SATISFY BOTH FOOD AND NON-FOOD REQUIRMENTS.

C) POVERTY AS A URBAN PHENOMENON

{i} OVER THE LAST DECADE, ACROSS CANADA THE RICHEST 10 PERCENT OF THE POPULAITON HAS SEEN ITS INCOME GROW BY 14 PERCENT, AS COMPARED TO THE BOTTOM 10 PERCENT, WHOS INCOME HS INCREASED BY ONLY 1 PERCENT ====> POVERTY IS BECOMING DEEPLY ROOTED AND INTRACTABLE, AS THE RICH GET RICHER AND THE POOR GET POORER.

{ii} THE DECADE OF THE 90S SAW THE POVERTY RATE IN METROPOLITAN AREAS GROW BY 33.8 PERCENT, WHILE THE RATE OUTSIDE CANADA'S METROPOLITAN AREAS GREW BY 18.2 PERCENT.

{iii} NEIGHBOURHOODS WITH REFUGEES AND OTHER TPES OF IMMIGRANTS ARE MORE LIKELY TO HAVE HIGHER RATES OF POVERTY ====> POVERTY IS HIGHEST AMONG ABORIGINAL PEOPLE, LONE PARENT FAMILIES, VISIBLE MINORITIES, AND THOSE WITH DISABILITIES ====> IN SPITE OF OUR MUCH-VAUNTED SOCIAL WELFARE SYSTEM, INEQUALITIES IN INCOME EXPRESS THEMSELVES BY PRODUCING LOW-INCOME COMMUNITIES (ERGO: THE EMERGENCE OF THE URBAN GHETTO/ SLUM) WHERE POVERTY IS CONCENTRATED, AND THESE LOCATIONS ARE MOST LIKELY FOUND IN CENTRAL CITIES =====> GIVEN THAT POVERTY IS A PERMANENT FEATURE OF THE URBAN CANADIAN LANDSCAPE, IT BEGS THE SOCIOLOGICAL QUESTION OF CONSTRUCTIVE SOLUTIONS – THE QUESTION OF HOW CITES SHOULD HANDLE THEIR POOR INHABITANTS IN TERMS OF PROVIDING HOUSING AND THE LOCATION OF THAT HOUSING IS A MAJOR ISSUE {CH. 8, PP. 173-8}