FINAL REVIEW – MARCH 26, 2008

ORGANIZATIONAL PRACTICE AND THE STATE

AS/SOSC 3570 6.0A

SYNOPSIS AND GENERAL OVERVIEW: THIS SECTION OF THE COURSE HAS BEEN DIVIDED INTO THREE FINAL SUBJECT AREAS: (1) ABORIGINAL PEOPLE IN CANADA {THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SELF-DETERMINATION AND SELF-GOVERNANCE}, (2) THE NEW URBAN EXPERIENCE OF GLOBALIZATION {THE RISE OF “THE GLOBAL CITY”}. (3) DECLINE OF THE WELFARE STATE {SOCIAL TRANSFORMATIONS IN CAPITAL, LABOUR AND CLASS}

{*THE SOCIOLOGICAL KEY ====> IN THIS FINAL SECTION OF THE COURSE WE LEARNED ABOUT THE GENDERIZATION, RACIALIZATION AND URBANIZATION OF POLITCAL ECONOMY, AND [SOME] CONTEMPORARY ATTEMPTS TO INTERVENE IN THE STATUS QUO IN ORDER TO PROMOTE OR DIRECT SOCIAL CHANGE}

I) ABORIGINAL PEOPLE IN CANADA

A STORY OF COLONIALIZATION, CULTURAL GENOCIDE AND RESURRECTION THROUGH ORGANIZED RESISTANCE}}}

CONTEMPORARY CHARACTERISTICS OF THE ABORIGINAL AND NON-ABORIGINAL RELATIONSHIP IN CANADA:

1) INEFFECTUAL GOVERNMENT INTERFERENCE AND PATERNALISTIC HANDOUTS.

2) THROWING MONEY AT A PROBLEM ====> EXPANDING LEGIONS OF EXPERTS IN HOPE OF FOSTERING ASSIMILATION THROUGH SELF-SUFFICIENCY.

3) RHETORIC OF SELF-GOVERNMENT AND A “NEW SOCIAL CONTRACT” ======> IN REALITY MOST INITITATIVES SIMPLY REFORM/ TWEEK THE OLD ONE AND REFUSE TO RELINQUISH ANY SUBSTANTIVE POWER.

SO, WHEN WE TALK OF THE “ABORIGINAL PROBLEM” IN CANADAWE NEED TO TALK IN A WIDER DISCOURSE THAT PUTS THE BURDENS ON INSTITUTIONS SO THAT WHAT COMES UNDER THE MICROSCOPE ARE THE POLITICS, THE CULTURE, AND THE ECONOMICS OF DOMINATION

{{{THE CONTEMPORARY POLITICS OF “ABORIGIALITY” REVOLVES AROUND THE KEY ISSUE OF SELF-DETERMINATION ======> OR MORE ACCURATELY, ABORIGINAL MODELS OF SELF-DETERMINING AUTONOMY =======> MEANS THE “DEVOLUTION” OF REPONSIBILITY AND FEDERAL JURISDICTION OVER ABORIGINAL LANDS AND AFFAIRS, AND THE TRANSFERENCE OF RIGHTS AND AUTHORITIES TO ABORIGINAL PEOPLE ====> IN SHORT, LAND, IDENTITY AND POLITICAL VOICE}}}

STRATEGIES OF RESISTANCE

FOLLOWING THE SECOND WORLD WAR, AND MORE PARTICULARLY IN THE 1960S -- WHILE THE STRUGGLE FOR SURVIVAL STILL PREOCCUPIED INDIGENOUS PEOPLE IN CANADA AN AROUND THE WORLD -- A PLATFORM OF WIDER AND MORE PROACTIVE CONCERNS BEGAN TO TAKE SHAPE THROUGH:

1. VIOLENT CONFRONTATION OR ARMED RESISTANCE.

2. “DECOLONIZATION” OF THE MIND STRATEGIES

3. NURTURING AND SUSTAINING CULTURAL SYSTEMS.

4. NEW AGENDA FOR INDIGENOUS ACTIVITY THROUGH A FRAMEWORK FOR GLOBAL STRATEGIC ALLIANCES.

ABORIGINAL SELF-GOVERNMENT

TERMS OF ALL INHERENT SELF-GOVERNMENT AGREEMENTS ARE SET OUT IN A 1995 FEDRAL POLICY DOCUMENT; INHERENT SELF-GOVERNMENT IS BASED ON CONTINGENT RATHER THAN SOVEREIGN RIGHTS --- THAT IS, ABORIGINAL SELF GOVERNMENTS MUST OPERATE WITHIN THE CANADIAN FEDERAL SYSTEM, WORK IN HARMONY WITH OTHER GOVERNMENTS, BUT CONSISTENT WITH THE CANADIAN CHARTER OF RIGHTS AND FREEDOME, AND ENHANCE THE PARTICIPATION OF ABORIGINAL PEOPLES IN CANADIAN SOCIETY

RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN CANADA ENTAIL RETHINKING THE PLACE OF ABORIGINAL PEOPLES WITHIN THE CONSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK – THE FOUR POLICY PILLARS ARE:

1) ACCELERATED LAND CLAIMS SETTLEMENT,

2) IMPROVED SOCIOECONOMIC STATUS ON RESERVES,

3) RECONSTRUCTION OF ABORIGINAL-GOVERNMENT RELATIONS, AND

4) FULFILLMENT OF ABORIGINAL CONCERNS (I.E., PRIVILEGING INDIGENOUS INTERESTS AND PRACTICES).

SELF-DETERMINATION THROUGH SELF-GOVERNANCE

ABORIGINAL PEOPLE TEND TO REJECT THE IDEA OF VIEWING THEMSELVES AS A GROUP OF CANADIAN CITIZENS LIVING ON RESERVES. RATHER, THEY SEE THEMSELVES AS SOVEREIGN AND SELF-GOVERNING NATIONS THAT HAVE DISTINCT POLITICAL STATUS WITHIN THE CANADIAN NATION-STATE.

ABORIGINALS SEE SELF-GOVERNANCE AS PART OF THE ONLY VIABLE SOLUTION BECAUSE THEY HAVE NEVER VOLUNTARILY RELINQUISHED THEIR ABORIGINAL RIGHTS FOR THE SAKE OF CANADIAN GOVERNMENT ASSISTANCE.

THERE ARE NO GUARANTEES THAT SELF-GOVERNANCE WILL “FIX” EVERYTHING, BUT IT’S A GOOD FIRST-STEP TO HELPING AND REDRESSING THE NEGLECT OF ABORIGINAL PEOPLE. IT IS THE FIRST “INTEGRAL” STRATEGY IN THE “ABORIGINALITY MOVEMENT.”

{{{THE CONTEMPORARY POLITICS OF “ABORIGINALITY” REVOLVES AROUND THE KEY ISSUE OF SELF-DETERMINATION ======> OR MORE ACCURATELY, ABORIGINAL MODELS OF SELF-DETERMINING AUTONOMY ====> MEANS THE “DEVOLUTION” OF RESPONSIBILITY AND FEDERAL JURISDICTION OVER ABORIGINAL LANDS AND AFFAIRS, AND THE TRANSFERENCE OF RIGHTS AND AUTHORITIES TO ABORIGINAL PEOPLE ====> IN SHORT, LAND, IDENTITY AND POLITICAL VOICE}}}

Levels of Aboriginal Self-Governance

Statehood

*absolute (de jure) sovereignty

*internal + external jurisdiction

*complete independence with no external interference

Nationhood

*de facto sovereignty

*self-determining control over multiple yet interlinked jurisdictions within a framework of shared sovereignty

*nations within/province-like

Community/Municipality-based

*conditional sovereignty

*community-based autonomy

*internal jurisdictions, limited only by interaction with similar bodies and higher political authorities

Institutional

*nominal sovereignty

*decision-making power through institutional accommodation

*parallel institutions

LAND CLAIMS IN CANADA

LAND CLAIMS HAVE BEEN A MAJOR ISSUE WITH ABORIGINALS FOR WELL OVER TWO CENTURIES AND A SIGNIFICANT PORTION OF LAND IN CANADA IS BEING DISPUTED BY ABORIGINAL PEOPLES.

COMPREHENSIVE CLAIMS

- ABORIGINAL PEOPLES TRADITIONAL USE AND OCCUPANCY OF LAND

- LAND TITLE

- SPECIFIED HUNTING, FISHING AND TRAPPING RIGHTS

- FINANCIAL COMPENSATION

SPECIFIC CLAIMS

- OBLIGATIONS UNDER THE TREATIES AND THE INDIAN ACT NOT BEING MET BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT

ABORIGINAL EDUCATIONAL BARRIERS

AN INDIAN YOUNGSTER GROWING UP IN CANADA HAS A BETTER CHANCE OF BEING SENT TO PRISON THAN OF GOING TO UNIVERSITY.

· HISTORICAL

. RESIDENTIAL SCHOOLING

· SOCIETAL

. LACK OF ROLE MODELS IN COMMUNITY

. DISCRIMINATION

· GEOGRAPHIC AND DEMOGRAPHIC

. POVERTY AND LACK OF FINANCIAL SUPPORT

· CULTURAL BARRIERS

· INDIVIDUAL/PERSONAL BARRIERS.

II URBANIZATION ISSUES AND PROBLEMS – ALISON HAYFORD CH. 13 – SOCIAL ISSUES AND CONTRADICTIONS

QUESTION: ARE URBAN SOCIETIES “PROBLEM-PRONE?”

{SOCIOLOGICAL PROLOGUE: CLASSICAL SOCIOLOGIST WERE ORGINALLY ANALYTIC INTEREST WAS – HOW PEOPLE ADAPT OR MAL-ADAPT TO THE PROCESSES OF INDUSTRIALIZATION AND URBANIZATION ===> THIS IS WHERE “SOCIAL PROBLEMS” COME IN. THEY ARE CONSIDERED UNDESIRABLE ADAPTIONS, OR MAL-ADAPTIONS, TO URBAN LIVING, REQUIRING CONSTRUCTIVE REFORM}

A) THE CONTEMPORARY ECOLOGICAL CONTEXT:

1) MOST CANADIANS ARE URBAN, LIVING IN OR NEAR LARGE METROPOLITIAN AREAS ====> NEARLY 9.5 MILLION LIVE IN THE FOUR LARGEST METROPOLITAN AREAS ALONG (THOSE WITH MORE THAN A MILLION PEOPLE) =====> {A} AS A CONSEQUENCE, THE EVERYDAY LIVES OF MOST CANADIANS ARE URBAN LIVES. INDEED, CITIES ARE SUCH IMPORTANT SOCIAL, POLITICAL, AND ECONOMIC FORCES THAT EVEN THOSE POPLE WHO LIVE IN SMALL TOWNS AND RURAL AREAS ARE STRONGLY AFFECTED BY THEM ====> {B} CANADA, LIKE OTHER URBAN SOCIETIES ARE INEVITABLY HETEROGENEOUS IN IMPORTANT WAYS WITH SIGNIFICANT ETHNIC, CLASS AND OTHER DIFFERENCES WITHIN THE POPULATIONS OF CITIES.

2) WE TEND TO HAVE MIXED FEELINGS ABOUT CITIES. MANY PEOPLE SEE {A}SEE CITIES AS PLACES OF OPPORTUNITY. WE SEE THIS IN THE FACT THAT PEOPLE CONTINUE TO MOVE FROM SMALLER CENTRES TO LARGER ONES TO FIND WORK, TO GET EDUCATIONS, AND TO HAVE OPPORTUNITIES FOR ARTISTIC EXPRESSION AND OTHER FORMS OF INDIVIDUAL FREEDOM. {2} AT THE SAME TIME CITIES AS SOURCES OF SERIOUS SOCIAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEMS SUCH AS CRIME, RACIAL CONFLICT, ETHNIC HETEROGENITY AND POLLUTION.

{AGAIN A REMINDER – THE ANALYTIC FOCUS FOR EARLY SOCIOLOGISTS WAS ON} HOW PEOPLE ADAPT OR MAL-ADAPT TO THE PROCESSES OF INDUSTRIALIZATION AND URBANIZATION.

THIS IS WHERE THE CENTRALITY OF “SOCIAL PROBLEMS” ANALYSIS COME IN {INFERS THAT SOMETHING IS 'WRONG', THAT IT NEEDS CORRECTION}. CLASSIC SOCIOLOGY WAS CONCERNED WITH UNDERSTANDING THE ADAPTIONS, OR MAL-ADAPTIONS, TO URBAN LIVING.

SOCIAL PROBLEM {IN THIS SENSE} REFERS TO ANY UNDESIRABLE CONDITION OR SITUATION THAT IS JUDGED BY AN INFLUENTIAL NUMBER OF PERSONS WITHIN A COMMUNITY TO BE INTOLERABLE AND TO REQUIRE GROUP ACTION TOWARD CONSTRUCTIVE REFORM ==è EXAMPLES ARE URBAN HOMELESSNESS, POVERTY, CRIME, PROSTITUTION, DIVORCE, CHRONIC UNEMPLOYMENT, RACIAL AND CULTURAL CONFLICT, “HEALTH” AND SO ON.

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

{ALTHOUGH SUCH PROBLEMS ALSO EXIST IN RURAL AREAS, WE STILL TEND TO PERCEIVE THEM TO BE WORSE IN CITIES.}

BUT IF WE WANT TO EXPLAIN ALL THE PROBLEMS OF CITIES TODAY, WE MUST ADD TO THESE DEMOGRAPHIC FACTORS AN UNDERSTANDING OF CITIES' SOCIAL ORGANIZATION, WHICH INVARIABLY REFLECTS THAT OF THE WHOLE SOCIETY ====> IN THIS REGARD:

A) 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.

B) MANY MORE SOCIAL THEORISTS ARGUE THAT “EVEN SOCIAL PROBLEMS” ARE DEFINED BY POWER DYNAMICS IN THE CITY ====> SOCIAL PROBLEM – A SOCIAL CONDITION OR FORM OF CONDUCT LABELLED AS A PROBLEMATIC BY A POWERFUL GROUP ======>

· PROBLEMATIZED => SOCIAL PROBLEMS ARE SOCIAL CONSTRUCTIONS; THEY ARE MADE NOT DISCOVERED ==èLIKE ANY OTHER SOCIAL PROCESS SOCIAL PROBLEMS ARE GENERATED OUT OF THE INTERPLAY BETWEEN – CULTURE, POWER AND IDEOLOGY =====> THIS MEANS THAT SOCIAL CONDITIONS {SAY, THE BLACK “SLUM”} DOES NOT BECOME SOCIAL PROBLEMS UNTIL SOME {POWERFUL} GROUP MAKES THEM AN ISSUE – THAT IS, TARGETS THEM, LABELS THEM DEVIANT, AND ATTEMPTS TO PUT THEM ON THE SOCIAL AGENDA =è BY CONCEPTUALIZING IT AS A PROCESS, WE RECOGNIZE THAT A SOCIAL PROBLEM IS AN INTERACTION – OFTEN A STRUGGLE – BETWEEN SOCIETY’S POWERFUL AND POWERLESS GROUPS OVER WHOSE WAYS ARE THE “RIGHT” WAYS =è{WHEN DOES “BLACK YOUTH” BECOME A SOCIAL PROBLEM?} ONLY WHEN WE ASK “FOR WHOM THEY ARE A PROBLEM” CAN WE SEE THE INCREASING ATTENTION ON BLACK YOUTH IS NOT RELATED TO THE GROWING “PATHOLOGY” OF BLACK-ON-BLACK VIOLENCE – BUT RATHER – IT IS RELATED TO HOW FAR THE BLACK VIOLENCE IS ENCROACHING ON THE WHITE MIDDLE-CLASS REALITY {EX: JANE CREBA?}.

CONTEMPORARY THEORISTS TEND TO SEE ALL SOCIAL PROBLEMS AS SOCIAL CONSTRUCTIONS TIED TO ECONOMIC AND POLITICAL INEQUALITIES =====> EVEN WHAT IS DEFINED AS A SOCIAL PROBLEM IS DETERMINED BY POWER RELATIONS =====> SOCIAL PROBLEMS ARE CREATED AND FASHIONED BY POLITICAL DOMINATION AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC CONTROL

{WHERE CLASSICAL URBAN SOCIOLOGY EXAMINED “SOCIAL PROBLEMS AS SOCIAL CONSTRUCTIONS” ====> CONTEMPORARY URBAN SOCIOLOGY EXAMINES “THE SOCIAL CONSTRUCTION OF SOCIAL PROBLEMS”

EX: WHEREAS CRIME IS ONE ISSUE THAT HAS BEEN A CONSISTENT CONCERN OF URBAN DWELLERS AND URBAN MEDIA =====> HOMELESSNESS HAS NOT ALWAYS HAD SIMILAR IMPORT [IT DID NOT BECOME AN IMPORTANT SOCIAL ISSUE IN CANADA UNTIL THE 1980S – IT WASN'T EVEN INCLUDED IN THE 1970 SURVEY OF URBAN ISSUES (CMHC 1979). WHILE HOMELESSNESS STILL CONCERNS MANY PEOPLE, PARTICULARLY IN LARGE CITIES (TORONTO COALITION AGAINST HOMELESSNESS 1996), IN SOME WAYS IT HAS BECOME SO MUCH A PART OF URBAN LIFE THAT EVEN WHERE THE HOMELESS ARE BOTH NUMEROUS AND VISIBLE, HOMELESSNESS IS SOMETIMES SEEN AS MORE OF A NUISANCE THAT A TRAGEDY}

SOCIOLOGICAL UPSHOT: SOCIAL PROBLEMS ARE NOT ONLY PHENOMENON TO BE UNDERSTOOD AS SOCIAL CONSTRUCTIONS, BUT THE SOCIAL CONSTRUCTIONS ARE OFTEN ROOTED IN LARGERS SOCIAL ISSUES ====> TO UNDERSTAND WHAT GOES ON IN CITIES WE MUST LOOK AT THESE LARGER SOCIAL ISSUES AS WELL.

CONTEMPORARY SOCIOLOGICAL THESIS: THE CITY'S “SOCIAL ORDER” PROBLEM(S) IS A REFLECTION OF A “SOCIAL INEQUALITY” PROBLEM.

B) THE GLOBAL CITY

ACCORDING TO KEIL AND KIPER [IN CHANGING CANADA – “THE URBAN EXPERIENCE AND GLOBALIZATION”] =====>

THE GLOBAL CITY IS THE ANALYTIC UNIT AND FOCAL POINT OF THE ERA OF WORLD CAPITALISM, CHARACTERIZED DEMOGRAPHICALLY AND IDEOLOGICALLY AS THE CONTEMPORARY GATHERING PLACE (1) TRANSNATIONAL & NATIONAL IDENTITIES, AND (2) DIVERSITY AND COSMOPOLITANISM =====> THE IMPLICATIONS HERE FOR SCHOLARSHIP IS PROFOUND: THE CENTRAL FEATURE OF THE IDEA OF GLOBALIZATION IS THAT MANY CONTEMPORARY PROBLEMS CANNOT BE ADEQUATELY STUDIED AT THE LEVEL OF NATION-STATES, THAT IS, IN TERMS OF INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS, BUT NEED TO BE THEORIZED IN TERMS OF GLOBAL {TRANSNATIONAL} PROCESSES, BEYOND THE LEVEL OF NATIONS STATES (SKLAIR 1998) =======> SOME SCHOLARS SEE GLOBAL CITIES AS THE PRIMARY UNIT OF ANALYSIS WHERE THE GLOBALIZED PROCESSES INTERSECT WITH TRANSNATIONAL (GLOBAL) COMMUNITIES {INCREASING DIVERSITY AND COSMOPOLITANISM AND THEIR LOCATION WITHIN THE CIRCUITS OF CAPITAL, COMMODIES, SERVICES, AND PEOPLE} =======> THESIS: GLOBAL CITIES AS THE GATHERING PLACE OF THE 21ST CENTURY SOUL SEARCH FOR ECONOMIC VIABILITY, POLITICAL GOVERNANCE, SOCIAL JUSTICE, CULTURAL ENRICHMENT, AND ECOLOGICAL STUSTAINABILITY.

CANADIAN CITIES, MAINLY THE LARGER CITIES; TORONTO, MONTREAL AND VANCOUVER APPEARS TO BE IN CRISIS:

· THESE CITIES BELONG TO OR ASPIRE TO A SPECIAL CATEGORY OF GLOBAL OR WORLD CITIES. THEY HAVE BECOME VISIBLY TRANSNATIONALIZED.

· THESE CITIES ARE CONSIDERED BY OBSERVERS TO BE DIFFERENT AND SUPERIOR TO THEIR US COUNTERPARTS BUT ARE NOW SUFFERING FROM A COMPETITION LAG.

· THE AREAS OF CONCERN INCLUDE THE CITIES ECONOMIC VIABILITY, POLITICAL GOVERNANCE, SOCIAL JUSTICE, CULTURAL ATTRACTIVENESS AND ECOLOGICAL SUSTAINABILITY.

· INSTRUMENTAL IN THE CALL ARE MUNICIPAL POLITICIANS, PUNDITS AND BUSINESS GROUPS WHO ARE CALLING FOR FINANCIAL SUPPORT FROM SENIOR LEVELS OF GOV’T AS THEIR COUNTERPART IN THE US HAVE

· THE INDICATIONS ARE PREVIOUS DESCRIPTION OF THE URBAN EXPERIENCE OF CANADIAN CITIES AS EXPRESSION OF COLONIAL, NORTH AMERICAN OR CANADIAN PATHWAYS TO URBANIZATION MAY NO LONGER BE ADEQUATE.

UNDERLYING THIS IS THE FACT THAT URBAN QUESTION DO NOT FIGURE PROMINENTLY IN CANADIAN POLITICAL ECONOMY:

· TORONTO HAS MORE IN COMMON WITH OTHER GLOBAL CITIES OF ITS KIND THAN WITH THE NEEDS OF ITS OWN HINTERLAND. IN THIS CONTEXT THE “URBAN” IS DRAWN OUT AND SHOWN AS THE CENTRAL CONNECTING LINK BETWEEN LARGE SOCIAL ORDERS AND THE INTRICATE DETAILS OF EVERYDAY LIFE. SOCIAL ORDER IS REFERRED HERE AS CLASS, CAPITAL, THE STATE, PATRIARCHY, EMPIRE.

· URBAN PERSPECTIVE FUSES CRITICAL THEORY, THE CRITICAL, CHANGE-ORIENTED ANALYSIS OF MODERN SOCIAL LIFE, WITH POLITICAL ECONOMY, AND THE POLITICAL CONSTRUCTION OF CAPITALIST ECONOMIES.

· CAUGHT BETWEEN “THE MACRO-DIMENSION” OF SOCIAL ORDER AND EVERYDAY LIFE AND URBAN POLITICS IS NO LONGER A LOCAL AFFAIR, THIS HOLDS PROMISE FOR GENERAL SOCIAL TRANSFORMATION.

GLOBALIZATION HERE IS BEEN DISCUSSED AS A PROCESS AND STRATEGY ORGANIZED THROUGH URBANIZATION. GIVEN THIS IT BECOMES RELEVANT FOR URBAN RESEARCH.

WHY A GLOBAL CITY RESEARCH IS IMPORTANT?:

· IT IS ABOUT URBAN PROCESSES AS MULTISCALE PHENOMENA RATHER THAN FORCES CONTAINED BY NATIONAL BOUNDARIES

· GLOBAL CITY FORMATION OCCURS WHEN URBAN REGIONS ARE ARTICULATED WITH THE GLOBAL PROCESS SUCH AS THE INTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL ECONOMY, GLOBAL FLOW OF GOODS AND PEOPLE, AND CULTURE

· IN TODAY’S WORLD THE PROCESS USUALLY CONNECT HEIGHTENED UNEVEN DEVELOPMENT, TRANSACTIONAL FORMS OF CAPITAL CENTRALIZATION AND NEW FORM OF MIGRATION

· TRANSNATIONALIZATION CAN PROVIDE A STARTING POINT TO INVESTIGATE HOW CITY BUILDING URBAN FORM, AND SPATIAL RELATIONS LINK EVERYDAY LIFE TO A NUMBER OF CONTEMPORARY FORMS OF RESTRUCTURING; CLASS FORMATION, GROWING ROLE FOR CULTURE IN ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, THE PRODUCTION OF NATURE, IMMIGRATION, MULTICULTURALISM, GENDERED AND RACIAL FORMS OF SOCIAL POLARIZATION AND STATE INTERVENTION

· TRANSNATIONAL URBANIZATION HIGHLIGHTS HOW CLASS RELATIONS ARE FORMED THROUGH SEGMENTATION OF GENDER, RACE, AND CULTURE

· URBAN EXPERIENCE IN THE AGE OF GLOBALIZATION RELY ON CRITICAL SOCIAL THEORY AND THE POLITICAL ECONOMY

THE URBAN ASPECT OF GLOBAL ECONOMY:

· GROWING NUMBER OF SCHOLARS ARE DRAWN TO THIS AREA OF STUDY

· RESEARCHERS STUDYING GENTRIFICATION HAVE DEMONSTRATED THAT URBAN SOCIAL GEOGRAPHY AND THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT MUST BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT IF ONE WANTS TO ANALYZE CLASS FORMATION

· ECONOMIC GEOGRAPHERS HAVE SHOWN HOW URBAN RESEARCH HELPS ONE UNDERSTAND HOW LABOUR MARKETS AND CLASS RELATIONS ARE ORGANIZED SPATIALLY AND ARE SEGMENTED ALONG LINES OF GENDER AND RACE

· FEMINIST RESEARCH HAS POINTED TO THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN GENDER INEQUALITY, PATRIARCHAL NOTIONS OF SEXUALITY AND DOMESTIC LIFE

· ANALYSTS OF RACISM HAVE DEMONSTRATED THAT MULTICULTURALISM CAN BE UNDERSTOOD AS A NEW FORM OF RADICALIZATION CONNECTED TO URBAN GEOGRAPHIES OF MIGRATION, RADICALIZED IMAGES OF THE CITY, THE FORMATION OF URBAN SOCIAL MOVEMENTS, AND CONFLICTS OVER LAND-USE AND HOUSING

· URBAN THEORIST BROUGHT FORTH INFORMATION ON THE CONNECTION BETWEEN NEW URBAN FORMS; WATERFRONT REDEVELOPMENT, EDGE AND CITIES, CAPITAL RESTRUCTURING, LOCAL POLITICS AND SHIFTS IN SOCIETAL RELATIONSHIP WITH NATURE

· RESEARCH ON SOCIAL MOVEMENTS, MUNICIPAL POLITICS EXPLAINS HOW STATE INSTITUTIONS ARE ORGANIZED SPATIALLY

· YET URBAN RESEARCH IS STILL BEING TREATED AS A SECONDARY FIELD EVEN THOUGH 23.9 MILLION CANADIAN, OR 80% OF THE COUNTRY’S POPULATION, LIVED IN URBAN AREAS IN 2001

· URBAN RESEARCH IS STILL BRACKETED FROM THE MAIN CURRENTS OF CRITICAL SOCIAL THEORY AND POLITICAL ECONOMY AS THE DOMAIN OF SPECIALIST OR AS A SUB FIELD

URBAN POLITICAL ECONOMY IN CANADA AT THE BEGINNING OF THE TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY:

1. BOURGEOIS URBANISM

“URBANISM SHAPES HOW RULING-CLASS AND MIDDLE-CLASS ELITES FRAME THEIR IDENTITIES” – CHANGING CANADA PG, 346

· JUST LIKE THEIR EUROPEAN COUNTERPARTS, CANADIAN ELITES ARE INCREASINGLY PRESENTING THEMSELVES AS URBAN.

· AN EARLIER TREND TOWARD LOCATING BOURGEOIS UTOPIA IN THE SUBURBS HAS SHIFTED AND CANADIAN ELITES USUALLY DO NOT DESERT THE INNER CITY.

· THERE IS A GROWING TENDENCY TO GENTRIFY THE CITY CORE – GENTRIFY MEANING TO RENOVATE SO AS TO MAKE IT CONFORM TO MIDDLE-CLASS ASPIRATIONS.

· HOWEVER, GENTRIFYING THE CITY CORE VS. EXURBAN ELITES PRODUCES TENSION IN OUR URBAN CITIES.

· THE CONVERSION TO BOURGEOIS VALUES, LOYALTIES, OR TASTES OF OUR URBAN CITIES CORRELATES WITH THE TENDENCY OF CANADIAN CAPITAL TO REINVEST IN REAL ESTATE AND “CULTURALIZATION”

2. THE CULTURALIZATION OF URBAN POLITICAL ECONOMY

EVERY INDIVIDUAL ACQUIRES HIS CULTURAL BEHAVIOR EQUIPMENT THROUGH A DEFINITE PROCESS. SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGISTS CALL THIS PROCESS CULTURALIZATION. CULTURALIZATION THEN COMPRISES A SERIES OF MECHANISMS BY WHICH THOSE QUALITIES CALLED CULTURAL HUMAN NATURE ARE PRODUCED.

· AS MORE WELL-TO-DO URBANITIES RELOCATE INTO THE LOFTS AND CONDOMINIUM TOWERS OF OUR LARGEST CITIES, CULTURE BECOMES AN IMPORTANT MEDIUM THROUGH WHICH THE CITY IS MADE INTO AN ENTERTAINMENT EVENT.

· FESTIVALS, ENTERTAINMENT SHOWS SUCH AS PLAYS, CONCERTS AND MUSICALS BECOME THE MAIN PURSUIT OF URBAN CULTURAL POLICIES FOR INTERNATIONAL TOURISTS AND URBAN ELITES.

· DO YOU THINK THAT SPORTS, ARTS AND CULTURE STRATEGY HAVE POLARIZING EFFECTS ON THE CITY SYSTEM??? (I.E. WINNIPEG AND QUEBEC CITY HAVE LOST TEAMS WHILE TORONTO IS ATTRACTING EVEN MORE)

3. THE SPATIALIZATION OF CAPITALIST GROWTH

· STRATIFICATION THROUGH GENDER, RACE AND CULTURE CONTINUES AS THE WORKING-CLASS AND MIDDLE-CLASS RELOCATES TOWARDS CITIES WHILE NEW SUBURBS ARE PORTS OF ENTRY FOR NEW NON-EUROPEAN IMMIGRATION.

· ELITE HOMEOWNERS EXPAND AROUND GOLF COURSES AND “GATED COMMUNITIES”, FENCING THEMSELVES FROM OTHER LOWER-CLASS CITIZENS

4. SHIFTING IMAGES OF THE URBAN REGION

· THE REGIONAL CITY

· THE TRANSNATIONAL CITY

· THE CITIES NOW APPEAR AS DENATIONALIZED NODES OF GLOBAL ECONOMY, WHOSE FLOWS OF CAPITAL, PEOPLE AND INFORMATION DISSOLVE THE TRADITIONAL SPATIAL ARRANGEMENTS OF URBAN REGIONS.

5. THE TRANSNATIONALIZATION OF THE URBAN EXPERIENCE

· MIGRATION HAS BECOME FULLY GLOBALIZED SINCE THE STATE ABANDONED ITS “WHITE-ONLY” IMMIGRATION POLICY IN THE 1960’S.

· MOST IMMIGRANTS COME FROM NON-EUROPEAN PLACES WITH ALMOST NON-WHITE A MAJORITY

· WOULD YOU SAY THAT THESE POLICIES DIRECTLY ATTRIBUTE TO THE NEW NEO-LIBERAL PARADIGM???

· WIDE GAP BETWEEN NEW IMMIGRANTS (I.E. FROM WEALTHY, WELL-EDUCATED TO EXTREMELY POOR AND DESKILLED REFUGEES.

· OUR LARGE CITIES HAVE BECOME A HOME FOR THE NEW TRANSNATIONAL ELITES WHO CAME TO INVEST OR TO LIVE FROM VARIOUS PARTS OF THE WORLD. HOWEVER, ON THE OTHER HAND, NEW IMMIGRANT WORKING CLASSES ARE CLOSELY CONNECTED THROUGH COMMUNITIES THAT APPEAR LOCAL.

6. NEW SOCIAL DISPARITIES

· DIFFERENCE IN THE IDENTITY OF THE URBAN SOCIETY IS IN CULTURAL TERMS.

· NEW FORM OF “DIFFERENTIALIST” RACISM WHICH IS BASED ON CULTURAL TRAITS.

7. SOCIAL POLARIZATION AND FRAGMENTATION

· INCREASED SOCIAL POLARIZATION IN TERMS OF GENDER AND RACE.

· POVERTY, UNEMPLOYMENT, AND CASUALIZED LABOUR MARKETS AFFECTED WOMEN, NONWHITE CANADIANS AND NEW IMMIGRANTS MOST (DIFFERENCE MADE BY HIGH-LEVEL HIGH-PAID AND LOW-LEVEL LOW-PAID JOB OCCUPATIONS).

· SOCIAL POLARIZATION IS REFLECTED ALSO THROUGH SPATIAL SEGMENTATION.

· DIVISIONS BETWEEN ELITE ENCLAVES, MIDDLE-CLASS SUBURBS, GHETTOS AND ETHNIC NEIGHBORHOODS HAVE INCREASED.

8. THE COMPETITIVE CITY

· DIFFERENT FORMS OF COMPETITIVENESS EXIST, SUCH AS REGIONALLY AND CONTINENTALLY BETWEEN CITIES TO ATTRACT INVESTMENT, TOURISTS AND EXPORTS IN NOWADAYS FORM OF GLOBALIZATION.

CONCLUSION: RESISTING GLOBALIZATION:

· POSSIBILITIES FOR RESISTANCE:

- SOCIAL MOVEMENTS

- “NEVER UNDERESTIMATE THE POWER OF PEOPLE” (I.E. 1999’S WTO PROTEST IN SEATTLE)

- ANTI-GLOBALIZATION PROTESTS

III) DECLINE OF THE WELFARE STATE

SOCIAL TRANSFORMATIONS IN CAPITAL, LABOUR AND CLASS

{“THE DECLINE OF THE CANADIAN WELFARE STATE: POLICIES AND IMPLICATIONS OF RETRENCHMENT” – SOCIAL ISSUES AND CONTRADICTIONS, CH. 16 – GARY TEEPLE}

OVERVIEW: FOR ALL INTENTS AND PURPOSES THE TERM ‘WELFARE STATE’ REFERS TO: A CAPITALIST SOCIETY IN WHICH THE STATE HAS INTERVENED IN THE FORM OF SOCIAL POLICIES, PROGRAMS, STANDARDS, AND REGULATIONS IN ORDER TO MITIGATE CLASS CONFLICT AND TO PROVIDE FOR, ANSWER, OR ACCOMMODATE CERTAIN SOCIAL NEEDS FOR WHICH THE CAPITALIST MODE OF PRODUCTION IN ITSELF HAS NO SOLUTION OR PROVISION.

THE WELFARE STATE INCLUDES, BUT IS NOT LIMITED TO:

· REGULATION OF MINIMUM WAGE

· WORKING HOURS

· EMPLOYMENT HEALTH & SAFETY

· EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE

· PENSIONS

· HOSPITALS

· PUBLIC EDUCATION

· INCOME SUPPLEMENTATION

WHAT ARE THE COMMON ELEMENTS OF WELFARE STATES?

1.) IT IS A PRODUCT OF CAPITALIST SOCIETY

2.) ROLE OF GOVERNMENT IS TO ENSURE ITS MAINTENANCE AND REPRODUCTION

3.) WELFARE STATE IS DETERMINED BY THE BOUNDARIES OF THE NATION-STATE

WHEN DOES A STATE BECOME A WELFARE STATE?

A: WHEN CLASS CONFLICT, REDUCED TO THE CONTEST BETWEEN WORKERS AND THE REPRESENTATIVES OF CAPITAL, PRESENTS A CHRONIC THREAT TO THE STABILITY OF THE SYSTEM AND HAS TO BE INSTITUTIONALIZED (PLACED WITHIN

A LEGAL FRAMEWORK) AND WHEN THE MAJORITY OF SOCIAL NEEDS PERTAINING TO THE REPRODUCTION OF THE WORKING CLASSES ARE ADDRESSED FORMALLY (BY THE STATE VIA POLICIES) RATHER THAN INFORMALLY (VIA FRIENDS AND FAMILY).

THE MODERN WELFARE STATE IS REFERRED TO AS THE KEYNESIAN WELFARE STATE (KWS), SO NAMED AFTER JOHN MAYNARD KEYNES =====> HIS PRINCIPAL ASSUMPTION WAS THE EXISTENCE OF A NATIONAL ECONOMY, IN WHICH, HE ARGUED, THE STATE COULD INTERVENE TO EFFECT LEVELS OF INVESTMENT AND DOMESTIC INCOME, AND THEREBY PARTIALLY REGULATE UNEMPLOYMENT BY THESE NATIONAL “DEMAND MANAGEMENT” POLICIES.

WHY WAS THE POST WWII ERA RIPE FOR THE KWS?

· THE OVERWHELMING MAJORITY OF THE LABOUR FORCE WAS WORKING CLASS WITH SIZEABLE PERCENTAGES ORGANIZED INTO TRADE UNIONS.

· CLASS CONFLICT NOW IMPLIED A CHRONIC THREAT TO THE REPRODUCTION OF THE SYSTEM AND SO HAD TO BE CONTAINED BY INSTITUTIONAL MEANS.

· WITH THE TRANSFORMATION OF THE LABOUR FORCE AND DEMISE OF PRECAPITALIST MODES OF PRODUCTION, THE MAJORITY OF SOCIAL NEEDS NECESSARY FOR SOCIAL REPRODUCTION WERE NOT MET BY THE PRIVATE SECTOR AND COULD ONLY BE DONE THROUGH PUBLIC POLICIES, PROGRAMS, AND STANDARDS, THAT IS, MACROECONOMIC POLICIES BASED ON STATE INDEBTEDNESS AND THE SOCIAL WAGE.

MOST ASPECTS OF THE WELFARE STATE WERE DESIGNED TO REDISTRIBUTE APORTION OF WAGES AND SALARIES, COLLECTED BY THE STATE IN THE FORM OF TAX REVENUES, PREMIUMS AND DEFERRED INCOME. IT WAS NOT INTENDED TO REDISTRIBUTE SOCIAL WEALTH ======> MANY PROGRAMS IN CANADA SUCH AS UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS, PENSION PLANS AND HOSPITAL INSURANCE ARE FINANCED BY THE WORKING CLASS =====> SOME COSTS ARE SHARED BY CORPORATIONS, BUT MOST OF THE TAXES ARE FROM WAGES AND SALARIES.

THERE ARE TWO FORMS OF REDISTRIBUTION:

1.) THE GENERAL REDISTRIBUTION OF DEDUCTIONS FROM WAGES & SALARIES TO ASSIST THE WORKING CLASS TO REPRODUCE ITSELF. I.E. EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE

2.) REDISTRIBUTION OF REVENUES UPWARD IN THE SOCIAL STRATA SINCE THE WELL-TO-DO MAKE PROPORTIONATELY GREATER USE OF MORE COSTLY PROGRAMS. I.E. HEALTH CARE AND EDUCATION.

PRESENT STRUCTURE

“THE PRESENT STRUCTURE OF THE WELFARE STATE IN CANADA IS A ‘HODGE-PODGE’ OF POLICIES, PROGRAMS, LAWS AND STANDARDS STREWN ACROSS POLITICAL JURISDICTIONS, CATEGORIES OF PEOPLE AND TYPES OF NEEDS.”

THE MOST COMMON METHODS OF GROUPING THE PROGRAMS ARE BY:

A.) MODE OF FINANCING AND

B.) NATURE OF RECIPIENT.

THOSE DEFINED BY MODE OF FINANCING REPRESENT ATTEMPTS TO

MODERATE PROVINCIAL DISPARITIES AND MAINTAIN NATIONAL STANDARDS ACROSS THE COUNTRY.

THOSE DEFINED BY THE NATURE OF THE RECIPIENT HAVE THREE CATEGORIES:

· UNIVERSAL PROGRAMS OR ‘DEMOGRANTS’ WHICH APPLY TO INDIVIDUALS OF A UNIT.

· SOCIAL INSURANCE PROGRAMS WHICH PROVIDE BENEFITS TO CONTRIBUTORS.

· SOCIAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS WHICH PERTAIN TO THOSE BELOW A PARTICULAR INCOME.

CONTEMPORARY ISSUES

EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE – CUT BACK OR MOVING FORWARD?

· REDUCED HOURS REQUIRED BEFORE BECOMING ELIGIBLE!

· GREATER INCOME EARNING ALLOWED BEFORE BENEFITS EFFECTED!

· LONGER PERIODS FOR RECEIVING BENEFITS!

· GOVERNMENT HAS IN EXCESS OF $41 BILLION IN EI SURPLUSES!*

IS IT OKAY FOR THE GOVERNMENT TO SPEND THE SURPLUS ON OTHER PROGRAMS?

CPP – SUSTAINABLE PORTION OF THE WELFARE STATE?

· RELIES ON PRESENT-DAY EMPLOYEES TO FINANCE THE PENSIONS OF THE RETIRED!

· FUNDS HAVE BEEN REINVESTED IN BONDS AND STOCKS!

CHARITIES – SHORING UP THE WELFARE STATE

CHARITIES ARE BEING ENCOURAGED BY GOVERNMENTS BECAUSE OF THREE TRENDS:

· INCREASE IN SOCIAL NEEDS DUE TO INCREASING LONG-TERM STRUCTURAL UNEMPLOYMENT

· GROWING LIMITS ON FURTHER EXPANSION OF THE SOCIAL WAGE

· PLANNED REDUCTIONS IN THE WELFARE STATE

CHARITIES CONTRIBUTE TO THE DECLINE OF THE WELFARE STATE BY NOT ONLY REPLACING IT BUT BY ALSO ALLOWING DONATIONS TO BE TAX DEDUCTIBLE – A PLANNED PARADOX.