[ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]
.That is, theyassert that their agendas reXect the most fundamental elements of AfricanAmerican identity.Coalition leaders and supporters frequently adopted thisstrategy in Douglas/Grand Boulevard, particularly when discussing neigh-borhood demolition.This issue touched the lives of all residents in someway, yet the nature and degree of its impact varied across class.Whilethe neighborhood faced the possible destruction of historic buildings thatwould form part of the Black Metropolis tourism destination, it also facedthe demolition of public housing in the area, which constituted the onlyaffordable housing option for many of the neighborhood s residents.Mid-South focused its attention on the threat that demolition held for historic WE RE ALL IN THIS MESS TOGETHER 133buildings and promoted historic preservation and black gentriWcation assolutions to that threat.More important, the organization and its alliesdrew heavily on the Bronzeville identity, arguing that their strategy embod-ied its tradition of collectivism and middle-class leadership and also safe-guarded those traditions by preserving the buildings that represented them.This tactic ultimately prioritized property value enhancement over theprovision of affordable housing.Yet coalition leaders justiWed these prior-ities and asserted their universal beneWt by highlighting their consistencywith, and degree to which they expressed, the Bronzeville identity.Rethinking Racial Group InterestsThe attempt to identify a universal racial beneWt is one response to anissue that concerns many contemporary observers of black politics.Withthe removal of legal segregation and the recent class polarization of theblack population, analysts have raised new questions about the relation-ship between racial identity and political preferences.Some question therelationship between elected ofWcials and black constituents and the extentto which the former are willing and able to represent the interests of thelatter (Swain 1995; Whitby 1997).Others wonder whether blacks will main-tain the uniformity in opinion and voting patterns that they exhibitedprior to the civil rights era (Dawson 1994; Tate 1994).This latter concernhas manifested itself primarily in the popular and scholarly debate overwhether race or class has more impact on black political behavior, and itis clearly a concern for leaders in Douglas/Grand Boulevard.In both cases,observers are concerned with understanding how racial identity is relatedto political preferences.Yet the consideration of this question has beenhampered by our reliance on the notion of racial group interests, whichassumes that certain preferences are racial, rather than explaining the pro-cess through which they are racialized.While widely used in political science literature, the racial groupinterests concept is marked by considerable ambiguity.1 No works of whichI am aware adequately establish what phenomenon is captured by the con-cept.Thus, despite its centrality in the research, it is unclear exactly whatthe concept represents and what it is meant to measure.Are racial group 134 WE RE ALL IN THIS MESS TOGETHERinterests those preferences that blacks share in common, regardless oftheir source or differential impact? For example, if two African Americanmen support afWrmative action in college admissions and only one of themis likely to beneWt from it, does that make it a racial group interest? In otherwords, is the emphasis on the word group? Or should the focus be on theracial part of racial group interests? These questions are particularly impor-tant given the fact that the concept itself was developed in an attempt tounderstand the implications of multiple group identities.One way to determine the implicit deWnition of racial group inter-ests is to examine how scholars operationalize it that is, what variablesthey use to indicate its existence.The term is frequently operationalizedas the policies and positions toward which blacks display signiWcant homo-geneity, such as partisanship or political orientation (Dawson 1994; Swain1995) [ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]
zanotowane.pl doc.pisz.pl pdf.pisz.pl przylepto3.keep.pl
.That is, theyassert that their agendas reXect the most fundamental elements of AfricanAmerican identity.Coalition leaders and supporters frequently adopted thisstrategy in Douglas/Grand Boulevard, particularly when discussing neigh-borhood demolition.This issue touched the lives of all residents in someway, yet the nature and degree of its impact varied across class.Whilethe neighborhood faced the possible destruction of historic buildings thatwould form part of the Black Metropolis tourism destination, it also facedthe demolition of public housing in the area, which constituted the onlyaffordable housing option for many of the neighborhood s residents.Mid-South focused its attention on the threat that demolition held for historic WE RE ALL IN THIS MESS TOGETHER 133buildings and promoted historic preservation and black gentriWcation assolutions to that threat.More important, the organization and its alliesdrew heavily on the Bronzeville identity, arguing that their strategy embod-ied its tradition of collectivism and middle-class leadership and also safe-guarded those traditions by preserving the buildings that represented them.This tactic ultimately prioritized property value enhancement over theprovision of affordable housing.Yet coalition leaders justiWed these prior-ities and asserted their universal beneWt by highlighting their consistencywith, and degree to which they expressed, the Bronzeville identity.Rethinking Racial Group InterestsThe attempt to identify a universal racial beneWt is one response to anissue that concerns many contemporary observers of black politics.Withthe removal of legal segregation and the recent class polarization of theblack population, analysts have raised new questions about the relation-ship between racial identity and political preferences.Some question therelationship between elected ofWcials and black constituents and the extentto which the former are willing and able to represent the interests of thelatter (Swain 1995; Whitby 1997).Others wonder whether blacks will main-tain the uniformity in opinion and voting patterns that they exhibitedprior to the civil rights era (Dawson 1994; Tate 1994).This latter concernhas manifested itself primarily in the popular and scholarly debate overwhether race or class has more impact on black political behavior, and itis clearly a concern for leaders in Douglas/Grand Boulevard.In both cases,observers are concerned with understanding how racial identity is relatedto political preferences.Yet the consideration of this question has beenhampered by our reliance on the notion of racial group interests, whichassumes that certain preferences are racial, rather than explaining the pro-cess through which they are racialized.While widely used in political science literature, the racial groupinterests concept is marked by considerable ambiguity.1 No works of whichI am aware adequately establish what phenomenon is captured by the con-cept.Thus, despite its centrality in the research, it is unclear exactly whatthe concept represents and what it is meant to measure.Are racial group 134 WE RE ALL IN THIS MESS TOGETHERinterests those preferences that blacks share in common, regardless oftheir source or differential impact? For example, if two African Americanmen support afWrmative action in college admissions and only one of themis likely to beneWt from it, does that make it a racial group interest? In otherwords, is the emphasis on the word group? Or should the focus be on theracial part of racial group interests? These questions are particularly impor-tant given the fact that the concept itself was developed in an attempt tounderstand the implications of multiple group identities.One way to determine the implicit deWnition of racial group inter-ests is to examine how scholars operationalize it that is, what variablesthey use to indicate its existence.The term is frequently operationalizedas the policies and positions toward which blacks display signiWcant homo-geneity, such as partisanship or political orientation (Dawson 1994; Swain1995) [ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]