Some thoughts on gentrification

Written by Brian Culkin

One of the difficulties in discussing gentrification is its status, not as a ‘thing’ that can be sensed and touched, but rather as an ideology. Yes of course, you can certainly see the reality of a new luxury condominium development taking over a former grammar school, but that is not gentrification itself. Rather it is a symptom, a manifestation, that emerges as an event from an abstract social process that is ultimately invisible.

However, this very facet of gentrification’s nature, abstract and invisible, should never take away from the fact that gentrification in its purest form can only be considered entirely catastrophic for social life and relations. But ironically, this built in social catastrophe that gentrification carries with it, is almost always deflected by both the political and left and right. Even more specifically, this deflection is always executed by the very worst features of these political opposites.

For the left, gentrification represents ‘progress.’ It represents the renouncing of antiquated notions of social organization and community in favor of a disjointed multiplicity of ‘inclusiveness.’ That word specifically, ‘inclusiveness’ is the adjective par excellence that the left continually uses to justify the logic of gentrification. But of course, nothing in contemporary urban America is more exclusive than gentrification, most especially for traditional city dwellers. And because gentrification – at least in its current form within post industrial urban America – always carries with it a certain level of technological progression within its spaces of activity (the illusion of democratization and egalitarianism) the left can not help but fawn over its acceleration.

For the right, gentrification represents a different kind of ‘progress.’ It represents unhinged capital circulation, entrepreneurship, and the challenge of claiming victory over any city ordinance or restriction that seeks to disrupt the pace of its process. For the right, the real estate developer is transformed into an Ayn Rand character, a la Howard Roark, and their property acquisitions/ design/ construction are mythologized as a triumph of free market logic and global capital. The right aligns with gentrification because of its fierce allegiance to capital’s properties of multiplication.

Yet, in this very posturing by both sides of mainstream political ideology, the truth of gentrification is never, ever approached.

A recent film I directed, The Mission, forced me to become extremely familiar with gentrification from a philosophical perspective, and see how this issue is so innately difficult to grasp. That being said, I have become intrigued by the current developments pertaining to the Gate of Heaven School in South Boston as it relates to this exact topic of gentrification’s ambiguity. But what intrigues me most about this event is the intensity of the emotional, historical, and social ties this building has to the local community, which has effectively transformed this showdown into a very defined ‘singularity’ as it relates to the tension that is always present within gentrification.

For here is a concrete event, a moment in time, where the forces dramatically collide and the stakes of the game are very high. However, after reading Ray Flynn’s recent column in the Boston Herald I was disheartened by the scope of the defense he utilized to pose a critique against gentrification, a vague public statement constructed to stop the real estate venture from moving forward.  That is to say, Flynn employed just as much smoke and mirrors in his defense against gentrification as the developers use in their argument for gentrification.  This is not saying Flynn overtly and consciously misrepresented the facts, far from it, and for the record I have tremendous respect and admiration for the former mayor as I consider him a personal friend. But rather, it seems he was compelled to skirt around the crux of the issue entirely and use a series of non sequitur and unrelated arguments to further his general position. But it is this very point that brings us to the very heart of the matter: the truth of gentrification is very uncomfortable to talk about, so it must be deflected.

So, any type of public discourse as it relates to gentrification can’t help but remind us of the excellent Christopher Nolan film, The Dark Knight, and its extremely honest rendering of contemporary political relations. For at the climax of the film, it is Batman himself that takes the public fall for Harvey Dent, the District Attorney of Gotham City. That is to say, rather than admitting this inconvenient truth to the people of Gotham, Batman does the complete opposite. Instead, he takes the blame himself to protect the people’s illusions and thus employs the political logic of Plato or Immanuel Kant that goes something like this: the people can’t handle the real truth, so we must protect them by inventing an acceptable alternative. {1} But it is this very point that forms the basis of my central analysis of gentrification: the truth of it is so uncomfortable, so revealing, that both sides of the issue must dance around it in order to avoid confronting its ideological center.

No matter how gentrification appears, no matter how shiny the new building looks, and no matter how much progress it is said to theoretically entail, at the very heart of this process is something that we do not like to speak of. For ultimately, gentrification is simply a mirror of ourselves, and possibly, our collective social dysfunction.

The issue at hand, ironically, is not the future of the school itself. Of course, I feel as any decent observer would, luxury condos as a substitute for a former grammar school is nothing short of a tragedy, while also demonstrating the real problem that seems to be at the center of American society today: the very dangerous association of ‘social progress’ with financial speculation and technological advancement.  But at the very same time, and taking reality into account, I can also consciously acknowledge that preventing this specific development will do absolutely nothing in the long run towards suspending gentrification’s rapid acceleration and encapsulation of all urban spaces; from Brooklyn, to Inglewood, to South Boston.  So for me, the real issue at stake is rather: Can the parties talk honestly and openly about gentrification? Can the parties strip away all of the surface rhetoric and look at the truth of what this process actually is? Can the parties understand the multiple factors in play and completely divorce themselves from any political position? Can they, rather than being developers or neighborhood activists, just be human beings?

And it is in this very possibility where the Gate of Heaven event has the potential to be the most effective, most powerful, and most honest. After all, this a church property we are speaking of, a place where truth, or at least the quest for truth, should be front and center of all potential dialogue.

Brian Culkin is a filmmaker, artist, and writer.  He is a former professional athlete and also worked as a financial executive before transitioning toward film and art. His website is www.brianculkin.com and more of his writing can be found at culkin.wordpress.com where he analyzes cinema, technology, and writes extensively on the sport of boxing as he is about release a book on the subject tentatively entitled: Postscript on Boxing: the human body, digital worlds, and the death of boxing in American culture. He is a graduate of Skidmore College, class of 2001, where he graduated as the all time leading scorer in the history of its basketball program.

1. Slavoj Zikek, Living in the End Times, Verso, 2011