Mehra- Blog Post 5

  In Chapter 2 of Dark Ghettos, Shelby argues against new integrationism as a solution to ghetto poverty. To do so, he considers and refutes the arguments of Elizabeth Anderson. Anderson contends that “today’s residential segregation is the legacy of state-sponsored, overt housing discrimination and contemporary private (though sometimes covert) discrimination” (64). Her solution of integration rests on the impacts of social capital, or “the networks of associates through which knowledge of and access to opportunities are transmitted and norms of trust and reciprocity are enforced” (64). She specifically points to the potential impact of “bridging social capital,” in which people of different backgrounds and identities make such connections. 

In response, Shelby argues against the social capital argument and the necessity of integration, instead promoting egalitarian pluralism. While I agree with his central contention that “blacks, including poor blacks, should be free to self-segregate in neighborhoods and . . . this practice is not incompatible with justice,” I question the effects of weak integration and bridging social capital. Further, I question whether integration, even if not necessary, would facilitate some methods of egalitarian pluralism that Shelby lays out. Specifically, what are the consequences of a lack of integration and social capital on the perpetuation of racial stereotypes and the efficiency of structural change?

For example, Shelby concedes that egalitarian pluralists “are generally skeptical that a sufficient number of whites are currently willing to relinquish their unjust social, material, and political advantages in order to secure racial equality” (68). I wonder, could integration help accelerate or motivate the process of whites relinquishing their advantages? Shelby would likely contend that integration would not motivate this process due to greater racial conflict within integrated neighborhoods (73) and a lack of reliable sustained connection between white and Black neighbors (70). To the latter point, Shelby specifically argues “residents can avoid sustained contact, limiting their interaction to greetings as they pass each other in apartment halls or on the street” (70). While certainly true, can this limited connection be powerful, even if not sustained? 

I think specifically to the stereotypes about poor Black individuals that Shelby often mentions, such as that their status is justified a result of their failures or inability to work hard. I would argue that even in the case of “unsustained” connections limited to greetings and small talk, these stereotypes can start to break down, leading white individuals to more readily accept change. For example, stereotypes about laziness or justified poorness may deteriorate if whites see their Black neighbors going to their job at the same time every day, taking care of their children, or seeking work. Further, this has the potential of more personally exposing injustice and consequently compelling whites to give up their advantages. Could this type of connection accelerate the process of social change? Also, if structural change precedes the breakdown of stereotypes and the development of empathy, would racial hostility ensue? 

Again, I still agree that for the reasons Shelby lists, forced integration is unjust and not the optimal solution. Nonetheless, I am inclined to question what the process of realizing structural change and justice may be missing without more integration.