Poverty Map: East London - Assignment Example

 Poverty Map: Researching East London East London has been persistently considered an area that has been affected by serious poverty in recent years. This observation began as early as 19th century until the 1971 when the first widespread census was carried out to estimate the extent of poverty in the inner East London. However, Charles Booth had employed a totally different method to detect the level of poverty in East London by concentrating on the social classes and income of the residents in his social cartography. 1. Census has been used as the modern way to measure the extent of poverty in East London. Censuses were undertaken in 1971 and 2001, which classified the East London residents based on their (i) Tenure; (ii) Economic activity; (iii) and Household Amenities. Tenure has been found to be unhelpful in determining the social status of East Londoners; however, each family economic activity and household amenities do shed light on whether the families are rich, medium-class or poor. On the other hand, the approach used by Charles Booth was totally different: he divided the localities in East London on a coloured map, for which each colour stands for the social class and income of the residents in that 2 areas. Charles Booth’s approach has been found to be quite practical and easily interpretable even to the students of social cartography. For examples, Black colour represents lowest class, vicious, semi-criminal; Red stands for middle-class and well-to-do; Pink stands for fairly comfortable and good ordinary earnings etc. These and other colours dot the surface of the map of East London. 2. Young and Willmott put family and kinship at the centre of their sociological research (16-102). They strongly believe that the relationship among all family units, be it father, mother, children, siblings and relatives go a long way to determine their social status as well as economic capability. They believed that families engage in social or physical activities that may affect their mobility from one place to another, and from one class to another; Therefore, Young and Willmott were surprised that almost no one had thought about how family cooperation and understanding could change the social status of the people living in East London (155). This inward-looking proposition underrates the overruling power of the local governments and public institutions, believing that family economic power comes from the ability of family units to form a constructive bond that is likely to foster better unity and understanding in the society as a whole. Another observation that may have surprised Young and Willmott was that each group from different economic level keeps to themselves (121). In 3 other words, they refuse to intermingle and encourage transfer of wealth from rich East Londoners to poor East Londoners. This kind of economic imbalance has shifted the map of East London into two distinct sections: those who are financially viable and those who have financial insecurity (Young & Willmott 123). This sociological research was carried out by interviews; however, there is no indication that the outcomes of the research have been influenced by any municipal government and administration. Therefore, it is quite interesting and helpful for city planners, local administrators and other stake-holders to understand the importance of family unity in the process of creating wealth in a certain locality and improving the well-being of the people. Young and Willmott would not have been surprised if they had discovered that the ability of a locality to change its residents’ status from poverty to wealth depends on entirely on familial relationship. 3. The study carried out by Dench, Gavron and Young on the population at East End revealed something quite dramatic about the explosive rate at which the major ethnic group there—Bangladeshi—is forming a vibrant community that puts to test the London’s ability to cope with the racial fallouts from decades of multiculturalism in England (75). However, Dench et al., took a strong position against the attitude of the remaining white community, which the study labeled act of racism. Personally, I disagree with this opinion. Naturally, people everywhere tends to be quite protective of their communities when they sense that new group of people with different ideas or lifestyles are moving in. Before 4 the Bangladeshi families entered into East End, the place was occupied by white residents, some of whom were Jews, the Irish, Huguenots etc. These early settlers may have had no option to kick against the demonstration of favoritism shown to the Bangladeshi community, considering the ease at which they enjoyed Estate accommodation and other social facilities. Although, this study should have painted in a more detailed picture the effect of Bangladeshi immigration on the household earnings of the East London. It was a fact that more Bangladeshi immigrants did not immediately get jobs, and they were total dependents on their families or relatives to have access to basic needs. This condition could have made East London poorer and left many residents unable to move up the economic status. Another thing Dench et al. had refused to show is the effect of racism on the ability of the white residents and Bangladeshi families to freely interact together. The fact is that for any community to succeed, all the components of the community should be able to relate together freely without any hindrances to peaceful co-existence. I also disagree with the perspective of this study, because it concentrates only on the impact of immigration on the social issues, but does not necessarily provide any linkage with the economic activity of East London after the immigration of Bangladeshi families. Dench et al. should have described how each class of the society had been affected by the new immigrants arriving in the areas. It has also been observed by critics that Dench et al. did not actually carry out a sociological study, but just put together facts. Statistics, figures and other tables about their observations in East London without offering theoretical supports for their assertions. Without doubt, this study provides an opportunity for future researchers who would like to 5 detect how immigration could either improve or worsen the financial capability of those residing in the areas. The Bangladeshi families in East London have forever changed the face of the place and either directly or indirectly enlarged the map of poverty. 4. Buck et al.’s study about the contemporary London reveals many interesting happenings in this ever transforming capital city. This is one of the important sociological works that critically explores what actually London is: clear references are made to the nature of life and labour in the bustling city. Buck et al. explain the phenomenon of demographic transformation as well as the impacts of immigration into the city from all corners of the world (18). Buck et al also describe how this has led to the rapid economic growth and political relevance of London. Virtually every country in the world has its citizen living in London and mingling with other immigrants to influence economic and social policies in Britain. Prominent among these policies is the effect of imported labour into Britain from the Eastern Europe to Africa and Asia, and how this labour mobility has increased London’s productivity (163). Although this whole event has created different social structures in the City, and it has created an unexpected wide margin between the super rich and the super poor. Some of the problems that had divided the residents of London include but not restricted to social turbulence, discrimination, racism and so on. These challenges have in one way or the other slowed down economic developments in various areas of the 6 city. Typically, East London—the abode of tens of thousands of immigrants—seems to be the area worst affected by these deplorable social problems. Hence, these problems have also affected the earnings and incomes of the people living in East London. On a positive note, the social life of London also helps to create jobs for the teeming immigrants calling the place their homes (261). In a similar vein, companies in London that require the services of unskilled workers in order to mass-produce their goods were just happy that the immigration has brought many workers from across the Atlantic (225). This incident has turned London into a lucrative labour market where other European countries could move their businesses to because of the availability of ample workers who are willing and ready to work hard. But why are the residents of East London still poor after all? To answer this question, it is important to re-establish that London, as a Capital City, has been divided into separate social structures: the upper class, the middle-class and low-income families. Unfortunately, most immigrants belong to the class of low-income families: hence, some of them could not have enough resources to satisfy their daily needs, which include housing, food and refreshment, and education for their kids. Currently, the second generation of Bangladeshi lives in East London, but a large percentage of them still suffer from financial problems and stuck on the low-income category. 7 However, Buck et al’s study is different from Booth’s social cartography in the sense that it discusses the social, economic, demographic and political importance of the interdependency of all components of London City; on other hand, Booth’s study concentrated only on the issues concerning East London, more so, it only addresses the matter of social class and family income. Incidentally, complete eradication of poverty from an area depends on the concerted efforts of all stakeholders—the residents and the local administration. Booth did not explain how political manipulation could spark economic development that would provide jobs for all immigrants so that they could have enough to take care of their immediate families. 5. Robert and Robson explain the effect of globalisation on the City of London in a kind of re-transformation of the City’s structure, culture and status through the process of gentrification (10). This is a social process whereby rich people move from their wealthy neigbourhood and decide to live in an area occupied by poor residents. Since they are rich and have money to spend, the economic activities in that area will pick up: shops or stores would be opened; local transport business would boom; educational services for the children of the rich would multiply in no time. Generally, more money would flow around as jobs are created and workers come around to do the jobs (175). But the saddest aspect of 8 this rapid economic development is that the rent for housing property would automatically rise and poor residents would either be forced to pay up or be forced to leave their homes. Even this could lead to a deplorable situation of eviction and homelessness. Another impact of this issue is that there would be radical changes in the cultures, lifestyles and status of people living in that area. There is no doubt that gentrification produces higher economic activity and high household income, but its adverse effects are also undeniable. When the cost of living in that area shoots up, poor residents would be forced to hold on to one or two jobs with the purpose of raising enough money to offset their monthly bills. This condition will lead to a situation whereby poor residents would spend more time working than staying with their families. Their health would be impaired and they may never have the opportunity to properly raise their kids—a circumstance that could cause their kids to follow bad friends and dabble into crime, as such is the case in the East London. Lately, London has become a place for even middle and upper-class immigrants from different countries. Globalisation brings them into London to buy estate property and establish businesses in the areas that were predominantly poor and have low-income families. There are reports to support this observation: for instance, many Russians, Americans, Africans and Asians are flocking into London to enjoy the business atmosphere to set up personal enterprises. When they do, they hire immigrants to work in their factories. Since the areas where most immigrants live in London are cheap and not difficult to obtain, so most of these small businesses owned by the immigrants are established in these areas. 9 Globalisation has broken the barriers among countries and facilitated the movement of people from one region of the world to the other. But this process also destroy cultures, religions and social status as people try to pick up the manners of the countries they had found themselves. In this case, a Bangladeshi grandchild will pick up British accent of speaking English, and he/she may even see himself/herself more of a British, because of nationality by birth. Urban gentrification has been multiplied worldwide as a result of immigration: the good thing about this is that it increases economic activity of the area where it is affected; but it also creates poverty for people who have no means to catch up with the new and expensive lifestyles in their surrounding (140). 10 Works Cited Buck, Nick, Gordon, Ian, Harloe, Michael & Kleinman Mark, Working capital: life and labour in contemporary London. London: Rouledge, 2002. Print. Butler, Tim & Robson, Garry. London calling: the middle classes and the re-making of inner London. Oxford: Berg, 2003. Print. Dench, Geoff, Gavron, Kate & Young, Michael. The new East End: kinship, race and conflict. London: Profile Books Ltd., 2006. Print. Young, Michael & Willmott, Peter. Family and kinship in East London. London: Taylor & Francis, 1989. Print. Read More