slums_liwen

Slums
Liwen Zhang

Davis’ Planet of Slums presents highly astonishing figures. In a more recent edition of his work, he highlights that by 2050, “cities will account for all future world population growth” and that the number of residents in slums has reached a “staggering 78.2 percent of urbanities in the least-developed countries”. It has been long apparent that the issue of slums has reached what he deems as a global catastrophe upon which these slums serve not only as “warehouses for the poor”, but also as huge social and economical disasters.

The questions posed and debated by many scholars such as Janice Perlman, Shlomo Angel and Stan Benjamin collectively evaluate our perceptions, misunderstandings in the operations that uniquely happen in a slum environment and inappropriate ways upon which we have dealt with the problem up to date.

In Angel and Benjamin’s work, despite the seemingly pessimistic outlook on the many ways we have failed to resolve the problem of slums, we are presented with a very rational and logical point toward the end of the piece. They state that before any realistic solutions could materialize, there needs to be a “considerable change in attitudes and perceptions, the squatter problem simply can’t be solved”. This seemingly cynical outlook is perhaps a contrast to Perlman’s work, where her “myth of marginality” presents the mentality of those who inhabit the slums to be a positive one – where they are “highly optimistic and aspire to better education for their children and to improving the condition of their houses”. The myth in this case is a misconception on our part – in the parasitical ways we view them, hence limiting the opportunities for them to “fulfill their aspirations”.

What is interesting about Perlman’s work is the piece that she has most recently done titled the New Marginality. Notice that the title is in direct opposition to her previous assertions on the myth of marginality. In her new work, she went back and surveyed nearly all the same people that she did for her first research piece which resulted in the myth of marginality. In her second extensive research session, her findings were not so optimistic – hence the fact that marginality is no longer a myth. She notices that unlike in the 1960s, where slum inhabitants still had hope and saw their residences as transitional spaces, the 1990’s presents itself as an era of hopelessness. The same inhabitants that she surveyed back in the 60’s have now lost a lot of the previous aspirations and hopes they have had about leaving the slums. There is now sustained stigmatism in such areas, where slum inhabitants no longer feel comfortable and safe venturing into the formal streets of non slum areas. They explicitly state that based on what one wears, how one talks and one's lack of a permanent street address, these telling impressions then lead to many new forms of violence, thus sustained stigmatism and a new form of marginality.

I realize that up to this point I have generalized the many years of research and work of many renowned scholars; this is mainly attributed to the general purpose of this response piece and for clarity sake. I find Perlman’s work promising and extremely pertinent upon framing the course of action for what is to come. From her work, we realize another layer of added complexity to the already existing predicaments imposed. How do we then position ourselves as designers and planners for those subjected to this new form of marginality?