“We take responsibility!”: Governing the neighborhood

Abstract

This ethnographic study of a neighborhood association focuses on the process of organizing residents to collective action. Situated in the post-industrial city of Buffalo, New York, the Urban Community Collaborative (UCC) employs two main governing techniques: (1) “taking responsibility” and (2)“working collaboratively” that emphasizes the rationality of “active citizenship” and the formation of horizontally linked collaborative partnerships to address perceived urban social problems. Similar to previous studies, we view this political rationality as a discursive constitution that shapes the actions of the members of the UCC (Atkinson, 1999; Schofield, 20002). This political rationality invokes neoliberal discourses of individual responsibility, entrepreneurship, and community partnership in place of a dependency on the government. We find residents utilizing moral techniques of responsibilization which entails calling on their neighbors to “take responsibility” and to “work collaboratively” with one another and paradoxically, with the government itself in revitalization efforts.

Keywords

Ethnography neoliberalism governmentality neighborhood crime community policing

This ethnographic study of a neighborhood association focuses on the process of organizing residents to collective action. Situated in a northern, post-industrial city, the Urban Community Collaborative (UCC) employs two main governing techniques: (1) “taking responsibility” and (2) “working collaboratively” that emphasizes the rationality of “active citizenship” and the formation of horizontally linked collaborative partnerships to address perceived urban social problems. Similar to previous studies, we view these political rationalities as a discursive constitution that shapes the actions of the members of the UCC (Atkinson, 1999; Schofield, 2002). These political rationalities invoke neoliberal discourses of individual responsibility, entrepreneurship, and community partnership in place of a dependency on the government. We find residents utilizing moral techniques of responsibilization which entails calling on their neighbors to “take responsibility” and to “work collaboratively” with one another and paradoxically, with the government itself in revitalization efforts.

This article contributes to the growing number of ethnographic studies that examine the myriad ways neoliberal political rationalities (Bratich et al., 2003; Brown, 2005; Dean, 2009; Harvey, 2005; Hustinx and Shaschar, 2019; Lemke, 2001; Lenk et al., 2002; Mace et al., 2007) are implemented in different urban localities (Bacque and Carole, 2013; Dikec, 2007; Grundy and Boudreau, 2008; Imrie and Raco, 2003; Larner and Butler, 2005; Marinetto, 2003; Schofield, 2002). Neoliberalism has spawned a large literature that depicts the “bundle of policies privatizing public ownership and services, radically reducing the social state, leashing labor, deregulating capital, and producing a tax-and-tariff friendly climate to direct foreign investors” (Brown, 2019: 18) that has been ascendant in global political economic policy since the mid-1970s (Aalbers, 2013).

In a series of influential articles and books, various authors—drawing on Foucault (2003a, 2003b, 2007, 2008) and Foucault et al. (1991)—observe that in almost all advanced industrial countries since the 1970s, a neoliberal rationality also emerged which emphasized, first individualism and second “free markets”, which would serve as the organizational principle for the state and the role of citizens in society (Blakely, 2010; Brady, 2014; Garland,1997; Gordon, 1991; Lemke, 2001; Miller and Rose, 2008; Rose and Miller,1992; Rose, 2000; Valverde, 2007). As Rose and Miller (1992), and Rose (2000) point out, markets are to replace regulation through commodification wherein individual entrepreneurship replaces regulatory activity of the state. As Brown later discusses (2019)—the third ideological plank of neoliberalism was replacing state regulation with traditional morality to ensure social cohesion. Under this broad neoliberal framework, various tasks of government are increasingly removed from state bureaucracies, becoming dispersed throughout various community associations and agencies. Beyond the apparent “a-moral” language of neoliberalism which emphasizes market forces as a form of regulation, there also emerges a parallel discourse on the individual that constructs them as the sole locus of “personal responsibility” for one’s community (Miller and Rose, 2008).

Scholars have also begun to examine the diverse ways neoliberal political rationalities are implemented in specific urban settings (Brady, 2014; Dikec, 2007; Grundy and Boudreau, 2008; Imrie and Raco, 2003; Joseph, 2010; Marinetto, 2003; Schofield, 2002; van der Land, 2014). These studies produce mixed results: on the one hand, an orchestration from the central government in promoting and financially supporting these community and neighborhood initiatives hidden behind a powerful discourse which deploys the language of “self-help,” “empowerment,” “civic engagement,” “community capacity building,” and “self-sustaining communities”—what van der Land (2014) terms a top-down instrumental use of community initiatives for the government’s own agenda. On the other, some find grassroots community activism precipitated by residents themselves in response to urban, social, economic, and environmental problems, which are coupled with dissatisfaction with governmental policies (Beckett and Herbert, 2008; Blomley, 2004; Herbert, 2005; Ilcan and, Basok, 2004; van der Land 2014). Similarly, other studies demonstrate residents utilizing techniques of responsibilization that encourage fellow residents to implement comprehensive plans which address a wide range of issues, including housing, economic development, neighborhood services, crime and safety, transportation, and environmental improvement (Blomley, 2004; Elwood and Leitner, 2003; Ilcan and Basok, 2004; Martin, 2002).

To illustrate the instrumental case, Schofield’s (2002) ethnographic study of a community partnership in Great Britain focused on creating a “self-sustaining community” in which residents would participate in forums which eventually would be run by the residents themselves. His approach was to use ethnographic methodologies to “…track the language of self-sustaining community, trying to ‘catch it’ at the moment when it becomes attached to practice, that is when discourse becomes embodied in a variety of technologies of empowerment” (Schofield, 2002: 666). Schofield concludes that the use of phrases such as “empowerment” and “self-sustaining community,” which are embedded in manuals and training devices used by the managers of the projects, “…represent key ‘discursive moments’ that are crucially helping to shape, guide and regulate social relations in Newbridge” (Schofield, 2002: 670). Thus, this partnership fits a top-down approach with the government using various techniques of responsibilization to encourage the residents to understand “budget restraints” and accept the goal of creating a “self-sustaining community.”

Conversely, a recent ideal-typical typology of citizen watch groups in the Netherlands (van der Land, 2014) theorizes these novel hybrid partnerships as originating from residents and their initiative for responsible action in contrast to those citizen’s groups that function as instrumental “eyes and ears” for the authorities. This framework is useful for describing the varied and contested nature of novel, hybrid forms of neighborhood governance—however, we might add another dimension. The neighborhood groups can also leverage state resources for their own ends—that is, instrumentalize the state.

Thus, while Foucault’s concept of governmentality provides a broad working framework for many of these ethnographies, there is disagreement about the processes by which a neoliberal political rationality is actually being implemented. Some studies tend to offer a top-down perspective, showing that despite the rhetoric, the government continues to play a significant role in urban renewal projects (Atkinson, 1999; Atkinson and Lejeune, 2001; Atkinson and Moon, 1994; Blakeley, 2010; Dikec, 2007; Raco, 2007; Schofield, 2002). Others show that some of the driving force is by grassroots activism, precipitated by urban social, economic, and environmental problems, and dissatisfaction with government policies (Beckett and Herbert, 2008; Blomley, 2004; Dahlstedt, 2009; Elwood and Leitner, 2003; Huxham and Vangen, 2000; Ilcan and Basok, 2004; Larner and Butler, 2005; Lenk et al., 2002; Roe, 2009).

This historical context deeply informs our study in two ways: the neoliberal shift away from state support and the processes of deregulation helped usher in a period of deindustrialization that shocked Western New York’s core economy. Residents, experiencing this economic displacement and de facto abandonment from the state and city, then took action to address these concerns. However, the initiative was inscribed by the neoliberal logic of individual responsibility: this had the effect of limiting classic demands on the state and city for services, restricted claiming “rights” to urban consumption of services (Castells, 1983), and limited the group’s framing of structural problems impacting the neighborhood. On the other hand, the pragmatic, ready to hand emphasis on individual responsibility foregrounds immediate action that produced a novel solidarity in the neighborhood. Two key tensions that emerge however include: a limited range of those “in solidarity” and capable of “taking responsibility” and those excluded from this solidarity; and, despite the discourse of radical bottom-up grassroots autonomy in the group—a reliance on state and city resources for the accomplishment of their goals.

Setting and method

In order to examine the rationalities and techniques of urban governance—an instance of “govermentality in action”—used by members of the UCC in the city of Buffalo, we relied on participant-observation conducted over a 5-year time period beginning in 2005. We began this study first through our roles as participants in the coalition and as residents of the affected neighborhood. The first author initially acted in an advisory capacity regarding restorative justice practices (McCorry, 2010) and later served on the UCC’s Crime and Safety Committee, while the second author was a resident in the UCC’s target neighborhood. Our research interests were piqued through our experiences in the collective, the neighborhood, and our theoretical interest in community organizing. What began as grassroots form of local organizing and service became an enduring focus of research that investigated the processes and dynamics of incorporating residents in novel, hybrid political/community movements.

Throughout this period, we attended monthly meetings and participated in various public forums and events organized by the members of the UCC. We also conducted in-depth interviews with five key members of the UCC. The interviews typically lasted from 45 minutes to an hour and 15 minutes. At the time of the interviews, the respondent filled out an informed consent form that described the study in further detail. The interview guide consisted of a set of open-ended questions designed to gather information about the respondent’s perceptions of issues facing their community. We also utilized the technique of descriptive questioning that entails using probes to elicit from the respondent rich, detailed information about their experiences (Lofland and Lofland, 1984; Taylor and Bogdan, 1984). Although there was a structure to each interview, the ideal was to have the interview flow like a conversation (Denzin and Lincoln, 1994). To ensure anonymity, we employ pseudonyms for the neighborhood, neighborhood associations, and individuals in this study.

We employ an ethnographic use of discourse analysis, wherein we search for statements made by respondents across public interactions, texts, and private interviews. These statements are treated as anonymous, decentered, and dispersed (Foucault, 1972) within a strategic field of practice and thus reflect the dominant discourses of the UCC rather than simply a collection of individual attitudes. We utilized open coding of field notes, as well as transcripts of the interviews, to identify key themes and patterns. We also reviewed documents such as program descriptions, progress reports, neighborhood publications, partnership internet sites, and local media sources relating to UCC initiatives. We utilize key sensitizing concepts from the governmentality literature to structure the emergent patterns embedded in the data—tracing the “rationalities” and the “techniques” for controlling the conduct of others and selves within the UCC (Foucault et al., 1991). In part one, we provide a brief introduction to the UCC. In part two, we describe the two main governing technologies of the UCC: (1) “taking responsibility” and (2) “working collaboratively.”

Part 1—The urban community collaborative

In this study, we examine the residents’ efforts to revitalize a diverse neighborhood located in Buffalo, New York. Once a thriving, industrial and commercial hub for Western New York, the city has seen some of the most severe economic losses of any industrialized city in North America characterized by significant deindustrialization and capital disinvestment (Cole, 1987; Crandall, 2002; Goldman, 2007; Perry, 1987; Whalen, 1987). In addition, the city also experienced some of the most dramatic population losses in the country. For example, in 1950 Buffalo’s population was 580,132, yet by 2009, the population had dropped more than half (53%) to 270,240 (Krieg, 2005; U.S. Bureau of the Census, 2009). Moreover, in 2003, the city’s financial operations were regulated by a state board that oversaw nearly all major city spending. This was only the fifth time in state history that a financial control board has been created to oversee a city’s finances (Winnie, 2003), and it resulted in dramatic budget cuts affecting a wide variety of governmental services, including policing (Cope and Latcham, 2009).

In 2001, the office of the Local Initiatives Support Corporation (LISC) commissioned a planning firm to work with residents and community organizations to develop a 5-year revitalization plan for specific neighborhoods in the city of Buffalo. According to a report issued by LISC:

Geographically the UCC covers one of the most ethnically and economically diverse areas of Buffalo. The neighborhood is also the most disadvantaged and blighted areas of the city. The UCC serves a population of approximately 11,000 residents in 5000 homes with 44% of the population under the age of 24. The average homeownership rate is 50%, but most of the target streets had far lower rates. The median income is well below the poverty line at $12, 537, and the area has one of the highest 911 call rates in the city.

In the last decade, the Urban Side of Buffalo began to experience what some call an “urban renaissance,” becoming one of the most thriving, culturally diverse, urban neighborhoods in Buffalo. The Urban Side has been the traditional landing zone for immigrant populations, with Italian immigrants settling in the neighborhood starting around the turn of the 20th century. In recent years, the neighborhood has seen an influx of new migrants and immigrants from Puerto Rico, Mexico, Central America, as well as refugees from Somalia, Sudan, the Middle East, Eastern Europe, and Burma.

The UCC emerged as the community-based steering committee charged with implementing a strategic action plan. During the initial planning phase, over 400 residents participated in the creation of a 5-year, strategic action plan to create a “sustainable community” through “comprehensive community development.” Furthermore, according to the UCC’s written by-laws, the main purpose of the UCC was to “build and maintain a grassroots partnership to reduce crime and increase neighborhood attachment for residents living on Buffalo’s [Urban] side…[and] promote positive behaviors by effectively empowering diverse communities through collaborative education and support.”

During the first 5 years, the UCC has spearheaded many initiatives, including the Neighborhood Housing Partnership (NHP), the Immigrant Alliance (IA), and the neighborhood Diversity Festival, some of which now operate independently of the UCC. Although the time frame for the 5-year action plan has been completed, the UCC still holds monthly meetings at a community center known as Urban Community Services. A typical meeting has between 15 and 25 people who live or work in the targeted area. The residents who participate are primarily homeowners and leaders in the community who often represent their neighborhood block clubs with a similar race/ethnic composition as the neighborhood in general—with 48% white alone, 23% Black alone, and 11% Asian alone, while independently of this, 28% identified as Latino in the 2010 Census for the zip code encompassing the UCC (U.S. Bureau of the Census, 2010). While the leadership of the UCC is primarily white, middle-class, and male, Black and Latino members of the community are regular attendees that are either homeowners and/or leaders of profit and non-profit organizations in the community—people who perceive themselves as “stakeholders” in the community. Also in attendance are representatives from city, county, and state government, as well as community and faith-based organizations, private and non-profit organizations, and college and university.

These monthly meetings are led by the executive director Gary Henderson, a resident and volunteer who brings the meetings to order. The main organizational agenda of the UCC meetings is to get neighborhood updates from the residents in addition to updates from the four groups which include youth development, housing, cultural diversity, and crime and safety. Toward the end of the meeting, representatives from the government or other institutions will also provide updates and announce initiatives or upcoming events.

Neighborhood updates

Each monthly meeting begins with the neighborhood updates where residents articulate an ensemble of problems that fall under a general category of “crime.” As one resident explains in a community newsletter:

We struggle with prostitution, drug deals, and gunfights on our streets. We worry about our children and our adult safety. The vast majority of people living in our neighborhood are good people forced to live with illegal activity we do not condone and cannot get removed no matter how vehemently we complain.

Another resident reports that portions of the housing stock in the UCC are in poor condition, with many dilapidated and vacant homes. To illustrate, the resident states:

The Urban Side is different now. Many of the houses have been demolished or have an air of desolation…My personal opinion is that many of the residents that owned homes on the Urban Side either passed away or moved out of the city, and although they still had their structure there and the family wanted the income, they didn’t pay attention to it, and the city didn’t pay attention to it either. So eventually the homes became unsightly.

During the neighborhood updates, the residents will often complain about the inability of city government to solve everyday problems of crime and neglect. As the Executive Director Gary Henderson explains, “One of the biggest concerns is vacant property and most of it is owned by the city.” The local common council member explains that the city often acquires a property as a result of a foreclosure, and points out, “It takes a long time to buy a property from the city.”

Residents will often complain about calling the city about these properties and report that they often get no response. For example, in one case a resident complains about a vacant lot owned by the city that was described as an “eyesore.”

Resident: We’re trying to [get ready] for our garden walk, and we’ve got loads of cars parked in the lot...

Gary Henderson: So the main problem is abandoned cars parked on the vacant lot… Well the city owns the property, so they could tow the cars pretty easily.

Resident: I call them all the time, and they are not doing anything.

Residents also express frustration with the long-term plans in city government. As one resident states, “Long-term plans are great, but what about the shootings on the street!” Another resident states, “As far as I’m concerned the politicians are not getting things done.” Alternately, a different resident states, “We’ve lost the power of government!” while a fourth laments, “Ideas are wilting on the vine!”

As a result, many of the residents also articulate the desire to take action. “We need to stop waiting for the city. One hundred years ago you didn’t have the ‘city’ to solve the problem. People would be entrepreneurial and start making bread and other things.” At a meeting an elderly man choked up stating, “Buffalo originated on the Urban Side, but from that time on the Urban Side became the forgotten territory. I’m tired of being in left field!”

Part 2: The governing techniques of the urban community collaborative

In the next section, we describe the UCC’s political rationalities and proposed strategy for dealing with these perceived problems of neighborhood and government inaction. These governing techniques are articulated in key “discursive moments” (Schofield, 2002) that help shape, guide, and regulate social relations within the UCC meetings. Specifically, we identify two main governing techniques: (1) “taking responsibility” and (2) “working collaboratively” that emphasize the importance of “self-management” and the importance of forming partnership with the government, as well as with other organizations and residents to revitalize the neighborhood.

Taking responsibility

The main governing technique of the UCC is “taking responsibility” for their neighborhood. To illustrate, at a recent meeting, a resident wanted to ask what was being done about the rash of shootings in the Urban Side. The executive director discussed the possible causes of violence, such as not enough jobs, a lack of youth programs, bad landlords, and abandoned properties. However, he explained structural factors are simply not things they have direct control over. Instead he states, “…what we have control over is driving homeownership, finding things for youth to do, and taking responsibility for our own neighborhoods.”

This discourse of “taking responsibility for their neighborhoods” is also policed rhetorically by the leadership. When a new common council member was first elected and introducing himself to the members of the UCC, he explained that he was there to offer assistance to the residents with their problems. In response, Gary Henderson reframed the relationship as one in which the members of the UCC were there to assist him. The executive director mentioned that there were problem properties on his block, and that they could assist him in solving these problems if they wanted to meet with them.

Under this governing technique of “taking responsibility,” the residents were encouraged to look to themselves to provide services and to be entrepreneurial. This might mean forming a committee, starting a block club, starting a business, organizing a clean up, planning a festival, or even planting a tree. As the executive director states, it is up to the “…people who live in the community to provide those services, not waiting for someone else to come and pay for it.”

To illustrate how this type of entrepreneurship is encouraged, the executive director describes the actions of a resident who had bought properties on 18th St and opened a day care. He had the older kids who came to the day care help him clean up the abandoned houses and vacant lots. One lot was made into a playground and during the holidays he organized a Santa’s Workshop in which kids could take a picture and give Santa their wish list. As Gary Henderson states proudly, “He does it with no government money!”

In terms of entrepreneurship, residents who are active in the UCC are also encouraged to literally take ownership of problem properties. One articulated tactic is to stabilize the housing stock by purchasing homes that are in danger of “demolition by neglect.” One resident attending the monthly UCC meeting stated that he had bought a property and was taking care of it, simply in order to find an appropriate buyer to sell to. Often these residents are not trying to make a profit but are interested in stabilizing the block, and at times, the executive director coordinates the purchasing of buildings which fit into their larger incremental “block-by block” strategy of revitalizing the neighborhood.

To illustrate, the members of UCC targeted the “Diamond Corner” area of the Urban Side. This area was seen as pivotal to regulating the neighborhood since it contained chronic problem properties and vacant storefronts. The goal was to identify the owners of problem properties and to arrange for people friendly to the members of the UCC to buy them outright. In addition, the leadership of the UCC encouraged the members to take collective ownership of the property that was to be redeveloped into a local garden store. As the executive director explains,

The building was purchased by almost 300 member owners in the late spring along with two lots. The windows on the east side of the building have been un-boarded and the storefront has been restored and opened. The vacant lots have been transformed into a nursery… and the bad signage has been removed. The rest of the façade will be restored over the coming months.

In addition, residents are encouraged to individually take care of vacant and neglected properties by cutting the grass, removing trash, and trying to make properties as neat as possible. Residents on Maple St. took boards off abandoned buildings and cleaned them up with paint despite not owning the property—they are encouraged to “take responsibility” for the management of other people’s property. These residents also took matters into their own hands in the case of an abandoned building that residents refer to as the “squatter hotel.” After noticing a board ripped off the house, a resident went to the house and nailed a new board from the inside and outside of the house. He then put up a sign that read:

Welcome to your former home. We, the residents of Maple Street, have moved you out today. Your bed is gone. If you break in again, we will put more boards up. If you come back after that, we will put more boards up. We don’t want you here. Take a hint and find somewhere else to live.

Residents who are active in block clubs will also try to pressure other owners to maintain their homes. One tactic utilized by the members of the UCC to get others to “take responsibility” for their property is to embarrass homeowners by picking up garbage on their property. As the executive director explains, “The theory is that then they will clean.” However, residents often express frustration with this tactic.

Resident: 15 and 17, I wish those buildings would fall down. They are about ready to collapse.

Gary Henderson: He’s done a lot of work on them, but they need some more work.

Resident: The trash is horrendous! You know I try to keep that lot looking halfway decent. He’s got a lot of overflow trash, and I try to push the trash back on his property and try to make it look as neat as possible, but I just wish the buildings would fall down.

If a resident complains about the tactic of taking care of another owner’s property, there is often a gentle reminder by the executive director of the local ethic of “taking responsibility” for the neighborhood. To illustrate, one resident began to complain about cutting an absentee landlord’s lawn, “It’s not that I’m getting tired, but I could use my time cutting other lawns.” The executive director reminds the resident about the importance of not waiting for someone else to do the job. He would also mention the success of “taking responsibility” for properties near his own home and asked the residents to be patient with the strategy of taking care of vacant lots or neglected properties. He stated:

When we started our block-by-block project we started on Atlantic, W. Hudson and Corona. Corona had 12 vacant properties, and we’ve maintained those properties and seven are being invested in and those properties are now going for $200,000. What we’ve done is stop demolitions and taken care of the vacant properties. This area is now the fastest market because we’ve been taking care of vacant properties.

Some residents have begun to see the investments in the area and are said to be “catching the bug” which means they are investing in their own or other properties in the neighborhood as they see property values rise. Jimmy notices the changes since the UCC has been in existence, “10 years ago things were not happening. Now things are starting to catch on…Every house is being renovated. Vacant lots are well kept. The kids are raking leaves… The biggest project is 450 [Atlantic St]. He’s putting in steel roofs. He seems very motivated. He’s kind of caught the Bug.” Another resident reports:

Resident: We’ve had a quiet summer, unlike the past, people are investing money in houses.

Gary Henderson: They’re doing good work!

While “taking responsibility” was a moral technique responding to economic and political marginalization—it was not employed universally in the neighborhood and “being responsible” was not an attribute each resident was equally expected to demonstrate. Businesses, homeowners, and “active” citizens were assumed to have these capacities—unaffiliated youth, squatters, most renters, and memorialists were not. For example, Mary described graffiti as a problem which was related to vacant homes. She explained:

Just a few weeks back when they had a shooting over on Constitution St, they decided that they would paint where the gentlemen was shot. It was somebody else’s garage but it was an open building and they painted the whole door with graffiti depicting his life, and they had about 100 candles, and an old chair in which he used to sit in, his hat and jacket, and they thought that was going to stay there forever.

She also explained how she felt that the memorial was actually demeaning to the residents.

A whole wall is dedicated to someone who was shot over there... I think for the rest of the neighborhood, for the slang and the vulgarity that’s painted, to have to look at that day in and day out, I think it’s very demeaning.

However, Mary also discussed how solutions to problems like this were getting better in the past 5 years:

…there are a lot more open lines [of communication] today, than even five years ago… There are ways of communicating, not only through block clubs, but also politicians who are truly interested in the neighborhoods.

Mary described how she now can contact Richard who accompanied her to clean up the graffiti at Constitution St., she said:

Myself and Richard went over, removed all the trash, and painted the door, and in the meantime three cars came by and said “That’s our friend, and we just wanted to pay respects to him.” Well it’s not your house, and you have no right to paint on anybody’s else’s house.

In sum, the main governing rationality of the UCC is that of a radically autonomous coalition that presupposes “stakeholders' ” active participation in revitalization efforts in the neighborhood. Under the governing technique of “taking responsibility,” the residents are encouraged to look to themselves to provide services and assist in efforts to revitalize their neighborhood. Similar to previous studies, we find this governing rationality is articulated in key “discursive moments” during the UCC meetings that create a type of “discursive constitution” that helps shape, guide, and regulate social relations not only within the meetings of the UCC but also within the neighborhood itself (Atkinson, 1999; Schofield, 2002). As Atkinson (1999:62) explains:

New participants must be inculcated with the relevant dispositions and operating principles of an organization if it is to operate smoothly and effectively without frequently resorting to the episodic exercise of power (Clegg, 1989). The discursive constitution of subjects within an organization is thus an important task. In this way, the discourse of neoliberalism “…delimits the ‘possible,’ attempting to steer thought and action in a particular direction congruent with that discourse.

These “active citizens” are playing a role in mobilizing and encouraging fellow residents to take individual responsibility for neighborhood initiatives, as opposed to calling for, and relying on, government interventions—however, they do so in the context of the withdrawal of effective government policies. They achieve this through various discursive techniques in the committee meetings of the UCC: the leaders of the committees encouraged other residents to practice active citizenship in the form of self-management of one’s own home, family, business, as well as taking responsibility for their neighborhood (Dahlstedt, 2008). Thus, the residents who participated in the UCC were encouraged, through techniques of responsibilization, to take an active role in the implementation of social services, as well as revitalization efforts. Residents are asked not only to be responsible for their own homes but also to hold other neighbors and landlords accountable. If there is a problem, they first attempt to not to escalate to the point of bringing in a third party or the government, but emphasize that residents should seek to solve the problem by directly confronting the owner of the property. However, this governing technique was supported by reframing problems from individual behaviors into housing issues which would then enlist property owners as the responsible parties. This highlights the second technique of working collaboratively to solve lingering or serious problems with non-cooperative residents.

Working collaboratively

The second main governing technique of the the UCC was to work collaboratively with other residents and organizations in the community to find “proactive” solutions to their shared problems. We see this theme of working collaboratively in a newsletter distributed by the UCC:

A “collaborative” is when everybody starts working together for a common cause. We can’t count on city, county, state or federal money and make our neighborhoods better anymore. If we surround ourselves with other people who want what’s good and right for the [Urban Side], we can do this together.

Also during a community forum, a member of the crime and safety committee articulated the theme of working collaboratively:

We need to work collectively for positive change…Where we can get together collectively and residents can prioritize the problem properties, and all the other things that are essential to creating better neighborhoods, developing strategies to maintain our quality of life… We have to become proactive and start promoting partnerships...with the resources that we have in place, and we also have to create accountability with these agencies and arms of government that we work with.

Adherence to the logic of working together collaboratively was rhetorically policed by the executive director of the UCC. For example, on one occasion a new resident came to a meeting and suggested that one way to deal with the teenage violence was for the city, country, or federal government to provide money for a new youth center strategically placed in the center of the Urban Side neighborhood. At this point, the new member was quickly informed about the “collaborative ethic.” As Gary Henderson stated:

It probably isn’t something like someone is going to give us a big pile of money and say, “Here, go build a new center.” It probably will be a collaboration of existing services, and they can pool their resources and do that across the [Urban Side]…Good suggestion, but not easily fundable.

Instead of relying on money from the government, residents are encouraged to take an active role in forming committees with “key stakeholders” and come up with “proactive” solutions. To illustrate, during the committee updates, one of the residents described how she was organizing a committee to work “collaboratively” on finding “proactive” solutions to issues facing teens. She stated:

I have a meeting tomorrow with about eight or nine collaborations of social services agencies that provide assistance to teens...and I’m excited about it because the Buffalo Public Schools are also part of this committee, which is wonderful. So I’m looking to pull as many people together as possible to come up with proactive solutions, so that kids are not running around on the streets.

Residents participating in the UCC were also encouraged to work collaboratively by forming a block club with other residents. For example, at the monthly meeting, a resident reported that he had started a block club with four other property owners on a block that had a total of 35 structures. The resident explained that they had posted signs in their windows stating: “I’m a proud member of the Baddington Block Club.” Similarly, residents reported that they formed a block club on Elm St, and that the residents researched the history and found that the area was once referred to as the “Circle District.” They also raised $1200 to create a “community garden” on the corner of Elm and Atlantic. They bought plants and park furniture and posted a sign with their new name. Henderson mentioned the success of the Elm St. Block Club and noted, “It’s a whole different world than a year ago.” Thus, when someone comes to the UCC meeting seeking a solution from the government, the residents were encouraged to work collaboratively with the goal of having “A voice on every street!”

In addition to starting a block club, the residents were also encouraged to partner with other residents and organizations to clean up vacant lots in the area. These clean up efforts were often coordinated by block club members in collaboration with local volunteers from schools, colleges, faith-based organizations and businesses, as well as residents and teens who lived in the area. For example, one of the leaders of the UCC explains how 80 volunteers did work on a city-owned property. She stated, “We couldn’t do it without them. We’ve been waiting for the city to do this for years!” In another instance, the executive director spoke about the work being done on a community garden, “We got five thousand dollars’ worth of stones from [Royal Products], and we had scrawny college students to unload. They did it in two hours, hand over hand without any heavy equipment…”

One of the largest collaborations involved the ABC television show, Extreme Makeover. This project, which was named “Extreme Makeover: Neighborhood Edition,” involved over 6000 volunteers which was coordinated by the regional AmeriCorps, a national service program designed specifically to fight poverty (Sommer, 2010). Unlike most episodes, this project involved over 100 major projects, including fixing roofs, porches, siding, and the creation of community gardens. The members of the UCC described the experience as fitting into their collaborative, block-by-block strategy of revitalizing the neighborhood.

Resident: The world got turned upside down. I’m shocked! I’m in awe! People from the city, the suburbs, and a guy from Dallas flew in to help. The world is coming to this city to see this house! Now people felt proud of their neighborhood.

Gary Henderson: It was a phenomenal experience. Neighbors got to know each other and worked on each other’s property. This was beyond Extreme Makeover…It was an incredible boost. Getting this block fixed up was a difficult task, so we’ve made progress on our block-by-block approach.

However, the executive director was also cautious about the possible negative effects of the event in terms of changing the expectations of the residents. While working collaboratively is fine, he stated, “We don’t want people to have the expectation that people are going to come in and fix their neighborhood.” In other words, that is a “responsibility” of the residents themselves.

In keeping with the “collaborative” ethic, the committee formed a partnership with the Urban Side Neighborhood Service (USNS) that funneled money from state and national governments into local initiatives. The director of USNS regularly attended meetings and informed the residents that they could help homeowners keep up with their property with very low-interest loans and grants. The USNS also collaborated with local affordable housing activist groups to obtain and refurbish homes in which the future tenants would participate in a savings program that would assist them to become first-time homeowners. This program was based on the Housing Cooperative model, which consists of the formation of co-ops in which tenants would take collective “ownership” of the house and maintain responsibility for the maintenance of the house. The executive director commented, “We can’t control prices and taxes, but we can find ways that all residents can benefit. Hopefully prices are not going up so much that it is pushing people out.”

“Working collaboratively” was related to more or less successful forms of compliance with the UCC’s “code of the block” negotiated through informal means. When problems were persistent—the leadership team of the UCC encouraged collaboration with the police, district attorney, and courts. The practice of ensuring compliance by the UCC moved from the informal to the instrumental use of governmental resources. The UCC would use 911 calls—even when not responded to—as a method of leaving a paper trail that could be used as leverage over problem property owners. Members would also coordinate “phone blasts” on the Mayor’s complaint line to target problem properties. The UCC also met bi-weekly with the police to provide surveillance of select problem properties—in particular those that were not “working collaboratively” with the organization. In addition to forming various block clubs, the UCC also successfully petitioned the DA to symbolically declare certain blocks “no plea zones” in order to deter drug sales.

The UCC also assisted police activity by providing safe channels for resident’s complaints about illegal activity (hence avoiding official reporting and the code of the street logic of “snitches get stiches”). The UCC began the Mobile Response Unit (MRU) which refers to residents who patrol streets with cars to “harass drug dealers”—this last tactic was useful because it drove dealers into properties for sale and this in turn facilitated the production of search warrants.

The most consistent method used by the UCC for individuals who do not conform with the “community standards” at the block and neighborhood level is through a partnership with housing court. Housing courts were established in Buffalo in 1978 when the New York State Legislature extended the Housing Court Act to address concerns of urban decline associated with housing violations. The court enlists volunteers called “community liaisons” who provide assistance with case research and management and help in determining the type of sanction homeowners might face The leaders of the UCC have a relationship with housing court as community liaisons, which gives the residents a policing function for quality of life issues which bypasses the traditional police force. For example, Mary drives around herself to see if any houses are a problem. She explained:

This is how it starts…I’ll go out and I’ll write up an address and write whatever violations that I can visually see?

What type of violations?

This particular one here, it was empty, it looked like it had a fire in the upper portion, and it was open, so that obviously [was a problem]. When I do write it up, I send it out to city hall and it goes to the inspector’s department.

If the problem is visible from the outside, she can write up ten houses from each district. The inspectors go out and give the homeowner time to fix the violation. If the changes are not made, the homeowner might face a range of court-imposed sanctions and remedies. Any activity on the property that does not meet community expectations can be a reason for the owner to be brought back to court.

The UCC makes a distinction between rental properties and owner-occupied residences—partially because an owner’s compliance can be leveraged through housing court. When repeated disorderly conduct by tenants or their guests is reported at a rental property, the UCC strategy is to communicate with the property owner to correct the behavior. If the conduct continues, the UCC will resort to relying on city government to push a revocation or suspension of the rental dwelling licenses using city inspectors and housing court. If the problem is with an owner-occupied residence, the UCC often pushes city government to enforce nuisance statutes to address repeated disorderly conduct that occurs at or near the residence by owners or their guests.

Thus, we find a tension with the governing rationalities and techniques within the organization. We noted that the UCC, at times, drew upon a privileged relationship with city government, with housing court, and with the police in order to achieve its goals. While the governing ethic is typically to find solutions to problems without involving the government, with certain issues the members of the UCC encourage active collaboration with the police, district attorney, and courts to deal with lingering or severe problems. In sum, the second main governing technique was to work collaboratively with other residents and organizations in finding “proactive” solutions to their shared problems. Specifically, residents were encouraged to collaborate with “key stakeholders” in committees, with residents in block clubs, with volunteers in cleaning up vacant lots, and with other block clubs in coordinating the marketing of the neighborhood. Along with targeting specific properties, the residents active in block clubs also report on suspicious people and activities. These include drug sales, shootings, prostitution (“of course that goes into health conditions as well”), robberies, and burglaries. The activities that are reported are not just crimes but could be any activity against the “code of the block”—norms for responsible residency and home ownership that incorporate moral effort, aesthetics, and level of neighborliness that distinguishes “good” owners from “problem” owners. Given a report of drug dealing, prostitution, or trash in the streets, the UCC leadership will reframe the problem from the individual to the property owners. In other words, the problem of crime is not so much the individual who is involved in the activity, but the person who is “responsible” for managing the property. Ultimately, if the landlord does not cooperate, Henderson states, “We work to bring people together, landlords and tenants, but we can do it the hard way as well!” as the UCC had an active relationship with Housing Court that could leverage governmental sanctions for non-complying landlords.

Conclusion

In this article, we examined an urban redevelopment coalition in Buffalo that addressed economic and political marginalization through the rationality of autonomous and active self-management employing the discursive techniques of “taking responsibility” and “working collaboratively” to revitalize the neighborhood.

We demonstrate that these techniques of responsibilization (Garland, 1997) support the overarching governing rationality of neoliberalism. Born of a frustration with the government at the local, state, and federal level—and with the severe downturn of the economy—these residents appear to have made a virtue of necessity by turning away from structural considerations in their political discourse and practice and have instead focused on achievable and doable projects.

Nonetheless, structural problems of racism, poverty, unemployment, foreclosures, and the threat of gentrification cannot be addressed purely on a local level—from this perspective these community strategies might be viewed as relatively inadequate to the overall task or, potentially, as reminiscent of Berlant’s (2011) cruel optimism in which the desire for purely local solutions to both local and structural problems limits their very ability to achieve them.

On the other hand, these structural problems are perhaps not the real target of these techniques—rather the target is the moral transformation of the individual that occurs through a local engagement in urban revitalization efforts. Active citizenship is encouraged within one’s community, and serves, paradoxically, as a countervailing force to excessive individualism of free market capitalism (Marinetto, 2003). Here, we document the internalization of the techniques of “taking responsibility” in lieu of governmental “assistance,” as well as the emphasis on “working collaboratively” to replace traditional antagonistic relations of self-interest or hierarchical agencies that might impose non-organic solutions to neighborhood problems. From this perspective then, these rationalities and practices of this urban coalition may be measured as successful, not only as a marginal improvement in the local manifestation of structural problems but also as a transformation of the individual in its relationship between and among residents within the neighborhood. Equally so, however, not all residents were treated as potentially “responsible”—squatters, memorialists, and most students and tenants were treated as objects to be managed rather than as collaborating subjects. Moreover, a significant tension remained between the rationalities and techniques of governance—“working collaboratively” with the government, especially the criminal justice system, created ongoing tension and conflict, not only within the rationalities of the coalition, but also among the residents in the larger community.

Footnotes

Acknowledgments

We wish to acknowledge Patrick Fazioli of Mercy College, Gerald J. Erion of Medaille College, and the reviewers for their insightful suggestions.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Paul C. Fuller

References

Aalbers

(2013) Debate on neoliberalism in and after the neoliberal crisis. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 37(3): 1053–1057.

Atkinson

(1999) Discourses of partnership and empowerment in contemporary British urban regeneration. Urban Studies 36(1): 59–72.

Atkinson

Lejeune

(2001). Area-based urban policy initiatives-the role of resident participation in England and France. In: European urban research association conference, Copenhagen, Denmark, 17–19 May, 2001.

Atkinson

Moon

(1994) Urban policy in Britian: The city, the state, and the market. Urban Studies 32(2): 425–427.

Bacque

Carole

(2013) Different manifestations of the concept of empowerment: The politics of urban renewal in the United States and the United Kingdom. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 37(6): 2198–2213.

Beckett

Herbert

(2008) Dealing with disorder. Theoretical Criminology 12(1): 5–30.

Berlant

(2011) Cruel Optimism. Durham, UK: Duke University Press.

Blakeley

(2010) Governing ourselves: Citizen participation and governance in Barcelona and Manchester. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 34(1): 130–145.

Blomley

(2004) Un-real estate: Proprietary space and public gardening. Antipode 36(4): 614–641.

10.

Brady

(2014) Ethnographies of neoliberal governmentalities: From the neoliberal apparatus to neoliberalism and governmental assemblages. Foucault Studies 18: 11–33. DOI: 10.22439/fs.v0i18.4649.

11.

Bratich

Packer

McCarthy

(eds), (2003) Foucault, Cultural Studies, and Governmentality. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

12.

Brown

(2005) Neoliberalism and the end of liberal democracy. In: Brown W (ed) Edgework: Critical Essays on Knowledge and Politics. Oxford: Princeton University Press, 37–59.

13.

Brown

(2019) In the Ruins of Neoliberalism: The Rise of Antidemocratic Politics in the West. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.

14.

Castells

(1983) The City and the Grassroots. Berkley, CA: University of California Press.

15.

Clegg

(1989) Frameworks of Power. London: Sage.

16.

Cole

(1987) Growth, equity and dependence in a restructuring city region. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 11(4): 461–477.

17.

Cope

Latcham

(2009) Narratives of decline: Race, poverty, and youth in the context of postindustrial urban angst. The Professional Geographer 61(2): 150–163.

18.

Crandall

(2002) Manufacturing and its impact on the Buffalo metropolitan area. Washington, DC: Federal Reserve Bank of New York, Buffalo Branch, The Brookings Institution.

19.

Dahlstedt

(2008) The politics of activation: Technologies of mobilizing “multiethnic suburbs” in Sweden. Alternatives: Global, Local, Political 33(4): 481–504.

20.

Dahlstedt

(2009) The partnering society: Governmentality, partnerships and active local citizenship. The Open Urban Studies Journal 2: 18–27.

21.

Dean

(2009) Governmentality: Power and rule in modern society. New York, NY: Sage.

22.

Denzin

Lincoln

(1994) Handbook of Qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

23.

Dikeç

(2007) Space, governmentality, and the geographies of French urban policy ★. European Urban and Regional Studies 14(4): 277–289.

24.

Elwood

Leitner

(2003) GIS and spatial knowledge production for neighborhood revitalization: Negotiating state priorities and neighborhood visions. Journal of Urban Affairs 25(2): 139–157.

25.

Foucault

(1972) The Archeology of Knowledge. New York, NY: Pantheon Books.

26.

Foucault

(2003) Essential Works of Foucault, 1954–1988. New York, NY: New Press.

27.

Foucault

(2003) Society Must Be Defended. London: Penguin.

28.

Foucault

(2007) Security, Territory, Population: Lectures at the Collège de France 1977–1978. New York, NY: Palgrave.

29.

Foucault

(2008) The Birth of Biopolitics: Lectures at the Collège de France, 1978–1979. New York, NY: Palgrave.

30.

Foucault

Burchell

Gordon

, et al. (1991) The Foucault Effect: Studies in Governmentality. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

31.

Garland

(1997) “Governmentality” and the problem of crime: Foucault, criminology, sociology. Theoretical Criminology 1: 173–214.

32.

Goldman

(2007) City on the Edge: Buffalo. Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books.

33.

Gordon

(1991) Governmental rationality. In: Foucault

Burchell

Gordon

, et al (eds) The Foucault Effect: Studies in Governmentality. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 1–52.

34.

Grundy

Boudreau

(2008) “Living with culture”: Creative citizenship practices in Toronto. Citizenship Studies 12(4): 347–363.

35.

Harvey

(2005) A Brief History of Neoliberalism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

36.

Herbert

(2005) The trapdoor of community. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 95(4): 850–865.

37.

Huxham

Vangen

(2000) Leadership in the shaping and implementation of collaboration agendas: How things happen in a (not quite) joined-up world. Academy of Management Journal 43(6): 1159–1175.

38.

Hustinx

Shachar

(2019) Modalities of agency in a corporate volunteering program: Cultivating a resource of neoliberal governmentality. Ethnography 20(2): 205–226. DOI: 10.1177/1466138117741503.

39.

Ilcan

Basok

(2004) Community government: Voluntary agencies, social justice, and the responsibilization of citizens. Citizenship Studies 8(2): 129–144.

40.

Imrie

Raco

(2003) Urban Renaissance? New Labour, Community, and Urban Policy. Bristol, UK: Policy Press.

41.

Joseph

(2010) The limits of governmentality: Social theory and the international. European Journal of International Relations 16(2): 223–246.

42.

Krieg

(2005) Race and environmental justice in Buffalo, NY: A ZIP code and historical analysis of ecological hazards. Society & Natural Resources 18(3): 199–213.

43.

Larner

Butler

(2005) Governmentalities of local partnerships: The rise of a “partnering state” in New Zealand. Studies in Political Economy 75: 9–101.

44.

Lemke

(2001) “The birth of bio-politics”: Michel Foucault’s lecture at the Collège de France on neo-liberal governmentality. Economy and Society 30(2): 190–207.

45.

Lemke

(2007) An indigestible meal? Foucault, governmentality and state theory. Distinktion: Journal of Social Theory 8: 43–64.

46.

Lenk

Barney

Wagenaar

, et al. (2002) Can neighborhood associations be allies in health policy efforts? Political activity among neighborhood associations. Journal of Community Psychology 30(1): 57–68.

47.

Lofland

Loftland

(1984) Analyzing Social Settings. Belmont CA: Wadsworth Publishing Company.

48.

Mace

Hal

Gallent

(2007) New East Manchester: Urban renaissance or urban opportunism. European Planning Studies 15(1): 51–65.

49.

Marinetto

(2003) Who wants to be an active citizen? The politics and practice of community involvement. Sociology 37(1): 103–120.

50.

Martin

(2002) Constructing the “neighborhood sphere”: Gender and community organizing. Gender, Place & Culture 9(4): 333–350.

51.

McCorry

(2010) Alternatives to the traditional criminal justice system: An assessment of victim-offender mediation and neighborhood accountability boards in the United States. The New York Sociologist 4: 75–86.

52.

Miller

Rose

(2008) Governing the Present: Administering Economic, Social and Personal Life. Cambridge: Polity.

53.

Perry

(1987) The politics of dependency in deindustrializing America: The case of Buffalo. In: Smith

Feagin

(eds) The Capitalist City: Global Restructuring and Community Politics. Oxford: Blackwell, 113–137.

54.

Raco

(2007) Securing sustainable communities: Citizenship, safety and sustainability in the new urban planning. European Urban & Regional Studies 14(4): 305–320.

55.

Roe

(2009) Fixed in place: Vancouver’s downtown eastside and the community of clients. BC Studies 164: 75–101.

56.

Rose

(2000) Community, citizenship, and the third way. American Behavioral Scientist 43(9): 1395–1411.

57.

Rose

Miller

(1992) Political power beyond the state: Problematics of government. The British Journal of Sociology 43(2): 173–205.

58.

Schofield

(2002) Partners in power: Governing the self-sustaining community. Sociology 36(3): 663–683.

59.

Sommer

(2010) A work in progress on city’s West Side. Buffalo News, 14 November, A1.

60.

Taylor

Bogdan

(1984) Introduction to Qualitative Research Methods: The Search for Meanings. New York: Wiley.

61.

U.S. Bureau of the Census (2009) 2009 Population Estimates. Washington, D.C: U.S. Government Printing Office.

62.

U.S. Bureau of the Census (2010) Census 2010. Washington, D.C: U.S. Government Printing Office.

63.

van der Land

(2014) Citizens policing citizens: Are citizen watches manifestations of contemporary responsible citizenship? Citizenship Studies 18(3–4): 423–434.

64.

Valverde

(2007) Genealogies of european states: Foucauldian reflections. Economy and Soceity 36(1): 159–178.

65.

Whalen

(1987) Consensus mechanisms and community economic development: The industrial city experience. Journal of Economic Issues 21(2): 763–774.

66.

Winnie

(2003) State oversight urged as way to save Buffalo. The New York Times, 29 May, B1.

“We take responsibility!”: Governing the neighborhood—governing the self

Abstract

Keywords

Setting and method

Part 1—The urban community collaborative

Neighborhood updates

Part 2: The governing techniques of the urban community collaborative

Taking responsibility

Working collaboratively

Conclusion

Footnotes

Acknowledgments

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

Funding

ORCID iD

References