In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

Conclusion DISCERNING RESIDENTIAL settlement patterns by race is not an easy process. Research and news accounts on race and housing tend to focus on the problem of segregation and the failure of integration. This focus has been seen as legitimate, given that thirty-five years after the passage of Title VIII of the 1968 Civil Rights Act it is difficult to say that at the residential level we have moved to a more integrated society. Although levels of segregation have declined and racial change has become more complex, there does not seem to be a widespread movement to create integrated living patterns (R. Smith 1993). Even with the remarkable efforts of pro-integrative communities, racially and ethnically integrated areas continue to be called “fragile.” Undoubtedly, this is due in part to how divided the nation is on the desirability of achieving residential integration. As a country, we are morally and legally committed to the ideal of freedom of choice, and public policy cannot legally force anyone to live anywhere.1 While attitude surveys show a greater acceptance of integrated residential spaces, attitudes do not easily translate into practice. In fact, as Scott Cummings writes: “Busing and open housing are two of the most unpopular liberal policy initiatives of the past three decades” (1998: 201). A scan of the literature on segregation and integration likely gives the impression that little can be done to create shared spaces, either through enlightened public policy or moral and humanistic appeals. Yet things are not as dour as some would have us believe. While the presence of, and social processes involved in maintaining, racially and ethnically integrated residential spaces have been, until recently, largely ignored, a growing number of studies indicate that the traditional trajectory of racial change to resegregation is more complex than assumed. Urban sociology has a long tradition of examining neighborhood change by focusing on neighborhoods that were “invaded” or “attacked” by outside forces (e.g., urban renewal, gentrification, blockbusting) or groups (e.g., racial change). Scholars are beginning to move beyond this notion to suggest that the “traditional” neighborhood that was attacked by outside forces never existed; that neighborhood life is open-ended and expe- CONCLUSION 215 rienced differently by residents. Uptown, Jackson Heights, and San Antonio–Fruitvale surely were never traditional neighborhoods, as residents from varied cultural and economic backgrounds have been part of each community for the better part of forty years. Racial change, a consequence of the restructuring of urban landscapes through global economic changes, immigration, and unchecked sprawl, occurred in each community, although without invasion or transition or a single type of integration. While integration was unplanned, each community managed to remain racially and ethnically integrated over time. These glass-halffull stories offer credible alternative scenarios to historic patterns of segregation and a glimpse into the possibilities and challenges for interracial and interethnic understanding, cooperation, and coexistence. The careful analysis presented here of the experiences of community leaders working (often indirectly) to sustain integration makes it tempting to offer new or reconsider old policies directed at maintaining residential integration. Politicians, policy makers, and scholars typically seek specific policy initiatives that can be implemented to ameliorate social problems and foster prosperity. Clear and direct policy avenues provide such actors with easy equations to effect change—and possibly with quick successes to claim. In response to this need, many scholars studying segregation and integration end their monographs with policy analysis , such as calls for federal efforts to fight the discriminatory practices that limit the number of integrated neighborhoods. However, the goal of this research was not to create a list of policy recommendations. Its qualitative approach offers insight into the unique neighborhood history and context, the fluidity and complexity of neighborhood life, and the ability of individuals to act as agents of change. The focus is on the social processes involved when local groups are faced with integration. In this sense, this research is about broadening the discussion of racial change, efforts to maintain integrated neighborhoods, and integration itself. The history of the pro-integration movement and these three case studies illustrate that the social processes at the local level are more complex and fluid than suggested by most policy analysts. There is a long history of community studies—using qualitative designs and methods —that have focused on understanding these local processes. These studies indicate the difficulty in making generalizations about how integration can be, and maybe even should be, maintained. The qualitative approach used here clearly demonstrates that...

Share