mogle's review
3.0
An interesting take on the different roles that culture and structure play in perpetuating race differentials in America's inner cities
arguhlincozzi's review
4.0
Note: taken from a book report I did for my Sociology class, so it is a bit comprehensive.
More Than Just Race
William Julius Wilson has one main argument in More Than Just Race: “...more weight should be given to structural causes of inequality, despite the dynamic interrelationships of structure and culture, because they continue to play a far greater role in the subjugation of black Americans and other people of color.” (Wilson 135). In order to support this, Wilson separates his key points for this argument in three chapters, each on what he identifies as key aspects of African American’s current plight. These are “The Forces Shaping Concentrated Poverty”, “The Economic Plight of Inner-City Black Males”, and “The Fragmentation of the Poor Black Family.” In each chapter, Wilson brings up various pieces of evidence supporting structure as the main issue that ill-affecting culture comes from, each time noting and recognizing the relationship between culture and structure and how they affect these aspects of the life of the poor, inner-city, black person.
In Chapter 2, what Wilson means by the forces that shape “concentrated” poverty, is why there are such specific clusters of poverty-stricken neighborhoods specifically. One of the explanations he chose to discuss was the “self-selection bias” concept, which was “to describe the effect of people grouping themselves together according to common characteristics.” (Wilson 46). Wilson tells that this means that it is simply the fact that families have weak job-related skills, low awareness of and concern that the local environment where their children are growing up will affect their development, and other unfavorable aspects cause them to choose poor neighborhoods (Wilson 47). Wilson argues against this, maintaining that “living in a ghetto neighborhood has both structural and cultural effects that compromise life chances above and beyond personal attributes.” (Wilson 47). But he does respond to a study that seemingly proved that the self-selection bias was a solid argument. This experiment was the Moving to Opportunity (MTO) experiment which was performed between 1994 and 1998. What occurred was the U.S. Department of Housing and Development (HUD) gave out housing vouchers to families living in high poverty, in five different cities. In these cities, they were put in three different groups randomly, and each one had a different form of housing change. One was permitted to rent in the private market anywhere, another was allowed to rent in low-poverty neighborhoods, and one did not receive either of the two groups and was the “control group.” (Wilson 49). The results were mixed; there was improvement for people who moved into low-poverty areas in terms of mental and physical health (as in obesity), but there was no impact on employment rates or wages or educational and physical health amongst children and young men (while there had been improvement to young women’s lives) and this caused some to believe that maybe there really were negative effects that lasted from living in “poor, segregated neighborhoods” (Wilson 50).
What Wilson points out about the study is that there were serious problems in the way the experiment was set up. Pointing out these issues, he provides logical reasons that any reader could agree with. He notes that the way the voucher worked, people could move into areas that in actuality were very similar to the ones they previously lived in, negating the effects of moving. The idea seems sound, and to bolster the argument, he brings in another sociologist, Robert Sampson, who analyzed a group of MTO from one of the cities and found that the neighborhoods the people chose to move to were still poorer than an integrated neighborhood, because they chose predominantly black neighborhoods (Wilson 50). So it is clear that not only is Wilson making a point against the MTO experiment, but he has back up to agree with him. Wilson does this throughout the book when he intends to prove why an argument that opposes him is incorrect. When he tries to support the Gautreaux experiment over the MTO experiment, his support mainly comes from the fact that he has already noted the key flaws of the MTO experiment that the Gautreaux experiment did not have. The main difference that he claims is relevant is the fact that Gautreaux families “moved to white suburban areas that were significantly less impoverished than their previous neighborhoods.” (Wilson 50). This difference underscores the point he made about the families moving into black neighborhoods instead of white ones. Moving into a white neighborhood automatically takes the families out of a more impoverished environment.If the MTO experiment had required them to move into a white experiment, then perhaps Wilson would have less ground to stand on, but as it Wilson clarifies it, the MTO experiment is flawed.
In Chapter 3, Wilson is discussing black males specifically, and why they are having such a hard time surviving in the economy. As Wilson does throughout the book, he separates his main arguments between structural and cultural factors. In the case of cultural factors, he outlines what a good “exploration” of cultural factors would be: “1) provide a compelling reason for including cultural factors in a comprehensive discussion of race and poverty, 20 show the relationship between cultural analysis and structural analysis, and 3) determine the extent to which cultural factors operate independently to contribute to or reinforce poverty and racial inequality.” (Wilson 79). Wilson then explains that while there is evidence of cultural factors, this evidence is less “compelling” because of the lack of research in this area, something he discusses in detail with the Moynihan report later.
His opinion of the cultural explanations currently around are then backed up by Professor Orlando Patterson from Harvard University, who has said that because of a bias against cultural explanations, sociologists have not been willing to look at “attitudes, norms, values, habits, and worldviews” which Wilson says are “all indications of cultural orientations” but instead have been focusing on “in short, structural factors.” (Wilson 79). Patterson decided to look at culture again, and asked some specific questions about poor black men, and worked to answer them. One of them was the behavior of young black men in the ghetto, which he looks at through “anecdotal evidence collected...by one of his former students.” (Wilson 80). From this non-systematic ethnographic evidence, Patterson’s student uncovered the concept of the “cool-pose culture” that includes “hanging out on the street after school, shopping and dressing sharply, sexual conquests, party drugs, hip-hop music and culture.” and this culture Patterson concludes that this culture is what encourages young black men to essentially dig themselves into a hole by participating in a behavior model that is risky (Wilson 80).
Even though Wilson does not expressly suggest that Patterson’s conclusions may be off due to the methods that were used in obtaining the ideas that pointed to such a culture, he does inform the reader that how this information was obtained - and allows the reader to choose for themselves how they should evaluate such data. He also does not particularly agree with the cool-pose culture as the direct explanation of young black male risky behavior. He instead picks a point of Patterson’s argument - “black male pride has become increasingly defined in terms of the impregnation of women.” and then brings in a different sociologist who found a similar pattern in young black men, but decades before. After bringing this up, Wilson suggests a counterargument that reinforces his preference towards structure dictating culture: if young black men are put in fairly similar structural positions then other generations will eventually have similar cultural responses (Wilson 81). In this case, because Patterson does believe that cultural explanations should be a part of the discussion, Wilson is more accepting of his information and less willing to completely cut it apart because it does allow him to build off of and make a point about culture.
In Chapter 4, Wilson looks at the poor black family. This chapter is interesting because here Wilson utilizes information drawn from a study he headed, “The Urban Poverty and Family Life Study”(UPFLS), where he and a team performed over 2,000 interviews of “Black, White, Mexican- and Puerto Rican-origin parents from poor neighborhoods in Chicago.” (UPFLS). However, Wilson never informs the reader directly how this study was conducted. While Wilson does make sure to mention and explain what he means when he says “our study” in the appendix, the information in the appendix consists of the location, the number of people they interviewed, the races of those people, and how they defined poverty neighborhoods (neighborhoods with poverty rates of at least 20 percent) (Wilson 173). But he does not mention that he headed a team that performed these interviews, nor does he explain their interview methods, which Tyson does do in her book Integration Interrupted, when she notes that the interviews performed were “semistructured” and then provided the types of questions asked over the topics that she wished to discuss, and how long they lasted, and who else interviewed them besides herself (Tyson Kindle 120). But Wilson never identifies the team that assisted with the interviews, explains how the interviews were performed, or any notable details about the interviews. Nor does he acknowledge that the way these interviews were conducted could have affected the responses provided, or how they dealt with that potential error. This lack of detail on the way an important gathering of information was done robs the reader of being able to be certain that the information being provided to strengthen Wilson’s points has been gathered in as unbiased a way possible. Especially considering the fact that he had the resources available to him and was the director of the entire study, this aspect of a study is definitely something he should know and be clear on and able to elucidate to the reader.
This information is necessary because Wilson spends a good portion of Chapter 4 discussing the opinions of black women of black men and vice versa and then compares them to those of Latinos and then draws conclusions on how this could affect the marriage rates and family of black people. Although, Wilson does use outside sources to help support his points. For example, he notes from his ethnographic data that the “birth of a child did not create a sense of obligation to marry” suggests that norms in regards to the family are changing (Wilson 122). He brings in a professor of Sociology, Frank Furstenberg who has been studying respondents in the inner city on fathering for years. Furstenberg agrees that there may be less pressure being exerted on men for them to be a part of the family, in contrast to how this used to be (Wilson 122).
Wilson made several connections with readings, but one of them in specific was research performed by Devah Pager, published on Discrimination in a Low-Wage Market: A Field Experiment. This experiment noted how a black applicant with a clean record was still less likely to be called back for a job than a white applicant with a felony conviction. Wilson uses this to underscore the fact that there is statistical discrimination against black workers. Pager’s study was so comprehensive, and also performed twice, that the empirical data proving that statistical discrimination exists in the inner-city work force against black workers is undeniable.
Wilson’s conclusions that structure is actually the underlying issue in all of the plights of poor, inner city, black people is overall well-supported in his book. While he neglects to provide certain details on pieces of information, and does not seem to bring up an argument against his own that he cannot shoot down, all of his information is well-sourced, and each source seems to be coming from respectable groups or people.
More Than Just Race
William Julius Wilson has one main argument in More Than Just Race: “...more weight should be given to structural causes of inequality, despite the dynamic interrelationships of structure and culture, because they continue to play a far greater role in the subjugation of black Americans and other people of color.” (Wilson 135). In order to support this, Wilson separates his key points for this argument in three chapters, each on what he identifies as key aspects of African American’s current plight. These are “The Forces Shaping Concentrated Poverty”, “The Economic Plight of Inner-City Black Males”, and “The Fragmentation of the Poor Black Family.” In each chapter, Wilson brings up various pieces of evidence supporting structure as the main issue that ill-affecting culture comes from, each time noting and recognizing the relationship between culture and structure and how they affect these aspects of the life of the poor, inner-city, black person.
In Chapter 2, what Wilson means by the forces that shape “concentrated” poverty, is why there are such specific clusters of poverty-stricken neighborhoods specifically. One of the explanations he chose to discuss was the “self-selection bias” concept, which was “to describe the effect of people grouping themselves together according to common characteristics.” (Wilson 46). Wilson tells that this means that it is simply the fact that families have weak job-related skills, low awareness of and concern that the local environment where their children are growing up will affect their development, and other unfavorable aspects cause them to choose poor neighborhoods (Wilson 47). Wilson argues against this, maintaining that “living in a ghetto neighborhood has both structural and cultural effects that compromise life chances above and beyond personal attributes.” (Wilson 47). But he does respond to a study that seemingly proved that the self-selection bias was a solid argument. This experiment was the Moving to Opportunity (MTO) experiment which was performed between 1994 and 1998. What occurred was the U.S. Department of Housing and Development (HUD) gave out housing vouchers to families living in high poverty, in five different cities. In these cities, they were put in three different groups randomly, and each one had a different form of housing change. One was permitted to rent in the private market anywhere, another was allowed to rent in low-poverty neighborhoods, and one did not receive either of the two groups and was the “control group.” (Wilson 49). The results were mixed; there was improvement for people who moved into low-poverty areas in terms of mental and physical health (as in obesity), but there was no impact on employment rates or wages or educational and physical health amongst children and young men (while there had been improvement to young women’s lives) and this caused some to believe that maybe there really were negative effects that lasted from living in “poor, segregated neighborhoods” (Wilson 50).
What Wilson points out about the study is that there were serious problems in the way the experiment was set up. Pointing out these issues, he provides logical reasons that any reader could agree with. He notes that the way the voucher worked, people could move into areas that in actuality were very similar to the ones they previously lived in, negating the effects of moving. The idea seems sound, and to bolster the argument, he brings in another sociologist, Robert Sampson, who analyzed a group of MTO from one of the cities and found that the neighborhoods the people chose to move to were still poorer than an integrated neighborhood, because they chose predominantly black neighborhoods (Wilson 50). So it is clear that not only is Wilson making a point against the MTO experiment, but he has back up to agree with him. Wilson does this throughout the book when he intends to prove why an argument that opposes him is incorrect. When he tries to support the Gautreaux experiment over the MTO experiment, his support mainly comes from the fact that he has already noted the key flaws of the MTO experiment that the Gautreaux experiment did not have. The main difference that he claims is relevant is the fact that Gautreaux families “moved to white suburban areas that were significantly less impoverished than their previous neighborhoods.” (Wilson 50). This difference underscores the point he made about the families moving into black neighborhoods instead of white ones. Moving into a white neighborhood automatically takes the families out of a more impoverished environment.If the MTO experiment had required them to move into a white experiment, then perhaps Wilson would have less ground to stand on, but as it Wilson clarifies it, the MTO experiment is flawed.
In Chapter 3, Wilson is discussing black males specifically, and why they are having such a hard time surviving in the economy. As Wilson does throughout the book, he separates his main arguments between structural and cultural factors. In the case of cultural factors, he outlines what a good “exploration” of cultural factors would be: “1) provide a compelling reason for including cultural factors in a comprehensive discussion of race and poverty, 20 show the relationship between cultural analysis and structural analysis, and 3) determine the extent to which cultural factors operate independently to contribute to or reinforce poverty and racial inequality.” (Wilson 79). Wilson then explains that while there is evidence of cultural factors, this evidence is less “compelling” because of the lack of research in this area, something he discusses in detail with the Moynihan report later.
His opinion of the cultural explanations currently around are then backed up by Professor Orlando Patterson from Harvard University, who has said that because of a bias against cultural explanations, sociologists have not been willing to look at “attitudes, norms, values, habits, and worldviews” which Wilson says are “all indications of cultural orientations” but instead have been focusing on “in short, structural factors.” (Wilson 79). Patterson decided to look at culture again, and asked some specific questions about poor black men, and worked to answer them. One of them was the behavior of young black men in the ghetto, which he looks at through “anecdotal evidence collected...by one of his former students.” (Wilson 80). From this non-systematic ethnographic evidence, Patterson’s student uncovered the concept of the “cool-pose culture” that includes “hanging out on the street after school, shopping and dressing sharply, sexual conquests, party drugs, hip-hop music and culture.” and this culture Patterson concludes that this culture is what encourages young black men to essentially dig themselves into a hole by participating in a behavior model that is risky (Wilson 80).
Even though Wilson does not expressly suggest that Patterson’s conclusions may be off due to the methods that were used in obtaining the ideas that pointed to such a culture, he does inform the reader that how this information was obtained - and allows the reader to choose for themselves how they should evaluate such data. He also does not particularly agree with the cool-pose culture as the direct explanation of young black male risky behavior. He instead picks a point of Patterson’s argument - “black male pride has become increasingly defined in terms of the impregnation of women.” and then brings in a different sociologist who found a similar pattern in young black men, but decades before. After bringing this up, Wilson suggests a counterargument that reinforces his preference towards structure dictating culture: if young black men are put in fairly similar structural positions then other generations will eventually have similar cultural responses (Wilson 81). In this case, because Patterson does believe that cultural explanations should be a part of the discussion, Wilson is more accepting of his information and less willing to completely cut it apart because it does allow him to build off of and make a point about culture.
In Chapter 4, Wilson looks at the poor black family. This chapter is interesting because here Wilson utilizes information drawn from a study he headed, “The Urban Poverty and Family Life Study”(UPFLS), where he and a team performed over 2,000 interviews of “Black, White, Mexican- and Puerto Rican-origin parents from poor neighborhoods in Chicago.” (UPFLS). However, Wilson never informs the reader directly how this study was conducted. While Wilson does make sure to mention and explain what he means when he says “our study” in the appendix, the information in the appendix consists of the location, the number of people they interviewed, the races of those people, and how they defined poverty neighborhoods (neighborhoods with poverty rates of at least 20 percent) (Wilson 173). But he does not mention that he headed a team that performed these interviews, nor does he explain their interview methods, which Tyson does do in her book Integration Interrupted, when she notes that the interviews performed were “semistructured” and then provided the types of questions asked over the topics that she wished to discuss, and how long they lasted, and who else interviewed them besides herself (Tyson Kindle 120). But Wilson never identifies the team that assisted with the interviews, explains how the interviews were performed, or any notable details about the interviews. Nor does he acknowledge that the way these interviews were conducted could have affected the responses provided, or how they dealt with that potential error. This lack of detail on the way an important gathering of information was done robs the reader of being able to be certain that the information being provided to strengthen Wilson’s points has been gathered in as unbiased a way possible. Especially considering the fact that he had the resources available to him and was the director of the entire study, this aspect of a study is definitely something he should know and be clear on and able to elucidate to the reader.
This information is necessary because Wilson spends a good portion of Chapter 4 discussing the opinions of black women of black men and vice versa and then compares them to those of Latinos and then draws conclusions on how this could affect the marriage rates and family of black people. Although, Wilson does use outside sources to help support his points. For example, he notes from his ethnographic data that the “birth of a child did not create a sense of obligation to marry” suggests that norms in regards to the family are changing (Wilson 122). He brings in a professor of Sociology, Frank Furstenberg who has been studying respondents in the inner city on fathering for years. Furstenberg agrees that there may be less pressure being exerted on men for them to be a part of the family, in contrast to how this used to be (Wilson 122).
Wilson made several connections with readings, but one of them in specific was research performed by Devah Pager, published on Discrimination in a Low-Wage Market: A Field Experiment. This experiment noted how a black applicant with a clean record was still less likely to be called back for a job than a white applicant with a felony conviction. Wilson uses this to underscore the fact that there is statistical discrimination against black workers. Pager’s study was so comprehensive, and also performed twice, that the empirical data proving that statistical discrimination exists in the inner-city work force against black workers is undeniable.
Wilson’s conclusions that structure is actually the underlying issue in all of the plights of poor, inner city, black people is overall well-supported in his book. While he neglects to provide certain details on pieces of information, and does not seem to bring up an argument against his own that he cannot shoot down, all of his information is well-sourced, and each source seems to be coming from respectable groups or people.
More...