Search

The urban studies literature regularly cites Ruth Glass’s 1964 work without comment as the source of the concept “gentrification” and to reaffirm the premise that gentrification at its core is a purely economic process. This citation practice makes racism, as well as other processes, epiphenomenal. Given the ongoing importance of the term “gentrification” for present-day struggles against racism and displacement, relying uncritically on this 1964 work by Glass does us a disservice. Emerging at a key moment of decolonization, Glass’s concept reflects, without acknowledging, continuing British imperialism and its global transformation. In this paper, I return to the genesis of the concept and put Glass’s work in dialogue with that of Claudia Jones, a Caribbean-born communist exiled in London. This paper’s return to these origins and global conditions demonstrates that uncritically citing Glass continually brings us back to a limited economic understanding of gentrification, which obscures the very real imperialism, racism, and decolonization at its origins and today. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Finding a way to make a living may be difficult if one lives in a small island with few possibilities for regular full-time jobs. Focusing on how co-habiting couples negotiate their livelihood options with each other and with the island setting, the paper shows how the local labour market and its inherent (im)possibilities are shaped by a specific history, geography and set of gender relations. Empirically, the paper draws on couple interviews from the Danish island of Læsø, with approximately 1800 inhabitants. The analysis shows how history, traditions, geography and gender relations impact on livelihoods and possibilities for developing new lines of work. It also shows how these factors continuously interact with one another and are negotiated by both individuals and couples. Underscoring the argument that island labour markets are different from mainland labour markets, the analysis suggests that the need for negotiation may be more obvious in an island setting which is demographically and economically under pressure. Islands cannot simply be treated as 'smaller' versions of mainland communities. They pose qualitatively different contexts. The palpable geographic borders of the island community entail that 'everybody knows everybody', thus enhancing visibility of individual choices and roles in the local labour market. Therefore, the impact of intangible factors may be enhanced in island settings, where deviations from tradition become immediately observable as people live in close proximity to one another. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]