This time, I made a comment to Marina Magana's blog. http://mmaganageog151.blogspot.com/2012/10/week-4-koreatown.html?showComment=1351312844692#c3759727834094375993
Hi, my name is Kei, taking the class of Cities and Differences.
Reading through your blog, I strongly felt that Koreatown has several interesting features. Also, the way you write the blog is attractive, which makes me read your blog more and more.
Regarding your trip to Koreatown, I realized that the town contains the factors that are written in "The Emergence of Postsuburbia: An Introduction" written by Kling , Olin, and Poster.
Firstly, it seems that Koreatown is worked as a part of multicentered town. It functions based on the its people's will and belief.
Secondly, idea of information capitalism exists in the Korean town since there is a difference of wealth, even among the Korean community.
Thirdly, I acknowledged that there is a consumer culture since there is market which includes restaurants, shops, and business activities.
Lastly, cosmopolitanism is clear in this community that there are not only Korean but also Hispanic, Latino, and other Asian commercial activities are going on.
Although it cannot be said that ideas of Kling , Olin, and Poster are completely shown in Koreatown, I felt that their 4 concepts can be applied as one way to explain the culture of the town.
I enjoyed to read your blog a lot. Thanks!!
2012年10月26日金曜日
2012年10月15日月曜日
Blogging Social Difference in L.A.: Week2
This Friday, I went to L.A. Downtown area, and realized that there were many aspects that fit into the characteristics of Orange County, which were written in the reading "The Emergence of Postsuburbia: An Introduction" written by Kling , Olin, and Poster.
Firstly, what I felt the concept that the Downtown area is multicentered metropolitan region. In other word, it shows the facet of postsuburban spatial organization. It can be considered that the Downtown is"organized around many distinct, specialized centers rather than a traditional city center surrounded by industrial and residential areas". I strongly felt that there is no specific "core" in the Downtown. Rather, the town is complicated that it is organized around several types of cores. Take a look at these pictures.
From the photos, it can be acknowledged that the town is "the result of complex and weakly coordinated sets of conscious decisions by private entrepreneurs and many politicians who reflect their interests."
Secondly, I realized that the certain inequality exists in this town. What difference does difference make among people? Although there are several factors, I strongly felt that there is a gap in information. In other word, there is a concept of information capitalism in this town. It can be assumed that this "gives their industries greater leverage than their less technologically sophisticated precursors had". In many areas of Downtown, I see a lots of people who seem to not take advantage from this information capitalism. Take a look at these pictures.
What was a major difference between these people and business men who were coming from the U.S. Bank Tower? One of the answers is simple - difference in the amount of information they have.
Thirdly, certain consumer culture exists in the L.A. Downtown. Take a look at following pictures.
Jewelry shops, McDonalald's, and bus with advertisement of film...I found a lots of signs that represent the consumer culture. It is important to remember that this culture is not 100% originated in L.A. Consumerism has a feature of "far-reaching effects on other parts of the culture". This means that the downtown give and take the the effects of consumer culture.
Lastly, cosmopolitanism stands as a one of the strong concepts in Downtown. I found a lots of billboards that are written in Korean, Chinese, Japanese, and Thailand. Why? Take a look at following pictures.
You see U.S. flag of Hilton Hotel blowing in the wind. At the same time, you see the billboard reflection of Japanese ramen shop. IT is a cosmopolitan city. In other word, effect of globalization places at everywhere in the downtown. The city is filled with may international firms.
Going back from L.A. Downtown, I considered Robert E. Park's words, "The City is a mosaic of little worlds which touch but do not interpenetrate". I saw multicentered, information capitalism, consumer culture, and cosmopolitanism as the aspects of L.A. Downtown. The town was mosaic of little worlds, but did they interpenetrate? I say, No. There were several types of people in terms of ethnicity, estimated wealth, and estimated information. However, it is hard to say that they interpenetrate each other. Rather, I felt there are certain gaps between people in the Downtown.
Therefore, it can be considered that Robert E. Park's words are right this time.
Reference: City Reader: 399-344 (Ernest W.Burgess: "The Growth of the City"); Kling, Olin, and Poster: "The Emergence of Postsuburbia"
Firstly, what I felt the concept that the Downtown area is multicentered metropolitan region. In other word, it shows the facet of postsuburban spatial organization. It can be considered that the Downtown is"organized around many distinct, specialized centers rather than a traditional city center surrounded by industrial and residential areas". I strongly felt that there is no specific "core" in the Downtown. Rather, the town is complicated that it is organized around several types of cores. Take a look at these pictures.
From the photos, it can be acknowledged that the town is "the result of complex and weakly coordinated sets of conscious decisions by private entrepreneurs and many politicians who reflect their interests."
Secondly, I realized that the certain inequality exists in this town. What difference does difference make among people? Although there are several factors, I strongly felt that there is a gap in information. In other word, there is a concept of information capitalism in this town. It can be assumed that this "gives their industries greater leverage than their less technologically sophisticated precursors had". In many areas of Downtown, I see a lots of people who seem to not take advantage from this information capitalism. Take a look at these pictures.
Thirdly, certain consumer culture exists in the L.A. Downtown. Take a look at following pictures.
Lastly, cosmopolitanism stands as a one of the strong concepts in Downtown. I found a lots of billboards that are written in Korean, Chinese, Japanese, and Thailand. Why? Take a look at following pictures.
Going back from L.A. Downtown, I considered Robert E. Park's words, "The City is a mosaic of little worlds which touch but do not interpenetrate". I saw multicentered, information capitalism, consumer culture, and cosmopolitanism as the aspects of L.A. Downtown. The town was mosaic of little worlds, but did they interpenetrate? I say, No. There were several types of people in terms of ethnicity, estimated wealth, and estimated information. However, it is hard to say that they interpenetrate each other. Rather, I felt there are certain gaps between people in the Downtown.
Therefore, it can be considered that Robert E. Park's words are right this time.
Reference: City Reader: 399-344 (Ernest W.Burgess: "The Growth of the City"); Kling, Olin, and Poster: "The Emergence of Postsuburbia"
2012年10月6日土曜日
Blogging Social Difference in L.A.: Week 1
"The City is a mosaic of little worlds which touch but do not interpenetrate"
-Robert E. Park
Hi, I am Kei, UCLA junior-exchange student. I am exploring the degree and the ways in which Robert E. Park's statement is true and untrue in L.A. In other words, I am trying to find the answers for "what difference does difference make in the landscapes of the contemporary, metropolitan Los Angeles region". I will look into this challenging question through in-class studies and fieldworks.
My interest in the class, Geography 151: Cities and Social Difference Fall 2012, is how the society functions with the people who have different backgrounds, ideas, and behaviors. I am International Relations major in my home university, and always wonder how the U.S. government or the state governmen manages population which is consisted of various kinds of groups. Especially, the geography of L.A. which is enormously diversed, is what I want to examine more deeply.
Now, let's find out something about LA one by one!!! The first stage is Little Tokyo, which I went to yesterday!!!
-Robert E. Park
Hi, I am Kei, UCLA junior-exchange student. I am exploring the degree and the ways in which Robert E. Park's statement is true and untrue in L.A. In other words, I am trying to find the answers for "what difference does difference make in the landscapes of the contemporary, metropolitan Los Angeles region". I will look into this challenging question through in-class studies and fieldworks.
My interest in the class, Geography 151: Cities and Social Difference Fall 2012, is how the society functions with the people who have different backgrounds, ideas, and behaviors. I am International Relations major in my home university, and always wonder how the U.S. government or the state governmen manages population which is consisted of various kinds of groups. Especially, the geography of L.A. which is enormously diversed, is what I want to examine more deeply.
Now, let's find out something about LA one by one!!! The first stage is Little Tokyo, which I went to yesterday!!!
Little Tokyo is a community of Japanese-American, which was established more than 100 years ago.
As I was walking around the town, I noticed that the community is not so big that it does not take 30 minutes to go to all the places. Interestingly, there were no outstanding differences of trees, cars, and streets between Little Tokyo and outside of the community. However, there were certain differences that make this place diffrent from the other area of LA.
Firstly, take a look at this video which I took on the street.
It may be difficult to listen to the sound, but it is clear that the language they speak is different from what majority of the L.A. speak, English. What they speak is Japanese. Furthermore, not only the verbal language but also written language makes certain difference in the community. The written languages in the following pictures are what made me feel that Little Tokyo is not a part of L.A.
Secondly, there was a difference between the buildings of Little Tokyo and those of other area. Tiled loof, white-plastered wall, the dark wood...there were many aspects of buildings that differentiate this community from the rest of L.A.
Thirdly, it can be considered that the foods that are eaten in Little Tokyo make this area different from other areas. For instance, I saw a lot of restaurants that sell raw fishes, which are not very common in other places in L.A.
Although it is difficult to assume that the people are eating only these kind of foods, it is important to notice that raw fishes are more usually eaten in Little Tokyo rather than other areas in LA. Thus food is also a significant feature that distinguishes this place from the rest of L.A.
Now, when I go back to see the statement "The City is a mosaic of little worlds which touch but do not interpenetrate", and think whether this is true or not, it is not easy to answer since I have seen only Little Tokyo as the part of "little worlds" so far. However, it is able to judge whether this community "penetrates" or not into "The City", L.A.
When I consider whether the functioning of Little Tokyo is based on mechanical solidarity or organic solidarity, I can say that this place cherishes mechanical solidarity. The reason is that there is an emphasis on the the value of American Japanese group, not an American Japanese individual. This can be understood since they live together in the same community and accept the values of outer area. One might argue that Little Tokyo stresses organic solidarity since they emphasize their community as an "individual" unit of belief or value so that the community is placed a bit far from the center of L.A. downtown. However, take a look at the following pictures;
There are many places that show the concepts of "accepting others" in Little Tokyo. The important thing to mention is that it is not all the blood that makes people work together. Several factors, for example "attachment to the same soil" and "a commonality of habits", enable the co-operation between people, and it makes the city able to interpenetrate.
Therefore, from the fieldwork of Little Tokyo, it can be suggested that Robert E. Park's statement is not so true this time.
Reference;
Emile Durkheim "The Causes [of the Division of Labor]" from The Division of Labor in Society(1893)
"Organic Analogy" from Dictionary of Sociology
As I was walking around the town, I noticed that the community is not so big that it does not take 30 minutes to go to all the places. Interestingly, there were no outstanding differences of trees, cars, and streets between Little Tokyo and outside of the community. However, there were certain differences that make this place diffrent from the other area of LA.
Firstly, take a look at this video which I took on the street.
Secondly, there was a difference between the buildings of Little Tokyo and those of other area. Tiled loof, white-plastered wall, the dark wood...there were many aspects of buildings that differentiate this community from the rest of L.A.
Although it is difficult to assume that the people are eating only these kind of foods, it is important to notice that raw fishes are more usually eaten in Little Tokyo rather than other areas in LA. Thus food is also a significant feature that distinguishes this place from the rest of L.A.
Now, when I go back to see the statement "The City is a mosaic of little worlds which touch but do not interpenetrate", and think whether this is true or not, it is not easy to answer since I have seen only Little Tokyo as the part of "little worlds" so far. However, it is able to judge whether this community "penetrates" or not into "The City", L.A.
When I consider whether the functioning of Little Tokyo is based on mechanical solidarity or organic solidarity, I can say that this place cherishes mechanical solidarity. The reason is that there is an emphasis on the the value of American Japanese group, not an American Japanese individual. This can be understood since they live together in the same community and accept the values of outer area. One might argue that Little Tokyo stresses organic solidarity since they emphasize their community as an "individual" unit of belief or value so that the community is placed a bit far from the center of L.A. downtown. However, take a look at the following pictures;
Therefore, from the fieldwork of Little Tokyo, it can be suggested that Robert E. Park's statement is not so true this time.
Reference;
Emile Durkheim "The Causes [of the Division of Labor]" from The Division of Labor in Society(1893)
"Organic Analogy" from Dictionary of Sociology
登録:
コメント (Atom)