Positionality

As a queer Indian feminist working at Right to the City Alliance (hereafter “RTTC”), in many ways I fit right in: my politics align exactly with the vision that RTTC promotes: a world in which everyone can live peacefully, fairly, and democratically. RTTC believes strongly in uplifting the marginalized by offering beyond-market and community-oriented solutions – exactly my cup of tea. However, two particular positionalities that I possess strongly inform the ways in which I stick out: my age and my non-American status.

In my organisation and in the “field” (the network of organisations that RTTC works with), I seem to be one of the youngest people involved. Given the promise of the right to the city ideology, this is almost surprising: either people are struggling to access the field, or they just don’t care (in an age of social media activism and Trump, this is a serious possibility). I have not seen or talked to a single person at a townhall, phone meeting or interview for my research who is under 25. At a recent RTTC call-in, a tenant’s union fighting gentrification and displacement in Atlanta emphasized the need to stay on top of social media to keep young people in the loop and encourage them to do something, seriously pointing to their absence. As a young person, my job is primarily to exist as a sponge and just absorb all the valuable information around me, and this is what informs all the research that I do. Not surprisingly, this is a field where people talk a lot – they discuss and bounce ideas off each other endlessly. With little more than foundational literature and theories to offer, I find myself more a listener and less a talker, contrary to how I normally operate, and how people in the organisation operate. Thus, my research is heavily guided by what I hear from others, as opposed to self-initiated work, which, as somebody trying to navigate the field, is an excellent learning experience.

Something else I’ve noticed and struggle with a little bit is the intensely American-centric way in which many of these land and housing issues I’m researching are discussed. As a researcher writing up case studies for a paper about alternative land and housing models, I want to be more inclusive of models across the world – we have so much to learn from other parts of the world! Even most of the reports and theory that I have read as background reading were bound to American models, policies and struggles. My non-American status makes it hard for me to discuss American models the same way: when I want to refer to one, I struggle with writing “we have xyz model,” as opposed to “they have xyz model”? The paper assumes an American voice, but mine is not. This is a fairly petty concern in terms of my voice in the paper, but I really do believe that NGO-type organisations would benefit from incorporating a more global and inclusive voice in their work.

In terms of having a research perspective, my experience living in the place I live in allows me to be skeptical of claims about low-income and majority black/latino communities. I live and commute everyday from Harlem, where I have been living for about a year now. Harlem is historically a black neighbourhood and, for many people, a “no go” zone, especially at night. However, having gotten to know the community and businesses around me, I have realised how easy it is to skew a lower income neighbourhood as “ratchet” and “unsafe” (real things said to me) without taking into account other quality of life standards such as community support. This allows me to be critical of claims about low income communities in the same way that RTTC is, hence their belief in participatory research and community collaboration.