Reading Response #1- Alina

        In their collaborative work Equity, Growth, and Community, authors Chris Benner and Manuel Pastor examine the patterns of increasing inequality, slowing economic growth, and spatial and ideological fragmentation that have been emerging in recent decades. Benner and Pastor argue that the issues concerning growth and inequality in communities are not simply structural and economic, but social and ideological in nature as well; therefore, the solutions required to address these problems require a fundamental shift towards what Benner and Pastor often refer to as the development of “diverse and dynamic epistemic communities.” Benner and Pastor identify the five main characteristics of a “diverse and dynamic epistemic community” as having “a broader membership base, an ability to accommodate multiple ways of knowing, a scope of action which stretches across multiple outcomes and conversational arenas, a desire to move beyond the episodic, and a capacity to handle conflict even as they facilitate a sense of common destiny” (16). The authors argue that creating knowledge together from a diverse, broad information base through a course of repeated and sustained interactions can help various stakeholders establish healthy, effective ways of communicating with one another, bridge the gap between the more privileged policymakers and those affected by their decisions, and most importantly, allow communities to develop shared goals and a sense of “the common good” that can be translated into action (14-18). In order to see how the development of these diverse and dynamic epistemic communities- or the lack thereof- relates to promoting inclusion, creating equitable growth, and resolving challenges in cities (and how this could yield valuable lessons for other urban regions or the nation as a whole), Benner and Pastor conduct case studies of seven metropolitan habitats.

         In chapter six, Benner and Pastor look at the role of conflict in relation to the development of epistemic communities and achievement of just growth, as it may prove a hindrance, such as with the cases of Greensboro and Fresno, or lead to collaboration, such as with San Antonio. More specifically, the authors investigate how various approaches to organizing as well as regional attitudes and differences have yielded starkly contrasting results in the three cases. In Greensboro, factors such as intra-regional competition, exclusion of community organizations and advocacy groups from decision-making, and a strong history of racial distrust and tension contribute to the lack of a diverse, dynamic epistemic community; although the region experiences spatial and economic fragmentation like many other metropolitan areas, what is significant is that underpinning this is an ideological fragmentation, particularly in regard to the racial divide, that hinders collaborative development. In Fresno, the presence of a “poverty-industrial complex,” a corrupt and top-heavy political decision-making body, and extreme spatial, socioeconomic, and racial polarization all hinder collaborative approaches; decisionmakers are extremely disconnected from the disinvested neighborhoods that are mostly inhabited by POC demographics and have done little to create fair wages/dignified jobs or bridge community. However, in San Antonio, the organizing methods of groups such as COPS and the ability of leader Cisneros to link community interests assisted the region in shifting from conflict to collaboration.

         I am interested in how this example of San Antonio relates to David Harvey’s “Right to the City,” particularly his assertion that “the right to the city is far more than the individual liberty to access urban resources: it is a right to change ourselves by changing the city” (Harvey 23). While in San Antonio, the establishment of programs that linked the disenfranchised with resources was surely important, I think it is notable that establishing a true right to the city embodies more than just this; it is a mode of operating. Benner and Pastor, although they note there have been flaws or limitations at times, argue that San Antonio has largely come to embrace this attitude of collaboration and prioritizing the commons as a regional norm. I also think that while Harvey’s piece is quite theoretical and his call to action at the end may seem a bit idealistic, Benner and Pastor provide excellent empirical evidence throughout their work and provide a picture of what this “call to action” or social-movement organizing and resistance can look like in practice, such as with the case of San Antonio, and how it can effectively balance out power relations and radically transform our cities. While I do think Harvey calls for a more radical restructuring of the way our economies and decision-making bodies fundamentally operate, Benner and Pastor do provide a useful example of how a greater right to the city or prioritization of the collective could be practiced within our currently predominant economic/political framework (although I am not saying I wholeheartedly agree with this because I do think restructuring is necessary).

         I think that Benner and Pastor’s arguments prove quite useful to my research and academic interests, as I have increasingly become aware that issues of climate and the environment have more and more to do with ideological and social dimensions than many other factors. This work provides generative insights into the approaches we need to take (and those we should not) when moving towards achieving greater social/ideological unity that can then translate into action (especially concerning climate policies or initiatives).