Theorising Gentrification Rage

In my last post I talked about how sociologists are developing increasingly niche theories and studies around the phenomenon of regeneration/gentrification, one of the major narratives of our time. Here is my attempt. 

(Like the previous post, it is not a moan about gentrification.)

Theory of gentrification rage

This theory seeks to explain why certain ways of producing space for the affluent, certain manifestations of gentrification, can make otherwise reasonable observers (such as myself) feel viscerally and disproportionately enraged, dismayed and appalled. 

I contrast this rage with the cold disapproval we might feel towards things like the bank bailout or zero-hour contracts - other instances of what critical sociologists might call capitalist or neoliberal exploitation, but can just as easily be understood as "the rich pushing other people around". (I stress from the outset that I am talking about the rage felt by observers of the process rather than its immediate victims, which is a whole different thing.)

I suggest that there are three key factors at play: an injury and two insults. The presence of one or two factors will create bemusement, cold disapproval, minor irritation etc, but when all three are combined, this explodes into full-blown gentrification rage.

1. Increased residential and commercial rents leading to economic displacement (INJURY)

This is relatively straightforward to conceptualise and quantitatively measure. The cause and effect is pretty clear. The injury can be understood as purely economic, or you can also factor in the negative social outcomes of disrupting existing community ties or dissipating "social capital".

2. Perceived pioneer or saviour complex of affluent incomers (INSULT)

These are established concepts in urban sociology. The "pioneer" complex refers to affluent newcomers who talk about and generally relate to their new area as though they've discovered an unknown land that they are very excited about, thus patronising the people who were already there. The "saviour" complex takes this one step further: affluent newcomers who believe that they are actively helping the area just by living there. 

Evidence of this is more qualitative, but still measurable. It might include a hipster cafe stressing its community credentials, ostentatious displays of local pride (e.g. "I heart Peckham" tote bags) by people who have lived locally for a relatively short time, flashy but low-commitment community projects e.g. the Big Lunch, hyperlocal blogging ("which shops would you like to see open up on Chatsworth Road? Discuss"), lots of Twittering and unfocused, uncritical enthusiasm about "exciting changes". Essentially, we’re talking about smugness.

3. Replacement of existing local businesses with "frivolous" new businesses (INSULT)

This is the innovative part of my theory and the most difficult to conceptualise and measure. I am suggesting here that the consumption practices of the affluent contain both "grown-up" and "frivolous" products and experiences. This opens a massive box of theoretical and methodological worms but I think it starts to explain why a lot of gentrification rage tends to focus on the more infantile affectations of some affluent newcomers. A certain frosted bakery item is the most obvious, if now clichéd symbol of this. People just don't seem to get quite as worked up about "grown-up" businesses opening in gentrifying neighbourhoods as they do about "frivolous" businesses. 

(a grown up business)

Operationalising the three-factor model

An empty retail unit on the high street of a socially mixed area is filled by a new business aimed at affluent newcomers. Different combinations of the three factors result in different reactions.

Rents same / grown-up business / no smug = mild surprise

Rents up / grown-up business / no smug = mild concern

Rents same / grown-up business / smug = bemusement, eye roll

Rents up / grown-up business / smug = irritation

Rents same / frivolous business / no smug = bemusement

Rents up / frivolous business / no smug = irritation

Rents same / frivolous business / smug = bemusement, eye roll

Rents up / frivolous business / smug = GENTRIFICATION RAGE

Problem: conceptualising the frivolous

This is the tricky bit. I admit that I’m basically saying that I don’t mind steakhouses, boutique hotels and Japanese restaurants opening near me, but I can’t stand poshed-up chippies, cushiony tat shops or twee cafes. A feminist rejoinder might be that my notion of the frivolous is gendered.  Bourdieu would just say my distinctions are totally arbitrary and that I’m a snob holding onto a certain Oxbridge-influenced vision of cultural quality. Hmm.

I’m still working on it, but some possible approaches of theorising the frivolous would be:

- If the expensive thing being sold is inherently expensive, like fine wine, haute cuisine or antique furniture, then it’s probably “grown up”. If they’ve taken an ordinary business like a grocers, pub, cafe or chippy and contrived a way to make it more expensive, then it’s probably frivolous (regardless of whether the end product offers value for money). It’s just a way of offering affluent people who like to think of themselves as cultured, but are not actually grown up enough to appreciate fine wine, haute cuisine etc (apologies to Swiss Toni), a chance to “Taste the Difference” in a safe, unthreatening environment.

- Along similar lines, one might ask whether the expensive thing is something that low-income people would pay for if they had the money, or if they at least recognise the thing as a legitimately high-end item or service. If so, it is probably “grown up”, or perhaps, “legitimate”. If the value/expense of the thing depends on obscure middle-class codes – elements of design and typeface, an arch knowingness, contrived scarcity/inconvenience - it is likely to be “frivolous”.

- If the business presents itself to customers in a matey, infantile manner, it’s a strong indication that it’s frivolous. If it treats you like an adult, it’s obviously grown up.

- If the business actually adds something new to the city as a whole (i.e. not just the neighbourhood) – an under-appreciated cuisine, or a genuinely new and useful product or service – it should probably get a pass.

(expensive fried chicken in Brixton)

Practical benefits of the theory

Gentrification will always piss some people off but the arguments that result from it always seem to go in circles. The tone of anti-gentrification rants is always the same, with the same litanies always deployed: ironic moustaches, the three-quid loaf, prams in pubs, soy lattes etc. They’re like a spasm.

Defenders, meanwhile, always make the same specious liberal rationalisations and faux-historical excuses: it’s just the free market, at least crime is down, can’t preserve neighbourhoods in aspic, cities thrive on change, waves of immigration, something about the Huguenots, or my personal favourite, “these terraces in Peckham were originally built for the middle classes!”

Thesis and antithesis stubbornly refuse to merge into any kind of synthesis. By isolating the factors underpinning gentrification rage and thinking about each of them in turn, perhaps both sides can move towards a more level-headed way of making sense of this thing. Some of the more gratuitous annoyances can be avoided, but also the criticism can become a bit more constructive. We may as well try, as the issue certainly isn't going away.

Postscript: frivolous people?

One might also consider whether the perceived frivolousness of the incomers themselves is a factor – not just what they consume, but also what they produce. The hate-figure in gentrification rage is sometimes a banker or lawyer, but more frequently a member of the “creative class” or a trust fund kid – i.e. people who go to work in trainers and don’t have “serious” jobs. In San Francisco, for example, the tech sector is particularly demonised – as though being priced out of your neighbourhood by an overpaid 25-year-old idiot who thinks he’s going to change the world with some meaningless app is more humiliating than being priced out by a 45-year-old evil banker or captain of industry. After all, where is there a purer mix of total frivolousness and total earnestness/smugness than in the tech sector?