In her previous post, my lovely wife spoke of a letter we received from the city/our local neighborhood association about garbage pickup. Basically, it notified us of a proposal to have the city clean up any litter on our property. We would be billed $75 for this service, a fee that escalates with subsequent problems.
Sarah rightly noted that this follows the "broken windows" theory of urban governance. However, when I read this notice, my geography centered brain went in a slightly different direction, to work on neoliberalism and governmentality.
Both of these are complicated theories. In essence, neoliberalism refers to what some might call globalization: focusing primarily on free trade and allowing market forces to govern economics (and even other previously non-market institutions, such as public schools). It calls for a roll-back of government action, allowing supposedly non-governmental entities and the rule of self-interest to rule instead. That's somewhat present here--the city will collect litter, but they're charging us for it. It's economic incentive to change our individual behavior, rather than, say, emposing fines on those who actually litter or cleaning it up without charge.
More interesting to me, though, is what the writer Michel Foucault (see the pic) labeled governmentality. This is a tough one to explain briefly, but here's a try: it refers to how societies are managed not through direct legislation, but through more indirect means that attempt to link self-interest to a broader social good. So, for instance, the government might not ban fast food outright, but you'll see experts on TV telling you how bad the food is and maybe even get higher insurance premiums depending on your diet and weight. Through these means, you get a sense of what a "good" citizen/person is.
That's here as well. Through this program, the neighborhood association and city seek to create a particular image of the neighborhood, one that's clean and well cared for. As the letter states, "A Clean Minneapolis is important to all of us, and the Folwell Neighborhood is determined that a Clean Minneapolis will begin with a Clean Folwell Neighborhood" (emphasis added). One might ask, if we all care about a clean city (or even define clean in that way), why is this program necessary at all? In fact, as Foucault argues, the point of governmentality is to create certain kinds of citizens. That's what broken windows is all about. The idea is that when there's order in the environment, it will change people's behavior and even the way they think of themselves. Cleaning up litter makes us different--better--people. On the flip side, if we refuse to clean up the litter, it reflects poorly on us.
Now I'm all for litter clean up, but it's worth noting that putting the responsibility here all on individual home owners misses the point (and this is Foucault's argument as well). Why is the litter there in the first place? Could it be also partly due to a culture resounding in ideas of disposability--whether its fast food containers, clothes, or even people? What about the legacy of economic and housing properties responsible for the creation of such low-income neighborhoods? Are we property owners supposed to bear the weight of these all ourselves? This is also especially problematic when one considers that our neighborhood association is largely comprised of white residents, while the neighborhood is primarily non-white (black, Hmong, and hispanic).
So I'm ambivalent about this. Broken windows has had some success, and if it targets, say, slumlords, it's not that big a deal. But it's got it's problems as well.
