Treating people as, y'know, people

So I interviewed Douglas Rushkoff today (I'll post a link to the interview soon) about his soon-to-be released book, Life, Inc.

The book is subtitled "How The World Became A Corporation and How To Take It Back." In really, really short form, the way to take it back is by reconnecting to your surroundings, your home, your friends, your food--everything. Rushkoff argues that people have been so shaped by our corporatist world that we behave like mini-corporations in ourselves.

I was transcribing for a while, and then put it away for the evening, still thinking about the things we discussed in the interview, about community, about how Rushkoff's point is actually rather close to Kant's instruction:

"Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, always at the same time as an end and never merely as a means to an end."

And then I read this.

I don't have a problem with the post in general--gentrification is something that most young urban folks should think about and many don't. (Rushkoff actually takes on gentrification in the book as well, looking at the cycle and the rise in "property values".)

But what strikes me is that even here I see the corporatist mindset. Consider:

Anybody have ideas of how those of us in gentrifying neighborhoods--both folks who have lived "here" forever and those who are just moving in--can collectively benefit from our assets?

To be fair, Martin uses the term "assets" after it was used in an article that she quotes liberally in the piece. But once again, we're talking about people in business terms. My neighbors are not "assets." They are, as Kant noted, ends in themselves, not means to an end. They are people.

The idea is not to use our "assets," but to get to know the people in your neighborhood, to be part of a community. Community isn't just the place where you live. Community was my neighborhood in New Orleans where my neighbor would barbecue a huge dinner and invite the whole street to join in, where we'd stand outside and chat for a while whenever we ran into one another. Community is the mechanic on the end of my Philly block who drove me to school the day the part for my car didn't come on time, and called me to follow up and make sure the car was still working.

Martin concludes the post by saying:

"But beyond that, I'm hungry to interact with those in my community in a way that feeds us all."

I'd suggest that the first way to do that is to stop thinking about people as assets to be utilized.

A problem solved by art, then jacked up by government tools

I caught this story in the LA Times, which has also made it on the local news rotation here in Southern California.

A small family-owned grocery business in Highland Park (a north east Los Angeles neighborhood) was having a difficult time with graffiti—the owners told the LA Times that the store had been hit by “taggers” over 100 times. After some research, the Antonio family found that buildings in the area with murals were not being hit by graffiti. As it turns out, murals are highly respected in the world of street art and are generally untouched out of respect for the creators. The Antonio family spent $3,000 hiring some local artists to create a mural on the side of their grocery store. The plan worked—after mural was finished, the store went untouched for three months. Art solving real-world problems, very cool.

Enter The City. The LA Times article reports that after about three months, the city threatened the Antonio family with a $1,000 fine and/or imprisonment if it the mural wasn’t removed. City crews then came by and whitewashed the side of the building. Why? Usually the city doesn’t go after murals unless someone complains.

A Highland Park resident did complain. She said that the mural was “gang looking” and made her “nervous”. The kicker here is that she is with the Highland Park Neighborhood Council (bletch).

There are a several of things that bother me about this. First of all, the director of the city’s Office of Community Beautification had this to say about the mural—“There’s obviously some talent here, but that’s just graffiti”. How condescending—to demure enough to admit that there is some artistic talent behind the object, but then to negate completely its status as art. That we have city officials to decide what is and is not art is completely appalling; I find this (at the risk of hyperbole, I admit) rather terrifying as an artist. That the art in question was on private property is even more heinous. How is it that someone can use an “excessive advertising” ordinance to force a private citizen to remove something of artistic value (and commercial value—remember the $3,000 price tag) from his or her own property? I’m terribly sorry if it made some (probably white) neighbor “nervous”, but seriously.

If you want to live in a community where things like this are controlled very carefully, the United States has thousands of KB Home/DR Horton/etc. communities available with very stringent and proto-fascist Home Owners Associations. You can even run for HOA president, where being a complete asshole will garner you lots of praise. Outside of that, however, I would hope that the rights of private citizens to decide for themselves what constitutes art without prior consent of the government would prevail over the at best unaware, and at worst, racist “feelings” of a member of the Highland Park Neighborhood Council.

And just for the record: since the city painted over the Antonio family’s mural, the wall is getting tagged again. I hope that lady from the Neighborhood Council likes looking at that.
(photo of mural by Jacob Antonio Jr., of the Antonio family)