Photo by Flickr user Freaktography. Used under Creative Commons License. http://bit.ly/1RHAMT8
"Call him Voldemort, Harry. Always use the proper
name for things. Fear of a name increases fear of the thing itself."
-Albus Dumbledore, Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone
“Say my name, say my name
You actin' kinda shady,
Ain't callin' me baby
Better say my name”
-Destiny’s Child, Say My Name
Last time I wrote, I touched on the concept of decline and
its impact on life in a city like St. Louis. Today, I want to dig deeper into
what me mean by “decline” and how that designation comes to be applied. Rather
than just post another series of open-ended questions, I plan to share my
perspective on what we can and should understand about the idea decline. The
concept has something of a bogeyman status—it hangs over everything. I hope
that sharing some ideas might help us to grow more comfortable with the reality
of decline, and that by increasing this comfort we might be able to have
smarter conversations about what we can (or should) do about it.
Idea # 1: Decline Needs to Be Placed in Context
It is easy to lose sight of the bigger picture when we spend
our day-to-day in only one city. If we want to tell the story of a place like
St. Louis, we have to remember it is part of a greater national story. Yes, St.
Louis has seen persistent population loss, but so has almost every other major Midwestern
city. This is a result of economic restructuring and the decline of domestic
manufacturing (the “Rust Belt”), as well as greater demographic and population
trends. From the 2000 to the 2010 Census, the South and the West regions saw population
growth of 14.3 and 13.8 percent, respectively, while the Midwest and the Northeast
lagged behind with growth rates of 3.9 and 3.2 percent.[1]
While it’s easy to cry “decline” in a place like St. Louis, it is also
important to note that Chicago lost population at close to the same rate in the
2010 census.
I note this because when one looks too narrowly at a change
in fortunes for a city (or anything, really), the natural tendency is to assume
it was due to some particular attribute of the object of examination. Humans love
stories of causality. A declining city must have something wrong with it (and
its residents). Putting things in context helps shift shift from this
pathological view of decline to a structural one. Sure, St. Louis as a city has
shot itself in the foot plenty of times (and we’ll talk about those!), but even
if it had done everything right, it is hard to imagine that being enough to totally
overcome the macro trends working against it.
Idea #2: Decline is About Trajectory, Which Means Perceptions of Trajectory
As I discussed in the last post, it is hard to put a finger
on what we’re actually talking about when we say a city is declining. Population
is one obvious indicator. Economic indicators (total employment, median income)
might do even better at getting at the root of things. There is also a physical
element: some places look like they
are in decline. More than any absolute number though, decline is about trajectory.
Places can be small and growing, poor and getting wealthier, shabby and
sprucing up. Decline says not that things are necessarily bad, but that they’re
pointing in the wrong direction. While I think we humans are perceptive of
trends, I don’t think we’re awful good a forecasting. These small patterns
all-too-easily get extrapolated to a dire end point; become destiny.
When drawing these conclusions about present trends and
future outlooks, the average person is not looking at census data or composites
of economic indicators. They have a feel
for a place. The easiest way to decide whether a place is “declining” might be
to simply survey residents or outsiders and ask them what it is. Their response
would encapsulate all the little things that contribute to perceptions. Subjective,
yes, but this postmodern definition is probably as accurate and functional as
any more statistically-grounded approach.
Idea # 3: Perceptions Matter
If perceptions are so subjective, do they really matter? I
think they do have a concrete impact. As much as I hate to admit it, it can
occasionally feel kind of shitty living in and loving a place that people like
to talk down on. Conversely, I would imagine that living in a “desirable” place
has to provide some moments of consolation and confirmation that you are making
the right choice. These things don’t
matter more than the quality of your relationships or family life or job, but
they do have an impact. What is more, this perception/quality of life feedback
loop can become self-reinforcing if your perceptions of a place impact your
likeliness to actively engage with it. As I’ll explore later, this
self-perception also has an impact on how we approach problems and policies.
Idea # 4: Trying to Address Perception of Decline Directly is probably a Waste of Time
Perceptions have an impact, so there is some logic in
working to shape perceptions in a more positive way. This can be really
dangerous territory. Although the connections between perceptions and root
causes can be occasionally fuzzy, it’s safe to say that perception problems are
almost universally indicative of real problems. While addressing perceptions
might seem like the more visible and actionable approach, making cool promotional
videos or catchy slogans (Hooker,
OK: “It’s a location, not a vocation") represent time and energy that
could have gone towards addressing real problems. This is why the apologists[2]
who spring up any time the issue of violent crime in the city comes up to explain
how the city of St. Louis’ limited geographic boundaries can severely distort
per-capita statistics, while technically correct, miss the forest for the
trees. The victims of these crimes and their families could care less about statistics
lessons. They need real change, and any breath devoted to addressing
perceptions and misconceptions is a breath that isn’t spent advocating for that
change.
Idea #5: Decline Needs to be Re-conceptualized
If urban decline is more the result of a morass of
demographic trends, economic trends, and harmful federal policies than any
specific mistakes, does that mean the solution to it is just as much out of our
control? Maybe. The reality is that major population or economic growth, in an
absolute sense, are unlikely to happen in the immediate future in a place like
St. Louis, no matter how good policies are. The question to me, then, is what
we make of that situation.
I think we need to move away from the idea of “decline” as
the opposite of “growth” and instead focus on the quality of life of the people
who do live here. While a declining population brings with it real social and
fiscal challenges, it is not the end of the world. The ideology of growth and
Manifest Destiny is a strong one in this country, but the sooner we move past
it the better. If we all know intuitively that there are plenty of growing
places that are not great places to live (my sincerest apologies to McKinney,
Texas), then we must also recognize that there are shrinking places that make
great homes. Would some growth be good? Of course! But if we wait around for all
macro indicators to point in the right direction before we start working hard
and looking at issues optimistically, then we’re undermining ourselves.
I truly believe a city can lose population or jobs without
going into a state of “decline.” Low or no growth only has to mean getting
worse if a better alternative cannot be conceived and worked toward. But it will
take vision, imagination, leadership, and community will to determine what this
alternative looks like.
Wrapping Up
Next post I will be looking at how the context of decline
can lead to counterproductive policy decisions. Also, while I will stick with
the biweekly posting schedule, I will probably be switching my posting day to
Wednesdays in order to better accommodate my school schedule.
