Explicating Divided Approaches to Gentrification and Growing Income Inequality

Abstract

Contemporary sociology offers competing images of the breadth and consequences of gentrification. One subset presents gentrification as a nearly unstoppable force that plays a prominent role in the spatial reorganization of urban life; another presents it as less monolithic and less momentous for marginalized residents, particularly racial minorities. Although neither camp is methodologically homogenous, more qualitative scholars, typically relying on micro-level analyses of individual neighborhoods, tend to present gentrification as increasingly endemic, advanced, and consequential, whereas more quantitative scholars, typically relying on macro analyses, tend to present it in less dire terms. These competing images of gentrification originate in the fact that each subset of research asks different questions, employs distinct methods, and produces particular answers. Exacerbating and partially driving these divergences are different responses to an anxiety within and beyond the academy about broader spatial and economic shifts, such as growing income inequality.