This was a lengthy chapter that covered a lot of ground. Basically, Sampson did a lot of summarizing from previous chapters and then integrated this material with the Chicago of 2010. In this chapter, I felt like Sampson was arguing that the aftermath of the 2008 economic crises had mixed results on the city. Sampson is saying that in a way, the impact of the 2008 economic crises has been bittersweet. In this chapter, Sampson asserts that "without challenge, efficacy loses meaning" (p. 400). With the data that Sampson provides in this chapter, I feel like I would have to agree with this belief. The economic crisis provided the communities of Chicago with a challenge--some communities became elevated, while other declined. A little further on in the chapter, Sampson argues that "collective efficacy and organizational capacity reflect a deeply social and non-reductionist form of community well-being" (p. 403-04). In other words, I feel like Sampson is saying that how well a community is capable of coming together during a crisis reflects the health of that community. This seemed to be the key with various communities that Sampson examined. The communities that were capable of coming together with strong collective efficacy found themselves better off than those communities that remained disjointed and unorganized.
The additional source I found is an article taken from the Chicago Tribune that discusses how a non-profit organization was making an attempt to benefit from the 2008 crisis. The article talks about how a Chicago based Habitat for Humanity was able to buy pricier pieces of property for less thanks to the housing crisis. Again, this seemed a bit paradoxical to me. The housing crisis left thousands of people homeless, yet it also made it possible for this non-profit organization to buy land to build home for the disadvantaged. Is this part of the viscous cycle Sampson often talks about? It sounds like it to me. The article goes on to say how the real challenge for this organization was to get donations from struggling companies during this crisis. For the first time, the organization finds themselves capable of buying pricier land, yet they lack the resources to build homes on the purchased property.
Mary Ellen Podmolik. "Housing Crisis Affords an Opening: Lower Values Help Habitat for Humanity's Efforts to Buy Land to Build Homes, but Donations are Drooping." Chicago Tribune: 1. 2008. Print.
In this chapter, Sampson asks the question, "why does violence unhinge some communities and draw others closer together?" I've given some thought to this question, but I haven't be able to come up with a solid answer. Again, I think it has a lot to do with the inner dynamics of the community facing the challenge. It would make sense that the communities with high collective efficacy would demonstrate more elasticity to issues such as violence. These are the communities containing activists with strong voices and deep concern for their communities. These are the communities with a strong resolve to get back up when they get knocked down. Put simply, these are the densely connected communities that refuse to give up.
Research Update:
To be honest, my research hasn't changed much since last week. I find it difficult to focus on the research for my presentation while being expected to do my readings and post my blog responses. Trying to balance both can be challenging. Professor Jeffreys has suggested that I look into "before and after" studies that examine how smoking cessation has impacted the general community. I feel like this could be a good lead for my presentation, and intend to follow up with this research in the future.
