Before concluding the current section on place, I want to consider place in the era of globalisation, as this emerges as an important element from my empirical material. Sev- eral scholars have written and debated on the role of place in a time in which time and space are compressed by the new technologies and possibilities offered by a globalised world. Cresswell approaches the discussion about place in a global context by referring to the challenges that globalisation poses to place. The first challenge is posed by the rapid emergence of global retail chains, with their almost identical shops and buildings that can now be found in different cities worldwide. The second challenge is posed by the circulation on the global market of previously place-bound products, such as food or clothing, which are transported and can be purchased thousands of miles from their ori- gin. These new developments pose a threat to place, which risks to lose its uniqueness and to become homogeneous (Cresswell, 2004:54).
Cresswell points out how researchers have adopted different theoretical positions in relation to the impact of globalisation on the sense of place. One of these positions is in- troduced referring to David Harvey. Harvey conceptualises place not as something that simply exist, but as something that is “always and continually being socially constructed by powerful institutional forces in society” (Cresswell, 2004:57). In this view, Harvey continues:
The process of place formation is a process of carving out 'permanences' from the flow of pro- cesses creating spatio-temporality. But the 'permanences' - no matter how solid they may seem - are not eternal but always subject to time as 'perpetual perishing.' They are contingent on processes of creation, sustenance and dissolution.
Harvey, 1996:261 in Harvey, 1996:294
These “permanences”, a reaction to the fluidity of time and space in a globalised world, imply a conceptualisation of the sense of place that British geographer Doreen
Theory
Massey regards as reactionary (Massey, 1991). Massey argues that this conceptualisa- tion of the sense of place consists of three elements: a correspondence between place and one single form of identity; a want to root place in history; and the need to set boundaries to place to separate it from what lies outside of it (ibid.:5). This reactionary conceptualisation is contrasted by a different view on the sense of place in a globalised world, which is characterised by four features: the presence of multiple identities and histories in the same place; place as being defined by the outside; the uniqueness of place, which is characterised by its interactions; and the conceptualisation of place as process (ibid.:6-7). The sense of place in the globalised world loses its reactionary fea- tures to be presented as “progressive” and “extrovert” (ibid.:7).
Cresswell introduces the work of Jon May (1996), who outlines a sense of place that is neither exclusively progressive nor exclusively reactionary, and highlights how place is constructed and lived in different ways according to the different type of resident that he had contact with (May, 1996 in Cresswell, 2004:75-79). Cresswell points out how “[t]he simple, observable, fact of diversity does not necessarily produce a progressive sense of place and the search for roots in history does not have to be reactionary” (Cresswell, 2004:79). May points therefore towards a middle position, which has more regard for the single individuals that populate a neighbourhood, as their different back- grounds and histories might lead them to relate to place in opposed ways. This middle- position is well fitting my empirical case. Throughout the analysis different conceptual- isations of place emerge, and different groups or individuals in Vidigal perceive the same changes as different. As I show in chapter 6, the group of newcomers that I identi- fy as social preservationist, together with the old-timers that oppose the current changes, have a sense of Vidigal that can be defined reactionary, as it is founded on its past and traditions and on the boundaries that divide it from the outside. Meanwhile, newcomers that I identify as social homesteaders, together with Vidigal's cultural elite, construct place in a progressive manner, highlighting the openness of Vidigal and the positive effect of the changes the favela is undergoing.
Part I – The Frame
3.5 - Gentrification
The purpose of this section is that of providing an overview of the current theories on gentrification. Books and articles on the issue abound, as do the debates among schol- ars. While it would be impossible to account for all that has been written since Ruth Glass coined the term gentrification in 1964 (see Glass, 1964), this section aims at presenting a series of key positions within The Gentrification debates (the title of a re- cent anthology on the issue – 2010). I begin by introducing Glass' definition of gentrific- ation, and I present discussions that focus on different aspects of gentrification. There- after I introduce one of the debates that has often divided researchers studying gentrification, which revolves around the question: what initiates gentrification? The two positions that are introduced here are the so-called consumption side explanation and the production side explanation. Finally, and in order to conclude this section, I present a more balanced position between these two sides.