Conceptualizing Gentrification-Induced Social and Cultural Displacement and Place Identity Among Longstanding Black Residents

Abstract

Scholars have increasingly recognized the sociocultural impacts of gentrification on Black residents. However, the gentrification literature lacks a theoretical model on the nuanced ways gentrification socially and culturally displaces longstanding Black residents. Limited attention has been given to factors that moderate social and cultural displacement. This article introduces a Theoretical Model of Gentrification-Induced Social and Cultural Displacement and Place Identity among longstanding Black residents based on extant theories and literature. Black neighborhoods’ changing character was theorized as a precipitating factor leading to residents’ negative experiences. Five types of experiences were theorized as contributing to social and cultural displacement: (1) confronting changing neighborhood norms, (2) “othering,” (3) losing social connections, (4) encroaching, and (5) witnessing the erasure of what was. The theoretical model further advances knowledge by explicating how place identity may moderate longstanding Black residents’ social and cultural displacement experiences. Implications for future research and equitable development for historically Black communities are provided.

Keywords

gentrification social and cultural displacement Black Americans place identity

Introduction

Gentrification within a hegemonic context involves the influx of White upper-class newcomers into historically Black communities and displaces Black residents (Lees, 2016). Gentrification-induced displacement has been highly contested in the gentrification literature (Brown-Saracino, 2010). Much of the debate focuses on the extent to which gentrification physically displaces longstanding residents (Freeman & Braconi, 2004; Freeman, 2005; Martin & Beck, 2018; Newman & Wyly, 2006). However, scholars have long challenged the notion that displacement is merely the “out-migration of individuals from a particular urban space” (Davidson, 2009, p. 225) or the dislocation of residents from one neighborhood into another. Empirical evidence demonstrates that gentrification may lead to social and cultural displacement, which has been particularly evident among longstanding Black residents in historically Black communities (Alvaré, 2017; Howell, 2018; Hyra, 2015; Thurber et al., 2019).

Based on social capital theory (Brisson & Usher, 2005), social displacement involves the disruption of social networks and relationships among people who live and work in a neighborhood. Cultural displacement refers to an erasure of collective historical and contemporary experiences, common knowledge, ways of speaking and manners, art and institutions, including religious, that are fixtures within a community. Black residents may experience gentrification-induced social and cultural displacement in varied and complex ways, including feeling disconnected from their social networks, a lost sense of control over their communities, a lost sense of belonging, disrupted place attachment, and the erasure of the historical and cultural fabric of their neighborhoods (Alvaré, 2017; Howell, 2018; Hyra, 2015; K. S. Shaw & Hagemans, 2015; Thurber et al., 2019).

Despite this evidence, the gentrification literature lacks a theoretical model of how gentrification processes may lead longstanding Black residents to experience such displacement. Moreover, there has been little attention given to factors that may moderate the impacts of social and cultural displacement among longstanding Black residents. Since place identity (i.e., one’s sense of belonging to a place; Hernández et al., 2007) encompasses residents’ social and cultural connections to their neighborhoods (Ujang, 2012), conceptualizing social and cultural displacement in relation to place identity helps to understand a potential moderating factor. This article fills a gap in the literature by proposing a theoretical model based on extant theories and literature that furthers our understanding of social and cultural displacement among longstanding Black American residents. The model informs future research in this area and highlights community-driven efforts to contest social and cultural displacement.

Defining Gentrification

Ruth Glass coined the term “gentrification” in the 1960s to describe the socioeconomic and geographic changes she witnessed in London (Glass, 1964). According to Glass, middle-upper and middle-lower classes had “invaded” many of the working-class quarters. She further explained that “shabby, modest mews and cottages” had been taken over and converted into “elegant, expensive residences” (Glass, 1964).

Glass observed that:

Once this process of “gentrification” starts in a district, it goes on rapidly until all or most of the original working-class occupiers are displaced, and the whole social character of the district is changed (p. xviii).

Glass readily used the words, “invade” and “invasion” to describe the gentrification process, suggesting a subjugation of the working-class to upper and lower middle class newcomers (Glass, 1964). Although Glass’s description of gentrification is often adopted in definitions, the meaning of the term has become more complex, creating some ambiguity in defining it. Some definitions emphasize socioeconomic and built environment changes (Clark, 2005; Freeman, 2005; Steinmetz-Wood et al., 2017). For instance, Clark (2005) asserted that gentrification is:

a process involving a change in the population of land-users such that the new users are of a higher socio-economic status than the previous users, together with an associated change in the built environment through a reinvestment in fixed capital. The greater the difference in socio-economic status, the more noticeable the process, not least because the more powerful the new users are, the more marked will be the concomitant change in the built environment. It does not matter where, it does not matter when. Any process of change fitting this description is, to my understanding, gentrification (p. 263)

Similarly, Freeman (2005) defined gentrification as, “the process by which decline and disinvestments in inner-city neighborhoods are reversed” (p. 463).

Furthermore, Steinmetz-Wood et al. (2017) explained that gentrification is:

characterized by a rapid change in the social status and economic characteristics of a neighborhood as compared to the rest of the city. It can be understood as an in-migration of higher-socioeconomic status individuals into neighborhoods of lower socioeconomic status resulting in investments in the built environment, subsequent increases in property values and rents and is generally characterized by an upward transition in status, class, and income of neighborhood residents (p. 2).

Scholars differ in their views about whether gentrification should be defined as a process or outcome (Brown-Saracino, 2010; Clark, 2005; Freeman, 2005; Marcuse, 2015). This dichotomized conceptualization is limiting because empirical evidence suggests that gentrification involves several threshold processes (e.g., renaming and rebranding, demographic changes; DeVerteuil, 2012; Freeman, 2005; Lees et al., 2010; Newman & Wyly, 2006; Pearsall, 2013) that lead to a set of outcomes (e.g., social and cultural displacement) (Alvaré, 2017; Curran, 2018; Thurber et al., 2019).

Other scholars have emphasized the impacts of gentrification on local residents (e.g., physical displacement), including the intersection of race and class (Ponder, 2016).

Ponder contended that:

It is a process that on its surface appears to be beautifying and revitalizing an impoverished urban core, but in reality, it only embraces the wants and needs of the privileged, while displacing low-income families of color (p. 361).

Kaminer et al. (2008) argued that:

Gentrification, to put it bluntly and simply, involves both the exploitation of the economic value of real estate and the treatment of local residents as objects rather than the subjects of upgrading. Even though population movement is a common feature of cities, gentrification is specifically the replacement of a less affluent group by a wealthier social group – a definition which relates gentrification to class (p. 9).

Fallon (2021) argues that although gentrification in the U.S. emerged at the intersection of classed and racialized geographies, a racial analysis of gentrification has been undertheorized. Other scholars have provided similar critiques and have highlighted the race-based differential effects of gentrification (e.g., racial discrimination; Kirkland, 2008). Although other forms of gentrification have been documented (e.g., Black gentrifiers; Boyd, 2005), scholars concede that a hegemonic form of gentrification in the United States involves the influx of White upper-class newcomers into historically urban Black communities (Lees, 2016). To this end, the proposed model provides a more nuanced conceptualization of gentrification within this context. We conceptualize gentrification as the reinvestment of capital into previously disinvested Black communities, resulting in peaks in housing costs and property values, the influx of more affluent occupants (i.e., predominately White occupants), sociocultural and physical transformation, and the physical, social, and cultural displacement of longstanding Black residents. This definition expands orthodox definitions in the following ways: (1) it explicitly includes a racial analysis of gentrification; (2) it accounts for both the process and outcome dimensions of gentrification; and (3) it integrates gentrification-induced social and cultural displacement.

Social and Cultural Displacement Theoretical Framework

Gentrification is a multi-dimensional phenomenon including the interplay of race, power, and impacts on historic neighborhood identity (King & Lowe, 2018; Rothstein, 2017; Thurber et al., 2019). The practice of displacing Black American neighborhoods is not new. “Negro Removal” projects took hold across the United States in the wake of post-WWII urban renewal programs. City leaders led the demolition of entire communities—homes, businesses, and social institutions—under the guise of regional development and clearing the “slums.” Yet such programs amounted to the complete displacement of community-based social and cultural ties and institutions (Fullilove, 2004). Given the complexity of gentrification, particularly as it relates to Black communities, the application of multiple theories elucidates how gentrification processes may contribute to longstanding residents’ social and cultural displacement. As such, the theoretical frameworks applied in the model include Collective Identity Theory (CIT), Place Identity Theory (PIT), Critical Race Theory (CRT), and root shock. Each theory provides a perspective from which gentrification-induced social and cultural displacement among longstanding Black residents can be understood. We define longstanding Black residents as Black residents who: (1) have extensive histories in their neighborhoods (i.e., expanding 20 or more years), (2) resided in their neighborhoods prior to gentrification, and (3) have remained in their neighborhoods as they have gentrified.

Collective Identity Theory (CIT)

Collective identity has been defined as individuals’ sense of who they are in relation to a larger group (Ogbu, 2004; Snow & Corrigall-Brown, 2015; Taylor, 1997). It entails the “we feeling” of a group, which contributes to a sense of belonging (Ogbu, 2004; Snow & Corrigall-Brown, 2015). Culture and shared experiences (e.g., enslavement) have been identified as aspects of collective identity (Ogbu, 2004; Taylor, 1997). Taylor (1997) asserts that:

When members of a group share the same geographic space, have their own institutions, and share a history, then they have the key ingredients for a clearly defined collective identity (p. 183).

Ogbu (2004) posits that collective identity for oppressed minoritized groups, including Black Americans, is created and maintained by two factors: status problems (i.e., external forces that designate a group as distinct) and minority response to status problems (i.e., an oppositional collective identity that emerges among racial minoritized groups). According to Ogbu, status problems include: (1) involuntary incorporation into society (i.e., a forced minoritized status against their will by conquest, colonization, enslavement, or other means); (2) instrumental discrimination (e.g., denial of equal political participation and housing); (3) social subordination (e.g., residential and social segregation, hostility and violence); and (4) expressive mistreatment (e.g., cultural denigration, which includes the dominant group’s stigmatization of minoritized group’s food, clothing, music, values, behaviors, and language or dialect as inferior to theirs). Ogbu further explains that for Black Americans, their collective experience of oppression and exploitation resulted in their development of an oppositional collective identity (i.e., Black community) that showed clear distinctions from White culture (e.g., distinctions in music, language, religion).

Ogbu’s (2004) conceptualization of collective identity among Black Americans was applied to understand the nuanced interpersonal dynamics involved in gentrification that contribute to social and cultural displacement (i.e., Black residents’ encounters with White newcomers). Particularly, White newcomers’ imposed social subordination and expressive mistreatment of Black residents have contributed to their being othered (i.e., being deemed as innately different and flawed; Valli, 2015). For instance, Helmuth (2019) identified space-claiming practices White residents engaged in to contend historically Black spaces. They included furtive glances, dismissive gestures, and a lack of eye contact when encountering longstanding Black residents. Furthermore, Howell (2018) found that White newcomers feared older children of color, including Black children, and these children were discouraged from using public spaces, while amenities catered to young White children (Howell, 2018). Additionally, as the neighborhood gentrified, longstanding Black residents were met with challenges against their neighborhood norms and practices (i.e., Black men hanging out on street corners, on stoops, or in parks to play cards or hang with friends), as they were wrongfully associated with criminal behavior (Howell, 2018). These experiences are arguably predicated on the imposed collective identity of Black residents as subordinate and inferior. It is reasonable to assume that longstanding Black residents’ experiences of being othered in spaces that have historically belonged to them contribute to social and cultural displacement. This is arguably the case because such experiences may lead to a lost sense of belonging and a disruption in the sociocultural practices that have fomented Black residents’ collective identity.

Place Identity Theory (PIT)

The previously discussed conceptualization of collective identity helps to understand how Black residents’ racial identity may be intricately tied to their place identity. Hernández et al. (2007) define place identity as “a component of personal identity, a process by which, through interaction with places, people describe themselves in terms of belonging to a specific place” (p. 310). Given the United States’ history of the racialization of space (e.g., redlining, de jure segregation), place identity for some Black Americans may be inseparable from their racial identity (Deener, 2010; Helmuth, 2019; Zimmer, 2022). Lipsitz (2007) contends that “the lived experience of race has a spatial dimension, and the lived experience of space has a racial dimension” (p. 12).

Black communities encompass both symbolic and physical representations of Black life (Hawthorne, 2019). Black art, restaurants, and social amenities comprise various dimensions of Black life in Black communities (Wright & Herman, 2018). Thus, geographical boundaries (i.e., neighborhoods) provide a context for various aspects of Black life to be realized. Additionally, for many Black Americans, their neighborhoods represent the landmarks where they have triumphed over structural racism and discrimination (Deener, 2010), including gaining the right to own land and property (Rothstein, 2017; Wright & Herman, 2018). Place Identity Theory (PIT) therefore helps to explain how Black residents’ perceptions and experiences of their neighborhood’s gentrification-related transformation (e.g., the influx of White residents, out-migration of Black residents, renaming/rebranding, replacement of Black institutions) may negatively impact their place identity insomuch as “home” no longer feels like “home” (Elliott-Cooper et al., 2020; Valli, 2015). This includes the erasure of meaningful, distinctive characteristics of Black neighborhoods such as Black restaurants, Black churches, and Black-owned businesses (Boyd, 2005; Hyra, 2015; Zimmer, 2022). For instance, Hyra’s (2015) ethnographic study found that gentrification-related redevelopment efforts displaced a historically Black Baptist Church in Washington, DC—a congregation founded during the Civil War. Hyra (2015) explained that the displacement was the result of gentrification-related changes in neighborhood preferences and political structure.

Conversely, place attachment, a component of place identity, has been shown to be a predictor of collective action (Jaśkiewicz & Besta, 2018). Place attachment involves the bonds to places of residence (Lewicka, 2005; Low & Altman, 1992; Sharp, 2019), other frequently encountered locales (e.g., work, places of worship, school), and symbolic representations of “place” (Low & Altman, 1992). These emotional bonds may be expressed through feelings of security, esteem, identity, and belonging (Lewicka, 2005; Low & Altman, 1992). Thus, PIT also helps to understand how longstanding Black residents’ extended time, emotional bonds, social interactions, and designated Black spaces have created place attachment. Therefore, they may be prompted to confront gentrification-induced social and cultural displacement as this may disrupt their sense of place and racial identity (Berglund, 2020; K. S. Shaw & Hagemans, 2015). Particularly, longstanding Black residents may engage in resistive micro (e.g., confronting White newcomers about neighborhood norms) and macro (e.g., policy advocacy) level actions that help to preserve the social and cultural heritage of their neighborhoods (Summers, 2021). Black residents may also use social action as a strategy to preserve their collective identity in gentrifying neighborhoods, thereby mitigating their social and cultural displacement.

Critical Race Theory (CRT)

Critical Race Theory (CRT) provides a racial interrogation of the macro scale gentrification processes that may contribute to social and cultural displacement among longstanding Black residents. Black legal scholars developed CRT to center race when examining the function of laws and policies (Crenshaw et al., 1995). CRT suggests that racism is not aberrant, but ordinary and woven into American society (Bell, 1980, 1993, 2004). Particularly, CRT sheds light on ways in which laws, policies, and practices have served to uphold white supremacy (Crenshaw et al., 1995). CRT also draws attention to ways in which multiple identities (e.g., racial, class-based, and gender-based) intersect to create complex forms of marginalization (Crenshaw, 1989). Additionally, CRT acknowledges a need for counternarratives from Black Americans about their lived experiences (Bell, 1993; Crenshaw et al., 1995).

CRT provides a valuable lens for understanding how neoliberal policies undergirding gentrification (Fraser, 2004) may uphold white supremacy and contribute to Black residents’ social and cultural displacement (Alvaré, 2017). For example, rezoning policies favorable to developers, and local government incentives for developers have exacerbated gentrification in Black communities (Dubin, 1993). Lower income Black communities often have a history of fiscal disinvestment, which primes them for gentrification (Pearsall, 2013; Rothstein, 2017). Policies (e.g., exclusionary eminent domain) and practices favorable to developers routinely give them free reign to claim Black spaces and ultimately erase neighborhoods’ historic identity (Dubin, 1993; Howell, 2018; Hyra, 2015). Zimmer (2022) argues that speculators who are vested in “flipping” a neighborhood and capitalizing on profits have the insidious objective of convincing potential investors and newcomers that the neighborhood is or will become a White space. This may involve increased policing, and development that caters to European American culture (Alvaré, 2017; Howell, 2018; Zimmer, 2022).

CRT also helps to understand the power dynamics involved in gentrification by drawing attention to power differentials between Black residents and developers (Valli, 2015). These power differentials are arguably reflective of race and class intersections as longstanding Black residents may not have the capital means to preserve significantly meaningful land and properties that are a part of their neighborhood’s historic identity (Hyra, 2015). Hence, developers may use their capital power to dictate the nature of redevelopment in Black communities. For instance, Alvaré (2017) found that longstanding Black American residents expressed feelings of exclusion as developers took measures to rebrand and rename their neighborhood without their input. This study epitomizes how when gentrification occurs, longstanding Black residents may find their consumer preferences subjugated to the preferences of newcomers (Zimmer, 2022). Consequently, the changing nature of Black communities serves as a form of erasure and may alter Black residents’ sense of social and cultural connectedness.

Dominant gentrification discourses have framed gentrification as “good” for residents and communities due to deconcentrating poverty, providing a “rub-off work ethic,” and increasing the political influence of a middle class (Duany, 2001). However, empirical evidence suggests that longstanding Black residents may both perceive and experience gentrification differently (Alvaré, 2017; Chatman, 2017; Howell, 2018; Hyra, 2015; Summers, 2021; Valli, 2015). From a CRT perspective, centering longstanding Black residents’ lived experiences of social and cultural displacement provides a counternarrative to dominate discourses, thereby attending to the problematization of gentrification processes.

Root Shock

Root shock is the “traumatic stress reaction to the destruction of all or part of one’s emotional ecosystem” and the subsequent fight for survival (Fullilove, 2004, p. 20). It is a profound personal and emotional loss of one’s friends, neighborhood that undermines trust, increases anxiety and despair, destroys social, emotional and financial resources, and increases risk for stress-related diseases (e.g., depression, heart attack) (Fullilove, 2004). The United States has a long history of systematically erasing Black communities. For instance, urban renewal destroyed approximately 1,600 Black American neighborhoods, including their culture and way of life. Black America experienced root shock during urban renewal, which “disabled powerful mechanisms of community functioning, leaving the Black world at an enormous disadvantage for meeting the challenges of globalization” (Fullilove, 2004, p. 20). Gentrification has led to similar forms of erasure among Black communities (Hyra, 2015; Petrovic, 2007). Root shock helps to understand the traumatic stress longstanding Black residents may experience as a result of disruptions in the social and cultural fabric of their communities (Thurber et al., 2019).

Introduction to the Theoretical Model of Gentrification-Induced Social and Cultural Displacement and Place Identity

Based on the previously discussed extant literature and theoretical frameworks, Figure 1 displays the theoretical model of social and cultural displacement among longstanding Black residents. This model differs from previous gentrification models in three unique ways. The theoretical model moves conceptions of gentrification beyond the previously mentioned dichotomization (i.e., process vs. outcomes) to a conceptualization of both processes and outcomes. It also includes a racial analysis of gentrification processes and illustrates the complexity of gentrification-induced social and cultural displacement among longstanding Black residents (Table 1). Lastly, the model identifies place identity as a potential moderating factor for social and cultural displacement. Social and cultural displacement is the primary outcome of this model.

Figure 1.

Key concepts of the Theoretical Model of Gentrification-Induced Social and Cultural Displacement and Place Identity among longstanding Black residents.

Table 1.

Key Concepts of the Theoretical Model of Gentrification-Induced Social and Cultural Displacement and Place Identity Among Longstanding Black Residents.

Key concepts	Definitions
Gentrification within a hegemonic United States context	The reinvestment of capital into previously disinvested Black communities, resulting in peaks in housing costs and property values, the influx of more affluent occupants (i.e., predominately White occupants), sociocultural and physical transformation, and the physical, social, and cultural displacement of longstanding Black residents.
Longstanding Black residents	Black residents who: (1) have extensive histories in their neighborhoods (i.e., expanding 20 or more years), (2) resided in their neighborhoods prior to gentrification, and (3) have remained in their neighborhoods as they have gentrified.
Black neighborhoods’ changing neighborhood character	A precipitating factor leading to longstanding Black residents’ social and cultural displacement experiences; it occurs at all four stages of gentrification^a and includes upscale housing development, increased White population, increased upper class residents, displacement of longstanding Black residents, and the development of culturally irrelevant amenities.
Longstanding Black residents’ experiences	Negative social and cultural experiences longstanding Black residents may have as their neighborhoods undergo change throughout all stages of gentrification^a; it includes confronting changing neighborhood norms, “othering,” losing social connections, encroaching, and witnessing the erasure of what was.
Confronting changing neighborhood norms	White newcomers’ imposed norms (e.g., “proper” neighborhood social practices) norms onto longstanding Black residents as they gentrify Black neighborhoods.
“Othering”	Micro and macro level experiences and observations that cause residents to feel imposed inferiority, and as if they are innately different.^b,c
Losing social connections	Longstanding Black residents’ loss of neighborhood social connections due to the physical displacement of other longstanding residents, and or lack of social connections with newcomers.^d
Encroaching	Developers’ and White newcomers’ intrusion on longstanding Black residents’ spaces. This intrusion may result in developers and White newcomers dictating the nature of development and the utility of Black spaces.^e,f,g,h,i
Witnessing the erasure of what was	Longstanding Black residents witnessing the replacement of houses, businesses, and institutions, and rebranding/renaming symbiotic neighborhood representations.^b,c,d,e,j,k
Social and cultural displacement	Residents’ sense of alienation from the historical, sociocultural fabric of their communities.^l
Place identity	Longstanding residents’ affective perceptions about their community’s distinctness, and their memories and relationships between settings (e.g., home and church).^m.n

Ravuri (2020).

Valli (2015).

Chatman (2017).

K. S. Shaw and Hagemans (2015).

Alvaré (2017).

Howell (2018).

King and Lowe (2018).

Theoretical Model Summary

Black neighborhoods’ changing neighborhood character

As depicted in the model, Black neighborhoods’ changing neighborhood character (i.e., as a result of gentrification) is theorized as a precipitating factor leading to longstanding Black residents’ social and cultural displacement experiences. This process occurs during all four stages of gentrification (Ravuri, 2020). CIT and PIT help to understand the sociohistorical context that forged historically Black neighborhoods (i.e., racialized housing policies), and how changes to these neighborhoods’ character may contribute to residents’ social and cultural displacement experiences. Drawing from CRT, Black neighborhoods’ changing neighborhood character involves the interplay of race, class, and power and is conceptualized as upscale housing development, increased White population, increased upper class residents, displacement of longstanding Black residents, and the development of culturally irrelevant amenities. These changing neighborhood dynamics are conceived as a disruption to Black neighborhoods’ historic identity. These changes are theorized as leading to residents’ experiences that contribute to social and cultural displacement.

Longstanding Black residents’ experiences

Longstanding Black residents may experience a wide range of negative social and cultural experiences as their neighborhoods undergo change throughout all stages of gentrification (Alvaré, 2017; Helmuth, 2019; Howell, 2018; Hyra, 2015; S. Shaw & Sullivan, 2011). Both Black neighborhoods’ changing neighborhood character and longstanding Black residents’ experiences can be viewed as the “process” dimensions of gentrification. These experiences are conceptualized as confronting changing neighborhood norms, “othering,” losing social connections, encroaching, and witnessing the erasure of what was. It is important to note that residents may or may not have all of the negative experiences. Nonetheless, one or more of such experiences is theorized as contributing to social and cultural displacement.

Confronting changing neighborhood norms

Previous research has shown that White newcomers may impose norms (e.g., “proper” neighborhood social practices) onto longstanding Black residents (Howell, 2018; Summers, 2021). Furthermore, violations to these imposed norms may be deemed as criminal behavior, even when the practices do not lead to such behavior (Howell, 2018). CIT illumines how White newcomers’ denigration of longstanding Black residents’ norms may be due to their view of them as a socially subordinate group. CRT further sheds light on how White newcomers’ presumed “right” to dictate social norms is indicative of white supremacy and a microcosm of the United States’ endemic racist society. Moreover, CIT helps to understand how longstanding Black residents’ norms have likely been shaped by their shared culture and sociohistorical experiences. Thus, confrontations against these norms likely disrupt their sense of place, thereby contributing to social and cultural displacement.

Othering

Previous empirical evidence has shown that longstanding residents of color, including Black residents, may experience othering as they are made to feel like outsiders and or “beneath” newcomers (Chatman, 2017; Valli, 2015). Othering can be understood as micro and macro level experiences and observations that cause residents to feel imposed inferiority, and as if they are innately different. This also involves residents being viewed as a “threat.” Longstanding Black residents’ historical and ongoing othering by the larger U.S. society has plausibly contributed to their collective identity. As such, they are perceptive to ways in which their Black identity poses a false “threat” to newcomers. Additionally, they are perceptive to ways in which newcomers disassociate from them due to their Black identity (Chatman, 2017; Howell, 2018; Summers, 2021). These othering dynamics are theorized as being another factor that may contribute to longstanding Black residents’ social and cultural displacement. Specifically, these othering experiences may “un-home” residents, thereby disrupting their place identity and leading to a lost sense of belonging (Elliott-Cooper et al., 2020; Valli, 2015).

Losing social connections

Scholars have posited that gentrification may lead to losing social connections, which may contribute to residents’ social and cultural displacement (K. S. Shaw & Hagemans, 2015). The out-migration (or physical displacement) of longstanding residents is an aspect of Black neighborhoods’ changing neighborhood character. Although there have been debates over the extent to which gentrification leads to physical displacement, scholars concede that physical displacement is one potential consequence of gentrification (Freeman & Braconi, 2004; Martin & Beck, 2018; Newman & Wyly, 2006). Previous studies examining physical displacement have primarily been quantitative, and have not captured the nuanced, micro-level impacts of physical displacement on residents who manage to “stay put” (Freeman & Braconi, 2004; Martin & Beck, 2018). The model posits that as residents are physically displaced, this may reduce remaining residents’ social connections. Additionally, remaining residents may or may not form new social connections with newcomers (K. S. Shaw & Hagemans, 2015). CRT helps to understand how gentrification may systematically marginalize Black residents by influencing who leaves and who comes. Moreover, social connections play an important role in individuals’ well-being (Hodges & Gore, 2019). Social connections are particularly critical for Black Americans as racism routinely threatens their well-being (Williams & Williams-Morris, 2000). Losing social connections may cause longstanding Black residents to feel disconnected from the social and cultural fabric of their neighborhoods.

Encroaching

Neoliberal policies undergirding gentrification have undoubtedly fostered a “profit over people” economic context (Alvaré, 2017; Dubin, 1993). Developers have been incentivized to redevelop in previously divested Black neighborhoods for potential profitable returns and economic stimulation (Choi et al., 2018; Pearsall, 2013; Thurber et al., 2019). As such, it is theorized that encroaching has contributed to longstanding Black residents’ social and cultural displacement. Encroaching is conceptualized as developers’ and White newcomers’ intrusion on longstanding Black residents’ spaces. This intrusion may result in developers and White newcomers dictating the nature of development and the utility of Black spaces (Alvaré, 2017; Howell, 2018; King & Lowe, 2018; Zimmer, 2022). As culturally irrelevant commercial establishments and White newcomers encroach upon Black neighborhoods, historically Black spaces are transformed into White spaces (Helmuth, 2019; Zimmer, 2022). This encroachment of Black spaces is theorized as contributing to longstanding Black residents’ social and cultural displacement because of their lost sense of control over their neighborhoods (Hyra, 2015; Tuttle, 2022).

Witnessing the erasure of what was

Longstanding Black residents who remain in gentrifying neighborhoods bear witness to their neighborhoods’ transformations (Alvaré, 2017; Helmuth, 2019; Hyra, 2015). These transformations often serve as a means of erasure (Alvaré, 2017). This is arguably due to the meanings residents ascribe to their neighborhood’s spatial dimensions (Qazimi, 2014). For longstanding Black residents, their history, including their racial and ethnic identity, is often tied to these spaces (Summers, 2021). CRT provides a lens for understanding how the intersections of race and class may result in longstanding Black residents’ neighborhood erasure. Accordingly, it is theorized that another factor contributing to social and cultural displacement is witnessing the erasure of what was. Witnessing the erasure of what was is conceptualized as witnessing the replacement of houses, businesses, and institutions, and rebranding/renaming symbiotic neighborhood representations (Alvaré, 2017; Chatman, 2017; Davidson, 2009; Hyra, 2015; K. S. Shaw & Hagemans, 2015; Valli, 2015). Root shock helps to understand the traumatic stress longstanding Black residents may experience as a result of these losses. It can be argued that longstanding Black residents’ witnesses of the erasure of what was serves as an additional devastating, racially marginalizing element of gentrification. Furthermore, as a consequence of erasure, residents may have difficulties recreating a sense of place, which may contribute to their social and cultural displacement (K. S. Shaw & Hagemans, 2015).

Social and cultural displacement

Longstanding Black residents’ experiences are theorized as contributing to social and cultural displacement. Social and cultural displacement is conceptualized as residents’ sense of alienation (Tuttle, 2022) from the historical, sociocultural fabric of their communities. Although attention has previously been given to gentrification’s social and cultural impacts, this model advances knowledge by providing a nuanced understanding of longstanding Black residents’ experiences, specifically within a hegemonic U.S. context. The model considers historical factors that have shaped Black residents’ perceptions and experiences of gentrification. Social and cultural displacement can therefore be viewed as an “outcome” of gentrification. The model illustrates that several macro and micro level processes (i.e., changing neighborhood character, Black residents’ negative neighborhood experiences) interplay to contribute to the outcome of social and cultural displacement.

Place identity as a moderator

Although gentrification may negatively impact place identity (K. S. Shaw & Hagemans, 2015), it is worth noting that a strong sense of place identity may mitigate gentrification’s impacts. Scholars have conceptualized place identity as residents’ affective perceptions about their community’s distinctness, and their memories and relationships between settings (e.g., home and church) (Qazimi, 2014; Ujang, 2012). This conception was adopted and as depicted in the model, it is theorized that place identity may moderate residents’ experiences of social and cultural displacement. Specifically, it is theorized that the degree to which residents are able to maintain their place identity moderates the relationship between their negative experiences and their social and cultural displacement.

Previous research has shown that having a strong sense of place attachment (a component of place identity) may lead to collective action (Jaśkiewicz & Besta, 2018). With this in mind, longstanding Black residents who are able to maintain their sense of place identity may be prompted to take action against gentrification-induced social and cultural displacement. For example, in a case analysis, Summers (2021) highlights the #DontMuteDC movement, which emerged as a result of Black residents’ resistance against gentrifiers’ complaints about their go-go music. The residents’ go-go music was considered a part of their Black culture (i.e., an aspect of collective identity). As such, they determined to center the go-go music (i.e., through go-go gatherings and political means) to maintain a sense of “home” (Summers, 2021). Summers identified the efforts as a reclamation esthetics practice, which was a reclaim of Black space. The Black residents’ actions arguably disrupted their social and cultural displacement.

Contrarily, residents whose place identity is severely disrupted by their neighborhood change experiences may have greater difficulties recreating a sense of place (Davidson, 2009; K. S. Shaw & Hagemans, 2015) due to a greater level of root shock. It is theorized that this may exacerbate the impacts of social and cultural displacement. For instance, residents may feel a sense of demobilization in being able to contest neighborhood changes and experiences that contribute to social and cultural displacement.

Theoretical Model Limitations and Implications for Future Theoretical Development

Although the theoretical model is grounded in extant theories and empirical evidence, there are some limitations. For instance, the model only focuses on one form of gentrification (i.e., the influx of predominantly upper-class Whites into a Black community). Additional conceptualizations are needed to understand the extent and nature of social and cultural displacement in other gentrification contexts (e.g., the influx of predominantly upper-class Blacks into a Black community). The model was developed under the assumption of longstanding Black residents perceiving gentrification negatively. Additional theorizing is needed to understand varying perceptions of gentrification and how they may shape longstanding Black residents’ experiences of social and cultural displacement.

Despite its limitations, the Theoretical Model of Social and Cultural Displacement and Place Identity builds upon prior conceptualizations of gentrification (Davidson, 2009; Freeman, 2005; Hyra, 2015; Kaminer et al., 2008; Ponder, 2016; K. S. Shaw & Hagemans, 2015; Steinmetz-Wood et al., 2017) and furthers understanding of gentrification as a socially interactive phenomenon. Specifically, this theoretical model provides a more nuanced understanding, including a racial analysis, of how gentrification may lead to social and cultural displacement among longstanding Black residents. It also extends previous dichotomized thinking of gentrification processes by illuminating how gentrification includes both processes (i.e., changing neighborhood character, residents’ negative experiences) and outcomes (e.g., social and cultural displacement). Furthermore, it expands conceptions by identifying a potential moderating factor (i.e., place identity). This potential moderating factor has intervention implications and is worth further exploring in future research.

For practitioners, policymakers, and community leaders vested in promoting equitable development for gentrifying Black communities, it is important to not only consider physical displacement risks but also social and cultural displacement risks. This is critical to disrupt the United States’ cyclical pattern of marginalizing Black residents. Since place identity may moderate social and cultural displacement, there should be consideration for development strategies that foster longstanding Black residents’ place identity. Practical measures include ensuring that equitable development plans are developed in true collaboration with longstanding Black residents. “Equitable development” has become a buzz word in many city plans, but the actualization of “equity” is often questionable. Equity for longstanding Black residents include policies and practices that promote racial justice (e.g., residents having a voice in development decisions and reaping social and economic benefits). Community-driven strategies such as community benefits agreements hold promise for prioritizing the development preferences of longstanding Black residents. Such strategies provide these residents with opportunities to identify development that preserve the historical, sociocultural fabric of their communities.

Conclusion

The Theoretical Model of Social and Cultural Displacement and Place Identity has utility for understanding place and racial dynamics involved in gentrification that may contribute to longstanding Black residents’ social and cultural displacement. The model also helps to inform future research and theory development in this area, and community-centered interventions to contest gentrification-induced social and cultural displacement. Since Black communities may have similar and unique social and cultural displacement experiences, the model could guide empirical research on experiences within the same city (i.e., by Census Regions), between cities, and between states. Such examinations have the potential for tailoring community interventions to address both historical and contextual factors that contribute to longstanding Black residents’ social and cultural displacement.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iDs

Brittany Davis

Nikki R. Wooten

Author Biographies

Brittany Davis is an Adjunct Social Work Professor at Johnson C. Smith University. Her research focuses on equitable development strategies for Black communities facing gentrification. She has a particular interest in strategies longtime Black residents employ to contest gentrification-induced social and cultural displacement.

Kirk A. Foster is the Carolyn Freeze Baynes Distinguished Scholar and Director of the School of Social Work at East Carolina University. His research focuses on poverty, social capital, collective action, and restorative justice in and for African American communities.

Ronald O. Pitner is a Professor and the Chair of the University of Alabama at Birmingham’s Department of Social Work. His primary area of research examines residents’ understanding of neighborhood violence and safety, and how neighborhood civic engagement can be used to help make such neighborhoods safer for residents.

Nikki R. Wooten is an Associate Professor at the University of South Carolina College of Social Work. Her research focuses on mental health, substance use, and behavioral health services utilization in military and veteran populations.

Mary L. Ohmer is an her research areas include civic engagement and participation, evaluation research and intervention research focused on facilitating community capacity to address substantive neighborhood problems.

References

Alvaré

M. A.

(2017). Gentrification and resistance: Racial projects in the neoliberal order. Social Justice, 44(2–3), 113–136.

Bell

D. A.

Jr. (1980). Brown v. Board of Education and the interest-convergence dilemma. Harvard Law Review, 93(3), 518. https://doi.org/10.2307/1340546

Bell

(1993). Faces at the bottom of the well: The permanence of racism. Basic Books.

Bell

(2004). Silent covenants: Brown v. the Board of Education and the unfulfilled hopes for racial reform. Oxford University Press.

Berglund

(2020). We’re forgotten”: The shaping of place attachment and collective action in Detroit’s 48217 neighborhood. Journal of Urban Affairs, 42(3), 390–413. https://doi.org/10.1080/07352166.2018.1454819

Boyd

(2005). The downside of racial uplift: Meaning of gentrification in an African American neighborhood. City & Society, 17, 265–288. https://doi.org/10.1525/city.2005.17.2.265

Brisson

D. S.

Usher

C. L.

(2005). Bonding social capital in low-income neighborhoods. Family Relations, 54(5), 644–653. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3729.2005.00348.x

Brown-Saracino

(2010). The gentrification debates [VitalSource] (1st ed.). https://bookshelf.vitalsource.com/#/books/9781134725717/

Chatman

M. C.

(2017). “Talking about Tally’s corner:” Church elders reflect on race, place, and removal in Washington, DC. Transforming Anthropology, 25(1), 35–49. https://doi.org/10.1111/traa.12086

10.

Choi

Van Zandt

Matarrita-Cascante

(2018). Can community land trusts slow gentrification? Journal of Urban Affairs, 40(3), 394–411. https://doi.org/10.1080/07352166.2017.1362318

11.

Clark

(2005). The order and simplicity of gentrification: A political challenge. In Atkinson

Bridge

(Eds.), Gentrification in a global context: The new urban colonialism (pp. 256–264). Routledge.

12.

Crenshaw

(1989). Demarginalizing the intersection of race and sex: A black feminist critique of antidiscrimination doctrine, feminist theory and antiracist politics. University of Chicago Legal Forum, 139, 8.

13.

Crenshaw

Gotanda

Peller

Thomas

(1995). Critical race theory: The key writings that formed the movement. The New Press.

14.

Curran

(2018). Mexicans love red’ and other gentrification myths: Displacements and contestations in the gentrification of Pilsen, Chicago, USA. Urban Studies, 55(8), 1711–1728. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042098017736503

15.

Davidson

(2009). Displacement, space and dwelling: Placing gentrification debate. Ethics Place & Environment, 12(2), 219–234.

16.

Deener

(2010). The “black section” of the neighborhood: Collective visibility and collective invisibility as sources of place identity. Ethnography, 11(1), 45–67. https://doi.org/10.1177/1466138109346988

17.

DeVerteuil

(2012). Resisting gentrification-induced displacement: Advantages and disadvantages to “staying put” among non-profit social services in London and Los Angeles. Area, 44(2), 208–216.

18.

Duany

(2001). Three cheers for “gentrification”. American Enterprise, 12(3), 36.

19.

Dubin

J. C.

(1993). From junkyards to gentrification: Explicating right to protective zoning in low-income communities of color. Minnesota Law Review, 77(4), 739–802.

20.

Elliott-Cooper

Hubbard

Lees

(2020). Moving beyond Marcuse: Gentrification, displacement and the violence of un-homing. Progress in Human Geography, 44(3), 492–509. https://doi.org/10.1177/0309132519830511

21.

Fallon

K. F.

(2021). Reproducing race in the gentrifying city: A critical analysis of race in gentrification scholarship (Russian). Journal of Race, Ethnicity and the City, 2(1), 1–28. https://doi.org/10.1080/26884674.2020.1847006

22.

Fraser

J. C.

(2004). Beyond gentrification: Mobilizing communities and claiming space. Urban Geography, 25(5), 437–457. https://doi.org/10.2747/0272-3638.25.5.437

23.

Freeman

(2005). Displacement or succession? Urban Affairs Review, 40(4), 463–491. https://doi.org/10.1177/1078087404273341

24.

Freeman

Braconi

(2004). Gentrification and displacement: New York City in the 1990s. Journal of the American Planning Association, 70(1), 39–52.

25.

Fullilove

(2004). Root shock: How tearing up city neighborhoods hurts America, and what we can do about it. Ballentine.

26.

Glass

(1964). Excerpt from London: Aspects of change. McGibbon & Kee.

27.

Hawthorne

(2019). Black matters are spatial matters: Black geographies for the twenty-first century. Geography Compass, 13(11), e12468. https://doi.org/10.1111/gec3.12468

28.

Helmuth

A. S.

(2019). Chocolate city, rest in peace”: White space-claiming and the exclusion of Black people in Washington, DC. City and Community, 18(3), 746–769. https://doi.org/10.1111/cico.12428

29.

Hernández

Carmen Hidalgo

Salazar-Laplace

M. E.

Hess

(2007). Place attachment and place identity in natives and non-natives. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 27(4), 310–319. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2007.06.003

30.

Hodges

J. M.

Gore

J. S.

(2019). Social connections and well-being: With whom do you identify and why? Psychological Studies, 64(4), 436–446.

31.

Howell

K. L.

(2018). “For the kids”: Children, safety, and the depoliticization of displacement in Washington, DC. Journal of Urban Affairs, 40(5), 721–739. https://doi.org/10.1080/07352166.2017.1360742

32.

Hyra

(2015). The back-to-the-city movement: Neighbourhood redevelopment and processes of political and cultural displacement. Urban Studies, 52(10), 1753–1773. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042098014539403

33.

Jaśkiewicz

Besta

(2018). Place attachment and collective action tendency. Social Psychological Bulletin, 13(4), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.32872/spb.v13i4.25612

34.

Kaminer

Schoonderbeek

Berg

J. J.

Zonneveld

(Eds.). (2008). Houses in transformation: Interventions in European gentrification. Nai Publishers. https://www.nai010.com/en/publicaties/houses-intransformation/130262

35.

King

L. O.

Lowe

J. S.

(2018). “We want to do it differently”: Resisting gentrification in Houston’s Northern Third Ward. Journal of Urban Affairs, 40(8), 1161–1176. https://doi.org/10.1080/07352166.2018.1495039

36.

Kirkland

(2008). What’s race got to do with it? Looking for the racial dimensions of gentrification. The Western Journal of Black Studies, 32(2), 18–30.

37.

Lees

(2016). Gentrification, race, and ethnicity: Towards a global research agenda? City and Community, 15(3), 208–214. https://doi.org/10.1111/cico.12185

38.

Lees

Slater

Wyly

E. K.

(2010). The gentrification reader. Routledge.

39.

Lewicka

(2005). Ways to make people active: The role of place attachment, cultural capital, and neighborhood ties. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 25(4), 381–395. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2005.10.004

40.

Lipsitz

(2007). The racialization of space and the spatialization of race: Theorizing the hidden architecture of landscape. Landscape Journal, 26(1), 10–23.

41.

Low

S. M.

Altman

(1992). Place attachment. In Low

S. M.

Altman

(Eds.), Human behavior and environment (Advances in Theory and Research) (Vol. 12). Springer.

42.

Marcuse

(2015). Gentrification, social justice and personal ethics. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 39(6), 1263–1269. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2427.12319

43.

Martin

I. W.

Beck

(2018). Gentrification, property tax limitation, and displacement. Urban Affairs Review, 54(1), 33–73.

44.

Newman

Wyly

E. K.

(2006). The right to stay put, revisited: Gentrification and resistance to displacement in New York City. Urban Studies, 43(1), 23–57.

45.

Ogbu

J. U.

(2004). Collective identity and the burden of “acting white” in Black history community and education. The Urban Review, 36(1), 1–35. https://doi.org/10.1023/b:urre.0000042734.83194.f6

46.

Pearsall

(2013). Superfund me: A study of resistance to gentrification in New York City. Urban Studies, 50(11), 2293–2310. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042098013478236

47.

Petrovic

(2007). The elderly facing gentrification: Neglect, invisibility, entrapment, and loss. The Elder Law Journal, 15, 533.

48.

Ponder

(2016). Gentrification and the right to housing: How hip becomes a human rights violation. Southwestern Journal of International Law, 22(2), 359–361.

49.

Qazimi

(2014). Sense of place and place identity. European Journal of Social Sciences Education and Research, 1(1), 306–310. https://doi.org/10.26417/ejser.v1i1.p306-310

50.

Ravuri

(2020). Gentrification and racial transformation in one neighborhood in the city of Cincinnati during the Great Recession. Midwest Social Sciences Journal, 23(1), 119–145.

51.

Rothstein

(2017). The color of law: A forgotten history of how our government segregated America. Liveright Publishing Corporation.

52.

Sharp

(2019). Changing in place? Neighbourhood change and place attachment among movers and stayers in Los Angeles. Population Space and Place, 25(5), e2189. https://doi.org/10.1002/psp.2189

53.

Shaw

K. S.

Hagemans

I. W.

(2015). Gentrification without displacement and the consequent loss of place: The effects of class transition on low income residents of secure housing in gentrifying areas. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 39(2), 323–341. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2427.12164

54.

Shaw

Sullivan

D. M.

(2011). “White night”: Gentrification, racial exclusion, and perceptions and participation in the arts. City and Community, 10(3), 241–264. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6040.2011.01373.x

55.

Snow

Corrigall-Brown

(2015). Collective identity. Elsevier Science & Technology.

56.

Steinmetz-Wood

Wasfi

Parker

Bornstein

Caron

Kestens

(2017). Is gentrification all bad? Positive association between gentrification and individual’s perceived neighborhood collective efficacy in Montreal, Canada. International Journal of Health Geographics, 16(1), 24. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12942-017-0096-6

57.

Summers

B. T.

(2021). Reclaiming the chocolate city: Soundscapes of gentrification and resistance in Washington, DC. Environment and Planning. D, Society & Space, 39(1), 30–46. https://doi.org/10.1177/0263775820978242

58.

Taylor

D. M.

(1997). The quest for collective identity: The plight of disadvantaged ethnic minorities. Canadian Psychology/Psychologie Canadienne, 38(3), 174–190. https://doi.org/10.1037/0708-5591.38.3.174

59.

Thurber

Krings

Martinez

L. S.

Ohmer

(2019). Resisting gentrification: The theoretical and practice contributions of social work. Journal of Social Work, 21(1), 26–45. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468017319861500

60.

Tuttle

(2022). Place attachment and alienation from place: Cultural displacement in gentrifying ethnic enclaves. Critical Sociology, 48(3), 517–531. https://doi.org/10.1177/08969205211029363

61.

Ujang

(2012). Place attachment and continuity of urban place identity. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 49, 156–167. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.07.014

62.

Valli

(2015). A sense of displacement: Long-time residents’ feelings of displacement in gentrifying Bushwick, New York. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 39(6), 1191–1208. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2427.12340

63.

Williams

D. R.

Williams-Morris

(2000). Racism and mental health: The African American experience. Ethnicity and Health, 5(3/4), 243–268. https://doi.org/10.1080/713667453

64.

Wright

W. J.

Herman

(2018). No “blank canvas”: Public art and gentrification in Houston’s Third Ward. City & Society, 30, 89–116. https://doi.org/10.1111/ciso.12156

65.

Zimmer

T. J.

(2022). Gentrification and the racialization of space. Philosophy & Social Criticism, 48(2), 268–288. https://doi.org/10.1177/0191453720972733