Unpacking Urban Segregation in Latin America: A Comparative Study of Guatemala City and Buenos Aires
Introduction:
The concept of "living" is a multifaceted topic that has intrigued scholars in the field of social sciences, prompting reflections on the intricate relationship between nature, culture, and human society. Diverse perspectives exist on the concept of "living," ranging from the anthropological emphasis on movement to geographical considerations of space as repositories of historical social issues. Sociologists delve into how individuals appropriate and occupy space in ways that vary across social classes, shedding light on how social differences manifest in physical spaces. This article explores Latin American living, with a focus on Argentina (the outskirts of Buenos Aires) and Guatemala City, two culturally diverse and unequal regions where social and cultural differences are reflected in urban spaces. Security is a paramount concern in Latin American cities, where high crime rates and violence have led residents, particularly the middle and upper classes, to adopt various strategies to prioritize security and privacy in their urban living arrangements.
This analysis draws upon two pivotal texts: "Latin American Peripheral Urbanity: Gated Residential Developments" by Guénola Capron, Monica Lacarrieu, and Maria Florencia Giróla, and an article by Guatemalan sociologist Alejandro Flores. The former text delves into the emergence of new forms of living in Latin America during the 1980s and 1990s, specifically the suburbanization and enclosure of residential spaces. The latter article by Alejandro Flores examines the historical link between security practices and discriminatory criteria like race and social class in Latin American living among the middle and upper classes, which persist in the region today.
I. Understanding the New Latin American Living: Isolation and Spatial Separation of Individuals and Spaces
When examining the new Latin American living arrangements, particularly gated communities and secured spaces frequented by the middle and upper classes in cities like Guatemala City and Buenos Aires, a clear pattern emerges – one characterized by separation and hierarchy among individuals and spaces.
1. Significant Spatial Separation
The sealing off and fortification of residential spaces and other areas favored by the upper and middle classes are prevalent practices in Latin American metropolises. Terms such as "condominio" in Guatemala or "gated communities" in Argentina describe the types of residential complexes discussed by Capron, Lacarrieu, and Girola. These spaces, often situated on the outskirts of cities, are enclosed by walls or fences and feature various technological security measures like surveillance cameras, security personnel, and identification systems at entrances and exits. These security measures frequently extend beyond residential communities to include other spaces frequented by these social classes, such as shopping malls. According to Capron, Lacarrieu, and Girola, the urban environment created in suburban areas for the middle and upper classes replicates the urban atmosphere found in city centers, albeit with greater social homogeneity, security, and exclusivity. The ready availability of cars and well-developed highways facilitates this alternative way of life on the urban periphery. Alejandro Flores points to the example of Cayalá, a sprawling residential and commercial area in Guatemala City designed to resemble a small town with open spaces. However, it remains highly secured. Individuals from the upper and middle classes primarily move from their gated communities to secure spaces like Cayalá. These spaces and living arrangements acquire sociological, economic, and symbolic significance, fostering urban trends that are currently hotly debated, especially in the context of pervasive urban insecurity.
2. Historical Context
Alejandro Flores argues that the spatial separation and security measures seen in contemporary Latin American living arrangements are not new but deeply rooted in the social history of both countries and the broader social and political history of the region. Distinctions in urban living in Latin American cities can be traced back to colonial times. However, it was during the 20th century that security, physical separation, and control became more pronounced. Both Guatemala and Argentina experienced military dictatorships during this period, and the spatial policies enacted during these regimes played a significant role in shaping the distribution of space and normalizing fragmented, secured, and socially hierarchical urban living. Flores references the "aldeas modelo" policy during the Guatemalan civil war in the late 1970s and 1980s, where a segment of the Guatemalan population was coerced, under the threat of the military regime, to live in these "model villages." These communities, established by the military, subjected residents to constant military control and limited access to basic services. Notably, these villages were located on the rural outskirts rather than in the heart of Guatemala City. In the case of Argentina and Buenos Aires, there were eradication and "urbanization" programs aimed at transforming informal settlements, referred to as "villas de emergencia" or "emergency villages," occupied by individuals living in precarious housing on the outskirts of major Argentine cities. These programs, part of the Plan de Erradicación de Villas de Emergencia (PEVE), were carried out during the final years of the Argentine military dictatorship between 1976 and 1983, with the objective of controlling and stigmatizing this population. Thus, the relocation of a vulnerable population perceived as dangerous by military and authoritarian Latin American regimes imposed a form of population control, transforming spaces of habitation and political engagement into tightly controlled and monitored areas. These policies not only separated and stigmatized certain forms of living but also secured and legitimized the living and lifestyles of regime supporters. Flores contends that this separation and the concept of "dangerousness" associated with alterity continue to influence elites who actively seek spatial distinction and security through their chosen living arrangements.
II. Thinking with New Latin American Living: From Social Distance to Spatial Separation, a Reinvention of Urbanity and Living in the City
Reflecting on the phenomenon of new Latin American living encourages a nuanced examination of the dynamics it sustains within the social structure and order in Latin America. By scrutinizing the spatial segregation and suburbanization embraced by the middle and upper classes in Latin American cities like Guatemala City and Buenos Aires, we can discern the emergence of a reinvented urbanity rooted in historically constructed social and spatial disparities.
1. A New Way of Living – A New Urbanity
The secured suburbanization of middle and upper-class areas on the fringes of Latin American metropolises represents a new way of living in cities, fostering a more socially homogeneous urbanity. As indicated, this model of upper-middle-class living on the urban periphery is not a rejection of urban life; rather, it reflects a pursuit of security, physical comfort, economic prosperity, and social distinction among the middle and upper classes. Capron, Lacarrieu, and Girola suggest that individuals in these new living arrangements often seek "a new urbanity: new ways of experiencing the city arising from new ways of constructing it." Both texts explore the potential effects of this new urbanity on middle-class women and the socialization of children. Capron, Lacarrieu, and Girola's research underscores the ambivalent influence of this new suburban lifestyle on women's spatial practices and individual experiences in the city. Some women find satisfaction in this lifestyle, which aligns with their expectations and is facilitated by car ownership and domestic help, allowing them to balance professional and family life. For others, this relocation leads to isolation within the domestic sphere or fosters a sense of local and community belonging. Their social networks also undergo transformation, with new relationships forming due to changes in living patterns. Flores, too, highlights how the socialization of children from the upper classes is profoundly influenced and constrained by secured urban living. Many young people predominantly move within secured and private spaces – from their private schools to their closed and secured suburban residences. This isolates them from broader urban experiences, conditioning them to live in isolation and under constant surveillance, almost as a requirement for socialization. In a broader sense, the securitization of living among these individuals and their confinement to closed spaces results in fragmented urbanities that challenge the physical and social connections of these privileged individuals with the rest of the city, creating an insular form of socially homogeneous living.
2. Living Forms as Strategies for Social Reproduction and Avoidance of Alterity
Capron, Lacarrieu, Girola, and some of their interviewees use the term "ghetto" to describe these residential and peripheral secured spaces frequented by Latin American upper and middle classes. The isolation and exclusivity that these spaces offer can be interpreted as intentional segregation processes – strategies of distinction through living, space, and movement. The privatization of living becomes a means of reproducing and materializing social recognition at the level of Latin American urban societies, particularly in Guatemala City and Buenos Aires. The individualism underlying this secured suburban living reinforces social homogeneity within these spaces and conceals a rejection of alterity, a concept that has deep historical roots in Latin American history. The central areas of Latin American cities continue to offer greater diversity in "urban" experiences. Alejandro Flores explains in his article how individuals who do not belong to these privileged social classes are not warmly welcomed in these spaces. He notes that when Ricardo Arjona, an internationally recognized Guatemalan musician, announced a free concert in Cayalá, individuals from the upper classes took to social media to complain about the breach of an unspoken social order: the "exclusivity" and "security" of that space. Due to the historical construction of alterity as dangerous, middle and upper-class social groups decide to "protect" themselves through isolation. However, this also becomes an excuse to transform this "exclusivity" and social separation in space into a form of social recognition and value. Thus, suburban living – and gated communities – meet the needs of Latin American middle and upper classes cited by Capron, Lacarrieu, and Girola: more space, a greener lifestyle, security, and the fulfillment of family life. Even though this choice is presented as an adaptation to "new" external conditions of urban life, such as crime and violence, it remains primarily a way to justify a strategy of direct distinction through living in Guatemala City and Buenos Aires.
Conclusion :
The new secured and peripheral forms of urban living in Latin American cities are emblematic of strategies and forms of social hierarchy historically constructed under the concept of alterity as "dangerous." Distinctions in living, space, and ways of life have persisted in Latin American cities since colonial times but gained greater prominence during the 20th century, thanks to authoritarian regimes and their policies of control and separation. Over time, these policies have transformed into deliberate choices made by privileged social classes, who view alterity as a threat to their security. This new isolation and "exclusivity" in spaces and ways of living have given rise to a new form of social distinction and recognition. The security and privatization of living have become symbols of social recognition, no longer stigmatizing a segment of the population. Furthermore, this new way of living ensures social homogeneity within these spaces, perpetuating the unequal social structure and order of Latin America.
Works Cited
Capron Guénola, Lacarrieu Monica, Girola Maria Florencia. « L'urbanité périphérique latino-américaine. Lotissements résidentiels sécurisés et fermés. », Les Annales de la recherche urbaine, N°102, 2007.
Alejandro Flores, « Doce viñetas sobre la seguridad: lugar y espacio de las élites capitalinas », 2017, Plaza Publica
