Premium
Better to Complicate, Rather than Homogenize, Urban Nightlife: A Response to Grazian
Author(s) -
Anderson Tammy L.
Publication year - 2009
Publication title -
sociological forum
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.937
H-Index - 61
eISSN - 1573-7861
pISSN - 0884-8971
DOI - 10.1111/j.1573-7861.2009.01144.x
Subject(s) - nightlife , argument (complex analysis) , race (biology) , narrative , sociology , solidarity , social capital , gender studies , space (punctuation) , capital (architecture) , class (philosophy) , social science , political science , geography , epistemology , politics , law , biochemistry , chemistry , linguistics , philosophy , archaeology
Grazian (2009) challenges a prominent narrative that claims urban nightlife is a democratized and social‐capital‐enriching “third space” of social life. For Grazian, urban nightlife is, instead, characterized by (1) race and class divisions, (2) gender inequities and the exploitation of women, and (3) exclusivity rather than inclusiveness or solidarity. Grazian makes a brief and compelling case. It is one I agree with to a certain point. However, in this essay, I present two major concerns with his argument.