Whose progress?

Thursday evening Tulane hosted yet another panel discussion on the pile of quality of life issues we're roughly thinking about as "gentrification" although that term is hardly adequate. Nor is the title of the discussion. The organizers, unfortunately, chose to go with the provocative but misdirecting, “Does Progress Destroy Culture?”  as though we should conceive of those as opposing monolithic forces.  

Both the terms Culture and Progress are too vague anyway.  Even within the narrow sense of "The Unique Culture of New Orleans" there are multifarious experiences that can define it differently.  Is New Orleans Culture boehmian? formal? libertine? conservative? black? white? rich? poor? European? American? African? Asian? The flip answer here is, "Yes." But, more precisely, the answer is whatever is convenient to the conversation or relevant to the speaker.   Similarly, Progress can mean whatever change any specific group or individual perceives as beneficial. And more often than not, the change that benefits one party does so at the expense of others. 

The problem with asking "Does Progress Destroy Culture?" is the suggestion that Culture even exists apart from change is nonsense. Not to get too philosophical here but life is basically change. We can define ourselves at any given point only as either the sum of the things that have happened to us or the things we expect will happen soon. At least, I'm pretty confident that's how we understand our urban environment. Take a drive around New Orleans and try describing your favorite neighborhoods and landmarks. All of the meaning will be wrapped up in what each place once was, who used to live there, who is moving in now, and what they will make of it. What we think of as culture is simply a human measurement of perpetual change. Progress is just a subjective description of the process.

But there's obviously a significant interest in talking about the current state of flux in New Orleans. Several versions of that Tulane panel have been popping up around town for well over a year now.  But I don't think anyone has asked quite the right question yet. Instead of asking whether things are changing for the better in general, we should be asking who is benefiting the most and at whose expense.

Right now if you hold an ownership stake in  in tourism or real estate development or, ideally, both, you're probably impressed with all the recent "progress" being made. On the other hand, if you're disassociated from those concerns and the cost of your rent and utilities is going up while your favorite neighborhood bar or music venue becomes more trendy (expensive) or is shut down altogether, you might start to feel like your "culture" is under attack.

In other words, the actual problem we're facing is one of increasing economic inequality even within the larger context of a "booming" local economy. Too often, though, the resulting conversation gets bogged down in unanswerable questions about what sort of person is somehow more "New Orleans" than another and we never get back around to addressing the relevant ones.