Normality also called normalcy – the way things are under normal circumstances.
This is an essay of Questions….
…… Who’s Normalcy:
…….civic responsibility….
…….neighborhood pride of ownership…….
…….art & cultural sensitivity
…….to seek an improved quality of life …….
……..economic motivation……
……..educational aspiration and attainment……
……..environmental awareness…….
……..conscious collective accountability……
…….respectful & compassionate community relations……..
…….equitable access & distribution to resources……
…….public behavior within acceptable limits……
Of course this is not as comprehensive a list as could be presented…..
These values seem somewhat universal….yet….are they? I had always thought that with the spirit of intent being that of integration not intervention…..these principles presented in the first list as “normalcy” would naturally rise to the top if in fact proffered and cultivated. Some people do hold these morals and beliefs, but clearly this list of traits of “Normalcy” that do not represent a neighborhood’s whole consciousness.
……Who’s Normalcy:
……self preservation without responsibility or accountability
……a code of silence…
……destruction of other’s property - so who cares…..
…….overtly drinking all day in public ……..
…….openly relieving themselves day & night …….
…….visibly passed out from drug or alcohol in the daytime…..
…… constant gang activity ………communicate utilizing fear and intimidation…..
…….sell & buy sex from teens in the hours of daylight…….
……freely enlist children to hold drugs for sale to protect the drug dealers…..
Of course this is not as comprehensive a list as could be presented…..
This then begs the question that possibly my resistance to the concept of public art as intervention because it was pretentious and imposing was incorrect and the only vehicle of penetration into the depths of a hood depends on some form of interference with the stilted intent of telling a neighborhood they do not know what is best for them. Seeking integration of these principles is not a pretentious aspiration for a neighborhood, just a very challenging one!
There is a most tragic irony about the second described “normalcy” within the neighborhood; we are viewed as somehow responsible for allowing this behavior and we condone and support that as a preferred “normalcy”! This perception has grown with our inability to halt, change or shift the second “normalcy”, which we have tried tirelessly to integrate with attributes of the first “normalcy”, never having an adequate budget or staff to combat these historically insidious circumstances.
ACLA has been espousing the first “normalcy” extensively for years and in such a way as to make our offerings open and inclusive to all, spreading as much as possible our spirit of intent, bringing a universal message that if we are responsible and accountable to ourselves, we afford a collective voice and vision to represent a capital and democracy, not of dollars, but bringing a social capital with power of cooperation to affect the changes necessary to achieve the principles of the first “normalcy”.
Over the years we have experienced extended periods of cooperation, while dodging and numbing the second “normalcy” and embracing the first “normalcy”. This included a greater linkage and support from funders, politicians, schools, artists and organizational and independent collaborators, but most importantly the broader involvement of community members of all ages, genders, and ethnicities. With the influx of the frenetic sub-prime days we witnessed dissolution of the cooperative spirit, as we became powerless spectators of countless people displaced by the selling and reselling of properties in the mad race for the next big dollar. Many community members who had resided in the hood for decades were priced out of purchase or even available rentals and moved to south LA, the only other affordable area.
The politicians who represent this area have been most neglectful of the hood’s members, as they have not recognized nor addressed head-on the conflict of the two “normalcy” paradigms gripping the hood. The enormous dispute of this continued confrontation of the second “normalcy” has not been successfully confronted. The challenge to change, override or even slowdown and alter these negative conditions of the quality of life has shown itself to be almost intractable with a overriding sense of overwhelm from all the authorities. Never have they offered to directly look for solutions that are specific to this hood.
There is a distrust of ACLA’s holistic approach to the redevelopment of this neighborhood from the spirit to the built environment. A major part of the distrust comes from wanting to achieve change through a new approach and without the larger sums of money usually required to achieve transformative results. We have never been able to attract the large dollars to our projects and this alone makes us suspect…..why don’t we want to achieve the results with big dollars? We chose to establish methods that could more readily be arrived at and duplicated, as the challenges we face are not unique…..but universal to almost every neighborhood with an impoverished population.