Bio-gentrification: vulnerability bio-value chains in gentrifying neighbourhoods^†

Abstract

In this paper, I develop the concept of “bio-gentrification” as a way to broaden critical theoretical debates on the relationship between gentrification and “social mixing” policies. Bio-gentrification weds urban Marxist political economic insights to the neo-Foucauldian notion of biopower. The former stresses spatial tactics of removal and displacement and value generated through land and property. The latter assesses a wider terrain of spatial tactics, their relationship to knowledge produced about humans as living beings, and their alignment with capitalist urbanization. The Vancouver example illuminates how social mixing “truths” and practices to which they are tied generate value by naturalizing human insecurity in situ and transforming the biological existence of disadvantaged peoples into raw material for profit through a process that can be conceptualized as a “vulnerability bio-value chain.” Bio-gentrification refers to the tension between removal and embedding of disadvantaged peoples and points to the need for a bio-gentrification politics to confront this dynamic.

Keywords:

• gentrification
• social mix
• vulnerable populations
• biopower
• capitalism
• Early Development Instrument
• Vancouver

Acknowledgements

For sharing their thoughts on this paper’s development, appreciation is extended to Laam Hae, Leslie Kern, Vannina Sztainbok and students in my graduate seminar on Governing Urban Poverty: Kurtis Adams, Annelies Cooper, Karl Gardner, Ryan Kelpin, Nicolas Lux, William McCullough, Jenna Meguid, Luckshi Sathasivam and Vanesa Tomasino Rodríguez. As the paper entered its final stages, two anonymous reviewers offered generous and thoughtful feedback that significantly enhanced the analysis herein. All mistakes are, of course, my own.

Notes

1. There are clearly many different ways to define human development that do not draw upon neurological science for their justification.

2. The consortium includes the University of British Columbia, the University of Victoria, Simon Fraser University, University of Northern British Columbia, and Thompson Rivers University.

3. The initial agreement was struck in 2001 with the Ministry of Children and Family Development. Later, in 2008, the Ministries of Education and Health would each become financial contributors.

Additional information

Funding

This research could not have been completed without the financial support of the Fulbright Canada, Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council [Grant number: 832-2002-0114] and York University.