Introduction
Housing demolition and relocation in China and United States have long historical backgrounds. It has caused varied conflicts in the past due to the political dimension it normally takes. However, it’s the different ways in which the two countries handle the demolition exercise that separated them, at least socio-politically. Although the two countries have made several efforts to reduce the problem, the issue still remains pertinent to say the least. According Shi (12) US political policies as concerns housing and poverty are much better than that of China. This paper highlights some of the difference approaches to housing demolition and relocation in China and United States.
The symbolic violence in housing demolition in China
The spatial transformation of China’s urban areas created a much expanded phenomenon which involved “painting a big character, chai (demolish) on the walls of the old buildings” that had been earmarked for demolition (Chau 195). Although the signs have somewhat specific meaning with semantic message, its adverse impact is seen in the way it was presented and the actions that followed (Chau 197). In other words, instead of it communicating to the audience, the way it was presented made it a more brutal approach than one could imagine. According to John Austin (cited in Chau 101), this form of powerful message approach through writing, which he describes as ‘text acts’ is how authorities use writing to influence perception towards the intended actions. By doing this, the government decides to use this form of tactic to ensure they have a political upper hand in the demolition and relocation process. The government of China followed such warnings with brutal demolition and relocation of the house residents to other areas (Liu 179). In some cases, specific residents went as far as terminating their lives in an effort to avoid being evicted.
US Approach to Demolition and Relocation
In contrast to China, American government approach to demolition and relocation has been considered friendly, with adequate compensation given to the evictees. In this arrangement, riots were avoided at all costs, such that the kind of treatment given to evictees left them happy rather than sad as opposed to the China case.
The political Difference
The two countries’ political differences have been attributed to the varied approach to they give to the demolition and relocation process. In fact, some people would find it appropriate in describing the China’s approach as forceful eviction rather than relocation (Olds 218). While US have the democratic political system guiding every political action taken, China is a communist state that has no threat from any political action taken (Maynard 18). In other words, the democratic political actions in US related to demolition and relocation process must be carried out in a more human way as its carries with a political luggage; meaning if a political party in power mishandle the process, the political burden that may be more than what they bargained for.
In the United States, there is what is known as ‘housing first’ policy that was spearheaded by previous government of President Bush (Chau 110). This policy has been adopted by well over 200 cities, where victims of demolition are given free housing to live in until that time when they are settled with jobs to pay rent. The outcome of this program has been hailed as very successful.
Works Cited
Chau, Adam. An awful mark: symbolic violence and urban renewal in reform-era China. Routledge. Vol.23, Issue 3, pp.195-210. 2008. Print.
Liu Shoaling. Compensation visualization for the land holding during displacement of town tenement. Urban Studies, issue 3. 2006. Web.
Maynard Smith. Evolution and the Theory of Games. Cambridge. Cambridge University Press. 1982. Print.
Olds Kris. Globalization and Urban Change: Capital, Culture, and Pacific Rim Mega Projects. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 2001. Print.
Shi Guoqing. The analysis of problems on Chinese urban house demolition compensation system and countermeasures. Routledge. issue 4. 2004.