Gentrification o speculazione? Note analitiche sugli abusi di un termine

The paper reflects on the uses of the concept of gentrificaton, and finds it that there is often a misuse of it both in the urban studies and in the common language. First of all, against users’ purposes, the word can easily become part of the identitarian jargon aimed at consolidating boundaries within the city. Secondly, general uses of the word can lead to the loss of details concerning the social forces behind the exclusionary processes that affect neighborhoods and cites. Dynamics falling under the same tag operate at a local level; the indiscriminate adoption of concepts, therefore, could hide networks, interests, and alliances that hold a stake in the determination of the processes, and should be understood in local terms. Thirdly, the word gentrification implies a social composition based on affluence, youth, creative jobs and the presence of a developed culture and service industry. Thus it is apt to describe only a limited set of cites, and it cannot be easily used in contexts that do not present higher levels of social differentiation. Fourthly, it is suggested that gentrification is rather a symptom that the actual cause of urban changes. Within the framework of a growing politicization of the concepts, it is necessary to distinguish among causes and consequences.