Urban sociologists have recently discovered the problem of residential evictions. Although displacement has been a major theme in sociological studies of gentrification, homelessness, and public housing transformation, the forced removal of tenants from rental housing been the subject of surprisingly little sociological research (Desmond 2012a; Hartman and Robinson 2003). With the new visibility that Matthew Desmond has brought to the topic with his award–winning ethnography Evicted and the rigorously researched articles he and his colleagues have produced, evictions have begun to attract more scholarly attention (Herring 2014; Desmond and Shollenberger 2015; Purser 2016; Desmond, Gershenson, and Kiviat 2015; Brady 2017; Sullivan 2018; Garboden and Rosen 2019; Brady 2019). Yet while the topic has been largely overlooked by American urban sociologists, interdisciplinary scholars studying cities in the Global South have been researching the problem of forced removals for decades, particularly in informal, auto–constructed, or “slum” settlements prevalent in southern cities. As American urban sociologists turn their attention to evictions, it is important that they not overlook the empirically grounded, theoretically robust insights drawn from urban research in the Global South. In this paper, I set up a conversation between the usually separate literatures on rental evictions in U.S. cities and urban “slum” evictions in the Global South. Given the geographical and disciplinary breadth of research on southern cities, I limit my review to studies of evictions in India and South Africa. As two former British colonies with distinct developmental trajectories but comparable levels of housing insecurity, these cases underscore both the common themes and contextual specificity found in this literature.1 When we reconceptualize evictions from the South, I argue that two aspects of housing insecurity come into clearer focus: First, despite the emphasis on individuals and families in the recent U.S. literature, evictions are also collective events that impact whole neighborhoods and communities. This insight is important for understanding not only the experience of evictions and their effects on cities, but also the possibilities for collective action. Secondly, when we re–center the study of evictions southward, it becomes clearer that evictions are patently political acts, and cannot be explained solely with a focus on markets and housing affordability. While housing insecurity in the United States is also shaped by historically entrenched political conflicts, discriminatory logics, and local power brokering, these political dimensions may be easier to discern in contexts where governments, rather than private landlords, typically do the evicting. 100069 CTYXXX10.1177/15356841211000695City & CommunityWeinstein research-article2020

中文翻译：

---

驱逐：重新定义全球南方的住房不安全

城市社会学家最近发现了住宅驱逐的问题。尽管流离失所一直是高档化、无家可归和公共住房改造的社会学研究的一个主要主题，但强制将租户从出租房屋中搬走却是令人惊讶的很少社会学研究的主题（Desmond 2012a；Hartman 和 Robinson 2003）。随着 Matthew Desmond 凭借其屡获殊荣的人种学 Evicted 以及他和他的同事撰写的经过严格研究的文章为该主题带来了新的知名度，驱逐已开始吸引更多的学术关注（Herring 2014；Desmond 和 Shollenberger 2015；Purser 2016 ；Desmond、Gershenson 和 Kiviat 2015；Brady 2017；Sullivan 2018；Garboden 和 Rosen 2019；Brady 2019）。然而，尽管美国城市社会学家在很大程度上忽视了这个话题，但研究全球南方城市的跨学科学者几十年来一直在研究强制迁移问题，特别是在南方城市普遍存在的非正式、自动建造或“贫民窟”定居点中。随着美国城市社会学家将注意力转向驱逐问题，重要的是他们不能忽视从全球南方城市研究中得出的基于经验的、理论上可靠的见解。在本文中，我在通常独立的关于美国城市出租驱逐的文献和全球南方城市“贫民窟”驱逐的文献之间进行了对话。鉴于南方城市研究的地理和学科广度，我将我的评论仅限于对印度和南非驱逐的研究。作为两个具有不同发展轨迹但住房不安全水平相当的前英国殖民地，这些案例强调了本文中发现的共同主题和背景特殊性。 1 当我们重新定义来自南方的驱逐时，我认为住房不安全的两个方面更清晰的焦点：首先，尽管最近的美国文献强调个人和家庭，但驱逐也是影响整个社区和社区的集体事件。这种洞察力对于理解驱逐的经历及其对城市的影响以及集体行动的可能性都很重要。其次，当我们将驱逐研究的中心重新向南时，驱逐显然是政治行为变得更加清楚，并且不能仅以市场和住房负担能力来解释。虽然美国的住房不安全也受到历史上根深蒂固的政治冲突、歧视性逻辑和地方权力斡旋的影响，但在通常由政府而不是私人房东进行驱逐的情况下，这些政治层面可能更容易辨别。100069 CTYXXX10.1177/15356841211000695城市与社区温斯坦研究-文章2020