Social Division and Reform in Jacob Riis' "How the Other Half Lives"

Introduction: Division and Purpose in Riis' Writing

The chapter "The Down Town Back-Alleys" in Jacob Riis' How the Other Half Lives focuses on the plight of the poor on the Lower East Side of Manhattan. The novel addresses what Riis calls the "other half," indicating the division between the poor people he writes about and his audience. The chapter emphasizes the unfortunate living conditions in tenement housing, detailing the gruesome day-to-day lives of the poor and stressing how dissimilar their lives are compared to those of his readers. Riis describes social divisions amongst people, and at times uses offensive writing against certain groups in order to further his thesis. His writing could be construed in two very different ways: Was Riis being racist and prejudicial, or were his racial comments necessary to create a connection and gain trust from his audience? It is particularly interesting how, as an immigrant himself, Riis made disparaging comments towards others like himself. Riis' use of unethical writing and the overt stereotypes portrayed ultimately helped him achieve his real goal: social reform.

Riis creates many divisions in his writing, most notably the major divide between the rich and the poor. On page 294, he writes: "Leaving the Elevated Railroad where it dives under the Brooklyn Bridge at Franklin Square, scarce a dozen stops will take us where we wish to go. With its rush and roar echoing yet in our ears, we have turned the corner from prosperity to poverty. We stand upon the domain of the tenement." Riis is specifically describing the divide by moving downward from the "Elevated Railroad" and "diving under the Brooklyn Bridge." The "Elevated" image symbolizes the rich and upper class, while moving down represents the descent "from prosperity to poverty." Riis imparts the idea of descending to the lower class—from rich to poor, from light to dark, reminiscent of descending to hell. This particular image might seem condescending to anyone living on the Lower East Side, making it clear that they are vastly different from others living uptown.

Class Division: From Prosperity to Poverty

Further evidence of this strategy appears when Riis writes: "The gap that separates the man with his patched coat from his wealthy neighbor is, after all, perhaps but a tenement" (303). This statement, in a less metaphorical way, directly articulates the obvious divide between the rich and the poor, driving home the point of clear separation. The vertical spatial metaphors Riis employs—elevation versus descent, height versus depth—reinforce class distinctions as natural and inevitable rather than socially constructed.

Another social gap that Riis constructs is a division between races and ethnicities, specifically noting the split between natives and immigrants. Riis does this by describing the racial hierarchy and how different groups differed from one another. This becomes apparent when he writes: "The mixed character of the population, by this time about equally divided between the Celtic and the Italian stock, accounts for the iron bars and the policemen…A Chinaman whom I questioned as he hurried past the iron gate of the alley, put the matter in a different light. 'Lem Ilish velly bad,' he said" (298). Here, Riis makes a point to discuss the Irish and Italian groups of people. By specifically naming them, he establishes a differentiation between them and others in the city at the time. He even generalizes the reason for "iron bars" and "policemen," insinuating that the Irish and Italian are the delinquents who necessitated harsh security in the tenements.

Ethnic and Immigrant Division: Creating Hierarchy

The account of the Chinese man saying that the "Irish are very bad" is a notable rhetorical choice on Riis' part. This addition does not simply support his point; rather, it allows readers who hold anti-Irish prejudices to connect with Riis and trust what he is saying because they already agree with at least one of his claims. By citing an outsider's negative view of the Irish, Riis validates prejudices his middle-class audience may already hold, thereby establishing himself as a trustworthy observer. How the Other Half Lives employs such ethnic stereotyping as a deliberate mechanism for building reader identification.

Riis also draws a line between natives and settlers, which is particularly striking because he looks down upon the settlers even though he himself once was one. When discussing the people in the tenements, he writes: "Within recent days it has become peopled wholly with Hebrews, the overflow from Jewtown adjoining, pedlars and tailors, all of them… These thrifty people are not only crowding into the tenements of this once exclusive district—they are buying them…Here is a whole alley nicknamed after the intruder, Jews' Alley" (303). The basis of this passage is largely self-explanatory: Riis describes how Jews immigrated into New York City and quickly populated the area. The significant word he uses is "intruder," a derogatory term that depicts Jews as invading a space that does not belong to them. This word choice creates a separation between immigrants and natives, arguing that immigrants are occupying territory that rightfully belongs to native-born citizens and that they do not necessarily have the right to do so.

The Paradox of the Immigrant Outsider

This argument is reinforced when Riis writes: "Happy children may have once lived there…" (294), emphasizing that residents were happy until immigrants started crowding the place. It is peculiar that Riis makes this distinction despite being an immigrant himself. By drawing upon stereotypes—such as Jews being peddlers and tailors—he establishes commonality with his readers and articulates things they might already believe, all to gain their trust. He may not necessarily wish to put down immigrants like himself or make them seem like outsiders, but he strategically does so in order to promote change for the suffering people in the tenements.

Through these stereotypes and generalizations, Riis hoped to achieve social reform, forcing the improvement of conditions in the tenements and the lives of his subjects. This ambitious task could only be accomplished by convincing readers that he was a credible reporter of fact. Riis had to involve himself with the immigrants in order to identify and understand their plight. He also had to distance himself from them in order to establish commonality with his reading audience. Middle-class readers were more likely to identify themselves with Riis and consider him credible because they held the same stereotypical opinions. Riis used unethical writing and established himself as an American middle-class citizen, rather than a struggling Danish immigrant. To inspire social change from his readers, Riis exploited and denigrated the immigrant and highlighted class differences. He did all this to change tenement life forever, demonstrating how controversial rhetoric, though morally troubling, could serve larger reform objectives.