Posted on Monday, 23rd August 2010 by Booker
In today’s society, the contemporary urban landscape can easily be defined in terms of cultural anonymity; that is, a lack of representation of cultures outside the boundaries of what would now be classified as the accepted “norm.” In our course studies we have seen that from the end of the twentieth century into the beginning of the twenty-first century, Western cities have had increasingly decreased level of representations of local and territorial cultures (Chambers qtd. in Soja, 148-9). Such a lack of cultural representation results in a cityspace that is increasingly monochromatic in the depictions of its space. This monochrome city involves more than race, though race has always seemed to show itself as a dominant theme in urban studies; it also involves class, gender, ethnicity, and other categories in which we tend to group and classify ourselves. As cities develop, an increasingly important question becomes “What is the culture we hope to present here? ” Yet the answer to this expect has become less and less inclusive outside of majority parties, be they racial, political, class, or gender. Thus have the ethnic, cultural, and class minorities become the anonymous citizens of the modern urban landscape. This paper will quiz the different ways in which person groups are forced to become anonymous, invisible citizens; some of the underlying beliefs, values, attitudes, and perceived norms that lead to this destruction of pleasurable cultural diversity, along with some of the problems resulting from this cultural anonymity; and ideas of what should be done to build a satisfying community that is livable for all urban dwellers, concluding with a Christian perspective of faith’s role in the building of a satisfying urban landscape and lifestyle.
I. The Anonymous Citizen
In Sharon Zukin’s article entitled “Whose Culture? Whose City? ” she states that culture is “a powerful means of controlling cities” in that “As a source of images and memories, it symbolizes ‘who belongs’ in specific places” (City Reader, 137). In her discussion of Bryant Park and other areas designed around a specific cultural image, she states that the cultural strategies chosen to create this image “carry with them the implication of controlling diversity while re-creating a consumable vision of civility” (143). She calls this form of urban development that which will eventually lead to “drastic privatization” and “social stratification” (143). This understanding of the modern urban development and identity extends beyond the boundaries of race. As Zukin states in her conclusion, the questions to be answered are “whose city” and “whose culture” (146)?
While not the only aspect of a city’s cultural identity, race definitely plays a major role in the discussion of whose culture is represented in the urban landscape. When parks are developed, security is enforced, and other means are employed to create a particular framework for the depiction of culture, those among the greater minorities-particularly the Black male, as well as those of other darker skin tones-become marginalized and feel suspected, invasive, and ultimately pushed out. The concept of identity within the city becomes more a term of controlled plot, rather than a term referring to one’s individual self, character, and personality. As minorities struggle to find their identities within the designed urban dwelling, the struggle for control continues to become increasingly more hostile. Cities are faced with the reality that they are not-and probably have never been or will never be-homogeneous in their cultural representation; yet the idea of being a heterogeneous society is threatening in that it takes away the idea of having a collective identity as a neighborhood, community, city, region, and so on. According to Manuel Castells in his article “European Cities, Informational Society, and the Global Economy,” as the desire for the nonexistent homogeneous identity persists, major cities “will concentrate the overwhelming proportion of immigrants and ethnic minority citizens . . . Thus they will also be at the forefront of the waves of racism and xenophobia” (City Reader, 480). While this article’s focus is on the European city, the same can be said for virtually any major city. The control of space is a major reason for this separation; those who control private and public area, after all, are generally those who define that space’s identity and image.
Culture is further marginalized when it loses its original appeal as a source of racial and ethnic diversity and becomes instead a form of “identity” based on its economic benefit to urban development. In today’s society, culture is less about the distinctive flavor of each individual group and more the means for creating thriving industries predominantly based in tourism and capital. Thus, cultural diversity has become something more akin to cultural industry. What minorities and the other marginalized members of a community typically are forced to view as their realities has instead become a marketing tool; the urban becomes a symbol of what is cool. As the city is redesigned to impress itself as a cultural and artistic center, those whose cultural identities are made into these symbols are gradually-and sometimes not so gradually-pushed to the areas of the city that those who visit it for its “cultural” appeal are not meant to see; these areas become known as the city’s ghettos and “inner cities.” As the city develops under this cultural industry, culture becomes synonymous with capital. Organizations and corporate enterprises characterize themselves as representatives of the local culture; this culture, however, is the culture these owners want tourists and other visitors to observe, rather than the actual culture(s) of those residing in the city. These same enterprises use culture as a means of marketing their products. When product billboards are raised, they bear images of urban life as synonymous with coolness; urban youth become props; and businesses develop storefronts representative of the “local culture” as they see it, with little attention to whether or not this depiction actually matches the culture of those residing in the city (Zukin 145).
Identity also becomes an shriek of social class in the modern urban landscape. As groups attempt to define their personal space in terms of common utopian ideals, there is a growth in the development of “outer-cities”; these include suburban areas, edge-cities, and mega-cities (Soja 234, 243). Suburbia develops into a new cityspace of its own, becoming “its own way of life with its own spatial specificities, most revolving in one way or another around the automobile and the detached owner-occupied home and household” (238). These outer, edge cities, become represented by less and less of a need to move outside of a given situation to bag the things one needs. Shopping malls, office developments, and other necessities are located within driving-or even walking-distance of housing developments that are built on and around the edges of the city.
As the suburbs become urbanized, the urban areas commence to suffer as the numbers of people living their increases as well. In these mega-cities, location becomes defined as being “increasingly discontinuous, fragmented, polycentric, and almost kaleidoscopic” (Soja 235) in its socio-spatial structure. Homelessness rises as the middle-class elite’s populace increases. The cost of living in a particular area increases, pushing those who once lived there for less out-and into the city-and even lower on the social scale. Affordable housing becomes scarce, pushing the urban poor to the outer urban regions. As the city develops, predictions for the spot of the city become increasingly bleak for those of the lower-class: “‘urban poverty will become the most significant and politically explosive predicament of the next century’” (266).
The concept of the anonymous citizen is even further complicated by the rise of the technology age. Citizens become further and further involved in the technologies of the modern world, and this “ideological refabrication [of cityspace] affects everyday life in the postmetropolis” (Soja 328). It becomes increasingly difficult to determine one’s identity in a world where the real is difficult to separate from the imagined. As Soja points out, this modern move toward hyperreality and the restructuring of the urban imaginary may potentially mark the beginnings of a potential “apocalypse of postmodernity” (329). Artificial urban spaces can be created and manipulated in any desired fashion with no attention to the bounds of reality; thus has identity become even less a focus of the current city, in that one’s identity in this hyperreality can be anything they want it to be. This hyperreality is not limited to one’s personal fabrications; it has also extended itself into the world of media representation. The media plays a role in this restructuring of the urban imaginary through the inflation of world matters-where civil unrest becomes civil wars and civil wars become civil unrest-creating both imagined quiet and imagined causes for worry. It has often been postulated that modern cityspace would develop better if each people received their own separate areas of land to sustain them isolated to preserve the homestead while technology would keep them connected to the greater community (Wright “Broadacre City”). Yet this thought becomes a negative when the technology ragged to connect individuals to a greater community becomes the same thing that separates them from both the realities of current urban life and their own identities based in reality.
II. Creating the Anonymous Citizen
Though it is easy to contemplate that the concept of identity has become warped in the modern city, it is sometimes less simple to understand how this warped plan of identity came to be. I suggest that there are several things leading to this modern fragmented sense of identity in the urban landscape. The first of these is the loss of control of the urban landscape being designed. The loss of control in urban areas is created when the urban landscape’s manufacture is controlled by “large-scale developers and public agencies” (Jacobs and Appleyard 440). This corporate take-over causes the residents of these urban areas to feel less control over the areas in which they must live. Furthermore, as private businesses and corporate agencies take control of these areas, they also begin to take over the identities of these areas. They are able to paint the landscape’s identity in whatever hues they wish; while this typically takes on a colorful representation to outsiders-with the development of museums, parks, and other “cultural” landmarks-it seems to leave a distinctly bland taste in the mouths of those who live there.
A second issue leading to the loss of urban identity is dismay. This seems to be a major factor in the development of the modern urban landscape. Fear leads to groups attempting to isolate themselves from those who are different from themselves, viewing these outsiders as those who may threaten their standards of living. Everything from attitudes to architecture begins to reflect this aesthetic of fear. Perhaps the greatest relationship to identity that apprehension holds is the fear that as other cultural, social, and political identities are allowed entrance into urban space the dominant identity-that belonging to those who would long for the nonexistent homogeneous identity of urban space-will begin to be pushed out, leading to a loss of control in this space.
Closely linked to the concept of fear is the increasing normality of social privatization. As the urban landscape becomes more and more privatized, the message is sent-be it willingly or otherwise-that one must conform to the provided identity of an area. There is a sense of belonging enforced through the concept of the homogeneous local identity, as defined by those who control a state and the sense of security ensured by denying access to certain undesirables. In Mike Davis’ article entitled “Fortress L.A.” the concept of privatization is showed to be engaged under the guise of being in the interest of public safety. Davis calls this privatized reshaping of the city the destruction of public space (City Reader 203). This fear takes its predominant dwelling in the fear of the minority “Other.” In describing the fear of crime, Davis states:
. . . ‘[Fear] proves itself.’ The social perceptions of threat becomes a function of the security mobilization itself, not crime rates . . . [Most] of the carnage [of street violence] is self-contained within ethnic or class boundaries. Yet white middle-class imagination, absent from any firsthand knowledge of inner-city conditions, magnifies the perceived threat through a demonological lens. (Davis 203)
The results of this fear are as numerous as the forms of “protection” formed in response to it. Among these are the idea of a modern apartheid-what Davis calls an “increasing South Africanization of [the city's] spatial relations” (204)-which builds up both visible and invisible walls in communities that can only be bypassed by one’s ability to conform and/or fit into the identity created and maintained by those who erected them.
Jacobs and Appleyard point to a third major issue leading to the destruction of identity in the contemporary urban landscape: centrifugal fragmentation. This fragmentation is the result of a combination of technologies such as the automobile, which take work and activities out of the community, and fear. This combination leads to an attempt on the part of local citizens to isolate themselves from those who are different (City Reader 441). In these fragmented cities, it is difficult to come to an view of one’s identity and how this identity plays a role in the overall development of the city.
Each of these issues leads to an ever increasing threat toward the city of losing any sense of identity whatsoever. The increasing reliance upon technological realities to choose in interactions with the greater community leads to an every increasing difficulty in defining one’s personal identity. Without this personal sense of identity and belonging on the part of all the citizens of any given urban space, the development of the city is seriously impaired by a lack of focus and guidance. The loss of control to corporations which privatize public spaces leads to a loss of local identity. Without this, the urban landscape is also greatly impaired due to an escalating amount of disinterest in the city’s development; local identity helps define what the community is, and thus what it should be. The ability to create both individual and corporate identity is pivotal to the development of a successful, livable, and satisfying urban community and lifestyle.
III. Overcoming the Anonymous Citizen
What must be done, then, to create this satisfying urban lifestyle?
As previously stated, the ability to effect both individual and corporate identity will be essential to the development of the contemporary urban society. Every aspect of the modern city ought to be marked by a sense of corporate identity. Yet it must also be a place that fosters enough creative energy that any individual could produce their own personal sense of identity within the community. That is, each citizen should be able to clearly define where-and that-they belong in this new city landscape, as well as come to and belief of their importance to its successful development. Each citizen ought to have a sense that they have an identity and the ability to control at least a allotment of the area in which they live.
It is not enough to say that identity is considerable. To understand this, we must first come to an understanding of the fact that everyone who lives within the city also belongs in and to the city, just as much as the city ought to belong to them. It is not enough to simply cast those who do not fit into the favorite “norm” of the city out of it; this leaves us with fragmented, misrepresented landscapes, like a puzzle with pieces missing. Each person who lives in the city-be they wanted there or not-plays a part in the development of that city. Each person serves as a reminder of every assert the city must solve, as well as a reminder of every group the city must strive to picture to create a full picture. If the city loses one of its voices, it does not only lose an undesired citizen; it loses a part of itself.
Before any city can go toward a corporate identity, it must first strive to relieve each citizen in finding their own individual identity. It has often been pointed out the difference between a park with stationary, rigid, and uncomfortable benches and a park with moveable, personal seats; one is exclusive, while the other encourages individuals to make this spot their own. The same should be true for each aspect of the city. The city should be a place where each person within its limits is able to pick up a place where they belong, a place they can make and call their own. As Jacobs and Appleyard state, the city should be a place where people can “break from traditional molds, extend their experience, meet modern people, learn other viewpoints, As it was the case that the city cannot be a representation of only the majority group’s identity, it is also true that the city cannot be a representation of each individual identity at all times. Thus, the city must find ways to incorporate equal representations of all identities, be they the identity of an ethnic or racial group, the identity of a social class, the identities of various political affiliations, or some other self-defined group. As Jacobs and Appleyard suggest in their urban manifesto, the city should read like a book. A book with unrelated pages is hardly a book at all; rather, the city should seek to compile a complete story where each citizen’s identity serves to make the story whole. No section of the story of the city should be the sole representation of an urban “identity” as controlled by only certain members or portions of the community; rather, it should share equal representations of all the inhabitants, characteristics, and identities that make it up. The city must be a place of community, driven forward toward progress by a harmonized-not simply homogeneous-society of identities in which all citizens part a common concern for justice, law, tolerance, and other elements necessary for a satisfactory livelihood in any city. This harmonized concern can only be aided by the development of individual and corporate identities, which will help shape the perceptions that call forth these important concerns.
IV. The Christian Citizen
Where does the Christian fit into this image of the city? The Christian has a unique role in that each is called to be both anonymous and active in the community. Each Christian has a responsibility to care for the issues affecting the community, and add their input through their Christian identity to the city’s development. However, each Christian is also called to be the bearers of peace and unity in the city; this sometimes means taking on the role of the anonymous-but not unfelt-citizen in the city, in a much different way than the anonymous citizen outside of the Christian fold. The anonymous citizen is invisible and unheard because they have been marginalized and excluded by the majority to the point that they simply fade into the background or go away. The anonymous Christian citizen, on the other hand, may be invisible while touching every aspect of the city’s development. By this I mean to suggest that Christians should bear the humility of Jesus, of whom it was said “He had no beauty or majesty to attract us to him, nothing in his appearance that we should desire him. He was despised and rejected by men, a man of sorrows, and familiar with suffering” (Isaiah 53: 2b-3a). Perhaps in considering this image of the Lord, we can see some of how the Christian ought to describe him or herself in this modern urban landscape. Perhaps there should be nothing in our appearances that the world should desire us; that is, perhaps we should bear such humility that while we help others find their voice and guide our communities to being willing to hear these voices we also silence our own for a while of our maintain judgments and ideas of the “norm” of society.
As we live within these communities of the world, it is our role as the God-appointed stewards of these places to ensure justice, strive for peace, and work towards equality for all. We should be the boom for those who have gone voiceless. We ought to be the ones who cry out for change in the name of God for the sake of His people. We need to be the ones who remind those around us that we are all made in the likeness of God, and as such we should all be heard as the voices of God, felt as the hands of God, and loved with the love of God. None of us has been called into solitude apart from each other as a community; we have been called one body, and yet we act as millions of bodies unto ourselves. Perhaps we as Christians should be the ones striving to reunite the body in one voice, one vision, and under the banner of one God.
In our earlier examinations of the process of urbanization and building the urban landscape, we weak as a guide to urban development the Biblical figure of Nehemiah. In the rebuilding of the walls of Jerusalem, Jeremiah was doing more than simply erecting a landmark. He was restoring the identity of his people, the people of God. In this act, his aim was a restoration to all, not simply a chosen few. He defended the poor (Nehemiah 5: 1-6), admonished the wealthy (5: 6-19), and reminded them all that each was a child of one God to whom they all shared allegiance. He reminded them of their identities, both in their groups and as a united people.
This is the same sort of reminder we as Christians have a responsibility to do in the modern urban landscape. Where Nehemiah was building a wall, we form a wall of solidarity while tearing down the smaller walls that separate us. In a diagram, we are all people of great Diasporas; yet what we have been separated from is not necessarily our land, but rather our identities. It is our role to reunite each person with their identity as an individual, and in doing so begin the process of reuniting all within the city with their united identity as a people. If we are to live with each other, work with each other, and thrive with each other, we must learn to see through each others’ eyes, learn from each others’ lives, and work with each other towards accepted goals that will work for the benefit of all contemporary urban dwellers.
Sources: Soja, Edward W. Postmetropolis: Important Studies of Cities and Regions. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing Ltd., 2002.
Scripture taken from the Holy Bible, New International Version. Copyright (c) 1973, 1978, 1984 by International Bible Society. All rights reserved. Tags: Anonymity, Anonymous Citizens, bible matches, christian compatibility, christian little match girl, Christian Matches, Christian Perspective, christian signs, Cityspace, Cultural Diversity, Different Ways, Dominant Theme, Ethnicity, Majority Parties, matches christian dating, Minorities, Norms, Person Groups, Qtd, Sharon Zukin, Soja, Urban Development, Urban Dwellers, Urban Landscape, Urban Studies, Western Cities
Legates, Richard T. and Frederic Stout, ed. The City Reader. Third Ed. New York: Routledge, 2003.
Posted in Free Christian Online Dating | Comments (0)Leave a Reply