Zwia Lipkin’s book investigates the history and urban development of Nanjing through demonstrating how the Nationalist government managed various social problems in the city and the continuous effort to create the desired model of a “modern” national capital between 1927-1937. Lipkin recounts in detail how the Nationalist aimed to boost the image of the new capital by eliminating various social problems including refugees, shantytowns, rickshaw pullers, prostitutes and beggars in the city in which she examines the successfulness in eradicating these problems.
Lipkin explores the objectives that the Nationalist government hoped to achieve in Nanjing and identifies the five key “eyesores” that hindered Nanjing to modernize. In 1927, the Nationalist …show more content…
Lipkin explains that urban reforms in China was purely based upon the Nationalist’s determination to transform Nanjing in a modern capital, to be comparable with other Western countries. Whereas, Boyer explains that America focused on developing individuality in every city through promoting local traditions and local ideals, appealing to the sense of civic loyalty. Nevertheless, the success to modernise the cities can be measured by the effectiveness in eliminating these social problems. Although the achievements in spiritual construction remained limited, the Nationalist’s goal of material modernization had inspired later regimes. Lipkin suggests that ‘the existence of Nanjing’s shantytowns could be seen as an outcome of the city’s modernization and an indication of its success’ (p.105). Conversely, America has achieved its mission of city planning by building more parks to uproot the slums and used civic loyalty as a means of urban control to create a harmonious social order.The differences in the purpose and various reform policies amplify the fact that China and the United States were in different stages of modernization as the status of state-building and social reforms in these two countries were subject to different historical
Lipkin explores the objectives that the Nationalist government hoped to achieve in Nanjing and identifies the five key “eyesores” that hindered Nanjing to modernize. In 1927, the Nationalist …show more content…
Lipkin explains that urban reforms in China was purely based upon the Nationalist’s determination to transform Nanjing in a modern capital, to be comparable with other Western countries. Whereas, Boyer explains that America focused on developing individuality in every city through promoting local traditions and local ideals, appealing to the sense of civic loyalty. Nevertheless, the success to modernise the cities can be measured by the effectiveness in eliminating these social problems. Although the achievements in spiritual construction remained limited, the Nationalist’s goal of material modernization had inspired later regimes. Lipkin suggests that ‘the existence of Nanjing’s shantytowns could be seen as an outcome of the city’s modernization and an indication of its success’ (p.105). Conversely, America has achieved its mission of city planning by building more parks to uproot the slums and used civic loyalty as a means of urban control to create a harmonious social order.The differences in the purpose and various reform policies amplify the fact that China and the United States were in different stages of modernization as the status of state-building and social reforms in these two countries were subject to different historical