City is symbolic of intellect, power, crime, poverty, money and each of these will have an effect on its inhabitants in return. If we see, cities are known as the cradle of civilizations but ironically they’ve been around for just 7000 years of human existence. Then how is it that the people who live in cities appear much more civilized than the rest when the cities are so new to the human development? Why is it that more and more people flock to the cities? George Simmel in his essay ‘The Metropolis and mental life’ identifies how the aforementioned factors of city affect a person and how they manage …show more content…
They are an interesting departure from what was prevalent during the medieval period in India. The specializations developed based on the professional hierarchy which led to the need for bureaucracy. The desire for authority over the region came up as the main reason for colonization starting with the Romans. The form of the city changed a lot due to these new authorities. Romans were mostly Catholics and with Christianity came new typologies like churches, hospitals, universities etc. Churches were built in the most strategic locations so as to gain prominence and act as a landmark as well. They came about with the idea of military stations, cantonments, idea of civil lines, sadar- Indian bazaar. There were places of engagements , to socialize like the clubs, gymkhanas, malls …show more content…
The metros, parks, the central plaza, sidewalks, malls etc are all tools for interaction and it is a demonstration of the culturally vibrant people. These opportunities in Wirth’s article, Urbanism as a way of life, to argue against city people’s value of relationships. I sort of disagree to his view of an urbanite and his relationships as superficial and indifferent. According to what Wirth states in his theory of proportionality relating the number of people seen and the number of people known, the exposure and the number to secondary contacts defines one’s values. City people are less dependent upon particular persons and isn’t that great? It frees them of viewing people through a lens of utility to us. The opportunity and decision to meet secondary contacts helps re-establish those we hold as primary and provides the opportunity to rethink the limits on who we get to know. I would imagine those opportunities are far and few in a rural setting yet I wouldn’t regard the value of rural dweller’s close relationships on the proportionality of people they meet and know. I don’t think they relate. ‘The metropolis and mental life’ by Simmel tries to define an individual in a city. I think his argument would make better sense if he compared globalized markets rather than taking small towns. That way I see that the merchant loses touch with the customer thereby reducing the