Michel de Certeau begins his essay “Walking in the City” by
depicting the view of Manhattan as seen from the top of the World Trade Center.
Through the use of visual imagery, Certeau describes what one sees from an aerial
view: skyscrapers; or in Certeau’s words “a wave of verticals.” However, this
clump of skyscrapers takes on much more of a meaning that just architecture. It
symbolizes an environment in which many organisms contradict each other; such
as the differences of opinion, race and architecture. New York is juxtaposed to
Rome and how as a newer city does not have quite the same level of experience
in handling these organisms. Therefore, New York’s mass of skyscrapers can be
seen as a metaphor for the surplus of time, energy, resources, etc that are
present in our everyday lives.
This idea of seeing New York from above is continued by
Certeau to illustrate the differences between being a part of the mass and
merely being an observer. By being a part of the mass, one is trapped in the
chaos of the city and blends into the mesh of society. However, when one
ascends to the top of the World Trade center or in other words removes themselves
from this mass of conformity, they are able to see the world more clearly.
Certeau states that “It’s hard to be down when you’re up.” Painters, city
planners and cartographers have the opportunity to depict and see life from
above however the rest of us are stuck below as walkers of the city or in
Certeau’s words “ordinary practitioners of the city.” These walkers construct
the city through their movements through space and time in which they
themselves are oblivious to the fact that they are creating. Do you feel like
you are an “ordinary practitioner of the city?” And do you agree with Certeau’s
statement that “It’s hard to be down when you’re up?” Sometimes one can feel
like they are blending into a monotonous routine in life however I think that
we should aspire to be like these city planners and painters who viewed the
world from above. We should try to separate ourselves from the conformity of
the world and be aware and conscious of who we are in order to create our own
identity in life. We should not be ordinary practitioners but unique
practitioners of the city. We are able to determine our own movements in the
mass of the city and can choose to create our own paths.
Certeau’s next idea is how this “migrational city” becomes a
“planned and readable city.” This is dependent upon being forward thinking as
well as having the right outlook, or having a “perspective vision and prospective
vision.” It is through the methodology of combining these two visions that a
city can be formed. One must have the idea for the city as well as be able to
carry out these ideas in order to make a fully functional environment.
Certeau’s next theory is that a city should have three
things: it should be able to control all the different types of “pollution,” it
should have an unrestricted perspective of time and it should be all-inclusive
of the properties that construct it. He goes into depth on how a city must go
through destruction so that it can eventually reach its desired state.
Certeau’s assumption is that a city is “a place of
transformation and appropriations, the object of various kinds of interferences
but also a subject that is constantly enriched by new attributes, it is simultaneously
the machinery and the hero of modernity.” Like Baudelaire states in “The Painter
of Modern Life,” the idea of modernity plays a major role in how we view
urbanism and its connection to individuals from a socioeconomic perspective. I
agree with Certeau that a city can be characterized by the ebb and flows of
events throughout time as well as a place for both individualism, in attitudes
and perspective of its citizens, and equality among the inhabitants that
construct this mass. What is your
perspective on Certeau’s assumption on modernity?
I really appreciated your perspective on Michel de Certeau's "Walking in the City," as it was quite different from my own. When I read his essay, I was under the impression that his overarching point was that viewing something "from above" destroys one's ability to fully emerge oneself in one's life. Due to the limited view one has when only looking at something from the top, instead of within, it is hard to say that that is the road people should take. However, you make a sound argument when you say that people should not succumb to the woes of conformity and should become their own individual. After reading your critique of Creteau's piece, it is obvious that I have a lot more to think about and reflect on. Good job, Kathryn! :)
ReplyDeleteI find it interesting that you took something a bit different from this reading than I did. It really speaks to how rich texts like this can hold different meanings for everyone. De Certeau seems to be advocating here that we emerse ourselves in the fabric of the city and not simply to look at it from a far. But you've made a very good case that to be an observer means to have an understanding of yourself as an individual apart from the society to which you belong. Reading this, I was reminded about the differences between individualist and collectivist cultures. The U.S. is very much individualist and values self-expression and independence where as countries like Japan are much more collectivist and value membership and communalism. You bring up a lot of individualist ideologies, while one could argue that de Certeau does the opposite. When reading de Certeau, one might feel pressured to conclude that one is better than the other. Historically, we've seen a similar conflict between Capitalism and Socialism, between individual freedom and equality. Another way we can interpret this text is to think about the relative merits and demerits of both. I'm of the mindsight that the world doesn't work in black-and-white, that it is more complex. Instead of deciding to either be in the city or above it, I think it is much more realistic to decide for ourselves when we should switch between the two perspectives.
ReplyDelete