[ ARC forum 2 ]
Written by Ivan at 11 Apr 2003 08:16:01: Re: CULTURE and the "City"
As an answer to: Re: CULTURE and the "City" written by Rood at 11 Apr 2003 05:54:50:
>
>What is this about the "city"?
>Abel was a wanderer with his sheep. Cain was a farmer, settled, and "civilized". After Cain "killed" his brother, he away from the presence of God, dwelling in the land of Nod, east of Eden, where he built a city.
>Give me the culture of a man in touch with the earth and with Nature over any superficial cityscape. Civilization you will find there, but rarely, if ever, culture. The city denies its birthright, the earth. I have never lived in one, a city, and I never will. They are hideous antheaps, all nervous motion, without purpose.Just so, actually. The word 'civilized' means literally 'city-dweller,' and conceptually it has its roots in the earliest of human agricultural life, because farmers who tried to go it alone would soon find their produce stolen. To have a measure of safety the farmers had to live together in cities and help defend each other from the not-yet-settled 'uncivilized' tribes. This had good and bad consequences. It allowed division of labor, greater productivity, the development of arts, better and better crafts, intellectual pursuits, storage of foods against famine years, etc. It also led to greater concentration of power, slavery, empire-building, etc. While it certainly did not give rise to warfare, it allowed it on a greater and greater scale.
To a large extent the virtues that came to be classed as 'civilized' were not those of all the city-dwellers, but of the minority who were free. And apart from that part about owning other people, the virtues were substantial and honorable. The accomplishment of what may be called liberal democracy is the establishment of those virtues - for the most part - throughout the populace, all of whom are now free (for the most part), while removing so much of the attitude that would diminish others to the point of being property. It no longer requires the actual residence in a city, as communication, law and order, and literacy allow a sociaety to function over large areas without the need for frequent face-to-face contact.
I agree that the city is no longer central to the characteristics which once made 'civilized' a complimentary term. They often seem inimical to those virtues, even. There are peoples who have established and maintained societies where there is stability, a general recognition of civil rights (and the disoutes over whether those rights are being fully honored by the governments is the very proof that these rights are possessed for the most part abd respected), and a fairly broad-based prosperity (very different from mere wealth) largely open to all who can and will find a way to participate. Largely these are the western democracies, so it might be associated with the Judeo-Christian ethic, but Japan and South Korea seem also to be there, and there are other nations who seem to be on their way which are not primarily either Christian or Jewish.
I guess this has gone kind of far afield from the purpose of this board, but what the heck, we haven't had a foreskin inquiry in several days, and it is not clear that even that was an honest post. I largely agree about cities, although I find charms in them as well. But I am most at home in a forest, preferably in rolling mountains.