A bout of food poisoning has rather curtailed my active
participation in the Global Urban Forum. The fever was so intense at one point,
I began to hallucinate and was convinced that I could understand the men
labouring outside my hotel window as they spoke Italian because above them
floated a Google Toolbar translating them into English! It was one kind of
vision for a city!
However, what struck me about this event (as is often the
case with development related activities) was the instrumentality of its
approach towards the city. All well and good the discussions on urban planning,
resilient cities, climate change, stopping forced evictions and so on and so
forth but no visible place to discuss the meaning of the city, what place does
this now majority form of human organization, have in our culture?
Since I am in Naples, my thought naturally turned to a Roman
(if not an Italian) to St Augustine: here the city is seen as the archetypal
form of human organization. The city was what humanity was made for – it is the
crucible and testing ground of that humanity and the prototype of that was Rome
and it had failed. It had fallen to the barbarians: a just indicator of that
failure. But the solution is not agrarian dispersion (a vision of the good live
championed say by Vergil) but by rising a new one on Christian foundations: a
city of God.
Now, we might think that this language is antique yet like
much antique language, it continues to have purchase at the edges of popular
consciousness (and in the depths of that consciousness).Witness the popular
language around Katrina and New Orleans and not only that of the wilder shade
of evangelist...
But even when not thinking theologically, simply at a
cultural level, cities are more than simply places in which to survive and
work, they are places in which to live and their excitement as such is as much
a part of the story of their growth as the dynamics of demography and economy.
Hence the contrast between the two primary documents in my welcome pack – the very
comprehensive booklet like agenda and ‘Qui Napoli’ the host city’s own guide
that dwells not on the instrumental language of urban planning but the all too
human language of excitement and fun, history and culture (low and high).
I cannot help sensing that many of the questions of the
former language are only fully answerable in the language of the latter, that is
only when we forge a cohesive and meaningful image of the city as place of
human flourishing, of an aspiration after a good life for all, that the second
order of instrumental arrangement can be answered (if only ever proximately).
We need greater ideological confidence in painting pictures of the good life,
otherwise all our language seems to collapse back into problem solving (and
wondering why they are not).
Comments
Post a Comment