#cover m-b-murray-bookchin-the-limits-of-the-city-1.png
#title The Limits of the City
#author Murray Bookchin
#LISTtitle Limits of the City
#SORTauthors Murray Bookchin
#SORTtopics municipal government, dialectics, urbanization, municipalism, libertarian municipalism, the city
#date 1974
#source [[https://archive.org/stream/BookchinTheLimitsOfTheCity/Bookchin%20-%20The%20Limits%20of%20the%20City_djvu.txt][Internet Archive OCR]] and [[https://archive.org/details/BookchinTheLimitsOfTheCity][Internet Archive scanned reference]].
#lang en
#notes Published by Harper & Row. This is the second edition of *Limits of the City*.
*** Dedication
*For my son Joey*
** Preface
This essay attempts to provide a meaningful perspective
on the development of the city. It begins with a remote era
when the land dominated the town and traces urban evolution in the present, when great metropolitan entities dominate the countryside. In the course of dealing with this
historic development and its consequences for us, the book
examines certain traditions of urbanism That have been
virtually forgotten today. My purpose is to provide the
reader with an idea of what the city was once like at its
best, to recover high standards of urbanism all the more to
question the present lack of standards in judging the modern metropolis and the society that fosters its growth.
This book is radically critical; it offers no recipes for urban revitalisation within the framework of the present
social order, nor does it make those esthetically tender
concessions to design projects that even radical urbanists
offer as substitutes for meaningful social relations. If the
modern metropolis is viewed against the larger background of urban history, it will be seem as the complete
negation of city life as it was Conceived during the more
civilized eras, of the past. My purpose is to strengthen such
a comparison, and to emphasize as strongly as I can that the
roots of the urban crisis today lie not merely in poor designing, bad logistics, neglected neighborhoods, and inadequate material support, but in the social system which has created these problems in the first place — and produced
the modern metropolis. This book tries to show that the
city must be viewed not only as a special arena for human
sociation called “urban” — one that has changed in character From one historical period to another — but also as the
product of distinct social relations and modes of social development. Accordingly, to rescue urban life today would
require a fundamental change in society, not just a new
urban design. Important as design may be, it is a function
of social life itself; and since modern society is basically
irrational, it should not surprise us that the city reflects and
oven exaggerates the social irrationalities of our time.
To draw sharp contrasts between the degraded standards of contemporary urbanism and the high standards
achieved by earlier cities seams especially important today
if only to rescue the latter from oblivion. We are slowly
losing a humanistic conception of the very meaning of the
word “city.” Paradoxically, we live in a world marked by
rampant urbanization — but one that lacks real cities. As
the once clearly demarcated cities inherited from the past
are devoured by the expanding metropolis, the city begins
to lose its definition and specificity, as well as its function
as an authentic arena for community and solidarity. The
city disappears in the great urban belts which spread across
the laud Even the countryside is transformed into urban
parkland or a complex, of highly industrialized agricultural
factories. Contemporary city planning, insofar as it hypostatizes the design or logistical aspects of urbanism at the
expense of its human and communitarian goals, becomes
truly atavistic. If the priests of the ancient monumental
cities were city planners who imposed a cosmological design on urbanized areas to glorify the power of deified
monarchies, the modern city planners have become priests
whose urban designs are crassly institutional and
utilitarian. Both are architects of the mythic in that they
subserve the city — its human scale and its communitarian
dimension — to suprahuman and nonhuman ends.
In the pages that follow, details and side developments
of urban history have been deliberately sacrificed for
brevity and clarity of presentation. Far too many works on
the development of the city overwhelm the reader with a
dense undergrowth of factual material and esthetic opinion, with the result that the reader loses all perspective of
the essential trends in urban history and the making of the
modern metropolis. This book tries to maintain a clear
focus throughout and deals with what I regard as vital
aspects of the relationship between town and country, the
emergence of the modern city, and the social and civic
deterioration which reaches into the very marrow of modern urbanism.
The first two chapters, “Land and City” and “The Rise
of the Bourgeois City,” as well as the “Introduction” and
the opening pages of “The Limits of the Bourgeois City”
were written in the late 1950s and published in abbreviated form in May 1960 in the Anglo-American quarterly *Contemporary Issues*. Those chapters had an underground circulation among friends who continually urged
me to publish them in full. They appear here in complete
form for the first time. The analysis they contain of the
relationship between town and country parallels in so
many ways Mars’s more fragmentary discussion of the
same subject in the new-famous *Grundrisse der Kritik der politischen Okonomie* that I was more than pleasantly surprised to note the similarities when Mars’s work appeared in Hobsbawm’s *Marx on Pre-Capitalist Formations*. Yet
Mars’s work was unavailable to me when I wrote these
chapters; indeed, the *Grundrisse* was generally unknown
at that time, at least in the English-speaking world. The
fragmentary Hobsbawm edition was not published until
1964, more than six years after *The Limits of the City* had
been written and more than four years after it appeared in
its Contemporary Issues version,. Accordingly, readers who
find Marx’s work on the relationship of the town to the
countryside in the *Grundrisse* as valuable as I do will probably benefit greatly from a close reading of *The Limits of the City*. I’ve left these opening chapters untouched except for very minor stylistic changes. In the remainder of
this book — which is to say, most of it — the material is entirely new and carries the analysis of the city into our own times.
Today, my own social views are more committed to a
libertarian perspective than they were in the 1950s. These
views arc developed in considerable detail in my *Post-Scarcity Anarchism* (Ramparts Books, 1971) and are undergoing still further development in a work ! expect to complete shortly, *The Ecology of Freedom*. Despite this
shift in perspective, however, I would be the last to deny
the influence Marx has had on my thinking and I would
willingly regard this volume as an elaboration of the views
he so brilliantly developed in the *Grundrisse*. I suspect
that the opening chapters of *The Limits of the City* will be
of particular interest to readers who are concerned with
Marxist studies. For my part, I would call *The Limits of the City* a dialectical work that deals with cities or the past acid
present as phases or moments of a larger urban process, a
process in which the potentialities of the urban development are internally unfolded, enriched, and reach their
ultimate negation in the modern metropolis. The main
purpose of this book is to enable the reader to see this
process — the internal connections between different periods of urban history — and to recognize that urbanism must
be viewed as a development that places us in a unique
position to go beyond the city as such and produce a new
type of community, one that combines the best features of
urban and rural life in a harmonized future society. The
concluding pages of *The Limits of the City* hint at what
such a community might be. For a more detailed discussion, I must refer the reader to “Post-Scarcity Anarchism” and my forthcoming *The Ecology of Freedom*. But this
little volume clearly stands on its own ground. Indeed, it
provides the necessary overall perspective and many of
the criteria which make the concept of a harmonized community meaningful.
March 1973
Murray Bookchin
Social Ecology Studies Program
Goddard College
Plainfield, Vermont
Center for New Studies
Ramapo College
Mahwah, N.J.
** Introduction
A well-known medieval adage has it that “city air makes
people free.” Although the freedom afforded by medieval
cities generally meant emancipation from serfdom, the
same adage might have been repeated from slightly different viewpoints throughout the history of urban life. Cities
embody the most important traditions of civilization. Owing to the size of their marketplaces and the close living
quarters they render possible, cities collect those energizing Force? of social life that country life tends to dissipate
over wide expanses of land and scattered populations. Seasonal renewals of nature that send hunters and food gatherers on migrations and reclothe the works of the peasant are
replaced in cities by a more palpable heritage. From a
cultural standpoint, the land, years ago, was regarded as
fugitive, the city as permanent; the land as natural, the city
as social. While this dichotomy may be greatly exaggerated, it is certainty true that the full’d!moot of individuality and intellect was the historic privilege of the urban dweller or of individuals influenced by urban life. Indeed,
some kind of urban community is not only the environment of humanity! it is its destiny. Only in a complete
urban environment can there be complete people; only in
a rational urban situation can the human spirit advance its
most vital cultural and social traditions.
What, then, is a complete urban environment?
This work will try to answer the question partly by
means of a historical account of the limits of earlier cities
in order to establish some standards by which urban development can be judged? partly, too, by means of a criticism
of many contemporary urban characteristics, the removal
of which are necessary For the emergence of a new land of
human community. A historical discussion of the city
seems all the more necessary because mere urban accretion these days is often a popular justification for the superiority of one city over another. The size of urban populations, the number of square miles a city occupies, the
facilities it has to support these dimensions — all are treated
as virtues that find their culmination in the modern city.
This approach tells us that during the past century or two,
cities, like the output of machines, have expanded tremendously. Cities now approximate territories rather than
communities. The most vital characteristics of urban life,
as these have been understood over thousands of years,
generally remain unknown or unnoticed, reposing in the
writings of a few urban specialists and critics. There seems
lo be little widespread understanding that the quantitative
changes to which I have alluded have decisively worsened
the quality of urban life, supplying modern Cities with
characteristics that are radically different from the best
traits and traditions of urbanism.
Just as there is a point beyond which a village becomes
a city, so there is a point beyond which a city negates itself,
churning up a human condition that is more atomizing —
and culturally or socially more desiccated — than anything
attributed to rural life. Although we think of cities as autonomous entities that have a life and history of their own,
they are no different from other arenas of social activity; as
Marx observed, they develop with the material conditions
which shape society as a whole. In time, one body of
material conditions is exhausted, often leading to another
that may rehabilitate a given site for city life on an entirely
different social basis. The newer city may even inherit the
name of the older one, but by no means, can they be regarded as the same cities. Renaissance and modern Rome
differ as fundamentally from each other as ancient and
medieval Rome. They express entirely different economic,
social, and cultural conditions, although they share the
same name and occupy the same locale.
Modern cities occupy a unique position in urban history
— a fact that I Feel is not dearly understood by those who
dwell in them. On the one hand, the immense development of industry over the past century has created a remarkable opportunity for bringing land and city into a
rational and ecological synthesis. The two could be
blended into an artistic unity that would open a new vision
of the human and natural experience. On the Other hand,
the modern city — particularly the metropolis — develops
the historic limits of city life *as such*, bringing the antagonism between land and city to a breaking point. Given its
grotesquely distorted form, it is questionable whether the
city is any longer the proper arena for social and cultural
development. Thus, by exhausting the one-sidedness of
city life based on a vast and malleable industry, the metropolis, by its own inner logic, tends to raise the issue of
developing all that is desirable in urbanity into a qualitatively new human community.
The development of a rational and ecological human
community is, in fact, becoming a necessity. For if in
Marx’s view the “whole economical history of society is
summed up” in the development of the antithesis between
town and country, it is fair to add that the destiny of the
modern city may well summarize the future of humanity. [1]
Either the limits imposed on the city by modern social life
will be overcome, or Forms of city life may arise that are
congruent with the barbarism in store for humanity if people of this age should fail to resolve their social problems.
The evidence for this tendency can be seen not only in the
metropolis, choking with an alienated and atomized aggregate of human beings, but in the “well-policed” totalitarian
city composed of starved black ghettoes and privileged
white enclaves — a city that would be a cemetery of freedom, culture, and the human spirit.
[1] Karl Marx, *Capital* (Chicago: Charles H. Kerr & Co.), 1:387.
** 1. Land and City
Cities play an indisputably dominant role in modern life.
They visibly decide the development of modern society. It
would thus seem that once urban communities arose, they
quickly achieved a leading position and, like our own cities,
entered into an overbearing antagonism with the countryside.
But there was a time when urban life was either subordinated to or in balance with the countryside. The development of social relations through much of precapitalist history’did not definitively depend upon the development of
city life until the late Middle Ages, when cities became the
precursors of an authentic bourgeois economy. It is easily
forgotten that most of human history is occupied with
women and men as food cultivators, and that the social
wealth of the past came primarily from agricultural pursuits. Moreover, agrarian society was itself the product of
a long and complex evolution, involving different forms of
land tenure and social relations. From the more or less
communal forms of horticulture practiced by early clans
and tribes, agrarian society advanced through the Asian
land system with its paramount monarchies to feudalism
and to an agricultural society based on an independent
peasantry. The problems of this long period were, primarily
agrarian problems and the greatest economic weight lay
not in cities but in the countryside, or at least among social
classes based on the land.
All cities constitute an antithesis to the land. They are a
break in the solidity of agrarian conditions, a germ of negalion in the agrarian community. At the same time, however, rural life summons forth the city from its own inner
development as a division of labor between crafts and
trade on the one hand, and relatively self-sufficient agriculttural communities on the other. The emerging city begins
by reflecting the social relations in the countryside so that
there are different cities more or less corresponding to
different forms of agrarian society. In various phases of
social development, the City is raised from a distinctly
subordinate position to one of equilibrium with the countryside and may remain so for long periods of time or, after
overstepping the limits of its rural base, finally yield to the
hegemony of the land when the two become clearly incompatible. Viewed over most of precapitalist history, city
life did not have as complete an urban basis as it seems to
have today. Urban centers were largely the foci of surrounding agrarian relations. They were horticultural clan
cities, Asian cities. Feudal cities, and even peasant and yeoman cities. Urban life could be clearly understood only by
searching back to the economic relationships that prevailed in the agricultural environs. Although city life acquired social forces of its own and often entered into contradiction with the land, the agrarian economy established,
the historical limits for almost every Urban development.
This can be demonstrated quite clearly by a number of
examples, An illustration of the earliest cities can be drawn
from descriptions of the Aztec “capital” of Tenochtitlan,
encountered by Spanish *conquistadores* only three centuries ago. At first glance, the community is deceptively similar in appearance to a modern city. Although architecture
and the design of life were “exotic,” the dimensions of the
city, the height of its structures, and the lateness of its
discovery by white men seem to place it closer to the end
rather than the beginning of urban history. According to
George C. Vaillant, to the Spanish invaders who first saw
it, “in contrast to the drab towns and tawny bills of Spain,
Tenochtitlan must have appeared a paradise, for its green
gardens and white buildings were set in the midst of blue
lakes, ringed by lofty mountains.” [2] Vaillant quotes Bernal
Diaz, one of Cortes’s soldiers:
Gazing on such wonderful sights, we did not know what to
say or whether what appeared before us was real, for on
one Side in the land were great Cities and the lake itself was
crowded with canoes, and in the causeway were many
bridges at intervals, and in front of us stood the City of
Mexico.[3]
[2] G.C. Vaillant, *Aztecs of Mexico*, rev. e.d. (New York: Penguin
Books, 1962). p. 225.
[3] Ibid.
But Diaz was not a provincial gazing spellbound at a
cosmopolis, nor were the towns of Spain merely villages by
comparison with Tenochtitlan. A closer, perhaps intellectually more ruthless view suggests that the brilliance of the
Mexican city consisted largely of externals The city’s
resemblance to a modern urban center rests on its lofty
religious structures, its spacious plazas for ceremonies, its
palaces and administrative buildings. Looking beyond
these structures, the city in many respects was very likely
a grossly oversized pueblo community
It would be difficult to understand clearly the nature of
Tenochtitlan without directing attention to the clan structure and horticultural basis of Aztec society. Although the
city was unusually large for such a traditional society, the
horticultural activities of the clans reached directly into
the urban community. Together with religious and military affairs, the coordination of clans for social and economic activities formed the major interest of the city’s
governing bodies. So complete was the integration of land
and city, indeed the supremacy of agrarian interests over
uniquely urban ones, that the Aztecs never quite developed money. Exchange normally proceeded on a barter
basis — that is to say, on a village basis — ’equalized, by cacao
beans when the value of one commodity exceeded that of
another. The city dweller was born into a complex body of
social relationships that essentially developed from life on
the land. His position in society was defined by hereditary
roots in groups of kinfolk and blood relationships. The clan
formed the matrix of the Aztecs civic, social, and cultural
life.
The city, to be sure, differentiated a sizeable portion of
the populace from their older agrarian elan ties, creating
craftsmen and traders. But these groups were also obliged
to participate in the traditional social scheme, formally
duplicating relationships developed in the countryside.
Vaillant observes:
The opening of intertribal contact through settlement and
warfare and the growth of material and ritualistic wants
led to the establishment of a class, the *pochteca*.
whose members travelled all over Mexico, exchanging local for foreign produce. [4]
The *pochteca*, however, “had their own god, and apparently lived in a special quarter” in a manner similar to
other clans in the community. They held a position within
the city or as part of it, not as its leaders; they did not
represent the city like the burghers in the medieval towns
and the modern bourgeoisie.
Although a centralized monarchical “capital,” Tenochtiilan was managed by four executive officers and a variety
of nobles who adjudicated disputes between the clans and
cared for military affairs. Within this infrastructure, from
the lowest lineages to the highest, power was a function of
a very complex social stratification. Vaillant notes that the
continual election of such high officers of the same family
or lineage, when democratic procedure obtained elsewhere, is harder to explain. Tradition is strong in primitive
communities, and a family that produced one effective
man might in the next generation produce another.[5]
[4] Ibid., p. 129.
[5] Ibid.
More recent evidence reveals that the “democratic procedure” to which Vaillant gives so much emphasis had in fact
waned to a point where the city council of Tenochtitlan,
once a fairly democratic body composed of clan loaders,
was appointed by the monarchy and largely controlled by
the ruling stratum, By the time of the Spanish conquest,
Aztec society had become a highly complex hierarchy of
nobles and commoners, a hierarchy Still based on kin ties
and superimposed on a clan structure, but one that may
have been drifting toward art increasingly territorial form
of social life. How fair the society might have developed in
this direction — or, quite possibly, in the direction of a rigid
centralized structure similar to the “state communism” of
the Inca empire — will never be known. The Spanish conquest brought the Aztec development to an end and completely demolished its internal Structure.
This urban society, viewed from the standpoint of its clan
relationships, may have existed for centuries in
Mesoamerica before it was encountered by white men. The
Aztec and Inca empires seem to have marked the culmination of the Indian urban tradition in the Americas, perhaps
its outermost limits. Generally, throughout Mesoamerica,
as one city arose, another declined in eminence; a continual
rising arid falling of cities was the rule. Once the old administrative structure was demolished in a given area —
perhaps owing to land exhaustion or war — the city disappeared, only to reappear elsewhere when Favorable conditions for urbanism developed. These cities arose, flourished,
and often vanished without abolishing the clan structure.
It is fair to say that the American Indian city up to the
Spanish conquest was essentially rooted in the clan or in
similar kinship structures. As time passed and as populations increased, a tendency emerged to extend the “plan
of government” (to borrow Lewis H. Morgan’s phrase)
from clan to tribe and from tribe to tribal federation. This
tendency must be seen as a quantitative linking of clan to
clan, a colonization by social affinity of relatively self-sufficient, socio-natural organisms along increasingly hierarchical lines. Attempts to relate the Aztec and Inca empires to
the historical city and landed aristocracy of Europe, despite their many similarities, are often misleading. An
American Indian analogue to the historical cities of Europe
and the Mediterranean basin would be meaningful if clan
society had so completely decomposed that it yielded a
class society based on territorial rather than kinship ties
and eventually on the private ownership and control of
social wealth. No such qualitative transformation actually
occurred in Mesoamerica before the conquest. Generally,
where the pressures of scarcity and survival abated in parts
of Indian America, there emerged a fairly unified community, often superficially urban in character, that tended to
integrate rather than exacerbate internal divergences.
“There was little to harass the individual intellectually or
economically,” observes Vaillant,
Existence was subject to divine favour, and a man fared
much as did bits fellows. Large as some towns were — Mexico City [Tenochtitlan] had 300,000 people — the sense of community was strong. Freedom of thought, individual
liberty, personal Fortunes, were nonexistent, but people
lived according to a code that had worked well and continuously for centuries. An Aztec would have been horrified at the marked isolation of an individual’s life in our Western world. [6]
[6] Ibid., p. 134.
Viewed from the base of society, the clan established the
limits of this type of urban life. The city was the product
of the clan and was seen as the shelter of the clan’s federative tendencies.
History, conceived as the account of conflicting social
interests, begins when the external means for expropriating material surpluses (notably, war and pillage) are internalized as systematic modes of exploitation, restructuring
the clan and transforming social life from within. Society’s
transcendence of the clan is the greatest and most significant Single development of the ancient world. Humanity is exiled from a harmonized universe to the realm of social
contradiction, where the problems of material want are
Fell as harsh antagonisms between one stratum and another. Society becomes one-sided and incomplete, disrupting the balance within the human community and between humanity and the natural world. Mankind is
propelled on a restless journey to round out social life on
a higher equilibrium. It should not surprise us that the
internal reworking of the clan, and later, its complete destruction, involves a more decisive technological revolution than any development known before. The division of
tabor expands and new strata are set apart from agricultural work, each of which crystallizes into a social class with
special interests that are often in sharp opposition to the
interests of other classes.
So far removed, as yet, are the early cities from the urban
mainstream of history that changes in clan society arise
from technological developments in the countryside
rather than in the towns, notably the domestication of animals and the discovery of plow agriculture. With this new
mode of agriculture, the clan ceases to be a precondition
for social life. To have eliminated the clan in Indian America would have completely disrupted the material basis of
society: without a highly dedicated, socially responsible
labor force that alone could have provided the intensive
cultivation required by maize and by a technology that had
not advanced beyond the hoe and human muscle power,
it is doubtful if the substantial material surpluses needed to
sustain large cities would have been available in Mexico
and Peru. Indian food cultivation on such a scale was possible only under social conditions in which people related to
each other as kinfolk rather than isolated urban citizens.
The significance of the clan structure becomes all the more
evident if we hear in mind that food cultivation in areas
like the Peruvian Andes depended in large part on terracing barren mountainous regions with soil painstakingly collected from distant lowlands. As Edward Hyams observes, owing to the fact that
they were Forced, in the Andes ... to create their soils in
order to expand, ... they were forced to retain ... the
ancient structure of society, at least in so far as it related
to systems of land-tenure and land working. In the absence
of machinery or of an advanced slave-owning economy,
large works of terracing, or reclamation and of irrigation
can only be carried out by communal efforts and common
labour.... There has probably never been, unless under
European Feudalism, a system in which agricultural practice and social organization were so locked together in a
perfect artifact of the mind and spirit And nothing makes
this clearer than the results which followed the imposition
of the European system and religion on the Andeans. The
soil was not directly attacked for the Spaniards were at first
interested only in gold, but the social organism was destroyed and at once the soil itself began to die. [7]
[7] Edward Hyams, *Soil and Civilization* (London: Thames and Hudson, 1952), pp. 228–229
With the discovery of the plow and the broadcast sowing
of hardy grains in the Near East — as well as the general
application of animal labor to the tilling of the land —
agriculture became extensive rather than intensive. Food
cultivation now required a fraction of the work needed to
achieve corresponding outputs in the Americas. But if the
elan was no longer a limit to further social changes, neither
was it, at least initially, an obstacle. Indeed, it persisted as
a basic form of social relationship and labor mobilization
well into historical times. Here, were would do well to emphasise that humanity does not casually change its social
structures, particularly if they have been sanctified by millennia
of development and the weight of tradition. Retrospectively, we might comfortably entertain many alternative’s to the historical development that actually occurred,
perhaps to suggest more rational and humanistic lines of
social evolution. But if nothing else, history teaches us that
old institutions are rarely changed until their possibilities
have been largely exhausted. Clan society was especially
durable. Even where it exists today, it remains the most
stable form of human association thus far developed. Perhaps no institution following it Fostered as deep a sense of
solidarity, mutual aid, and supportive comfort to the individual. Owing to their natural basis in kinship ties, clans
proved to be the most intimate and perhaps satisfying social forms devised by humanity. Accordingly, the clan
tended to perpetuate itself against compelling social forces
that easily overwhelmed or drastically altered other Forms
of human association.
At first, the new plow and field economy did not appreciably alter the social Forms based on the hoe and gardening economy of an earlier epoch. The evolution of one
system into another, in Fact, proceeded so subtly and organically that it is often difficult to delineate the social
distinctions between the two. Variations occurred in communal property and in the old nature religions, but communal systems of property persisted For a long time under
new forms of social administration. Even the clans lingered
on vestigially, if not intact, well into advanced historical
periods. Formally speaking, the successors of the traditional clan system emerged when tribal chiefs, prominent
warriors, or a consolidated priestly caste succeeded in
becoming the solo proprietors of the land. They seasonally
allocated plots for cultivation among the clansfolk, and collected agricultural surpluses presumably for use by the
community as a whole. The change from the old social
forms to the new assumed the character of a shift in emphasis rather than a total rupture with the past — a change
in the original communal system that seemed to consist in
enlarging its social functions and dimensions.
In time, however, the clan form was so thoroughly divested of its original content as the determining factor in
social Life that it became little more than a device for allocating labor and resources. Claus lost virtually all of their
influence in the administration of the community. In the
hands of ruthless authorities, clans often became the instruments of their self-exploitation and plunder, The change
from older equalitarian relations in Egypt and Mesopotamia to new systems of exploitation and class stratification
was not quite accepted passively by the oppressed; indeed,
the archaeological record attests to widespread popular revolts and interregnums of social disorder in which futile
attempts were made to restore the old order of things.
Interestingly, apart from separatist tendencies and uprisings by conquered populations, no internal social conflicts
of such magnitude are known t o the civilizations of Indian
America, for the preoccupation of dominated tribes in this
region was not with the social structure as such, notably its
clan form, but with the tribute which was claimed by domineering tribes such as the Aztec rulers of Mexico.
We owe largely to Marx the term “Asian land system” as
the designation of a mode of agriculture in which land is
still inalienable, indeed communally worked, but its management is controlled by a powerful state apparatus. [8] Possibly the most archaic of class societies, its elements tend to appear whenever tribal society has begun to disintegrate and the need for viable clan structures has been
removed by the economic development of the community.
The Asian land system appears not only in early Egypt and
Mesopotamia, but in a nascent form when agrarian kingships were established over the Greek, Roman„ and German tribes during the era of their settlement on the land.
In all such cases, we see evidence that society is trying to
formulate a compromise between a time-honored tradition that land is inalienable and belongs to the community
as a whole with new tendencies toward private proprietorship in land or, at least, control of agricultural surpluses by
a privileged stratum. Within these archaic parameters, exploitation of human by human emerges even before private property in land and resources has been firmly established. With the Asian land system, we encounter a society
that enjoys a durability comparable to that of the clan
structure: in Egypt, Mesopotamia, India, and China, it remained the basis of social relations For thousands of years;
indeed, apart from Mesopotamia;, it was not substantially
eroded until: fairly modern times. Nor is it difficult to understand why these civilizations, largely alluvial ones,
failed to advance into propertied forms of Society, Irrigation, by virtue of its technical requirements, festers cooperative if not public forms of agricultural management.[9] In
the ancient world, a world stilt heir to social ownership of
land and a communal organization of labor, a society based
on irrigation necessarily retained elements of the archaic
clan and tribal structure, albeit in a highly centralized statist framework. Insofar as the cultivation of food required
the coordinated management of water resources and an
extensive system of canals, any regional particularism —
much less any development of private property — would
have vitiated the success of agriculture. Christopher Dawson observes:
The conversion of the jungles and swamps of the prehistoric valley into the rich cornlands which made Egypt the wonder of the world was only accomplished by ages of
communal coordinated effort The prosperity of the country depends, not as in northern lands on the industry of the
individual peasant and his family, but on the organized
labour of the irrigation dykes, and on the fertilising waters
of the annual inundation, for land in itself is valueless apart
from the water which is supplied by the Nile and the irrigation canals. From the earliest times the measurement of
the Nile flood and the maintenance of the irrigation works
has been the primary duty of every Egyptian Government.
The ancient Egyptian year began on July 19, the day that
the inundation reached the neighborhood of the head of
the Delta, and as early as the First Dynasty the annual
taxation was fixed according to the level of the river, for the
yield of the following harvest depends entirely on a good
Nile.... Hence the power which regulates and controls the
inundation is the master of the life and property of the
whole population, arid the principle of compulsory public
labor — the corvee — which elsewhere appears as a tyrannical infringement of the rights of the individual, is in Egypt the necessary condition of all economic life.[10]
[8] Kart Marx, “Preface to *A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy*,” *Selected Works* (Mew York: International Publishers, n.d), 1: 357.
[9] This viewpoint is developed in considerable detail id Karl Wittfogel’s *Oriental Despotism* (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1957). Although Wittfogel simplifies this approach and has been criticized with good reason by Robert M. Adams and Jacques Garnet, the essential thrust of his thesis is, in my view, correct. Irrigation fostered cooperation if only on a local scale. And if centralized empires were a later development, it is hard to believe that they
could have been sustained for centuries without the communication afforded by great river systems and the need for large irrigation works.
[10] Christopher Dawson, *The Age of the Gods* (London. Shred and Ward, 1934), pp. 155–156.
Irrigation, by necessitating coordinated communal labor, Fostered state centralization and bureaucratization. As
early as the first Dynasty in Egypt, we learn from the
historical record of the existence of a vizier, chancellor,
chamberlain, master of ceremonies, royal architect. Superintendent of Inundation, and so forth, down to a Keeper of
the King’s Cosmetic Box — in short, a wide spectrum of
office holders, selected largely from the leading families of
the valley, who remind us more of royal courtiers and
bureaucrats than independent feudal nobles. In Egypt,
apart From claims made by the priesthood, the land belonged to the Pharaoh. It was essentially in his name that
local governors collected tribute and tuxes in kind, which
were thereupon stored in royal warehouses. The peasantry, largely bound to the soil, was either left with a residue of its produce or rewarded in kind from the public
Fund. In Mesopotamia, these privileges were pre-empted
by priestly corporations, later to be transferred to the person of a monarch who enjoyed an authority not dissimilar
from that of the Pharaonic power. In the course of time,
this highly centralized system broke down before the assault of the landed nobility, but it was almost invariably
reconstituted again, depending upon the vigor of successive dynasties and usurpers. The Asian land system remained the baste social form of Near Eastern and Oriental
civilizations until modern times.
These agrarian societies are the key to understanding
ancient city development, for they not only advance but
also limit the evolution of urban life. Agrarian interests,
owing to the centralized power and wealth they command,
subordinate the city to the land. Although many large and
ornate cities arose in Mesopotamia (and, to a lesser extent,
in Egypt), these urban communities did nut come into
lasting balance with she authority exercised by lauded
classes. Commerce, crafts, anti new industrial techniques
were numerous, but these were placed in She service of the
agrarian strata. Urban wealth, instead of returning to a
local bourgeoisie in the form of capital accumulation, was
expropriated by monarchies, slate bureaucracies, and local
governors. Capital formation, in effect, was largely circumscribed and essentially arrested. The emergence of an independent bourgeois class was blocked by taxes, imposts,
and state-owned enterprises.
The scale on which industry and commerce was plundered can be dealt with Only summarily. As Late as
Ptolemaic times, the Egyptian economy was snarled in
over two hundred taxes. The internal market of the valley
was effectively limited by a 10 percent sales tax, a 5 percent tax on home rents, an inheritance tax and, except for
privileged strata, a poll tax. Wealthy classes were commonly burdened by costly liturgies and by obligations to
give “crowns” to the monarchy. Commodity taxes were
imposed not only at ports and frontier routes, but also at
the borders of provinces. Virtually all handicrafts and
professions were licensed by the state. Royal monopolies
were established in the production of oil, papyrus, textiles,
and in mining and banking, while state enterprises competed with the private sector in industries such as dyeing,
leather, cosmetics, perfumery, glass, pottery, and beer.
The economic controls exercised by the Ptolemaic pharaohs differed little in principle from the regulations and
Imposts that burdened commerce and industry in nearly
all the agrarian civilizations of the Near East and the Orient, The first waves of commodity production, so essential
to the development of an authentic urban society, were
thus scattered by the massive boulders of lightly knit, state-managed agrarian economies. Allowing for a few exceptions, City life became an ornament of agrarian kingly
power and the product of agricultural superfluity, not unlike the huge monuments, temples, and mortuaries whose
construction absorbed the surplus labor and resources of
Egypt and Mesopotamia. Within this social arrangement,
capital accumulation, which later formed the basis for an
independent bourgeoisie and for an industrial economy in
Europe, was virtually impossible under the Asian land system. While weathered by time, the granite structure of this
system never Fractured or shattered. For thousands of
years after the dawn of history, it persisted with surprising
endurance — while men elsewhere picked up the main
thread of social development and advanced to more promising and flexible urban forms.
After the first millennium B.C. a new agrarian system
and a new mode of urban life began to emerge on the
northern shores of the Mediterranean Sea. Pastoral tribes,
filtering into the Greek promontory, conquered and gradually mixed with pre-existing stable agricultural communities, rapidly developing away from tribal society. Hellenic society, allowing for its many unique qualities, in its own
way recapitulates the evolution of agrarian kingships from
communal relations to a loose kind of feudalism, passing
through social forms not unlike the Asian land system. That
this phase emerged prototypically is attested by a good
deal of evidence from archaic Creek culture. The legendary figure of Theseus seems to group under a single name
a number of Hellenic chieftains who organized the Creek
tribes into federations somewhat reminiscent of early Nilotic society. “The first unquestionable fact which meets us
in the life of this new kind community is that it was originally governed by kings,” observes William F Fowler.
The thing was expressed by various words — Basileus, Archon. Pyrtanis, [and among the Latins] Hex, Dictator — but, so far as we know, it was always I here in the childhood of the ancient State. Tradition, both in Greece and Italy, always told of a time when the essential acts of government were performed either by or under the authority of a single man; and in this case we Can be sure that tradition was
right. Both Thucydides and Aristotle accepted it; at conservative Sparta the king himself survived throughout her history; and at Athens and Home kingship left traces behind it when it had vanished... [11]
[11] William F. Fowler, *The City State of the Greeks and Romans* (New York: Macmillan, 1952), p. 64.
Indeed, archaic Greek society found its esthetic inspiration
in an Orientalized art so alien to the sculpture which nourished during the later classical period that it seems difficult
to believe that the people who produced the rigid, overstylized Apollo of Tenea could have shared any historical
relationship to those who sculpted the figures which
adorned the temples of Periclean Athens.
Yet we know that the relationship existed and we must
find our explanation for the differences between the two
periods in the geography of southern Europe, The rugged
mountain terrain of Greece made it virtually impossible to
achieve the degree of political consolidation and centralism which so conspicuously distinguishes the high Asian
and Near Eastern civilizations. Early Hellenic communities, like their Asian counterparts, invested land ownership
in chieftains, but the centrifugal forces which episodically
shaped Asian societies along feudal and particularistic lines
became, in Greece, the dominant factors which guided the
development of the political structure. By Homeric times,
feudal vassalage rather than a highly centralized state had
become the basis of Greek federation. George Thompson
doubtless gives us an accurate picture of Homeric life
when he notes that the Creek king
lives in s palace on some rocky eminence, surrounded by
the dwellings of his vassals. The relation between king and
vassal is such as we find in similar conditions among the
primitive Germans 2,000 years later In reward for military
service, the vassal holds in fee the rule of some portion of
the conquered territory, and in return he takes up arms for
the king when called on to do so. Such was the relation of
Bellerophon to the King of Lycia, of Phonix to the father
of Achilles; and we remember how Odysseus endeavoured,
but in vain, to evade military service. The vassal is entitled
to be consulted on matters of policy and to feed at the royal
table. There are many such councils in the *Iliad*, and in the
*Odyssey* the offense of the suitors lies in their abuse of a
recognized privilege. Finally, each vassal stood in the relation of king to vassals of his own, Odysseus was a vassal of
Agamemnon’s, but to the princes of Ithaca he was king. [12]
[12] George Thompson, *Aeschylus and Athens* (New York] International Publishers, 1950), pp, 61–62.
If the investiture of control over tribal lands in the person of agrarian monarchs tends to disintegrate into feudalism unless the kingly authority is reinforced by the social
need to coordinate a complex irrigation system, so feudalism, in turn, tends to give way to independent peasant
communities based on small-scale food cultivation, especially after commodity production emerges in an agrarian
society. The towns, freeing themselves from the waning
authority of the territorial lords, reaches back into the
countryside to replicate the same economic conditions
which prevail in urban marketplaces and workshops. Commodity relations and trade turn the vassal and serf into
independent peasants, the agrarian analogue of the free
urban craftsman and master. This basic social tendency, as
we shall see later, was to be followed in late medieval
Europe. In ancient Greece and Italy, the development was
considerably modified by the impact of successive tribal
invasions From the north and by the settlement of craftsmen and traders from the more advanced Mediterranean
civilizations. The northern invaders reduced the older,
pre-existing agricultural communities to the Status of serfs,
while the conquerors often acquired a quasi-peasant status,
free in name if not in fact. Peasant and serf worked the
land side by side, each shading socially into the other’s
position. In time, a yeoman society of landed freeholders
began to crystallize from the fluid, often tumultuous conditions of a disintegrating system of feudal land-tenure. A
new kind of city now emerges, a city that forms the political, cultural, and commercial center of free farmers and
craftsmen — each independent and producing primarily
for the other in a remarkably well-balanced economy.
By the sixth and fifth centuries B.C., a number of Greek
cities already began to resemble, at least superficially, the
modern image of an urban community. Athens, the Hellenic city with which we are most familiar, probably supported some 30,000 male citizens (and if we add their
women and children, a total of 150,0001, perhaps 100,000
slaves, and an estimated 35,000 metics, or free aliens. During Athens’s classical period, the city’s population may
have well exceeded a quarter of a million. Generally, we
must conceive of the new Greek cities as independent
urban entities, freed from the suzerainty of territorial lords
and landed magnates. (This fact decisively distinguishes
the Greek city-states or, more accurately, *poleis* From the
Cities of the Near East and Orient.) Urban life now exists
as an end in itself, not as a supplement to a rural society,
and enjoys art autonomy that would have been inconceivable within the framework of the earlier Asian land system.
But the Hellenic cities are not truly modern cities in the
political and social sense of the term. As civic structures,
they differ profoundly not only from Asian cities but from
the metropolises and even smaller cities of our own era.
What Strikes us at once about Athens, the most advanced
of the Greek cities, is that civic activity involves an exceptionally high degree of public participation. All the policy
decisions of the *poiis* are formulated directly by a popular
assembly, or *Ecclesia*, which every male citizen from the
city and its environs (Attica) is expected to attend. The
execution of the *Ecclesia*’s decisions falls to the authority
of the Council of Five Hundred, composed of elected citizens from all parts of Attica, who, in groups of fifty, rotate
their office every tenth of the year. The practical aspects
of urban administration are ordinarily delegated by election or lot to public boards, not to a professional bureaucracy — notably to nine Archons, ten elected Strategoi or
generals, boards of finance, education, dockyards, and so
forth. Inasmuch as all the civic agencies of Athens are
reconstituted every year, it would seem that a sizeable
number of ordinary citizens participate in tine executive
bodies of the city at any given time, William Fowler estimates that in the days of Pericles, 1,900 citizens out of an
adult population of 30,000 men were actively engaged in
the service of the city, thereby rendering wide public participation an inherent feature of urban administration:
Now if we take this in connection with the universal
right of citizens to take part in the *Ecclesia*, and of those
over thirty years of age to sit as jurors in the courts, it
becomes at once plain that the Athenian people did actually conduct its own government, and that the State was a
true democracy. Here is no privileged class, no class of
skilled politicians, no bureaucracy: no body of men, like the
Roman Senate, who alone understood the secrets of State,
and were looked op to and trusted as the gathered wisdom
of the whole community. At Athens there was no disposition, and in fact no need, to trust the experience of any one.
each man entered intelligently into the details of his own
temporary duties, and discharged them as far as we ran
tell, with industry and integrity. Like the players in a well-trained orchestra, all contrived to learn their parts and to
he satisfied with the share allotted to them. [13]
[13] Fowler. *The City State of the Greeks and Romans*. p 168.
But the administrative aspects of Athenian civic life capture only an aspect of the well-rounded, balanced, and
intensely social nature of what Edith Hamilton has so aptly
described as “the Greek Way.” For centuries afterward,
men were to leek hack to Attica where, for a brief period,
there flourished a community whose development was not
to he excelled over the course of later history. What immediately catches the eye in a study of Hellenic society is
the rich flow of Athenian life — its all-encompassing rationality and its human scale. The “Men of Marathon” take up
arms against the Persian invaders of their country with the
same readiness that they take up the scythe in harvesting
their farms. They nourish their minds with the same fortitude that they do battle in the mountain fastnesses of their
land. Hellenic mythology, unequivocably naturalistic under the bright Mediterranean sky, gracefully intertwines
with the monumental oaks of Attic tragedy; the Hellenic
mind, cultivated in the most demanding schools of speculative reason, never fails to pause — almost childishly — to
marvel at the physical beauty of the land and sea, and.
above all, at the supple form of man. whose destiny in
Athenian literature mingles a philosophical pathos with
serene dignity.
Athenian life, during its finest moments, formed a totality that was sustained by the balance And unity of the *polis*
itself To a Greek, it would have seemed preposterous that
mind should be separated from body, art from society, man
from nature, culture from politics. The *polis* was the man;
the man, the *polis*. To he exiled from the *polis* was to suffer
an extinction more horrifying even than death. The Hellenic citizen was nourished by his community like a tree by
the soil. So inseparably wedded were men and society that
a social sunlight permeated everything Greek. We never
fail to marvel at how remarkably welt the satires of Aristophanes read to this very day, how advanced they are over
so much of our own contemporary literature of the same
genre, how unexcelled they are in their energy; how refreshing their earthiness and realism, how generous their
humanity, and how subtly philosophical their nuances, Yet
these plays were political works — courageously incisive
satires of the outstanding politicians of the day and savage
commentaries on immediate civic problems. They Owe
their unexcelled position in western literature to the clear
rationality of the Greek mind, to the essentiality of all relations in the *polis*, to a candor toward life (hat chased away
the false shadows of introspection and the shams of neurotic esthcticism.
From the totality of the *polis* arose the Greek view,
which Paul Landis so eloquently describes in his discussion
of the Athenian drama:
An attitude toward life at once honest and so intelligent
that the minds of men, however far they may be deceived
by Fancy or philosophy, must always return to it at the end.
By virtue of something that looks almost like racial genius
the Athenians of the fifth century succeeded in looking
upon life with a level gaze. They faced it neither with
bravado and bluster, nor with fear and trembling; not with
an ignorant assumption of power over it, nor with an
equally ignorant and cowardly feeling of inferiority...
The message of the Athenian drama is
this honest intellectualism, this passion for truth, this serene and level gaze on life — and this has always been the modern spirit....It is the struggle to free the intellect, to tear from it the veils of hope and fear, so that it may look
clearly and unafraid upon the face of life and know it as it
is, terrible and pitiful and glorious and utterly nonsensical.[14]
[14] Paul Landis, Preface to *Seven Famous Greek Plays* (New York: Modern Library, Inc., 1931), p vi.
That Hellenic society was scarred by slavery and by a
severely patriarchal dispensation fur women need hardly
be emphasized. These cruet features it shared with all city
states I hat began to duster along the shores of the Mediterranean Sea — features that were part of the general barbarism of the epoch. But they do not explain why the *polis* succeeded so admirably in transcending that barbarism,
indeed, the horrors which were to follow in the wake of the
*polis*’s decline, notably the emergence of the Roman Imperium and the early Middle Ages. Lest we lose all sense
of perspective toward urban development, we must never
fail to focus on the essentials which produced so advanced
a society as the Athenian *polis*. The civic spirit of Athens
has its source in yeoman virtues, not in slavery or patriarchal ism, Athenian internal unity stems from men of strong
character who were indomitable in their social allegiances
and rounded in their urbanity because they had firm ties
to the soil and were independent its their economic position. Labor and land, town and country, men and society
were joined in a common destiny In bourgeois society the
community dissolves into competing monads and is pervaded by spiritual mediocrity directly as the material being of man is rendered enslaved, insecure, and one-sided.
In the *polis*, the community achieves unity and flourishes
spiritually as the material being of man achieves relative
freedom, independence, and roundedness. In bourgeois
society, the commodity, which mediates all human relations, not only “unites” society in a cash nexus and minute
division of labor, but at the same time separates man from
the instruments of production, labor from creativity, object from subject, and eventually man from man. In the *polis*, the relative independence of the individual makes it possible to see the true dependence of man on the community, completely identifying the Athenian with his society.
Finally, precisely because in bourgeois society man has
“mastered” nature without rationally coordinating his social life, consciousness has only to reflect society as it exists
to yield the most catastrophic as well as the most inane
results. The untutored act of thought is brought to the
service of horrors that the blindest Forces of nature could
never yield. The more passive thought remains in the face
of conditions it can no longer comprehend, the more actively demoniacal it becomes merely by acquiescing to the
status quo. In the *polis*, thought reaches sublime height s of
philosophy, poetry, and art if only because of the solidarity.
Freedom, and independence it affords the individual, an
independence rooted not only in civic conditions but also
in material ones.
Classical Athenian drama ends not with another Aeschylus, whose tragedies dwell on the consolidation of the *polis*, but with Aristophanes, whose savage mockery voices
the tragic apprehension of social dissolution. The irony of
Greek conditions, here, acquires its adequate form, for the
very forces that produce the Hellenic yeomanry — the
“Men of Marathon” — lead to their extinction. Given the
limited material basis of Hellenic society, the aristocracy
which emerges from tribal life cannot he replaced by the
yeoman without also creating favorable conditions for a
new and more pedestrian aristocracy — the aristocracy of
trade, usury, and wealth.
This crisis was by no means new lo Greek society. As
early as the time of Hesiod, during the eighth century B.c.,
merchants and usurers began encroaching on the smallholding, consolidating farms into estates, and reducing
many citizens to debtor-slaves. In the two centuries that
separate Hesiod from Cleisthenes, Attica was torn by intense social struggles, later to be paralleled closely by similar conflicts in the early Roman Republic. In contrast to
Rome, whose pillaging expeditions abroad reinforced the
power and wealth of the nil trig classes, Attica’s crisis remained largely internalized and the *polis* was able to arrive at a more rational solution of its problems. Whereas
Rome rapidly succumbed to the latifundia system (a plantation form of agriculture administered by wealthy land magnates and worked by slave gangs), Attica returned
again to the small-holding. Solon, Pisistratus, and Cleisthenes divided the large estates among the dispossessed
and allowed a limited margin of independence to its craftsmen and traders, Pisistratus, after his second exile, ruthlessly uprooted the big landowners. Their estates were confiscated and divided among the peasantry, dispossessed
agricultural laborers, and the Athenian poor Cleisthenes
completed this immense work: he put down all attempts at
an aristocratic restoration and juridically established the
Athenian democracy which was to pass into history as the
political model of the classical *polis*.
Was it indeed “something that looks almost like radical
genius,” as Landis would have it, or was it perhaps more
mundane factors that guided the Athenians to so rational
a disposition of their social problems? That the Creeks
were, in Marx’s words, the “normal children” of early history can be partly accounted for by the weight of their
tradition and by their geographic setting. Athenian society
was not so far removed from its tribal origins, nor so muddled by the rubbish of history, that it lacked a clear, direct, and humanistic view of its social problems. The memory of its primitive democracy was strong enough to find a more
secular fulfillment in the establishment of the *Ecelesia*,
Close to nature, situated in a hospitable climate, neither so
rich as to yield oppressive standards of opulence nor so
poor as to be strangled by oppressive poverty, decentralized by a mountainous terrain but repeatedly invigorated
culturally by the sea, Attica remained remarkably flexible
and generously susceptible to the civilizing crosscurrents
of the age. Accordingly, Athenian leaders were favored by
every opportunity to act with wisdom — to reconcile and
fund the interests of the community into a common and
harmonizing social perspective, H. D. F. Kitto is only just
when he sharply contrasts the course followed by Solon,
Pisistratus, and Cleisthenes with that of modern Europe: in
Athens, the reconciliation of the community to new social
demands occurred at a high point of social vigor, when all
strata of the *polis* were able to contribute vitally to the
community; in Europe, it occurred after the complete exhaustion and decay of the old society, when little remained
of earlier traditions. Hellenic society resolved its problems
rationally; Europe, as yet, has not freed itself from blind
and demoniacal social forces.
Owing to the fact that Athenian society was based on a
yeomanry and on small agricultural holdings, town and
country were brought into delicate balance. In turn, the
preservation of this balance depended upon the internal
self-sufficiency supplied by the division of labor between
urban and rural society. The *polis* flourished only as long
as one did not outweigh the other. To the Creeks, this
social equilibrium was summed up by the term *autarkeia*:
a concept of wholeness, material self-sufficiency, and balance that is the core of the Hellenic outlook. But this outlook did not prove impervious to the powerful economic
Forces which were gathering in the Mediterranean basin
and gradually restructuring Creek society. With the expansion of handicrafts and commercial contact with the outside world, the nascent Hellenic bourgeoisie became increasingly powerful and began to alter the balance
between town and country on which the unity of the *polis*
depended. Athenian interests now graduated from a local
scale to encompass the Mediterranean area. The *polis* was
becoming a cosmopolis, a change that brought it into conflict with the self-sufficient small-holding, not to speak of
Greek communities abroad. In 434 B.C., with the outbreak
of the Peloponnesian War, Periclean Athens embarked
upon a disastrous struggle for hegemony over other Greek
cities and for a commanding position in the Mediterranean
trade. The war lasted some thirty years, laying waste to
Attica’s farms and exhausting her resources. “The Peloponnesian War,” observes Kitto, “virtually saw the end of
the city-state as a creative force fashioning and fulfilling
the lives of all its members.”[15] Although the Athenian
economy recovered from this conflict, Athens ceased to be
a stable small-holders’ community’ designed to meet local
needs. Attic agriculture now became oriented toward the
Mediterranean trade. Wealth and property were amassed
in fewer and fewer hands;, political life became increasingly devitalized and corrupt until the independence of
Athens was swept away by a Macedonian phalanx.
[15] H.D F. Kitto, *The Greeks* (New York: Penguin Books. 1951), p. 152.
Rome is little more than an epilogue to Athens. It is easy
enough to draw parallels between the Latin development
and the Hellenic: Camillus for Solon, the Gracchi for the
Pisistradae, Cicero for Demosthenes. But however much
Latium seems to follow in the wake of Greece From tribalism to feudalism and then to a community of independent
farmers, the two diverge on the issue of public control over
the administrative organs of society. In contrast to the *Ecclesia* and Council of Five Hundred, the Roman Senate
develops into a specialized professional body, divorced
from the populace. It becomes a legislative aristocracy.
Moreover, unlike Solon and Pisistratus, Camillas and the
Gracchi fail to restore the small-holding as a viable economic basis for the Roman city-state. The Greek *polis*,
once it declined, could no longer be duplicated by other
communities within the social framework of antiquity. Its
passing bears witness to the fact that the elements which
produced the *polis* had been exhausted. Indeed, the complexities of Mediterranean society were already present
wills the consolidation of Latium and the historic pre-eminence of the Roman city-state.
Once trade and the free cities acquired cosmopolitan
proportions, two alternatives confronted the ancient
world: either mercantile relations would expand to a point
that would produce an authentic capitalist economy or the
cities would become parasitic entities, living in vampire
fashion on tho agricultural wealth of the older social system
in the Near East and North Africa. The realization of the
first alternative was almost completely precluded by the
nature of Mediterranean economic life. Trade, while growing considerably, could never reach sufficient proportions
to transform Mediterranean society as a whole. There was
simply not enough quantity, as it were, to produce a
change In quality. Although commerce managed to undermine the small-holding, which gave way to large-scale
agriculture in Latium, the free cities were too few in number and much too weak economically to dissolve the self-contained wealthy land systems of the Near East and open
them as commercial markets. The Asian land system imposed the same limits on the development of capitalist
production abroad which confronted its domestic commercial strata at home. Owing to its solidity, it dosed off the
only potential market of sufficient dimensions that might
have transformed mercantile capitalism into industrial
capitalism. Ancient trade remained primarily a carrying
trade, a cement between the Free cities and economically
impenetrable societies based on time-honored agricultural
ways.
The “Fall of Rome” can be explained by the rise of
Rome, The Latin city was carried to imperial heights not
by the resources of its rural environs, but by spoils acquired
from the systematic loo Ling of the Near East, Egypt, and
North Africa, The very process involved in maintaining the
Roman cosmopolis destroyed the cosmopolis. Every attempt on Rome’s part to exact Further tribute from her
colonies involved increasing coercion and expenditures,
which in torn required more tribute. A point was finally
reached where the negative aspect of this escalating development predominated over the positive: the costs of maintaining the city began to outweigh what it received. As the
needs of die city and its urban satellites began to rise far
out of proportion to the How of tribute, impoverishment
and demoralization also increased; local taxation strangled
domestic economic life, the urban population began to
drift into the countryside, and the city’s birthrates declined. Rome could no longer be maintained as a viable
entity. The imperial eagles migrated from the west to the
east, from the artificial center of administration to the
sources of real wealth, Constantinople replaced Rome as
the authentic center of the empire and Italy now lay at the
feet of the barbarians. Having passed beyond its domestic
limits, Rome “fell” in the sense that the city contracted to
its Own agrarian base — and declined even more as a result
of the enormous urban heights from which it had fallen.
What earlier historians once described as Europe’s “dark
ages” comprise a sweeping readjustment of urban life to
the only agrarian possibilities which lay at hand. Under the
Roman empire, town and country had entered into sharp
contradiction with each other. Lacking an adequate
agrarian and industrial basis of its own. Rome had swollen
to enormous dimensions around a system of plunder and
parasitism. The city had turned upon the Land and introduced inefficient — even destructive — forms of agricultural
exploitation, such as slave-worked latifundia owned by absentee proprietors. Not surprisingly, Rome succumbed to
these internal weaknesses when the parasitic system overreached itself and began to acquire less than it lost. By
slowly abandoning a slave-worked agriculture for a feudal
one. Italy simply returned to the only stable agrarian forms
which could satisfy her needs. The “Fall of Rome” as a city,
quite aside from the destiny of the empire, was a local
“retrogression.” Indeed, apart front Roman Europe, no
such retrogression occurred elsewhere, No doc lino of urban life occurred in the Near East, where agricultural resources were adequate for the development of large cities
Similarly in North Africa, In these areas, the free cities
patterned themselves on pre-existing agrarian social forms
and essentially became the urban creatures of the Asian
land system. As to the central and northern areas of
Europe, where Germanic peoples were emerging from
tribalism and agrarian kingships, the development of feudalism was a logical extension of the course followed by
tribal communities in early Greece and Latium. With the
rise of feudal society, the European continent was thrown
back upon its own mainsprings, A new relationship between land and city began to emerge, one that initiated an
authentic development toward more advanced social relationships,
** 2. The Rise of the Bourgeois City
Only in western and central Europe, did the rise of urban
life yield a lasting domination of town over country — not
as a special Case in the Crevices of the ancient world, but
as the general feature of a continental society, Europe’s
development closely recapitulates the evolution of
agrarian society through the social phases we have discussed in connection with Greece and Latium; but while
the development of urban life in antiquity led to a *cul de sac*,
in Europe the towns developed capitalism and established the bourgeois city.
The striking social advances scored by European cities
can be explained by many factors unique to the continent
itself, although what stands out as the principal one Is again
the influence of geography on agrarian relations. Wherever the forest cover was removed, the agriculturist found
large areas: of arable land — a notable contrast with the
Near East and North Africa, where substantial surpluses of
food could be gleaned only from narrow strips of alluvial
land While the river valleys of the Near East and North
Africa were Surrounded by inhospitable wastes and mountains, European rivers flowed into the depths of vast forests
in which new communities could be founded without interference from an all-encompassing centralized state, Indeed, m the absence of any need for extensive irrigation
works, no need existed for the elaborate bureaucratic and
monarchical apparatus which drained the commercial life
of the ancient world. The very extent of the land, of its
mountains and forests, vitiated any tendency toward centralization that might have been a political heritage of the
Mediterranean civilizations. Classical European feudalism
was nourished by the geography and climate of the continent with the result that European urban communities
achieved a degree of independence unknown, apart from
Greece, to ancient society.
Fortunately, too, for the cities, European feudalism remained at chronic war with itself. This not only promoted
further decentralization but often provided urban communities with a wide latitude for Independent growth. By
the tenth century, the mutual pitting of French baronies
against each other had divided the country into some ten
thousand political units. When European cities began to
emerge, they found an agrarian society incomparably less
unified and materially weaker than the domineering and
Wealthy Asian land systems of the Near East and North
Africa. Given time and the steady settling of the continent,
many medieval cities freed themselves from the control of
the feudal lords and achieved a modest dominance over
agrarian interests.
To understand the uniqueness of the medieval commune (as these towns and cities were called in France), it
would be useful to distinguish them from their urban antecedents in Indian America, the Near East, and Asia. Although ah cities emerge in varying degrees from the division, of labor among food cultivation, crafts, and commerce,
the extent to which they rest on this division of labor often
distinguishes one city from another. Quite often, functions
other than economic activities determine the nature and
development of an urban entity. Tenochtitlan’s size and
population, for example, are not easily explained by its
commercial and craft activities. In fact, as we have already
seen, the city’s principal functions were ceremonial, military, and administrative. Administrative needs were important to the growth of many Near Eastern and Asian
cities: in Egypt and Mesopotamia as well as in India Lind
China. Which is not to say that crafts and trade were unimportant in these communities, but merely that they occupied an ancillary position with respect to political and
religious activities.
By contrast, the medieval commune was devoted almost
entirely to handicrafts and local trade. The towns of the
high Middle Ages were primarily marketplaces and centers for the production of commodities. Only in a few instances in European history do we encounter cities that
expanded for reasons other than economic ones — notably,
Aix-la-Chapelle, a city that grew or regressed With the political fortunes of the Caroiingian kings, and of course
Rome, which increased owing to the tribute collected by
the papacy from dioceses throughout Europe. For the most
part, however, medieval communes furnished the skills
and products which could not be acquired from the
manorial domestic economy. Thus these towns never suffered from any confusion about their functions or about the
factors which determined their destiny. They had a reasonably dear self-understanding of their commercial and craft
interests. Far from being distorted like their antecedents
into pliant instruments of agrarian classes, they jealously
guarded their autonomy and provided a hospitable environment for independent traders and handicraft workers — the precursors of the modern bourgeoisie.
Yet the medieval commune was a feudal, not a bourgeois, city. Essentially, its economy was based on simple
commodity production — a mode of production in which
craftsmen use the marketplace to satisfy their needs, not to
accumulate capital. Although goods were produced for exchange, that is, as commodities (to use Marx’s conception
of the term), the owner of the means of production remained the direct producer rather than a bourgeois
“supervisor” of productive activity. To be sure, a master
craftsman was aided by apprentices, but the latter could
realistically aspire to become master craftsmen in their
own right once they acquired the skills to do so. In typical
feudal fashion, guilds regulated economic activity down to
almost the smallest detail; the output, quality, and prices of
goods that found their way to the marketplace were carefully supervised by craft associations of master workmen.
The atomization of labor and the chaos of the marketplace
that are so indelibly etched into the modern capitalist system were unknown to the medieval commune Each individual had his secure position in the economy of the community, a position carefully defined by a system of rights
and duties, and each fulfilled his responsibilities with dignity, artistry, and a deep pride of workmanship.
In so self-contained and self-fulfilling a society, then, how
did it come to this that these simple commodity relations
were supplanted by bourgeois ones and the beauty of the
medieval commune by the blight of the bourgeois city?
Our own age tends to answer this question on its own
terms, notably in technological ones — such as the advent of
the steam engine and large-scale machinery — as though
even an economic interpretation of historical changes does
not include the totality of man’s social relations. Doubtless,
European feudalism was not devoid of technological
achievements of its own; indeed, the traditional image of
the Middle Ages as a technologically stagnant era has since
undergone considerable revision in the face of recent research. Feudal society scored significant advances in
agricultural technique, the development of new sources of
energy, and the discovery of new mechanical devices. Yet
there is a real sense in which medieval technology did not
go much beyond the millennia-old domestic economy of
the neolithic period — the basic arts of manual plowing,
broadcast sowing, horticulture, hand construction of dwellings
and small-scale weaving, pottery, and smelting. This
was an economy of tools and skills, not machines and industrial administration. To the techniques prevalent, say, in
ancient Egypt, medieval Europe did not add appreciably
more than the adaptations of a traditional technology to its
own soils and climate. Indeed, in some respects, European
skills and crafts were inferior to those of Asia, which accounts for the centuries-long attraction that Eastern goods
had for medieval traders. European agricultural techniques would have been useless, even harmful, in many
areas of the world. What Europe primarily achieved, during the Middle Ages, was to advance her own continental
economy. The most important material step performed by
feudal society was not the discovery of any single corpus of
new inventions that presumably made capitalism possible,
but rather the opening, clearing, and settlement of the
European continent itself and adaptation of the Mediterranean technology to the heavier soils, climatic rigors, and
sparser populations of the north. And the greatest social
advance scored by Europe was the development of commodity production in towns founded without decisive interference by agrarian interests — that is, urban centers
with their own law of life, a law of life that found its expression in the development of commodity production.
With the growth of international trade, commodity relations began to subvert the entire fabric of European feudalism, undermining traditional relations in the countryside as well as in the towns. From the thirteenth century
onward, European society became the theater of social and
economic developments hitherto unprecedented in history, In northern Italy, and throughout central and western Europe, the communes began to ally with each other
to establish federations against local territorial lords. The
first breezes of German unification wafted across the land
when in 1256 the towns of the Rhine valley established the
Rhenish League of Cities,; and although the League soon
fell apart, it found more or less permanent successors in the
Hanseatic League of the Baltic region and the Swabian
League. Nor was this remarkable stirring of the cities
confined merely to Germany. The Swiss cantons emancipated themselves from Austria; Flemish towns rose in
revolt against Count Louis in the first of a series of civil
conflicts in the Lowlands; and Paris, under Etienne Marcel,
look up arms against the French dauphin. Although many
of the urban revolts were premature and unsuccessful,
their failures were more than compensated for by the success enjoyed by the Italian cities. In northern Italy, town
after town managed not only to subordinate or assimilate
the territorial lords to its commercial interests but each, in
almost every vital respect, was now a bourgeois city.
What is of paramount importance, hero, is that urban life
was developing on its own authentic mainsprings. In the
past, the land had in some sense beleaguered the city — if
not always by dominating or circumscribing its evolution,
then at least by distorting and finally undermining it. In
late medieval Europe, by contrast, the commodity system
developed by the towns began to reach into the countryside itself and transform the land into a social image of the
city. Trade, by creating new needs within the manor,
slowly dissolved the old self-sufficient agrarian economy
and even the parochialism of the medieval commune itself,
Increasingly, feudal relations were replaced by exchange
relations and the traditional estate system — a hierarchy
ossified in a time-honored nexus of mutual rights and duties
— by the mediation of commodities between independent
and sovereign producers. By the fourteenth century, serfdom began to disappear from much of western Europe.
The emerging free farmer and yeoman became the rural
counterpart of the master craftsman in the town, Although
much the same development had occurred in Greece and
Latium centuries earlier, Europe’s evolution was favored
by the fact that its commerce was continental rather than
merely local, its agrarian system weaker and more resilient
with the result that its commercial development was not
blocked by the great Asian land systems which had detoured Roman society from an authentic bourgeois development into parasitic alternatives Primarily, the European
merchant princes of the late Middle Ages sought
commercial wares from the East rather than tribute — although they certainly pillaged wherever they could — and
they acquired these wares for continental markets rather
than for local consumption Indeed, the discovery of new
wares abroad served to widen the market at home and,
with the colonization of America, provided a sharp stimulus to commercial and industrial development.
To form a reasonably clear idea of how the bourgeois city
emerged, we must pause, here, to cleat with the dialectic
of the commodity relationship and the modes of labor it
yields — a dialectic to which Marx’s work forms an indispensable guide. To say that capitalism represents the most
advanced Form of commodity production is now a truism,
but the sense in which this statement is true requires some
comment. The abstract treatment that Mars gives to the
dialectic of the commodity relationship — the successive
development of its potentialities from the accidental to the
expanded and finally to money forms — tends to conceal a
living historical process. As Marx demonstrates, the inner
logic which yields these-forms is largely quantitative; given
the fertile ground For expanding exchange, almost every
aspect of the productive process, including labor power
itself becomes a commodity, an object of exchange, hi the
ancient worlds the expansion of trade was obstructed by
the wealth and power of a strong agrarian society; indeed,
so compelling were agrarian values that the merchant’s
social ideals centered not on capital accumulation, but
rather on the ownership of landed property. Tn Europe,
this obstacle did not exist to a significant degree. Trade
increasingly became an end in itself and, by the late Middle Ages, so too did capital accumulation. Feudal society
lacked the viability needed to contain the continental percolation of commodity relationships. Once the exchange
process became widespread enough, it simply engulfed the
older order of relationships. Exchange created new divisions in the labor process and, simply by the process of
continual division and subdivision, demolished the self-contained domestic economy of the manor. From a marginal source of goods and services, the market moved to
the center of economic life.
No major technological innovations were needed to
achieve this profound transformation. Although the capitalist system later produced the most Far-reaching technological advances known in history, the bourgeoisie initially
used the tools and materials of the craftsman to promote
the new mode of production Capital simply altered the
traditional labor process by hiring workmen to produce for
exchange without appreciably changing the industrial
practices of the time. Labor-power was converted into a
commodity. AH the decisive technological advances
achieved by the capitalist system thenceforth centered
around the adaptation of natural Forces and energy to this
mode of labor, Technology became an extension of labor
conceived not merely as a *human* activity, but as *wage*
labor, a resource for economic exploitation. Economic activity began to subordinate the satisfaction of concrete human needs to the abstract goals of exchange and capital
accumulation. Production, in effect, occurred for its own
sake. This marked a fundamental change in all the values
of previously existing societies, however exploitative their
natures.
We must focus more sharply on this unique economic
transformation and its social consequences. Whatever else
may be the principal functions of the early city, certainly
in an advanced urban society the authentic nexus of the
city is the marketplace — the arena in which the necessities
of life are exchanged and in which urban contact has its.
workaday center. The nature of the marketplace in any
given period of history depends largely on the prevailing
mode of labor. There is no mystery about this characteristically Marxian formulation. As we have already noted, tire
marketplace of Tenochtitlan was primitive by virtue of the
fact that Aztec trade never developed to the level of the
money Form, Concrete labor — such as the specific skills of
the food cultivator, mason, weaver, potter, or sculptor —
more or less determined the way in which marketable
goods were viewed in be marketplace, Although each object found its “reflection”, during the exchange process in
another exchangeable object, the labor time involved in
production did not reach the degree of quantification, abstraction, and generalization required for the development of money, Exchange was guided primarily by
material need and by the quality of the objects to be exchanged, Labor, like the object, retained its qualitative,
human, concrete features: it did not dissolve into a mere
aggregate of muscular or mental energy and lose its identity as an expression of human powers. That the utility or
use-value of an object retained its primacy over exchange
value is demonstrated clearly enough by the fact that many
use-values in primitive society were inalienable. Land in
Indian America s For example, was never a “salable item”;
it could not have been denatured into “real estate” until
the coming of the white man.
With the development of the money form under conditions of simple commodity production, labor, to be sure,
does reach a fairly high degree of abstraction, but rarely
does it lend itself to the degree of quantification attained
under capitalism. The alienation of commodities still retains key human features, Trade remains an individual act
in which the direct producers meet face to face in order to
exchange the products of their own n labor. The mutual satisfaction of needs retains its pre-eminence over the mindless
accumulation of commodities and capital Concrete labor
prevails, as it were, over quantified, generalized, abstract
labor, A large area of human needs is still satisfied outside
the marketplace — that is, by the domestic economy — and
even those who may depend upon the market for their
existence are not so much its victim as its creators. They
have individually mastered the conditions of production
and they exchange their products under conditions tn
which the needs of the community, the identity of producers and consumers, and the number of commodities
required by the market can be determined with a lair degree
of precision. However much such communities may compote with each other, there is little competition within the
community itself, And there is no production For the sake
of production. The value of a commodity is determined
primarily by the workmanship and talent involved in its
production and by Factors such as its durability and quality
— in short, by concrete labor, hence the extraordinary
beauty of the simplest objects produced by many noncapitalist communities.
Although all trade is alienation, in the medieval commune it was also relation. Inasmuch as this was an explicit
fact of daily life owing to the prevailing mode of labor, the
medieval commune created remarkable forms of association not only in civic life but in the economy itself. Lewis
Mumford remarks that
the workshop was a family, likewise the merchant’s counting house. The members ate together at the same table,
worked in the same rooms, slept in the same dormitory,
joined Ln family prayers, participated in common amusements.[16]
[16] Lewis Mumford, *The Culture of Cities* (New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1938), p 35.
The intimacy between labor and life was revealed by the
fact that “The family pattern dominated industry.” Urban
lire was intensely, even artistically collective. The marketplace was a center not only for trade but also for
public ceremony for if is on the porch of the cathedral that
the miracle plays were enacted; it was within the square
that the guilds set up their stages for the performance of
their mystery plays; it was here that great tourneys would
be held. It was not merely acropolis but amphitheatre.[17]
Yet even these remarks do not recapture for us the democratic ambience of many medieval communes, at the high
point of their development. Nearly all communes were
policed by their own citizens, who rotated to form the
night watch and filled the ranks of the city militia. Commonly, mayors and town councils were elected by the
guilds or by public-assemblies of the populace reminiscent
of the Athenian *Ecclesia*. Indeed, the the *polis*, these
towns Formed a complete and rounded totality. As Mumford notes:
Prayer, mass, pageant, life-ceremony, baptism, marriage,
Dr funeral — the city itself was stage for these separate
scenes of the drama, and the citizen himself was the actor. [18]
[17] Ibid, p. 55.
[18] Ibid, p. 64.
Perhaps no account of the commune more dramatically
reveals the solidarity which welded this urban way of life
together than Albrecht Dürer’s description of a religions
ceremony held in Antwerp as late as the sixteenth century:
I saw the Procession pass along the street, the people being
arranged in rows, each man some distance from his neighbor, but the rows close behind the other. There were the
Goldsmiths, the Painters, the Masons, the Broderers, the
Sculptors, the Joiners, the Carpenters, the Sailors, the Fishermen, the Butchers, the Leatherers, the Clothmakers, the
Bakers, the Tailors, the Cordwainers — indeed, workmen of
all kinds and: many craftsmen and dealers who work for
their livelihood....A very largo company of widows also
took part in the procession. They support themselves with
their own hands and observe a special rule They were ail
dressed from head to foot in white linen garments made
expressly for the occasion....[19]
To which Mymford adds:
Note the vast number of people arrayed in this procession.
As in the church itself, the spectators were also the communicants and participants: they engaged in the spectacle,
watching it from within., not from without: or rather, feeling ii from within, acting in unison, not dismembered beings, reduced to a single specialized role.[20]
[19] Quoted by Mumford, ibid, pp. 63–64.
[20] Ibid., p. 64.
During the Great French Revolution, the Parisians replaced the feudal nomenclature by the single word *citoyen*
to express their newly discovered national solidarity, Later
events were to reveal that beneath the apparent unity of
the nation lay profoundly divergent and antagonistic social
interests. The medieval commune for its part used the
more organic term “brother.” “*Unus subveniet alteri tamquam fratri suo* — ‘let each hold the other like a brother’ —
says a Flemish charter of the twelfth century, and these
words were actually a reality,” observes Henri Pirenne,
As early as the twelfth century the merchants were expending a good part of their profits fur the benefit of their
fellow citizens — building churches, founding hospitals,
buying off the market-tolls. The love of gain was allied, in
them, with local patriotism. Every man was proud of his
city and spontaneously devoted himself to its prosperity,
This was because, in reality, each individual life depended
directly upon the collective life of the municipal association. The commune of the Middle Ages had-, in fact, all the
essential attributes which the State exercises today. It guaranteed to ail its members the security of his person and of
his chattels, Outside of it he was in & hostile world, surrounded by perils and exposed to every risk. In it alone did
he ha Ye a shelter, and for it he felt a gratitude which bordered on love, He was ready to devote himself to its defense, just as he was always ready to bedeck it and make
it more beautiful than its neighbors. Those magnificent
cathedrals which the thirteenth Century saw erected
would not have been conceivable without the joyous alacrity with which the burghers contributed, by gifts, to their
construction. They were not only houses of God; they also
glorified the city or which they were the greatest ornament
and which their majestic towers advertised afar. They
were for the cities of the Middle Ages what temples were
for those of antiquity.[21]
[21] “Henri Pirenne, *Medieval Cities* (Princeton, NJ, Princeton Universify Press. 1948), pp. 209 — 210.
Yet, even these generous lines by Pirenne fail to do adequate justice to the attitude of the medieval urban dweller
toward his city. The commune provided not only security
to its populace but also a deep sense of community. It
offered not only protection but the comfort of sociality and
a human scale the burgher could comprehend and in
which he could find a uniquely individual space The commune was home — not merely an environment that surrounded the home. The concrete nature of the labor process, the directness, indeed, familiar character, of nearly all
social relations, and the human scale of civic life which
Fostered a high degree of personal participation in urban
affairs — all, combined to retain a natural core to social life
which the cosmopolises of the ancient world had dissolved
with the passing of the *polis*. One might say that the natural core of the medieval commune was not unlike the sexual division of labor which underpinned the economic life
of tribal society. Marx, with considerable perception, notes
that
Castes and guilds arise from the action of the same natural
laws that regulate the differentiation of plants, and animals
into species and varieties, except that, when a certain degree of development has been reached, the heredity of
castes and exclusiveness of guilds are ordained as a law of
Society. [22]
[22] Karl Marx, Capital (Chicago: Charles H. Kerr & Co., 1906), 1. 373.
Just as the guilds speciate the commune, so commune and
manor could be said to speciate feudal society. As to the
commune, a natural civic nucleus mutes the externalizing
and disintegrative forces latent in trade. Even the prevailing technology retains this natural or organic characters
toots are adapted to the proficiency of the craftsman, to his
skills, talents, and physiology. The notion that a man is
merely an adjunct of an impersonal machine that determines the tempo and nature of his work would have surely
horrified members of a medieval guild.
Contrast this mentality with that of bourgeois society —
a society that dissolves the natural basis of civic life by
transmuting the fraternal relations of the medieval commune into harsh commodity relations — and we are perhaps better equipped to judge the enormous psychic as
well as economic changes that were to he introduced by
the capitalist mode of production. The commodity, like a
mysterious external force, now seems to rise above men
and determine their destiny according to suprahuman autonomous laws. With the increasingly problematic abstraction of labor from its concrete forms, all relations, objects,
and responsibilities acquire a monetary equivalent. Natural life shrinks from the community to the individual; the
city becomes a mere aggregate of isolated human monads
— a grey featureless mass, the raw materials of bureaucratic mobilisation and manipulation. The guild, which
once formed the spontaneous arena of authentic human
fraternity, finds its caricature in the industrial and commercial corporation, with its smoothly engineered ambience of “togetherness” and “team play.” The procession
described by Dürer becomes the parade; the spiritual ceremony, the reified spectacle. With the emergence of a
highly monetized economy, human beings become interchangeable with the very wares that are the result of their
human powers. They too become commodities, the passive
objects — whether as workers or spectators — of economic
laws.
If the mere extension of commodity relations can be said
to have transformed the medieval commune into the bourgeois city, the factory may be singled out as the agent
which gives this city its structural form and its social purpose. By the word “factory” I mean more than an industrial
enterprise: the factory is the locus of mobilised abstract
labor, of labor power as a commodity, placed in the service
of commerce as well as production. Accordingly, the term
applies as much to an office building and a supermarket as
to a mill and a plant. Once the factory becomes an clement
of urban life, it takes over the city almost completely. Here,
a very important historic contrast must be emphasized. In
the medieval commune, the workshop was a homo: it was
the locus not only of highly individuated technical activities, but also (as Mumford has already stressed) of complex
personal and cultural responsibilities. With the emergence
of the factory, home and work place are separated. The
factory is. a place to which the worker goes in order to
expend his human powers — powers that are steadily degraded to the degree that they are abstracted and quantified as mere “work lime” — in the service of increasingly
anonymous owners and administrators, The factory has no
personal or cultural functions; it is merely the collecting
and mobilizing center for alienated depersonalized labor.
If these significant differences are viewed from a broader
perspective, they reveal crucial differences between the
very nature of the medieval commune and the bourgeois
city. The guild, which unites homes that are also workshops, imparts a distinctly domestic character to the commune: it turns the city into a home, into an authentic human community that graduates personal affiliations and
responsibilities to a social level Conversely, the factory
transforms the city into a commercial and industrial enterprise. It negates the role of the city as a personal and cultural entity, and exaggerates its economic functions to the
point of urban pathology. The medieval commune was
primarily a place in which to live; the bourgeois city is
primarily a place in which to work. The guilds made the
city into a center of human solidarity, religious communion, and cultural vitality; although work was necessary to
achieve these goals, it became the medium for artistry and
the expression of creative human powers, not an end in
itself. The factory degrades the city to a center of production for the sake of production and consumption for the
sake of consumption. That people must live” in a city in
order to work is obviously necessary to the existence of the
factory, but the fact that they occupy dwellings is secondary to the fact that they work in office buildings, supermarkets, plants, and mills.
We will examine the unique characteristics of the bourgeois
city in a later section, but at this point, we must ask
how tine medieval commune was transformed into the
bourgeois city, The factory’ requires the separation of the
small independent producer From the means of production: the alienation of the producer’s labor and the reduction of his labor power to a commodity. Generally as the
market begins to expand beyond the environs of the commune, considerable differences in wealth emerge between
members of the same guild and between individual members of the same community. In time, wealthy master
craftsmen, traders (who are often organized into guilds of
their own), and eventually the guilds themselves tend to
become an exclusive stratum within the community with
interests of their own that are set apart from and often
opposed to those of the community as a whole. Such guilds
begin to exclude apprentices and journeymen from
becoming masters, turning them into authentic proletarians who must work for others in, order to survive, In some
areas of Europe, this process of proletarianization occurred
so slowly that it did not visibly upset the stability of the
commune. The Swiss cities are a case in point. There, the
transformation from the guild workshop to the factory was
so organic that Swiss communities, nearly to the present
day, could be cited as models of civic balance, stability, and
the integration of craft skills with mass production.
But in other areas, the expansion of the market from a
local Or regional to an international Stale occurred at a
tempo that gravely disrupted the harmony of the commune. As early as the thirteenth century, Flanders provides us with a not uncommon example of cities, based
largely on international trade, in which the guilds developed into an oppressive hierarchical stratum that grossly
exploited a large mass of dispossessed artisans. Nor did this
change occur with tranquility. in 1280, nearly all the Flemish communes exploded into a bloody class war between
proletarianized artisans and wealthy masters who were
organized into exclusive guild monopolies. This conflict
was not decisively resolved. Before either side could definitively vanquish the other, the territorial lords shrewdly
used the occasion to intervene and hold both classes in
check. Indeed, it may welt be that, owing partly to the fact
that this struggle was never fought out to its logical conclusion and partly to the later subordination of the Lowlands
to English commercial hegemony, civic life in Holland and
Flanders retained the medieval charm that has turned
their cities into the museum pieces of the modern world.
We must turn to England to find the area in which the
transformation of small producers into proletarians ran its
full, perhaps most savage, course. And, ironically, this
transformation first occurred in the countryside and only
later in the cities. In the English countryside, the bourgeois
development followed two distinct although complementary paths; more and more acreage was removed from food
cultivation and village pasturage and devoted to raising
sheep for the wool market of Flanders; and, capitalist entrepreneurs, blocked by guilds and merchant monopolies
in the cities, turned to the villages to avail themselves of
cheap unregulated labor for the domestic production of
textile products. In both cases, this development was
marked by the steady degradation and eventually dispossession of the English peasantry and yeomanry, a development in which the landed aristocracy and textile merchants dramatically transformed the social nature of the
countryside and finally the cities
By the sixteenth century, the English aristocracy — its
appetite for riches whetted by rising world prices of wool
— began ruthlessly to expropriate and enclose the traditional common pasture lands of the villages, even the private holdings of tenants whose plots had been tilled for
generations. These lands were simply turned into sheep
runs and their occupants dispossessed. The story is told in
a scathing manner by Thomas More in the opening pages
of *Utopia*. More’s principal character; Raphael Hythloday,
declares:
Your sheep which are normally so gentle and need so little
food ... have begun to be so ravenous and wild that they
even eat up men. They devastate and destroy fields, houses
and towns. For in whatever parts of the kingdom line and
therefore more precious wool is produced, there the nobles and gentlemen, and also some holy abbots, are not
content with the rents and annual profits that their predecessors used to get from their farms. They are not satisfied
to live in luxury and idleness and be of no use to the state;
they even harm it. they leave nothing for arable land,
enclose everything for pasture, destroy houses, tear down
towns and leave only the church to house the sheep; and
as if the forests and parks lost yon too little ground, those
good men turn all houses and cultivated land into a desert.[23]
[23] Thomas More, *Utopia* (New York: Washington Square Press, 1965), p. 14.
An increasingly capitalist form of agriculture, in effect, had
become the pacesetter in England For capitalist industry.
Even more significant for the long run development of
English capitalism, “free” capital, seeking escape from the
fetters of guild restrictions and merchant monopolies in
the towns, began to colonize the countryside along industrial lines. Again, one finds in this development no remarkably new technological advances; rather, an entrepot sort
of merchant-capitalist, traveling from cottage to cottage,
provides village spinners with wool, weavers and knitters
with yarn, and dyers with doth. Materials and, where
necessary, machines were formed out and worked for tho
barest subsistence wages instead of the higher guild-regulated town rates. With this putting-out system, the
capitalist could easily undercut the urban standard of living and deliver his wares at such highly reduced prices that
urban masters and journeymen were simply wiped out by
the thousands. The entire family of the cottager, including
his infant children, were put to work to meet the ravenous
demands of the new economy. The factory system was
born when the capitalist, finding it more profitable to
mobilize rural labor and intensify its operations under
close supervision, housed It in a single structure. English
capitalist manufacture emerged primarily in the countryside rather than the cities and, in contrast to Flanders,
essentially demolished the guild system From without
rather than from within.
With the spread of capitalist manufacture, all that remained of the traditional guild structure collapsed. And
with the passing of the guilds went the last integrating
forces of the medieval communes and Renaissance towns.
Thereafter, a new basis for city life developed in the urban
centers of the industrialized western world, changing
qualitatively all pre-existing social and economic relations
within the towns and between town and country.
** 3. The Limits of the Bourgeois City
The early development of the bourgeois city is, in many
ways, comparable to the destructive invasion of the
colonial world by capitalist relations. In England, the enclosure movement dislodged thousands of families from
the country and they had no recourse but to flock to the
towns. The larger cities, to which much of this influx was
directed, lacked the physical and administrative facilities
for dealing with so many beggared families (nor were they
particularly concerned with their fate), with the harsh result that large numbers of urban poor simply perished in
the Streets, In many cities, entire quarters were reduced to
filthy hovels, demoralized by Crime, congestion, disease,
drunkenness, and prostitution. Although the enclosure
movement extended over two centuries, it reached its high
point in the early 1800s. From 1800 to 1920, more than
three million acres of English countryside were enclosed,
an area nearly as large as all the enclosures which occurred
during the seventeenth century. These sweeping dispossessions of villagers and tenant farmers flooded the cities so, as late as the middle of the nineteenth century,
more than half of the adult population in London and in
some sixty English and Welsh towns had not been born in
the cities of their residence.
During these bitter years, the demoralization of the urban population in England reached appalling proportions,[24]
Nearly all the traditional moral restraints carefully reared
by centuries of precapitalist social development — including the sacrosanct puritanical values introduced by the
bourgeoisie itself during the Reformation era — were shattered in a single generation. In slums and working class
quarters;, drunkenness and profligacy rapidly became the
normal condition of life, A moral blight, with its rampant
debasement of family ties, sexuality, human solidarity; and
dignity, followed doggedly in the wake of urban blight.
Perhaps not surprisingly; the English population began to
soar at a dizzying tempo despite pervasive malnourishmerit, appalling working conditions, and incomparably
bad and unhygienic living conditions in the congested hovels. The joyless sexual promiscuity in working class quarters, so markedly irresponsible in its disregard of the newly
born, reflected the conscious irresponsibility of the bourgeoisie toward the living conditions of the emerging proletariat. Although the increase in urban population can be
partly accounted for by the influx of countryfolk into the
cities, birthrates too began to rise, In 1800, the population
of London numbered less than a million people, by 1850,
it increased to two million, and at the tarn of the century
it reached four million„ an unprecedented figure in urban
history. Barely manageable in 1800, the capital of England
had turned into a monstrous urban cancer in a single century.
[24] Although by no means in England alone, as is commonly supposed. Even the supposedly benign Scandinavian countries, for
example, were victimized b y an enclosure movement of their
own. Perhaps the most serious of these developments occurred in
Sweden, where legislative challenges led to enclosures and the
break-up of the traditional open-field system, This subversion of
the peasant economy resulted in enormous urban congestion with
a severe deterioration of Swedish cities. During the latter half of
the nineteenth century, more than a million people emigrated
From Sweden — mostly to the United States — and an equal number
were obliged to abandon agriculture for work in crafts and in the
new factories which emerged in the cities. The same development, although the product largely of agricultural mechanization and the “green revolution,” is taking place today in France. Asia, Latin America, and Africa.
To account for this urban decay with an opprobrious
word like “neglect” is to conceal the fact that this very
moral — or immoral — state of affairs is. a fundamental social
condition, or, more precisely, an inherent condition of
bourgeois economic life and sedation. In precapitalist society, “neglect” might well be said to reflect an immoral
state of affairs — the neglect of one’s kin, of comembers of
the tribe, community, or guild — for it was a transgression
of the a priori social relations (hat constituted personal life,
Human sociation, by its very nature, implied solidarity between individuals. Every individual belonged to a basic
social unit that defined the ego and from which the ego, in
turn, could claim security, solicitude, and the irreducible
material means of lift. Except for very unusual circumstances and in periods of social decay, these claims were
never ignored by the community or brought into question.
But once the traditional collective conditions of life, so
highly charged with mythic and moral content, are dissolved by trade into monadic ones, once the clan, tribal,
village, or guild nexus is dissolved into a cash nexus, the
individual is denuded of any responsibility to society and
to other individuals. All corporate and social ties must
defer to the naked claims of egotism. Indeed, “self-preservation”
and the dynamics of “social progress” are defined in
terms of self-interest precluding, by definition, the
time-honored ties of solidarity so integral to traditional societies.
The primacy of the corporate “we” is replaced by the
primacy of the self-sufficient “I.” The Leibnitzian monads
which “have no windows through which something can
come in or go out” become the elements of sociation —
indeed, of society defined as such. Neglect other than self-neglect,
now acquires the seemingly positive value of a
self-interest that, according to the canons of traditional
liberalism, serves the general interest by realizing its own
egotistical goals. The term “self-interest” provides the
rationale for what is neutrally designated as “social behavior”
and “human interaction.” Traditional society, whose divisibility
always stopped at some collective level of sociation,
is replaced under capitalism by this fictive windowless
monad, which now becomes the ultimate “social” — or
more properly, asocial — entity. Having dissolved all social
ties into “free” and “private” individuals, all that remains
of the explicit interdependence of people in precapitalist
communities is a “civic compact,” or, if you will, a “social
contract,” to protect lives and property — a “contract” that
colonizes such a limited terrain of sociation that it becomes
a. warrant for neglect beyond the contours of public order.
Beyond these contours, each producer is an entity unto
himself, busily engaged in the pursuit of his own private
affairs. The language of physics is appropriate here: society
is reduced to a mechanical Brownian movement of molecules,
each bouncing against the other in the course of
exchanging “goods and services.” There appears to be no
social dimension and no development of relations in the
traditional sense other than quantitative ones; nor is it
surprising to find that social theory itself adopts this
quantification of social relations as its research norms, and turns
from social philosophy into sociology.
Yet, despite these appearances, a qualitative social
development occurs. by reducing every relationship to a cash
nexus,capital removes all the moral and esthetic restraints
that held the growth of earlier cities in check. The concept
of social responsibility. Once intuitive to precapitalist
communities, is replaced by a single goal: plunder. Every entity
and human capacity is conceived of as a resource for the
acquisition of profit, the land, forests, seas, rivers, the labor
of others, and ultimately all the verities of social life from
those which inhere in the Family to the community itself.
The new industrial and commercial classes fall upon the
social body like ravenous wolves on a helpless prey, and
what remains of a once vital social organism is the tom
fragments and indigestible sinews that linger more in the
memory of humanity than in the realities of social
intercourse, The American urban lot with its rusted cans,
broken glass, and debris strewn chaotically among weeds
and scrub reflects in the minuscule the ravaged remains of
forests, waterways, shorelines, and communities.
Society is now ruled by competition; and qualitative
changes in social relations consist in the Fact that
competition tends to transform the numerous small enterprises
into fewer and fewer centralized industrial and commercial giants.
All elements of society begin to change Civic;
political, and cultural gigantism parallel industrial and
commercial gigantism. Social life assumes dimensions so
far removed from the human scale and human control that
society ceases to appear as the shelter of humanity. Rather,
it becomes a demonic force operating far above live heads
of its human constituents, obeying a law of development
completely alien to human goats. Cities and regions are
delivered over to an autonomous national division of labor,
to a scale of economic and social life that is far beyond the
comprehension of the community. The city becomes an
agglomeration of dispirited people scattered among cold,
featureless structures.
The now corporatism of late capitalism differs
profoundly from traditional corporatism. Bourgeois
corporatism aggregates the monads without transforming their
relations to each other; they are reconstituted into an
anonymous herd, not a personalized interdependent collectivity,
The individual is denied sovereignty over those
conditions of life that, make for authentic individuality
Without gaining the mutual support afforded by traditional
corporatism. The personalized collectivity, represented by
the clan, tribe, and guild, is replaced by the anonymous
bureaucratic institution or agency which, insofar as it
provides a social service of value, does so with cold indifference.
As Don Martindale observes:
There is a continual breakdown of older traditional, social
and economic structures based on family ties, local associations,
culture, caste, and status with the substitution of an
order resting on occupational and vocational interests.
Among other things this means that the growth of the city
is accomplished by a substitution of indirect “secondary”
relations for direct, face-to-face “primary” relations. The
church, school and family are modified. The school takes
over some of the functions of the family. The church loses
influence being displaced by the printed page.[25]
[25] Donn: Martindale, “Prefatory Remarks” to Max Weber’s
*The City* (New York: The Free Press, 1958), p. 21.
One can add that the close vocational ties fostered by the
guild are displaced by the bureaucratic manipulation
characteristic of the trade unions the marketplace and the
personal buyer-seller relationship have given way to the
impersonal supermarket and mass merchandising; and the
popular forms of community decisionmaking (such as the
assembly and town-hall meeting) have been replaced by a
mechanical electoral process which delivers the formulation
of policy into the hands of preselected “representatives”
whose roots in the community are tenuous or nonexistent.
In its early revolutionary phase, bourgeois society
could claim with a certain degree of justification that it
sought the liberation of the ego from the trammels of caste,
religious superstition, and authoritarian corporatism.
Today, in its late, distinctly corporate phase, the same society
retains the individualism of its early period all the more to
create individuals without individuality, isolated egos
without personality.
Capitalism is pre-eminently an economic system, the
demiurge of *homo economies* as distinguished from the
traditional *homo collectivicus*. Civil society is the
byproduct of economic society. Yet even in the latter sphere,
the most sacrosanct of all, economic activity loses its
relationship to human needs. Production occurs for the sake of
production, driven on relentlessly by competition. Almost
accidentally does industry respond to the material requirements
of humanity; commodities are produced for exchange.
Capital is indifferent to their social destiny; the
producer is unconcerned whether commodities are
beautiful or ugly, durable or shoddy, safe or dangerous. All that
counts is realizing a sale and making a profit — so that more
sales can be realized and more profits made to survive the
perils of competition. So too with the city. All pretensions
aside, it matters little whether the city is ugly, whether it
debases its inhabitants, whether it is esthetically, spiritually, or physically tolerable. What counts is that economic
operations occur on a scale and with an effectiveness to
meet the only criterion of bourgeois survival: economic
growth.
We cannot ignore the devastating impact of this criterion
on urban life. Precapitalist cities were limited by the
countryside, not only externally in the sense that the
growth of free cities inevitably came up against social,
cultural, and material barriers reared by entrenched agrarian
interests, but also internally, insofar as the city reflected
the social relations on the land. Except for the late
medieval cities, exchange relations were never completely
autonomous; to one degree or another, they were placed in
the service of the land. But once exchange relations begin
to dominate the land and finally transform agrarian society,
the city develops according to the workings of a suprasocial
law, Production for the sake of production, translated into
urban terms, means the growth of the city for its own sake
— without any intrinsic urban or human criteria to arrest
that growth. Nothing inhibits this course of development
but the catastrophic results of the development itself. The
“exploding metropolis,” far from posing the cliche of
“urban revitalization,” now raises the more crucial historic
problem of urban exhaustion. The bourgeois city has limits
too, but these no longer emerge from the relationship of
the city to the land. They emerge from (he expansion of
the very exchange relations which are so basic to urban
development as we have known it for thousands of years.
The most obvious limits of the bourgeois city arc physical.
The larger cities of the world are breaking down under
sheer excess of size and growth. They are disintegrating
administratively, institutionally, and logistically; they are
increasingly unable to provide the minimal services for
human habitation, personal safety, and the means for transporting
people and goods to places where they are needed.
Perhaps the most obvious index to the scope of these problems,
viewed in numerical terms, is the data on contemporary
urban population trends. According to recent data
prepared by the Urban Land Institute, the United Stales a
decade ago contained twenty-three “Great Metropolitan
Areas” with populations of a million or more, roughly
embracing about 40 percent of the national population. By
1070, there were twenty-nine of these urban entities, and
their proportion of-the population was 44 percent. With
clearly voiced alarm, the Institute projects that if present
trends continue (and there is no reason why they
shouldn’t), by the year 2000 about 63 percent of the
American population will live in overwhelmingly urbanized
areas, If this projection is accurate, the number of people
living in large cities — even allowing for declining fertility
rates — may well exceed 180 million; indeed, it may possibly
equal the present national population.[26]
[26] Jerome P. Pickard, “US. Metropolitan Growth and Expansion.
1970–2000” (Washington, DC. Urban Land Institute, 1972),
pp. 6–7.
We shall have occasion to examine the grotesque
distortions this statistical picture suggests about land use, the
distribution of resources, and ultimately, the very nature of
human sedation under modern capitalism. For the present,
it is important lo emphasize that the Institute’s statistics,
“startling” as they may be to its compilers, do not fully
convey the profound changes this growth indicts on the
larger cities of the world and the historically different
meaning it imparts to them as urban entities. Today, every
City with a million or more people — and in the United
States there are at least twelve cities and their environs
whose populations exceed two million — is the nodal point
for art immense urban belt that extends for scores of miles
beyond its downtown district through suburbs and municipal
jurisdictions that arc independent only in an administrative
sense. If the word “city” traditionally conveyed a
clearly definable urban entity, New York, Chicago, Los
Angeles — or Paris, London, Rome — are cities in name only,
in reality, they are immense urban agglomerations that are
steadily losing any distinctive form and quality. Indeed,
what groups these cities together under a common rubric
is no longer the cultural and social amenities that once
distinguished the city from the countryside, but the
common problems that betoken their cultural dissolution and
social breakdown.
In all of these cities, transportation is a source of growing
frustration because of overcrowded public transport facilities
and thoroughfares; it tends to be unreliable, hazardous,
and often near paralysis. Urban air is seriously polluted and
urban wastes are reaching unmanageable proportions. Living
quarters are in short supply and shoddy construction
threatens to turn many newly built quarters into premature
slums. Segregation along racial and economic lines is
so much on the increase, particularly in American cities
following the massive influx of blacks and Puerto Ricans
into urban areas, that cities are internally divided into
mutually exclusive, bitterly hostile enclaves — white
against black and Latin, poor against well-to-do and
wealthy. Taxes and administrative costs are uniformly on
the rise; in fact, financial crises have turned from isolated
episodes into a chronic fiscal condition. Crimes are
multiplying to a point where, even in privileged areas, the urban
dweller lives under a darkening pall of fear for his personal
safety. Industries have been migrating steadily From the
larger cities, leaving behind a *lazarus* stratum of the urban
population that exists partly on a dole, partly on crime,
partly on the sick fat of the city. Education is at the point
of moral and administrative breakdown; the schools, in
many areas, approximate juvenile prisons whose staffs are
occupied more with the problems of order and discipline
than pedagogy. Nothing more visibly reveals the overall
decay of the modern city than the ubiquitous filth and
garbage that gathers in its streets, the noise and massive
congestion that fills its thoroughfares, the apathy of its
population toward civic issues, and the ghastly indifference
of the individual toward the physical violence that is
publicly inflicted on other members of the community. In the
meantime, the cities continue to expand — without
meaning or form — despite the fact that for many urban centers
the problems of growth have reached emergency proportions.
It may be useful to examine some of these problems as
they apply to the two leading cities of the United States:
Los Angeles and New York. Urban literature tends to view
these cities as contrasts. Los Angeles as a comparatively
new city without a visible tradition to mold its development;
New York as a City tempered by standards from an
earlier urban way of life. Yet precisely because this contrast
was once valid, it is significant that today the differences
between the two cities are rapidly waning. Both cities are
beset not only by the same problems, but the Form of New
York is slowly approximating that of Los Angeles. This
convergence characterizes not only all large American cities
but also cities abroad, whose traditions reach back to the
classical, humanistic era of urban development.
Modern Los Angeles, in a sense, is only a few decades
old. The city has grown so large so quickly that it retains
only the vestiges of an urban center despite recent
attempts to revitalize its ambiguous downtown district.
Harsh reality compels us to view this urban entity as the
very antithesis of an authentic community. The city is
actually a region; a fantastic agglomerate of shoddy structures,
garish neon lights, oversized supermarkets, vulgarly bedecked
gas stations, and snaking freeways for motor traffic.
The official city area of 404 square miles, like its official
population figure of 2.3 million, is an urban fiction.
Actually, Los Angeles spreads out for almost five thousand
square miles, from the coast to the Santa Monica mountains,
engulfing scores of “independent communities” and
county areas. It seemed, for a time, that the mountain
ranges would offer a natural barrier to urban expansion. In.
recent years, however, new tentacles of Los Angeles have
reached out in almost every direction, probing into the
Mojave Resort seventy-five miles away and even encroaching
upon the Palm Springs area and the Coachella Valley.
Over seven million people occupy the Los Angeles-Long
Beach Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area — an urban
cancer three times the size of Rhode island.
The enormity of this metropolitan area yields a characteristic
result: the city proper is not used in any human
sense. It is merely a place in which to work. People neither
stroll along its main street nor do they congregate in its
squares. Los Angeles is normally seen through a windshield.
Because of the city’s enormous size, the car is the
essential and unavoidable means of transportation: about
95 percent of travel in the metropolitan area is done by car.
It is estimated that there is One automobile for every 2.5
people, compared with 3.5 in Detroit, the automotive
capital of the United States. And these cars are in daily use,
bringing wage earners to their jobs, children to schools,
and shoppers to local stores. Roughly 60 percent of the
central city’s land is devoted to parking lots, roads, and
garages, in addition to the considerable area that is
occupied by its multitude of gasoline and service stations.
It is not enough to say that Los Angeles is an overgrown
suburb made possible by motor vehicles and freeways, for
this suggests certain natural amenities — trees, shrubs, and
open fields — that are a secondary value to the southern
California metropolis. In Los Angeles, the automobile is
not only a means of transportation, but a state of mind that
shapes the citizen’s sensibility toward his environment,
life style, and concept of space and time. So committed is
the psyche of the Angelino to the motor vehicle that a
proposal to build a mass transit system for the city was
resoundingly defeated in a popular referendum. To travel
fifty or sixty miles to a choice restaurant — possibly, driving
two hours in order to while away one — is often no more
debatable an issue than to travel a smaller distance to and
From work daily. The four wheels of a car, the din of
freeway traffic, the space enclosed between a windshield and
a back window become the essential elements of an urban
space that finds Its counterpart in the home that is an
extension of the garage. This mechanized, plastic, and
tacky world blunts the Angelino’s taste for nature; the
semblance of the organic tends to suffice For the real thing. Not
surprisingly, one finds that Los Angeles city authorities
arrayed plastic “vegetation” along a stretch of freeway to
replace shrubs that were perishing from air pollution. The
reason for this inspired experiment was net lower costs,
indeed, it would have been more expensive to vacuum-clean
the synthetic product than periodicaly restore the
real vegetation. Hard as It may be to believe, the civic
authorities thought that the plastic “plants” were more
“attractive” than real ones.
Gasoline exhausts from millions of motor vehicles produce
air pollution problems in Los Angeles — a city that is
notoriously burdened by temperature inversions and
photochemical smog. In the celluloid world of southern
California, dealing with this problem assumes the qualities
of a technocratic nightmare. The only administrative institution
around which Los Angeles coheres is its district-wide
Air Pollution Control Board — an agency formed to
deal with a potentially lethal environment. Los Angeles’s
municipal apparatus may sprawl like the metropolis itself,
its culture may be as diffuse as its urban center, but the city
acquires civic coherence and energy when it is compelled
to cope with the environmental results of its unique form
of urban blight. This board has enormous powers. Its three-stage
“smog alert” system stipulates that it can bring all
traffic, industrial activity, and even power generation to a
virtual halt. Presumably, if the final alert — a “general
emergency” — failed to cope with a pollution crisis,
Angelinos might use their motor vehicles to flee to the
mountains or else, as one anonymous *Time* magazine writer
acidly suggested, a squadron of planes could “sweep over
the city and dust it with Miltown.”
In a metropolis of such enormous dimensions as Los Angeles,
it would be preposterous to speak of a meaningful
municipal government. More appropriately, one might
describe the administrative apparatus of the city as an
impersonal state power, as removed in many respects from civic
immediacy as the national government thousands of miles
away. Little exists to bridge the chasm between the
average citizen, pursuing his private interests, and a massive
governing bureaucracy Following its own law of life.
Hardly anyone loves this city, except perhaps those who
profit from it, like real estate operators, politicians, and
businessmen And even they often prefer not to live in it.
Paeans to California’s climate, mountains, forests, and
agriculture — even to a number of California’s cities — often
exclude Los Angeles. The metropolis is brash rather than
vital, nervous rather than energetic, and above all,
disastrously big — big in the sense that it has been mass
manufactured, put together cheaply and shoddily; its human
qualities stifled by spiritual and civic poverty.
By contrast. New York evokes a measure of civic loyalty,
if Los Angeles Is metropolitan, New York is cosmopolitan.
The eastern city preserves a uniquely European flavor that
reflects its greater age, stability, and cultural heterogeneity.
Until the rising incidence of street crimes began
to drive people indoors after dark. New Yorkers did more
walking — spiritually, as well physically. The city had its
own charms; its distinctive ethnic neighborhoods, its
varied diet of visual experiences. Central and lower Manhattan,
in sharp contrast to downtown Las Angeles, collected
local inhabitants as well as tourists on a cultural and
shopping spree. Despite its waning reputation. New York is still
the publishing, theatrical, and literary center of the United
States, a product of Its worldly outlook, it has a multitude
of bookstores, a large number of universities, and many
niches that are occupied by sophisticated professionals and
creative eccentrics. With each passing year, however, the
cultural reputation of the city is declining; and as an urban
entity. New York is facing the same civic, logistical, and
structural problems that confront Los Angeles. Queens,
the most recently colonized of New York’s bed room
boroughs,” already reproduces some of the most repellent
features of the more densely occupied areas of Los Angeles;
the long, wide, featureless avenues designed
primarily For motor car traffic, the architecturally tasteless
high-rise apartment houses, the side streets lined by
uniform two-story dwellings, the dull vistas that reach toward
the distant spires of Manhattan in one direction and the
vacuity of Jamaica Bay in the other.
The increasing approximation of New York to Los Angeles
occurred by stages. As recently as the Second World
War, New York still preserved a vital relationship between
its cultural centers in Manhattan and its outlying residential
districts. The boroughs retained their colorful ethnic
neighborhoods and yet these wore linked by a highly
serviceable public transportation system to downtown areas.
The periphery of the city, where the subways and elevated
lines terminated, formed a green open area which clearly
demarcated the city proper from the towns to the north
and rural Long Island. These were the delightful picnic
and recreation spots which attracted urban dwellers from
all parts of the City on Weekends, a refreshing preserve of
countryside that offered a delightful contrast to more
densely occupied districts. Within little more than a
decade, these lovely areas were filled in by shabbily built
suburban developments at densities averaging seven
houses to an acre. Here, as the developments spread Out
still further for miles, merging with the towns around the
city, urban heterogeneity was replaced by suburban
homogeneity, the subway by the commuter railroads, and
the motor car became an increasingly significant feature of
residential life. By the mid-1950s, a mere 30,000 acres of
unused land remained within the 319 square miles of the
official boundaries of New York City, more than half of
which were located in Staten Island,
The sixties opened another stage; the region beyond the
city’s suburban fringe was occupied less densely. A more
expensive kind of home appeared on Land zoned in Lots of
a half acre or more. This development, which is still going
on s has produced an entirely new social geography; a culture
based on the automobile, the suburban shopping center,
and a high-income population that depends upon the
city economically but is completely severed from it culturally.
Here, twenty or thirty miles away From Times Square,
“is evolving a type of urban area without parallel in eastern
North America: an importation From the universal sprawl
of Los Angeles,” observes Peter Hall.
It depends almost wholly on the automobile, for a finely
developed railroad net, or even adequate express bus
transportation, is no longer economic. The commuter
bound for Manhattan must drive long distances to a
suburban railhead; his wife needs a second car for the long
journey to the shopping centre. The early developments
are tending to cluster around the infrequent junctions on
the freeways; but this will be possible only for a privileged
few. And losing the traditional advantages of’urban life, the
new suburbanites will not gain complete rural seclusion
either. True, they will not usually be able to glimpse their
neighbours’ houses through trees; but they will still live at
ten times rural densities. This new typo of suburbia needs
a new name, Some Americans call it “exurbia.” The
Regional Plan Association have christened it “spread city.”[27]
[27] Peter Hall. *The World Cities* (New York: McGraw-Hill World
University Library, 1966), pp. 198–100.
To the inhabitants of “spread city,” New York is an object
of active hostility. Although they depend upon the city
for their means of life, they are oblivious to its civic
problems, impatient with its inconveniences, disloyal to its
political interests, and desperately fearful of its
encroachment on their enclaves. They arc New Yorkers in fact and
depend upon the city for their well-being, but their hatred
of New York is as parochial and chauvinistic as the hostility
that the rural dweller feels toward all large cities. Divorced
by residence from the tax base that supports the city’s
essential services, they provide only a minimal
contribution to its revenues. The bad conscience they — and
suburbanites generally — feel toward the city finds a perverted
expression in the representatives they send to the state
legislature: reactionaries who are responsible for the most
vindictive measures against New York.
Yet these suburbanites and exurbanites dog the city’s
streets with their cars; they flood its subways, adding
enormously to the congestion of its public transportation
system, and they place a staggering burden on its services. By
the ten? of thousands they enter the city in automobiles,
filling its streets and overtaxing its parking facilities; over
150,000 arrive each day in its downtown area by
commuter railroad, and immense numbers fill its subways at
terminal stations or for short rides from bus and railroad
terminals. They flow into the immense throng of more
than 1.6 million who people the city’s office buildings,
manufacturing places, and retail outlets south of 61st
Street, perhaps the most compact and dense business
district in the world. In a city whose transportation system is
already congested and overtaxed to inhuman proportions,
they add the critical increment that reduces it to a chronic
crisis.
They are strangers to this city not only because of their
active disloyalty to its interests but, perhaps most
significantly, because of their oblivion to its agony. The
commuter trains, buses, and automobiles that swoop past New
York’s proliferating ghettoes are enclaves of an alien culture
that is in mutual war with the urban environment. To
the ghetto dweller, these conveyances are not means of
transportation, nor are the people who occupy them mere
strangers; they are the self-enclosed strangers as enemies,
The archaic hatred and fear of the Outsider, of the
non-belonger who is necessarily a foe until his friendship has
been validated by ritual, weds up like a primordial myth
from the urban environment that traditionally was the
solvent of all such myths — the city that replaced kinship ties
with civil ties, the world of parochial ignorance by the
world of civic culture. Now there is no ritual to dissolve this
archaic estrangement, for the stranger offers no friendship
— merely the ancestral odor of fear and panic when black
faces meet white, well-nourished bodies, malnourished
ones, even if only through the window’ panes of a train or
motor vehicle. The distance must be maintained like the
no-man’s-land between opposing armies. The vehicle that
conveys the suburbanite and exurbanite into tire city is not
a cultural enclave, but a fortress.
Are the outsiders within the urban milieu to be blamed
for more than the common run of insensitivities that
permeate bourgeois society? This tragic inhuman world is
not of their making, and their treasured privileges are
dubious possessions. The capitalist market, by an
inexorable logic that would colonize the entire universe
if it could, merely graduates estrangement from the individual level
of the buyer-seller relationship to the Civic level of the
ghetto relationship. A true community cannot grow out of
monads, and insofar as monadic relationships invade all
other relationships and transform them, they merely
reproduce themselves agglomerations of monads. The
word “ghetto,” which increasingly defines the internal
limits of the bourgeois city, must be given a broader meaning
than it has today. The outward radiation of urban society
from its civic nuclei reads like a spectrum of increasingly
deprived or seemingly privileged ghettoes; the materially
denied black and Puerto Rican ghettoes in the central
parts of the city (marbled by well-policed enclaves of fearful
whites); the materially more affluent but spiritually denied,
suburbanite fringe, united by its aversion far the city
proper; and finally that pathetic caricature of all privilege
in bourgeois society, the beleaguered exurbanite fringe,
inwardly paralyzed by a suspicion of invaders from the
central city and suburbs, Just as the bourgeois marketplace
makes each individual a stranger to another, so the
bourgeois city estranges these central and fringe areas from
each other. The paradox of the bourgeois city is that it
unites these areas internally not in the felicitous
heterogeneity of unity in diversity that marked the
medieval commune — a heterogeneity unified by mutual aid and
a common municipal tradition — but rather in the suspicions,
anxieties, and hatreds of the stranger from the
“other” ghetto. The city, once the shelter of the stranger
from rural parochialism, is now the primary source of estrangement.
Ghetto boundaries comprise the unseen internal walls within the city that once, as real walls, secured
the city and separated it from the countryside. The bourgeois city assimilates rural parochialism as a permanent
and festering urban condition. No longer are the elements
of the city cemented by mutual aid, a shared culture, and
a sense of community; rather, they are cemented by a
social dynamite that threatens to explode the urban tradition into its very antithesis.
The integrity of the individual ego depends upon its
ability to integrate the many different aspects of human
life — work and play, reason and emotion, mental and
sensuous, the private and the social — into a coherent and
creative whole, By no means 35 this process of integration a
strictly private and personal activity; indeed, tor most
individuals, the possibility of integrating one’s ego depends
enormously upon the extent to which society itself is
integrated existentially in the course of everyday life. The clan,
village, and medieval commune were humanly scaled and
personally comprehensible totalities in which the individual
satisfied all facets of life, Within these km groups and
civic entities, one found one’s mate, reared one’s children,
worked and played, thought and dreamed, worshipped
and participated in-the administration of social life — alt of
this without feeling that any one of these facets was
divorced from or opposed to others Here, one could truly
say that the individual microcosm reflected the social
macrocosm; the particular, the general. Separated from the
clan, village, or commune, the individual withered; but this
ts not to say that the individual ego was “subordinated” to
the collectivity. Bather, the ego was, in itself, the whole as
it was manifested in the particular, for each individual
embodied the unity and multifaceted nature of the life of
the whole. In contrast to totalitarian societies that subordinate the individual to a larger social mechanism and supra individual ends, the clan, village, and commune — and
most eminently, the polls — nourished the integrity of the
ego by recrystallizing its many-sided social goals and possibilities as individual ones.
The bourgeois city separates these facets of life and
delivers them, one by one, to institutions, denuding the
ego of the rich content of life. Work is removed from the
home and assimilated by giant organizations in offices and
industrial factories. It loses its comprehensibility to the
individual not only as a result of the minute division of
labor, but owing also to the scale of commercial and industrial operations. Play becomes organized and the imaginative faculties of the individual are pre-empted by mass
media that define the very daydreams of the ego. The
individual Is reduced to a vicarious spectator of his own
fancies and pleasures. Reason and intellect are brought
under the technical sovereignty of the academy and the
specialist. Political life is taken over by immense bureaucratic
institutions that manipulate people as. “masses” and
insidiously try to engineer public consent. The most
private domains of the individual — the home, child-rearing
functions, sexuality, and the quiet moments reserved for
personal reflection and meditation — become the fair game
of the agencies and instruments of mass culture which
dictate the norms of education, parental love, physical
beauty, personal dress, home furnishings, and the most
intimate aspects of human interrelationships, social life, as
embodied by the massified city, rears itself above personal
life, reducing the individual from a microcosm of the
whole to merely one of its parts. The particularity of the
individual is preserved, but its many-faceted content is
active, like a fragment of a jigsaw puzzle, the individual
is separable from the whole — in fact, he is compelled by
the market relationship to fend for himself — but his
particularity and separability are meaningless unless, to use a
revealing colloquial expression, he “fits himself into the
picture.” The urban ego, which once celebrated its many-faceted
nature owing to the wealth of experience provided
by the city, emerges with the bourgeois city as the most
impoverished ego to appear in the course of urban development.
Almost every aspect of urban life today, particularly in
the metropolis, fosters this ego impoverishment. Metropolitan
space produces neither the active feeling of awe,
which sweeping avenues in Baroque cities like Paris inspire,
nor the domestic feeling of hominess evoked by the
medieval quarters of towns like Nuremberg It creates a
feeling of insignificance. The towering skyscrapers of New
Fork, which are Invading the downtown districts of nearly
all American cities, diminish one’s sense of uniqueness and
personal sovereignty. The gigantism of the structures
dwarfs the souse of individuality in those who walk in their
shadows and the less fortunate ones who occupy their cubicles.
It matters little whether this effect is calculated or not;
the important point is that it is not accidental.
It is no longer a new concept that urban space can be
hierarchical or egalitarian; esthetic qualities aside,
a revealing history of architecture and city planning can be written
within the framework of this perspective. Often, in the old
cities of Europe, the convergence of wide processional
avenues on bulky palaces in the Baroque districts contrasts
sharply with, the narrow winding streets in the medieval
quarters, lined with small dwellings and shops; the first is
scaled to overpower and awe. the second imparts a sense
of warmth, intimacy, and community. The eye tells us at
a glance that urban space has been organised to express
two different political and civic principles. Rut such a
perspective alone does not suffice lo explain the full psychic
impact of the unique structural monumentalise that is
pervading the metropolis. Obviously, structural
monumental ism is not new to the city — or, as the great
megalithic ensembles of archaic society reveal, to the countryside.
But the monumentalism of the precapitalist city
differed in certain fundamental respects from the
monumentalism of the metropolis. In the ancient cities of the
Near East and Asia — and later in Rome and the Baroque
capitals of European absolute monarchs — the size of a
public structure was a function of power. Urban apace was
undisguisedly hierarchical: it monumentalized authority
and inspired awe of the dominant social classes. This
power, however, was rarely abstract power. Deified
Pharaoh and emperor, or temporal ruler and monarch — power
was the attribute of a living personage, of a human being,
whose authority was comprehensible, whose wisdom and
fallibility could be weighed and tested, and, when
necessary, whose status could be altered,
The organic nature of this power found expression in the
organic dimension that was added to public structures,
however geometric their overall design. Ornamentation —
ids forms borrowed from the natural world or the human
body — remained an inseparable feature of the structure.
Indeed, if authority did not transfix rulership in commonly
recognizable forms, it was meaningless to the beholder.
For most precapitalist communities, abstract power had
yet to be created — even *mana*, the archaic version of
abstract power, exists only insofar as it manifests itself in the
world of everyday beings and objects. Only among the
ancient Jews, whose nameless god portends the abstract
nature of social power, do we find stringent injunctions
against graven images, although not against ornamentation.
Viewed against this historic tableau, the modern metropolis
constitutes a sharp rupture with traditional expressions
of authority and urban space. It retains hierarchical
space by virtue of its structural gigantism — but hierarchical
space of a very special kind. Power is utterly abstracted
by transferring it from persons to institutions, from definable
individuals to faceless bureaucracies. Although power
— and powerlessness — are felt like a twitching nerve in
every sphere of life, the locus of these feedings and forces
becomes diffuse, To an increasing extent, the urban
dweller can no longer clearly identify the source of his
problems and misfortunes; perhaps more significantly, he
can find no one against whom he can assert his own power
and thereby retain a sense of control over the forces that
seem to guide his destiny. The personified powers that
once administered society evaporate from the social terrain.
They are replaced by “the system,” the vague anonymous
apparatus that lacks definite boundaries and forms.
The immense canyons of skyscrapers that envelop the
urban dweller in the large cities of the world both reflect
and foster the anonymity of metropolitan, society. The
soaring structures are no longer named after individuals; they
normally bear the name of the bureaucratic corporations
that erected them. They are the featureless megaliths of an
institutionalized society — immense, ornamentless,
geometric slabs that offer no grip on which the imagination
can fasten. Hermetically sealed from weather and climate,
artificially illuminated throughout the day. odorless,
sanitized. and self-contained to a point where many of these
structures are linked to each other by a labyrinth of
underground passageways, their most demonic effect is the sense
of powerlessness they inculcate in those who live and work
in their midst, If history tells us that the divine city once
competed with the earthly city for ascendency over the
human spirit, today it can be reasonably said that both have
been pre-empted by the institutionalized and depersonalized city; for the metropolis is no work of man or god, but
rather of the faceless bureaucracies that have acquired
control over society and denature the human spirit.
The sense of powerlessness that the soaring structural
slabs impart to the modern urbanite is deepened by the
anonymous crowds in which he is immersed. The bodies
that touch each other in the subways, in the elevators of
the great buildings, and in the streets are surrounded by a
psychic field of indifference. Herded together, they exude
an active force of mutual unconcern, indeed, of latent
hostility, and reinforce rather than allay the ubiquitous lack of
human solidarity. To break this field of indifference is
regarded as an eccentricity at host and a hostile act at worst,
Paradoxically, each individual recognizes the other’s personal
sovereignty by acts of nonrecognition. Any desire to
communicate is muted by the unspoken understanding —
a psychic equivalent of the “social contract” — that the
urbanites personality can only retain its integrity in a mass
society by a sullen inwardness, by a dumb impregnability
to contact with the mass. The segmented roles that
bureaucratization imposes on the ego are resisted by the myth
that a blase indifference to the world at large is a mode of
withdrawal from a homogenized society;the anomie that
pervades the crowd can only be exorcised by clinging to
one’s sense of privacy and by tending to one’s own affairs.
But this unarticulated stance of exclusivity, social withdrawal,
and isolation actually deepens massification and
reinforces the sovereignty of suprasocial forces over
society, of supraindividua! forces over the individual. As Max
Horkheimer observes, true individuality
is impaired when each man decides to shift for himself. As
the ordinary man withdraws from participation in political
affairs, society lends to revert to the law of the jungle,
which crushes all vestiges of individuality. The absolutely
isolated individual has always been an illusion. The most
esteemed personal qualities, such as independence, will to
freedom, sympathy, and the sense of justice, are social as
well as individual virtues. The fully developed individual
is the consummation of a fully developed society. The
emancipation of the individual is not an emancipation
from society, hut the deliverance of society from atomization,
an atomization that may roach its peak in periods of
collectivization and mass culture.[28]
[28] Max Horkheimer, *The Eclipse of Reason* (New York; Oxford
University Press, 1947), p. 135.
In retiring from arenas and facets of life that were once
constitutive factors in the formation of individuality, the
ego merely enlarges the space for the very forces that
mutilate the ego itself. The individual who withdraws into
himself and his private concerns, who fortifies himself with
social neutrality and civic indifference, all the more delivers
his privacy to the invasive social forces from which he
tries to escape, Once this process goes far enough, it is not
he who decides his destiny, but an increasingly bureaucratic
and authoritarian apparatus whose interests are
inimical to his own.
Perhaps in no area of life is this regressive process more
pathetically revealed than in that ultimate refuge for
privacy and intimacy — the home. The high-rise apartment
building, by virtue of its very structure, forms the residential
counterpart of the office skyscraper. Here, private life
is consciously massified and publicly administered. The
need to compact thousands of people into minimal acreage
without paying the toll in disease and overt misery
demanded by the slum yields its own psychic toll in physical
gigantism and bureaucratic manipulation. Structural
monumentalism, in the form of residential skyscrapers and
shopping complexes, with their odious homogeneity and
hermetic environments, invades the neighborhood and destroys
it. Aside from their featureless gigantism, these residential
areas allow for no spontaneous sedation and novel
life style?. In a housing development whose beehive apartment
dwellers number in the thousands and whose tile-lined corridors
divide into immense wings, neighborliness
is often exhausted by a nod of the head. The standardization
of the dwellings foster? a standardization of private life
that subverts the physical and personal heterogeneity so
vital to the give-and-take of meaningful communication.
One can only put a limited amount of one’s authentic
personality into these strictly functional apartment cubicles —
and quite often, very little of that personality will be
tolerated by the bureaucracies which administer the
structures. That the architecture of these developments is
featureless the corridors of the buildings institutional, and the
apartments themselves nothing more tb.an a suite of offices
is not accidental; the developments are bureaucratic
institutions For self-reproduction and self-main tenancy just as
the office skyscrapers are bureaucratic institutions for
commerce and administration.
The standardization of private life in these high-rise
developments may reach appalling proportions. The
immensely long queues before supermarket cash registers as
the dinner hour approaches remind, the observer that
everyone shops and eats very much the same thing at the
same time. A walk through the corridors of a high-rise
building is revealing. From door to door the rattle of dishes
interrupts the din of similar television programs; the noises
reveal a turgid uniformity of life rhythms arid personal
interrelationships. The entire structure is simply one
immense apartment, almost needlessly divided by thinly
partitioned walls. At an administratively ordained hour, the
knob of the television set is turned off — and so is this way
of life. An eerie silence prevails, occasionally broken by a
domestic quarrel or the sounds of a displaced eccentric
whose muted record player or musical instrument reminds
one that the human spirit still flickers in the darkness of a
mass society.
Suburbia is no different, merely more affluent. In the
costlier private dwellings that fringe the city proper,
everyday life remains as standardized — and hence as socialized
— as the more directly administered and regulated life
of the superblock, but now it can be shared with a dog, a
car, a lawn, Or perhaps a flower bed, Nevertheless the
retreat from the social totality is as illusory in the suburbs as
it is in the less privileged superblock districts of the city
proper. For everything that the individual surrenders to
the society at large is turned into a lever for opening
another monadic window to the invasion of that society,
Through the medium of the culture industry, the social
totality assimilates even the amusement of the individual
to the work process from which he is seeking a refuge.
Mechanization exercises “such power over a man’s leisure
and happiness, and so profoundly determines the manufacture
of amusement goods, that his experiences are inevitably
after-images of the work process itself,” observe Horkheimer
and Theodor Adorno.
The ostensible content is merely a faded foreground; what
sinks in is the automatic succession of standardized operations.
What happens at work, in the factory, or in the office
can only be escaped from by approximation to it in one’s
leisure time. All amusement suffers from this incurable
malady. Pleasure hardens into boredom because, if it is to
remain pleasure, it must not demand any effort and therefore
moves rigorously in the worn grooves of association.
No independent thinking must be expected from the audience:
the product prescribes every reaction; not by its
natural Structure (which collapses under reflection), but by
signals, [29]
[29] Max Horkeimer and Theodor Adorno, *The Dialectic of Enlightenment*
(New York: Herder and Hereder, 1972), p. 137.
Yet, after all has been said about the privatization of
social life, it is hot a given that the urban dweller desires
the alternative of withdrawal from civic affair; he is
scarcely given more than the semblance of a choice. Rarely
is lie permitted to participate in the decisions that affect
where he will live, the kind of dwelling he will occupy, the
taxes he will pay, and the destiny of the overall urban
environment In the last analysis, these decisions are made
by institutions over which he exorcises little or no control.
At most he is permitted to choose between alternatives
that these institutions present, a sly procedure which
provides the form of autonomy and popular control, but
makes a mockery of its content. Accordingly, his civic bah
ties are defined by initiatives from above; whether he will
resist a proposed highway that threatens to divide
his neighborhood and pollute it with gasoline exhausts and
noise, a proposed unclear power plant, a proposed
redevelopment scheme that will replace old neighborhood
dwellings by monster high-rise superblocks, and so forth. It is not
he who exercises these initiatives; rather, they come from
agencies which he never constituted, business interests
which have no roots in his community, and political figures
who are unresponsive to his needs.
The past century bears witness to a steady erosion of the
urban dweller’s participation in the social decisionmaking
process, American Federalist mythology notwithstanding,
popular control over municipal policy is in rapid decay.
And the larger the municipality — the more incomprehensible
its dimensions and the more “complex” Us problems
— the more complete this decomposition. Almost every
civic problem is resolved not by action that goes to its social
roots, but by legislation that further restricts the rights of
the citizen as an autonomous being and enhances the
power of supraindividual agencies. Crime is dealt with by
conferring stronger powers on the police; transportation
difficulties, by vesting more control in non-elected bureaucracies
and commissions; neighborhood problems, by
strengthening the authority of city planning agencies;
urban administrative problems, by creating city managers
who arc beyond the reach of public Influence or by extending
the executive powers of the mayors, Instead of decentralizing
municipal power by rescaling it to neighborhood
dimensions so that civic problems can become more comprehensible
to the urban dweller and open new avenues to
his participation, the trend is overwhelmingly in the very
opposite direction. Adjacent cities are merged or clustered
together into regions that reduce the urban dweller to the
totally passive object of super-agencies, agencies which
orchestrate the drama of civic life on an epic scale.
Although the urban dweller may be permitted to voice
his opinions at public hearings and, less directly, in the
electoral process, experience eventually teaches him that
decisions winch intimately affect his life are made behind
his back, with little regard to his interests. Gradually, he
succumbs to the reality principle of municipal life. Inured
to deceit, corruption, fragmentation, and powerlessness,
he sinks into cynical indifference. This state of mind has a
quixotically active dimension: the modern urban dweller
responds to the wanton disregard of his own interests by
disregarding the interests of the powers that rule his life.
Almost unconsciously, he takes revenge on these powers
by ignoring their admonitions and regulations. The
massive growth of misdemeanors in all the great cities of the
world — from the wholesale nonpayment of traffic tickets
and littering of streets to vandalism against all forms of
“public property” — is the. product not of popular indifference,
but of popular hostility. Swelling this tide of petty
crimes is the enormous increase, of major crimes — burglaries,
muggings, rapes, and murders — that reduce entire districts
of the city to urban jungles.
One must go back to the draft riots in New York a century
ago or the Gordon riots in London two centuries ago
to find periods that match the erosion of urban morale
today. The rot within the cities is now so palpable that,
however much attempts are made to conceal it with cosmetic
schemes for urban revitalisation, the stench of decay
rises from beneath the slick drawings and the blueprints to
fill the nostrils. An urban totality that has lost all meaning
to the great majority who dwell in it is already spiritually
dead. The ordinary urbanite, to be sure, can try to relate
to his job, his home and Family, and his immediate associates
and friends; but when the overall city environment
that forms the framework of these interrelationships is
totally meaningless to him — indeed, the object of his active
hostility — then its civic metabolism has come to a virtual
halt. From a consciously thriving entity, the city passes into
a comatose stater it may technically exhibit all the overt
functions of life under the ministrations of its
super-agencies and executive bodies, but for all practical purposes it
is in a terminal condition.
That modern urban entities can continue to grow despite
their spiritual and physical decay is evidence of the
unique pathology of the bourgeois city; the breakdown of
the self-constitutive restraints that traditionally gave the
city its definability and cultural vitality. Mumford’s paradoxical
description of the metropolis as the “anti-city” is
unerring; limitless expansion is itself a limit, a
self-devouring process in which content is surrendered to form and
reality to appearance. Accordingly, oven as the urban
sprawl continues, it deurbanizes the urban dweller by
restoring in him all the parochial qualities of the rural
dweller without the compensations of a community life;
even as urban densities increase — particularly in the
bourgeois city’s historic Locus, the commercial and
manufacturing district — they diminish the cultural effects of
contiguity by substituting atomization for communication,
The colonization of space by modern urban entities, far
from producing the heterogeneity that made the
traditional city a feast of visual and cultural stimuli yields a
devastating homogeneity and standardization that impoverishes
the human spirit, Modern urban entities are no
longer sources of individuation; they arc the arenas
*par excellence* of psychic and physical massification — the
aggregation of the individual into a herd. This massification
isolates rather than relates; it produces no “common mind”
in Gustav LeBon’s sense, but mindlessness and apathy. The
bourgeois city, if city it can still be called, is a place where
one finds not human contiguity and association, but
anonymity and isolation. The limits of the bourgeois city
can be summed up in tire fact that the more there is of
urbanism, the less there is of urbanity.
Here, the factory, as both source and model of the
bourgeois city, acquires a multifaceted meaning. As the
embodiment of capital accumulation, of production for the
sake of production, it becomes the genie that effectuates
unlimited economic growth as well as providing the main
components of unlimited urban growth. To the bourgeois
mind, moreover, there is a sense in which it forms the
structural model for society as a whole. In the United
States, perhaps more than elsewhere in the world, the
national division of labor tends to pattern itself on the factory
division of labor, not only conceptually but also as
economic reality. To capital, in fact, the entire continent is
nothing but a huge Industrial enterprise — its regions
departmentalized according to resources and favorable
locales for commercial and manufacturing operations. This
mentality is betrayed in almost every speech at business
gatherings. Ecological considerations are given only token
acknowledgments soil. Forests, minerals, and waterways
are merely “natural resources” whose exploitation
requires no justification except when an ideological veneer
of “environmental concern” is required to allay the
feelings of an aroused public.
This factory mentality finds its most telling expression in
the man-made world of the city. Every esthetic urban
pattern inherited from the past tends to be sacrificed to the
grid system (in modern times, the factory pattern *par excellence*),
which facilitates the most efficient transportation
of good? and people. Streams are obliterated, variations in
the landscape effaced without the least sensitivity to natural
beauty, magnificent stands of trees removed, even treasured
architectural and historical monuments demolished,
and, wherever possible, the terrain is leveled to resemble
a factory floor, The angular and curved streets of the
medieval commune, which at every turn delighted the eye with
a new and unexpected scenic tableau, are replaced by
straight monotonous vistas of the same featureless
buildings and shops. Lovely squares inherited from the past are
reduced to nodal points for traffic, and highways are
wantonly carved into vital neighborhoods, dividing and Anally
subverting them. The bourgeois city, more than any other
in history, purges the past and replaces its redemption, an
essential notion in Hegel’s concept of freedom, with an
eternality that consists in a mindless contemporaneity.
History, as a visible fact in the monuments it leaves behind,
may be retained, but only as an archeological curiosity;
capitalism is eternal only in its capacity to accelerate the
production and circulation of commodities. To the
ancients, the razing of a captured city was the token of the
enemy’s total extinction; for as long as the city stood, the
enemy was still unconquered. Even after its capture, the
city provided him with historical visibility. To the modern
bourgeois, who demolishes his own city daily in a restless
frenzy of construction and destruction, all that deserves
eternality is the swelling flow of transient commodities.
The past is a reminder that eternality his a qualitative
dimension that is alien to the production of evanescent
exchange values.
Like every factory, the bourgeois city not only devours
men but its own raw material — land. In the United States,
this occurs at the rate of some three thousand acres a day.
Since the end of the Second World War, more than thirty
million acres have been buried under concrete and steel,
much of it agriculturally productive land. To feed the
immense populations that are absorbed by the cities,
agriculture too must be industrialized, that is, reduced to a
factory operation. This is achieved by spraying crops with harmful
chemicals, saturating the soil with inorganic fertilizers,
compacting it with huge harvesting equipment, and levelling
the terrain in the countryside. Viewed in terms of
population and land use, appalling dislocations develop
between town and country. The majority of Americans
collect along the highly urbanized seaboard areas of the continent
and in the formless urban belts of the midwest, while
rural communities languish and die. One in three rural
counties shows a loss of population, but the cities continue
to grow inexorably and blight the last semi-rural refuges
from urban congestion, Roughly a quarter to a third of the
American population now resides in the coastal belt
between southern New Hampshire and northern Virginia,
the urban-suburban region which Jean Gottmann has aptly
named “megalopolis.” In this area, between thirty and
forty million people occupy only ten thousand square
miles, or three to four thousand people to a square mile of
urban and suburban land. The densities soar as one
approaches the major urban areas until they reach an average
of eighty thousand people per square mile in Manhattan
and substantially more in the older slum areas of the
borough.
The ecological burden the bourgeois city places on
the natural environment is staggering. The city is not
only a victim of air and water pollution, but a grave
pollutant in its own right. Its demand for water upsets the
hydrologic cycle of the entire region surrounding it, and
the solid wastes it produces are growing beyond rational
control. New York alone generates 30,000 tons of
garbage daily, aside from the sewage effluent that flows
into its rivers and bays. In the meantime the bourgeois
city continues to grow. Daily, it spreads over the court,
try side like a rampant cancer and destroys waterways
and masses of land whoso preservation may well
provide the indispensable agricultural margin of survival
for humanity in the ages that lie ahead. The thought
that there is no limit to this urban growth reminds us,
in fact, that the natural world raises a decisive ecological
limit of its own — but one, perhaps, that may not be
felt until the damage has been irreparable and the
recovery of a balanced ecology irreversible.
** 4. Community and City Planning
Can the bourgeois city be rescued from itself? Or, to ask
a more basic question, can the high traditions of urbanism
be instilled in the modern metropolis? In the United States,
where science acquires the aura that the archaic world
once reserved for magic, the answer tends to be biased
toward technical expertise. The problems of the modern
city can (and presumably will) be resolved by those who
have the greatest urban “know-how” — the city planners.
Not that these specialists are beloved by people,
particularly those in the older urban areas whose neighborhoods
are being savagely revitalised. Hut the prestige of
American know-how, of professional technique., mystifies the
minds of its victims even as it disillusions them in practice.
As to the widening gap between ideal and real, the city
plan and its grotesque actuality, this is comfortably
explained as the work of the self-seeking, the greedy, and the
indifferent. These villainous traits are bestowed not only
on land speculators, construction barons, government
bureaucrats, landlords, and corporate interests, who
eminently possess them, but rather flippantly, on the general
public, People, we are told, don’t care enough about their
urban environment to do anything for it. An abstract “we”
is distilled From the medley of conflicting social interests,
a target of insidious propaganda that demands concern,
but denies the power of action to those who are most
victimized — the ordinary urban dweller who must endure the
metropolis not only as a place of work but also as a way of
life.
In urbanism the counterpart of this abstract “we” is the
abstract design: the architectural sketch that will resolve
the gravest urban problems with the most sophisticated
know-how. Frank Fisher observes:
One question about city planning must have come to the
mind of anyone who has fingered the magnificent volumes
in which the proposals of planners are generally presented.
Why do those green spaces, those carefully placed
skyscrapers, those pleasant residential districts, and equally
pleasant factory and working areas, still remain dreams for
the most part? Why are our cities hardly any less ugly and
unpleasant than they were the at the height of the
nineteenth century’s Industrial Revolution? [30]
Fisher’s reply, as we shall see, is more reasonable than
most, but the question itself is commonplace and it
normally contains loaded presuppositions. The most
important of these is that a rational city is primarily a product of
good designing. Will “green spaces,” “pleasant residential
districts,” “equally pleasant factory and working areas” —
not to mention “carefully placed skyscrapers’ — in
themselves produce human, rational, or even viable cities?
[30] “Frank Fisher, “Where City Planning Stands Today,”
*Commentary* (January 1954), p. 75.
As a distinctive discipline, city planning arose in the
nineteenth century net only because the great cities of the
world had deteriorated appallingly, but because planning
and more precisely design had become mystically reified.
The central notion that the city was essentially a man-made
arrangement of space imputed to the Organization of
space problems that basically inhere in society. This
cunning operational approach begs the very questions it
proposes to resolve. The external attributes of an entity, the
obvious fact that the entity is located in “space” and
“time/’ arc made into its essence. The far more important
fact that cities embody modes of social relations — that
those relations may be hierarchical or egalitarian, based on
domination or liberation, promote conflict or harmony,
governed by the market or by people — are evaded by a
perspective that focuses on socially neutral categories.
The spatial criteria of city planning do not provide us
with an index For judging |be viability of urban entities.
Indeed, some of the most socially and culturally vital cities
in history were spatially chaotic by modern standards. The
residential quarters of classical Athens, for example, have
been described by Mumford as a “rubble of houses... built
of unbaked brick, with tiled roofs, or even mud and wattle.”[31]
A maddening disorderly maze, the streets were often
no wider than the span required For a man and a donkey.
To find one’s way through this confusion, one, in typical
Greek fashion, had to know the city intimately. Dicaearchus,
in his description of Athens around the second century
B.C., complains that the “streets are nothing but miserable
lanes, the houses mean, with a few better ones
among them. On his first arrival a stranger would hardly
believe that this is the Athens of which lie lias heard sa
much.”[32]
[31] Lewis Mumford, *The City in History* (New York: Harcourt
Brace Jovanovich, 1961), p. 163.
But Athenian life was not meant to be lived indoors in
resplendent privacy, for to do so would have vitiated the
*polis* as a community. Life was to be spent in the *agora*, the
large square in which citizens gathered daily to transact
their affairs, gossip, argue politics, and sell their wares. To
fulfill this function, the *polis* had to be scaled to human
dimensions — in Aristotle’s words, a city that could be
“taken in at a single view.”[33] Urban space evolved spontaneously
out of the desire for intimate sociation, not out
of a priori considerations of trade, religion, or a geometry
of formal urban esthetics. Since the *agora* was the
authentic arena of Athenian life, the “street was not treated as the
principal design element but as the minimal leftover space
for circulation,” notes Paul Spreiregen — the *agora*, that is,
and the Acropolis, which served as fortress and religious
center Seen from an aerial view, the structures of the
Acropolis lack any orderly arrangement; indeed, to later
observers, “the component buildings were once thought to
lack visible design relations,” Spreiregen observes. The
Hellenic mind, however, concerned itself little with a
design that is meant to please a cosmic suprahuman deity that
views man’s works from the skies, or, for that matter, an
Olympian architect who places geometric symmetry
above the mundane experiences of everyday life, The
Acropolis’s Structures “were conceived, built, and rebuilt
over a long period of observation and reflection — to be
seen by the human eye and experienced by people moving
on foot. Their design principle was not the abstract plan:
it was the real experience of people.” [34]
[32] Quoted by Slumlord, ibid.
[33] Aristotle, “Politica,” in *The Basic Works of Aristotle* (New York;
Random House, 1941). p. 1284.
The medieval commune retained this spirit of spontaneous
human design and human scale — not From any knowledge
of the *polis*, but as a natural actualization of the social
relations that formed the basis of urban life. One must be
blind to urban charm and beauty to dismiss these early
European towns as “chaotic,” although this term has been
used repeatedly an accounts of the commune. Close to
nature and to the land, the medieval town as a matter of
course followed the contours of the terrain, and in serpentine
fashion formed those twisting lanes, delightful cul-de-sacs,
and narrow curving streets that still charm the modern
visitor. Mumford has captured the commune’s beauty
and visual variety with unmatched descriptive passages:
One awoke in the medieval town to the crowing of a cock,
the chirping of birds nesting under the eaves, or to the
tolling of the hours in the monastery on the outskirts,
perhaps to the chime of bells in the new bell tower in the
market square, to announce the beginning of the working
day, or the opening of the market.[35]
In walking down the streets of the medieval town, one
finds “no static architecture,” but a dynamic heterogeneity.
[34] Pau! D. Spreiregen, *Urban Design: The Architecture of Towns and Cities*
(New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1965), p. 3.
[35] Mumford, *The City in History*, p. 297.
The masses suddenly expand and vanish, as one approaches them or draws away; a dozen paces may alter the
relation of the foreground and background, or the lower
and upper range of the lino of vision. The profiles of the
buildings, with their steep gables, their sharp roof linos,
their pinnacles, their towers, their traceries, ripple and
how, break and solidify, rise and fall, with no less vitality
than the structures themselves.[36]
From an esthetic viewpoint, Mumford notes:
a medieval town is like a medieval tapestry: the eye,
challenged by the rich intricacy of the design, roams back and
Forth over the entire fabric, captivated by a dower, an
animal, a head, lingering where it pleases, retracing its
path, taking the whole only by the assimilating of its parts,
not commanding the design at a single glance.[37]
This is the space of a leisurely craft society that looks not
only to quality but to detail. The totality acquires its unity
by an interweaving of unique particulars. We see in this
design pattern the civic evidence of an awakening individuality
that, aside from the Greek *polis* was the western
world’s claim to freedom and personality — that is, until
this claim was debased by massification and egotism. It was
also an egalitarian space of modest houses arid shared
responsibilities. Contrast this civic tapestry with Baroque
hierarchy and absolutism, and the change introduced by the
courtly cities of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries
becomes painfully evident. Mum ford adds perceptively:
For the baroque eye, that medieval form is torturous and
the effort to encompass it is tedious; for the medieval eye,
on the other hand, the baroque form would be brutally
direct and over-unified. There is no one “right” way to
approach a medieval building: the finest face of the
Chartres cathedral is the southern one; and though perhaps the
best view of Notre Dame is from across the Seine, in the
rear, that view, with its engirdling green was not opened
up till the nineteenth century.[38]
[36] Ibid., p. 277.
[37] Ibid., p. 306.
[38] Ibid.
In a sense the same is true of the Acropolis, despite, its
seemingly classical coldness. Viewed from almost any
angle and distance, it presents the ascending planes that
invite the eye to move step by step from each structure to
the Parthenon.
This spontaneous artistic achievement Hows from a complete
integration of esthetic sensibility with workaday life.
Accordingly, it would have been difficult for the Greeks
and medieval burghers to exclude shops and vendors from
their public squares, to reduce these squares merely to the
visual object of passive loiterers. One did not merely linger
in these squares during the afterhours of work; one lived
in them and often conducted the main business of life
there. The people who built the *polis* and medieval
commune were independent, civicly dedicated smallholders
— farmers and craftsmen — for whom esthetic sensibility
fused with work, trade, and politics, This sensibility was not
reserved for religion and the more abstract realms of life.
Indeed, art itself was a craft, the “extraordinary” rendered
ordinary. In this context, where good taste inhered in the
social relations themselves, these relations could be trusted
to spontaneously evolve the city as a vital civic entity and
a work of art.
City planning, on the other hand, is an expression of
mistrust in the spontaneity of contemporary social relations,
and for good reason. Bourgeois society divides virtually
all spheres of life against each other; it universalizes
competition, profit, and the primacy of exchange value
over mutual aid, art, and utility. Esthetic sensibility, if it
can he called that in this context, becomes a merchandisable
device; art, even the city itself, a marketable commodity.
The damage and dislocations that “free enterprise”
inflicted on the cities of the western world over the
past two centuries remind us that bourgeois social relations,
if left unchecked, would ravage beyond redemption
every esthetic treasure that the past has left to the present.
City planning finds its validation in the intuitive recognition
that a burgeoning market society cannot not be
trusted to produce spontaneously a habitable, sanitary, or
even efficient city, much less a beautiful one.
But the critical self-consciousness of city planning did
not go far enough. Rarely could city planning transcend
the destructive social conditions to which it was a response.
To the degree that it turned in upon itself as a specialized
profession — the activity of architects, engineers, and
sociologists — it too fell within the narrow division of labor of
the very society it was meant to control. Not surprisingly,
some of the most humanistic notions of urbanism come
From amateurs who retain contact with the authentic experiences
of people and the mundane agonies of metropolitan life.
Furthermore, the overwhelming pragmatic
mentality of bourgeois society muted city planning’s
visionary outlook, one had to deal with the “facts of life” to
get anything done, not with “utopian schemes.” To get
anything done, in effect, meant to do one’s city planning
within the parameters established by the social system. But
the system is inherently irrational to begin with, so that
city planning found itself in the impossible situation of
trying to render rational a social organism whose very
essence is irrationality — production for the sake of production
and the subservience of human goals to economic
ones. Insofar as city planning did not make bourgeois social
relations as such the valid subject of critical analysis — a
work that was done by the radical Utopians, the anarchists,
and by Marx — it was rapidly assimilated (aside from “eccentric”
who fringe every discipline) into the prevailing
social order. The hypostatization of design and technique
is simply the shadow that planners cast on the harsh
outlines of dehumanizing social relations — relations that
debase not only the urban dweller but the city itself. The
outlines, in effect, are both softened and obscured. As
Leonardo Benevolo observes, “town-planning technique.
Invariably lags behind the events it is supposedly controlling
and it retains a strictly remedial character.” [39] Even
this statement has ideological elements: the problem is not
one of “technique” keeping up with events; city planning
plays not a “remedial” role but an exacerbating one.
A critical summary of the city-planning movement’s
development lends compelling support to Benevolo’s
verdict. Until the late Middle Ages, city planning was rarely
centered on the city as an autonomous entity, nor could it
be called “planning” in the modern sense of the word.
Conceptually, the pre-Hellenic ancient city was seen as a
temple or a fortress, whatever additional Functions it
acquired along the way or however significant they became
at a later point. Its “planners” were priests and warriors,
not the general populace or specialists in urbanism. The
layout of the city, when it was more than a military bastion
situated in a defensible terrain, was defined by religious
considerations. These considerations had an urban value in
themselves, for they gave the city a formal unity that
resisted the corrosive effects of trade and commercial self-interest.
E.A. Gutkkind, drawing upon the example of precapitalist
cities in India, gives us a glimpse of the factors that
guided this formal unity.
[39] Leonardo Benevolo, *The Origins of Town Planning*
(Cambridge, Mass; MIT Press, 1971), p. xi.
The old towns of India were limited in size. They reflected
the ground plan of the world as devised by the Jainas, a
religious group of North India related to the Buddhists.
The innermost circle is occupied by the Earth, which is
surrounded by a circular ocean. In the center rises Meru,
the world mountain, from which issue four rivers separating
four continents. Beyond the circular ocean is another
circular continent with its mountain, Followed by another
ocean and another continent. The bounding of’ the town by
a wall, the situation of the temple or the palace in the
center, the principle of walled-in quarters, the symbolism
of figures as seen. For instance, in the number of gates
(twelve gates corresponding to the twelve signs of the Zodiac),
the symbolism of colors — all these factors were a
direct transposition of the world concept into architecture,
even though the cities were mostly rectangular, and only
very occasionally, as in the case of the old town of Crikshatra
in Burma, circular. [40]
[40] E.A. Gautkind, *The Twilight of Cities*
(New York; The Free Press, 1962), p. 7.
Significantly, early cities were not only economically
dependent upon the land, but they often included space For
Food cultivation within the urban perimeter. Tenochtitlan,
for example, contained many of the famous “floating gardens”
that the Aztecs created in Lake Texcoco by
anchoring mud with osier reinforcements, adding trees whose
roots fed the entire ensemble to the lake bottom. The
Mesopotamian cities, Gutkind points out, “included large
open spaces that were used as fields, gardens and orchards,
contributing to the food supply of the population.” [41] Until
the medieval towns became overcrowded toward the end
of the Middle Ages, gardening and dairying were a normal
part of family life. Plots were reserved for growing food
and each family retained some pigs, chickens, and a cow or
two which could be postured on common land. And if open
space was in short supply, the countryside was easily
accessible to the urban dweller. “Even ancient Rome, with its
million inhabitants” observe Lynch and Rodwin, “was in
visible relation to its surrounding countryside. One could
easily walk from one district to another or From the central
to the rural area.” [42]
[41] Ibid., p. 5.
The striking feature of precapitalist urban design is that
it is conditioned by extraurban factors. Limited by a
metaphysical or human focus, it subserves trade and material
production to ends other than themselves. In the Asian
cities, this focus may be the gods, a religious cosmology, or
the deified monarch and state bureaucracy; in the *polis* the
Focus shifts strikingly to the human community and finds
expression in the centrality that is given to the *agora*; and
in the medieval town the urban focus is directed toward
the home, despite the growing Importance of the marketplace.
Until late medieval times, not only is urban development
physically and socially limited by the land, but its
design criteria are guided by religious, political, or
distinctly human considerations. One may find these criteria
oppressively monumental owing to the supremacy they
give to political and ecclesiastical authority; but rarely are
the precapitalist cities ugly in the notable absence of
esthetic values. However oppressive the monumentality of
such urban environments may be, they clearly engaged
the emotions of the urban dweller — in the *polis* and in the
free medieval town. Ids direct civic participation as well —
and imposed distinct esthetic limits on the rampant
egotism that was later to be generated by the bourgeois
marketplace.
[42] Kevin Lynch and Lloyd Rodwin, “A World of Cities,” in
*The Future Metropolis*, ed. Lloyd Rodwin (New York:
George Braziller 1961) p. 9.
Planning of sorts surety existed, initially, as we have
noted, by priests and warriors; later, by architects and
engineers, But in the ease of the latter, we encounter — no less
than among the priests — a strong emphasis on religious or
metaphysical considerations which Alexander Tzonis
rather unfelicitously describes as “irrational planning” as
distinguished from modern “rationalist” urban design. Yet,
in all fairness, it could be said that the “planner” of the
precapitalist city followed a rationality of his own. His goals
were defined not merely by functional considerations, but
by canons of balance, harmony, and beauty derived from
cosmological or philosophical speculations. From what little
we know’ of Hippodamus, perhaps the earliest professional
“city planner” of antiquity, to whom Aristotle
erroneously imputed the discovery of the rectilinear gridiron
layout, he strikes us as more of a Pythagorean-type mystic
than the functionalist designer we encounter so commonly
in our own time. Hippodamus was obsessed, with the
coherence provided by triads. The land is divided as Aristotle
tells us
into three parts, one sacred, one public, the third private:
the first was set apart to maintain the customary worship
of the gods, the second was to support the warriors, the
third was the property of the husbandmen.[43]
[43] Aristotle, *Politico*, p. 1161.
Apart from the practically-minded Romans, this order of
thinking guides city planning well into the Renaissance.
Increasingly, this thinking centered on specific
structures and districts, rather than on the city as a whole,
reflecting the particularizing process and individuation that
marked the transition to the modern era, But religious and
cosmological canons of architecture temper this development
block thee reduction of the city to a mere arena
for trade and commodity production. As Tzonis observes:
Many Renaissance and Medieval architects shared the
belief that churches and other buildings of specialized
functions should he designed according to rules dictated by a
“divine model.” ... Both periods required certain
buildings to be formed according to absolute rules created and
determined by God. As God was considered in Medieval
times the Architect of the Universe, *“elegans architectus,”*
whose rules man as designer had to obey, so in the Renaissance
the architect was valued “like a demigod *(‘come semidei’)*
when he complied with God’s creations.” Accordingly,
architectural rules “were expected to establish
the link between the design product audits divine model”
Therefore architectural investigations were aimed toward
accomplishing two tasks; the identification of the structure
of the divine model, and the invention of means for implementing
it in the architectural products. A design product
is “true” or “harmonic” or “perfect” if it is “according to
measure,” if it complies with the sacred prototype. [44]
[44] Alexander Tzonis, *Towards a Non-Oppressive Environment*
(Boston: i Press, 1972), pp. 19–20.
In a sense, this approach spontaneously guided the
development of the city as a whole. To found a city was a
sacred act and insofar as the city was built around the
temple, it was initially sacred territory. Not that urbanism
lacked secular dimensions, indeed the gradual divorce of
the sacred from the secular (already reflected consciously
in the pragmatic features of Hippodamus’s triad) is an
important guide to the steady assimilation of the city to
commercial ends. Yet even in its secular aspect, the early city
revealed the influence of the land on the towns, of rural
pursuits on urbanism — not only in terms of the gardens
that craftsmen cultivated, but also in the contours and layout
of the city. The rectilinear pattern of the gridiron city
followed the “logic of the plow”; the circular form of
settlement, the logic of pasturage, for the circle is “an ideal form
for fencing in cattle” by enclosing “a maximum of land
with a minimum of fence.” [45] Roman towns were laid out
ceremoniously by priestly guidance. The plow that
described the perimeter for the walls and the city’s system of
four quarters, with major and minor streets at rectangles
to each other, had an agrarian religions significance, The
secularisation of these techniques and their transmutation
into economic, military, and administrative criteria for city
planning is a later development. This development reflects
the increasing separation of the social from the sacred, of
separate and growing antagonistic social interests from an
internally coherent community life.
In Europe, from the late Renaissance onward, the process
of secularization quickened as an echo of the growing
expansion, of capitalism. As wealth and social power
became increasingly privatized, the architect’s vision shifted,
in Tzonis’s excellent formulation, from that of “mirroring
the secret map of the ‘Celestial City’ to that of creating the
concrete reality of a ‘Pleasing Object.’” Lacking any guidance
from a superhuman formula of cosmic order, the designer
had to search into the desires of the individual. If the
desires of the individual recommended disorder, then
disorder was acceptable to guide the organization of the
design product. [46]
[45] Spreiregen, *Urban Design*, p. 1.
[46] Tzonis, *Towards a Non-Oppressive Environment*, p. 49.
In architects like Perrautt, structural design acquired an
increasingly psychological bias, a matter of courtly taste
and manners. A century later, in the work of Lodoli, the
emphasis shifted to structural efficiency, which marked a
continuation of the late Renaissance development rather
than a break with it, Characteristically (and to the horror
of the eighteenth-century Romans), Lodoli expressed a
greater admiration for the sewers of Rome than the
sacristy of St. Peter, which he regards as the worst building
in the city, In fact, Lodoli, as Tzonis observes,
marks not only the beginning of the period of rationalization
in architecture, but also the end of the period of the
“Speculative mind,” the end of the brief period when the
individual was thought to be emancipated from authority.
Lodoli also marks the end of the period when theories of
architecture considered the design of a building to be
determined by a set of *independent* objectives, whether the
Vitruvian triad (“Accommodation, Handsomeness and
Lastingness”) or Perrault’s dichotomy between “Positive”
and “Arbitrary” values.[47]
[47] Ibid., p. 66.
Thereafter, architecture and its theoretical offspring,
city planning, was to be dominated by structural efficiency
and by functionalism. “Handsomeness” inhered in the
capacity of the design product to facilitate the goals that
society, specifically the bourgeois market economy,
assigned to a structure or a city. We may bypass the various
phases of architectural history since the Enlightenment,
from the “rationalism” of the utilitarian era to that of the
Modernists, to validate these goals. The romantic periods,
inspired by Rousseau and Buskin, were interludes in a
much broader development that debased ends into means,
the speculative mind into the pragmatic, the metaphysical
into the instrumental. To the precapitalist or metaphysical
mind, design was the servant of cosmic or human goals;
fundamentally, it was the means to express and reinforce
the coherence of the community. In the archaic (Tzonis’s
“prerationan era”) efficiency and function are not ends in
themselves:
Given the insecurity, the grave danger, the intellectual
capacity and the love; of man, combined with the fact that
the means of affecting production are poor, the means of
conservation of products are elementary, and means of
transporting products are very ineffectual, prerational
man *does not* economize. He creates conditions under
which the fluctuation of available goods do not permit
hostility, aggression, or oppression between human beings of
the same social group. Thus the order of the man-made
environment is the projection of the non-oppressive social
organization which has to be maintained at any cost.[48]
[48] Ibid., p. 37.
With the development of capitalist industry, particularly
in the present century, efficiency, reduced costs, and stark
functional utility in the interests of the marketplace
become the all-important criteria for gauging the success of
any enterprise, whether economic or esthetic. Modern
architecture and city planning translate these
instrumentalist criteria into canons of beauty and civic integrity, Le
Corbusier’s description of the city as a “tool” and Frank
Lloyd Wright’s view of it as “the only possible ideal
machine” are a perfect fit, despite the expressed opposition of
Wright to Le Corbusier’s work. Whether consciously or
not, design is hypostatized all the more as a means of
neglecting the social relations that vitiate its most rational
goals, this by programming the irrationality of the society
into the design product. Accordingly, the most well-intentioned
designs are subverted by the very social relations
whose ill-effects they are meant to mitigate. As garnish,
these design products Function like a lid over a sewer.
Tzonis’s pessimism about the Future of modernism in an
inherently oppressive society is unerring:
The rationalistic acrobatics of the Modernistic Movement
collapse. The contradictions between efficiency of
production and expansion of the market are irreconcilable.
Therefore, visual form assumes the force to consume as a value
in *itself* and not for the sake of the acquisition of utilities.
The so-called Pop Movement which is created (I am referring
to architecture, in art the phenomenon is more complex)
reflects neither the values of the *consumer* nor his
style. It carries the values of consumption, consumption as
a utility. In other words, once more it expresses the
characteristics of the present organization of power. [49]
[49] Ibid., p. 91.
Or stated in bald terms: Modernism and the Pop movement
become commodities.
In the case of city planning, this debasement of
community and human values to commodities assumes the
dimensions of an immense environmental tragedy. Unlike
architecture, which deals with a single structure or complex of
structures, city planning tends to affect the general
surroundings of the urban dweller. Until the late nineteenth
century, attempts to reconstruct systematically old cities or
lay out new ones were largely isolated projects or, at most,
utopian visions whose actualization rarely went beyond
experimental endeavors, L’Enfant’s plans for Washington
and Haussmann’s remodeling of Paris stand out, for better
or worse, as rare programs for dealing with cities as a
whole. Most of the cities in Europe and America were
simply left to the tender mercies of the new “free
enterprise” system with the results we have already described.
Generally, the first steps toward city planning consisted
of legislation and regulations to deal with the terrible
hygienic conditions that the Industrial Revolution had
produced during the first half of the nineteenth century.
Increasing epidemics of cholera threatened not only the
poorer quarters of die city but also the wealthy ones, and
these could be brought under control only by conscientious
efforts to improve urban Sanitation and living conditions.
The 1840s reminded the European bourgeoisie that it had
a restive, increasingly class-conscious proletariat on its
hands; accordingly, the middle part of the century opened
a period of bourgeois paternalism; toward working class
dwellings, as witnessed by the construction of Louis Napoleon’s
*cities ouvrieres* state-subsidized “model villages” for
English workers, and the Krupp settlements En the Ruhr.
These programs did not appreciably affect the established
cities, nor did they greatly alter the urban landscape of
Europe. As for the United States, Mel Scott not unjustly
observes that as late as
that painful decade now ironically called the Gay Nineties
there were few urban Americans who would have subscribed
to the belief, or hope, that entire cities and metropolitan
regions can be developed and renewed by a continuous process
of decision-making based on long-range planning. [50]
[50] Mel Scott, *American City Planning*
(Berkeley: University of California Press, 1971), p 1.
Not that such plans were absent or lacked a certain
amount of support among sectors of the English and
French working classes, which were most victimized by
the reckless urbanization of the early nineteenth century.
These plans, formulated primarily by such so-called
utopian socialists as Robert Owen and Charles Fourier,
envisioned a total restructuring of urban life along lines
that merged town with country and industry with agriculture.
Owen’s ideal village was spelled out in great details
“squares of buildings” were to be erected “to accommodate
about 1,200 persons each; and surrounded by a quantity
of land, from 1,000 to 1,500 acres.” The village was to
have a central building with a public kitchen, an infant
school and lecture room, a place of worship, “lodging
houses, chiefly For the married,” “dormitories for all the
children exceeding two in a family, or above three years of
age,” and so forth. The Owenite village allowed for
gardens in which workers could cultivate their own food, and
beyond these, “buildings for mechanical and manufacturing
purposes.” A stern moralist, Owen provisioned for the
instruction of the young to prevent “children from acquiring
bad habits,” and for the population generally, a program
of training, labor, and education “as shall remove
them from unnecessary temptations, and closely unite
their interest and duty.”[51]
Fourier, by contrast, envisioned new communities that
would remove restrictions on hedonistic behavior and,
almost embarrassingly to his disciples, sought to harmonize
social relations on the basis of pleasure. His famous
"phalansteries," like the Owenite scheme, were meant to
combine agriculture and industry, but Fourier
emphasized cooperative living under a single roof. This roof was
ample enough. “A Phalanx is really a miniature town,”
observed its designer,
[51] Robert Owen, “Report to the County of Lanark,” in
*A New View of Society and Other Writings* (London: Everyman Editions,
1927), pp. 274–276.
but without open streets, exposed to all the inclemencies
of nature; all parts of the building can be reached by a wide
street-gallery on the first floor at the ends of this
“street” excellently designed corridors, supported on
pillars or not as the case may be, heated and ventilated at all
times of the year, provide protected, warm and elegant
communication with all parts of the building and its dependencies.[52]
[52] Charles Fourier, *Selections*. Londor: S. Sonnenschein & Co.,
1901, p. 138.
The emphasis in Fourier’s work is on elegance, pleasure,
and comfort. Every detail of life is clearly specified: the
number of inhabitants in each Phalanx (1,6201), based on
Fourier’s notion of a “complete scale of characters”: the
ratio of sexes; the division of profits; the layout of rooms,
dining-halls, libraries, workshops, etc. Fourier, as a child of
the Enlightenment, was in his own way a meticulous
scientist, a veritable social Newton, who formulated a complete
cosmology to replace the order of his era. Among the Utopians,
he is unequalled in his imaginative scope, in the coherence
be tried to provide to Iris schemes, and in the remarkably
liberatory concepts he advanced in nearly all spheres
of social and personal activity.
Such reconstructive notions began to wane in significance
as labor unions acquired official recognition in the
latter part of the nineteenth century and increasingly
assimilated the working classes to the social order. Economic
and political struggles, largely contained within the
established framework, began to gain eminence over ideas for
fundamental social change, despite the lip service which
labor parties gave to the dream of a new society. Moreover,
these reconstructive notions suffered a telling theoretical
setback with the spread of Marxism on the European continent.
As a system of “scientific socialism.” the Marxian
critique Scrupulously distinguished! itself from its “utopian”
antecedents. The issue of urbanism began to fall by the
wayside. Friedrich Engels, in *The Housing Question*
(1872) firmly devalued my attempts to formulate new
schemes for the city and for working class housing until
after a socialist revolution. Based on German material,
Engels’s work made a number of incisive and relevant
critiques of attempts to immobilize the German workers with
stable housing sites and to reduce wages by providing them
with gardens for cultivating food. Creditably, he links his
views with the most vital concepts of Gwen and Fourier;
to resolve the housing problem — and, one may add, the
urban problem as a whole — Engels argues that the big
cities must be decentralized and the antithesis between
town and country overcome. [53] But with the vulgarization
of Marxism and its transformation into a powerful political
ideology, even this tradition receded to the background.
After the publication of Engels’s work, the problems of
urbanism did not become a major theme in Marxian theory
and (he notion of decentralization), even when taken up by
Marxists, has been dismissed as a “utopian” absurdity.
[53] Engels’s essential argument, in my view, is well worth
repeating:
“The housing question can be solved only when society has been
sufficiently transformed for a start to he made towards
abolishing the contrast between town and country, which has been
brought to its extreme point by present-day capitalist society.
Far from being able to abolish this antithesis, capitalist society
on the contrary is compelled to intensify it day by day. On the
other hand, already the first modern utopian socialists, Owen
and Fourier, correctly recognized this, In their model structures
the contrast between town and country no longer exists.
... To want to solve the housing question while at the same time
desiring to maintain the modern big cities is all absurdity. The
modern big cities, however, will be abolished only by the
abolition of the capitalist mode of production, and when this is once
set going there will be quite other issues than supplying each
worker with a little house of his own.” (Friedrich Engels,
*The Housing Question* [Moscow: Progressive Publishers, 1970], p.
49).
Unfortunately, many “Marxists" have yet to be reminded that
these views were expressed by one of the “founders of scientific
socialism” and were emphatically repealed, again, in Engels’s
later work, *Anti-Duhring*.
Benevolo, with considerable justification, marks the
1848 revolution in Europe as a crossroads in the separation
of reconstructive technical design from its roots in
a larger popular movement for social change. Owenites,
the Fourierists, and other utopian socialists had not
merely confined their notions of ideal cities to paper;
they were activists, who agitated for the practical
realization of their views. During the first half of the
nineteenth century, design united theory with praxis. The
1848 revolution exploded any myth that the urban crisis
could be resolved merely by good will, moral suasion,
and ruling class benevolence The future of design, as
an integral part of social analysis, depended heavily
upon how deeply reconstructive ideals could become
integrally wedded to the revolutionary movement of
the period. The influence of Marxian ideology largely
foreclosed this development. As Benevolo observes,
Marxist Socialism, intent on explaining the 1848 Revolution
and its failure in strictly political terms, stressed tine
contradictions of the earlier movement but completely
Lost sight of the link between tendencies in politics and
in town-planning which, even if Formulated in over-simplified
terms, had previously been firmly maintained
Marx’s overwhelming economic emphasis on the struggle
between wage-tabor and capital almost completely blanketed
any civic issues.
From that time onward political theory almost always
tended to disparage specialist research and experiment,
and attempted to assimilate proposals for partial reform
within the reform of society generally Town-planning, on
the other hand, cut adrift from political discussion, tended
to become increasingly a purely technical matter at the
service of the established powers. This did not mean, however,
that it became politically neutral!; on the contrary, it
fell within the sphere of influence of the new conservative
ideology which was evolving during these years, of
Bonapartism in France, of the reforming Tory groups in
England and of Bismarckian imperialism in Germany. [54]
[54] Benevolo, *Origins of Town Planning*, pp. xii-xiii.
Thus, from the outset, the modern city-planning movement —
which has its authentic inception with Ebenezer
Howard’s “garden city” scheme of the 1890s — turned to
design as a substitute For radical social analysis and action,
for both of these arenas had been largely monopolized by
Marxian socialism. As Frank Fisher observes, Howard
was less concerned than the socialists with the social,
economic, or political causes of urban misery. Frankly utopian,
he combined certain ideas of his time in a specific and
creative conception that has guided most of the thinking
of city planners ever since. The garden city, or the notion
of the balanced urban environment, was his original idea.
Instead of letting industrial cities grow planlessly and
depopulate the countryside, he proposed to build cities
that would combine the social and cultural facilities of the
city with the closeness to nature of the village. The “idiocy
of rural life” and the slumminess of city life would both be
obviated. “Town and country,” wrote Howard, “must be
married, and out of this union will spring a new life, a new
hope, a new civilization.” [55]
[55] Fisher. “Where City Planning Stands Today” p. 76,
Howard, in fact, had been strongly influenced by socialist
ideas, particularly Bellamy’s Looking Backward and the
work of Peter Kropotkin, the Russian anarchist theoretician.
But as a pragmatic man, Howard essentially divested
his scheme for the “marriage” of town and country of its
socialist and anarchist elements. Fisher’s judgment of Howard’s
social horizon is not inaccurate, It is worth noting,
however, that the socialists were as lacking in reconstructive
vision as Howard was in social and economic insight.
Even so mild a group a& the Fabian Society initially denigrated
the garden city proposal in terms so shallow and
pragmatic as to reveal more about the British socialist
mentality at the turn of the century than the feasibility of
Howard’s project. With smug satisfaction the *Fabian News* of
December 1898 noted:
His plans would have been in time if they had been submitted
to the Romans when they conquered Britain. They set
about laying-out cities, and our forefathers have dwelt in
them to this day. Now Mr. Howard proposes to pull them
all down and substitute garden cities, each duly built
according to pretty coloured plans, nicely designed with a
ruler and compass. The author has read many learned and
interesting writers, and the extracts be makes from their
books are like plums in the unpalatable dough of his
Utopian scheming. We have got to make the best of our
existing cities, and proposals for building new ones are
about as useful as would he arrangements for protection
against visits from Mr. Wells’s Martians.
Yet, these inane comments must not deter us from
recognizing the limits of the garden cities’ proposal. In
Howard’s work, design is assigned the task of achieving
sweeping goats that actually involve revolutionary changes
in the entire economic, social, and cultural fabric of
bourgeois society. Compared to the metropolis, Howard’s
garden city is attractive enough: a compact urban entity of
about thirty thousand people, scaled to human dimensions,
and surrounded by a green belt to limit growth and
provide open land for recreational and agricultural purposes.
Suitable areas of the green belt are to be occupied by
farmers (Howard limited this agricultural population to
two thousand), the larger urban population of thirty
thousand will engage in manufacturing, commerce, and
services. All land is to be held in trust and leased to occupants
on a rental basis, Howard spelled out many design and
fiscal details, of his proposal, but he was careful to
emphasize at the very outset of his book, *Garden Cities of Tomorrow*,
that these were “merely suggestive, and will probably
be much departed from,”[56]
[56] Ebenezer Howard, *Garden Cities of Tomorrow*
(Cambridge, Mass.: M.I.T. Press, 1963), p. 51.
But even, the most generous modifications of Howard’s
garden city do not alter the fact that the project is a
structural design — and, as such, is limited in what it can offer.
Doubtless, even a structural design, if it is good enough, has
a value of its own, but for all practical purposes it falls
Within the framework of the “pleasing object.” It may provide
the basis for greater human contiguity, the structural
instruments for community, a measure of contact with
nature, possibly tasteful architecture, and easy access with
places of work, shopping centers, and service enterprises.
Nevertheless, it leaves undefined the nature of human
contiguity, community, and the relationship between the
urban dweller and the natural world. Most important, it
leaves undefined the nature of Work, the control of the
means of production, the problem of distributing goods
and services equitably, and the conflicting social interests
that collect around these issue. Actually, Howard’s
scheme does provide an orientation toward all of these
problems — namely, a system of benevolent capitalism that
presumably avoids the “extremes” of communism and
“individualism.” Howard’s *Garden Cities of Tomorrow* is
permeated by an underlying assumption, so typically British,
that a compromise can be struck between an intrinsically
irrational material reality and a moral ideology of
high-minded conciliation.
Yet the offices, industrial factories, and shopping centers
that arc intended to provide the garden city with the
means of life are themselves battlegrounds of conflicting
social interests. Within these arenas we find the sources of
alienated labor, of income differentials, and of disparities
between work-time and free-time. By itself, no structural
design can reconcile the conflicting interests and social
differences that gather beneath the surface of the garden
city. These interests and differences must be dealt with
largely On their own terms — by far-reaching changes in
social and economic relations. Which is not to say that a
social resolution of the problems created by the bourgeois
factory, office, and shopping center obviates the need for
a structural design that will promote community and a
balance between town and country; rather, that one without
the other is a truncated solution, and hence, no solution
at all.
Howard’s garden city, it is worth noting, falls far short of
utopias and historical experiences that advanced highly
progressive criteria in dealing with problems of social management
and modes of work. In contrast to the Greek
*polis*, which administered its affairs on the basis of a
face-to-face democracy, Howard merely proposes a Central
Council and a departmental structure based on elections.
The garden city has no mechanism for recalling political
representatives of the sort that was established by the Paris
Commune of 1871. Unlike More’s Utopia, there is no
proposal for rotating agricultural and industrial work. In the
garden city, the mode of social labor is decided by the
needs of capital. Inasmuch as Howard’s economic horizon
is not substantially broader than that of any benevolent
bourgeois of his day, notions of industrial self-management
are absent from his work, Mumford’s encomiums to
Howard’s “statesmanship” notwithstanding, *Garden Cities for Tomorrow*
is not overly burdened by great insights into the
social and economic problems of the day: its superficiality
on ibis score reveals that Howard was more of a designer
than the perceptive social analyst Mumford makes him out
to be.
The intrinsic limits of Howard’s garden city, indeed, of
the thirty-odd “new towns” that have been constructed in
England and those that are emerging in the United States,
arc that these communities do not encompass the full
range and possibilities of human experience. Neighborliness
is mistaken for organic social intercourse and mutual
aid; well-manicured parks for the harmonization of
humanity with nature; the proximity of work places for the
development of a new meaning for work and its integration
with play; an eclectic mix of ranch-houses, slab-like
apartment buildings, and bachelor-type flats for
spontaneous architectural variety; shopping-mart plazas and a vast
expanse of lawn for the *agora*; lecture halls for cultural
centers; hobby classes for vocational variety; benevolent
trusts or municipal councils for self-administration. One
can add endlessly to this list of misplaced criteria for
community that serve to obfuscate rather than clarify the high
attainments of the urban tradition Although people may
earn their incomes without leaving these communities —
and a substantial portion must travel for considerable
distances to the central city to do so — the nature of their work
and the income-differentials that group them into alien
social classes are not a matter of serious community
concern. A vast area of life is thus removed from the
community and delivered to a socio-economic system that exists
apart from it. Indeed, the appearance of community serves
the ideological function of concealing the incompleteness
of an intimate and shared social life, Key elements of the
self are formed outside the parameters of the design — by
forces that stem from economic competition, class
antagonisms, social hierarchy, domination, and economic exploitation.
Although people are brought together to enjoy
certain conveniences and pleasantries, they remain as
truncated and culturally impoverished as they wore in the
metropolis, with the difference that the stark reality of
urban decay in the big cities removes any veil of
appearances from, the incompleteness and contradictions of social
life.
These internal contradictions have not been faced with
candor by either the supporters or opponents of the
garden city concept. That the “new towns” of England, the
United States, and other countries modeled on the garden
city design have not awakened “the soft notes brotherliness
and goodwill” Howard described as their essential
goal; that they have not placed “in strong hands implements
of peace and construction” so that implements of
war and destruction may drop uselessly down” — all of this
is painfully obvious fact. [57] Nor is there any promise that
they will approximate such far-reaching goals. In the best
of cases, the new towns differ from suburbs primarily
because job-commuting is short and most services can be
supplied within the community itself. In the worst of cases,
they are essentially bedroom suburbs of the metropolis and
add enormously to its congestion during working hours.
[57] Ibid., p. 150.
Nor has reality been any kinder to the devotees of the
metropolis. The old cities keep growing even as the
number of new towns multiply, each urban form slowly
encroaching on the other and creating urban belts that
threaten to undermine the integrity of both. Jane Jacobs’s
spirited defense of traditional neighborhoods shares all the
unrealities that mar Frederic J. Osborn’s defense of
Howard’s vision. This neighborhood world is dying: the same
forces that truncate the inhabitant of the new town ate
delivering the small shop over to the supermarket and the
old tenement complex to the aseptic high-rise superblock.
Doubtless enclaves of neighborhood life will continue to
exists but they will remain merely enclaves — in
contemporary society the counterpart of the existing medieval and
Renaissance towns that attract the tourist to Europe for
visual respite from the urban monotony that is rapidly
prevailing in most cities of the world.
Modern city planning offers no solution to this dismal
tendency, for it presupposes the very social factors that are
producing the present urban blight. Even the social goals
that Howard hoped to achieve primarily by means of
design are giving way to an acknowledgment that the city, as
we know it today, is here to stay — and the sooner we accept
this fact, the better. This acquiescence to the urban status
quo (doubtless subject to new design elements) is fatal. To
Fisher, the failure of city planning today stems from the
need For planners “to think more deeply about the kind of
life for which they are planning, and understand its ideals
and its meaning, and the variety of forms in which it may
express itself,”[58] In a sense, modern city planning, by
unconsciously assimilating commodity relations as social
ideals, has lived up to Fisher’s demand with a vengeance.
It has helped to produce designs that debase the city to a
marketplace and raised structures that have turned it into
she home of concentrated bureaucratic power. Here, the
tack of consciousness becomes a form of consciousness, and
the opportunism of technical success as a goal in itself
degrades urban life precisely to the degree that technique
celebrates its power to control the city’s destiny.
But Fisher’s demand is obviously not designed to
validate the ideals of the status quo. And insofar as he sees the
city as a way of life, his words might well have been taken
from Aristotle’s Politics. To the Greeks, the city was more
than a product of designing technique or of rationally
placed structures, These considerations were secondary to
the vision that the city was the domain of freedom and the
“good life,” an arena in which people formed an organic
totality without losing the individuality so essential to
diversity and creativity.
[58] Fisher, “Where City Planning Stands Today,” p. 82.
Modern city planning offers us functional urban designs
without human values and rationally organized space
without civic content, To relieve congestion without providing
for intimate communication — or even to open new lines of
communication without creating the social soil for
meaningful human contact — is a parody of the high traditions of
urbanism. Historically, the basis for a vital urban entity
consisted not primarily of its design elements but of the
nuclear relations between people that produced these
elements. Human scale was more than a design on a drawing
board; it emerged from the intimate association provided
by the clan, the guild, and the civic union of free,
independent farmers and craftsmen. Knitted together at the base
of a civic entity, people created a city that formally and
structurally sheltered their most essential and meaningful
social relations. If these relations were balanced and
harmonious, so too were the design elements of the city. If, on
the other hand, they were distorted and antagonistic, the
design elements of the city revealed this in its monumentalism
and extravagant growth. Hierarchical social relations
produced hierarchical apace; egalitarian relations,
egalitarian space. Until city planning addresses itself to the
need for a radical critique of the prevailing society and
draws its design elements from a revolutionary
transformation of existing social relations, it wilt remain mere
ideology — the servant of the very society that is producing
the urban crisis of our time.
The 1960s opened an entirely new era in the modern
definition of the city, or, more precisely, of a humanistic
community. It is a noteworthy fact that this era acquired
little of value from the work of the professional city
planners, who continued to sink deeper into shallow problems
of design and technical expertise; rather, its inspiration
came from the countercultural values and institutions
formulated almost intuitively by young people who were
breaking away from suburbia and the regimentation of the
multiversity. In the communes of dropout youth and in
activist upsurges such as People’s Park in Berkeley, far
more than design criteria were formulated. However
naively, new values for human sociation were posed that
often Involved a total break with the commodity system as
a whole. The full implications of this movement — a movement
that has yet to find its own confidence and its way
through the maze of mod and pop culture — have not
received the attention they deserve from the “urbanists,”
For the values of this culture, carried to their logical
conclusion, pose the problem of developing entirety new
communities in a harmonized, ecologically balanced society.
The young people of the sixties who tried to formulate
new valuer of sociation — values that have since been
grouped under the rubric of the “counterculture” —
unquestionably comprised a privileged social stratum.
They came s For the most part, from affluent, white,
middle-class suburbs and the better universities of
the United States, the enclaves and training grounds of the new
American technocracy, To adduce their privileged status
as evidence of the trifling nature of the movement itself
and casually dismiss it, as so many writers have done, sidesteps a key question: why did privilege lead to a rejection
of the social and material values that had produced these
very privileges in the first place? Why didn’t these young
people, like so many before them in previous generations,
take up the basic values of their parents and expand the
arena of privilege they had inherited?
These questions reveal a basic change in the material
premises for radical social movements in the advanced
capitalist countries of the world By the sixties, the
so-called First World had undergone sweeping technological
changes — changes which opened a new social perspective
for the era that lay ahead. Technology had advanced to a
point where the values spawned by material scarcity,
particularly those values fostered by the bourgeois era, no
longer seemed morally or culturally relevant The work
ethic, the moral authority imputed to material denial,
parsimony, and sensual renunciation, the high social valuation
placed On competition and “free enterprise,” the emphasis
on a privatization and individuation based on egotism,
seemed obsolete in the light of technological achievements
that offered alternatives entirely contrary to the prevailing
human condition — a lifetime free from toil and a materially
secure social disposition oriented toward community
and the full expression of individual human powers. The
new alternatives opened by technological advances made
the cherished values of the past seem not only obsolete and
unjust but grotesque. As I have pointed out elsewhere,
there is no parade, in the fact that the weakest link in the
old society turned out to be that very stratum which
enjoyed the real privilege of rejecting false privilege.[59]
[59] Murray Bookchin, *Post-Scarcitiy Anarchism* (San Francisco
Ramparts Press, 1971), p. 25.
Which is not to say that the technological contest of the
“counterculture” was consciously grasped and elaborated
into a larger perspective for society as a whole. Indeed, the
outlook of most middle-class dropout youth and students
remained largely intuitive and often fell prey to the
faddism nurtured by the established society. The erratic
features of the new movement, its feverish metabolism and its
quixotic oscillations, can be partly explained by this lack of
adequate consciousness. Quite often, many young people
were victims of cheap exploitation by commercial interests.
Large numbers of them, exultant in their newly
discovered sense of liberation, lacked a significant awareness
that complete freedom, is impossible in a prevailing system
of unfreedom insofar as they aspired to rapidly to replace the
dominant culture by their own example and by moral suasion,
they failed. But insofar as they began to see themselves
as the most advanced sector of a larger movement
to revolutionize society as a whole, they succeeded in
keeping the counterculture alive, and it lives today in
alternating ebbs and flows as the mainstream of a historic
enlightenment that may eventually change every aspect of
social life.
The most striking feature of the new movement is the
emphasis it places on personal relations as the locus of
seemingly abstract social ideals — the attempt it makes to
translate freedom and love into existential realities of
everyday life. If freedom in its fullest sense is a society based
on self-activity and self-management, a society in which
every individual has control over her or his daily life, then
the counterculture may be justly described as the attempt
to produce that self, free of the values spawned by
hierarchy and domination, that will yield liberated social forms
of management and activity. We have already emphasized
that this degree of freedom can be definitively achieved
only after sweeping revolutionary changes in society; but
young people were quite right in sensing that existential
personal goals must be defined and striven for even today,
within the realm of unfreedom, if future revolutionary
changes are to be sweeping enough and not bog down in
bureaucratic modes of social management. This focus
added ail essential psychological element to abstract social
doctrines that were formulated by traditional radical
theorists. Accordingly, in its most advanced and theoretically
conscious forms, the counterculture reached directly into
and sought to change radically the lived relationships
between people as sexual beings and as members of families,
educational institutions, and work places. One must return
to the Writings of the early anarchists, whose appeal was
often limited, to recover the moral and psychological
dimensions this approach added to socialist theories of the
sixties, most of which had become so denuded of
humanistic qualities that they were little more than economistic
strategies for social change.
This personalistic yet socially involved approach yielded
riot only an increasingly explicit critique of doctrinaire socialist
theory, but also of design-oriented city planning.
Much has been written about the “retreat” of dropout
youth to rural communes. Far less known is the extent to
which ecologically-minded countercultural youth began to
subject city planning to a devastating review, often
advancing alternative proposals to dehumanizing urban
“revitalization” and “rehabilitation” projects. Generally,
these alternatives stemmed from a perspective toward
design that was radically different from that of conventional
city planners. For the countercultural planners, the point
of departure for any design was not “the pleasing object”
or the “efficiency” with which it expedited traffic,
communications, and economic activities. Rather, these new
planners concerned themselves primarily with the
relationship of design to the fostering of persona! intimacy,
many-sided social relationships, nonhierarchical modes of
organization, communistic living arrangements, and
material independence from the market economy. Design,
here, took its point of departure not from abstract concepts
of space or a functional endeavor to improve the status
quo, but from an explicit critique of the status quo and a
conception of the free human relationships that were to
replace it. The design elements of a plan followed from
radically new social alternatives. The attempt was made to
replace hierarchical space by “liberated space.”
Among the many similar plans to be developed tn the
late sixties and early seventies, perhaps the most
impressive was formulated by an ad hoc group in Berkeley from
People’s Architecture, the local Tenants Union, and
members of the local food cooperative or “Food Conspiracy”
The plan (erroneously attributed by Theodore Roszak in
his excellent work *Sources* to the Berkeley *Tribe*, an
“underground” newspaper) shows a remarkably high degree
of radical social consciousness. It draws its inspiration from
the “People's Park” episode in May 1969, when dropout
youth, students, and later ordinary citizens of Berkeley
fought for more than a week with police to retain a lovely
park and playground which they had spontaneously
Created Out of a neglected, garbage-strewn lot owned by
the University of California. The park, eventually
reclaimed by its university proprietors at the cost of a young
man’s life, many severe injuries, and massive arrests, is at
this writing a parking lot and paved soccer field. But the
memory of the episode has waned slowly To the young
Berkeley planners, “People’s Park was the beginning of
the Revolutionary Ecology Movement.” And the plan,
entitled a *Blueprint for a Communal Environment* is
radically “countercultural.” “The revolutionary culture,”
declares the *Blueprint*, “gives us new, communal, eco-viable
ways of organizing our lives, while people’s politics gives
us the means to resist the System.”[60] The Blueprint is not
only a project for reconstruction but for struggle on a wide
social terrain against the established order.
[60] “Blueprint for a Communal Environment” in *Sources*. ed.
Theodore Roszak (New York: Harper Row, 1972) p. 393.
The plan aims at more than the structural redesigning of
an existing communityit avows and explores a new way
of life at the most elementary level oh human intercourse.
This new way of life is communal and economically
divorced as much as possible from commodity relationships.
The design gives expression to a basic goal; “Communal
ways of organizing our lives help to cut down on
consumption, to provide for basic human needs more efficiently, to
resist the system, to support ourselves and overcome the
misery of atomized living.” In this single sentence, the
social and private are thoroughly fused, Design is assigned
the function of articulating a new life style that stands
opposed to the repressive organization of society.[61]
Shelter in the *Blueprint* is redesigned to “overcome the
fragmentation of our lives ... to encourage communication
and break down privatization.” The plan observes that
with “women’s liberation, and a new communal morality
the nuclear family is becoming obsolete.” Accordingly,
floor plans are proposed which allow for larger multipurpose
rooms which promote more interaction — “such as
communal dining rooms, meeting spaces, and work areas.”
Methods are suggested for turning roofs and exterior upper
walls into communicating links with neighboring houses as
well as between rooms and upper stories. [62]
[61] Ibid., p. 394.
[62] Ibid., p. 395.
“All land in Berkeley is treated purely as a marketable
commodity,” observes the *Blueprint*. “Space is parcelled
into neat consumer packages. In between rows of land
parcels are transportation ‘corridors’ to keep people
flowing from workplace to market.” The *Blueprint* proposes
the dismantling of backyard and sideyard fences to open
land as interior parks and gardens, Platform “bridgeways”
between houses are suggested to break down the strict
division between indoor and outdoor space. The purpose
of these suggestions is not merely to bring nature into the
urban dweller’s horizon, but to open intimate avenues of
communication between people. The concern of the plan
is not merely with public plazas and parks, but the
immediate neighborhoods where people live their daily lives. With
magnificant insouciance, the plan tosses all considerations
of private property to the winds by suggesting that vacant
lots be appropriated by neighborhoods and turned into
communal space.[63]
[63] Ibid., pp, 399, 400.
Half the streets of Berkeley, the plan notes, could be
easily closed off to stimulate collective transportation
experiments and reduce traffic congestion in residential
areas. This would “free *ten times* more land area for public
use than we now have in park acreage. Intersections could
become parks, gardens, plazas, with paving material
recovered and used to make artificial hills.” The plan
recommends that Berkeley residents should walk or bicycle to
places whenever feasible. If motor vehicles must be used,
they should be pooled and maintained on a communal
basis. People should drive together to common
destinations in order to reduce the number of vehicles.
Community services wilt make a “quantum leap” when
“small groups of neighbors mobilize resources and energy
in order to cement fragmented neighborhoods back
together and begin to take care of business (from child care
to education) on a local level and in an integrated way,” In
this connection, the *Blueprint* suggests that men and
women should rotate the use of their homes for child care
centers. First-aid skills and knowledge of more advanced
medical techniques should be mobilized on a neighborhood
basis. Finally, wastes should be collectively recycled
to avoid pollution and waste of resources.[64]
At its core, the plan advances a refreshingly imaginative
program for ruralizing the city and fostering the material
independence of its inhabitants. Communally worked
backyard gardens could be created and food cultivated
organically. Here, the plan enters into the specifics of
composting, mulching, and the preparation of seedlings. A
“People’s Market” could be established “which will
receive the organic products of rural communes and small
farmers, and distribute them to the neighborhood [food]
conspiracies. Such a market place will have other uses —
craftspeople can sell their wares there.” The plan sees the
People’s Market as a “solid example of Creative thinking
about communal use of space. Its structure will be
portble. and will be built in such a way as to serve neighborhood
kids; as play equipment on non-market days.”[65]
[64] Ibid., pp. 411–412.
[65] Ibid., p. 405.
The *Blueprint* creates no illusion that this ensemble of
reconstructive ideas will “liberate” Berkeley or other
communities. It sees in the realization of these concepts the
first steps toward reorienting the individual self from a
passive acceptance of isolation, egotism, and dependence
on bureaucratic institutions to initiatives from below that
will recover communal contacts and face-to-face networks
of mutual aid. Ultimately, society itself will have to be
reorganized by the great majority who are now forced into
hierarchical subservience to the Few. But until these
sweeping changes are achieved, a new state of mind,
buttressed by working community ties, must be fashioned so
that people will be able to fuse their deeply personal
desires with higher social ideals. Unless this fusion is
achieved, these ideals will remain abstractions and will
never be realized at all.
Many of the *Blueprint*’s technical suggestions are not
new. The notion of roof openings to link houses together
is borrowed From Pueblo Indian villages, the urban
gardens from medieval communes and precapitalist towns
generally, the pedestrian streets and plazas From the
Renaissance cities and earlier urban forms. In the contest of
an increasingly bureaucratic society, however, the
*Blueprint* is unique in deriving its concepts from radically new
life styles and reinforcing them in a single ensemble with
many details of traditional design. Doubtless, quite a few
of the design proposals in the plan can be assimilated
piecemeal to new construction projects without having a
significant impact on conventional ways of life. This has been the
fate of many radical ideas and art forms in the past. But the
*Blueprint* is true to itself insofar as it is not merely a
structural plan. The authentic content of its proposals is the kind
of life in which its design elements are rooted. The premise
of the plan, in advance of any design, is a culture counter
to the prevailing one — a culture that emphasizes
community rather than isolation, the sharing of resources and skills
rather than their privatized possession and accumulation,
independence from rather than dependence upon the
bourgeois marketplace, loving relations and mutual aid
rather than egotism and competition. The planners,
whether or not they were conscious of their historic
antecedents, were presenting their vision of urban life in
Hellenic terms. The truly human city, to them, is a way of
life that fosters the integration of individual and society, of
town and country, of personal and social needs within a
framework that retains the integrity of each. A new
synthesis is to be achieved which makes the fulfillment of
individual and urban needs complementary to the fulfllLmeni of
social and ecological needs.
The countercultural movement has since subsided from
the highpoint it reached in the sixties The beautiful hopes
which young people so enthusiastically advanced in dropout
and radical student communities have been diluted by
the harsh 3 often brutal hostility of an adult public that,
Owing to its own conditioning and insecurities, has
entrenched itself in the status quo and sought respite from
any challenges to traditional values. A Neanderthal state
power, by characterizing creativity as “permissiveness”
and enthusiasm as “licence,” has added its own telling
weight to the thrust against innovation and social change.
Where the counterculture has managed to hold its own
against overtly hostile social forces, it has had to contend
with a political mode of dope-peddling in the form of
sectarian Marxism and “Third World” voyeurism. Archaic
ideologies and modes of organization assume the
semblance of radicalism and fester like toxic germs in the
wounds opened by public malaise and political repression.
Yet even this ebbing phase of a much larger
development could he valuable, perhaps even indispensable, as a
sobering period of maturation. A new world will not be
gained merely by strewing the pathway to the future with
flowers. The intuitive impulses that exploded with such
naive enthusiasm in the sixties, only to become harsh and
dehumanizing in the pseudoradicalism that closed the
decade, were never adequate to the long-range historic
project of developing a wider public consciousness of the
need for social change. By the late sixties, the counterculture
ceased to speak to America with understanding and in
relevant terms, Its politicization took the worst possible
form — arrogance and a senselessly violent rhetoric. Far
more than the flowers of the mid-sixties, the angry
clenched fists of the late sixties were irrelevant in trying to
reach an increasingly alarmed and uncomprehending public.
It has finally become evident that a crude commitment
to muscle power by self-appointed political “vanguards”
will no more effectuate radical change than an intuitive
commitment to flower power. Only a unity of intuition
with reason, of hopeful enthusiasm with patient wisdom, of
emotional sensibility with a coherent consciousness can
hope to make the counterculture an influential force,
perhaps the paramount force, in reshaping American life and
carrying it beyond the crests reached in the sixties.
Certain demands raised by the counterculture movement
are imperishable. No matter how far the movement
itself may recede From its earlier eminence, these demands
must be recovered and advanced if there is to be any future
for society at all. In calling for a melding of the abstract
ideals of social liberation with those of personal liberation,
in seeking to form the nuclear libertarian
communistic relationships so necessary to rear a truly
emancipated society, in trying to subvert the influence of
the commodity nexus on the individual self and its relationship
with other selves, in emphasizing the need for a spontaneous
expression of sexuality, sensuality, and a humanistic
sensibility, in challenging hierarchy and domination in
all its forms and manifestations, arid finally, in trying to
synthesize new, decentralized communities based on an
ecological outlook that unites the most advanced features
of urban and rural life — in raising alt of these demands as
a single ensemble, the counterculture gave a modern expression
to a historic mainstream of human dreams and
aspirations. And it did so not from a hopelessly visionary
utopianism, but based on the real technological and
material possibilities at hand in the advanced capitalist
countries of the world. Those demands can never be fully
submerged by political or psychic repression. They are the
voice of self-conscious reason that, once articulated
theoretically and reinforced by material conditions that
render them possible, are sedimented into the collective
unconscious of humanity. The responsibility of the counterculture,
when it matures to the level of theoretical self-consciousness
and self-disciplined rationality, is to help
make this collective unconscious acutely conscious. To
fulfill this responsibility, the conscious nuclei that crystallize
within the undefined countercultural matrix formed in
the sixties require patience, wisdom, and an unflagging
awareness that they are rooted in the mainstream of history
that leads to the future, however much their efforts to
promote consciousness may suffer periodic setbacks.
This project is strongly favored by the harsh fact that few
choices are left today for the existing society. The. city has
completed its historic evolution. Its dialectic from the village,
temple area, fortress, or administrative center, each
dominated by agrarian interests, to the *polis* and medieval
commune during an era when town and country were in
some kind of equilibrium, to the bourgeois city which
completely dominates the countryside, now culminates in the
emergence of the megalopolis, the absolute negation of the
city. No longer can we speak of a clearly defined urban
entity with an authentically collective interest or outlook
of its own. Just as each phase or moment of the city has its
own internal limits, the megalopolis represents the limits
of the city as such — of *civitas* as distinguished from
*communitat*. The political principle, an the form of tine state,
dissolves the last vestiges of the social principle, replacing
all community lies by bureaucratic ones, Personified space
and the human scale disintegrate into institutional space
and urban gigantism, hierarchically grounded in the
impersonal domination of one human by another and the
destruction of nature by a rapacious society motivated by
production for the sake of production. This “anti-city,”
neither urban nor rural in any traditional sense, affords no
arena for community and genuine socitation. At most, the
megalopolis is a patchwork of mutually hostile enclaves or
gbettoes, each of which is internally “united” not by a
positive harmony of creative impulses but rather by a
negative hostility toward the stranger on its perimeter.
Physically, morally, and logistically, this urban cancer is in
rapid decay. It does not function on its own terms as an
arena for the efficient production and marketing of
commodities. To say that this creature is breaking down is an
understatement: the megalopolis is an active force in social
dissociation and psychic dissolution. It is the negation of
the city as an arena of close human proximity and palpable
cultural tradition, and as a means of collecting creative
human energies.
To restore urbanity as a meaningful terrain for sociation,
culture, and community, the megalopolis must be
ruthlessly dissolved and replaced by new decentralized
eco-communities, each carefully tailored to the natural
ecosystem in which it is located. One might reasonably say that
these ecocommunities will possess the best features of the
*polis* and medieval commune, supported by rounded eco-technologies
that rescale the most advanced elements of
modern technology — including such energy sources as
solar and wind power — to local dimensions. The equilibrium
between town and country will be restored — not as a
sprawling suburb that mistakes a lawn or patch of
strategically placed trees for nature, but as an interactive
functional ecocommunity that unites industry with agriculture,
mental work with physical, individuality with community.
Nature will not be reduced to a mere symbol of the natural,
a spectatorial object to be seen from a window or during
a stroll, it will become an integral part of all aspects of
human experience, from work to play. Only in this Form
can the needs of nature become integrated with the needs
of humanity and yield an authentic ecological consciousness
that transcends the instrumentalist “environmental”
outlook of the social and sanitary engineer.
Our place in the history of the city is unique. Precapitalist
cities either stagnated within their limits or destructively
exploded beyond them as a result of the incomplete
technological development that perpetuated material
scarcity. If the city was not frozen as in Asia and the Near
East by hereditary castes and agrarian hierarchies, its unity
was dissolved by the commodity and marketplace. Modern
technology has now reached so advanced a level of development
that it permits humanity to reconstruct urban life
along lines that could foster a balanced, well-rounded, and
harmonious community of Interests among people and between
humanity anti nature. This ecocommunity, which
would be more than a city, would have no limits other than
those consciously fashioned by human creativity, reason,
and ecological considerations. The ecocommunity, supported
by a rational eeotechnology, would be an organic
urban entity respiritized by a new sensibility and reinforced
by a new security in material life — an authentic
arena for the harmonization and fulfillment of humanity’s
deepest and most creative impulses.
The alternative to this development can only be the
horrifying disintegration of urban life into a condition of
chronic social war, personal violence, and bureaucratic
mobilization. If the archaic hieroglyph of the city was a
wall intersected by two roads, the symbol of the megalopolis
is rapidly becoming the police badge superimposed by
a gun. In this kind of city, social irrationality will take its toll
as the absolute division of human from human until a final
harvest is reaped in the revenge of nature on humanity.
The limits of the megalopolis can be formulated as nothing
less than the limits of society itself as an instrument of
hierarchy and domination. Left to their own development,
these underlying elements of the megalopolis spell the
doom not only of the city as such but of human sociation.
For in such a “world, technology, subserved to irrational
forces, becomes the instrument not of harmony and
security, but the systematic plundering of the human spirit
and the natural world.