For today’s class we discussed the response to the conditions created by industrialization in London and the response in Paris, how it was different and similar.
We began our discussion by summarizing Ferdinand Töennies article. He saw the creation of an unstable social system and the role of the state as a coercive mechanism for cohesion. We discussed the shift from a Gemeinschaft to a Gesellschaft, the dissolution of traditional ties and norms replaced by self-interests leading to an inherently unstable condition.
We then went on to discuss the role of self-interest in regards to poverty in London. The middle and upper classes in London owned the means of production and the lower classes made up the main portion of the working class. This division of classes led Töennies to become afraid of where industrialization was leading society.
Töennies is ‘building’ on the ideas of Marx and Engles in regards to industrialization. Töennies was not against industrialization but supports the benefits of industrialization in terms of the workers. Töennies seeks to give back to the people and focus on society not capitalism and ‘big business’. Thereby the working class owns the means of production (the ability to produce wealth). In summary, Töennies viewed the modern industrial city as exploitation of people. Marx and Engles saw it as de-humanizing conditions that would create the state for revolution.
We later discussed different social scientists views of the city.
- Emile Durkheim – A French social scientist who had a more optimistic approach and disagreed with Töennies. Durkheim disagreed with the idea that in modern industrial societies people rely on self-interest. Durkiem believed the division of labour created a greater interdependence and fostered a better consciousness. Industrialization should increase ties between people, thus he concluded that instead of having increased interconnectedness he identified ‘anomie’ whereby each individual becomes to feel more and more lonely.
- Georg Simmel – a German sociologist, theorized that modern life leads to nervous overstimulation and nervous exhaustion. Intensification of urban stimuli – noise leads to feelings of indifference not caring about anything.
- Max Weber – another German sociologist approved of the city and what the city can do. He views the city as a place of liberty and autonomy that came into being by a way to defend oneself from feudal society.
We also spent time examining the English response to the slums. We discussed that the new residential neighbourhoods would be built on greenfield sites on the edge of counties. The only downsides was the lack of existing infrastructure and transportation into the city. By 1918 the Committee on Housing had met to discuss the building of suburbs on the green fields.
- They concluded that the government had to be the main actor, they couldn’t rely on private enterprise.
- They should build on cheap, undeveloped land near tramways.
- Build a single family house per acre, making sure everyone has their own private lot that separates them from others.
- Lastly, plans for the building needed to be approved by architects and local government.
Lastly, our discussion centered around Paris, specifically Hausmann’s Paris. Following World War I there was a critical housing shortage. Creation of the office of the Habitations à bon Marché (HBM). Following the dismantling of a fortification that was built in 1844, a large amount of green space opened up after World War I. Seeking refuge, the working class built ‘shanty’ towns around the city of Paris. In this zone the HBM built garden cities and created community.
Class Summary – October 2, 2012
Historical context for the film:
– visual representations of the city – slightly later, 1920s – another perspective on how people understood the city – better understand the planning –
– major architectural development – skyscraper – innovations in construction engineering – particularly concrete reinforced with steel – possiblility for much taller buildings – taller the building the bigger the base – primarily used in the US – particularly New York and Chicago – celebration of American capitalism and the optimism that came with the age of the skyscrapers – icon of an era – icon for the US – icon for capitalism –
– film comes out at 1927 during unprecedented upheaval in Europe – business as usual was leading down a dangerous path (capitalism and parliamentary documentary) – WWI had just ended, war seen by many on the left as a competition between capitalist states for access to markets – conquest to secure markets for industrial production – already a sense that capitalism leads to war – period following war was also a period of economic recession – end of the war entailed an adjustment of economies to peace time, also contributed to recession – compounding all of this was revolutions breaking out all over after WWI – Russia revolt 1918 – German, Spartacists, failed workers revolt 1919 – Germany printing money to pay reparations – hyper inflation by 1919 – 1924 implementation of the Dawes Plan, essentially restructured the reparation payments and provided loans to Germany – currency stabilized, economy stabilized, briefly – 1929 stock market crashed – economic systems connected so most of European economies brought down as well – bleak time in European society, some of this anxiety reflected in the film –
Class Summary – October 4, 2012
Metropolis – Fritz Lang
1. What kind of social order is described in this film?
– rigid class divide – not an egalitarian social order – factory workers and upper class and Joh Frederson – upper class parties, and all work for Joh – role of factory workers is building, maintaining and running the city – invisible – mob, everyone is the same – upper class has more administrative role, finance based, controlling the upper mechanisms –
2. What are the different parts of the city of the future? What are their characteristics?
– city is almost a character in itself, playing a role in the plot – physical barriers between classes – creator vs. created (Frankenstonian) – is the creator or the created evil? is technology a good thing? is the city itself good or evil? – technology and inventor has the satanic symbol, whereas Maria, the heart, is a messiah like figure – city as evil in that its dependant on oppression – comparable with modern cities, slums, containment of workers –
– Eternal Gardens – organic, full of beautiful scantily clad women – New Tower of Babel, attempting to reach up to heaven – The Depths – the Catacombs furthest, Workers City in the middle, Machines above the workers – Yoshiwara – entertainment district, red light district, exoticism – Club of Sons – playground for sons of the rich –
– film is anti-communist, but also cautionary tale to the wealthy, and risk of exploitation – heart is mediator between head and hands –
– is a ratification of the social order really possible in this city? – at the end director seems to suggest it is possible to construct the city into something different –
– references to all kinds of myth – Hel – Norse goddess who gets into the underworld, evoked by the crazy scientist – morality angle for the director – fear of getting away from it – sense of fascination of technology and what it could do – director also captivated by the amazing potential of technology – why he tries to reconcile head and hands at the end of the film, wants to believe it is possible to have this beautiful city but also a happy society –
– film is another way of looking at how people understood the city – matters because urban planning was ultimately about shaping the social order – view of different groups, not just social classes, but differences in general – role of fear in forming views of technology –
Class Summary – October 2, 2012
Historical context for film:
– visual representations of the city – slightly later, 1920s – another perspective on how people understood the city – better understand the planning –
– major architectural development – skyscraper – innovations in construction engineering – particularly concrete reinforced with steel – possiblility for much taller buildings – taller the building the bigger the base – primarily used in the US – particularly New York and Chicago – celebration of American capitalism and the optimism that came with the age of the skyscrapers – icon of an era – icon for the US – icon for capitalism –
– film comes out at 1927 during unprecedented upheaval in Europe – business as usual was leading down a dangerous path (capitalism and parliamentary documentary) – WWI had just ended, war seen by many on the left as a competition between capitalist states for access to markets – conquest to secure markets for industrial production – already a sense that capitalism leads to war – period following war was also a period of economic recession – end of the war entailed an adjustment of economies to peace time, also contributed to recession – compounding all of this was revolutions breaking out all over after WWI – Russia, revolt 1918 – German, Spartacists, failed workers revolt 1919 – Germany printing money to pay reparations – hyper inflation by 1919 – 1924 implementation of the Dawes Plan, essentially restructured the reparation payments and provided loans to Germany – currency stabilized, economy stabilized, briefly – 1929 stock market crashed – economic systems connected so most of European economies brought down as well – bleak time in European society, some of this anxiety reflected in this film –
Class Summary – October 4, 2012
Metropolis – Fritz Lang
1. What kind of social order is described in this film?
– rigid class divide – not an egalitarian social order – factory workers and upper class and Joh Frederson – upper class parties, and all work for Joh – role of factory workers is building, maintaining and running the city – invisible – mob, everyone is the same – upper class has more administrative role, finance based, controlling the upper mechanisms –
2. What are the different parts of the city of the future? What are their characteristics?
– city is almost a character in itself, playing a role in the plot – physical barriers between classes – creator vs. created (Frankenstonian) – is the creator or the created evil? is technology a good thing? is the city itself good or evil? – technology and inventor has the satanic symbol, whereas Maria, the heart, is a messiah like figure – city as evil in that its dependant on oppression – comparable with modern cities, slums, containment of workers –
– Eternal Gardens – organic, full of beautiful scantily clad women – New Tower of Babel, attempting to reach up to heaven – The Depths – the Catacombs furthest, Workers City in the middle, Machines above the workers – Yoshiwara – entertainment district, red light district, exoticism – Club of Sons – playground for sons of the rich –
– film is anti-communist, but also cautionary tale to the wealthy, and risk of exploitation – heart is mediator between head and hands –
– is a ratification of the social order really possible in this city? – at the end director seems to suggest it is possible to construct the city into something different –
– references to all kinds of myth – Hel – Norse goddess who gets into the underworld, evoked by the crazy scientist – morality angle for the director – fear of getting away from it – sense of fascination of technology and what it could do – director also captivated by the amazing potential of technology – why he tries to reconcile head and hands at the end of the film, wants to believe it is possible to have this beautiful city but also a happy society –
– film is another way of looking at how people understood the city – matters because urban planning was ultimately about shaping the social order – view of different groups, not just social classes, but differences in general – role of fear in forming views of technology –