Throughout this Semester, I have been taking two classes directly related to the structure of the city, and its implications upon its citizens. While this class has so far focused primarily on the development of the modern industrial city during the 18th and 19th centuries, my urban social geography class tends to deal with the contemporary problems facing cities today. Recently in my geography class, we have been talking about the neo-liberalization of cities, a trend who’s roots one can see flourishing during the 1980s. Therefore, learning about the development of urban industrial centers and the fears 19th century social scientists felt regarding them, contrasted with these contemporary neo liberal trends in urban planning, has led me to wonder about whether much has actually changed in our society.
At this point many of you may be wondering what exactly I mean by that. What I mean to say is that I have just found many of the fears expressed by 19th century social scientists and commentators, and many of the problems they identified, not only present in our 21st century contemporary society, but one might even argue emblematic of it. Some of the problems and fears that we see as present in both era’s are, Money becoming the primary mark of power. Something, Mark Twain’s “The Gilded Age” so powerfully connotated. The protection of our natural resources. Something Henry David Thoreau emphasized in “Walden”. The privatization of public utilities. Once considered the norm during the first implementations of technologies like public transit, and water distribution, now one sees this happening all over again.
Basically what i find so interesting is that the neo-liberal trend is one that can be seen as “rendering the social domain economic” (Keil 2009). In other words, making capital the basis of all social relations and the governor of society. At the same time what occurs to me is that this same process was occurring as the modern industrial city was first birthed. Capital was the primary mark of power, social class was directly related to your occupation, and workers repeated dull tasks. I found this echoed even further when in reference to his job at the Mill my roommate said to me, “at a certain point the machine just becomes a part of you. I am the machine”. So I ask you. Do you think that the neo liberal paradigm is one that can be seen as re occurring? Is it unique to our own contemporary society? Are there connections to the past? How new are the ideas that dominate neo liberal politics really?
Please respond and let me know what you think? This was a completely opinion based post so i want yours as well. I am definitely not saying that I am 100% right. What do You think?
I’ve had similar thoughts in terms of noticing reoccurring themes throughout the historical content of this course and contemporary fears surrounding the future of society. I think that rather than experiencing a reoccurrence of a shift into a neo-liberal paradigm we are still just in it; and if anything, are bracing for a shift out of it. Since industrialization and birth of the modern city, our understandings of the themes you highlighted (capital as mark of power, social segregation based on occupation, workers repeating dull tasks) have changed slightly, but ultimately I feel we’re in the same societal state. The biggest difference I can personally highlight is between anxiety and frustration.
During the 19th century, there was fear and anxiety surrounding these new technological advancements in regards to their impact on society and everyday life. It seems to me now that this has turned to frustration at the fact these leaps forward have not taken humanity (collectively and equally) very far at all.
Those are at least the bigger picture ideas I’ve been piecing together thus far, not sure if I quite picked up what you were laying down, but I’m glad you raised the topic!