(in)tolerant cities Flashcards
Lees (2004)
The city has long been represented as an emancipatory space. It has been at the heart of conceptions about democracy, tolerance and self-realisation. This has been largely situated in the social imaginary of the Western world.
It was primarily the transition to capitalism and rapid urbanisation that drove these contemporary standards of thinking about the city in this way. The city became an abstraction; distinct from different forms of settlements.
This is less concerned about the build environment of the city and more about the opportunities and possibilities that can be found in the city. This view of the city is orchestrated in the conquest of nature.
Merrifield (2000)
Argues that the city is a paradox between ideals of emancipation and the everyday, lived realities. These two opposites must be held in tension with one another.
“Those of us who yearn for social justice, but also love cities found ourselves torn between the tyranny we see around us everyday and the thrill that same tyrannical city can sometimes offer”.
Simmel (1903)
Talks about the value of attachment and anonymity in the city. However, we must realise that these values also provide alleys for darker activities to arise: crime or loneliness.
Jacobs (1972)
Tolerance is about the acceptance of difference within the city.
“Room for great differences among neighbours- differences that often go far deeper than differences in skin colour- which are possible and normal in intensely urban life”.
Florida (2002)
Argues that tolerance is key to discussions of an entrepreneurial city and the creative class.
However, tolerance is not just a value- it is something that can be mapped onto the physical city.
Example: graffiti in Melbourne
Graham (2004)
There has been an increase and naturalisation of military occupation in urban spaces (military urbanism).
Forms of surveillance are increasingly present in the city despite not being under any form of conflict- this has become normal.
Example: London 2012 Olympics
This mega-event involved the largest mobilisation of military and security forces seen in the UK since WW2
More troops were here than deployed in Afghanistan
However, the surveillance infrastructure remained in place even after the games ended
This translates very easily into a deep suspicion of multi-ethnic populations and counter-terrorism measures.
The localisation of war into the city has resulted in the notion of the ‘enemy within’. This explains the rise in assimilation policies seen in the Western world. This has major repercussions for everyday life in the city.
Shaw (2003)
Argues that urbanisation and political violence has become central to modernity. Cities have emerged as prime targets for war. Even before this, cities had direct links to the production of military equipment.
The city and the war are mutual constructions. The city “in its entirety [is] a space for war”.
Appardurai (1996)
“In the condition of ethnic unrest and urban warfare that characterise cities, urban war zones are becoming armed camps, driven wholly by implosive forces that unfold into neighbourhoods”
Campbell (2007)
Urbicide is the violence against the physical materiality or built environment of the city.
This is a concept that was first introduced by urbanists opposing the construction of the World trade centre. The term was deployed to show their outrage against the ‘Haussmanization’ of the city. This was critiqued as destroying the natural habitat of the poor.
Coward (2007)
Urbicide is the violence against the physical materiality or built environment of the city. There are multiple understandings of this phenomena…
1) The endogenous urbicidal potential of the modern city…
Two targets: the infrastructure and the experience of the city. This can be understood through urban renewal projects especially in America and the ‘Haussmanization’ of the city. This is understood as a sustained assault on the urban experience.
2) The city, militarisation and war…
This can be understood through the militarisation of urban space, war fighting and the targeting of the city by military forces. This form of urbicide has been brutal in the 20th century (Hiroshima). Militaries are increasingly operating in and making cities the target of war. However can the city ever be a legitimate target of war since it is full of civilians?
3) Urbicide and the politics of exclusion…
This originates in the Bosnian war. This is engaged in a phemenonology of the destruction of buildings- what buildings compromise and what their destruction achieves. This is essentially the destruction of the conditions of possibility and the quality of the urban. This is integral to the politics of exclusion NOT confined to the context of war.
Bannister and Kearns (2013)
Tolerance is an essential practice in contemporary cities- this rests in the accommodation and encounter of difference. Tolerance is therefore the capacity of citizens to negotiate harmonious encounters with difference.
Uncertainty with difference can be perceived as threatening- encountering this can override these feelings. However, the opportunity for such encounters is based on the value we place upon them and our capacity to communicate and negotiate.
Tolerance is increasingly difficult to negotiate in a world where individualisation and privatisation are on the rise. there is a tendency towards privacy and segregation. BUT, when tolerance breaks down, there are disastrous consequences for social harmony.
Also need to recognise that tolerance is a function of power. It is always a relationship on inequality- tolerated groups are cast as inferior.
Brown (2006)
Whilst tolerance seems to promote relations of mutuality, it is underwritten by a series of conditions that need to be addressed. The term is internally inharmonious- combining goodness with discomfort, judgement and aversion.
Tolerance is essentially a strategy for dealing with something that one would rather not. Tolerance is therefore removed from any qualities of indifference or neutrality.
“Designated objects of tolerance are invariably marked as undesirable and marginal”
“Those called upon to exercise tolerance are asked to repress or override their hostility in the name of civility, peace or progress”
Wilson (2014)
Tolerance is everywhere and is tied to virtues, morals, practices and skill. However, critics of tolerance argue that it has no place in policies of multiculturalism today- we must search for alternative that are not embedded in such deep power relations.
However, Wilson suggests that looking at tolerance as a practice and process (rather than an abstraction) is valuable to ongoing efforts to expand ways of accommodating difference.
Example: NGO tolerance workshops Wilson attends
Tolerance is a key commitment to attending these workshops- participants must be open to different opinions and mistakes. In this respect, tolerance is key since it is working towards an acceptance of difference. It creates a space for exchange and connection.
Derrida (2003)
In a post 9/11 world, tolerance can be best described as a condescending concession; it is a form of charity as best.
It promotes the idea that the subject is to remain as it is, but there is a constant reminder that the subject is not necessarily deserving of a place in society and the right to remain. It is made clear that his right can be withdrawn at any point in time.
“Tolerance is therefore a symbolic violence in which a mode of domination is presented as a form of egalitarianism”.
