Are Cities Born From Trauma?
A reader named Kala Rao made the following comment on an earlier post:
"London, New York and Paris retain a sense of their past; in a few years Shanghai,Beijing or Mumbai may completely erase theirs, apart from the few imperial buildings that stand there.
"London and Paris have been bombed in a war, and people who live there remember it vividly; most people who live in the new Asian cities have no comparable experience. In some ways that makes it more difficult for them to deal with a random act of terror."
I don't want to comment on this, just to throw it open as a question to other readers. I would offer the following challenges:
- Who says that people living in the "new Asian cities" do not have an experience of trauma? How can Delhi, born out of one of the central traumas of the 20th century, have by-passed trauma? The terrible events in Beijing in 1989 were of huge symbolic importance, and created a whole international movement. Japan's occupations during the 1940s were hugely traumatic in China. The 1993 bombings in Bombay were fundamental to that city's consciousness. Chinese cities all carry the trauma of turbulent internal migration... The memory of the bombing of London is positively romantic in comparison to many of these things. (Allied bombing of Paris was extremely limited, as far as I know.)
- Is it true that London, New York and Paris have a sense of their own past? In a way that is organic, and not mediatised, and more than other places?
- Has New York demonstrated its ability to absorb the effects of a "random act of terror" in a way that "new Asian cities" such as Delhi or Bombay have not? The world is reeling from the escalation of violence for which a "random act" in New York was the pretext; the subsequent "random acts" in the Indian cities have been absorbed with far less violence.
- How important is trauma as a grounding narrative for a city?
London has a sense of the blitz, the terror bombings were not much compared to them.
It was a matter of pride that Londoners would respond 'baaa, pathetic' to the terrorists.
Paris, London and New York on the surface seem to retain more of a sense of their past in their architecture, it seems there is more protection in these cities, and more respect, for the visible monuments of the past (I understand that a great deal of old buildings, or whole historic areas, are being demolished in Beijing and Shanghai)but whether that corresponds to them having an equivalent keener 'sense' of their past (whatever shape that might take), hard to say. London looks back a lot to being bombed in W.W.2, perhaps that is more to do with the sense of solidarity and purpose between people (and between classes) that is felt to have existed then and has really disintegrated now. But in the years after the second world war, it was not looking back, the zeitgeist was all about moving on and ripping down old buildings (more were demolished in the 60s by labour councils than in the blitz)and re-housing people. Cities and their inhabitants seem to constanly re-write and reinvent their past, or at least view it through a new lens, whether they physically rebuild them or not. But does intense demolition and modernisation and rebuilding limit that process?
It may be that the experience of violence and trauma are the answers to the question, to an extent. Large scale violence and destruction in North America as a whole is rare and nearly unheard of (I am not certain Americans cherish the experience of the 60's civil rights riots with the same awe as the 9/11 event.) Perhaps the reason is that the German blitz in Allied Europe and terror acts on US soil are are part of the cultures' past because they were acts from foreign sources.
I was staying in Delhi a few years back (nay, a decade), and while I was there a number of bombings had occurred in relation to the Kashmir conflict (or I assume). Yet, daily life seemed to continue seemingly without a jolt. In some cases, could it be a result of a greater familiarity with 'acts of terror'? I cannot speak of China in this respect.
These comments are interesting but the writer makes several errors, Firstly of fact-Paris was not bombed in the Second World War. Secondly in terms of comparing the pyschology of LOndon a s a city now with its 19th century past. The novels of Dickens for example deal with the issues raised of generating a sense of identity among the mega city of London. The new politics of trade unions and the labour party then emerge to replace aristocratic elites. Another literary response was to hark back to some golden age- witness the explosion of escapist children;s books published in the early 20th century. So I agree that the cities of Asia lack an identity but I would argue that London in the 19th century suffered a similar crisis.
These comments are interesting. I cannot comment on Asian Cities because I still have to visit Asia. London, New York, and Paris retain a sense of some of their history. Many other cities in America [Cleveland, Detroit..] are almost ghost towns because they did not prpepare for the future. Miami Florida is erasing its past in the name of progress. In the process, Miami has also taken houses that are owned, buy them, and then replace the house with parking lots, commercial centres, and condominiums that are too expensive for the average citizen.
I always judge a city by the quality and quantity of its arts and parks.
To rewind, my comments were made in response to:
London, Paris and New York - have all recently been struck by traumatic disasters that have called into question their security and sustainability, and the fundamental nature of their relationship to global events and flows.
#Security, yes, but sustainability? Why are Madrid or Mumbai any different? Of course, Asian cities have experienced trauma, but there is no evidence to suggest that they have dealt with them any better or worse than others have.
The history of ethnic riots in Mumbai (including the ones before the 93 bombings) and Delhi ('47 partition and anti-Sikh riots in the 80s) have left deep scars (no triumph of survival there but more ghettoisation) but those cannot be compared to external acts of terror which, to my mind, are comparable to acts of war.
I was wrong to say Paris was bombed. my point was that surviving a world war can be a defining experience for a city in a way that perhaps surviving a random act of terror is not.
Rana: I would like to send you some photos of Miami undergoing its "transformation" as I have commented. I do not know if I should send them to your website or to 大象传媒 Radio 3. Thank You. Roberto
Great question, I had to think about it for days. But my answer is no, cities are not born from trauma.
Traumatic events are usefull to latch onto to create a certain sentiment or unity but I don't think that they represent the identity of a city. Infact I would go as far as to say that a city doesn't have any identity other than the one given to it by its occupants.
Lets take the great fire of London, it caused wide spread devastation and loss of life. When the fires died down an oportunity to create a new London appeared. This new London was given to a handfull of architects to create who then set about imposing the architectural flavours of the day. The identities these architects chose to model ranged from Roman to Gothic none of them indegenous to Britain - with the exception of the terraced house.
So now in Dehli you have buildings that would feel better at home in Singapore but does this mean that identity is lost? In my last entry I suggested that India will loose some of her organic identity to capitalism and its insistence on uniformity. I have changed my view, I now feel that India will impose her identity onto these constructs, infact I think thats what happens in all populated areas.
Comments and photos should be posted to my email address, rana@ranadasgupta.com.
Thank you.