In his excerpt “What is a City? ” Mumford introduces the notion that a city is a combination, or rather, a relationship between two components: the physical design and economic infrastructure, and the natural values of spirituality and “human community.” Mumford mentions that human community and natural interaction not only trump the second factor but are the fundamental characteristics of humanism that allow populous places like cities and metropolitan areas to become the economically thriving areas that they are known to be in the developed world.
Honestly speaking, I went into Madison Square park unsure of what I was looking for. After reading Mumford’s passage, I had a general idea of the theoretical relationship he was describing, but these ideas did not translate into tangible characteristics that I would think to look for. The phrase “The city fosters art, and is art itself” was one that I found interesting, and facilitated my understanding of the reading. As I walked through the park, I took note of the way people tended to walk around the park in groups, most likely with family or friends, as if being around nature, in a place with very little, encouraged people to spend time with those closest to them. With this in mind, I was inspired to look for other patterns or characteristics of the people in Madison Square Park.
Things that I noticed included the following:
- 4 or 5 dog owners waiting for their pets to stop nibbling at the grass
- Husband and wife discussing weekend plans while watching their son feed the birds
- Tourists looking at a map, most likely trying to reach a destination
- Many people looking at their phones, some eating Shake Shack fries
- People talking in at least 3 different languages I didn’t understand
Mumford’s comparison of cities to “theaters of social action” began to make sense to me as I looked, as extensively as I could, around the park and at as many people as possible. With the fact that many people were doing the same thing, eating, socializing, spending time with family, walking their pets, came the fact that people were doing their own thing. The park was a microcosm of the city in the sense that though there were countless people gathered in the same place, they were all busy with some commonplace activity, akin to the daily activities of most New Yorkers which typically include eating out, going to work or school, spending time with family, and the list goes on.
Once again, I had no idea what Mumford meant when he used the phrase “collective drama” to describe the city. On the train ride home, I pondered on the notion of how I could find a specific meaning in such abstract yet relatable terminology. I thought of “collective drama” as something that is inherent in the notion of a city being a “theater of social action.” With everybody in the park engaging in whatever task they were engaging in, some form of conflict, or drama was always present. The dog walkers pull on their leashes to get a dog to move after it has been smelling the dirt for over five minutes, the couple calls to their son after he gets too far trying to feed the birds, tourists begin to argue over where they want to go, people have verbal conflicts with their bosses, significant others, and someone is always pissed that someone near them is speaking a foreign language. With everybody engaged in their own activity, everyone is prone to some kind of conflict, which is what constitutes a “collective drama.”
Ronald Osherov
Ronald, I love the interpretations/notes you made while walking around in the park. I feel as a class we all kind of had the same interpretations at first. Shake Shack, Dog owners, etc. But you took it that step forward. I love the way you analyzed their language and even what they were trying to say. It mind boggles me how in such a big park we are open up to so much variety and surprises. Great blog post!
We observed a similar thing of people performing similar acts in their own way. There were plenty of people having lunch and walking dogs but everyone had their own take on whatever they were doing. It was weird to think about how many people there are in the world with their own unique stories. It also made me think twice about how I judge or view people. We never know what it took to get someone to this point in life.