Ariel Margolin
BA 8
However unconventional, I will begin by analyzing the second “note” which I took during my visit to the park. The photo to me perfectly ascribes Mumford’s idea of “differentiated paths” to a “common significant drama”. Here in the park we see a benched statue free to the public’s use and two very different people, are sitting upon it, not even recognizing each other’s existence. This is the heart of the matter for a city is a place for all of us to use shared things/places, but for each of us to forge our own paths.
The first “note” to my contention demonstrates the idea of the city being a “theatre of social action” to a tee. Here we see two separate groups sitting across from each other (and visibly the two groups were strangers to each other), but as we can tell from the photograph, both groups are inching towards conversing with each other. This is the “theatre of social change” in a nutshell, for the city allows the close proximity of people to bring socialization. It is in our gene code as people to communicate with each other when we are close to one another, and by this being always in the city, you have the opportunity to speak and learn something new from someone new at almost all times. Knowledge brings about change, and having people speak to one another changes the social striations like waves crashing upon the jetty.
I totally agree with you about the second photo showing two different people taking two “differentiated paths,” since both of them clearly live different lives, but ended up laying in similar indolent positions on the statue. You’re definitely correct regarding the environment of the city as naturally fostering socialization, and I believe this goes to Mumford’s point that the actual concept of a city comes secondhand to the human tendency to interact with one another. Great work!