The mutual exclusiveness of culture and city?
Follow this line of reasoning here:
1. In order to be economically successful, a country has to be efficient (efficiency means high productivity, means ideas become concrete at a faster rate, means changes are responded to almost immediately, and everyone knows adaptability is crucial in any realm - biological, economic, political - in order for survival.)
2. Efficiency does not require distinctiveness; in fact, the less different your processes or workers are, the more efficient you become. Principle of specialization in work here. Factory processing is the fastest way to churn out huge volumes of products, and it demands homogeneity not only for a certain minimum standard but also for its speed. The larger your supply of goods, the less the price, the more the consumers. Of course we assume a high quality for every good, as well as limited resources so you can't just churn out as much as you want.
3. In order to be efficient countries congregate resources together for external economies of scale. The nearer various firms are to each other, the faster they can feed each other resources. This means the forming of cities.
4. Since the principle underlying cities is efficiency, and since efficiency demands homogeneity, it follows that cities lack culture (culture is what makes you distinctive) - and hence, all cities are alike.
5. Whatever shreds of culture cities can lay claim to can only come from their long years of history, where certain practices were developed before industrialization, and still retained. Whatever is retained is likely because they have marketing value, for example food. Even religion has marketing value. What do I mean by marketing? A means to spread something, whether it is a product, a practice or a belief, over a large number of people. You might not like the economic connotations that come with it, but as long as there is a large crowd, money can be made.
6. What about characterization? That might also be retained since people normally mingle around with fellow citizens and upbringing is a huge influence on your character. That will probably be the truest form of culture any city can say they have. After all the different practices are merely manifestations of different characters.
7. But technology means that we interact with yet another culture online, and since the internet is global, homogeneity ensures, perhaps not fully, but (arguably?) for a huge part of characters.
8. Travel is a form of escapism to experience something different. If cities are the same, and man-made attractions are the same, why would you travel to another city based simply on the pull of its man-made attractions? Reasons you go to a place for leisure can include
a) the scenery
b) the 'culture' (whatever's left that's viciously marketed)
9. Singapore is a very efficient and technologically advanced city.
10. Since there are no natural landscapes in Singapore, and also not much to speak of in our culture that can induce a cult following (things you can think of probably only extend to food. Characters? We don't assert ourselves enough to be interesting. Cultural practices? All faded out, with those practising it a minority; whatever events we hold for them are exhibitions. Art? What art?)
...what can we use to attract tourists?
0 flowers
0 Comments:
far and wee
you and i together mysteriously and always floating
Sunday, March 28
2:22 PM
