Skip to main content icon/video/no-internet

The concept of urban culture refers to two distinct aspects of social life. On the one hand, urban culture expresses the impact of the city as a whole on the people and their lives; on the other hand, it refers to the production of the city by its population. Moreover, the concept of urban cultures, in the plural, highlights the multiplicity of actors, dimensions, and processes involved in the city fabric. To say that every city has distinct urban cultures and to point out that cities are produced by different urban cultures is to give an adequate weight to the fact that any urban agglomerate is highly autonomous, that people's interaction is productive of distinctive social goods we usually call cultures. To say it in other words, “culture is, arguably, what cities ‘do’ best” (Zukin 1995, 264).

The coin of urban cultures has two sides: the production as well as the consumption of them. The making of an art festival by the intellectual elite of the city reveals the existence of a critical mass of art consumers to which the festival is devoted and made up. The absence of specific social groupings, for instance, art lovers, in a specific place and time consequently has the effect of underdeveloping some urban cultures like art societies. A good question is, then, which culture and which cities?

The Nexus between Cities and Urban Cultures

The discovery of the distinctive capability of the city to produce culture makes sense if one takes into account the famous German medieval saying, “The air of the cities makes men free.” As it was early recognized, living under urban conditions entails profiting from one of the major assets of the city: anonymity. Whereas rural living often implies close and intimate social bonds such as kinship or community-based ties in which everybody knows each other, the city is the quintessential environmental expression of the freedom that anonymity brings to society, as in the famous dichotomy by Ferdinand Toënnies of Gemeinschaft versus Gesellschaft (community vs. society). All of this was clear to the first urban sociologists, such as Georg Simmel and Louis Wirth. Simmel, in his celebrated essay “The Metropolis and Mental Life,” set forth his thesis of urban life and culture that may be summed up like this: People in urban settings are exposed to extreme environmental as well as psychological and relational stimulations and, needful of reducing complexity, they develop a psychological “blasé” attitude made of indifference to what is considered not relevant. Moreover, money becomes the only medium for deciphering social and urban life, and people become subject to a world in which monetary exchange is the dominating force. The rational calculation of city life was also, in Simmel's thinking, a matter of time calculation in which the individual citizen excelled as an integrated, modern, urban type. This wasn't considered in a purely negative way by Simmel, as it would have been by Marx, because the birth of the citizen in the modern metropolis was also a matter of leaving the traditional folkways of the countryside to build up the singularity of a living. This happened through the primacy of an eye rapidly acquainted to the multiple milieus of the city, such as the opera, the university, or the newly born department stores. The sociology of the city, of fashion, and of shopping starts with Simmel in the Berlin of the early nineteenth century.

...

  • Loading...
locked icon

Sign in to access this content

Get a 30 day FREE TRIAL

  • Watch videos from a variety of sources bringing classroom topics to life
  • Read modern, diverse business cases
  • Explore hundreds of books and reference titles

Sage Recommends

We found other relevant content for you on other Sage platforms.

Loading