He leaves the walled citadel cities of Mesopotamia and the riverine open cities of Egypt behind and moves on to Greece. Among an incredible array of references and concepts, he analyses how and why the Greek poleis of the 6th and 5th centuries were able to create such a wealth of exceptional figures, which he points out, has probably only been equalled by Renaissance Italy.
It is very difficult to summarise the analysis of the Greek poleis in such a short piece, but among the points he makes is that, as the cities grew, and the connection of the citizens to one another began to break down through sheer weight of numbers, certain reforms failed to materialise which would have allowed the society and the city to adapt. This allowed despots and tyrants to assume power and led to the ancient predilection for monumentalism and kingships to creep back in. Knowledge and learning shifted from active experience, face to face aggressive discussion and argument, testing of ideas through practice to theoretical development, the natural sciences and mathematics. Classifications and technical possibility.
This meant the death of a fulsome communal life in the later Greek cities, while the appearance of the cities grew in monumental appearance and style. Mumford basically says that the vibrant, organic hotchpotch of 6th/5th century BC Athens was the ultimate apogee of Greek culture, over the hollow moral shell (but outwardly far more advanced and impressive) of Periclean Athens.
He builds these points brilliantly and very succinctly and introduces absolutely killer comparisons to today's (writing in the 1970's) Western culture. You can't help but agree with his images of moral wasteland but technical mastery of environment that we now live in - a society flapping beneath the surface for a firm foothold to get some direction.
The sense you get from him of the inevitability of the rise and fall of societies is genius, and the connections to how the city can shape this, and also how this shapes the city is brilliant.
It is very difficult to summarise the analysis of the Greek poleis in such a short piece, but among the points he makes is that, as the cities grew, and the connection of the citizens to one another began to break down through sheer weight of numbers, certain reforms failed to materialise which would have allowed the society and the city to adapt. This allowed despots and tyrants to assume power and led to the ancient predilection for monumentalism and kingships to creep back in. Knowledge and learning shifted from active experience, face to face aggressive discussion and argument, testing of ideas through practice to theoretical development, the natural sciences and mathematics. Classifications and technical possibility.
This meant the death of a fulsome communal life in the later Greek cities, while the appearance of the cities grew in monumental appearance and style. Mumford basically says that the vibrant, organic hotchpotch of 6th/5th century BC Athens was the ultimate apogee of Greek culture, over the hollow moral shell (but outwardly far more advanced and impressive) of Periclean Athens.
He builds these points brilliantly and very succinctly and introduces absolutely killer comparisons to today's (writing in the 1970's) Western culture. You can't help but agree with his images of moral wasteland but technical mastery of environment that we now live in - a society flapping beneath the surface for a firm foothold to get some direction.
The sense you get from him of the inevitability of the rise and fall of societies is genius, and the connections to how the city can shape this, and also how this shapes the city is brilliant.
No comments:
Post a Comment