{"id":37770,"date":"2019-04-21T01:00:24","date_gmt":"2019-04-21T05:00:24","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/quotulatiousness.ca\/blog\/?p=37770"},"modified":"2021-02-24T21:42:29","modified_gmt":"2021-02-25T02:42:29","slug":"qotd-high-modern-city-design-as-a-tool-to-control-the-populace","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/quotulatiousness.ca\/blog\/2019\/04\/21\/qotd-high-modern-city-design-as-a-tool-to-control-the-populace\/","title":{"rendered":"QotD: High Modern city design as a tool to control the populace"},"content":{"rendered":"

Scott notes that although citizens generally didn\u2019t have a problem with earlier cities, governments did:<\/p>\n

Historically, the relative illegibility to outsiders of some urban neighborhoods has provided a vital margin of political safety from control by outside elites. A simple way of determining whether this margin exists is to ask if an outsider would have needed a local guide in order to find her way successfully. If the answer is yes, then the community or terrain in question enjoys at least a small measure of insulation from outside intrusion. Coupled with patterns of local solidarity, this insulation has proven politically valuable in such disparate contexts as eighteenth-and early nineteenth-century urban riots over bread prices in Europe, the Front de Liberation Nationale<\/em>\u2019s tenacious resistance to the French in the Casbah of Algiers, and the politics of the bazaar that helped to bring down the Shah of Iran. Illegibility, then, has been and remains a reliable resource for political autonomy<\/p>\n

This was a particular problem in Paris, which was famous for a series of urban insurrections in the 19th century (think Les Miserables<\/em>, but about once every ten years or so). Although these generally failed, they were hard to suppress because locals knew the \u201cterrain\u201d and the streets were narrow enough to barricade. Slums full of poor people gathered together formed tight communities where revolutionary ideas could easily spread. The late 19th-century redesign of Paris had the explicit design of destroying these areas and splitting up poor people somewhere far away from the city center where they couldn\u2019t do any harm.<\/p>\n

Scott ties this into another High Modernist creation: the collective farms of the Soviet Union. This was a terrible idea and responsible for the famines that killed millions (tens of millions?) during Stalin\u2019s administration. The government went ahead with them because the non-collectivized farmers were too powerful and independent a political bloc. They lived in tight-knit little villages that did their own thing, the Party officials who went to these villages to keep order often ended up \u201cgoing native\u201d, and the Soviets had no way of knowing how much food the farmers were producing and whether they were giving enough of it to the Motherland.<\/p>\n

The collectivized farms couldn\u2019t grow much, but people were thrown together in artificial towns designed to make it impossible to build any kind of community: there was nowhere to be except in bed asleep, working in the fields, or at the public school receiving your daily dose of state propaganda. The towns were identical concrete buildings on a grid, which left the locals maximally disoriented (because there are no learnable visual cues) and the officials maximally oriented (because even a foreigner could go to the intersection of Street D and Street 7). All fields were perfectly rectangular and produced Standardized Food Product, so it was (theoretically) easy to calculate how much they should be producing and whether people were meeting that target. And everyone was in the same place, so if there were some sort of problem it was much easier to bring in the army or secret police than if they were split up among a million tiny villages in the middle of nowhere.<\/p>\n