The purpose of urbanization is to provide humans with the necessary equipment of survival (food, water, clothes, and shelter). Many citizens of all different economic statuses desire to live in the city in order to absorb all of its activity, and to be able to take advantage of its resources. This growth has caused urban areas to become the centers of activity, providing a multitude of entertainment, which can be considered over-stimulating. A gruff and protective attitude develops from the over-stimulation of urban areas. This gruffness protects citizens; because it allows them to brush off the everyday horrors they encounter on the streets, such as, poverty. This defense enables citizens to keep moving in society, which keeps the working cogs moving. This gruffness separates citizens does not only protect them from horrors on the street, but their own emotional self, eliminating their more personal needs and desires.1 One of these desires is to have privacy at home, a place where citizens can call their own and not feel the pressures of society. In the center of activity, it is difficult to escape these pressures. As humans flood in to cities and urban areas, the quantity of land a citizen owns becomes a monumental factor of his economic status. When a person has more private access to a greater quantity of land, he has more means to accessing his freedom.
1-This view was influenced by my reading of Georg Simmel's "The Metropolis and Mental Life"
This sounds like a very interesting paper Morgan! Here are a few questions I have: What do you mean by "gruffness"? Why does being gruff make people not care about issues such as poverty? With the last bit of your opening paragraph are you saying that your economic status determines your quality of freedom? If so then I would make it more clear that this is your point.
ReplyDeleteMorgan- I really like the opening to this. Very clear, and introduces us to your paper nicely. Like Andrew, I was also wondering what exactly you meant by "gruffness". Also, maybe be a little bit more argumentative in your thesis. Why exactly does having private access to a greater quantity of land give you freedom?
ReplyDeleteI really like your topic idea. Your first three sentences are very clear and are a strong opening. Like Andrew and Sarah, I'm not quite sure what you mean by a "gruff and protective attitude". What other "personal needs and desires" could be eliminated by this gruffness? Also, maybe make your thesis more clear. The more land you have, the more free you are? What exactly would your definition of freedom be then? Is privacy the most important part of the freedom you're talking about?
ReplyDeleteFirst of all, what do you mean by, "accessing his freedom"? Does this imply that we are most free when we are living in a private sphere and delving into our emotive selves, detached from the chaos of the outside world? So are we essentially the most free as hermits? Isn't our freedom also influenced by our interactions with others and our ability to make human connections?
ReplyDeleteI would also be careful with equating the privatization of land with freedom. This could lead you to an extremely capitalistic argument, which I'm not sure is where you want to go. What about those who, do to poverty and social circumstance, don't have access to private areas? Can they not access "freedom"? Does this mean that, the more territory you obtain, the more free you become? Wouldn't this lead to an "every man for himself" mentality?
<3, Sarah
"the quantity of land a citizen owns becomes a monumental factor of his economic status." Morgan, I would like to understand how you transitioned from the emotional pressures people experience in society to land becoming a signifier of economic status and why that is important to the previous statement. Are you suggesting that a citizen's access to freedom relies on his affluence?
ReplyDeleteThis is a really interesting topic and I like the flow of you argument.
ReplyDelete-It seems that you saying the more money a person has the more free they are because they can buy large estate and maintain privacy.
-It might help to define what you mean by gruffness.
-Also it seems the more items you have the happier and more free you are?
-Another thing that might be interesting to address is the connect between urbanization and community and responsibility one has in that community.
Are you saying that the shields that people put up to distance themselves from reality ultimately deprive them of their freedoms? And if so how does responsibility come into play? And if the only way to get by in a city is to completely shut yourself off from everything, why – apart from the bounty of resources – would it be beneficial to live there?
ReplyDeleteDoes more land necessitate more freedom? Don't other factors like social circles, societal standing, and other sociological concerns play into that as well? Are individuals who are higher up on the class ladder necessarily freer?
ReplyDeleteThe psychological arguments you make in this paragraph are quite compelling, as is the analysis of the goal of urbanization.
The tackling of gruffness is fascinating. Presenting that as an idea and argument is daring, and as a result that argument needs to bring the heat. The gruff argument could easily seem like a under researched attempt to add a understandable social element to the paper. I guess my over all point is to be careful when dissecting things when they are opinion. Argue for them instead of stating them as fact.
ReplyDeleteI really like how your argument flowed in the beginning of the paragraph. I agree with Shane that it was a really cool idea to talk about the emotional aspect of living in a city and how it effects the personality. I got a little confused when you brought in the quality of land part, because it didn't really seem to go with the rest of the paragraph.
ReplyDeleteHow does the amount of land (private) help access the individual's freedom? Wouldn't it be his access to space outside his private life?
I think it is crucial that you dissect the act of urban people becoming "Gruff". Which aspect of human nature would predictably determine the thinckening of the skin, so to speak. Whay, also is it necessary that urban people assume a "gruff" or indifferent attitude toward the troubles of others. Also make sure that vibrant words like "horrors" are thrown in without having any logical justification for thier vibrancy or intensity.
ReplyDeleteWhat role does media have in this, do they not also have a say in this? Freedom of property or freedom?
ReplyDeleteMorgs, overall I thought the writing was pretty good. For a beginning paragraph, however, this lingers on a particular situation that supports the thesis for a while.
ReplyDelete