What do you think?
Rate this book
The Spirit of Cities: Why the Identity of a City Matters in a Global Age
Cities shape the lives and outlooks of billions of people, yet they have been overshadowed in contemporary political thought by nation-states, identity groups, and concepts like justice and freedom. "The Spirit of Cities" revives the classical idea that a city expresses its own distinctive ethos or values. In the ancient world, Athens was synonymous with democracy and Sparta represented military discipline. In this original and engaging book, Daniel Bell and Avner de-Shalit explore how this classical idea can be applied to today's cities, and they explain why philosophy and the social sciences need to rediscover the spirit of cities.
Bell and de-Shalit look at nine modern cities and the prevailing ethos that distinguishes each one. The cities are Jerusalem (religion), Montreal (language), Singapore (nation building), Hong Kong (materialism), Beijing (political power), Oxford (learning), Berlin (tolerance and intolerance), Paris (romance), and New York (ambition). Bell and de-Shalit draw upon the richly varied histories of each city, as well as novels, poems, biographies, tourist guides, architectural landmarks, and the authors' own personal reflections and insights. They show how the ethos of each city is expressed in political, cultural, and economic life, and also how pride in a city's ethos can oppose the homogenizing tendencies of globalization and curb the excesses of nationalism.
"The Spirit of Cities" is unreservedly impressionistic. Combining strolling and storytelling with cutting-edge theory, the book encourages debate and opens up new avenues of inquiry in philosophy and the social sciences. It is a must-read for lovers of cities everywhere. In a new preface, Bell and de-Shalit further develop their idea of "civicism," the pride city dwellers feel for their city and its ethos over that of others.
Bell and de-Shalit look at nine modern cities and the prevailing ethos that distinguishes each one. The cities are Jerusalem (religion), Montreal (language), Singapore (nation building), Hong Kong (materialism), Beijing (political power), Oxford (learning), Berlin (tolerance and intolerance), Paris (romance), and New York (ambition). Bell and de-Shalit draw upon the richly varied histories of each city, as well as novels, poems, biographies, tourist guides, architectural landmarks, and the authors' own personal reflections and insights. They show how the ethos of each city is expressed in political, cultural, and economic life, and also how pride in a city's ethos can oppose the homogenizing tendencies of globalization and curb the excesses of nationalism.
"The Spirit of Cities" is unreservedly impressionistic. Combining strolling and storytelling with cutting-edge theory, the book encourages debate and opens up new avenues of inquiry in philosophy and the social sciences. It is a must-read for lovers of cities everywhere. In a new preface, Bell and de-Shalit further develop their idea of "civicism," the pride city dwellers feel for their city and its ethos over that of others.
368 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 2011
26 people are currently reading
236 people want to read
About the author
Daniel A. Bell
31 books33 followersDaniel A. Bell is Chair Professor of the Schwarzman Scholar Program at Tsinghua University in Beijing and director of the Berggruen Institute of Philosophy and Culture. He was born in Montreal, educated at McGill and Oxford, has taught in Singapore and Hong Kong, and has held research fellowships at Princeton’s University Center for Human Values and Stanford’s Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 13 of 13 reviews
May 21, 2020
I'm a city kid. I find so much joy in roaming around crowded streets, in huge museums and libraries, in the history and culture of each city, and in the vast variety of people you can meet in cities. Even when I'm not traveling right now, I love the ability to wander around my city and discover more and more about it. Since right now, I can't even do that, I totally found myself sating my desire for adventures through this book.
So, The Spirit of Cities begins with the premise that each city has an ethos, a story that it deals with. I adored this idea. I mean, heck yeah, cities have their spirit and that can be formative to the city and the nation itself. I read Avner's (I feel like I can call him Avner because we're all informal Israelis) other book about cities and felt familiar with his fascinating opinions about cities.
This book jumps into to discussing the ethos of 9 cities. The chapters are split between Daniel and Avner. They mostly focus on cities that they have lived in. I loved that each chapter had a great balance of personal experiences, political theory, history and interviews with local people. I especially enjoyed the usage of italics to mark when the author was sharing a personal anecdote, I wish it was more popular that people in the academia would share the anecdotes and stories that influence their research.
I have quite a lot to say so I'm going to go by each city. Since this review got really long, I'm going to use the spoiler tags to help this be more organized. For reference, Jerusalem is my hometown (so yes, a very long rant about it is coming up!), I've visited Berlin and New York several times and feel like I know them well, I've been to Paris and Oxford but don't know them well, and have never been to Hong Kong, Singapore (I must travel there soon), Montreal and Beijing. As a whole, I'll just say that this is a fascinating read. It's both a great idea and has a good execution. I very much miss studying with Avner and visiting new cities.
Oxford: Learning
Montreal: Language(s)
Paris: Romance
Hong Kong: Materialism
Beijing: Political Power
New York: Ambition
Berlin: (in) tolerance
Singapore: Nation Building
Jerusalem: Religion
All in all, this book is really special. I feel like I traveled through it as well as learned quite a bit. Even if this book is heavier than it seems, I feel like it does a good job at discussing the diversity of the cities here and their ethos. Also, now I feel tempted to create an ethos for every city in the world.
What I'm Taking With Me
- I'm absolutely curious about the thoughts of people from cities mentioned here. Also, which ethos would you say your city has?
- Damn, I also want to travel around the world, write a book, and call it research.
- My inner graphic designer feels like the cover doesn't do justice to the book.
- This review has more words than the essay I have to hand in next week (which I haven't started yet so things are going great).
So, The Spirit of Cities begins with the premise that each city has an ethos, a story that it deals with. I adored this idea. I mean, heck yeah, cities have their spirit and that can be formative to the city and the nation itself. I read Avner's (I feel like I can call him Avner because we're all informal Israelis) other book about cities and felt familiar with his fascinating opinions about cities.
This book jumps into to discussing the ethos of 9 cities. The chapters are split between Daniel and Avner. They mostly focus on cities that they have lived in. I loved that each chapter had a great balance of personal experiences, political theory, history and interviews with local people. I especially enjoyed the usage of italics to mark when the author was sharing a personal anecdote, I wish it was more popular that people in the academia would share the anecdotes and stories that influence their research.
I have quite a lot to say so I'm going to go by each city. Since this review got really long, I'm going to use the spoiler tags to help this be more organized. For reference, Jerusalem is my hometown (so yes, a very long rant about it is coming up!), I've visited Berlin and New York several times and feel like I know them well, I've been to Paris and Oxford but don't know them well, and have never been to Hong Kong, Singapore (I must travel there soon), Montreal and Beijing. As a whole, I'll just say that this is a fascinating read. It's both a great idea and has a good execution. I very much miss studying with Avner and visiting new cities.
Oxford: Learning
Montreal: Language(s)
Paris: Romance
Hong Kong: Materialism
Beijing: Political Power
New York: Ambition
Berlin: (in) tolerance
Singapore: Nation Building
Jerusalem: Religion
All in all, this book is really special. I feel like I traveled through it as well as learned quite a bit. Even if this book is heavier than it seems, I feel like it does a good job at discussing the diversity of the cities here and their ethos. Also, now I feel tempted to create an ethos for every city in the world.
What I'm Taking With Me
- I'm absolutely curious about the thoughts of people from cities mentioned here. Also, which ethos would you say your city has?
- Damn, I also want to travel around the world, write a book, and call it research.
- My inner graphic designer feels like the cover doesn't do justice to the book.
- This review has more words than the essay I have to hand in next week (which I haven't started yet so things are going great).
March 16, 2015
A delightful read. Part political theory (scholarly and historical), but values a qualitative approach (subjective and experiential, such as strolling the streets, talking to family and strangers, taking note of visual cues).The book is an exploration of civicisim (or city-zen’s), which is defined as a cities particular ethos. The authors are motivated to show that our tendency to apply national or global language to civic discussion confuses the importance of the city in political and relational terms. In other words, to speak globally we must speak in terms of a common denominator. To speak of a cities ethos, we must speak in specifics. For the authors, this specificity is the answer to the problem of globalization.
The writers are also motivated by a conviction that, historically speaking, the study of civic life has been hampered by a long standing tension between rural and urban, nature and development (materialism), which represents the (often) unverbalized belief that cities are in some sense evil. Thus, there continues to exists a strong tendency to continue to look at history and politics as an examination of "civilizations" and "countries", rather than analyzing and "comparing" city life.
Cities define us. They reflect the realities of every day life in a way that a nation cannot. They are diverse (made up of differing communities, but the author's believe they reflect a collective ethos, a recognizable "character" and "spirit" that is exclusive. They chose 9 cities that they believe best represent this belief (Jerusalem: The City of Religion; Montreal: The City of Language; Singapore: The City of Nation Building; Hong Kong: The City of Materialism; Beijing: The City of Political Power; Oxford: The City of Learning; Berlin: The City of (In) Tolerance; Paris: The City of Romance; New York: The City of Ambition). On a personal level, given my love for New York City, I found myself eager with anticipation to get to the final chapter (and I admit that I snuck a quick glance along the way). But starting at the beginning allowed me discover (and apply) some governing themes and contrast the tension of polarized ethos (such as the religious ethos of Jerusalem and the materialism of Hong Kong or New York).
A bit of what I took away from my own journey in this regard:
In Jerusalem we find a tension that exists between faith and religion. I found it fascinating to read of its (contemplative/sacred/living with less) relationship with Tel Aviv (progressives/materialistic). This emphasis on the “sacred” life gives a certain expression to the issue of poverty (which is a definable part of the Jerusalem landscape). Two thirds live below the poverty line, and it is the poorest of Israel’s major cities while having little to no Industrial zone (it developed without a major trade route or natural resource). And yet, in Jerusalem, poverty is both a problem and an asset. Many choose not to work, but “(rather) pray and study.” This tends to determine the kind of people who are attracted to the Jerusalem ethos. This emphasis on the life of faith also, though, creates certain tensions between (in)tolerance. While the city is pluralistic, the civic landscape also tends to be discriminatory. The authors explain this as the difference between “faith” (lifestyle) and “religion” (institution). Given a governance that is both restrictive and free, the authors argue that the best way for Jerusalem’s singular ethos to flourish is to foster a love of diversity in faith (a dynamic that the reader finds throughout the book), rather than a restrictive state institution.
In constrast, the questions that govern Montreal come from a history of multi-linguism (or bilinguism). As the authors point out, to understand the ethos of Montreal is to understand that they “care” about language. This relationship was built on utilizing “language” for economic and personal benefit. But what existed in the early years as a French minority looking to learn the language(s) of the majority First Nations groups, changed in light of the effects of colonialism. This marginalized the First Nations and set the conflict between the French/English languages firmly in to the realm of this cities permanent ethos (which became geographically defined through an East/West divide, not only in the city but also between the English dominated Toronto and the French pride of Quebec). A true tension was born between the economy and the culture, with language acting as the pivotal, driving force. English became synonymous as the language of commerce, trade and wealth, forcing the French and First Nation minorities to have to choose between learning English for economic benefit, or keeping their language as an effort to survive their culture. What makes this even more interesting was effect of the old religious values (which had taught a certain disdain towards seeking after personal and economic gain), and the eventual shift to a more liberated expression that would eventually allow the French minority to protect their cultural integrity (by mandating French as the first language of the region despite the English stronghold on the economy), while also demanding economic control (the end result being conceding the status as the economic center to Toronto, but stabilizing the vibrant French culture in what would become a more tolerant and diverse city). What is interesting to note here is the relationship between an exclusive ethos and a growing divesity. The authors insist that the success of a common identity is dependent (and necessary for) an openness to differences.
The Eastern cities (Singapore, Hong Kong and Beijing) are interconnected in their developing ethos. While Singapore lacked a common “mythology” (history), Hong Kong style capitalism and the political heart of Beijing are anchored in a strong, common history (which seem to be a necessary component of any recognizable ethos). We also begin to see the connection between a moral and political system in this development, and we are pushed in to a discussion of socialist/capitalist tendencies (and democracy).
A big part of Singapores developing history (or ethos) revolves around a history of tight government control of the social order, with a modern tendency to loosely apply this control in the daily function of civic life. In Singapore we find the challenge of meritocracy (equal opportunity but not equal capacity to act on this opportunity… a Cofuscian ideal), and the challenge of implementing a particular ethos at the expense of an other (such as the push to enforce Asian values and the Mandarin language through government policy, which assumed the sacrifice of certain democratic freedoms in order to develop their ethos…, ironically not unlike Montreal, although in Singapore this turned in to an issue of intolerance in the face of their growing into one of the wealthiest in the world. Other racial and ethnic groups (which the British colonial regime had managed to divide in Singapore) are forcibly separated rather than integrated.
In Hong Kong, this same question of wealth revolves around the existence of an “other-regarding” form of capitalism. As well, where Singapore faced the challenge of developing a common history that did not pre-exist (and thus building a moral system), Hong Kong’s moral system (Confuscian) is anchored around a pre-existing common history. The nature of these values is that any individual gain simply exists to prosper the larger family. And as the family goes, so goes society. Hong Kong style capitalism challenges common socialist tendencies (they are consistently anti-welfare) that suggest the government should provide for all people’s fundamental needs. In Hong Kong (according to the authors own experience) there is a belief that the success of the individual for the sake of the family and community is the better and more efficient way to care for all.
I found it fascinating to consider Hong Kong’s one government (socialist system) two system (city based capitalism) function. In 1997 there was an agreement in Hong Kong’s return to China that resulted in a national government that operates with a hands off approach (when it comes to Hong Kong’s civic life). This has allowed Hong Kong to develop its ethos apart from the common national refrain. This explains for example, the lack of colonial resentment in Hong Kong that exists elsewhere in the country. It also explains how they have developed such a particular system for dealing with issues of poverty and social class that appear to bypass the limitations of one particular system (for example, while the larger government funds things like national defense, the degree of autonomy in Hong Kong allows them to use their own wealth to attend to their own social issues (maintaining a low tax volume and allowing their economic gains to benefit the entire Country).
In Beijing (which remains the center of political power in China ever since Mao) we find a similar loosening of government control. Similarly, this has allowed democracy to take hold and make huge economic gains for the larger socialist system, even if not in the same spirit as Hong Kong or with the same tension as Singapore. The book argues that there are two kinds of nationalism in China today. The first wants to build a world political power on strong military and economic forces. The second desires to build a humane nationality based on cultural traditions and multi-ethnicity where traditional values can fit with a common set of morals for the world. One of the problems in navigating an expression of this growing tension between modern communism and Western style democracy is that Marx said very little about social life (as the book points out). Thus as people try to bring it in to a modern setting, they are forced to come up with certain “romantic” notions of how it can work. There are points where this can be positive (as in establishing a solid foundation in Singapore), and points where it can be destructive (the result of social oppression in navigating strong economic growth). If Singapore teaches us something about building a nation, and if Hong Kong teaches us something about a flourishing nation, Beijing teaches us that, at its heart, the political questions that drive our history and our development never truly go away.
As we move West (to Oxford, Berlin, Paris and finally New York), we find a slightly different civic discussion. In the case of Oxford, their ethos is both a strength and weakness. Education can be an important part of a discussion of social divide. The liberation of knowledge (a strength which breeds tolerance and breaks down the walls of social divide) can also reflect a penchant for conformist/analytical/elitist mentalities to shut out the middle class and discriminate against the poor (weakness).
Berlin on the other hand sheds light on a different aspect of (in) tolerance, which looks at the difference between tolerance and indifference. Berlin’s story is found in its tough history of intolerance. But the problem one finds in its modern shift towards tolerance is, that tolerance leads to a divided memory. And when a memory becomes divided, the history that forms a cities ethos stand in danger of becoming lost or blurred. The book calls this the issue of deliberative democracy. "Deliberative democracy (sees) the value of democracy in its openness and comprehensiveness (inclusivity and diversity) rather than in the idea of majority rule. Yet, when serious historical injustice is involved, demands arise relating to the 'collective memory' of exclusion and (a taking of) responsibility for what happened as a precondition for genuine inclusiveness and deliberation...Deliberative democracy alone, therefore, mat not work to achieve participation in democracy (as the grounds for social change)... There is, then, a very optimistic assumption at stake: that this (democratic) process of transforming people and characters is possible and doable."
Again, the message is that, when it comes to cities, you need both a strong particular (exclusive) ethos and a growing diversity in order to thrive. This is the power of the city, is to unapologetically celebrate this exclusiveness (without having to be politically correct), while using this narrative to grow through diversity. This is the unique function of a city that nationalism cannot copy. Lastly, the ethos of Berlin teaches us something about being okay with who you are. "Knowing how to laugh at yourself seems to be a precondition for coming to terms with the past... Laughing at yourself is admitting that you are not, and cannot be, perfect; admitting, conceivably, that nobody can be perfect." This is what makes cities personal. It is what grows civic pride.
As we move in to the final two chapters, we find two Western cities that act as a sort of summary of the general flow and concerns of the previous 7 civic ethos. First, the ethos of Paris revolves around a question of romance (which is a question of culture), while the ethos of New York is an ethos of ambition (or democracy in practice).
For Paris, the book suggests that there are two sides to its “romantic” appeal. The first is the Hollywood notion (that visitors imagine of falling in love, of moonlit skies and standing under the Eifel Tower), and then there is the civic (city-zen) notion (those who live there and who live a certain romantic expression of what it means to be alive and to enjoy life). This is where people live out of a local market mentality, a manner’s based approach to civility, and a dedication to “talking” and “discussing” in community. They write, "Paris-style political conversation is not about finding agreement or searching for the truth; it's about asserting your truth. You state a principle in a heroic manner and only then do you search for reasons or consider the implications... Better to be wrong than boring." In short, this is the kind of romantic vision that one generally finds city people admiring in rural life. And yet here we find it alive and well in a city setting. As well, in Paris it is about not talking about money or social status, but rather the arts and ones creative talents, something that (in some sense) brings us around from the politically charged tensions of cities such as Beijing and Hong Kong (that is not to say they don’t have a romanticism to their own way of life that works in their ethos, but rather to suggest that in Paris we discover why the question of living is important to begin with).
There is a history and a methodology to the system that governed(s) Paris’ cultural growth. There is also a unique relationship with Paris and the whole of France. As the authors point out, all roads lead to Paris, but the people in Paris are still seen as strange by those outside. The methods used to protect the city of Paris in its own history pushed much of the poverty to the suburbs and protected the middle/upper class in its center. There is a divide that remains in the heart of the Paris ethos that shows that even when romantic notions (and the possibilities of these romantic notions being realized) are alive and well, social divide remains very real (as it does in the success of cities such as Hong Kong/Montreal and in the suppressing academics of Oxford). No matter how much we define ourselves, our actions must be tempered with a genuine and productive concern for living with others.
One of the ways that Paris has tried to be inclusive in terms of its romantic ethos is in its dedication to the arts (they have a fascinating civic policy). As they write, "The key to the good life is to express one's creative talents- it's not just artists who are artists. And if creative expression won't come naturally, the government will step in to help…” (regardeless of the political left/right)
And here we finally come to NYC. There is a misconception that the capital of the world is also one of the most lonely. It’s high rates of people living alone and its fast paced way of life lead one to make these assumptions. But in the ethos of New York we find just the opposite. When such a vast diversity of people (upon which the city was successfully built, showing the intimate link between a dominant ethos and a growing diversity) come together, community is built naturally. It is where people can find a balance between privacy inside their doors and a common ground outside of them. The city landscape reflects this (it is one of the most pedestrian friendly and walkable cities and has managed to escape the smothering effects of the automobile and its own messy history of civic expansion and growth.
It was once written, “There are roughly three New Yorks (the one who lives there, the one who commutes there, and the one was born somewhere else and who came in quest of something). Commuters give the city its tidal restlessness; natives give it solidity and continuity; but the settlers give it passion.” People come desiring to live a dream, to find opportunity. There is a real sense in which you are either made or broke in this place. And yet New York has a curious way of attending to its social order. The social divide stares them in the face (often as a result of their growth and development), and yet the city always finds a way to respond and to include. It is a city that surives, that reinvents, that never dies. It thrives on not being perfect, on never being finished. It throws communities in to disarray, and then rebuilds them. It tempers its infamous “grid” with meeting places and squares, and it moves commuter stations straight through a diversity of neighborhoods. It is not afraid to force the people (regardless of class) to live together.
In the New York streets we find a picture of what it might look like for a city of religion to truly embrace its diversity (even if it revels in its historic temples rather than skyscrapers). In the New York streets we find a similar expression and freedom of language in different communities of the Montreal success story (different languages and cultures can dominate in one area even as English can dominate in another). We see that a true democracy has to keep the social divide in clear sight at all times, lest it get lost in political tensions and aspirations on one end or another. And we see that history needs to be carried forward and remembered, even as the city is consistently reinvented. And in New York we see how the arts, as in Paris, is absolutely necessary for a civic character to develop not only economically, but culturally. The authors write in quote of Mayor Giulliani, "The greatest and most successful cities have always been those in which the arts have flourished and grown. It is in music, drama, dance, paintings, sculpture, and architecture created, and in the writings of our philosophers, theologians, poets, novelists, and historians that we define ourselves for future generations (around the world)... the most precious legacies of great cities are the great works of art they give the world."
This is the beauty of the city, of being a city-zen, of belonging somewhere. Cities express our own stories. We have pride not just for our city, but for the values they represent as a collective community. They define right or wrong ways of doing life together. Each story is different and unique and has something new to offer. As the book writes, “Sometimes the best way to foster a common identity is to let differences flourish.” The beauty of a global world is that we are connected to these differences. The beauty of the city is that we are also connected to our common bonds, our unique character, the exclusive identity that makes us who we are.
The writers are also motivated by a conviction that, historically speaking, the study of civic life has been hampered by a long standing tension between rural and urban, nature and development (materialism), which represents the (often) unverbalized belief that cities are in some sense evil. Thus, there continues to exists a strong tendency to continue to look at history and politics as an examination of "civilizations" and "countries", rather than analyzing and "comparing" city life.
Cities define us. They reflect the realities of every day life in a way that a nation cannot. They are diverse (made up of differing communities, but the author's believe they reflect a collective ethos, a recognizable "character" and "spirit" that is exclusive. They chose 9 cities that they believe best represent this belief (Jerusalem: The City of Religion; Montreal: The City of Language; Singapore: The City of Nation Building; Hong Kong: The City of Materialism; Beijing: The City of Political Power; Oxford: The City of Learning; Berlin: The City of (In) Tolerance; Paris: The City of Romance; New York: The City of Ambition). On a personal level, given my love for New York City, I found myself eager with anticipation to get to the final chapter (and I admit that I snuck a quick glance along the way). But starting at the beginning allowed me discover (and apply) some governing themes and contrast the tension of polarized ethos (such as the religious ethos of Jerusalem and the materialism of Hong Kong or New York).
A bit of what I took away from my own journey in this regard:
In Jerusalem we find a tension that exists between faith and religion. I found it fascinating to read of its (contemplative/sacred/living with less) relationship with Tel Aviv (progressives/materialistic). This emphasis on the “sacred” life gives a certain expression to the issue of poverty (which is a definable part of the Jerusalem landscape). Two thirds live below the poverty line, and it is the poorest of Israel’s major cities while having little to no Industrial zone (it developed without a major trade route or natural resource). And yet, in Jerusalem, poverty is both a problem and an asset. Many choose not to work, but “(rather) pray and study.” This tends to determine the kind of people who are attracted to the Jerusalem ethos. This emphasis on the life of faith also, though, creates certain tensions between (in)tolerance. While the city is pluralistic, the civic landscape also tends to be discriminatory. The authors explain this as the difference between “faith” (lifestyle) and “religion” (institution). Given a governance that is both restrictive and free, the authors argue that the best way for Jerusalem’s singular ethos to flourish is to foster a love of diversity in faith (a dynamic that the reader finds throughout the book), rather than a restrictive state institution.
In constrast, the questions that govern Montreal come from a history of multi-linguism (or bilinguism). As the authors point out, to understand the ethos of Montreal is to understand that they “care” about language. This relationship was built on utilizing “language” for economic and personal benefit. But what existed in the early years as a French minority looking to learn the language(s) of the majority First Nations groups, changed in light of the effects of colonialism. This marginalized the First Nations and set the conflict between the French/English languages firmly in to the realm of this cities permanent ethos (which became geographically defined through an East/West divide, not only in the city but also between the English dominated Toronto and the French pride of Quebec). A true tension was born between the economy and the culture, with language acting as the pivotal, driving force. English became synonymous as the language of commerce, trade and wealth, forcing the French and First Nation minorities to have to choose between learning English for economic benefit, or keeping their language as an effort to survive their culture. What makes this even more interesting was effect of the old religious values (which had taught a certain disdain towards seeking after personal and economic gain), and the eventual shift to a more liberated expression that would eventually allow the French minority to protect their cultural integrity (by mandating French as the first language of the region despite the English stronghold on the economy), while also demanding economic control (the end result being conceding the status as the economic center to Toronto, but stabilizing the vibrant French culture in what would become a more tolerant and diverse city). What is interesting to note here is the relationship between an exclusive ethos and a growing divesity. The authors insist that the success of a common identity is dependent (and necessary for) an openness to differences.
The Eastern cities (Singapore, Hong Kong and Beijing) are interconnected in their developing ethos. While Singapore lacked a common “mythology” (history), Hong Kong style capitalism and the political heart of Beijing are anchored in a strong, common history (which seem to be a necessary component of any recognizable ethos). We also begin to see the connection between a moral and political system in this development, and we are pushed in to a discussion of socialist/capitalist tendencies (and democracy).
A big part of Singapores developing history (or ethos) revolves around a history of tight government control of the social order, with a modern tendency to loosely apply this control in the daily function of civic life. In Singapore we find the challenge of meritocracy (equal opportunity but not equal capacity to act on this opportunity… a Cofuscian ideal), and the challenge of implementing a particular ethos at the expense of an other (such as the push to enforce Asian values and the Mandarin language through government policy, which assumed the sacrifice of certain democratic freedoms in order to develop their ethos…, ironically not unlike Montreal, although in Singapore this turned in to an issue of intolerance in the face of their growing into one of the wealthiest in the world. Other racial and ethnic groups (which the British colonial regime had managed to divide in Singapore) are forcibly separated rather than integrated.
In Hong Kong, this same question of wealth revolves around the existence of an “other-regarding” form of capitalism. As well, where Singapore faced the challenge of developing a common history that did not pre-exist (and thus building a moral system), Hong Kong’s moral system (Confuscian) is anchored around a pre-existing common history. The nature of these values is that any individual gain simply exists to prosper the larger family. And as the family goes, so goes society. Hong Kong style capitalism challenges common socialist tendencies (they are consistently anti-welfare) that suggest the government should provide for all people’s fundamental needs. In Hong Kong (according to the authors own experience) there is a belief that the success of the individual for the sake of the family and community is the better and more efficient way to care for all.
I found it fascinating to consider Hong Kong’s one government (socialist system) two system (city based capitalism) function. In 1997 there was an agreement in Hong Kong’s return to China that resulted in a national government that operates with a hands off approach (when it comes to Hong Kong’s civic life). This has allowed Hong Kong to develop its ethos apart from the common national refrain. This explains for example, the lack of colonial resentment in Hong Kong that exists elsewhere in the country. It also explains how they have developed such a particular system for dealing with issues of poverty and social class that appear to bypass the limitations of one particular system (for example, while the larger government funds things like national defense, the degree of autonomy in Hong Kong allows them to use their own wealth to attend to their own social issues (maintaining a low tax volume and allowing their economic gains to benefit the entire Country).
In Beijing (which remains the center of political power in China ever since Mao) we find a similar loosening of government control. Similarly, this has allowed democracy to take hold and make huge economic gains for the larger socialist system, even if not in the same spirit as Hong Kong or with the same tension as Singapore. The book argues that there are two kinds of nationalism in China today. The first wants to build a world political power on strong military and economic forces. The second desires to build a humane nationality based on cultural traditions and multi-ethnicity where traditional values can fit with a common set of morals for the world. One of the problems in navigating an expression of this growing tension between modern communism and Western style democracy is that Marx said very little about social life (as the book points out). Thus as people try to bring it in to a modern setting, they are forced to come up with certain “romantic” notions of how it can work. There are points where this can be positive (as in establishing a solid foundation in Singapore), and points where it can be destructive (the result of social oppression in navigating strong economic growth). If Singapore teaches us something about building a nation, and if Hong Kong teaches us something about a flourishing nation, Beijing teaches us that, at its heart, the political questions that drive our history and our development never truly go away.
As we move West (to Oxford, Berlin, Paris and finally New York), we find a slightly different civic discussion. In the case of Oxford, their ethos is both a strength and weakness. Education can be an important part of a discussion of social divide. The liberation of knowledge (a strength which breeds tolerance and breaks down the walls of social divide) can also reflect a penchant for conformist/analytical/elitist mentalities to shut out the middle class and discriminate against the poor (weakness).
Berlin on the other hand sheds light on a different aspect of (in) tolerance, which looks at the difference between tolerance and indifference. Berlin’s story is found in its tough history of intolerance. But the problem one finds in its modern shift towards tolerance is, that tolerance leads to a divided memory. And when a memory becomes divided, the history that forms a cities ethos stand in danger of becoming lost or blurred. The book calls this the issue of deliberative democracy. "Deliberative democracy (sees) the value of democracy in its openness and comprehensiveness (inclusivity and diversity) rather than in the idea of majority rule. Yet, when serious historical injustice is involved, demands arise relating to the 'collective memory' of exclusion and (a taking of) responsibility for what happened as a precondition for genuine inclusiveness and deliberation...Deliberative democracy alone, therefore, mat not work to achieve participation in democracy (as the grounds for social change)... There is, then, a very optimistic assumption at stake: that this (democratic) process of transforming people and characters is possible and doable."
Again, the message is that, when it comes to cities, you need both a strong particular (exclusive) ethos and a growing diversity in order to thrive. This is the power of the city, is to unapologetically celebrate this exclusiveness (without having to be politically correct), while using this narrative to grow through diversity. This is the unique function of a city that nationalism cannot copy. Lastly, the ethos of Berlin teaches us something about being okay with who you are. "Knowing how to laugh at yourself seems to be a precondition for coming to terms with the past... Laughing at yourself is admitting that you are not, and cannot be, perfect; admitting, conceivably, that nobody can be perfect." This is what makes cities personal. It is what grows civic pride.
As we move in to the final two chapters, we find two Western cities that act as a sort of summary of the general flow and concerns of the previous 7 civic ethos. First, the ethos of Paris revolves around a question of romance (which is a question of culture), while the ethos of New York is an ethos of ambition (or democracy in practice).
For Paris, the book suggests that there are two sides to its “romantic” appeal. The first is the Hollywood notion (that visitors imagine of falling in love, of moonlit skies and standing under the Eifel Tower), and then there is the civic (city-zen) notion (those who live there and who live a certain romantic expression of what it means to be alive and to enjoy life). This is where people live out of a local market mentality, a manner’s based approach to civility, and a dedication to “talking” and “discussing” in community. They write, "Paris-style political conversation is not about finding agreement or searching for the truth; it's about asserting your truth. You state a principle in a heroic manner and only then do you search for reasons or consider the implications... Better to be wrong than boring." In short, this is the kind of romantic vision that one generally finds city people admiring in rural life. And yet here we find it alive and well in a city setting. As well, in Paris it is about not talking about money or social status, but rather the arts and ones creative talents, something that (in some sense) brings us around from the politically charged tensions of cities such as Beijing and Hong Kong (that is not to say they don’t have a romanticism to their own way of life that works in their ethos, but rather to suggest that in Paris we discover why the question of living is important to begin with).
There is a history and a methodology to the system that governed(s) Paris’ cultural growth. There is also a unique relationship with Paris and the whole of France. As the authors point out, all roads lead to Paris, but the people in Paris are still seen as strange by those outside. The methods used to protect the city of Paris in its own history pushed much of the poverty to the suburbs and protected the middle/upper class in its center. There is a divide that remains in the heart of the Paris ethos that shows that even when romantic notions (and the possibilities of these romantic notions being realized) are alive and well, social divide remains very real (as it does in the success of cities such as Hong Kong/Montreal and in the suppressing academics of Oxford). No matter how much we define ourselves, our actions must be tempered with a genuine and productive concern for living with others.
One of the ways that Paris has tried to be inclusive in terms of its romantic ethos is in its dedication to the arts (they have a fascinating civic policy). As they write, "The key to the good life is to express one's creative talents- it's not just artists who are artists. And if creative expression won't come naturally, the government will step in to help…” (regardeless of the political left/right)
And here we finally come to NYC. There is a misconception that the capital of the world is also one of the most lonely. It’s high rates of people living alone and its fast paced way of life lead one to make these assumptions. But in the ethos of New York we find just the opposite. When such a vast diversity of people (upon which the city was successfully built, showing the intimate link between a dominant ethos and a growing diversity) come together, community is built naturally. It is where people can find a balance between privacy inside their doors and a common ground outside of them. The city landscape reflects this (it is one of the most pedestrian friendly and walkable cities and has managed to escape the smothering effects of the automobile and its own messy history of civic expansion and growth.
It was once written, “There are roughly three New Yorks (the one who lives there, the one who commutes there, and the one was born somewhere else and who came in quest of something). Commuters give the city its tidal restlessness; natives give it solidity and continuity; but the settlers give it passion.” People come desiring to live a dream, to find opportunity. There is a real sense in which you are either made or broke in this place. And yet New York has a curious way of attending to its social order. The social divide stares them in the face (often as a result of their growth and development), and yet the city always finds a way to respond and to include. It is a city that surives, that reinvents, that never dies. It thrives on not being perfect, on never being finished. It throws communities in to disarray, and then rebuilds them. It tempers its infamous “grid” with meeting places and squares, and it moves commuter stations straight through a diversity of neighborhoods. It is not afraid to force the people (regardless of class) to live together.
In the New York streets we find a picture of what it might look like for a city of religion to truly embrace its diversity (even if it revels in its historic temples rather than skyscrapers). In the New York streets we find a similar expression and freedom of language in different communities of the Montreal success story (different languages and cultures can dominate in one area even as English can dominate in another). We see that a true democracy has to keep the social divide in clear sight at all times, lest it get lost in political tensions and aspirations on one end or another. And we see that history needs to be carried forward and remembered, even as the city is consistently reinvented. And in New York we see how the arts, as in Paris, is absolutely necessary for a civic character to develop not only economically, but culturally. The authors write in quote of Mayor Giulliani, "The greatest and most successful cities have always been those in which the arts have flourished and grown. It is in music, drama, dance, paintings, sculpture, and architecture created, and in the writings of our philosophers, theologians, poets, novelists, and historians that we define ourselves for future generations (around the world)... the most precious legacies of great cities are the great works of art they give the world."
This is the beauty of the city, of being a city-zen, of belonging somewhere. Cities express our own stories. We have pride not just for our city, but for the values they represent as a collective community. They define right or wrong ways of doing life together. Each story is different and unique and has something new to offer. As the book writes, “Sometimes the best way to foster a common identity is to let differences flourish.” The beauty of a global world is that we are connected to these differences. The beauty of the city is that we are also connected to our common bonds, our unique character, the exclusive identity that makes us who we are.
Read
September 15, 2024I didn't finish the whole book, but the Hong Kong and Beijing chapters. It explains the complexity of Hong Kong and Beijing well.
September 18, 2014
A fun, thoughtful book, though the parts are greater than the whole. As a work of political theory, the authors want to explore how and why it is that some cities are able to construct and maintain a genuine civic "spirit" or ethos (they call this "civicism"), but their very impressionistic, literally ambulatory (walking around the cities they focus on) manner of building that argument is less than successful. The introduction lays out a basic--and, I think, quite defensible--analytical framework for looking at the differences between various cities, but they neither thoroughly test it nor build upon it; rather, it exists as a merely kind of vague superstructure for what follows. That said, what follows is often wonderful: Bell and de-Shalit are great and thoroughly cosmopolitan observers, digging up all sorts of interesting facts and proposing all sorts of provocative conclusions (Jerusalem is poor, Beijing thinks it's more authentic than Shanghai, Paris seems content with being subsidized and tolerated by the rest of France, and Hong Kong equates getting rich with community building, among many others). The book isn't a travel guide, and the meandering essays which make up the books chapters don't amount to a serious work of political theory, but it's a fascinating read, all the same.
August 4, 2013
The authors promote a city-focused idea of citizenship that depends on identifying the character that makes a city distinctive. The book takes you on a tour of nine cities around the world and examines their character. It's an interesting book that makes me want to travel. It'd have been nice if they would have spent some time laying out what would make one a good city-zen of each city, as in some cases it isn't so clear. Perhaps the most interesting thing about it was considering what the distinctive character of my city and hometown is.
May 19, 2015
The way the dual authors broke up their writing is a bit difficult to read (half in italics). The story's seem to vary significantly by city based on who their friends were in the respective city.
I liked the idea of the book, the implementation not so much.
I liked the idea of the book, the implementation not so much.
January 27, 2025
Not a perfect book by any means but feels honest and transparent from the authors
March 26, 2023
挺羡慕学者的，因为很通用，全世界都在挖，当然我指的是那些研究范围有价值的学者，也就是各国都愿意聘请的人才，这类学者跟国际商业人才一样，具备高度的流动性，全球视野开阔方面，跟一般人那是天壤之别，当然不是自身观察力多强，而是不同国度带来的差异，就足以引起敏感神经的对比了，就像分析是什么？分而析之嘛，不分哪来的析呢？久居一地搞大一统就不容易体会到分的重要了。
所以就感觉自己未来无限可期，明白了多样性开眼的道理，就应该去接触形形色色的调调，到世界各地游玩、学习和居住一番，体会到不同生活方式带来的文化冲击，从而找到适合自身及后代发展的配套环境，当然这会有一些时间、金钱和精力成本，甚至得不偿失，收获到一些糟糕的体验，但是借助一些二手经验，我们可以提前预判，并做好相关准备工作，历史不就是给人反思的么。
作者就是这样的多元文化下熏陶出来的人，我从他们发散思维的笔下，了解到蒙特利尔、香港、北京和纽约四个城市的个性，还想了解新加坡和牛津这两个城市，等有兴趣再去浏览，其中关于北京和香港的描述，又最令我开眼，果然鬼佬眼中的中国别有洞天，能够不受当局者迷的干扰，搁在中国人笔下，是写不出这种文字的，也没有那个胆量去戳破一些敏感话题，鲁迅说多读外国书，应该是考虑到有这方面的好处。
当然，并不是说本书就很好，值得大家去细品，只是对某种有城市情结，或用作者原话来说——城市主义——的读者来说，值得挑出自己喜欢的城市读一读，以弥补难以想象的那个部分。如何更好地让自己成为负责任的、有见识的、一直成长的国际公民，是我需要反复扪心叩问的问题，这对自己及爱人的一生是个交代，对后人也是。
所以就感觉自己未来无限可期，明白了多样性开眼的道理，就应该去接触形形色色的调调，到世界各地游玩、学习和居住一番，体会到不同生活方式带来的文化冲击，从而找到适合自身及后代发展的配套环境，当然这会有一些时间、金钱和精力成本，甚至得不偿失，收获到一些糟糕的体验，但是借助一些二手经验，我们可以提前预判，并做好相关准备工作，历史不就是给人反思的么。
作者就是这样的多元文化下熏陶出来的人，我从他们发散思维的笔下，了解到蒙特利尔、香港、北京和纽约四个城市的个性，还想了解新加坡和牛津这两个城市，等有兴趣再去浏览，其中关于北京和香港的描述，又最令我开眼，果然鬼佬眼中的中国别有洞天，能够不受当局者迷的干扰，搁在中国人笔下，是写不出这种文字的，也没有那个胆量去戳破一些敏感话题，鲁迅说多读外国书，应该是考虑到有这方面的好处。
当然，并不是说本书就很好，值得大家去细品，只是对某种有城市情结，或用作者原话来说——城市主义——的读者来说，值得挑出自己喜欢的城市读一读，以弥补难以想象的那个部分。如何更好地让自己成为负责任的、有见识的、一直成长的国际公民，是我需要反复扪心叩问的问题，这对自己及爱人的一生是个交代，对后人也是。
April 19, 2013
Interesting read, especially when reading about the cities that I have either visited or lived in (two thirds of the ones discussed in the book).
The two authors warn early on that this study is very much a qualitative analysis (people interviewed are either friends or people met while strolling). Nothing more extensive than that, but in all cases, they also lived/worked there for a while.
I do not feel like I have learned anything new though, but it felt good to "be" there along with them. It made me want to hop on a plane and go back to those cities that I know already, and for that, it was quite enjoyable.
The two authors warn early on that this study is very much a qualitative analysis (people interviewed are either friends or people met while strolling). Nothing more extensive than that, but in all cases, they also lived/worked there for a while.
I do not feel like I have learned anything new though, but it felt good to "be" there along with them. It made me want to hop on a plane and go back to those cities that I know already, and for that, it was quite enjoyable.
August 8, 2016
Indeed an intriguing approach to cities and their identities. But it was also confusing at some point that the writing is neither based on a rigorous and coherent theoretical frame nor a narrative, vivid storytelling. Preferably the book should be coherent and focused on several specific aspects. In the chapter about Berlin I was taken away by the italic paragraphs that were very personal, opinionated and sometimes even over-generalized. However the book itself was interesting and well-written. Definitely provided me some new perspectives.
February 24, 2012
A fun read, but no real support of their thesis. The chapter on NYC is pretty decent, though much too accepting of Robert Moses.
January 3, 2015
I found the cases really lacked rigour and were not particularly insightful
April 2, 2016
Very pretentious anecdotes. The spirit of cities should not be entirely made of the spirits of authors' acquaintance.
Displaying 1 - 13 of 13 reviews