I just got back from my local election place. I'm wearing my American-flag "I Voted" sticker on my lapel, as every true patriot would do. In Charlotte, all of the local issues really revolve around a central issue: growth. We are a city that is growing rapidly. People are drawn here from all over the country because, as far as cities go, Charlotte is clean and green, safe, aesthetically pleasing, and enormously community oriented. Collectively, everyone seems very enthusiastic about our growth. We are looking forward to all of the benefits that growth brings -- increased crime; increased pollution; increased congestion; loss of local character; a break-down of community. In short, it's an exciting time, kind of like watching a healthy, beautiful athlete destroy themself with steroids and human growth hormones.
So all of this has me thinking about growth, and the size limitations of a healthy human community. (Also, I've been reading some interesting essays on this topic, written by Edward Abbey in the early eighties.) When does a community outgrow itself? At what point do we say, 'This is too much. There are too many people here.'? What are the markers of healthy parameters? What factors must we consider? Natural resources seems like an obvious place to start, but what other quality-of-life issues do we look at as indicators?
I'm really looking for feedback here. Is there a fixed number of people beyond which true community as we think of it becomes, if not impossible, severely handicapped? Or do the numbers vary based on the nature of different locations?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
I have a different take on this.
I'm a big believer in asking good questions, as I know you are, too. This question, while interesting, seems to focus the concerns (community, pollution, crime, etc) into one frame: headcount.
If I can take the same question into a totally different (and more familiar to me) arena, consider the same question at a manufacturing company. Most people "like" small companies, because of the "familial feel." So, how many people is too many?
What if we start with a big corporation and, with the intent to make the culture more familial, ask that question? We would then set about firing 80% of the people. But then that would gut the soul of the company, and make a bad environment. Of course, should any thought be given to those fired?
Conversely, start with a really small company, and limit it's growth to the "correct number" in order to preserve the familial feel. Then the company will stop growing, and, in fact, stop thriving, jeopardizing the jobs of those people who have such a great culture--a culture that will soon turn ugly, because it will be myopic.
I think this make a good analogy for a city. What determines the city's culture is exactly the people in the city (whatever their number), and the degree to which they feel they are contributing positively to the city's culture at large--OR equivalently, the degree to which they identify themselves with the common cultural understanding of the city. That's how it is in a company.
Should the growth of a city be limited by numbers? No. Is there a correlation between numbers and loss of cohesiveness? Yes. But I believe that this really is a case where correlation is NOT causation. The increase in numbers must be managed with good leadership, communication, and (real important) participation of the folks in the city (or company). All of this depends totally on the common values from leadership to participants. Where there are no shared values, there will be no community (city or company), regardless of size.
So, I'd rather ask, "What set of values enables cohesiveness among large groups of people?"
Those are my tu'pence.
I really appreciate this comment because it challenges some of my most deeply entrenched ideas. My inclination is to gravitate toward small communities of people situated in settings that are more closely tied to the natural world (forests, oceans, rivers, etc.).
However, the first, and only other, comment that has ever challenged my anti-urban ideals was an observation that someone had made regarding Dostoyevsky's novels. Whoever it was noted that all of the great author's (my favorite writer) stories took place in cities (St. Petersburg in particular). His writing is all about human souls and their interactions with one another. Dostoyevsky's works are profoundly communal. So I had to pause, and recognize for the first time that there is life and community in large urban areas, that human beings can live full lives in cities. You have brought me back to this. Thank you for adding these shades of gray to my black and white.
I do have a few questions though: I'm not an economist, and I don't understand such matters very thoroughly, so I don't understand the idea that a company or city that is not growing cannot thrive. Why can't a company or city thrive at a limited threshold capacity? An analogy that comes to my mind is a family. It's a blessing when a family grows, but after a certain point, even that growth becomes detrimental to the quality of life of the family as a whole -- it would be very difficult to feed, educate, and care for ten kids. Conversely, it seems to me that a family can reach a natural threshold, remain at that number and thrive. Wouldn't the same principles hold true for a company or city?
My next question is just a reiteration of my original comment about natural resources: don't we have to consider the capacity of the environment? Can we create a healthy community if we exceed the limitations of ecological balance? All things do live in relationships, right?
I really like your point about shared values and participation. That really makes me think. My impression from a great distance is that most New Yorkers seem to have a very strong sense of community. That seems like a strong point in favor of what you are saying.
On the other hand, experience has taught me to be leery of large groups and their ability to maintain shared values. If it is true that large numbers and loss of cohesiveness is not a case of causation but rather of correlation, then it seems to me that the correlation is so incredibly strong that it nearly nullifies the distinction.
My personal experience colors these opinions very strongly: five years ago, I lived in the small town of Arcata with an amazing group of people, a very tight community. Then I moved to Los Angeles, and I was fortunate enough to meet more wonderful people who I felt I had a lot in common with. However, the city came between us -- the business and congestion made it impossible to have the kind of community or quality of life that I enjoyed in Northern California.
I mentioned this somewhere else on this blog: it is possible to find the buddha in the machine, but it is far more difficult. Again, thank you for making me re-think this issue.
Good points, all. I can't help thinking that the issue is something like the Green Acres problem: Some like the city some like the country. I wouldn't want to mistake my preferences for the nature of things. I take it that we are discussing preferences, not intrinsic value of cities.
Personally, I like a relatively small city, but I'm definitely "at home" in a city. When the city is "too big," I am uncomfortable. I thrive on a different pace than what Los Angeles has to offer. But could I live in Menomonie, Wisconsin? It was a beautiful place, when I was there, but I don't know if I could live there permanently--it's hard to say. How about Ben Lomand, CA? That, too, is a small town, and very beautiful, but the culture of that town (being influenced heavily from Santa Cruz) is not my style: I prefer to live somewhere else.
These are examples where my values blend with my preferences to land me in the city where I live now (you know the place). It is, by comparison to the major metorpolia, small. But with a population of 1/2 million in 2000, it's no small town (about the same as your town).
Here's a good example of someone for whom the city is the right place to be.
I friend of mine (currently in Uganda with Catholic Relief Services) lives in Los Angeles and makes every place she goes something of a community unto itself. She has built good relationships with all the people geographically close to her--at work, at church, at home. Combine this with the amazing array of activities available in L.A. and she's got a great community of people with plenty of ways for the community to express itself.
She is a fast-paced individual, with a magnanimous soul, very dynamic, and extroverted. She grew up on a farm in Iowa, and, as much as she loved it, she likes L.A. better.
For her, the city is a better place.
As for your questions--also very good. I've used up a lot of proverbial ink already, so my short response is this. The environment and all things are dynamic--in constant flux. In addition, the human soul has an innate desire to improve or change (God has set eternity in their hearts...). It is part of the human condition both to decay, and to need/want continual growth. For this reason, achieving steady state is not what it seems--it requires constant improvement and growth merely to stand still.
This post reminds me of a story my sociology professor from college told our class. She talked about her childhood in New York City. She and her siblings lived with their parents in an apartment building there. She said that all the parents/aunts/uncles in the building looked out for all the kids (not just their own). If you were doing something wrong, you could be sure that someone would catch you. It might not be your parents, but the mom down the hall (who then promptly told your parents). Not that it kept the kids from trying to get away with things. :-) The point of her story was actually to say that things had changed and people tended to avoid involvement in other people's families and their business. Still, I take away from that story the fact that it is possible, in a large urban environment, to have a sense of community and family, as long as you are not the only one wanting to be in community.
I have read stories about those who live in New York City who run into the same people all the time and feel a sense of community (ie: those that go to NYC's famous Green Market show up every week, so you get to know the people).
Still, I prefer a smaller city. I have never lived in a small town, but I have been to Arcata, and I loved it.
theo-fan, you said, "I wouldn't want to mistake my preferences for the nature of things. I take it that we are discussing preferences, not intrinsic value of cities." What an insightful comment! How often I have made this precise mistake. I have often argued the nature of things in an attempt to justify my own preferences.
Adding this comment to what Juliana had to offer about the validity of urban community, I cannot help but expand my own perceptions, to be a bit less judgemental and limiting. There is a great deal to be said about the life within cities. Thank you both for bringing me closer to a real perception of the world.
Having said that, I still have some questions, and some things that I think should be qualified. I don't think that the constant flux inherent in life is enough to dismiss natural, ecological limitations. There is indeed a flux, but in nature, the flux results in balance, a harmony through healthy limitation. Fire, predators, and the like teach us that numbers grow and shrink but ultimately must come back into balance; otherwise, everything suffers.
This brings me to my second thought: while we are often guilty of mistaking our preferences for the nature of things, conversely, the nature of things often forms our preferences. We sense and experience life and vitality under certain conditions, and we find it more difficult to experience under other conditions. Preferences play a big role, but preferences and the "nature of things" is a chicken or the egg question. It is a paradox that we must live with and periodically examine.
Oh, my dear friend, you are such a generous soul that even when your disagreement is direct, you do it in such a way that I feel I've been hugged.
I very much appreciate that about you.
The interplay between preferences and the nature of things is a fun little fact. I totally agree with you, and have experienced the same.
As for this: "... in nature, the flux results in balance, a harmony through healthy limitation." I can see why this can make sense, but my view is that nature (probably used in a more restrictive sense), left unchecked, tends toward decay and chaos. Nature does NOT go into full chaos because it is kept in check by God, and in many ways, by man (at least on this microscopic piece of the cosmos). HOW this happens (God's part, especially) escapes my understanding, but that's not the point I'm making. Of course, you and I do not view nature merely as mechanistic, so I accept your point fully--even though logically, you're wrong ; )
(You will pardon my hyper-rational antics!)
I don’t have much else to add on this topic (at least in regard to this blog entry). There is a whole lot of nuance remaining that I'm ill-equipped to handle in this setting.
Juliana: Thanks for your post. I really like anecdotes of that sort--it puts "flesh" on an idea.
Post a Comment