Key quote where Larison takes up the subject on his American Conservative blog:
The cosmopolites...see many of the advantages of localism but want none of the obligations. They are starved for what it provides, and so wish to escape the confines of their way of life, but they are unwilling to enter into the confines of the local, perhaps because they prefer status rather than happiness or perhaps because they have become so accustomed to the life of the displaced tourist that they cannot imagine being still for any prolonged period of time. The locavore and organic food habits that serve as proof that their way of life is in important ways unsatisfying are themselves a temporary remedy that serves to fill in the gaps and mask the costs of their way of life. The locals, meanwhile, want the products that the world of the cosmopolites can provide, and, as Jeremy argued, many of them want to enter into that world, never fully understanding that their homes will change dramatically and often for the worse as a result of their departure.In other words, my cosmopolite longing for this old, rooted culture might just be that -- longing. I'm still living on the east coast. As someone who grew up in a dense suburb and has spent his whole life on the east coast among the "cosmopolite" culture, I feel like the grass is greener on the other side, but I'm still not quite ready to jump over. At the same time, the very people who live in middle America might occassionally complain about their way of life being eroded, even as they continue to reap the benefits of the technology and cheap products provided by our mobile, globalized, cosmopolitan economy. We're all complaining about wanting things to get back to how they used to be, without really doing anything about it.
Now maybe, as they say, "we're creating our own communities." Maybe we're having less face to face contact but much more laptop to laptop contact. Maybe we're replacing that communal hole in ways other than sitting on the front porch with a banjo and a lemonade. That's my hope.
But maybe, despite the noises that politicians and writers have made lately about creating a sustainable, local, authentic culture, despite the "new online communities" and the locavore movement, in the grander scheme, we're still allowing our society to become impersonal and inauthentic. If the latter is true, we have to ask ourselves: how badly do we really want it?
2 comments:
Larison says that many of the "locals" want to enter the world of the "cosmopolites". In my experience, that couldn't be further from the truth. I grew up in small town Ohio and moved to the east coast after college (D.C., Boston, now NYC). When my childhood friends come to visit, they invariably have the same reaction to the city...it's interesting to visit, but they would never want to spend any signficant period of time here. The crowds of strangers, smell of pollution and terrible traffic are intolerable to them. They can't imagine why people would choose to live in that type of environment for any extended period of time.
I'm asking myself the same question.
Thanks for the comment -- I think one of the problems with all of these arguments is that there aren't very many people who have truly lived -- not just visited -- in both environments. That's why so much of the debate is clouded by nostalgia and stereotype. So comments from people like you who have lived in both areas are very helpful for the debate.
I myself couldn't picture living in the city for the rest of my life, but I still like the products, stores and lifestyles that are produced by some of the economic activity taking place in the cities. Maybe Larison means that while the "locals" don't at all want to live in the cosmopolite world, they might still want to enjoy some of the benefits produced by it.
Post a Comment