As even the least developed corner of the globe undergoes
continual shift of populations off farms and rural villages into the embrace of
concrete jungles of urban society, the influence of cities on the overall
outlook of the society and its future trajectory is becoming more and more
significant. However, to say that major
cities are the primary indicator of a society’s characteristic would exaggerate
the role that such cities may play in the overall economic and cultural
development of the society in question.
Instead, the primary focus should be on small towns and rural villages,
where the poorest of the poor continue to reside.
Small towns and villages are hallmarks of a society’s
cultural characteristics due to the relative lack of outside influences. Major cities, through large number of
economic opportunities available to residents, tend to attract new migrants
from other locales, whether within the same country or internationally. The presence of these new migrants, who bring
with them foreign cultural expressions, dilute the cultural characteristics of
a particular region, in ways that small towns and villages, even though nearby
major cities, do not face.
A relevant example is the linguistic diversity of London
versus the rest of England. The city of
London, being a major economic center, attracts international migrants who used
their own indigenous tongues to reshape the language of London. As a result, the English spoken in London
differs significantly from outlying suburbs such as Reading and Hackney, where
traditional accents continue to persist.
Because of presence of non-local people in a region, the local culture
is modified beyond recognition to suit the communication across all different
cultures. As such, major cities cannot
be used as indicator for a society’s cultural characteristics.
Similarly, major cities are also not suitable as primary
indicators for a society’s economic characteristics. Major cities, by the nature of concentrated
economic development, may have largely different structure and composition of
economic activities as compared to small towns and rural villages that surround
it. Buenos Aires serves as a great
example. Argentina, as a major exporter
of beef and grains, is centered on large-scale agriculture as a major
industry. Indeed, this is the case for
majority of the country, where agribusinesses reign supreme and towns serve as
market and logistic centers for agricultural produce.
Yet, Buenos Aires, as the economic center of the country, is
dominated by the service sector, much of which catering to the back-office
needs of agricultural transactions and the consumption habits of a middle class
enriched through involvement in agricultural businesses. If Buenos Aires is exclusively used to judge
Argentina’s economic characteristics, one would never guess agricultural
production is the economic mainstay of the country. Because major cities hold a disproportionate
position as economic centers of their respective societies, their economic
structure cannot accurate reflect that of the society as a whole.
However, it could be possible that major cities may serve as
good indicator of a society’s characteristics if the society in small in terms
of both population and land size, allowing greater concentration of people and
resources in the major cities. This is
the case, for instance, in South Korea, where the Seoul metropolitan area holds
more than 3/5 of the country’s total population. In such cases, the major city
would be dominant in defining the country’s evolving character, simply because
the rest of the society combined cannot match that particular city in terms of
influence.
But, even in existence of such “primate cities,” one should
not ignore that non-urban culture continue to be an important traditional
component of the society in question, no matter how relatively little the rural
population has become over years of urbanization. By the simple of fact of being so far away
from foreign influence and trends of popular culture consuming urban centers,
rural residents “lock in” the “purest” form of a society’s social
characteristics, ones that have lasted for centuries relatively unchanged by
outside forces.
As even the most agriculturally focused societies undergoes
significant shift to urbanization over the past decades, a society’s major
cities become more and more important in defining a society’s characteristics. However, to equate the characteristics of the
major cities with those of the entire society remains largely inadequate
because of the major cities’ fundamental differences with the rest of the
society. Major cities’ abilities to
attract foreign migrants as well as different kinds of economic activities
ensure that their characteristics will remain fundamentally different from
those of their hinterlands. As such,
with possible exceptions of “primate cities,” major cities remain not as
representative of their resident societies as small towns and rural villages.
Comments
Post a Comment