What is the current purpose of ä¸Šäº¬ã™ã‚‹, or the ‘move to the big city’ that is present in much of the 20th century literature?
To ‘move to the city’ had concepts of growing up/maturation involved as well as a step toward modernity. It was romanticized, but also economically necessary in many situations due to a lack of work in some places or particular industries/professions being particularly located (art – jazz, hollywood, broadway, gallery scene – being the most obvious examples).
However, people now posit the death of the city. Castells points out that the city has lost the previous purpose/meaning in the move to the information society and different types of city structures. In essence, the city should no longer have the same purposes.
And yet, we are still very much in the era of Sex in the City and Nana. Both are city dominated narratives that either tell of the maturation that comes from moving to the big city (Nana), or encourages an entire generation to live in the city despite its alienation, irreality et cetera (Sex in the City).
So, what becomes the new maturation scheme? What does the old form of maturation mean in a new society? One example is male army stories in a non militaristic society – this could be linked to the disconnect of the present youth to mid to late 20th C in the US, or the different martial moments within Japan – pre/post Tokugawa, Meiji-45/post war.
One thought on “ä¸Šäº¬ã™ã‚‹”
Don’t forget the real personal narratives of the hundreds of million Chinese nigerians and brazilians who have flooded the metropolises of the global
Btw have you spent any time with Holden Caufield lately? It is a hell of a read