2024-09-10
Today, I'd like to write a little on a concept that I had in my mind more promimently a while ago, but which I believe is still somewhat relevant, and which is to be avoided. Cityitism: being a cityite.
Firstly, let's define a cityite. It's somewhat of a pejorative in my mind, referring to attributes of people I believe predominate, or which are reinforced within cities; not all people who live in cities are cityites in the sense of having all or most of the attributes of cityitism, but all who live in the city live within a system that brings such elements to play and allows them to thrive, in some sense.
This is a thing inculcated in people during childhood: that strangers are potentially dangerous, and so should be avoided. If young, then they may be rebels, and engage in irresponsible or dangerous (criminal) behaviour: think of the stereotypes of groups of young boys, for instance. If older, then they may be sex offenders, for instance.
This distrust of strangers is illogical in several ways. Firstly, the primary threat to people, especially children to whom this advice is given, is people known. Generally the child's own parents, and if not then close relatives. Even in this way, strictly factually speaking, the ones who should be distrusted are the ones closest to you.
Secondly though, the concept of a stranger is actually a misnomer. A stranger is a person about whom you know nothing; as a result, you actually don't know them enough to know whether they are malicious or not. Once you get to know someone (which of course, is impossible in the complete sense), they cease to be a stranger. For instance, a person who you do not know but have seen before moves in to your street: they then cease to be a stranger, and instead become your neighbour Pete. But of course, the person themselves has not changed, only your relation to them; they are still equally dangerous to before, and since you cannot know what a person is likely to do (think of the testimonies of friends and family of rapists: he seemed like such a nice guy, he didn't seem the type to do such a thing...) the additional trust you place in them only by way of knowing them is strictly illogical.
In this way, the concept of a stranger is a boogeyman, a chimaera: strangers cease to exist as soon as you get to know them.
If presented with this evidence, a cityite will generally say: I know it makes sense, but people worry, or, parents worry... an normative argument, and not a well-reasoned one.
I think of the story told by Louis Rossmann and his grandfather. One day, he was working, and a group of young black boys came around and started being loud as they are. Instead of instantly distrusting them and trying to avoid them, he spoke to them as people, interacted well with them, and gave them the benefit of trust. When there was a gang problem, and the grandfather was almost stabbed by these boys, they went: no wait, stop! He's cool, don't hurt him!
Of course, there are myriad other stories that tell the contrary, and on television the ones that are shown are ones that contribute to the paranoia: stories of young girls, always extremely pretty (how many of these murder shows are about the countless young men that killed each day, or even just ugly girls? They always seem to be about pretty young girls, because that stokes emotion more) who are killed by strangers, or members of authority they should have been able to trust. Of course, I am not saying everyone is good, or that bad things will not come to you if you are trustful of others. What I am saying is that it is statistically and logically fallacious to trust a known quantity over an unknown quantity in this situation, given the "known" quantity is actually still unknown with regards to the capacity for malicious acts, and in fact is more of a danger than the unknown quantity. So just be trustful of others!
Related to the above, and what always upsets me in big cities is the aversion of eye contact. It's a well known phenomenon that, when going to a more rural place, you will generally find people to be kinder, happier, smile more at people as they pass by on the street, say good day, and potentially even spark a conversation if at the bus stop. By contrast, in cities, the tendency is to avoid eye contact with people you pass by on the street, not to smile, and to sit in awkward silence if at the bus stop.
The problem here, though related to the distrust of strangers, is the loss of cohesive community. People don't get to know each other as well, which leads over time to the reliance on technology to plug the gap filled by a lack of circumstantial social activity that can lead on to other things. The loss of community and of talking to casual people (how will you know most people are actually good, if you never talk to them?) feeds in to the distrust of others.
One situation I remember, was when I was at the park with my family and nieces. My niece was coming down the slide, and a young girl was at the bottom, crying for her father to pick her up. I was standing at the bottom of the slide as well, and was a bit confused what to do: my niece was coming down the slide, and if the girl wasn't moved out the way, she would get a two-footed kick in the backside as my niece came down. The father was facing away, a little distance away, and was completely inattentive on his phone. I wanted to just pick the girl up and set her down, so she didn't get hurt. The problem was, I was worried about whether the father would misinterpret it: I even asked my dad and he said it's best not to. Luckily, we did manage to get the father's attention and he came over, but it was close. Generally, as a man (I don't think women get the same treatment) there is an assumption of malice around children. In fact, going back to what is above, the image of a malicious stranger is generally that of a young man - never of a gentle old lady, for instance. The problem is, people don't generally have bad intentions, and so assuming they do (especially when the parent themselves are clearly not exactly paying attention to their darling child crying) is a bad starting point.
Since a while ago, particularly with the advent of the television, I think also an aspect of a lack of self-satisfaction is present as a part of the citydweller's constitution. What I mean by this is, they cannot just sit, zazen. Instead, there must be engagement: this can be for instance in the form of television, or nowadays of media on the phone, music when walking along the street (I do this myself; I did stop for several years but have actually started again...). When a lull in conversation occurs nowadays, everybody immediately jumps to the phone to cure the awkwardness, to avoid sitting with oneself. I actually find it painful when trying to go out for a meal with people, and they immediately start going on their phone (and, generally, neglect you if you try to speak) or you mention something inane and they go "oh let's look that up". Oh amazing, I just wanted to talk to you, but now you're looking up the exact age of the central library in Budapest. You know I really don't care, right? I just wanted to talk to you. The material, concrete facts are prized over the interaction with people, which is to me what really matters.
Now, I can't criticise too much, because I have my addictions and vices around content too. I find it within myself not to engage in them when I've others around, because I prize their company over my vices. But at home I certainly suffer from this. I just want to clarify that I'm not above this; rather, I am as much a victim, and in this sense a cityite, as the people I complain about phobbing me off when we have a conversation.
Generally, I feel that the tendency for cityite living is towards surrogates, and away from the real thing. This would also be a tendency towards abstraction away from the real thing. As vices go, pornography instead of real interpersonal sexual interaction is one; social media instead of talking to people is another. E-mail or texts over mail. These kinds of things.
I'm already past a thousand words and my train journey is about to end, so I'll stop here. Maybe continue with a part two at some point. I think the general idea is communicated though. These are things I want to avoid, in some sense, and instead have a more fulfilling, holistic, whole, existence...
Ok, have a good one.