This was a great talk. The concept of the open city is a situational construct filled with complexity, contradiction and circuitous hypocrisy. A city is so complex that there is a need for heterogeneous spaces that is a blended reflection of the country, region, locality, demography and culture. Japan is a great example of this need for combination. The Japanese as a culture tend to be private but do value some levels of open social interactions. They live in compact cities and have a high value on privacy. In contrast, there are other world cities that are much more open in their social proclivity and tend towards larger communal lifestyles. Much of this topic is an infinite discussion because the pulsing evolution of open and close within a city as it evolves is in constant flux. To date, has any political structure created the perfect city? Even if you take issues that tend to divide such as ethnicity and class out of the equation, the perfect city cannot exist until there is the perfect people or perfect person. Thus, as planners, we must understand and be in harmony with that rhythmic syncopation that keeps a city in balance. Personally, the best portion of the lecture was at 1hr-18min. I loved the energy and totally agree that we have a responsibility as designers and planners to share our knowledge and visions with the community. I also agree that we need to guide the discussions and challenge the community to see beyond current convention and conformity and understand decisions in a city-wide context. Also, in my experience as an architect, that constant challenging and questioning does not always make one popular outside of an academic setting.
Speak for yourself. And, by the way, the American Left is not his concern. He suggest that anarcho-syndicalism is a way of describing emergent social orders in "open cities" and informal settlements.
Socialism is impossible without strong, big and over-reaching government. There is nothing self-motivated in these theories. Anarcho-syndicalism, left-libertarianism etc are just post-modernists intellectual masturbation, in which those high-paid academics are so stupidly engaged. Even anaracho-capitalims is much real than that silly anarcho-syndicalism.
I'm sure you have some convictions about this, but you have to present evidence in order to make an argument. Here's a counterpoint: If anarcho-syndicalism is a post-modern condition, as you suggest, why did it emerge well before the post-modern era began? Why does it often subscribe to a form of modernist development theory that puts it at odds with post-modern pluralism? Given this evidence, it doesn't seem post-modern at all. You can't just state that "socialism is impossible without ... over-reaching government," without evidence. History might suggest that its impossible with over-reaching government, and it certainly suggests that "over-reaching government" is something that people have spent a lot of time and energy trying to escape. I can't spend more time on this now but I wish you well. Signing off....
It is true that anarcho-syndicalism is not a post-modern theory. It does go back way before, even before modernism. However, the current intellectual envelope of those theories such as anarcho-syndicalism, libertarian -leftism, spiritual-Marxism are utterly postmodernist and those theorist, Mr. Sennett for example, were trained during postmodern era. They realized that total failure of communism and socialism was not working best for them. They revised all those Utopian long forgotten theories and refurbished with postmodern thinking. He mentions a guy by name Saul Alinsky: a Menshevik (as opposed to Bolshevik) type of communist whose ideas were very rooted in this self-organized labor/ citizen ideas. Anarcho-syndicalism is utopia. It is impossible to achieve equality (and now equity) without a big government. Same for libertarian socialims which is very similar concept. I am all for voluntarism and Anarcho but anarcho-syndicalism seems to quite a nonsense. Its like vegetarian ham enthusiast.
David Deiss I’m sorry just stumbled across this comment. But what you’re describing as socialism as a big and overreaching govt, you are describing the American capitalist system. The goal of socialism is to get away from the current American system where there is a minority elite ruling class. And to make it a true democracy where everyone is able to have a vote or voice! Your comment was 2 years ago so hopefully you’ve done some reading!
It's very terrific to hear someone actually say something firm
This was a great talk. The concept of the open city is a situational construct filled with complexity, contradiction and circuitous hypocrisy. A city is so complex that there is a need for heterogeneous spaces that is a blended reflection of the country, region, locality, demography and culture.
Japan is a great example of this need for combination. The Japanese as a culture tend to be private but do value some levels of open social interactions. They live in compact cities and have a high value on privacy. In contrast, there are other world cities that are much more open in their social proclivity and tend towards larger communal lifestyles.
Much of this topic is an infinite discussion because the pulsing evolution of open and close within a city as it evolves is in constant flux. To date, has any political structure created the perfect city? Even if you take issues that tend to divide such as ethnicity and class out of the equation, the perfect city cannot exist until there is the perfect people or perfect person. Thus, as planners, we must understand and be in harmony with that rhythmic syncopation that keeps a city in balance.
Personally, the best portion of the lecture was at 1hr-18min. I loved the energy and totally agree that we have a responsibility as designers and planners to share our knowledge and visions with the community. I also agree that we need to guide the discussions and challenge the community to see beyond current convention and conformity and understand decisions in a city-wide context. Also, in my experience as an architect, that constant challenging and questioning does not always make one popular outside of an academic setting.
So grateful Harvard GSD put these lectures online.
4:05 the real Richard Sennett, you’re welcome
Please add pdf files of speech richart sennett
Wondering how to cite this lecture?
depends on which citation style you use
If you’re doing Harvard referencing?
It very strange architect with political speeches, but I’ll push like for able to see that strange contrast
30:00 Sorry. the american left is not interested in anarcho-syndicalism.
Speak for yourself. And, by the way, the American Left is not his concern. He suggest that anarcho-syndicalism is a way of describing emergent social orders in "open cities" and informal settlements.
Socialism is impossible without strong, big and over-reaching government. There is nothing self-motivated in these theories. Anarcho-syndicalism, left-libertarianism etc are just post-modernists intellectual masturbation, in which those high-paid academics are so stupidly engaged. Even anaracho-capitalims is much real than that silly anarcho-syndicalism.
I'm sure you have some convictions about this, but you have to present evidence in order to make an argument. Here's a counterpoint: If anarcho-syndicalism is a post-modern condition, as you suggest, why did it emerge well before the post-modern era began? Why does it often subscribe to a form of modernist development theory that puts it at odds with post-modern pluralism? Given this evidence, it doesn't seem post-modern at all.
You can't just state that "socialism is impossible without ... over-reaching government," without evidence. History might suggest that its impossible with over-reaching government, and it certainly suggests that "over-reaching government" is something that people have spent a lot of time and energy trying to escape.
I can't spend more time on this now but I wish you well. Signing off....
It is true that anarcho-syndicalism is not a post-modern theory. It does go back way before, even before modernism. However, the current intellectual envelope of those theories such as anarcho-syndicalism, libertarian -leftism, spiritual-Marxism are utterly postmodernist and those theorist, Mr. Sennett for example, were trained during postmodern era. They realized that total failure of communism and socialism was not working best for them. They revised all those Utopian long forgotten theories and refurbished with postmodern thinking. He mentions a guy by name Saul Alinsky: a Menshevik (as opposed to Bolshevik) type of communist whose ideas were very rooted in this self-organized labor/ citizen ideas.
Anarcho-syndicalism is utopia. It is impossible to achieve equality (and now equity) without a big government. Same for libertarian socialims which is very similar concept.
I am all for voluntarism and Anarcho but anarcho-syndicalism seems to quite a nonsense. Its like vegetarian ham enthusiast.
David Deiss I’m sorry just stumbled across this comment. But what you’re describing as socialism as a big and overreaching govt, you are describing the American capitalist system. The goal of socialism is to get away from the current American system where there is a minority elite ruling class. And to make it a true democracy where everyone is able to have a vote or voice! Your comment was 2 years ago so hopefully you’ve done some reading!