3 ms·

It's only "Epcot Center for the plebes" if it's sanitized the way Epcot Center is, if it's actually for the plebes. As a specific (ironic) example: the Chinese

by wk_end 3y ago

It's only "Epcot Center for the plebes" if it's sanitized the way Epcot Center is, if it's actually for the plebes. As a specific (ironic) example: the Chinese restaurants in your average Western American small town are the "Epcot Center for the plebes" version of Chinese culture; (some) Chinese restaurants in New York City aren't. It's nonsense to say that an agglomeration of cultures somehow produces "the opposite of culture". At worst you could end up with lots of culture, but no particular unique culture. But that never happens: culture begets culture, it turns out. New York and LA are both the most cosmopolitan cities in the US, and the most culturally significant ones.

ctrlp 3y ago
Having spent years in both NYC and LA I wonder what you're talking about. These places have character, sure, but culture requires memory. These cities have too much turnover to acquire memories.
- CuriouslyC 3y ago
  I don't see how you can in good faith argue that NYC and LA don't have their own distinct culture. That culture might be superficial in some ways (more true for LA than NY), but it's reinforced by selective migration of people who resonate with the cultural identities of those cities.
  - ctrlp 3y ago
    Because the aspects of NYC and LA that are being promoted on this thread as evidence of culture are the aspects I would define a their non-culture. As you say, there is a selective reinforcement of the character of the place via affinity in-migration (mostly just youth-culture btw), but to have a culture proper there must be an ethic or morality specific to that place. If you can't say "we don't do that sort of thing around here" and mean it only for that place, then there really is no culture there, imho. Growing up in NYC, my experience of neighborhoods were that they indeed had their unique cultures and it was largely a function of their unique demographics. But that sort of thing isn't what's being argued for on this thread. The happy presence of an Ethiopian restaurant here or an "authentic" Chinese restaurant there represents the values of an entirely different ethic -- one that is interchangeable whether you are in NYC or LA (or any other 1st world megalopolis). The ethic or morality of that definition of culture is entirely unspecific to place. It _is_ specific to a rootless urban managerial class (which is why that class is entirely supplantable across any of these supercities). The kind of insular cultural ethic that actually defines a "place" is anathema to these values and would be stamped out in "ethnic neighborhoods" if not for a kind of benign and patient condescension. (With the caveat that we still like to have a bit of "flavor" in the form of token representations of "other cultures".)

by wk_end 3y ago

ctrlp 3y ago

Having spent years in both NYC and LA I wonder what you're talking about. These places have character, sure, but culture requires memory. These cities have too much turnover to acquire memories.

CuriouslyC 3y ago
I don't see how you can in good faith argue that NYC and LA don't have their own distinct culture. That culture might be superficial in some ways (more true for LA than NY), but it's reinforced by selective migration of people who resonate with the cultural identities of those cities.
- ctrlp 3y ago
  Because the aspects of NYC and LA that are being promoted on this thread as evidence of culture are the aspects I would define a their non-culture. As you say, there is a selective reinforcement of the character of the place via affinity in-migration (mostly just youth-culture btw), but to have a culture proper there must be an ethic or morality specific to that place. If you can't say "we don't do that sort of thing around here" and mean it only for that place, then there really is no culture there, imho. Growing up in NYC, my experience of neighborhoods were that they indeed had their unique cultures and it was largely a function of their unique demographics. But that sort of thing isn't what's being argued for on this thread. The happy presence of an Ethiopian restaurant here or an "authentic" Chinese restaurant there represents the values of an entirely different ethic -- one that is interchangeable whether you are in NYC or LA (or any other 1st world megalopolis). The ethic or morality of that definition of culture is entirely unspecific to place. It _is_ specific to a rootless urban managerial class (which is why that class is entirely supplantable across any of these supercities). The kind of insular cultural ethic that actually defines a "place" is anathema to these values and would be stamped out in "ethnic neighborhoods" if not for a kind of benign and patient condescension. (With the caveat that we still like to have a bit of "flavor" in the form of token representations of "other cultures".)