Symbolic interactionism is a sociological theory which “suggests that physical objects and places do not just provide a setting or backdrop for conduct, but that humans have the capacity to assign agency to these designed forms.”
The basic premise is that people are active interpreters of their environment and that they respond to it on the basis of their interpretations. These are, in a few words, the studies of George H. Mead and his student Herbert Blumer.
What interests me is how these theories intervenes in the study of cities. Symbolic interactionism, in fact, can help us defying what a city represents, what mechanisms rule her, and what drivers trigger the phenomenon of “urban attraction”.
“Cities, like dreams, are made of desires and fears, even if the thread of their discourse is secret, their rules are absurd, their perspectives deceitful, and everything conceals something else.”
I. Calvino, Invisible Cities
The city is not only a human settlement, permanent and densely settled, arising from a cultural, economic, administrative or political center and determined by particular historical and environmental conditions. On the contrary, the city is a choice made by the individual in search for cohesion, support and coexistence. Human beings are, in fact, “social animals” (Aristotle, IV b.C). And the city is an ensemble of values and models, with an attractiveness directly proportional to the possibilities it offers. Furthermore it’s the place where energies and resources meet, lighting the spark of progress. The place of inventions, innovations, and revolutions.
To say more, cities are keepers of Nations’ values and cultural identities. Symbolic interactionism takes under consideration all of that. Let’s have a closer look then.
While on the one hand George Simmel1 raised the idea that the city values rationality more than emotionality, the head rather than the heart, a more convincing approach has been that of Robert Park.
“The city is a state of mind, a body of customs and traditions, and of organized attitudes and sentiments that inhere in this tradition. The city is not, in other words, merely a physical mechanism and an artificial construction. It is involved in the vital processes of the people who compose it.”
R. Park
Symbolic interactionism focuses attention on the concept of symbolization.
First, this concerns the active process of attribution of meanings to a territory by the people who inhabit it. Secondly it helps organizing the impressions of the city and set the rhythm of the city itself. Thirdly, it facilitates the interaction of people who share a common space. Symbols thus derived are a source of personal identification. In fact, the spatial complexity and the social diversity of a city often become integrated by the use of a “sentimental” history in selected landscapes.2 One example in Seattle is the Space Needle.
It is the urbanist and social psycholgist Anselm Strauss the one who mostly studied urban imagery.
Strauss brought to light how certain elements of the urban landscape become symbolically representative of the entire city. In Seattle’s case we can cite the Space Needle, Mt. Ranier, the Waterfront with Pike Place Market, and Lumen Field’s elliptical arcs.
Strauss, along with other Symbolic interactionists, stressed the importance of understanding the sentiments and symbols attached to cities. However, emotional and symbolic representations of cities are influenced by other levers. In Ruth E. Kirk’s words (2016) “urban history is not a romantic history, but a conflit between public interest and private gain.”
People of power, while taking care of the commission of public attractions, can increase their control over key elements of the city.
Since the last quarter of the 20th century the consumer-culture industries have had more prominence. They are related to what is known as “symbolic economy”. This is dependent on the creation of attractions like museums, entertainment zones, and sports stadiums linked to city symbols.
Beware that these actions can have serious spatial repercussions. In fact, they “reshape geography and ecology” and impact on “social inclusion or exclusion, depending on your point of view.”3
So while stimulating on a micro-level, on a macro-level point of view this perspective appears to be lacking. However, for the purpose of my studies and interests, I was curious about the alternative ways in which we can read Seattle’s landmarks, city’s patterns of interaction, and Seattleites’ attitude towards their city. This survey led me to some interesting observations that I will share in the next article.
By Valentina Chiarello
References:
- His theory emphasized the importance of the money economy, impersonality, punctuality, and a blasé attitude. Simmel, The Metropolis and Mental Life, 1995
- M. Hutter, Experiencing Cities, 2007
- S. Zukin, The Cultures of Cities, 1995
