The Concept of the New Form of Urbanism in Relation to the Older Style of Urbanism - Literature review Example

Student Name: Tutor: Title: Urbanism Course: Introduction Urbanism refers to the way of life of urban dwellers in relation to their built environment. It encompasses the organization and character of urban life, the problems in towns and cities, the physical limits and needs of urban centers and the degree of urbanization. This study will base its arguments on Donzelot’s argument titled the rise of the social. It will analyze and evaluate the changing spectrum of the urban center by critically studying family life, professional life and organization in the new social. The study will highlight the concept of the new form of urbanism in relation to the older style of urbanism while giving the direction that urbanism is headed. Urbanism According to Donzelot (1997), urbanism is a diverse field that comprises family interactions, social ills, population growth rate, social advancements, the early courts, politics of the urban center, education systems and medical systems represented by the nursing fraternity. Donzelot explains that the new form of urbanism which he aptly refers to as the social started its latent development in the late stages of the eighteenth century as well as the early nineteenth century. Throughout the work, hints are left of changes that appear small insignificant at first glance but are real developments in the context of urbanism. The first feature to get this treatment is the juvenile court whose development is described by the writer as a miniaturized jurisdiction that develops into an important institution of judicial administration. In his view of the prevailing situation, Donzelot points out that the social sector is inherently disassociated with the judicial sector and under no circumstances do they merge. Judicial action is therefore viewed to be separate from the social development in towns and cities. This treatment is further extended to the economic sector which is distinctly alienated from the social sector. However, the social sector invents an economy that is social in nature by clearly showing the difference between the rich and the poor. This new form of urbanism also breaks from tradition by creating two distinct values and features of the public sector and the private sector. Milroy, (2009) points out that planning for urbanism for both the public and private sector is normally obscure at best. As the concept and features of urbanism change so does the complexity of understanding both these sectors. Milroy points out that the public and the private sector are functionally independent and any plans made for the assimilation of activities between them end up unsuccessfully. It is therefore not uncommon for the interests for the two groups to diverge into different spectra of operation hence the distinct difference hinted at by Donzelot (Milroy, 2009, p34). Donzelot stresses that argument is not the mystification and passing of ideology on the social but rather how the new social take shape over time. The focus therefore shifts to how the interactions between the judicial systems, the existing administrations, the public and the private, the poor and the wealthy play out. Urbanism influences both existing and independent systems hence providing a new dimension that is quickly embraced by the present forces. Even though the social hybridism of the social is found to be obsolete, Donzelot manages to isolate the core members which he refers to as lines of mutation which by virtue of the solo actions or combined actions become important features of the new form of urbanism. The integration and interaction of the family forms the most noticeable basis of organization of the social. The family creates the total environment that as a whole gives the bigger picture of the interaction of the components that form urbanism. It is made clear that the issue under discussion is not the crisis felt in the families living in towns and cities, the crisis under discussion involves all the components of the new social which the family is part of. Donzelot shows how the crisis develops and how new feature arise from the old features. In the case of the family, the mutation arises from as far off as an attack on wet nurses. The criticism of wet nurses brings out a contrast between the treatment of the poor and the rich in society because they are not critiqued from the same point of view. The poor are critiqued on the basis of a bad public economy that forces them to abandon their children and migrate from their rural areas. This chain of events is said to leave the state with responsibilities that are unwanted and unjustifiable at the same time. The rich do not have any such problems but the existence of a bad private economy is what forces them to entrust the education of their children to house servants. Already, a hybrid of the public and private sectors is thrown into the limelight. This shows a continuous widening gap between the rich and the poor and between the city and the state. The changes in the features of the family lead to another different line of mutation. This happens with the emergence of two features in the family that were previously nonexistent. The first feature is the detachment of the family from its domestic setting while the second feature is the breaking loose of marital values from values held by the family. Marital values tend to become autonomous from familial values. In the previous order, before the rise of the new social, the family was concerned with preserving its own order. As marital values become independent from family values, the only aspect of the old system that would be retained is the regulation of the marriage by family hierarchy while other aspects change completely. Instead of preserving the family order, steps are now taken to prepare people for the life of marriage. It is now evident that instead of having pride in its ancestry, the values of the family has shifted to incorporate the changing face of society thus making marriage a means to an end. The new social code for the poor and rich families shapes the appearance of the new social. The social will now revolve around conjugality, how it is exercised, its duties and prerogatives. However, as it is common with the new order/ changes of urbanism, the poor and the rich will be affected differently by the mutation in the family. The marital duties of the wife in the poor families have very different consequences to those of the rich wife. The poor wife will turn back to her family, especially her husband and children so that she prevents the decline of poor habits in her husband. Meanwhile, the rich wife will obtain expansive control which she will use to obtain a missionary role in charitable work. The existence of the notion that the father is the head of the family is also removed as paternal authority is mostly disregarded. Goode et al (1971) agrees with this perception by pointing out that there exists a strong relationship between the increasing levels of urbanism and the continuous decline of paternal authority. Goode et al are of the view that with increasing urban pressure, there will be an authority shift from hereditary elders .Other features include the rise in numbers of abortions and divorce among married women (Goode et al, 1971, pg. 49) Andersen (2013) agrees with Donzelot on the changes that have occurred in the family due to urbanism. He claims that the evolution and changes that are undertaken by the family in the current environment is brought about by the need to adapt. Andersen points out that the consequence of this change is the materialization of a new type of family with different ideals about the interpersonal relationships, harmony and integration of the family. However, Andersen reports that not all families adapt the same to the changing state of urbanism. Just like Doncelot, Anderson cannot escape from the inevitable conclusion that there are different classes of people that are affected differently. He points towards the differences in social and economic levels of different families just like Doncelot explains the existence of the poor and the rich. Andersen explains that the rate and way in which families adjust to urban life depends on their economic and social level (Anderson, 2013, pg 291). The conflict and readjustment of the family values and features have further economic implications. The fall of the paternal authority leads to the development of saving. The importance of saving for the future is highlighted by the development of a new way of conducting charity work. While in the old system charity was the order of the day, it has been replaced by philanthropy where aid is not viewed as charity but as a form of investment. This new feature of the social is described as necessary by Doncelot who views them as a protectionist measure in some cases. He gives an example of the protection offered to the child against forced labor as an act of philanthropy. The hybridization of society is therefore evident in the two actions: saving by the family and protection against child labor. Hybridization is noticeably positive in light of the fact that it promotes investment in the state and promotes civilization. The need for savings and guided philanthropy is also promoted by Iverson (1984) who argues that intervention was necessary to provide improved ways of living in the urban centers. He explains that there was a feeling that normal charity was not effectively aiding the improvement of urban society hence the need for improved measures. Activists believed that the continued usage of charity would promote laziness and indigence in the urban centers (Iverson, 1984, pg. 167). Another major interaction in the new social is the development of the relationship between the state and medicine. An interrelationship of factors such as the development of compulsory education and an increased emphasis on population control in the family causes hygiene to be made public while moving psychiatry out of the private sector. Doncelot explains that even though medicine is a liberal practice, hybridization is slightly evident. While it is private in complexion, the state could intervene through statutory action. There therefore exists an opposition and tension between medicine or Psychiatric jurisdiction and judicial power. The state combined with medicine to foster hygiene even though the two were at loggerheads in the terms of implementation. Political differences over some of the issues like family planning arose due to different political analysis and evaluations. It is acknowledged by the writer that a single statement can mean diversely different things in different political situations. Doncelot delves into another line that influences the social. He describes the field of Psychoanalysis as an important field in defining the organization of the new social. Just like the family and medicine, the aspect of hybridism could not be entirely separated from Psychoanalysis. He agrees with Mannom (1973) who explains that Psychoanalysis originated from the private sector before gradually encroaching on the public sector. Doncelot points out that psychoanalysis in the private sector formed contractual relations and helped in the formation of private practices while it moved into the public sector to influence the medical field, sectorization and the education sector. The success of psychoanalysis is attributed to its quick integration in both the private and public sector. He points out that psychoanalysis has established its significance through the establishment of private principles, public norms and expertise. Conclusion The rise of the social shows how the feature of hybridism permeates urbanism. Most sectors of life are described to be hybrid in nature. The family, education, the economy, medicine and psychoanalysis are all described as hybrid in nature with Doncelot doing a thorough job of explaining how they fit and/or influence the private and public sector. The family is the basis of the new social. It has changed from its domestic setting and broken away from the marital views that it embraced previously. The new social revolves around conjugality and how the poor and the rich are affected differently by the mutation of the family. The hybridism of Medicine and psychoanalysis are also extensively analyzed. The importance of collaboration between the state and medicine is also shown to be paramount in fostering hygiene. References Doncelot, J., 1997, The rise of the social in The policing of Families, Baltimore: John Hopkins University press Milroy, B. M., 2009, Thinking planning and urbanism, Ontario: UBC press Andersen, N., 2013, The Urban Community: A World Perspective, London: Routledge Goode, W.L., Hopkins, E. & MacClure, H. M., 1971, Social systems and family patterns: A propositional inventory, New York: Ardent media Mannom, M., 1973, The retarded child and the mother, London: Taylor & Francis Iverson, N, 1984, Urbanism and urbanization: Views, aspects and dimensions, Leiden: BRILL Read More