Urban Anthropology Blog

This is a short documentary about the “super rich” we discussed in class. It definitely uses a more economic lens to evaluate their existence, in fact it is very similar to the documentary called “Inside Job.” I think it beautifully demonstrates how our culture is driven by consumerism. The majority has allowed “Super Rich,” the minority, to pay almost no taxes, and use our money to gamble with because our societal values have been distorted and re-formed into a monetary based system. While greed has always been a human tendency, it has now become a defining characteristic. In fact greed is being mistaken as dedication, or ambition inherently productive trait. Illustrating again the distortion that money has created in society. It also had some great examples of the excess of spending, like what was shown in the Leeuwen piece,  and some beautiful birds’ eye views of cities across the globe.

In reading through my Essential Reading in Comparative Politics, I stumbled across this paragraph in an article by Martha Crenshaw called “The Causes of Terrorism”:

            “Urbanization is part of the modern trend to war aggregation and complexity, which increases the number and accessibility of targets and methods. The popular concept of terrorism as “urban guerilla warfare” grew out of the Latin American experience of the late 1960’s. Yet, as Hobsbawn has pointed out, cities became the arena for terrorism after the urban renewal projects of the late nineteenth century, such as the boulevards constructed by Baron Haussman in Paris, made them unsuitable for a strategy based on riots and the defense of barricades. In preventing popular insurrections, governments have exposed themselves to terrorism. P.N. Grabosky has recently argued that cities are a significant cause of terrorism in that they provide an opportunity(a multitude of targets, mobility, communications, anonymity, and audiences) and a recruiting ground among politicized and volatile inhabitants.”

I really enjoyed the reading “Outward Appearances”. I was initially fascinated by the opening bit about clothing as a second skin, however, it appeared as though that had been cut off. I am assuming that that page containing the information on the importance of dress was there only because it contained the ending of the preface. I would have loved to read the rest of that piece, but I wanted to comment on the little I got for the first page. I work for Bebe, a clothing company, that started in California and has a very Americanized, and shall we say, “party” tone to the majority of its merchandise. I started working there in October and in that short period of time, I have been fascinated by the broad range of people who patronize this store. Women wearing hijabs, who would probably be prevented from wearing many of our pieces alone due to their faith, frequently wander through. People who appear to fit the profile of someone living outside a gated community(lower economic class), spend a fair amount of money(our prices are not exuberant but definitely not cheap) on a single item, just so they can have a logo. I think what I have really found astounding is the desire for people who can barely speak English, to dress in the style of this very Americanized fashion. The latter also sometimes appears to part of a lower economic class, or has such a language barrier that I question sometimes if they know how much they are spending. While Boston could probably be categorized as a “global city” or at least on that attracts a fair amount of international inhabitants and visitors, there is still this social push to look American, which is accomplished through clothing. There is not the desire to represent an individual culture. When Leeuwen was talking about the dressing style of Zoraya, it was clear that there was a strong American influence, or a more liberalized character to her attire. This reminded me very clearly of my foreign costumers spending money to look the American part, or in hopes of appearing more advantaged financially then they are ( possibly to avoid the sting of class exclusion, although this was not the case for Zoraya). This brought me back to considering the concept that “global cites” are becoming less distinct, and if that fact is now apparent through fashion. Two weeks ago in my comparative politics class, we watched a video comparing India and China, or more specifically Delhi and Beijing. Beijing, much more “global” than Delhi, resembled and could have been mistaken for any major Western city, while Delhi had a very potent India flavor to it. The attire was definitely part of the visual effect that characterized Dehli, and made China indistinguishable. In conclusion, it would be great if the rest of that piece was made available for interest’s sake.