Why do liberals swoon over Richard Sennett? This sociologist, born on January 1, 1943, in the bustling urban landscape of Chicago, seems to embody the dreamy-eyed belief that cities should welcome chaos and conflict. In a world where we strive for order and stability, Sennett's 'purity through disorder' mantra presents an intriguing contradiction. Sennett, a sociologist and theorist based primarily in the Western academic world, has spent much of his career at the London School of Economics and New York University. His works like The Conscience of the Eye: The Design and Social Life of Cities and The Craftsman are offerings on the altar of chaos, extolling a largely chaotic urban utopia that defies traditional values of order and conformity.
Sennett makes a case for the merits of disorder, which he posits as essential for the vitality of cities. He paints a picture of urban life where different people and communities blur together, sparking creativity through conflict. While diversity is celebrated, the costs - crime, poverty, and stark inequality - are grossly underestimated by liberals enthralled by his theories. Sennett's ideology might sound poetic on paper, but it glosses over the harsh reality that order is not just a conservative craving but a societal necessity.
Sennett's work often critiques the capitalist systems and champion what he sees as a collective urban experience. He challenges the notion of privatized spaces, a core tenet of capitalism many believe promotes safety and security. While the wealthy can afford their sanctuaries, Sennett argues, the public realm becomes a melting pot of interactions and innovations. However, he ignores the obvious failures of cities without strong private rights protections, cities overrun by crime and disregard for property.
In Sennett's universe, the public, civic-minded approach could save cities from becoming sterile playgrounds for the rich. But let's address the elephant in the room: cities like Detroit, priding themselves on community spirit over private development, didn't fare so well. These urban landscapes, celebrated and romanticized by Sennett, have often turned into cautionary tales of liberal mismanagement.
Sennett's bias isn't subtle. He often criticizes traditional architects like Le Corbusier and his modernist ideas. Labeling them 'totalitarian' for creating cities defined by grids and order, Sennett disregards the success stories. Take the planned cities backed by conservative principles, which enjoy the reputation of being clean, safe, and family-friendly. It's not utopia, but it is a lot closer than the riot-riddled chaos these open conflicts create.
One of Sennett's key themes is the concept of the 'open city,' which promotes a constantly evolving urban landscape ripe for innovation. He argues that urban spaces should be flexible, allowing for shifts in population and culture. On paper, it's a bold idea, but in practice, pushing a constantly changing cityscape often leads to chronic instability. Families and businesses can't flourish amid perpetual volatility.
A core aspect of political conservatism is the notion of the long-standing community, grounded in respect for established order. Sennett turns this on its head, advocating for a breakdown of structures in favor of fluidity and change. He presents the idea that stability restricts growth, yet overlooks the fact that chaos rarely produces anything but societal fragmentation.
Sennett's fascination with what he calls the 'craftsman' suggests a return to simpler, manual craftsmanship as the route to socio-economic redemption. While craftsmanship is commendable, modern economic growth depends on technological advancement and specialization. Revering the past only goes so far when attempting to address the problems of today’s rapid urban populations. Sennett glorifies a trek back in time, a journey away from innovation.
It's worth noting that Sennett's vision isn't without critics even among his admirers. Some argue that the chaotic cityscape he describes can disintegrate the social fabrics essential for cohesive communities. Others have slammed his disregard for conservative-driven solutions that prioritize safety, stability, and a sense of shared community within defined perimeters.
In summary, Richard Sennett's writings have undeniably contributed to the discussions around urbanism, but his theories largely appeal to those with fantasies of revolution rather than resolutions. His vision of cities stands contrary to classical conservative values that hold order, tradition, and security as pillars of successful urban planning. While his followers might find excitement in his idea of a city constantly on the edge of change, it leaves much to be desired when it comes to crafting sustainable, harmonious, and unified community environments.