the metropolis and mental life (1908):

  • guiding question(s): IF NIETZSCHE HATES THE CITY SO MUCH, WHY DO CITY SLICKERS LOVE NIETZSCHE SO MUCH?
  • differences between city and rural: urban dwellers more “intellectual” -- does that mean they are smarter? Not really… what it means is that they have a more rational, intellectual (as opposed to emotional) take on the world. How did they get there?
  • the intellectualism of city life is associated with sensory overload. reacting emotionally to all the stimuli would be overwhelming. an additional cause is the reliance upon the money economy, which tends to pull exchange out of particular contexts because everything can be translated into a economic value.
  • These combine to create a very busy, complex life, one which in turn requires a great deal of rationalization (hmmmmm…. Weber?) like this: “if all the clocks and watches in berlin would suddenly go wrong in different ways…all economic life and communication would be disrupted for a long time.” “punctuality, calculability, exactness are forced upon life by the complexity and extension of metropolitan existence” (413)
  • the urbanite is defined by her blasé attitude, which has same causes as above, and means that she is not strongly affected by all the activity of the city. this is also reflected in her reserve towards others, which is often seen as coldness by small towns folks, and is usually manifested as a slight aversion towards others. what is important is that it is not indifference. In fact, “reserve” protects the city dweller from both indifference and indiscriminate suggestibility. conflict/antagonism is necessary to maintain city life. "what appears here directly as dissociation is in reality only one of the elementary forms of socialization".
  • this environment assures individual huge amount of personal freedom. analogous to "the stranger", in that individual is both part of the group and not fully integrated into it. the urbanite is free from the trivialities and prejudices which bind the small town person. but freedom also can mean loneliness---"lost in the crowd". (“it is by no means necessary that the freedom of man be reflected in his emotional life as comfort” (418).)
  • why are there so many kooks and oddballs in the city?
  • Danger/sense of being swallowed by the “machine” and desire to individuate oneself
  • objective vs. subjective culture/spirit
  • weber’s formal vs substantive rationality?
  • So many people, so little time –this requires more differentiation in order to get people’s attention
  • The form (“being different”) is more important than the actual content.
  • there are two (only apparently conflicting) tendencies in the modern metropolis

towards the impersonal: based on money economy where everything is interchangeable

(high impersonality)

towards increased individuality: increased division of labor, and a greater need to differentiate yourself

(high individuality)

the stranger (1905)

  • the sociological form of “the stranger” presents the unity of wandering and fixity – the stranger is in and out, near and far
  • stranger is a positive form of relationship -- a specific form of interaction (i.e., it is not just somebody you haven’t met yet…) – the stranger is an element of the group itself
  • who is the stranger (historically, the trader – but today????)
  • stranger has a specific characteristic of mobility (spatial and social)
  • characteristic of the stranger: objectivity – b/c not radically committed to values of the group, but understands them somewhat – this is not about passivity, but based on combination of nearness and farness – can receive the most surprising openness – why? Safe, but also…
  • objectivity also defined as freedom – bound by no commitments that prejudice perception, understanding, and evaluation
  • another trait: abstract quality of relationship – with the stranger, one has only more general qualities in common – e.g., we are alike b/c we are Americans, not because we share specific experiences, etc. – how does this affect relationships? 
  • strangers are persons, but relationships can also be strange (or maybe more precise: estranged… where have we heard that before??? Marx, of course, but he seemed interested in quite a different aspect of it – or was he?). e.g., love: move from the specific to the general (i.e., you are the only one in the world to me to there are plenty of fish in the sea…) this is part of every relationship, b/c whatever is common to 2, can’t be common to just those 2 alone – how does this loss of uniqueness harm relationships? How does it help them? of course, it’s all relative…

quotes from NYTIMES “can a boy wear a skirt to school”

BY now, most high school dress codes have just about done away with the guesswork.

Girls: no midriff-baring blouses, stiletto heels, miniskirts.

Boys: no sagging pants, muscle shirts.

But do the math.

“Rules” + “teenager” = “challenges.”

If the skirt is an acceptable length, can a boy wear it?

Can a girl attend her prom in a tuxedo?

In recent years, a growing number of teenagers have been dressing to articulate — or confound — gender identity and sexual orientation. Certainly they have been confounding school officials, whose responses have ranged from indifference to applause to bans.

Dress code conflicts often reflect a generational divide, with students coming of age in a culture that is more accepting of ambiguity and difference than that of the adults who make the rules.

“This generation is really challenging the gender norms we grew up with,” said Diane Ehrensaft, an Oakland psychologist who writes about gender. “A lot of youths say they won’t be bound by boys having to wear this or girls wearing that. For them, gender is a creative playing field.” Adults, she added, “become the gender police through dress codes.”

Dress is always code, particularly for teenagers eager to telegraph evolving identities. Each year, schools hope to quell disruption by prohibiting the latest styles that signify a gang affiliation, a sexual act or drug use.

But when officials want to discipline a student whose wardrobe expresses sexual orientation or gender variance, they must consider antidiscrimination policies, mental health factors, community standards and classroom distractions.

But generally, courts give local administrators great latitude. In Marion County, Fla., students must dress “in keeping with their gender.” Last spring, when a boy came to school wearing high-heeled boots, a stuffed bra, and a V-neck T-shirt, he was sent home to change.

“He was cross-dressing, and it caused a disruption in the normal instructional day,” said Kevin Christian, a district spokesman. “That’s the whole point behind the dress code.”

Last fall, Stephen Russell, a professor at the University of Arizona who studies gay, lesbian and transgender youths, conducted a survey of about 1,200 California high school students. When asked why those perceived as not as “masculine” or “feminine” as others were harassed, a leading reason students gave was “manner of dress.”

Often a student’s clothes, intended as a fashion statement, can be misread as a billboard about sexuality. In recent years, “emo” style has moved from punk fringe almost to pop mainstream, with boys wearing heavy eyeliner, body-hugging T-shirts and floppy hair dyed black, to emulate singers like Adam Lambert and Pete Wentz.

“The emo kids get a lot of grief,” said Marty Hulsey, a guidance counselor at a school near Auburn, Ala. “Even teachers say things and I had to stop it. One child came to me who was an emo kid and said he was accused of being gay but that he had a girlfriend.” Mr. Hulsey said he affirmed the boy’s right to wear the clothes that expressed his taste.