Jul 06 2009
Is Man Meant for Urban Living?
In reading books on the Catholic Land Movement, I have come to the realization that man may not be meant to live in an urban, or even suburban, setting. In fact, for most of human history, man did not live in large cities or the sprawl that now surrounds them. It has only really been since the Industrial Revolution, and accelerated after World War I, that a significant proportion of man has migrated toward and lived in large urban settings. Just since 1900, the percentage of people living in urban areas of the United States has grown from 39.6 to 79.2 in 2000.
Man is a social creature, but urban living does not foster this in a positive way. Instead of the family being the main social unit (and the Church, most likely, the second), it has been replaced with the workplace, bars, and other institutions that are the antithesis of the family and Church. Instead of fostering social behavior, it actually promoted isolation in many instances due to the fact that these are not really social interaction as it is meant to be. This isolationism, in my opinion, is most likely the main factor in the breakup of the family and the increase in anti-social behavior like criminal activity, drug use, and alcoholism.
There are other factors to consider too other than the social interaction like work satisfaction. I am hoping to discuss this as I get more information on this.
What to do about it is up for discussion. Not all are suited for the farm. However, I do not believe man can continue to live this way for much longer. The urbanization of mankind is a blight that must be dealt with.
As for me, I am seriously looking at how I can escape this urban prison.
My wife’s family is entirely different. Land was owned on both sides of her family. Even though my father-in-law was a chemical engineer, he had a herd of cattle on his hundred acres and he tended a massive garden that kept the family in food.
We lived for twelve years in a trailer on my wife’s family’s farm/ranch. I had a promising calligraphy second-buisness that was bringing in money. I had a mother-in-law who saw it as “a grown man playing”……………… I was a decent calligrapher. I was a poor farmer/rancher.
When my mother-in-law died, we moved to a three acre spread out in the country. We have chickens, ducks, and geese. My wife sells the free-range eggs at the local farmer’s market.
After 30 years, I long to return to my urban roots. I cannot keep up with the physical demands nor can I afford to hire someone to do it for me. The “jungle” is reclaiming just three acres and I cannot keep up.
An agricultural paradigm works well where there is a sufficiently large work force (i.e. family). My father-in-law was one of twelve.
I grew up in New Orleans on a 50′ X 100′ lot. The outer edges of the fence line in our back yard was planted. We grew corn, tomatoes, bell peppers, pole beans, cabbage, brocolli, spinach, etc. My aunt lived just outside the French Quarter and the outer edges of her courtyard grew pretty much the same thing.
Could one “feed the family?” No. Could one “supplement?” Yes.
A return to agricultural roots is fine for the young. For me, it is killing me.
I will state that there may be some that are not suited for rural/small town living. However, I am wondering how much of that is due to the breakup of of the most basic social unit and that is the family.
[...] completing “Is Man Meant for Urban Living?”and “Is Man Meant for Urban Living? (Part 2)“, I have started to stock of my own [...]
I think a lot of the problem has to do with the radical transformation of the nature of cities over the past two or three centuries. We have come to mean by “city” something which is not a simple expansion of former urban concepts but something that is in many ways incompatable with historical notions of what a city is.
What we regard as essential characteristics – understandably as our direct experience suggests as much – are recent developments: the ideas that the city consists of a commercial or “working” core surrounded by a residential mantle; that the core is the city proper, and that the basic component of which it consists is the office block; that systems of transportation are required to connect all the various and geographically separate functions. This barely existed before 1850. Certainly no trace of it existed in 1350.
Yet in no way can the European cities of 1350 be called anything less than cities. They were as characteristic as they were characterful. Perhaps the true nature of the city derives from what those cities were, and not from what they subsequently became. I for one see much that we can learn from Medieval cities, not only in terms of their appearance but, most importantly, in terms of their function. Very little reflection is required to reveal that the urban form most suited to the structure of a distributist system of economy resembles the Medieval city more than the modern city.