UWC2101D: Selves and Cities

Which Wild Beast? Simmel and Corbusier on the Modern City

By Tang Weng Hong

Like George Simmel, Le Corbusier does not think very highly of the great cities of the early nineteenth century; he likens the great city to a "wild beast" which even the authorities cannot control (165). This beast has been created by what he calls the "Pack-Donkey's Way" (6). Like the pack-donkey which "meanders along […] in his scatter-brained and distracted fashion", the great city is built without clear objectives in mind and without adherence to the fundamental principles of city planning (5). This results in the problem of a poorly planned and disorderly city that is not conducive for economical growth. To solve the problem, Le Corbusier proposes to build the City of Tomorrow, which he envisions to be the "model city for commerce" (190).

But what would Simmel have thought about Le Corbusier's City of Tomorrow? On the one hand, Le Corbusier's ideal city is one that is efficient and economically successful. On the other hand, Simmel is concerned about life in the metropolis because he thinks that the conditions required for such efficiency and economical success will ineluctably bring about "a death to the personality of the individual" living in the metropolis (par. 13). Therefore, it seems that life in the City of Tomorrow might actually be harmful to the personality of the individual living in it. But just how harmful would it be? Or is it even obvious that it would be harmful at all?

Le Corbusier's main objective is for the City of Tomorrow to become a "model city for commerce" and to achieve this, he believes that the City of Tomorrow must be built according to certain fundamental principles of city-planning (190). These principles involve decongesting the centre of the city, increasing the means of getting about and increasing the number of parks and open spaces (170). Le Corbusier believes that the "city made for speed is made for success" and hence he wants to decongest the centre of the city and to increase the means of getting about so as to obtain shorter travel time and faster intercommunication, which will in turn help the economy to function efficiently (179). But besides being only concerned about the economy, Le Corbusier does seem to care about the individual as well. He places importance on increasing open spaces in the city because of the dangerous effects the demands of work have on the nervous system. However, he goes on to write: "Modern toil demands quiet and fresh air, not stale air", thereby suggesting that his ultimate concern is still the economy, because if the workers are affected, then the economy will be affected as well (167). So, whether it is about improving traffic conditions or increasing the density of the centre of the city, Le Corbusier's plan for the City of Tomorrow is primarily functional: the whole city is to be built to accommodate what Simmel would call the money economy.

Simmel thinks that the metropolis "has always been the seat of the money economy" and that the money economy "dominates the metropolis" (par 3). Therefore, he is suggesting that the money economy is both a defining and necessary feature of the metropolis. Yet, he also seems to believe that the money economy is the major factor that causes harm to the personality of the individual living in the metropolis. Why does he think so?

Firstly, Simmel thinks that certain traits like "[p]unctuality, calculability [and] exactness" are needed for the proper functioning of as complex a structure as the money economy and the metropolis (par. 4). He gives the example of the importance of time-keeping devices like watches and clocks. If all the watches and clocks were to report the wrong time, even for a while, the economy and communication of the whole metropolis would be greatly affected. But Simmel also thinks that such traits "favor the exclusion of those irrational, instinctive, sovereign traits and impulses" which are very much a part of an individual's personality (par. 4). For instance, the individual who "reacts with his head instead of his heart" is likely to be punctual, calculative and exact and is thus suited for life in the metropolis (par. 2). But then, he is also detached, unemotional and uninterested in personal relationship because the head holds "that organ which is least sensitive and quite remote from the depth of the personality" (par. 2). As a result, the individual's adaptability to metropolitan life comes at a cost: the loss of his personality.

Secondly, the devaluation of material objects in the money economy results in what Simmel calls the "blasé attitude" (par. 5). This blasé attitude is not only a consequence of the rapid and fast-changing pace of life in the metropolis but also of the money economy itself (par. 5). By stamping a price on material objects, the money economy has resulted in the individual who is unable to perceive the intrinsic value of an object in itself. According to Simmel, such "devaluation […] unavoidably drags one's own personality down into a feeling of the same worthlessness" (par. 6). Unfortunately, this devaluation also extends to the level of the individual. In the money economy, there is a need for the division of labour. Individuals are forced to specialise in their work so that they are able to provide a unique service to the consumers, hence making themselves less dispensable in the process. This requires from the individual "an ever more one-sided accomplishment" and his worth is reduced to a quantitative value, measured by what he is able to produce and provide for the economy (par. 13).

The "exclusion of those irrational, instinctive, sovereign traits and impulses" and the devaluation of individuals and material objects are both corollaries of the money economy (par. 4). Although the money economy is necessary for the metropolis to function properly, it is also the main factor that harms the personality of the individual living in the metropolis. And Le Corbusier's City of Tomorrow is precisely designed for the money economy!

It therefore appears that living in Le Corbusier's City of Tomorrow will actually be harmful to the personality of the individual. Simmel might well think that the City of Tomorrow is going to be his worst nightmare. But it is not at all obvious to me that Simmel is correct in his analysis that the money economy would really harm the personality of an individual living in the metropolis. Firstly, Simmel does not make it clear how traits like punctuality, calculability and exactness oppose the traits and impulses of instinctive, irrational and sovereign individuals. Even in a modern city like Singapore, where punctuality, calculability and exactness are highly valued, instinctive and irrational people are not all that rare! Also Simmel is caricaturing the rational person by depicting him as being detached, unemotional and uninterested in personal relationships. Just because a person is rational does not mean that he is emotionally empty: the head and the heart are not mutually exclusive, as any reader of Simmel may personally attest to. Secondly, Simmel offers no concrete evidence to show that the money economy really causes the devaluation of individuals and material objects. He thinks that the division of labour turns the individual into a mere quantity but an individual's personality is not solely defined in terms of work. His relationships with family and friends and his accomplishments outside work will matter to him, as well as help shape his personality. Similarly, price is not always the sole determinant of value. That old pen given to you by a close friend might be worthless in terms of price but might well be invaluable in terms of the memories attached to it.

Hence, since we cannot establish Simmel's analysis of the money economy and the problems which result from it as being obviously true, it is hard for us to tell if life in the City of Tomorrow will actually harm the personality of the individual living in it.

Works Cited

Le Corbusier. The City of Tomorrow and Its Planning. New York: Dover, 1987.

Simmel, George. "The Metropolis and Mental Life." 1901. 3 Jan. 2001.