On Cities

At some point in human history we stopped living in groups that were exclusively based on family or tribe and started living in larger conglomerations. My experience in academia has been no one seriously questions why this happened. Off the cuff answers have been given from time to time - the most common being larger groups of people generate economies of scale so things become cheaper and economies more efficient. To me the patently obvious fact that when cities started forming (in the case of Rome, which I know best, we are talking sometime between 750 and 600 BCE) no one knew anything about economics makes this answer less than convincing. The second most popular answer is people formed larger groups based on the necessity for protection. A large tribe will defeat a small tribe if a conflict cannot be resolved by any means other than collective violence.

I think this is a misreading of history. Early historians wrote about wars (often to the exclusion of almost everything else) because they were recording events that seemed important. And since wars are large affairs, involving big groups of people, they often seem more important than they are. I think there is a tendency to assume the ancient world (particularly the pre-urban world) was more violent than it actually was. There are numerous examples of peoples who have maintained a traditional way of life up to the present day and one thing that is frequently remarked upon is among these peoples violence is rare - organized violence even more rare. Amongst ancient civilizations war was often a matter of stylized and ritualized display rather than physical violence.

Historians encountering new cultures bring their assumptions with them and in Western society one of those assumptions is politics prevents wars. Those societies without political systems historians and explorers (they are often one and the same) can understand can be assumed to be more violent.

These are just some of my thoughts on the subject of pre-urban violence. I'm not an anthropologist. I can't marshal empirical evidence or academic work to support this thesis. My point is this - I'm not convinced people chose larger (urban) collectives as protection from predation. In fact, I think the opposite might be true.

Michel Serres was the first person I read who discussed just how violent Livy's history of the foundation of Rome is. It can be read as a collections of lynchings. It's easier to relate them chronologically than how they appear in the history. Rhea Silvia (Romulus and Remus's mother) is raped by Mars, and gives birth to twins who are sent to be murdered. She is then buried alive as punishment for being raped (lynching #1). Romulus and Remus grow up, form a gang, learn their uncle usurped their father's throne and convince the people of the town to kill their uncle and return their father to his rightful place (lynching #2). But the twins have bigger plans than some Podunk little town in central Italy so they go off to found their own city. Then the famous scene with the wall happens and Remus gets killed. This is usually attributed to Romulus but Livy translates it as "in a storm of blows Remus was felled" (lynching #3). Then the Romans get in a fight with their neighbours, the Sabines. Tarpeia tells the Sabine how to sneak into the Roman encampment and is murdered for her trouble (lynching #4). Finally, at a military review while sitting amongst the dignitaries of his new city Romulus is snatched up by a tornado and ascends to heaven. Or, and this is the version I find more believable, the dignitaries murder Romulus (lynching #5).

Livy seems to be indicating the city is not only a violent place but violence is essential in its creation. I think this is true. At least metaphorically. The history of Saskatoon Saskatchewan is not marked by serial lynchings. The metaphor indicates either a form of or the possibility of violence. Cities are where violence makes sense. I think I wrote this before but you never hear of a group of people being murdered in a corn field. Or, if you do, it's national news because it's so weird. Murders happen in cities all the time. They only cause a fuss if the killer was a police officer or the victim was so obviously innocent the crime makes no sense. And that qualification, obvious innocence, is important. It isn't that there is an assumption of guilt for all other victims. No one thinks, "well, he had it coming." The acceptance of murder is based on its location.

"A man died early this morning from stab wounds. Police say he was attacked at roughly 3:00 a.m. in his apartment. This is the nth homicide this year in Toronto, up 2% from last year." That's the news. Unless the killer turns out to be someone unexpected - a priest or a politician - or unless the victim is someone society believes ought be immune from violence - a kid or a person with a disability - that's all that needs to be said.

I think one of the major reasons cities started to form as soon as our population got big enough to support them was to take violence out of the family or tribe. We gathered ourselves into collectives so we could kill people to whom we owed no ritual or religious obligation. I'm not saying we approve of killing or at any point someone said, "Hey! If we form a larger group we can all kill people!" I'm saying violence, even violence unto death, is a component of humanity. Killing is something we do. Or better said, something a very small percentage of us can be relied on to do with some regularity. And the formation of larger groups allowed for that aspect of human nature with the least disturbance to the political whole.

There are other types of violence (beside the one on one murder scenarios I've been discussing above) that is a predictable aspect of human nature; we form crowds that turn into mobs and act violently. This is more rare than simple murder but potentially far more dangerous. One thing it has in common with murder is it only makes sense in cities. Mobs form where people are. Contrary to television shows mobs are infinitely less likely to form in small towns than in big cities. It is a common trope in movies and television that outsiders show up in a small town and wind up facing a lynch mob. In the United States organized lynchings (associated with the Southern and Mid-Western states) are statistically insignificant compared to the "random" crowd violence in cities. Detroit, Chicago, Los Angeles (repeatedly), New York, Washington, Miami, Atlanta, Seattle, Philadelphia, Toledo, and many more cities have all been the scenes of riots in the last half century. The most serious were political but other causes have been sporting and music events, campus disputes, and celebrations that turned into something else.

I believe the human predilection for violence has been an important, and unrecognized, factor in our urban development. At times I am tempted to suggest it is the reason for urban development.