A call to rescue – the loss of culture in urban modernization
Dear Readers,
Having grown up in Old Beijing, I’ve lost my home to a series of rapid urban reconstruction projects. Ninety percent of the original 7000-8000 hutong neighborhoods – the traditional grid-like living quarters in Old Beijing – have either been leveled to make room for towering residential complexes or have had their businesses shuttered and identities erased. Feeling disconnected from a place is one thing: feeling abandoned and underserving where you expected to feel belonging is something else.
Like many cities worldwide, Beijing is undergoing a rapid urban renewal movement, catapulting the city and its profound history into an era of metropolitan globalization. At the center of urban modernization lies one country’s changing definition of legality (of whether structures could be eliminated for unauthorized land use), of freedom and authority, of inclusively and exclusivity, and of progress and modernity. With globalization, urban characteristics featured in different regions have become more homogenized, while the traditional cultural symbols that represent the heritage of a city are disappearing. Stripped of memory and tactile features, uniform in style, and obeying standardized rules that are independent of region, these homogenous architectures represent the emergence of a function-based, rule-based, industrial approach to urban structure. Urban planners and government officials consider this approach as modern.
China’s rapid urban development and social change are dramatically affecting its cultural landscape. What’s gained and lost in opting for the mechanization of cities and how is this approach to urban design inconsiderate of the fundamental needs of humanity?
First, there might not be gains for the common people. The turning of space into place is the deliberate process of personification of geography often by those with social and economic privilege. As a result of the industrial revolution, urban elites (i.e. businessmen, industrialists, and officials) continue to force the invention of urban modernity as a “universal and unavoidable” phenomenon onto the public. This approach, which is highly visible in institutional history and patriotic politics, isn’t necessarily the best approach for urban development.
Second, there are sure losses to community building and the preservation of cultural heritage. Human beings are born to engage with others in spontaneous and organic ways, a concept that had served for centuries as the building block for urban living quarters. A modern community built entirely of sky-scrapers – even when composed of traditional structures – and digital zoom hangouts may seem to prioritize traditional principles of organic human relations, but the remains of exterior structures alone don’t preserve the cultural spirits that help bond communities together. After all, the significance of cultural spaces are so much more than the actual architectures: they are a living imprint of history. They are about people and generations of traditions. Well-integrated modern designs complement spontaneous connections in the public sphere but do not replace them. Our relationship with the past and our appreciation for culture determine how we can move forward as a community. Preferring modernity over culture is a fundamental error of the same degree as believing that if you have cars, you won’t need legs anymore.
The bottom line here is that urban modernization should not clash with the preservation of traditions and cultural heritage. I believe the very definition of modernity centers around choices and freedom. Current urban modernization efforts however strictly define the expectations for our public selves. For a city to be modern in the true sense, it should be a space that allows an infinite variety of human talents and interests to build competing yet inclusive environments, where members of a community realize their contrasting self-interests and learn to work together.
Cities like Beijing are being wrested from their locals and reconstructed at a startling rate. History simply won’t document itself unless we become cognizant of the values in the disappearing cultures (often traditional, diverse, and marginalized) under the context of modern globalization. Curiosity is the first step to documenting and revitalizing ethnographic objects, maps, and census data and helping stories of the disappearing cultures remain relevant. Together, we, as a community, can be co-producers of knowledge in documenting history.
Love, Krystal
* Krystal Hu is a student at Duke University majoring in Visual Media Studies (minor in Statistics) from Beijing, China
