Cities 07

I’ll be honest in beginning this o.b.e. by stating that I am not entirely confident in my interpretation of Stansell. Upon reading, I was reminded very strongly of the movie/musical extravaganza Moulin Rouge, which specifically addresses the ‘Bohemian Revolution’ in Paris. For anyone who has not seen the film, there are some great social insights into the European roots of the bohemian movement that Stansell discusses behind all the musical numbers and the dramatic love story. The ideas that are addressed in this particular reading are in stark contrast to those ideas presented by Engels in his discussion of early Manchester because they actually shed light on the learning and livelihood that existed in the city as opposed to the dilapidation and despair. The young intellectuals within the city, often bright college students who desired to avoid the mundane and predictable paths of typical businesspeople or escape the sheltered environment of their upbringings, found themselves immersed in new cultures, ideologies and lifestyles that captured their interest and made the city an exciting and desirable place to be. The opportunity to explore and embrace diversity was new and intriguing for all involved, and the forum for discovery that developed created a unique combination of cultures and appreciation and interest within the city that could not be replicated elsewhere. This description is strikingly different from that of Engels, who felt so strongly that the disdainful living conditions for the poor within the city were the fault of the types of families that many of these intellectual children may have come from and their disregard and ignorance of the poverty just around the corner from their homes. What is similar, and perhaps a bit ironic, about these two articles is that in both cases the privileged are the ones who are benefiting. Despite the fact that Stansell’s discussion portrays the city as vibrant and hopeful and a harbor for cultural appreciation, the ‘bohemian intellectuals’ that came into the city came to “revel and discover, not to aid and uplift (Stansell, 12).” Although their efforts were to abandon the excess that permeated much of their upbringing, their commitment to the actual ‘city lifestyle’ of the poor and immigrants seems minimal at best aside from absorbing information and drawing on the experiences of others. Engels’ argument that the wealthy can choose to bypass parts of the city that are too upsetting or impoverished but still employ the inhabitants has some warrant here, as those ‘bohemians’ in Stansell’s work also chose to avoid certain aspects of the city life while benefiting from others. While I do feel that this reading sheds a much more interesting light on the positive happenings within the city, it is easy to overlook the fact that many of the poor in the city were still being exploited for something that they could offer for a relatively low cost. In Engels’ instance, the poor were exploited for labor while in Stansell’s, they were ‘exploited’ for knowledge and culture that could not be gained elsewhere.