Are many city dwellers uncivilized?

Post Reply New Topic

Playing upon the Latin word for city, civis, from which the word civilization and civilized derive. But aside from word games, does it ever seem like in major cities that people are often completely lacking manners and are often downright rude? There seems to be no respect for others existent in too many people? It is that with higher supply of people per area that they mentally devalue one another or something like that?

Many cities have very fragmented communities and there's a greater chance of visible inequality (for instance, someone who takes the bus from the Ghetto to go work as a janitor in an office tower and gets to see the relative luxury of certain upper-level white collar professions). Visible social inequality also hightens social tensions.

I've lived in both city and country (I prefer country) and I think with city folk, they may appear rude, but that's just from the view of an outsider. That same small town community exists in the city, but it goes from block to block, not town to town. Country folks can be just as nasty with outsiders. You've really got earn your respect in both situations. Sure they'll hold the door for you in the country, but they're more likely to talk some smack after you've passed. In the city, they don't even notice you.

Sure, there is a sense of devaluing others in the city, but it's not actual devaluation. It's just that, on a daily basis, they see so many different people from so many walks of life. People become somewhat of an obstacle to getting where you need to go. It's constant traffic, lines, and delays. It can get annoying. Traveling 5 miles in the city can easily 1/2 an hour, an hour, or more. In the country, a 5 mile drive is about a 8 minute ride door-to-door, every time. Other people aren't an obstacle and you've actually got a few spare minutes for a conversation with a stranger, if that's something you're into.

It is a strange quirk of history that "cvilized" and "urbane" are assigned what are generally taken as positive values.

It was reasonable enough when the cultured elements clustered around the king IN the city, playing politics [now THAT word has not changed so unreasonable] and being polite [unrelated] while plotting one another's downfall. The city was where fashion and elegance was - outside was peasants and big ranch owners.

Today only a remnant of the Gilded are truly urban, and we associate cities with the slums that used to be outside the walls.

Depends on how you define civilized.

It could indeed depend upon that, but I think that most people know intuitively what civilized means and to get into the depths of the meaning of words is to merely dwell upon sophistry rather than the actual matter.

Civilized to me usually looks like putting on a good appearance while hiding all the imperfections, being civilized does not always mean the civilization exists. I belive I should treat others how I would like to be treated as best as I can...I am sure I mess up sometimes. Personally I think it is more civilized to stop and chat with a homeless musician and maybe share a ciggerette with them and drop some change in their bucket.......It would seem many upper class people think the civilized thing to do is look down their nose at them like they are garbage. So it really is kind of a matter of perspective.

Good point. Acting "civilized" by putting on airs is not being civilized. Etiquette, manners, politeness, etc are but a show if one is inwardly contemptible. Being civilized would, I think, include respect for one's fellow human being regardless of current state of situation.

Yeah haha, my uncle was born and raised in San Francisco and they're a bunch of hicks!

Most people intuitively know the connotations they're supposed to respond with to the word "civilized", but following your linguistic thread, those who dwell in the cities *are* the civilized, regardless of what connotations the word now carries. Connotations are or can be entirely propaganda, as is happening now in the US with the word "liberal" and as happened in the last decade with the term "neo-conservative". Both demonized for propaganda without regard for the actual meaning of the terms.