| Andrew Bucksbarg on Wed, 10 May 2006 11:19:00 +0200 (CEST) |
[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]
| Re: <nettime> There is no third world, ergo no 3rd world city/cities |
Perhaps the distinctions "developer" and "developee" (or "developed upon") would be more apt to describe the (v)empire associations in this context... I would also argue that the distinction between city and rural is just as archaic as the "#rd worlds of the 50's." Can we broaden our thinking beyond the city or urban? A small college town may be much more rural than a metropolis, but just as intellectually or culturally productive as a city, but it doesn't make sense to think of a university as an "intellectual city". When does a village or town become a metropolis? What about networks of villages? Does technology create the "anti-city"? Perhaps these convergences of ideologies, machineries, biologies and spatializations we define as city or rurality need much more complex descriptions... Aside from fraudulence in elections, politics in the U.S. for instance, demonstrates that important theories of ruralities or different concentrations of networks of people and space are very important to consider as well as the urban. Perhaps "ruralities" is a term for an interconnecting network of villages and small communities, something akin, yet other than city... And what do we think of the expatriate of the metropolis or the ex- urbanite? Ndrew On May 7, 2006, at 11:13 PM, Jamil Brownson wrote: > > metropolis, urbanity, city, irrespective of language/terminology, > the last resort <....> # distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission # <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism, # collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets # more info: [email protected] and "info nettime-l" in the msg body # archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: [email protected]