Cities do have souls. Call it the vibe, the character, the mode, the tradition. That it is a metaphor, and even one that uses the supernatural, need not necessarily invalidate a metaphor. From...
Cities do have souls. Call it the vibe, the character, the mode, the tradition. That it is a metaphor, and even one that uses the supernatural, need not necessarily invalidate a metaphor.
From there the discussion can continue, and it is one where we are looking for a compromise between material needs and the needs of the "soul"---the more emotional and psychological side of the thing, not the supernatural.
Yeah, but the issue is that the "soul" - or insert whatever alternative term you want - is frequently used as a defense to get rid of projects that benefit the less fortunate. Projects like public...
Yeah, but the issue is that the "soul" - or insert whatever alternative term you want - is frequently used as a defense to get rid of projects that benefit the less fortunate. Projects like public transportation, mental hospitals, and low-income housing.
You are right in that the term is a metaphor, but it is important to ask what it is standing for. More often than not, it is either the status quo or property values.
You are also right that it is used to make a debate focus on emotion, but the problem is that debates need to be based on facts to be effective at coming to the truth.
Many arguments for bad things use emotion, just as many arguments for good things appeal to our emotions. Recognition of the soul of a city is an appeal to emotion, and it can be used for good or...
is frequently used as a defense to get rid of projects that benefit the less fortunate
Many arguments for bad things use emotion, just as many arguments for good things appeal to our emotions. Recognition of the soul of a city is an appeal to emotion, and it can be used for good or bad purposes; this article recognizes many negative appeals, but doesn't talk about any of the positive ones.
Trying to shut down the whole line of reasoning (cities don't have souls, so this emotional argument is moot) is wrong. Cities do have a vibe, and some cities have a vibe of "filling up the foodbank every year because we take care of each other" and "getting around is easy because we spend money on infrastructure". Those are souls or vibes as well, and they're not recognized in this article.
The recognition of the soul of a city is certainly not uniformly used to oppress. I agree that emotional arguments are often made to try to prevent people from changing things in a city, but we should be standing up to those appeals to emotion and responding to them in kind; emotional appeals are a tool to use in arguments or politics, just like any other.
Cities do have souls. Call it the vibe, the character, the mode, the tradition. That it is a metaphor, and even one that uses the supernatural, need not necessarily invalidate a metaphor.
From there the discussion can continue, and it is one where we are looking for a compromise between material needs and the needs of the "soul"---the more emotional and psychological side of the thing, not the supernatural.
Yeah, but the issue is that the "soul" - or insert whatever alternative term you want - is frequently used as a defense to get rid of projects that benefit the less fortunate. Projects like public transportation, mental hospitals, and low-income housing.
You are right in that the term is a metaphor, but it is important to ask what it is standing for. More often than not, it is either the status quo or property values.
You are also right that it is used to make a debate focus on emotion, but the problem is that debates need to be based on facts to be effective at coming to the truth.
Many arguments for bad things use emotion, just as many arguments for good things appeal to our emotions. Recognition of the soul of a city is an appeal to emotion, and it can be used for good or bad purposes; this article recognizes many negative appeals, but doesn't talk about any of the positive ones.
Trying to shut down the whole line of reasoning (cities don't have souls, so this emotional argument is moot) is wrong. Cities do have a vibe, and some cities have a vibe of "filling up the foodbank every year because we take care of each other" and "getting around is easy because we spend money on infrastructure". Those are souls or vibes as well, and they're not recognized in this article.
The recognition of the soul of a city is certainly not uniformly used to oppress. I agree that emotional arguments are often made to try to prevent people from changing things in a city, but we should be standing up to those appeals to emotion and responding to them in kind; emotional appeals are a tool to use in arguments or politics, just like any other.