A review of my acadmic work!

Recently, I presented at a conference and these were the comments given to me by the commentator of my work (I am happy with them, although, I still have a ways to go!):

Rethinking Urbanity in the Americas


General comments/Introduction

I would like to open with a few general comments about these three probing urban studies and then move to each presentation individually. I have spent considerable time in Buenos Aires, made a couple visits to Savannah, and watched hours of video of Havana, a place that, with some much-needed US policy changes, I hope to visit in the future. I can truthfully say that I approach these papers with an open mind—indeed, as someone whose published work is 99% about rural societies, I might say with a blank mind. However, a saving grace of being a full professor is that at long last one feels free to expound at length with a minimum of expertise or experience. So here we go.

One of the challenges of case studies, in this case a number of different cities, is deciding how to provide context for the inquiry. Second challenge, how much context to provide. One method involves combing the specialized literature on the area for similar approaches or subjects. I’m struck that none of these three essays include a single reference to the Journal of Urban History, the major scholarly publication in the field. But then as I scanned past issues of the journal, I found little that would connect directly to these studies. This lack of synergy probably reflects a couple of factors. One, urban history is a relatively new field. The Journal of Urban History only dates to 1974. Urban studies in Latin America are of the same vintage, with Richard Morse having delivered his “Prolegomenon to Latin American Urban History” in the August 1972 issue of the Hispanic American Historical Review. Thus the downside of a new field is a relative dearth of contextualizing literature. The upside, of course, is a wide-open set of places and issues ripe for discovery and exploration. That said, I’ve appended a bibliography of a dozen articles from the Journal of Urban History that I think would bolster one or all of the present studies.

A second means of contextualizing is to locate one’s work within larger historiographical debates. The prudent approach for the graduate student or untenured would be to say laudatory things about prior scholars who might still be alive. It’s generally safe to differ with the work of deceased scholars, unless they produced a bevy of living disciples. Once you’re tenured, take off the gloves, ditch the hypocrisy, and begin a heady round of revisionism. On this score, I’m confident that Daniel Richter will find a way to cite “The Transnationalization of the Urban Question” in Post War Latin America,” presented in 2009 by Leandro Benmergui of the University of Maryland. It does deal with a later time period, but you’ll find a way to work in the views of a senior colleague. Clarisa is well aware of this tactic—three books by one Lou Perez of UNC appear in her bibliography.

A third approach is to take a running start at the topic, offering information on what leads up to the present focus. Of course, the trap here is that one can easily end up with Etruscan roots rather remote from the topic at hand. Nonetheless, I’ve appended a few book titles on 19th-century city life that might aid in adding a wider temporal context.

Yet another means of contextualizing is to offer some comparative elements to the analysis, my favorite approach. I have some suggestions, because I have the advantage of having read all three papers—and I see fascinating areas for comparison and contrast. For example, two of these studies have a good bit to say about transportation. Douglas, in particular, explores the transportation choices made in Savannah in favor of the automobile over public transport. Clarisa discusses the class and cultural aspects of another mode of transportation—the bicycle. And I know from my own research that Buenos Aires, indeed much of Argentina, engaged in the same cycling frenzy that hit Havana at the same time. The fad offers clear evidence of cultural importation and of a desire to be modern, so I suggest that Daniel dig a bit deeper to find those cyclists on the boulevards of Buenos Aires.

Race and class play important roles in the studies of Havana and Savannah, so some wider exploration of and comparative examples of these issues would be welcome. Buenos Aires, in contrast, has issues of class and immigration, rather than race, an issue I’ll return to. In all three cities, white elites, bolstered by growing middle classes, shape the image and future of these places.

Finally, I of course do not know the larger context or intellectual destination of each of these presentations. They may well be part of larger studies with other chapters that address some of the issues I’ll raise. I will try to limit my criticisms that the authors did not write the essay I would write, but inevitably some comments will have that flavor. An important part of academic training is learning what to listen to and what to ignore. So, let’s take a look at each presentation.

Daniel Richter’s focus is not so much on the twin cities of Buenos Aires and Montevideo as on the characteristics attributed to them by a number of foreign observers. His observers, apparently following my advice for comparative analysis, make many international comparisons—some defensible and intelligible; some downright silly and ethnocentric.

Daniel writes about a “global modernity that was defined by immigration and racial identities. “ My problem is I get little sense of the impact and significance of these variables from the sources quoted. On immigration, I don’t even find Italians, by far the largest immigrant stream of the time. I find no clear references to race except for its relative absence in Buenos Aires. Foreigners see a white, European-looking population in the city. Is that the extent of the importance of race? So, Daniel, please elaborate on the importance of both immigration and racial identifies, adding some specific examples.

I would appreciate a bit more source criticism—a more probing and critical analysis of how seriously we should take the views of these distinguished visitors. I would also like a more focused definition of modernity. One quotation illustrates both issues. In foreign eyes, Buenos Aires “achieved modernity due to their contact with European and American ideas and commerce.” First, the ethnocentrism of the statement is palpable. Second, what ideas and what specific commercial activities exactly qualify as modern? Does the city’s leading industry, the stinking, blood-soaked slaughterhouses along the river, quality as modern? Again, more specific examples, please.

I never get as clear a picture as I would like of what Daniel means by modernity. Two suggestions: first, probe the concept as used in the historiography. The 2007 collection of essays, When Was Latin American Modern?, edited by Nicola Miller and Stephen Hart, is a good place to start. Second, I think that reorganizing the paper topically would sharpen the analysis. Identify the components that foreigners attributed to modernity. Then instead of treating each observer separately, look for themes and commonalities across the sources. Show us where they agree and disagree on what constitutes modernity.

Foreign observations always require a critical eye. Clemenceau “viewed Argentine men as incredibly courteous despite having suffered from the poor mothering displayed by Argentine women.” Hmmmm. Throughout Latin America, porteño men have quite the opposite reputation as vivos, people who like nothing more than ripping off or otherwise besting or humiliating someone else. Macho, si—courteous I’m not so sure. The second comment about “poor mothering” simply brings no clear image to mind. What does this mean? What’s the evidence?

In good turn-of-the-century fashion, we find racist interpretations in abundance. “Clemenceau felt that the Argentine ‘succeeded, better than in the Iberian Peninsula, in ridding himself of the Moorish strain, which, though it gave him his lofty chivalry, has yet enchained him to the Oriental conception of a rigid theocracy.’" From this and other statements, I think that Daniel might revise his interpretive statement about the importance of racial identity to the importance of racism in defining modernity in the Rio de la Plata.

In keeping with my advice, Theodore Roosevelt, always a bully read, made many comparisons. As Daniel notes, “Roosevelt demonstrated his belief that the best way to describe Buenos Aires and Montevideo was to compare them to other cities. Buenos Aires was similar to Seattle and Sydney, and Montevideo to Portland and Melbourne.” I’d like Daniel to probe such comparisons a bit? What specifically might Roosevelt have seen to reach these conclusions? Many possible variables spring to mind; let’s explore a few of them.

Toward the end of his presentation, Daniel writes “In the early twentieth century, automobiles served as the key example, especially after the construction of the Pan American highway “Yet I recall nothing from the observers about automobiles and incredibly—nothing about the British-built subway system, an engineering marvel of the time. Related point: the issues of social class and conspicuous consumption, raised by Clarisa, might come in handy. Also very handy would be a very close reading of James Scobie’s classic history, Buenos Aires: From Plaza to Suburb, published in 1974.

Another source problem: Victorian-era visitors overlooked (or at least did not admit to) another vibrant element of the city—prostitution. Take a look at Sex and Danger in Buenos Aires by Donna J. Guy (1991). Porteño politicians certainly considered control of prostitution and its attendant health problems a very important if troubling element of modernity. Limiting one’s sources to foreigners misses this important topic completely. With a realistic vision of the city’s actual growth and status, Daniel could better evaluate and critique the foreign views that he quotes. In sum, Daniel raises intriguing questions of historical sources and concepts of modernity. Given more context and comparison with actual social conditions, he’ll take his inquiry even further.

Clarisa Mondejar examines another fascinating city, Havana, in the 1890s. Given what we know of the wrenching independence struggle underway, it is remarkable how people went about their normal lives in the city. As the risk of asking her to plunge into psychohistory, I would like to hear a deeper explanation of this seeming conundrum. “While news of war was never sparse, news of social engagements and of the city's bustling social life became a primary focus of most media outlets during this period.” More directly, is this seeming focus on light diversion an artifact of the sources—the newspapers of the time—or does it represent some bizarre “fiddling while Rome burns” phenomenon? Clarisa seems to lean toward the latter explanation, writing “the cultural obsession with maintaining a lifestyle that alluded to the wealth, ‘civility’ and status of residents could be explained by the increasing pressure and urgency of rebellion and war in the provinces.”

Clarisa offers clear and highly visual images in support of her conclusion that “as economic ruin became an increasingly tangible reality, the wealthy sought ways to uphold their position as elites.”It is clear that longstanding divisions of class and race, carefully nurtured by the Spanish over centuries, did not decrease one wit during the independence struggles. We learn that both the activities and even the locations of middle and lower class recreations—“cock fighting, bull fighting, and various forms of gambling (dominó)”--remained segregated from those of the elites.

I commend Clarisa for resurrecting one of my favorite sources, Thorstein Veblen, The Theory of the Leisure Class, and for her attention to “conspicuous consumption" and "conspicuous leisure." I consider his views the most complete and accurate explanation of middle and upper-class behavior around the world. I have explained to my wife, who is a sociologist, that her field has been going downhill since Veblen’s 1899 publication—a view that she does not share.

Like Daniel, Clarisa also addresses the issue of modernity, albeit focusing on domestic artifacts rather than foreign observations. “The best way to demonstrate to foreign nations,” she writes, “that Cuba was sophisticated and modern was by creating a society that emulated European and US sociocultural norms. The ability of the capital to maintain an air of cultivation during war could attract foreign business and help promote Cuba as a sophisticated nation.” Again, I find such behavior in wartime downright weird—and I ask Clarisa to elaborate on the motives, values, and mindset of the good people of Havana.

Douglas Walker provides a broad context for his study. As he tells us, he “first identifies national urban trends and then determines whether those trends hold true in Savannah,” looking specifically at the city’s transportation and race relations. True, Savannah replayed the terrible decision made by virtually every American city: deifying the automobile. As Douglas writes, “the automobile fever was so pronounced that good roads had become a topic of everyday conversation.”

Let’s get at motives. Tell me more! Cities in other cultures did not succumb to the seductive appeal of the automobile. They develop sophisticated, highly functional systems of mass transit—something that President Obama is asking us to address now--a century later. Buenos Aires has an early 20th-century subway—most American cities have nothing. Why? Delve into cultural values—is it the excessive individualism of the United States? Economics? Greater US discretionary spending? Easier credit? Greater industrial capacity? Henry Ford? Marketing? Please explore this issue more fully.

Fast forward a couple decades, and Savannah has parking meters in 1947, traffic lights, parking garages, gridlock—ah—the American dream city. Little wonder that in Savannah, horse-drawn carriages have made a comeback, albeit for tourists.

Douglas offers an intriguing and seemingly contradictory portrait of race relations. “Black populations almost always received fewer and poorer services from the government, including sanitation, parks, housing, schools, and hospitals. “ No surprise there. Yet newspaper “stories about racial issues were almost nonexistent.” Here we need a major critique of sources. As Douglas admits, his presentation depends heavily on a single newspaper source, the Savannah Morning News. “A newspaper accommodates the priorities and values of its reporters, editors, and readers,” he writes, “thereby reflecting, during this time, middle to upper-class white society.” Then why use the press to explore social realities? We need more source criticism—and perhaps more sources. A product ever in need of a market, newspapers always represent a problematic source. Then as now, do they print what’s important or merely what appeals to advertisers?

Immigration, an issue of paramount importance to Buenos Aires, is irrelevant to Savannah. “Stories about immigrants to Savannah were almost nonexistent,” because immigrants were largely non-existent. As Douglas writes, “Southern cities as a whole had significantly fewer immigrants, and racial issues were dominated by black-white concerns. The absence of significant racial violence represents a happy deviation from the norm.” Please take a shot at explaining WHY Savannah deviated from the southern norm of interracial violence.

Now I’ll desist and ask our presenters to respond to a few of these issues—and then to field your questions and comments. Thanks to all three for stimulating presentations—had I understood 40 years ago the wealth of sources for urban history versus the slim pickings on the frontiers I’ve explored, I might have chosen a different professional path—nah, once a cowboy always a cowboy.



Sources for further exploration

A database of scholarly works on Latin American urban history available at Refworks:
http://www.refworks.com/refshare?site=030471114758000000/RWWS1AA1051067/Urban%20Latin%20America

Books:

Gunther Barth, City People: The Rise of Modern City Culture in Nineteenth-Century America.
Thomas Bender, Towards an Urban Vision: Ideas and Institutions in Nineteenth-Century America.
Diane Davis, Urban Leviathan: Mexico City in the Twentieth Century.
Jean Franco, The Decline and Fall of the Lettered City: Latin America in the Cold War.
David R. Goldfield, Cotton Fields and Skyscrapers: Southern City and Region.
Jane Jacobs, The Death and Life of Great American Cities.
Nicola Miller and Stephen Hart, eds. When Was Latin American Modern? New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2007.
Eric H. Monkkonen, America Becomes Urban: The Development of U.S. Cities and Towns, 1780-1980.
Richard M. Morse, et al., eds., Rethinking the Latin American City.
Janice Elaine Perlman, The Myth of Marginality: Urban Poverty and Politics in Rio de Janeiro.
Mary P. Ryan, Civic Wars: Democracy and Public Life in the American City during the Nineteenth Century.
David Schuyler, The New American Landscape: The Redefinition of Urban Form in Nineteenth-Century America.
Michael Sorkin, ed., Variations on a Theme Park: Scenes from the New American City.
Sam Bass Warner, The Urban Wilderness: A History of the American City.

Articles:

Latin American Urban History by George Reid Andrews The History Teacher, Vol. 19, No. 4 (Aug., 1986), pp. 499-515 Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/493875
A Prolegomenon to Latin American Urban History by Richard M. Morse. Hispanic American Historical Review, Vol. 52, No. 3 (Aug., 1972), pp. 359-394
Diego Armus and John Lear, “The Trajectory of Latin American Urban History,” Journal of Urban History 24 (1998): 291-307.
New Perspectives on Public Housing Histories in the Americas by Sean Purdy and Nancy H. Kwak Journal of Urban History, Aug 1984; vol. 10: pp. 423 - 452.
Journal of Urban History, Mar 2007; vol. 33: pp. 357 – 37. Strength in Numbers: Urban Rent Strikes and Political Transformation in the Americas, 1904-1925. Andrew Wood and James A. Baer.
Journal of Urban History, Sep 2006; vol. 32: pp. 862 – 88. Urban Networks, Global Processes, and the Construction of Public Life in Nineteenth-Century Buenos Aires. Anton Rosenthal.
Journal of Urban History, Sep 2003; vol. 29: pp. 760 – 76. Review Essay: Directions For Suburbia. Ann Forsyth.
Journal of Urban History, Sep 2006; vol. 32: pp. 885 - 890. Introduction: The Social History of Urban Neighborhoods David Garrioch and Mark Peel.
Journal of Urban History, Jul 2006; vol. 32: pp. 663 - 676. Review Essay: The Search for a Useable Past: Modernist Urban Planning in a Postmodern Age. Georg Leidenberger.
Journal of Urban History, Mar 2006; vol. 32: pp. 451 – 465. Immigrants in Latin American Cities. Thomas H. Holloway.