This post contained an draft version of a dissertation section. A more recent version is now available on the works page.
Advertisements
This post contained an draft version of a dissertation section. A more recent version is now available on the works page.
I don’t know if ‘location, location’ in terms of becoming or effectiveness is so very important if the Metropolis is everywhere, and everywhere is an extension of the Metropolis. Declarations echoing from the Seattle hills are just as implausible as putting a voice to intent at a downtown intersection. Doesn’t it ultimately amount a simple matter of preference in deciding where one should live? If ‘back to the land’ or ‘run to the hills’ is an escapist cliché, but a streetwise hoodlum is adept at provisioning and strategizing on an all encompassing, hostile terrain, precisely what degrees of separation are being referred to when people say escape carries a certain meaning that depends on physical circumstances?
I agree.
Previous attempts to think escape as a geo-spatial problematic are outmoded. Metropolis abolishes the town-country distinction.
With the advent of the surveillance state, living in the country, if anything, makes you easier to track and control. Then again, anyone who lives in a small town knows how closely your neighbors keep tabs on you. Anonymity is a condition unique to density.