Public Animal Communication
Introduction
Who lives the urban spaces?, That is the heart of the book, which could be considered a citizen, or a mass man, or collective man, or a social man, or simply society, a political animal. But to define who this individual is, we must first define that context where it lives, it happens that depending on the place where it is inhabited, it defines us.
Developing
This is distinguished between space mere geometric extension of passage, impossible for appropriation, such as a street, the subway or a place and place stable, known and ‘conquered’ by one or more individuals, showing the overwhelming primacy of the first in the contexturban and between the firm and rural identity and the liquid and multiple identity of the city a place where at any time something can happen and in which the subject must be prepared to show different facets and show of the freedom that he isIt allows its anonymity.
There are certain imperceptible complex structures and values that collect the determination of who we are in the city. The marasmus that urban life is attributed cannot conceive another more appropriate petulant subject than an animal. This is the basis with the anthropologist supports the thesis that the citizen is a public animal.
He says that he has been studied by an almost animal social science, and quotes Louis Wirth in an essay on urban life where he is portrayed as a hostile place, full of atrocities, where people are only in motion skin, this joins the conceptOf social sub, because there is no full sociability, it is a scan of mere forced convenience relations of a society of democratic really.
The public animal that this author defines as a inhabitant of urban spaces, is a passer -by, someone absent for himself, who as the same author points out with Isaac Joseph, has a minimum social intelligence called respect, and not precisely to interaction in interaction inmass, but what everyone is as a whole. That individual who is on the street, moves in masses, and left one place, heading to another, the street is that intermediate space, where he came and where he goes.
conclusion
The street as Dr. Delgado points out, at the conference I shared above, has a bad reputation, and children are instilled that ‘nothing good can be learned from it’, basically where social horrors, violence, crime are manifested, death, despair, torture, and in essence that makes the city a hell.
We have reached us, and we lose sight of a public animal, a corporeal being in perpetual motion, absent from our own personality, a mere automaton. The interesting thing about this premise is that the city will always constitute an outside, and the buildings that inhabit an inside, that makes it spiritual, inside and outside us;
Leave feedback