Charles Brass wrote:
> However, the real dilemma for me is that people who have "formed a view" are
> apparently blind to the fact that many others (on this list for example) do
> not share their view (as the current discussion about which came first cities
> or rural communities shows). Hence, no real discourse takes place - and it
> is virtually impossible for understanding and collaboration to develop.
I will follow this since I have written about cities and rural
communities, and since I was trying to show historical facts that can
be controlled in my writing about this, and not only some thin
beliefs and convictions, although beliefs and convictions are
important.
If people live in cities or in the countryside has
among other things to do with the fertility of the landscape, and
with traditions and culture.
When Caesar two thousand years ago conquered the land that today is
called France the population there were living in villages, but on
the other side of the Rhine people were living scattered in smaller
groups consisting of one or a few farms, in Germania.
Why this difference? I guess that one precondition for living in a
village is that it is possible to harvest the food etc. that is
necessary to sustain a population of some size in a limited area. And
I guess that both France and Germany is and was fertil enough to
allow this. Another reason is mutual protection. In Gallia people
lived in small towns/villages to protect each other, and for other
reasons, too. In Germania people were organized in larger tribes and
got their protection as members of family-systems and as members of
the larger tribe. As we know the villages of Gallia were not able to
protect the people against the Roman forces, but the tribes of
Germania were. In Norway people used to live like in Germania until
few generations ago, and many are living that way still.
People can of course live in villages a part of the year and in
smaller groups another part of the year. This was the case with the
Sami people in the farthest north of Norway. They used to live in
their Siida during winter, That was a villages in which people who
during summer and autumn were living scattered over large areas which
they harvested, met and spent the winter.
In this way in fact even hunters and gatherers can live in villages.
And the first humans were hunterers and gatherers.
But to relate this to futurework - the future: Are city-life in any
way, or in which ways, superior to life in the countryside? I guess
that the best (regarding quailty of life etc.) and most sustainable
way of life is the one we would like to keep and carry on into the
future.
It is in fact everywhere going on a struggle between countryside and
city about the resources of society, and where this is not visible it
is because one of the sides are being supressed so much that it
cannot articulate itself. And among the weapons being used in this
struggle is the trick of stamping/marking one side/way of
life as inferior to the other, or as old fashioned/prehistoric etc.
This struggle is going on in Norway too. Norway has got a rather
strong, creative and vital countryside. The countryside used to be
strong enough to decide about which governments Norway was to have
because it used to dominate, or be very strong within, the largest
political parties. I have been reading thousands of pages about
Norwegian history, and even published a book and a few articles about
it, and it would be easy for to me write a lot about how the
countryside in Norway has built Norway into a society which gives
people a higher quality of life than people in most countries which
is dominated by towns. Another things is that it is easier to develop
sustainable societies in the countryside than as big towns.
A political party without roots in the countryside is not able to
take part in a governement in Norway, but a political party without
root in towns can form governements in Norway. Just today we are
having a governement here that hardly have roots in the larger towns.
The best is of course an alliance, and the largest political party
used to be an alliance between the working class of the towns and the
common man living in the countryside.
This struggle between countryside and town is about the future, of
course. In many countries the Aristocracy and other forces ravaged
and intimidated and frightened the countryside-population so much
that large parts of it does not dare to look forward or try to create
it own future. That is not the case here, thanks to history. When
the king of Denmark ruled Norway ha employed only about 1.500
persons, and that is included soldiers, officers, tax-collector,
vicars and bishops, writers and judges, and that was not enough to
rule the country. The farmers and peasants had to take part in the
rule, and society therefore had a quite democratic base and arenas
for struggle between king and people, where the people where able to
win. This is something that the countryside of other countries has
lacked.
Tor Forde
