London Then vs Us Now
Have you ever thought about the beginning of “cities” as we know them? Many of us wouldn’t be very enamored with the lifestyle of pre-modernity, but the development of urban centers wasn’t all bright, shiny, and progressive. In fact, it was quite similar to our predicament now.
COVID-19 has emerged as the long-lost, dark, phantom twin of London’s 19th century modernity. The expansive networks that were borne out of the processes of urbanization not only made the spread of this disease possible, but devastatingly effective. The robust industries that were catalyzed during modernity are now crumbling apart at an alarming rate, along with our globalised economy. Just as the splendour of Victorian England wrought its downfall in the prelude to urbanization, the splendor of our modern world – having similar qualities, only on a larger scale – was all too conducive to this pandemic. There are structural and physical similarities between London’s urban modernity and our world with the coronavirus, but also similarities in their respective impacts on the individual and community. The disease has been successful in recasting governments, infrastructures, and societies into a less progressive light than one might expect nearly two hundred years later, making COVID-19 the evil double of London’s modernity. The personal experiences and discourses that emerged as humanity reacted to urbanization in the 19th century are uneasily preminitious, and parallel ways in which humanity is experiencing the COVID-19 crisis.
Modernity encapsulates the duality of personal experiences that result from a marked change in societal “discourse” of the previous time. It also represents a vast set of experiences and processes that signal a distinctive break from one period to another. Usually this break is jarring and manifold, which is true in respect to COVID-19. Global reactions in response to the coronavirus are similar to those of urban modernity in 19th century London. The concept of “splendour as downfall”, as Victorian England lost its footing in the wake of modernity, holds true for the world with COVID-19. Our interconnectedness and globalized economic networks are unprecedented. Yet despite our technology, we were overcome by a virus. Even China, a global powerhouse, found its medical expertise and response measures insufficient. In fact, China is accused of covering up the outbreak in its early stages. Motivated by a desire to maintain splendour in the international spotlight, it lost a critical window of action, rendering the situation irreparable.
China may have been first, but it was not alone in its struggle. The rest of the world lacked adequate systems of response when the virus did reach their populations. Indeed some political leaders were so captivated with their own splendour that they seemed confident COVID-19 wouldn’t dare make its way West. Regardless of the exact actions taken – or lack thereof – some of the most advanced and powerful nations in today’s world were hit the hardest by the pandemic. The introduction to Victorian Babylon makes connections from the downfall of the prodigious Babylonian Empire to Victorian England’s, emphasizing the importance of learning from historic patterns. However, it seems we did not learn from the Spanish Flu of 1918, nor from numerous doctors, scientists, and other qualified experts who warned it was not a matter of if a pandemic were to occur, but when. This is where we find ourselves as a result.
The aspect of modernity that represents a disruptive change is present with the coronavirus: be it mainland China, Latin America, or Europe, each experienced a distinctive break in the semblance of normal life, just at varied stages between December of 2019 and March of 2020. At the personal level, these changes occur as people adjust their lifestyles. New opportunities, forms of work, and socialization were created as London urbanized, and people are making similarly drastic changes now. Ironically, the physical expansion of urban London has inverted, reflected in a physical contraction during COVID-19 as human contact is unsafe, and an irresponsible taboo. However, individuals are adjusting their methods of networking and expansion into the virtual realm, and the dualities of personal responses still echo that of modernity. Accompanying any communal or large scale process, there are emotional reactions. In modernity these were related to a changing construct of time. The creation of timetables and standardized global clocks was necessary for structure, but was also disorienting. A Radio 4 BBC podcast on literary modernism noted that “coherent stories just stopped making so much sense” for people during modernity, and at the moment this holds true. Many things we grew used to as a contemporary society ceased to function in light of COVID-19. Things that used to make sense are changed entirely, mirroring the experience of London’s citizens in the 19th century. People’s lives expanded, yet simultaneously contracted into the dense geography of the city. The notions of isolation and exposure were redefined under the construct of a new public sphere and the public eye, and like unemployment numbers around the world indicate now, professions were eradicated with hopes that others would materialize – all natural casualties in the groundwork of technological advancements and globalization.
Marshall Berman, a Marxist thinker of the 20th century, invented his own word to describe the processes of urbanization: urbicide. Although Berman wasn’t a native Londoner, his thoughts on the experience of modernity resemble other English writers, and his sentiments were expressed with a universality. In his book, All That Is Solid Melts Into Air, he described urban renewal as “magical and uncanny”. He was particularly interested in the personal consequences of modernity:
“There is a mode of vital experience – experience of space and time, of the self and others, of life’s possibilities and perils – that is shared by men and women all over the world today. I will call this body of experience ‘modernity’.”
This fantastical and encompassing experience that Berman defined mirrors a description of London's transformation in the 19th century as both “terrifying and exhilarating”. In a twisted way, these descriptors could be used in an analysis of COVID-19. The consequences of this disease are terrifying; however, its magnitude lends it a quality of twisted exhilaration.
Part of the exhilaration derives from the indiscriminate nature of the virus. The disease has rampaged modern environments, cut across all boundaries of geography and ethnicity, of class and nationality, making for one of the largest ‘bodies’ unified in their susceptibility to COVID-19. Berman argued that modernity may seem uniting in this way, but it is “paradoxical”, and throws us all into a “maelstrom of perpetual disintegration and renewal, of struggle and contradiction, of ambiguity and anguish.” In many ways, Berman’s modernity could not have been more foresightful in describing how humanity is dealing with the pandemic. For Berman, to be a part of a modern environment was to be a part of a universe where “all that is solid melts into air”, and he was correct.
Baudelaire was another scholar of modernity. Less overtly critical than Berman, he often commented on the artful products of modernity. However, he agreed that it was capable of terrible things, and wrote an apocalyptic vision of the future in his book of essays, The Painter of Modern Life. Although Baudelaire had no way of comprehending the destructive extent of modernity’s processes, he provided a brief yet brilliantly accurate meditation on the terror of progress, suggesting that “by continually refining humanity… indefinite progress might not be [the] most cruel and ingenious torture… [rather] it would turn out to be a perpetually renewed form of suicide.” This fiery circle of logic likening humanity’s progress to a scorpion that bites its own deadly tail seems to have come to fruition; our modern and globalized world certainly worked itself into a state of Baudelaire’s eternal despair.
Unfortunately, this despair in our current pandemic is not felt equally amongst the earth’s population. The social inequality that grew out of modernity has since instituted itself in urban metropolises, and COVID-19 has put this inequality under full scrutiny. Unavoidably, new social structures arose in stride with urban centers, and increasing inequality culminated in the stratified society we are familiar with today. With the coronavirus, many reports are coming out of dense modern cities that target public transportation specifically. A striking image of a train car in New York City packed full of African American workers is circulating the media. Other stories scrutinizing the treatment and living conditions of migrant workers in countries like Singapore have also made headlines. All contribute to the global conversation on the unsafe and unequal circumstances facing certain populations around the world.
Curiously, much of this of inequality can be traced back to the creation of London’s underground railway: the Tube. We can see that the dualism in every process related to urban modernity in London is inescapable, including the “contradictory forces of progress and destruction [that were] a powerful spectre in the Victorian underground”. Although the construction of infrastructure in London such as the underground railway unified the city through communal journeys that were accessible to everyone, it also segregated the urban populace. The Tube destroyed the space between places, albeit on a much smaller scale than our modern day aviation industry does – or rather did before the spread of the coronavirus. This gave the Tube the power to interconnect social demographics, but also perpetuate divides. Neighborhoods were more accessible, but the poorer Londoners and working class could also be pushed to the outskirts of the city without jeopardizing their ability to commute to the center. London’s new dialectic of spatial conception, one in which spaces were at once produced and destroyed, marked one of the first large scale flows of movement for urban commuters and travelers. This flow became the means of movement for the coronavirus in 2019, and continues to be a contested space where inequality is rampant.
Inequality is a large consideration of urban theorists in addition to social activists. Neil Brenner is a professor of urban theory at Harvard Graduate School of Design whose work builds upon critical urban studies, insisting that a “more democratic, socially just and sustainable form of urbanization is possible.” Brenner critiques power, inequality, injustice, and exploitation, which happen all at once within a city. The dual nature of urbanization is also expressed in Brenner’s theory. Critical theories emphasize the “disjuncture between the actual and the possible”, perpetuating the dialectics of the processes involved. His theory is synthetic, reflecting the ideas of various social theorists from Marx, Bourdieu, Foucault, and several contemporary feminist, political economist, and race scholars. The theory builds on many concepts that lend understanding to the social proceedings that shape a city, from modernity to modern day. This concept of ‘partial vision’ in a city – where a large demographic is subject to a small demographic – was bred in environments of modernity like London’s, but are more present than ever with COVID-19. Consider the news sources that dominate reporting on the disease; a majority are Western European and American media. Consider the extremely wealthy individuals who are quarantined in their L.A. homes and countryside mansions with marble bathtubs and other luxuries. Their social media is populated with posts demanding “how hard is it to stay home?”, but they are blind to the people who are homeless, or working in essential industries so the wealthier are enabled to remain comfortable at home. There is a huge demographic of workers who have no choice but to continue going out. They must feed their families – paycheck to paycheck. In this way, the partial vision of urban modernity and the unequal distribution of power is acutely relevant with COVID-19.
Intra-country inequality is prevalent, but what about inter-country? There are certain things developed countries take for granted, such as access to hand-washing facilities, well-staffed and running hospitals, even having hospitals at all. A study from the London School of Economics confirmed that differences in economic inequality can predict the highly divergent health outcomes related to COVID-19 in different states within America, but Imperial College London has done research into lower-income countries themselves. Doctors have asserted that the “coronavirus will have bigger impact on the world’s most disadvantaged and vulnerable”, and found that the risk of death increases with impoverishment, with a 32% increase in death for the lower fifth of the population based on income compared to the wealthiest fifth. Inter-generational households and the communal living of many developing countries makes it difficult to isolate the elderly and vulnerable demographics. As in modernity, and for the highly populated cities today, the more human density, the more disease. This is especially true for a highly contagious virus like COVID-19. In the case of a public health emergency and global pandemic, inequality becomes the difference between testing positive or not, and in many cases, even being tested at all.
In addition to exploitation and equality, critical urban theory is also interested in the malleability of urban space, and its “continual (re)construction as a site, medium, and outcome of historically specific relations of social power”. The theory has much of its origin in 19th century London, but there are applications to urban spaces post and present COVID-19. The form of our cities now will be reimagined, and new versions of familiar urban spaces will depend on the redefined power schemes as the world recovers from the coronavirus. Architects and urban infrastructure analysts are looking to promote local lifestyles as density and human traffic in city-centers has decreased, and will likely never return to previous levels. Inspecting the physicalities, there are similarities between the architectural challenges of modernity and those of COVID-19. Capitalizing on space was increasingly necessary in 19th century London. Building plans needed to be calculated meticulously to maximize the space available for development. Now, architects are designing with similar intent, except with the challenge of maintaining as much space as possible between individuals while still allowing them to exercise, shop, and live their life. Dutch architects have brainstormed green spaces and parks that are designed in maze-like fashion to maximize capacity, while ensuring social distancing measures are observed. The increased risk of disease transmission present in cities has been recognized since modernity, but reconstructed compact cities could allow for populations to live safely while maintaining access to health services and other conveniences of modern living.
It is these conveniences that enticed people into the city in London, and necessitated further industrialization. Industrialization of cities meant modernity networks. These were between people, but also existed as networks of sewers, drains, transport, trade, communications, and other municipal infrastructure. The development of public infrastructure primarily addressed sanitation in its early stages, but government involvement and subsidization quickly grew their complexity. They were integrated into politics, which gave the government more direct control over the health and livelihood of their citizens. The rapid expansion in 19th century London forced a transformation in the nature of British urban politics as “industrial waste and the concentrations of large populations created acute environmental pressures”. The city suffered from inadequate drainage systems and water supply, demanding constitutional changes in governmental organization. Around the year 1835, councils began applying to expand their power and financial strength in efforts to address these issues and avert disasters such as epidemics. We may have come a long way from when these “new environmental projects and works… [began] to take on a symbolic importance”; now our sewage infrastructure is easily hidden from the public eye and the focus has shifted to other architectural feats. However, the size and scope of London resulted in it accomplishing seemingly little throughout the 19th century. Likewise, as our urban cities are devastated by COVID-19, our own governmental bodies seem to be accomplishing less than one would think given our progress.
Unsurprisingly, complications due to population density appear with COVID-19. Everyone is familiar with the maps of the virus’s epicenters. Most of the dark-colored dots assert themselves colossally over the world’s well-known cities, including London. The cultural interaction and interconnectedness of different people that was catalysed in the period of modernity has increased to such an extent that COVID-19 became a pandemic – infecting cities the fastest. Modern life exists in its fullest form in cities, and people there are suffering the most. In modernity population density was increasing and everyone was drawn to the city. It offered the most rewarding and stimulating environment, an alluring space with dangers, but mostly adventure and opportunity. Now people that can are retreating to the lesser populated areas, and those with a small yard or outdoor space are considered lucky. The severity of COVID-19 became global so quickly that humanity is still playing catch up, and much of this is due to our levels of international circulation. Although modernity’s circulation was limited to railways into and between major cities, this seemingly negligible increase of travel completely changed people’s conception of space, time, and physical boundaries. A new duality took shape, one that saw permeability, expanding horizons, and a coinciding shrink, and one that also raised the rates of disease transmission, whether people were fully aware of it yet or not.
Modernity in London was full of excitement and pleasure, and likewise, there are some positive consequences of COVID-19. Historically, lots of creativity, comradery, and ingenuity surfaces during rougher periods. Humanity reacted to modernity with artistic movements, and humans now are being creative with the abundance of time on their hands in isolation. Undoubtedly in different forms, with TikTok instead of Surrealism, and Zoom calls instead of intimate gatherings of avante garde intellectuals; personal introspection is a reaction to COVID-19 just as it was to modernity. Despite physical separateness, there seems to be an increased closeness between people; the dualism that characterizes the coronavirus is in its disparate yet connective qualities. For example, social spaces were given a lot of thought in modernity. People shaped their spaces, and were shaped by them. COVID-19 has seen most of the social spaces around the world vacated. Overall our socialization has been severely reduced, many lockdowns prevent us from seeing those outside our households, and physical distancing is crucial for the “flattening of the curve”. This has taken a toll on people mentally, but also led to the creation of new means for socialization. Nearly all of our interaction has become virtual, so shaping our social spaces looks a lot more like curating a social media presence, but it also means a return to the prominence of domestic life. Families spending all of their time together at home was a pre-modernity phenomena, but has now become one of post-COVID-19.
From their respective homes, people are keen to compare the various levels of government intervention with the coronavirus. This has manifested everywhere, as governments are disparate in handling the pandemic. Some countries, such as South Korea and Taiwan have been praised as a golden standard for their responses. However, not one part of the world has escaped unscaved, and this has resulted in much critique. Debates over the correct levels of cooperation and competition present a duality of measures that may be unique to COVID-19. Vaccine research, travel restrictions, the extent of lockdown enforcement, and other quarantine policies are all being experimented with for the first time, presenting themselves as topics for international cross-examination. This follows a major theme of urban modernization: the loss of confidence in social and political structures. A byproduct of globalization was this skepticism, and a realization for many that the systems in place weren’t satisfactory, nor were they adequate for communicating and handling this new human experience.
Unfortunately, the dereliction of London’s modernity exists now in a failure to fulfill obligations to sick people. For London, the issues with mapping, logistics, and coherently organized urban spaces were to blame, but for the world with COVID-19, shortages of hospital beds, ventilators, testing kits, and diagnostic equipment is resulting in the loss of life. London was forgiven for its chaotic modernization in the 19th century because it was unprecedented. Apart from its French neighbor, Paris, a city whose timeline for urbanization began slightly before but with processes that bore much resemblance to England, Londoners had no expectations. They couldn’t hold the government to any previous, higher standards. Our current society is in the same position. To a certain extent, governments can throw ‘moral hazard’ out the window, and get away with seemingly rash and authoritarian decisions because their citizens have no modern precedents to turn to in judgement. For now, humanity’s response to COVID-19 is still in early stages, and it is too soon to see what kind of movements will be bred and instituted as a response. In London, as now, a range of actors debated the exact processes of modernity and determined what form they would come to take. Then, as now, potential solutions vied for supremacy amid the networks. Solutions are evolving for the COVID-19 pandemic, and though it may be a while before one sticks, they will all shape our 21st century, just as 19th century solutions to urbanization shaped London’s society in modernity.
*see this link for particularly interesting discursive footnotes and full works cited.
