According to a Western cultural heritage, where the idea of free citizenship and democracy originated, citizenship, place, and the city belong together. The idea of free citizenship and democracy is reflected in the understanding of the human being as a zoon politikon, literally translated an animal who lives in the polis, the city. It is a definition given by Aristotle, inhabitant of one of those ancient Greek cities where democracy was first practiced. To live in such conditions is civilized, in literal terms. The word civilization derives from the Latin Civilis; it is that which belongs to the human being as a citizen (a word in which city is reflected), the member of a formal community as a Civis, and relates to political life. The Civis, being the member of that formal community or civitas, has formal rights and obligations. From this etymology we realize where our current understanding of formal or ‘parliamentary’ democracies is rooted. Even dictatorships, in terms of material and technological achievements, may be called ‘civilized’ – but they lack true citizenship and civility in the sense outlined here.
Let us hear some recent voices. In its essence, so the anthropologist and archaeologist Graeber & Wengrow argue, civilis denotes capabilities of political foresight and mutual assistance, enabling societies to “organize in voluntary associations.” True civilization, these authors continue, is mutual help, social cooperation, and civic engagement. Civitas, according to A.M. Leon, can even be seen as a space of co-liberation. She says civitas “describes a social body of citizens bound by law. Yet in that dry definition lies something more poetic: the dream that we are greater than the sum of our constituent parts. How can we, as citizens and as collective individuals, be more than we are alone?” When looking at recent conditions of life in our so-called techno-civilization driven by profit, technological optimization, and social media, with individuals living in the descendants of the former city, in congested urban agglomerations and ‘fragmented societies’ (so the technical term for such conditions of life), can it be stated that this has just become a utopian dream, confined to the realm of poesy?
No other civilization than the West developed the concept of the Civis, the citizen deserving the name, and of Civitas. The cities of non-Western civilizations had inhabitants, but not citizens in this sense. Looking at contemporary urban life, one can question whether we are trapped in a process of losing this concept of Civis. Consider Renaissance Italy, where building on the city was building on society. This maintains some validity today, albeit in other directions than the one originally intended: namely to build a citta felice, a ‘happy’ city “whose inhabitants would be able to accommodate one another in creating a good life” (Manuel/Manuel). Has this become impossible today? And if not, what are essential premises for achieving such a city?
First and foremost, one can focus on the essential premise of the concept of place. Suited to basic anthropological conditions or the conditio humana of being a social animal, place addresses the needs for community and for its identity. Place can be understood as the achievement of an inclusive architecture that reveals and reinforces the nature of a specific locus, sustaining a sense of being and belonging. Place in this sense, often in the form of a public space like the piazza, the market square, the city park… provides a physical space for human interaction, dialogue, recreation. In a context in which we maintain the primacy of zoon politikon, the impact and power of this physical contact cannot be underestimated. This contact is important to the nurturing of public trust and attachment. This is what makes a place anthropological. The anthropological place, says Marc Auge, is a place of identity, of relations and of history. Such a place has human measure and a specific atmosphere that makes it truly distinctive, individual. It is a place for the public, a communal place in its literal understanding. In terms of identity and belonging, it becomes a good place. Building on the city is building on society – a good place is essential for a good life. Most of our recent cities miss this.
In times before the internet and the demise of the public place in favor of private investors and mere touristic attractions, the public place had a political dimension, too, from the Greek agora until quite recently. Citizens met there to vote, to express their opinions, to take part in communal debates, and to protest. The public place was a place of civic engagement; it was the place of the citizen and the epitome of free citizenship, and hence, of democracy. As a free citizen I can gather there, can have a voice, taking part in decisions concerning the city – which is my city, because I am an active part of it. In this way, a sense of belonging, citizen identity, public place and democracy are intrinsically interwoven. The large squares of absolutist emperors and modern dictators are spaces, but not places; and the modern ‘social’ media do not need them because they only need users, i.e. single individuals, but no citizens. You do not have to be a citizen – with an understanding of citizenship – to operate inside their terms; but just be a user, that is, a consumer. Further, in current political discourse, there is a tension unfolding between notions of citizenship, one rooted in the idea of the democratic project and the other making an exclusionary claim of citizenship through blood and soil. The former is centered on human equality and is therefore intrinsically inclusive and open and available to those that embrace democracy and the later seeks to leverage place or geography to exclude. This conservative view of place seeks to limit and distort the freedom of place for democratic action and civic engagement.
This special issue publication seeks to take on a broad range of questions regarding place, the individual, and community in 21st century cities. The intention of this issue is to probe underlying conditions of our current social, political, economic challenges, or outright dysfunction, to provide clarity on the project we must embark upon to build towards the future societies we hope to arise from this moment of disruption and instability. The most critical question remains this: have we evolved as social creatures such that community through human contact is no longer essential to the wellbeing and meaningfulness of our existence? Alternatively, if we remain the social animal or zoon politikon, then perhaps we can posit that much of our current societal instability is in part a consequence of the undermining of place by social media. Diverse views on these questions are encouraged, especially generational diversity that can offer insights into today’s young adults that occupy a critical position relative to the current and near future evolution of our society.
Outlay of contributions
The contribution of John Roberts deals with the relations between Civil Society, Civility, and Urban Public Space from a point of view adopted by liberal theory. It focuses on the relationship between civil society and civility as it is seen by this theory, and in that context, allowed modes of discussion (“civilized” ones) about a civilized society and the public realm. Such a liberal understanding is still prevalent today, alongside the social frictions and inequalities it produces in recent neoliberalism, also in regards to public urban space.
Ettore Mazzola’s article deals with a related issue, namely modernist architecture and its constituting mindset, the dominant power of shaping modern and recent cities in terms of architectural and urbanistic expression. His article The Advantages of a more Objective View of How to be Architects illuminates the shortfalls of such a modernist mindset and his concentration on functionalism, alongside its destructive potential in regards to city, identity, and the human need for urban places.
In Re-Engaging the Social Potential of the Public Realm of Our Cities, Jason Montgomery outlines the need for public place, bringing activities back to a human measure. True cities in terms of humane life need places, and this is not due to an outdated human condition, but essential for human beings. The future existence of the city as such depends on this. Rebalancing daily human life needs the urban place, not just spaces, technology, and over-consumption prevalent in recent cities.
Sam Olshin is developing such a perspective further. In his The Search for the Ideal, critical success factors for architectural placemaking in establishing communities are investigated. Taking the US-city of Philadelphia as a case example, such factors are outlined, leading to viable urban communities. Otherwise, the wealth gap in cities will widen, causing social disruption.
To conclude this reign of perspectives, Ulrich Gehmann looks at some basic relations between Community, Space, Utopia. The need for community, place, and belonging is reflected in the idea of the ideal city, and related to this idea is the desire for utopia. Leading assumptions embedded in a Western cultural heritage are examined, assumptions essential for making ideal spaces for communities.
Enjoy reading,
Karlsruhe in Winter 2025/2026
Ulrich Gehmann, Jason Montgomery, and Andreas Siess