on Cosmopollity and Strangers

1-I understand and agree with the idea that Sennett points out, that of in modern cities people have an uncomfortable feeling of not really belonging in there, a sense of crisis of citizenship. He explains that by the no involvement global corporations have with the cities in which they operate; the constant instability of the new capitalism that creates impermanent jobs and impermanent offices and finally, the indifference people feel about the physical space in the city. An example of this whole cycle would be that the major corporations that could do something good for the structure of the city and the well being of its citizens are really more interested about making money right away, and that implies firing employees and changing offices whenever necessary. By thinking this way, they don’t build or want an spatial structure in which its employees would feel connected and identified with, they rather choose a place that any selected staff would fit in, meaning, a non-personal environment. If a person can not be identified to a place, find a “home” in there, much likely he or she would not feel embodied within it, he or she would feel indifferent about the place. So here comes again the cycle Sennet mentioned: flexibility leads to standardization that leads to indifference.

2- A stranger is a person who arrives from a distinct place, or nowhere you are aware of, to the spatial boundaries you are placed in and brings qualities that are not inherited nor natural from there. Being so, the stranger can only be considered as if he or she is near to you, creating involvement and possible feelings arisen by similarities and unlikeliness; but even being near he or she is still unknown what may cause us indifference as well (something we gotta change?).