Urbanisation, the by-product of capitalism, helps establish a society which is civil, unorthodox and flexible as far as one’s socio-economic standing is concerned. This explains why the notion of citizenship is related to the birth of cities
Capitalism produces urbanism, which ultimately introduces ‘civility’ among citizens. In fact, the very notion of citizenship is related to the birth of cities. Cities were born first and notion of the citizenship followed.
The term civic bodies evolved along with the rise of cities. From the very beginning, cities were bound to be different from villages. Villages didn’t evolve with the system of sewages. Villages even didn’t possess systems of streets that were designed and maintained. On the other hand, cities equipped themselves with amenities such as the notion of piped water connection or sewage system.
There were cities with systems that were universal in form and content. And before residential or commercial buildings actually came up, people had to follow certain norms. Before engineers landed with materials, the buildings would have architectural systems in place that were duly approved by architects. And much before the owners would hire architects to design buildings, the place had to be appropriately approved.
Then, a civic department would measure if the proposed site of the building falls along a sewerage route. Another civic authority would look whether the building is in access zone of the piped water system. Yet another civic body would see and clear the number of floors a building can have if the proposed building is to multi-storeyed.
As the time passed, more and more players would come into picture to make cities even better and safer to live. The electricity department would come to see if the building could be provided with power. likewise, the fire department would also see how its services could be offered to these buildings.
Villages, on the other hand, generally came up without any planning. But there have always been exceptions. Also, many capitalistic societies have suburbs, even slums that are unplanned. Here, we are talking about the rules that preside over systems. And one such rule suggests that urbanised is organised and planned.
With a civic system in place, cities produce new lifestyles. Rising up in the morning and going to bed would be different in cities and villages. Villagers would go to bed early and rise before daybreak, whereas the urbanites would go to bed late in the night and rise after the daybreak. Dress code would also change. In cities citizens have to follow higher hygienic standard and hence cloths are more frequently washed, while some villagers might keep using unwashed cloths for days. Also, in the countryside, fashion doesn’t exist. People have been living with similar kinds of dress for ages. But in cities, fashion changes too often.
There are differences in terms of food habits as well. Both the city-dwellers and the village folks differ in choices of their food. In villages, for instance, food intake is determined by factors such as the followings: Food is needed to fill the stomach; food raw material ought to be fresh; and fruits are generally not part of food habits. In cities, food intake is determined by such as the followings: Along with stomach, food must also satisfy tongue; frozen food is widely used; and fruits are part of the diet. I need to add a caveat: The above description is about the middle class and not the underclass.
In villages, people’s occupation choices are limited. Most live on agriculture, dairy and meat/fish-related occupations. In cities, occupations explode in terms of variety. Urbanism produces a service sector that could be bigger than agriculture and industry put together. In the UK, for instance, 78.3 per cent citizens live on the service sector. The service sector occupations range from financial services to restaurants to acting in a movie or living on writing poetries.
In France, 71.8 per cent people live on the service sector; in Germany, 73.8 per cent survive on it. In Japan, the figure is 72.5 per cent. And in Australia, 75 per cent people live on this sector.
Now, where do India, China and Brazil standIJ In China, 69.8 per cent people live on the service sector, in Brazil, 71 per cent people depend on this sector for their livelihoods. In India, however, a mere 56.6 per cent people are in the service sector.
Economies the world over are identified in terms of sectors — primary sector (agriculture), secondary sector (manufacturing), and tertiary sector (services). Needless to say, the service sector is more sophisticated and considered more civil. So, it’s urbanisation, the by-product of capitalism, that helps establish a civil society.