Urban[sch]isms

People that that speak the same language and are of the same socio-cultural descendants, perceive reality within a field of similarity that is dissimilar from another socio-cultural reality. Therefore it stands to reason that there are also different approaches to how the norms and social frameworks are delivered and upheld. The more pervasive and greatly embraced ‘reality’ and norm diffusion is one set forward by Western society and cultural tradition. But who are we to say it is the only correct one? By being of this framework it is hard for us to understand and fathom the credibility of another. Who are we to say that our way is the final and indisputably right? If we would judge on the basis of recorded history, who is to say, for instance, that the Chinese way is not just as credible as ours? For to understand the Chinese usage of public space we must first embrace the fact that China is a great civilization with thousands of years of history and that history dictates a dense and thick cultural framework that cannot and should not be disregarded. By acknowledging this, we realize that delineation of reality perceived through Western eyes could be much different from Chinese reality which maybe impossible for a Westerner to comprehend all together. Nevertheless, in this short paper I will aim to present a comparison of these two very different ideologies, and through my Western eyes attempt to understand the ways in which both traditions approach the diffusion of norms into society and the ways they treat public space as a mechanism for doing so.