Week 4 Responses
Why does de Certeau begin a chapter titled “Walking in the City” at the top of the World Trade Center in Manhattan (p. 91)?
Certeau begins the chapter in peculiar fashion. By viewing the city of Manhattan, our perspectives are subject to change and vary due to the newfound positioning. We escape from our routine bodily perspective throughout our walks as we can see it all now. We are now no longer subject to look closely within the matters of the city for we have it all beneath us. Yet he then goes on to explain how this is is but a mere fiction of knowledge as this lovely viewpoint is nothing but a lust viewpoint and nothing more. Ultimately leading the reader to believe that the power of knowledge and intellect lies within the physicality and actually being indulged within literal walks. We won’t learn the history, or the values, or the beauty of a location if we aren’t actually walking alongside it. A view from above is nothing more than a mere glimpse of what you see before you truly unholds. (159)
Why are “haunted places” the “only ones people can live in” (p. 108)?
I feel like this idea of “Haunted places” continues alongside the concept of historical background within walking. There is always so much to indulge in when going on walks that one doesn’t always take note of. Haunted places carry so much context and meaning behind them which can only thrill and intrigue many. And the idea of “Panopticon” (which was a prison system in which cells surrounded a blocked off surveillance tower in which the inmates could be being watched, but would never know when it would be happening. This can translate one of two ways; those that are stuck in a historical scenery are there to transmit ideas and knowledge unbeknownst to those who walk amongst it. All whilst the walkers have no idea of their very existence, or more so of when said haunters are amongst them. And the other way could be the idea of the walker seeing all the historical context upon them but the scenery and those in question of haunting not being able to interact or properly transmit their ideas and contextual knowledge of said place. (182)
