TABLE
OF CONTENTS
|
Crossing the Globe: Kobe to
Istanbul
By Jane Wiseman
The Blue Mosque,
Istanbul
Small rundown buisness, Kobe
Introduction
Throughout
this
semester we have discussed the differences between the transnational
and
vernacular aspects of global cities. This assignment will compare two
cities,
one from Asia and one from Europe. In
this
paper, I will analyze the cities of Kobe,
Japan and Istanbul, Turkey
comparing how the two cities deal with becoming transnational areas
while
trying to preserve their vernacular history. Both Kobe
and Istanbul
are cites with great history and have had to weather the transition
from a
rather small area of influence to influence from around the globe.
In the Asian
city
of Kobe, Japan, there are obvious
signs of
transnationalism. There are worldwide companies that range from banks
to
restaurants. However, there are also thousand year old Shinto shrines
and
vernacular eateries built out of someone’s home. For the time being,
the
transnational and vernacular aspects of Kobe
seem to be coexisting. Unfortunately, there are signs that some
vernacular
features of the city are simply being replaced by transnational
factors. While
there are certainly still vernacular parts of the city, I was
disconcerted to
find that there was hardly anything in the city that wasn’t touched by
transnationalism. Even the little eateries had credit card machines and
I was
able to pay with my Visa.
Istanbul
is undoubtedly a transnational city. As a city that was a capital to
three
empires it certainly has a long history and there were vernacular
characteristics everywhere I looked. Of course the city has the markers
of a
global city with the typical banks and restaurants. Yet, there are also
Ottoman
mosques and Roman pillars. Unlike Kobe,
Istanbul
seems to have
been better able to meld their vernacular pieces of history with the
transnational elements having transitioned into a global city without
phasing
out the vernacular aspects.
Field
Reports
The following
are links to my field reports on Japan and Turkey.
Kobe: Here and There in Japan
Istanbul:
The City of Eur-Asia
Analysis
Now I do not mean
to be too harsh on Kobe
and say that they are not preserving their history. Of course, many
pieces of
their history are still around today and embody the vernacular spirit
of Japan.
It just
seems that Kobe
is morphing into a place not with both the transnational and vernacular
but a
mutant that has both yet neither. Theodore C. Bestor talks about
“literal
utopians” that are “nowhere in particular and everywhere at once” in
his
article "Supply Side Sushi: Commodity,
Market, and the Global
City."
Now of course Bestor
is talking about fish markets, but it is an idea I think could be
applied to Kobe
as a whole, not just
its fish markets.
On the other
hand,
I feel that Istanbul
has managed to successfully navigate the transition from mostly
vernacular to
transnational. As the previous capital of three empires, it is a little
awkward
to talk about Istanbul
as being strictly vernacular. Having been the capital of empires whose
domain
encompassed many peoples, Istanbul
has influences from a variety of cultures and therefore vernacular has
a
slightly different meaning for the city. Unfortunately, Istanbul still
has the characteristics of a
major global city. For example, in Jenny White’s article, "Bridge
Between Europe and Asia," she talks about how there are clear
cut divisions between neighborhoods based on class distinctions.
According to
White, many low income people have been displaced by developers
building high
rent housing which is a major characteristic of a transnational
influence on a city. Istanbul
also
suffers from the global city curse of not having enough housing for all
those
who are drawn there. It seems that, while it has kept much of its
history while
becoming a global city, Istanbul
has fallen prey to the typical problems of being a transnational city.
Conclusion
The cities of Kobe, Japan
and Istanbul, Turkey have both had to
deal with
becoming transnational areas while trying to preserve their vernacular
history. Kobe and Istanbul
are radically different cities with Japan,
and subsequently Kobe, being extremely
isolated
until recent years while Istanbul
has been a hub of activity for quite some time. However, as
transnational
cities they both face the same challenges of trying to retain their
vernacular
identity while trying to become a global entity. Both Kobe
and Istanbul
are trying to seamlessly integrate transnational qualities into their
cities
without losing their vernacular culture. Having been to both cities, Istanbul seems
to have
better been able to achieve the global city status with transnational
aspects
and vernacular spirit.
In Michael
Foucault’s article "Of Other Spaces," he
talks about how the world is not
a void in which we can simply exist independently and go about our
business
untouched by others. Foucault’s point is that places and people are
always
affected
by one another and that, in fact, one area might be defined simply by
its
relation to another. I think that Istanbul
has embodied this idea. Not only is Istanbul’s
global identity transnational, even the vernacular culture is a meld of
cultures and people. This most likely comes from being a capital to
different
empires and having a plethora of people migrate to and through the
city.
Conversely, Kobe
is still rather isolated from the influence of other cultures. Although
it is
still transnationally connected in the sense that Japan
trades globally and imports from many countries, Japan
(and Kobe)
has not
completely embraced the global market. For example, no non-Japanese
credit
cards can be used in the country (yes that includes Visa and
MasterCard). This
really stunts a city’s ability to really become a global city. If Japan
is not
willing to accept the global market, how transnational can they really
be? Istanbul, and Turkey
as a whole, really seems to
have the right idea in terms of becoming a global city. They are
incorporating
the new, transnational society into their vernacular customs.
In sum, both Kobe
and Istanbul
are transnational cities. They both have long histories that should be
preserved even while they are incorporating transnational behaviors.
Alas, it
seems that some of Kobe’s
history is getting lost among the bright lights of the global market.
Yet, Istanbul
seems to have
been able to keep its historic sites and even use them to boost its
global
relevancy. There are no utopias. Neither Kobe
nor Istanbul,
as transnational cities, exists completely separate from outside
influences.
According to Foucault, that makes them heterotopias: separate from
one
another, yet mirroring other influences that are not essentially part
of their
individual cultures.
|
