Metropolis and Culture

Metropolises can be considered as large non-places. Gradually, all metropolises are becoming non-places. A non-place has a single meaning, but it is a meaning that, symbolically and directionally, does not guide us anywhere. Its direction is itself. The metropolis represents the “world city.” A place is where identity exists, but a non-place lacks identity and historical-cultural representation. Isfahan is a place, but London is a world city and a non-place. According to Saskia Sassen, the famous urbanist, a global city is different from a world city. Many cities can be global but are not world cities. World cities are centers of global exchanges and transactions such as London, Paris, Tokyo, and New York. A global city may have many immigrants and ethnicities and numerous communication networks, but it is not the center of the world, although it is globalized. In Iran, cities like Mashhad and Tehran can be considered global cities but not world cities. These global cities, where airports, highways, supermarkets, mega malls, and identity-less global organizations emerge, gradually become non-places. Non-places are locations where a special form of social relations arises. Non-places are not meaningless but lack identity; that is, local matters and local identity are hard to see there. The metropolis is a form that cities in our society have been experiencing in recent decades. This form exists in all cities, even medium or small ones. Within every city, there are metropolises, and within every metropolis, there are cities. Metropolises are non-placed positions within cities. Cities with populations over one million are more prone to the expansion of non-placing and non-places. Hence, these cities are called metropolises. What problematizes the position of metropolises is precisely this non-placing and the expansion of non-placedness in the spirit of the city. My effort in this book is to provide analytical narratives of these urban and metropolitan problems.