Cities can often be conceived as an urban narrative expressing a national reality. They reflect a true image of the society that constructed them and frame the power logics imprinted upon their inhabitants interactions. The unconscious dialectic between space and its relation to the city’s inhabitants becomes the silent discourse reproducing power structures imprinted upon the nation’s history. In this sense, space and the political organization of space express social relationships. As noted by several post-Marxist scholars, space in itself might be conceived as a physical context, but the organization, and meaning of space is a product of social translation. According to Harvey, spatial forms are seen not as inanimate objects within which the social process unfolds, but as things containing social processes in the same manner that social processes are spatial. Therefore, social relationships can be understood as both space-forming and space contingent. Urban practices articulating spaces where life is to be experienced, silently organize the language determining the conditions of the social. Hence, space becomes an operator of power.
To consider the city as the projection of society on space is an indispensable starting point to understand the formal rules which national social practices obey. Mexico is one of the countries with the most divided societies, but also one with the most centralized forms of government. Its capital, Mexico City, is one of the five largest cities in the world, becoming a megacity perhaps even before the term was created in the 1970s. This article will discuss the way on which the state of Mexican society, as well as that of its democracy, can be reflected on the spatial practices materialized in Mexico City.
Urban Narratives and Social Division
The genesis of Mexico’s social divisions can be found in the brutal conquering that took place in 1521 with the victory of Spain over the Aztecs. An event that not only altered existing power relationships between native civilizations, but also broke the prevailing ethnic coherence embraced upon the different territorial units. Furthermore, after the Spanish rule began, native civilizations were fused with European culture.
A strict caste system was introduced that classified society in relation to their European counterparts, with upper classes being closer to European origin and the lower class being dominated by native ethnic groups--all of which translated into terms of economic subjugation after independence in 1821. Little has changed since that time. As mentioned, cities reflect a true image of the society that constructed them and frame the power logics imprinted upon their inhabitants’ interactions. Therefore, in order to completely understand Mexico City’s urban narratives we must depart from the City’s downtown, the most symbolic birthplace of the current Mexican civilization.
After Spanish conquest, a new spatial appropriation took place in the former Aztec empire’s capital. Aztec constructions where destroyed and replaced by European style buildings that where not only constructed with the same rocks, but also on top of them. The Templo Mayor, the Aztec’s main expression of power, was demolished and buried by a new Baroque Cathedral. Constituting thus, a tacit spatial expression of the on going social processes that where taking place upon the newly acquired Spanish territory. New forms of power and spatial meanings were being established.
Space is not merely a scientific concept removed from ideology and politics: it has always been political and strategic. It has been shaped and molded from historical and natural elements, allowing it to be both deeply political and ideological. The new architectural dialectic reproduced the discourse of a European nation that had been recently reunited and expanded into a global empire. It expressed its power and the new forms that were to rule spatial relations. The “new Mexico City”, built and conceived by the Spaniards, became the spatial engine of social segregation. While it came to act as the main centre of power, natives were removed and cast out to the periphery. Aiming to reflect a “New Spain” where natives, just as the moors in Spain, had no place.
Upon independence, the spatial logic conceived under the intentions to express a “New Spain”, were lost. Ethnic divisions, translated into terms of economic subjugation became the new underlying rationale, and where thus expressed on space. A new architectural dialectic extended even to the form of government, became the new logic ruling the city.
During the 20th century, people from the whole republic moved to Mexico City, trying to find their way out of poverty. This trend created a strong tendency towards centralization that birthed what we know today as Mexico City’s metropolitan area. Today, it is the second-largest urban agglomeration in the Western Hemisphere, comprising a population of 21.2 million people, a number easily compared to the total population of Australia.
As opposed to the Spanish-built downtown, the city’s metropolitan area reproduced an exclusive discourse in the form of fences and the decrease of public space. Reflecting in this sense, the new national reality. Fences became the new guardians of identity, keeping houses and buildings from expressing their beauty to the outside, demarcating in this sense a “coherent inside” from a “chaotic outside”. Space became private, destined only to serve powerful classes. Only a few and forgotten spaces, where left for public domain, resulting in a city which became impersonal to its inhabitants. It is in this sense; the spatial form that a city assumes can be related to the social behaviors it contains, for it will institutionalize and determine the future development of social processes.
Spatial Relations and Democracy
As space can be conceived as the ultimate expression of power, spatial forms can be manipulated in various ways to yield various symbolic meanings. Thus, it is possible to regard the spatial form of a city as a basic determinant of human behaviour. The cognitive state of the individual with respect to its spatial environment will have a direct impact on its perception of democracy and its relation to it. The city becomes the dominant theme in political legends, but is no longer a field of programmed and regulated operations. In the case of Mexico City, access to space can be related to power and the individual’s value to society, exposing in this sense the link between spatial relations and democracy.
To talk about a genuine democracy, a social unity aiming for a common wealth must be achieved. Space must be as equally distributed as possible, allowing the city to be truly experienced by its inhabitants. This has not been achieved in the Mexican capital. “Social hygiene practices” aiming to make the poor invisible have been the predominant spatial logic for the last two centuries. Access to the city has become directly proportional to economic power. Streets, avenues, and urban highways have become trenches, just as the ones in Bagdad and Beirut, that divide instead of unite.
Pedestrians, often linked with the poor, have been nullified from social life in the way sidewalks have been reduced. Cars have become the mechanical armour allowing its citizens to transit these divisive urban narratives without becoming sensitive to it.
Therefore, it is only when we realize that walking through the city is what speaking is to speech that we can observe that only those who have access to the city’s space decide the country’s future. The poor remain insignificant not only to space but also to decision-making processes regarding the country’s future.
Mexico City remains an extremely divided space, reflecting a nation with many fears and many identities. It has become composed of paroxysmal places in monumental reliefs that express the individual value to society in relation to their access to space. Its exclusive architectural dialectic exerts a direct impact on the way citizens recognize their role and place in society and thus upon the country’s democracy. Therefore, it is only by observing the ways on which Mexico City’s urban space has been rewritten and designed, the city can be understood as an ethnic spatial representation that characterizes rhythmic functional patterns constituting the current Mexican culture and its “chosen” way of life.
Stephanie Henaro is a Wikistrat Researcher based in Mexico City. During 2009, she served as a coordination officer at the Shanghai Headquarters of the Mexican Chamber of Commerce in China (MEXCHAM). Her research focuses on Geopolitical, Territorial, and Security issues for Latin America and Asia-Pacific Regions. She has studied in France, Russia, and the UK, receiving her Masters Degree from King’s College London in 2012.
a global affairs media network
Understanding Mexico: Reading Between Mexico City’s Urban Narratives
December 16, 2013
Cities can often be conceived as an urban narrative expressing a national reality. They reflect a true image of the society that constructed them and frame the power logics imprinted upon their inhabitants interactions. The unconscious dialectic between space and its relation to the city’s inhabitants becomes the silent discourse reproducing power structures imprinted upon the nation’s history. In this sense, space and the political organization of space express social relationships. As noted by several post-Marxist scholars, space in itself might be conceived as a physical context, but the organization, and meaning of space is a product of social translation. According to Harvey, spatial forms are seen not as inanimate objects within which the social process unfolds, but as things containing social processes in the same manner that social processes are spatial. Therefore, social relationships can be understood as both space-forming and space contingent. Urban practices articulating spaces where life is to be experienced, silently organize the language determining the conditions of the social. Hence, space becomes an operator of power.
To consider the city as the projection of society on space is an indispensable starting point to understand the formal rules which national social practices obey. Mexico is one of the countries with the most divided societies, but also one with the most centralized forms of government. Its capital, Mexico City, is one of the five largest cities in the world, becoming a megacity perhaps even before the term was created in the 1970s. This article will discuss the way on which the state of Mexican society, as well as that of its democracy, can be reflected on the spatial practices materialized in Mexico City.
Urban Narratives and Social Division
The genesis of Mexico’s social divisions can be found in the brutal conquering that took place in 1521 with the victory of Spain over the Aztecs. An event that not only altered existing power relationships between native civilizations, but also broke the prevailing ethnic coherence embraced upon the different territorial units. Furthermore, after the Spanish rule began, native civilizations were fused with European culture.
A strict caste system was introduced that classified society in relation to their European counterparts, with upper classes being closer to European origin and the lower class being dominated by native ethnic groups--all of which translated into terms of economic subjugation after independence in 1821. Little has changed since that time. As mentioned, cities reflect a true image of the society that constructed them and frame the power logics imprinted upon their inhabitants’ interactions. Therefore, in order to completely understand Mexico City’s urban narratives we must depart from the City’s downtown, the most symbolic birthplace of the current Mexican civilization.
After Spanish conquest, a new spatial appropriation took place in the former Aztec empire’s capital. Aztec constructions where destroyed and replaced by European style buildings that where not only constructed with the same rocks, but also on top of them. The Templo Mayor, the Aztec’s main expression of power, was demolished and buried by a new Baroque Cathedral. Constituting thus, a tacit spatial expression of the on going social processes that where taking place upon the newly acquired Spanish territory. New forms of power and spatial meanings were being established.
Space is not merely a scientific concept removed from ideology and politics: it has always been political and strategic. It has been shaped and molded from historical and natural elements, allowing it to be both deeply political and ideological. The new architectural dialectic reproduced the discourse of a European nation that had been recently reunited and expanded into a global empire. It expressed its power and the new forms that were to rule spatial relations. The “new Mexico City”, built and conceived by the Spaniards, became the spatial engine of social segregation. While it came to act as the main centre of power, natives were removed and cast out to the periphery. Aiming to reflect a “New Spain” where natives, just as the moors in Spain, had no place.
Upon independence, the spatial logic conceived under the intentions to express a “New Spain”, were lost. Ethnic divisions, translated into terms of economic subjugation became the new underlying rationale, and where thus expressed on space. A new architectural dialectic extended even to the form of government, became the new logic ruling the city.
During the 20th century, people from the whole republic moved to Mexico City, trying to find their way out of poverty. This trend created a strong tendency towards centralization that birthed what we know today as Mexico City’s metropolitan area. Today, it is the second-largest urban agglomeration in the Western Hemisphere, comprising a population of 21.2 million people, a number easily compared to the total population of Australia.
As opposed to the Spanish-built downtown, the city’s metropolitan area reproduced an exclusive discourse in the form of fences and the decrease of public space. Reflecting in this sense, the new national reality. Fences became the new guardians of identity, keeping houses and buildings from expressing their beauty to the outside, demarcating in this sense a “coherent inside” from a “chaotic outside”. Space became private, destined only to serve powerful classes. Only a few and forgotten spaces, where left for public domain, resulting in a city which became impersonal to its inhabitants. It is in this sense; the spatial form that a city assumes can be related to the social behaviors it contains, for it will institutionalize and determine the future development of social processes.
Spatial Relations and Democracy
As space can be conceived as the ultimate expression of power, spatial forms can be manipulated in various ways to yield various symbolic meanings. Thus, it is possible to regard the spatial form of a city as a basic determinant of human behaviour. The cognitive state of the individual with respect to its spatial environment will have a direct impact on its perception of democracy and its relation to it. The city becomes the dominant theme in political legends, but is no longer a field of programmed and regulated operations. In the case of Mexico City, access to space can be related to power and the individual’s value to society, exposing in this sense the link between spatial relations and democracy.
To talk about a genuine democracy, a social unity aiming for a common wealth must be achieved. Space must be as equally distributed as possible, allowing the city to be truly experienced by its inhabitants. This has not been achieved in the Mexican capital. “Social hygiene practices” aiming to make the poor invisible have been the predominant spatial logic for the last two centuries. Access to the city has become directly proportional to economic power. Streets, avenues, and urban highways have become trenches, just as the ones in Bagdad and Beirut, that divide instead of unite.
Pedestrians, often linked with the poor, have been nullified from social life in the way sidewalks have been reduced. Cars have become the mechanical armour allowing its citizens to transit these divisive urban narratives without becoming sensitive to it.
Therefore, it is only when we realize that walking through the city is what speaking is to speech that we can observe that only those who have access to the city’s space decide the country’s future. The poor remain insignificant not only to space but also to decision-making processes regarding the country’s future.
Mexico City remains an extremely divided space, reflecting a nation with many fears and many identities. It has become composed of paroxysmal places in monumental reliefs that express the individual value to society in relation to their access to space. Its exclusive architectural dialectic exerts a direct impact on the way citizens recognize their role and place in society and thus upon the country’s democracy. Therefore, it is only by observing the ways on which Mexico City’s urban space has been rewritten and designed, the city can be understood as an ethnic spatial representation that characterizes rhythmic functional patterns constituting the current Mexican culture and its “chosen” way of life.
Stephanie Henaro is a Wikistrat Researcher based in Mexico City. During 2009, she served as a coordination officer at the Shanghai Headquarters of the Mexican Chamber of Commerce in China (MEXCHAM). Her research focuses on Geopolitical, Territorial, and Security issues for Latin America and Asia-Pacific Regions. She has studied in France, Russia, and the UK, receiving her Masters Degree from King’s College London in 2012.
