Urbanities,
Vol. 4
·
No 2
·
November 2014
© 2014
Urbanities
101
Secondly, contributors to the forum would presume themselves to be original and
creative, yet their observations would likely overlap with the main research interests of other
anthropologists. In the context of the pre-existing body of scholarship, the forum’s selection
would likely be trite, misleading or both.
Thirdly, a section dedicated to interesting asides would derive its academic prestige by
association, rather than merit. Contributors to this section would be riding on the coattails of
hard-working scholars whose full-length articles establish the journal’s reputation.
These reservations do not offer sufficient grounds for dismissing ‘Choice Notes.’
Firstly, while the contributions to this forum would be vulnerable to the charge that they
represent poor research, the editors would select submissions that distinguish themselves by
the quality of the writing, so that the published material would serve students and inspire
scholars. Secondly, when the peripheral observations would tread on the terrain of other
scholars, the authors and/or editors would acknowledge this fact, pointing to the areas of
overlap. Thirdly, to ensure fairness, the editors could include in the introduction a statement
that clearly sets apart the scholarly merit of full-length articles from the scholarly merit of
peripheral observations to the advantage of the former.
Lastly, whether subject to editorial and/or peer review, I propose that contributions to
‘Choice Notes’ should be evaluated on the basis of whether they touch upon one or more
aspects of the city. As I define it, the city has three key aspects. Firstly, the city is an emergent
phenomenon, an outcome of many actions and interactions. Secondly, the city as a setting is a
causal factor, shaping feelings, thoughts and actions. Thirdly, the city is an idea, a
representation and an object of reflection that informs and is informed by people’s concern
with their place in the world (Touval 2011: 43).
An Example of a Peripheral Observation
Below is a potential submission to ‘Choice Notes.’ I do not presume that it is exemplary. I
recorded the experience and my reflections on its possible significance, but I have not
integrated this text into any of my scholarly writings. In retrospect, it exemplifies the
vulnerability of individual peripheral observations:
July 1995. Just outside the Potsdam train station, I see a sign on a telephone pole with
a colour photograph of rabbits and an arrow. I am familiar with the word Ausstellung, or
exhibit, but the world Kaninchen, or rabbit, is an amusing novelty. I follow the arrow, first
under a railroad bridge, and then, next to a canal, down a staircase, to a ticket booth where I
pay the five-Marks admission fee.
Fibrous plastic sheets protect the cages from the sun, yet let in a gentle breeze. The
ventilation tempers the smell of straw and rabbit pellets; the air inside the exhibit space is
fresh, calm and bucolic. The exhibit conjures a rural past, leaping back and away from the
twentieth century with its two world wars and the division of Germany into east and west, to a
time when Potsdam was about Prussia and its rulers, and many political divisions cut across
Germany. Situated near Potsdam’s city centre, right next to its busy train station, the exhibit
implies that Potsdam oversees the geographic regions from which the rabbits originate,
positioning the city as an important centre of trade and commerce.
