Critiquing Mike Davis

Having made extensive reference to the work of Mike Davis in this blog, I realise I may come across as heavily sympathetic towards his views. This is not the case and, for the sake of balance, I feel it is important to briefly critique his work and contrast it with the views of some other urban theorists and activists.

Davis’ analysis of Los Angeles in his polemical City of Quartz has been described by Andy Merrifield (2002: 172) as ‘gloom-laden’ and ‘deeply pessimistic’. Immediately Davis’ use of quartz - a diamond-like mineral which sparkles in the sunshine but is also hard and cheap - as a scornful and subjective metaphor for the city warns readers not to take his work too literally. Throughout this piece Davis purely focusses on negative narratives of the city and, as Alan Hunsaker (1992: 506) points out, ‘provides no plan of action or short-term objectives to attack the identified problems’.

This leaves readers with a defeatist view towards the city and its future. It is therefore important to highlight that Davis’ analysis contrasts with the work of many other Marxist urbanists, for example Marshall Berman’s Adventures in Marxism which occasionally ‘spots the positive and empathises with the good little guys as much as raging against the evil big guys’ (Merrifield 2002: 170). Reyner Banham’s Los Angeles: The Architecture of Four Ecologies also offers a far more positive view of the city as he examines the ways Angelenos from all communities relate to its four ‘ecologies’: the beaches, freeways, flatlands and foothills.

Davis’ account of Los Angeles as being fortified and deeply divided has also been undermined by the work of many social activists across the city. One such example, mentioned earlier in this blog, is the Great Wall of Los Angeles. This project not only aimed to raise awareness of the city’s diverse history, but also to bring people together from all communities in its creation and restoration. Since the wall's completion in 1976, 105 other murals have been painted around Los Angeles (SPARC 2016)*. This has brought people from all levels of society together to form a new, city-wide community that transcends traditional social barriers.

For his relentless attack on Los Angeles, Mike Davis has been dubbed an ‘anti-urban’, ‘overly apocalyptic’, ’city-hating socialist’ (Angotti 2006: 961; de Turenne 1998; Merrifield 2002: 171). However, in order to cultivate some positivity in his work and justify my frequent referencing of it, I turn to Hunsaker's (1992: 507) point that City of Quartz also challenges readers ‘to examine their own values and priorities with respect to Los Angeles and the future’. Like many geographers, I fall into temptation to write about the negative, rather than positive aspects of the city. Davis’ work has therefore encouraged me to scratch beneath the surface of this often superficial city, while also underpinning my arguments surrounding what I have found. However, as I hope this and some of my other articles have demonstrated, there is also much cause for optimism in this vibrant, if at times perplexing megalopolis.

*I encourage anyone to explore some of these beautiful pieces here.

References

Angotti, T. (2006) ‘Apocalyptic Anti-Urbanism: Mike Davis and his planet of slums’, International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 30, 4, 961.

Berman, M. (1999) Adventures in Marxism, London: Verso.

de Turenne, V. (1998) ‘Is Mike Davis' Los Angeles all in his head?’ (WWW), San Francisco: Salon (http://www.salon.com/1998/12/07/cov_07feature/; 17 April 2016).

Hunsaker, A. (1992) ‘Book reviews - City of Quartz: Excavating the Future in Los Angeles by Mike Davis’, Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 14. 4, 502.

Merrifield, A. (2002) Metromarxism, New York: Routledge.

SPARC (2016) ‘Neighbourhood Pride’ (WWW), Los Angeles: Social and Public Art Resource Centre (http://sparcinla.org/neighborhood-pride/; 17 April 2016).