Divided Cities: Belfast, Beirut, Jerusalem, Mostar, and Nicosia

Chapter 2: Cities and Physical Segregation

Chapter  Cities and Physical Segregation Introduction Cities and walls have a long, intertwined history. Physical barricades have historically provided a functional separation between civilized and uncivilized domains for resident communities. Following the disintegration of the Roman Empire in medieval Europe, for instance, it was generally better for the traveler to be inside the city walls when the sun set and, as a rule ‘‘one was either in or out of the city . . . one belonged or one did not belong’’ (Mumford 1960: 54). Walls ensured collective security: this was a fundamental part of the early urban contract. The city was a social fortress filled with allies in league against a common enemy: raiders from the hinterlands in search of the resources stockpiled within. As long as cities have contained such stockpiles, walls and the collective security they afford have been central to urban development. Physical barricades have defined the density, size, and social character of cities. For hundreds of years, outer fortifications have constituted legal and administrative boundaries as well as a hedge against the constant fear of attack. Issues of protection, separation, identity, siege, and social unity in the face of recurrent threats have long been linked to the presence of such physical barricades. In this context divided cities do not present an exception to the rule of urban development, but rather offer a variation on the theme of urban fortification. They are only the latest reminder that the prosperity of cities has always relied on exclusion and fortification. Wall building is frequently inseparable from city building. Cities were often shaped by a survival instinct resulting in a tendency to exclude weak minorities, a need to reinforce group identity, and a desire for collective, passive defense. Urban development strategies isolated from one another by space and time addressed these concerns in roughly the same way. They employed physical partitions to protect the precious resources that aggregated as the urban population grew.  Chapter  The perimeter wall circumscribing an urban nucleus that had the form of a stronghold or sacred precinct was the first and most common form of urban barricade. These city walls provided the traditional infrastructure and constituted the primary urban amenity: passive, reliable protection for the people and goods within. Besides providing an essential form of physical protection against the external threats that multiplied as the city prospered , partitions also asserted social distinctions and controlled access to the city’s nonmaterial resources. Enhanced security provided unprecedented stability in the face of assorted and vexing external predations. Intramural life proceeded in this way toward greater prosperity, becoming increasingly distinct from rural life and increasingly dependent on the institutions and mechanisms that guaranteed the conditions of its prosperity—protective walls being prominent among them. Strict boundaries lent a clear meaning to citizenship, since the rules governing social, political, economic survival inside the city walls were unmistakably distinct from those shaping the rural tradition. Distinct urban identities flourished along with inter-urban rivalries and jealousies. The apotheosis of the Greek city state, for instance, owed much to the efficiency of fortification walls. The shared benefits and deprivations of intramural urban life allowed residents to develop and sustain a strong sense of solidarity—a characteristic of healthy cities that also underlies many of the more brutal and morbid aspects of everyday life in divided cities. Walls have been an important factor in the evolution of cities since the third millennium b.c. or before. Where they were erected, they were designed to address at least one of two distinct goals: to counteract external threats by providing passive security or to counteract the social assimilation that usually accompanies a dense and cooperative urban environment. The human and material resources that generally accrued to the city required increasingly specialized forms of protection. Where this defensive project was successful, group identity among urban residents was consolidated. Social development patterns in Jericho, Athens, Rome, Venice, and Sienna, among countless others, bear out this generalization. From their first appearance in the archaeological record, it is likely that city walls provided more than passive protection from external attack. They were also an armature for the regulation of people, goods, and disease. They sometimes defined an autonomous political unit like the city-state. Urban walls were a source of symbolic and psychological pride for residents, providing a reliable container for the specific meaning of local citizenship. This Cities and...