I would ding the book more for the polemical title if Bowen didn't come out in the first chapter and be like "so uh about that polemical title . . . yeah, sorry about that."
Yeah, I think the framework that it sets up is maybe the most important part. You're absolutely right that without that background none of the arguments made much sense to me; now at least, while I find many of them inherently bemusing still, I can turn my head sideways and squint and see where they're coming from. The concept of a totally neutral public space being the absolute goal is - in some ways a very alien ideal, more alien than I think I expect from a culture that is superficially so close/exports as much surface imagery as France does (if that makes sense). But now I feel I can sort of understand it as an ideal. While fully agreeing that . . . neutral as it is imagined in France, with all the privilege and assumptions attached, is not neutral for many people. (And true universal neutral may be an impossible achievement.)
no subject
Yeah, I think the framework that it sets up is maybe the most important part. You're absolutely right that without that background none of the arguments made much sense to me; now at least, while I find many of them inherently bemusing still, I can turn my head sideways and squint and see where they're coming from. The concept of a totally neutral public space being the absolute goal is - in some ways a very alien ideal, more alien than I think I expect from a culture that is superficially so close/exports as much surface imagery as France does (if that makes sense). But now I feel I can sort of understand it as an ideal. While fully agreeing that . . . neutral as it is imagined in France, with all the privilege and assumptions attached, is not neutral for many people. (And true universal neutral may be an impossible achievement.)