Getting a better handle on the embrace of mediocrity

Yesterday, I was reading the introduction to American Architectural History: A Contemporary Reader edited by Keith Eggener. The introduction is a fabulous overview of the development of architectural history and criticism in the United States.

Among the work he discusses is that of Wanda Corn, author of The Great American Thing. She makes the point that a focus on uniqueness and exclusivity allows one to discuss and revere without having to measure up to the innovation and originality of peers. It's very much a self-referent situation where a provincial and marginal body of work becomes complex and intellectually exciting.

I think this explains what I call the "tyranny of neighborhood parochialism" to a t. But it also explains the very much self-referential (a/k/a "navel gazing") focus within the city and its various demographics.

DC isn't a city that demands to be great. It's a city that defines greatness as what it is already (or not) achieving. It's a form of the "defining deviance down" argument laid out by Daniel Patrick Moynihan. Instead, we define world class or greatness down to our level, rather than reaching up and striving to achieve. (cf. The Future Once Happened Here and from the Washington Post, "Chicago: The World's Kind of Town?: Leaders Promote Projects to Help the City Compete in Global Market.")

From the Post article:

Demographer and urban consultant Rob Paral said that regardless of the city's current status, Chicago's leaders are smart in refusing to rest on their laurels.

"The global cities are all trying to keep their global-city status and enhance it at the same time," said Paral, a research fellow at the Institute for Latino Studies at the University of Notre Dame. "Globalization is a race to stay in the top tier -- it's very different than it used to be. Chicago in the 19th century was just exploding all by itself, almost like magic. Now, if you want to continue on that path, it takes cooperation and planning."