Reading Analysis 5
In City of Rhetoric, David Fleming concludes that perfect cities of rhetoric, or cities in which civilians can come together to hear each other out fairly and talk through disagreements. He mentions that this isn’t easy, but it is not impossible for people to come together. Fleming argues that as part of our human nature, we keep striving to create “strong publics.” In other words, Fleming ends his book by reflecting on “the urban district” which is a type of the publics that he mentions that thrives. Most importantly he focuses on how the people try to build strong publics; he believes that by learning about city-based education is the first step on changing the way our cities function. For example, Fleming says, “just as we need to make our schools more civic… we need to make our cities more educational…” (209). Specifically, we have the power to change how future generations view public spaces, and we also have the power to change our public spaces to educate us. I believe that Fleming is on something with his ideas in his final chapter. While we may not think about it that much, our cities do teach us a lot. Not only do we learn about the socio-economic class of that area, but how the people have come to be; I believe that this is seen in the physical part of the areas. In his book, the author uses Chicago a place where there is a lot of diversification and socio-economic classes are seen. If one takes the time to educate the young in our communities on relevant matters such as civic discourse, we can look into the future at least hoping that younger generations will be able to create and come up with other things that haven’t been thought of in our time.