The image of the Megalopolis in the context of the concept of neotechnical development by P. Geddes and L. Mumford.

Khasieva Mariya Alanovna ORCID: 0000-0002-0179-1874 PhD in Philosophy Associate Professor; Department of Social Sciences and Humanities and Technologies; Federal State Budgetary Educational Institution of Higher Education 'National Research Moscow State University of Civil Engineering' 129337, Russia, Moscow, Yaroslavskoye highway, 26 m9288@inbox.ru Other publications by this author

The subject of the research is the image of Megalopolis and its interpretation in the works of P. Geddes and L. Mumford. On the one hand, the image of megalopolis is associated with the development of a utopian tradition in culture. On the other hand, it has a non-direct relation to the concepts of man-made civilization and the idea of technological progress. In the era of industrialization, the genre of technological utopia began to develop rapidly, and ecosophical trends began to actively manifest themselves in utopian literature: for example, in W. Hudson's novel "The Crystal Age", written in the 19th century, an ideal society is presented in which "it is not the quantity of consumed products that is most appreciated, but its quality, consumption is not considered as a process of immediate fulfillment of all desires and the pleasure of one's own vanity, but as satisfaction of needs without satiation and excess, without wasting resources." ^{[11, p. 3]} This thesis has become widespread in post-industrial culture. ^[15] Reconstruction utopias, focusing on technological, economic and urban aspects of improving the human environment, in the 20th century form, as a logical continuation of the processes of urbanization and technization in the life of society, the image of a "Megalopolis", which differs from megacities and urban agglomerations not only in scale and scope, but also in a complex structure that unites big cities and agglomerations can be imagined. The purpose of the work is to examine the image of Megalopolis in the context of the concepts of neotechnical development of the leading theorists of urbanism and philosophy of technology of the 20th century - P. Geddes and L. Mumford.

The concept of megalopolis has been explored by many sociologists, philosophers, and urban planners. ^{[2, 3, 6, 7, 10]} Highlighting similar characteristics of the image of Megalopolises, different researchers evaluate its significance in different ways: if for L. Mumford and Geddes this is undoubtedly a crisis stage of the city's existence, a phenomenon that is doomed to inevitable collapse if it continues to spread, then Gottman tends to see megalopolis as a "cradle a new order of organization of living space" ^[14]

The relevance of the topic being developed is determined by its significance for understanding the patterns of development of modern cities. The study of the image of Megalopolis in the works of leading urbanists and philosophers of the 20th century is very relevant for modern urbanism and urban planning, since solving the problems of modern urban development, the main of which is the rapid expansion of metropolitan areas and the desolation of peripheral cities, largely requires their study in a historical context. The intensive growth of European cities that began in the era of industrialization was subjected to a comprehensive analysis in the philosophy of technology and urbanism of the 20th century. In the studies of P. Geddes and L. Mumford, very accurate forecasts were made, which anticipated the most important trends in the development of the urban environment and were confirmed in practice. The novelty of the research lies in the interpretation of the image of Megalopolis in the light of the concept of neotechnical development. Despite the fact that the problems of Megalopolis in the works of P. Geddes and L. Mumford have been repeatedly studied ^{[2, 4, 13]}, its correlation with the theory of transition from paleotechnics to neotechnics, which was formulated by P. Geddes and developed by L. Mumford, is an innovation. In a number of works devoted to the ideas of P. Geddes, the greatest attention is paid to the economic and socio-political aspects of his concept of paleotechnical and neotechnical stages of society development. ^[4.19] In the process of writing the article, a comprehensive methodological approach was used, combining the hermeneutic interpretation of a number of concepts and terms of the philosophy of the city by P. Geddes and L. Mumford, an exposition, as well as a comparative analysis of the content of their works.

Despite the fact that different researchers do not interpret the image of Megalopolis, they share an understanding of Megalopolis as an inevitable consequence of technical and social development. The general characteristics highlighted in the Megalopolis image are a centralized structure, a technical space, and automated production processes. Both researchers associate the birth of megalopolis with urbanization and technological progress, but do not consider it the pinnacle of society's development. On the contrary, both P. Geddes and L. Mumford consider Megalopolis to be a difficult period in the development of the human environment, which society needs to rethink and change and which, otherwise, may turn into a dead-end scenario. It is no coincidence that L. Mumford attributes Megalopolis as a phenomenon to the paleotechnical era, defining it as a city that has outgrown and entered a crisis stage of life: the mechanical in Megalopolis displaces the organic, and man becomes totally dependent on the Machine.

P. Geddes, Mumford's mentor, belonged to the "evolutionary" direction in urban planning, which involves transferring the principles of the development of the biosphere and the functioning of living organisms to the development of the urban environment. This largely determines his attitude to Megalopolis.: For Geddes, Megalopolis is the dying stage of the city's life, the result of a breakdown in the relationship between the biological and the technical, accompanying the disease of culture. Both Mumford and Geddes consider the development of the city through the prism of ecological, philosophical, sociological and urban planning theories.

Geddes formulates the concept of three stages of technical and social development: eotechnics, paleotechnics and neotechnics, which is then reproduced in his writings by L. Mumford. Revealing the differences between paleotechnics and neotechnics, Geddes refers to the Paleolithic and Neolithic periods in human history: the Paleolithic period is characterized by the predominance of the most primitive stone tools, while the Neolithic period is characterized by a wide variety of materials, a more intricate design of tools and their finer processing. The differences between the Neolithic and Paleolithic periods of history are not limited to tools and technical devices, Geddes emphasizes the difference in lifestyle and activity: he calls the Paleolithic civilization "rude and warlike" associated with hunting, while the late Neolithic, on the contrary, was a time of more peaceful agricultural societies, with a more refined peaceful culture and a higher position of women in society. the formation. Paleotechnics, in Geddes' view, is the coal industry, metallurgy, machine tool and mechanical engineering. He associated neotechnics, first of all, with a change in the attitude towards resources, which should become as economical as possible, aimed at efficient spending. Paleotechnics is associated with the idea of accumulating "monetary" resources through the exploitation of living social and ecological systems and, consequently, with rationalization through "political economy". As an alternative, Geddes formulates the principles of "practical economics," which evaluates production and consumption not by their immediate material outcome for specific people, but by the cumulative outcome of the general standard of living in an adapted environment. ^[12]

The intellectual basis of paleotechnics, according to Geddes, is the idea of aggressive and competitive struggle, the idea of subjugating and mastering nature, exploiting its resources. At the same time, the struggle and efforts to seize the loot occur with one main goal — the waste of the loot. Paleotechnical economics predetermines social inequality by concentrating excess resources in the hands of a minority. Just like Mumford, Geddes connects the transition from the paleotechnical stage of society's development to the neotechnical stage with both technological and social progress: a society of active civic participation and social initiative can organically and naturally exist in a neotechnical environment, but not a paleotechnical one. The layout of city streets and buildings should lead to the achievement of optimal population density and a way of organizing urban space that would facilitate social communication. In other words, urban space should reflect the principles of the social space structure. ^[20]

Neotechnics, from Geddes' point of view, does not imply the abandonment of consumption, but, on the contrary, its expansion, but consumption becomes more economical and resource-efficient due to the improvement of technology. ^[5] Geddes believes that the development of cleaner and more renewable energy sources, the diversification of metal alloy production and the emergence of new materials will lead to the decentralization and regionalization of industry and the economy: small independent local enterprises should become more widespread. According to Geddes, economic and technological development should involve a symbiosis, a co-evolution of technology and nature, taking into account the resource base and landscape features. That is why Geddes links the neotechnical economy with civil society and increased social responsibility.

Geddes considered the neotechnical city in the context of its interaction with the natural environment: formulating the principles of urban planning, Geddes notes not the decorative, but the constructive function of the natural environment: his urban projects include numerous open green spaces, parks and gardens, as well as water infrastructure. The "organic" perception of the city leads Geddes to formulate specific methods of urban renovation: he opposes the expensive dismantling of large areas of development, declaring the concept of "conservative surgery" in urban planning, suggesting that the city is not a mechanism in which a complete part can be replaced, but a living organism that needs careful and directed "treatment", when any change must be consistent with the established urban landscape. The principle of "reconstruction" formulated by Geddes, on the one hand, is aimed at saving resources, and on the other hand, at caring for the environment, willingness to adapt innovations to existing buildings, focus on the multifunctionality and efficiency of the urban environment. ^[12]

Geddes connects Megalopolis with the alienation of man from the natural and social environment, with the atomization of society. Paleotechnical urbanization means that a large part of the population flows from rural areas and provinces to large centers in search of work, which means separation from families, loss of kinship and neighborhood ties. The lifestyle in Megalopolis inevitably entails a change in the worldview of citizens and their relationships with each other: G. Simmel writes about this, in particular, in the book "Big Cities and Spiritual Life": in conditions of high population density and intensity of social communication, people begin to value communication with each other less and strive more for loneliness. ^[8] Human life in a paleotechnical Megalopolis is subject to cycles of technological and industrial processes: the migration of citizens, their daily routine and range of interests are determined by the work schedule of the main enterprises and industrial facilities. The neotechnical city depicted by Geddes is fundamentally different from the typical manifestations of Megalopolis: the predominance of low—rise buildings, an abundance of green areas, and a traditional layout that presupposes a central square with citywide institutions located on it - all this is completely different from the futuristic, technical fantasy of an urbanist, rather, on the contrary, implies a return to the traditions of urban construction, entrenched in centuries. Urban planning, from the point of view of Geddes, should be the result of "the thinking of the city, the feeling of the city." ^[12] A neotechnical city must overcome the spiritual gap that has arisen in paleotechnical megacities between a person and the outside world, with nature and society.

Thus, the neotechnical city, which Geddes talks about in a utopian way, bears the features of regionalization, reproduction of traditional elements as opposed to the increasing density and height of buildings typical of Megalopolis. L. Mumford's reflections on the characteristics of the city of the industrial era are very consistent with this thesis. Mumford writes that a man in an industrial city is chained inextricably to the machine at which he works, to a sooty and unsightly factory. Mumford contrasts megalopolis with an industrial city of the 19th century, embodying the city of the industrial era with the image of Coketown, a fictional but very typical city from Charles Dickens' novel "Hard Times". But liberation from physical labor does not mean, from Mumford's point of view, genuine and complete liberation of the urban citizen: with the help of thousands of explicit and hidden mechanisms operating in consumer society, a person becomes part of a machine (or Mega-machine, in the terminology of Mumford), doomed to desire and consume what the Machine prescribes to him. Mumford emphasizes that the main essence of megalopolis lies in bureaucracy, which in the 20th century is literally expressed in the unheard—of growing volumes of consumed and reproduced paper.: "All the main activities of a megalopolis are directly related to paper and its plastic substitutes, and printing and packaging are among its main industries." ^{[17, p. 15]} Thus, idleness and increased comfort in life do not make a Megalopolis resident free or happy.

It is noteworthy that, talking about the further development of megalopolis, Mumford sees his fate in the fate of Rome. In the article "From Megalopolis to Necropolis," Mumford notes that the essence of Rome was exploitation and parasitism, both in terms of social structure and economic system, and in foreign policy, not just expansive, but "predatory." Comparing a city to a living organism, Mumford notes that just as separation is important for living beings, for example, gaining social, emotional and economic independence for humans, so is the ability of a city to self-sustain and work productively.: "The autonomous activity of the body is so important, so necessary for maintaining its integrity, that any refusal of independence has profound psychological consequences." ^{[12, p. 80]} The consequences of the lack of independence acquired during development can be pathological infantilism, causing a desire for self-destruction and outward aggression. It is with this infantilism that Mumford connects the cultural traditions themselves, the organization of Rome's way of life, the demand for "bread and circuses", which turned into a pursuit of thrills, where everything was used: gladiatorial fights, animal baiting, public executions and obscene performances. In this attitude to the world, Mumford sees the same basis as in modern urban culture, which is unthinkable without the media, television, and the entire media environment: "Residents of modern megacities are psychologically not so far from Rome....We have our own equivalent in the form of daily doses of sadism, which, like contaminated vitamin capsules, follow our imperfect ordinary food: newspaper articles, radio reports, television programs, novels devoted to the most vivid depiction of all kinds of violence, perversion, criminal phenomena, criminality and nihilistic despair."^{[18, p. 179]}

These arguments are consonant with the most famous studies of mass culture: Baudrillard writes about the same craving for thrills, passivity and the "magical" way of perceiving reality in relation to homo consumens, a person consuming in a "Consumer Society",^[2] Ortega y Gasset notes the same lack of growing up and "puerilism" in the gameplay. modern culture in the treatise “Homo Ludens". ^[12] At the same time, Mumford tends to correlate these changes in people's worldview with changes in the urban environment: Rome becomes an "arena of arenas", and the architectural form of the Greek amphitheater, which represented a small-scale depression in the ground, such that the voices of actors could be heard in all places, is replaced by a truly massive and huge ground-based Colosseum. Along with this, genre changes took place: sublime ancient Greek tragedies were replaced by entertaining pantomimes, athletic sports of the Greeks also seemed too boring to the Romans, since they were devoid of bloodshed and atrocities. Ancient Greek culture is borrowed by Rome, but its authentic, sacred content is discarded, leaving only an empty, meaningless form.

Mumford cites the concept of "Pathopolis", which Geddes formulates in relation to Rome in the period after the 1st century A.D. The desire to complement the idle lifestyle of the townspeople. Just as in the modern world, the main, that is, exciting and "real" life exists in the media space, on the screens of gadgets, for the Romans, the sights of the colosseum became more valuable and intense than the rest of life. "In a decaying civilization, numerical superiority makes insanity and crime 'normal'." ^{[12, p. 78]} According to Mumford, this is exactly what happened to Rome and can happen to modern megacities. Mumford has surprisingly subtly noticed what modern mass culture and the culture of Ancient Rome have in common — the desacralization of customs and rituals that accompanies the loss of a living, creative beginning by culture. If the tragedy in Ancient Greece caused catharsis through compassion, reproduced the playful, creative essence of culture, then the massacres in the arenas of Rome destroyed culture through the destruction of the game principle and led to insensitivity and madness, without a hint of pity. Discussing the fate of modern Megalopolis, Mumford admits that the violence and shocking sights shown to the mass audience of the 20th century are often fake (for example, in cinema), but this does not change the tone of emotions that this demonstration causes, destructive and pathological in nature. Mumford saw a way out of the current crisis of the paleotechnical city in the spread of a new, non-technical model of urban space. Geddes is no less critical in his assessment of paleotechnical culture and, just like Mumford, he attributes Megalopolis to the paleotechnical stage of society's development. He believes that the problems of Megalopolis, both in the field of urban planning and logistical processes, as well as in the field of psychosocial life, will be solved in a non-technical city.

Comparing the interpretations of the image of Megalopolis in the works of Geddes and Mumford, it should be noted that if the former seeks to determine the nature of Megalopolis based on the principles of economic and socio-political sciences, the latter is more inclined to philosophical and socio-cultural conceptualization of this image. Both Mumford and Geddes gained fame not just as pioneers, but rather as visionaries of urbanism. It is noteworthy that Geddes gained a reputation as the "father of modern urban planning." ^[1] Thus, he is considered the mastermind of the New Urbanism movement, which originated in the 70s of the 20th century and assumed a low-rise building and a traditional layout with wide streets converging on the main square, where all the main structures are located: the market, the town hall, the theater, etc.^[9] It is believed that Geddes had a significant impact his influence on the development of the Bauhaus style, and his "White City" project is still a central part of Tel Aviv.. One of the main problems of modern cities is their uneven growth, excessive expansion of metropolitan centers and the decline of peripheral cities. This problem leads to an increase in the level of forced seasonal and pendulum migration of the population, and this, in turn, leads to problems of breaking family and kinship ties and atomization of society. One of the possible methods of solving this set of interrelated problems is the implementation of the concepts of the neotechnical city by P. Geddes and L. Mumford in practice. The ideas formulated by P. Geddes and L. Mumford within the framework of the neotechnical city concept and their criticism of Megalopolis remain very relevant in the context of modern urban planning strategies.