It can never end because at bedrock it is a clash of fantasies. And fantasy is an inexhaustible fuel for conflict.
The cry from both sides is for understanding, tolerance, recognition -- perhaps a geographically framed version of multiculturalism. If only you shit kicking bumpkins acknowledged our financial contributions and cosmopolitan verve! The city mouse cries. If only city reprobates would put down their vibrators and crack vials long enough to appreciate fresh peaches and clean air! The country mouse replies.
Of course, my examples are silly and excessive, partially meant as jokes but there is a more serious subtext. Note how each side of this formless debate really does start its plea for peaceful co-existence with just such a formulation: an insult aimed at some aspect -- often imaginary or exaggerated -- of the others' 'way of life' followed by a heartfelt demand to be seen.
To me, this reveals the fundamental problem which, I argue, is unsolvable: namely, the mundane and venerable issue of dissimilar conditions of life leading to different (and often, competing) belief sets, outcomes, definitions, pathologies and, most critically, fantasies about what it all means. It's pointless to insist that satisfied urban dwellers fall in love with rural or suburban conditions -- the Brooklynite who really digs Brooklyn is probably not going to experience satori and conclude she should move to Tasmania. Similarly, the fellow living on a Tasmanian Koala farm (they do grow from the ground, like carrots, don't they?) most likely views Brooklyn as confining and, during a visit, will count the hours till he can once again breathe 'free' and share fresh peaches with savage Koala bear tribes. (Note to the irony challenged: Yes, I know that Koalas are not indigenous to Tasmania and do not organize into 'tribes'; this is a joke).
The problem is unsolvable, because the way it's usually posed -- oh, why can't we understand each other and celebrate equally the beauties of urban and rural communities? -- is flawed, even false and contains a kind of totalitarianism of the imagination. Of course, the satisfied city dweller will tend to think the habits, sounds and concerns of small towns are limiting and small. And, it's no surprise when the satisfied small towner is predisposed to view city life as frantic and bizarre.
In both cases, these are perverse (but comforting!) simplifications which eliminate countless nuances from view.
But really, so what?
To me, the goal should not be a leveling of opinion -- which, in any event, can't be accomplished (for example, Doug will continue to think NYC to be a more interesting place than Topeka and Joe Catron will continue to think this opinion evidence of an 'out-of-touch' left).
The goal, I think, should be a Confucian style of managed hypocrisy -- an agreement that yes, I think your small town is dull and you think my big city is insane but nevertheless, we can unite for various projects of interest to both of us. And in place of these demands for recognition and polite language, we should encourage the openness of dirty jokes about each others' styles of living, which are ridiculous all around.
.d.