Essay
“Living with Strangers”

Minnesota and New York are two thoroughly diverse cities, but still there are exceptions of this belief - they both, like every other city in the world, have their own tacit norms and proprieties. Cultures and societies have through time build ethics, which people outside the given group or civilization won’t understand. It can be everything from simply greeting each other, from rural Minnesota where “hi” slip of people’s tongues like honey to New York where its normal to live side by side with strangers, and addressing others on the street will make you seem ridiculous. This huge culture gap is what inspired Siri Hustvedt to write her anecdote “Living with Strangers”.

The text is an essay, which is characterized by several things. It’s a non-fictional text, which means its about something real, and relates to this in an unbiased way. It is a very subjective style, written from a personal point of view, where the writer used own experience and reflections: “When I moved to New York in 1978, I quickly discovered what it meant to live among hordes of strangers…”. You can tell the text is personal by the fact that “I” is used a lot. The way of writing will seem very convincing to the ready. Hustvedt uses the ethos argument and therefore seems truthful and upstanding as a writer about this particular topic.

The title represents the main topic quite well, as it refers to a very common paradox in urban societies - we have been to the moon and back, but we can’t even cross the road to get to know our neighbors. It is very apparent in major cities, although it’s not directly mentioned in the essay, that the urban civilization is becoming increasingly isolated. This is typical postmodern, where societies grow remote, while in literal sense are being surrounded by more and more people. The essay discusses the lack of solidarity, and the norms you will meet in New York.

Siri Hustvedt divides the essay into three main sections - her own personal history (pp. 1-20), examples of the big city law (pp. 21-52) and at last, the discussion of alternatives to the big city (pp. 53-121). In the first part of the essay we are told how Siri moved from the countryside, to New York, a big city with extremely many strangers. She describes the fundamental differences between the two cities by defining how one was expected to behave. Although she is in close physical contact with other people during each day, she does not have any human contact with them, and the quickly learns the law is to “pretend it isn’t happening” (s. 1, pp. 20). She finds this phenomenon fascinating, as it is very unfamiliar to her former life in Minnesota. By starting with personal history Hustvedt captures the readers interest, as personal stories seem more genuine and trustworthy, as well as relatable.

In the second part of the essay, Hustvedt gives a number of examples of the big city law “pretend it isn’t happening”. This way she reinforces her point of view of the law:

”Last October, I was on the F Train when I noticed a wild-eyed man entering the car. He boomed out a few verses from Revelation and then, in an equally loud voice, began his sermon, informing us that September 11 had been God’s just punishment for our sins. I could feel the cold, stiff resistance to his words among the passengers, but not a single one of us turned up to look at him.”

Her overall conclusion is that increased mobility and the growing focus on individuality, emphasis on the increasing distractions around us, are leading us lives of relative isolation. By giving these extreme examples of scenarios from New York, Hustedt shows how strange the world in the big city is, and how personal space is crossed everyday, without anyone doing anything about it. This is what leads up to her subsequent discussion.

In the third and last part of the essay Hustvedt discusses what can be done instead of following the big city law, and whether or not it is a good idea to break this rule. She unfolds the reflection and discussion, which constitute the main part of the essay. One of her suggestions is to break in , when someone is wrong, but still she thinks of this as both bravely and dangerous, as you easily can get into hot water. Another alternative is to become better at communicating with each other, and reckon that we live in a community where each person has value.

Her argument is inspired by a story about her daughter, Sophie, who experiences a stranger breaking the big city law. On the subway a person she have not met before announces his undying love for her, and she did as expected - ignored him the best she could. She felt at unease, that is until a stranger helped her by interrupting.

“By breaking the code, the man acknowledged himself as a witness to what, despite the pretence, had been a very public outburst.”

Instead of following the law and being part of a passive audience, he is determined to break this law, which brings Hustvedt to her final point in the essay - this law might make some feel uncomfortably, but at the same time it brings an opportunity to stand out as a personality. Out of a grey society, few people suddenly become real. She realizes people on the streets of Minnesota doesn’t become real by simply greeting them, and same goes with New York. Strangers will remain stranger unless you acknowledge their presence.