Individualism in Johannesburg

      In Ivan’s “Portrait with Keys”, we come across a changing city facing industrialization and globalization. The narrative encounters burglars, homeless people, stolen manholes, and all types of people having different lives and consequently behaviors. These differences are ultimately the offsprings of the drastic movements changing the city in an obscure and rapid way. Ivan’s “Portrait with Keys” allows us to take a glimpse at how changes occur and most importantly how people adapt and react to these changes brought upon them by urbanization. Ivan does not necessarily dwell on the sociological aspect of the city’s oppressive nature to force people to adapt. He rather displays these changes in their pure forms allowing us to reflect our reality onto his reality and even pave a way for comparison and realization. Ivan’s unfiltered and narrated portrait of the city sheds a light on the various paths individuals take to cope with the modern city. One of the most prominent paths to cope with the city is individualism. In this essay, I shall argue that the common standpoint in adapting to the complex structure of the city mainly relies on individualism. I will also discuss how the concept of safety, human interaction, and individualism is linked to people’s response to city.

        The complex infrastructure of the modern city deprives people of the concept of unity requiring people to become independent. At the very beginning of the novel, Ivan contemplates giving directions to strangers. His contemplation on guiding strangers introduces the idea that the modern city is a complex environment that can present itself with conveniences and troubles. “The busy city person must rely on words and gestures to guide the stranger through a clutter of irrelevant detail, with dead ends and false turns on every side, some of which might prove disastrous to the unwary” (p.13). The ending of the sentence carries utmost importance as it foreshadows that the city requires awareness alluding to the heavy burden the city person is subjected to. The modern city accommodates an overwhelming amount of diversity and stimuli demanding the individual to be vigilant and attentive. Consequently, this demanding structure of the modern city draws its inhabitants to be more pragmatist and hence selfish. The fundamental reason for such selfishness and pragmatism among people is mostly tied to the unfair wealth distribution. The story revolves its gaze from homeless people living under the water pipes to middle-class people. Such a narration implicitly explains the high crime rate and the doubtful demeanor of middle-class people. Ivan touches upon the distant relationship between individuals and suggests that “Any hint of friendliness is met with brooding suspicion as if it must be a prelude to asking for credit”(p.53). Ivan’s reasoning is justified with countless examples that can be drawn from the story. The city person in the story prioritizes his benefits and does not expect a random act of kindness. They rather expect the worst from each other not because they are inherently paranoid or corrupt but precisely because the modern city requires them to be guarded. This ultimately disrupts the structure of human interactions and hence eliminates the sense of unity. Simply put, the modern city enhances the potential harm individuals can bring upon themselves by diminishing the rewarding quality of unity. The comparison between countryside and city emphasizes the complexity of the city underlining the modern city’s detrimental impact on human interaction. “In any event, a country person (if he did not have the whim to send you on a wild goose chase) might think nothing of walking along with you, or driving ahead, to show you the way”(p.13). Here the country person is portrayed to be more willing to help and interact with the stranger whereas, in the city, the narration explicitly warns the reader. The comparison ultimately complements the idea that the sense of unity in the city lacks because the modern city life alters the mindset of the individuals making them more independent.  

       The high crime rate of the city poses a threat to property owners and thereupon drives them to be reserved and individualistic. The cruel aspect of the city requires individuals to be prepared for the worst. The advanced security systems against car thieves and burglars such as gorilla locks draw the readers' attention to it. As Ivan becomes more accustomed to the modern city, he becomes more involved with the security systems. “‘Never leave it off,’ my dad warned me. ‘Even if you’re just popping into the shop to buy a newspaper. It only takes a minute to steal a car.’ The action has become second nature” (p.77). Ivan’s father’s warning displays the hazardous environment the modern city houses. It punishes those who trust each other. Ivan encounters a stranger standing in a parking lot offering his service to the car owners “I must watch this car, this place is full of skollies”. However, the stranger is extremely enthusiastic about talking with Ivan. “He’s still talking, quickly, urgently about thieves and cars and honesty and how we all have to work together against the scourge of skelms”(p.59). The whole scenery depicts the stranger to be an outcast that craves human interaction and wants to prove that he does not pose a threat. The stranger's exaggerated and hysteric attempt to prove that he is not a thief, but he rather wants “to work with the people of the land” (p.59) betokens that it is a learned behavior. Meaning the stranger is aware of the fact that simple human interactions can cause suspicion. Nevertheless, the stranger invades Ivan’s personal space and disrupts the safety and solitude owning a property provides. This type of behavior leads the stranger to be avoided by Ivan and explains the reason why he is an outcast. This scenery, therefore, shows how important personal space is in the modern city. The high crime rate makes human interaction between strangers not worthy and the property stands as a fortress against the hazardous environment. Overall, considering the car hijackers, while collar burglars, regular burglars and so many more, being individualistic becomes rewarding and an appropriate way to cope with the city.

      In conclusion, modern city life rewards the individualistic approach. The amount of diversity and stimuli opens a window for endless possibilities and ambiguities which can present themselves as threats. People in Johannesburg are immensely different from one another since it is an urbanized city that has many strangers. “Portrait with Keys” shows us that it is the modern city life that isolates people from one another. Most importantly, however, modern city life diminishes the rewarding quality of unity with its inevitably high crime rate when compared to the countryside. We in the story see that individualism becomes a must to adapt to such a city life rather than a choice to ensure safety and mental health.

Vladislavić, I. (2009). Portrait with keys: The city of Johannesburg unlocked. New York: W. W. Norton.