Meaning: This quote by Ernest Gellner draws an interesting parallel between the production of obscurity in Paris and the production of motor cars in Detroit during the great period of American industry. At first glance, it may seem like an unusual comparison, but upon closer examination, the quote sheds light on the cultural and societal dynamics of two seemingly disparate cities.

Paris, often romanticized as the "City of Light," is renowned for its rich history, artistic achievements, and intellectual heritage. However, Gellner's use of the term "obscurity" suggests a different side of Paris – one that is characterized by complexity, ambiguity, and perhaps even a certain level of enigma. This notion of obscurity in Paris can be interpreted in various ways. It may refer to the intricate layers of French culture, the enigmatic nature of Parisian art and literature, or the complex social dynamics that exist within the city.

On the other hand, Detroit was once a powerhouse of American industry, particularly known for its automobile manufacturing during the 20th century. The city's production of motor cars symbolized progress, innovation, and industrial prowess. However, Gellner's comparison implies that just as Detroit churned out motor cars, Paris churns out obscurity. This suggests that obscurity in Paris is not just incidental or accidental, but rather a deliberate and systematic production akin to the industrial manufacturing process in Detroit.

The comparison between the two cities is thought-provoking as it invites us to consider the nature of obscurity and its cultural significance. In Paris, the production of obscurity may be linked to the city's embrace of intellectual complexity, philosophical depth, and artistic ambiguity. It reflects the intricate layers of Parisian culture, from its labyrinthine streets to its enigmatic artistic expressions. The deliberate cultivation of obscurity in Paris may also be seen as a rejection of simplistic, straightforward narratives in favor of depth and complexity.

Furthermore, Gellner's comparison raises questions about the relationship between cultural production and industrial production. While Detroit's production of motor cars was driven by economic and technological factors, Paris' production of obscurity suggests a different kind of output – one that is rooted in creativity, intellectualism, and cultural expression. The comparison challenges us to consider the value of cultural production alongside industrial production and to recognize the significance of obscurity as a cultural phenomenon.

Moreover, the quote prompts us to contemplate the role of cities as centers of cultural production. Paris and Detroit represent distinct models of urban development and cultural identity. While Detroit's industrial legacy has shaped its identity as a city of manufacturing and innovation, Paris has cultivated a reputation as a hub of artistic and intellectual creativity. Gellner's comparison invites us to consider how cities shape and reflect the cultural output they produce, and how their unique characteristics can influence the nature of that output.

In conclusion, Ernest Gellner's comparison of the production of obscurity in Paris to the production of motor cars in Detroit offers a thought-provoking insight into the cultural dynamics of these two cities. By drawing parallels between the deliberate cultivation of obscurity in Paris and the industrial manufacturing process in Detroit, Gellner challenges us to consider the nature of cultural production, the significance of obscurity as a cultural phenomenon, and the role of cities in shaping cultural identity. This quote serves as a reminder of the complexity and richness of cultural expression, inviting us to explore the enigmatic nature of Paris and the industrial legacy of Detroit in a new light.