AJS Urbanism as a Way of Life

7/29/2019 AJS Urbanism as a Way of Life

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/ajs-urbanism-as-a-way-of-life 1/25

Urbanism as a Way of LifeAuthor(s): Louis WirthSource: The American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 44, No. 1 (Jul., 1938), pp. 1-24Published by: The University of Chicago PressStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2768119 .

Accessed: 09/02/2011 20:20

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at .

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unlessyou have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you

may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at .http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ucpress. .

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed

page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

The University of Chicago Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The

American Journal of Sociology.

http://www.jstor.org

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ucpress

http://www.jstor.org/stable/2768119?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp



http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

http://www.jstor.org/stable/2768119?origin=JSTOR-pdf




THE AMERICANJOURNAL OF SOCIOLOGY

VOLUMEXLIV JULY 1938 NUMBER 1

URBANISM AS A WAY OF LIFE

LOUIS WIRTH

ABSTRACT

The urbanization f theworld,which s one of themost mpressive actsofmoderntimes, aswrought rofoundhanges nvirtually very haseof ocial ife. The recencyand rapidityof urbanization n the United States accounts forthe acuteness ofoururbanproblemsnd our ackof awareness f them.Despite thedominance furbanism

in the modernworldwe still ack a sociological efinitionfthecitywhichwouldtakeadequate accountofthe factthatwhilethecity s thecharacteristicocusofurbanism,theurban mode oflife s not confined o cities. For sociologicalpurposesa city s arelatively arge,dense,and permanentettlement fheterogeneousndividuals.Largenumbers ccount for ndividualvariability, herelative absence of intimatepersonalacquaintanceship, he segmentalizationf humanrelationswhichare largely nony-mous, superficial,nd transitory,nd associated characteristics. ensity involvesdi-versificationnd specialization, he coincidence f close physicalcontactand distantsocialrelations, laring ontrasts, complexpattern fsegregation,hepredominanceof formal ocial control, nd accentuatedfriction, mongotherphenomena.Hetero-geneity endsto breakdown rigid ocial structuresnd to produce ncreasedmobility,instability,nd insecurity,nd the affiliationfthe ndividualswitha variety f nter-secting nd tangential ocial groupswitha highrate ofmembership urnover.The

pecuniarynexus tends to displace personalrelations, nd institutions endto cater to

mass rather han to individualrequirements. he individual thus becomes effectiveonlyas he acts through rganizedgroups.The complicatedphenomena furbanismmay acquire unityand coherence fthe sociological nalysis proceeds n the light ofsuch a body of theory.The empiricalevidenceconcerning he ecology,the socialorganization,nd the social psychology f the urban mode of lifeconfirmshe fruit-fulness f thisapproach.

I. THE CITY AND CONTEMPORARY CIVILIZATION

Just s thebeginningfWestern ivilizations marked y thepermanentettlementf formerlyomadic eoples n theMediter-

raneanbasin, o the begilning f what s distinctivelyodern nour civilizations best signalized y thegrowth f greatcities.Nowhere asmankind eenfartheremoved rom rganicnature



2 THE AMERICANJOURNALOF SOCIOLOGY

than underthe conditions f life characteristic f great cities. Thecontemporaryworld no longerpresents pictureof small isolated

groups of humanbeings scatteredover a vast territory,s Sumnerdescribedprimitive ociety.' The distinctive eature f themode ofliving of man in the modernage is his concentrationnto giganticaggregations round which cluster esser centersand fromwhichradiate theideas and practicesthat we call civilization.

The degreeto which the contemporaryworldmay be said to be"urban" is not fully raccuratelymeasuredby the proportion f thetotal population livingin cities. The influenceswhich cities exert

upon the social life ofman are greaterthan the ratio of the urbanpopulationwould indicate,for the city is not only in ever largerdegreesthe dwelling-place nd the workshopof modern man, butit is theinitiating nd controllingenter feconomic,political,andcultural ifethat has drawn the most remotepartsofthe world ntoits orbit and woven diverse areas, peoples, and activities into acosmos.

The growth f cities and the urbanizationof theworld s one of

themost mpressive actsofmodern imes. Althought s impossibleto state preciselywhat proportionof the estimated total world-populationof approximately ,8oo,ooo,ooo is urban, 69.2 per centof the total population of those countriesthat do distinguishbe-tweenurbanand rural areas is urban.2Considering hefact,more-over,that the world'spopulation s veryunevenlydistributed ndthat the growth f cities is not veryfaradvanced in some of thecountriesthat have only recentlybeen touchedby industrialism,

this average understates he extent to whichurban concentrationhas proceeded n thosecountrieswheretheimpactof theindustrialrevolution as beenmoreforcefulnd of ess recentdate. This shiftfrom rural to a predominantly rban society,which has takenplace withinthe span of a single generation n such industrializedareas as the United States and Japan, has been accompanied byprofound hanges n virtually very phase of social life. It is thesechangesand theirramificationshat invitethe attentionof the so-

ciologistto the studyof the differencesetweenthe ruraland thexWilliam rahamumner,olkwaysBoston,906), p. 12.

2 S. V. Pearson,TheGrowthndDistributionf opulationNewYork,1935), p. 211.



URBANISM AS A WAY OF LIFE 3

urban mode of iving. The pursuit fthis nterest s an indispensableprerequisite or he comprehension nd possible mastery fsome ofthe most crucial contemporary roblemsof social life since it islikely o furnish neof the most revealing erspectives or heunder-standingof the ongoing changes in human nature and the socialorder.3

Since thecity s the productofgrowth ather han of nstantane-ous creation, t is to be expected that the influenceswhich t exertsupon themodes of lifeshould not be able to wipe out completelythepreviously ominantmodes of human association. To a greateror lesser degree,therefore,ur social lifebears the imprint f anearlierfolk ociety, he characteristicmodes of settlement fwhichwerethe farm, hemanor,and the village. This historic nfluenceis reinforced y the circumstance hat the populationof the cityitself s in large measure recruitedfromthe countryside,where amode of lifereminiscent f this earlierformof existencepersists.Hence we shouldnotexpectto find brupt and discontinuous aria-tion betweenurbanand ruraltypesof personality.The city nd thecountrymay be regardedas two poles in reference o one or theotherofwhich all human settlements end to arrangethemselves.In viewingurban-industrialnd rural-folk ocietyas ideal typesofcommunities,we may obtain a perspectivefor the analysisof thebasic models ofhuman association as they appear in contemporarycivilization.

II. A SOCIOLOGICAL DEFINITION OF THE CITY

Despite thepreponderant ignificancef the city n our civiliza-tion, however,our knowledgeof the nature of urbanismand theprocessofurbanizationsmeager. Many attemptshave indeedbeenmade to isolate thedistinguishingharacteristicsfurbanlife. Ge-ographers,historians, conomists, n?dpolitical scientistshave in-

3Whereasrural ife n the United States has for longtime been a subjectofcon-siderable nterest n the part of governmental ureaus,the most notable case of acomprehensive eport eingthatsubmitted y theCountry ifeCommissiono Presi-dent Theodore Roosevelt n I909, it is worthy f note that no equallycomprehensiveofficialnquiry-intorban ifewas undertaken ntil the establishment f a ResearchCommittee n Urbanism f the National ResourcesCommittee. Cf.Our Cities: TheirRole n theNational EconomyWashington:Government rinting ffice,937].)




corporatedthe points of view of theirrespectivedisciplines ntodiverse

definitionsfthecity. While in no senseintendedto super-sede these,the formulation f a sociologicalapproach to the citymay incidentally erve to call attention to the interrelations e-tweenthem by emphasizing hepeculiarcharacteristics f the cityas a particularform fhumanassociation. A sociologically ignifi-cantdefinition fthe cityseeksto selectthoseelements furbanismwhichmark t as a distinctivemode ofhumangroup ife.

The characterization f a community s urban on the basis ofsize alone is obviouslyarbitrary. t is difficulto defend hepresentcensusdefinition hichdesignates community f 2,500 and aboveas urban and all others s rural. The situationwould be the same ifthe criterion ere ,000, 8,ooo, O,OOO, 25,000, or ioo,ooo popula-tion,for lthough n the attercase wemight eelthat we were morenearlydealingwithan urban aggregatethanwould be the case in-communities f essersize,no definitionfurbanism an hope to becompletely atisfying s long as numbersare regarded as the solecriterion.Moreover, tisnotdifficultodemonstrate hat communi-

tiesof ess thanthearbitrarilyet number f nhabitantsyingwith-in therangeof nfluence fmetropolitan entershave greaterclaimto recognition s urban communities han do largerones leadinga more solatedexistence n a predominantlyuralarea. Finally, tshould be recognized hat censusdefinitions re unduly nfluencedby the fact that the city,statistically peaking, s always an ad-ministrative oncept in that the corporate imitsplay a decisiverole in delineatingthe urban area. Nowhere is this more clearly

apparentthan nthe concentrations fpopulationon theperipheriesof greatmetropolitan enterswhichcross arbitrary dministrativeboundariesofcity, county, tate, and nation.

As long as we identify rbanismwith thephysicalentityof thecity,viewing tmerely s rigidly elimited n space, and proceedasif urban attributesabruptlyceased to be manifestedbeyond anarbitrary oundary ine,we are not likelyto arrive t any adequateconception f urbanism s a mode of ife. The technological evelop-

ments n transportationnd communicationwhichvirtuallymarka new epoch in humanhistoryhave accentuatedthe role of citiesas dominant elements n our civilization nd have enormously x-



IURBANISMAS A WAY OF LIPE 5

tended the urban mode of living beyond the confines f the cityitself.The dominanceof the city, especiallyof thegreat city,maybe regarded as a consequenceof the concentration n cities of in-dustrial and commercial, inancial nd administrative acilities ndactivities, transportation nd communication ines, and culturaland recreational quipment uch as thepress, radio stations,thea-ters, ibraries,museums, oncerthalls, operas,hospitals,higher du-cational institutions, esearch and publishingcenters,professionalorganizations, nd religiousand welfare nstitutions.Were it notfor heattraction nd suggestions hat thecityexerts hrough heseinstrumentalitiespon the ruralpopulation,thedifferencesetweenthe ruraland the urban modes of lifewould be even greaterthanthey are. Urbanization no longer denotes merelythe process bywhichpersonsare attractedto a place called thecity and incorpo-rated into its system of life. It refers lso to that cumulative ac-centuation of the characteristicsdistinctive of the mode of lifewhich is associated with the growthof cities, and finallyto thechanges n thedirection f modesofliferecognized s urbanwhichare apparentamong people,wherever heymay be, whohave comeunderthe spell of the influenceswhich the city exertsby virtue ofthepowerof ts institutions nd personalities perating hrough hemeans of communicationnd transportation.

The shortcomingswhich attach to number of inhabitants as acriterion f urbanism pplyforthe mostpart to densityofpopula-tion as well. Whetherwe accept the densityof io,ooo persons persquare mile as Mark Jefferson4roposed,or I,OOO, whichWillcox5

preferredo regard s the criterion furbansettlements,t is clearthat unlessdensity s correlatedwithsignificantocial characteris-tics it can furnish nly an arbitrary asis fordifferentiatingrbanfromrural communities.Since our census enumerates the nightratherthan the day populationof an area, the locale of the mostintensiveurbanlife-the citycenter-generally has lowpopulationdensity. nd the industrial nd commercial reas of the city,which

4 "The Anthropogeographyf Some Great Cities," Bull. AmericanGeographical

Society, LI (I909), 537-66.

5WalterF. Willcox, A Definition f City'inTermsofDensity," n E. W. Burgess,The UrbanCommunityChicago, 926), p. II9.



6 THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SOCIOLOGY

contain he most characteristicconomic ctivitiesunderlying rbansociety, would scarcely anywherebe truly urban if density wereliterally nterpreted s a markof urbanism. Nevertheless, he factthat the urban community s distinguished y a large aggregationand relatively dense concentration f population can scarcely beleft ut of account n a definitionf the city. But these criteriamustbe seen as relative to the generalcultural context n which citiesarise and exist and are sociologically elevantonly n so far as theyoperateas conditioning actors n social life.

The same criticisms pply to such criteria s the occupation ofthe inhabitants, he existenceof certainphysical facilities,nstitu-tions, and forms of political organization. The question is notwhether ities in our civilizationor in others do exhibit these dis-tinctivetraits,but how potent they are in moldingthe characterof social life ntoits specifically rbanform. Nor in formulatingfertile efinitionan we afford o overlook the great variations be-tween cities. By means of a typologyof cities based upon size,location,age, and function,uch. s we have undertaken o establish

inour recent eport o the National ResourcesCommittee,6 e havefound t feasibleto arrayand classifyurban communities angingfrom truggling mall townsto thrivingworld-metropolitanenters;from solated trading-centersn themidstofagricultural egions othrivingworld-ports nd commercial nd industrialconurbations.Such differencess these appear crucial because the social char-acteristicsand influences f these different cities" vary widely.

A serviceabledefinitionf urbanism hould not onlydenote the

essential characteristicswhich all cities-at least those in our cul-ture-have in common,but should lend itselfto the discoveryoftheirvariations.An industrial itywilldifferignificantlyn socialrespectsfrom commercial,mining, ishing, esort, niversity, ndcapital city. A one-industryitywillpresentdifferentets of socialcharacteristics roma multi-industry ity, as will an industriallybalanced from n imbalancedcity, suburbfrom satellite, resi-dential suburbfrom n industrial uburb, citywithin metropoli-

tan regionfromone lyingoutside, an old city from new one, a

6Op. cit.,p. 8.




southernity rom New England, middle-westernrom PacificCoastcity, growingrom stable ndfrom dying ity.

A sociological efinition ustobviously e inclusive nough ocomprisewhatever ssential haracteristicshesedifferentypesof citieshave ncommon s social entities,ut tobviouslyannotbe so detailed s to takeaccount fall the variationsmplicitnthemanifoldlasses ketchedbove. Presumablyome fthechar-acteristicsfcities remore ignificantnconditioninghenature furban ife han thers,ndwemayexpect heoutstandingeaturesof theurban-socialcene o vary n accordancewith ize,density,

anddifferencesnthe functionalype f cities.Moreover, emayinfer hatruralifewillbearthe mprintfurbanismn themeasurethat throughontact nd communicationt comesunder hein-fluence fcities. t maycontributeotheclarityfthe tatementsthatfolloworepeat hatwhile he ocusofurbanisms a modeoflife s, ofcourse, o be found haracteristicallynplaceswhich ulfiltherequirementseshall etupas a definitionf he ity, rbanismis not confinedo such ocalities ut s manifestnvaryingegrees

whereverhe nfluencesfthecity each.Whileurbanism,r that complex f traitswhichmakes up the

characteristicode f ife ncities,ndurbanization,hich enotesthedevelopmentnd extensionsf thesefactors,re thusnotex-clusively oundnsettlementshich re cities n thephysical nddemographicense,theydo, nevertheless,indtheirmostpro-nounced xpressionnsuchareas, speciallynmetropolitanities.In formulatingdefinitionf thecity t is necessary o exercise

cautionn order o avoid dentifyingrbanisms a wayof ifewithany specificocallyor historicallyonditionedulturalnfluenceswhich,while heymay significantlyffect hespecificharacter fthecommunity,renotthe essential eterminantsf ts characteras a city.

It is particularlymportanto call attention o the danger fconfusingrbanism ith ndustrialismnd modernapitalism. heriseof cities n themodernworld s undoubtedlyot ndependent

of theemergencefmodernower-drivenachineechnology,assproduction,nd capitalisticnterprise.'ut differents thecitiesofearlierpochsmayhavebeenbyvirtue ftheir evelopmentn a




preindustrialndprecapitalisticrder rom hegreat ities ftoday,theywere, evertheless,ities.

For sociologicalurposes citymay be defined s a relativelylarge,dense, nd permanentettlementf sociallyheterogeneousindividuals. nthebasisof thepostulates hich hisminimal efi-nition uggests, theory f urbanismmaybe formulatedn thelight f existingnowledgeoncerningocialgroups.

III. A THEORY OF URBANISM

In therich iteraturen thecitywe look nvain for theoryf

urbanismresentingna systematicashionhe vailableknowledgeconcerninghecity s a socialentity.We do indeedhaveexcellentformulationsftheoriesn such pecialproblemss thegrowthfthe cityviewed s a historicalrendnd as a recurrentrocess,7ndwe have a wealthofliteratureresentingnsightsf sociologicalrelevancend empiricaltudies fferingetailed nformationn avariety fparticularspects f urban ife.But despite he multi-plication fresearchndtextbooks n thecity,we do not as yet

havea comprehensiveodyofcompendentypotheses hichmaybe derived rom set ofpostulatesmplicitlyontainedn a socio-logical efinitionfthe ity,nd from urgeneralociologicalnowl-edgewhichmaybe substantiatedhroughmpiricalesearch. heclosest pproximationso a systematicheoryf urbanismhatwehavearetobe found na penetratingssay, Die Stadt,"byMaxWeber,8nda memorableaperbyRobert . Parkon "The City:Suggestionsor he nvestigationfHumanBehaviorn theUrban

Environment."9ut even hese xcellentontributionsrefar romconstitutingn ordered nd coherent rameworkf theory ponwhich esearchmight rofitablyroceed.

Inthepages hat ollow eshall eek o setforthlimited umberof dentifyingharacteristicsf he ity.Given hese haracteristicsweshallthen ndicatewhatconsequencesrfurtherharacteristicsfollow rom hem n thelightofgeneral ociologicalheory nd

7 See Robert E. Park, ErnestW. Burgess,et al., The City (Chicago, I925), esp.chaps. ii and iii; WernerSombart, StadtischeSiedlung,Stadt," Handwdrterbutcher

Soziologie, d. AlfredVierkandt Stuttgart,93I); see also bibliography.8 WirtschaftndGesellschaftTiubingen,925), Part II, chap. viii,pp. 5I4-60I.

9 Park,Burgess, tal., op. cit.,chap. i.




empirical esearch. We hope nthismanner o arrive t theessentialpropositions omprising theory f urbanism. Some of thesepropo-sitionscan be supportedby a considerable odyofalreadyavailableresearchmaterials; othersmay be accepted as hypotheses orwhicha certain mountofpresumptive videnceexists,butforwhichmoreample and exact verificationwould be required.At least such aprocedure will, it is hoped, show what in the way of systematicknowledgeof the city we now have and what are the crucial andfruitful ypotheses orfuture esearch.

The centralproblem f thesociologist f the city s to discover he

formsof social action and organizationthat typically emerge nrelatively permanent,compact settlementsof large numbers ofheterogeneous ndividuals. We must also infer hat urbanismwillassume itsmost characteristic nd extreme orm n the measure nwhichthe conditionswithwhich t is congruent re present. Thusthe arger, hemore denselypopulated,and the moreheterogeneousa community, he more accentuated the characteristics ssociatedwithurbanismwill be. It should be recognized, owever, hat nthe

social world institutions nd practices may be accepted and con-tinued for reasons other than those that originallybroughtthemintoexistence, nd that accordingly heurbanmode of lifemay beperpetuatedunder conditions quite foreign o those necessary forits origin.

Some justificationmaybe in orderfor he choiceoftheprincipaltermscomprising ur definition f the city. The attempthas beenmade to make it as inclusive and at thesametimeas denotative s

possiblewithout oading it with unnecessary ssumptions.To saythat large numbers are necessary to constitutea city means, ofcourse, arge numbers nrelation o a restrictedrea orhighdensityof settlement.There are, nevertheless, ood reasons for treatinglarge numbersand densityas separate factors, ince each may beconnectedwith significantlyifferentocial consequences. Similarlythe need for adding heterogeneity o numbersof population as anecessary and distinctcriterion f urbanismmight be questioned,

since we should expect the range of differences o increase withnumbers. In defense, t maybe said that the city shows a kind anddegree of heterogeneity f populationwhichcannotbe wholly ac-



Io THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SOCIOLOGY

countedforby the law oflargenumbersor adequately represented

by means of a normal distribution urve. Since the population ofthe citydoes not reproduce tself, t mustrecruit tsmigrants romothercities,the countryside, nd-in thiscountryuntilrecently-from ther countries.The city has thus historically een the melt-ing-pot f races,peoples,and cultures, nd a mostfavorablebreed-ing-ground f newbiologicaland culturalhybrids. It has not onlytolerated but rewarded ndividual differences.t has brought to-getherpeople from he ends of the earth becausetheyare differentand thus usefulto one another, ather han because theyare homo-geneous and like-minded.Io

There are a numberof sociologicalpropositions oncerning herelationship etween a) numbers fpopulation, b) density f settle-ment, c) heterogeneityf inhabitants nd group ife,which can beformulated n thebasis of observation nd research.

SIZE OF THE POPULATION AGGREGATE

Ever since Aristotle'sPolitics,", t has been recognizedthat in-

creasing henumber f nhabitants n a settlement eyonda certainlimit will affect he relationships etween them and the character

-0The justification or ncluding he term permanent" n the definition ay appearnecessary.Our failure o give an extensive ustification or hisqualifyingmark of theurbanrestson theobviousfact thatunlesshuman ettlementsake a fairly ermanentroot n a locality he characteristicsf urban ife annot rise, nd converselyhe ivingtogether f large numbers fheterogeneousndividualsunderdenseconditions s notpossiblewithout hedevelopment f a moreor less technologicaltructure.

I" See esp. vii. 4. 4-I4. TranslatedbyB. Jowett, romwhich hefollowingmaybequoted:

"To the size of states there s a limit, s there s to other things, lants, animals,implements; ornone of theseretain heirnaturalpowerwhenthey re too large or toosmall,but theyeitherwholly ose theirnature,or are spoiled.... [A] statewhencomposed of too few s not as a state oughtto be, self-sufficing;henof too many,though elf-sufficingn all merenecessaries,t is a nation nd not a state, being lmostincapable of constitutional overnment. or who can be the generalof such a vastmultitude, r who theherald,unlesshe have the voiceof a Stentor?

"A state thenonly beginsto existwhen t has attained a population ufficientorgood life n the politicalcommunity:t may indeedsomewhatexceed this number.But, as I was saying, heremustbe a limit. What shouldbe the limitwillbe easily

ascertainedby experience.For bothgovernorsnd governedhave duties to perform;the specialfunctions f a governor re to command nd to judge. But ifthe citizensof a stateare to udgeand to distribute fficesccording omerit, hen heymustknoweach other's haracters;where heydo notpossessthisknowledge, oth the election o



URBANISM AS A WAY OF LIFE II

of the city. Large numbersinvolve, as has been pointed out, a

greaterrange of individual variation.Furthermore,he greater henumberof individualsparticipatingn a processofinteraction, hegreater s thepotential ifferentiationetweenthem. The personaltraits, heoccupations,the cultural ife, nd the ideas ofthemem-bers of an urban communitymay, therefore, e expectedto rangebetween morewidely separated poles than those of rural inhabi-tants.

That such variations should give rise to the spatial segregationof ndividuals ccording ocolor, thnicheritage, conomic ndsocialstatus,tastes and preferences,may readilybe inferred. he bondsofkinship, fneighborliness,nd the sentimentsrising utof ivingtogether orgenerationsunder a common folk tradition re likelyto be absentor,at best,relativelyweakinan aggregate hemembersof whichhave such diverseoriginsand backgrounds.Under suchcircumstances ompetition nd formal ontrolmechanismsfurnishthe substitutesforthe bonds of solidarity hat are reliedupon tohold a folk ociety together.

Increase in the numberofinhabitants f a community eyond afewhundred s bound to limitthepossibility feach member f thecommunity nowing ll theothers ersonally.Max Weber, n recog-nizing the social significance f this fact,pointed out that fromsociologicalpointofview largenumbers finhabitants nd densityof settlementmean that thepersonalmutual acquaintanceshipbe-tweenthe inhabitantswhichordinarily nheres n a neighborhoodis lacking.,2The increase n numbers hus nvolves a changed char-

acter of the social relationships.As Simmelpoints out:[If] heunceasingxternalontactfnumbersfpersonsn the ity hould

be met ythe amenumberf nnereactionss inthe mall own,n whichoneknowslmostvery erson emeetsndtoeach fwhom ehasa positive

offices nd thedecisionoflawsuitswillgo wrong.Whenthepopulation s very argethey remanifestlyettled t haphazard,which learly ughtnot to be. Besides, nanoverpopulous tateforeignersnd meticswillreadily cquiretherights fcitizens, orwhowillfind hem ut? Clearly, hen, hebest imit fthepopulation fa state s the

largestnumberwhichsufficesor hepurposesof ife, nd can be taken n at a singleview. Enoughconcerninghesize of a city."

I2 Op. cit., . 5I4.



I2 THE AMERICANJOURNALOF SOCIOLOGY

relationship,newould e completelytomizednternallynd would all ntoan unthinkableental ondition.13

The multiplication fpersons n a state of interaction nder condi-tions which make theircontact as full personalitiesmpossiblepro-duces that segmentalizationf human relationshipswhichhas some-times been seized upon by studentsof the mentallife of the citiesas an explanationfor he "schizoid" character f urban personality.This is not to say that the urban inhabitantshave fewer cquaint-ances than rural nhabitants, orthe reversemay actually be true;it means rather hat in relation o the number f people whom theysee and withwhomtheyrub elbows n the courseof daily life, heyknow a smallerproportion, nd of these theyhave less intensiveknowledge.

Characteristically, rbanites meet one another in highly seg-mental roles. They are, to be sure, dependentupon more peoplefor he satisfactions f their ife-needs han are ruralpeople and thusare associatedwitha greaternumberof organizedgroups,but theyare less dependentupon particular persons, and their dependence

uponothers s confined o a highly ractionalized spect ofthe other'sroundofactivity. This is essentiallywhat is meant by saying thatthecity s characterized y secondary ather hanprimary ontacts.The contactsof the city may indeed be face to face, but they areneverthelessmpersonal, uperficial, ransitory,nd segmental.Thereserve,the indifference,nd the blase outlook which urbanitesmanifestn theirrelationshipsmay thus be regarded s devices forimmunizing hemselvesagainst the personal claims and expecta-

tionsof others.The superficiality,he anonymity, nd the transitory haracter

of urban-socialrelationsmake intelligible, lso, the sophisticationand the rationalitygenerallyascribed to city-dwellers.Our ac-quaintances tend to stand in a relationship f utilityto us in thesensethatthe role which ach oneplaysin our ife s overwhelminglyregarded s a meansfor he achievement four own ends. Whereas,therefore,heindividualgains,on the one hand,a certaindegreeof

emancipation r freedom rom hepersonaland emotionalcontrols13 Georg Simmel, "Die Grossstadteund das Geistesleben,"Die Grossstadt,d.

TheodorPetermannDresden, 903), pp. I87-206.



URBANISM AS A WAY OF LIFE I3

of intimate groups, he loses, on the otherhand, the spontaneousself-expression,he morale, nd the sense ofparticipation hat comeswith iving n an integrated ociety. This constitutes ssentially hestate ofanomieor the social void to whichDurkheim alludes in at-tempting o account forthe various forms fsocial disorganizationin technological ociety.

The segmental characterand utilitarian ccent of interpersonalrelations n the cityfind heir nstitutional xpressionn the prolifer-ation ofspecialized tasks whichw1eee in theirmost developed formin theprofessions.The operationsof thepecuniarynexus leads topredatory elationships, hich end toobstruct he efficientunction-ingofthe socialorderunless checkedby professional odes and occu-pational etiquette. Thepremium ut uponutility nd efficiencyug-geststheadaptabilityof thecorporatedevicefor heorganization fenterprisesn which individuals can engage only in groups. Theadvantagethatthecorporation as over the ndividualentrepreneurand thepartnershipn the urban-industrial orld derivesnot onlyfrom hepossibility t affords f centralizing heresources f thou-sands of individuals or from he legal privilegeof limited iabilityand perpetual succession,but fromthe fact that the corporationhas no soul.

The specialization of individuals, particularly n their occupa-tions,can proceed only,as Adam Smithpointedout, upon thebasisof an enlarged market,whichin turn accentuates the divisionoflabor. This enlargedmarket s only in part supplied by the city'shinterland; n largemeasure it is foundamong the large numbers

that the city itself contains. The dominance of the city over thesurrounding interland ecomesexplicable n termsof the divisionoflabor which urban lifeoccasions and promotes.The extremede-greeof interdependencend the unstable equilibrium f urban lifeare closelyassociated with thedivision of labor and the specializa-tion of occupations. This interdependence nd instability s in-creasedby thetendency feach cityto specialize n thosefunctionsinwhich t has thegreatest dvantage.

In a commnunityomposedof a largernumber f ndividualsthancan knowone another ntimately nd can be assembled none spot,it becomesnecessary ocommunicate hroughndirectmediums nd




to articulate ndividual nterests y a process f delegation.Typical-ly in the city, nterests re made effective hrough epresentation.The individualcountsfor ittle,but the voice of the representativeis heardwith a deference oughlyproportional o the numbersforwhomhe speaks.

While this characterization f urbanism, n so far as it derivesfrom argenumbers, oes not by any means exhaustthe sociologicalinferences hat mightbe drawn fromour knowledge of the rela-tionship fthe size of a groupto the characteristic ehaviorof themembers, orthe sake of brevity he assertionsmade may serve toexemplifyhesortofpropositions hat mightbe developed.

DENSITY

As in the case ofnumbers, o in the case of concentrationn limi-ted space, certainconsequencesofrelevance n sociological nalysisofthecity emerge.Oftheseonlya fewcan be indicated.

As Darwin pointed out for flora and fauna and as Durkheim'4noted in the case ofhumansocieties, n increase n numberswhen

area is held constant i.e., an increase n density)tendsto producedifferentiationnd specialization,since only in this way can thearea support ncreasednumbers.Density thusreinforceshe effectofnumbersndiversifying en and their ctivities nd in increasingthe complexity f the social structure.

On thesubjective ide,as Simmelhas suggested, he closephysicalcontactofnumerous ndividualsnecessarily roducesa shift n themediumsthroughwhichwe orient urselves o the urbanmilieu, s-

peciallytoourfellow-men. ypically, urphysical ontacts reclosebut oursocialcontacts re distant. The urbanworldputsa premiumon visual recognition.We see the uniformwhichdenotes the roleof the functionariesnd are obliviousto thepersonaleccentricitiesthatarehiddenbehindtheuniform.We tendtoacquireand developa sensitivityo a worldofartefacts nd becomeprogressivelyartherremovedfrom he worldof nature.

We areexposedtoglaring ontrasts etween plendor nd squalor,

betweenriches and poverty, ntelligence nd ignorance, rder andchaos. The competition orspace is great,so that each area gen-

14 E. Durkheim,De la division u travail ocial (Paris, 932), p. 248.




erallytends to be put to the use whichyields the greatest conomicreturn. Place of work tends to become dissociated fromplace ofresidence, ortheproximity f industrial nd commercial stablish-mentsmakesan area both economically nd sociallyundesirable orresidential urposes.

Density, andvalues, rentals, ccessibility, ealthfulness,restige,aesthetic consideration,bsence of nuisancessuch as noise,smoke,and dirt determine he desirability f various areas of the city asplaces of settlement or differentectionsof the population. Placeand nature of work, ncome,racial and ethniccharacteristics,ocialstatus, custom,habit, taste, preference,nd prejudice are amongthe significant actors n accordancewithwhich the urbanpopula-tion s selected nd distributed ntomoreor ess distinct ettlements.Diverse population elements nhabiting compact settlement hustend to become segregated rom ne another n the degree n whichtheir requirements nd modes of life are incompatible with oneanotherand in themeasure n whichtheyare antagonisticto oneanother. Similarly,personsof homogeneous tatus and needs un-wittinglydrift nto, consciouslyselect, or are forcedby circum-stances into, the same area. The differentarts of the city thusacquire specialized functions.The city consequently tends to re-semblea mosaic of social worlds n which the transitionfrom neto theother s abrupt. The juxtaposition fdivergent ersonalitiesand modes of lifetends to producea relativistic erspectiveand asense of tolerationof differences hichmay be regarded as pre-requisitesfor rationality nd which ead toward the secularization

of ife.'5The close ivingtogether nd working ogether f ndividualswho

haveno sentimentalndemotional iesfoster spirit fcompetition,aggrandizement,nd mutualexploitation.To counteract rresponsi-bilityand potential disorder,formalcontrols tend to be resortedto. Withoutrigid dherence opredictableroutines largecompact

is The extent o which hesegregationf thepopulation nto distinct cological ndcultural areas and the resulting ocial attitude of tolerance, ationality,nd secularmentality re functions fdensity s distinguishedromheterogeneitys difficulto

determine.Most likelywe are dealinghere withphenomenawhich reconsequences fthesimultaneousperation f both factors.



ii6 THE AMERICANJOURNALOF SOCIOLOGY

societywould carcely e able to maintaintself. heclock ndthe

trafficignalre symbolic f the basis of our socialorder n the

urbanworld.Frequent losephysical ontact, oupledwith greatsocial distance, ccentuateshe reserve f unattachedndividualstoward neanothernd,unless ompensatedor yother pportuni-ties forresponse, ivesrise to loneliness. he necessary requentmovementfgreatnumbersf ndividualsn a congested abitatgives occasionto frictionnd irritation. ervous ensionswhichderive romuchpersonal rustrationsreaccentuatedytherapidtempo nd thecomplicatedechnologynderwhich ife ndenseareasmustbe lived.

HETEROGENEITY

The social nteractionmong uch variety fpersonalityypesintheurbanmilieu ends obreakdown herigidityf caste inesand to complicate he class structure,nd thus nduces moreramifiednddifferentiatedrameworkf socialstratificationhanis foundn more ntegratedocieties. he heightened obilityftheindividual, hichbrings imwithin herangeof stimulation

bya greatnumber fdiverse ndividualsndsubjectshimtofluc-tuatingtatus n thedifferentiatedocialgroups hatcompose hesocial tructuref he ity, ends owardhe cceptancef nstabilityand insecurityn the world t large s a norm.This facthelpstoaccount, oo, forthe sophisticationnd cosmopolitanismf theurbanite.No single rouphastheundividedllegiancefthe ndi-vidual.The groupswithwhichhe is affiliatedo not end them-selvesreadily o a simplehierarchicalrrangement.y virtue f

his differentnterestsrising ut ofdifferentspects fsocial ife,the individual cquiresmembershipn widelydivergent roups,each ofwhich unctionsnlywith eferenceo a single egmentfhispersonality. ordo thesegroups asilypermit fa concentricarrangementothat henarrowernesfallwithinhe ircumferenceofthemore nclusive nes, s is more ikely o be thecase in therural ommunityrinprimitiveocieties.Rather he groupswithwhich heperson ypicallys affiliatedretangentialo eachother

or ntersectnhighly ariable ashion.Partly s a result fthephysical ootloosenessfthepopulation

andpartly s a result ftheir ocialmobility,heturnoverngroup




membershipenerallys rapid. Place ofresidence,lace and char-acterofemployment,ncome nd interestsluctuate,nd thetaskofholding rganizationsogetherndmaintainingndpromotingintimate nd lastingacquaintanceship etween he memberssdifficult.hisapplies trikinglyo the ocal areas within hecityintowhich ersons ecome egregated ore yvirtue fdifferencesin race, anguage,ncome, nd social status, han through hoiceor positive ttraction o people ike themselves. verwhelminglythecity-dwellersnot a home-owner,nd since transitoryabitatdoes not generate inding raditions nd sentiments,nly rarelyis he truly neighbor. here s little pportunityor he ndividualto obtain conceptionf the city s a whole rto survey isplacein thetotal cheme.Consequently e finds tdifficulto determinewhat s to hisown best nterests"nd to decide etween he ssuesand leaderspresented o himby the agencies fmass suggestion.Individuals ho re thusdetached rom heorganized odieswhichintegrateocietyomprisehefluidmasses hatmake ollective e-havior n the urban communityo unpredictablend hence soproblematical.

Although hecity, hrough he recruitmentf variant ypes operformtsdiverse asks nd the accentuationftheiruniquenessthroughompetitionnd the premium poneccentricity,ovelty,efficienterformance,nd inventiveness,roduces highly iffer-entiated opulation,t also exercises levelingnfluence.Whereverlargenumbers fdifferentlyonstitutedndividualsongregate,heprocess fdepersonalizationlso enters. his eveling endencyn-

heres n part n theeconomic asisofthecity.The developmentflarge ities, t least n themodern ge,was argely ependent ponthe oncentrativeorcef team.Therise f hefactory adepossi-blemassproductionor n impersonal arket. he fullest xploita-tion fthepossibilitiesfthedivision f abor ndmassproduction,however, s possibleonly with standardizationf processes ndproducts.Amoney conomy oeshand n handwith uch systemofproduction.rogressivelys citieshavedeveloped pona back-

ground f thissystem f production,hepecuniary exuswhichimplies hepurchasabilityf services nd things as displaced er-sonalrelationss thebasisof ssociation.ndividualitynder hese



i8 THE AMERICAN JOURNALOF SOCIOLOGY

circumstancesust ereplaced ycategories.When argenumbers

haveto make ommonse offacilitiesnd nstitutions,n arrange-mentmustbe made to adjustthe facilitiesnd institutionso theneeds ftheaverage erson atherhan othose fparticularndi-viduals. The services f thepublicutilities, f the recreational,educational,nd culturalnstitutions ustbe adjusted omass re-quirements.imilarly,heculturalnstitutions,uch s the chools,themovies, heradio, ndthenewspapers,y virtue f theirmassclientele,mustnecessarilyperate s levelingnfluences. he po-liticalprocess s it appears n urban ifecould notbe understoodwithoutaking ccount f themassappealsmade throughmodernpropaganda echniques.f the ndividualwouldparticipatet allin thesocial,political,nd economicife fthe city,hemust ub-ordinate ome fhis ndividualityo thedemandsfthe argerom-munityndin thatmeasuremmerse imselfnmass movements.

IV. THE RELATION BETWEEN A THEORY OF URBANISM

AND SOCIOLOGICAL RESEARCH

By meansof a body oftheory uch as thatillustratively ketchedabove,thecomplicatednd many-sidedhenomena furbanismmaybe analyzedn terms fa limited umberf basic categories.The sociological pproach o the city thusacquires n essentialunity nd coherencenablingheempiricalnvestigatorotmerelyto focusmore distinctly pon theproblems nd processes hatprop-erlyfall nhis provincebut also to treathissubject matter na moreintegrated nd systematicfashion. A few typical findings f em-

pirical research n the field of urbanism,with special reference otheUnited tates,maybe indicatedo substantiatehetheoreticalpropositionsetforthntheprecedingages, nd some f he rucialproblemsforfurthertudy may be outlined.

On thebasis of the threevariables,number, ensity fsettlement,and degree f heterogeneity,f theurbanpopulation,t appearspossible o explain hecharacteristicsfurban ife nd to accountfor hedifferencesetween ities fvarious izesandtypes.

Urbanism s a characteristic ode of lifemaybe approachedempiricallyromhreenterrelatederspectives:i) as a physicalstructureomprisingpopulation ase,a technology,nd an eco-




logical order; 2) as a system f social organizationnvolving

characteristicocial structure, series f social nstitutions,nd atypical attern f socialrelationships;nd (3) as a set of attitudesand ideas, and a constellationfpersonalitiesngagingn typicalforms f collective ehavior nd subject o characteristic echa-nisms f socialcontrol,

URBANISM IN ECOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVE

Since n the case of physical tructurend ecological rocesseswe areable to operatewith airly-bjective ndices,tbecomes os-

sibleto arrive t quite precise nd generally uantitativeesults.The dominance f the cityover ts hinterland ecomes xplicablethrough he functionalharacteristicsfthecitywhichderive nlargemeasure rom he effect f numbers nd density.Many ofthetechnical acilities nd the skillsand organizationso whichurban ifegivesrisecan grow nd prosper nly n citieswhere hedemand s sufficientlyreat.The nature nd scopeof theservicesrenderedy these rganizationsnd nstitutionsnd the dvantage

which hey njoy ver he essdeveloped acilitiesf smaller ownsenhances he dominance f the city and the dependence f everwider egions ponthecentralmetropolis.

The urban-populationompositionhows he operation f selec-tiveand differentiatingactors. itiescontain larger roportionofpersonsn theprime f ife hanrural reas which ontainmoreold andveryyoung eople. n this, s in so many ther espects,the arger hecity hemore his pecificharacteristicf urbanism

is apparent.With the exception f the argest ities,whichhaveattractedhebulk ftheforeign-bornales, nd a few ther pecialtypesof cities,womenpredominate umericallyvermen. Theheterogeneityf the urbanpopulation s furtherndicated longracial nd ethnic ines. The foreign orn nd their hildrenonsti-tutenearly wo-thirdsfall the nhabitantsfcities f one millionand over. Theirproportionn theurbanpopulation ecliness thesizeofthecity ecreases,ntil n therural reasthey omprisenly

aboutone-sixthf the totalpopulation. he larger ities imilarlyhaveattractedmoreNegroes nd other acialgroups hanhave thesmaller ommunities.onsideringhat age, sex, race, and ethnic




origin re associatedwithotherfactors uch as occupation nd

interest,tbecomes lear hat nemajor haracteristicftheurban-dwellers hisdissimilarityrom isfellows.Neverbefore avesuchlargemasses fpeople fdiverse raits s we findnour cities eenthrownogethernto uch losephysicalontact s inthegreat itiesofAmerica.Cities enerally,ndAmericanitiesnparticular,om-prise motley fpeoples nd cultures,fhighly ifferentiatedodesof ife etween hichhereftensonly hefaintestommunication,thegreatestndifferencend thebroadest olerance, ccasionally

bittertrife,utalways he harpestontrast.The failure f the urbanpopulation o reproducetself ppearsto be a biological onsequence f a combinationf factorsn thecomplex f urban ife, nd thedecline n thebirth-rateenerallymayberegardeds oneof hemost ignificantigns f heurbaniza-tionoftheWestern orld.While heproportionfdeathsncitiesis slightly reaterhan n thecountry,heoutstandingifferencebetweenhe failure fpresent-dayities o maintainheir opula-tion nd thatof cities f thepast s that nformerimes twasdueto theexceedinglyighdeath-ratesn cities,whereas oday, incecitieshavebecomemore ivablefrom health tandpoint,tis dueto low birth-rates.hese biological haracteristicsf the urbanpopulationre significantociologically,otmerely ecause theyreflectheurbanmodeof existence ut also because hey onditionthegrowthnd future ominance f cities nd their asic socialorganization.incecities re theconsumersather han the pro-ducers fmen, hevalueofhuman ife ndthe ocialestimationfthepersonalityillnotbe unaffectedythebalancebetween irthsand deaths.The pattern f anduse,of andvalues,rentals,ndownership,henature ndfunctioningfthephysical tructures,fhousing,ftransportationnd communicationacilities,f publicutilities-these ndmany ther hasesof thephysicalmechanismofthecity re not solatedphenomena nrelated o the city s asocialentity, utareaffectedy and affectheurbanmodeof ife.

URBANISM AS A FORM OF SOCIAL ORGANIZATIONThe distinctiveeatures f theurbanmode of life have often

beendescribedociologicallys consistingfthe ubstitutionf ec-



URBANISM AS A WAY OF LIFE 2I

ondary forprimary contacts, the weakeningof bonds of kinship,and thedeclining ocial significancef thefamily, hedisappearanceof the neighborhood, nd the underminingf the traditionalbasisof social solidarity.All thesephenomenacan be substantially eri-fiedthrough bjective indices. Thus, for nstance, the low and de-cliningurban-reproductionates suggest that the city is not con-ducive to the traditionaltype offamily ife, ncluding he rearingofchildren nd the maintenance f the home as the ocusofa wholeround of vital activities. The transfer f industrial, educational,and recreational activities to specialized institutions utside thehome has deprived the family of some of its most characteristichistorical functions. n cities mothersare more likely to be em-ployed, odgers remore frequently artof thehousehold,marriagetends to be postponed, nd theproportion fsingleand unattachedpeople is greater.Familiesare smaller nd morefrequently ithoutchildren han in the country.The family s a unit of sociallife semancipated from the larger kinship group characteristic f thecountry, nd the individual memberspursue theirown diverginginterestsntheirvocational, educational,religious, ecreational, ndpolitical life.

Such functions s the maintenance of health, the methods ofalleviating the hardshipsassociated with personal and social in-security, he provisionsforeducation,recreation, nd cultural ad-vancementhave given rise to highly specialized institutions n acommunity-wide,tatewide, revennationalbasis. The samefactorswhich have brought bout greaterpersonal nsecurity lso underlie

the widercontrastsbetween ndividuals to be found n the urbanworld. While the cityhas brokendowntherigidcaste linesofpre-industrial ociety, t has sharpenedand differentiatedncomeandstatus groups. Generally,a larger proportionof the adult-urbanpopulation is gainfully mployedthan is the case with the adult-ruralpopulation. The white-collar lass,comprisinghoseemployedin trade,in clerical,and in professionalwork,are proportionatelymorenumerous n large cities and in metropolitan entersand in

smallertowns thanin the country.On thewhole,the city discourages n economic ife n which the

individualin time of crisis has a basis of subsistenceto fall back




upon, and it discourages self-employment. hile incomes of city

people are on the average higher han those ofcountry eople, thecost of living seems to be higher n the largercities. Home owner-ship involves greater burdens and is rarer. Rents are higher andabsorb a larger proportion of the income. Althoughthe urban-dweller has the benefit f many communal services,he spends alarge proportion f his income for uch items as recreation nd ad-vancement nd a smallerproportion orfood. What the communalservices do not furnish he urbanite must purchase,and there svirtuallyno human need which has remainedunexploitedby com-mercialism. Catering o thrills nd furnishingmeansof escape fromdrudgery,monotony, nd routine thus become one of the majorfunctions furban recreation,which at its bestfurnishesmeans forcreative self-expression nd spontaneous group association, butwhichmoretypicallyn theurban worldresults npassive spectator-ism on the one hand, or sensational record-smashingeats on theother.

Being reduced to a stage of virtual mpotenceas an individual,

the urbanite s bound to exert himselfby joiningwith othersofsimilar nterest nto organized groupsto obtain his ends. This re-sults in the enormousmultiplication f voluntary rganizationsdi-rected toward as great a variety of objectives as there are humanneeds and interests.While on the one hand the traditional ies ofhuman associationare weakened,urban existence nvolves a muchgreater degree of interdependence etweenman and man and amore complicated, ragile, nd volatile form fmutual nterrelations

overmany phases of whichthe ndividual s such can exert carcelyany control.Frequentlythere s only the most tenuous relation-ship betweenthe economicpositionor otherbasic factors hat de-termine he individual'sexistence n the urbanworld and the vol-untarygroupswith which he is affiliated.While in a primitive ndin a ruralsociety t is generallypossible to predicton the basis ofa fewknownfactorswho willbelongto what and whowillassociatewithwhomin almost every relationship f life, n the citywe can

only projectthegeneralpatternofgroupformationnd affiliation,and this patternwill display many incongruities nd contradic-tions.




URBAN PERSONALITY AND COLLECTIVE BEHAVIOR

It is largely throughthe activities of the voluntarygroups, betheirobjectives economic, political, educational, religious,recrea-tional, or cultural, that the urbanite expressesand develops hispersonality, cquires status, and is able to carry on the round ofactivities that constitutehis life-career. t may easily be inferred,however, hat the organizational ramework hich these highlydif-ferentiated unctions all into being does not of itself nsure theconsistency nd integrity f the personalitieswhose interests t en-lists. Personal disorganization,mental breakdown, suicide, delin-

quency, crime, corruption, nd disordermightbe expectedunderthesecircumstances o be more prevalent n the urban than in therural community.This has been confirmedn so far as comparableindices are available; but the mechanisms underlying hese phe-nomena requirefurther nalysis.

Since formost grouppurposes t is impossible n thecityto appealindividually o the arge numberof discrete nd differentiatedndi-viduals,and since t is only through heorganizations o whichmen

belongthat their nterests nd resources an be enlistedfor a col-lective cause, it may be inferred hat social control n thecity houldtypically proceed through formally rganized groups. It follows,too, that the masses ofmen in the city are subject to manipulationby symbols and stereotypesmanaged by individuals working romafar oroperating nvisiblybehindthe scenes through heir controlofthe nstruments fcommunication. elf-governmentither n theeconomic, hepolitical, or the culturalrealm s under these circum-

stances reduced to a mere figure fspeech or, at best,is subject totheunstableequilibrium fpressuregroups. In view oftheineffec-tiveness of actual kinship ties we create fictionalkinship groups.In the faceof the disappearance of the territorial nit as a basis ofsocial solidaritywe create interestunits. Meanwhile the city as acommunity esolves tself nto a series of tenuous segmentalrela-tionships uperimposed pon a territorial ase with a definite enterbutwithout definite eriphery nd upon a divisionof aborwhich

far transcendsthe immediate ocality and is world-wide n scope.The largerthe numberof persons n a state of interactionwith oneanotherthelower s the level of communication nd the greater s




thetendency orcommunication o proceed on an elementary evel,

i.e., on the basis of those thingswhich are assumed to be commonor to be ofinterest o all.It is obviously,therefore, o the emerging rends n the com-

munication ystem nd to theproduction nd distribution echnolo-gy that has come into existencewithmoderncivilizationthat wemust ook for hesymptomswhichwill ndicate theprobable futuredevelopment f urbanism s a mode of social life. The direction fthe ongoingchanges n urbanismwill forgood or ill transform ot

onlythecitybut theworld. Some ofthemorebasic ofthese factorsand processes and the possibilities of theirdirectionand controlinvite further etailed study.

It is only n so faras the sociologisthas a clearconception fthecityas a social entityand a workabletheoryof urbanismthat hecan hope to develop a unifiedbody of reliableknowledge,whichwhat passes as "urban sociology" is certainlynot at the presenttime. By taking his point of departurefrom theory f urbanismsuch as thatsketched nthe foregoingages to be elaborated, ested,and revised n the light of furthernalysis and empiricalresearch,it is to be hoped that thecriteria frelevance nd validityof factualdata can be determined.The miscellaneous assortment f discon-nected informationwhich has hithertofound its way into socio-logical treatises on the city may thus be sifted and incorporatedinto a coherent ody ofknowledge. ncidentally, nlyby meansofsome such theorywill the sociologistescape the futilepracticeofvoicingin the name of sociologicalscience a varietyof often un-supportable udgments oncerninguchproblems s poverty,hous-ing, city-planning,anitation,municipal administration, olicing,marketing, ransportation, nd other technical issues. While thesociologistcannot solve any of these practical problems-at leastnotby himself-hemay, fhe discovershis properfunction, ave animportant ontribution o make to theircomprehension nd solu-tion. The prospectsfordoing thisare brightest hrough general,theoretical, ather hanthrough n ad hoc pproach.

UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO

AJS Urbanism as a Way of Life

Documents

Transcript of AJS Urbanism as a Way of Life