THE GITY READER

edited b)

Richard T. LeGatesand

Frederic Stout

filLondon and New York

\qq It '

LOUIS WIRTH

' *Urbanisnn as a Way of L i fe"

American Journal af Sociology ( 1 934)

Edi tors ' introduct ion Louis Wir th (1897- i952) was a member of the famed "Chicago

School" of urban sociology that included such academic iuminar ies as Ernest W, Burgess (author of"The Growth of the Ci iy," p.90) and former newspaper reporter and social reformer Robert E. Park.Tnspthcr tha<o <r-h6lars at the Universi ty of Chicago set out v i r tual ly to reinvent modern sociology bytaking academic research to the streets and by using the ci ty of Chicago i tsel f as a " l iv ing laboratory"for the study of urban problems and social processes.

Wirth 's major contr ibut ion to urban socioiogy was the formulat ion of nothing less fundamental ihana meaningful and logical ly coherent "sociologicai def in i t ron" of urban l i fe. As he lays i t out in themagnif icent synthesis that is h is 1938 essay "Urbanism as a Way of L i fe," a "sociological ly s igni f icantdef in i t ion of the c i ty" looks beyond the mere physical structure of the cr ty, or i ts economic product,or tts characteristic cultural institutions - however important all these may be - to discover thoseunder ly ing "elements of urbanisnr which mark i t as a dist inct ive mode of human group l i fe."

$/irth argues ihat fhree key characteristics of cit ies - large population size, social heterogeneity,and populat ion densi iy - contr ibute to the development of a pecul iar ly "urban way of l i fe" and, indeed,a dist inct "urban personal i iy ." For centur ies - at least as far back as Aesop's fable of the c i ty mouseand the country mouse casual observers have noted sharp personal i ty di f ferences between urbanand rural people and between nature-based and machine-based sty les of I iv ing. Wir th at tempts toexplain those di l ferences in terms of the funct ional responses of urban dwel lers to the character ist icenvironmentalcondi t ions of modern urban society. l f , for example, c i ty people are regarded as rathermore :ocial ly tc lerant than rural people - and, at the same t ime, more impersonaland seemingly lessfr iendly - these are merely adaptat ions to the exper ience of l iv ing in large, dense, social ly diverseurban environments.

Ai though some see Wirth 's explanat ion of the sociology of urban l i fe as nothing more than the socialscient i f ic ver i f icat ion of the obvious, others have argued that there is actual ly no such thing as an"urban personal i ty" or an "urban way of l i fe." Herbert Gans, for example, argues that both inner-c i ty"urban vi l lagers" and suburbani tes tend to mainiain their preexist ing cul tures and personal i t ies(p. 64). Wir th 's work, however, led to the development of a whole school of u rba n socia I ecology seeBrian Berry and John Kasarda (eds.) , Contemporary lJrban Ecology (New York: Macmil lan, 1977) forrecent conir ibut ions to the f ie ld - and Wirth s basic ideas about personal i ty and adapt ion to urbancondi t ions informs the ful l range of more recent urban planning theor ists and pract i t ioners whoanempt to create and nurture a sense of community in the urban environment - f rom Raymondl r^ .unwrn (p. 355) to Al lan Jacobs and Donald Appleyard (p. 165).

1eo I r-ours wrRrH

LOUIS WIRTH, "Urbanism as

American Journal of Sociology (

THE CITY AND CONTEMPORARYCIVILIZATION

a Way of Lite"

1 934)

Just as the beginning of Western civi i ization ismarked by the permanent sett lement of for-merly nomadic peoples in the Mediterraneanbasin, so the beginning of what is dist incrivelymodern in our civi l ization is best signalized bythe growth of great cit ies. Nowhere has man-kind been farther removed from organic naturethan under the condit ions of l i fe characterist icof great cities . . . The city and the country maybe regarded as two poles in reference to one orthe other of which al l human sett lements tend toarrange themselves. In vieu' ing urban-indr-rstr ialand rural-folk society as ideal types of commu-nities, we may obtain a perspective for theanaiysis of the basic models of human associa-t ion as they appear in contemporary civi l iza-t ion.

A SOCIOLOGICAL DEFINITION OF TI-IECITY

Despite the preponderant significance c,f the cityin our civi l ization, however, our knou'ledge ofthe nature of urbanism and the process ofurbanization is meager. Many attempts haveindeed been made to isolate the dist inguishingcharacterist ics of urban i i fe. Geographers, his-torians, economists, and poli t ical scientists haveincorporated the points of view of their respec-tive disciplines into diverse definitions of thecity. 'While i t is in no seirse intended ro supersedethese, the formulation of a sociologicalapproach to the cit l ' may incidental ly serve tocali attentior-r to the interrelations betrveen themby emphasizing the pecr-r l iar characterist ics ofthe city as a part icular form of human associa-t ion. A sociological ly signif icant definir ion ofthe city seeks to select those elements of urban-ism which mark i t as a ci ist inctive mode ofhr,-rn . rn"t"r l i fn

While urbanism, or that compler of traitswhich makes up the characterist ic mode of i i fein cit ies, and urbanization, which denotes thedevelopment and extensions of these factors,are thus not exclusively found in sett lementswhich are cit ies in the physical and demo-graphic sense, they do, nevertheless, f ind theirmost pronounced expression in such a reas,especially in metropolitan cities. in formuiatinga def in i t ion of the c i ty i t is necessary to erercisecaution in order to avoid identifying urbanismas a way of life with any specific locally orhistorical ly condit ioned cultural inf luenceswhich, while they may significantly affect thespecific character of the community, are not theessential determinants of i ts character as a city.

It is part icularly important to cal l attentionto the danger of confusing urbanism with indus-tr ial ism and modern capitai ism. The rise ofcit ies in the modern worid is undoubtedly notindenendent of tL^ ^f modernt r tuLPL l ruL l I L v l Lr tL I r r l t r

t iLr rLt vr

power-driven machine technology, mass pro-ciuction, and capitai ist ic enterprise. But differ-ent as tire cities of earlier epochs n-ray have beenby virtue of their developrnent in a preindustrialand precapital ist ic order from the great cit ies oftoday, they were, nevertheless, cit ies.

For sociologicrr l purposes a city may bedefined as a rela[ively large, dense, and perma-nent sett iement of social ly heterogeneous indi-viduals. On the basis of the postulates whrchthis minimal dcf in i t ion suggests. . r rheor l ofurbanism may be formulated in the l ight ofexist ing knorvledge concerning social groups.

A THEORY OF URBANISM

In the rich literature on the city we look in vainfor a theory of urbanism presenting in a sl,stem-atic fashion the availabie knor.vledge concerningthe city es a social entiry. We do indeed hi lveexcellent formulations of theories on such spe-cial problelns as the growth of the city viewed asa historical trend and as a recurrent process,and We haye a qigpl t l .

^ f l i rorrrrr , 'e n1ggg111i11g

t l

insights of sociological reievance and emprricrlstudies offering detai led information on a van-e ty of part iculurr aspects of urban l i fe. Butdespite the multiplication of research and text-books on the city, we do not as yet have acomprehensive body of competent hypotheseswhich may be derived from a set of postuiatesimplicitly contained in a socioiogical definitior-tof rhe city, and from our general sociologicalknowledge which may be substantiated throughempirical research. The closest approximationsto a systematic theory of urbanism that we haveare to be found in a penetrating essay, "DieStadt." by Mar Weber, and a memorable paperby Robert E. Park t i t led "The City: Suggestionsfor the Investigation of Human Behavior in theUrban Environment. " Bul even the se excellentcontributions are tar from constituting anordered and coherent framework of theoryupon which research might profitably proceed.

In the pages that follow, we shall seek to setforth a iimited number of identifying character-istrcs of the cit,v. Given ihese characteristics weshall then indicate what consequences or fr,rrthe rcharacteristics follow from them in the light ofgeneral sociological theory and empiricalresearch. \X/e hope in this manner to arrive at theessential proposit ions comprising a theory ofurbanism. Some of these proposit ions can besupported by a considerable body of elreadyavailable research materials; others may beaccepted as hypotheses for which a certainamount of presumptive evidence erists, bur forwhich more ample and exact verif ication wouldbe required. At least such a procedure wii l , i t ishoped, show what in the way of systematicknowledge of the city we now have and whatare the crucial and fruitful hvootheses for futureresearch.

t l

There are a number of sociological propost-t ions eoncerning ihe relar ionship berween (e)numbers of population. (b) density of sett le-ment, (c) heterogenei ty of rnhabi tants andgroup l i fe, which can be formulated on the basisof observation and research.

"uHuAr\ l5rvr A5 A wAY ur- Li l -L" I av1

SIZE OF THE POPULATION AGGREGATE

Ever since Aristotle's Poli t ics, i t has been recog-nized that increasing the number of inhabitantsin a sertlement beyond a certain limit wili affectrhe reLationships between them and the charac-ter of the city. Large numbers invoive, as hashoo- ^" i - rp,J n ' r 1 srerrer rnnpe of indiVidtralu\Ll l yvlr rL\u uur. ,€) .

" t "

variation. Fr-rrthermore, the greater the number

of indiv idur ls part ic ipr t ing in x process of

inreraction, the grearer is the potential differ-

entiation between rhem. The personal traits, the

occupat ions, the cul turei i i fe, and the ideas of

the mernbers of an urban community may,

therefore, be e-xpected to range between more

widely separated poles rhan those of rural

inhabitants.That such variations should give rise to the

spat ial segregat ion of individuals according to, -^ l^ . erh n in h

" . ivvavr) ^^-^, tage, economic and sociai

sfatus) tastes and preferences, may readily beinferred. The bonds of kinship, of neighborli-ness, and rhe senr iments ar is ing our of l iv ingroserher for senerations under a common folkcmdir ion ere l ikely to be rbsenr or, ar best.relatively weak in an aggregate the members ofwhich have such diverse origins and back-grounds. Under such circumstances competit ionand formal control mechanisms furnish thesubstitutes for the bonds of solidarity that arerelied upon to hold a folk society together.

i . l

The mult ipl icatron of persons in a state ofinteraction r-rnder condit ions which make theircontact as ful l personali t ies impossible producesthat segmental ization of human relationshipswhich has sometimes been seized upon bystudents of the mental life of the citres as anexpl:rnarion for the "schizoid" characrer ofurban personali ty. This is not to say that theurban inhabitants have fewer acquaintancesthan rural inhabitanrs, for the reverse mayactually be true; i t means rather that in relationto the number of people lvhom they see andwith whom they rub elbows in the course ofdei ly l i fe. they know a smal ier proporr ion. andof these they have less intensive knowledge.

Characterist ical ly. urbanites meet one

rs2 | r-ours wrRrH

another in highly segmental roles. They are, tobe sure. dependenr upon more people for thesatisfactions of their l i fe-needs than are ruralpeople and thus are associated with a greaternumber of organized groups, but they are lessdependent upon part icular persons. and theirdependence upon others is confined to a highlyfractionalized aspect of the other's round ofactivity. This is essentially what is meant bysaying that the city is characterized by second-ary rather than primary contacts. The contactsof the cir l ' may indeed be face to face. bur theyare nevertheless impersonal, superf icial, transi-tory, and segmental. The reserve, the indif-ference, and the blas6 outlook which urbanitesrnanifest in their relationships may thus beregarded as devices for immunizing themselvesagainst the personal claims and expectations ofothers.

The superficiality, the anonymity, and thetransitory character of urban social relationsmake intel l igible, aiso, the sophist ication andthe rationality gene raily ascribed to city-dwellers. Our acquaintances tend to stand in arelationship of utility to us in the sense that therole which each one plays in our l i fe is over-whelmingiy regarded as a means for the achieve-ment of our own ends. Whereas, therefore, theindividual gains, on the one hand, a certaindegree of emancipation or freedom from thepersonal and emotional controls of int imategroups, he loses, on the other hand. rhe sponta-neous self-expression, the morale, and the senseof participation that comes with living in anintegrated society. This constitutes essentiailythe state of anomie or the social void to whichDurkheim alludes in attempting to account forthe various forms of social disorganizarion intechnologica I society.

The segmental character and utilitarianaccent of interpersonal relations in the ciry f indtheir insti tut ional expression in che prol i ferationof speciai ized rasks which we see in their mostdeveloped form in the professions. The opera-t ions of the pecuniary ne-xus lead to predatoryrelationships, which tend to obsrruct the ef6-cient functioning of the social order uniesschecked by professional codes and occupationaletiquette. The premium put upon uti l i ty andeff iciency suggests the adaptabil i ty of the corpo-

rare device for the organizat ion of enterpr ises inwhich indir. iduals can engage only in groups.The advantage that the corporation has over theindividual entrepreneur and the partnership inthe urban-industrial world derives not oniyfrom the possibi l i ty i t affords of central izing theresources of thousands of individuals or fromthe legal privi lege of l imited l iabi l i ty and per-petual succession, but from the fact thar thecorDorat ion has no soul .

t l

DENSITY

As in the case of numbers, so in the case ofconcentration in l imited space certain conse-quences of relevance in socioiogical analysis ofthe city emerge. Of these only a few can beindicated.

As Darwin pointed ollt for flora and faunaand as Durkheim noted in the case of humansocieties, an increase in numbers when area isheld constant ( i .e. an increase in density) tendsto produce differentiat ion and special ization,. i -^o

^-1. . " . r1" i . \ r / r \ / aan th" r tc"Slnce onl) I l l tn l5 . . . - - . Support

increased numbers. Density thus reinforces theeffect of numbers in diversifying men and theiractivities and in increasing the complexity of thesocial structure.

On the subject ive s ide. as Simmel has sug-gested, the close physical contact of numerousindividuals necessarily produces a shift in themediums thror-rgh u'hich we orient ourselves tothe urban mil ieu, especiai iy to our fel low-men.Typicalll', or-rr physical contacts are close butour socialcontacts are distant. The urban worldputs a premium on visual recognition.

'We see

the uniform which denotes the role of thefunctionaries and are oblivious to the personaleccentricit ies that are hidden behind the uni-form.'We tend to acquire and develop a senslt i \ ' -it,r to a world of artifacts and becomeprogressively farther removed from the world ofnature.

'We are exposed to glaring contrasts betweensplendor and squalor. between riches and por'-ert,v, intellige nce and ignorance, order andchaos. The competit ion for space is great, so

that each area generally tends to be pnt ro theuse which yields the greatest economic return.Place of work tends to become dissociated fromplace of residence, for the prorimity of indus-tr ial and commerciai estabiishments makes anarea both economically and sociarl ly undesirablefor residenrial purposes.

Density, land values, rentals, accessibi l i ty,healthfulness, prestige, aesthetic consideration,absence of nuisances such as noise, smoke, anddirt determine the desirabiiity of various rlreasof the city as places of sertlement for differentsections of the popuiation . . . The differentparts of the city thus acquire special ized func-t ions. The cit l 'consequently tends to resemble amosaic of social worlds in which the transit ionfrom one to rhe other is abrupt. The iur taposi-tion of divergenr personalities and modes of lifetends to produce a relativist ic perspective and asense of toleration of differences which may beregarded as prerequisites for rationali ty andwhich lead toward the secularization of i i fe.

The close living together and workingtogether of indiviciuals who have no sentimentaland emotional t ies foster a spir i t of competit ion,aggrandizement, and mutuai exploitation. Tocounteract irresponsibi l iry and potentiai dis-order, formai controls tend to be resorted to.\Tithout rigid adherence to predictable routines alarge, compact society would scarceiy be able tomaintain itself. The ciock and the traffic signaiare symbolic of rhe basis of our social order in theurban worid. Frequent close physicir i contact,coupled with great social distance, accentuatesthe reserve of r-inattached individuals toward oneanother and, unless compensated for by otheropportunit ies for response, gives r ise to lone-l iness. The necesslry f requent movement of greatnumbers of individuals in a congested habitatgives occasion to fr ict ion and irr i tzrt ion. Nervoustensions which derive from such personal frus-trations are eccentuated by the raprd tempo andthe complicated technology under which l i fe indense areas musr be l ived.

HETEROGENEITY

The social inrerecr ion rmong such a var iety ofpersonali ty rvpes in the urban mil ieu tends to

- -LJr( t fAl \ lJ lv l A-) / - \ vvl- \ l vr Lrr L | -""

break down the rigiditv of caste l ines and tocomplicate the class structure, and thus inducesa more ramified aud differentiated frameworkof social strati f icarion thtrn is found ln moreintegrated socreties. The heightened mobil i ty ofthe individual, which brings him within therange cf st imulation by a great number ofdiverse individr-rals and subjects l-iim to fiuctuat-ing status in the differentiated social groups thatcompose the social strlrcture of the city, tendstoward the acceptance of instabii i ty and inse-cunry in the world at large as a norm. This facthelps to account, too, for the sophist ication andcosmopoliranism of the urbanite. No singiegroup has the undivided al legiance of the indi-vidual. The grouLps wirh which he is affiliated donot lend themselves readily to a simple hierar-chical arrangement. By virtue of his differenrinterests arising out of different aspects of sociallife, the individual acquires membership inwidely divergent groups, each of which func-tions only with reference to a single segment ofhis personaiity. Nor do these groLrps easilypermit of a concentric arrangement so that thenarrower ones fall within the circumference ofthe more inclusive ones, as is more l ikeiy to bethe case in the rural community or in primit ivesocieties. Rather the groups with which theperson typically is affiliated are tangential toeach other or intersect in highly variable fash-ron.

Part iy as a result of the physical footloose-ness of rhe population and part ly as a resuit ofrheir soci:rl mobility, the [urnover in groupmembership general ly is rapid. Place of resi-dence, piace and character of employment,income and interests f luctuate. trnd the task ofhoiding organizations together and maintainingand promoting int imate and lasring acquaint-anceship between the members is difficult. Thisapplies str ikingly to the locai areas within thecity into which persons become segregated moreby virtue of differences in race, Ianguage,income, and social status, rhan rhrough choiceor posit ive attraction to people l ike themselves.Overwhelmingly the ciry-dweller is not a home-owner, and since a transitory habitat does notgenerate binding traditrons and sentiments, onlyrarreiy is he truly a neighbor. There is littleopportunity for the individuai to obtain a

L

194 I lours wrRrH

conception of the city as a whole or to survey hisplace in the total scheme. Consequentiy he fir-rdsit dif f icult to determine what is to his own "bestinterests" and to decide between the issues andleaders presented to him by the agencies of masssuggestion. Individuals u,ho are thus detachedfrom the organized bodies which integrate soci-ety comprise the f luid masses that make col-lective behavior in the urban community sounpredictable and hence so probiematical.

Alrhough the city, through the recruitment ofvariant types to perform its diverse tasks and theaccentuation of their uniqueness rhrough com-ner i t inn , nd thp--^, prerrrrum upon eccenrrlclr)!novelty, efficient performance, and inventive-ness, produces a highly differer-itiated popula-tion, it also exercises a leveling influence.'Wherever large numbers of differently consti-tuted individuals congregate, the process ofdepersonaiization also enters .. . Individuali tyunder these circumstances must be replaced bycategories. \When large numbers have to makecomrron use of facilities and institut-ions, anarrangement must be made to adjust the faci i i-t ies and insti tut ions to the needs of the averageperson rather than to those of part icular indi-viduals. The services of the public r-rtiiities, ofthe recreational, educational, and cultural insti-tut ions, must be adjusted to mass requilements.Similarly, the cultural institutions, such as theschools, the movies, the radio, and the news-papers, b,v virtue of their mass ci ientele, mustnecessari iy operate as leveling inf luences. Thepoiit ical process as i t appears in urban l i fe couldnot be understood u' i thout taking account ofthe mass appeals made through modern propa-ganda techniques. If the individual would par-t ic ipare at a l l in the social , pol i t ical , andeconomic life of the city, he must subordinatesome of his individualit,v to the demands of theiarger community and in that measure immersehimself in mass movements.

THE RELATION BETV'EEN A THEORY OFURBANISM AND SOCIOLOGICALRESEARCH

By means of a body of theory such as thati l lustratively sketched above, the cornplicated

and many-sided phenomena of urbanism maybe analyzed in terms of a limited number sfbasic categories. The sociological approach torhe ci ty ' thus acquires an essent ia l unir l ' r .ndcoherence enabl ing the empir ical invest igatornot mereil, to focus more distinctly upon theproblems and processes that properly fal l in hisprovince bur also to t reat h is sub;ecr matter in amore integrated and systematic fashion. A fewtypical findings of empiricai research in the fieldof urbanism, with special reference to theUnited States, may be indicated to substantiarethe theoretical propositions set forth in rhepreceding pages. and some of the crucial prob-Iems for further study may be outl ined.

On the basis of the three variables, number,density of settlement, and degree of heterogene-ity, of the urban population, i t appears possibleto explain the characterist ics of urban l i fe and toaccount for the differences between cities ofvarious sizes and types.

Urbanism as a characterist ic mode of l i fe maybe approached empirical ly from three inter-related perspectives: (1) as a physical structurecomprising a population base, a technologl ' , andan ecoiogicai order; (2) as a system of socialorganization involving a characterist ic socialstructure) a series of social insti tut ions, and atypicalpattern of social relationships; and (3) asa set of attrtudes and ideas, and a constel lat ionof personaiities engaging in typical forms ofcollective behavior and subject to characterist icmechanisms of social control.

URBANISM IN ECOI-OGICALPERSPECTTVE

Since in the case of physical structure andecologicai processes we are able to oper:ate withfair iy objective indices, i t becomes possible toarrive at quite precise and generaily quantitat iveresults. The dominance of the city over ttshinterland becomes explicable through thetr-inctional characteristics of the city whichderive in large measure from the effect ofnumbers and density. Many of the technicaifaci l i t ies and the ski l ls and organizations towhich urban l i fe gives r ise can grow and prosperonll' 11-i cities where the demand is sr-rfficiently

great. Tire nature and scope of the servrcesrendered by these organizations ar-rd institr-rtrons.-r .L^ -1, . , - ,^-^ whi , -h rhev eniov t jver thc.( t l !U Ll lL Juv( l l l (dsL vvl l l l r r L l rL/ ILIJVj /

iess developed facilities of smirller toyvvns enhan-ces the dominance of the city and the depend-ence of ever r.vider regions Llpon lhe centralmetropolis.

The urban popuiation composit ion showsrhe operr t iou of select ive . rnd di f ferent iar ingf:rctors. Cities contain a larger proportion ofpersons in rhe prime of l i fe than rural areaswhich contain more old and very young people.In rhis. as in so mJn,, / other respects. the largerthe city the more this specific characteristic ofurbanism is apparent. With the erception of thelargest citres, which have attracted the buik ofthe foreign-born males, and a few other speciaitypes of ciries, women predominate nr"imericallyover men. The heterogenei ty of the urban pop-ulation is further indicated along racial andechnic lines. The foreign born and their childrenconstitllte nearly t.,,vo-thirds of ail the inhab-itants of cit ies of one mil l ion and over. Theirproport lon in the urban population declines asthe size of the ciry decreases, unti l in the ruralareas they comprise only about one-sirth of thetotal population. The larger cit ies similariy haveattracted more Negroes and other racial groupsthan have the smaller communit ies. Consideringthat age, sex, race, and ethnic origin are asso-ciated with other factors such as occupation andinterest. i t becomes clear that one major charac-teristic of the urban-dweller is his dissimilarityfrom his fellows. Never before have such largemasses of people of diverse traits as we f ind inour cities been rhrorvn together into sr-ich closephysical contact as in the great cit ies of Amer-ica. Cit ies general ly, and American cit ies inpart icular, comprise a motley of peoples andcultures, of highly differentiated modes of lifebetween which there often is only the faintestcommunication, the greatest indifference andthe broadest tolerance, occasionally bitter str i fe,but always the sharpesr conrrasr.

The fai lure of the urban population to repro-duce itself appezrrs to be a biological con-sequence of a combinarion of factors in thecomplex of urban l i fe, and the dechne in thebir th-rere generr l ly may be regardcd es one ofthe mosr signif icant signs of rhe r-rrbanization of

. .LJHIJAI\ I : ) IVI A5 A VVAY TJT LIT-t

the Western world. While the proport ion ofdeeths in cities is slightly greater than in thecountry, rhe oi-rrstanding difference between thefai lure of present-day cit ies to maintain theirpopr"rlat ion and that of cit ies of the past is thatin former tirnes it was due to the exceedinglyhigh death-rates in cit ies, whereas roday, sincecit ies have become more i ivable from i i heaithstai-rCpoint, it is due to low birth-rates. Thesebiological characterist ics of the urban popula-t ion are signif icant sociological ly, not merelybecause they reflect the r,rrban mode of existencebut erlso because they condition the growth andfuture dominance of cit ies and their basic socialorganization. Since cit ies are the consume rsrather than the producers of men, the value ofhuman iife and the social estrmation of thepersonality will not be unaffected by the bal-ance between births and dearhs. The patrern ofland use, of land values, rentals, and ownership,the nature and functioning of the physicalstructures, of housing, of transportation andcommunication faci l ir ies, of public uti l i t ies -these and many other phases of the phvsicalmechanism of the city are not isolated phenom-ena unrelated to the city as a social entity, butare affected by and affect the urban mode oflife.

URtsANISM AS A FORM OF SOCIALORGANIZATION

The distinctive features of the urban mode ofi i fe have often been described sociological ly rrsconsist ing of the substitut ion of secondary forprimary contacts) the weakening of bonds ofkinship, and rhe declining social significance ofthe family. the disapperrance of the neighbor-hood, and the undermining of the tradir ionalbasis of social sol idarity. Al l rhese phenomenacan be substar-rt ial ly verif ied through objectiveindices. Thus, for instance, the low and declin-ing urban reproduction rates suggest chat thecity is not conducive to the tradit ional type offamily i i fe, including the rearing of chi ldren andthe maintenance of the home as the locus of awhole round of vital acrivit ies. The transfer ofindustrial, educational, ;rnd recreational activ-i t ies to soecral ized insti tut ions ourside the home

I avc

TI

1e6 I LOUIS W|RTH

has deprived the family of some of rts mostcharacterist ic historical functions. in cit iesmothers are more l ikely to be employed. lodgersare more frequentl l ' part of the household,marriage tends to be postponed, and rhe pro-port ion of single and unattached peopie isgreater. Famil ies are smailer and more fre-nrrenr l l r , r ' i thour chj ldren than in rhe countrr '. . , " . , . ' . r .

The family as a unit of social l i fe is emancipatedfrom the larger ki irship group characterist ic ofthe coLrnrry, and the individual members pursuetheir own diverging interests in their vocational,educational, rel igious, recreational, and poli t-ical l i fe .

t t

On the whole, the city discourages an eco-nomic life in which the individr-ral in time ofcrisis has a basis of subsistence to fal l backupon, and it discourages self-employment.While incomes of city people are on the averagehigher than those of country people, the cost ofliving seems to be higher in the larger cities.Home ou'nership involves greater burdens andis rarer. Rents are higher and absorb a largeproportion of the income. Although the urban-dweller has the benefit of many communalservices, he spends a iarge proport ion of hisincome for such items as recreation andadvancement and a smailer proport ion fcr food.rX/hat the communal services do not furnish theurbanite must purchase, and there is vrrtuallyno human need which has remained Lrnex-ploited by commercialism. Catering to tirrillsand furnishing means of escape from drudger.v,monotony. and routine thus become one of rhemajor functions of urban recreation. which ati ts best furnishes means for crearive self-expression and spontaneous group association,but which more typicaliy in the urban worldrecnl ts in n:rss rh.

^." h.r .J. . . r -_-- tve spectatonsm on.^, .

or sensational record-smashing feats on theother.

Being reduced to a srage of virtuai imporenceas an individual. thc. urbanite is bor,rnd to exerrhimself bv joining n' i th others of similar interesrinto organized groups to obtairr his ends. Thisresults in the enorunous muit ipl ication of volun-tary organizations directed torn'ard as gi-eat e

i 'ariet l ' of objectives as there are human needsand interests. \ f lhi le on the one hand the tradi-t ionai t ies of human association are weakened,urban eristence involves a much greater degreeof interdependence between man and man anda more complicated, fragi le, and volati le formof mutual interrelations over man)' phases ofwhich the individual as such can erert scarcelyany control. Frequently there is only the mosttenLlous relatior- iship between the economicposit ion or other basic factors that determinethe individual 's existence in the urban worldand the voluntary groups u' i th which he isaffiliated. lfhile in a primitive and ir.r a ruralsocietl, it is generally possible to predict on thebasis of a few known factors who wili belong towhat and who wil l associate with whom inalmost every relationship of iife, in the city wecan only project the general pattern of groupformation and aff i i iat ion, and this pattern wil ldisplay many incongruit ies and contradict ions.

URBAN PERSONALITY AND COLLECTTVEBEHAVIOR

It is largely through the activit ies of the volun-tary groups, be their objectives economic. poli t-ical, educational. re[gious, recreationai, orcultural, that the r-rrbanite expresses and devel-ops his personaliq,, acquires status, arrd is abieto carry on the round of activities that consritutehis l i fe-career. I t may easiiy be inferred, how-ever, that the organizational framervork whichthese highiy differentiated functions call intobeing does not of i tself insure the consistencl 'and integrity of the personali t ies whose interestsit enl ists. Personal disorganization. mentalbreakdown, suicide, delinquency, crime, cor-ruption, and disorder might be expected underthese circurnstances to be more prevaient in theurban than in the rural community. This hasbeen confirmed in so far as comparable indicesare available; but the mechanisms r-rnderlyingthese phenomena reqLrire further anall 'srs.

Since for most group purposes i t is impos-sible in the ciry to appeal individuaih' to theIarge number of discrete and differentiated indi-v iduals, and since i t is only through the organr-zations to which men belong that their interests

and resources can be enlisted for a col lectivecause) i t m:ry be inferred that social control inrhe city shouid typical ly proceed through for-mrl lv orgrrrr ized groups. I r fo l lows. too. rhar rhemasses of men in the city are sublect to manip-ulation by symbols and stereotypes managed byjndiv iduaLs working from efar or operar inginvisibly behir-rd the scenes through their controlof the instruments of communication. Self-governmenr ei iher in rhe cconomic, rhe pol i r -ical, or the cultural realm is under thesecircumstances reduced to a mere figure ofsneech or. ar hesr. is srrhiecr ro r l re rrnsrableequilibrium of pressure groups. In view of therneffectiveness of actual kinship ties we createfictionai kinship groups. In the face of thedisappearance of the terri torial unit as a basis ofsocial sol idarity we create interest units. Mean-whiie the city as a community resolves itse lf intoa series of tenuous segmental relationshipssuperimposed upon a territorial base with adefinite center but without a definite peripheryand upon a division of labor u,hich far trans-cends the immediate locaiity and is world-widein scope. The larger the number of persons in astate of interaction with one another the loweris the level of communication and the greater isthe tendency for communicarion to proceed onan elementary level, i .e. on the basis of thosethings which are assumed to be common or tobe of interest to al l .

It is obviousiy, therefore, to the emergrngtrends in the communication system and to theproduction and distr ibution technology that hascome into existence with modern civilizationthat.,ve must look for the symptoms r,vhich lvillindicate the probable future development ofurbanism as a mode of social l i fe. The direction

. .URBANISM AS A WAY OF LIFE' ' II

^r.h- ^--^;-- . -L.rnses in rrrhrnism wi i l forvr r , , l urrFJvrt tb ) t r t ur vdt i r r r r r

good or i l l transform not oniy the city but ther,vorld. Some of the more basic of rhese factorsand processes and rhe possibi l i t ies of theirdirection ;rnd control rnvite further detaiiedstudy.

It is only insofar as the socioiogist has a clearconeept ion of the . r ty as . r soci l l enr i ty end ar,vorkable theory of urbanism that he can hopeto develop a unif ied body of rei iable knowiedge,which what passes as "urban sociology" iscertainly not at the present time. By taking hispoint of departure from a theory of r-rrbanismsuch :rs that sketched rn the foregoing pages tobe elaborated, tested, and revised in t ire l ight offurther analysis and ernpirical research, it is tobe hoped that the criteria of relevance andvalidity of factual data can be determined. Themiscelianeous assortrnent of disconnected infor-mation which has hitherto found its way intosociologicai treatises on the city may thus besifted and incorporated into a coherent body ofknowiecige. Incidentally, only by means of somesuch theory will the sociologists escape the futilepractice of voicing in the name of sociologicalscience a variety of often unsupportable judg-ments concerning such problems as poverty,housing, city-planning, sanitat ion, municipaladministration, policing, marketing, transpor-tation, and other technicai issues. While thesociologist cannot solve any of these practicalproblems - at least not by himself - he may, i f hediscovers his proper funct ion. heve an impor-tant contribution to make to their comprehen-sion and solution. The prospects for doing this. r rc hr iohr" . t rhr . , "oh r ocner. l rhenrpt ic,r lur l ur l l i r r r lJ( Lrrr vublr

rather than through an ad hoc approach.

t97