American Geographical Society

Residential Mobility of Negroes in Detroit 1837-1965 by Donald Richard Deskins,Review by: Marshall A. WordenGeographical Review, Vol. 63, No. 4 (Oct., 1973), pp. 579-580Published by: American Geographical SocietyStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/213925 .

Accessed: 09/05/2014 10:47

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

.

American Geographical Society is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access toGeographical Review.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 194.29.185.165 on Fri, 9 May 2014 10:47:15 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

GEOGRAPHICAL REVIEWS

RESIDENTIAL MOBILITY OF NEGROES IN DETROIT 1837-1965. By DONALD RICHARD DESKINS, JR. XX and 297 pp.; maps, diagrs., bibliogr. Michi-

gan Geographical Publication No. 5. University of Michigan, Department of Geography, Ann Arbor, 1972. $4.00. lox 63/4 inches.

This is the first historical inquiry by a geographer into the spatial patterns of the

intracity residential mobility of occupational groups, examined by race. Deskins

investigates the process of residential segregation in the context of population growth and city expansion. The rubric for this analysis of community structure

emerges from a new, if not unusual, interpretation of the works of Gideon

Sjoberg, Ernest W. Burgess, and E. Franklin Frazier. Deskins defines residential mobility as "the aggregate change in residences

for all households classified by the race and major occupational group of the head of household," and he assumes "that occupation is the primary factor de-

fining residential location." From this initial stance two principal propositions are argued. First, residential neighborhoods classified by occupational level are

positively correlated with their distance from the center of the city. The internal structure of the American city has changed from a preindustrial organization de- scribed by Sjoberg to the concentric model of Burgess. Second, in the Negro community the pattern of neighborhoods replicates that of the larger communi-

ty; for the black ghetto, as Frazier indicated, is merely a microcosm of the whole

city. Data for fourteen cross-sectional analyses of Detroit's labor force are drawn

from samples of city directories, from school and traffic studies, and from census- tract statistics. Black and white populations are separately aggregated into nine

occupational categories. For each year studied, a standard deviational ellipse is

applied to the occupational and racial groups. This centrographic technique summarizes a population class as a single point datum, the mean residential center, and measures the dispersion of that population about the mean. Residen- tial mobility is assessed by shifts of the mean center and by changing disper- sion. A series of well-executed maps and diagrams convey this information.

Interpreting the data organized in this fashion, Deskins creates a three-stage periodization of residential segregation in Detroit. The preemancipation era

(1837-1864) is described as preindustrial because highly skilled white workers resided nearest the Central Business District and Negroes lived on the city periphery; the microcosm argument is supported since entrepreneurial classes in the Negro community were closest to the city center and low-skilled classes were farthest away. Between 1865 and 1917 Detroit's internal structure changed

slowly, but by o191 the white upper classes resided on the city fringes and Ne-

groes clustered nearer the center. Similarly, in the Negro community the Burgess pattern began to develop only at the end of the period. The post-World War I

city (1918-1965) for the first time fully approximated the Burgess model, when "residential separation of groups defined by level of occupational skill became

[statistically] more apparent." In the Negro ghetto, however, it was not obvious until 1950 "that the preindustrial structure was being transformed into a pattern similar to that of the industrial city."

These findings can genuinely enhance our understanding of the changing

This content downloaded from 194.29.185.165 on Fri, 9 May 2014 10:47:15 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

580 THE GEOGRAPHICAL REVIEW

residential structure of cities, and exciting generalizations concerning the black

community are suggested. Unfortunately, a number of severe methodological and conceptual flaws make interpretation difficult. Because an invariant occu-

pational classification is adopted for the entire period studied, the discovered

patterns of social stratification and mobility are predetermined. A twentieth-

century occupational schema is insensitive to work categories of the nineteenth

century, for how can an industrial classification, deal with supposedly preindus- trial activities? This terminology raises a second issue: To what extent did Detroit ever resemble Sjoberg's preindustrial model? The patterns shown by Deskins illustrate the preeminence of central area over periphery, but no other conditions of Sjoberg's structure exist: the relative technological impossibility of spatial mobility, rigid class structure, well-defined neighborhoods of relatively homoge- neous populations, and self-sufficient communities that are socially and physical- ly separate. The similarity of gross form between Sjoberg's model and Detroit is hardly conclusive evidence of preindustrial structure. In addition, Deskins distorts Frazier's microcosm notion. Frazier envisioned residential segregation, both of the city and of the Negro community, based on "stage-in-life-cycle." An

occupational microcosm argument is effectively demonstrated, but it cannot ipso facto be related to Frazier. Proof of this relationship will require further research.

Furthermore, the role and significance of the arcane measures of centrography must be questioned. The mean residential center, even rendered cartographical- ly, is an evasive concept in terms of the ecology of the city. Deskins equates these

point patterns with neighborhoods without analyzing the actual territorial na-

ture of the social structure. The relationship between the standard deviational

ellipse and the ideas of community advanced by Sjoberg, Frazier, and Burgess is

never explained. Changes in the mean residential centers do have inherent in-

terest, but perusal of the data in the appendixes suggests alternative measures

that are more relevant to the Burgess hypothesis. Deskins has made a worthy first attempt to delimit the changing spatial mani-

festations of residential segregation. The basic difficulty of his study, however, is that it tries to relate segregation patterns to social process without specifying the stratification theory that controls the process. We must await other studies

of urban ecology for an elaboration of the territorial basis of social stratification

which will provide greater insights into observed pattern and will illuminate

process and experience.-MARSHALL A. WORDEN

THE BEST POOR MAN'S COUNTRY: A Geographical Study of Early South-

eastern Pennsylvania. By JAMES T. LEMON. xviii and 295 pp.; maps, diagrs.,

bibliogr., index. The Johns Hopkins Press, Baltimore and London, 1972.

$12.00. 914 x 6 inches.

Although there is a profusion of studies by historians on southeastern Pennsyl- vania, geographers have generally ignored the area. Fortunately, that lacuna is

being filled by the work of James T. Lemon, whose most recent contribution is

"The Best Poor Man's Country." His book is not a regional geography in the

traditional sense; nor does it adhere closely to the philosophy of the geography of change, which formed the methodological basis of the dissertation from

which the book developed. Rather, it is a collection of topically organized essays in which basic analytical methods are more akin to the humanistic traditions of

580 THE GEOGRAPHICAL REVIEW

residential structure of cities, and exciting generalizations concerning the black

community are suggested. Unfortunately, a number of severe methodological and conceptual flaws make interpretation difficult. Because an invariant occu-

pational classification is adopted for the entire period studied, the discovered

patterns of social stratification and mobility are predetermined. A twentieth-

century occupational schema is insensitive to work categories of the nineteenth

century, for how can an industrial classification, deal with supposedly preindus- trial activities? This terminology raises a second issue: To what extent did Detroit ever resemble Sjoberg's preindustrial model? The patterns shown by Deskins illustrate the preeminence of central area over periphery, but no other conditions of Sjoberg's structure exist: the relative technological impossibility of spatial mobility, rigid class structure, well-defined neighborhoods of relatively homoge- neous populations, and self-sufficient communities that are socially and physical- ly separate. The similarity of gross form between Sjoberg's model and Detroit is hardly conclusive evidence of preindustrial structure. In addition, Deskins distorts Frazier's microcosm notion. Frazier envisioned residential segregation, both of the city and of the Negro community, based on "stage-in-life-cycle." An

occupational microcosm argument is effectively demonstrated, but it cannot ipso facto be related to Frazier. Proof of this relationship will require further research.

Furthermore, the role and significance of the arcane measures of centrography must be questioned. The mean residential center, even rendered cartographical- ly, is an evasive concept in terms of the ecology of the city. Deskins equates these

point patterns with neighborhoods without analyzing the actual territorial na-

ture of the social structure. The relationship between the standard deviational

ellipse and the ideas of community advanced by Sjoberg, Frazier, and Burgess is

never explained. Changes in the mean residential centers do have inherent in-

terest, but perusal of the data in the appendixes suggests alternative measures

that are more relevant to the Burgess hypothesis. Deskins has made a worthy first attempt to delimit the changing spatial mani-

festations of residential segregation. The basic difficulty of his study, however, is that it tries to relate segregation patterns to social process without specifying the stratification theory that controls the process. We must await other studies

of urban ecology for an elaboration of the territorial basis of social stratification

which will provide greater insights into observed pattern and will illuminate

process and experience.-MARSHALL A. WORDEN

THE BEST POOR MAN'S COUNTRY: A Geographical Study of Early South-

eastern Pennsylvania. By JAMES T. LEMON. xviii and 295 pp.; maps, diagrs.,

bibliogr., index. The Johns Hopkins Press, Baltimore and London, 1972.

$12.00. 914 x 6 inches.

Although there is a profusion of studies by historians on southeastern Pennsyl- vania, geographers have generally ignored the area. Fortunately, that lacuna is

being filled by the work of James T. Lemon, whose most recent contribution is

"The Best Poor Man's Country." His book is not a regional geography in the

traditional sense; nor does it adhere closely to the philosophy of the geography of change, which formed the methodological basis of the dissertation from

which the book developed. Rather, it is a collection of topically organized essays in which basic analytical methods are more akin to the humanistic traditions of

This content downloaded from 194.29.185.165 on Fri, 9 May 2014 10:47:15 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions