Wirth on Urbanism
Explain and evaluate Wirth's characterisation of the "urban way of life."
Explain and evaluate Wirth's characterisation of the "urban way of life."
I thought Wirth was compelling in this essay in that he pointed out distinctive traits of a typical city, that I hadn’t thought of before. His first point is that a city is a large group of people and works well as such because the people function in such a way. How the people are established is how the city will function. I find this to be very true. The different levels of society (roles), how the city is planned, and the diversity of population all affects how people will interact with each other.
Another aspect Wirth discusses is population density and how it plays an important role in how people live in a city. He quotes Darwin in saying that an increase of population with the area remaining constant causes a more complex social structure. I understand how this is true because more people concentrated in one area would cause there to be more diversity at a faster rate, but I also see the other side to this. If a group of people remain in the same area and keep reproducing, then wouldn’t the population be homogeneous? With the same people living in the same area, the population would grow, but is that grounds for absolute social complexity, provided that no people from another city move in? People coming in from other cities would definitely bring about social complexity and a more dense population. Wirth goes on to say that people living in such close proximity within a large population would cause there to be close ties with people, which would also cause people to look more into the class levels: “The social interaction among such a variety of personality types in the urban milieu tends to break down the rigidity of caste lines and to complicate the class structure, and thus induces a more ramified and differentiated framework of social stratification than is found in more integrated societies.” Society begins to have more complicated social levels, which goes back to what Wirth was saying before about a dense population being more diverse.
The third idea that Wirth discussed that interested me was the idea that urbanism is a form of social organization. He begins by identifying features of an urban lifestyle: secondary instead of primary contacts, weak kinships, disappearing of neighborhoods, and the undermining of social solidarity. These features yield to working mothers, later marriages, and more single parents. In general, the traditional lifestyle has been replaced. People begin to look for their own interests regarding politics, religion, and education. Urban life, Wirth mentions, also discourages an economic life. This causes problems for a person when they need to fall back on financial support. The cost of living is also higher in a city than in the rural areas. It seems as though that is the main reason for disconnected people and two working parents per household. People become preoccupied with making enough money to have a house and car and lose touch with family and tradition. This is the social organization: the urban life is the dominant part of everyone’s life and people need to play a role for the city to keep thriving.
Abha
I'll just take a quick look at your question on population increase - that if a population increased by means of reproduction rather than migration would it necassarily mean a more complex social organization? I think that with any growth in population you do in fact comlpicate, or at least, create a different social organization. With a population boom, regardless of homogenity (sp?) you have new mouths to feed that weren't there before - you need new technology to create more food for those mouths. New technology leads to new ideologies and inevetibly the creation or furtherment of class distinctions because jobs are either destroyed or created by this new technology.
Wirth’s analysis of American cities in the 1930’s and how they create a unique disposition I thought was in many ways quite accurate, but some of his theories have not stood up to the test of time, for example how the rise of suburbs have changed the nature of cities. His criteria for a city consisted of having a large, diverse population that lived in close proximity to each other. The manner of interactions of people within the city is what he concentrates on and leaves the other aspects of a city, such as its physical structure and its institutions, in the background of his study. The ways in which the city affected the individual and the social groups one belonged to are what I found to be the most interesting aspects of what he had to say.
Throughout the essay he describes how the great numbers of diverse people create feelings of isolation and loneliness, for example when he says, “Frequent close physical contact, coupled with great social distance, accentuates the reserve of unattached individuals toward one another and, unless compensated for by other opportunities for response, gives rise to loneliness” (101). I think this is definitely possible, but I don’t think that it’s an effect exclusive to large cities. I think in different ways rural areas and, although they were not as expansive in this period, suburbs also can create feelings of isolation. What I think made this form of isolation unique was the manner in which it could influence social interaction. Wirth notes one of these effects when he states, “The close living together and working together of individuals who have no sentimental and emotional ties foster a spirit of competition, aggrandizement, and mutual exploitation” (100). This point immediately reminded me of Marx and Engels’ description of the proletariat as becoming more competitive and relating to each other in predominately utilitarian terms. This impersonal, utilitarian outlook was one of the central aspects of what Wirth saw as an “urban personality”, which in some senses he saw as positive in enabling people to become more objective through their social detachment, but it also contributed to a lot of the instability that he describes as being fundamental to the nature of urban social groups.
I found this observation of how the urban context created social ties that were quite different from those of the rural areas to be one the most interesting facets of his essay. No longer were ones social groups based on biological ties or proximity, but more and more upon ones interests. Given the great diversity of people and the resultant array of political, economic, and cultural interests, the degree of choice for an individual was greatly expanded. This to me is one of the most appealing aspects of a city, that regardless of your background, there is almost always a niche you can find to belong to. That’s somewhat idealistic I know, but to a certain extent I think it’s true. The downside to this is that while the social heterogeneity can produce so many separate social groups, that same heterogeneity causes many groups to be in constant flux, as Wirth discusses, “Frequently there is only the most tenuous relationship between the economic position or other basic factors that determine the individual’s existence in the urban world and the voluntary groups with which he is affiliated” (103). This amount of uncertainty makes the membership of any one social group to remain somewhat transient, and while I would say many social groups do have some stability, I found this to be an interesting point that distinguished the contemporary city from those of the past.
There are many other points that he made that I found interesting, as well as the way his analysis characterized the city as somewhat uninviting, but I’ll leave those topics for someone else to elaborate upon.
Justin S.
I like how you mentioned the part of the essay where they describe the loneliness and isolation among these diverse city dwellers as that was something that stuck out in my mind as well. And I do agree with you, this idea doesn’t apply today to only city dwellers, but is extended to suburban and rural areas as well. This is something that definitely comments on our technological advances. I think that when he wrote the bit about people being isolated from one another, I thought back to Marx’s theory of alienation. He felt that because of capitalism and the industrial revolution, these paid wage laborers have been reduced to just parts of a machine leading to feelings of alienation from their work, and their co workers, and these feelings also extended to life outside of work.
After reading Wirth’s article, “Urbanism as a Way of Life”, written in 1938, it became quite clear to me that Louis Wirth is a very anti-city person. It is the city that has not grown “independent of the emergence of modern power-driven machine technology, mass production, and capitalistic enterprise” (Wirth 98). This seems to be just one of the recurring themes throughout his writing. Another theme in his writing is the constant comparison between rural vs. urban dwellers. However, since the 1970s a new culture appeared in America and it was this culture that I could not stop thinking about, the people who currently live in between, those who now live in the all familiar world of suburbia. The people who live in suburbia have similar aspects to those who live in an urban landscape as well as those who live in a rural landscape. It is really a hybrid of the two, depending on how one looks at the social construction of such a place. I agree with Wirth’s aspect on urban life having a mosaic of personal traits, occupations, and cultural life, which members of such a community are expected to range, i.e. polar opposites, that is often absent most of the time from rural life (99). Suburbia has polar opposites, however, I would argue, that these polar opposites reside in religious affiliation and attitudes toward social welfare programs. Growing up in the suburbs of Minneapolis, I can see where Wirth’s argument makes sense. In the suburbs, people, homes, and vehicles are all homogeneous; the under representation of minorities makes racial and cultural relations difficult for all to understand. Acquaintances in the suburbs do not mirror those of rural life, or urban life. There is something special about acquaintances in suburbia. Children, parents and the like are much more likely to be involved in some sort of social group, sports group, or club, however, I would argue, that many those connections/acquaintances made through the social gathering are impersonal, superficial, and many times used as a means to get ahead (Time Magazine). Later in the reading, Wirth states that “urbanites…depend on more people for the satisfactions of their life needs than rural people” (99). In looking at this perspective, I have seen all too often the death of the local small business due to the sprawling giant corporations who see the suburbs and their target clients as new revenue. Suburbanites, who at one time had the option to use the small local shop that was once located in the boondocks, now have to give way to the urban way of life, relying on more and more people to get satisfaction. Don’t get me wrong, there are still some small local shops located in the suburbs, it is just that the current suburban culture is so fixated on living an urban life without the hassles of the city that they choose the urban way of life with less personal interaction. The final point that I would like to touch on is Wirth’s understanding of the death of the city. It is my understanding of Wirth’s writing that an urban dweller is not his/her own entity, instead people’s entire lives are a social entity that keep a city going and without people in the city, death is the result. Wirth sates that, “the failure of the urban population to reproduce itself appears to be a biological consequence of a combination of factors in the complex of urban life, and the decline in the birth-rate generally may be regarded as one of the most significant signs of the urbanization of the Western world” (102). I would not argue with Wirth on this point since whole cities and cultures have become extinct from low birth rates/high infant mortality rates. However, it is the city that depends on the social capital of these people in order to survive. Yes, cities have become more livable from a health stand point, but with the current suburban way of life, parents will rear their children where parks are plentiful, crime rates are low, and children are given fields of opportunity to run and grow, especially near the city.
Suburbia, while it seems like a very simple subject matter could actually be very complex. From more of a sociological standpoint, we should ask, why do people living in the suburbs conform? Why do they allow large corporations come in and destroy what people have worked long to keep away? Why do they all have the exact same cookie cutter house, car, and maybe even family? The mix between city life and rural life though does not give us suburbia. I feel that neither rural "folks" like myself or city people conform. While there are generalized stereotypes for both (politically and socially), homes tend to have much more character and history with in the city and in rural towns, and families tend to be either extremely cultured or extremely sheltered. I wonder often if I would have been a different person growing up in the suburbs rather than a rural town.
I have felt the pressure from large corporations when Wal-Mart decided to build in my home town. A lot of people thought this would be great, but I opposed the idea from the start. Finally, now after the big box chain store has been built people are realizing the devastation that it can cause. I personally feel that Wal-Mart is not needed in any setting rural, suburban, or urban, because it lowers the standards and encourages low wages. I will leave my thoughts here, because I could go on and on about Wal-Mart and other corporations. If any one is interested about how corporations effect or world, economically, socially and politically, the Political Science department offers a great class called Citizens, Consumers, and Corporations, I highly recommend it!
Posted By: Kari
Wal-Mart may, if fact, be the most depressing store to come into existence. I can't walk ten feet into a Wal-Mart without feeling dirty. Even upon leaving, I cannot shake the defeated gazes of those employees that have folded under the thumb of the souless corporation. I have to agree with Jesse in saying that suburbia reminds me of a hybrid of urban and rural life. Everyone has their lawn to look after, there are trees, hell maybe even a garden. Like rural dwellers they have their "land." At the same time, they do not have to rely on this land to live, they can drive to cub and get all the produce they could need. Additionally, They are able to establish the semi-personal ties that Wirth says are lacking in the City, considering there is a much more evident sense of "neighborhoodliness" in the suburbs.
I enjoyed reading Louis Wirth’s piece on urbanism. It was interesting to me due to the fact that my major is Sociology and I am studying views like Wirth’s in my other classes. All of the things Wirth mentioned about the city made sense to me. But an issue did come up while I was reading; let me explain. I am from what I would call a ‘town’ while others may consider it a ‘city.’ This begs the question: what would Wirth use to differentiate a ‘town’ from a ‘city’?
Wirth defines a city as, “…a relatively large, dense, and permanent settlement of socially heterogeneous individuals.” But, to one who is from a place that is let’s say 5,000 people, may think a place of 75,000 people is ‘relatively large.’ While one who is from a place where the population is 75,000 may think of that as a relatively small amount of people. I do understand that it does not have everything to do with the numbers. I agree with Wirth on the point he makes about the contact between people in the city, about the autonomy, competitiveness, impersonal, and concepts of that degree. This leads me into my next point.
While I was reading what Wirth was saying about the impersonality and such of cities, the reading from last week immediately came to my mind. Friedrich Engels wrote about the condition of the working class in Manchester, England in “The Great Towns.” He spoke about how there is so much competition between those of the working class because the workers never know if tomorrow there will be money to put food on the table and to provide for their families. Competition can create employment or unemployment. Unemployment can create illness, which will most likely eventually lead to death. Unemployment can also lead to crime (street crime as well as violent crime) which creates tension and fear. Tension and fear create an atmosphere not conducive to that of a community. This lack of community goes back to what Wirth says about urban living: there is a low amount of community in an urban area compared to that of a rural area. As I stated previously the competition between workers can lead to crime, this is a great way to bring up my final point.
As most people know and as Wirth states in his article, crime rate in an urban area is much greater than that of a rural area. Why does this happen? And, what can we do about it? In a few of my other classes I am learning about the “Broken Window Theory,” which states if one window is broken in a house or building and it does not get fixed it will entice other people to break the remaining windows of that specific house or building. What this basically means is it is easier for people to commit crimes in a place where it seems as if the residents of that neighborhood do not care. I feel as if one were to walk through a small town there would not be as many ‘broken windows’ as there would be in a large city. One way to overcome this trend of crime in large cities is to perhaps create a group within these ‘broken window’ communities that is made up of members, of all ages, from the community. If they work together to fix the physical problems in their neighborhoods maybe the sociological problems will decrease as well. Another thing these groups may add to the neighborhood is the sense of an actual community.
I really enjoy how things are coming together in this class and from my other classes. I have given a brief overview of some the thoughts I had while reading the article, along with a few ideas that may be new to the reader of this blog entry.
--Kate
"If the individual would participate at all in the social, political, and economic life of the city, he must subordinate some of his individuality to the demands of the larger community and in that measure immerse himself in mass movements." (pg. 101)
Why does social change gravitate in cities? The heterogeneity within cities, although there is enormous
segregation, cause urbanites to become aware of social issues through the sharing of resources, ie: schools,
transportation, newspapers...
Wirth argues that within cities there is anomie through spatial segregation and constant fluctuation, but there is
also "the leveling process" which he explains as the adjustment of resources to the "average person" rather than
to "particular individuals". This leveling process creates some sort of common ground for the city dwellers.??
Chrissi
I guess my thoughts on today's reading are of mixed review. Although I thought Wirth's description of urbanism and the comparative model of city v country was quite comprehensive, I did not think that he established any profound definitions of city life. As the introduction prefaced, Wirth often spoke of the conflicting qualities of the city i.e. one "being dependent on more peole... but less dependent upon particular persons" (99) There are tons of different example of his back-and-forth style througout this piece. I'm wondering if anyone was able to pick out a truly clear definition of "the city" ? I think it's also a good point, that someone raised earlier about the variation between cities and settings, even within the US.
Because of the size of cities is very difficult to relate to people and know what they are all about like in the rural areas , this is because of fear of who you meeting and not knowing what he or she is capable of doing. It can also be people are so busy in trying to promote their self interest because of the competition in the cities. I think city makes us self aware of what is round us.
Denny
After today's class, I was glad to feel from the discussion and others that it was felt that Wirth was very negative and in ways inaccurate in his discription of urbanism. At least I think its inaccurate. Its hard to be too critical of a 1930s ish urban area when all I have to go on is todays urban areas. But I still feel that there are flaws in his arguement.
The causes and effects of density on a city
Reading the urban way of life by Louis Wirth I was impressed by the way a city is a mixture of different cultural groups and how it weakens family ties because of competitions for jobs. But I was also interesting to know that a city is not until limited to infrastructures. However, the fascinating things about a cities are important but am interested in the causes and effects of the density in the city. This essay will focus on what facilities motivate people to come in the city and the last part will talk about the effects of density both good and bad on the city.
A city can just be like a village if people don’t see things that attract them to go there. With this , economic factors plays a huge role making a city . In rural areas there are limited jobs and technologies and so most people are just stock on working pay check to pay check . In other to improve their situation they moved from limited resources to unlimited resources, so that they can invest for the mere future. Realistically not all who live in a city are open to unlimited resources. Education is another cause of density in the city. This might not be true for America, but for most developing countries Like Sierra Leone, rural areas education is limited and lack proper educational equipments. Children in these areas will become semi literates, so their parents send them to the city to get education for them to make a different. Immigration is another cause of density, people living their areas to settle in other areas, which actually creates cultural diversity in the city. Most people who lives now a days in the cities have different history and culture, so they mixture of this makes a simple complex environment. With these three causes and the beauty of the city most it is clear people will move to the city.
An dense area can be handle to make change for people who have grown up in a rigid. When faced with diversities of culture one can be sure of overcoming cultural shock and used the strength of the other culture for personal improvement. It is for sure that man is a competitive being and with out it we become lazy to make personal progress. In a dense city competition for jobs is present and people go to higher educational institutions for self improvement to get advantage over the other, this I believed has change the world for us today. Its also removed stereotype perspectives about what is good and bad in a culture when comparing it to yours. However, with all these being good there negative things a dense city can born , we move to cities with good hope and fate about jobs but are scare of how tense competition can be.
Some of the bad things found in a city is crime, because of lack of jobs people tend to find ways and means to survive, some of these means are illegal. For instance New York being the second largest city in the world has a high crime rate then most rural areas in the world. With high rate of crime in the city, it is of course security problem and instability can be the result although not in all cases. Social life of people is at the minimum in these areas, people you are not sure for whom to talk to and don’t even have the time to make friends it become problem. Every thing is left on the professional business and even family ties tents to break.
The essay dealt with density and how it changes the lives of people in the city. The first part talked about what cause density , especially jobs and educational and immigration , with a little of personal reasons . These causes then transformed in to how it affects the people both good and bad. The good is how competition has change the world today and have multi culture makes creates knowledge .The bad is crime and insecurity of all aspect of life.
In Louis Wirth’s, “Urbanism as a Way of Life”, he writes about the typical traits of a city. For the most part, the city is artificial. The city is made of concrete and steel, and is regulated with rules. Also, the city is very densely populated and is a diverse environment. All of these aspects of the city play a role in affecting its city dwellers which I’ve never really thought about.
The city occupies a very large area of space and is made up of materials which were made by man. However, sometimes I hardly notice it due to the many trees planted between the traffic signals and garbage cans. Within this large space, it is heavily populated with people. To maintain order, every city has similar rules that people follow like “Do Not Walk” means don’t cross the street. There are also rules that have been created through the people. Similar to automobile traffic, cars drive on the right side of a road and for the most part, so do people. However, there are some acceptions of people who disturb this regulated flow by walking on the left side.
The city harbors a very diverse population of people of different ethnicities which brings culture. The amount of cultures within the city can be measured as a smorgasbord. These different cultures are swimming around the city which allows people learn about their differences and learn to accept and live with them. People can also hand-pick what they like which creates all different types of specific individuals. With this said, people are made up of different cultures versus one major culture. Thus, there is a lack of strong connection and a feel of identity. The outcome of all of this is, like the amounts of cultures, is the creation of a smorgasbord of groups.
The interactions in many cities are very similar and significant. Physical interactions are high. For instance, the city is densely packed so to be squished between people in spaces like the bus and trains and elevators is common. The social interactions however are very low. The feeling of weak connections between people mostly applies to this area. In addition to that, in cities, there are more strangers than acquaintances.
The city is run under a very strong sense of capitalism. This system supplies many job opportunities which draw a massive amount of people to come to the city. Because there are so many people who are able to work certain positions, they are easily disposable and replaceable. In addition to the lack of identity, people can also feel like commodities.
The city is highly populated. Because of this, many wonderful and not so wonderful things bloom from it. People from all walks of life come to the city and express their differences in cultures which allow people to learn about others and develop a sense of cultural relativism. The problem with this is the potential to feel out of place within the city. In addition, you can also feel like a tool or a commodity. And on a broader scale, social interactions suffer because of the massive population size. The city is a smorgasbord of many different things.
Comments
the urban way of life is a physically close yet socially distant relationship between people. Urbanites are forced to rely on several people for their needs but these are mainly secondary contaacts. In rural areas interactions between people are important as are those of the people who provide the goods and services but in cities several people can provide the same service so you simply use the person for what they have to offer without caring.
Posted by: dorian stanasel | February 5, 2007 11:25 PM
While I was driving to work this weekend I heard a commercial on the radio talking about how there was a Valentine's Day sale at some jeweler and if one were thinking about proposing to their significant other now was a good time economically to do it. In other words, forget the love part, with the sale you can afford it. This commercial reminded me of Wirth when he said, "and there is virtually no human need which has remained unexploited by commercialism (Wirth, 103)." In the instance of the commercial, love is the human need being exploited. Something interesting to look up would be the statistical increase in engagements due to "holiday" sales.
Posted by: Karah | February 12, 2007 10:21 PM