Louis Wirth
American Journal of Sociology (1938)
THE CITY AND CONTEMPORARY
CIVILIZATION
Just as the beginning of Western civilization
is marked by the permanent settlement of formerly nomadic peoples in the
Mediterranean basin, so the beginning of what is distinctively modern in our
civilization is best signalized by the growth of great cities. Nowhere has
mankind been farther removed from organic naturethan under the conditions of
life characteristic of great cities ...The city and the country may be regarded
as two poles in reference to one or the other of which all human settlements
tend to arrange themselves. In viewing urban-industrial and rural-folk society
as ideal types of communities, we may obtain a perspective for the analysis of
the basic models of human association as they appear in contemporary
civilization.
A SOCIOLOGICAL DEFINITION OF THE CITY
Despite the preponderant significance of the
city in our civilization, however, our knowledge of the nature of urbanism and
the process of urbanization is meager. Many attempts have indeed been made to
isolate the distinguishing characteristics of urban life. Geographers,
historians, economists, and political scientists have incorporated the points
of view of their respective disciplines into diverse de6nitions of the city.
While it is in no sense intended to supersede these, the formulation of a
sociological approach to the city may incidentally serve to call attention to
the interrelations between them by emphasizing the peculiar characteristics of
the city as a particular form of human association. A sociologically
significant definition of the city seeks to select those elements of urbanism
which mark it as a distinctive mode of human group life.
[...]
While urbanism, or that complex of traits which
makes up the characteristic mode of life in cities, and urbanization, which
denotes the development and extensions of these factors, are thus not
exclusively found in settlements which are cities in the physical and demographic
sense, they do, nevertheless, find their most pronounced expression in such
areas, especially in metropolitan cities. In formulating a definition of the
city it is necessary to exercise caution in order to avoid identifying urbanism
as a way of life with any specific locally or historically conditioned cultural
influences which, while they may significantly affect the specific character of
the community, are not the essential determinants of its character as a city.
It is particularly important to call attention
to the danger of confusing urbanism with industrialism and modern capitalism.
The rise of cities in the modern world is undoubtedly not independent of the
emergence of modern power-driven machine technology, mass production, and
capitalistic enterprise. But different as the cities of earlier epochs may have
been by virtue of their development in a preindustrial and precapitalistic
order from the great cities of today, they were, nevertheless, cities.
For sociological purposes a city may be defined
as a relatively large, dense, and permanent settlement of socially
heterogeneous individuals. On the basis of the postulates which this minimal
definition suggests, a theory of urbanism may be formulated in the light of
existing knowledge concerning social groups.
A THEORY OF URBANISM
In the rich literature on the city we look in
vain for a theory of urbanism presenting in a systematic fashion the available
knowledge concerning the city as a social entity. We do indeed have excellent
formulations of theories on such special problems as the growth of the city
viewed as a historical trend and as a recurrent process, and we have a wealth
of literature presenting insights of sociological relevance and empirical
studies offering detailed information on a variety of particular aspects of
urban life. But despite the multiplication of research and textbooks on the
city, we do not as yet have a comprehensive body of competent hypotheses which
may be derived from a set of postulates implicitly contained in a sociological
definition of the city, and from our general sociological knowledge which may
be substantiated through empirical research. The closest approximations to a
systematic theory of urbanism that we have are to be found in a penetrating
essay, "Die Stadt," by Max Weber, and a memorable paper by Robert E.
Park titled "The City: Suggestions for the Investigation of Human Behavior
in the Urban Environment. " But even these excellent contributions are far
from constituting an ordered and coherent framework of theory upon which
research might profitably proceed.
In the pages that follow, we shall seek to set
forth a limited number of identifying characteristics of the city. Given these
characteristics we shall then indicate what consequences or further characteristics
follow from them in the light of general sociological theory and empirical
research. We hope in this manner to arrive at the essential propositions
comprising a theory of urbanism. Some of these propositions can be supported by
a considerable body of already available research materials; others may be
accepted as hypotheses for which a certain amount of presumptive evidence
exists, but for which more ample and exact verification would be required. At
least such a procedure will, it is hoped, show what in the way of systematic
knowledge of the city we now have and what are the crucial and fruitful
hypotheses for future research.
[...]
There are a number of sociological propositions
concerning the relationship between (a) numbers of population, (b) density of
settlement, (c) heterogeneity of inhabitants and group life, which can be
formulated on the basis of observation and research.
SIZE OF THE POPULATION AGGREGATE
Ever since Aristotle's Politics, it has been
recognized that increasing the number of inhabitants in a settlement beyond a
certain limit will affect the relationships between them and the character of
the city. Large numbers involve, as has been pointed out, a greater range of
individual variation. Furthermore, the greater the number of individuals
participating in a process of interaction, the greater is the potential
differentiation between them. The personal traits, the occupations, the
cultural life, and the ideas of the members of an urban community may,
therefore, be expected to range between more widely separated poles than those
of rural inhabitants.
That such
variations should give rise to the spatial segregation of individuals according
to color, ethnic heritage, economic and social status, tastes and preferences,
may readily be
inferred. The
bonds of kinship, of neighborliness, and the sentiments arising out of living
together for generations under a common folk tradition are likely to be absent
or, at best, relatively weak in an aggregate the members of which have such diverse
origins and back- grounds. Under such circumstances competition and formal
control mechanisms furnish the substitutes for the bonds of solidarity that are
relied upon to hold a folk society together.
[...]
The multiplication of persons in a state of
interaction under conditions which make their contact as full personalities
impossible produces that segmentalization of human relationships which has
sometimes been seized upon by students of the mental life of the cities as an
explanation for the "schizoid" character of urban personality. This
is not to say that the urban inhabitants have fewer acquaintances than rural
inhabitants, for the reverse may actually be true; it means rather that in
relation to the number of people whom they see and with whom they rub elbows in
the course of daily life, they know a smaller proportion, and of these they
have less intensive knowledge.
Characteristically, urbanites meet one another
in highly segmental roles. They are, to be sure, dependent upon more people for
the satisfactions of their life-needs than are rural people and thus are
associated with a greater number of organized groups, but they are less
dependent upon particular persons, and their dependence upon others is confined
to a highly fractionalized aspect of the other's round of activity. This is
essentially what is meant by saying that the city is characterized by secondary
rather than primary contacts. The contacts of the city may indeed be face to
face, but they are nevertheless impersonal, superficial, transitory, and
segmental. The reserve, the indifference, and the blasé outlook which urbanites
manifest in their relationships may thus be regarded as devices for immunizing
themselves against the personal claims and expectations of others.
The superficiality, the anonymity, and the
transitory character of urban social relations make intelligible, also, the
sophistication and the rationality generally ascribed to city- dwellers. Our
acquaintances tend to stand in a relationship of utility to us in the sense
that the role which each one plays in our life is overwhelmingly regarded as a
means for the achievement of our own ends. Whereas, therefore, the individual
gains, on the one hand, a certain degree of emancipation or freedom from the
personal and emotional controls of intimate groups, he loses, on the other
hand, the spontaneous self-expression, the morale, and the sense of
participation that comes with living in an integrated society. This constitutes
essentially the state of anomie or the social void to which Durkheim alludes in
attempting to account for the various forms of social disorganization in
technological society.
The segmental character and utilitarian accent
of interpersonal relations in the city find their institutional expression in
the proliferation of specialized tasks which we see in their most developed
form in the professions. The operations of the pecuniary nexus lead to
predatory relationships, which tend to obstruct the efficient functioning of
the social order unless checked by professional codes and occupational
etiquette. The premium put upon utility and efficiency suggests the
adaptability of the corporate device for the organization of enterprises in
which individuals can engage only in groups. The advantage that the corporation
has over the individual entrepreneur and the partnership in the
urban-industrial world derives not only from the possibility it affords of
centralizing the resources of thousands of individuals or from the legal
privilege of limited liability and perpetual succession, but from the fact that
the corporation has no soul.
[...]
DENSITY
As in the case of numbers, so in the case of
concentration in limited space certain consequences of relevance in
sociological analysis of the city emerge. Of these only a few can be indicated.
As
On the subjective side, as Simmel has
suggested, the close physical contact of numerous individuals necessarily
produces a shift in the mediums through which we orient ourselves to the urban
milieu, especially to our fellow-men. Typically, our physical contacts are
close but our social contacts are distant. The urban world puts a premium on
visual recognition. We see the uniform which denotes the role of the
functionaries and are oblivious to the personal eccentricities that are hidden
behind the uniform. We tend to acquire and develop a sensitivity to a world of
artifacts and become progressively farther removed from the world of nature.
We are exposed to glaring contrasts between
splendor and squalor, between riches and poverty, intelligence and ignorance,
order and chaos. The competition for space is great, so that each area
generally tends to be put to the use which yields the greatest economic return.
Place of work tends to become dissociated from
place of residence, for the proximity of industrial and commercial
establishments makes an area both economically and socially undesirable for
residential purposes.
Density, land values, rentals, accessibility,
healthfulness, prestige, aesthetic consideration, absence of nuisances such as
noise, smoke, and dirt determine the desirability of various areas of the city
as places of settlement for different sections of the population ...The
different parts of the city thus acquire specialized functions. The city
consequently tends to resemble a mosaic of social worlds in which the
transition from one to the other is abrupt. The juxtaposition of divergent
personalities and modes of life tends to produce a relativistic perspective and
a sense of toleration of differences which may be regarded as prerequisites for
rationality and which lead toward the secularization of life.
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. To counteract
irresponsibility and potential disorder, formal controls tend to be resorted
to.
Without rigid adherence to predictable routines
a large, compact society would scarcely be able to maintain itself. The clock
and the traffic signal are symbolic of the basis of our social order in the
urban world. 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. The necessary frequent movement of great numbers of individuals in
a congested habitat gives occasion to friction and irritation. Nervous tensions
which derive from such personal frustrations are accentuated by the rapid tempo
and the complicated technology under which life in dense areas must be lived.
HETEROGENEITY
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. The heightened mobility of the individual, which brings
him within the range of stimulation by a great number of diverse individuals
and subjects him to fluctuating status in the differentiated social groups that
compose the social structure of the city, tends toward the acceptance of
instability and insecurity in the world at large as a norm. This fact helps to
account, too, for the sophistication and cosmopolitanism of the urbanite. No
single group has the undivided allegiance of the individual. The groups with
which he is affiliated do not lend themselves readily to a simple hierarchical
arrangement. By virtue of his different interests arising out of different
aspects of social life, the individual acquires membership in widely divergent
groups, each of which functions only with reference to a single segment of his
personality. Nor do these groups easily permit of a concentric arrangement so
that the narrower ones fall within the circumference of the more inclusive
ones, as is more likely to be the case in the rural community or in primitive
societies. Rather the groups with which the person typically is affiliated are
tangential to each other or intersect in highly variable fashion.
Partly as a result of the physical
footlooseness of the population and partly as a result of their social
mobility, the turnover in group membership generally is rapid. Place of
residence, place and character of employment, income and interests fluctuate, and
the task of holding organizations together and maintaining and promoting
intimate and lasting acquaintanceship between the members is difficult. This
applies strikingly to the local areas within the city into which persons become
segregated more by virtue of differences in race, language, income, and social
status, than through choice or positive attraction to people like themselves.
Overwhelmingly the city-dweller is not a
home-owner, and since a transitory habitat does not generate binding traditions
and sentiments, only rarely is he truly a neighbor .There is little opportunity
for the individual to obtain a conception of the city as a whole or to survey
his place in the total scheme. Consequently he finds it difficult to determine
what is to his own "best interests" and to decide between the issues
and leaders presented to him by the agencies of mass suggestion. Individuals
who are thus detached from the organized bodies which integrate society
comprise the fluid masses that make collective behavior in the urban community
so unpredictable and hence so problematical.
Although the city, through the recruitment of
variant types to perform its diverse tasks and the accentuation of their
uniqueness through competition and the premium upon eccentricity, novelty,
efficient performance, al1d inventiveness, produces a highly differentiated
population, it also exercises a leveling influence. Wherever large numbers of
differently constituted individuals congregate, the process of
depersonalization also enters ...Individuality under these circumstances must
be replaced by categories. When large numbers have to make common use of
facilities and institutions, an arrangement must be made to adjust the
facilities and institutions to the needs of the average person rather than to
those of particular individuals. The services of the public utilities, of the
recreational, educational, and cultural institutions, must be adjusted to mass
requirements. Similarly, the cultural institutions, such as the schools, the
movies, the radio, and the newspapers, by virtue of their mass clientele, must
necessarily operate as leveling influences. The political process as it appears
in urban life could not be understood without taking account of the mass
appeals made through modern propaganda techniques. 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.
THE RELA TION BETWEEN A THEORY OF URBANISM AND
SOCIOLOGICAL
RESEARCH
By means of a body of theory such as that
illustratively sketched above, the complicated and many-sided phenomena of
urbanism may be analyzed in terms of a limited number of basic categories. The
sociological approach to the city thus acquires an essential unity and
coherence enabling the empirical investigator not merely to focus more
distinctly upon the problems and processes that properly fall in his province
but also to treat his subject matter in a more integrated and systematic
fashion. A few typical findings of empirical research in the field of urbanism,
with special reference to the
On the basis of the three variables, number,
density of settlement, and degree of heterogeneity, of the urban population, it
appears possible to explain the characteristics of urban life and to account
for the differences between cities of various sizes and types.
Urbanism as a characteristic mode of life may
be approached empirically from three inter-related perspectives: ( 1 ) as a
physical structure comprising a population base, a technology, and an
ecological order; (2) as a system of social organization involving a
characteristic social structure, a series of social institutions, and a typical
pattern of social relationships; and (3 ) as a set of attitudes and ideas, and
a constellation of personalities engaging in typical forms of collective
behavior and subject to characteristic mechanisms of social control.
[...]