CHAPTE

THE RISE OF URBAN SOCIOLOGY

fllspecial inquiry devoted to urban phenomena was the premier achievement of early

Id, t. sociology. fhe first sociology department in the counrry was founded by AlbionSmall at the Ur.riversity of Chicago in 1893. Robert Park joined the department in1914 and quickly took on a prominent role. Albion Small and Robert Park hadsornething in common. They had both traveled to Germany as graduate srudenrs totake courses with Georg Sirnmel. In the 1890s only France and Germany had profes-sional sociologists. Emile Durkheim, a sociologist at the Sorbonne in Paris, had de-veloped a growing reputation in France. Max'Weber, the German scholar who wroteon law, politics, religion, society, and much more, was acknowledged as the leadingsocial thinker of his day. And another imporrant sociologist, Georg Simmel, had agrowing reputation as the most innovacive social philosopher on the continent.

The first generation of sociologists shared a special concern with the impact of ur-banization on European society. The political revolutions ofthe 1800s brought anend co earlier ideas that the social and political order reflected a divine plan. Vhat ex-actly would the new social order, created by widespread changes in rhe economic andsocial structure, look like? In the wake of the social and political changes broughtabout by the French Revolution, questions about how social order itselfcould bemaintaincd werc not simply a marter of idle speculation. These questions were essen-tial to undcrstanding rhe ve ry nature of the new industrial sociery thac was transform-ing European cities.

Ferdinarld -l'cinnies (1855-1936) is one of the early German social philosophers

who addressed rhese question s.ln Gemeinschaf und Gesellschaf (published in 1887 andoften translated as "Communiry and Sociery," although "Communiry and Association"more accurately reflects the original meaning), Tcinnies skecched out an evolutionaryvierv of the development of human sociery. The great period of industrialization thattransformed European societies beginning in the late 1700s signified a change fromcommuniry to association.

-I-onnies saw that the transition from communiry (where in-

dividual families have long histories, individuals interact with one another on a per-sonal basis because they often work together or are related to one another, and all jobs

are interdependent on one another) to sociery (where individuals often interact with

R

49

3: THE Rl5E 0F URBAN S0Cl0t0GY

.,=-r. \.,hom rhey do not personally know and work at jobs that are seemingly unre-lared to one anorher) resulted in a weakening ofsocial ties and the loss ofa shared sense

of belonging to a meaningful community. His ideas (summarized in Box 3.1) are often

used to highlight differences beween village life of the preindustrial period and urban

life of the industrial period, and between small-town life and that of the large city more

generally.

Emile Durkheim (1858-1917), who was the first chair of sociology at the Sor-

bonne in Paris in 1883, also wrote about the changes brought about by industrializa-tion. In The Diuision of Labor in Society, Durkheim discussed many of the same issues

presented in T,iiennies's earlier essay, this time under the lebels of mechanical solidarity

and organic solidarity.In the preindustrial village, individuals were held together by the

Gemeinschaft and Gesellschaft

In his seminal work analyzing the social changes that accompany the trans;tion fom thetraditional communitlt to tbe modern urban society, Ferdinand Tijennies described the

forms of Gemeinschart and Gesellschafi in the following terms:

The very existence of Gemeinschafi rests in the consciousness of belonging to-gether and the affirmation of the condition of mutual dependence which is posed

by that affirmation. Living together may be called the animal soul of Gemeinscha/i,for it is the condition of its active life, of a shared feeling of pleasure and pain, of ashared enjoymenc of the commonly possessed goods, by which one is surrounded,

and by the cooperation in teamwork as well as in divided labor. Working togelhermay be conceived of as the rational or human soul of Gemeinschaft. It is higher,more conscious cooperation in the uniry of spirit and purpose, including, therefore,

a striving for common or shared ideals, as invisible goods that are knowable only to

thought. Regarding being together it is descent (blood), regarding living together itis soil (land), regarding working together it is occupation (Beruf) that is substanceas it were, by which the wills of men, which otherwise are far aPart from and even

antagonistic to each other, are essentially united.

The city is typical of Geselkchafi in general. It is essentially a commercial townand, in so far as commerce dominates its productive labor, a factory town. Its wealth

is capital wealth which, in the form of trade, usury, or induscrial capital, is used and

multiplies. Capital is the means for the appropriation of products of labor or for the

exploitation of workers. The city is also the center of science and culture, which al-

ways goes hand in hand with commerce and industry. Here the arts must make a liv-

ing; they are exploited in a capitalist way. Thoughts spread with astonishing rapidiry.

souRCE: Ferdinand T6en nies, Gemeinschaf lnd Gesellschaf , 1957 118871.

il

IHE RISE OF URBAN 50(IOTOGY

:-rechanical bonds of kinship and social interdependen6s-rng6hxnical because they\i'ere predetermined and could not be changed as long as the individual remainedr. irhin the local village. In the industrial ciry individuals were no longer bound by thenechanical bonds of kinship; instead they could work at new rypes of jobs and haveqreater opportunities for interaction with a wider range of people. These were organic

bonds that flowed naturally from the increased social differentiation brought about by

:he division of labor. If these terms seem to be counterintuitive (we often think of''r'ork in factories as being mechanical), it is important to realize that Durkheim wasconvinced that the new industrial economy was an improvement over the limited op-

oorrunities of feudal sociery and he may have deliberately chosen rvords with a posi-rive connotation to represent the modern ciry. Durkheim was certain that the newindustrial order would replace the earlier ways of life: "\Vith the coming of the indus-rrial economy, village society has disappeared, never to come again."

Friedrich Engels (1820-1895), the German scholar, saw things very differently.

Engels's father was a wealthy industrialist, and he sent his son to Manchester, England,

ro manage the family's business interests in the new industrial ciry. Engels's observa-tions on everyday life under industrial capiralism are found in The Condition of theWorbingClass in England in 1844. This seminal work in urban sociology devored achapter to "The GreatTowns" (see also Box2.5). According to Engels, the evils of in-

dustrialization and capitalism were intensified by the space of the ciry. This is a per-spective to which we will return in the next chapter.

The most influential European thinker influencing urban sociologists in theUnited States during this early period was Georg Simmel (1858-1918). Simmelviewed the ciry in cultural terms and wrote about how urban life transformed individ-

ual consciousness: Everyday existence within the ciry altered the way people thoughcand acted compared to traditional sociery. Robert Park and Albion Small were famil-iar with Simmel's work and brought this "interactive" perspective back to the Univer-

siry of Chicago. In the United States, the work of the early Chicago School was lessconcerned with historical and comparative studies in the rnannei of tVebcr and morefbcused on social behavior and interaction within the urban milieu in the manner ofSimmel.

Any thorough discussion of the development of urban sociology in the UnitedStates must begin by explaining the important difference becween the nvo organizing

topics in the field: urbanization and urbanism. Ubanization refers to the origins ofcities and the process of ciry building. It studies the way social activities locate them-selves in space and according to interdependent processes ofsocietal development and

change. The analyses are often hisrorical and comparative.'Sfl'hen we study the process

ofurbanization, we are interested in charting che rise and fall ofgreac ciries and urban

civilizations. Our discussion of the emergence of cities, the largest cities in the world,

and the changing location of large cities in Europe presented in Chapter 2 was abouturbanization. Urbanhm, in contrast, studies the ways of life that may be found within

51

3: THE RISE 0F URBAN SOCl0t0GY

---: ---:::- :-.::r:r:unin-. Ir deals with culture, with meanings, symbols, Patterns of daily

--:-- =j l:oresser of adjustment to the environment of the ciry but also with social;-.iiict and polirical organization at the street, neighborhood, and city levels.

\\hile both Max tVeber and Friedrich Engels emphasized the relation between thehistorical development of the ciry and its ways of life, Georg Simmel was more con-

cerned with patterns of activity and ways of thinking that were found in the city. Thework of the early Chicago School followed Simmel closely and focused on patterns ofactiviry within cities rathe r than addressing the topic of city formation or U.S. urban-

ization. Yet for Simmel, the study of life within the ciry was not meant as an "urban

sociology." Simmel was instead concerned with modernity, or the transition from a tra-

ditional society characterized by social relations based on intimacy or kinship (known

as "primary" relations) and by a feudal economy based on barter to an industrial soci-

ety situated within cities and dominated by impersonal, specialized social relationsbased on compartmentalized roles (known as "secondary" relations) and by a money

economy based on rational calculations of profit and loss. For Simmel, the subtle as-

pects of moderniry were displayed most clearly within the large city or metropolis and

through consciously directed behaviors. Simmel gives us a social psychology of moder-

nity that Robert Park took to be rhe sociology of urbanism, or "urban sociology."

GEORG SIMMET ON THE CITY

\flhat was it like to confront moderniry and why was Simmel so impressed with theciry as the vehicle for change? Consider, if you will, a German farmer from Bavaria.

His life was tuned to the daily rhythms of agriculture. Nature and his own physical

labor provided the boundaries within which the farming endeavor was framed. The

regime of labor on the land was early to bed because darkness meant little workcould be done, and early to rise because it was necessary to use every second ofday-Iight for work-even dawn and twilight. This farmer was immersed in a social worldof primary kinship relations. His principal contacts were members of his family,

both immediate and extended. Perhaps several generations and families lived to-

gether in the same location and worked the land. Beyond this primary nework, thefarmer would interact with individuals who aided his enterprise. Most typically hevisited a local service center, perhaps a small town. There he was surely involved in a

nework of people who knew him well. In this kind of traditional sociery it was en-tirely possible that no money changed hands while farm produce and needed com-

modities were exchanged. Bartet credit, and informal agreements among knownpersons characterized the social relations ofthis world.

As Simmel might suggest, suppose this individual-call him Hans-lost thefarm and his family in some personal tragedy. Vith a small amount of money, henow traveled to Berlin to begin a new life. He went to this modern city precisely be-cause it offered him an alternative to the traditional rural existence of farming. Karl

GEORG SIMMET ON THE CITY

Georg Simmel

Georg Simmel was born on March 1, 1858, in the very heart of Berlin, at the inter-

section of Leipzigerstrasse and Friedrichstrasse. This was a curious birthplace-itwould correspond to Times Square in New York-but it seems symbolically fittingfor a man who throughout his life lived at the intersection of many movements, in-

tensely affected by the crosscurrents of intellectual traffic and by a multipliciry ofmoral directions. Like "the stranger" he described in his brilliant essay of the samename, he was near and far at the same time, a potential wanderer who had notquite overcome the freedom of coming and going. Simmel was a modern urbanman, without roots in traditional folk culture.

After graduating from Gymnasium, Simmel studied history and philosophy at the

Universiry of Berlin with some of the most important academic figures of the day.By the time he received his doctorate in 1881, Simmel was familiar with a vast fieldof knowledge extending from history to philosophy and from psychology to the so-

cial sciences. Deeply tied to the intellectual milieu of Berlin, he played an active partin the intellectual and cultural life of the capital, frequenting many fashionable sa-Ions and participating in various cultural circles. He attended the meetings of phi-losophers and sociologists and was a cofounder, with Veber and Tciennies, of theGerman Sociery for Sociology.

Simmel taught at the Universiry of Berlin, where he became a Privatdozent (an un-

paid lecturer dependent on student fees) in 1885. His courses ranged from logic andthe history of philosophy to ethics, social psychology, and sociology. He was a very

popular lecturer and his lecures soon became leading intellectual events, not only for

students but for the cultural elite of Berlin. Simmel was somewhat of a showman,punctuating the air with abrupt gestures and stabs, dramatically halting, and then re-

leasing a torrent of dazzling ideas. In spite ofthe fascination he called forth, however,his academic career turned out to be unfortunate, even tragic. Many of Simmel's peers

and elders, especially those of secondary rank, felt threatened and unsettled by his er-

ratic brilliance. \(rhenever Simmel sought an academic promotion, he was rebuffed.

Simmel was a prolific writer. More than two hundred of his articles appeared in a

great variery of journals, newspapers, and magazines during his lifedme, and severalmore were published posthumously. He published fifteen major works in the fieldsof philosophy, ethics, sociology, and cultural criticism, including his seminal work,The Philosophy of Money, in 1900. His influence on the further development ofboth philosophy and sociology, whether acknowledged or not, has been diffuse yet

pervasive, even during those periods when his fame seemed to have been eclipsed.Among Americans who sat at his feet was Robert Park. No one who reads Park'swork can overlook Simmel's profound impact.

SoURCE: Lewis A. Coser, Masters of Sociol.ogical Thought, I971 .

54 3: THE RlSE 0t URBAN SOCl0t0GY

Marx, writing in the nineteenth century, would have focused on Hans's converslon

to an industrial worker. He would have taken us into the factory with Hans and de-

scribed his encounter with abstract capital (the machine), with the relations of pro-

duction (the factory building, the assembly line, and the daily schedule of work),

and with class relations (interaction with the workers and the boss). Simmel, writing

in the early rwentieth century, virtually ignored this entire domain of the factory,

which could be termed the immediate environment of capitalism, and focused in-

stead on the larger context of daily life, the extended environment-namely, the city.

Hans stands on rhe corner of a large boulevard in Berlin teeming with daytime

auto traffic. He has to dodge the steady stream ofpedestrians just to stand still and

watch, since everything else is in constant motion. At first shock, Hans would be par-

alyzedby the "excess of nervous stimulation," according to Simmel' Haven't we all

had a similar experience upon visiting a large ciry? Loud noises from traffic, people in

the crowds calling after one anothet strangers bumping us as they pass without an ac-

knowledgmenr, and more-noise, noise, and noise. Hans would find himself in a to-

tally new environment that demanded an adjustment and a resPonse.

According to Simmel, small-town life required Hans to develop strong, intimate

ties to those with whom he interacted. In the ciry the excess of stimulation fequires a

defensive response. These are the characteristics of urbanism noted by Simmel. Hans

would (1) develop what Simmel called a "blasd" xg1i1sd6-2 blurring of the senses, a

filtering out of all that was loud and impinging but also irrelevant to Hans's own

personal needs. Emotional reserve and indifference replace acute attention to the de-

tails of the environment.

Hans would require the satisfaction of his needs. Yes, he would encounter capi-

talism and, no doubt, sell his labor for a wage, as Marx had observed' Simmel agreed

with Marx about the necessiry of that transaction, which would (2) reduce the qual-

iry of Hans's capabilities simply to the quantity of his labor time-the time he spentar work for a wage. It would make his work equivalent to a sum of money, no mofe,

no less. That sum of money exchanged for Hans's labor time would be all the em-

ploying capitalist would provide. Hans would quickly see that absolutely no concetn

for his health-related, spiritual, communal, sexual' or any other rype of human need

would be involved in his relationship with his employer. In short, the world of capi-

talism was (3) an impersonal world of pure monetary exchange.

Simmel, unlike Marx, showed how the impersonal money economy extended

outside the factory to characterize all other transactions in the ciry. Hans would use

his paycheck to buy the necessities of life, but in these transactions, too, imPersonal or

secondary social relations prevailed. Unless he went to a small store and frequented it

every day, he would simply be viewed as (4) an anonymous customer being provided

wirh mass-produced items for purchase. As a ciry dweller, he might find himself more

frequently going to a department store where (5) a mass sPectacle of consumption

would be on display.

TOUIS WIRTH AND URBANISM AS A WAY OF tITE

In all these transactions, Hans would have to be very careful. His weekly paycheckcould go only so far. He would have to count how much each item cosr and thenbudget accordingly. This (6) rational calculation would be at the heart of his daily life.Everything would be measured by him, just as costs were carefully measured at thefactory. Rational calculation of money would require knowledge and technique. IfHans mastered it successfully along with gaining mastery over rhe consumer world ofthe ciry he could look down at his country-bumpkin cousins. City life, for Simmel,was a life of the intellect, and everywhere, it was rhe relation between the moneyeconomy and the rational calculation needed to survive in the world of capitalismthat prevailed. Those in the ciry who could not master the technique of money man-agement would surely be lost.

\fle are not finished with the example of Hans. In the traditional sociery of thecountry, the rhythm of life was provided by nature. The city environment required(7) adjustment to a second nature-the orchestration of daily activities as governedby clock time and as played out within a constructed space. All life in the ciry fol-lowed the schedule of capitalist industrialization or moderniry. If Hans didn't own awatch before coming to the ciry he now needed one. Time and money consrirutedthe rwo rypes ofcalculation necessary for survival in the second nature ofthe urbanmilieu-the built environmenr of concrete, steel, and glass that is the ciry.

Finally, Simmel also commented on the qualitative value of an experience likeHans's. He did not see the transformation as something chat was necessarily bad. Hans

would be cast in a calculating and impersonal world, but he would also be (8) freedfrom the restrictions of traditional society and its time-bound dictares. He would befree to discriminate about the rypes of friends he chose, about the job he took (within

strong constraints, of course), and about where he lived. To Simmel, moderniry meant

the possibiliry of imme nse individual freedom in addition to consrraint.For Simmel, the freedom of the city meant, above all else, that Hans would be

free to pursue and even create his own individualiry. Provided he had the money, ofcoutse-an actuality that Marx would doubt-Hans could cultivate himself. Hecould dress according to some distinct fashion, develop hobbies he could share withothers, perhaps take up the violin and join a neighborhood string quarter; he couldenjoy a certain brand of cigar or shoes or attend night classes at rhe university-evenSimmel's own lectures. Could Hans and Simmel eventually have met? The ciry al-lowed for the possibility of attaining such cultural freedom, and the signs of individ-ual cultivation-the clothes, cigars, friends, lovers, discussion groups, opera, arr,novels-were collectively the signs of modernity that we may also call urbanism.

TOUIS WIRTH AND URBANISM AS A WAY OF I.IFE

As we have seen, Georg Simmel had an important impact on the development of ur-ban sociology in the United States. Albion Small and Robert Park attended lectures

3: THE RlSE 0F URBAN 50Cl0t0GY

- : -- - :- -., .--; -i:s ,- ri'ere studying in Germany, and Park included some of the first=-- ,--- :----s;arions of Simmel's work in the sociology textbook (titled The Science of-r-',::;- used at the Universiry of Chicago. Louis \Wirth was born in Germany butii.:.s ienr to live with relatives in Omaha, Nebraska, where he attended high schoolbefore coming to the Universiry of Chicago. tVirth's doctoral research reflected hisknowledge of the development of Chicago's Jewish communiry. Published in 1926with the tttle The Ghetto, Wirth's work describes the Maxwell Street neighborhoodwhere recently arrived Russian immigrants had setded (the ghetto) and the area ofsecond settlement where the older German immigrants had moved (Deutschland).'Wirth became a faculry member in the sociology department at the Universiry ofChicago and was one of the important figures in the later development of theChicago School.

Louis \i/irth was inspired by the work of Simmel. The Chicago sociologists cameto view spatial patterns in the ciry as the result of powerful social factors, such ascompetition and the struggle for survival among individuals and groups within theciry. Thus, Robert Park and his associates viewed urban space as a container, a builtenvironment that encloses the action. rVirth's idea was different. He emphasized theway the ciry as a spatial environment, influenced individual behavior. tWirth wantedto know what it was about the ciry itself that produced unique behaviors that mightbe called an "urban way of life." Given his study emphasis, \7irth naturally returnedto Simmel. However while Simmel (along with \fleber and Marx) attributed muchof the city way of life to the inf uence of larger systemic force s, especially capitalismand its money economy, \il/irth aimed for a general theory that ignored forces havingorigins outside the city. He studied the characteristics of people in the ciqr and howlife there might produce a distinct "urban" culture. Hence, "urbanism," or an urbanway of life, became the dependent variable to be explained.

In his important essay "Urbanism as a\Vay of Life" (1948), \firth focused onthree factors. Urbanism was produced in relatively large and densely populated set-tlements containing groups of persons of different backgrounds; thac is, urbanismwas a product of large population size, density, and heterogeneity.Wirrh's approachwas an important advance because he provided a set offactors that could be analyzedstatistically according to their effects. It was a theory with true predictive power.Given a sample of cities, the higher each one scored on the three factors of size, den-siry and heterogeneiry the more one could expect it to house a true urban culture.

\firth's theory was impressive for the time because of its predictive potential.Problems arose when he tried to define what precisely an urban cukure would be like.Recall the example of Hans. Simmel gave us a detailed picture that contained bothnegative and positive aspects. Essentially, Simmel viewed the ciry as simply different.In his formulation, Wirth stressed the dark side of Simmel's vision: Urbanism as aculture would be characterized by aspects of social disorganization. Most central to\7irth's view was the shift from primary to secondary social relations. \7irth tended

TOUIS WIRTH AND URBANISM A5 A WAY OF I.IFE

Urbanism as a Way of Life

Louis Virth did not believe that there was a specific number that magically createdan urban space (compare this idea with the definitions of urban from Chapter 1).Instead, he believed that cities differ from rural areas because of three f".1615-1hssize, densiry and heterogeneiry of the population-that interact with one anotherto produce a specific urban way of life. Here are some of the effects of the variablesas'Sil'orth described them:

The effect of size: The greater the size of the population, the greater the special-izarion and diversiry of social roles we find within the ciry-and so too the di-versity of the population itself. Because the population lacks a common identirycompetition and formal mechanisms of social control would replace primary re-lations of kinship as a means of organizing sociery. Because human relationshipsare highly segmented, there is increased anonymiry and fragmentation of socialinteraction. These effects can be liberating (one has greater anonymiry and cando as one likes) but may also lead to anomie and social disorganization.

The effect of density: The increased density of the urban population intensifiesthe effects of large population size, increases competirion among individuals and

groups, and rhereby creates a need for specialization. Greater densiry producesgreater tolerance for living closely with strangers but also creates greater stress asgroups that do not share a common identity come into contact with one an-other. Increased competition leads to mutual exploitation, while greater densiryleads to the need to tune out excessive stimulation.

The effect of heterogeneity: Individuals in the ciry have regular contact withpersons and groups that differ from them in many ways: ethnicity, ruce, and so-cial status, as described above. Increased heterogeneiry leads to greater toleranceamong groups as ethnic and class barriers are broke n down. But the effect also isto compartmentalize individual roles and contacts, and, as a result, anonymiryand depersonalization in public life increase.

The increased size, densiry and heterogeneiry of urban ateas leaves us with an ur-

ban environment where individuals are alienated and alone, where primary groupshave been splintered. The individual is now subject to the influence of the massmedia and mass social movements where the individual must "subordinate some ofrhis individualiry to the demands of the larger community."

3: THE RlSE 0F URBAN S0Cl0t0GY

i != -=:;:-;::onlmiry as debilitating. More specifically, the effects of the three fac--:,-::--..:.iailiticanbeexpressedasaseriesofproposirions,asindicatedinBox3.3.-.i.nh's rvork has been exhaustively tested, mainly because it was so clearly srated

-s;her, 1975).The core assertion that size, densiry and heterogeneiry cause a spe-cilic ser of behaviors considered urban has nor been borne our. If we look at thepropositions presented in Box 3.3,many of the asserrions appear to be accurate de-scriptions of social interacrion in the large city, and they help to provide a moredetailed picture of what urbanism as a cukure is like. However, while the thcory con-tains some rruth, we cannot be certain that these factors produce specific results.Cities merely concenrrate the effects of socie tal forces producing urban cukure.Surely we know that small towns are affected by many of the same social forces as thecentral ciry although the rypes of behaviors rhar we observe in these environmenrsmay differ in rype and intensiry.

Finally, Louis \flirrh held strongly to the view thar the true effecrs of urbanismwould occur as a marter of evolution as cities operated on immigrant groups to breakdown traditional ways of interacting over time. He did nor see the larger city acting asan environment to bring about immediately the change he predicted. These thingswould take time, perhaps a generation. "Urbanism as a \[ay of Life" would inspireother urban sociologists to analyze the development of new suburban lifesryles ("Sub-urbanism as a \Vay of Life"; see Fava, 1980) and ro compare urban and suburbanlifesryles ("Urbanism and suburbanism as 'ways of Life"; Gans, 1968). .we will returnto the topic of urbanism and continue discussing the refinement of \wirth's ideas upto the present in chapter 8. \ifirth's work also inspired a subsequent generation roplow through census data and derive the statistical regularities of urban living. Muchurban research is similarly conducted today.

IHE CHICAGO S(HOOt OF URBAN SOCIOI.OGYvhile it is common to date the origin of urban sociology at chicago to RobertPark's arrival in 1914 and his subsequent work with Ernest Burgess, the idea of theciry as a laboratory for social research came much earlier (Hutchison, 2009). charlesHenderson, one of the founding members of the department, applied for funds for asystematic study of the ciry in the 1890s, and \( I. Thomas began his research onThe Polish Peasant in Europe and the [Jnited States in 1908. An early (1902) descrip-tion of the graduate program in the American Journal of Socio/ogy stated:

The city of chicago is one of the most complete social laboratories in rhe world..il4rile the elements of sociology may be studied in smaller communities . . . themost serious problems of modern sociery are presented by the great cities, andmust be studied as they are encountered in concrere form in large populations. Nociry in the world presents a wider variery of rypical social problems than chicago.