URBANISM AS A WAY OF LIFE

Urbanism is a way of life. It reflects an organization of society in terms of a complex division of labour, high levels of technology, high mobility, interdependence of its members in fulfilling economic functions and impersonality in social relations. Louis Wirth has given four characteristics of urbanism

• Transiency: An urban inhabitant's relation with others last only for a short time; he tends to forget his old acquaintances and develop relations with new people. Since he is not much attached to his neighbors members of the social groups, he does not mind leaving them.

• Superficiality: An urban person has the limited number of persons with whom he interacts and his relations with them are impersonal and formal. People meet each other in highly segmental roles. They are dependent on more people for the satisfaction of their life needs.

• Anonymity: Urbanities do not know each other intimately. Personal mutual acquaintance between the inhabitants which ordinarily is found in a neighborhood is lacking.

• Individualism: People give more importance to their own vested interests.

“Chicago School” urban sociologist Louis Wirth proposes a new academic paradigm for city life as sociological construct. Lacking a suitable set of hypotheses, scholars would benefit from a more comprehensive portfolio of city characteristics, ultimately moving the field towards a theoretically informed notion of urbanism. Grafting sociological propositions onto urbanism research, Wirth details three empirical areas of focus: population size, density, and demographic heterogeneity.

Concerning the first, Wirth insists that urban dwellers, in contrast to rural, depend on more people for day-to-day interactions, producing “impersonal, superficial, transitory, and segmental” contacts and engendering “reserve, indifference and a blasé outlook” that people use to “immunize” themselves against the expectations of others. Therefore, interpersonal contact is driven solely by selfish utility. About density, Wirth describes a socially differentiated specialization (Darwin’s theory of nature), which segments activities and complicates social ecology. “Visual recognition,” in which people are identified by their purpose but denied acknowledgement of their personal traits, provokes a cognitive separation by the observer, for whom urban environments expose contrasts in wealth, sophistication and belief. Daily interaction – functionally close but socially distant – among people without mutual ties fosters “exploitation,” although such diversity, Wirth states, gives rise to a “relativistic perspective” that leads to tolerance. Density, self-satisficing masses competing for scarce resources in a competitive environment, fosters “friction and irritation” (Berkeley Bowl shopping cart wars) and creates “nervous tensions” that add grist to the mill of social interaction. Heterogeneity, the third of Wirth’s sociological propositions for urban ecology, turns away from the built environment to explain the complicated phenomenon of affinity groups. Recognizing that demographic variety erodes class distinctions, Wirth proposes that

urbanites are apt to have multiple group memberships (going beyond social clubs, he uses “group” to include political affiliation, neighborhood, workplace, economic and cultural organizations). Moreover, in instances of high membership, intra-group mass homogenization eclipses the interests of the individual, and these “levelling influences” mandate that members subordinate their interests to those of the “average” community at large. This moves in opposition to the urban environment’s tendency to favor uniqueness, eccentricity and inventiveness, factors that are needed to provide the variety of differentiated services that characterize major cities.

With these three factors having been laid out, Wirth proposes three “interrelated perspectives” on which to build a theory of urbanism: physical structure, social organization, and attitudes/ideas. From the physical perspective, the city has become dominant because the variety of services and institutions, and the superior facilities that serve them, provide the armament needed to assert power over competing regions of lesser capability. For the organizational perspective, urban existence is characterized by a de-emphasis on kinship and primary contacts, liberating individuals to act rationally in the pursuit of their own interests without burdensome exhortations of traditional institutions. The urbanite’s ability to assert himself as an individual, however, is obstructed by competition, and therefore, according to Wirth, he joins groups that pool everyone’s resources to pursue end-goals that serve the “average” constituent. As such, these “fictional” kinship groups are an outlet for expression and mobility. Finally, of note is Wirth’s theory that crowded environments lower the sophistication of communication to elementary levels, focusing on things that are “assumed to be common or to be of interest to all.”

A cityA city is a large and permanent human settlement. Although there is no agreement on how a city is distinguished from a town in general English language meanings, many cities have a particular administrative, legal, or historical status based on local law.

Cities generally have complex systems for sanitation, utilities, land usage, housing, and transportation. The concentration of development greatly facilitates interaction between people and businesses, benefiting both parties in the process, but it also presents challenges to managing urban growth. A big city or metropolis usually has associated suburbs and exurbs. Such cities are usually associated with metropolitan areas and urban areas, creating numerous business commuters traveling to urban centers for employment. Once a city expands far enough to reach another city, this region can be deemed a conurbation or megalopolis. In terms of population, the largest city proper is Shanghai, while the fastest growing is Dubai.

There is not enough evidence to assert what conditions gave rise to the first cities. Some theorists have speculated on what they consider suitable pre-conditions, and basic mechanisms that might have been important driving forces.

The conventional view holds that cities first formed after the Neolithic revolution. The Neolithic revolution brought agriculture, which made denser human populations possible, thereby supporting city development. The advent of farming encouraged hunter-gatherers to abandon nomadic lifestyles and to settle near others who lived by agricultural production. The increased population-density encouraged by farming and the increased output of food per unit of land created conditions that seem more suitable for city-like activities. In his book, Cities and Economic Development, Paul Bairoch takes up this position in his argument that agricultural activity appears necessary before true cities can form.