URBANISM AS A WAY OF LIFE

1. 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

2. 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 city
A 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.

3. 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.