Critical Comments on Wirth & Looking Ahead to Tuesday

The urban text that I used previously had a great section which challenged many of the claims made by Wirth and others about the city and how it impacted human behavior and attitudes. This section was entitled:

"The Classic Theories and Modern Research: Myths and Realities"

The fundamental question being: "Is the city a heaven or a hell? A place where the best attributes of human life emerge or a place where people inevitably go bad?" (these questions may be a bit simplistic, but the text's authors go on to make some good points nonetheless.)

A. Tolerance in the City

1. Are urbanites more tolerant, less parochial than small town folk because of their exposure to people of diverse backgrounds? Research suggests that this is only partly true. Greater tolerance of others' lifesyles and attitudes is more prevalent in the city. But this could very well be NOT because of the city per se, but because city people tend to have higher levels of education and wealth, which are variables that are correlated with greater tolerance.

2. Another factor promoting greater tolerance may be migration -- that those moving to the city tend to relate to strangers better; they almost have to in order to make it. (This is not a very strong criticism because migration certainly is an urban factor.)

B. Impersonality in the City

1. Are urban relationships marked by loneliness, indifference (blase attitude), anonymity? Classical theorists such as Wirth suggested that the sheer number of people you encounter would engender this.

2. But many urbanites are not lonely; impersonality and anonymity are not dominant characteristics. The authors cite Whyte's "Street Corner Society" study of an Italian ethnic enclave in the North End of Boston which was very close-knit, just the opposite of Wirth's claim. In general, certain city areas contain many people with common interests (college students, for example) and backgrounds (ethnicity) which entail close, personal relations with others.

3. "Indeed, what seems to be significant about the urban environment is not the lack of ties and attachment but how these ties vary."

4. Often see a proliferation of voluntary associations -- groups, clubs, singles' bars, etc.

5. There may be areas of the city that are poverty stricken, dilapidated, with few or no small shops and businesses, high crime areas, where impersonality is more pronounced (and one might also include the Central Business District, CBD, in this). But NOT the city as a whole. The authors of the text, then, go on to make an important overall point:
"Wirth's mistake, and that of other classic theorists, was to allow the most visible aspects of city life, its PUBLIC DEMEANOR, to become the basis of his theory about urban life in general. Although, following Park, he did acknowledge the neighborhood element in city life, he tended to focus his attention on "street behavior." Wirth saw, of course, the hustling, competing, apparently lonely crowd. By not examining more closely the PRIVATE lives of the city's citizens, he inadvertently distorted urban life into a stereotype of impersonality."
"We are led, then, to the conclusion that the early study of both rural and urban places suffered from what might be called a "MISPLACED CONCRETENESS"....There is an important difference between the statement that one commonly sees more strangers in cities and the statement that cities are impersonal. In some ways they are; in other ways they clearly are not."

C. Density and Urban Pathology

1. Are densely populated cities breeding grounds for psychological disorders or anti-social behavior such as crime?

2. Seems to connect with common sense -- people experience more frustration, aggression in crowded settings such as a traffic jam. But is it really the crowded city causing this? Might we not feel as frustrated and angry if we broke down on a lonely country road?

3. Then there are the rat studies -- high density rat populations tend to produce a reaction known as the "BEHAVIORIAL SINK" -- aborted pregnancies, even cannibalism may occur among rats packed together in a crowded cage. Edward Hall made an explicit comparison with urban life. He contended there was a biological basis to the way we react in crowded situations (which is similar to Wirth and Simmel).

a. One problem is that no one yet has been able to locate any genetic code for spatial behavior in humans. It may well be that spatial expectations are learned (or cultural).

b. Second, Hall points to evidence of the high incidence of social problems in densely settled areas of the city, but these areas also happen to be lower-class, ethnic areas. This correlation may be SPURIOUS -- problems are really caused by the poverty, unemployment, racial discrimination, etc. and NOT population density per se. In fact, research has shown just this.

c. And human beings have a distinct advantage over rats -- supeior adaptibility.

4. And when we look at cities globally, this relationship does not hold up. Bombay (or Mumbai) India has a very high degree of urban crowding but an extremely low homicide rate.

D. Urban Malaise

1. Do urbanites feel more anxious or depressed than people in other environments?

2. Studies have shown that neither adults nor children show greater stress in an urban environment. Stress, of course, has very much to do with how a person deals with their situation, not just the situation itself. Stress-related diseases such as hypertension and heart disease were found to be lower among city residents. As the authors then observe: "A recent survey of the National Center for Health Statistics sought to find the incidence of stress-related, chronic health problems, such as hypertension and heart disease, among those over 65 years of age. The results: 47.6 per 100 for farm residents; 47.5 for small-town residents; 40.5 for city residents."

E. Finally, let me throw out another critical speculation based on my reading of "City: Urbanism and Its End": I believe Douglas Rae would argue that there was a lot that was positive about "urbanism" at its height in cities such as New Haven in the early part of the 20th century and perhaps Wirth, looking at the city some three decades later, was looking at the city when urbanism was on the decline. In any case, as insightful as both Wirth and Simmel's essays are, I believe they were basing their views more on a caricature of the city and not the city in all of its complexity.


Please incorporate the above comments in your notes, along with the material I posted on Friday (9/18), the previous blog.
_______________________

LOOKING AHEAD TO TUESDAY: Again, we will be getting into the new book I ordered for this class and I trust you have all picked up. We will cover the Preface and Chapter 1 on Tuesday. Now that I have gotten into the book a bit more, I can say that it is indeed a terrific read and awfully insightful. I believe we are all going to learn a lot about how cities in America have grown and declined over the past two centuries.