Development theory and

Urban History

Critical Review of Urbanism as a Way of Life, Louis Wirth, 1938

Urban Design M.Arch, S1

Reshma Mariam Georgi

9/5/2017
 A Critical Review of Urbanism as a Way of Life, Louis Wirth American Journal of Sociology
(1938)

In the 1900s the shift to an industrialized society drastically changed social life, sparking a sociological
interest in studying these changes and the process of urbanization. In the article Urbanism as a Way of
Life, American urban sociologist, Louis Wirth presents the sociological perspective on what
characteristics represent urban life.

THE CITY AND CONTEMPORARY CIVILIZATION

The author notes here that beginning of modern life is characterized by the growth of cities and that it is
in cities where man is most removed from nature.

Wirth, by considering two extremes- urban industrial and rural folk setting as ideal, finds his
perspective for analyzing human associations in the city.

A SOCIOLOGICAL DEFINITION OF THE CITY

Although experts in different fields of study have attempted to provide definitions of the city based on
the quantifiable, the author suggests that studying the city in terms of its inhabitants associations
would help understand the relationship between these diverse definitions.

The author notes that while some characteristics of urbanism may be found outside cities, it is in cities
that these features are most noticeable. He also notes that the development of cities has often
coincided with the growth of large scale industrial organization and with modern capitalism. He defines
the city as a relatively large, dense, and permanent settlement of socially heterogeneous individuals
and formulates his theory based on this idea and existing data.

A THEORY OF URBANISM

The author says that there is not yet an organized representation or framework on the social aspect of
the city from where new research can develop. So in this essay, he tries to select the minimum number
of features which together could account for the nature of urban life and thus arrive at a theory of
urbanism. These characteristics are as follows:

A. Numbers of population
Wirth says larger the population, the greater the chances for diversity and individualization and
the greater the functional diversity and specialization of social roles. However, their
relationships become more superficial as they are more dependent on social groups than on
specific people; hence there is a shift from primary to secondary contacts when moving from
rural to urban. He credits this superficiality with creating the image of the city dweller as
sophisticated and rational He also notes that acquaintances in urban settings are seen as
relationships that can be used to further ones own goals.
 The author suggests that there should be some control over the predatory nature of
relationships that businesses promote through their need for efficiency and utility. This is
because he believes the corporation has no soul.

B. Density of settlement
Wirth concludes on the basis of previous evidence that an increase in density leads to
differentiation and specializations in the social structure. He says there is also changes in the
way we see perceive people, we see the symbols rather than the unique individual, the example
cited is the uniform which denotes a persons social or functional role.
He also observes that based on suitability, specific locations become assigned specific functions.
He theorizes that living and working together also creates a sense of tolerance or secularization.
On the other hand, he hypothesizes that competition and formal mechanisms of social control
would replace primary rural relations of kinship as a means of organizing society because of the
insignificance of their relationships.
Wirth also talks about stress one would experience normally is worsened due to the fast pace of
urban life.

C. Heterogeneity of inhabitants and group life

The author says that people in urban settings through their contact with a diversity of people
tend to be less controlled by social divisions or affinity to like-minded individuals, thus creating a
more complex social structure. Residences in the city are divided by new social aspects,
differences in race, language, income and social status rather than by choice or preference.
He notes that urban dwellers also gain membership in multiple groups catering to the different
interests they hold rather than pledge loyalty to a single group. Also, he says that the sense of
unity is often lost with the transient nature of city dwellers since most of them do not own
homes and social mobility allows for an easy withdrawal from a community or organization. The
conclusion Wirth draws from this is that these individuals are thus detached from such bodies
adding to the collective unpredictability of behavior in the city.
The author also talks about the leveling influence of the city on its inhabitants. In such high
density, services are to be for the average individual and not any particular group. Also, the
individual may have to sacrifice some of his individuality to become an active part of various
facets of the city.

THE RELATION BETWEEN A THEORY OF URBANISM AND SOCIOLOGICAL RESEARCH

By means of a theory, a complicated subject can be explained in terms of a few basic characteristics. So
on the basis of Wirths sociological theory, he hopes to provide an organized framework on which
further empirical analysis and research can be performed from the perspectives of physical structure,
social structure, and attitudes and ideas.