Introduction
Urbanisation is a widespread phenomenon in contemporary times. In countries such as India and elsewhere in the Global South urbanization has been a double-edged process. It is seen as a motor of growth and mobility; a sign of development; and at the same time witness to deep inequalities and dispossession. In visible evidence are the high-end apartments surrounded by slums where large numbers of migrants are mostly part of the unorganized and informal sector of labour. It is important therefore to look at the various ways that urbanism has been looked at in different times.
This essay starts with Louis Wirth’s concept of urbanism and then seeks to look at some of the theories that seek to understand the process of urbanization.
Urbanism as a Way of Life
Urbanism is a concept shaped by Louis Wirth. It comprises all the features that relate to urbanisation and the urban way of life. The importance of addressing this phenomenon cannot be overemphasised given the pervasive nature of the urban way of life in modern society. He writes that what is distinctive in modern life is the growth of big cities. Nowhere does he writes that humans have been more removed from organic nature than under conditions of life characteristic of great cities (Wirth 1938). Wirth in his book, Urbanism as a way of life (1938) argued that the pattern of urban life and the spatial distribution of the population was reflected in people residing there and their relationships. But urbanism is not synonymous with the city.
‘City’ refers to an area distinguished principally by size, population, density and social diversity, whereas ‘urbanism’ refers to a complex of social relations. Cities have been fundamental to the process of modern civilisation and urbanism. The spaces are characterised by distinct geographical and spatial features, but in a broader sense the shared experiences, cultural practices, urban rituals and political processes are what give this space its identity. The number of people living in cities alone is not the yardstick to measure the impact of urbanism. The influence that the city exerts on social life is far greater than the proportion of the urban population (Wirth 1938).
The onset of permanent settlement of the Mediterranean nomads demarcated the beginning of the Western civilization, prompting the growth of cities and the onset of ‘modern civilization’. Small clusters of people spread over a larger area that characterised simple society were replaced by larger aggregations in compact, concentrated areas but importantly linked to global processes -the most significant of which is capitalism. Not surprisingly, till the period of the World War II, the phenomenon of urbanisation was mostly prevalent in the countries with high income generation which were predominantly from the Global North. Indeed the process of urbanization in colonized societies was quite different.
Two Theories and the Paradox of Urban Space
Life in a city provides structure to modernisation and urbanism leading to social mobility and progress yet it creates insecurity and disorganisation. The paradox of urban spaces can be understood by the theories of urbanism, two of them opposing each other, while the third attempts to synthesise them.
The first, Wirth’s Determinist Theory (also known as the Theory of Urban anomie) has characterised the diversity of life in the urban spaces through the size, density and heterogeneity of a population. There is a necessary process of exchange of labour and resources in the city which is a large area comprising of dense human settlements of socially heterogeneous individuals with unequal resources. The differentiation in community arises from time and attention divided over various activities. This leads to distinctive specialisation of communities on the basis of occupation and the emergence of class structures. The weak cohesion among communities are result of the differentiated nature of urban life. Wirth studied the social disorganization of the urban life also known as “community lost perspective.”Although Wirth argues that life in the city is goal-oriented, anomic and segmented, other theories argue that “urbanism” does affect social behaviour but there is no proof that “urbanism” causes mental health and isolation
The Compositional theory challenges this theory and has emerged from the Chicago School that classifies the city as a mosaic of social worlds. This theory denies that the ecological factors of size, density and heterogeneity affect the social relations of the individuals as they believe social circles about lifestyle, kinship, and neighbourhood give rise to intimate interactions. The theory also suggests that in urbanism there is no link between the mindset of an individual and the norms and anomalies of the social circles. But the mobility of an individual attached to the notion of ‘urban’ prompts them to a diverse range of individuals and social processes, eventually subjecting them to an insecure and unstable social status among the differentiated social groups in the border structure of the city. These factors contribute to the existence of divergent group norms, values and conflicting nature of social roles. The social controls enforced in the urban society are rigid and the police, courts and other agencies of the state enforce the norms of certain groups.
To synthesise the two theories, Claude Fisher’s Sub cultural theory acts as a catalyst for amalgamating both theories. Similar to the Compositional theory, it argues for the existence of intimate social circles in urban spheres and also that the ecological factors affect the formation of communities, eventually giving rise to the emergence of subcultures.
Though segregation in the lines of race, language, income, and social status binds similar groups together a city dweller doesn’t have a sense of permanency in his habitat. The transient nature of urban lives thus doesn’t lead to the generation of binding sentiments or a sense of collectiveness at large. There is superficial and impersonal nature of relationships among the urban population as compared to their rural counterparts. The homogeneity in the rural areas is through the rigid mechanism of collective behaviour which disables an individual to act on their personal preferences and choices. But the urban society is highly heterogeneous and specialised, and a lack of intimate social relations is observed where the people live close together but without emotional ties.
In urban spaces, people become more individualistic and self-centred with material possessions, status and money are the drivers of their lives. It can be argued that larger entities like family or caste affiliations would decline in importance. Empirical studies however suggest otherwise.
Bibliography
Fischer C.S. (1975). Toward a Subcultural Theory of Urbanism, American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 80, No. 6, The University of Chicago Press.
Lin, J., & Mele, C. (2013). The Urban Sociology Reader. Routledge.
Turner, B. S. (1999). Classical Sociology. SAGE Publications.
Wirth, L. (1938) Urbanism as a Way of Life, American Journal of Sociology 44: 1-25.
***
Kirti Koushika has completed her MA in Development and Labour Studies from Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU), New Delhi. She is currently working as a legislative researcher for the Members of Parliament of a regional political party.