WIRTH L., URBANISM AS A WAY OF LIFE, 1938

THE CITY AND CONTEMPORARY CIVILIZATION. SOCIOLOGICAL DEFINITION OF THE CITY 

Despite the preponderant significance of the city in our civilization, however, our knowledge
of the nature of urbanism and the process of urbanization is meager. Many attempts have
indeed been made to isolate the distinguishing characteristics of urban life. Geographers,
historians, economists, and political scientists have incorporated the points of view of their
respective disciplines into diverse de6nitions of the city. While it is in no sense intended to
supersede these, the formulation of a sociological approach to the city may incidentally serve
to call attention to the interrelations between them by emphasizing the peculiar characteristics
of the city as a particular form of human association. A sociologically significant definition of
the city seeks to select those elements of urbanism which mark it as a distinctive mode of
human gr

While urbanism, or that complex of traits which makes up the characteristic mode of life in
cities, and urbanization, which denotes the development and extensions of these factors, are
thus not exclusively found in settlements which are cities in the physical and demographic
sense, they do, nevertheless, find their most pronounced expression in such areas, especially
in metropolitan cities. In formulating a definition of the city it is necessary to exercise caution
in order to avoid identifying urbanism as a way of life with any specific locally or historically
conditioned cultural influences which, while they may significantly affect the specific
character of the community, are not the essential determinants of its character

It is particularly important to call attention to the danger of confusing urbanism with
industrialism and modern capitalism. The rise of cities in the modern world is undoubtedly
not independent of the emergence of modern power-driven machine technology, mass
production, and capitalistic enterprise. But different as the cities of earlier epochs may have
been by virtue of their development in a preindustrial and precapitalistic order from the great
cities of today, they were, never1

For sociological purposes a city may be defined as a relatively large, dense, and permanentsettlement of socially heterogeneous individuals. On the basis of the postulates which thisminimal definition suggests, a theory of urbanism may be formulated in the light of existingknowledge concerning social A THEORY OF URBANISM

In the rich literature on the city we look in vain for a theory of urbanism presenting in a
systematic fashion the available knowledge concerning the city as a social entity. We do
indeed have excellent formulations of theories on such special problems as the growth of the
city viewed as a historical trend and as a recurrent process, and we have a wealth of literature
presenting insights of sociological relevance and empirical studies offering detailed
information on a variety of particular aspects of urban life. But despite the multiplication of
research and textbooks on the city, we do not as yet have a comprehensive body of competent
hypotheses which may be derived from a set of postulates implicitly contained in a
sociological definition of the city, and from our general sociological knowledge which may be
substantiated through empirical research. The closest approximations to a systematic theory of
urbanism that we have are to be found in a penetrating essay, "Die Stadt," by Max Weber, and
a memorable paper by Robert E. Park titled "The City: Suggestions for the Investigation of
Human Behavior in the Urban Environment. " But even these excellent contributions are far
from constituting an ordered and coherent framework of theory upon which research might
prof

In the pages that follow, we shall seek to set forth a limited number of identifying
characteristics of the city. Given these characteristics we shall then indicate what
consequences or further characteristics follow from them in the light of general sociological
theory and empirical research. We hope in this manner to arrive at the essential propositions
comprising a theory of urbanism. Some of these propositions can be supported by a
considerable body of already available research materials; others may be accepted as
hypotheses for which a certain amount of presumptive evidence exists, but for which more
ample and exact verification would be required. At least such a procedure will, it is hoped,
show what in the way of systematic knowledge of the city we now have and what are the
crucial and fruitful hypotheses for future re[...]

There are a number of sociological propositions concerning the relationship between (a)
numbers of population, (b) density of settlement, (c) heterogeneity of inhabitants and group
life, which can be formulated on the basis of observation an

SIZE OF THE POPULATION AGGREGATE

2

Ever since Aristotle's Politics, it has been recognized that increasing the number of inhabitants
in a settlement beyond a certain limit will affect the relationships between them and the
character of the city. Large numbers involve, as has been pointed out, a greater range of
individual variation. Furthermore, the greater the number of individuals participating in a
process of interaction, the greater is the potential differentiation between them. The personal
traits, the occupations, the cultural life, and the ideas of the members of an urban community
may, therefore, be expected to range between more widely separated poles than those of rural
inhabit

That such variations should give rise to the spatial segregation of individuals according to
color, ethnic heritage, economic and social status, tastes and preferences, may readily be
inferred. The bonds of kinship, of neighborliness, and the sentiments arising out of living
together for generations under a common folk tradition are likely to be absent or, at best,
relatively weak in an aggregate the members of which have such diverse origins and back-
grounds. Under such circumstances competition and formal control mechanisms furnish the
substitutes for the bonds of solidarity that are relied upon to hold a folk soci[...]

The multiplication of persons in a state of interaction under conditions which make their
contact as full personalities impossible produces that segmentalization of human relationships
which has sometimes been seized upon by students of the mental life of the cities as an
explanation for the "schizoid" character of urban personality. This is not to say that the urban
inhabitants have fewer acquaintances than rural inhabitants, for the reverse may actually be
true; it means rather that in relation to the number of people whom they see and with whom
they rub elbows in the course of daily life, they know a smaller proportion, and of these they
have less intensive k

Characteristically, urbanites meet one another in highly segmental roles. They are, to be sure,
dependent upon more people for the satisfactions of their life-needs than are rural people and
thus are associated with a greater number of organized groups, but they are less dependent
upon particular persons, and their dependence upon others is confined to a highly
fractionalized aspect of the other's round of activity. This is essentially what is meant by
saying that the city is characterized by secondary rather than primary contacts. The contacts of
the city may indeed be face to face, but they are nevertheless impersonal, superficial,
transitory, and segmental. The reserve, the indifference, and the blasé outlook which urbanites
manifest in their relationships may thus be regarded as devices for immunizing themselves
against the personal claims and expectati

3

The superficiality, the anonymity, and the transitory character of urban social relations make
intelligible, also, the sophistication and the rationality generally ascribed to city- dwellers.
Our acquaintances tend to stand in a relationship of utility to us in the sense that the role
which each one plays in our life is overwhelmingly regarded as a means for the achievement
of our own ends. Whereas, therefore, the individual gains, on the one hand, a certain degree of
emancipation or freedom from the personal and emotional controls of intimate groups, he
loses, on the other hand, the spontaneous self-expression, the morale, and the sense of
participation that comes with living in an integrated society. This constitutes essentially the
state of anomie or the social void to which Durkheim alludes in attempting to account for the
various forms of social disorganization in technological society.

The segmental character and utilitarian accent of interpersonal relations in the city find their
institutional expression in the proliferation of specialized tasks which we see in their most
developed form in the professions. The operations of the pecuniary nexus lead to predatory
relationships, which tend to obstruct the efficient functioning of the social order unless
checked by professional codes and occupational etiquette. The premium put upon utility and
efficiency suggests the adaptability of the corporate device for the organization of enterprises
in which individuals can engage only in groups. The advantage that the corporation has over
the individual entrepreneur and the partnership in the urban-industrial world derives not only
from the possibility it affords of centralizing the resources of thousands of individuals or from
the legal privilege of limited liability and perpetual succession, but from the fact that the
corporation has no soul.

[...]
DENSITY
As in the case of numbers, so in the case of concentration in limited space certain

consequences of relevance in sociological analysis of the city emerge. Of these only a few can

be indicated.

As Darwin pointed out for flora and fauna and as Durkheim noted in the case of human
societies, an increase in numbers when area is held constant (i.e. an increase in density} tends
to produce differentiation and specialization, since only in this way can the area support
increased numbers. Density thus reinforces the effect of numbers in diversifying men and
their activities and in increasing the complexity of the social structure.

On the subjective side, as Simmel has suggested, the close physical contact of numerous
individuals necessarily produces a shift in the mediums through which we orient ourselves to
the urban milieu, especially to our fellow-men. Typically, our physical contacts are close but
our social contacts are distant. The urban world puts a premium on visual recognition. We see
the uniform which denotes the role of the functionaries and are oblivious to the personal
eccentricities that are hidden behind the uniform. We tend to acquire and develop a sensitivity
to a world of artifacts and become progressively farther removed from the world of nature.

We are exposed to glaring contrasts between splendor and squalor, between riches and
poverty, intelligence and ignorance, order and chaos. The competition for space is great, so
that each area generally tends to be put to the use which yields the greatest economic return.

4

Place of work tends to become dissociated from place of residence, for the proximity ofindustrial and commercial establishments makes an area both economically and sociallyundesirable for residential purposes.

Density, land values, rentals, accessibility, healthfulness, prestige, aesthetic consideration,
absence of nuisances such as noise, smoke, and dirt determine the desirability of various areas
of the city as places of settlement for different sections of the population ...The different parts
of the city thus acquire specialized functions. The city consequently tends to resemble a
mosaic of social worlds in which the transition from one to the other is abrupt. The
juxtaposition of divergent personalities and modes of life tends to produce a relativistic
perspective and a sense of toleration of differences which may be regarded as prerequisites for
rationality and which lead toward the secularization of life.

The close living together and working together of individuals who have no sentimental and
emotional ties foster a spirit of competition, aggrandizement, and mutual exploitation. To
counteract irresponsibility and potential disorder, formal controls tend to be resorted to.
Without rigid adherence to predictable routines a large, compact society would scarcely be
able to maintain itself. The clock and the traffic signal are symbolic of the basis of our social
order in the urban world. Frequent close physical contact, coupled with great social distance,
accentuates the reserve of unattached individuals toward one another and, unless compensated
for by other opportunities for response, gives rise to loneliness. The necessary frequent
movement of great numbers of individuals in a congested habitat gives occasion to friction
and irritation. Nervous tensions which derive from such personal frustrations are accentuated
by the rapid tempo and the complicated technology under which life in dense areas must be
lived.

HETEROGENEITY

The social interaction among such a variety of personality types in the urban milieu tends to
break down the rigidity of caste lines and to complicate the class structure, and thus induces a
more ramified and differentiated framework of social stratification than is found in more
integrated societies. The heightened mobility of the individual, which brings him within the
range of stimulation by a great number of diverse individuals and subjects him to fluctuating
status in the differentiated social groups that compose the social structure of the city, tends
toward the acceptance of instability and insecurity in the world at large as a norm. This fact
helps to account, too, for the sophistication and cosmopolitanism of the urbanite. No single
group has the undivided allegiance of the individual. The groups with which he is affiliated do
not lend themselves readily to a simple hierarchical arrangement. By virtue of his different
interests arising out of different aspects of social life, the individual acquires membership in
widely divergent groups, each of which functions only with reference to a single segment of
his personality. Nor do these groups easily permit of a concentric arrangement so that the
narrower ones fall within the circumference of the more inclusive ones, as is more likely to be
the case in the rural community or in primitive societies. Rather the groups with which the
person typically is affiliated are tangential to each other or intersect in highly variable fashion.

5

Partly as a result of the physical footlooseness of the population and partly as a result of their
social mobility, the turnover in group membership generally is rapid. Place of residence, place
and character of employment, income and interests fluctuate, and the task of holding
organizations together and maintaining and promoting intimate and lasting acquaintanceship
between the members is difficult. This applies strikingly to the local areas within the city into
which persons become segregated more by virtue of differences in race, language, income,
and social status, than through choice or positive attraction to people like themselves.
Overwhelmingly the city-dweller is not a home-owner, and since a transitory habitat does not
generate binding traditions and sentiments, only rarely is he truly a neighbor .There is little
opportunity for the individual to obtain a conception of the city as a whole or to survey his
place in the total scheme. Consequently he finds it difficult to determine what is to his own
"best interests" and to decide between the issues and leaders presented to him by the agencies
of mass suggestion. Individuals who are thus detached from the organized bodies which
integrate society comprise the fluid masses that make collective behavior in the urban
community so unpredictable and hence so problematical.

Although the city, through the recruitment of variant types to perform its diverse tasks and the
accentuation of their uniqueness through competition and the premium upon eccentricity,
novelty, efficient performance, al1d inventiveness, produces a highly differentiated
population, it also exercises a leveling influence. Wherever large numbers of differently
constituted individuals congregate, the process of depersonalization also enters ...Individuality
under these circumstances must be replaced by categories. When large numbers have to make
common use of facilities and institutions, an arrangement must be made to adjust the facilities
and institutions to the needs of the average person rather than to those of particular
individuals. The services of the public utilities, of the recreational, educational, and cultural
institutions, must be adjusted to mass requirements. Similarly, the cultural institutions, such as
the schools, the movies, the radio, and the newspapers, by virtue of their mass clientele, must
necessarily operate as leveling influences. The political process as it appears in urban life
could not be understood without taking account of the mass appeals made through modern
propaganda techniques. If the individual would participate at all in the social, political, and
economic life of the city, he must subordinate some of his individuality to the demands of the
larger community and in that measure immerse himself in mass movements.

THE RELA TION BETWEEN A THEORY OF URBANISM AND SOCIOLOGICAL

RESEARCH

By means of a body of theory such as that illustratively sketched above, the complicated and
many-sided phenomena of urbanism may be analyzed in terms of a limited number of basic
categories. The sociological approach to the city thus acquires an essential unity and
coherence enabling the empirical investigator not merely to focus more distinctly upon the
problems and processes that properly fall in his province but also to treat his subject matter in
a more integrated and systematic fashion. A few typical findings of empirical research in the
field of urbanism, with special reference to the United States, may be indicated to substantiate
the theoretical propositions set forth in the preceding pages, and some of the crucial problems
for further study may be outlined.

On the basis of the three variables, number, density of settlement, and degree of heterogeneity,
of the urban population, it appears possible to explain the characteristics of urban life and to
account for the differences between cities of various sizes and types.

6

Urbanism as a characteristic mode of life may be approached empirically from three inter-
related perspectives: ( 1 ) as a physical structure comprising a population base, a technology,
and an ecological order; (2) as a system of social organization involving a characteristic social
structure, a series of social institutions, and a typical pattern of social relationships; and (3 ) as
a set of attitudes and ideas, and a constellation of personalities engaging in typical forms of
collective behavior and subject to characteristic mechanisms of social control.

[...]

7