The Emergence of Urban Sociology

Teonnies: Gemeinschaft and Gesselshaft
Gemeinschaft--> "community" or small town. Teonnies argues that in a small town people work towards a common good, have family ties, and neighborhood, with shared interests and purposes.
Gesellschaft--> a large city which is characterized by individualism and selfishness/hostility. No family ties nor neighborhood. He believed very strongly that the city made people bad and that it was not natural.

This was one of the first theories created and its methodology was that of poles, as in, on one side was Gemeinschaft and on the other side is Gesellschaft and towns/cities could fall closer to one pole than the other and thus be ranked. He believed that because of the lack of personal connections in the city it allowed individuals to act in a rational and self interested way that stark in contrast to the emotional neighborly way.

Durkheim: Mechanical and Organic Solidarity
Mechanical solidarity-->social bonds that are constructed on likeness (such as common beliefs, etc.)
Organic solidarity-->social order based on the individual differences among people. This emerges from a complex division of labor--everyone depends on everyone else economically.
Durkheim saw the city in a positive light. He saw the possibility of greater freedom and greater choice.

Durkhiem vs. Teonnies: A Comparison
Teonnies and Durkhiem disagreed on what was organic (T-the country, D-the city). Durkhiem was optimistic about the potential of the city. Durkhiem saw the conflict of cities, the lack of likeness as a challenge that would further human development whereas Teonnies was concerned with the loss of the old way of living.

Simmel:
Simmel was concerned with the overwhelming stimuli that the city dweller encounters daily. He worries that because there is so much horror daily, that people will become insensitive. He also sees how this process leads to sophistication in that city dwellers assess what is important and what isn't. Therefore Simmel, like Teonnies and Durkhiem, believes that the city makes one more rational. He also comments on the importance of money in the construct of a city. simmel, like Durkhiem, saw the freedom that the city has to offer. He thinks that one can transcend the feelings of apathy and reach a higher level of development. But he doesn't think this is ideal because it is just a reaction to the negative surroundings and usually is formed in some act of rebellion.

Weber:
Max Weber was a sociologist who was the first to develop a model of the city. his theories were much more grounded in research than observation. He studied the histories of a large group of cities and created the "full urban community" which was called the "ideal type."

Ideal type
1. fortification
2. market
3. a court of its own and at least partially autonomous law
4. a related form of association
5. at least partial political autonomy

So, an ideal type had to based on trade relations, it had to be autonomous for urban dwellers to call the city "theirs,"and it must have a related form of association because there needs to exists a feeling of meaningful participation in the city.

Weber believed that cities were intimately linked to processes larger than themselves (political/economic).

European Theorists: 1. Insisted that the city was a proper object of sociological study. 2. Recognized that there is something distinctive about the city and the way of life it created. 3. They suggested the main concerns of the discipline which are the structure of the city, a comparative approach, and an evaluation of the city.

Urban Sociology in America:
Robert Park--> Worked for the University of Chicago and argued that disciplined observation was the way to tackle cities. He looked at the city as a social organism with distinct parts that played certain roles that were connected to something greater process. Park did not view the city as a disorganized mess, but rather an "orderly and typical grouping of its population and institutions" (40).

1. Commercial structure: Park believed that city's existence was the result of market dominance that continually eroded the more traditional ways of life.
2. Formal structures: large-scale bureaucracies. The city dweller needs something to turn to to make sense of it all, and there in lies the bureaucracy.
3. People are much less sentimental in the city and thus more rational.
4. Park saw a greater chance for freedom and tolerance in the city.

Wirth:
Wirth was interested in universal social characteristics and setting up conclusions in the "if this happens than this will result" style.
He found these common characteristics--> (1)large (2)dense and permanent settlement (3) socially and culturally heterogeneous people.

Population size was important because the more people, the higher potential there is for differentation among them. Furthermore, differences would demand control structures. This large differentiated pop would also be able to support specialization and specialization would organize the relationships on an "interest specific" level.

Population density was important because it is how Wirth explains his take on the heartlessness of the urbanite. The density creates an ecoloical specialization" or grouping of people into neighborhoods and the city dweller develops a handicap in regards to looking at individuality. Therefore, in the creation of tolerance the urbanite loses his/her ability to care and increases social distance.

Heterogeneity is argued by Wirth to be similar to the argument for density. Basically it creates the depersonalization but he goes further to argue that it breaks the cast lines so there is social mobility.

The American Tradition: An Evaluation:
(1) neglects history and coparative analysis.
(2) concentrated on the "semy side" of city life.
(3) contributed the idea of on site visitation.
(4) Wirth was the first to show that a true urban theory was possible

The Classic Theories and Modern Research: Myths and Realities
Tolerance and the city--> Researchers have found that this is true but often overstated, varied, and may result from factors other than urban life itself.
Impersonality in the city--> There are too many variables to this. It is too general and the city can have lots of different outcomes.
Density and Urban Pathology-->The theorists make rational arguments for why we act the way we do as a result of density but it is unknown whether this reaction is learned or natural. Hall tried to make an argument that they were biological but it is impossible to prove.

Hall--> (1) used controlled lab studies (2) studied crowding levels in an entire city and found that no study showed a decreased ability to complete taks with increased crowding. Studies like these are artificial and still can be a product of learned actions.

Urban Malaise
CLaude Fischer found that people have the same mental health regardless of where they are from. He actually found that the city dweller was more content than the country resident. The city does not create worse mental health.