WEEK 5
Tiebout
Again we have an instance of an author working through a set of formalistic models—with explicit assumptions about human behavior/reality—that might seem very off-putting to you as a reader. I know I had a hard time with this piece. At least it’s short.
When you read it, keep in mind this week's assignment: In this theory whom does city government serve? What issues get considered, and who, if anyone, loses?
I suggest you begin with the conclusion so you can get a handle on what Tiebout is arguing AGAINST. From this section, as well as the introduction [esp 417-8] I think his point is to figure out if and how local governments [i.e. cities] can best meet the needs of their citizenry.
How does he define a public good? (417) What services qualify as a public good (418)?
How does he define a citizen-voter (418)?
Scrutinize the assumptions of his model: keep in mind his theory on citizen behavior:
What does he presume city residents do if they’re unhappy (420)?
What goal does he suggest cities aim to achieve? What does he suggest cities do if they are above/below/at their goal?
Does his analogy of the marketplace (421-2) seem workable to you? Does this model offer a reliable rendering of how
• Cities make taxing and spending decisions?
• People decide where to live?
For those of you who’d like a quick overview of his model, in this case I think wikipedia is a useful source:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiebout_model
Molotch
First of all pay particular attention to the title of this article. You should do this everytime you read a piece, as a good title is a window into someone’s analysis. In this case I think this is an exemplary title:
The City as a Growth Machine: Toward a Political Economy of Place.
What do we already know from this title? How does Molotch conceive of cities and the role of place in particular?
Right away Molotch cites Wirth, and argues that he omits “a crucial dimension of social structure: power and social class hierarchy” (309).
The next portion of the essay (310-8) describes the “growth machine”: who’s in the machine, who’s out of it? How does Molotch explain how land is used, how political coalitions are formed, how city government works and even what the function of city newspapers or universities is?
• Other questions include who participates in local politics and the role of “boosterism” (314)?
• What’s the importance of land values and speculation (317)?
Molotch next critiques the stated advantages of growth (318-25).
• What problems does growth produce?
• Who benefits from growth, and who pays?
• Why is the stated claim of job creation a lie? First understand Molotch’s argument (320), and then look at the evidence he uses to back up his case.
• Once you get his position, try to understand how he critiques Tiebout (bottom of 319) and Zorbaugh (325-6).
Last, how does he evaluate challenges to growth machines? For those of you familiar with Santa Barbara or other places that have fought growth, what consequences does it have for land, which is Molotch’s main concern?
When you’re done, take a step back and think about how Molotch sees cities’ ability to serve its residents: are cities democratic, can they be?
Oliver, The Rise of a Suburban Demos
Again I’ll give away the first level of reading—comprehension—for you. His main point is that “suburbs are bad for democracy.” Now that we have that out of the way, here are questions and comments to lead you deeper into the text.
After reading his introduction, what are his key research questions (4-5)?
• How does he distinguish his position from other authors who have argued a similar conclusion?
• What transformation does he argue takes place with suburbanization (5-7)? This is crucial to his overall argument.
How does he define a suburb (8-11)? Does this definition work for those of you who grew up in one?
What characteristics does Oliver say can distinguish suburbs from central cities, and each other? (12-15)?
• Why does he choose these, and what tradeoffs do they involve?
• Do you buy his analogy to a physician (14)?
Pay close attention to (15-17) where Oliver addresses both Tiebout and Molotch [partially in footnotes].
• How does he define democracy (18)?
• How does he measure “local civic activity” (19-21)? What does he omit?
• Crucially, how does he argue suburbs affect local participation (22-5)? Attempt a sketch of his model on (24-5).
• What data does he use—does it seem convincing for the argument he previews?
Last, and this argument should remind USP2 vets of Prof. Pezzoli’s emphasis on ‘regional governance,’ what real-world recommendations does Oliver offer based on his study?
Remember Oliver is offering an inherently ecological argument [that there is something particular to the form of suburbs that hurts democracy—what similarities or differences would you draw with Toonies/Wirth/Molotch?
Sunday, April 26, 2009
Saturday, April 18, 2009
Week 4 Reading Notes
WEEK 4
All of these readings deal with how people end up in certain areas of the city and not in others, and how to explain this pattern. Again the readings offer discernibly contradictory positions, so keep that in mind during your reading. Look for how these authors approach this question, and afterwards strive to set up your own view.
Zorbaugh
Take a minute to ponder the opening section: what does Zorbaugh mean when he says “The city is discovered to be an organization displaying certain typical processes of growth. Knowledge of these processes makes possible prediction of the direction, rate, and nature of its growth. That is, the city is found to be no an artifact but a natural phenomenon” (220-1)?
• Are we in control of our cities? He is implying here, especially through the examples of failed reform efforts, that cities have their own logic partially outside of our control.
• This is reflected in his theory of the “natural areas” of the city.
o Attempt to map out his model of the city as given on pp221-2. What are the main features of cities for Zorbaugh?
o What is the role of “impersonal competition” (222), land values, and segregation in creating distinctive “cultural areas” that match natural areas (222-3)?
o Reflect on the “plant ecology” metaphor (223). What does this analogy mean for his theory of urban development?
o Explain Zorbaugh’s notion of succession, as it is his theory of urban change.
• What are the consequences of the differences between natural and administrative areas of the city? Do you see this played out in San Diego?
Does Zorbaugh’s model of urban development make sense to you? Can it be used to explain San Diego, Los Angeles, or cities in the Bay Area?
Schelling
In this article Schelling outlines a number of MODELS of reality—motivated by actual histories of actual processes of racial change in neighborhoods [such as we read about blockbusting etc in USP1], and it is important to keep that distinction in mind. In order to create these models, the author makes many assumptions about reality—so if you disagree keep a running tally and save them for your critique. Still, articles like these are very interesting because they allow us to think about social processes by modeling them.
In particular, keep in mind Professor Martin’s point about Schelling having a contractual/marketplace view of racial discrimination as the result of a collection of individual decisions. That relates to his view of whether people are rational or irrational actors. But also keep in mind his views on social or individual ontology [i.e. which he thinks are real], and how he thinks order is achieved [i.e. consensus or conflict].
What kinds of evidence does he say we can use on this topic? If he had chosen the other kind of evidence, how would his analysis differ?
What is the definition of tipping? How might the notion of tipping differ if you looked at schools rather than neighborhoods [hint think about the difference between percentage and position]?
DON'T GET LOST IN THE MATH AND THE TECHNICAL LANGUAGE IN THE NEXT SECTION. KEEP THESE IN MIND: What does it mean for tipping to be a “threshold” or “continuous” phenomenon (159-65)? How do cities or neighborhoods differ based upon these different curves--i.e. different points at which neighborhoods tip?
What is a “crossover point” and why does it have important policy implications (166-8)?
What is the difference between tipping in and out?
173-83 Here the author returns to less formalistic, and more realistic/historical scenarios of tipping. Who are other actors involved in tipping, what are the effects of speculation and neighborhood composition, and what are possible non-racial forms of tipping?
Loic Wacquant
Wacquant offers a blistering critique of the kind of “natural” theory of how people come to live in certain areas rather than others. In his analysis of areas of “advanced marginality,” he focuses on notions of discourse, especially stigmatization, race, and space vs. place. As you read this article, keep in mind Professor Martin's point about Wacquant's emphasis on domination as explaining racial segregation. Where does this place him on the questions of action and social ontology?
What is the process by which areas of advanced marginality come to be stigmatized (67-8)?
Does it matter if the stories about these places are true? Why or why not?
What are the effects of such beliefs about these places
• On residents themselves (68)
• On policy makers with the power to affect social structures (69)?
Pp69-70. Here Wacquant argues paradoxically that even though areas of advanced marginality acquire incredibly strong and damaging reputations, they LOSE their sense of place.
• Describe the process by which these PLACES become SPACES.
• What are the consequences of this transition—make reference to his historical portrayal of how American black ghettoes have evolved (70).
Pp71-3. Finally, Wacquant offers a number of reasons why this problem is so difficult to address. Don’t get caught up with his use of “precariat”: it's a word he's made up to make a point. Keep in mind the contrast between whom he's calling the precariat, and the proletariat, or the working class. Marx predicted that the proletariat would be a political force--"workers of the world unite" was a famous line of his--predicting that workers would unite to topple capitalism and usher in communism. Wacquant's basic point, by contrast, is that these groups are fundamentally prevented from working together to improve their condition.
• Why do residents of marginal areas have so few resources [i.e. hinterland] to fall back upon?
• What is the importance of this group lacking “a language, a repertoire of shared images and signs” with which to describe itself (72)?
All of these readings deal with how people end up in certain areas of the city and not in others, and how to explain this pattern. Again the readings offer discernibly contradictory positions, so keep that in mind during your reading. Look for how these authors approach this question, and afterwards strive to set up your own view.
Zorbaugh
Take a minute to ponder the opening section: what does Zorbaugh mean when he says “The city is discovered to be an organization displaying certain typical processes of growth. Knowledge of these processes makes possible prediction of the direction, rate, and nature of its growth. That is, the city is found to be no an artifact but a natural phenomenon” (220-1)?
• Are we in control of our cities? He is implying here, especially through the examples of failed reform efforts, that cities have their own logic partially outside of our control.
• This is reflected in his theory of the “natural areas” of the city.
o Attempt to map out his model of the city as given on pp221-2. What are the main features of cities for Zorbaugh?
o What is the role of “impersonal competition” (222), land values, and segregation in creating distinctive “cultural areas” that match natural areas (222-3)?
o Reflect on the “plant ecology” metaphor (223). What does this analogy mean for his theory of urban development?
o Explain Zorbaugh’s notion of succession, as it is his theory of urban change.
• What are the consequences of the differences between natural and administrative areas of the city? Do you see this played out in San Diego?
Does Zorbaugh’s model of urban development make sense to you? Can it be used to explain San Diego, Los Angeles, or cities in the Bay Area?
Schelling
In this article Schelling outlines a number of MODELS of reality—motivated by actual histories of actual processes of racial change in neighborhoods [such as we read about blockbusting etc in USP1], and it is important to keep that distinction in mind. In order to create these models, the author makes many assumptions about reality—so if you disagree keep a running tally and save them for your critique. Still, articles like these are very interesting because they allow us to think about social processes by modeling them.
In particular, keep in mind Professor Martin’s point about Schelling having a contractual/marketplace view of racial discrimination as the result of a collection of individual decisions. That relates to his view of whether people are rational or irrational actors. But also keep in mind his views on social or individual ontology [i.e. which he thinks are real], and how he thinks order is achieved [i.e. consensus or conflict].
What kinds of evidence does he say we can use on this topic? If he had chosen the other kind of evidence, how would his analysis differ?
What is the definition of tipping? How might the notion of tipping differ if you looked at schools rather than neighborhoods [hint think about the difference between percentage and position]?
DON'T GET LOST IN THE MATH AND THE TECHNICAL LANGUAGE IN THE NEXT SECTION. KEEP THESE IN MIND: What does it mean for tipping to be a “threshold” or “continuous” phenomenon (159-65)? How do cities or neighborhoods differ based upon these different curves--i.e. different points at which neighborhoods tip?
What is a “crossover point” and why does it have important policy implications (166-8)?
What is the difference between tipping in and out?
173-83 Here the author returns to less formalistic, and more realistic/historical scenarios of tipping. Who are other actors involved in tipping, what are the effects of speculation and neighborhood composition, and what are possible non-racial forms of tipping?
Loic Wacquant
Wacquant offers a blistering critique of the kind of “natural” theory of how people come to live in certain areas rather than others. In his analysis of areas of “advanced marginality,” he focuses on notions of discourse, especially stigmatization, race, and space vs. place. As you read this article, keep in mind Professor Martin's point about Wacquant's emphasis on domination as explaining racial segregation. Where does this place him on the questions of action and social ontology?
What is the process by which areas of advanced marginality come to be stigmatized (67-8)?
Does it matter if the stories about these places are true? Why or why not?
What are the effects of such beliefs about these places
• On residents themselves (68)
• On policy makers with the power to affect social structures (69)?
Pp69-70. Here Wacquant argues paradoxically that even though areas of advanced marginality acquire incredibly strong and damaging reputations, they LOSE their sense of place.
• Describe the process by which these PLACES become SPACES.
• What are the consequences of this transition—make reference to his historical portrayal of how American black ghettoes have evolved (70).
Pp71-3. Finally, Wacquant offers a number of reasons why this problem is so difficult to address. Don’t get caught up with his use of “precariat”: it's a word he's made up to make a point. Keep in mind the contrast between whom he's calling the precariat, and the proletariat, or the working class. Marx predicted that the proletariat would be a political force--"workers of the world unite" was a famous line of his--predicting that workers would unite to topple capitalism and usher in communism. Wacquant's basic point, by contrast, is that these groups are fundamentally prevented from working together to improve their condition.
• Why do residents of marginal areas have so few resources [i.e. hinterland] to fall back upon?
• What is the importance of this group lacking “a language, a repertoire of shared images and signs” with which to describe itself (72)?
Sunday, April 12, 2009
Author Invite
Students:
Sorry for the delay, but I have invited you all to be authors of this blog. This is a way for those of you who do not like to speak in class to participate. That can take a variety of forms, including posting questions about readings, notes or thoughts about lectures or readings, and/or news items that remind you of class topics. Or anything else related to class.
I hope you're having a good weekend, and I'll see you tomorrow to discuss the Wirth essay.
Cheers
AC
Sorry for the delay, but I have invited you all to be authors of this blog. This is a way for those of you who do not like to speak in class to participate. That can take a variety of forms, including posting questions about readings, notes or thoughts about lectures or readings, and/or news items that remind you of class topics. Or anything else related to class.
I hope you're having a good weekend, and I'll see you tomorrow to discuss the Wirth essay.
Cheers
AC
Thursday, April 9, 2009
Add/Drop
Students:
At this point there are still 2 students who seek to add into our class.
If anyone is seriously considering dropping the class, please do so before midnight tonight so that they can be added to our class.
Even though tomorrow is the actual deadline, all drops must happen before tomorrow according to the way they wrote the online registration rules.
Thanks!
Andrew
At this point there are still 2 students who seek to add into our class.
If anyone is seriously considering dropping the class, please do so before midnight tonight so that they can be added to our class.
Even though tomorrow is the actual deadline, all drops must happen before tomorrow according to the way they wrote the online registration rules.
Thanks!
Andrew
Week 3 Reading Notes
Students:
Again there was great discussion in lecture yesterday regarding Simmel, keep it up. I just got the list of email addresses from Valorie, so you'll be added as an author of this blog soon. At that point, you can post here.
I know this is looking ahead, but here are your reading notes for Week 3. Remember we will be discussing Wirth on Monday in section.
Cheers,
Andrew
WEEK 3
Again Professor Martin has chosen our week’s readings so that we can understand a particular debate, with the authors taking clearly contrasting positions. Wirth’s essay strongly influenced Gans’ response, and Fischer’s theory responds to both. If last week we read two authors who argued for different theories of human action in cities, this week we are reading three contrasting positions on IF, and HOW, cities produce particular cultures.
Wirth
What empirical changes in the real world prompt his inquiry into the “urban mode of living” (1-3)?
Foremost, what is his “sociological definition of the city” (4-8)?
• What are the three key components of this definition?
• How does this definition seek to be flexible to describe most, if not all cities, rather than just a few, or a certain kind of city?
Once you understand his definition, then focus upon how Wirth argues these 3 features affect city life (10-18)?
• I suggest you write up a small table, and keep a list of the effects that Wirth sees each city feature having on urban culture.
• Do you see parallels to Tonnies, Le Bon, or Simmel in this section?
Finally, how does Wirth argue cities affect “social organization” (20-4)?
• What ties are forged, and which ties erode under urban conditions?
• What types of activities do urban individuals pursue, and what groups do they form?
Gans’ essay is in direct response to Wirth’s, and challenges many of his conclusions.
What 2 areas of cities does he focus on? How do the empirical trends in these places relate to his revision of Wirth? (171)
What reasons does he offer for challenging Wirth’s conclusion that cities create particular cultures (172-5)?
• What are the 5 types of people who live in inner cities, and what alternatives to Wirth’s explanation does Gans offer for their behavior (175-6)
What are quasi-primary relationships? How does Gans argue these are different than the kinds of relationships Wirth saw as created by cities (177-8)?
What do you make of his position that suburbs are essentially indistinguishable from cities (178-82)?
Fischer
Fischer’s essay is an interesting counterpoint to Wirth and Gans because he argues partially against both. He disagrees with Gans by arguing that cities DO create particular cultures [subcultures] but disagrees with Wirth by offering different mechanisms by which cities create subcultures [i.e. focus on the Implications section for this 1336-7].
What is a subculture (1323)?
What are the mechanisms by which Fischer sees cities creating subcultures? [Hint, the first two are in Proposition 2 and the third is Proposition 3. Why he isn’t better organized is beyond me.]
*Look for similarities to Simmel in Fischer's argument here.
Having read all three pieces, now think for yourself: do you agree or disagree that there is something inherent about cities that produces particular cultures, or ways of living? Why or why not? And if you do agree, do you think that Wirth or Fischer have it right about the mechanisms by which cities create cultures? Or do you see other forces at work?
Again there was great discussion in lecture yesterday regarding Simmel, keep it up. I just got the list of email addresses from Valorie, so you'll be added as an author of this blog soon. At that point, you can post here.
I know this is looking ahead, but here are your reading notes for Week 3. Remember we will be discussing Wirth on Monday in section.
Cheers,
Andrew
WEEK 3
Again Professor Martin has chosen our week’s readings so that we can understand a particular debate, with the authors taking clearly contrasting positions. Wirth’s essay strongly influenced Gans’ response, and Fischer’s theory responds to both. If last week we read two authors who argued for different theories of human action in cities, this week we are reading three contrasting positions on IF, and HOW, cities produce particular cultures.
Wirth
What empirical changes in the real world prompt his inquiry into the “urban mode of living” (1-3)?
Foremost, what is his “sociological definition of the city” (4-8)?
• What are the three key components of this definition?
• How does this definition seek to be flexible to describe most, if not all cities, rather than just a few, or a certain kind of city?
Once you understand his definition, then focus upon how Wirth argues these 3 features affect city life (10-18)?
• I suggest you write up a small table, and keep a list of the effects that Wirth sees each city feature having on urban culture.
• Do you see parallels to Tonnies, Le Bon, or Simmel in this section?
Finally, how does Wirth argue cities affect “social organization” (20-4)?
• What ties are forged, and which ties erode under urban conditions?
• What types of activities do urban individuals pursue, and what groups do they form?
Gans’ essay is in direct response to Wirth’s, and challenges many of his conclusions.
What 2 areas of cities does he focus on? How do the empirical trends in these places relate to his revision of Wirth? (171)
What reasons does he offer for challenging Wirth’s conclusion that cities create particular cultures (172-5)?
• What are the 5 types of people who live in inner cities, and what alternatives to Wirth’s explanation does Gans offer for their behavior (175-6)
What are quasi-primary relationships? How does Gans argue these are different than the kinds of relationships Wirth saw as created by cities (177-8)?
What do you make of his position that suburbs are essentially indistinguishable from cities (178-82)?
Fischer
Fischer’s essay is an interesting counterpoint to Wirth and Gans because he argues partially against both. He disagrees with Gans by arguing that cities DO create particular cultures [subcultures] but disagrees with Wirth by offering different mechanisms by which cities create subcultures [i.e. focus on the Implications section for this 1336-7].
What is a subculture (1323)?
What are the mechanisms by which Fischer sees cities creating subcultures? [Hint, the first two are in Proposition 2 and the third is Proposition 3. Why he isn’t better organized is beyond me.]
*Look for similarities to Simmel in Fischer's argument here.
Having read all three pieces, now think for yourself: do you agree or disagree that there is something inherent about cities that produces particular cultures, or ways of living? Why or why not? And if you do agree, do you think that Wirth or Fischer have it right about the mechanisms by which cities create cultures? Or do you see other forces at work?
Wednesday, April 8, 2009
Limits of Le Bon?
Students:
As I suggested in section Monday, I have my doubts about Le Bon's theory. He has some good points about what happens IN a crowd, but
-why do crowds form?
-when might crowds form or disperse?
-what's the role of leaders? [he does address this at times, but not much]
-in our age, what's the role of technology?
I was happy with the level of engagement you had with the text, so here's an article for those of you who are interested on the topic in our context from today's NY Times.
MOSCOW — A crowd of more than 10,000 young Moldovans materialized seemingly out of nowhere on Tuesday to protest against Moldova’s Communist leadership, ransacking government buildings and clashing with the police.
Also, I contacted the USP office and should have you all updated as authors for the blog soon.
Again, look here toward the end of every week for reading notes on the upcoming week's articles. So, toward the end of this week I'll post notes on Week 3's readings.
-AC
As I suggested in section Monday, I have my doubts about Le Bon's theory. He has some good points about what happens IN a crowd, but
-why do crowds form?
-when might crowds form or disperse?
-what's the role of leaders? [he does address this at times, but not much]
-in our age, what's the role of technology?
I was happy with the level of engagement you had with the text, so here's an article for those of you who are interested on the topic in our context from today's NY Times.
Protests in Moldova Explode, With Help of Twitter
MOSCOW — A crowd of more than 10,000 young Moldovans materialized seemingly out of nowhere on Tuesday to protest against Moldova’s Communist leadership, ransacking government buildings and clashing with the police.
The sea of young people reflected the deep generation gap that has developed in Moldova, and the protesters used their generation’s tools, gathering the crowd by enlisting text-messaging, Facebook and Twitter, the social messaging network.
The protesters created their own searchable tag on Twitter, rallying Moldovans to join and propelling events in this small former Soviet state onto a Twitter list of newly popular topics, so people around the world could keep track.
By Tuesday night, the seat of government had been badly battered and scores of people had been injured. But riot police had regained control of the president’s offices and Parliament Wednesday.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/08/world/europe/08moldova.htmlAlso, I contacted the USP office and should have you all updated as authors for the blog soon.
Again, look here toward the end of every week for reading notes on the upcoming week's articles. So, toward the end of this week I'll post notes on Week 3's readings.
-AC
Monday, April 6, 2009
PARTIAL OFFICE HOURS TODAY
Students:
I have an appointment that just came up and will only be at office hours from 2-2:30 today. If people need to meet with me this week, please email me for an appointment.
I'll see you in section,
Andrew
I have an appointment that just came up and will only be at office hours from 2-2:30 today. If people need to meet with me this week, please email me for an appointment.
I'll see you in section,
Andrew
Saturday, April 4, 2009
Le Bon Assignment
Students:
I got an excellent question about the assignment, and I'd like to share it with you.
> Hi. I'm doing the assignment for the Le Bon reading and I can't find the
> answers to questions 4, 6, 9, 12, and 13. I cannot find anything in the
> reading where Le Bon specifically mentions cities or urban environments.
> What exactly is the professor looking for in these questions?
>>[my reply] You raise an excellent question. Le Bon takes for granted that crowds are things >>that take place in cities. So don't look for specific mentions of city/urban, but merely for the >>content of those questions.
>>If nothing else, rest assured that at least trying to find the right mentions will get you full >>credit on this assignment--
Also--because I'm so busy this quarter I've been getting ahead on our readings. This is great news for you, because I'll be posting reading notes, as I did already for Le Bon/Simmel, for the remainder of the quarter. These notes will also be the basis of our section discussions--again focusing on readings for a given MONDAY--so check this space regularly for updates.
Andrew
I got an excellent question about the assignment, and I'd like to share it with you.
> Hi. I'm doing the assignment for the Le Bon reading and I can't find the
> answers to questions 4, 6, 9, 12, and 13. I cannot find anything in the
> reading where Le Bon specifically mentions cities or urban environments.
> What exactly is the professor looking for in these questions?
>>[my reply] You raise an excellent question. Le Bon takes for granted that crowds are things >>that take place in cities. So don't look for specific mentions of city/urban, but merely for the >>content of those questions.
>>If nothing else, rest assured that at least trying to find the right mentions will get you full >>credit on this assignment--
Also--because I'm so busy this quarter I've been getting ahead on our readings. This is great news for you, because I'll be posting reading notes, as I did already for Le Bon/Simmel, for the remainder of the quarter. These notes will also be the basis of our section discussions--again focusing on readings for a given MONDAY--so check this space regularly for updates.
Andrew
Thursday, April 2, 2009
Reading Notes for Le Bon & Simmel
Students
First of all I was really excited to hear the level of involvement in lecture yesterday. It looks like things are starting out well for this course, keep up the good work. I'm going to do my best to reciprocate that by staying ahead of the reading load so as to give you some thoughts/questions to help you along the way.
Here are some thoughts to keep in mind when reading Le Bon.
Simmel is similarly concerned with the mental or psychological effects of metropolitan living, yet offers a contrasting view to Le Bon's conclusions.
**NOTE Simmel can be very difficult to read--skim the first paragraph and concentrate beginning with the bottom line of page 409.
Similar to how you read Le Bon, keep a running list of how Simmel argues that city life affects its residents (esp 410-17)
After you come to understand each author's point of view, then develop your own position. Which of these contrasting theories makes sense to you? Or do you disagree with both? Try to commit your thoughts to paper, as these readings are an excellent first opportunity for you to practice laying out an author's argument, and then making your own case. Remember that both of these theories concentrate on human action, that living in the city makes people behave in a particular way.
First of all I was really excited to hear the level of involvement in lecture yesterday. It looks like things are starting out well for this course, keep up the good work. I'm going to do my best to reciprocate that by staying ahead of the reading load so as to give you some thoughts/questions to help you along the way.
Here are some thoughts to keep in mind when reading Le Bon.
- What is a crowd for Le Bon? What constitutes a “psychological crowd” for Le Bon, as opposed to a mere gathering of people? (2-4)
- What is the "psychological law of mental unity of crowds"? (5)
- What are the 3 key characteristics of organized crowds? (9-11)
- As you read from here on out, keep a running list of the main ways in which Le Bon describes crowds [hint he calls them impulsive on p18]. What do these descriptions have in common?
- In your own words, attempt a summary statement of how Le Bon sees city life, or the urban experience, through his theory of crowd behavior.
- Le Bon's essay is a excellent example of Prof. Martin's advice to read to understand first, and then criticize. Most notably, Le Bon has some awfully outdated views of gender and race. How do these inform his theory of crowd psychology? What associations does Le Bon make between men and women's psychological states, or Anglo-Saxon vs. Latin?
Simmel is similarly concerned with the mental or psychological effects of metropolitan living, yet offers a contrasting view to Le Bon's conclusions.
**NOTE Simmel can be very difficult to read--skim the first paragraph and concentrate beginning with the bottom line of page 409.
Similar to how you read Le Bon, keep a running list of how Simmel argues that city life affects its residents (esp 410-17)
- What aspects of a person does the city life enhance, and what aspects does city living discourage?
- How are urban psychological traits linked to the "money economy" (411)?
- How does Simmel's view of crowds contrast with Le Bon (418)? What is Simmel's view of urban "freedom"?
- What is the significance of the specialized nature of work in the city? How does that affect individuals?
After you come to understand each author's point of view, then develop your own position. Which of these contrasting theories makes sense to you? Or do you disagree with both? Try to commit your thoughts to paper, as these readings are an excellent first opportunity for you to practice laying out an author's argument, and then making your own case. Remember that both of these theories concentrate on human action, that living in the city makes people behave in a particular way.
Wednesday, April 1, 2009
Section Policies
Students:
My office hours are 2-3pm Monday afternoons at the Grove Cafe, or by appointment.
My email is acheyne@ucsd.edu.
Remember--section attendance is MANDATORY and I need either an:
--legitimate excuse beforehand if you know you will have to miss
--legitimate explanation afterward if something came up and you had to miss
Here's how your 15% section grade breaks down:
Again, look for me to post comments on them in this space, and when you're added as an author, please feel free to contribute as well.
Have a great day, and I'll see you in class.
Andrew
My office hours are 2-3pm Monday afternoons at the Grove Cafe, or by appointment.
My email is acheyne@ucsd.edu.
Remember--section attendance is MANDATORY and I need either an:
--legitimate excuse beforehand if you know you will have to miss
--legitimate explanation afterward if something came up and you had to miss
Here's how your 15% section grade breaks down:
- You will receive one-half point for each section attended [plus one-half automatically] for Memorial Day, for a total of 5 points.
- You will receive the remaining 10 points from participation. These will be assigned on the basis of asking or answering questions in section, being active in small group settings, and anything that illustrates to me that you are keeping current with the readings.This class requires participation on your part, so I expect you to have done the readings before class. Even if you don't understand it--or hate it--spend the time so that section can be a productive time for you and me. Remember, much of this course grade will be EASY to earn, the challenge will be on your own to put in the effort to read these texts.
Again, look for me to post comments on them in this space, and when you're added as an author, please feel free to contribute as well.
Have a great day, and I'll see you in class.
Andrew
Greetings and Welcome
Students:
Hello and welcome to USP3, The City and Social Theory. I'll be posting thoughts about the class readings, assignments, and so forth here. I'll also add you soon as an author so you can ask questions and post things here as well.
Here is a cut and pasted version of the syllabus. I apologize for the formatting but please get a clean copy from Prof. Martin if you do not have one yet.
Prof. Isaac Martin Spring 2009
469 Social Sciences Building MWF 10:00-10:50
Phone: x4-5589 Center Hall 214
Office Hours: M, T 4:00-5:00 PM
URBAN STUDIES AND PLANNING 3:
THE CITY AND SOCIAL THEORY
This is a course in how to read social theory, with a focus on theories of the city. Social theory
emerged in rapidly urbanizing societies, and the first social theorists were people who watched
firsthand as rural life was transformed by the growth of cities. They were theorists because they asked
what this transformation meant for human social life, and because because they tried to come up with
answers that were more abstract than the history of any particular city or society; that were reasonably
complete in the sense that their assumptions were explicit; and that were logically consistent.
Every urbanizing society has had its social theorists. We will focus on the tradition of modern
European and American social theory, with an emphasis on the last 120 years or so. By the end of the
course, you will know a lot about the social theories that are foundational in contemporary urban
studies as that subject is taught in American universities. You will also have new skills for reading and
understanding difficult theoretical texts. And you will see the city around you differently.
The readings are arranged roughly in order of scale, beginning with the effects of urban life on the
fleeting experiences of the individual city-dweller, and concluding with the permanent effects of
urbanization on the planet as a whole.
Requirements
You are expected to attend all lectures, to do the reading on time, and to come to class prepared to
discuss the reading. You are also expected to comply with the section attendance and participation
policies of your TA.
Because this is a course in reading social theory, the most important and most distinctive requirement
for this course will be a series of eight short, weekly reading reflection assignments. These assignments
are designed to achieve two purposes: (1) to keep you on track with the readings and (2) to provoke
careful and critical reading. These assignments will vary. Some of these assignments involve short-
answer queries. Others involve writing assignments of at most 2-3 paragraphs.
The reading reflection assignments will be handed out or presented orally in lecture, and the due dates
will be announced, at least three full days before they are due. This means you need to come to lecture
regularly to get the assignments. One reading reflection assignment will be due every week beginning
in week 2 and ending in week 9. Each is worth five points, and the grading rubric is simple: you will
receive full credit (5 points) if you complete the assignment on time; you will receive zero credit if you
do not complete the assignment on time, or if you turn in work that is copied or faked or obviously
half-hearted.
You are required to complete seven of the eight reading reflection assignments, for a total of 35 points
toward your final grade. These reading reflection assignments comprise the greatest part of your course
grade. If—and only if—you keep up with the scheduled readings, these assignments should also be the
easiest part of your grade.
Prof. Martin – The City and Social Theory 2
The grade will be based on the following:
• Section attendance and participation (15%)
• Reading reflection assignments (35%)
• A final exam (cumulative) on Monday, June 8 (25%)
• A short final paper of no more than 5 double-spaced pages, due on Friday, June 5 (25%)
The dates of the lectures and midterm exams are subject to change. Any changes to the schedule of
exams or lectures will be announced in class.
Schedule of topics and required readings
WEEK 1. THE PLACE OF THE CITY IN SOCIAL THEORY
We will use a classic theoretical essay in urban sociology to introduce the themes of the course, and to
practice analyzing theoretical arguments.
Required For Wed., April 1:
Ferdinand Tönnies. 2001 (orig. 1887). Community and Civil Society. Edited by Jose Harris. Translated
by Jose Harris and Margaret Hollis. New York: Cambridge University Press. Pp. 17-19, 27-29,
52-54, 247-261.
WEEK 2. THE METROPOLIS AND MENTAL LIFE
The city is a population cluster—a lot of strangers living very close together. This is still a new way of
living for human beings. The rapid growth of cities in Europe at the end of the nineteenth century led
many scientists to propose new theories of how urban living affected the behavior of individual
humans. We will treat these theories as an occasion to discuss the theory of individual action.
Required for Mon., April 6:
Gustave Le Bon. 1896. The Crowd: A Study in the Popular Mind. New York: MacMillan. Pp. 1-69.
Required for Wed., April 8:
Georg Simmel. 1950 (orig. 1902). “The Metropolis and Mental Life.” Pp. 409-424 in The Sociology of
Georg Simmel. Edited and translated by Kurt Wolff. New York: The Free Press.
WEEK 3. COMMUNITIES AND SUBCULTURES
Do cities have their own cultures? We will review a mid-twentieth century debate about cities in order
to discuss a debate about the nature of society.
Required for Mon, April 13:
Louis Wirth. 1938. “Urbanism as a Way of Life.” American Journal of Sociology 44(1): 1-24.
Required for Wed., April 15:
Herbert Gans. 1994 (orig. 1961). “Urbanism and Suburbanism as Ways of Life: A Reevaluation of
Definitions.” Pp. 170-195 in Metropolis: Center and Symbol of Our Times. Edited by Philip
Kasinitz. New York: New York University Press.
Prof. Martin – The City and Social Theory 3
Required for Fri., April 17:
Claude Fischer. 1975. “Toward a Subcultural Theory of Urbanism.” American Journal of Sociology 80
(6): 1319-1341.
WEEK 4. ZONES, ENCLAVES, AND GHETTOS
The city is a spatial order in which some people are brought together and others kept apart. We will
review debates about how this spatial order arises, and we will use these debates as an occasion to
discuss some different theories of social order in general.
Required for Mon, April 20:
Harvey W. Zorbaugh. 1926. “The Natural Areas of the City.” Pp. 217-229 in The Urban Community.
Edited by Ernest W. Burgess. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Required for Wed., April 22:
Thomas C. Schelling. 1972. “A Process of Residential Segregation: Neighborhood Tipping.” Pp. 157-
184 in Racial Discrimination in Economic Life. Edited by Anthony H. Pascal. Lexington,
Mass.: Lexington Books.
Required for Fri., April 24:
Loïc Wacquant. 2007. “Territorial Stigmatization in the Age of Advanced Marginality.” Thesis Eleven
91: 66-77.
WEEK 5. LOCAL DEMOCRACY
The city is also a self-governing unit. We will look at some theories of how cities govern themselves in
the United States, and we will pose some general questions about the quality of city-level democracy.
Required for Mon., April 27:
Charles M. Tiebout. 1956. “A Pure Theory of Local Expenditures.” The Journal of Political Economy
64 (5): 416-426.
Required for Wed., April 29:
Harvey Molotch. 1976. “The City as a Growth Machine.” American Journal of Sociology 82 (2): 309-
332.
Required for Fri., May 1:
J. Eric Oliver. 2001. “The Rise of a Suburban Demos.” Pp. 1-32 in Democracy in Suburbia. Princeton:
Princeton University Press.
WEEK 6. CITIES AND STATES
Cities are also centers of political power: every state in the history of the world has had its capital.
Why? We will use some classic readings here to discuss theories of the state.
Required for Mon., May 4: Max Weber. 1966 (orig. 1923). “Citizenship.” Pp. 233-249 in General
Economic History. Translated by Frank H. Knight. New York: Collier.
Required for Weds., May 6: Paul Peterson. 1981. “The Interests of the Limited City.” Pp. 17-38 in City
Limits. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Prof. Martin – The City and Social Theory 4
WEEK 7. CITIES UNDER CAPITALISM
A city is an immense concentration of wealth, as well as a center of production and of exchange. We
will look at theories of how these great concentrations of economic activity arise, in order to pose a
more general question about the driving forces of social change.
Required for Mon., May 11: Edward Ullman. 1941. “A Theory of Location for Cities.” American
Journal of Sociology 46 (6): 853-864. [NB. An informal and math-free introduction to central
place theory, which might otherwise bee too technical for an introductory USP class.]
Required for Wed., May 13: David Harvey. 2008. “The Right to the City.” New Left Review 53: 23-40.
WEEK 8. THE GLOBAL CITY
Thanks to technologies for communication and transportation, humans can interact with each other
over greater distances today than ever before. Is it possible that cities as distant as London and Tokyo
are now so connected that they are in some sense a single city? We will be discussing the limits of the
concept of the city—and also the boundaries of other social entities.
Required for Mon., May 18: John Friedmann. 1986. “The World City Hypothesis.” Development and
Change 17 (1): 69-83.
Required for Wed., May 20: Saskia Sassen. 2001. The Global City, Second Edition. Princeton:
Princeton University Press. Pp. xvii-xxiii, 345-363.
WEEK 9. THE CITY AS A NORMATIVE IDEAL
Cities are many things, but are they good? We will consider whether the city, as a human institution
subject to moral evaluation, is to be celebrated or condemned.
No class Mon., May 25.
Required for Wed., May 27: Iris Marion Young. 1990. “City Life and Difference.” Pp. 226-256 in
Justice and the Politics of Difference. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
WEEK 10. THE CITY OF THE FUTURE
Social theory is not only about explaining the world as we find it: it is also about explaining how we
might bring about the world as it could be. We will examine two very different visions of the desirable
urban future—both of which were called “new urbanism”—in order to pose some questions about the
relationship between theory and practice.
Required for Mon., June 1:
Ivan Chtcheglov. 2006 (orig. 1953). “Formulary for a New Urbanism.” Translated by Ken Knabb.
http://www.bopsecrets.org/SI/Chtcheglov.htm
Required for Wed., June 3:
Douglas Kelbaugh. 1997. “The New Urbanism.” Pp. 111-138 in Common Place: Toward
Neighborhood and Regional Design. Seattle: University of Washington Press.
FINAL PAPER DUE FRIDAY JUNE 5
FINAL EXAM MONDAY JUNE 8
Hello and welcome to USP3, The City and Social Theory. I'll be posting thoughts about the class readings, assignments, and so forth here. I'll also add you soon as an author so you can ask questions and post things here as well.
Here is a cut and pasted version of the syllabus. I apologize for the formatting but please get a clean copy from Prof. Martin if you do not have one yet.
Prof. Isaac Martin Spring 2009
469 Social Sciences Building MWF 10:00-10:50
Phone: x4-5589 Center Hall 214
Office Hours: M, T 4:00-5:00 PM
URBAN STUDIES AND PLANNING 3:
THE CITY AND SOCIAL THEORY
This is a course in how to read social theory, with a focus on theories of the city. Social theory
emerged in rapidly urbanizing societies, and the first social theorists were people who watched
firsthand as rural life was transformed by the growth of cities. They were theorists because they asked
what this transformation meant for human social life, and because because they tried to come up with
answers that were more abstract than the history of any particular city or society; that were reasonably
complete in the sense that their assumptions were explicit; and that were logically consistent.
Every urbanizing society has had its social theorists. We will focus on the tradition of modern
European and American social theory, with an emphasis on the last 120 years or so. By the end of the
course, you will know a lot about the social theories that are foundational in contemporary urban
studies as that subject is taught in American universities. You will also have new skills for reading and
understanding difficult theoretical texts. And you will see the city around you differently.
The readings are arranged roughly in order of scale, beginning with the effects of urban life on the
fleeting experiences of the individual city-dweller, and concluding with the permanent effects of
urbanization on the planet as a whole.
Requirements
You are expected to attend all lectures, to do the reading on time, and to come to class prepared to
discuss the reading. You are also expected to comply with the section attendance and participation
policies of your TA.
Because this is a course in reading social theory, the most important and most distinctive requirement
for this course will be a series of eight short, weekly reading reflection assignments. These assignments
are designed to achieve two purposes: (1) to keep you on track with the readings and (2) to provoke
careful and critical reading. These assignments will vary. Some of these assignments involve short-
answer queries. Others involve writing assignments of at most 2-3 paragraphs.
The reading reflection assignments will be handed out or presented orally in lecture, and the due dates
will be announced, at least three full days before they are due. This means you need to come to lecture
regularly to get the assignments. One reading reflection assignment will be due every week beginning
in week 2 and ending in week 9. Each is worth five points, and the grading rubric is simple: you will
receive full credit (5 points) if you complete the assignment on time; you will receive zero credit if you
do not complete the assignment on time, or if you turn in work that is copied or faked or obviously
half-hearted.
You are required to complete seven of the eight reading reflection assignments, for a total of 35 points
toward your final grade. These reading reflection assignments comprise the greatest part of your course
grade. If—and only if—you keep up with the scheduled readings, these assignments should also be the
easiest part of your grade.
Prof. Martin – The City and Social Theory 2
The grade will be based on the following:
• Section attendance and participation (15%)
• Reading reflection assignments (35%)
• A final exam (cumulative) on Monday, June 8 (25%)
• A short final paper of no more than 5 double-spaced pages, due on Friday, June 5 (25%)
The dates of the lectures and midterm exams are subject to change. Any changes to the schedule of
exams or lectures will be announced in class.
Schedule of topics and required readings
WEEK 1. THE PLACE OF THE CITY IN SOCIAL THEORY
We will use a classic theoretical essay in urban sociology to introduce the themes of the course, and to
practice analyzing theoretical arguments.
Required For Wed., April 1:
Ferdinand Tönnies. 2001 (orig. 1887). Community and Civil Society. Edited by Jose Harris. Translated
by Jose Harris and Margaret Hollis. New York: Cambridge University Press. Pp. 17-19, 27-29,
52-54, 247-261.
WEEK 2. THE METROPOLIS AND MENTAL LIFE
The city is a population cluster—a lot of strangers living very close together. This is still a new way of
living for human beings. The rapid growth of cities in Europe at the end of the nineteenth century led
many scientists to propose new theories of how urban living affected the behavior of individual
humans. We will treat these theories as an occasion to discuss the theory of individual action.
Required for Mon., April 6:
Gustave Le Bon. 1896. The Crowd: A Study in the Popular Mind. New York: MacMillan. Pp. 1-69.
Required for Wed., April 8:
Georg Simmel. 1950 (orig. 1902). “The Metropolis and Mental Life.” Pp. 409-424 in The Sociology of
Georg Simmel. Edited and translated by Kurt Wolff. New York: The Free Press.
WEEK 3. COMMUNITIES AND SUBCULTURES
Do cities have their own cultures? We will review a mid-twentieth century debate about cities in order
to discuss a debate about the nature of society.
Required for Mon, April 13:
Louis Wirth. 1938. “Urbanism as a Way of Life.” American Journal of Sociology 44(1): 1-24.
Required for Wed., April 15:
Herbert Gans. 1994 (orig. 1961). “Urbanism and Suburbanism as Ways of Life: A Reevaluation of
Definitions.” Pp. 170-195 in Metropolis: Center and Symbol of Our Times. Edited by Philip
Kasinitz. New York: New York University Press.
Prof. Martin – The City and Social Theory 3
Required for Fri., April 17:
Claude Fischer. 1975. “Toward a Subcultural Theory of Urbanism.” American Journal of Sociology 80
(6): 1319-1341.
WEEK 4. ZONES, ENCLAVES, AND GHETTOS
The city is a spatial order in which some people are brought together and others kept apart. We will
review debates about how this spatial order arises, and we will use these debates as an occasion to
discuss some different theories of social order in general.
Required for Mon, April 20:
Harvey W. Zorbaugh. 1926. “The Natural Areas of the City.” Pp. 217-229 in The Urban Community.
Edited by Ernest W. Burgess. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Required for Wed., April 22:
Thomas C. Schelling. 1972. “A Process of Residential Segregation: Neighborhood Tipping.” Pp. 157-
184 in Racial Discrimination in Economic Life. Edited by Anthony H. Pascal. Lexington,
Mass.: Lexington Books.
Required for Fri., April 24:
Loïc Wacquant. 2007. “Territorial Stigmatization in the Age of Advanced Marginality.” Thesis Eleven
91: 66-77.
WEEK 5. LOCAL DEMOCRACY
The city is also a self-governing unit. We will look at some theories of how cities govern themselves in
the United States, and we will pose some general questions about the quality of city-level democracy.
Required for Mon., April 27:
Charles M. Tiebout. 1956. “A Pure Theory of Local Expenditures.” The Journal of Political Economy
64 (5): 416-426.
Required for Wed., April 29:
Harvey Molotch. 1976. “The City as a Growth Machine.” American Journal of Sociology 82 (2): 309-
332.
Required for Fri., May 1:
J. Eric Oliver. 2001. “The Rise of a Suburban Demos.” Pp. 1-32 in Democracy in Suburbia. Princeton:
Princeton University Press.
WEEK 6. CITIES AND STATES
Cities are also centers of political power: every state in the history of the world has had its capital.
Why? We will use some classic readings here to discuss theories of the state.
Required for Mon., May 4: Max Weber. 1966 (orig. 1923). “Citizenship.” Pp. 233-249 in General
Economic History. Translated by Frank H. Knight. New York: Collier.
Required for Weds., May 6: Paul Peterson. 1981. “The Interests of the Limited City.” Pp. 17-38 in City
Limits. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Prof. Martin – The City and Social Theory 4
WEEK 7. CITIES UNDER CAPITALISM
A city is an immense concentration of wealth, as well as a center of production and of exchange. We
will look at theories of how these great concentrations of economic activity arise, in order to pose a
more general question about the driving forces of social change.
Required for Mon., May 11: Edward Ullman. 1941. “A Theory of Location for Cities.” American
Journal of Sociology 46 (6): 853-864. [NB. An informal and math-free introduction to central
place theory, which might otherwise bee too technical for an introductory USP class.]
Required for Wed., May 13: David Harvey. 2008. “The Right to the City.” New Left Review 53: 23-40.
WEEK 8. THE GLOBAL CITY
Thanks to technologies for communication and transportation, humans can interact with each other
over greater distances today than ever before. Is it possible that cities as distant as London and Tokyo
are now so connected that they are in some sense a single city? We will be discussing the limits of the
concept of the city—and also the boundaries of other social entities.
Required for Mon., May 18: John Friedmann. 1986. “The World City Hypothesis.” Development and
Change 17 (1): 69-83.
Required for Wed., May 20: Saskia Sassen. 2001. The Global City, Second Edition. Princeton:
Princeton University Press. Pp. xvii-xxiii, 345-363.
WEEK 9. THE CITY AS A NORMATIVE IDEAL
Cities are many things, but are they good? We will consider whether the city, as a human institution
subject to moral evaluation, is to be celebrated or condemned.
No class Mon., May 25.
Required for Wed., May 27: Iris Marion Young. 1990. “City Life and Difference.” Pp. 226-256 in
Justice and the Politics of Difference. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
WEEK 10. THE CITY OF THE FUTURE
Social theory is not only about explaining the world as we find it: it is also about explaining how we
might bring about the world as it could be. We will examine two very different visions of the desirable
urban future—both of which were called “new urbanism”—in order to pose some questions about the
relationship between theory and practice.
Required for Mon., June 1:
Ivan Chtcheglov. 2006 (orig. 1953). “Formulary for a New Urbanism.” Translated by Ken Knabb.
http://www.bopsecrets.org/SI/Chtcheglov.htm
Required for Wed., June 3:
Douglas Kelbaugh. 1997. “The New Urbanism.” Pp. 111-138 in Common Place: Toward
Neighborhood and Regional Design. Seattle: University of Washington Press.
FINAL PAPER DUE FRIDAY JUNE 5
FINAL EXAM MONDAY JUNE 8
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)