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?