GEOG 340: Day 16
Social Relations in the City
Housekeeping Items
• Will get the exams back as soon as
possible, but it won’t be super
soon.
• Final exam will be Thursday,
Dec. 4th in the Gym
• Reactions to Sheila? Will pass
around “Islands in the Salish Sea”
book.
• We have three presenters today
on the Hiller book:
• Linda finishing off the theme of
urban sustainability (Chapter 17);
me on Chapter 5, and Katie on
Chapter 6.
Hiller, Chapter 5
• Written by Keith Hampton and a model of clarity.
• Starts with Tönnies, already covered by Laurens.
• Distinguishes between primary groups and relationships (more
intimate and direct) and secondary relationships – fleeting
interactions, according to ‘human ecologist’ Robert Park,
facilitated by electric railway, automobile, and telephone, and
today we would add Internet.
• The interactions we have with store clerks or with bus drivers
(which are role-defined) are not the same as with friends and
family members, though – depending on the size of the
settlement – the former can be more or less congenial.
• Wirth (1938) argued that urban dwellers tended to have weak
ties with one another and tended to aggregate with their own
kind (what the Chicago School called “natural areas”).
Hiller, Chapter 5
• Chicago School initiated “urban ethnography,” modelled on
anthropology, where the researcher embedded themselves in
a given setting, blending in and observing. The chapter
mentions classic studies in the Canadian context: Tally’s
Corner, French Canada in Transition, and A Place on the
Corner.
• After Wirth, a new generation of sociologists came along and
refuted many of the findings of the Chicago School. For
instance, William H. Whyte, moved into the ‘slum district’ in
the North End of Boston and noted that “contrary to the
accepted notion of an urban community as disorganized, roleoriented, and aloof, Cornerville [the community’s
pseudonym]” had social relationships that “were supportive,
stable, trusting, and reciprocal” – i.e. high in social capital.
Hiller, Chapter 5
• A few years later. Herbert Gans, wrote about his experiences
living in the West End of Boston – later demolished as a ‘slum’
by urban renewal – and described in The Urban Villagers how
the residents enjoyed a rich social and organizational life, with
few members having any intentions of moving out.
Hiller, Chapter 5
• After cities, suburbs became the new bogeyman – destroyer
of community [see textbook on p. 94]. Herbert Gans again
moved into the first mass suburb – Levittown on Long Island,
NY – and wrote about his experiences in The Levittowners
(1967). He found extensive socializing, high levels of voluntary
participation, and an absence of the kinds of psychological and
social dysfunction that had been predicted.
• An earlier study in Toronto, Crestwood Heights (about Forest
Hill) by Seeley, et al. and other authors noted that new
residents severed old ties, but gained new ones and kept in
touch with a limited array of friends and family further away.
• After ethnographic research, a new technique that evolved
was social network analysis. Communities could be physically
clustered in a residential area or workplace, as in the past, or
they could be what Melvin Webber called “community
without propinquity.”
Hiller, Chapter 5
• This led to a study of subcultures. “[Claude] Fischer suggests
that it is precisely the urban environment’s ability to attract
diverse people that facilitates the formation of dispersed
social ties. Individuals in the city have access to a large
population, which enables them to seek out others who have
interests similar to their own, interests they may not have
been able to explore in small rural settlements…” (p. 96).
• This tendency towards forming subcultures does not preclude
people living in ‘natural areas’ – as for instance, in ‘gay
ghettos’ – but it does not require it.
• In addition to strong ties, there are also weak ones – the kinds
that might be useful in getting tips or contacts for finding a
job.
• One can look at whole networks (from above, so to speak) or
as a personal community (from the point of view of the
individual ego).
Three Paradigms
• Community Lost- cities destroy community
• Community Saved- communities are reconstituted in
neighbourhoods and workplaces
• Community Liberated- personal networks are now more
dispersed, and people reply more on social media than on
direct physical contact, though that is not non-existent
• The density of relationships has diminished – more singlestrand than multiple-strand as in the past.
Social Cohesion
• For social cohesion to exist in a neighbourhood, people don’t
need to be close friends, but they do need to be able to work
together to achieve common goals – i.e. collective efficacy.
• Where efficacy is low – even allowing for other factors –
weapons-related violence tends to be higher and adolescent
health and depression rates poorer.
• Robert Putnam strengthened the notion of social capital and
distinguished been bonding (tightly knit, but usually
homogenous and exclusive) and bridging (access to
information and resources across social groups). The latter
produces individuals more tolerant and trusting and more
likely to engage in civic and civil behaviours.
• He believes social capital is declining because of a
generational shift and because of TV/ increasing privatism. See
p. 101 and his book, Bowling Alone.
Social Cohesion
• Manuel Castells – from “a space of places” to a “space of
flows.”
• We are increasingly “alone together” in public places with our
electronic devices.
• Some researchers argue, though, that – despite these devices,
friends, family, and acquaintances have as much “face time”
as before.
• See also the discussion of a unique neighbourhood called
(pseudononymously) “Netville” in suburban Toronto, a wired
community where net users knew and interacted with their
neighbours far more than non net users.
• While net and smart phone users spend more time in semipublic spaces like coffee shops than non, they do tend to erect
a psychological bubble around themselves and avoid social
interactions. This is similar to what happens in public Wifi
zones like parks and plazas.
Questions
• What has been the impact for you of major moves
on your pattern of friendships and family ties?
• How much do you rely on secondary ties for ‘getting
ahead’?
• What are some examples of urban subcultures,
either involving clustering or communicating
through the Internet?
• Are your relationships largely place-based or
‘placeless’?
• Do you feel your relationship networks are more
multi-strand (overlapping) or single-strand?
• What impact has the internet and cell phone use
had on your relationships?