COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA

Copyright Regulations 1969

WARNING
This material has been reproduced and communicated to you by or on behalf of
Deakin University pursuant to Part VB of the Copyright Act 1968 (the Act).
The material in this communication may be subject to copyright under the Act. Any further
reproduction or communication of this material by you may be the subject of copyright
protection under the Act.
Do not remove this notice
Course of Study:
(SRA341) The City
Title of work:
Louis Wirth on cities and social life: selected papers (1964)
Section:
Urbanisation as a way of life pp. 60--66
Author/editor of work:
L Wirth
Author of section:
L Wirth
Name of Publisher:
University of Chicago Press

URBANISM AS A WAY OF LIFE

The City and Contemporary Civilization

JusT AS the beginning of Western civilization is marked
by the permanent settlement of formerly nomadic peoples in the
Mediterranean basin, so the beginning of what is distinctively
modern in our civilization is best signalized by the growth of
great cities. Nowhere has mankind been farther removed from
organic nature than under the conditions of life characteristic of
these cities. The contemporary world no longer presents a picture
of small isolated groups of human beings scattered over a vast
territory, as Sumner described primitive society. 1 The distinctive
feature of man's mode of living in the modern age is his concentration into gigantic aggregations around which cluster lesser
centers and from which radiate the ideas and practices that we
call civilization.
The degree to which the contemporary world may be said to
be "urban" is not fully or accurately measured by the proportion
of the total population living in cities. The influences which cities
exert upon the social life of man are greater than the ratio of the
urban population would indicate; for the city is not only increasReprinted from Community Life and Social Policy, ed. Elizabeth Wirth
Marvick and Albert J. Reiss, Jr. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press,
1956), pp. 110-32, first published in the American f'!urnal of Sociology,
XLIV (July, 1938), 1-24.

William Graham Sumner, Folkways (Boston, 1906), p. 12.

Urbanism as a Way of Life

6I

ingly the dwelling-place and the workshop of modern man, but it

is the initiating and controlling center of economic, political, and
cultural life that has drawn the most remote communities of the
world into its orbit and woven diverse areas, peoples, and activities into a cosmos.
The growth of cities and the urbanization of the world comprise one of the most impressive facts of modern times. Although
it is impossible to state precisely what proportion of the estimated
total world population of approximately 1,800,000,000 is urban,
69.2 per cent of the total population of those countries that do
distinguish between urban and rural areas is urban. 2 Because the
world's population is very unevenly distributed and because the
growth of cities is not very far advanced in some of the countries
that have only recently been touched by industrialism, this average understates the extent to which urban concentration has proceeded in those countries where the impact of the industrial revolution has been more forceful and of less recent date. This shift
from a rural to a predominantly urban society, which has taken
place within the span of a single generation in such industrialized
areas as the United States and Japan, has been accompanied by
profound changes in virtually every phase of social life. It is these
changes and their ramifications that invite the attention of the
sociologist to the study of the differences between the rural and
the urban mode of living. The pursuit of this interest is an indispensable prerequisite for the comprehension and possible mastery
of some of the most crucial contemporary problems of social life
since it is likely to furnish one of the most revealing perspectives
for the understanding of the ongoing changes in human nature
and the social order. 3
S. V. Pearson, The Growth and Distribution of Population (New
York, 1935), p. 211.
3
Whereas rural life in the United States has for a long time been
a subject of considerable interest on the part of governmental bureaus,
the most notable case of a comprehensive report being that submitted by
the Country Life Commission to President Theodore Roosevelt in 1909,
no equally comprehensive official inquiry into urban life was undertaken
until the establishment of a Research Committee on Urbanism of the National Resources Committee. (Cf. Our Cities: Their Role in the National
Economy [Washington: Government Printing Office, 1937].)

62

S 0 CI AL

0 R GAN I Z AT I 0 N

Because the city is the product of growth rather than of instantaneous creation, it is to be expected that the influences which
it exerts upon the modes of life should not be able to wipe out
completely the previously dominant modes of human association.
To a greater or lesser degree, therefore, our social life bares the
imprint of an earlier folk society, the characteristic modes of settlement of which were the farm, the manor, and the village. This
historic influence is reinforced by the circumstances that the population of the city itself is in large measure recruited from the
countryside, where a mode of life reminiscent of this earlier form
of existence persists. Hence we should not expect to find abrupt
and discontinuous variation between urban and rural types 'of personality. The city and the country may be regarded as two poles
in reference to one or the other of which all human settlements
tend to arrange themselves. In viewing urban-industrial and ruralfolk society as ideal types of communities, we .may obtain a perspective for the analysis of the bas~c models of human association
as they appear in contemporary civilization.

A Sociological Definition of the City

Despite the preponderant significance of the city in our
civilization, our knowledge of the nature of urbanism and the
process of urbanization is meager, notwithstanding many attempts 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 definitions of the city. While 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 group
life.
The characterization of a community as urban on the basis of
size alone is obviously arbitrary. It is difficult to defend the present census definition which designates a community of 2,500 and

Urbanism as a Way of Life

63

above as urban and all others as rural. The situation would be the
same if the criterion were 4,000, 8,000, 10,000, 25,000, or 100,000 population, for although in the latter case we might feel that
we were more nearly dealing with an urban aggregate than would
be the case in communities of lesser size, no definition of urbanism can hope to be completely satisfying as long as numbers are
regarded as the sole criterion. Moreover, it is not difficult to demonstrate that communities of less than the arbitrarily set number
of inhabitants, lying within the range of influence of metropolitan
centers, have greater claim to recognition as urban communities
than do larger ones leading a more isolated existence in a predominantly rural area. Finally, it should be recognized that census definitions are unduly influenced by the fact that the city,
statistically speaking, is always an administrative concept in that
the corporate limits play a decisive role in delineating the urban
area. Nowhere is this more clearly apparent than in the concentrations on the peripheries of great metropolitan centers of people
who cross arbitrary administrative boundaries of city, county,
state, and nation.
As long as we identify urbanism with the physical entity of
the city, viewing it merely as rigidly delimited in space, and proceed as if urban attributes abruptly ceased to be manifested beyond an arbitrary boundary line, we are not likely to arrive at any
adequate conception of urbanism as a mode of life. The technological developments in transportation and communication which
virtually mark a new epoch in human history have accentuated
the role of cities as dominant elements in our civilization and
have enormously extended the urban mode o,f living beyond the
confines of the city itself. The dominance of the city, especially
of the great city, may be regarded as a consequence of the concentration in cities of industrial, commercial, financial, and administrative facilities and actvities, transportation and communication lines, and cultural and recreational equipment such as the
press, radio stations, theaters, libraries, museums, concert halls,
operas, hospitals, colleges, research and publishing centers, professional organizations, and religious and welfare institutions.
Were it not for the attraction and suggestions that the city exerts

64

S 0 CI AL

0 R GAN I Z AT I 0 N

through these instrumentalities upon the rural population, the

differences between the rural and the urban modes of life would
be even greater than they are. Urbanization no longer denotes
merely the process by which persons are attracted to a place
called the city and incorporated into its system of life. It refers
also to that cumulative accentuation of the characteristics distinctive of the mode of life which is associated with the growth of
cities, and finally to the changes in the direction of modes of life
recognized as urban which are apparent among people, wherever
they may be, who have come under the spell of the influences
which the city exerts by virtue of the power of its institutions .and
personalities operating through the means of communication and
transportation.
The shortcomings which attach to number of inhabitants as a
criterion of urbanism apply for the most part to density of population as well. Whether we accept the density of 10,000 persons
per square mile as Mark Jefferson 4 proposed, or 1,000, which
Willcox 5 preferred to regard as the criterion of urban settlements,
it is clear that unless density is correlated with significant social
characteristics it can furnish only an arbitrary basis for differentiating urban from rural communities. Since our census enumerates the night rather than the day population of an area, the locale
of the most intensive urban life_:_the city center-generally has
low population density, and the industrial and commercial areas of
the city, which contain the most characteristic economic activities
underlying urban society, would scarcely anywhere be truly urban
if density were literally interpreted as a mark of urbanism. The
fact that the urban community is distinguished by a large aggregation and relatively dense concentration of population can
scarcely be left out of account in a definition of the city; nevertheless these criteria must b~ seen as relative to the general
cultural context in which cities arise and exist. They are sociologically relevant only in so far as they operate as conditioning
factors in social life.
4
"The Anthropogeography of Some Great Cities;'' Bulletin of the
American Geographical Society, XLI (1909), 537-66.
5
Walter F. Willcox, "A Definition of 'City' in Terms of Density,"
in E.W. Burgess, The Urban Community (Chicago, 1926), p.119.

Urbanism as a Way of Life

65

The same criticisms apply to such criteria as the occupation

of the inhabitants, the existence of certain physical facilities, institutions, and forms of political organization. The question is not
whether cities in our civilization or in others do exhibit these dis
tinctive traits, but how potent they are in molding the character
of social life into its specifically urban form. Nor in formulating
a fertile definition can we afford to overlook the great variations
between cities. By means of a typology of cities based upon size,
location, age, and function, such as we have undertaken to establish in our recent report to the National Resources Committee, 6
we have found it feasible to array and classify urban communities
ranging from struggling small towns to thriving world centers,
from isolated trading-centers in the midst of agricultural regions
to thriving world ports and commercial and industrial conurbations. Such differences as these appear crucial because the social
characteristics and influences of these different "cities" vary
widely.
A serviceable definition of urbanism should not only denote
the essential characteristics which all cities-at least those in our
culture-have in common, but should lend itself to the discovery
of their variations. An industrial city will differ significantly in
social respects from a commercial, mining, fishing, resort, university, or capital city. A one-industry city will present sets of
social characteristics different from those of a multi-industry city,
as will an industrially balanced from an imbalanced city, a suburb from a satellite, a residential suburb from an industrial suburb, a city within a metropolitan region from one lying outside,
an old city from a new one, a southern city from a New England
one, a middle western from a Pacific Coast city, a growing from
a stable and from a dying city.
A sociological definition must obviously be inclusive enough
to comprise whatever essential characteristics these different types
of cities have in common as social entities, but it obviously cannot
be so detailed as to take account of all the variations implicit in
the manifold classes sketched above. Presumably some of the
characteristics of cities are more significant in conditioning the
6

Op. cit., p. 8.

66

S 0 CI AL

0 R GAN I Z AT I 0 N

nature of urban life than others, and we may expect the outstanding features of the urban-social scene to vary in accordance with
size, density, and differences in the functional type of cities.
Moreover, we may infer that rural life will bear the imprint of
urbanism in the measure that through contact and communication
it comes under the influence of cities. It may contribute to the
clarity of subsequent statements to repeat that while the locus of
urbanism as a mode of life is, of course, to be found characteristically in places which fulfil the requirements we shall set up as
a definition of the city, urbanism is not confined to such localities
but is manifest in varying degrees wherever the influences of the
city reach.
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, though they may significantly affect the specific
character of the community, are not the essential determinants
of its character as a city.
It is particularly important to call attention to the danger of
confusing urbanism with industrlalism 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 producti~n, and capitalistic enterprise; but different
as the cities of earlier epochs may have been by virtue of their
development in a preind~strial and precapitalistic order from the
great cities of today, theywere also cities.
For sociological purposes a city may be defined as a relatively
large, dense, and permanent settlement of socially heterogeneous
individuals. On the basis of the postulates which this minimal
definition suggests, a theory of urbanism may be formulated in
the light of existing knowledge concerning social groups.