1 Cities

In the 1970s, sociologist Claude Fischer further explored the concepts of size, density and heterogeneity and arrived at a very different conclusion than Louis Wirth.^[12] While Wirth based his ideas on how anonymous city dwellers reacted to other strangers in public spaces, Fischer instead focused on the unique norms and values that develop among like-minded individuals in their private networks. Fischer theorized that the large, dense, and heterogeneous character of the city allows for subcultures to develop and flourish. A critical mass of individuals who share a particular interest, ideology, or identity can connect with one another and form a network. That network, in turn, may develop unique behaviors and values that become a distinct subculture.

A subculture is a community within a larger society that develops a set of values, norms or behaviors that is different than or in opposition to the dominant culture. Sociologist Dick Hebdige views subcultures as expressions of the social experiences of their members.^[13] In subcultures, fashion, music, hairstyles, or leisure activities become key symbols of the group’s redefinition of itself. For example, the punk music scene emerged in the United Kingdom during a time of economic recession when the dominant political discourse was concerned about despair and national decline. Punk fashion embraced those narratives of working-class decline by donning torn clothing, wearing everyday objects like safety pins as jewelry, and appropriating profane symbols in a way that jeered at the British economic and political system.

 

Fischer argued that urbanism facilitates the development of subcultures. The presence of subcultures contribute to cities’ reputations for being avant-garde places where alternative ways of living or interacting can develop and thrive. For example, many cities are known for having strong lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer (LGBTQ) communities. Cities with large LGBTQ communities are sometimes located in very conservative regions, not often known for being LBGTQ-friendly.^[14] Louisville, Kentucky, was recently recognized for its pro-LGBTQ policies by the Human Rights Campaign.^[15] While Kentucky is not usually known for its progressive politics, cities in states or regions that are conservative become strong beacons to LGBTQ young adults who may feel isolated living in nearby small towns or rural communities. Having a critical mass of community members, even in areas that may be somewhat hostile, can provide a sense of solidarity, strength, and safety and allow a supportive subculture to develop. These subcultures can in turn, influence the cities and regions that incubate them.

Cities not only provide the population size, heterogeneity, and density that are necessary for subcultures to form, but they can also offer physical spaces that incubate alternative cultures. These physical spaces can take many forms, from the collective punk house that hosts shows in the basement to the community rooms in public housing projects that sponsored early hip hop parties to entire neighborhoods where people who are marginalized can feel safe and supported. The term gayborhood refers to an urban neighborhood that has a concentration of LGBTQ institutions and residents and is associated with LGBTQ subcultures.^[16] Some famous gayborhoods include the Castro district in San Francisco, Greenwich Village in New York, and Soho in London.

Both Wirth and Fischer agreed that the size, density, and heterogeneous nature of cities leads to unique forms of social organization and life. Having a critical mass of people in a dense setting from different backgrounds leads to complex specialized economies, allows diverse and obscure businesses to develop, helps communities and cultures flourish, and nurtures new ways of living and interacting.

Cities—A network of villages?

In the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, Wirth and his contemporaries painted a negative picture of urban life. They believed that industrialization and urbanization created a new type of human being that was individualistic, uncaring, and completely free of all community responsibilities. Observing people in any busy, downtown public area could easily lead one to this conclusion. You would see city dwellers moving quickly through the streets avoiding eye contact, ignoring pleas for spare change or shouts of street hawkers selling wares.

Claude Fischer’s city of vibrant and avant-garde subcultures creates a different picture of urban life. In Fischer’s city, residents are not strangers to one another, but rather are so closely tied that they create new ways of interacting and behaving. However, the close ties Fischer observed were relationships formed by choice, not tradition. So his work provides little insight into the debate over whether traditional community ties are incompatible with urban life.

In the 1950s, sociologist Herbert Gans moved to a low-income, Italian-American neighborhood in Boston.^[17] His intention was to study life in a community that had been declared a slum and was slated for redevelopment under the federal Urban Renewal program. Gans questioned many of the assumptions urban planners made about people living in “blighted” neighborhoods. He wanted to learn firsthand how living in a run-down community affected residents’ lives.

Gans not only discovered that many of the common assumptions about so-called slum neighborhoods were not true, but he also uncovered a tight-knit community structure in Boston’s West End. Residents socialized in small circles of extended family and close friends and emphasized communal values and loyalty to their immediate social group, rather than identifying with larger organizations or social structures. Gans described the neighborhood’s community life as a working-class subculture. The close ties of West End residents challenged earlier urban scholars’ characterizations of city life as isolating and individualistic. The neighborhood relationships Gans described more closely resemble traditional community ties than they do the cold depictions of city life that were painted by early urban sociologists. Despite the insular nature of people’s social ties, the dense urban fabric of the West End neighborhood and the issues tenants faced with deteriorating housing drew people together beyond their immediate peer groups.

In the late 1960s, Carol Stack, a white urban anthropologist, moved into a predominantly African American housing project to conduct a research study. She noticed a similar interdependent network and strong reliance on communal bonds among the residents she worked with.^[18] Like their counterparts in the West End, occupants of “The Flats” formed close relationships with extended family members and longtime friends. These communities repeatedly pooled their resources and spread the limited income and material goods they had around in order to maximize group members’ welfare. Stacks’ description of the resource-sharing strategies within this community mimic the village-like bonds that early scholars claimed city life had destroyed.

As with the West Enders, specific urban characteristics – density, economic inequality, and heterogeneous populations – helped shape the mutually beneficial community networks residents of the Flats established. The size and density of the housing project allowed residents to easily share and swap resources. The heterogeneous character of the community led many to adopt longtime friends and neighbors as honorary family members, and the economic deprivation they faced necessitated a communal approach to stretch the limited resources each household had.

But these communal survival strategies can be jeopardized when neighborhood conditions deteriorate. In a more recent study of communal networks in a public housing project, Danielle Radenbush found that residents engaged in selective solidarity.^[19] High rates of crime and violence led to wariness and distrust among residents, so they were careful about who they interacted and shared resources with. Residents tended to “keep to themselves” and were hesitant to involve people who they observed to be spending time out on the streets in their networks. Survival strategies require reciprocity and trust. If someone is thought to be untrustworthy or unwilling to provide mutual support, they may be not be invited to share resources.

These types of ties are not unique to low-income communities in U.S. cities. A 2015 survey of neighborhoods in Cairo, Egypt, also documented strong, mutually supportive ties among residents, especially in informal or self-built communities.^[20] Communities in the self-built areas closely resembled the village-like interdependence that Gans, Stack, and Radenbush documented. Since informal neighborhoods often lacked basic urban services, community members had to work together to provide security, health care, and connections to electrical power sources. Some of these communities also had a shortage of businesses and community spaces, so holiday and religious celebrations took place in the streets, further providing opportunities for residents to interact and cement their ties.

Tight-knit communities are not incompatible with urban environments. In fact, having a strong sense of community can help city dwellers overcome the isolation and sense of fear that Wirth and earlier researchers associated with living in a crowded place. Residents who feel a strong sense of attachment to their neighbors are less afraid of crime than those who are more socially isolated.^[21] Jane Jacobs, the urban theorist who documented daily life on her New York City block, observed that some of her neighbors acted as “eyes on the street,” noticing who seemed out of place in their busy neighborhood. While it seems counter-intuitive that size, density and heterogeneity would promote a sense of safety, in close-knit communities, residents are aware of the rhythms of daily life in their neighborhood and take note when someone behaves in a way that is out of the ordinary.

Neither stranger nor friend: Neighboring and relationships in urban environments

Cities are not just collections of people who are strangers to one another; there are neighborhoods and subcultures within them where people’s lives are very closely intertwined. But how do these relationships develop? Rick Grannis studied neighboring –  the process of forming relationships with those who live nearby – in his home city of Los Angeles. He outlined the stages in the neighboring process.^[22] The first stage begins with simply living within a certain geographical proximity of a potential neighbor. Grannis considered potential neighbors to be those who live within a network of walkable face-blocks. A face-block includes all of the buildings that line both sides of a city block from one intersection to the next. Since meeting one’s neighbor requires face-to-face contact, Grannis noted that some blocks serve as barriers within a neighborhood. For example, neighbors might know those who live a block or two away, but they may not know the neighbors who live on the other side of a busy street or just across an intersection with lots of traffic. The geography of a potential pool of neighbors would include all of those living on either side of the block that you would come in contact with if you were walking along the residential streets in your immediate neighborhood. Your likelihood of developing a close relationship with someone who lives across a major street or commercial thruway is low, so these residents would not be included within the potential pool of neighbors.

Developing a relationship with a potential neighbor starts with recognition. Through regular contact with one another, you may begin to wave or nod when you pass by. Once this more distant form of neighboring is established, the relationship may progress to conversation or to deliberate interactions, then finally, into a stage of friendship and then a sense of “mutual trust” that resembles the village-like ties early sociologists wrote about.^[23]

 

The network of face-blocks in a neighborhood creates an opportunity to establish relationships with the people in an immediate area. Easily walkable neighborhoods with no steep hills or other impediments encourage pedestrian activity.^[24] Communities that are not solely residential, but have shops and stores mixed in, also promote more walking. People who take leisurely walks through their neighborhood are more likely to have a stronger sense of community.

Public space and community among strangers

It is not just the residential areas of a city that promote social interaction. Public spaces play a role too. Lewis Mumford described the city as a “theater of social action.”^[25] He believed that cities were places where grievances between groups get worked out, where cultures experiment and grow together, and where individuals exposed to this constant drama and action develop their own tastes and personalities from it. In Mumford’s concept of the city, the public spaces, parks, streets, shopping areas, and transit lines are the stage for an ongoing, ever-evolving social drama. The metaphors that Mumford uses to describe the city not only capture the cosmopolitan aspects of urban life, but also imply that cities are places of liberation. The number of diverse groups of people coming together in a tightly packed space creates opportunities to collectively reimagine life, which in turn, reshapes our cities.

Mumford’s drama plays out in the public spaces of the city. The streets, shops, parks, libraries, transit centers, cafés, and playgrounds are the social infrastructure of a city.^[26] Although the primary function of these spaces may not be to produce social interaction, these are the metaphorical stages that “allow life to happen” in cities. They are spaces where strangers can interact and subconsciously cooperate with one another. You may not notice the intricate social dance that occurs as people stroll along a sidewalk, because these unspoken rules for navigating shared space are invisible until those norms are disrupted.

One example of social infrastructure is the central plaza or zocalo that is found in many Latin American cities. The typical zocalo is bordered by a church, the market, and important political or municipal buildings.^[27] These public plazas host a variety of city dwellers who use the space throughout the day for different purposes. It can be a place to play, shop, exercise, people-watch, rest, converse with friends, flirt, eat, relax, or gather. The zocalo is also a site for organized events, like political rallies, concerts, and celebrations. In the mornings, the square may be filled with elderly friends or parents with small children. In the afternoon, workers eating lunch, schoolkids on break, or shoppers pass through. In the evenings, friends, couples and families flock to the town square to simply stroll around. Different vendors and entertainers frequent these squares during different times of day, catering to whoever has gathered. Plazas provide opportunities for people of all social classes, ages and backgrounds to interact.

Having adequate public space is important, but an abundance of space alone does not necessarily lead to deeper engagement within cities. Spaces that are too tightly controlled or unwelcoming will not allow for the types of interactions among strangers that increase trust and tolerance. A sense of trust is developed by interacting with strangers in the unregulated, messy public spaces of the city.^[28] These are spaces that are often crowded, contain a multitude of activities and may seem chaotic to outsiders. Cooperatively negotiating these spaces with hundreds of other strangers is a quintessentially urban experience. Sociologist Lyn Lofland argues that urban life entails being comfortable as a “stranger in the midst of strangers.”

Geographer Ash Amin has developed this concept further.^[29] He describes the situated surplus that emerges when people effectively and cooperatively navigate densely packed, busy, and seemingly chaotic public spaces. Regularly encountering this type of unregulated public space produces a tolerance for difference and sense of connection as people learn to “trust the situation” in these spaces. That connection and tolerance is built not by conforming to particular rules, but by constantly adapting to situations that break the organic patterns that develop in multi-use crowded spaces. For example, people in a hurry in a subway station might climb past those who are standing still on an escalator. The stair-standers may move to the right to allow someone to pass on the left-hand side, but if a parent and small child are sharing a stair, the passer might have to stop and wait for them to rearrange themselves, or the parent might pick up the child in anticipation of the passer. This constant breaking of unwritten patterns and the instantaneous adjustments that are made produce a sense of freedom and confidence. This comfort around strangers then carries over into other interactions and spaces within the city.

Not all spaces encourage this type of interaction.^[30] Spaces where people are static and engaged in similar activities may not allow for the constant patterning and unpatterning that occurs when people move through a space and use it for different purposes. The design of a space can also affect how it is used. People use public spaces for three main types of activities: necessary, optional, and social. Necessary activities include traveling to work or school, grocery shopping, or other errands. Optional activities are those which are dependent upon weather and the design of a space. Some examples of optional activities are going on a walk, running, or sunbathing. If there aren’t good paths or sidewalks, or if there’s a lot of traffic, it could discourage some optional uses. Social activities like meeting a friend are dependent upon both the design of a space and the amount of other activity going on there. If there are not a lot of necessary and optional activities taking place, a space may not feel welcoming to those who are going there to socialize.

 

In Mumford’s city as a theater of social action, the public spaces are where conflicts are worked out and new ways of relating to one another are developed. While Amin’s situated surplus increases tolerance and cooperation, it does not produce new forms of being and relating. However, urban public space can be an incubator of fundamental change. When urban residents appropriate a public space in the city and change its intended use to meet their needs, an emancipatory space can emerge.^[31] One example of this is the encampments that were set up during the Umbrella Movement in Hong Kong. Protesters not only set-up tents where they could sleep, they also created makeshift bathing areas, medical stations, a “Lennon Wall” where anyone could add a post-it note with their thoughts, ideas or favorite song lyrics or poetry stanzas, and revolutionary art honoring the movement and movements that preceded it both locally and from around the world. The campers organized themselves into villages where they connected and collaborated with friends and strangers. This emancipatory space was not just a protest site, but it also was a living demonstration of how people in Hong Kong could organize themselves to meet their own needs. The Tempelhof airport in Berlin is another example of an emancipatory space. When the city closed the airport, residents began to use the large open space and abandoned runways for biking, kite boarding, and gardening. When the city attempted to redevelop the old airport, Berliners successfully resisted the planned luxury housing development. In this case, the vision that ordinary citizens had for this space became its permanent use.

Summary

Cities are defined by their size, density, and heterogeneity. While these characteristics lead to increased specialization and individuality, they can also inspire feelings of isolation and self-interested behaviors. However, these same conditions create opportunities for like-minded people to bond together in subcultures and to invent new ways of interacting and living.

In the smaller components that make up urban areas – neighborhoods or housing complexes – social life may more closely resemble the tightly woven bonds that exist in small towns and villages. These bonds are often found in networks of close family and friends, but the geography of neighborhoods creates opportunities for people to relate on a variety of levels from acknowledging a shared familiarity to becoming an intimate friend.

On a larger scale, the public spaces of the city create opportunities for social groups and individuals to come into contact with one another. These points of contact may produce conflict or cooperation. They can fundamentally reshape the communities involved and the city as a whole. At the very least, the social dramas of the city expose its inhabitants to new ways of thinking and behaving.

In all of these definitions of the city, one thing remains constant. The physical and demographic makeup of urban places fundamentally alters the social ties of city dwellers. Urban places produce new forms of social organization and relations.