Human Ecology from Urban Patterns: Studies in Human Ecology

Park examines the ''web of life,'' an interdependence of species sharing the same environment that seems to be the product of a Darwinian struggle for existence. By ''struggle for existence'' is meant that the numbers of living organisms are regulated, their distribution controlled, and the balance of nature maintained such that the survivors in the struggle find their niches in the physical environment and in the existing division of labor between the species.

There are four essential characteristics of a community:
1) a population, territorially organized, 2) more or less completely rooted in the soil it occupies, 3) its individual units living in a relationship of mutual interdependence that is symbiotic rather than societal. Every community has something of the character of an organic unit, in that it possess a definite structure and a life history. Moreover, the community possess a mechanism (competition) for 1) regulating the numbers and 2) preserving the balance between the competing species of which it is composed {in a configuration analogous to that between an organism and its organs}.

The ''balance of nature'' is not a static condition, but rather a continual process of change in which disturbances may (at least temporarily) disrupt a more general equilibrium. The conditions that affect and control the movements and numbers of populations are more complex in human societies than among plants and other animals, yet they display considerable similarity. Competition operates in these communities to bring about and restore the communal equilibrium when disturbed by either the advent of some intrusive factor from without or in the normal course of its life-history. A society in the ecological point of view is an area (territorial unit) within which biotic competition has declined and the struggle for existence has assumed higher and more sublimated forms.

Dominance and Succession, which operate to establish and maintain communal order, are functions of and dependent on competition. The principle of dominance, operating within the limits imposed by the terrain and other natural features of the location, tends to determine the general ecological pattern of the community (city) and the functional relation of each of the different areas to each other - i.e. it is a stabilizing factor. Succession designates the orderly sequence of changes through which a biotic (or cultural) community passes in the course of its development from a primary and relatively unstable to a relatively permanent or climax stage - there in an analogy here to the development of an individual organism. Competition tends to assume on the social level the form of conflict.

Population pressures may intensify competition and in doing so function indirectly to bring about a new, more minute, and yet more territorially extensive division of labor - where species tend to discover their particular niche in the physical and living environment. The biotic community may conceived of at the same time as a kind of superorganism and an economic organization for the exploitation of the natural resources of its habitat.

Human ecology resembles plant/animal ecology, yet differs in several significant ways: 1) humans are not as immediately dependent on the physical environment - largely the product of a world-wide division of labor and systems of exchange; 2) humans by means of inventions and technical devices have a great capacity to alter the physical environment; and 3) humans have erected upon the basis of the biotic community an institutional structure rooted in custom and tradition. The human society is organized on two levels: the biotic and cultural. There is a symbiotic society based on competition and a cultural society based on communication and consensus. The social order may be conceived as a hierarchy of levels (ecological, economic, political, and moral) where with each succeeding level the individual finds him/herself more completely incorporated into and subordinated to the social order. In Human Ecology, it is the interaction of four factors - (1) population, (2) artifacts (technological culture), (3) custom and beliefs (non-material culture), and (4) natural resources - that maintains at once biotic balance and social equilibrium.

''The Scope of Human Ecology'', from Theodorson, ed.

A smorgasbord of human ecology terminology. Mc Kenzie is concerned with ecology as process.

Ecological Distribution: The spatial distribution of human beings and activities resulting from the interplay and competition of forces which effect more or less conscious, or any rate, dynamic and vital, relations among the units of aggregation.

Ecological Unit: Any ecological distribution- whether of residences, shops, industry, etc., which has a unitary character sufficient to differentiate it from surrounding distributions may be defined as an ecological unit.

Ecological Constellation: an interdependent grouping of ecological units around a common center

Mobility: Change is constant. Mobility is a measure of the rate of cultural and technical change in urban areas; it is represented in the change of residence, change of employment, or change of any utility or service. Mobility is distinguished from fluidity.

Fluidity: represents movement without change of ecological position. Fluidity is increased by transportation and communication, and it tends to vary inversely with mobility. Slums are the most mobile and least fluid sections of the city.

Ecological distance: is a measure of fluidity. It is a time-cost concept rather than a unit of space or distance. It is measured by minutes and cents rather than by yards and miles. Communal growth and structure are largely functions of ecological distance as a time-cost concept. The uneven expansion of cities along routes of cheap and rapid transportation is an obvious result of the time- cost measure of distance.

Ecological Factors: the changing spatial relationships of human beings are the results of the interaction of a number of different forces, some of which have general significance throughout the entire cultural area in which they operate. Others have limited reference, applying merely to a specific region or location. Ecological factors may be classified under 4 general headings: 1. geographical, 2. economic, 3. cultural and technical, 4. political and services. Ecological factors are either positive or negative, that is they either attract or repel people, organizations, etc.

Ecological Processes: the tendency towards special forms of spatial and sustenance groupings of the units comprising and ecological distribution. There are 5 major ecological processes: ( 1) concentration, (2) centralization, (3) segregation , (4) invasion, (5) succession.

Regional Concentration: is the tendency of an increasing number of people to settle in a given area or region. It is measured by population density.

Regional Specialization: is the inevitable outcome of resource differences. Areas with different resources specialize in ways which give them a competitive advantage over other regions. Specialization is significant in two ways: (1) Specialization produces interdependence with and between specialized areas; and (2) People distribute themselves according to each area's intellectual , cultural, and physical requirements.

Dispersion: The obverse of concentration. Concentration in one region implies dispersion in another.

Centralization: as an ecological process should be distinguished from concentration, which is mere regional aggregation. Centralization implies an area of participation with a center and a circumference. Centralization occurs in two ways, both are cumulative processes: (1) by an addition to the number and variety of interests at a common location, and (2) by an increase in the number of people finding satisfaction at the same location.

Types of Center: Communal points of centralization may be classified according to (1) size and importance, as indicated by land values and concentration; (2) the dominant interest producing the centralization; (3) the distance or area of the zone of participation.

Location and Movement of Centers: Centralization is a function of transportation and communication. Most centers are responsive to the trends of distribution and segregation of the local population, and will locate and move accordingly.

Decentralization: This is but a phase of the centralization process. Decentralization occurs when zone areas of concentration decrease in size b/c of dispersion. It implies the creation of multiple, less important, centers of interests.

Recentralization:Another phase of centralization, recentralization is when a center forms of grows larger due to an increasing number of people or enterprises.

Segregation: is used here with reference to the concentration of population types (i.e. ethnic groups, economic groups) within a community. It results from a combination of selective forces.

Invasion: is a process of group displacement. It implies the encroachment of one area of segregation upon another, usually an adjoining area.

Succession: In human communities, change seems to occur cyclically. Invasion and succession go hand in hand. Succession is characterized by a complete change in population types between the first and last stages of the process, or it is a complete change in use.

Structure: refers to the pre-existing patterns of residence and behavior which heavily influence future patterns of residence and behavior.

The Growth of the City, 1925

Previous statistical studies demonstrate the distinctive characteristics of urban populations, as compared to rural ones. These variations are indicative of changes in the social organization of the community. These changes can tell us something about the processes of growth in the city.

Previous studies described the process of aggregation of urban populations. The process of expansion, as well, has been studied from a practical point of view. This paper discusses: 1.) expansion, 2.) the processes of urban metabolism and mobility

Expansion: Physical Growth
Ordinarily expansion is thought of in terms of physical growth. Practical plans must be made to accommodate such expansion.

Expansion often takes the form of aggregation. Nearby towns simultaneously expand toward each other until they have practically coalesced in one continuos urban area. Such an urban areas has many nuclei of denser town growth. Few of these great aggregates have developed a social consciousness as a definite group of people with common interests.

Expansion: Process
Expansion as a process has not been studied. The typical process of expansion can be characterized by a series of concentric circles. These circles can be numbered to designate both the successive zones of urban extension and the types of areas differentiate:
central business district
zone in transition, transitory zone; invaded by business and light manufacture
workers in industries who have escaped from zone 2 but who wan to live near work
residential area of high-class apartment buildings and single-family dwellings
commuters' zone, suburban areas, within 30-60 minute ride to zone 1 (note that this distance is measured in time-cost: ecological distance)

Each inner zone tends to extend its area by the invasion of the next outer zone: it grows and encroaches o the next zone. This aspect of expansion is land-use succession. Originally, for example, the first four zones were where only zone I remains now. No city fits this ideal-type exactly, because of natural, historical, and cultural factors.

Expansion involves concentration and decentralization. There is a natural tendency for transportation to converge. Naturally, economic, cultural, and political life centers at this point.

''Satellite loops,'' or sub-business centers in outlying zones, do no represent neighborhood revitalization, but new centers serving several local communities. The agglomeration of towns which is the modern city is reorganizing into a ''centralized-decentralized system of local communities coalescing into sub-business areas dominated by the CBD.''

Economic cooperation occurs without a ''spirit of cooperation.''

Are these changes matched by readjustments in social organization?

Metabolism: Social organization and disorganization

Social organization and disorganization are analogous to anabolic and catabolic metabolism. Using ''natural rates'' as a basis for comparison, the human ecologist can identify abnormalities in social metabolism by finding more males than females, for example.

Disorganization leads to reorganization and is a process of adjustment. It is normal, not pathological. Disorganized areas of transition(slums in zone 2) are normal part of the city. They are the first step on the way to reorganization. The newcomer to the city finds himself shedding his old habits and acquiring new ones. (Does Burgess speak of himself?)

The expansion of the city distributes individuals and groups by residence and occupation. The resulting differentiation is the concentric circle model outlined above.

This differentiation in to natural economic and cultural groupings gives form and character to the city. Segregation offers the group, and the individuals in it, a place I the whole city. Each area accentuates certain traits, attracts and develops certain kinds of individuals, and so becomes further differentiated from others.

Occupational selection takes place by nationality, explainable by racial temperament. The city as a modern industrial mechanism segregates and isolates divergent economic groups.

Interrelated with this economic division is a corresponding division into social classes and into cultural and recreational groups. A person finds his congenial social world among a multiplicity of groups. In a way that is not possible in the gemeinschaft community, he may move and live in widely separated, sometimes conflicting worlds. (See Fischer's ''subcultural theory urbanism''.) Personal disorganization may be the failure to harmonize different group involvements.

The excess of actual over natural increases in population is an index of urban expansion and leads to social disorganization. Immigrant ''waves'' sweep over the city, speeding up all of the processes: expansion, industry, junking of the transitory zone.

Mobility: Pulse of the Community

Movement may be a fixed and unchanging order of motion. It is routine motion in response to a constant situation.

Mobility is second-order movement. It implies a change of movement. This is significant for growth.

Mobility involves stimulation, which is essential to growth. Response to stimulation is wholesome if it is an integral reaction of the entire personality. When reaction is segmental, it tends to become pathological.

Mobility can be confusing and demoralizing. Consistency is an important part of personal morality. When mobility is great, primary control breaks down completely. In these areas, there develop demoralization (See Freudenberg). Areas of mobility are areas of delinquency, empirically.

Elements of mobility can be:
Mutability of a person:
The mutability of a pop varies with its age and sex pop, the degree of detachment of the person from family and other groups.

Number and kind of contacts or stimulations in a person's environment:
An increase in movement at a higher ration than the increase of pop measures mobility (the number of train rides per capita). Mobility may also be measured by an increase in contacts (the number of letters or phone calls per capita). Land values reflect movement and are the best measure of mobility.

Describe urban expansion as extension, succession, and concentration.
Determine how expansion disturbs metabolism when disorganization exceeds organization.
Define mobility as a measure of expansion and metabolism - as the ''pulse of the community,'' indicative of change going on within it, as a body.

The Patterns of Movement of Residential Rental Neighborhoods

Hoyt presents a model of residential expansion and change according to directional continuations and trends, rather than simple radial distance in concentric zones about an urban center. High rent neighborhoods do not skip about the city in a random movement, they follow a definable pattern, usually in one or more sectors of the city. In considering the growth of a city, the movement of the high rent district is in a certain sense the most important because it tends to pull the growth of the entire city in the same direction.

The entire city can be thought of as a circle and various neighborhoods as sectors radiating out from the center of that structure. These factors or principles direct residential expansion:
1) High grade residential areas tend to originate near retail and office centers.
2) High grade residential growth tends to proceed from the given point of origin, along established lines of travel or toward existing retail office centers.
4) High rent areas tend to grow towards areas which have open space beyond the city and away from sections enclosed by natural or artificial boundaries.
5) Higher priced residential areas tend to grow towards the homes of leaders in the community.
6) The movement of office buildings, banks and stores tends to pull higher priced residential neighborhoods in the same general direction.
7) High rent neighborhoods continue to grow in the same direction for a long time.
8) Deluxe high rent apartment areas tend to gradually appear in older residential areas near the business center (gentrification, downtown condos and high rent lofts).
9) Real estate developers may bend the direction of high grade residential growth, but they cannot develop an area before its time or in another direction very easily.

How are the various types of high rent areas affected by the process of dynamic growth of the city, and how are the various types related to each other in historical sequence?

The first type of high rent development was the axial type with high grade homes in a long avenue or avenues leading directly to the business center (long radial line from the business center; usually an abrupt transition within a short distance on either side of the high grade street). The axial type of area rapidly became obsolete with the growth of the automobile, since the avenues became high-traffic. The well-to-do who occupy most of the houses in high-rent brackets are now in segregated garden communities, not in the form of a long axial line but in a rectangular area. However, these areas are usually located along the line of the old axial high grade areas.

High grade areas tend to preempt the most desirable residential land by supporting the highest values. Intermediate residential groups tend to occupy the sectors in each city that are adjacent to the high rent areas. The new growth of the middle class takes place on the periphery of the city near the high grade areas or sometimes at points beyond the edge of older middle class areas. Occupants of houses in the low rent categories tend to move out in bands from the center of the city mainly by filtering up into houses left behind by the high income groups, or by erecting shacks on the periphery of the city (the ''shack fringe of the city'' -- I love that phrase; that's where I'm likely to have to live after this prelim). Within the low rent area itself there is a movement of racial and national groups.

There is a constant dynamic shifting of rental areas; there is a constant outward movement of neighborhoods because as neighborhoods become older they tend to be less desirable. Intermediate areas tend to preserve their stability of values (property values) better than either the highest or lowest rental areas, since the highest areas become obsolete and are not subject to class filtration (eg, a poor person can't afford to buy a Kenwood Mansion) and the lowest areas are either torn down, or are occupied by the poorest unskilled or casual workers, and so are subject to collection losses and have high vacancy ratios. Intermediate neighborhoods are more likely to experience class filtration, and to continue to be used as housing (rather than converted to industry or offices, or ripped down).

''The Natural Areas of the City''

The city is not an artifact of human creation, but a natural phenomenon with a natural history.

As cities grow, they segregate into broad zones. In addition, the structure of the city is built about this framework of transportation, business organizations and industry, park and boulevard systems, and topographical features. All of these break the city up into numerous smaller areas that Zorbaugh calls ''natural areas'' because they are the unplanned, natural product of the city's growth. It is a geographical area characterized both by a physical individuality and by the cultural characteristics of the people who live in it.

Natural areas are but one of the ecological processes occurring in cities. In addition, there is competition for position in the community, segregation along cultural (ethnic) lines, and succession (predictable change of natural areas).

Administrative units rarely coincide with natural areas. Thus, city planning and zoning, which attempt to control the growth of the city, can only be economical and successful where they recognize the natural organization of the city, the natural groupings of the city's population, and the natural processes of the city's growth. In addition, researchers should note that the statistics of natural areas are more often more appropriate to study than those of administrative units (as Shaw proved in his study of delinquency).

Ecology and Human Ecology - from Urban Patterns in Human Ecology

Hawley believes that human ecology is (at least when this was written in 1944) a field in serious need of some critical examination. He cites a great deal of confusion and contradiction in the literature as to what the subject matter of human ecology should be as well as the question of its status as a discipline and its relation to other sciences. Although in its early phase human ecology succeeded in attracting and holding a great deal of attention through its early definitive statements, these seem to have been accepted as dogma rather than (as intended) suggestions of the possibilities of an ecological approach to human social life. As a result, the theoretical development of the discipline has received scarcely any attention. Hawley would like to identify the deficiencies of various elements in human ecological thought.

AH cites several ''aberrant intellectual tendencies'' dominant in the discipline as largely responsible for the chaos in human ecology: (1) failure to maintain a close working relationship between human ecology and general or bioecology; (2) an undue preoccupation with competition; and (3) a misplaced emphasis on spatial relations.

AH notes that there is a debate within the field as to what the relation of human ecology is/should be to general (biological) ecology. He concludes that debate over this issue is basically irrelevant, since ecology is an essentially social science under which human and general/biological ecological fields would fall.

Along those lines, formulation of the notion of competition as a strictly biological phenomena is in error. The competitive hypothesis is a gross oversimplification of what is involved in the development of pattern, structure, or other manifestations of organization. In fact, Darwin intended ''competition'' to be used as a broad metaphorical concept. AH, therefore, believes that such processes as combination and cooperation, as well as competition and conflict should be embraced in the concept.

The mania for concerns of spatial relations (spatial aspects of human interdependencies), on the other hand, leads to a subordination of interest in symbiotic relations to a concern for the spatial patterns in which they are expressed. Human ecology, in this sense, degenerates into a statistics-dominated study in psychological behaviorism where the technique (mapping) is mistaken for the discipline itself.

Ecology is concerned with the elemental problem of how growing, multiplying beings maintain themselves in a constantly changing but ever restricted environment. However, the manifest interrelatedness of living forms suggests that adjustment is a mutual or collective phenomenon. The (biotic) community as a functionally or symbiotically integrated population is, in effect, a collective response to the habitat that constitutes the adjustment of organism to environment. Ecology is, therefore, the study of community - of collective life in both its static and dynamic aspects. These considerations further emphasize the fact that ecology is a social science. Extending the pattern of thought and techniques of investigation used in the study of collective life of lower organisms to that of humans is a logical consummation of the ecological point of view - although is should be emphasized that humans constitute a considerably more complex case. Culture, for instance, can be considered as a way of referring to the prevailing techniques by which a population maintains itself in its habitat.

So, human ecology is the descriptive study of the adjustment of human populations to the conditions of their respective physical environments, or more generally as the study of the development and form of communal structure as it occurs in varying environmental contexts. Although all social sciences to some extent share a conception of the adjustment of humanity to habitat as a process of community development, human ecology (although not an autonomous science) is distinctive in that this former assumption constitutes its principal working hypothesis.

LEO SCHNORE,br> ''Social Morphology and Human Ecology.''

In this article, Schnore shows how DH's theory of social morphology was indispensable to the creation of ecological theory. For DH, ''social morphology'' was the study of the environmental basis of social organization and the study of population phenomena (size, density, spatial distribution). These areas obviously converge with those of human ecology as it was originally formulated.

In Book II of DH's The DOL in society, with regard to the popular utilitarian version of the evolution of societies, DH vigorously attacks the idea that differentiation was somehow the product of man's individual desires. Society is an entity sui generis, and individual consciousnesses do not produce social facts. DH also argues against Spencer's idea that as the size of a population increases, so does its differentiation. DH states that even large societies can be homogenous if their members have limited contact. He uses the concepts of physical versus dynamic density. as dynamic density (the level of people's interactions) increases, so does the DOL. Darwinian competition creates differentiation and the DOL resolved competition so that everyone can have a place in society and Malthusian ''checks'' on population do not have to occur.

Implications for human ecology

Contemporary (1958) ecologists attempt to identify the factors determining variations in structure. For instance, Hawley's human ecology is the study of the family and the development of the community. This is taken from DH's morphology of collective life, both stable and dynamic. Once the environment is brought into the picture, modern ecology can be regarded as working with essentially the same array of independent variables: population, technology and the environment. (similar to Duncan and Hawley's ''ecological complex''). Thus, the general relevance of DH's thought to modern ecology is clear.
DH and current ecologists look at broad factors, with structure as the dependent variable. Their mode of analysis is differentiation.
Park (''Urban Community as a Spatial Pattern and a moral Order'' ) and DH saw structure as ultimately emerging out of competition in a context of scarcity.
DH thought that technology and communication would lessen the isolation of societies and break down ''social segmentation.'' Similarly Mc Kenzie saw the key features of metropolitan development as the emergence of an intricate territorial DOL between communities that were formerly almost self-sufficient. Communities brought together by transportation and communication became competitors. They reached resolution through territorial differentiation.
Although the ecologist must concern himself with man - environment relationships, he necessarily concerns himself with man to man relationships in the environmental setting --]DH's morphological considerations.

Final notes
Instead of taking social stricture as the phenomenon to be explained, most American sociologists (except for the ecologists) habitually deal with social structure as an independent variable with regard to individual behavior. Also, structural analysis lies in the development of collectivities.

''From Social System to Ecosystem.'

Levels and systems:
levels: organization of data by levels is deeply ingrained in our training as social scientists. We tend to work within a level.
systems: also commonly used by social scientists. Interdependent variation, cause and affect, sequence.
If a scientist works within a level, she may only use systems that have elements confined to that level. This could be an anti-heuristic, blinding us to systems that cut across levels. Ecological systems encompass both human and physical elements.

The ecosystem
ecosystem: the interacting environmental and biotic system exchange between the living and non-living. human communities and their habitats. ''Ecosystem: is not just a metaphor for human organization. It is human organization.

The ecological complex:

can be used to identify clusters of relationships in ecosystem processes.
For example, the smog situation in LA:
E---P: haze --- respiratory tract
E---O:organizations of people form to fight smog
O---T: abatement devices
P---E:People spread out, make smog worse

Social change and environmental modification occur in close interdependence, as in the smog example. The two levels of change are systematically related. change on either level (nature/society) can be comprehended only by application of a conceptual scheme at least as encompassing as that of the ecosystem. We need such an encompassing, general framework. For instance, welfare, standard of living and public health all relate to the ecosystem. If one holds with Durkheim that the basic categories of science, as well as the interpretive schemes of every day life, arise form the nature and exigencies of human collective existence, we will have to conjure up some version of the ecosystem concept.

Sentiments and Symbolism as Ecological Variables

Watler Firey complements Homer Hoyt's discussion of high income residential development. Firey begins by saying that some Human Ecologists tend to focus on cost of transportation and development, while other Human Ecologists overemphasize the role of economizing fiscal agents (eg., Realtors). By analyzing the development of Boston's posh Beacon Hill neighborhood, Boston Commons and Boston's historic colonial cemeteries, as well as the North End lower class Italian neighborhood (the one studied by Whyte in Street Corner Society), Firey shows that sentiments and symbolism can be as effective as economic considerations in determining where specific kinds of people work and live.

Eg, residents of Beacon Hill have a sentimental attachment to their neighborhood, over and above its economic ''fashionability.'' Eg, older residents of the North End, though they may be able to afford to leave the neighborhood, may remain because they retain Italian values: ''Residence in the North End seems therefore to be a spatial corollary to integration with Italian values. Likewise emigration from the district signifies assimilation into American values, and is so construed by the people themselves. Thus, while the area is not the conscious object of sentimental attachment, as are Beacon Hill and the Common, it has nonetheless become a symbol of Italian ethnic solidarity.''

''Theoretical Structure of Sociology and Sociological Research'' (1953)

Frazier adheres to an organic conception of social life. That is, individual acts become meaningful or socially significant as the result of the organization of the behavior of individuals. He rejects the atomistic conception which regards society as an aggregate of individuals whose behavior is to be explained in terms of the similarity of individual responses and attitudes. He claims that studies which are confined to the investigation of social interaction or the measurement and analysis of attitudes are insufficient because they ignore economic and political factors. He uses the system of race relations in the South to show why it is important to look at these factors.

Studies which argue that racial prejudice was the result of attitudes having their roots in slavery or of mores which grew up spontaneously as the result of the association of the two races ignore historical factors. The inauguration of the system of the legal separation of the races and the disfranchisement of blacks did not occur until 25 years after the Civil War. In addition, for 15 years after white supremacy was established in the South, no attempt was made to establish a legal system of racial separation and disfranchisement. According to Frazier, the sociological explanation of the system of racial separation and the disfranchisement of blacks is to be found in the unresolved class conflict and the resulting political struggles among the whites in the South. when planters were defeated and slaves emancipated, poor whites sought to gain land, and thus power. they developed the Populist Movement in the 1890's with the support of blacks, but were later defeated because of the superior economic power of the planter and capitalist. Then, the Southern demagogues seized the opportunity to gain political power. For this they sought the support of both wealthy and poor whites. they gained support because they offered no threat to the economic interest and political power of the planters and industrial capitalists, and they convinced the poor whites that their condition was due to the presence of blacks. The demagogues carried out a propaganda campaign aimed to prove that blacks were subhuman, morally degenerate and incapable of intellectual development. They deliberately inculcated racial prejudices.

This example illustrates the necessity of studying social attitudes within the context of a system of social relations. Individual behavior is determined by the various collectivities or systems of social relations of which the individual is a member.

The general characteristics of the systems of social relationships which emerge during the course of race and culture contacts can be summarized in the following evolutionary framework:

Stage 1: The phase of race and culture contacts is characterized by contacts which are not truly social in the sense that people of different racial and cultural backgrounds who are brought together are not members of a single moral order. Initial contact involves barter and trade which have often assumed the form of ''silent trade.'' Conflicts which arise during this stage are carried out on a biological plane. The ecological organization of race relations takes form and is influenced by such factors as climate, geographic , and demographic factors, and more especially by the type of economic exploitation.

Stage 2: The transition from barter to slavery involves an organized system of economic exploitation. Economic relations assume an organized or institutional character. Slavery is an ''industrial institution.'' Political control emerges to maintain order when new systems of economic exploitation are introduced. Political control is usually in the form of indirect rule. Also, traditions, custom, and habits become important elements of social control. Cultural changes occur as well. Amalgamation is the result of the mating of members of different racial stocks. Acculturation is a process by which a person takes over the culture of another group. Assimilation involves complete identification with a group. Blacks have been amalgamated with whites. They are acculturated to European culture, but they are not assimilated. Blacks think of themselves as blacks first and then as American.

Stage 3: Social organization. Where race and culture contacts have developed beyond the stage of slavery, the classical form of social organization has been a system of castes or the hierarchical division of society along racial lines. This is characterized by a racial division of labor and a system of power relations in which the dominant position is supported by traditions and sentiments rather than a show of force. Another form of social organization is the biracial organization of society where each group has its own institution and association which enables it to carry on a separate social life.

Racial prejudice is learned and communicated to people through the means of communication which create other social attitudes and conceptions. The origin of racial prejudice is to be discovered in the system of economic and social relations which are established between different racial groups. Racial prejudice may be regarded as a conservative force utilized to preserve the traditional order.

The central sociological problem of this final stage is the manner in which the racial division of labor is broken down and racial competition in the economic sphere gives way to competition on an individual basis and political power is identified with class rather than race.

The family is the last barrier to be broken down before complete assimilation. The family plays a unique role in transmitting the social heritage and in giving the child a conception of him/herself as a member of a group. The marginal man (Park) is a cultural hybrid since he is the product of two cultural worlds and is not at home in either. That is, the marginal man is acculturated by not assimilated.

Frazier distinguished between two types of family. The natural family is based on maternal affection and the sympathetic ties which bind together members of the same household. It is limited as an instrument of assimilation because of the absence of a male to serve as a model for children. Mothers have been the repositories of the folk culture of blacks and have been unable to contribute much to the acculturation of the child to American society. It is the public school, experiences as workers, and the chance contacts of city life which bring about their acculturation in American life. The institutional family is based upon marriage and is stable and continuous because of material possessions and social heritage. This type of family constitutes a barrier to the assimilation of divergent racial elements. In order to continue its function of conserving the traditions and values of a society, it must maintain a certain exclusiveness. Nonetheless, contacts with whites throughout history (e.g., household servants, missionary families) and increasing urbanization have allowed blacks to acquire a new outlook on life and new values and patterns of behavior. However, industrialization has also destroyed the traditional family and there are few opportunities to create new family groups of an institutional character, and this creates certain social problems. (This whole discussion of family is really fuzzy.)

Urban Decline and the Future of American Cities


Urban decline can be seen in two terms: descriptive and functional decline. Descriptive is defined as any loss of pop or jobs in an urban area. Functional is any change that reduces a city's ability to perform its social function defined by an activity that provides important benefits to some local residents and to society as a whole such as production of goods and services, innovation, desirable residential environment, social support system for residents. Not all descriptive declines are also functional declines. For example, in areas that are extremely crowded, some decrease in pop may improve economic strength and quality of life. The focus of this book, however, is on descriptive decline. The reason is such a decline is easier to measure.

To analyze urban decline, one needs to specify a unit upon which measurements can be conducted. In this book, the very geographic unit indicating an urban setting is the standard metropolitan statistical area (SMSA) which is defined as the area around a large city that is economically integrated with it. In this book, SMSA and metropolitan area are used interchangeably.


The two chapters assigned present causes of urban decline, different theories accounting for such a decline, and empirical testing of these theories. In regard to causes of urban decline, Bradbury distinguishes two sets of causes: large-scale historical forces that affect all cities, and particular or local forces that cause urban decline in individual areas.

Generally large-scale, historical factors that have an impact on the growth or decline of cities are fertility rates, immigration from abroad, migration from farms, wars, national economic conditions, transportation, and technological change. In reference to the slowing down in the overall rate of metropolitan area pop growth in the US are:
a sharp fall in fertility rate after the mid-60's and enormous drop-off in migration from farms to cities in he 780's
tremendous increases in these of automobiles and trucks, and the building of millions of new suburban
housing units that attracted household out of older in-city neighborhoods
increased air travel that made remote regions more easily accessible

Although average levels of urbanization and suburbanization in general, or urban decline in particular, can be traced to large-scale, historical forces, the experience of individual cities varies widely. This is because different cities have local attributes that can affect their growth or decline. Different theories come into play at this point. Although these theories admit the significant impact of large scale forces, they focuses principally on the interaction f these forces with local characteristics of individual cities. Different emphasis on various local attributes make these theories differ from one another. In chapter 4, Bradbury presents six theories, each of which highlights a distinctive set of causes concerning urban decline. These theories are listed below.

Additional Notes:

Six groups of theories explaining differences in Urban Growth:

1) Disamenity avoidance: people/firms move away from central cities to suburbs, or from certain metropolitan areas to others, to avoid negative characteristics such as crime and high energy costs.
2) Tax avoidance: households/firms move the suburbs because various characteristics of large cities make local tax burdens (especially on more affluent households) heavier there than in many surrounding suburbs.
3) Positive attraction: people/firms move from central cities to the suburbs or from some metropolitan areas to other, in order to obtain desired amenities.
4) Economic evolution: large urban areas, and specific activities within them, undergo definite stages of development. This evolution alters the optimal combination and location of activities in ways unfavorable to maintaining those activities within large cities.
5) Biased policy: certain government policies influencing the location of public and private investments, households, and economic activities are biased in favor of suburbs and against central cities, or in favor of some cities in favor of others.
A listing of the 37 associated component theories in these groups as well as the strategy for empirical testing can be found on the sheets attached (Tables 4-4 and 4-5, respectively). The authors perform their statistical analyses on data from U.S. 121 cities and their metropolitan areas from 1970 to 75, comparing it with equivalent data from the 1960-70 time period.

These chapters go into great detail about the resultant findings with regard to the numerous variables tested. In the interest of parsimony, though I have included Table 5-3 (attached) which summarized the outcomes of the testing as pertains to the component theories detailed above.

Some additional comments seem appropriate and are listed below:
-The slowdown in average city population growth is almost entirely due to less metropolitan growth and fewer annexations, not to an increase in suburbanization
-Just as people follow jobs, employment responds to growth in population (ie. jobs follow people). Jobs, however, followed population more fully or instantaneously than vice versa.
-The ability of the local economy to support the population was the most important determinant of income growth, but was modified somewhat by local cost of living, industry mix, and population composition.
-Average city's population growth and real income growth generally lagged behind SMSA growth in these categories.
-Intrametropolitan (city v. suburbs) disparities in housing stock and racial composition, local governmental fragmentation, ethnic migration patterns, and job locations were critical to household choices between city and suburban residence. Similar findings apply to business firm choice of location within a metropolitan area. In addition local unemployment sets up a reaction where jobs move away from areas with high unemployment.
-Different regions of the country did not differ greatly in rates of suburbanization and varied hardly at all in city-SMSA relative income growth. Most of the interregional variation in city population and income growth rates is attributable to differences in corresponding average regional growth rates for the SMSA's.
-Functional decline, as measured by income changes, has inconsistent relationships with descriptive decline. No effects were found for functional decline on population change, but firms are more likely to locate (or stay) in an area with growing incomes.
-In conclusion, SMSA growth and decline depend importantly on the functioning of the area's economy - the interactions of residents and firms in labor and product markets. Suburbanization, on the other hand, seems to result more from local disparities in attributes. This is probably because the basic markets are area-wide and thus need not impose binding limitations on local site choices.

PAUL PETERSON: The New Urban Reality.

''Urban Change and Minority Opportunities''

Two transitions have occurred in older, large US cities. Their functions have changed from productive and distributive industry to administration, info exchange, and service. Their demographics have changed from white European to black, hispanic, and other minorities.
Jobs have decreased and unemployment has increased. The number of new jobs in the knowledge and service industries is not sufficient enough to compensate for the loss of all the blue collar jobs. There has been a dramatic decline in the size and aggregate level of income of residents, while concentrations of the economically disadvantaged have expanded. Factors contributing to urban decay are : the gap b/w job opp. and skill, spatial isolation of low income minorities, and urban poverty and welfare dependency increases.
The inability of federal programs to stem urban decline results primarily from the overarching technological and economic dynamics influencing the locational choices of various industries and the changing roles of major cities in advances industrial economies. Cities will always perform valuable social end economic functions, but changing techno and indus. conditions alter these functions over time. Cities used to have comparative advantages for blue collar workers, but now these transportation, communication, and public services extend every where. This has precipitated the decline in the location of blue collar jobs in central cities. The exploitation of new competitive strengths and a reversal of the build up of growing concentrations of disadvantaged persons in the cities are essential to urban economic revitalization and renewed minority opportunity.

The evolving structure and functions of American cities

techno advance and blue collar job deconcentration

During the first half of the 20th c., a # of innovations occurred in transportation , communication, and production technologies that markedly reduced the locational advantages the older, compactly structured cities had previously held for manufacturing and distributing activities (trucking and highways -] suburbia).
The changing mode of manufacturing technology from unit to mass production and assembly line methods also hastened the urban exodus of blue-collar industries (spatial interests -]suburbia). The development of suburban public services and external economies that had previously been restricted to the central cities (electricity, running water, housing) reduced the economies of scale for industries to stay in urban areas.

retail and service sector shifts
Retail trade and consumer services followed their traditional middle and upper income patrons to the suburbs, exacerbating blue-collar job declines in the cities (malls).

urban growth industries
Retail and service sectors offering highly specialized goods and services continue to be attracted to downtown central locations still maximize accessibility to certain consumers and businesses. Many hi-rise admin. offices rely on the public relations networks of cities, as well as the financial and legal service offered there. And with the vertical transfer of computer-age information, there is no need for a lot of space.

effects on job opportunities,br> The exodus of middle income populations and general retail trade has weakened urban secondary labor markets and isolated disadvantaged groups in economically distressed areas of cities.

Changing urban employment bases
From 1948-77 in northern US cities there were large employment contractions. Job growth in the service sector was still overwhelmed by huge employment declines in manufacturing, wholesale,and retail trade. the older and larger the city. the greater the number of absolute job losses in each of these 3 industrial sectors. The northeast and north central cities lost in these industries whereas the south and west gained in them. Selected service employment gains were greatest in the largest and oldest cities.

rise of info-prcessing industries
educational requirements of urban employment
changing demographic compositions

Precipitous declines in employment in northern central-city industries that traditionally sustained large numbers of less educated persons were not sufficiently replaced by new opportunities in white collar jobs. NY, Chicago, Phily and Detroit saw a tremendous loss in white population and a rise in blacks, hispanics, and other minorities.

Ed. distribution of blacks and whites
Minorities are at a disadvantage in central cities because they lack formal schooling. The education levels among minorities are more appropriate to just the kinds of industries which are leaving the northern cities. On the other hand, cities in the west have higher educated minorities and more job opportunities.

Transportation and the isolation of minorities
Minorities are confined to areas of declining opportunity in part because they lack transportation to work in the suburbs, where the available jobs are. Nor can they move to the suburbs because of housing discrimination.

Consequences of minority confinement
rising central city unemployment
Substantial racial differences in central-city unemployment rates remain even when controlled for schooling completed. Black male central city residents in the NE and southern regions who attended college had higher rates of unemployment in 1982 than did white central-city residents in these same regions who did not complete high school. Putting aside possible racial differences in the quality of schooling, such discrepancies do suggest that problems of racial discrimination may be compounding the structural disadvantages central city blacks face given their overall educational distributions.

discouraged workers and labor force drop outs

Just as the central city racial gap in unemployment is widening, so is the racial gap in urban labor force non participation. Their are very high levels of non participation in the labor force for black males.

urban employment decline and subsistence surrogates
Minority unemployment rises simultaneously with minority population increases in the cities we've been looking at. Welfare is an economic substitute for these minorities. There are differentially high rates of welfare recipiency for minority householders, for those unemployed, and not in the labor force. there is higher minority unemployment and welfare recipiency in the north than in the south. Welfare economies in the northern cites serve as partial subsistence surrogates for their declining production economies.

Targeting, anchoring, and demographic disequilibrium
Today's urban welfare economies, along with ''place-oriented'' housing (projects) limit mobility and reinforce the concentration and isolation of those without access to the economic mainstream. These individuals also lack the technical and interpersonal skills for holding jobs Welfare does have its immediate palliative effects, yet the disequilibrium in distressed cities between low skill labor availability and low skill labor needs is still worsening.

Spatial inequalities and equality of opportunity
This demographic disequilibrium, sustained in part by government subsidies, may work against long term economic health in distressed cities. Greater spatial equity in sharing the nation's unemployment burden may be essential to greater equality of opportunity for distressed cities and their disadvantaged residents. Disproportionately large #'s of the unemployed create negative externalities which do not attract business. this can make for a bleak economic future.

New urban policies for new urban realitiesbr> Concerted efforts should be made to improve the computer infrastructure of economically disadvantaged cities through government and private sector initiatives. These cities should also attempt to improve their ''quality of life'' in order to attract new businesses, etc.

Helping those caught in theweb of change
The mismatch between the urban residential composition and job opportunities can worsen even under conditions of overall central city employment gains. Politically popular jobs to people strategies must be changed to people to job strategies. Government should facilitate the migration of the low-skilled to entry level jobs elsewhere. Gov't should also review public assistance programs to make sure they are not attracting or bonding large #'s of disadvantaged persons to inner city areas with low opportunity. broader economic development policies should be created to sustain private sector job generation, so that retraining programs for skills will not be fruitless and can channel people into real jobs. Stricter enforcements of civil rights and anti-discrimination laws should be enacted in the suburbs.

''The Urban Underclass in Advanced Industrial Society''

The social problems of urban life in the US are in large part associated with race , but contemporary social scientists are ignoring this. In the mid-'60's Clark, Rainwater, and Moynihan did not ignore race, They tried to link the experiences of inequality to structure and show how the economic and social environment could lead to certain norms of behavior.
Moynihan argued that the simple removal of legal barriers would not achieve equality because of the cumulative effects of discrimination. The black community was dividing between the middle class and the lower class and the family was deteriorating (accredited to the experience of slavery).
These types of arguments were displaced by revisionists arguments later in the '60's which only concentrated on black achievement and glorification. Yet at the same time, there was growth in out of wedlock births, crime, joblessness. These problems ultimately plague the urban underclass (that group outside the American occupational system) and not all minorities.

The tangle of pathology in the inner-city
The problems of the underclass can't simply be accounted for in terms of race discrimination or the ''culture of poverty,'' but must be seen as having complex social antecedents.

race and violent crime
There is a disproportionate involvement of blacks in violent crime. The highest rates of violent crime are associated with communities in the urban underclass.

family dissolution and welfare dependency
Rising #'s of black female headed households. Earnings of these households are substantially lower than those of male headed households. Female headed families, out of wedlock births, and teenage pregnancy are all inextricably connected with poverty and dependency.

Why have the social conditions of the urban under class deteriorated so rapidly since the mid- '60's?

Toward a comprehensive evaluation

effects of contemporary and historic discrimination
The major cause of the problems of the urban underclass is very probably not contemporary discrimination. Arrest and incarceration rates are fairly representative of actual crime rates. The black family was not particularly disorganized during slavery (Gutman found this) and did not start to deteriorate until after the middle of the 20th c. Historic discrimination is probably more important than contemporary discrimination in explaining the plight of the urban underclass.

the importance of the flow of migrants
One legacy of historic disc. is the presence of a large black underclass in the central cities. Blacks skin color and high concentration as compared to other minority groups engendered more prejudice than that against white ethnics. Blacks must now deal with the cumulative effects of this racism.
Blacks are starting to migrate out of the central cities. Thus could help those who remain in competition for jobs, living space, etc. However now hispanic migration is increasing. This could have deleterious effects for their welfare.

relevance of changes in age structure
The high level of black migration to urban centers kept the black age profile young in the city. Larger amounts of youth create higher unemployment and crime rates. Youth is not only a factor in crime, but is also associated with out of wedlock births, female headed homes, and welfare dependency.
There is also a decrease in guardian behavior from neighbor in densely populated areas. this creates more social disorganization.
The decrease in black migration to urban centers and the subsequent decrease in age could alleviate problems for urban blacks. By contrast, numbers of hispanic youth are increasing, due to the heavy influx of hispanic migration. This does not bode well for them.

The impact of basic economic changes

*polarization of the market into low wage and high wage sectors
*technological innovations
*relocation of manufacturing out of the central cities
*hi concentration of blacks with low skills in central cities
*vicious cycle: ghetto isolation,low ed reinforce disadvantaged position in labor market and contribute to crime, family dissolution, and welfare dependency
*blacks,especially young males, are dropping out of the labor force in significant numbers

The role of ethnic group culture
Cultural values do not ultimately determine behavior or success. Rather, cultural values emerge from specific circumstances and reflect one's position in the class structure. Behavior described as pathological should not be analyzed as a cultural aberration, but as a symptom of class inequality.


The problems of the underclass are due far more to structural shifts than to racism. Hence the urban uc has not benefited significantly from race-specific anti-discriminatory policies, such as affirmative action, which have helped trained and educated blacks. If inner city blacks are to be helped, they will be aided not by policies addressed primarily to poor minorities, but by policies designed to benefit all the nation's poor -- such as generating full employment, developing balanced urban growth, and achieving effective welfare reform.

''Fiscal Strain: How Different are Snow Belt and Sun Belt Cities?''

It is a common conception that crises are caused by economic decline and that urban fiscal problems can be solved by strengthening the local economy, but this is incorrect.

The sources of fiscal strain

Old cities of the northeast do not spend more or less than other cities. Political processes better explain the fiscal policies of city governments, although these policies differ by city and time period. Urban fiscal problems have been overly defined as emerging from private sector responses to natural economic trends; a more informed local and public-sector orientation would help correct the balance.

Is there a ''northeast syndrome''?

A diffuse idea of ''distress'' often leads to interchangeable use of various NE syndrome indicators (poor residents, dense population, income, old housing,etc.). This may follow logically if one assumes fiscal strain is simply a function of economic decline,but this correlation is actually low.

Is there a link b/w socio-ec characteristics and fiscal policy?

Social and economic characteristics of cities provide resources that their city gov't's may or may not draw on; one cannot explain fiscal policy outputs by these resources alone.

Is population a source of strain?

Population changes and other economic and social characteristic can indicate problems to which local officials must adapt. But whether and how they adapt is not determined by the economic and social context, as is clear from large differences in fiscal policies across cities confronting similar social and economic circumstances. social and economic characteristics are important resources; they do not by themselves decide fiscal policies.
Within communities, fiscal balance can be achieved more readily by attending to the expenditure policies of the city gov't itself than by encouraging economic growth in the private sector.

Modeling fiscal policy making

If social and economic factors by themselves do not explain fiscal strain, what does?

1)economic base (resources facilitating the implementation of preferences
2)citizen preference
3)organized groups (vs. politicians listening to individual citizens)
4)political leaders (leaders' own independent policy impact) and their own, separate interests

A model to test the factors affecting urban fiscal policy

growth in the 1960's the importance of bloc size
Cities with large middle classes and blacks increased spending 1960-70. Importance of voting blocs: the larger a bloc is in a city, the more responsive fiscal policies are to it.

late 60's early 70's
A sizable black community and organized group activities were important as background factors, but a dynamic political leader was essential to implement their spending preferences into actual fiscal policies. In cities and time periods characterized by greater political instability and mobilize of new sectors, organized groups and political leaders emerge as important determinants of public policy.

fiscal retrenchment 1974-7
retrenchment resulted in large part from taxpayers' revolt.

expenditure and debt levels in 1977 (longer term patterns)
The city wealth index proved to be an important determinant of the overall level of expenditure, although it had no effect on changes from one period to the next. In the 1970's, wealthy cities spent more and middle class cities spent less. A city with a legacy of ethnic groups typically shows more spending. Cities in the 1970's were still showing the effects of their powerful mayors of the 1960's in their spending patterns. By 1974-77, political leaders acted as brokers rather than dynamic individuals.

Summary and conclusion

Municipal fiscal policies and socio-ec characteristics are distinct. Concepts like ''declining NE cities and Sun Belt cities'' should be used cautiously. Extra note: Characteristics such as region, pop size and change, and city age are only loosely correlated. Pop. change is better treated as a socio-ec. resource than an urban distress indicator.

To Dwell Among Friends, (chaps. 1 , 19)

Chap. 1: Personal Community
There has been much espousement of the community lost notion in urban centers, and Fischer will have none of it. This book is intended to be an empirical test of the community lost theme, which says that urban dwellers have less developed social networks, are less psychologically stable, etc. Fischer argues that the only way to empirically test this is to study closely people's personal relations, the social worlds in which those relations are embedded, and the ways urbanism affects the choices and constraints people face in building their relations. Such considerations have been largely absent form contemporary discussions. thus the primary focus of this work is to describe the kinds of personal networks people have and link those types to the kinds of places in which they live.

Fischer asserts that one cannot overemphasize the importance of personal ties and networks. It is through personal ties that society makes its mark on us, and vice versa. In general, we each construct our own networks. The initial relations are given to us - parents and close kin and associates- but as we grow, we select which ties are maintained and which are dropped. We also add in our own ties and contacts. By adulthood, people have chosen their networks. Fischer emphasizes individual agency, and with it, the idea that networks are built. Of course, choice is limited and constrained by the social contexts in which we normally participate. Ties must not only be chosen, but maintained. The circumstances which constrain individuals are largely socially patterned, i.e. jobs, income, family commitments. these patterns of circumstances might be loosely called a society's social patterns. The dimension of social structure that is of particular interest here is that of residential community.

Fischer asserts that personal networks are not inherently bound to a place, but they are linked to residential community types. Most of our realistically possible associates reside within the local community, or not far from it, even when mass communication and transportation are factored in. the nature of a a given community, layout, housing, demographics, partly determines the choices and constraints which face network builders. But there is also a flip side to the coin, which is that of self-selection. Different kinds of people, with different social preferences, tend to prefer different kinds of places. People may also anticipate or adjust to structural constraint.

Fischer defines the key aspect of community to be considered her as urbanism - loosely, the concentration of population in and around a community. He claims that Americans generally believe that urban life in sum is socially, mentally, and morally unhealthy. the complexity of cities weakens urban ties. Fischer himself argues against this. Urbanism does have consequences for personal life, but not quite in the way expected by standard theory. He is guided by the subcultural theory of urbanism, which says that community size leads to a variety of distinct and intense social worlds. This is so b/c of the social heterogeneity and more complex differentiation in cities. This means that cities allow for more varied and diverse social networks. Also, by sheer numbers alone, cities intensify the distinctiveness of subcultures. The formation of such social worlds implies that while the general quality of life in cities and small towns may be similar, the style of life differs.

Chap. 19: Conclusion
Fischer finds that several personal background characteristics have large effects on personal networks. Most effects are given and checked against controls for all other variables.

Education-- the characteristic which seemed to yield the most consistent effects. Education by itself meant broader, deeper, and richer networks. The possible exception is network density. (Network density is the amount of overlap which exists among the people in. For example, I may know Janet, Chris, Erin and Becky. My network is dense if not only do I know these 4 people, but they also know each other. The more overlapping ties, the denser the network.) Also, the more education, the less the respondent's network was drawn from kin, and the more it included nonkin, especially informal nonkin ('just friends'). The highly educated did not lack kin ties, they were just more selective. Possible explanations include pre-selected qualities, similar interests with nonkin, schooling effects, and several others.

Income (household income) the more income, the more nonkin respondents named, and the more secure the practical and companionable support they received.

Age-- Stage in the life cycle also had effects. The older the respondents, the less social activity they engaged in; effects were stronger for men than for women.

Marriage -- Marriage tended to expand possibilities around the home - married respondents tended to name more kin and neighbors than comparable non married - and to restrict possibilities elsewhere, especially for women. Effects were even stronger for women who did not work outside the home. However, married men reported fewer confidants then did married women, suggesting that men tended to fully satisfy their confidant needs by turning to their wives, while wives drew on intimates other than husbands.

Children-- clearly restricted the social involvement of their parents, especially that of mothers.

Gender -- Gender had important, if largely indirect effects on social networks. Women tended to be involved with more relatives and to have more intimate ties than did otherwise similar men.

Other possible characteristics which may contribute to formation of social networks may include ethnicity, region, or others, but Fischer was limited by his data and sample. Study was conducted primarily in Northern California, and did not include blacks or non-English speakers.

the various correlations which he did discover can be understood best in terms of two organizing constructs: (1) personality and (2) the structure of opportunity and constraints. Personality is difficult to measure and wasn't examined in this study. However, the second theme was addressed. People's positions in the social structure affected their networks primarily by limiting their exposure to varying opportunities and people. Fischer claims that personality dispositions toward smaller or larger networks operate within such structures of opportunity and constraint.

Urbanism and Networks
3 basic questions summarize the central issues of this book.
1. Do people residing in more and in less urban places differ systematically in their personal networks and social worlds?
2. Does urbanism itself affect those networks and social worlds, or do any differences between city and small-town residents reflect only self-selection?
3. And if urbanism does contribute to differences in networks and worlds, what about urbanism explains the contribution it makes - population concentration itself, or corollary factors?

While some may discount urban/rural differences in this time of increasing homogenization of society, Fischer says that differences do indeed still exist, and this study suggests that the average urbanite leads a notably different way of life than the average small-town person. Self-selection explains most of these differences, but urbanism is still an important influence in itself. Indirectly, urbanism influences selective migration.

In sum, more urban and less urban respondents (there weren't really any rural respondents) listed roughly the same amount of social ties; neither group was any more likely to be isolated. Nor did the quality of relations differ. But the composition of the two groups' networks differed markedly. Small-town residents tended to be more involved with kin, city respondents with nonkin. Fischer suggests that urbanites draw their associates less from the traditional spheres of family, neighborhood, and church, and more from the more modern and voluntary contexts of work, secular associations, and footloose friends. Urban respondents also tended to have less dense networks, but more intense interpersonal relations which involved multiple exchanges with given individuals. Notice how urban resident tendencies tend to overlap with the tendencies of the young and the educated, This is because urban dwellers tend to younger, more educated, and more diverse than those who dwell in less urban areas. A simple demographic phenomenon. Yet, even when controlling for education, age, and the like, Fischer says that there is still enough differences to support the conclusion that urbanism itself has the above effects.

Also, for respondents with atypical traits, such as the young and unmarried, or those who are gay, urban residence promoted ties with people similar to themselves (subcultural tendencies). There was a tendency, overall, for urban residents to encapsulate respondents in specific subcultures. ( The term subculture is used rather loosely here, as any distinguishable sub-group of the population.) However, this encapsulation is complex and contingent. City life seems to aid people in finding other people who share their 'most important' interest, but mot in finding those who share lesser interests.

In addition to finding little effects on personal networks, Fischer also found little evidence of urbanism adversely affecting mental health and stability. The one mild exception might be the fear of crime and its affects on feelings of personal safety. This finding suggests that urbanism may engender public estrangement but not private estrangement. (This conclusion hints at Fischer's assertions in the article we had to read for Sampson's portion of inquiry, about the public and private spheres of urban life.)

This discussion of urbanism and its affects can easily be extended to the issue of modernism. Fischer ends with some caveats, the foremost being the historical period and its limiting effects on the generalizabilty of his results. He finds these effects to be small.

American Neighborhoods and Residential Segregation

Chapter 4, Neighborhood Diversity and Segregation

A segregation statistic measures only unevenness. Spatial concentration carries with it a two-pronged interpretation. It may reveal processes of discrimination and prejudice, or it may represent (desirable or undesirable) process of market forces and self-selection. Geographic segregation may even be incorporated into residential planning. For instance, delivery of services to special population groups (eg, the elderly) can be expedited if a large fraction of the eligible population is concentrated in a small area.

The greater segregation of blacks compared to foreign stock white groups has been well documented. Some work has been done on differentiation by occupation and industry. The farther apart two groups are on the occupational status ladder, the more dissimilar is their distribution across census tracts. Other indicators of social status, such as rent level, income or educational attainment, tend to show similar patterns. Age segregation, while present, is not as pervasive as racial-ethnic or socioeconomic segregation. Over-time analyses tend to show that levels of segregation are stable or decline moderately in most cities. Much of the work comparing groups and time challenges some assumed models of the spatial assimilation hypothesis, particularly the interpretation that the experience of blacks is that of a ''newer'' immigrant group proceeding through the same series of steps. Kobrin and Goldschieder argue that while the nature of ethnicity has changed over time, ethnic factors still continue to assert themselves in residential mobility as well as residential concentration. Massey and Mullan find that black gains in socioeconomic status do not translate as well into physical distance from the ghetto as do gains in SES for other groups.

White primarily uses two measures of segregation. The first is the index of dissimilarity, which measures the proportion of the population of one group that would have to be redistributed to achieve an equal distribution among all neighborhoods. The second measure of segregation is the average reduction in entropy (increase in information) available from ''knowing'' neighborhood information, called the H index. It takes on a value of 0 when there is no segregation (that is, when neighborhoods have the same composition as the city and add no explanatory power) and a value of 1 for complete segregation, or maximal neighborhood level information. White uses D and H in percentage terms, so they range in value from 0 to 100.

Segregation in 1980

Looking at 21 US SMSA's.

There is a hierarchy of ways in which social characteristics are sorted out in metropolitan areas. For racial and ethnic characteristics, looking at the index of dissimilarity:

Blacks are the most segregated of any demographic characteristic. Blacks are highly segregated from whites, and from other racial groups (they are more segregated from other racial/ethnic groups than whites are).

Asians, American Indians and other races occupy the middle rungs of the segregation hierarchy; Hispanics occupy this range as well, though they're at the top of it. Almost all white ancestry (eg, French, German, etc) falls below the level of Hispanics. Of the six major ancestry groups, Italians and Poles are the least integrated with people of other ancestries. For Americans of German, Irish and English descent segregation is minimal.

Only some of these results are consistent with the spatial assimilation hypothesis, which holds that the most recent immigrants to the American metropolis begin at the top of the segregation ladder (most segregated) and work their way down over time. The ''old'' European stock groups are at this point now, the Lieberson ''new'' groups (here including Italians and Poles) are intermediate, with the ''very new'' Hispanics at the top of the intermediate range. Race, however, upsets this paradigm. Racial segregation dominates the other classifications. Even new arrivals (foreign born) show a level of segregation less than half that of the Black population. These results suggest it would be premature to assume that spatial assimilation applies equivalently to all groups in the population.

Using the entropy statistic (H), we examine other characteristics and rank them in a hierarchy from most segregated to least segregated:

The most extreme segregation is found in housing. High-rise buildings and group quarters (prisons, college dorms, military barracks) are the most segregated in metropolitan neighborhoods (we are looking at the distribution of housing stock, not the kind of people in it). Next are housing age and dwelling unit density, due the physical permanence of the housing stock.

The separation of owners from renters, often linked to housing type and density (inner city apartments versus single family homes) comes next.

The mobile population (people who move frequently) is spread evenly.

All life cycle characteristics (particularly age, sex, martial status and household size) rank low in spatial unevenness, Household type, which picks of the separation of single-parent families, nuclear families and persons living alone is still under 10 (very low). Many neighborhoods, then, are fairly diverse with respect to life cycle.

Income, occupation and education are basic elements of the status system which have received a great deal of attention in the urban sociological literature. The level of measured segregation for these three characteristics is modest, though it does exceed most life cycle indicators (that is, people are more segregated by income than they are by age) (H=8 for education, lower for income and occ). The ends of the SES scale (high and low) are clearly separated, but the middle class bulge tends to reduce measured segregation overall.

Poverty households are segregated from non-poverty households (H=11 on average), and the separation of poverty and non-poverty households among female-headed households is higher than Hispanic segregation as measured by H.

Rent level and home value indicate the combined influence of SES and life cycle, and may also capture best the expression of social status in metropolitan areas, since housing accounts for so large a fraction of a family's total budget, and housing type and neighborhood are visible manifestations of well-being. As such they are excellent indirect indicators of status segregation. Using these indicators, we find a significant amount of status segregation, more than any other demographic characteristic except race. If one takes the more conventional tack of using education, income and occ. , SES segregation appears lower.

Race, education and household type segregation -- key dimensions of segregation -- are obviously intertwined. Among blacks and whites the level of household type and poverty segregation is less than that for other racial groups and for Hispanics.

Larger cities are more differentiated than smaller cities. The correlation between SMSA population size and segregation statistics is positive for almost every variable analyzed. SES, life cycle and household type indicators were less linked to city size than ethnicity, poverty and physical characteristics.

There were also regional differences. The South and West posted greater growth rates in the decade 1970-1980. Region and rate of growth might affect segregation in two ways. On the one hand, growing areas are less locked in to historical patterns in population and housing distribution. On the other hand, their more mobile population can quickly segregate itself in new neighborhoods. There is evidence of both phenomena. Southern and western cities are more segregated by age and household type, and less segregated by race, origin and ancestry group. Growth does not imply high levels of segregation across the board, as the case of racial segregation here indicates.

Chapter 5, The Spatial Organization of the Metropolis

This chapter analyzes the spatial patterns exhibited by metropolitan neighborhoods. Segregation and factorial ecology measures reflect only unevenness in the distribution of social characteristics or their interrelations across observations on neighborhoods, respectively. Neighborhoods could be shuffled around the metropolis in any fashion, and these tabulations would be identical. We wish to take into account to proximity of neighborhoods to one another, searching for larger patterns in the distribution of socioeconomic status, life cycle, ethnicity and housing.

Models of Residential Structure

Residential structure is the term we use here to describe the way in which population and housing characteristics interact systematically with space. The most established model of the urban sociospatial structure posits that residential structure is oriented to the central business district (CBD), the commercial core of the city. Distance from the CBD is supposed to say a great deal about the demographic composition of the population in the neighborhoods. Burgess: five zones radiation from the center, generally increasing in socioeconomic status and decreasing in density and age of housing. Ethnic groups tended to be clustered in immigrant colonies and ghettoes.

Not all models see distance as the central organizing feature of the metropolitan area. A sectoral model (our buddy Homer) posits that direction (azimuthal variation, with orientation to the CBD) rather than distance is the key predictor. City is seen as a big ole pie with each slice representing the residential neighborhood of particular status group. As the city grows, it expands outward, btu the status levels of the wedges are maintained.

The multiple nuclei model argues that metropolitan development cannot be explained totally or fundamentally in terms of orientation to the CBD. Since a city has a topography and a history, other centers such as former towns, industrial sites, and immigrant clusters compete with the CBD as minor nodes, around which a suborganization develops. While this theory accepts that these is a sorting out of the population in space, it maintains that this unevenness is not especially systematic with respect to the CBD.

The integrated model posits that socioeconomic status is distributed in a sectoral fashion, life cycle characteristics are distributed in a concentric manner, and race and ethnicity are nucleated.

We approach data with the following questions, then:
1) Is there in fact spatially systematic variation of the various population and housing characteristics collected in the 1980 census?
2) For which characteristics does ''space'' explain the most variation, and is this consistent with the relative degree of segregation manifested by that characteristics and the kind of place it held in the factorial ecology.
3) Are the spatial patterns we observe in census tract data consistent with the models of urban sociospatial structure? Are they more consistent with one model than another? Are they consistent with the conjecture of the integrated model?


This analysis concludes that there still is a system to the metropolitan topology.

Status is multifaceted. Occupation, income, ed attainment, and housing expenditures do not all trace the same contour on the met. topography. To the extent that status can be put into the framework (in the form of income and rent expenditure), variation seems principally zonal. Occupation and education are much less consistent, leaning toward more nucleated patterns in many metropolises (this may be due to decentralized employment loci). Rarely is status sectoral, as some models predict. This lack of fit between the results of participation in the labor force (income) and the and the origins of that participation (ed and occ.) indicate the wide variation in returns to occupation in America, as well as the complications introduced by family composition and the distribution of metropolitan jobs.

Life cycle differentiation is discernible, but it isn't as strong as the features of race and status.. To the extent that we can detect any spatial pattern, the orientation is zonal. Of this group, household size exhibits the strongest radial trend.

Results are consistent with prediction of ethnic and racial nucleation. There is a further concentration of minorities, particularly Blacks and Hispanics, in the innermost rings of the metropolis.

The physical substructure of housing stock and of population and housing density is really quite symmetrical and oriented to a single center. But built on top of that is a complex arrangement of social groups. The case is building for the claim that the monocentric city, with the CBD exerting overarching determination on the metropolitan form, has given way to a more diversified form. Patterns of popn distribution in the younger SMSA's for the several characteristics tend to be less well explained than for the larger, older regions.

Chapter 6, Neighborhood Change in the Dynamic Metropolis

From the vantage point of the neighborhood, change implies a revision of the relationships that tie the local community into the metropolis. Several of the agents of this change are readily identified: technology, transportation and communication in particular, have altered the way in which distance and time interact with production of commodities and residential location decisions of households. The technology of production has shifted the relative competitiveness of central versus peripheral sites for manufacturing and some other forms of commercial activity, while in some areas there has been a continued if somewhat unsteady growth in downtown office space. Retail trade, following the population, has also picked more suburban locations.

Less apparent is the role played by changes in population and the social structure. Over the last few decades, households have become smaller, the population has aged as the baby boom has grown older and had fewer births and elderly survivorship has increased Family composition has moved away from the traditional nuclear form, even though that may still be the social norm.

Government at all levels has affected these changes with public works programs, zoning ordinances, etc.

As the urban system itself undergoes change, there are often major repercussions for the small areas within cities. The dispersal of population implies a gain for some neighborhoods and a loss for others.

We will look at: 1) changes in segregation, to examine whether individual characteristics have become less segregated over time, and whether the hierarchy of characteristics, the ladder of segregation, has itself shifted. 2) changes in the spatial organization of the metropolis; how much of the pull of the CBD has been maintained? 3) neighborhood evolution: the truly dynamic character of population and housing change in individual neighborhoods.

Looking at trends in the Census:

From 1940-1970, there was little change in Black racial segregation. In the 1970's, there was a decline, and an increase in the variation in segregation levels for Blacks across cities.

During the 1970's:
Socioeconomic sta
Overall segregation by education and home value is up. Occupational segregation declined across all categories and uniformly across SMSA's. Income separation has declined slightly, but there has been increasing separation between the poor and the non-poor.

Life cycle segregation, as noted before, is very low in general, so small absolute changes produce large relative changes. Age segregation increased modestly over the decade in absolute terms, but that made for a large relative increase; within the elderly, segregation of the 65-74 year old population declined, while segregation of the 75+ population increased. Household size (another life cycle indicator) also decreased overall as an indicator of segregation, except for large families.

Race. General racial segregation declined. Much of the decline can be attributed to changing black-white patterns. Segregation of the foreign born shows little change.

Housing. More mixture of single family housing units throughout the neighborhoods of met. areas. Increasing construction of multiple unit dwellings in the suburbs and less dense construction in central areas. Little change in the separation of newly constructed housing from old. Noticeable increase in the separation of the mobile population.

Limited data, and only for 11 SMSA's. However,
Decreasing segregation by education and occupation. Increasing life cycle segregation, though the absolute changes are modest. Racial segregation down, but segregation of the foreign born is up. Segregation of women in the labor force is up, and is indicative of the development of distinct residential districts where working women prefer to reside. Segregation of the poorest, least educated and least mobile segments of the population has become more pronounced.
Race has remained the dominant social characteristic separating neighborhoods, but after increasing gradually in these cities, it decreased in the 1970's.

Housing type is highly sorted out among neighborhoods.

Remarkably, though, the ''ladder of segregation'' (ranking of segregating characteristics) has remained virtually intact over the period in question. Race and the physical characteristic of the housing stock continue to occupy the rungs of the highest segregation, life cycle characteristics are at the bottom, and socioeconomic characteristics are in between.

The vast majority of inner city tracts are experiencing decline in relative status and are depopulating, while at the periphery of the met. areas, neighborhoods are gaining population and are actually increasing in relative status due to new settlement by met residents of higher incomes. The outer neighborhoods are becoming relatively younger and devoted to childrearing, while the neighborhoods of the middle two rings are aging. Inner and outer areas show the least gain in the proportion Black. If the ethnic pattern is nucleated, we would not expect much of a systemic relationship of racial change to distance.

A substantial minority of neighborhoods are bucking the trend within their ring, lending support to the contention that the direction of movement along the stages of growth and decline identified by Burgess and others is reversible. White does not find that gentrification has a very large demographic or statistical impact (ie, it doesn't displace large numbers of indigenous urban poor).