Theoretical Perspectives on the City begins by explaining how researchers have different techniques when analyzing urban society. They need to formulate appropriate questions to study and also consider how urban areas are affected both socially and economically. The way cities develop can depend on numerous factors such as income levels, the forms of infrastructure that are present, and also whether there are interactions between communities. I do wish this article went more in depth with the studies of social area analysis and how studying the population characteristics can help one to better understand the neighborhoods in cities. Various sociologists debated on the transition from rural to urban life and its effects. For example, Ferdinand Tönnies believed that urbanization caused there to be more independent individuals “acting for their own self-interest” as opposed to rural life and its close communities. I disagree with his idea that urban life can adversely affect society and with his statement that cities are “impersonal.” One can still find many close communities in each neighborhood. People of different backgrounds can introduce their own cultural ideas and beliefs that can benefit society and help it expand.

Question: Do you agree with Tönnies and his idea that urban life can create “impersonal cities” that can negatively impact society while rural areas have more tight-knit communities?

I must admit that my expertise in the subject isn’t significant enough to debate the specifics described in the article. I must also admit, however, that I have taken a few history courses and they seem to coincide with what was discussed in “Theoretical Perspectives on the city”. What I truly enjoyed about the article was the history behind the compilation of knowledge that all became known as the “political economy paradigm”. One of the things I love about science is that there’s always room for new possibilities, and this article made me think of this “paradigm” as a concept being explored through the sciences. When these “scientists”/researchers ran out of questions to explore within the original paradigm they had developed with the help of The Chicago School, they were willing explore new horizons through the “political economy paradigm”. I agree when the author explained that new paradigms had to be created because, for example, what shapes society isn’t just competition for land or “natural laws”, in other words, things aren’t that simple. Which is why it was super interesting to see how the combination of paradigms created a more promising and stable field of study. Also, throughout the article, I constantly saw innovative ideas that helped explain many things around us.

Question: Which “belief” do you identify with the most? What’s one fact/idea that struck you the most while reading?

The reading was a quick overview and summary into sociology and the urban life. In Cities, Change, and Conflict: A Political Economy of Urban Life, the study of sociology begins with the start of urbanization and industrialization. While at the beginning most theories were based off of personal experience, it wasn’t until the Chicago School that sociological theories were put to test. There was some trouble understanding the theories, since most of the theories were not put into practice and were vague. However, if there were a way to relate the theories using case studies that would have made the reading more straightforward and beneficial. Also most of the studies listed are understated, and could be related to other studies. For instance when mentioning community ethnography, the article could have mentioned the culture of poverty when including how previous studies had tended to see life in poor areas as disorganized.

Question: How much would Ernest W. Burgess theory of urban ecology, the neoclassical school of economics, relate to New York City today?

In “Theoretical Perspectives on the City”, the author points out that any topic research can be answered in a number of different ways. He then goes on to pose the question “Are societies and social institutions orderly systems composed of interdependent parts?” to show that there is no clear right or wrong answer as either perspective can be taken. I thought about this questions and although I am not a researcher, I sided with those who believed the answer to be “no”. Society and social institutions, I believe, are controlled by those in power and as such are often grounds for power struggles. In some societies, these power struggles present themselves as rebellions and civil war, whereas in other societies they are more structured through political elections. In order to explain societies, particularly modern urban societies, theories were proposed as to how they function. One theory that was particularly interesting was that of Ferdinand Tonnies. After reading his views on rural vs. urban life, I wondered why he felt that modernization was such a threatening and self-promoting process? It could be because of the unfortunate consequences like hazardous working conditions.

In the first reading, every theory, in its most basic concept, attempts to connect the effects of economic changes and it’s effect on urban and suburban populations. No theory can then ever be more correct then another because the economy and the population is constantly changing. Every theory is a product of its time and place. The reading from Black Corona is extremely relevant to today. We often approach this discussion with the words “cycle of poverty”, but instead of taking responsibility for such destructive cycles, we blame the residents for crime and joblessness. We see this problem perpetuated by the media as well. In all the movies released in the past ten years, those dealing with the “black experience” have often been on the topic of slavery, civil rights, or life in a black ghetto.

I have often wondered how a city can grow without necessarily introducing gentrification. It has negative consequences, but is it not a necessary evil for the sake of successful cities? Since we have been aware of the problems with American ghettos and the cycle of poverty for ages, why have we seen no major efforts to break the cycle?

I’ve studied historiography, the study of how people have studied history throughout time. The reading from Theoretical Perspectives on the City interested me for this reason. I started viewing cities I know through their theories. San Francisco, as a commuter city with some very nice residential areas within the city limits, looks like the concentric circle and wedge models from urban ecology. New York City has elements of both the gemeinschaft and gesellschaft. Within this complex of cold urbanism are nestled smaller, more personal communities where members are ethnically and religiously similar. And then LA just makes no sense, which makes it perfect for the postmodern paradigm. As I mapped cities through these paradigms, I recognised my – and these paradigms’ – biases. Urban ecologists and I like to see the order in structures. Marxists and others who view history as a struggle between parties would be drawn to political economy to explain city dynamics. And postmodernists view the world through a subjective and fractured lens; the chaos of an urban landscape is appealing. Their natures influence their interpretations. Though no one theory can fully explain it, through all three we can get a clearer picture on what makes a city.

Questions: How would you interpret cities you know and have visited? With which school of thought do you most identify? Why do you think that is?

While reading through “Theoretical Perspectives on The City,” I was struck by Tonnies’ view that the gradual but inevitable shift from small rural communities to larger, metropolitan environments posed a significant hazard to society. Tonnies stated that these larger, more urban settings were less conducive to cooperation and would eventually destroy themselves. While this is a potential issue of larger urban cities, I believe there is a larger issue than Tonnies overlooked, which was well covered by Ernest W. Burgess. Burgess predicted a pattern in the growth of cities in which the center of any given urban setting would be dominated by entertainment and business, which would fan out into residential areas of varying wealth. Burgess made another observation – the central business area of any given city will slowly expand outward, gobbling up poorer residential areas in what is effectively a process of widespread gentrification. This is a pattern which can be easily seen in many modern cities, and is the one which poses the greatest threat. As gentrification continues outward, the communities which are displaced will be left with nowhere to go. This process will continue further and further until eventually there is no space left for the poorer communities and society will enter a state of decay, as Tonnies predicted.

Congratulations to Kyle and Allegra for being the first to post reading responses for this week!  But everyone, from now on, please stick to the 150-200 word stipulation. It is not a suggested word count, and 200 is not the minimum, it is the maximum. Distilling your thoughts in to a limited number of words is a valuable skill that you will be forced to develop in this course. And this way we can all – hopefully – have time to read each other’s responses. Thank you!