In Defense of Wirth's "Urbanism as a Way of Life"

Author(s): Stanley S. Guterman

Source: American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 74, No. 5 (Mar., 1969), pp. 492-499
Published by: The University of Chicago Press
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2775401
Accessed: 20-04-2015 18:35 UTC

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content
in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.
For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

The University of Chicago Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to American Journal of
Sociology.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 128.59.222.12 on Mon, 20 Apr 2015 18:35:57 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

In Defenseof Wirth's"Urbanismas a Way of Life"

Stanley S. Guterman

ABSTRACT
The criticismsthat sociologistshave voiced of Wirth's essay "Urbanism as a Way of
Life" are examined.It is argued that the evidence on which these criticismsrelycontains
several inadequacies. To support Wirth's theory,data are presentedshowing a negative
correlationbetweenthe size of the localitya personlives in and the intimacyof his friendship ties. The author concludes that a freshlook at Wirth'stheoryis needed utilizingresearch based on adequate measuresand adequate design.

It is now thirtyyearssince thisjournal

CRITICISMS OF WIRTH
publishedLouis Wirth'sclassicessaystress- In theyearssinceWirth'spaperoriginaling the relativeweaknessof primaryrela- ly appeared,his view of urbansocial relacharacter- tionshas cometo be widelyquestioned.Retionsas amongthedistinguishing
isticsof theurbanwayoflife.Wirthargued lyingon a wealthof empiricalresearchon
that the city'sgiganticsize, along withits ties with friends,neighbors,extendedkin,
densityand its social and culturalhetero- and co-workers,scholars have contended
geneity,fostersan absenceof personalac- thatprimary
groupslead a vibrantexistence
individ- and play an importantrole in the day-toquaintanceshipamonginteracting
uals. Interactionis based on segmentalized day lives of urban inhabitants.Wilensky
impersonality,and Lebeaux,forexample,interpret
roles with a corresponding
theeviof social denceto meanthatthe"allegedanonymity,
and transitoriness
superficiality,
relations.All of thesefactorsweaken,if not depersonalization,
and rootlessnessof city
destroy,the bonds of sentimentand inti- life may be the exceptionratherthan the
macyamongthe inhabitants.'
rule. The typical city dwellermaintains
The flavorof his analysisis conveyedin close relationswith friendsamong either
passage:
thefollowing
or people in otherparts of the
neighbors,
meetone another urbanarea or both."In theopinionofthese
urbanites
Characteristically,
roles.... Theirdependence writers,
inhighly
segmental
theavailabledata "suggestthatthe
fractional.breakdownofprimarygrouplifeand inforto a highly
uponothersis confined
ized aspectof the other'sroundof activity. malcontrolshas beengreatlyexaggerated."3
whatis meantby saying In a reviewofforty
This is essentially
studieson tiesamong
by secondary
that the cityis characterized
and BurchinalmainSussman
kin,
extended
The contacts
of
contacts.
ratherthanprimary
on the atomistic
the
"emphasis
tain
that
thecitymayindeedbe faceto face,butthey
has contributed
families
of
urban
character
transisuperficial,
arenevertheless
impersonal,
interThe reserve,
theindiffer-to incorrectassumptionsconcerning
tory,and segmental.
ence,and the blase outlookwhichurbanites actionwithinthe kinshipmatrix."A more
in theirrelationships
maythusbe re- accuratedescription
manifest
of kin relationsin the
themselvescity,theybelieve,is providedby thenotion
gardedas devicesforimmunizing
of
claimsandexpectations
againstthepersonal
others.2

2Ibid., p. 12.

1 See Louis Wirth,"UrbanismAs a Way of Life,"

American Journal of Sociology, XLIV (July,
1938), 1-24.

'Harold L. Wilenskyand Charles N. Lebeaux,

IndustrialSociety and Social Welfare(New York:
Russell Sage Foundation, 1958), pp. 122 and 125.

492

This content downloaded from 128.59.222.12 on Mon, 20 Apr 2015 18:35:57 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

IN DEFENSEOF WIRTH

493

of the"modified
extendedfamily"in which thesisof thispaperthattheyhave notdone
there"are mutualaid and social activities fulljusticeto his conceptionof urbanlife.
amongkinrelatedfamilies."4
When one examinesthe studieson which
On theidea thatareaswithina citydiffer theirarguments
are based,he discoversthat
in the degreeto whichtheyare urbanized, -with twopartialexceptionsthatare disScott Greersays, "Althoughhighlyurban- cussedtowardtheend ofthispaper8-these
izedpopulationsare nottypicalofmostcity studiesare less than adequate for testing
dwellers(theyare an extremeof a continu- Wirth'sviews.To beginwith,themeasures
um), those who do exist deviate widely employedoften deal with the frequency
fromthe stereotype
of the atomisticman. withwhichan individualinteracts,or gets
Theyare greatlyinvolvedin thefamilyand togethersocially,withhis associates.9The
kinshipgroup,and theyparticipateinten- high rate of interactionthat is generally
sively in friendship
and cliques."5 If the foundamongcitydwellersis thoughtto re"stereotype"is not descriptive
even of the futeWirth'sviews.The fallacyhereis that
highlyurbanizedsegmentsof a city,how Wirthwas notconcernedwiththequantity
muchless so mustit be of the otherseg- of interaction.
In one passage,forexample,
ments?
"This is not to say
he explicitlyremarked,
Tomehhas writtenthata that the urbaninhabitantshave feweracMost recently,
forthe
of "Wirthand othersof the quaintancesthanruralinhabitants,
majorcriticism
the reversemay actuallybe true."'10
His conChicagoschoolis thattheyexaggerated
degreeofsecularization
and disorganization cern,rather,was withthe qualityof interthat supposedlytypifiesurban communi- action.Thus he spoke of the "impersonal,
ties." Researchhas disclosed"strongkin- superficial,
and segmental"chartransitory,
tiesin thoseareasof acterof social ties in the cityand of "the
shipand neighborhood
the city where such relationswere often reserve,theindifference,
and theblase outassumedto be quiteweak."6
in theirrelalookwhichurbanitesmanifest
The morerecentviewsofsociallifein the tionships.""Insofaras the measuresused
city,then,differ
sharplyin emphasisfrom in theempiricalresearchdo not tap thedithoseof Wirth-if,indeed,the twosets of mensionsimplicitin Wirth'sdiscussion,
this
witheach
conflict
viewsare notin outright
The partialexceptionsare JohnP. Sutcliffeand
ofthesenewerviews, B. D. Crabbe, "Incidence and Degrees of Friendother.The proponents
can marshalan impressive
moreover,
array ship in Urban and Rural Areas," Social Forces,
of empiricalstudiesto supportthe conten- XLII (October, 1963), 60-67; and William H.
the Family,"
tion thatisolationfromfriendsand kin is Key, "Rural-Urban Differencesand49-56.
Sociological Quarterly,II (1961),
in thecity.7
a rareoccurrence
8

9 For studies dealing with frequencyof interaction with associates, see Scott Greer, "Urbanism Reconsidered: A Comparative Study of Local
case thatWirth's Areas in the Metropolis," American Sociological
Despite the formidable
detractors
appearto havemadeout,it is the Review, XXI (1956), 19-24; Scott Greerand Ella
Kuba, "Urbanism and Social Structure: A Los
Angeles Study," in Marvin B. Sussman (ed.),
4Marvin B. Sussman and Lee Burchinal,"Kin
York:
Family Network: UnheraldedStructurein Current CommunityStructureand Analysis (New
pp. 93-112; Mor1959),
Co.,
Crowell
Y.
Thomas
Conceptualizationsof Family Functioning,"Marris Axelrod,"Urban Structureand Social Particiriage and Family Living,XXIV (1962), 234-35.
pation," American Sociological Review, XXI
' Scott Greer, The Emerging City: Myth and
(1956), 13-18; Aida K. Tomeh, "Informal Group
Reality (New York: Free Press, 1962), pp. 92-93. Participation and Residential Patterns," AmeriLXX (July, 1964), 28'Aida K. Tomeh, "Participationin a Metropoli- can Journal of Sociology,
35; and Tomeh, "Participationin a Metropolitan
tan Community," Sociological Quarterly, VIII
Community" (n. 6 above), pp. 85-102.
(1967), 85.
'?Wirth,op. cit. (n. 1 above), p. 12.
'A number of these studies are cited in nn. 9
` Ibid.
and 12 below.
WEAKNESSES OF THE CRITICISMS

This content downloaded from 128.59.222.12 on Mon, 20 Apr 2015 18:35:57 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

THE AMERICANJOURNALOF SOCIOLOGY

494

friendship
activities.What is
researchcannotbe regardedas trulytesting leisure-time,
wronghere is that the relationshipsthat
his ideas.
onlya part
I mustimmediatelyconcede that there thesestudiesfocuson constitute
are studiesthatdo use indicatorsreferringof any person'snetworkof social relations.
hisanalysis
to the qualityof social relations.But even Wirthneverintendedto confine
theseinvestigations
leave somethingto be to thatpart. On the contrary,
his interest
The was in the total network.Considerhis redesired.For theyare not comparative.
samples are confinedto personslivingin markthat the "distinctivefeaturesof the
largecities,so thattheydo not permitone urban mode of life have oftenbeen deto make inferencesabout differences
be- scribedsociologicallyas consistingof the
of secondaryforprimarycontweenurban areas, on the one side, and substitution
smalltownsand ruralareas,on theother.12 tacts.";15or his mentionof "the numberof
As Wirthobservedin one passage, "We people . . . with whom they [urban inhabmust. . . inferthaturbanismwillassumeits itants] rub elbows in the course of daily
mostcharacteristic
and extremeformin the life";16or his referenceto the absence of
measurein whichtheconditions
withwhich "sentimental
and emotionalties"and to "a
it is congruent
are present.Thus thelarger, spiritof competition,
and
aggrandizement,
the moredenselypopulated,and the more mutualexploitation."'17
The languageWirth
heterogeneous
a community,
the moreac- uses in theseand otherpassages seemsto
centuatedthecharacteristics
associatedwith referin largepartto economicand business
Because the existingstudies
urbanismwill be."'13To the extentthat relationships.
Wirthintendedto depictthewaysin which are confinedto ties with friendsand kin,
highlyurbanizedsettlements
differ
fromless theyfailto deal withthesecondarytypesof
urbanizedsettlements,the absence of a interactionthat play a large role in most
comparativedesign vitiates the existing urbanites'day-to-dayexistence.Thus even
if researchwere to demonstratethat ties
studiesas a testofhistheory.14
and kinare no less "impersonal,
Finally,thesestudiesare limitedto rela- withfriends
and segmental"in
superficial,
transitory,
and the
tionswithkin, friends,neighbors,
in
towns
small
and ruralareas,
the
than
city
like. To be sure, the studies frequently
notjustifyrejectionofWirth's
it
would
still
butsuch
touchon relationswithco-workers,
ideas inasmuchas it would tell us nothing
relationsare invariablyviewedin termsof
about thecomparativequalityof social reFor investigationsthat contain measures of lations outside of the kin and friendship
the quality of social relations but are not com- networks.
parative in their design, see Wendell Bell and
Wirth'scritics,then,appear to have alMarion T. Boat, "Urban Neighborhoodsand Inlowedthedeficiencies
and limitations
of the
formalSocial Relations,"AmericanJournalof So12

ciology,LXII (1956-57), 391-98; Marvin B. Sussman, "The Isolated Nuclear Family: Fact or Fiction," Social Forces, VI (1959), 333-40; Nicholas
Babchuck and A. P. Bates, "The PrimaryRelations
of Middle-Class Couples," American Sociological
Review, XXVIII
(June, 1963), 377-84; and
Nicholas Babchuck, "PrimaryFriends and Kin: A
Study of the Associations of Middle Class
Couples," Social Forces, XLIII (May, 1965), 48393. Two reviewsof researchfocusingon the quality of ties among extended kin are Sussman and
Burchinal,op. cit. (n. 4 above), pp. 231-40; and
Joan Aldous, "Urbanization,The Extended Family and KinshipTies in West Africa,"Social Forces,
XLI (October, 1962), 6-11.
13 Wirth,op.cit. (n.

1 above), p. 9.

14
Admittedly there are studies that compare
residentsof census tractsthat vary in theirdegree
of "urbanism" or "familystatus." But in a given
study,these tractsare taken froma singlemetropolitan area. Whateverthe meritsof such studies,
they are no substitute for research comparing
residentsof different-sized
localities.For examples
of researchmakingintrametropolitan
comparisons,
see Greer, "Urbanism Reconsidered,"op. cit. (n.
9 above); Greerand Kuba, op. cit. (n. 9 above);
Tomeh, "Informal Group Participationand Residential Patterns,"op. cit. (n. 9 above) ; and Bell
and Boat, op. cit. (n. 12 above).

5Wirth,op. cit. (n. 1 above), pp. 20-21.

16Ibid., p. 12.

17

Ibid., p. 15.

This content downloaded from 128.59.222.12 on Mon, 20 Apr 2015 18:35:57 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

IN DEFENSEOF WIRTH

495

existingstudiesto lead themastray.'8In- able problems,the samplewas confinedto

thatwould employeeson the white-collarand maninvestigations
steadof designing
come to gripswiththe subtletyand com- ageriallevels.Amongthetypesofpersonnel
plexityof Wirth'stheory,theyimplicitly includedwere generalmanagersand their
thetheoryto makeit congru- assistants,heads of various departments,
reinterpreted
thattheresearchers front-office
clerks,switchboardoperators,
entwiththeprocedures
chefs,accountants,bookkeephad used-and in doingso, theystrippedit headwaiters,
and secretaries.In
qualities.
ers, securityofficers,
ofitstrenchant
of the hotels,the samplewas
twenty-three
DATA SUPPORTING WIRTH 'S VIEWS
and mansimplydefinedas all white-collar
hothree
largest
the
In
employees.
agerial
reIn additionto these considerations
buttingthe critics,I have data which-by telsthereweretoo manysuchemployeesto
the
betweenthe includeall in thesample,so I stratified
showinga negativecorrelation
ties and the size of population by the respondent'stype of
intimacyof friendship
the localityin whicha personlives-sup- work,set a samplequota foreach type,and
portWirth'sdepictionof social relationsin selecteda randomsample fromeach straof a studyof Mach- tum.19
thecity.A by-product
was conductedin the auThe fieldwork
iavellianismamonghotel employees,these
data avoid two of the pitfallsof previous tumnof 1963 and thewinterof 1964. Each
For one thing,the indexof respondentfilledout a highlystructured
investigations.
whichtook
questionnaire,
intimacyemployedhereseemsa reasonably self-administered
valid measureof the qualityof friendship on theaveragean hourand a halfto comrelations.For another,the sampleincludes plete. Usually the hotel managementset
residentsof both large cities and small asidea roominwhichgroupsofrespondents
between assembledto fill in the questionnaireon
comparisons
towns,thuspermitting
companytime.The numberof respondents
in the two.
respondents
fillingout the questionnaireat the same
SAMPLING AND FIELDWORK PROCEDURES
As each
sittingvariedfromone to fifteen.
I
in respondentcompletedthe questionnaire,
The sampleconsistedof483 employees
checkedit overand had himcorrect
hotels operatedby two chains briefly
twenty-six
and locatedin theeasterncoastalstatesbe- any grosserrors.
To maximizethecandorof repliesto the
tween Washington,D.C., and Bangor,
to convince
it was important
Maine. All of the hotelswere year-round questionnaire,
about inthat no information
establishmentsfor transients.The main respondents
the
to
be
disclosed
would
managedividuals
in decidingwhichhotels in
consideration
assurthe two chains would be includedin the ment.In additionto oral and written
and not requiring
studywas to minimizetheamountof travel ances of confidentiality
thatwouldhave to be donein thecourseof the respondentto identifyhimselfin the
I tookseveralstepsto demthefieldwork.This procedurewas necessi- questionnaire,
each
faith.Accompanying
strate
good
my
in theresearchbudget.
tatedby limitations
of
the
characteristics
some
of
are
"Following
Budgetarylimitationsalso dictatedthe
the sample. Almost two-thirdsconsistedof males.
use of a self-administered
questionnaire. There was a fairlyeven distributionof respondents
to man- on the age variable, those in the "50 and over"
Becausegivingsucha questionnaire
age category,however,being somewhat more nuinsurmounthave
created
workers
would
ual
Let me emphasize that in calling attentionto
the inadequacies of the studies cited here, I am
speaking strictly from the standpoint of their
suitabilityfor testingWirth's theory.From other
standpoints,includingthat of theirintrinsicmerit,
these investigationsmay be unexceptionable.
18

merous than those in the other three age categories (18-29, 30-39 and 40-49). Approximately
half of the sample came from three giant urban
hotels, each of which had no less than 700 personnel. At the other extreme,about 30 per cent
worked for units having less than 90 employees
each.

This content downloaded from 128.59.222.12 on Mon, 20 Apr 2015 18:35:57 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

496

THE AMERICANJOURNALOF SOCIOLOGY

questionnairewas a letter on university person.One of the itemsintendedto tap this

stationery
emphasizing
thepurelyacademic dimensionasked if the respondent"would feel
natureoftheresearchand promising
tosend badly if you happenedto lose touchwiththis
"
each respondent
a summaryof theprelim- person.
2.
Extensity,
accordingto Sorokin,is the
inaryfindings.
This promisewas laterkept.
"proportionof the activitiesand psychologiOn the firstpage of the instrument,
more- cal experiencesinvolvedin interactionout of
over,was an "official
acknowledgement"
of the sum total of the activitiesand psychologifinancialassistancefromthe UnitedStates cal experiencesof whichtheperson'swholelife
Department
ofHealth,Education,and Wel- processconsists."This dimensionappearssynfare.
onymouswith what Wirthhad in mind when
The one item
Finally,participationin the studywas he wrote of segmentalization.
voluntary.Respondents
wereexpresslytold designedto measureextensityin the questionthattheycouldrefuseto fillout a question- naire inquiredabout the range of topics the
naireif theyso wished.Asidefrommyprob- respondenttalkedaboutwhenhe was witheach
able inabilityin most instancesto make friend.
3.
individualsparticipate,therewas an addi- the The durationof a relationshipis simply
lengthof time that the relationshiphas
tional pragmaticreason for this practice. existed.To measurethis
I have caldimension,
Had I beenseekinginformation
aboutindi- culatedthemeanpercentageof therespondent's
vidualsin orderto turnoversuch informa- life duringwhich he knew the five friends
tion to management,most respondents listed.
would have expectedme to permitno re4. The interconnectedness
of the respondfusals.The policyof keepingparticipation ent's circleof friendshas been gaugedby the
voluntarywas thusdesignedto underscore extentto whichthe respondentknewthe other
associates of each friend.21One item asked
myindependence
of management.
MEASUREMENT

PROCEDURES

whetherthe "two closest friendsof this person (not includingyourself)are good friends
of yours."22

The indexof the intimacyof friendship

The idea forthisfourthdimensioncomesfrom
ties is based on a sectionof the questionElizabeth Bott,
and Social Network (Lonnairein whichtherespondent
was asked to don: TavistockFamily
Pub., 1957).
list thefirstnamesof the"fivepersons(or
The intimacyindex is based on six items,each
marriedcouples) notrelatedto you,whonm of which is assignedcode values of 0 to 3. A "no
you knowbest." The respondent,
in effect, answer" to any constituentitem results in the
gave fiverepliesto each item,one foreach respondentbeingleftout of the analysis.The theorange is from 0 to 18. The scoringof the
of thefriends
listed.One item,forexample, retical
firstfour itemsis based on the numberof friends
read "You know the immediatefamilyof to whom, according to the respondent,a given
thispersonwell." A responseconsistedof statementapplies.
placinga check mark underthe name of 1. You would feel badly if you happened to lose
touch with this person.
each friendto whom the statementwas
2. You know the immediatefamilyof this person
applicable.
well.
Four dimensions
have been employedin 3. This personhas givenyou a giftwithinthe past
the intimacyindex. The first
constructing
12 months (for your birthday,for Christmas,
etc.).
threeare takenfromSorokin'smodalitiesof
4. The two closest friendsof this person (not insocialinteraction.20
cludingyourself) are good friendsof yours.
1. Intensity
refersto thestrength
of affect 5. Writein the numberof years you have known
thatan individual
feelstowardanother
person each person. [This item was used to compute
andtheextent
towhichanindividual
is psycho- the mean per cent of the respondent'slife that
logicallyaffected
by the actionsof another he had known the five friendslisted. This pro2

22

20 See

Pitirim A. Sorokin, Social and Cultural

Dynamics (New York: AmericanBook Co., 1937),
III, 6-15.

portion determinedthe score assigned to each

respondent.]
6. How about the number of differentkinds of
thingsyou talk about with each of the above

This content downloaded from 128.59.222.12 on Mon, 20 Apr 2015 18:35:57 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

497

IN DEFENSEOF WIRTH

To measurethesize ofthelocality,I have itants; over 90 per cent lived in towns

which havinga populationof less than 40,000;
reliedon an itemin thequestionnaire
to namethe"town(or and over 75 per centlivedin townshaving
askedtherespondent
locality)and state" in whichhe was living less than 20,000population.
at the timehe answeredthe questionnaire.
THE FINDINGS AND THEIR LIMITATIONS
Withthisinformation,
it was easy to go to
population
of
to
obtain
the
the1960 Census
Table 124 examinesthe relationof intithe locale. If a respondentresidedin an macyto thesize of the locale in whichthe
urbanizedarea, the size variablerefersto respondentlived at the timeof the fieldthe populationof the urbanizedarea-not work.The data showa negativecorrelation:
the population of the municipality-in residentsof large citiesand theirsuburbs
whichhe lived.Threeurbanizedareas were areless likelyto have closefriendships
than
includedin thestudy.Two of them,Boston residentsof small towns. Insofar as this
and Washington,had populationsof be- findingevidencesthe relativelyunprimary
tween1.5 and 2.5 millions;the third,New
TABLE 1
York City,a populationof slightlyover 14
wholivedout- INTIMACY OF FRIENDSHIP TIES BY POPULAOf therespondents
million.23
side of thesethreeareas,nonelivedin comTION OF URBANIZED AREA OR LOCALITY (IF
OUTSIDE URBANIZED AREA) WHERE REmunitieshavingmorethan 120,000inhabSPONDENT CURRENTLYLIVES

persons? Write in the lettersdesignatingthose

with whom you discuss:
One or two subjects of mutual interestL
Several subjects of mutual interestL
Quite a few subjects of mutual interestL
A verywide rangeof subjectsof mutualinterestL
(The firstalternativewas givena score of 1, the
last a score of 4, and those in between scores of
2 and 3. The respondentreceiveda score for each
friend,and the scoresforthe fivefriendswere then
summed to yield a total score for the item. The
latterscore determinedthe code value assignedfor
this item.)
The work of Robin M. Williams,Jr.,on friendship proved a valuable source of suggestionsfor
item formulation;see Williams, "Friendship and
Social Values in a Suburban Community" (Eugene: University of Oregon, 1956 [mimeographed]).
I The urbanized area is a census concept that
refersto a large city-in the 1960 Census, one of
50,000 or more population-and the surrounding
suburban territory.The effectof using the urbanized area instead of the town or city as the
unit for measuringpopulation is to classifysuburbs by the population of the total urban complexes of which theyare a part. Use of the urbanized area was dictatedby considerationsassociated
with the major study-that on Machiavellianism
-from which the data given here are drawn. For
a formaldefinitionof the urbanizedarea, see U.S.
Bureau of the Census, United States Census of
Population: 1960, I: Characteristicsof Population, Part A: "Number of Inhabitants" (Washington,D.C.: GovernmentPrintingOffice,1961),
xviii-xix.

POPULATION
Between
Under 120
1.5 and 2.5
Thuad
Thousand

INTIMACY

Million

Low
Medium...
High. .

NOTE.-X2

14 Million

(%

42
24
34

47
26
27

58
19
23

100
(131)

100
(185)

100
(145)

8.77; d.f. = 4; .10 > P > .05.

character of social relations in urban settings, it raises even furtherdoubts about

the argumentsof Wirth's critics.
Although our data are highly suggestive,
they nonetheless have certain distinct lim-

emitations.First,thesamplingprocedures

ployed make it hazardous to generalize the

findings.Aside fromthe fact that the sample
was confinedto white-collarand managerial

selectionof
employeesin thehotelindustry,

24 The N's in the table add up to less than the

size of the sample (483). This is due to a lack of
information necessary for classifyingsome respondentson one or the other variable. In coding
respondentson the intimacyindex; e.g.,it was my
practiceto give no score to those individualswho
failed to replyto any of the itemsin the index.

This content downloaded from 128.59.222.12 on Mon, 20 Apr 2015 18:35:57 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

498

THE AMERICANJOURNALOF SOCIOLOGY

thehotelsforinclusionin thestudywas not than40,000 population.Afterlistingall of

based on probabilitysamplingprocedures. the "variouspeople you knowand meet,"
Addedto thisis thefactthat-inthreeof the therespondents
answeredsevenitemsabout
hotelstheproportion
oftheintendedsample theirrelationship
witheachsuchperson.On
thatrefusedto participatewas exceedingly thebasis of the replies,thepersonsnamed
high (i.e., over 30 per cent). These three wereclassifiedintothreecategoriesvarying
hotels were all in urbanizedareas of 1.5 in degrees of friendship-"bestfriend,"
millionor moreinhabitants.That the high "friend,"and "acquaintance."The findings
refusalrate is not evenlydistributedover of the study unfortunately
are equivocal.
therangeof theindependent
variablemay The respondentswho lived in the small
havebiasedthefindings
here.25
townscharacterized
fewerpersonsas "best
A secondlimitation
is thattheonlymeas- friends"thanthe respondents
who livedin
ure of the qualityof a person'ssocial rela- theurbanand suburbanareas. If, however,
tionsused hereis thatof the respondent's one lumps the "best friends"and the
friendship
ties. I have presenteddata nei- "friends"together,it turnsout that the
theron relationswithextendedkin nor on findingsare just the opposite: the small
relationswithotherkindsof associates.
town residentsnamed a greaternumber
Finally, the index of the intimacyof than the urbanitesand the suburbanites.26
friendshipties is based solely on the reWitha Guttmanscale measuring
particispondent'sreport.I did not give question- pationin theextendedfamily,Key studied
naires to the five friendsnamed by each 357 individualswho livedin different-sized
in orderto checkthereliability localitiesin theMidwest.He failedto find
respondent
anylinearrelationbetweensize and particiof his report.
pation. His resultsare thus at variance
COMPARABLE DATA FROM PREVIOUS STUDIES
withthosepresentedhere.27
The discrepanciesbetween these two
of the
Apart fromthe inconclusiveness
presentdata,uncertainties
emergefromtwo studiesand thepresentone can perhapsbe
in
somedifferences
studiesthatofferdata comparableto those explainedby examining
the
studies
the
research
procedures.
First,
presented
here.Sutcliffe
and Crabbestudied
of social relafivegroups-each consistingof eightAus- did not measurethe quality
tionsin thesame manner.The itemsin the
tralian first-yearuniversitystudentsand Crabbe studydeal withsuch
Sutcliffe
matchedon a numberofvariables.The first thingsas willingness
tolendarticles,amount
threegroupslivedin Sydney,the fourthin of confiding,
to supportthe
and willingness
the suburbs,and the fifthin townsof less otherpersonin the face of criticism.
Aside
'There is some evidence that the effectof the fromthe factthatKey's measurerefersto
high refusal rates operates against the arguments kinwhileminerefers
hismeasure
to friends,
presentedin thispaper. We know that the propor- is conceptually
impurein that it contains
tion of respondents who are Machiavellian is
itemsthat gauge both the frequencyand
somewhatlower in the hotels with the highrefusal
And onlya minority
rates than in the other hotels located in the cities qualityof interaction.
of the same size. We also know that there is a
of the fiveitemsin his scale-one dealing
slightnegativecorrelationbetweenan individual's withthe frequency
of lendingand borrowMachiavellianism score and the intimacy of his
ing
and
the
other
with the frequencyof
friendshipties. Thus the high refusal rates may
have served artificiallyto raise the percentagein "favorsotherthanlending"-measurequalthe citieshaving high intimacyscores and thereby ity.Thus themeasuresused in thesestudies
spuriously to lower the correlationbetween size seem to be tapping dimensionsthat are
of locale and intimacy.This is only surmiseon my different
fromthoseon whichthe present
part. But if it is correct,the evidence offeredhere
in support of Wirth would have been even more
favorableto his positionhad the high refusalrates
not occurred.

26

See Sutcliffeand Crabbe, op. cit. (n. 8 above).

27

See Key, op. cit. (n. 8 above).

This content downloaded from 128.59.222.12 on Mon, 20 Apr 2015 18:35:57 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

IN DEFENSEOF WIRTH

499

studyis based (intensity,extensity,

duraCONCLUSIONS
tion,and the interconnectedness
of the soIn summary,
I have arguedthattheevicial network).In my opinion,the measure dence thatWirth'scriticsrelyon to refute
used heredoes a muchbetterjob ofcaptur- hischaracterization
ofsocialrelationsin the
ing the nuances of quality as Wirthim- cityis inadequatein one or morerespects.
plicitlyconceivedit in his essay. In any First,thestudiesoftendeal withthequantievent,thecorrelation
betweenurbanism
and tativeaspectofsocialrelations,
ignoring
the
thequalityofsocialrelationscouldconceiv- qualitativeaspect thatwas Wirth'scentral
ably depend on the dimensionsused to concern.Second,the studiesare not commeasurethe lattervariable.
parative:withfewexceptions,theyfail to
In addition,Key's study uses differentincludetheresidents
of bothlargecities,on
cuttingpointsfor the populationvariable the one side, and small townsand rural
thanthoseused here.In his data, the cat- areas,on theother.Third,theirfocusis on
egoryat the highend of thisvariablecon- relationswithfriendsand kin; theyignore
sists of metropolitan
areas of more than otherrelationships.
100,000population.In my study,by conIn supportof Wirth'sviews,I presented
trast,themediumand highcategoriescon- data showinga negative associationbesist of urbanizedareas havingat least 1.5 tweenthesize of thelocalitya personlives
millionpopulation.One doubtsthatmost,if in and the intimacyof his friendship
ties.
in his highcategory
any,of therespondents
Given the limitationsof my data and
wouldfallintothemediumor highcategory giventhediscrepancies
betweenmyfindings
in thepresentstudy.If so, thediscrepancies and those of two
previous comparable
in our findings
could,in part,be due to the studies,it would
to
clearlybe unwarranted
fact that we focusedon different
portions argue that this discussionhas confirmed
of thepopulationvariable.Shouldthiscon- Wirth'stheoryof urbanismas a way oflife.
jecturebe true,theremaybe a relationship What this discussionhas accomplishedis
betweenurbanismand thequalityof social admittedlymore modestbut nevertheless
relations,
butit mayholdonlyfortheupper important:
it has demonstrated
theneedfor
portionof the urbanismvariable.In other a freshlookat thattheoryutilizingresearch
words,it is conceivablethat disintegrationbased on adequate measuresand adequate
in thequalityof relationsdoes notoccurin design.
markedformexceptin metropolitan
areas CARLETON UNIVERSITY
ofseveralmillioninhabitants.
OTTAWA, CANADA

This content downloaded from 128.59.222.12 on Mon, 20 Apr 2015 18:35:57 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions