Urbanization and Industrialization
Louis Wirth writes about the process of “urbanization,” connecting a number of ways that individual human beings and their societies are changing to adapt to these new forms of organization. Based on the readings this week, do you see evidence to support, qualify, refute, deepen, or complicate his analysis? How (i.e., to what extent, and in which direction) are the processes of industrialization and urbanization related? What questions do you have about this process and how it unfolds?
Student Reflection 1:
One common thread between Wirth’s ideas of the key features of urbanization and the readings comparing urbanization over the 19th century is the concept of movement. Movement of people into different neighborhoods alongside new communities or the development of transportation systems like canals and railroads that facilitated an increase in urban population both define urbanization in the physical sense of the word. However, the two encyclopedia entries add on a new layer to movement by elaborating on the movement of ideas and technology. Cities became centers of technological development, and more resources in forms of raw material and human labor were dedicated to developing urban infrastructure. Institutions of power began to shift and move as well. Outside of cities, power was scattered on a more individual scale, such as in the hands of artisans that managed their businesses. The specialization of jobs in cities necessitated by a preference towards a mass-production system required new concepts such as central banks and a larger workforce.
Industrialization and urbanization are inevitably tied together because to operate at the scale of an economically developing city, large numbers of people have to gather in the vicinity of each other and find ways of creating order. The scale of an individual’s direct community also changes, creating distinct social groups within cities based on similar backgrounds or ways of life. Wirth adds a nuanced layer to this by claiming urban areas have a higher turnover in social groups, but I think cities create more permanent social groupings that can come to define how the population is classified.
I am curious to see how the perception of urban life and urbanization changes with respect to time and whose opinion is being considered. This is partially inspired by the discussion on Thursday that revealed our mental images of cities, but also on the article comparing how cities are portrayed in American culture.
[by an MIT student, reproduced with permission]
Student Reflection 2:
One key point in Wirth’s analysis is diving into the defining characteristics of cities that come about as a product of increased population, looking beyond the simplistic quantity or density of people in an urban environment. While unprecedented population size and density is undoubtedly associated with the discussion of urbanization, more relevant is how this distribution shift contributes to the unique socioeconomic habitat. He parallels the increase in population density with Darwin’s observations of organisms, pointing out that population density creates an evolutionary pressure in both environments—people are forced to specialize and differentiate out of necessity, carving out individual niches as they scramble to survive on limited resources. Therefore, while specialization is only possible in such an urban landscape where there is a large enough condensed market for all duties to be divided amongst specialists, it is simultaneously also the only way that people can survive in such an environment. Additionally, the specialization comes with stratification and unification: people naturally move towards others of their same niche, or are forced there by external pressures such as their income, nature of work and associated social status. And when an inherently heterogenous population is forced together, Wirth explains the need for external controls—namely the clock, traffic signal, and to a certain extent laws and bureaucracy—to promote the homogeneity necessary to survive.
The paradox of homogeneity from a heterogenous population continues as Wirth discusses the industrial economy that drives urbanization. Agricultural land area is directly proportional to its productivity, but land in cities is at a premium, often cramming living, working, and commerce together to maximize output as different industries compete (and also tearing down traditional boundaries between home and work). Oftentimes, this calculating corporate efficiency can only come about by crushing the individuality of its diverse workforce. It appears the only way to scale worker productivity when a populace has “no sentimental and emotional ties” is soulless, rigid controls like those mentioned previously.
We see a direct example in Rees’s analysis of the assembly line and growth of mass production. Ford’s Model T factories are the epitome of homogeneity and specialization. Each man learns a specific action and only performs that action all day, every day. Any “excess” labor is meticulously shaved away; the work comes to them on a conveyor belt so that workers don’t even need to walk. These laborers truly are precursors to the modern day soulless machines that eventually take their place. Rees also comments on the transformation of traditional “craft-dominated industries.” Like the workers that made them, furniture was stripped of its character and limited to simply function—all in the name of maximizing efficiency.
Industrialization and urbanization seem a bit like the chicken and egg problem to me. The shifting economy due to industrialization—revolutionizing the way land and manpower scale with productivity—attract people and create the kind of environment that is conducive to creating the sociological characteristics of a city. However, the high density and demographic changes due to urbanization seem to force specialization and manufactured homogeneity, which is an implicit necessity for an industrial economy.
I’m curious about how this balances with the cultural impact of urbanization, as specialization and the economic shifts, combined with close proximity of people with different backgrounds, provides opportunities for the melting pot of a diverse population to create unique art, seemingly in contrast to the soulless work that defined their livelihood.
[by an MIT student, reproduced with permission]
