GGY201 Urban Structure, Environment and Society Lecture Notes (Part 1) PDF

GGY201 – URBAN STRUCTURE, ENVIRONMENT AND SOCIETY. LECTURE NOTES: FOUNDATIONS OF URBAN SOCIAL LANDSCAPES (PART 1)  In the previous sessions we focused on how cities are organised according to functional zones.  We shift our focus to understand the social landscapes of cities. ...

GGY201 – URBAN STRUCTURE, ENVIRONMENT AND SOCIETY. LECTURE NOTES: FOUNDATIONS OF URBAN SOCIAL LANDSCAPES (PART 1)  In the previous sessions we focused on how cities are organised according to functional zones.  We shift our focus to understand the social landscapes of cities.  As urban geographers we seek to understand the spatial organisation of urban society.  We consider theories that have attempted to explain urban social structures.  During the late 19th and early 20th century several urban scholars argued that the process of urbanisation led to the death or loss of community.  The traditional “community” focused on relationship, familial relations and social bonds were increasingly under threat in large urban centres.  Communities are socially bonded through likeness, common beliefs, common rituals and symbols.  For these early scholars, urban society was markedly different – focused rather on the economic organisation of society, with social interactions short-lived and superficial.  Social order is rather based on differences and through division of labour.  One of these scholars, Simmel (1903); argued that cities have an adverse influence on society; o Dynamic density; the bigger the population, the less social controls are in place and behaviour is weakened. o Rationality/ impersonality; influence of economic relationships on social interactions. o Overstimulation; the “press” of people causes some to withdraw to preserve a sense of privacy. o Anomie; increased social isolation. o These factors could lead to deviant behaviour.  Their main argument was one of “community lost”.  This is a rather an outdated and pessimistic view of urban life. 1  The Chicago School of Urban Sociology (early to mid-20th century). o Burgess and Park (1925) observed social groups in specific urban contexts and how urban society is organised spatially. 2 o The Chicago school, also known as the ecological school drew inspiration from the biological or natural sciences to explain complex human behaviour. o They described cities as “natural” or “ecological” communities. o This “scientific” approach was used to provide a rational and predictable overview on the social patterns of cities based on competition among social groups over resources. o Concepts such as social distance emerged; social groups want to have little contact as possible with other groups. o The latter is achieved through spatial distance. o Therefore, the urban social landscape is marked by distinctive (segregated) neighbourhoods. o Neighbourhoods can experience change over time, through process of invasion and succession. o Social area analysis (factorial ecology) argues that three primary forces shape urban areas;  Advanced job skills are increasingly required  Family structures are changing  Residential mobility increases o Murdies (1969) urban mosaic details that three forces identify social areas in cities;  Socio-economic status  Family status  Ethnic status 3 o The Chicago or ecological school has been criticised for reinforcing racism and segregation. o Using biological sciences to explain complex human behaviour is problematic and be seen as a form of social Darwinism. o It ignores complex social, economic and political forces that shape human behaviour. o Social identity is a lot more complex in metropolitan areas and are influenced by race, gender, sexuality, age and lifestyle. 4