Anthropology 291, Honors 353: Oral History of the City |
Professor John B. Wolford
|
| Ref. No. 10340 (Anthro
291) 3 credits
Ref. No. 25830(Honors 353) 3 credits
Fall semester, 2001
University of Missouri÷St. Louis
Class room: Clark Hall 417
Class time: TR 4:00 - 5:15 p.m.
Wolford's web page: http://www.umsl.edu/~wolfordj |
Office Hours: TR 5:45 - 6:45 p.m.;
and by appointment on TR
Anthro Dept. Clark Hall 516
JBW Phone: 516-6474 (TR)
746-4560 (MWF)
516-6020 (dept.)
Email: wolfordj@msx.umsl.edu |
A291/HC353: Oral History of the City
Professor's Notes
for:
AN INTRODUCTION TO URBAN THEMES, APPROACHES
Professor John Wolford
Department of Anthropology
University of Missouri-St. Louis
Email: wolfordj@msx.umsl.edu
URBAN CHARACTER, URBAN ISSUES, URBAN APPROACHES
Outline for class consideration
Nature of cities, urbanism
What is a city?
How long have cities been with us? and why?
Who is Louis Wirth and what is his viewpoint on cities?
What have been the challenges to his view?
With industrialization since the 18th c., what have been the effects
on cities?
Nels Andersons 9 points:
1. highly specialized labor, mass production of goods, and services
2. reliance on mechanical power
3. decreased loyalties, increased detachment of individuals from traditional
authority structures (family and kin, religion, e.g.), but increasing reliance
on "secondary institutions" (government and corporate bureaucracies)
4. high mobility: daily movement, jobs, residency, social status
5. continuous change in the man-made landscape
6. dominance of mechanical time rather than natural time
7. considerable anonymity (related to decreased loyalties and increased
mobility)
8. expectancy and devotion to change (related to change in the landscape)
9. increasing commitment to records and conformity to their authority
tends to emphasize the mechanistic nature of cities and its effects
on humans
tends to emphasize the negative
[ RETURN TO
TOP ]
If all this is so negative, why do people continually move into cities
or urban areas?
What is the nature of grouping in cities?
Does it break down the primary relationships as Wirth says?
What have been the effect of advancing technology in communications
and transportation?
Anthropologists have traditionally studied "others"why the interest in
cities?
Given this background to what cities are, or how academics have viewed
them, what have been the methodological approaches to studying the cities
that anthropologists have taken?
history of anthro inquiry
from primitive to peasant to urban
from armchair to Boasian local to British Revolution
methods changed to participant observation
what are the assumptions of this methodology?
homogeneity of society NOT
accessibility perfectly suited
hospitality to modern Western urban life
community of interest and of interaction
What types of foci have urbanists taken in their research?
Typical units of analysis:
1) based on common residence: far and away the most common type
of study
2) based on common culture of origin (ethnicity or minority groups)
3) based on a common belief system (religion, politics)
4) based on common work (longshoremen, bankers, construction workers)
5) based upon primary relationships (kinship, household, social networks)
[ RETURN TO
TOP ]
What new city-specific concerns have arisen with urban research?
crafting the interview to urban concerns
new modes of researching potential communities, interviewees
being more team-oriented, even interdisciplinarily-oriented
dealing with a far more literate clientele
finding your objective center in a subjective study area
ethical concerns become more significant, upfront, highlighted
[ RETURN
TO TOP ]
Urbanism, by George Gmelch
& Walter P. Zenner (1996); in Gmelch & Zenner, 3rd ed., 1996: 1-13.
Rise of Cities
7000 years old
Started: Mesopotamia valley, then Egypt, Indus River valley, China,
Mesoamerica
Reasons:
rise of state society
consolidation of power: mercantile and religious
scales of efficiency
expansion of occupational roles, & resultant class distinctions
Defining the city
Seems to be no universal definition:
the problem is to differentiate urban from rural from suburban from
exurban
socioculturally specific: specific to the particular society that
defines it
can be academically specific too:
demographic
based on population size and type
possessing specified social institutions
political elite, or developed religious institutions, or a commercial
market
cultural features
developed cultural arts
societal features
based on type of society
royal-regal, like Charlemagne's of 9th c. Europe
theocratic, like Geneva during Calvinism
mercantile, such as Venice in Middle Ages/Renaissance
[ RETURN TO
TOP ]
Schenectady, NY:
considered
a suburb of Albany by some
a city in its own right by its residents
a town by people from New York City
most countries define cities by population size
Sweden, Denmark: places of 200 population are cities
Greece, Senegal, 10,000 population is required
USA: I'm not sure
Consequences of urbanism
Louis Wirth was the granddaddy of theorists on the nature and consequences
of urbanism
based his study on the Western, industrial city of Chicago, where
he lived and worked
took a generally negative view of the city: the city as crime-ridden,
dangerous, unhealthy
this view is based on Western style, industrial cities; culture-bound,
time-bound
noticed that urban areas had certain traits: Urbanism as a way of
life (1920s)
dense
largeness of city breaks down the personal bonds of small groups
people developed anomie (normlessness, alienation, anarchy)
reason cities are seen as so unsafe, dangerous
highly bureaucratic
[ RETURN TO
TOP ]
Others since have critiqued and revised and modified Worth's model
although many still accept his basic model as generally true
how do most people from West Co view the city of St. Louis?
how do people from the north side or the south side view the other?
how do Missourians view East St. Louis?
where do their information come from?
NOT from personal experience, NOT from being in those places
comes from the media, which plays on those stereotypes
Robert Redfield
developed "folk society" model which was to oppose the urban model
people maintained personal bonds, religious institutions, social
groupings
peaceful, satisfying, societally integrated
Oscar Lewis
rural immigrants within Mexico to urban areas maintained family
and religious ties
Horace Miner
Timbuctoo: macro level the Wirthian model worked, but on the personal
level it did not
because people's experiences negated the negative stereotypes
Sally Engle Merry
macro level it works: anonymity,
disorder and exploitation
but this is true at the boundaries of known areas, not in the heart
of known areas
BOUNDARIES: always a source of tension for people, because of the
unknown
[ RETURN TO
TOP ]
Others have emphasized the positive features of cities
Ulf Hannerz, Robert Rotenberg
cities still offer the same advantages that attracted people to
them 7000 years ago
people also adapt to cities
Others criticize Wirth's culture-bound theorizing
Gideon Sjoberg, The preindustrial city
based more on animal/human power than on industrial power
power elite tend to live in the cities, surrounding rural areas supporting
it
tend to be greener, greater emphasis on family ties, social sanctions
Others debate the essentialist approach
essentialism: that all things have an essential quality that
allow for categorization
all chairs have a chairness, no matter what the physical
shape
all cities have a city-ness, no matter what the physical shape
and make-up
nominalism: things are categorized together simply because they
are named the same
cities may be called cities, but they are not necessarily related
in an essential way
this means that cities should not be compared, for better or worse
one city need not be qualitatively better than another, because
there is no basis for an essentialist comparison
each city should be assessed based on its own merits
[ RETURN TO
TOP ]
Industrial urbanism
Nels Anderson's (1962) industrial society characteristics:
1. highly specialized labor, mass production of goods, and services
2. reliance on mechanical power
3. decreased loyalties, increased detachment of individuals from traditional
authority structures (family and kin, religion, e.g.), but increasing reliance
on "secondary institutions" (government and corporate bureaucracies)
4. high mobility: daily movement, jobs, residency, social status
5. continuous change in the man-made landscape
6. dominance of mechanical time rather than natural time
7. considerable anonymity (related to decreased loyalties and increased
mobility)
8. expectancy and devotion to change (related to change in the landscape)
9. increasing commitment to records and conformity to their authority
this particular one deals a blow to oral historical authority
Emphasizes:
technology and modern people's reliance on it and subjugation to
it
urbanism happens not only in cities but throughout urbanized society,
which extend globally
His approach follows Wirth's assumptions, and his view is fairly
negative
He does not talk about how people adapt to the changes in a positive
way
it's as if change is bad
[ RETURN TO
TOP ]
The urban environment
Studies try to sass out the effects of urban living on humans
results often will be based on Wirthian or non-Wirthian assumptions
that is, researchers often will validate or invalidate Wirth's negativism
e.g.: urban crowding can be detrimental to health (Wirthian); or
urban crowding can be conducive to socializing, dependent on the society
Surprisingly little has been done in this area, esp. in the US,
except by sociologists
Small groups in the large city
Urban anthropologists have focused on one major premise of Wirth's
to critique
Wirth's thesis, as stated by G&Z: "the
modern metropolitan environment leads to a breakdown of primary social
relationships, to powerlessness and to lawlessness" (11)
anthropologists: heterogeneity and population
density of the city is less important in determining social groups and
social adaptation than social aspects: economic position, cultural characteristics,
and family status of individuals
Carol Stack, Elliott Liebow, Herbert Gans (The Urban Villagers,
1962), Oscar Lewis
the focus on subcultures has been an outgrowth of this critique
Small groups have always been the basis for socializing
In the past, they have always been based on face-to-face interaction,
localized
Rapidly enhanced communication and transportation have expanded social
networks
Urbanists tend to look more at networks among individuals
now rather than at localized space relationships
[ RETURN TO
TOP ]
Anthropological
fieldwork in cities, by George M. Foster and Robert V. Kemper (1974);
in Gmelch & Zenner, 3rd ed., 1996: 135-150.
Overview:
traces the development of fieldwork in the
anthropological tradition
shows how urban anthro fieldwork is based in
part on traditional, non-urban anthro fieldwork
discussion of which fieldwork approaches are
best for urban anthro
Important to note: this was written in 1974,
when urban anthropology was in its infancy and at a stage when it seemed
as if it would prosper; it has not prospered, and it has not lived up to
its promise, so certain assumptions in this article may be overly-rosy
3 Phases of American Anthro fieldwork method and study
1. primitive (beginning to 1940)
2. peasant
3. urban
since and because of Boas: intensive participant-observation methodology
has always been primary
Phases of types of research
1. armchair (19th c.)
2. Boasiango live with the people for extended times, detail
their lives extensively, with a focus on capturing dying traditions of
marginal peoples, such as Native Americans
3. British Revolution: live with peoples for longer times, and
mostly in a synchronic mode (focus on the present) rather than try to reconstruct
the basically unknowable past
Margaret Mead in Samoa 1928, Robert Redfield in Mexico 1930, and
Hortense Powdermaker in South Seas (New Ireland) 1933 were among first
American anthropologists to do this
more common after WW2
foreign peasants or tribal peoples were typically the focus
[ RETURN TO
TOP ]
Urban anthro arose because of the rapid urbanization, globalization
post WW2
"peasants" and "Tribal peoples" became urban residents, increasingly
urban influences reached even remote areas
Rural methodology is not terribly well suited to urban research
concerns are different: city issues rather than rural
this affects social, cultural, familial lives
e.g.: urban concern would be monetary subsistence, schooling, safety,
greater reliance on external social control, more widespread spatial disbursement
rural concerns would be agricultural, seasonal, greater emphasis on
kinship structure, tighter internal social controls, tighter spatial centralization
spatial patterns are skewed to conform to city life, not rural
temporal patterns are totally different, mechanistic rather than natural
even contacting narrators is far different
rural: you live within the village, say, and get known
urban: getting known is far harder, because of distrust in cities
and non-centralization of study groups
also because you are less likely to live with the people, but rather
rent and come in to the group on a periodic, erratic basis
rural methodology relies on the lone researcher
whereas in urban models, the interdisciplinary team typically
works best, simply because there is a far more complex system that needs
be studied
different methodologies to use: statistical, demographic, surveys,
as well as the qualitative interview
[ RETURN TO
TOP ]
ethical concerns are more immediately noticeable
our contacts can read and will want to know the products coming
out of the research
we are responsible for their privacy, if wanted
urban societies, being more literate, will be more mindful of the effects
of the research
the research will enter the database of relevant urban documents
social activism
working with our own societies, many researchers feel an ethical
need to apply their research to effect changes that should be made in society
question of what changes, according to whom, and to what effect,
are always of top importance
questions of who should perform the research
insiders vs. outsiders?
whoever is involved has an effect on the product
also: objectivitycan an insider have objectivity? more or less than
an outsider? or does esoteric knowledge outweigh the objectivity question?
[ RETURN TO
TOP ]
Urban
fieldwork: anthropologists in cities, by George Gmelch; in Gmelch &
Zenner, 3rd ed., 1996: 130-134.
Overview:
basic outline of background of and nature
of fieldwork for urban anthropologists
Although drawing from cultural anthropology, urban
anthropology typically studies small, clearly-defined segments of society
rather
than a whole society, simply because the scale of the larger society is
larger
in conventional cultural anthro, the ethnographer goes into a village
or some such small social grouping and studies the whole
same with rural studies, even in America
typically, the urban anthropologist will study that segment holistically
Units of Analysis
Typical units of analysis:
1) based on common residence: far and away the most common
type of study
2) based on common culture of origin (ethnicity or minority groups)
3) based on a common belief system (religion, politics)
4) based on common work (longshoremen, bankers, construction workers)
5) based upon primary relationships (kinship, household, social
networks)
these units of analyses assume:
a homogeneous population--however, these are not always so homogeneous
a community of interest and interaction is not always the case, as
we have seen
[ RETURN TO
TOP ]
The People Anthropologists Study
Typically, urban anthropologists study the poor: people
in slums, ghettos and squatter settlements
because the poor create closed-in residential patterns amenable
to anthropologists' field methods
because the poor tend to be more accessible to the fieldworker, not
as resistant to being studied as the middle and upper classes
because anthropologists have typically studied the marginal (in terms
of national political power and wealth)
because they are different, exotic
However, there has been a grand effort to be more inclusive--study the
rich, the middle-class, the suburb
nonetheless, the poor and marginal still make up the lion's share
of the studies
The Nature of Urban Fieldwork
unlike conventional fieldwork, in that the ethnographer does
NOT live with the informants
typically will rent in the area
typically will have to travel by car or mass transit to interview
sites
typically will not always have the informants there when they are
supposed to be
Problems include:
difficulty in approaching potential informants,
because of the stranger factor
difficulty in setting up interviews, because of the job and time-is-precious
factors
some advantages to urban research
census or other statistical data is often already done
escape from the stress of fieldwork is just a drive-to-home away
although this could be a negative aspect as well: we can escape
too easily
[ RETURN TO
TOP ]
Ordinary
people, everyday life: folk culture in New York City, by Barbara Kirshenblatt-Gimblett
(ca. 1987); in Gmelch & Zenner, 3rd ed., 1996: 548-562
Overview:
focus on vernacular culture and how people
use it as a means of re-appropriating power and control for their lives
an antidote to studies that focus only or primarily
on elite culture and its institutions
an antidote to studies of lower-income people
that focus only on "social problems"
a social history that redefines assumptions
about norms and terms
What is vernacular culture?
"rooted in the immediate conditions of social
life, homemade, peculiar to a locale, and often outside of, if not in opposition
to, official or established culture" (548)
"vernacular culture is what ordinary people
create in their everyday lives" (548)
obviously, derives from linguistics, where vernacular
refers to a region- or people-specific form of language, a usage of language
that is quite distinctive and easily attributable to a specific people
Vernacular culture study offers an alternative to the standard fare of
urban anthropology
urban anthropology conventionally studies territory, politics,
social segmentation, and work
standard divisions in cultural anthropology, which urban anthro
inherits
alternatively, incorporating vernacular cultural study into urban anthro
yields:
study of a neighborhood conceptualized in terms other than residential
study of cultural politics, not politics (which tends to be
of dominant politics)
study of ethnic/racial segmentation as a social construction
study of work supplemented by studies of domestic life, play, variant
religious activities
that is, incorporating vernacular cultural study into urban anthro
yields studies that explore how people express themselves in situations
where they exercise some control, some autonomy
and thus, it allows the researcher to understand the better the
values, norms, wishes, desires of the people who are living life in
the areas being studied
more humanistic
[ RETURN TO
TOP ]
Place
a place is a transformed space:
a space with invested meaning
the meaning is created through interpersonal relationships, through
shared experiences
how to define a city's "places"?
bureaucratic territories
zip codes, area codes, police precincts, electoral districts, school
districts, zoning
areas defined by service deliveries
cable television, messenger delivery, parcel deliveries, taxis,
drug traffic
manufacturing and business areas
hospital zones, downtown retail, downtown business, business office
complexes, Clayton governmental center, Chrysler plant, malls
local spheres of influence
parishes, neighborhood assns, Block Watches
recreational geography of culture and entertainment
Grandel Center, sports arenas, the Hill, Forest Park
ceremonial centers
the Arch, Market Street, Kiener Plaza
neighborhoods are not always defined by residence
[ RETURN TO
TOP ]
Cultural Politics
cultures competing for self-determination
and assertion of their individual identities
this is not just a Marxist view (oppositional cultures, alternative
cultures, dominant, hegemonic)
takes into account the huge variety of subcultures and their
various modes and styles of expression
all cultures require expressions and autonomy
all cultures are worthy of study, for all are systems of value
representative of a society
she discusses Hip Hop culture as oppositional, and its international
analogues
cultural politics also involve the indoctrination of values by
a prevailing system
schools, media, athletic leagues, churches, other institutions controlled
by adults and by the dominant society instill values in youth that shape
them
the effect is homogenization of cultureshomogenizing difference
yet differentiation persists, thriveshow? why?
[ RETURN TO
TOP ]
Social Boundaries
social boundaries are determined by the
attribution
of similarity or difference, however small or great, apparent
or invisible
race, for example, is an attribution based on perception
of difference and the significance attached to that perceptual difference
also: social identity is neither singular nor unchangeable
people have multiple social identities
people change their identities throughout their lives: from
liberal to conservative, e.g.
time and its organization is an index to what identities people craft
for themselves
religious holidays
differentiate people, their behavior, and their actions
e.g.: acc to Jewish calendar, religious Jews go certain places and
don't do certain things, whereas non-Jews and non-religious Jews do not
go to those places and do not do those certain things
that religious calendar integrates some people, segregates others
Everyday Life
everyday life is best explored where people
have some autonomy over their lives
thus, work often is NOT a good spot to study, simply because most
people have little control over their work
on the other hand, play is a great place to start, because
typically people have great control over that
[ RETURN TO
TOP ]
Urban
danger: life in a neighborhood of strangers, by Sally Engle Merry (ca.
1987); in Gmelch & Zenner, 3rd ed., 1996: 47-59
Overview:
focus on Wirths posited dangerous aspect
of city life
case study is Dover Square, a multi-ethnic,
poor development in a northeastern city, riddled with crime
concludes that Wirth is only partially right:
Wirth said city life created anomie, which resulted from the breakdown
of primary institutions, such as family and social groups; Merry says that
it is the perception of people who are detached that is at the root of
crime, even when they are truly parts of social groups
Dover Square [fictional name of high crime neighborhood
in northeastern city]
55% Chinese: mostly from Hong Kong
14% African American
9 % white [including Syrian-Lebanese, who have been in the n'hood
since early 1900s]
9% Hispanic [recently arrived Puerto Ricans]
300 families total
government subsidized housing for low- and moderate-income families
high stability surprisingly: less than 5% turnover per year
yet it never became a cohesive community
Life in a high-crime neighborhood
Ethnic groups are scattered throughout the neighborhood
are not clumped together geographically
thus: ethnic diversity in locale
but little to no communication between members of the different
groups
they share the same buildings and stairwells, but do not talk
however, ethnic groups remain cohesive, and members talk to each
other, maintain social ties
She explains community in terms of the idea of a social network
"a way of conceptualizing those parts of
social life which do not form bounded, enduring social groups....Each person
is the center of a group of friends and kinsmen, the central point from
which radiates a series of links to other people." (50)
"This constellation forms an egocentric social constellation." (50)
there are also second order linksbranches off the tree and on and
on
[ RETURN TO
TOP ]
Understanding Dover Square demands knowledge of the social networks
the social networks are almost exclusively restricted to ethnic
membership
thus, social boundaries are omnipresent throughout the neighborhood
effect: everywhere, there are strangers
effect: strangers, being a non-social entity, are perceived as dangerous;
also, they perceive themselves as having the freedom of anarchy and of
conducting anti-social behavior, in anonymity
in this system, there is no built-in, internal sanctioning social system
(common values, gossip, family relationships, etc.)
Conceptions of Danger
Perception of danger varied from one person to the next
based on personal experience
based on personality
based on knowledge of the criminal element & knowing who was and
was not committing crimes
Risk vs. danger vs. fear
Risk: "the likelihood
of experiencing a crime or some other harm" (54)external
world's hazards; the most objective of the terms
Danger: "a cultural
construct which describes the way an individual conceptualizes the hazards
and risks in his or her world and assesses what they mean to him or her."
(54)internal, and subjective
"Essentially, danger is fear of the stranger,
the person who is potentially harmful and whose behavior seems unpredictable
and beyond control." (55)
Fear: "the inner emotional
state an individual experiences as he or she contemplates the danger he
or she believes exist" (54)subjective, affective
[ RETURN TO
TOP ]
In Dover Square, no area is statistically more or less dangerous than
another
but residents will define particular areas as more or less dangerous
these perceptions are based on group perceptions of who is dangerous
and where they hang out
these perceptions indicate:
notions of territory
ethnic hostilities and conflict
presence or absence of hostile strangers
familiarity with certain places
perceived availability of allies
the design of spacesclosed in versus open, etc.
people construct mental maps, many mental maps, that overlay one
another for different circumstances
they enact these maps depending on the circumstances that arise
these maps are subjective representations of group and individual
cultural realities
[ RETURN TO
TOP ]
A Theory of Danger
"that the sense of danger is rooted in
feelings of uncertainly, helplessness, and vulnerability triggered by encounters
with strangers who belong to unfamiliar, hostile, and potentially harmful
groups." (58)
that is, danger is based on categorical relationships (placing
people in social categories based on very superficial, non-experiential
data)
we base our conceptions of danger on our load of social categorizations,
which typically are not well-founded
the sharper the social boundaries between people, and the greater
the proximity of differential social groups, the greater the sense of social
danger
thus, "it is not those who are detached,
but those who appear detached, who are responsible for crime, disorder,
and fear." (59)
"These individuals are least susceptive
to social control." (59)
they just appear to have no social moorings, although they are firmly
integrated into their own social groups
Wirth: detached
individuals are most likely to violate social norms, because they have
no moral code
rather, according to Engle: those who appear
detached are the likely ones
Social boundaries create HUGE gaps in communication
[ RETURN TO
TOP ]
Created: August 2001
Previously revised: August 16, 2001
Last revised: August 26,
2001