It must not be forgotten that modern technology has not made
itself felt uniformly, nor even universally. Some areas – notably Russia,
Pakistan and the Orient – are still dominantly agricultural; and their cities
do not display the characteristics of cities as we know them in the West.
Generally speaking, they still follow the ancient pattern of self-sufficient entities drawing their support from, and in turn serving, fairly well-
defined areas.
The size and character of any city will be determined by the
amount of agricultural produce and the foodstuff available to support it,
and by the nature and extend of the goods and services which the city is
equipped to supply to the area from which it draws its sustenance.
underlying all of this exchange, of course, is the existence of adequate
transportation facilities. indeed, transportation is implied in the very
concept of trade; and no city can grow beyond the limits imposed by the
available means of transport.
If any single word could be used to describe the social life of the
modern city, that word could probably be “impersonal”, individual desires
and choices are reduced to a minimum, and the contacts between one
person and another are so brief and specialised that people seldom really
knew even their associates. The city dweller’s life is largely governed by
the clock, from the time he arises early enough to get to work–perhaps via
the 7:30. bus or train, another impersonal obligation’-at a specific time.
His work a day is usually mechanized, or otherwise performed according
to quite exacting standards that allow but little self-expression. His leisure
time is most often spent in reading periodicals and books, or in viewing
the latest movie that “everybody” is talking about, or in some other
experience that is being shared by perhaps millions of others in hundreds
of other cities or towns. Even his direct contact with members of his
family–are extremely limited and segmental. The office or shop worker
seldom sees anything of his fellow workers “after office hours’; man and
wife cannot fully share each other’s daily experiences or problems, being
so completely separated for most of the day; even parents and children see
little of one another from morning till night. And each, in his own way, is
using the multiplicity of goods and services offered by the city in highly
standardized and impersonal ways. The mechanization inherent in the industrialism of the present day
has intensified the division of labour. Specialization has in turn narrowed
the occupational interest and function of the individual to such an extent
that only a fraction of his potential talent is utilised. The intensive use
land areas within the limits of the city has resulted in such a sheer massing with
of people that anything more than a most casual acquaintance even
“night dwellers” is virtually impossible; the term ‘neighbour’ has lost any
real meaning in city life. The enormously increased efficiency transportation facilities has only torn individuals loose from any sustained
interest in a given locality, but made available (and even necessary) a
veritable welter of goods and services. The acceleration of exchange and
the resulting dependence on money as the medium to accomplish that
exchange has stadardized not only the goods offered in trade, but also the
personal relationships involved in the exchange. Mass production, in
effect, has produced a mass society.
The impersonal mass society, however, affords the individual a
degree of freedom which he cannot have in the smaller, more agrarian
community. He is no longer circumscribed in his thought and action by
individuals with whom he has little in common except physical proximity.
The diversity of the urban environment gives him access to a wide variety
of social contact from which he can seek out, to a fair degree, others like
himself in tastes or interests. There is a mobility, both in the spatial and
social sense. One can attend the temple or theatre or museum or social
gathering of one’s liking; and he can expect a rise or fall in the social and
economic scale much more upon his own merit than upon his family
standing or lack of it. Similarly, the intricate variety of jobs in the city
gives the individual a chance to seek a type of work will be compatible
with his own temperament and training.
Nevertheless, the development of the urban mass society is not
without its costs. Mobility brings with it transience. If the individual gains
in anonymity, he also loses in identity. The groups with which he is
associated are themselves so specialised and unstable that they can give
him little of the recognition and security that everyone normally must
have. This is as true in the job experience as in the social life. The
loneliness and isolation confronting the individual in the large city is well
known; and it is the source of a large portion of the personal
disorganisation found among urban inhabitants.
Probably the most disastrous effect of the urban mass society,
socially, has been its influence upon the character of the family. Family
life in the city has been robbed of most of its traditional social and
economic functions. Factories have made the family almost entirely a
consuming agency: it is no longer a working unit. Also, the intense use of
land in the city has exerted a strong pressure in the reducing the size of the
family dwelling. The two together produce a severe train upon the cash
resources of the family; and as might well be expected, the urban birth-
rates are notably smaller than those of the rural areas. The city still is a consumer of people; it is not yet replenishing the population it draws from
the hinterland. Even the time-honoured social functions of family life,
religious experience, instruction of the young, recreation, sociability
I now to a very large extent centred outside the home; and this itself may
well be a contributing factor in the personal disorganisation.
From the existence of the mass society springs the development
of secondary group life and controls. The individual living in the city no
longer feels the compulsion or the security of association with other
individuals in his immediate environment. Neither his family nor his
neighbourhood means as much to him as they did formally in terms of
identity and conformity. Urban life has become much too swift-moving,
impersonal, and fragmented for the informal primary group controls to
remain completely adequate. consequently, life in the city is marked by
dependence on law and a great variety of voluntary secondary groupings to
assure a measure of conformity and complacence by the individual.
Criticism and opinion are much too slow to assure compliance by the
individual in the city; the specific requirements and penalties provided by
law are easily understood and applied. And on the less compulsive side,
the great variety of voluntary associations fraternal, religious,
recreational, cultural, occupational, political, welfare, or community
service – afford for the individual a means of satisfying, to some extent,
the gregarious needs formerly met within the family and neighbourhood
circles.
It is to be noted, that this transfer is by no means universal. The
family and neighbourhood still are fairly stable in the less transient city
areas – those sections where individual dwelling units still predominate.
And membership in secondary groupings seems to be directly correlated
with ascent in the economic scale. Unfortunately it is in those areas where
overcrowding and under privileged are greatest that these secondary
associations are fewest – and where crime and delinquency flourish.
never so well illustrated as by the position he has in urban life. His most
The inability of the individual to stand alone in today’s world is
personal needs-food, water, clothing, shelter and security–are available
to him only by grace of co-operative effort; and each one of them must be
of a quality that will be satisfactory by standards assuring health and safety
for the individual, In short, there must be “rules of the game”, established
by autority competent to enforce the rule; and that authority affects the urban individual most intimately at the local, or municipal level of
government.
The struggle between individual freedom and governmental
activity has been going on for centuries, but the modern rise of urban life
has greatly accelerated the movement toward the assumption of more
responsibility by government. Thus, cities now provide public educational
facilities (in many cases even at the college level), safeguard health, create
parks and playgrounds for recreation, administer assistance for the aged
and the indigent. Not infrequently, municipalities own and operate various
utilities such as water, gas, electricity, and transportation systems; and
even when these services are privately provided, the quality of the service
and the charges to be made are closely regulated by government authority.
Many of the standards of public service and administration are set by State
or Central Governments; but the actual performance of these duties is
done in large party by the local government.
Such extensive activities on the part of city government
necessarily mean that public business is business in a very literal sense.
City governments obviously must function through agents, so that large
numbers of citizens are employed, from the highly trained technician or
professional personnel down to the most unskilled labourer. The
municipality not only renders many services “free” to the citizenry (as for
example police, health, and fire protection), but also sells others at a price
set according to the service rendered, as in the case of the utilities. It
likewise buys large quantities of supplies, such as coal, printed material
for records, equipment for the maintenance of public buildings and parks,
highways, police and fierce protection. It contracts for the construction of
public buildings such as schools, museum, libraries, administrative halls,
police and fire stations, as well as highways and bridges – to say nothing
of negotiating for the necessary sites upon which to erect these various
structures. And finally, like any other agency, it must pay its way; and the
collecting of taxes and the financing of civic enterprises makes the fiscal
operations no small part of the total governmental function.