This is a literature based work. By writing this paper I wanted to get a basic impression of
the theories about “The Public” as developed in urban sociology. I used Lyn Lofland´s
book “The Public Realm” and Louis Wirth´s article “Urbanism as a way of life” as my
main references. To give some deeper impact on classical social theories, I added the
basic items from Habermas “Strukturwandel der Öffentlichkeit” (The Structural
Transformation of the Public Sphere) and some basic ideas of Simmel's Sociology1. To
get more information about the development of “the public” in sciences, I used a book
called “Öffentlichkeit. Geschichte eines kritischen Begriffs” (The Public. About the
History of a critical term).
I was impressed by the pragmatic and frequent examples that Lofland uses to explain her
theories. At my home university, the Otto-Friedrich-Universität Bamberg, it is unusual to
give an example for every written item. It is more often the case, like at the end of a
“Hauptseminararbeit”2, that one basic example is given for an actual topic (European
Union, etc). The aim of examples given in students’ homework is to show, that the often
complex social theories have been profoundly understood by the student. Though I found
Lofland's style of giving many examples to her readers very positive, I will go on writing
my paper in the way I have learned: without many examples and based on theoretical
perspective of social structures. Due to this decision, my wo rk may differ from the exams
handed in by American students.
1 Simmel, Georg. Soziologie. Untersuchungen über die Formen der Vergesellschaftung. Fünfte Auflage.
(1908) 1968. Drucker & Humblot. Berlin. And: “Simmel on the city” in: Gottdiener, Mark. Hutchinson,
Ray. The New –Urban- Sociology. Second Edition. (1994) 2000. Mc Graw-Hill Higher Education. Boston.
Chapter 6: The Rise of Urban Sociology
2 Take home exam of Graduate Students with 20 to 30 pages
Structure
Prologue
The term “public”
Urban life
Epilogue
Bibliography
I wrote this paper in 1,5 line spacing, because I find this more comfortable to read. On the right side of the page a space is left for your remarks. I enlarged the paper to eleven pages to compensate for the spacing. Printed out in regular options, it would be exactly seven pages long.
Prologue
This is a literature based work. By writing this paper I wanted to get a basic impression of the theories about “The Public” as developed in urban sociology. I used Lyn Lofland´s book “The Public Realm” and Louis Wirth´s article “Urbanism as a way of life” as my main references. To give some deeper impact on classical social theories, I added the basic items from Habermas “Strukturwandel der Öffentlichkeit” (The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere) and some basic ideas of Simmel's Sociology[1]. To get more information about the development of “the public” in sciences, I used a book called “Öffentlichkeit. Geschichte eines kritischen Begriffs” (The Public. About the History of a critical term).
I was impressed by the pragmatic and frequent examples that Lofland uses to explain her theories. At my home university, the Otto-Friedrich-Universität Bamberg, it is unusual to give an example for every written item. It is more often the case, like at the end of a “Hauptseminararbeit”[2], that one basic example is given for an actual topic (European Union, etc). The aim of examples given in students’ homework is to show, that the often complex social theories have been profoundly understood by the student. Though I found Lofland's style of giving many examples to her readers very positive, I will go on writing my paper in the way I have learned: without many examples and based on theoretical perspective of social structures. Due to this decision, my work may differ from the exams handed in by American students.
The term “public sphere”
The idea of the “public sphere” is one of the main concepts in urban sociology. It describes places that are not owned by private persons or communities. There is a dichotomy, for example “public” is the opposite of “private”, where human relationships are developed. Lyn Lofland defines “public spaces” as locales that are more accessible than private places. Public spaces are visible and usable for all members of the community[3].
The term “public sphere” is an artificial word. In the English-speaking countries of the 18th and 19th century this term was not common[4]. But with the translation of Habermas theory “Der Strukturwandel der Oeffentlichkeit[5] ” from German into English “The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere” this expression became usual in sciences and published readings. Today the term “public sphere” is used for descriptive or normative facts. Using the word “public” can describe an empirical perceptible state of a place or a situation. A public space is generally usable by everybody. Also, the idea of peoples communicative and interactive behaviour may be judged to be an attitude that is guided by manners of public behaviour. For instance, to behave well in a western civilized public, one should not pick his nose or run through the streets naked.
In the Western European countries of the 18th century a place or sphere was also called “public” if it was not controlled by the government. In the historical tradition of the “Aufklärung” (the Enlightenment) in Germany and the French Revolution the public was initially defined as a spot of common interest, that provided the common good and was not regulated by the state. In Paris, the French urban public built themselves as a contrast to the royal court. In Great Britain, the public was developed in London cafes, where literal and moral discourses about the published topics of gazettes[6] were held. The cafes were named “The World”. They built a social opposite to the private apartments where London’s gentlemen resided in British privacy. In Germany, the public salons had a comparative role, as in England. In public clubs and catering trades, the topics of modern newspapers[7] and magazines were discussed. In the “literarische Öffentlichkeit” (literal public) the published news was disputed. These public meetings were a new arrangement. Before, public meetings were only known for political reasons. Now, the public has become accessible without government involvement.
The public audience is an aggregation of private folks. It is supposed to have a collective opinion. The public is more than an assembly of individuals; it is a common subject that is able to judge and evaluate its topics. Disputes and debates are held in critical and rational discourses. This observation fits to Habermas’ definition of the democratic public. The “demokratische Öffentlichkeit”, the democratic public, has to be constituted by common accessibility and rational discussion[8].
Urban life
As mentioned above, the roots of public meetings and discourses grew in Western European cities. With the beginning industrialization of the late 19th century, this effectively improved. All over Western Europe people moved from their villages to cities to find factory jobs and raise the welfare of their individual lives. The cities flourished as centres of economic, political and cultural life. Louis Wirth describes cities as power cores that draw “the most remote parts of the world into [their] orbit and [weave] diverse areas, peoples, and activities into a cosmos” (Wirth in: American Journal of Sociology 1938: 2). Wirth describes the city as the characteristic locus of urbanism. Though, in his opinion, the urban mode of life is not confined to cities. He defines cities as relatively large, dense, and permanent settlements of socially heterogeneous individuals[9]. These individuals are not connected by sentimental or emotional ties, as traditional village dwellers would be. Even Lyn Lofland agrees to this definition and adds the characterization that geographically bounded cities are easily distinguishable from lightly populated villages. She overtakes Wirth’s old definition of cities and concludes with the brief sentence: “A city is a permanently populous place or settlement” (Lofland 1998: 5-7).
The process of Urbanization, on the other hand, is determined in three stages. The first step makes a person be attracted to a certain place. On the second level, the individual becomes familiar with an urban mode of life. On the final grade, the person recognizes the changes in directions of life modes as urban. They realize the power of urban institutions and personalities, that operate through the means of communication and transportation[10].
The second level in the process of Urbanization, the urban mode of life, can again be approached from three interrelated perspectives. The first view considers the physical structure of urban life. It regards the population base and the used technologies. The second perspective focuses on the system of social organisation. This network involves a characteristic social structure, built upon social institutions and social relationships. The last part of urban life modes is constructed of a set of attitudes and ideas. A constellation of personalities engages in typical forms of collective behaviour. This constitutes a characteristic mechanism of social control in urban settlements.
Wirth’s article “Urbanism as a way of life” became popular, as it is today, because it involves impressive predictive potential. Wirth bases his description of cities on three main variables: number, density of settlement and degree of heterogeneity[11]. The first variable is used to name size propositions. Wirth points out, that the larger the population, the greater the chances for diversity and individualization. In big cities, competition and formal mechanisms of social control would replace primary relations of kinship as a means of organizing society, with growing size, anonymity and fragmentation of social interaction increased. In the meantime, the greater specialization in labour forces the functional diversity of social roles.
The second of Wirth's variables, to describe urban population, is the Density Propositions. For Wirth, greater density intensifies the effects of large population size. The density proposition creates the blasé attitude, that was named by Georg Simmel[12]. He believed that the individual’s senses are blurred and that they need to filter out what is relevant for their personal needs. Part of this excessive stimulation is the close living strangers, that creates greater tolerance, but also greater stress. Due to this stress, city dwellers try to escape from density. This leads to development of the fringe and greater land value in suburbia. The density also increases competition and compounds the effects of size.
[...]
[1] Simmel, Georg. Soziologie. Untersuchungen über die Formen der Vergesellschaftung. Fünfte Auflage. (1908) 1968. Drucker & Humblot. Berlin. And: “Simmel on the city” in: Gottdiener, Mark. Hutchinson, Ray. The New –Urban- Sociology. Second Edition. (1994) 2000. Mc Graw-Hill Higher Education. Boston. Chapter 6: The Rise of Urban Sociology
[2] Take home exam of Graduate Students with 20 to 30 pages
[3] Lofland 1998: 8ff
[4] Hohendahl 2000: 2ff
[5] first published in 1962
[6] for example The Tatler or The Spectator
[7] here: “Der Patriot”, The Patriot
[8] Habermas 1962
[9] Wirth in: American Journal of Sociology 1938: 3ff
[10] ibid: 3-4
[11] Wirth in: American Journal of Sociology 1938: 10ff
[12] Gottdiener 2000: 106-108
- Quote paper
- Sarah Pust (Author), 2001, The Urban Public in Sociological Perspective, Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/24811
-
-
-
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X.