1965 - William Key - Urbanism and Neighboring

7/27/2019 1965 - William Key - Urbanism and Neighboring

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/1965-william-key-urbanism-and-neighboring 1/8



Urbanismand Neighboring

WnIUau H. KEY,The MenningerFoundation

ALMOSTithout exception,students of community ife have heldthat the neighborhoodas a basis for associationdisappearsas the

degree of urbanization ncreases. Simmel and Parkprovided the

early theoreticalbasis; Bernard,McClenhan,Roper,Sweetser,and

others,conductedearlyempirical tudieswhichprovided he factualbasis for Wirth'slater restatementof the Simmel-Parkposition.?Afterthis initialresearch,whichcould be characterized s "Chicago

style,"interest in the problemwaned. Recently there has been a

resurgenceof interest in the problemsof urbanization ncludingstudiesof neighboringas well as otherformsof socialparticipation.

Onthe basis of these theoretical tatementsandempirical tudies,most studentsof the communityhave continuedto point out that

contactswith neighborsare less frequentand more superficial

n

the city than they are in the country.Unfortunately,howeverwell

conceived and well executed the empirical tudiesin this areahave

been, they do not providea factual basisfor the comparative tate-

ments given in most urban-sociologyextbooks.The researchhas

been confined to studies of one neighborhood,or two or more

neighborhoodsn the samecity. In addition,none of the studiesusesthe same "valid"scale for populationsfrom various points on a

rural-urbanontinuum.Theproblem

oftesting

the abovehypothesis,i.e., that there is a negativerelationshipbetweenurbanismand fre-

quencyor qualityof neighborhood ontacts, s two-fold: to developa "valid" cale applicableto people located at any point along the

urbanism ontinuum;andto interviewa sampleof peoplelocatedatvariouspoints alongthat continuum.Workthat teststhishypothesis

1Nicholas J. Spykman, The Social Theory of George Simmel (Chicago: Univ.of Chicago Press, 1925), especially chap. 2; Robert E. Park, The City (Chicago:Univ. of Chicago Press, 1925), pp. 1-46; Jessie Bernard, "An Instrument for the

Measurement of Neighboring with Experimental Application," (unpubl. doctoraldissertation,Washington University, 1935); Bessie McClenhan, The Changing Urban

Neighborhood (Los Angeles: Univ. of Southern Calif. Press, 1929); M. W. Roper,The City and The Primary Group (Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press, 1935); Frank

L. Switzer, "A New Emphasis for Neighborhood Research,"American SociologicalReoiew, 7:525-33 (1942).

379



380 THE SOCIOLOGICAL QUARTERLY

and is aimed at solving both the problemsoutlined above is the

interestof this paper.Becauseof the resurgenceof interestin the

areaand a possiblywider use for the scale, it was decidedto reporttheseresultseven thoughthe full workwas completedalmosteleven

yearsago.After much consideration, he decision was taken to omit the

dimensionof "quality"of contacts from the definition."Quality"

poses a more difficultproblemof definitionand evaluation; t was

thereforedecided to focus on the structuralaspectsof participationin groups.All aspects of interaction,such as "Whooriginatedthe

interaction?"What ype is the interaction?"nd "How ntense s theinteraction?"ave been omitted.All contactshavebeen assumedto

be similar,and the only variabletested was that of frequencyof

contact. Operationallywe are measuringfrequencyof social par-

ticipation,defined as contactswith other individualswhere oppor-

tunityfor meaningful nteractionsmay occur.The scalefor the measurement f neighboringwas based on one

constructed originally by Jesse Bernard and later modified by

StuartQueen.2 The refinementof Queen'sscale was conductedbymyself and Dr. RobertSchmidt,now of LindenwoodCollege.The

scale for measuringneighboringwas composed of the following

questionswith variousanswersweighted as indicated.

1. With how many people in your neighborhooddo you have a

speakingacquaintance?One-fourthormore 1Less thanone-fourth 0

2. How often do you stop and visit casuallywith yourneighbors?At least once a month 1Less often than once a month 0

3. How often do you visit in the homesof yourneighbors?At leastoncea month 1Lessoftenthanoncea month 0

4. How often doyou

borrowthings

from or lend things to your

neighbor?At leastoncea month 1Less often thanonce a month 0

2 Bernard, p. cit.; StuartA. Queen,"SocialParticipationn Relation o Social

Disorganization,"AmericanSociological Review, 14:251-57 (1949).



Urbanismand Neighboring 381

5. How oftendo youreceive favorsotherthanborrowingromyourneighbors?

At least once a month 1Less oftenthanonce a month 0

6. How often do you engagein activitiesoutsidethe neighborhoodwith some of yourneighbors?At least once a month 1Less often thanonce a month 0

7. How often do you go to parties or get-togethersthat include

solely or mostlypeople fromthe neighborhood?At least once a month 1Less often thanonce a month 0

Thesequestionswere includedaspartof a scheduleadministered

by means of a direct interviewand as partof a largerstudyaimed

at exploring he questionof the extentandkindof socialparticipa-

TABLE 1. ARRANGEMENT OF RESPONSES FOR NEIGHBORING SCALE

SCALETYPE QUESTIONS

1 2 3 4 5 6 78 + + + + + + +7 + + + + + + 06 + + + + + 0 05 + + + + 0 0 04 + + + 0 0 0 03 + + 0 0 0 0 02 + 0 0 0 0 0 01 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Reproducibility .97;N

-357.

tion in variouscategoriesof our society.3One previousarticlehas

recordedthe findingsof that study as they relate to the family.4Validationof this scalewas by the Gutman echnique.The arrange-ment of responses s shownin Table 1.

A similardecision(i.e., of what aspectsof interaction o include

in our definitionof participation)had to be made with respectto

urbanism.Somesociologistsnsist that size anddensityof population

are not sufficient riteria ormeasuringhe degreeof urbanism.Theyusually include in their definitions,referencesto attitude,patterns

aWilliam H. Key, "Rural Urban Social Participation" (unpubl. doctoral dis-

sertation, Washington University, 1953).4William H. Key, "Rural-UrbanDifferences in The Family," Sociological Quar-

terly, 2:49-56 (1961).




of interaction, ype of socialorganization, tc. It almostseemsthat

they use urbanismas a synonym or a cosmopolitanismhat is com-

posed of many elements. Thus, Wirth, Loomis and Beegle andotherspoint to the many elementsof urbanismand amongothershave popularized he phrase"Urbanism s a way of Life."5BeverlyDuncan in discussing my paper on "Urbanismand Family Social

Participation" t the 1960 meetings of the Midwest SociologicalSociety,pointedoutthatWirthandothershad,in definingurbanism,contrasted t to Redfield'sFolk Societyand that the use of a rural-urbancontinuumperverted he meetingof Wirth's deas.

Despite these objectionsa simple definitionof urbanismbasedon size of populationhas much to recommend t. In the firstplace,it does not, as do the other definitions,prejudgethe relationshipbetween the demographicand behavioralelementsas Wirthdid inhis famousarticle.In the secondplace,it enablesa clearspecificationof the independentvariable.For these reasons,we chose a simple(i.e., demographic)definitionof urbanism. t shouldbe pointedout,

however, that our choice of communitiesrangingfrom the Ozark

Highlandsto Indianapolis,Indiana,gives, at least at the ends ofthe continuum,a probable dentityof the two definitions.

The sampleconsistingof 357 individuals,on which this studyis based, was chosen from the Midwesternstates. The populationwas subdivided nto ruraldwellers (those living in unincorporatedplaces), village dwellers (incorporatedplaces of less than 2,500),residents of small towns (2,500-25,000), of medium-sizedcities

(25,000-100,000) and of metropolitanareas (more than 100,000).

Onelocalitywaschosenfromeachof these fivecategories.Localitieswere chosen on the basis of accessibility.Dwellingunitswithinthelocalitieswere listed and numbered.A probability ampleof dwell-

ing units was chosen using a table of randomnumbers.Since the

numbersof interviews n each of the subsampleswas smallwe used

rigorouscontrolsandmadereturnvisitsin the event a contact couldnot be made on the initialvisit. Substitutionswere allowedonly inthe event of a refusalon the partof the occupantsor of a vacancy.Refusalswere

few, comprisingin total

3 percent of those

ap-proached.Substitutionswere made from a list of alternatehouse-

holdschosenby randomnumbers.We decidedbeforehand o divide

5Louis Wirth, "Urbanism as a Way of Life," American Journal of Sociology,44:1-24 (July, 1938); Charles P. Loomis and J. Allen Beagle, Rural Social Systems(New York:Prentice-Hall, 1951), pp. 87-88.



Urbanism nd Neighboring 383

our sampleinto 50 per cent male and 50 per cent female and pre-designatedthe sex of the respondent o be interviewed n a given

household.All adults (i.e., those overtwentyyearsof age ormarriedindividuals illingadult roles) of the predesignated ex were inter-viewed in a household.If the householdcontainedno adultsof thesex given, the adult head of the householdwas interviewed.Forthis reasonwe failed to achieveourbalancedsexratio.

The definitionof neighborhoods alsoa simpleone, thoughhere

precision s moredifficult.To manypeople,neighbor s synonymouswithfriend.We were clearthattheneighborhoodwasthe geographi-

cal locality contiguous o the residenceof the respondent.But,howlargewas the neighborhood?n an urbanarea,"how manyblocks?"In a ruralarea, "howmany miles?"Workhas been done on the

TABLE 2. MEAN SCORES FOR NEIGHBORING, GIVEN BYPOPULATION GROUPS AND SEX

PLACE OF RESIDENCE TOTAL MALES FEMALES

Rural 6.26 6.4 6.1Village 5.67 4.9 6.1

Small Urban 5.40 4.9 5.7Terre Haute 5.30 5.9 4.7

Indianapolis 4.50 4.3 4.7

specificationof both urban and ruralneighborhoodsand we could

easily exclude some of these. For example,Bell and Boat, define

neighborhoodas a census tract and this is clearly too imprecise.6But, if a studyis to includeindividuals romvery diverseneighbor-hoods, how much precisionis possible?As a compromise t was

decided that no arbitrarydistances would be used as limits to theneighborhoodbut the idea of a contiguous ocalitywould be made

clear to each respondent.Before questioningwas actuallybegunwe discussed he size of the neighborhoodwith eachrespondentand

specifiedthe limits of the area to which the questionreferredfor

that respondent.While admittedly this procedurecould lead to

diverse definitionswhich would cast doubt on the results, it is

mitigatedby the fact that only 15 of the 357 interviewswere con-

ductedby personsotherthanthe authorand that therewas little

ifany confusion n the actualinterviewsituation.Thusthe hypothesisas finallystatedis: There s a negativerelationshipbetweenthe size

of the community n which people reside and the frequencywith

6Wendell Bell and Marion Boat, "Urban Neighborhoods and Informal Social

Relations,"AmericanJournalof Sociology, 62:391-98 (Jan., 1957).




whichthey participate n socialrelationshipsnvolvingotherpeople

residing n portionsof the communitycontiguous o theirresidence.

In general,the data supportsthe hypothesisof a negativerela-tionship between social participation and community size. There

is a steadydecline in meanscores orneighboringas onemoves from

ruralto urbanareas(mean scoresare given in Table2).Chi squareanalysis ormales,females,andthe combinedsample

confirms hat the differencesacrosscities arestatistically ignificant

TABLE 3. DISTRIBUTION OF SCORES ON PARTICIPATION IN THENEIGHBORHOOD BY PLACE OF RESIDENCE FOR THE TOTAL SAMPLE

ScoresPopulation Totals

Groups 1* 2* 3* 4 5 6 7 8

Rural 1 1 4 6 5 23 2 29 71

Village 0 0 5 7 2 10 5 7 36Small Urban 1 0 12 11 7 16 14 7 68Terre Haute 2 2 15 15 7 9 10 18 78

Indianapolis 2 2 43 15 4 20 7 11 104

Totals 6 5 79 54 25 78 38 72 357

Chi Square=

81.96;P

< .001; c= .469

*Groups1, 2, and 3 were combinedin analysis.

at the .001level. If one considersonlythe variousplacesof residence

and ignoresthe sex difference, he declinein meanscores s steady,differencesare small but consistent,and they are statisticallysig-nificantas recordedabove.

When the sexes are comparedseparately he trendis the same

and the size of the chi square (p <.001) testifiesto the stabilityof

the results.Becauseage and socioeconomic tatusarepotentially mportant

interveningvariables,they were taken into account.There are no

significantage differencesamongthe varioussub-sampleshatcould

accountfor the differences ound.Relationshipsbetween neighbor-

ing and socio-economic tatuswere computedfor each sub-sample.Since there is no validmeasureof socio-economictatusappropriatefor ruraland urbanpeople, two measureswere used. In ruralareas,

the Sewell shortform of the farmfamily socio-statusscale and inurban places, the Warnerindex of social status were used.' The

relationship between socioeconomic status (as measured) and

7William H. Sewell, "A Short Form of the Farm Family's Socio-Status Scale,"Rural Sociology, 8:161-71 (1945); Lloyd W. Warner,MarchiaMeeker,and Kenneth

Ealls, Social Class in America (Chicago: Science Research Associates, Inc., 1949).



Urbanismand Neighboring 385

neighboringis not consistent nor significantfor this sample.The

relationship s higherfor males in ruralareas and declinesas place

of residence becomes more urban while the relationshipbetweensocioeconomicstatus and neighboringis low for females in ruralareasand increasesas place of residencebecomesmoreurban.

To summarize,place on the rural-urban ontinuumexerts a

measurableinfluenceon interactionwith neighbors.There is an

apparent though nonsignificantnteractionbetween socioeconomic

status,sex and rural-urbanesidence.

1965 - William Key - Urbanism and Neighboring

Documents