84 - URBAN · 2019. 4. 18. · is a continuing tradition from Jeffersonian anti-urbanism to George Grant's Toryism (1969) and movies such as "Death Wish" (1974) . 4 Louis Wirth, writing

THE COMMUNITY QUESTION* Intimate Ties in East York

Barry Wellman

Research Paper No. 90

*This is a revised version of Research Paper No. 84 - "URBAN CONNECTIONS".

Centre for Urban and Co11111unity Studies and

Department of Sociology University of Toronto

August 1977

Abstract

Three approaches to the Community Question are evaluated: the

Lost, Saved and Transformed arguments. Network analysis is proposed

as a perspective on the Community Question, for by focusing on

linkages, it avoids the a priori confinement of analysis to

solidary units. Data are presented about the structure and use of

"intimate" networks of 845 adult residents of the Borough of East

York, Toronto. The data provide broad support for the Community

Transformed argument, but only as modified by some portions of the

Saved and Lost arguments.

THE COMMUNITY QUESTION

The Community Question has been one of the continuing focal

concerns of sociology. It is the question of how macroscopic changes

in the division of labor in industrialized, bureaucratized social

systems have affected the structure and use of communal ties.

The Community Question, in its many guises, has set the agenda

for much of sociology: urban, kinship and industrial analyses, in

particular. Within the general domain of the Community Question,

there have been numerous specific structural inquiries: e.g. into

the replacement of informal multi-stranded linkages by more specia­

lized, more formal ties (Wirth 1938; Slater 1970; Braverman, 1974);

into the "stripping away" of many of the component strands of extended

family (Litwak 1960; Shorter 1973) and neighborhood (Keller 1968;

Webber 1963) relations; into the organization of communal ties as

sparsely-knit, narrowly-defined, ramified networks rather than as

densely-knit, multistranded, tightly-bounded solidarities (F. Katz

1966; Craven and Wellman 1973).

The Community Question has, in particular, been a principal

concern of urban sociology, from Tennies (1887), Sirnrnel (1902-1903)

and Park (1925) to Warren (1972), Hunter (1975) and Fischer (1976).

However, in much urban sociological analysis, the basic structural

concern of the Community Question has been obscured by its being

confounded with two other issues: Firstly, a continuing overarching

sociological concern with normative integration and consensus has

caused the confounding of structural questions with questions about

the conditions under which solidary communal sentiments could be

maintained. Secondly, urban sociology's particular concern with

- 2 -

spatial distributions has meant a preoccupation with locating communal

ties within spatially proximate (local) linkages. As a result of

these two confounding concerns, the basic structural Corrununity

Question has, in practice, tended to be confined to the search for

local solidarities.

In this paper we propose a re-examination of the Corrununity

Question (untangled from its confounding questions) from a network

analytic perspective. (It is our implicit argument that the proper

concern of urban sociologists is that of social structure and social

linkages, with questions of spatial distribution and social senti­

ments holding important -- but secondary -- positions.) Using data

from our study of urban "intimate" networks in Toronto, we shall

argue that contemporary communal ties are organized into ramified,

differentiated networks and not into normative solidarities. We

shall further argue that allegations of the contemporary "loss of

community" (see the discussion in Hunter 1975) have been caused,

for the most part, by the search for such communal ties in a context

which the current structural situation has to a great extent tran­

scended traditional solidarities.

Community: Lost, Saved, Transformed

In confronting the Community Question, urban sociologists have

been particularly concerned with analyzing the effects of four con­

textual correlates of the industrial bureaucratic transformation

upon urban interpersonal linkages and sentiments:

(1) the increased size of cities, with a consequent increase

in the population potential for more diverse interest groups;

(2) the increased density of interactions among parts of the

population (even where spatial density is decreasing), with the

- 3 -

ensuing complexities of organizational and ecological sorting;2

(3) the increased heterogeneity of persons with whom city-

dwellers come into contact under conditions of heightened mobility;

(4) the proliferation of cheap, efficient and dispersed tran-

sportation and communication facilities, increasing the ease with

which urbanites can overcome distances and maintain contact with

others. As a consequence, the increased scale of the contemporary

city is accessible, the increased velocity of transaction facilitates

interactional density, and links to multiple social circles are

more readily maintained (see Deutsch 1961; F. Katz 1966; Park 1925b;

Meier 1968; Webber 1968).

The Community Lost Argument: The Community Lost argument

holds many urban phenomena to be concrete and concentrated manifes-

tations of contemporary Western industrial bureaucratic societies.

I't argues that the restructured division of labor has attenuated

l 'd 1 t d . t 3 so i ary communa s ructures an sentimen s. The changes in the

urban context are deemed to have created single-stranded relation-

ships, sparsely-knit communal systems, membership in discrete mul-

tiple social circles, and a greater reliance by the individual and

the social system on indirect ties for connectivity.

Several Community Lost scholars have been somewhat optimistic

about the consequences of this change in community structure. Georg

Simmel argued that the urbanite, freed from a single encapsulating

solidarity had gained "freedom of movement ••. (and) a specific

individuality to which the division of labor in the enlarged group

gives both occasion and necessity ..• " (1902-19 03; 417) • Robert

Park's work (e.g. 1925a) vibrates with a sense of excitement about

the possibilities for individual action in the hurly-burly of the

city (see also Cox 1966).

- 4 -

However, most scholars making the Lost argument have seen the

structural changes as profoundly disorganizing. The purported

socially disorganizing effects of attenuated community solidarities

have been prevalent in analyses of migration, poverty, crime and

collective violence (see the critical review in Feagin 1973). There

is a continuing tradition from Jeffersonian anti-urbanism to George

Grant's Toryism (1969) and movies such as "Death Wish" (1974) . 4

Louis Wirth, writing after two decades of "Chicago school" urban

sociology summarized the Lost argument well:

The bonds of kinship, of neighbo:bliness, a:nd the sen­

timents arising out of living together for generations under

a common folk tradition are likely to be absent, or at

best, relatively weak in an aggregate the members of which

have such diverse origins and backgrounds. Under such

circumstances competition and formal control mechanisms

furnish the substitutes for the bonds of solidarity that

are relied upon to hold a folk society together ..• The

city is characterized by secondary rather than primary

contacts. The contacts of the city may indeed be face to

face, but they are nevertheless impersonal, transitory and

segmental. (19381 11-12)

Thus, the very prevalence of non-local primary ties is held to be

qualitatively different--segmental and instrumental (see Mostacci­

Calzavara 's critique 1976). Help in coping with contingencies

can rarely be gained informally through communal ties; urbanites

are now bound to the city by webs of secondary affilitations.

Proponents of the Lost argument have wrestled with the

- 5 -

Community Question for many years. They have sharpened our awareness

of the ways in which the transformed division of labor could strongly

affect the nature of traditional solidarities. Yet, because of an

orientation towards seeing communal ties as naturally occurring

in densely-knit, tightly-bounded, multistranded solidarities, most

of these analysts did not fully acknowledge that this same trans­

formation might also make more viable another form of communal

structure: more sparsely-knit, loosely-bounded, with fewer strands

in most relationships.

The Community Saved Argument: Many urban researchers, dismayed

by the Community Lost argument, have brought forth evidence to

support the Community Saved argument: that important multistranded,

bounded, help-giving, often densely-knit communal relations

still flourish in many neighborhood and kinship solidarities (see

the reviews in Keller 1968; Wellman and Whitaker 1974; Fischer 1976).

In contrast to the Lost argument's analytic concentration on aggre­

gated individual social behavior, the Saved argument has been very

much concerned with analyzing communal structures.

Multitudes of urban scholars have presented carefully-docu­

mented community studies, using systematic survey and field-work

techniques, to make the Community Saved argument. Neighborhood and

kinship ties have been shown to be continuing important sources of

assistance in mediating with bureaucratic structures and in coping

with contingencies (e.g. Liebow 1967; Young and Willmott 1957;

Gans 1962; 1967) 5 . Although the transformation of the urban context

had clearly fostered membership in a multiplicity of social circles

(Greer, 1962), the Saved argument maintained that single-stranded

- 6 -

links have a tendency to become multi-stranded, and that dense,

bounded interconnections often develop in initially sparse networks,

given the opportunities for communal interactions. By the early

nineteen-sixties the Saved argument had become the new orthodoxy,

with the publication of such works as Ganst {1962) study of an

"urban village," Greer's (1962) synthesis of post-war survey research,

and Jacobs' (1961) assertion of the vitality of dense, diverse

central cities.

While the Community Lost argument's assertion of urban social

disorganization has been rebutted, theoretically and empirically,

this work has been accomplished by documenting the persistence of

bounded communal solidarities. While some of the most interesting

Community Saved arguments (e.g. Janowitz 1952; Greer 1962; Suttles

1972; Hunter 1975) have been quite concerned with external linkages,

these linkages have been seen as radiating outward from a bounded

communal base -- often a small-scale territory or "neighborhood."

Such analyses, while properly rejecting the conclusion of the

Lost argument, have unfortunately also not sufficiently considered

its useful starting point: that the new division of labor may have

important effects on the nature of communal ties. Although Saved

scholars have clearly demonstrated that communal solidarities still

exist, because they have looked only for -- and at -- such solidari­

ties, it has not been possible to assess their positions within

overall networks of corrununal ties. 6 Weaker, more sparsely-knit,

less-bounded ties are all apt to be underrepresented in the Commu­

nity Saved studies (see the discussion in Granovetter 1973).

Furthermore, the basic Community Question -- dealing with the

structure and use of communal ties -- has been confounded in both

the Lost and Saved arguments with concerns about the persistence of

- 7 -

solidary sentiments and territorial cohesiveness. This is because

both arguments take as their starting points extrinsic mappings of

local area boundaries and then proceed to enquire into the extent

of communal interaction and sentiment within these boundaries.

The two arguments thus assume, a priori, that a significant portion

of an urbanite's communal relations are organized by locality {see

the critique in Katz 1966). This territorial perspective, searching

for answers to the Community Question only within bounded population

aggregates, is especially sensitive to the evaluation of community

solidarity in terms of shared values {see the discussion in Fried­

mann 1974; Howard 1974). Consequently, when there is an observed

dearth of locally-organized interaction and solidary feeling, both

the Lost and the Saved arguments can too easily lead to assertions

of the breakdown of community.

The Community Transformed Argument: We have seen that the

Community Lost argument emphasized the impact of a changed industrial

bureaucratic division of labor upon the nature of communal ties,

and that the Community Saved argument then proceeded to demonstrate

the continuing existence of such primary ties, organized in local

communities and kinship groups.

The Community Transformed argument has developed out of the

analytic juxtaposition of these two formulations. It argues that:

(a) the separation of residence, workplace and kinship groups

involves urbanites in multiple social circles with weak solidary

attachments;

(b) cheap, effective transportation and communication facilities

lower spatial costs of contact and have made the maintenance of

communal ties much less dependent on local-area proximity;

- 8 -

(c} the scale, density and diversity of the city, in combination

with widespread facilities for interaction, create the possibility

for access to loosely-bounded multiple social circles;

(d) the dispersion of communal ties and the heterogeneity of

the city make it unlikely that most of those with whom an urbanite

is linked will be densely-knit in potentially-solidary communities.

The Transformed argument thus maintains that communal ties

continue to be prevalent and important, as ways of accessing scarce

resources, enforcing trust (e.g. Cohen 1969), and providing socia­

bility (cf. Leyton 1974). Such informal ties are less multistranded

than those in which kinship, residence and work are combined. For

example, some may be purely sociable while help may flow through

others to deal with various contingencies. However, there is a

tendency over time for any given tie to become more multistranded

as new aspects of the informal relationship develop -- e.g. friends

getting each other jobs, or workmates becoming friends (Craven and

Wellman 1973).

The argument suggests that these communal ties will tend to

be dispersed among multiple social circles -- with little inter­

connectivity -- rather than being bound up within a single densely­

knit solidarity. These social circles, by their very nature, are

not "institutionally complete" (Breton 1964) tightly-bounded

"urban villages," but sparsely-knit, ramifying structures, providing

indirect connection to additional resources. Thus, the informal

provision of help to an urbanite is not a matter of obligations due

to a member of a solidarity. Rather, it is dependent upon the

dyadic quality of particular communal ties, the ability of network

members to provide indirect connection to additional resources, and

- 9 -

the extent to which additional members of a social circle can be

mobilized to create normative expectations for assistance.

Some formulations of this Transformed argument are analytically

dependent on Western industrial technology, from freeways (e.g.

Webber 1963) to computer conferences (e.g. Hiltz and Turoff, forth-

coming), as a means of reducing the social costs of spatial distances

to virtually zero. Yet, recent research in the Third World suggests

that important communal ties can be maintained over long distances,

using much less developed technology, as long as the ties are

structurally-based upon kinship systems or common local origins.7

This ses the interesting possibility for future research of

finding Community Transformed patterns prevalent in pre-industrial

Europe.

The Community Transformed argument, prefigured by Simmel

(1902-1903 417ff) and Park (192:b,65ff), has first been systematically

developed and tested in this decade. In urban sociology, its take­

off point has been the recent work of the Community Saved argument,

which has given important analytic attention to urbanites'

limited involvement in their local communities and their external

linkages beyond local community boundaries. 8 Going one step further,

the Community Transformed argument has abandoned the local area as

the starting point for analyzing the Community Question and looked

directly at the social and spatial structure of communal ties.

Conceptualizing the interpersonal life of the city-dweller as

the central node linking together complex network structures has led

to quite different analytic concerns than conceptualizing it as a

membership in a discrete solidarity. Preliminary analyses of the

Transformed argument have studied the structure and use of multiple

- 10 -

social circles (Brieger 1974; Bell and Newby 1976; Burt 1977; Craven

and Wellman 1973; Kadushin 1966; Katz 1966; Shulman 1972, 1976),

the use of communal ties to access resources (Lee 1969; Granovetter

1974; Foote 1974), and connectivity between social circles (Grano­

vetter 1973; Galaskiewicz and Marsden 1977; Warren 1972; Turk 1977) 9 .

Yet, a number of important questions are still posed for the

Community Transformed argument. First, are there no costs to main­

taining ties over distances and no advantages to the quick physical

accessibility afforded by proximity? Second, are there structural

pressures towards the formation of solidarities, as "friends of

friends" (Boissevain 1973) become friends of each other, as those

increasingly-dense clusters tend to interact more with each other

and less across network boundaries, and as network members develop

new strands to their relationships? Third, are there structural

circumstances -- e.g. lack of physical mobility, lack of material

resources, cultural differences -- which foster the maintenance

of "urban village" solidarities? Fourth, to what extent do con­

tinuing kinship and local systems structure informal social relations?

Fifth, is the maintenance of solidary communal sentiments dependent

upon a single unambiguous attachment to a solidary communal structure?

Posing these questions is not to vitiate the Community Trans­

formed argument, but to acknowledge that the reformulation of the

Community Question in network analytic terms has not only performed

a useful critique of the solidary assumptions of the Lost and

Saved arguments, it has also provided us with a new structural

perspective towards evaluating some of the continuing concerns of

all three arguments in dealing with the Community Question.

- 11 -

Analyzing the Community Question

Our current research attempts to analyze the Community Question

from a network perspective. Although often thought of as a col-

lection of techniques, network analysis is basically a perspective

which focuses on relations between individuals and collectivities.

It gives analytic attention to (a) social structural properties

and not to aggregates of individual units; {b) the allocation of

scarce resources through concrete systems of power, dependency and

coordination; {c) complex network structures as well as dyadic ties;

(d) questions of network boundaries, clusters and cross-linkages;

(e) complex structures and not simple hierarchies of power and

dependency.

The utility of the network perspective for analyzing the

Community Question is that it does not take as its starting-point

putative solidarities -- local or kin -- nor does it seek primarily

to find and explain the persistence of solidary sentiments. Rather,

it is principally concerned with specified structures of relation­

ships and flows of activities. 10 By looking directly at linkages

rather than at solidarities, the network perspective enables us to

focus on the basic structural issues posed by the three Community

Question arguments. We have reviewed above the different formulations

of the three arguments in dealing with the Community Question; these

are summarized in testable form in Figure 1.

Figure 1 about here

The Toronto Research: Our own research-into urban networks has been

primarily survey-based , supplemented by field work. At present,

the survey data consist of a 1968 random-sample survey of 845

- 12 -

adults (18 and over) residing in the Toronto Borough of East York,

a one-year follow-up survey of a sub-sample (N=l98) of the original

respondents conducted by Norman Shulman (1972; 1976) and a "snow­

ball" sample survey (also by Shulman) of 71 intimate networks

identified in the second survey. 11

A principal concern of this work has been .an inquiry into the

nature of ties to the 3930 intimates of the respondents. Intimates

were operationally defined in the survey as "the persons outside

your home that you feel closest to." Detailed information was

obtained about the six closest intimates: their degree of closeness

with the respondent, their gender and socioeconomic status, the

basis of their relationship (e.g. mother, neighbor), where they

live, how often they are in contact (and by what means), and the

kinds of assistance available in the relations~p. We sought infor­

mation about the structure of these small egocentric intimate net­

works by inquiring into the interconnecting close ties among the

sets of persons named.

The Borough of East York U971 pop.=104,645), the site of our

research, is an upper working-class/lower middle-class, predominantly

British-Canadian inner suburb of Metropolitan Toronto. It has the

reputation of being one of the most internally solidary areas of

Toronto, and as such, it is a particularly interesting site at which

to evaluate the claims of the Community Transformed argument. 12

In the next three sections of this paper, we present our

findings and evaluate the three Community Question arguments. This

paper treats the sample as a whole, dealing with overall patterns

of communal ties; future work will present analyses of the network

ties of various subgroups (see Wellman, Shulman, Wayne and Crump

forthcoming) .

We realize that our work, at best, can only deal with part of

the Community Question. This paper focuses only on strong intimate

ties and not on the whole range of communal attachments, and it

has no information on the dynamics of using such ties or on solidary

sentiments. Despite its lacunae, it does speak to much of the

Community Question; we trust that it will be a stimulus to further

research from the network perspective.

The Social Bases of Intimacy

(1) Almost all East Yorkers have some close intimate ties.

(supports Community SAVED, TRANSFORMED arguments)

(2) Most East Yorkers have intimate ties with both kin and

friends, but tend to "specialize" in one type of relationship

{TRANSFORMED)

(3) The strongest intimate ties tend to be with members of

the immediate family -- children, parents and siblings. The weakest

intimate ties tend to be with other kinds of relatives, neighbors

and coworkers. (SAVED)

Relational Bases: The data on the relational bases of intimacy

support some aspects of both the Community Saved and the Community

Transformed arguments. Almost all (98%) of the East Yorkers

report having at least one intimate tie; the majority (61%) of

them report having five or more of such strong ties. The prevalence

of these intimate ties is clearly at variance with the Community

Lost's argument of urban social disorganization.

The data show that most East Yorkers have intimate ties with

both kin and friends, in accordance with the Transformed argument

(see also Laumann 1973; Verbrugge 1977). For the sample taken as

- 14 -

a whole, about half of all intimate ties are with kin and about

half are with unrelated individuals (predominantly "friends"). (See

Table 1.) However, the strongest intimate ties (in terms of respon­

dents' relative strength of closeness to imtimates) are usually

with immediate kin (children, parents and siblings) -- a traditional

basis for solidary ties. Furthermore, when neighbors and coworkers

are considered as intimates at all, the ties are likely to be

comparatively weak (see Table 1).

Table 1 about here

Most of the East Yorkers "specialize" in one type of intimate

relationship -- kin or friend -- while also maintaining one or two

of other types of intimate connection. A sizable minority are

"superspecialists": 19% name only kin and 18% name only nonkin.

Kin and nonkin intimates tend to be in different clusters of their

intimate networks and do not have intimate ties with each other.

All of East Yorker 1 s intimates, though, are indirectly tied to

each other through the respondent; many may also have non-intimate

direct connections with one another.

The multiple bases of the intimate relationships , and the

lack of direct connections between relationally-different intimates,

are in accord with the Transformed argument. Yet, multiplicity

does not mean equality. Most East Yorkers are closer with kin

than with unrelated intimates, and the greater portion of their

intimate ties tends to be bound up in one type of relationship.

Thus our data are in accordance with the persistence of kinship

ties that has been well-documented in the Community Saved argument

{e.g. Litwak 1960; Adams 1968; Gordon 1977). However, in treating

- 15 -

kinship systems as separate analytic entities, such Saved arguments

have underplayed the manifest multiplicity of contemporary urban

intimate networks. We believe that our data suggests a synthesis

with the Transformed argument: the variety of intimate ties poten-

tially provides access to a more diverse array of resources, while

especially heavy involvement with kin retains connection to a some-

what solidary system. The Lost argument, foreseeing the attenuation

of intimate ties, is clearly not as tenable and will not be given

further consideration in detail.

Spatial Bases:

(4) Most intimate ties are maintained within the metropolitan

area, but they are not local. The metropolitan area thus bounds

the effective field of contact more than does the neighborhood.

(TRANSFORMED)

(5) Intimate ties with kin tend to be maintained over greater

distances (SAVED).

(6) Contacts with intimates tend to be more frequently made

by telephone than in-person. (TRANSFORMED)

(7) The telephone acts as a complement to in-person contact --

and not as a substitute -- for all but the most spatially distant

and the most spatially close connections. In the former case, a

very high proportion of all contact is by telephone; in the latter

case, almost none. (partial SAVED/partial TRANSFORMED).

(8) Neighboring ties are prevalent, but not intimate (partial

SAVED/partial TRANSFORMED) •

Rather than strict spatial bounds to intimacy, there is a

gradient, with the maintenace of such ties being rarer with greater

distance. The majority of East Yorkers' intimates live within

- iO -

Metropolitan Toronto but only a small minority (13%) live in the

same neighborhoods as their respondents (Table 2). One-quarter Jf

the intimates live outside of Metropolitan Toronto -- some as far

away as Vancouver and New Delhi.

Table 2 about here

The distances at which intimate links are maintained varies

markedly with the relational basis of the tie. Distant ties are

much more likely to be with kinfolk than with friends. Thirty-four

percent of intimate kin live outside of Metro Toronto, more than

twice the percentage of unrelated intimates (Table 2). Furthermore,

ties with kin are the most actively maintained distant intimate

ties, with a much higher frequency of in-person and telephone

interaction.

The wide spatial expanse of intimate networks is facilitated

by extensive use of the telephone. Indeed, telephone contact is

usually more frequent than is in-person contact (Table 3) . The

two modes of communication are generally complementary and not

substitutive; it is quite rare for there to be a good deal of tele­

phone conversation between intimates without there also being

frequent in-person meetings. (One exception is that intimates living

on the same block rely predominantly on in-person contact.) Perhaps,

the greater breadth of communication available through in-person

meetings provides necessary information to reaffirm, reinforce and

readjust relationships routinely maintained by telephone (cf. Goffman

1971). We find no instances where an intimate tie is being solely

sustained by telecommunications.

- 17 -

Table 3 about here

Distant ties: Contemporary transportation and communication faci­

lities have lessened, but not eliminated, the constraints of dis­

tance. Intimates who live far from East York tend to have a much

different relationship, having much less frequent telephone and

in-person contact. 13 The infrequent contact ratifies the tie, and

a potential is retained for more intensive use when needed. The

minority of those distant intimates who do interact frequently,

tend to maintain contact by telephone (see Table 3).

Clearly, many of the long-distance intimate ties are rather

dormant in their actual functioning (see F. Katz 1966; P. Katz 1974

for good discussions of dormant ties). However, the very existence

of these semi-dormant links may usefully serve to link East Yorkers

indirectly to other connections. Furthermore, these are intimate

ties and not just distant links to kin and friends. When necessary,

the costs of distance can be overridden by an emergency (see Boswell

1969 for a Zambian example). A typical example from our interviews

is a son winging his way 2100 miles to Calgary to care for a sick

mother, when "Sunday visit" telephone calls had sufficed for the

previous ten years.

Local Ties: In keeping with the Transformed argument, the great

majority of East Yorkers' intimate networks are not organized at

all into local solidarities. Few East Yorkers have more than one

intimate who resides in their own neighborhood (see Table 2). The

distribution of intimates' residences clearly indicates that the

communal ties of East Yorkers are situated in a broad Metropolitan

- 18 -

Toronto {and beyond) field of interaction. This broad expanse of

ties is facilitated by a forty minute maximum driving time to any­

where in the metropolitan area, a good public transit system, a

cheap metropolitan-wide local telephone rate, and the ready access

of many Torontonians to long-distance telephones, airplanes and

automobiles.

Yet East York's pride in its small town atmosphere is not with­

out foundation. The data do provide some support for the Community

Saved argument. Although the Borough contains less than 5% of

Metro Toronto's population, fully one-quarter of the respondents'

intimate ties are with other East Yorkers, and the percentage is

even higher for ties with intimates who are not kin (see Table 2).

Furthermore, many ties, of all types, started locally, even if they

now extend for longer distances.

There are many ties with neighbors, although these rarely

reach the strength of intimacy. On the average, East Yorkers

talk with five neighbors regularly and visit in the homes of three. 15

Such local ties are used for easy sociability and routine assistance,

when quick physical accessibility is an important consideration.

The data on the spatial basis of intimate ties provide support

for a synthesis of the Community Saved and the Community Transformed

arguments (as did the data on the relational bases of ties). They

show that East York is neither an "urban village" nor a "community

without propinquity" (Webber 1963). Intimate ties are organized

into local solidarities even less often than they are into tight

kinship systems. Indeed, the car, telephone and airplane may help

many kinship ties stay active, under situations of physical mobility.

Yet, space is still a constraint; there are distances for each tie

- 19 -

in which the cost of keeping in contact becomes too great for it

to remain viable.

Local ties are real and important in East York, as the Saved

argument would suggest, but their importance comes from their being

only a component of a diverse array of relationships. The neigh­

boring relationship is usually a weak tie, with limits to the claims

that can be made upon a fellow network member. Neighboring is of

particular importance to the less-mobile: young children, the aged,

housewives, invalids (Jacob 1961; Keller 1968; Gates, Stevens and

Wellman 1973). In conjunction with the dispersed networks of inti­

macy, there remains the easily accessible, more densely-knit, often

less-intense networks of neighborliness.

Network Structure

(9) Intimate ties tend to be structured in networks of rather

sparse density, but ties among intimate kin are much more densely

interconnected. (partial TRANSFORMED/partial SAVED).

(10) Only the strongest intimate connections tend to be reci­

procated as intimates (TRANSFORMED) .

(11) East Yorkers' intimate networks connect them to multiple

social circles (TRANSFORMED) .

Density: The prevalent sparse density in East Yorkers' intimate

networks support the Transformed argument. The average density is

33%; that is, one-third of all possible close ties among intimates

are actually reported to exist. 16 Only one-fifth of the networks

have a density greater than 50% (table 4). Clearly, the great

majority of respondents are not encapsulated within the bounds of

one solidary group, but are linked through their intimates to

multiple, not strongly connected, social circles. 17

Table 4 here

- 20 -

There are significant clusters of density in the sample, though.

Kinship systems tend to foster close ties among members, and those

East Yorkers' intimate networks which are predominantly composed

of kin tend to be more densely-knit than are other intimate net­

works (Table 5). Kin members of intimate networks also tend to

form densely-knit so~idary clusters within the rather sparse over­

all networks. Intimate friends, in contrast, tend to be either

unconnected to other intimates or dyadically linked to them.

Table 5 about here

Reciprocity: Shulman's associated study (1972) interviewed many

of the intimates named by our respondents and asked them, in turn,

who their intimates were. These data reveal that only 36% of the

surveyed intimates reciprocate by naming East Yorkers as their

intimates. The closest intimates (those ranked first by mutual

respondents) are markedly more likely to see each other as mutual

intimates. Others acknowledge return ties to the East Yorkers

but weaker ones than intimacy. These people have intimate relation­

ships, but different ones than the East Yorkers have. 18 These

ramifying, non-reciprocating ties are in keeping with the Transformed

argument, and go against the Saved argument's notion of a tightly­

bounded, mutually-oriented solidary system. 19

Ramific~tions: Taken together, the variety of types of inti-

mate ties, the sparse network density, and the often-unreciprocated

character of intimate bonds strongly suggests a ramified, loosely­

bounded web of communal ties, rather than an aggregation of densely­

knit, tightly-bounded solidary communities. Only a minority of an

East Yorker's intimates reciprocate his/her feelings of intimacy,

- 21 -

and only a minority of intimates tend to be intimate with each

other. The overall structure of intimate relationships is closely

in accord with the Transformed argument.

Yet the data also indicate some basis for the closer structural

integration suggested by the Saved argument. Many of those who are

not strongly connected to each other as intimates are still linked

in other important ways: as acquaintances, neighbors, coworkers,

or non-intimate kin. Using this less-restrictive criteria, the

networks are markedly denser. There are also often dense clusters

within sparsely-knit networks.

Whilst making for low communal solidarity, this variety of

ties and uneven density provide structural bases for dealing with

contingencies. Densely-knit network clusters provide the basis for

cooperative activities. Ramifying, branching networks and as:Ymme-·

trically reciprocated linkages facilitate access to other social

circles. They provide the basis for East Yorkers to utilize the

intimate ties to others that their Alters have. The ties are

not encapsulated in "decoupled" little worlds (White 1966) but

are strands in the larger metropolitan web.

The Availability of Help from Intimates

(12) The great majority of East Yorkers have help in dealing

with emergencies available from within their intimate networks: the

majority also have help available from within their intimate networks

in dealing with everyday matters. (SAVED and TRANSFORMED)

(13) Help in emergencies and everyday matters is available

only in a minority of intimate relationships i.e., "helping" is a

defining attribute of only a minority of such relationships. (TRANS­

FORMED)

- 22 -

(14) Parents and (adult) children who are intimates are more

likely to be called on for help in emergencies, as a direct effect

of the social basis of the relationship, and because such parents

and children tend to have stronger bonds, be more structurally

central, in more densely-knit networks, and in more frequent tele­

phone contact. (SAVED)

(15) Parents and (adult) children who are intimates are more

likely to be called on for help in everyday matters. This is not

a direct effect of the social basis of the relationship, but because

such parent and child intimates tend to have stronger bonds, be

more structurally central, in more densely-knit networks, and in

more frequent telephone contact. (SAVED)

(16) Coworker intimates are quite likely to help in dealing

with everyday situations as a result of their frequent face-to-face

contact. (TRANSFOR~ED)

(17) Local neighborhood proximity is not a factor in the

availability of help from intimates

as emergencies. (TRANSFORMED)

in everyday matters as well

(18) Residential location is a constraint in the mobilization

of help from intimates, but only when the intimates live outside

of the metropolitan area. There is no direct effect: it is because

intimates who live inside of the metropolitan area tend to be in

more frequent face-to-face and telephone contact. (TRANSFORMED)

(19) More structurally central intimates tend to have somewhat

more frequent contact with East Yorkers, and this, indirectly,

makes them slightly more likely to provide everyday and emergency

assistance to them.

(20) There are no significant direct effects of the density of

an intimate network on the likelihood of an intimate providing

- 23 -

everyday or emergency assistance. (TRANSFORMED)

(21) The more frequently intimates are in contact, the more

apt are they to provide help in both emergency and everyday matters.

A high frequency of contact is particularly important for the mobi­

lization of help in dealing with everyday contingencies, when ready

accessibility is more likely to be salient. (TRANSFORMED)

(22) The stronger (closer) the intimate bond, the more likely

is helping to be a component of the relationship. The strength of

the relationship is the most powerful direct predictor to the

availability of everyday and emergency assistance. (TRANSFORMED)

------------------------------------------------The current structural situation of East Yorkers, linked to

intimates by means of sparse networks rather than solidary groups,

is reflected in the nature of the help from intimates which they

report to be available. If East Yorkers are to avoid the direct

dependence on formal bureaucratic resources forecast by the Community

Lost argument, they must be able to find sources of assistance in

their interpersonal network. Although help might come from many

relationships, it is reasonable to expect that most urbanites par-

ticularly rely on the availability of help from intimates -- by

definition, the people outside of their households with whom they

feel closest. Indeed, our current interviews suggest that such

helpfulness is a key defining characteristic of many intimate rela­

tionships. While the data on the prevalence of intimate relation-

ships basically support the Community Transformed argument, they

also indicate that the concerns of the Lost argument for the decline

of supportive communal relationships may have some foundation. In

support of the Transformed argument, we find that the great majority

of East Yorkers (81%) report that help in emergency situations is

available to them from somewhere in their intimate network. A

- 24 -

smaller majority (60%) report that help is available from their

intimate networks in dealing with everyday matters. Such quick

routine help is often available as part of less-intense relation-

ships, (e.g. acquaintanceship, neighbor, coworker) and there is

1 f . . 1 t. f . 20 ess use o intimate re a ions or it.

However, while assistance in e~ergencies is available from the

great majority of intimate networks, it is not available from the

majority of intimate relationships. Only a minority of intimates,

30%,help in emergencies, and only 22% help out in dealing with

everyday matters. Thus while East Yorkers can almost always count

on help from at least one of their intimates, they cannot count on

21 such help from all (or even most) of them.

The data clearly do not support a "Three Musketeers" (Dumas

1844) variant of the Community Saved argument: "All for one, one

for all." Rather, they support a more differentiated conceptuali-

zation of intimacy, consistent with the Transformed argument's

analysis of the division of labor in interpersonal networks. Inti-

rnacy (or closeness) is not a unidimensional construct. "Helping"

is a defining attribute of only a minority of intimate relationships,

while other intimate relationships are based on factors such as

sociability, normative or structural obligation, and perhaps propin-

quity (see Leyton 1974).

What structural and relational factors in these differentiated

networks act to influence the likelihood that an intimate will help

another out? We have constructed two path models (Figure 2, emer-

gency help; Figure 3; everyday help) to summarize the effects of

network variables on the availability of help to intimates.22

- 25 -

Basis of Relationship: Our most antecedent variable in the path

models traces the continuing effect of traditional kinship ties.

The data reveal that the traditional role of the extended family as

a special provider of assistance (see Gordon 1977; Scott and Tilly

1975) has become narrowly confined to intimate parents and (adult)

children(see Table 7). Other intimate kin, such as siblings,

grandparents, aunts and uncles, are only about as likely as friends

to provide assistance.

Table 7 about here

Parent and child support is more marked in emergencies. Fifty

percent of the intimate parents and children have an emergency assis­

tance component to their relationship, as compared with 26% of the

other intimates (Table 7). They are more apt than other intimates

to be called upon for help in emergencies, regardless of where they

live (and they tend to live at greater distances from respondents

than other intimates) and how frequently they are in face-to-face

contact (see Figure 2). In addition to the direct effect, intimate

parents and children are also more likely to provide help because

of their greater tendency to have stronger (closer) bonds and to be

in more frequent contact with the East Yorkers in their intimate

networks.

Parent/child intimates are also signficantly more likely (34%)

than all other (19%) except coworkers (37%) to help out with every­

day affairs (see Table 7). There is no direct effect of kinship

in this case (Figure 3). There are indirect effects due to the

stronger bonds and more frequent telephone contact that parent/child

intimates have.

- 26 -

Coworkers are also in frequent face-to-face contact with inti-

mates (Figure 3). This contact is the basis for their being a signi-

ficant source of everyday assistance for the East Yorkers, despite

the comparative weakness of their intimate bonds.

Thus the path models partially support both the Community

Saved and Community Transformed models. Kinship remains a signi-

ficant basis for providing help, both directly and because it encou-

rages closer bonds and more frequent telephone contact. Yet the

particularly helpful kin are parents and children, and not a large

solidary network of extended kinship relations. Indeed, an East

Yorker is somewhat more likely to find help in dealing with routine

contingencies from an intimate coworker than from any other type

of intimate.

Residence: Our analyses reveal that the availability of assi-

stance is not significantly associated with intimates' neighborhood

residence, in contradistinction to the Lost and Saved arguments'

emphasis on local solidarities (Table 8) .~3 Close proximity appears

to be more important on the job than in the neighborhood for the

availability of help. The residential distinction that does make

a difference in the availability of help is that of living inside

of Metro Toronto's boundaries. It has a slight direct positive

effect on the availability of help and appreciably increases the

frequency of contact between intimates. (There may be reverse effects

operating here as well, with intimates choosing to live in Metro

Toronto so that they may continue to be available to help their

East York respondents). The data support a somewhat revised version

of the Community Transformed argument: to an appreciable extent,

the spatial range of assistance relationships has not disappeared,

but has expanded to encompass the entire metropolitan area.

- 27 -

Table 8 about here

Degree: One purely structural variable, an intimate's degree

(or centrality) in a network slightly affects the frequency of tele­

phone contact and hence, the provision of assistance (Table 9) .24

In general, more structurally central intimates are more likely to

provide help. Indeed, their ability to provide help may have made

them central. (Why this is not apparently so for the best connected

intimates (degree=5) is an anomaly which we have not yet explained.)

A structurally central person's potential ability to mobilize

help is not related to the solidary nature of the network: there

are no meaningful paths between density and the availability of

assistance from an intimate. Density has not been incorporated in

the final path models. Once again, the Transformed argument is better

supported than the Saved argument.

Table 9 about here

Frequency of contact: The more frequently intimates are in

contact, the more apt are they to provide assistance in their rela­

tionships (see Table 10) .25

They are particularly strong factors

in the more mundane provision of everyday assistance. Ready acces-

sibili ty through contact is more likely to be a mobilizing factor in

many such situations. The models indicate that this is because the

frequency of contact is positively associated with the strength of

the intimate bond. It is also quite plausible that a reverse effect

operates: intimates may tend to interact with one another more when

they believe that help will be forthcoming in the relationship.

Table 10 about here

- 28 -

Closeness: The closer the intimate relationship (as measured

by the respondents' ordinal ranking of their intimates), the more

the perceived availability of help becomes a salient defining compo­

nent of that tie (Table 11) . Indeed, the path models show that the

strength of closeness of an intimate relationsPiPs to be the strongest

predictor to the availability of both emergency and everyday assis­

stance. It has appreciable paths with the next most powerful predic­

tors, the frequency of contact variables. All other significant vari­

ables predict to it, directly and indirectly, and to the provision

of assistance. While it is clear that intimacy has many guises, it

is also apparent that the closer the relationship , the more the

availability of help is associated with it.

Table 11 about here

The comparatively strong association between the availability

of assistance, the frequency of contact and the strength of closeness

variables more fully support the Community Transformed argument

than the Saved argument. While there is also an appreciable path

between parent/child intimacy and the strength of the bond, this

appears as a dyadic tie and not as one embedded in strong, supportive

familial relationships. Furthermore, structural measures such as

degree are only weakly related to the availability of help. The

availability of help thus is more closely associated with the charac­

ter of the dyadic bond than it ~s with the potentially solidary

character of the overall network.

Evaluating the Arguments: The availability of help data, in

sum, indicate the continued viability of some aspects of the Community

Saved argument, albeit greatly affected by the contemporary context.

- 29 -

Kin still remain pre-eminent sources of help, but the atrophying

of kin solidarities means that these are now only parents and children.

Other intimate kin can be counted on no more than can be intimate

friends. Residential propinquity still facilitates the availability

of assistance, but the loca!.area is now metropolitan and not the

neighborhood. This implies that it is the physical availability

of aid -- by automobile, public transit and local telephone --

which is operative and not the activity of neighborhood solidari-

ties. Kinship and metropolitan residence both act to encourage

frequent contact. Frequent contact, in turn, exhibits Homansian

(1961) properties; those in touch more often are likely to feel

closer and to provide assistance when needed.

However, the overall data fit the Community Transformed argu­

ment better. Assistance is affected by the quality of relationships,

and not by the extent of structural solidarity. Coworkers play an

important everyday role. The residential proximity findings appear

to be more a function of potential availability than of communal

organization, and the persistent helpfulness of parents and children

appears to be more linked to continuing normative obligations than

to the possible solidarity of the kin network.

Although the data document network effects on the availability

of help, the amounts of explained variance in the path models are

small. We are reluctant to relinquish most of the unexplained

variance to unspecified, residual "psychological factors" in the

linkages. Some of the unexplained variance is likely due to the

crude way in which the variables have been defined and measured.

Additionally, the way is surely open to the delineation of additional

structural and categorical variables that are affecting the inter-

- 30 -

personal provision of scarce resources. Our current in-depth inter­

views are providing us with detailed information about the structure

of urban networks and the dynamics of their functioning which should

well-complement the survey data presented here.

Community or Network?

The Transformed Argument: Our findings generally support the

Community Transformed argument that East Yorkers tend to organize

their intimate relationships as differentiated networks and not

as solidarities. There is much differentiation in the nature and

character of intimate ties. There are links to a variety of

people, often living in quite different residential areas (or

interacting at work), and maintaining contact both by telephone

and in-person, at a wide range of intervals.

This differentiation does provide some support for the Commu­

nity Lost argument's concerns. It appears that East Yorkers can

only count on a minority of their "close" intimates for help.

Extensive communities or networks of mutually-supportive relation­

ships do not appear. If such highly supportive networks ever did

exist for East Yorkers, they have now been transformed into more

differentiated ties. However, many intimate ties still have support

as an important component of the relationship, and communal help

is available to almost all East Yorkers. Furthermore, the differen­

tiation of connections helps link East Yorkers to multiple social

circles. The sparsely-connected ties branch out to access various

needed resources. Different contingencies, social situations, times

of the day, week or year bring East Yorkers into juxtaposition with

a variety of connections.

- 31 -

Complex networks of chains and clusters are ultimately linked

together via a common network node. All persons with whom one is

directly connected are indirectly linked to each other through one­

self. Each individual is a member of the unique personal networks

of all of the people with whom he/she is linked and his/her member­

ship in these networks serves to connect a number of social circles

(see Craven and Wellman 1973). Social solidarity, analyzed from

this perspective, is the outgrowth of the coordination of activities

through network processes rather than the sharing of sentiments

through common socialization.

Intimate networks are just one of a number -- neighbors, work

associates, acquaintances, distant relatives, people with shared

interests, and so on-- of often quite distinct personal networks.

Frequently, weaker ties, such as neighboring and coworking, have

limits on the claims that can be made on them. But, as weaker

ties, they tend to afford indirect access to a greater diversity

of resources than do stronger, more socially homogeneous ties

(Granovetter 1973).

Indeed, not all intimate ties are used similarly, even those

which are densely-connected. Some intimates can be counted on to

provide assistance in dealing with everyday matters; a good many

more, but certainly not all, give assistance when emergencies arise.

Other intimates interact with East Yorkers on different bases, such

as kinship obligations, sociability, or job comradeship.

The many components of intimate relationships are not very

neatly associated. Some intimate friends are only seen socially;

some routinely provide help. Some intimate kin can be counted on in

any emergency; others cannot. Some intimate kin are seen daily;

some intimate friends, yearly, and so on. This lack of neat coinci-

- 32 -

dence among the qualitative aspects of the relationships makes for

more differentiated linkages (see Mitchell 1969; Litwak and

Szelenyi 1969; Gordon 1976). It means that the "role-frame 11 of

intimacy includes many complexly-packaged bundles of relationships

(see Nadel 1957).

Membership in spatially and socially ramified networks is a

logical response to the problem of accessing a diverse and differen­

tiated set of resources which are less available now through tradi­

tional solidary auspices. While proponents of all three Community

Question arguments see the Industrial Revolution as the source of

change in communal structure, this is as un-self-evident as any

development model. On the one hand, the Saved argument has docu­

mented the continued vitality of many solidary communities; on the

other hand, historical analysis and contemporary anthropological

studies have shown the presence of sparsely-knit, loosely-bounded

networks in many pre-industrial milieux. Perhaps the Community

Question could be most useful rephrased into an inquiry about what

structural communal arrangements, given a specific macroscopic

division of labor, help best to access and control resources: dense,

tight solidary communities or sparse, loose networks?

The prevalence of general-purpose helping relationships chal­

lenges a "market 11 model of assistance, in which a seeker rationally

determines a need, scans all available sources, and calls upon them

in ranked order of probable utility. Not only is the provision of

help determined by networks, but so may be the perception and

utilization of available channels. Indeed, the very provision of

help may precede -- and define -- the putative seeker's desire to

enter into a help-receiving relationship.

- 33 -

The Saved Argument: Our data provides some insight in resol­

ving the difference between the Community Saved argument's elegant

documentation of solidarities and the material we have presented

which basically supports the Community Transformed argument. The

resolution, we believe, is principally one of analytic scope. If

one focuses on the kinship systems or neighborly relations, one

is apt to find densely-connected, bounded networks. Looked at in

fine-grain isolation, they appear as solidarities, which may well

serve to give urbanites a sense of attachment in the world. But

if we broaden one's field of view to include all those with whom

an urbanite is in touch, then the apparent solidarities may now

appear to be clusters in rather sparsely-knit, loosely-bounded

networks.

The data do show that in the overall intimate networks parent/

child t~Ps play a special role. They tend to be socially closer

to the East Yorkers even at a greater physical distance. They are

more apt to help -- in mundane matters as well as crises. Clearly

some of the traditional obligations of kinship still obtain, but

as dyadic relationships, for the data also indicate that the

density of the network is not a factor in the mobilization of

assistance.

Neighborly relations are prevalent, and for many East Yorkers,

important. Considered separately, they validate the opinion East

Yorkers have of themselves as being intensely involved in local

community interactions. Yet the data indicate that for most East

Yorkers such neighborhood ties are just one component of a more

diverse set of relationships, and that they rarely comprise the

more intense intimate sort of relationships. It may be that in other

- 34 -

p::>pulations, or in subsets of the present population, a larger propor-

tion of the relationships will be tightly-bounded in local areas.

East York is a largely British-Canadian, moderate-income area in

a largely British-Canadian, moderate-income metropolis; ethnic,

socioeconomic, life-cycle or life-style discrepant groups may tend

to have far fewer metropolitan linkages. Clearly, more work needs

to be done on the principles of establishing, maintaining, using,

and losing interpersonal ties.

System implications: The concatenation of communal networks

helps to organize the social system. Considered from the standpoint

of the system rather than from that of the individual, it is the

compounding of links and networks at many levels which allocates

resources and juxtaposes alliances of similar interest. Not only

individuals, but clusters and collectivities are linked through net­

work ties (see Levine 1972; Heil 1973; White, Boorman and Breiger

1976; Galaskiewicz and Marsden 1977; Turk 1977). A network of net­

works connects individuals, clusters and collectivities in complex

ways.

Despite all this connectivity, our data also give us an indica­

tion as to why so many urbanites believe in the Community Lost argu­

ment even when they, themselves, are well-connected. Rather than an

unambiguous membership in a single, almost concrete solidary commu­

nity, East Yorkers' lives are now divided among multiple networks.

The sparseness of interconnections among these networks means that

no one solidarity can readily make or enforce normative claims on a

member. While this may be somewhat liberating in providing a struc­

tural room to maneuver, it can also create a disorientating loss of

identity, as it is no longer as clear or simple as to which group

- 35 -

(among many) one belongs. Thus our current answer to the Community

Question is that while urbanites have not lost their communal access

to people and resources -- and indeed, have increased their reach

for those who seek solidarity in tidy, simple hierarchical group

structures, there may well now be a lost sense of community.

TABLE 1

Strength of Intimate Relationship by Relationship to Respondent RELATIONSHIP

(All Kin) t.:hild Parent Sibling Other Friend Neighbour Coworker TOTAL

Strength of Relative

Relationship (Ranked)

1. 106 153 167 99 226 32 28 811 27.1% 46.7% 46.0% 28.2% 12.7% 15.3% 13.1% 13.0% 20.9%

2. 61 94 119 174 279 43 27 797 23.1 26.9 27.6 20.1 22.3 18.9 17 .6 12.5 20.6

3. 30 38 28 156 298 55 36 741 18.2 13.2 11.2 21.6 20.0 20.2 22.4 16.7 19.1

4. 18 28 77 142 280 38 43 626 13.7 7.9 8.2 13.0 18.2 19.0 15.5 19.9 16.2

5. 8 20 52 113 227 42 46 508 w 0'1 10.0 3.5 5.9 8.8 14.5 15.4 17.1 21.3 13.1

6. 4 7 49 95 166 35 36 392 8.0 1.8 2.1 8.3 12.2 11.2 14. 3 16.7 10.1

N = 227 340 592 779 1476 245 216 3875 TOTAL 5.9% 8.8% 15.3% 20.1% 38.1% 6.3% 5.6% 100.0% Mean Rank 2.0 2.1 2.8 3.4 3.3 3.5 3.7

Chi-square = 441.3 p( .001 Lambda (asym.) = .06 Gamma = .27

aTotal number of intimates = 3930

TABLE 2

Residence of Intimates By Relationships To Respondent

RELATIONSHlP

Child Parent Sibling Other Friend Neighbour Coworker TOTAL Relative

RESIDENCE

Same 9 23 25 54 194 182 18 505 Neighbourhood 4.0% 6.8% 4.2% 6.9% 13.1% 74.3% 8.3% 13.0%

Elsewhere in 23 35 63 85 211 38 28 483 East York 10.U 10.3% 10.6% 10.9% 14.3% 15.5% 13.0% 12.5%

City of 26 94 130 176 441 10 83 960 Toronto 11.5% 27.6% 22.0% 22.6% 29.9% 4.1% 38.4% 24 .8%

Other 108 50 147 227 359 10 71 972 Metro Toronto 47.6% 14.7% 24.8% 29.1% 24.3% 4.1% 32.9% 25.1% w

....)

Outside 61 138 227 237 271 5 16 955 Metro Toronto 26.9% 40.6% 38.3% 30.4% 18.4% 2.0% 7.4% 24.6%

N= 227 340 592 779 1476 245 216 3875b TOTALS 5.9% 8.8% 15.3% 20.1% 38.1% 6.3% 5.6% 100.0%

Chi-square = 1203.0 p .001 Lambda (asym.) = .15 Gammaa = -.32

a Relationship ordered by mean closeness rank for kin and nonkin. See Table 4.

TABLE 3

Reliance on Different Modes of Contact, Controlled by Intimates' Residential Location

Mode and Frequency of Contact

In-person weekly or more often; telephone weekly or more often

In-person weekly or more often; telephone 2x per month or less

In-person 2x per month or less; telephone weekly or more often

In person 2x per month or less; telephone 2x per month or less

TOTAL N=

Chi-square = (p .001) Conditional Gamma=

(In-Person by Telephone)

Residential Location Same Neighbourhood

51.9%

31.5

4.8

11.9

100.l 505

31.0 .61

Elsewhere in East York

53.4%

15.5

9.5

21.5

99.9 483

95.2 • 77

(for each residential location)

City of Toronto

43.0%

13.1

20.9

23.0

100.0 975

85.9 .56

Other Metro Toll"onto

38.8%

11.6

21.8

28.8

100.0 984

123.8 .64

Zero-order Gamma (In-Person by Telephone, uncontrolled by Residential Location) = .67 Partial Gannna (In-Person by Telephone, controlled by Residential Location) = .62

Outside Metro Toronto

6.8%

4.8

21.8

66.7

100.1 947

53.5 • 63

w co

- 39 -

TABLE 4

Density of Intimate Networks (Grouped)

Density N % Cumulative %

0 171 20.2% 20.2%

6.67 - 20.0 238 28.2 40.4

26.67 - 50.0 261 31.0 79.4

53.33 - 73.33 65 7.7 87.1

80.0 - 86.67 7 1.0 88.1

100 99 11. 7 99.8

Density of Networks

0 - 25%

26 - 50

51 - 75

76 - 100

Total

F (3,820)

- 40 -

TABLE 5

Percentage of Kin and Friends in Networks of Various Density

N % Kin % Friends (in such Networks)

388 36.4% 53.2%

261 56.9 35.9

65 56.9 37.0

110 73.7 20.1

824 49.5 42.1

48.6 36.6

P<. • 01 p <. • 01

TABLE 6

zero-order Correlation M.::1.trix for Path Diagrams

Living inside of Metro Toronto -.100

Coworker (Figure 3 only) -.102

Degree {Centrality) .236

In-person contact

Closeness Strength

Telephone contact

Emergency assistance from intimate

Everyday Assistance from intimate

-.028

.267

.205

.180

.112

Parent­Child

.101

-.079

.346

-.011

.282

.105

.134

Living inside

of Metro

-.092

.437 -.012

-.098 .044 .035

.008 .098 .337

(-.021) .054 .147

.093 .065 .202

Coworker Degree In-person (Centrality) contact

.212

.280

.221

Closeness strength

.c.. I-'

.197

.248 (.444)

Telephone Everyday contact Assistance

- 42 -

TABLE 7

ercent of Intimates Providing Assistance by Basis of Relationship

asis of elationship

:hild

?arent

Sibling

Other Relative

Friend

Neighbor

Coworker (non-kin)

Total

N = 3871

... (7,3863)

>(

Emergency Assistance from Intimates

50.2%

49.7

31.3

26.8

23.08

32.6

26.8

29.8

21.8 .01

Everyday Assistance from Intimates

36.6

32.l

20.0

20.2

18.l

20.4

37.0

22.3

13.4 .01

Special Tabulations:

Parent and Child All other relationships (excluding parent and child)

Cowowrker (includes kin coworker)

All other relationships (excluding parent, child,

coworker)

- 43 -

50.0

26.4

33.9

.093

19.2

Intimates' Residence

Same neighborhood

Elsewhere in East

City of Toronto

Other Metro Toronto

York

Outside Metro Toronto

Total N=3926

F(4,3921)

P<.

- 44 -

TABLE 8

Percent of Intimates Providing Assistance

by Residential Proximity

Emergency Assistance ·f.rom Intimates

36.0%

36.6

29.9

31.6

29.9

29.9

13.6

.01

Everyday. Assistance from Intimates

25.9%

29.4

26.6

22.8

12.8

22.5

20.1

.01

- 45 -

TABLE 9

Percentage of Intimate Providing Assistance by Intimates'

Degree (Centrality)

0

l

2

3

4

5

Total

N=3926

F(5,3920)

p<

Degree (Centrality)

Emergency Assistance From Intimates

25.5

30.4

33.8

35.2

37.4

26.9

29.9

5.5

.01

Everyday Assistance From Intimates

19.8

21.4

23.4

29.8

31.9

23.6

22.5

5.3

.01

- 46 -

TABLE 10

Percentage of Intimates Providing Assistance by Frequency of Contact

Frequency of contact

2-7 times

Weekly

a week

1-2 times a month

Less Often

Total

N=

F

P(

Emergency Assistance from Intimates

In-person Telephone

39.4 43.3

37.8 30.9

25.3 22.0

17.4 19.4

29.8 29.9

3912.

54.8 62.6

.01 .01

Everyday Assistance from Intimates

In-person

34.7

28.2

19.6

7.9

22.5

82.8

.01

3898

Telephone

37.2

22.4

16.0

10.9

22.6

85.2

.01

- 47 -

TABLE 11

Percent of Intimates Providing Assistance

Closeness Strength of Relationship (Ranked}

1. (Closest}

2.

3.

4.

5.

6. (Least Close}

Total

N=3926

F (5,3920}=

by Closeness Strength of Relationships

Emergency Assjst'l.nce From Intimates

55.8%

32.1

24.5

18.8

17.2

15.7

29.9

87.1

.01

Everyday Assistance From Intimates

40.5%

25.8

17.5

14.5

13.8

12.2

22.5

50.9

.01

The Community Question: Lost, Saved,. Transformed Argumen~s Compared

Formulation

Basis of Intimacy

Availability Relational 'spatial Mode of Contact

*Portability *Secondary Institutional

Ties

Communal Structure

Density Reciprocity Boundedness

Basis of Assistance

Relational source Structural source

Residential basis Density Prevalence

Rare

Community Lost

Formal Role Local In-Person No Direct

Sparse No Ramified

Formal ties Secondary institu-

tions Local** Dense** Minimal

Community Saved

Abundant Kin, Neighborhood Local In-Person No Mediated through

solidary group

Dense Yes Tight

Kin, Neighborhood Solidary group

Local Dense Abundant

*Not analyzed in present paper; data being gathered **To the extent to which communal ties exist

Community Transformed

Abundant Interest, Work Metropolitan, National In-Person; Telecommunication Yes Mediated through

network ties

Sparse Uneven Ramified

Interest, Work Network ties

Metropolitan, National Sparse Moderate

.i::-00

FIGURE 2

Emergency Assistance From Intimates

Parent/Child (1)

-.100

Degree (Centrality)

(4)

\ \ \(.070)

Lives Inside Metro Toronto

(2)

' \ \

In-Person

Closeness Strength

(6)

---- -

.112

(.065)

• 2 32

Telephone r· 9) Contact

( 7)

.094

Emergency Assistance

(8)

I I

I

I

I I

------ _I

(.n) and - - - = non-significant path necessary to reproduce original correlation matrix to .05

.i:--1.0

FIGURE 3

Everyday Assistance From Intimates

PareP_ t I Child (1)

.258

Degree (Centrality)

(4)

~·"" I '- Closeness

I (.061)'

' .093

I

I

I

/(-.069) I

.406

Lives Inside Metro Toronto

(2)

In-Person Contact

(5)

• 2·08

.16 Telephone Contact

( 7)

Everyday Assistance

(8)

(.n) and - - - = non-significant path necessary to reproduce original correlation matrix to .05

Vl 0

- 51 -

FOOTNOTES

1 This paper has gone through a number of revisions,and I am grateful to the

following people who have extensively commented on it: Stephen Berkowitz,

Y. Michal Bodemann, Ronald Burt, Barry Crump, Ellan Derow, Bonnie Erickson,

Harriet Friedmann, Joseph Galaskiewicz, Leslie Howard, Nancy Howell,

Livianna Mostacci-Calzavara, Lisa Peattie, Norman Shulman, Charles

2

Tilly, Jack Wayne, Beverly Wellman, Harrison White.

The following agencies have supported various components of our

research: Canada Ministry of Manpower and Immigration, the Connaught

Housing Research Program of the Centre for Urban and Community Studies

(University of Toronto), the Ontario Ministry of Health, the Laidlaw

Foundation and the Canada Council.

Early fo:rmulations were in terms of increased spatial density, but

this has been called into question by both the suburban dispersion and

doubts about the social effects of crowding. In any event, analyses of

spatial density tend to use interactional density as an intervening vari­

able {see Freedman 1975), and if the questionable premise is dropped,

the useful conclusion still remains. See the discussions of interactional

density in Abu-Lughod (1969) and Tilly (1970).

3 See the reviews in Stein (1960) and Castells (1976). Recent non-urban

sociological examples of the Community Lost argument can be found in the

"mass society" analyses of Kornhauser (1968), Nisbet (1962) and Gurr

(1969}.

4 See White and White's (1962) and Marx' (1964) analyses of American anti­

urbanism.

5 There are clear similarities here to the literature arguing the impor­

tance of communal solidarities in bureaucratic workplaces -- e.g. Benyon

1973.

- 52 -

6 Perhaps only Edward Banfield (1958) has gone out searching for such

solidary ties and not found any.

7 See for example, P. and I. Mayer (1974);Cohen(l969); Howard(l974);Jacobson

(1973);Ross and Weisner(l977);Weisner(l973).

8 See the discussion in the "Community Lost" subsection above. See

also Merton (1957); Kasarda and Janowitz(l974).

9 See the annotated bibliographies of Freeman (1975) and Wellman and

Whitaker (1974). Other recent work includes Laumann (1973}, Verbrugge

(1977), Fischer, et al. (forthcoming) •

lO Good statements of the network perspective are found in Barnes (1972)

Mitchell (1969, 1974), White (1965), Emerson (1962), Kemper (1972)

White, Boorman and Breiger (1976).

11 The original formulations of the study in 1967 were somewhat different

from the analytic concerns expressed in this paper. The original

study, conducted by the Clarke Institute of Psychiatry, was directed

by Donald B. Coates, a psychiatrist, with Barry Wellman as co-director

(see Coates et al. 1970;1976. See also Wayne 1971). The sociological

analyses reported here were begun in 1970 at the Centre for Urban and

Community Studies.

12 Further research is currently being conducted by Barry Crump and Barry

Wellman to provide additional information about a wide range of communal

ties, the dynamics of network use, and the stability of networks over

time and space.

13 Indeed, the nature of the relationship may affect the spatial expanse

of the tie, as when an aging mother decides to rent an apartment near

her daughter.

- 53 -

14 It is quite likely, though, that many of the intimate ties were

initiated when both members lived in the same neighborhood. The

"portability of communal ties" is being studied in the current

research project.

15 For a fuller discussion of neighboring in East York, see Gates,

Stevens and Wellman{l973).

16 We exclude ties between Egos and intimates in our density calcu­

lations, as such ties exist by definition. Links were calculated

symmetrically: if a respondent reported intimate *l was close to

intimate *2, we also assumed that intimate *2 was close to intimate

*l· Later work by Shulman (1972) has called this assumption into

question.

17 In contrast , the density of respondents in an inland Tanzanian

area (Kigoma) obtained by the same procedure is 76% (personal com­

munication from Jack Wayne)

18 Shulman's findings indicate that our density measure may well

overstate the density of the networks when only intimate ties are

considered. In our survey analysis, we have assumed the intimate

ties to be symmetrical. Shulman's work casts this assumption into

doubt, although we wonder if the respondents would have perceived

the asymmetry present in the ties between their intimates.

19 Using Rapoport and Horwath's {1961) study of biased friendship

ties, such lack of reciprocity gives a structural basis for expec­

ting wide disparities in the extent to which an urbanite is chosen

as an intimate. This in turn indicates the structural prevalence

of "broker.age" nodes, whose heavily-chosen incumbents link together

a number of social circles.

- 54 -

20 Respondents were asked which of their intimates did they "rely on for

help in everyday matters" and "rely on for help in an emergency."

21

22

We reasoned that respondents often perceived their intimate connections

as a type of general utility. While they knew that they might need

help from intimates at some time and, in part, maintained their ties

for that purpose, they often did not have any precise idea of what

contingencies would in fact develop. We are currently conducting

interviews to obtain more in-depth information on the nature of assi­

stance relationships.

It is possible that our treatment of help as a generalized resource

underestimates its availability from intimates. East Yorkers may

count on help from some intimates for specific contingencies -- defined

by the relationship and the resources available -- while not thinking

of these intimates as being generally helpful.

Future work will examine the impact of social categorical attributes

of East Yorkers and their intimates (e.g. gender, life-cycle stage,

socioeconomic status) on network relationship, including the provision

of help. Preliminary analyses (Wellman et.al, 1972) indicate that

there are no appreciable direct association between such social cate­

gorical variables and the availability of help.

23 Scheffe's test was used in all such contrasts, with an .OS significance

level.

24 Degree is a graph theoretic term measuring the extent to which any

given member of a network is directly connected to any other. All

respondents, by definition, have a very high degree, as they are directly

connected to all of their intimates. Degree and network density have

an inherently high correlation: in our data, r=.513.

- 55 -

25 For the path analyses, the original categorically-recorded frequency

of contact was transformed into estimated days per year equivalents.

For example, "about once a week" was transformed into "52."

- 56 -

References

Abu-Lughod, Janet. 1969. The City is Dead-Long Live the City. Berkeley, . ·California, Centre for Planning and Development Research , U. of california.

Adams, Bert N. 1968. Kinship in an Urban Setting. Chicago: Markham

Banfield, Edward. 1958. The Moral Basis of a Backward Society. New

York: Free Press.

Barnes, J.A. 1972. Social Networks. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley.

Bell, Colin and Howard Newby. 1976. "Community, Communion, Class and

Community Action." Pp. 189-207 in .social Areas in Cities, II. Spatial

Perspectives on Problems and Policies, edited by D.T. Herbert and

R.J. Johnson. London: Wiley.

Benyon, Huw. 1973. Working for Ford. London: Allan Lane.

Boissevain, Jeremy and J. Clyde Mitchell, eds. 1973. Network Analysis.

The Hague: Mouton.

Boswell, David. 1969. "Personal Crises and the Mobilization of the

Social Netl,,ork • " Pp. 245-296 in Social Networks in Urban Situations,

edited by J. Clyde Mitchell.

Braverman, Harry. 1974. Labor and Monopoly Capital. New York and London:

Monthly Review Press.

Breiger, Ronald. 1974. "The Duality of Persons and Groups." Social Forces.

Breton, Raymond. 1964. "Institutional Completeness of Ethnic Communities

and the Personal Relations of Immigrants." American Journal of

Sociology 70 (September): 193-205.

Burt, Ronald. 1977. "Positions in Multiple Social Networks" Social Forces

forthcoming.

Castells, Manuel. 1976. "Is there an U.rban Sociology?" Pp. 33-59 in

Urban Sociology: Critical Essays, edited by C.G. Pickvance. London:

Methuen.

- 57 -

Coates, Donald B. et. al.1970. Yorklea Social Environment Survey Research

Report. Toronto: Clarke Institute of Psychiatry, Community Studies

Section. (mimeographed)

Coates, Donald B., S. Moyer, L. Kendall, and M.G. Howatt. 1976. "Life­

event Changes and Mental Health." Pp. 225-249 in Stress and Anxiety,

edited by C.D. Spielberger and Irwin G. Sarason, vol. 3. New York:

Hampstead Press.

Cohen, Abner. 1969. Custom and Politics in Urban Africa. Berkeley: Universit·

of California Press.

Cox, Harvey. 1966. The Secular City. New York: Macmillan.

Craven, Paul and Barry Wellman. 1973. "The Network City". Sociological

Inquiry 43 (December): 57-88.

Death Wish. 1974. Directed and Co-Produced by Michael Winner. Written

by Wendell Mayes. Produced by Hal Landers and Bobby Roberts. Starring

Charles Bronson. A Dino De Laurentis Production. From the novel by

Brian Garfield.

Deutsch, Karl W. 1961. "On Social Communication and the Metropolis."

Daedalus 90 (Winter): 99-110.

Emerson, Richard. 1962. "Power-dependence Relations." American Sociological

Review 37. (February): 31-41.

Fischer, Claude S. 1976. The Urban Experience. New York: Harcourt Brace

Jovanovich.

Fischer, Claude S. et. al. forthcoming. Networks and Places. New York:

Free Press.

Foote, Andrea. 1974. "The Job Search in Detroit." Unpublished doctoral

dissertation, Department of Sociology, University of Michigan.

Freeman, Linton c. 1975. A Bibliography of Social Networks. Department

of Social Relations, Lehigh University. (mimeographed}

- 58 -

Freedman, Jonathan. 1975. Crowding and Behavior. San Fransisco: W.H.

Freeman

Feagin, Joe. 1973. "Community disorganization." Sociology Inquiry 43

(Winter): 123-146.

Friedmann, Harriet. 1974. "Are Distributions really Structures?: A

Critique of the Methodology of Max Weber." Centre for Urban and Community

Studies, University of Toronto: Toronto. Research Paper No. 63.

Galaskiewicz, Joseph and Peter v. Marsden. 1977. "Interorganizational

resource networks: Formal Patterns of Overlap." Paper presented to

the annual meeting, American Sociological Association, Chicago.

(September) .

Gans, Herbert. 1962. The Urban Villagers. New York: Free Press.

Gans, Herbert. 1967. The Levittowners. New York: Pantheon.

Gates, Alberts., Harvey Stevens and Barry Wellman. 1973. "What Makes

a Good Neighbour?". Paper presented to the annual meeting of the

American Sociological Association, New York. (August).

Goffman, Erving. 1971. Relations in Public. New York: Basic Books.

Gordon, Michael. 1976. "Kinship Boundaries and Kinship Knowledge in

Urban Ireland~ University of Connecticutt . (Mimeographed) .

Gordon, Michael. 1977. "Primary Group Differentiation in Urban Ireland."

Social Forces 55 (March): 743-752.

Granovetter, Mark. 1973. "The Strength of Weak Ties." American Journal of

Socio~ 78 (May): 1360-1380.

Granovetter, Mark. 1974. Getting a Job. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University·

Press.

Grant, George. 1969. Technology and Empire. Toronto: Anansi.

Gree~, Scott. 1962. The Emerging City. New York:Free Press.

Gurr, Ted Robert. 1969. Why Men Rebel. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

- 59 -

Heil, Gregory. 1973. 11 Structure in Social Networks." Department of

Sociology, Harvard University. (mimeographed}

Hiltz, Starr Roxanne and Muray Turoff. forthcoming. The Network Nation:

Human Communication via Computer. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley.

Homans, George. 1961. Social Behavior: Its Elementary Forms. New York:

Harcourt, Brace.

Howard, Leslie. 1974. "Industrialization and Community in Chotanagpur."

Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, Department of Sociology, Harvard University.

Hunter, Albert. 1975. "The Loss of Community: An Empirical Test through

Replication. 11 American Sociological Review 40 (October): 537-552.

Jacobs, Jane. 1961. The Death and Life of Great American Cities. New

York: Random House.

Jacobson, David. 1973. Itinerant Townsmen: Friendship and Social in

Urban Uganda. Menlo Park, Calif.: Cummings Publishing Co.

Janowitz, Morris. 1952. The Community Press in an Urban Setting. New

York: Free Press.

Kadushin, Charles. 1966. "The Friends and Supporters of Psychotherapy:

on Social Circles in Urban Life." American Sociological Review 31

(December}: 786-802.

Kasarda, John D. and M0rris Janowitz. 1974. "Community attachment in

Mass Society." American Sociological Review 39. (June): 328-339.

Katz, Fred. 1966. "Social Participation and Social Structure." Social

Forces 45 (December): 199-210.

Katz, Pearl. 1974. "Acculturation and Social Networks of American Immigrants

in Israel." Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation. Department of Anthropology,

SONY at Buffalo.

Keller, Suzanne. 1968. The Urban Neighborhood. New York: Random House.

I

- 60 -

:emper, Theodore D. 19 72. "The Di vision of Labor: A Post-Durkheimian

Analytical View." American Sociological Review 37 (December): 739-

753.

:ornhauser, William. 1968. "Mass Society." Pp. 58-65 in International

Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences. New York: Macmillan and Free Press.

~aumann, Edward. 1973. Bonds of Pluralism. New York: John Wiley.

~ee, Nancy Howell. 1969. The Search for an Abortionist. Chicago: University

of Chicago Press.

Levine, Joel. 1972. "The Sphere of Influence." American Sociological

Review 37 (February): 14-27.

Leyton, Elliott.(ed.) 1974. The Compact: Selected Dimensions of Friendship.

St. John's, Nfld.: Institute of Social and Economic Research, Memorial

University of Newfoundland. Newfoundland Social and Economic Paper

No. 3.

Liebow, Elliott. 1967. Tally's Corner. Boston: Little, Brown.

Litwak, Eugene. 1960. "Occupational Mobility and Extended Family Cohesion."

American Sociological Review 25 (February): 9-21.

·.itwak, Eugene and Ivan Szelenyi. 1969. "Primary Group Structures and

Their Functions." American Sociological Review 35 (August): 465-481.

arx, Leo. 1964. The Machine in the Garden. New York: Oxford University Press.

ayer, Philip and Iona Mayer. 1974. Townsmen or Tribesmen. Second edition.

Capetown: Oxford University Press.

:eier, Richard L. 1968. "The Metropolis as a Transaction-Maximizing

System." Daedalus 97 (Fall}: 1293-1313.

lerton, Robert. 1957. "Patterns of Influence: Local and Cosmopolltan

Influentials." Pp. 387-420 in Social Theory and Social Structure.

Revised edition. New Y~rk: Free Press.

litchell, J. Clyde. 1969. "The Concept and Use of Social Networks, 11 in

- 61 -

Social Networks in Urban Situations, edited by J. Clyde Mitchell.

Manchester: University of Manchester Press.

Mitchell, J. Clyde. 1974. "Social Networks." Annual Review of Anthropology

3: 279-299.

Mostacci-Calzavara, Livianna. 1976. "The Degree of Multiplicity of Rela­

tionships in the Urban Setting." Unpublished Paper, Department of

Sociology, University of Toronto. August.

Nadel, S.F. 1957. The Theory of Social Structure. London: Cohen and West.

Nisbet, Robert. 1962. Community and Power. New York: Oxford University Press

Park, Robert E. 1925a "The City: Suggest.:bns for the Investigation of

Human Behavior in the Urban Environment." Pp.1-46 in The City, edited

by Robert E. Park, Ernest W. Burgess and Roderick D. McKenzie.

Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Park, Robert. 1925b(l967). "The Urban Community as a Spatial Pattern

and a Moral Order." Pp. 55-68 in Robert E. Park on Social Control and

Collective Behavior, edited by Ralph H. Turner. Chicago: University

of Chicago Press.

Rapoport, Anatol and William J. Horvath. 1961. "A Study of a Large

Sociogram." Behavioral Science 6: 279-291.

Ross, Mark Howard, and Thomas s. Weisner. 1977. "The rural-urban migrant

Network in Kenya." American Ethnologist 4 (May): 359-375.

Scott, Joan and Louise Tilly. 1975. "Women's Work and the Family in

Nineteenth-century Europe." Comparative Studies in Society and History

17 (January): 36-64.

Shorter, Edward. 1973. "Female Emancipation, Birth Control and Fertility

in European History." American Historical Review 78 (June):GOS-640.

Shulman, Norman. 1972. "Urban Social Networks." Unpublished doctoral

thesis, Department of Sociology, University of Toronto.

- 62 -

Shulman, Norman. 1976. "Network Analysis: A New Edition to an Old Bag of

Tricks." Acta Sociologica 19 (December)

Simmel, Georg. (1902-1903). 1950. "The Metropolis and Mental Life." Pp. 409-

424 in The Sociology of Georg Simmel, edited and translated by Kurt

Wolff. Glencoe, Illinois: Free Press.

Slater, Phillip E. 1970. The Pursuit of Loneliness. Boston: Beacon Press.

Stein, Maurice. 1960. The Eclipse of Community. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton

University Press.

Suttles, Gerald D. 1972. The Social Construction of Communities. Chicago:

University of Chicago Press.

Tilly, Charles. 1970. "Community: City: Urbanization". Ann Arbor: University

of Michigan, Department of Sociology. (mimeographed, revised version).

... . . Tennies, Ferdinand. 1887 (1955) . Community and Association. Translated

by Charles P. Loomis. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.

Turk, Herman. 1977. Organizations in Modern Life: Cities and Other Large

Networks. San Fransisco: Jossey-Bass.

Verbrugge, Lois M. 1977. '"'Multiplexity in adult friendships." Paper

presented at the 1976 annual meeting of the American Sociological

Association, New York, September. Revised Version.

Warren, Roland L. 1972. The Community in America. Second edition. Chicago:

Rand McNally.

Wayne, Jack. 1971. "Networks of Informal Participation in a Suburban

Context." Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Department of Sociology,

University of Toronto.

Webber, Melvin. 1963. "Order in Diversity: Community without Propinquity,"

in Cities and Space: The Future Use of Urban Land, edited by Lowd.on

Wingo, Jr. Baltimore: John Hopkins Press.

- 63 -

Webber, Melvin. 1968. "The Post-City Age." Daedalus 97 (Fall): 1093-1099.

Weisner, Thomas S. 1973. "The Primary Sampling Unit: A Nongeographical

Based Rural-urban Example." Ethos 1 (Winter): 546-559.

Wellman, Barry. 1976. "Urban Connections" Centre for Urban and Community

Studies, University of Toronto. Research Paper No. 84. December.

Wellman, Barry and Marilyn Whitaker, eds. 1974. Community-Network- Communi­

cation: An Annotated Bibliography. Second edition. Toronto: Centre

for Urban and Community Studies, University of Toronto. Bibliographic

Paper No. 4.

Wellman, Barry, Norman Shulman, Jack Wayne and Barry Crump. forthcoming.

Personal Communities in the City. New York: Oxford University Press.

White, Harrison. 1965. "Notes on the Constituents of Social Structure."

Department of Social Relations, Harvard University. (mimeographed).

White, Harrison c. 1966. "Coupling and Decoupling." Cambridge: Department

of Social Relations, Harvard University. (mimeographed).

White, Harrison C., Scott A. Boorman and Ronald L. Breiger. 1976. "Social

structure from Multiple Networks. I. Blockmodels of Roles and Positions."

American Journal of Sociology 81 (January): 730-780.

White, Morton and Lucia White. 1962. The Intellectuals versus the City.

Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.

Wirth, Louis. 1938. "Urbanism as a Way of Life." American Journal of

Sociology 44 (July): 3-24.

Young, Michael and Peter Willmott. 1957. Family and Kinship in East London.

London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.