The Urban Question: A Marxist Approach

259 Pages·1979·15.17 MB·English

by  Manuel Castells

The Urban
~uestion
A Marxist Approach
Manuel Castells
Translated by Alan Sheridan
for Katherine
(j)
Edward Arnold
Tt/
C)/(J.. '"if? "5 '?/
/6/
translation"f~We
Authorized French
La Question urbaine
published by Framiois Maspero 1972; second edition 1976 C-WI3
©Fran~ois M.spero 1972; 1976
Part V first published by Edward Arnold (Publishers) Ltd 1977
©Manuel Castells 1977 /q~Ffl
This translated edition first published in 1977 by
Edward Amold (Publishers) Ltd
Contents
25 Hill Street, London WIX 8LL
English translation by AIan Sheridan
© Alan Sheridan 1977
ISBN cloth: 07131 5717 U
paper: 07131 57189
Preface to the English language edition vii
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a Epistemological in troduction 1
retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, photo
copying. recording or otherwise, without the prior permission of Edward
I The historical process of urbanization 7
Arnold (Publishers) Ltd.
1 The urban phenomenon: conceptual delimitations
This book is published in two editions. The paperback edition is sold subject
and historical realities 9
to the condition that it shall not, by way of trade or otherwise, be lent, re-sold,
2 The fonnation of the metropolitan regions in
hired out, or otherwise circulated without the publisher's prior consent in any
form of binding or cover other than that in which it is published and without industrial capitalist societies 20
a similar condition including this condition being imposed upon any subse· 3 Urbanization, development and dependence 39
quent purchaser. 4 Mode of production and process of urbanization:
remarks on the urban phenomenon in the socialist
countries 64
The original manuscript was prepared with the help of the Centre d'Etude des
Mouvements Sociaux, and particularly of Mme Colette Didier. 11 The urban ideology 73
5 The myth of urban culture 75
6 From urban society to urban revolution 86
7 The urban sub-cultures 96
III The urban structure 113
8 The debate on the theory of space 115
9 The elements of the urban structure 129
10 From the study of space to the analysis of the city 234
IV Urban politics 243
11 The emergence of the theoretical field of urban
politics 246
-) Text set in 11/12 pt IBM Baskerville, printed by photolithography, and bound
, in Great Britain at The Pitman Press, Bath 12 Theoretical tools for the study of urban politics 260
~~ v
'\J\i>
vi Contents
13 Research on urban planning 276
14 Research on urban social movements 324
V The urban process 379
15 Beyond the myths of the urban crisis
16 The social contradictions of the model of urban
development and the attempts at regulation through Preface to the English-language edition
urban policies .. . 393
17 Dimensions and processes of the US urban cnsls m
the 1970s 402
18 Policies for the urban crisis, grass-roots movements
and the political process 421
Conclusion: Exploratory theses on the urban question 429
All intellectual work is highly dependent, whether one wishes or
Afterword 1975 437 not, on the social context in which it is produced. That is why the
translation of a work poses not only problems of a linguistic order,
References 472 but obstacles of a cultural order. When a book written in 1970-71
in a French context reaches an intellectual field as different as that
Index 493 produced by the English-speaking tradition, it may be useful to add
a few remarks which, by explaining at the outset the specificity
of the approach, might help to situate it more clearly.
The fundamental aim of this book is to develop. new t()ols of
research while criticizing the traditional-categories with which the
'-oeiil sciences, technocracy and the mass media have usually con-·
ceived urban problems. The criticism aims at being as rigorous
as possible: that is why, on the one hand, it is based on an examina
tion of the urban sociological literature of several countries in
relation to different themes and, on the other hand, it tries to de
construct the mechanisms by which these categories displace ques
tions and distort our vision of reality, in tenus of socially dominant
interests.
It is perhaps this dimension of -".P}stemological criticism, which
underlies this book, that makes it relatively difficult, particularly
for an empiricist intellectual tradition. And yet it is not a question
of remainlngln-tiiespecll1litive-sphere. On the contrary, this work
may be regarded as the reaction of one researcher to a large number
of unanswered questions that have emerged in the course of a first
phase of empirical research that tried to go straight to the facts.
Experience has shown that such an approach became the prisoner
of intellectual frameworks that had distorting effects at the level
of the research operations themselves. For example, to consider
spac£as
a physical given and not as a certain historically-constituted
soclaIreritTon;isnot "neutntlpoint of departure: it links us with
--~---"-". . ,,---,---'" -- - -- , ,
Vll
Preface ix
viii Preface
the organicist and mechanisticperspective which J:resllPposes the the ob~ervat!ons of practice. From time to time, I have attempted
a certam fUSIOn of the two levels by means of empirical research,
determmation of sociaTbehaviour by reactions to ~_p-artlcular
producing at the same time partial knowledge of urban contradic
physical environment.
tions,.a rectification of theoretical schemata and methodological
v , !' ~ What was needed-, then, was a critical revision of the traditi,,_,!!
expenence.
of the urban social sciences in order to detect the distortiI)gjd_~,()­
On the theoretical plane, I have proposed an adaptation of
logical mechanisms and to !5'!c:ad in anew light the empirical_di~·
Marxist concepts to the urban sphere, using in particular the read
covenes made. On this basis and on the basis of the new problems
ing of Marx given by the French philosopher Louis Althusser. In
';-me-rging from social practice, questions could be asked that could
this respect this book, too, derives from the intellectual context in
later be translated, theoretically and empirically, into research
which it was produced. The development of my research has shown
terms.
that certain discussions around the concepts employed were super
Now, questions of the type that we wished to ask did arise,
fluous and that the degree of formalism in my construction was
governed by social practice. Indeed, any social science that is not,a
new useless at the actual research level. The reader will find elements of
metaphysics must establish for itself such a relation \vith
rectification in the Afterword 1975 at the end of the book.
reality: What is notaccg>~!Jle.., however, is that ~o~i'llP!,,_cti_<&_
But such rectifications do not change fundamentally the general
should_directly determine one's tr_eatment of these q'!!'..~t!OIlS, Be
theoretical perspective of the application of Marxism to urbaniza
t';'een the questions and the answers there must be a rela!!vely
tion, for the excesses of the Althusserian language do not under
autonomous mediation: the work of scientific research. But this
mine the relevance of the concepts advanced and of the theoretical
research, fruitful as it may be, must be inspired by a background of
laws based on the Marxist tradition and on the practical experience
real life. In the world today, urban problems mean the urban crisis,
that has nourished this theory. Certainly Marxism has not solved
accelerated urbanization, the ideologies of the environment, the
I
increasing intervention of the state, the contradictory .eff~rts of all the theoretical problems that are constantly being posed: ~
not a schema, but a perspective. This means that one is committed
urban planning, popular revolts, neighbourhood organizatIOns,
to developing it unceasingly, P!Q.P..()Sill!Ll!e'Y_co~_"E~, rectifying
urban politics.
These are the questions that we were concerned with. These are ~aw~ that prove to be in.correct, using it .as ~ tool in~tead of repe,,!
the questions with which this book tried to deal, initially by setting I,;,g It as a dogma. That IS why the only Justification of the proposi
out in search of conceptual tools that would be adequate to such a trons advanced in this book is the fruitfulness of the empirical
research that they gave rise to. I have tried to present a few con
problematic. For, from the moment one abandons. the moralistic or
crete examples, in particular in the domain of urban politics, in
integrationist preoccupations of the old urban. s?clOlo.gy or the
order to put the concepts into practice. Certainly the tools were
technocratic perspective of the new urban pohtlcal SCience, one
still too crude and the results are only partial. But the difficulties
must also find new tools of intellectual work.
We looked for these tools, mainly, in the Marxist tradition. Why of overthrowing a whole traditional perspective, proposing a new
there? Because we had to answer questions linked to topics such as theory as an extension of Marxist thought, and translating it into
empirical research with a high degree of rigour, are too numerous
social classes, change, struggle, revolt, contradiction, conflict,
!,
, politics. These terms and themes refer us back to a sociological for one to be able to overcome them in the short term. The main
theory the heart of which is the analysis of society as a structure of thing is not so much to prove a point from the outset as to give rise
the class struggle. But this theoretical preference (or venture) poses to a dynamic that gradually opens up a new field of research that
particularly difficult problems for urban analysis. For here the ~esponds to the questions that are now being put to us by increas
Marxist tradition is practically non-existent and the development mgly explosive urban contradictions.
of theory must be linked to the historical recognition of the new That is why, in the Afterword 1975 published in this edi tion, I
have presented a number of references to empirical research: some
problems posed by everyday experience.
This is the task I have set myself and this book represents a be of these, which implement my concepts, are my own; others,
ginning. In order to carry it through in the long term, I have though not a direct application of my theoretical schema, have
accepted from the outset the unequal development of and the con· transformed the style of urban research, the questions asked and
comitant tension between the theoretical schemata proposed and the investigations carried out, in an intellectual movement that is
x Preface
adjusting urban sociology to the society in which we are living.
There are, however, still a great many problems, especially from
the point of view of the methodological rigour of the research
carried out in this perspective, and this derives from a double
obstacle: 1. The intrinsic difficulty of translating into terms of
empirical research such complex questions as those with which
Marxist theory is concerned; 2. The technological under-develop
ment of the social sciences in France, and the concomitant absence Epistemological Introduction
of a milieu of research that is as concerned about rigour as it is,
rightly, preoccupied with the problem of the relevance of research.
Accordingly, the gradual development of an intellectual exchange
and debate between the European Marxist tradition and the current
of English-speaking research may be extremely fruitful for both
sides, on the condition that the cultural barriers can be overcome
and the exchange is not limited to institutional and academic links.
This book was born out of astonishment.
It is a question of exchanging experience not only of articulating
At a time when the waves of the anti-imperialist struggle are
resources.
sweeping across the world, when movements of revolt are bursting
For in the world society in which we are living, ciass conflicts,
out at the very heart of advanced capitalism, when the revival of
in the urban domain as elsewhere, are a challenge to our commit
working-ciass action is creating a new political situation in Europe,
ment and to our imagination everywhere. That is why it is increas
'urban problems' are becoming an essential element in the policies
ingly necessary to oppose to the International of technocratic
of governments, in the concerns of the mass media and, conse
experts a new International of 'social scientists' who, coming from
quently, in the everyday life of a large section of the population.
fairly diverse political and intellectual horizons, meet in the con
At first sight, the ideological character of such a profound shift
viction that cities are made by people and with the determination
of interest - expressing in the terms of an imbalance between tech
that they should be made for people.
nology and environment certain consequences of the existing social
Madison, Wisconsin
contradictions - leaves little doubt as to the need to emerge,
June 1975
theoretically and politically, from this labyrinth of mirrors. But,
although it is easy enough to agree as to the broad outlines of such
a situation (unless politico-ideological interests are working in the
opposite direction), this does not solve the difficulties encountered
in social practice. On the contrary, all the problems begin at this
point, that is to say, at the point where an attempt is made to
supersede (and not to ignore) the ideology that underlies the 'urban
question'.
For, although it is true that 'urbanistic thinking' in its different
versions, of which the ideology of the environment seems to be the
most advanced, is above all the prerogative of the technocracy and
of the ruling strata in general, its effects are to be felt in the work
ing-ciass movement and, still more, in the currents of cultural and
political revolt that are developing in the industrial capitalist
societies. Thus, in addition to the hold the various state organs have
over the problems associated with the environment, we are witnes
sing increasing political intervention in the urban neighbourhoods,
in public amenities, transport, etc. and, at the same time, the
2 Epistemological Introduction Epistemological Introduction 3
charging of the spheres of 'consumption' and 'everyday life' with elements. The process becomes more complicated in so far as, for
political action and ideological confrontation .. Now, very often, :his us, there is production of knowledge, in the strict sense of the
shift of objectives and practices takes place wIthout any change m term, only in connection with the analysis of a concrete situation.
the thematic register - that is to say, while remaining within the This means that the product of research is, at least, twofold: there
'urban' problematic. It follows that an elucidation of the 'urban is the effect of specific knowledge of the situation studied, and
question' is becoming urgent, not only as a means of demystifying there is the knowledge of this situation, obtained with the help of
the ideology of the dominant classes, but as a tool of reflectIOn for more general theoretical tools, linked with the general context of
the political tendencies which, confronted by new social problems, historical materialism. The fact that they make a given situation
oscillate between the dogmatism of general formulations and the intelligible is demonstrated by the material realization (or experi
apprehension of these questions in the (inverted) terms of the mentation) of the theoretical laws advanced; in becoming more
dominant ideology. specific, these laws develop, at the same time, the theoretical field
Indeed, it is not simply a question of exposing this ideology, for of Marxism and, by the same token, increase its efficacy in social
it is the symptom of a certain intensely experienced, but stil~ in practice.
adequately identified, problematic; and if it proves to be socIally If this seems to be the general schema of theoretical work, its appli
effective, it is because it is offered as the interpretation of pheno cation to the 'urban question' comes up against certain particular
mena that have acquired an ever greater importance in advanced difficulties. Indeed, 'the raw material' of this work, which is made
capitalism and because Marxist theory, which only poses the prob up of three elements (ideological representations, knowledge al
lems raised by social and political practice, has not yet proved cap ready acquired, the specificity of the concrete situations studied),
able of analysing them in a sufficiently specific way. is characterized by the almost total predominance of the ideological
In fact, the two aspects of the problem are one. For, once the elements, a very great difficulty in the precise empirical mapping
contours of the ideological discourse on 'the urban' have been of 'urban problems' (precisely because it is a question of an ideo
established, the supersession of this discourse cannot proceed simp logical delimitation) and the virtual non-existence of elements of
ly by means of a denunciation; it requires a theoretical analysis of already acquired knowledge in this field, in so far as Marxism has
the questions of the social practice it connotes. Or, in other words, approached it only marginally (Engels on housing) or in a historicist
an ideological misunderstanding/recognition can be superseded, perspective (Marx in The German Ideology), or has seen in it no
and therefore interpreted, only by a theoretical analysis; this is the more than a mere transcription of political relations. The 'social
only way of avoiding the twin dangers encountered by any sciences' for their part, owing to their close links with the explica
tive ideologies of social evolution, are particularly poor in analyses
theoretical practice:
1. A right-wing (but apparently left-wing) deviation, which con ~f the question and of the ~rate.gi<:_ro.l!, played by these ideologies
sists in recognizing these new problems, but doing so in the ter~s m the mechanisms of social integration_
of the urbanistic ideology, moving away from a MarXIst analysIs This situation explainS-the' sl;'wand difficult work that has to be
and giving them a theoretical - and political - priority over eco undertaken in matching the general concepts of historical material
ism with situations and processes very different from those that
nomic determination and the class struggle.
2_ A left-wing deviation, which denies the emergence of new were the basis for the production of these concepts. However, we
fonns of social contradiction in the capitalist societies, confining are trying to extend their scope without any change of perspective,
all discussion of the urban to a purely ideological sphere, while for the pr()(iucti'-'!l_()f_ne~conceptsmust_ta~e_plaE-" in the_d"yelop
exhausting itself in intellectual acrobatics to reduce the increasing ment of fund_arrI_e.":l.a1. theses, without which there can be'11o deploy
diversity of the forms of class opposition to a direct opposition ment of a theoretical structure, but merely a juxtaposition of 'inter
mediary hypotheses'. There is nothing dogmatic about this method
between capital and labour.
Such an undertaking requires the use of certain theoretical t~ols of work, in so far as attachment to a particular perspective does
in order to transform, through a process of labour, a raw matenal, not derive from some sort of fidelity to principles, but from the
both theoretical and ideological, and to obtain a product (which 'nature of things' (that is to say, from the objective laws of human
always remains provisional), in which the theoretico-ideological history).
field is modified in the direction of a development of its theoretical Having said this, the paucity of properly theoretical work on the
4 Epistemological Introduction Epistemological Introduction 5
problems connoted by urban ideology obliges us to take as funda difficulties in two ways: on the one hand, by systematically envisa
mental raw material, on the one hand, the mass of 'research' ging the possible effect on research practice of taking these analyses
accumulated by 'urban sociology' and, on the other hand, a whole and propositions as a starting point, rather than by aiming at the
series of situations-""oproi:iis'es identified as 'urban' in social prac coherence and correctness of the text itself; on the other hand, by
using as the means of expressing a theoretical content, sketches of
tice.
As far as urban sociology is concerned, it, in fact, constitutes the concrete analyses that are not in fact concrete analyses. Thus this
'scientific foundation' (not the social source) of a great number of is indeed, then, a properly theoretical work, that is to say, one
ideological discourses that merely enlarge, combine and adapt bearingo~t~e_production of too]sotlZnowledge, and ngt on the
theses and data accumulated by researchers. Furthermore, even productiopof knowledge relative to concrete situations. But the
though this field is heavily dominated by ideology, there appear way ,,-f expressing the mediations necessary in order to arrive at the
here and there analyses, descriptions, observations of concrete theoretical experiences proposed has consisted in examining this or
situations that can help us to track down in a specific way themes that historical situation while trying to transform our understanding
dealt with in this tradition, and questions perceived as urban in the of it with the help of advanced theoretical instruments or, too, in
spontaneous sociology of subjects. . showing the contradiction between the observations at one's dis
This sociology, like all 'specific' sociologies, is, abov~ all, quanu posal and the ideological discourses that were juxtaposed with
tatively and qualitatively, Anglo-Saxon and, more preCisely, . them.
American. This is the reason, and the only one, why the Amencan This procedure has the advantage of making the problematic
and British references in this work are so important. This is rein concrete, but it involves two serious drawbacks that I would like
forced by the fact that, very often, 'French', 'Italian, 'Latin to point out:
American' even 'Polish' of 'Soviet' sociologies are little more than 1. It might be thought that the present book is a collection of
bad copies' of the empirical research and 'theoretical' themes of concrete researches, whereas, apart from a few exceptions, it o!~ers
American sociology. only the beginnings of a theoretical transformation of empirical
On the other hand, I have tried to diversify, as far as my own raw material, the necessary minimum to indicate thedirecti,on.the.
limitations allowed me, the historical situations that serve as a con work might take; indeed, how could we claim to analyse so rapidly
crete mapping for the emergence of t~is problematic, in o~der to so great a number of theoretical problems and historical situations?
circumscribe more completely the vanous types of urban Ideology The only possible point of the effort expended is to reveal, through
and to locate the different regions of the underlying social structure. a diversity of themes and situations, the emergence of the same
It goes without saying that I do not claim to have arrived at a problematic throughout its articulations.
reformulation of the ideological problematic from which I set out 2. One might also see here the concrete illustration of a theoreti
and, still less, therefore, to have carried out true concrete analyses cal system, complete and offered as a model, whereas the produc
leading to knowledge. This book merely commu.nicates certai~ tion of knowledge does not proceed from the establishment of a
experiences of work in this direction, ,:"it? the rum of pro~ucmg a system, but through the creation of a series of theoretical tools
dynamic of research rather than establishmg a demonstratIOn, . that are never validated by their coherence, but by their fruitful
which is in any case unrealizable at the present theoreucal conJunc ness in the analysis of concrete situations.
ture. The point at which I have arrived is quite simply the Q~ief This, then, is the difficulty inherent in this project: on the one
that aI1Y-E,,\V theoretical position that is not anc~ored In_~cre:e_ hand, it aims at de<!.,,-cin!L~~ical toolsQ!:.Qbse!yati9!l_E:0!!' ~()n­
analyses is redundant. In trying to escape formalism and theoretl crete situations (situations that I have observed myself, or that
ci'IT;, I have tried to systematize my experiences, so t?at they may have been dealt with by sociological ideology), and, on the other
be superseded in the only way in which they can be: m theoretical \ hand, it is only one moment in a P!".'2..cess that must, at another con
and political practice. --i juncture, reve.r~eJh".appr_(),,:.ch, setting out from these theoretical
Such an attempt has come up against very seri.ous !,roble.ms of tools to know situations. ---- ----------------- --
communication. How is one to express a theoretlcal 'lntent1.0n on -The importance accorded to the tactical problems of theoretical
the basis of material that is above all ideological and which bears work (essential, if one wishes to struggle at one and the srune time
on inadequately identified social processes? I have tried to limit the against both fonnalism and empiricism, while avo-id-i-ng the voluntarist
-- -.- --._ ..._ .------------_._ _ .
6 Epistemological Introduction
!,r-"j,,~t of establishing 'the foundation of science') is directly I The Historical Process
reflected in the organization of the work. The first part reco[ni"es
the historical terrain, in order to give a relatively precise content
'L to the theme approached. I then try to establish the contouJs of of Urbanization
ideological discourse on 'the urban', which is supposed to be a de·
limitation of a field of 'theoretical knowledge' and social practice.
In trying to break open this ideological envelope and to reinterpret
the concrete questions it contains, the analyses of the structure of
urban space offer a first theoretical formulation of the question.~
at
a whole, but they show, the same time, the impossibility 9J a
theory that is not centred on the articulation of the 'urban ques:
tion' with political processes, that is to say, relative to the state
apparatus and the class struggle. This book opens, therefore, with a Every form of matter has a history or, rather, it is its history.
discussion, theoretical and historical, of 'urban politics'. An illus This proposition does not solve the problem of the knowledge of a
tration of the interaction between urban structure and ur!>an given reality; on the contrary, it poses that problem. For, to read
politics is shown through the study of the process of the urban this history, to discover the laws of its structuring and transforma
crisis in the US. tion, one must break down, by theoretical analysis, what is given
Such a conclusion makes it necessary to introduce a remark in a practical synthesis. However, it is useful to fix the historical
whose concrete consequences are enormous: there is no purely contours of a phenomenon before undertaking an investigation of
theoretical possibility of resolving (or superseding) the contradic, it. Or, in other words, it seems more prudent to undertake this
tlons that are at the base of the urban question; this supers"ssion search on the basis of a false theoretical innocence, taking a look,
can come only from social practice, that is to say, from politis~ in order to discover the conceptual problems that arise whenever
practice. But, in order for such pr_actice to be correct and notlJlind, one tries - in vain - to apprehend the 'concrete'. It is in this sense
ifis-nece~sary to make explicit theoretically the questions_\hus that a study of the history of the process of urbanization would
appro,;zhed, developing and specifying the perspectives of historical seem to be the best approach to the urban question, for it brings us
materialism. The social conditions for the emergence of such a re to the heart of the problematic of the development of societies,
formulation are extremely complex, but, in any case, one may be and shows us, at the same time, an ideologically determined con
sure that they reguire a point of departure that is historically ceptual imprecision.
bound up with the working-class movement and its practice.This But, although it is clear that the process of the formation of
excludes all the 'avant·gardist' claims of any 'individual theory'; cities is the basis of the urban networks and conditions the social
but it does not deny the usefulness of certain work of reflection, organization of space, one remains too often at the level of an over
documentation and inquiry, in as much as such work forms part of all presentation, without any specification of a rate of demographic
a theoretico·practical approach to the urban question, so urgent increase, linking in the same ideological discourse the evolution of
today in political practice. the spatial forms of a society and the diffusion of a cultural model
on the basis of a political domination.
Analyses of the process of urbanization are situated, generally
speaking, in an evolutionist theoretical perspective, according to
which each social formation is produced, without break, by a
duplication of the elements of the preceding social formation. The
forms of spatial settlement are therefore one of the most visible
expressions of these modifications (Lampard, 1955, 90-104;
Wooley, 1957; Handlin and Burchard, 1963). This evolution of
spatial forms has even been used to classify the stages of universal
history (Mumford, 1956; 1961). In fact, rather than establishing
8 The Historical Process of Urbanization
the criteria of periodization, it is absolutely necessary to study the
production of spatial forms on the basis of the underlying social
structure.
To explain the social process that underlies the organization of
space is not simply a matter of situating the urban phenomenon III
its context. A sociological problematic of urbanization must regard
it as a process of organization and development and, consequently,
The Urban Phenomenon: Conceptual
set out from the relation between productive forces, social classes
and cultural forms (including space). Such a research project can· Delimitations and Historical Realities
not proceed solely in the abstract; it must, with the help of its con·
ceptual tools, explain particular historical situations, in sufficient
number to reveal the lines of force of the phenomenon studied, the
organization of space.
However, the ideologico·theoretical confusion existing in this
field forces us to make an initial mapping of our object, both in In the jungle of subtle definitions that sociologists have provided
conceptual terms and in terms of historical reality. This work i~ in us with, it is possible to distinguish very clearly two extremely dis·
no sense academic and is presented, on the contrary, as a techmcally tinct senses of the term urbanization. (Eldridge, 1956; Popenoe,
indispensible operation if we are to avoid evolutionist co~otations 1969.)
and approach, in all clarity, a particular field of our expenence. 1. The spatial concentration of a population on the basis of cer·
tain limits of dimension and density (Bogue and Hauser, 1963;
Davis, 1965);
2. The diffusion of the system of values, attitudes and behaviour
called 'urban culture'. (Bergel, 1955; Anderson, 1959-60,68;
Friedmann, 1953; Sirjamaki, 1961; Boskoff, 1962; Gist and Fava,
1964.)
For a discussion of the problematic of 'urban culture', the reader
is referred to Part H. (See Wirth, 1938.) But the essence of my con·
clusion is the following: we are concerned here with the cultural
system characteristic of capitalist industrial society.
Furthermore, and following the same line of thought, one
assimilates urbanization and industrialization, making an equiva·
lence of the two processes at the level of the choice of the indica·
tors used (Meadows, 1967), in order to construct the correspond·
ing dichotomies, rural/urban and agricultural/industrial employ·
ment. (Sorokin and Zimmerman, 1929.)
In fact, the culturalist tendency in the analysis of urbanization
presupposes the correspondence between a certain technical type
of production (essentially defined by industrial activity), a system
of values ('modernism ') and a specific form of spatial organization,
the city, whose distinctive features are a certain size and a certain
density.
That this correspondence is not obvious may be seen in a simple
analytical account of the great pre·industrial urban centres such as
that carried out by Sjoberg (1960). Some authors (e.g. Reismann,
10 The Historical Process of Urbanization The Urban Phenomenon 11
1964) remain consistent by refusing to use the term 'city' to desig the quantitative importance of the urban areas (10 000 inhabitants,
nate those forms of settlement, thus making explicit the confusion 20000,100000,1000000, etc.), their functional hierarchy
of the 'urban' problematic and a given socio-cultural organization. (na~ure o~ a.ctivit.ies,. situation in the chain of interdependences),
This link between spatial form and cultural content may possibly their admmlstratlVe Importance, then, combining several of these
serve as a hypothesis (which I shall examine in detail in the follow characte.ristics, one might arrive at different types of spatial
ing pages), but it cannot constitute an element in the definition of occupatlon.
urbanization, for the theoretical response would be already con The rural/u~b~n d~chotomy then loses all meaning, for one might
tained in the terms in which the problem was posed. equally well dlstmgulsh between urban and metropolitan, and,
If one is to keep to this distinction, leaving until later the estab above all, cease to think in terms of a continuous movement from
lishment of the theoretical and empirical relations between the two one pole to the other and establish a system of relations between
forms, spatial and cultural, one may take, to begin with, the defini the different historically given spatial forms. (Ledrut, 1967.)
tion of H. T. Eldridge (1956, 338), who characterizes urbanization What emerges from these observations is that it is not by seeking
as a process of population concentration at two levels: 1. the pro academic definitions or criteria of administrative practice that one
liferation of points of concentration; 2. the increase in size of each :-viII achieve. a valid delimitation of one's concepts; on the contrary,
of these points. It IS the rapid analysis of a number of historically established rela
Urban would then designate a particular form of the occupation tions between space and society that will enable us to give an
of space by a population, namely, the urban centre resulting from objective basis to our study.
a high concentration and relatively high density, with, as its pre Archaeological research has shown that the first settled urban
dictable correlate, greater functional and social differentiation. areas with a high density of population (Mesopotamia, about 3500
Granted, but when one wishes to use this 'theoretical' definition BC; Egypt, 3000 BC; China and India, 3000-2500 BC) (Mumford,
directly in a concrete analysis, the difficulties begin. On the basis 1961; McAdams, 1966; Lampard, 1965) appeared at the end of
of which levels of dimension and density can a spatial unit be the Neolithic Age, where the state of technology and the social and
regarded as urban? What, in practice, are the theoretical and natural conditions of labour enabled cultivators to produce more
empirical foundations of each of the criteria? than they needed to subsist. From that time onwards, a system of
Pierre George (1964, 7-20) has exposed clearly enough the in ~ivision and distribution of the product developed, as the expres
surmountable contradictions of statistical empiricism in the de sIOn and deployment of a technical capacity and of a level of social
limitation of the concept of the urban. Indeed, if the number of organization. The cities were the residential form adopted by those
inhabitants, corrected by the structure of the active population members of society whose direct presence at the places of agricul
and administrative divisions, seems to be the most common criter tural production was not necessary. That is to say, these cities
ion, the thresholds used vary enormously, the indicators of the could exist only on the basis of the surplus produced by working
different activities are dependent on the individual type of society the land. They were religious, administrative and political centres,
and, lastly, the same quantities take on an entirely different mean· the spatial expression of a social complexity determined by the
ing according to the productive and social structures that determine pr~cess of appropriation and reinvestment of the product of labour.
the organization of space. (Beaujeu-Garnier and Chabot, 1963, 35.) It IS thus, then, a new social system, but one that is not separate
Thus the United States Census (1961) takes the threshold of 2500 f.'om the rural one, nor posterior to it, for they are both closely
inhabitants as the criterion of an urban district, but also adds the lmked at the heart of the same process of production of social
urban areas strongly linked to a regional metropolitan centre. On forms, even if, from the point of view of these forms themselves,
the other hand, the European Conference of Statistics at Prague we are presented with two different situations. (Sjoberg, 1960,
takes 10 000 inhabitants as its criterion, correcting it by the dis 27-31; Braddwood and WiIIey, 1962.)
tribution of the active population in the different sectors. Let us take, for example, V. Gordon Childe's (1950) synthesis of
In fact, the most flexible formula consists in classifying the the criteria which, according to existing empirical knowledge,
spatial units of each country according to several dimensions and characterized the first urban areas: the existence of non-productive
several levels and in establishing between them theoretically signi fi specialists working full time (priests, functionaries, 'service
cant empirical relations. More concretely, one might distinguish workers'); a population of sufficient size and density; a specific art;