This article is missing citations or needs footnotes. Please help add inline citations to guard against copyright violations and factual inaccuracies. (October 2009)

This article may require cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. Please improve this article if you can. (October 2009)

This article may need to be wikified to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. Please help by adding relevant internal links, or by improving the article's layout. (October 2009)

Urban Anthropology, a subset of Anthropology, is a relatively new and developing field. Anthropology is recognized most commonly as the “study of man”, or a comparative study of the world’s people. Traditional Anthropology was divided into four main fields: Sociocultural Anthropology, Archaeology, Linguistics, and Physical Anthropology. As research increased in these areas, however, more anthropologists focused their scope of research. Smaller, more specific subject areas arose that did not fit into the traditional main fields, and were therefore defined as individual subfields. Urban Anthropology is a subfield that distinctively involves the study of cultural systems and human relations within cities, and also the various factors that shape urbanism. It is considered a cross-cultural study which also involves cross disciplines, namely Sociology.

Contents 1 Overview 2 History of the Discipline 3 Methods, Techniques, and Ethics 4 Main Areas of Study 5 See also 6 References 7 Further reading

[edit] Overview

The traditional difference between Sociology and Anthropology was that Sociology was the study of civilized populations and Anthropology was the study of primitive populations. Also, the methodology of conducted studies varied in the sense that sociologists would study a large population sample while anthropologists involved fewer informants with deeper relations ^[1].

As interest increased in urban societies, methodology between these two fields and subject matter blended more, causing some to question what the difference between Urban Sociology and Urban Anthropology was. The answer to this is simple: the lines between the two fields have blurred with the interchange of ideas and methodology, but to the advantage and advancement of both. They are still individual fields that study overlapping populations but with their individual and distinctive goals. A key difference is that Urban Sociology studies a smaller society and Urban Anthropology studies a large, more complex society. The purpose of Urban Anthropology is to study the structure of cities and urban life, and the effect the two have on each other. It is important to note that while Urban Anthropology is a newly acknowledged field, anthropologists have been conducting work in the area well before.

Much work research been done by individual anthropologists and various studies to define exactly what the city is, and in what sense urbanism differentiates between the ways of life between the city and the primitive society. It was proved that differences do exist, but the societies are similar in that the city is also a community. Urban Anthropology, as a result, is an essential but expansive field; therefore, there is research being done continually in specific areas of the field. Also, with a different playing field, anthropologists have also had to modify their methods and even ethics in order to adjust to different obstacles and expectations.

[edit] History of the Discipline

The field of Anthropology first began developing in the 19th century as a result of the expansion of the West and discovering new frontiers and, as a result, new civilizations. A new sort of anthropologists budded, those who employed the method of fieldwork and immersed themselves in these new cultures that were mainly viewed as primitive. It was a comparative approach; mainly, the comparison was between the primitive non-western culture to the more civilized western culture. While Anthropology soundly became associated with the study of primitive cultures, several factors began leading the field more towards the study of urban cultures. A strong influence in this direction was with the discovery of practically the entire world, there were few undiscovered people to study. The first step in this process began with World War I, after which developing nations began to emerge. Anthropologists began studying these “peasant societies” that were actually different from the “folk societies” they traditionally would research. Folk societies were namely villages that were self-contained. Robert Redfield was a prominent anthropologist who studied both folk and peasant societies. While researching peasant societies of developing nations, such as India, he discovered that these societies were actually not the same as folk societies. They were not self-contained; for example, they were economically linked to forces outside of their own community. They were actually part of a bigger society—the city ^[2].

This discovery led into more anthropologists studying societies that began more identified as cities, such as the indigenous populations of Mexico. This crossover was instrumental in the development of Urban Anthropology as an independent field in the 1960s. Prior to this, other fields expressed interest in the study of the city, such as archaeology which studied the origins of the city and anthropologists who studied preindustrial cities. Their efforts were largely unrelated, though their findings still hold relevant for urban anthropologists. Archaeology focused on the excavation of urban centers, from which findings showed the shift from small settlements to larger urban sites. This work helped define what characteristics constituted an area as “urban,” specifically physical factors such as street plans and building structures.

Several prominent anthropologists and sociologists have played key roles, along with specific studies, in laying a strong foundation for what Urban Anthropology would become, a study of the city as a community. Louis Wirth, a sociologist, published an essay titled “Urbanism as a Way of Life.” This essay proved to be essential in distinguishing urbanism as an unique society that could be studied from three perspectives: “a physical structure, as a system of social organization, and as a set of attitudes and ideas” ^[3]. Lloyd Warner led the Community Study Approach and was one of the first anthropologists to transition from studying primitive cultures, the aborigines in his case, to studying urban cities using similar methods. The Community Study Approach was an important influence leading to studying the city as a community. Warner’s case was about New England and titled Yankee City, and studies such as his proved the city to be made up of urban communities with a new method of network studies. William Whyte was another anthropologist who expanded Warner’s methods for small urban centers to larger neighborhoods ^[4]. Another influence of the study of the city was the study conducted by the Chicago School of Urban Ecology. As early as the 1920s, the school defined the city, in terms of urban ecology, as “made up of adjacent ecological niches accompanied by human groups in…rings surrounding the core” (Low 2).

[edit] Methods, Techniques, and Ethics

Anthropologists typically have one significant difference from their affiliated field of science: their method of gathering information. Scientists prefer Research design, where defined independent and dependent variables are used. Anthropologists, however, prefer the ethnographic method, which is broader and does not oversimplify a case. With Urban Anthropology, the subject is exactingly broad as it is, there needs to be a degree and channel of control. For this reason, Urban Anthropologists find it easier to incorporate research design in their methods and usually define the city as either the independent variable or the dependent variable. So, the study would be conducted on either the city as the factor on some measure, such as immigration, or the city as something that is responding to some measure.

A common technique used by anthropologists is “myth debunking” ^[5]. In this process, anthropologists present a specific question and conduct a study to either verify or negate its validity. Research design is actually an important part of this process, allowing anthropologists to present a specific question and answer it. Being able to hone into such a broad subject specifically while remaining holistic is largely the reason why this technique is popular among anthropologists. Another technique is based on how anthropologists conduct their studies; they either use single case studies or controlled comparisons. By using case studies, they present and analyze a single urban society. The more sophisticated method is using controlled comparisons, where different societies are compared with controlled variables, so that the associations are more valid and not merely correlations. In order to conduct either type of study, the anthropologist must define a basic unit, which is the ethnographic target population. The target population can be central to the research question, but not necessarily; for example, when studying migrant immigrations, the people are being studied, not the neighborhoods. Common ways to define target populations that are central to the research design are by spatial boundaries, common cultures, or common work.

Ethics largely remain the same for all anthropologists. Still, working in an urban setting and a more complex society raises new issues. The societies that anthropologists are now studying are more similar to their own, and the familiarity raises issues concerning objectivity ^[6]. The best idea is for an anthropologist to identify his or her own values explicitly and adapt to the society based on what he or she is studying ^[7]. With primitive societies, it would have been acceptable for an anthropologist to enter the society and explain at the beginning their intentions of studying the society. In urban cultures, however, they are not in what are considered alien cultures. Therefore, an anthropologist finds that a more detailed explanation of their intentions is needed and often find that their intent must be explained multiple times throughout the study.

[edit] Main Areas of Study

There are two main ways to go about researching Urban Anthropology: by examining the types of cities or examining the social issues within the cities. These two methods are overlapping and dependent of each other. By defining different types of cities, one would use social factors as well as economic and political factors to categorize the cities. By directly looking at the different social issues, one would also be studying how they affect the dynamic of the city.

There are four central approaches to the anthropological study of cities. The first is the Urban Ecology model in which the community and family network are central. The second is based on power and knowledge, specifically of how the city is planned. The third approach is studying local and supralocal and the link between the two degrees of units in the city. The last approach focuses on cities where political economy is central to the city’s infrastructure. Low uses several prominent studies from urban anthropologists to compile a list of the different types of cities that do not fall into only one category, and what factors individualize them. These types of cities include those focused on religious, economic, and social processes. An example of the religious city is what Low calls the “sacred city” in which religion is central to the daily life processes of the city ^[8]. An example of an economic centered city image is the “Deindustrialized city” ^[9]. In America, this type of city is usually found in areas where coal mining was the main industry in the city, and once coalmines were shut down, the city became a ghost city rampant with unemployment and displaced workers. Globalization has been studied as a force that severely affects these areas, and anthropological studies have greatly increased the knowledge of the implications.

Other types of cities include, but are certainly not limited to the contested city, in which urban resistance is a key image; the gendered city, dominant in urbanizing areas such as Africa where women find themselves newly employed in low-wage labor; postmodern city, that is centered around capitalism; and fortress city, where different populations within the city are separated, usually based on socioeconomic factors. The main reasons for the current studies focusing on types on cities are to understand the patterns in which cities are now developing in, to study theoretical cities that may come about in the future based on these current trends, and to increase the implications of anthropological studies ^[10]. An important note is that anthropological studies have serious implications on the understanding of urban society: with the rapid rate of globalization, many peasant societies are quickly attempting to modernize their cities and populations, but at an expense of the interests of the people within the cities. Studies can illustrate these negative effects and project how the overall city will fare poorly in the future.

The other method of studying Urban Anthropology is by studying various factors, such as social, economic, and political processes, within the general city. Focuses on these factors include studies on rural-urban migration, kinship in the city, problems that arise from urbanism, and social stratification. These studies are largely comparative between how these relations function in an urban setting versus how they function in a rural setting. When studying kinship, anthropologists have been focusing on the importance of extended family for urban natives versus migrants. Studies have shown, generally, that the more “native” one becomes with the urban city, the less importance is placed on maintaining familial relations ^[11]. Another important and commonly studied aspect of the urban society is poverty, which is believed to be a problem that arises out of urbanism. Urban Anthropologists study several aspects individually, and attempt to tie different aspects together, such as the relationship between poverty and social stratification.

[edit] See also

• Urban sociology

[edit] References

[edit] Further reading

• Basham, Richard (1978) "Urban Anthropology. The Cross-Cultural Study of Complex Societies", Mayfield Publishing Company.
• Fox, Richard G. (1977) "Urban Anthropology. Cities in their Cultural Settings", Prentice-Hall.
• Ulf Hannerz (1980) Exploring the City: Inquiries Toward an Urban Anthropology, ISBN 0231083769
• Gregory Eliyu Guldin, Aidan William Southall (eds.) (1993) Urban Anthropology in China, ISBN 9004081011
• Jacqueline Knörr (2007) Kreolität und postkoloniale Gesellschaft. Integration und Differenzierung in Jakarta, Frankfurt & New York: Campus Verlag, ISBN 978-3-593-38344-6
• Eames, Edwin. Anthropology of the City, An Introduction to Urban Anthropology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
• Gmelch, George. Urban Life: Readings in the Anthropology of the City. 4th ed. Waveland Press, 2002.
• Low, Setha. Theorizing the City: The New Urban Anthropology Reader. Rutgers University Press, 2005. p 20