Urban Sociology - Criticism

Criticism

Many theories in urban sociology have been criticized, most prominently directed toward the ethnocentric approaches taken by many early theorists that lay groundwork for urban studies throughout the 20th century. Early theories that sought to frame the city as an adaptable “superorganism” often disregarded the intricate roles of social ties within local communities, suggesting that the urban environment itself rather than the individuals living within it controlled the spread and shape of the city. For impoverished inner-city residents, the role of highway planning policies and other government-spurred initiatives instituted by the planner Robert Moses and others have been criticized as unsightly and unresponsive to residential needs. The slow development of empirically-based urban research reflects the failure of local urban governments to adapt and ease the transition of local residents to the short-lived industrialization of the city.

Some modern social theorists have also been critical toward the apparent shortsightedness that urban sociologists have shown toward the role of culture in the inner city. William Julius Wilson has criticized theory developed throughout the middle of the twentieth century as relying primarily on structural roles of institutions, and not how culture itself affects common aspects of inner-city life such as poverty. The distance shown toward this topic, he argues, presents an incomplete picture of inner-city life.