Urban Theory, Urbanism, and Suburban Residence

Data from a 1972 three-state survey are used to compare city, suburban, town, and rural dwellers in terms offive urbanism characteristics: (1) anonymity, (2) tolerance, (3) community social bonds, (4) alienation, and (5) deviant behavior. Suburbanites displayed less urbanism than city dwellers, but they did not differ much from other noncity people in this regard. In fact, residents of the various types of settlement do not fall on a neat continuum of urbanism from country to town to suburb to city. The dominant pattern is simply a city-noncity differentiation, although there are afew anomalies. These results suggest that urban theories have limited usefulnessfor understanding urbanism among suburbanites, but they also reveal so little evidence of suburban distinctiveness that it may not require a unique explanation beyond that needed to accountfor simple urbannonurban differences. Interest in the effects of large population size, high heterogeneity, and high density continues to generate research (see, e.g., Sampson 1988; Tittle 1989). The issue is addressed by three competing theories: (1) a classical theory postulating these urban features to have distinct effects (urbanism), (2) a theory contending that urban features have no causal effects independent of community foci linked to social and demographic characteristics of residents, and (3) a subcultural theory implying that urban features have some effects, but fewer than implied by the classical argument, and in different ways than implied by either of the other two theories. Despite the prominence of these theories, it is unclear how they apply to types of settlement not easily categorized by the three urban features. Suburbs seem unusual in reflecting variable combinations of size, heterogeneity, and density, as well as other demographic elements, at the same time that their location potentially exposes residents to urban influences. Consequently, ascertaining how the explanatory processes of the theories might operate for suburbs is complicated, and none of the three is developed well enough to yield unambiguous predictions. * Direct correspondence to Charles R. Tittle, Department of Sociology, Washington State University, Pullman, WA 99164. C) The University of North Carolina Press Social Forces, March 1992, 70(3):725-744 This content downloaded from 157.55.39.60 on Tue, 19 Jul 2016 04:14:36 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms 726 / Social Forces 70:3, March 1992 Theoretical Predictions about Urbanism in Suburbs