\n<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
Studies of urbanisation <\/i>deal with city ward \u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n In anthropology the Robert Redfield later While orthogenetic cities formed by primary urbanization \u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n [Youtube link to the class lecture: https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/watch?v=E2uWn-Qr0oc<\/a>]\u00a0 \u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n
\nmovement and modes of settlement; those of the 1950s-1970s urban anthropology
\nheydays concerned Third World \u2018peasants in cities\u2019, the \u2018adaptive functions\u2019 of
\nkinship and voluntary associations, and the persistence and creation of ethnic
\nidentities and political organization.<\/span><\/p>\n
\nstudy of the process of Urbanisation started with a debate on weather rural and
\nurban are two distinctively identifiable and isolated poles or not. The long
\nhistory of ethnographic research especially because of the dominant paradigm of
\nfunctionalism, scholars have been of the perception that villages were self
\nsufficient units that doesn\u2019t really have a strong connection with the urban
\ncentres. This very notion began to change with the Robert Redfield who
\ndeveloped a model of connection between the rural and urban poles, which is
\nknown as the folk-urban continuum. <\/b>He
\ntried to classify different types of community and historic process, which he
\nillustrated with examples from the Yucatan peninsula of Mexico (Redfield 1941).
\nAt one end of the continuum was the “modern” city of Merida, while at
\nthe other was a small, “traditional” indigenous village. These two
\ncommunities represented the most and the least developed types. In comparing
\nthem Redfield examined their respective technology, social organization, and
\nworldview (Miner 1952). Thus Merida was a modern city populated with many
\nindividuals who participated in national and international affairs, were
\nrelatively free to make social and economic decisions, and had modern
\nworldviews. In contrast the “Indians” of the village lived from
\nforaging (see foragers) and swidden agriculture. They had a prescientific
\nworldview and unlike the individual freedom and modernity of the urbanites,
\nthey were tightly incorporated into familial and community social relationships
\nthat restricted personal freedom. Intermediate between these polar extremes
\nRedfield identified two other communities: a commercial rural “town”
\nwith close ties to the city, and the peasant community of Chan Kom, which had a
\nmix of “traditional” and “modern” features but more closely
\nresembled the village. Redfield saw historical change as occurring by the diffusion
\nof modern technology, social forms, and ideas outward from the city toward the
\nfolk end of the continuum in a gradual process of modernization.<\/span><\/p>\n
\non collaborated with Milton Singer to study the process of urbanisation. With
\ntheir intensive studies they argued that <\/span>city is
\nthe center of change and that this susccptibility to change is reflected in two
\ntypes of cities a) orthogenetic and b) heterogenetic. Recognizing the classic
\ndistinction between the preindustrial and post-industrial cities, they
\nclassified all postindustrial cities as heterogenetic. The orthogenetic city is
\none which is the center of native bureaucratic functions. Its population is relativelv
\nhomogeneous in culture of origin. These centers became the centers of a) Primary urbanization<\/b>. The trend of
\nprimary urbanisation is to coordinate political economic, educational,
\nintellectual and aesthetic activities to the norms provided by Great Tradition.
\nIn this process of urbanization the cultural role of the city is to maintain and
\ncontinuously reintegrate the Great Tradition by injecting elements of Little
\nTradition through interaction of the city and peasantry. Redfield and Singer
\nstate that this form of the city is basically conservative. Although some
\nchange does take place as city and countryside interact with each other. They
\nsuggest that there is continuity between aspects of the Great Tradition at different
\npoints in time. Examples of this form of urbanization include Benares in India
\nand Peking (Peiping) in China.<\/span><\/p>\n
\nare preindustrial, heterogenetic cities include one elements of preindustrial
\ncity and postindustrial types. Heterogenetic cities include people of different
\ncultural origins as well as from places outside the local social worlds. \u00a0<\/span>In such cities these outside influences are from
\nbeyond the political boundaries of the state itself; in other cases, they are from
\nbeyond the immediate hinterland. The main function of such cities as a place
\nfor the exchange of goods and services require standardized value. As a place the
\ndivergent cosmologies and lifestyle are juxtaposed, the city becomes a narrator
\nor sources of new ideas. If we refer back to the distinction previously made between
\ngreat and Little tradition. A heterogenetic city of the preindustrial type is one
\nin which a variety of Great Traditions interact with one another. Shifting our
\nattention to the postindustrial heterogenetic city, we discover two types: the
\nnew administrative city and the financial city. The process of secondary
\nurbanisation works in the industrial phase of the city, and is characterised by
\nheterogenetic development. Thus, the effects of secondary urbanisation are
\nthose of disintegration. They opine that: \u201cthe general consequence of secondary
\nurbanisation is the weakening of suppression of the local and traditional
\ncultures by states of mind that are incongruent with those local cultures.\u201d The
\nfirst type carries forward the regional tradition, and the city becomes its
\nepi-centre, the second type bring external elements to the city.<\/span><\/p>\n
<\/span><\/p>\n