The Structuring of Social Relationships Engendered by Suburban Residence

Datos Bibliográficos

ID5249508
AutoresWalter T Martins, Walter T Martin (autor de correspondencia)
Año1956
Volumen21
Número4
Páginas446
Fecha de publicación1956-08-01
Peer ReviewedSí
Open AccessNo
TipoARTICLE
RevistaAmerican Sociological Review (JOURNAL)
Identificadores de la revistaISSN: 0003-1224 • E-ISSN: 1939-8271
EditorialSAGE Publications Inc (PUBLISHER)
DOI10.2307/2088712
OpenAlexW2320235250
IdiomaEN
Citas recibidas18

T iS the major objective of this paper to examine the characteristics of suburban communities as they relate to the structuring of ' of the resident populations. This presumes that the form taken by these phenomena in suburban communities somehow differs from the form to be observed in other types of communities, and, furthermore, that this difference is engendered by the suburban situation. The writer knows of no published research which provides substantial evidence to support either of these ideas. Numerous studies have been made of participation and interaction on the neighborhood and community level, but they are concerned almost entirely with the description of these patterns as observed in individual, unrelated, and relatively unique residential areas. To the extent that all communities have a common core of characteristics it can be expected that this common influence is conducive to the development of similar patterns of interaction in all communities.2 However, it can be hypothesized that the large urban center, the suburban community, and the rural village present such different situations that importantly different patterns of interaction are generated.3 If it is accepted for purposes of discussion that the structuring of in suburbs does differ importantly from the patterns found in nonsuburban communities, there still remains the basic question: To what extent is this structuring influenced by the nature of the suburban situation? corollary question is: What aspects of the suburban situation exert an influence on relationship patterns and in what way? These questions suggest that a classification of suburban characteristics will be required to deal with the general problem. These categories must make it possible to classify and examine independently the various aspects of the suburban situation as they relate to the structuring of which occur in such communities. Obviously other questions can be posed about the relationship between suburban status and relationship patterns. The present analysis is restricted to as dependent variables, even though it is recognized that for many purposes it may be desirable to treat them as independent variables. Suburban places make up an extremely * Revised version of a paper read at the annual meeting of the American Sociological Society, Washington, D. C., September, 1955. The writer is indebted to Jack P. Gibbs for helpful suggestions regarding the revision. 1 In this paper social relationships refers both to patterns of interaction between two or more individuals in informal situations and to participation in more formally organized associations. Since much of so called informal interaction takes place before, during, and after formally organized meetings, it is difficult to isolate the two types. Separation was not essential to the purpose of this discussion. 2There is evidence that in the United States variations in interaction and participation are rather uniformly associated with variations in socio-economic status, length of residence, and accessibility to interaction opportunities regardless of the type of community. See Walter T. Martin, A Consideration of Differences in the Extent and Location of the Formal Associational Activities of Fringe Residents, American Sociological Review, 17 (December, 1952), passim. 3 In spite of considerable literature regarding the differences found between cities, suburbs, and rural villages in their relative emphasis on neighboring, visiting, and participation in secondary groups, to the writer's knowledge only Key has made a systematic comparison. Key used six scales to compare various patterns of for rural areas, villages, small urban places, and two large cities. His findings support some but not all of the usual claims made about differences in found among these types of communities. Unfortunately his analysis did not include suburbs. [William H. Key, Rural-Urban Differences in Social Participation, unpublished doctoral dissertation, Washington University, 1953.] Sylvia Fleis Fava is presently comparing neighboring patterns among suburbanites and central city residents. [Suburbanism as a Way of Life, American Sociological Review, 21 (February, 1956), p. 37

Economic geography · Geography · Political science · Residence · Sociology · Structuring · Demography · Law · Urban, Neighborhood, and Segregation Studies · Urbanization and City Planning