Book Review: The City

Shiny Saha

The City by Max Weber

The City is divided into five chapters however, broadly, the book can be divided into two sections. The first section comprising of the first chapter discusses the nature of the city. Here, Weber argues that mostly a city is understood in terms of its size and density, which are not sufficient to define a city. Therefore, he characterizes the city in terms of economy, political-administrative and fortress or garrison. Economically, for Weber, the city is a settlement in which the citizens live off versatile trades and commerce, rather than agriculture, and satisfy the substantial part of their daily needs through the market. Politico-administratively Weber defines the city in terms of its unique land relations in which land ownership is not accessory to house ownership. In terms of the last characteristic he argues that in the past the city, although not universally, was a fortress. He adds that this characteristic of the city has been lost in the present but the fusion of the fortress and the market was important for the composition of the city in the past: the consumption power and protection of the fortress attracted merchants and at the same time the lord was interested in attracting them to earn revenue through taxation or investment.

He further adds that in addition to the above characteristics the city in order to constitute an urban community must also be partially autonomous with an elected administration, a court of its own with partially autonomous law and an association of urbanites. Weber points out that in this sense the city appeared as an urban community only in the Occident and occasionally in the Near East. The Orient, particularly India and China, was restricted by caste and guild relations, which overrode urban associationalism; city citizenship was not considered a special status of the urbanite.
The second section comprising of the remaining chapters is devoted to discussing how the Occidental city, its ancient and medieval forms, displayed a city with an urban community. In both the forms of the Occidental city, Weber argues that fraternization occurred. He also posits that religion in the Occident, unlike that in the Orient and even the Middle East, did not impose restrictions and taboos that limited the civic development of the city. This point can be related to Weber’s extensive work on religion and economy. Further, rights, whether demanded or bestowed, emerged in the Occident along with special law for the urbanites. 
The second section provides detailed account of the ancient and medieval forms of the Occidental city, taking Rome and Athens as the examples. The ancient city was a militaristic city, where increase in wealth signified ownership of slaves. The citizen was a soldier working towards enhancing the production and expansion of the State. The medieval city, on the other hand, was a guild based city aimed at economic interests; slavery had little importance here due to its conflicting role in the labour market. It was primarily a popolo city and its citizen pursued activities aimed at enhancing his own income. The medieval city, thus becomes evident, is the one from which present form of cities has emerged.
The book as a discussion on Occidental cities, how they evolved and what they entailed in their various stages, is very informative. However, the Occidental style of city formation is not the only and cannot be called the truest style. Cities of the Orient did not have similar characteristics but they were cities in their own distinct way. Weber, it appears, champions the Occident over the Orient. This can be attributed to the author’s value judgement, which ironically he himself has discussed in his research on methodology in Social Sciences.
 In addition to the five chapters written by Weber the book has a brilliant preface written by the Don Martindale, who has also translated and edited the book along with Gertud Neuwirth. Don Martindale provides a brief introduction to the various theories on the city and places Weber’s theory in the European urban theory section. The prefatory section in itself is very informative and is an excellent guide for anyone new to Sociology of cities.

Delhi vs Mumbai

The sociologist in me is slightly allergic to the cleanliness of categories. But typologies are tempting, especially when one’s colleagues happen to be really good economists. Now that I have justified what I am about to do, let’s get straight to the subject: The classic debate between Delhites and Mumbaikars – “Which city wins?”
Even Times of India couldn’t pick a side last Sunday. Both Delhi and Mumbai, with an equal score of 2.9/5 ended up sharing a rank of 3 in the TOI-IMRB Quality of Life Survey. This survey of the 8 most populated Indian cities (they missed Surat), found Ahmedabad to be the ‘best’ city to live in, followed by Pune; Kolkata came last. If the set of ‘expert panel’ and 150 city-zens of a specific socio-economic class surveyed in each city is any representation of popular perceptions, these are the numbers to support your claims if you land up in a Delhi vs Mumbai conversation. 

Delhi Daredevils
Delhi had the best sports and cultural facilities in India, in contrast to Mumbai which ranked 8. Not surprisingly, Mumbai’s open spaces could not accommodate competition too well in this category wherein Delhi ranked 1. Although Ahmedabad bagged the top spot in housing, Delhi nicely outperformed Mumbai. These rankings do not easily disclose the poor performance of India’s top scorers. As also mentioned in the TOI article, even the best rated cities seldom had a rating of more than ‘average’ (3/5) on a scale ranging from “very poor” (1/5) to “very good” (5/5). On a more deserving note, Delhi’s hospitals, schools and colleges emerged as the best in the country with Mumbai not very far behind. Cultural heritage was another parameter on which all cities fared well, although Mumbai lost the crown to Delhi again.
Parameters
Delhi
Mumbai
Delhi
Mumbai
Rank/8
Rank/8
% Score
% Score
Sports/Cultural facilities
1
8
58
44
Housing
3
8
56
40
Hospitals
1
5
64
58
Colleges
1
5
76
66
Schools
1
3
76
70
Cultural heritage
1
6
72
60
Quality of air
1
7
54
42
Open spaces
1
8
58
36
Mumbai Indians
The 2nd most cosmopolitan city of India, Mumbai is where you want to be if those who work hard, party hard are your kind. Kolkata ranked 1 in cosmopolitanism even though it had the lowest over-all score. Girls might want to vote for Mumbai for being significantly more womenfriendly than Delhi, which had a pathetic record – the lowest score in any category. The law and order situation was the best in Mumbai which also appeared to be quite well-endowed with power and water supply, scoring 76% in both facilities.
Parameters
Delhi
Mumbai
Delhi
Mumbai
Rank/8
Rank/8
% Score
% Score
Cosmopolitanism
5
2
60
68
Work Culture
6
1
58
66
Night Life
5
1
46
64
Women friendliness
8
2
34
64
Law & Order
6
1
48
62
Power/Electricity
4
2
64
76
Piped water facilities
5
1
56
76
Big cities vs small cities (population under 10 million)
Living in the biggest cities of India seems to come at the expense of not just money but also peace of mind. Delhi and Mumbai are the most expensive cities to live in and both scored badly on stress levels. The income generated though is spoilt for choices in both cities, evident from their good scores on eating out, entertainment and shopping options. Job opportunities are their commanding heights although a younger city like Bangalore has emerged and displaced Mumbai from the 2nd to the 3rd place.  The bane of city-life – commuting – is relatively easier in Delhi and Mumbai than other cities (!) While public transport is a winner in Mumbai, the traffic situation and parking facilities are better in Delhi. However, their poor scores on civic sense and respect for values put their glory to shame. At 50%, the quality of their local administration squares up.  
Parameters
Delhi
Mumbai
Delhi
Mumbai
Rank/8
Rank/8
% Score
% Score
Cost of living
7
8
44
40
Relaxed (not stressful)
6
8
44
40
Respect for values
8
6
50
58
Civic sense
6
5
40
44
Local Administration
5
5
50
50
Eating out facilities
2
1
70
72
Shopping options
1
1
70
70
Entertainment facilities
3
1
66
72
Job opportunities
1
3
68
64
Public transport
2
1
62
70
Parking facilities
1
2
42
40
Traffic situation
1
2
48
42
Overall, Delhi topped in the most categories (11), even more than Ahmedabad (9), which won the best city.  However in each case, 5 of the winning spots were shared with another city. Similarly, Mumbai topped in 8 out of 30 parameters, but claimed the first rank exclusively in 6 variables, just as many as Delhi (these are in bold). The comparison at the end of day seems to be between apples and oranges. If quality of life is measured materially, Delhi wins for having better infrastructure and more space. But a city’s magnetism also emanates from its cosmopolitan culture and lifestyle, so it is not a surprise that the most peopled city in India happens to be Mumbai.