Incidence and Degrees of Friendship in Urban and Rural Areas

A positive motiotonic relationlshlip between urbanization and social isolation has been hypothesized and is generally assumed in many sociological descriptions and explanations. To test this hypothesis directly, individuals living in inner city, suburban, and rural areas (but otherwise similar in age, sex, eduication, religion, and occupation) were compared with respect to the incidence and degrees of intimacy of their friendships. It was found that overall there are no significant differences between areas in the incidence of friendly contacts. This does not support the hypothesis of the social isolation of individuals living in inner city areas. When degrees of friendship are distinguished, one finds differences in the incidence of "best friends," but the latter is alternately low and high as one moves from area to area from the center of a city to its rural environs. These results show that social isolation is a relative term, and that contrary to common assumption it bears no simple relationship to degree of urbanization. It is g,enerally assutmed that the quality of interpersonal relationislhips varies with clifferent forms of social organization found in rural anld urban communities. In popular literature, the "homeliness" of small town life is contrasted with the "ruthless self interest" of the big city. The assumption is formalized in Durkhlieim's' distinction between organic and mechaniical solidarity, in Cooley's2 concept of the "'primary group," and in Redfield's3 notion of the "folk society"; and its acceptance no doubt owes miuch to their authority. It is used not onlly as a theme for the description of (lifferenit patternls of living, but also to explain specific phenloimielna. Tlhus, for examiple, Faris and Dunham4 have attempted to explain by this means the differential incidence of mienltal disorder in various sections of large cities. The assumption is obviously important for much sociological theory; surprisilngly, however, it has not been subjected to direct observational test. One hindrance to such a test is that while a quaintitative relationship is implied, the variables-"interpersonal relationships" and "forms of social organization"-are complex and Inot open to observation aud measurement without refinemeint and explicit definition. This paper examines one aspect of the relationship and reports the results of a pertinent observational study. It has been argued5 that as a grollp increases in size, concomitant changes in organization occur such that the individual 1nember must sutrrender the informal and personal relationships of the primary group for more occasional contacts of a formal and imupersonal kind. Individuals living separately in a rural village, an outer city suburb, and an inner city area mnight be compared in this respect. WVith unrestricted choice it is true that opportunities for contact increase with increase in the size of a group. However, choice is not unrestricted: it is limited by factors such as family, occupational and leisure-time patterns; and accordingly the difference in total nrumber of contacts for urban and rural dwellers miay not be great. Again, it has been argued that in small communities "everyone knows everyone," 1Emnile Durklheim, The Divisiont of Labour in Society, George Simpson, translator (Glencoe, Illinois: The Free Press, 1949, 3rd printing). 2 Charles Horton Cooley, Social Organisation (New York: Scribner's, 1916). 3 Robert Redfield, The Folk Culture of Ytcatan (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1941). 4 Robert E. L. Faris, "Cultural Isolation and the Schizophreiiic Personality," Amterican Journal of Sociology, Vol. 40 (September 1934), pp. 155-164; anid Robert E. L. Faris and H. Warren Duinhamii, Mental Disorders in Urban Areasc (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1939). 5 Georg Simmel, "The Number of Members as Determiniing the Sociological Form of the Group," American Journal of Sociology. Vol. 8 (July 1902), pp. 1-46. This content downloaded from 157.55. 39.208 on Fri, 14 Oct 2016 04:22:48 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor. org/terms FRIENDSHIP IN URBAN AND RURAL AREAS 61 -whereas ini the city a man may not even know the name of his next door neighbour. However, this does not imply that the city dweller has less contacts, and less intimate contacts, than his counterpart in a small community. The difference may lie simply in the spatial location and distribution of contacts, the "small town" dweller drawing his intimates from the immediate neighbourhood, while the city dweller finds his spread over a wider area. If this be so, then the city dweller may at a point of time be spatially more separate from his friends than is his rural counterpart, and yet not be socially "isolated" when the number of his 'friendships and the degree of their intimacy be