One of the broadcast and most revealing of all social contracts is exhibited by the differences of urban and rural life. This contrast is one of social environment. It divides community organization in two broad types—the urban and the rural. For many centuries city and country are two general types of human habitation. However, we must remember that rural and urban depict modes of community life, not simply geographical locations.
The most obvious feature of the country-life is its relative isolation. To a great extent, it is the semi-isolation of the family. The family in the rural pattern tends to grow self-controlled and to a large extent psychologically self-sufficient. Family customs are more deeply rooted and it may not be an exaggeration to say that custom rules over a rural dweller and for fashion he has little use. Though his contacts with the outside community are few and far between, his contact within his limited community are intimate. He directly co-operates or directly conflicts.
The main occupation of rural dweller is agriculture in some cases fishing. This occupation keeps him in constant contact with nature. He does not see nature with a detached attitude of an artists but for him nature is a friend and an enemy. He is therefore inclined to view nature as animate. This reflects on his mentality as well as his social attitudes.
Thirdly, the work of countrymen is conspicuously unspecialized. The round of daily duties for the farmer’s wife is variegated. She does farm work, gardening, animal feeding, milking, cooking etc. The role of country dweller in social life is fixed and so also his thoughts and aspirations. The country-farmers’s mode of living is frugal and simple. He does not keep us appearances, his neighbourhood is narrower and his contacts fewer.
As distinguished from a ruralite the mode or urban life is more competitive. An urbanite has more incentives to ambition. He is confronted with problems arising out of social proximity and acute social contrasts. He has also to face social mobility. His contacts are wider. The work of an urbanite is highly specialized. The city life is based on modern technological advances which makes an urbanite more dependent on machines. There is marked contrast between are ruralite’s diversity of work and the specialized more and concentrated labour of the city dweller. Not only marriage but also religion, and recreation and politics are more strongly influenced by there is a dominance of the family and hence the social control is exercised with minimum of formality and maximum of command. The group mores are effective social pressures.
The urban community on the other hand reflects multiplicity of social contacts, the diversity of social codes, specialized urban world. The city family is less engrossing. The urban pattern differs more of choice to the individual. Competitiveness and high specialization are the peculiar characteristics which distinguish an urban pattern.
There is more of social mobility and change opportunities in an urban life. Cultural expression in the rural area remains simple in form consisting of folk-lore, folk-legends, folk songs, folk dances etc. The urbanite culture aspires for novelty and excitement. Its culture is complex. The urbanite is more sophisticated. As against the homogeneity of the rural pattern the heterogeneity of the urban life is enormous. In metropolitan cities like Mumbai within a few blocs of one another its dwellers life alien and utterly desparate lives. Wealth and poverty dwell side by side. The city is the home opposites. There are fashionable localities side by side with slums. Industrialization and commercialization are the dominant characteristics of the city life which affect all other modes of life in the city even education.
However, we do observe that the country becomes increasingly urbanised under the impact of city while the cities tend to grow at the expense of the country.
Urban life and village life
Any scientific study of socio-philosophy must take into consideration the profound effect on social life on charges in the economic environment. Once of the most striking outward characters of the industrial age is the growth of city life. In old times, the overwhelming majority of the people were engaged in agriculture. Here and there a city arose as a centre of trade of a seat of government, but it stood apart from the everyday life of the larger population.
Today in all industrialized countries the situation is reversed. The urban population has expanded continuously over the rural population. New facilities of communications made it convenient for people to live together in larger aggregations. Technical advance enables even smaller percentage of satisfy the agricultural needs of the whole population. Consequently the city grows at the expense of the country and as it does the whole character of society undergoes a change.
There is sharp difference between a country life and a city life. We need not consider here the difference in temperament which the two different types evoke. Let us consider the differences in their social structure.
In a country life the chance of nearness determines social relationship. We so not find neighbours helping each other, knowing each other more intimately and sharing the joys and sorrows of each other. In city life on the other hand nearness counts much less. People in a city hardly know their next-door neighbour much less do they influence each other’s activities. In a city where there are many storeyed buildings, not only that people do not know their neighbours but they are also ignorant of the other inhabitants of the same apartment. This is more true of the places where the self-contained block system of resident prevails.
We may sum up by saying that in a country people depend more on undifferentiated community, whereas in the city they depend more on deliberate associations formed by specific interests such as work, recreation, religion or some cultural activities. As a result of this in a city people do not feel the rigour of customary regulation and censure. As distinguished from the country life, the people in the city have more opportunities for selection in the formation of social contacts. In a country life this choice is very limited. The city on the other hand specialized its inhabitants.
As such, as the city grows we come across the increasing number of specific associations. The importance of such association is also on the increase. These associations form a distinguishing characteristic of modern society. As distinguished from the country life in the city the old community spirit is weakened. The city life differs from the country life in its advantages as well as disadvantages. For instance the city heightens suggestibility, alike for good and for evil, it quickness social movements. The city weakens custom and strengthens fashion. In the fashions of dress and the new urban life changes yet in another way the characters of society.
In city there is great extension of collective activity. Many activities like water-supply, lighting, disposal of refuse, protection, recreation and so forth pass under collective administration. A collective drive for control and prevention of disease also becomes imperative. The city increases the danger of infection since it is thickly populated.
Urban patterns and Rural patterns
The most widely differing communities today are the rural and urban communities. The differences are great as shown by the fact that when a city resident goes to live on a farm, without experience, he finds it difficult. Urban and rural difference in the former time were not outstanding but now under the influence of powers villages have grown into cities with the rapid progress in industries and mechanization in farming. The cities came into their being.
It is really very difficult to distinguish between urban life and rural life. McIver agreeing with these difficulties wrote, “Urban life and rural life are the two different aspects of same place. Since in so many countries the cities as well as villages have participated in the social progress. But their way of making progress is in different spheres. But we cannot outline the difference in between the two exactly. We cannot decide where the village ends and where the city begins. The collection of several farms and the cultivator constitute the village and the villager in the latter time cities. They are not as a result of geographical environment.”
There is no difference in any environments as it is in the rural and urban life. The village and urban life are the result of the two different social ideas of life. The aim and object of both the ideas are quite clear. Village life is ancient. There the traditions rule, the customs rule, or it is very difficult the old environments while the village naturally existed, and it still lives in nature.
Thus we can realize that it is not easy to distinguish between the rural life and urban life. Ogburn and Nimkoff wrote, “The populations of the city and the village have several specialities e.g. the ratio of birth, family, which are common to both. Gist and Herbert did not find any difference in the two. They say, ‘It is the supposition on the basis of principles to divide community into village and urban. On the contrary it is the division which is not based on social elements.”
Village life is quite distinct from the city life because their basis of the social structure are completely different. The population in the village is limited as there is no scope for business, industry or for the income. Generally the population in the village has been living from their hereditary.
As a result of this we find the cultural organisation among them. There is no division of labour, excess of the economic means and specialisation of work in the villages. As a result of these there is a vast difference between the villages and the cities.
We have distinguished the rural and urban life as follows:
Social Difference
The standard of living in the villages is common. On account of regular rain they get good crop and they find it convenient to maintain their expenses, conversely they fall short of money and become debtors. So there is no scope for them to have a change in standard of living. Owing to low standard of living among them they are not showy but simple. There is a vast difference in the standard of carrying and living in cities. The population is divided into three classes—(a) upper (b) middle; and
(c) lower. There is quite difference in the behaviour, dress ideals in-between these classes.
There is no scope for a new industry in the village. Their ancestral business cultivation is now mechanized. So the culture is also common. They do not find it necessary to establish association as they have not to safeguard any right against anybody. Moreover the village is a community where every member tries to achieve aim collectively.
But in the city there are different types of professions, businesses, industries. Even among these there are two classes the employers and the employed. As a result of this to safeguard their rights, to protect their interest they from associations and unions. The city community cannot experience unity and closeness as that in village.
In the villages the families are closely related. All the members of the family are employed in common work, their social and economic requirement are met fully. No member of the family is acquainted with social life, but cannot get rid of traditions, the cities a man does not depend upon his family to meet with his requirements. It is done by association. New culture have its effects on the families. Not all the members are employed in a common work. So there is a lack of unity and closeness.
There is a neighbourhood in villages. They find co-operation in their every day work, through neighbours. They are very much close to each other. In the cities owing to the means of communication there is nothing like neighbourhood. They prefer to see the man of the common profession. So a main in so many cases does not recognize his neighbour. He does not know what profession he does?
Social Relation
The villages have to depend upon each other for the fulfillment of their requirements, there is little difference in their standards of living and earning. So they are closely related and united. In the cities a man is member of so many institutions. So he cannot establish close relations. Social behaviours, interest, aim, standard of living and earning creates obstacles in the closeness in cities.
In the villages the population being limited and work being limited, individual relations among them is easy. In the absence of a monetary system or man knows his neighbour very easily. But the monetary system in villages makes a man selfish. A man minds his work, he does not care for man. If he does not do his work sincerely he has to leave his job. As a result of this he sacrifices the individual relations and minds his progress. Villagers are sympathetic to one another. In they city a man is related to so many types of people. So he believes in the mutual show of facilities and courtesy. He recognises as man as a self moving machine. Owing to T.V. radio, newspaper and cinema a man is changing himself from living to machine.
The life of villagers is out of social tolerance their individual ideas are narrow and they never invite the idea against their traditional ideas. While a man in the city is tolerant. He tolerates the new arrival of idea into his environment.
Social Control
The control is primary in the villages. Villagers keep direct control on the behaviours of one another. If a man violates the tradition he is compelled to follow the tradition. In the cities there is no primary control on account of the lacking in social unity. The secondary control e.g. law or police controls the affairs.
In the villages the control of the primary institutions, is very harsh. As a result of his villagers live ideal life. According to this ideal they develop their individuality. A citizen is a member of several association whose rules and regulations are different. In this way there are various social and moral idea, out of those none can develop the individuality of a man fully.
Economic status
The economic status of villages is generally the same. There are no people with high standard of earning even the landlord in the village lives in the equal status. In the city there are various means of earning wealth. Here we find most wealth as well as the most poor. As a result of these there is a vast difference in standard of living.
There is no large scale business or there is no specialization of trade in the villages. So the villagers are not inspired to develop the expertness in the work so as to earn more wealth. So there is no competition. In the cities the social status is based upon the quantity of wealth. So competition is sure to prevail.
There is no social mobility in the villages because there in an absence of geographical mobility in the villages. There is not considerable change in the social status of villages. A man cannot change his status though he is intelligent. In the cities there is change at every stop. There is constant change in man, ideas and means of every type of work. The division of labour the sentiment of competition and individually help to change the social environments in the city. So we can see the best as well as worst social mobility in the ages.
There is no class organization in the villages because the status is forced on the base of birth, race and family. On the contrary there is a class organisation in the villages. A man from an ordinary family by his ability and expertness achieves the high status in the society.
Psychological aspect
The village believes in the power of nature and he always regards the power, he believes in God deeply and he is fatalist. In the cities a man is the master of nature. He builds the highest building steamer, aeroplane and giant machinery with the help of his power and intelligence. He is not a fatalist.
The engagement and marriage are arranged in consideration to the status of a family. Owing to the absence of psychological conflict there is no love and romance while in city life love and romance occupy on important position. A man surrenders himself to romance to prevent him from psychological conflicts. The cinema teaches him the love and romance.
There is an absence of association and union in the villages. Owing to the absence of competition and social mobility the villages are controlled by social environments and cannot develop the individuality. While in cities the variety in population, secondary institutions, opportunity of competition, social mobility and class organisation help to develop his individuality.
Cultural Organization
The villages are of impressed traditions. No villager can behave against the prevailing tradition or moral binding. On account of tradition the moral binding comes harsh. In cities on account of constant change in environment the man has to make efforts for adaptations. So there is impression of traditions. There is not social and personal disorganizations in the village. On account of equal social relations, control culture and limit population, there is no effect on the sentiment of villages or there is no difficulty in the regular work of the community.
We see that there is vast difference in the city life as well as in the village life. There is quite distinction in the psychology economic spheres, traditions of cities to those of villages.
Shopping Cart
