Some sociologists view urbanism as a distinct way of life. For instance, a member of “Chicago School” of urban sociology Louis Wirth claimed that urbanization was a sociologically significant definition of an American city in the early twentieth century. In his article titled “Urbanism as a way of life,” Wirth starts formulating the understanding of the city by contending that the element of urbanism gives a unique flavor to people’s lives in metropolitan areas. He asserts that this term exists independently from such concepts as industrialization and capitalism, integral elements of modern cities because ancient cities were built before the appearance of advanced technologies and new social order. The author defines a city as “a relatively large, dense, and permanent settlement of socially heterogeneous individuals.” Notably, he highlights that these features cannot be found in rural areas and suburbs, making urban areas a separate social entity. Therefore, it appears that Wirth views urbanization as the development of a social group of people of various ethnicities, cultures, education, and financial status that densely lives in a large territory.
Wirth’s thesis about urbanism as a way of life explains the modern American society in municipal areas. Indeed, his definition of urban culture applies to any big city densely populated by citizens of heterogeneous backgrounds. For example, New York City is viewed by many people as a contemporary social group because it accommodates dozens of different ethnicities and cultures that develop a distinctive synchronized rhythm of life. Moreover, people in big cities seem to have unique attitudes, behaviors, and rules not found in the American countryside. Hence, Wirth’s definition of urbanism is still relevant to modern U.S. society, living in megalopolises.