RUPERT B. VANCE and NICHOLAS J. DEMERATH (Eds.). The Urban South. Pp. xii, 307. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1955. $5.00
| Author | Noel P. Gist |
| Published date | 01 July 1955 |
| Date | 01 July 1955 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1177/000271625530000145 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
152
cerned
with
his
specialty,
but
he
may
profit
by
perusing
the
essays
in
other
fields.
MAURICE
R.
DAVIE
Yale
University
RUPERT
B.
VANCE
and
NICHOLAS
J.
DEMERATH
(Eds.).
The
Urban
South.
Pp.
xii,
307.
Chapel
Hill:
University
of
North
Carolina
Press,
1955.
$5.00.
The
growth
of
southern
cities
and
the
impact
of
urbanization
on
social
life
in
the
South
are
the
themes
developed
in
this
symposium
published
under
the
auspices
of
the
University
of
North
Carolina.
The
volume
is
the
latest
of
a
long
series
of
regional
studies of
the
South.
Part
I
consists
of
chapters
by
Heberle,
T.
Lynn
Smith,
Thompson,
Hitt,
and
Dinkel
on
the
growth
of
cities,
occupational
and
economic
changes,
migration,
and
dem-
ography.
In
Part
II,
Organizational
As-
pects
of
Southern
Cities,
there
are
two
chapters
on
ecology
(Vance
and
Sara
Smith,
Demerath
and
Gilmore),
a
chapter
on
social
stratification
(Kaufman),
and
one
on
crime
(Porterfield).
Part
III,
labeled
Urbanism,
Change,
and
Tradition,
includes
chapters
on
race
relations
(Bullock),
south-
ern
politics
(Ewing
and
Titus),
community
organization
(Hunter),
city
planning
(Cha-
pin),
and
&dquo;Possum
Trot&dquo;
(Nixon).
Anyone
who
has
experienced
the
agoniz-
ing
frustrations
of
planning
and
editing
a
symposium
(as
has
the
reviewer)
is
prob-
ably
disposed
to
view
with
kindly
tolerance
the
efforts
of
others
to
achieve
effective
academic
co-operation.
Most
undertakings
of
this
type
lack
uniformity
in
the
quality
of
contributions,
and
this
book
is
no
ex-
ception.
Furthermore,
there
is
a
flavor
of
warmed-over
potatoes
in
T.
L.
Smith’s
chapter,
which
was
reprinted
from
his
text-
book,
and
in
Heberle’s
chapter,
a
slight
revision
of
an
article
written
several
years
ago.
Some
of
the
chapters
are
based
on
fresh
research
data,
or
at
least
unpublished
data
concerning
southern
cities.
Particularly
impressive
are
those
dealing
with
occupa-
tional
shifts
and
economic
changes,
metro-
politan
dominance
and
integration,
urban
ecology,
and
race
relations.
Some
interest-
ing
data
and
interpretations
concerning
the
impact
of
urbanism
on
southern
politics
are
also
provided.
Kaufman’s
chapter
on
social
classes
falls
below
his
usual
standard,
probably
because
he
had
limited
concrete
data
upon
which
to
base
his
discussion
of
an
extremely
complex
phenomenon.
Like-
wise,
Hunter’s
discussion
of
community
or-
ganization
is
so
highly
generalized
that
there
is
really
nothing
new
in
it;
hence
a
contrast
to
his
extremely
valuable
mono-
graph
on
power
and
community
structure.
Chapin
might
well
have
been
more
con-
crete
in his
discussion
of
city
planning
in
the
South.
A
spirit
of
optimism
pervades
most
of
the
writings.
The
South
is
on
the
march.
It
is
recovering
from
its
feeling
of
in-
feriority
and
is
now
prepared
to
take
its
proper
place
in
the
national
picture.
It
is
no
longer
the
problem
area
of
the
nation.
The
growth
of
cities
is
symbolic
of
progress
and
a
harbinger
of
the
new
order
of
things.
&dquo;Possum
Trot
is
dead.&dquo;
Not
much
is
said
about
the
unlovely
aspects
of
the
South,
things
that
have
made
this
region
&dquo;re-
putedly
one
of the
more
backward
areas.&dquo;
Even
racial
discrimination
is
handled
so
discretely
that
bigoted
Southerners
could
hardly
object
to
the
treatment.
One
is
tempted
to
raise
the
unorthodox
question
as
to
when
interest
in
regionalism
tends
to
become
provincialism,
or
at
least
when
it
fosters
provincialism.
To
state
the
matter
differently,
do
we
need
regional
studies
of
the
&dquo;urban
Middle
West,&dquo;
the
&dquo;urban
Pacific
Coast,&dquo;
or
&dquo;urban
New
Eng-
land&dquo; ?
There
seems
to
be
some
risk
that
preoccupation
with
regionalism
may
lead
to
a
kind
of
cultural
myopia
so
that
the
po-
sition
of
regional
phenomena
in
the
larger
national
and
international
setting
is
ob-
scured.
One
of
the
weaknesses
of
Ameri-
can
sociology
in
general
is
its
geographic
and
cultural
provincialism
because
of
its
focus
on
things
American
almost
to
the
complete
exclusion
of
things
elsewhere.
American
sociologists
are
beginning
to
peer
over
their
national
boundaries
to
have
a
look
at
other
societies
and
forms
of
social
organization,
although
lagging
behind
the
anthropologists
in
this
respect.
Regional
sociologists
likewise
should
keep
an
eye
on
the
larger
society
so
that
things
may
be
To continue reading
Request your trial