Marxism and the Urban Question

  • Rosemary Mellor


The questions provoked by urbanisation — individualism, status definition, ethnicity, property capital and state intervention — challenge the very terms in which Marxism is cast. Over the past generation social theory has had to take account of changing alignments in the labour force, state planning and, as well, urbanisation. Even in ‘urbanised’ societies urbanisation remains a live issue. Despite legal and institutional constraints on labour mobility and low rates of economic growth, urban migration continues and rural society continues to be incorporated into the urban net. And, further, economic restructuring enforces the recategorisation and reshaping of urban places. Some of the more intractable political issues relate to this experience of urbanisation. In Britain, the peripheralisation of the inner cities with continued ‘deurbanisation’ is most conspicuous; in France, the urban question centred on the explosive growth of French towns and the challenge this presented to state planning.


Everyday Life Urban Land Chicago School Class Struggle Core City 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes and References

  1. 1.
    J. Lojkine, ‘Contributions to a Marxist Theory of Capitalist Development’ in C. Pickvance, Urban Sociology: Critical Essays, London, Methuen, 1976, p. 119.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    The key publications are H. Lefebvre, La revolution urbaine, Gallimard, Paris, 1970Google Scholar
  3. H. Marcuse, One Dimensional Man, London, Sphere Books, 1970Google Scholar
  4. R. Williams The Country and the City, London, Chatto & Windus, 1973Google Scholar
  5. M. Castells, La question urbaine, Paris, Maspero, 1973Google Scholar
  6. J. Lojkine, Le Marxisme, l’etat et la question urbaine, Paris, Presses Universitaires de France, 1977Google Scholar
  7. and D. Harvey, The Limits to Capital, Oxford, Blackwell, 1982.Google Scholar
  8. 5.
    J. and B Hammond, The Town Labourer ( 1917 ), London, Longman, 1978.Google Scholar
  9. 6.
    U. Hannerz, Exploring the City, New York, Columbia Press, 1980.Google Scholar
  10. 7.
    Research Committee for the Sociology of Urban and Regional Development, International Sociological Association, Budapest, 1972, quoted by M. Harloe, Introduction to Captive Cities, London, John Wiley, 1977, p. 2.Google Scholar
  11. 9.
    J. Walton, book review, International Journal of Urban and Regional Studies, 1983, vol. 7, p. 298.Google Scholar
  12. 10.
    For example, the comments by R. Moore: ‘it would be a mistake to see the state as monolithic and omnicompetent’, in ‘Urban development on the periphery of industrialised societies’, in M. Harloe (ed.), New Perspectives in Urban Change and Conflict London, Heinemann, 1981, p. 153.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    M. Castells, The Urban Question, London, Edward Arnold, 1977, p. 92.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    H. Lefebvre, The Explosion, New York, Monthly Review Press, 1969, p. 137.Google Scholar
  15. 16.
    H. Lefebvre, Everyday Life in the Modern World, London, Allen Lane, 1972, p. 57.Google Scholar
  16. 17.
    Notably R. Hoggart, The Uses of Literacy, London, Chatto & Windus, 1957Google Scholar
  17. R. Williams, The Long Revolution, London, Chatto & Windus, 1961Google Scholar
  18. R. Williams, Marxism and Literature Oxford, University Press, 1977Google Scholar
  19. and J. Seabrook, Unemployment, St. Albans, Granada Publishing, 1982.Google Scholar
  20. 19.
    E. Lebas, ‘Urban and regional sociology in advanced industrial societies’, Current Sociology, vol. 30, no. 1, 1982, p. 28.Google Scholar
  21. 20.
    See R. Glass, ‘Verbal Pollution’, New Society, vol. 41, 1977, pp. 667–9Google Scholar
  22. M. Harloe, ‘Marxism, the State and the Urban Question’ in C. Crouch (ed.), British Political Sociology Yearbook, London, Croom Helm, 1979Google Scholar
  23. R. Pahl, ‘Castells and Collective Consumption’, Sociology, 1978, vol. 12, pp. 309–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. C. Pickvance, ‘The Urban Question — a Review’ in Sociological Review, vol. 23, 1978, pp. 173–6Google Scholar
  25. B. Elliott, ‘Manuel Castells and the New Urban Sociology’, British Journal of Sociology, vol. 31, 1980, pp. 151–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. E. Lebas, ‘The State in British and French Urban Research’, in V. Pons and R. Francis (eds), Urban Social Research, London, Routledge, 1983, pp. 9–30.Google Scholar
  27. 22.
    Criticisms of the ecological approach, and Wirth’s theory of urbanism, had been developed by E Manheim, ‘Theoretical Prospects of Urban Sociology in an Urbanised Society’, American Journal of Sociology vol. XLVI, 1960Google Scholar
  28. H. Gans, ‘Urbanism and Suburbanism as Ways of Life’ in A. Rose, Human Behaviour and Social Processes, London, Routledge, 1962Google Scholar
  29. S. Greer, The Emerging City, New York, Free Press, 1962Google Scholar
  30. P. Hauser, ‘Observations on the Folk-Urban and Urban-Rural Dichotomies’, and O. Lewis, ‘Further Observations on the Folk-Urban Continuum’, both in P. Hauser and L. Schnore, The Study of Urbanisation, New York, John Wiley, 1965.Google Scholar
  31. 23.
    M. Castells, The Urban Question, London, Edward Arnold, 1977, p. 236.Google Scholar
  32. 29.
    R. Pahl, Whose City?, London, Longmans, 1969 and J. Rex and R. Moore, Race, Community and Conflict, London, Oxford University Press 1967.Google Scholar
  33. 30.
    C. Cockburn, The Local State, London, Pluto Press, 1977.Google Scholar
  34. 31.
    Collective consumption is most straightforwardly defined as ‘state involvement in the provision of consumption facilities’: C. Pickvance, The state and collective consumption, Milton Keynes, Open University, 1982, p. 10.Google Scholar
  35. 33.
    M. Castells, ‘Towards a political urban sociology’ in M. Harloe (ed.), Captive Cities, London, John Wiley 1977, p. 64.Google Scholar
  36. 37.
    Notably P. Dunleavy, Urban Political Analysis: the Politics of Collective Consumption London, Macmillan, 1980CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. and P. Saunders, Social Theory and the Urban Question, London, Hutchinson, 1981.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    C. Pickvance, book review, Sociology, vol. 14, 1980, p. 159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    M. Castells, Luttes urbaines et pouvoir politique, Paris, Maspero, 1971, p. 11.Google Scholar
  40. 43.
    C. Pickvance, ‘On the Study of Urban Social Movements’ in C. Pickvance (ed.), Urban Sociology, op. cit., pp. 207–11.Google Scholar
  41. 44.
    As the Director of Housing interviewed by Dunleavy on the outcome of protest about rehousing into Ronan Point type blocks after the explosion commented: ‘You know there’s a skill in dealing with people that achieved that result’, P. Dunleavy, The Politics of Mass Housing in Britain 1945–75, Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1981, p. 254.Google Scholar
  42. 45.
    C. Pickvance, book review, Sociological Review 1978, p. 175.Google Scholar
  43. 46.
    J. Walton, book review, International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 1983, vol. 6, p. 298.Google Scholar
  44. 48.
    In particular, J. Lambert et al., Housing Policy and the State, London, Macmillan, 1978.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 55.
    P. Saunders, ‘Towards a Non-Spatial Urban Sociology’, University of Sussex, Urban and Regional Studies Working Paper, no. 21, 1980, p. ii.Google Scholar
  46. 57.
    J. Gyford, ‘The New Urban Left: a Local Road to Socialism’, New Society, 21 April 1983, pp. 91–3.Google Scholar
  47. 66.
    There is of course a considerable difference in British and French urban history in this respect. In 1946 barely half the French population was enumerated as being urban; by 1975 72.9% were resident in ‘unités urbaines’, i.e. built-up areas. The population of French towns and cities swelled by 16 million in that period, leaving only 10% working or living on farm holdings. I. Scargill, Urban France, London, Croom Helm, 1983.Google Scholar
  48. 67.
    P. Dunleavy, The Scope of Urban Studies in Social Science, Milton Keynes, Open University, 1981, p. 54.Google Scholar
  49. 71.
    C.W. Mills, ‘The Big City: Private Troubles and Public Issues’, in I.L. Horowitz, (ed.), Power Politics and People, Oxford University Press, 1963, p. 400.Google Scholar
  50. 72.
    G.S. Bhatti, ‘Housing and Privatisation: a Critique of Consumption Sector Analysis’, University of Sussex, Urban and Regional Studies Working Paper, no. 37, 1984, p. 54.Google Scholar
  51. 73.
    P. Abrams, ‘Towns and Economic Growth’ in P. Abrams (ed.), Towns in Societies Cambridge University Press, 1978, pp. 9–34Google Scholar
  52. and B. Elliott and D. McCrone, The City: Patterns of Domination and Conflict, London, Macmillan 1982.Google Scholar
  53. 75.
    P. Saunders, ‘Beyond Housing Classes: the Sociological Significance of Private Property Rights in Means of Consumption’, University of Sussex, Urban and Regional Studies Working Paper, no. 33, 1982.Google Scholar
  54. 76.
    See J. Rex and R. Moore, op. cit.; J. Rex, Race, Colonialism and the City, London, Routledge, 1973Google Scholar
  55. and J. Rex and S. Tomlinson, Colonial Immigrants in a British City, London, Routledge, 1979.Google Scholar
  56. 77.
    R. Pahl, ‘Employment, Work and the Domestic Division of Labour’, International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, vol. 4, 1980, pp. 1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 78.
    W. James, Pragmatism, London, Longman, 1907, p. 241.Google Scholar
  58. 79.
    P. Scott, The Urban Land Nexus and the State London, Pion, 1980, p.i.Google Scholar
  59. 81.
    This differentiation between types of place is accepted in historical reconstruction. See in particular A. Briggs, Victorian Cities, Harmondsworth, Penguin, 1969Google Scholar
  60. J. Foster, Class Struggle and the Industrial Revolution, London, Weidenfeld & Nicholson, 1974CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. and G.S. Jones, Outcast London, Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1971.Google Scholar
  62. 82.
    U Hannerz, Exploring the City, New York, Columbia Press, 1980, p. 100.Google Scholar
  63. 83.
    Compare the interviews reported by P. Harrison, Inside the Inner City, Harmondsworth, Penguin, 1983, with those reported by J. Seabrook, op. cit.Google Scholar
  64. 84.
    E.J. Hobsbawm, Revolutionaries, London, Quartet Books, 1977, p. 220.Google Scholar
  65. 86.
    The community activities listed in the local papers were sampled: those recorded for Berkeley included ‘cross-cultural couples meeting, black women, black co-eds, middle-years groups, lesbian parents, transvestites/transsexuals rap, round dancing, and many more’. Those for a small ‘wine country town’ included ‘two bridge clubs, model railroaders, 5 branch meetings of Alcoholics Anonymous, 2 square dances, senior citizens group etc’, C.S. Fischer, To Dwell Among Friends, University of Chicago Press, 1982, p. 198.Google Scholar
  66. 88.
    Notable reviews include R. Sennett, The Fall of Public Man, New York, Alfred Knopf, 1977;Google Scholar
  67. L. Lofland, A World of Strangers, New York, Basic Books, 1973;Google Scholar
  68. J Hannerz, Exploring the City, New York, Columbia Press, 1980. See also the Urban Affairs Quarterly and Urban Life and Culture.Google Scholar
  69. 89.
    R. Friedland, Power and Crisis in the City, London, Macmillan, 1982.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. 90.
    D. Harvey, ‘Class-monopoly rent, finance capital and the urban revolution’, Regional Studies, vol. 8, 1974, p. 240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. 91.
    H. Richardson, Urban Economics, Harmondsworth, Penguin, 1971, p. 15.Google Scholar
  72. 96.
    D. Harvey, ‘The urban process under capitalism’ International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, vol. 2, 1978, p. 114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. 100.
    See in particular A.P. Cohen, Belonging, Manchester University Press, 1982Google Scholar
  74. and R. Frankenberg, Custom and Conflict in British Society, Manchester University Press, 1982.Google Scholar
  75. 102.
    J. Lea, ‘Discipline and capitalist development’ in B. Fine et al., (eds), Capitalism and the Rule of Law, London, Hutchinson, 1979, p. 80.Google Scholar
  76. 103.
    F. Inglis, ‘Nation and Community: a Landscape and Its Morality’, Sociological Review, vol. 25, 1977, pp. 489–513.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. 104.
    R. Williams, The Country and the City, op. cit. For a discussion see R. Mellor, Images of the City, Milton Keynes, Open University Press, 1981.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Martin Shaw 1985

Authors and Affiliations

  • Rosemary Mellor

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations