A Critical Approach to the Chicago School of Sociology: Deconstructing the Relations between Money, Power, and Spatial-Residential Moves of Population

AbstractAccording to the Chicago School of Sociology, the high social class is always the winner of the competition for the best social roles and geographical situations, and has the power to manipulate the urban space by its class interests. This article presents an alternative interpretation to deconstruct the traditional view of the Chicago School of Sociology about the relations between money, power and residential moves within the city. To do this, the concentric zone model introduced by Burgess is selected as the analytical framework. The present article argues that the upper economic class is not always the fit class for urban competition, nor does it hold the ultimate determinative position in shaping the residential moves within the city. Instead, the lower-income class has the power to determine the location and movement of the upper economic class within the city concerning its class interests. The upper economic class are defeated in competition with the lower-income class to capture the best zone for residential use located next to the C.B.D. The power relations between different social classes should be considered as a network according to which the power is distributed among all social classes, rather than possessed by a specific social class. 

According to the Chicago School of Sociology, the high social class is always the winner of the competition for the best social roles and geographical situation and has the power to manipulate the urban space by its class interests. Criticisms against the Chicago School of Sociology challenge the reactive position of this school towards social inequality in urban spaces. Although they have not legitimated the inter-class competition and the production of unequal urban spaces, these critics, like the Chicago School of Sociology, have implicitly accepted that the upper economic classes are the winners of inter-class competition due to their control over financial and political resources. Despite the insights drawn from these critics, this article argues that the interpretations and explanations presented by both the Chicago School of Sociology and these critics are insufficient. The present article argues that the upper economic class is not always a merit class. This class does not always win inter-individual and inter-class competition, but the lower economic class also has the power to control the patterns of residential moves within the city. The lower economic class can adjust the socio-spatial structure of the city in line with its class interests through collective action. This article presents an alternative interpretation to deconstruct the traditional interpretations presented by the Chicago School of Sociology about the relations between money, power and the patterns of residential moves within the city. 

Methods and Data:

To do this, the concentric zone model introduced by Burgess, a well-known member of the Chicago School of Sociology, is selected as the analytical framework. The socio-spatial structure of the city, according to Burgess's concentric zone model, is expanded in a few concentric circles or zones, each of which has its own specific function and land use pattern. The model divides the city into five concentric zones, including the central business district (C.B.D), transitional zone, labor residential zone, middle-class residential zone, and urban commuting zone. In other words, the city, according to this model, is divided into two large spaces: working and living spaces. C.B.D and the transitional zone constitute working spaces, and the three other zones are devoted to living spaces. The socio-spatial change and expansion of these zones are explained with regard to four ecological stages, i.e., invasion, resistance, entry and dominance. The alternative interpretation presented in this article can apply to other models of the socio-spatial structure of the city, such as Hoyt's sector model and Harris and Ullman's multiple nuclei model. These models have attempted to modify some assumptions underpinned the concentric zone model. For example, the spatial or physical expansion of the city in these models is asymmetry and discontinuous. The urban transportation network has a significant role in determining the direction of urban physical expansion and urban land price in the sector model. The multiple nuclei model adds heavy industries to the concentric zone model and removes the assumption of a mono-centric city. However, these models, like the concentric zone model, are based on social Darwinism and ecological assumptions about human society. 

The present article argues that the upper economic class is not always the fit class for urban inter-class competition, nor does it hold the ultimate determinative position in shaping the socio-spatial structure of the city. Instead, the lower-income class can also determine the location and movement of the upper economic class within the urban space concerning its class interests. The lower-income class, as the concentric zone model shows, occupies the best location for residential land use, i.e., houses in zone 3. Although the quality of houses is low, the land allocated for residential uses has potentially the highest price in this zone because of its proximity to C.B.D. Residential land uses in this zone are divided into small-area houses by the low-income class to correspond to their ability to pay house rent. Low-income class wins the inter-class competition for residing in zone 3 because their population is greater than the high-income class and their tendency to live in small-area houses. This article explains that the upper economic class cannot freely manipulate the urban space according to its class interests, as they are defeated in competition with the lower-income class to capture the best zone, i.e., zone 3 for residential use located next to the C.B.D. 

As this article has argued, the socio-spatial structure of the city should be considered as an interconnected whole. The city is a structured continuum, and its constituent parts, i.e., the social classes, act not based on free will, but in terms of the necessity governing this complex, structured continuum. In addition, the power relations between different social classes should be analyzed as a network according to which the power is distributed among all social classes, rather than possessed by a specific social class.