Urban Anthropology – An Overview
by Layla Al-Zubaidi * Posted May 1998
- Basic Premises
The distribution of urban anthropologists in different disciplines clearly favours socio-cultural anthropology. However, it was only in the second half of this century, especially in the 1960’s, that urban societies and cities came to the attention of socio-cultural anthropology. Yet, it should be underscored that anthropologists were already conducting research on cities before the term “urban anthropology” began to be used in the 1960s. With this shift in focus, “urban anthropology” counters anthropology’s traditional emphasis on “primitive” and peasant peoples to the exclusion of urban, complex and industrial societies (Basham 1978). This shift accompanied the deconstruction of “primitivist” anthropology and the acknowledgement that because all cultures are part of the modern world they do not form isolated, self-contained entities. A further motivation was the observation that cities in the 20th century were growing more rapidly than ever before. This new emphasis can also be understood as a way of “studying up,” representing a shift from the periphery to an analysis of the center.
From the perspective of urban anthropologists, urban anthropology is neither a new “pop” field added to traditional anthropology nor does it intend to neglect less complex societies. On the contrary, it aims to rehabilitate the so-called “primitive.” In this way, urban anthropology differentiates itself from colonial anthropology, which assumed that “primitive” people are essentially different from “civilized.” While “Western civilization” inspired theories on the dynamic forces of modernization and change, “primitive culture” was conceived as stagnant in place and time. This rift in perception generated and reflected the division of labor between anthropology and sociology: the study of “Western civilization” and the industrialized world was reserved for the field of sociology, while the analysis of “primitive cultures” ceded to anthropology. Thus, the emergence of urban anthropology resulted in part from the consequences of World War II and the processes of decolonization. From the perspective of urban anthropologists, the interest in cities has reaffirmed the traditional claim of anthropology to concern itself with a variety of human cultures and societies. Hence, they do not find the classification of anthropology as a field that studies “primitives” and sociology as a field that focuses on industrial societies justifiable. For, in their view, differentiating “the West” as industrial and “the rest” as “primitive” does not constitute a valid opposition because a society does not exist that has not been profoundly touched by industrialization. Theoretically, urban anthropology involves the study of the cultural systems of cities as well as the linkages of cities to larger and smaller places and populations as part of the world-wide urban system (Kemper 1996).
The shift of focus to large-scale societies encourages the reconsideration of traditional anthropological methodology, known as “participant observation.” For a long time, ethnographic work focused on creating a close rapport with a small number of informants. However, this is impossible in an urban context. Urban anthropologists are therefore required to extend their scope, develop new skills, and to take written materials, surveys, historical studies, novels and other sources into account. The challenge for urban anthropologists is to process this array of different sources and to grasp the realities of larger groups without losing sight of the vivid description that characterizes ethnography. This includes incidents and encounters which at first sight may seem to lack scientific value and relevance, but which give life to statistics and censuses and reflect the realities of daily social life. Traditional anthropological topics such as kinship, social stratification etc., have often been transplanted to the city. Along these lines, urban anthropology did not only move anthropologists to different theoretical and methodological frameworks, but also reworked those that had already existed and still exist (for the distinctive problems of implementing fieldwork in urban settings see: Foster and Kemper 1974).
A problem of an overly strong emphasis on the participant observer approach in the urban context is the loss of the holistic perspective. Focusing on the family (such as on the tribe or other social units in traditional anthropology), leads to a fragmentary picture of urban reality, and thus to an “urban mosaic” (Fox 1977: 2-9). In regard to methodology, an analysis in the journal “Urban Anthropology” revealed that the following types of large-scale studies dominate the field: comparative studies within a single community, multi-community studies, regional surveys, national-level analyses, comparative multi-national studies, and general theoretical and methodological studies. Smaller-scale studies mainly focused on individuals in the form of life histories, specific social contexts (such as marketplaces, gangs, shopping centers), residential units, and workplaces (Kemper 1991b).
Urban anthropology “crept up” gradually and was almost unnoticed until the late 1960s and early 1970s. Its roots lie more in the sociological study of industrial societies than in traditional anthropology. Therefore, early sociologists were the first to turn their attention towards urban life. From the 1930s to the 1950s, cultural anthropologists’ interest in the study of peasants and the impact of cities on their lives increased (Redfield 1947). By the 1950s, a number of anthropologists and sociologists were already conducting research on urban phenomena (Childe 1950, Bott 1957, Sjoberg 1960). The expansion of urban anthropology in the 1960s reflects the recognition that traditional target groups, such as tribal and peasant people, became increasingly integrated into the urbanized world. Particular attention was given to rural-urban migration, urban adaptation, ethnicity, and poverty (Lewis 1968, Hannerz 1969). By the 1970s, urban anthropology was already being defined as a distinctive field within cultural anthropology, and the publication of textbooks, readers, and reviews increased significantly (Chrisman and Friedl 1974, Gulick 1973, Southall 1973). The first integrated textbooks also appeared at this time. Fox (1977) identifies five different types of cities, and discusses the relationship between cities and the broader societies in which they are embedded. Basham (1978) offers a discussion of the study of urban societies and various related topics. During the early 1980s, a second generation of textbooks and studies emerged (Collins 1980, Gmelch and Zenner 1980, Hannerz 1981, Press and Smith 1980)
3.1 Early Urban Sociology
Ferdinand Tönnies (1887) made his distinction between Gemeinschaft (community) and Gesellschaft (society) based on the concept that impersonal, contractual bonds characterize the capitalist society in contrast to the intimate relationships and collective activities of the feudal community. Emile Durkheim, who introduced the term “anomie,” followed this school of thought. In his study “Suicide” (1897), he suggested anomic suicide as being characteristic of those who live in isolated, impersonal worlds. Both concepts are rooted in the theoretical assumptions about what constitutes the essence of urban and non-urban life.
More important to the later development of urban anthropology was sociologist Louis Wirth’s essay “Urbanism as a Way of Life” (1938). Wirth developed a theory regarding the typical influences of urban life on social organization and attitudes. He argued that urban life is marked by impersonal, instrumental contacts which tend to free individuals from the strong controls of such primary groups as the extended family. On the other hand, he stressed that the freedom of individual actors was necessarily accompanied by the loss of collective security.
Robert Redfield (1947) adapted Wirth’s formulation of these characteristics to his idea of a “folk-urban continuum.” He characterized the urban pole in Wirth’s terms, and the folk pole as its opposite. He defined the folk pole as consisting of small, homogeneous, isolated, and traditional communities which were economically self-sufficient and had only a rudimentary division of labor. He went a step further by elaborating on the role of cities as a “Great Tradition” as opposed to the “Little Tradition” of local villages. Both scholars’ influence on the development of the anthropology of complex society was significant. Critics, however, have pointed to the fact that the concept of “urbanity” as a typical Western construct and “the rural” as a non-Western construct are eurocentric ideal types.
3.2 The Chicago School of Urban Ecology
A major contribution to urban sociology came from Robert E. Park and his “school” at the University of Chicago. Park’s research focused on demographic and census information, interviews, and historical data, and emphasized cities’ social problems rather than exploring an abstract theory of urban life. In this school of thought, cities were viewed as ecosystems that were segmented into “natural areas.” Such “natural areas” included slums, neighborhoods, and vice areas, and were viewed as being subject to laws of residential succession. A major premise in this theory was the “concept of succession.” Using this model, scholars analyzed changing residential patterns such as the development of ghettos for African Americans who had moved to Chicago to search for jobs (Duncan and Duncan 1957). Later the school turned to a rather empiricist, quantitative, and statistical reworking of census data. This shift evoked the following theoretical reactions.
3.3 The Community Study Approach
This approach in early urban anthropology was the most “anthropological” in the traditional sense. It developed partly in reaction to the abstract empiricism of the later Chicago School. One of the key figures is Carolyn Ware who, in “Greenwich Village, 1920-1930,” examined the incorporation of Greenwich Village into New York through the expansion of the metropolis and the processes by which it maintained its distinctive character. Although this study represents one of the earliest Community Study research agendas, it is still very relevant in the contemporary debates on global integration. W. Lloyd Warner’s “Yankee City” attempted to merge an ethnographic perspective gained in fieldwork among Australian Aborigines with information gathered from formal interviews for his social study of a New England city, a so-called Yankee City. William Foote Whyte’s “Street Corner Society” is the ethnography of an Italian slum, which he nicknamed “Cornerville.” In its conception, the study was most familiar to anthropological approaches and the method of participant observation: He rented a room with an Italian family and participated in their social life for several years.
This movement can also be interpreted as a response to the lifeless empiricism of the later Chicago School. The most prominent work (not only within urban anthropology) was Erving Goffman’s microstudy of human interaction, “The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life” (1959). He defined human interaction through a dramaturgical metaphor and analyzed human behavior as a series of performances of parts. The value of this research for urban anthropology lies in its emphasis upon the element of subtle play in human interaction. Urbanites are especially required to continually present fragmentary aspects of themselves to others, strangers, or people who know them only as inhabitants of discrete occupational or ethnic categories. Urbanites are confronted every day with a number of different people and settings. The study therefore offers a workable tool for the understanding of urban social structure.
It should not go unmentioned that pathbreaking contributions to the study of civilizations and urban spatial systems came from archaeologists. The term “urban revolution” was introduced by V. Gordon Childe (1950), a Marxist oriented Old World historian, to describe the process by which complex, civilized societies emerged. This process, which in Childe’s view was based on a shift in economic productivity, seems to have occurred independently and at different times in several areas of the world. Thus, the precise criteria by which this process can be identified are not necessarily stable. Yet, there may be underlying regularities that appear in all the separate manifestations of the process. The basic criteria that Childe isolated are: classes of full-time specialists and elites exempt from subsistence tasks, mechanisms such as taxes or tributes by which the “social surplus” could be concentrated in the hands of elites, monumental public buildings, a writing system, extensive foreign trade, and the emergence of political organization. Although archaeology, with its genuine focus on “civilizations,” pioneered studies of how complex societies rise and collapse, it has been less interested in urban phenomena per se.
4.1 Anthropology of Urban Poverty
According to Richard G. Fox (1977), different research traditions within urban anthropology maintain continuity with traditional anthropology and its methods not by focusing on urbanism itself, but through analysis of smaller units within cities. One example is the anthropology of urban poverty. Oscar Lewis introduced the term “culture of poverty,” which he understood as a form of life that exists independently of economical and political deprivation. Naturally, this evoked a series of critiques (see Valentine 1968, Goode and Eames 1996). Ghetto research and the exclusive study of migrant populations again reflect the traditional anthropological quest for the exotic, minorities, ethnic enclaves, and small-scale units. This research agenda is contrary to the integrated approach of urban anthropologists who are interested in the interweavement and interrelatedness of different modes of cultural, social, and economic life within the urban context.
4.2 Network Research
Other, more traditional research areas are household and family research and social network research. Network analysis was rooted in the study of rural communities and was transferred to cities with the publication of Elizabeth Bott’s “Family and Social Network” (1957). This book was part of an interdisciplinary study of “ordinary” families in London. The derived “Bott hypothesis” is based on the assumption that the degree of segregation in the role-relationship of husband and wife varies directly with the connectedness of the family’s networks within a community. Bott outlined three kinds of organization: complementary organization, independent organization, and joint organization. She thus established the idea of a relationship between the internal structure of the family and the pattern of its external contacts (for a discussion see Hannerz 1980).
4.3 Anthropology of Urbanization
The anthropology of urbanization (rural-urban migration) stands at the intersection between the urban and the rural. This field has been strongly developed in African research, mainly carried out by British anthropologists, and in Latin American studies, dominated by American researchers. Emphasis is on large-scale physical movements of rural people to cities. The question of how these immigrant populations adapt to their new environments – focusing on the alteration of social structure, interpersonal ties, and collective identities within the city – is hereby analyzed (see Abu-Lughod 1962).
4.4 Anthropology in Cities versus Anthropology of Cities
Despite affiliations to “traditional anthropology,” the “traditional” approach of the outlined studies should not be exaggerated. Although these studies focus on certain target groups, the addressed issues cannot be divorced from the urban context and urbanism itself. In order to avoid confusion, it is useful to follow the distinction that was drawn by Robert V. Kemper between anthropology in cities, and the anthropology ofcities. Both are intertwined, and yet there is a difference between “anthropologists who do research in a particular city, but without much, if any concern for the urban context; those concerned with the structure of city life and its impact on human behavior locally or cross-culturally; and those concerned with the development of international urban systems through time and space as distinctive social-cultural and political-economic domains” (Kemper 1991b: 374). Large-scale social processes and transformations may be more pronounced in cities, but cannot be explained within these contexts alone. Equally, many studies that are categorized as urban anthropology have enriched the anthropology of cities, but do not concern the characteristics of cities themselves (Kemper 1998: 120). However, as trends of rapid urbanization indicate, more and more people will be urbanized in the future. Thus, it is foreseeable that the major fields of anthropology will eventually converge into urban anthropology (Ansari and Nas 1983: 6).
Urban anthropologists themselves rarely address one critical point: although the initial goal of urban anthropology was to counter the dichotomy between “primitive” and “complex” societies within the disciplines of anthropology and sociology, the validity of this oppositional concept in the real world has never been seriously questioned. The major accomplishment of urban anthropology is the shift of focus; however, the often simplifying terminology of “urban” and “rural” has not yet been transcended.
Today, urban anthropology distinguishes itself from urban sociology mainly in terms of a different perspective: while sociological studies are more focused on fragmented issues, urban anthropology is theoretically directed by a holistic approach (Ansari and Nas 1983: 2). Whereas urban anthropology in the 1960s and 70s focused on particular issues such as migration, kinship, and poverty, derived from (or in contrast to) traditional-based fieldwork, urban anthropologists had, by the 1980s, expanded their interests to any aspect of urban life. As a result, urban anthropology became more integrated into the discourse of the other social sciences.
Urban anthropology has largely merged with geography, ecology, and other disciplines. Along with a theoretical interest in, and conceptualization of, urban space and urbanism, contemporary issues in urban anthropology include rural-urban migration, demography, adaptation and adjustment of humans in densely populated environments, the effects of urban settings upon cultural pluralism and social stratification, social networks, the function of kinship, employment, the growth of cities, architecture, crime (and other urban dilemmas), and practical urban problems such as housing, transport, use of space, waste management, and infrastructure.
In 1979, the Society for Urban Anthropology (SUA) was founded as a subdivision of the American Anthropological Association. A survey undertaken by Robert V. Kemper (1991), who analyzed information in American Anthropological Association guides from 1989 to 1992, revealed that the great majority (70 percent) of urban anthropologists belong to the subfield of socio-cultural anthropology. Compared to the results of an earlier survey carried out in 1975 (Kemper 1975), this number has declined, while the number of applied anthropologists has jumped dramatically from 0 percent to 12 percent, and that of archaeologists from 6 percent to 15 percent. This shows that applied work has gained in significance, and that the interest of archaeologists in the anthropology of urbanism has grown (table 1).
It should be noted that not all of the individuals who were covered by the survey called themselves “urban anthropologists.” 55 percent use some variant of “urban” to identify their work, while the remaining use other terms to label their work (table 2).
A number of researchers also prefer to define their primary specialization with regional or topical interests. As a regional field of study, the United States leads with 45 percent followed by Mexico and Central America with 14 percent, Europe with 12 percent, and North and South America with 10 percent each. These finding illustrate a trend in which more urban anthropologists are involved in research in the United States, Canada, and Mexico than before. A further factor is the increased availability of funding for applied projects in American cities that attracted a number of anthropologists who had initially done fieldwork abroad. This is especially the case where urban anthropologists can use their international expertise to study immigrant ethnic populations in the United States or Canada. According to the survey, topical interests diversified due to growing interest in change and developmental issues, medical anthropology, political anthropology, the study of minorities and race, poverty, cultural ecology, gender, popular culture, and communication.
With 26 percent, the field of social organization, kinship and family, however, is still the strongest. This overview shows that “peasants” have strongly declined as a target group.
According to Robert V. Kemper, the trends revealed by the comparative analysis of the 1991 survey of nearly 900 individuals and the 1975 survey of fewer than 450 individuals are generally in accord with the broader transformations in North American anthropology. These include an increase in women researchers in the field of urban anthropology, the overwhelming choice to practice urban anthropology with the qualification of a doctoral degree, an increase in the diversity of topical interests, and the growth of the field among the subdisciplines. Furthermore, no agreement has been reached on the basic terms that designate the distinctiveness of the field. Instead, the field is characterized by a large variety of interests, and a variety of terms are used for various specializations.
An analysis of the journal “Urban Anthropology” (UA), founded in 1972, shows that contributors belong to 39 U.S. American states and 18 “foreign” nations (Kemper 1991). Professional affiliations are maintained with 150 institutions in the United States and 42 abroad. The leading U.S. American states are New York, California, Ohio, Texas, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, Virginia, and Wisconsin. Leading “foreign” nations are Canada, Great Britain, Poland, France, Australia, Bangladesh, Israel, and Mexico. Nearly all authors have academic affiliations, and less than 15 percent belong to non-academic institutions, such as the Connecticut Hispanic Health Council, the U.S. Bureau of the Census, the U.S Department of Agriculture, and the World Bank. When the Society for Urban Anthropology (SUA) decided to publish its own journal (“City and Society”), “Urban Anthropology” (UA) was renamed as “Urban Anthropology and Studies of Cultural Systems & World Economic Development” (UAS) in order to both avoid competition and to address a broader audience. Similarly, the “Society for Urban Anthropology” will soon be renamed the “Society for Urban, National, and Transnational Anthropology” (SUNTA).
Bibliographies, Indexes, and Assessments
Adams, Robert McC., Rene Millon, and Pedro Armillas
Urban Revolution. In International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences 16. David L. Sills, ed. New York: The McMillan Company & Free Press.
Breitborde, Lawrence B, Irene Glasser, eds.
1996 Urban Anthropology in the 1990’s: A Collection of Syllabi and an Extensive Bibliography. Washington D.C.: Society for Urban Anthropology; American Anthropological Association.
1973 Urban Anthropology. In Handbook of Social and Cutural Anthropology. John J. Honigman, ed. Chicago: Rand McNally and Company.
Gutkind, Peter, C. W.
1973 Bibliography on Urban Anthropology. In Urban Anthropology. Cross-Cultural Studies of Urbanization. Aidan Southall, ed. Pp. 425-89. London and New York: Oxford University Press.
Halpern, Joel Martin
1974 Urban Anthropology: An Introductory Bibliography. Monticello: Council of Planning Librarians.
Kemper, Robert V.
1975 Directory of Urban Anthropologists. In Urban Anthropology 4: 73-106.
1991a Urban Anthropology in the 1990’s: The State of its Practice. In Urban Anthropology and Studies of Cultural Systems and World Economic Development 20: 211-223.
1991b Trends in Urban Anthropology Research: An Analysis of the Journal Urban Anthropology, 1972-91. In Urban Anthropology and Studies of Cultural Systems and World Economic Development 20: 373-84.
1993 Urban Anthropology: A Guide to U.S. and Canadian Dissertations. In Urban Anthropology and Studies of Cultural Systems and World Economic Development 22: 1-229.
Kemper, Robert V., Jack Rollwagen
1995 Urban Anthropology. In Encyclopedia of Cultural Anthropology. Ember, Melvin, David Levinson, eds. Lakeville: American Reference Publishing.
Kracht, Benjamin, Robert V. Kemper
1991 Directory of Urban Anthropologists. In Urban Anthropology and Studies of Cultural Systems and World Economic Development 20: 225-360.
Kracht, Benjamin, Robert V. Kemper, and Stuart Campos
1991 The Journal Urban Anthropology: An Index of its First Twenty Years. In Urban Anthropology and Studies of Cultural Systems and World Economic Development 20: 385-553.
1974 Urban Studies: A Research Paper Casebook. New York: Random House.
Rollwagen, Jack R.
1991 Urban Anthropology (The Journal). A Personal History. In Urban Anthropology and Studies of Cultural Systems and World Economic Development 20: 200-11.
1990 Urban Anthropology in the 1980’s: A World View. In Annual Review of Anthropology 19: 151-86. Urban Studies Information Guide Series. Detroit: Gale Research Company.
Wheeler, James O.
1986 Urban Studies: A Bibliography of Periodical Articles. Chicago: Council of Planning Librarians.
White, Anthony G.
1975 Urban Anthropology: A Selected Bibliography. Monticello: Council of Planning Librarians.
1978 Urban Anthropology. The Cross-Cultural Study of Complex Societies. Palo Alto: Mayfield Publishing Company.
Fox, Richard G.
1977 Urban Anthropology. Cities in their Cultural Settings. New-Jersey: Prentice-Hall.
1980 Exploring the City. Inquiries towards an Urban Anthropology. New York: Columbia University Press.
Ansari, Ghaus, Peter J. M. Nas, eds.
1983 Town-Talk. The Dynamics of Urban Anthropology. Leiden: E. J. Brill.
Chrisman, Noel J, John Friedl, eds.
1975 City Ways: A Selective Reader in Urban Anthropology. New York: Thomas Y. Crowell.
Collins, Thomas W., ed.
1980 Cities in a Larger Context. Southern Anthropological Society Proceedings 14. Robert L. Blakely, series ed. Athens: The University of Georgia Press.
Foster, George M., Robert V. Kemper, eds.
1974 Anthropologists in Cities. Boston: Little Brown.
Gmelch, George and Walter P. Zenner, eds.
1996 Urban Life. Readings in Urban Anthropology. Prospect Heights: Waveland Press.
Nas, Peter J. M., ed.
1993 Urban Symbolism. Leiden, New York: Brill.
Park, Robert E., E.W. Burgess, eds.
1925 The City. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Press, Erwin, M. Estelle Smith, eds.
1980 Urban Place and Process: Readings in the Anthropology of Cities. New York: McMillan.
Rotenberg, Robert, Gary McDonogh, eds.
1993 The Cultural Meaning of Urban Space. Westport: Bergin & Garvey.
Southall, Aidan, ed.
1973 Urban Anthropology: Cross-Cultural Studies of Urbanization. New York: Oxford University Press.
Classical Case-Studies and Theoretical Works
Abrams, Philip, E. A. Wrighley
1978 Towns and Societies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
1962 Migrant Adjustment to City Life: The Egyptian Case. In American Journal of Sociology 47: 22-32.
1957 Family and Social Network. London: Tavistock.
Childe, V. Gordon
1950 The Urban Revolution. In Town Planning Review 23: 3-17.
Duncan, Beverly, Otis Dudley Duncan
1957 The Negro Population of Chicago: A Study of Residential Succession. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
1951  Suicide. Glencoe: Free Press.
1959 The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. New York: Doubleday Anchor.
Goode, Judith, Edwin Eames
1996 An Anthropological Critique of the Culture of Poverty. In Urban life. Readings in Urban Anthropology. Gmelch, George and Walter P. Zenner, eds. Prospect Heights: Waveland Press.
1969 Soulside: Inquiries into Ghetto Culture and Community. New York: Columbia University Press.
Urbanism, Colonialism and the World-Economy. New York and London: Routledge.
Knox, Paul L., Peter J. Taylor
1995 World Cities in a World System. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
1968 La Vida: A Puerto Rican Family in the Culture of Poverty – San Juan and New York. New York: Vintage Books.
1991 The Urban Underclass. In Annual Review of Sociology 17: 445-66.
1966 The Significance of Quasi-Groups in the Study of Complex Societies. In The Social Anthropology of Complex Societies. Michael Banton, ed. London: Tavistock.
1961 Townsmen or Tribesmen. Conservatism and the Process of Urbanization in a South African City. Cape Town: Oxford University Press.
Merry, Sally Engle
1981 Urban Danger: Life in a Neighbourhood of Strangers. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
1969 Social Networks in Urban Situations. Manchester: Manchester University Press.
1947 The Folk Society. In American Journal of Sociology 52: 293-308.
1960 The Preindustrial City. New York: Free Press.
1963  Community and Society. C. P. Loomis, trans. and ed. New York: Harper and Row.
Valentine, Charles A.
1968 Culture and Poverty: Critique and Counter-Proposals. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
1935 Greenwich Village, 1920-1930. New York: Harper and Row.
Warner, W. Lloyd
1963 Yankee City. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Whyte, William Foote
1943 Street Corner Society. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
1938 Urbanism as a Way of Life. In American Journal of Sociology 44: 1-24.
City and Society
Washington D.C: American Anthropological Association
Urban Anthropology (UA)
New York: Plenum Publishing Corporation
Urban Anthropology and Studies of Cultural Systems & World Economic Develoment (UAS)
New York: Plenum Publishing Corporation
Urban Anthropology Newsletter (UAN)
New York: Plenum Publishing Corporation
Edinburgh: Oliver & Boyd.
Society for Urban Anthropology (SUA) of the American Anthropological Association:
Society for Urban Anthropology (SUA) of the American Anthropological Association:
City and Society (semiannual review of the SUA):
SUA publications, film & video reviews:
Academic term-papers, urban studies section: