Sandhydeep Tripathi

Gaurav Garg

Modern Megacities in History and Theory

HIS-3525/SOA-3091-1

Jatin Abhir

Final Paper

What Good is Urban History?

“Cities are the points where society becomes most conscious of itself. Its institutions are all

focused there,”1 writes Lewis Mumford in his seminal work “The City in History.” Lewis

Mumford perceives cities as an end to social processes, it is in the urban that the forces reveal

themselves in their entirety and make cities the epicentres where society becomes most

self-aware. In sharp contrast, Charles Tilly when he writes, “urban history plays a starring role in

the drama”2, believes that cities are not just as stages where historical dramas unfold but as

catalysts in the broader narrative of social history. Tilly suggests that understanding urban life is

crucial in deciphering how "ordinary people cope with daily life impinging on power and policy

at a national or international scale."2 This perspective elevates urban history from a mere

sub-discipline to a pivotal starting point for unravelling the tapestry of social history. In

exploring these urban landscapes, two distinct voices emerge, offering contrasting windows into

the soul of these complex microcosms. Through this lens, my essay argues that the study of

urban history is not just a tool for understanding broader social processes which act upon the

1
Mumford, Lewis. The City in History: Its Origins, Its Transformations, and Its Prospects. Harcourt Brace
Jovanovich, 1989.
2
Tilly, Charles. Explaining Social Processes. Taylor & Francis Group, 2008.
urban centres, but also a key to unlocking their very inception. This exploration juxtaposes

Mumford's and Tilly's viewpoints, weaving together a narrative that highlights the multifaceted

role of urban history in our quest to understand human civilization. Towards the end of the essay,

I would also connect the two ways of looking at urban centres with the city of Delhi which I had

chosen for my presentation.

Lewis Mumford, in his analysis of urbanisation in "The City in History," employs the metaphor

"all roads lead to Rome" to illustrate the magnetic pull of cities. He argues that cities attract a

diverse range of elements, stating that “varied means brought an endless flow of distant foods

and raw materials into the metropolis, along with workers and intellectuals, traders and

travellers, drawn from remote areas.”1 This description portrays cities as central points in society,

not merely in a geographical sense, but as epicentres of economic, social, and cultural influence,

this view also establishes urban centres as a place which Mumford describes as “[where] the

growth of the capital can proceed indefinitely.” Mumford perceives cities as more than just

locations where various issues emerge due to high population density. He views them as the

culmination points of social processes, where the convergence of diverse elements leads to

intensified cultural, intellectual, and economic activities. He gives the example of World War I

and shows how the urban centres acted as the culmination of the savagery being unleashed. He

says, “As these forces developed, the metropolis became more and more a device for increasing

the varieties of violent experience.”1 Tilly argues that the evolution and current state of cities is

less about the organic convergence of diverse cultural, economic, and intellectual activities, as

Mumford suggests, and more about the historical sequences and existing structures. Quoting

Pred he argues that “People do not produce history and places under conditions of their own
choosing, but in the context of already existing, directly encountered social and spatial

structures.”2 This contrast between Mumford and Tilly illustrates two distinct narratives in urban

history. While Mumford highlights the role of cities as dynamic endpoints of societal evolution,

shaped by an amalgamation of diverse elements, Tilly emphasises the influence of historical

sequences in shaping urban development.

Charles Tilly, influenced by Olivier Zunz, asserts that “The role of social history is to connect

everyday experience to the large structures of historical analysis and major changes of the past.”2

This view presents a stark contrast to Lewis Mumford’s interpretation, where he perceives cities

as the culmination of social processes shaped by accrued capital and systematic bureaucracy.

This view also establishes urban centres as the first pivotal location towards understanding social

processes. Mumford focuses on the city as a standalone symbol of societal development and

consciousness, a perspective less concerned with the global-local dynamics that Tilly emphasises

and sees urban centres as where these forces culminate. Tilly expands upon this idea, suggesting

that urban centres not only mirror but also actively influence national and international events.

He argues that cities play a crucial role in both reflecting and shaping societal trends, being both

the reflectors of societal change and the forges for these transformations. This approach aligns

with Allan Pred’s call for a comprehensive integration of “historical study, human geographical

inquiry, social analysis, and the (re)formulation of social theory,”2 which spotlights the dynamic

and influential nature of urban centres within the larger fabric of social history.
Tilly further challenges Mumford's framework, particularly when he writes,” They take city

limits as boundaries for the analysis of ostensibly self-contained urban processes.”2 This critique

leads to a broader understanding where both Tilly's concept of path dependency and Mumford's

idea of cultural convergence hold validity and importance. Tilly's emphasis on path dependency

highlights the influence of historical and power structures on the development of urban centres,

while Mumford's focus on cultural convergence underscores the rich tapestry of influences that

shape the cultural and intellectual life within cities. Together, these perspectives offer a more

nuanced and comprehensive understanding of urban history, recognizing both the historical

constraints and the diverse cultural forces that shape the evolution and character of urban centres.

Mumford's view of cities as the culmination points of social processes, where diverse elements

converge to create dynamic urban centres, can be observed in Delhi's history. From its inception

as a major city in the Mughal era to its role as the capital in British India and now as a modern

metropolis, Delhi has continuously attracted a wide array of cultural, economic, and intellectual

activities. This is evident in areas like Connaught Place, initially designed as a mixed residential

and commercial area but gradually transformed primarily into a commercial hub, reflecting the

magnetic pull Mumford describes. However, the evolution of Connaught Place also shows the

challenges of such convergence, with the original vision of a mixed-use space giving way to

commercial dominance, leading to social and urban challenges like the displacement of

residential communities.3

3
“545 Sam Miller, the Cities We Deserve.” 545 Sam Miller, the Cities We Deserve,
www.india-seminar.com/2005/545/545%20sam%20miller1.htm.
On the other hand, Tilly's emphasis on path dependency and the influence of historical sequences

and existing structures in shaping urban development is reflected in Delhi's zoning policies and

urban planning. The Lutyens’ Bungalow Zone (LBZ), a remnant of the colonial era, exemplifies

how historical decisions continue to shape the city's structure and social dynamics. The LBZ,

designed to segregate the rulers from the ruled, still influences the city's socio-political

landscape, reflecting Tilly's idea that urban centres are shaped by their historical paths and power

dynamics. In exploring the urban landscapes through the contrasting perspectives of Lewis

Mumford and Charles Tilly, this essay has illuminated the multifaceted nature of urban history. It

demonstrates that urban history is far more than a sub-discipline of historical study; it is a crucial

key to understanding the genesis and evolution of urban centres.3

Mumford’s analysis presents cities as culmination points of societal evolution, magnets for

diverse cultural, economic, and intellectual streams. This view is embodied in the historical

trajectory of Delhi, showcasing how cities grow and transform, attracting various influences and

activities. The evolution of places like Connaught Place in Delhi exemplifies this, transitioning

from mixed residential-commercial areas to dominant commercial hubs, reflecting the dynamic

nature of urban centres. Conversely, Tilly’s perspective emphasises the role of historical

sequences and existing structures in shaping urban development. His view, influenced by

thinkers like Allan Pred, suggests that urban centres are not merely passive stages for historical

events but active agents shaping and being shaped by societal trends. The enduring impact of

colonial-era planning in Delhi, such as the Lutyens’ Bungalow Zone, exemplifies this, showing

how historical decisions continue to influence the present-day urban fabric.

The study of urban history, therefore, serves a dual purpose. It helps us understand the broader

social processes that act upon urban centres, while simultaneously unlocking insights into their

very inception and development. This dual role is crucial in comprehending the complex nature

of cities as both products and producers of historical and societal forces. In conclusion, through

the analysis of urban history and its application to the city of Delhi, this essay underscores the

significance of urban history as a discipline. It is not only a lens to view the past and present

interactions within urban spaces but also a tool to unravel the foundational elements that gave

birth to these complex microcosms. In essence, the study of urban history is indispensable for a

comprehensive understanding of human civilization, offering insights into how cities have

shaped and been shaped by the myriad forces of history, culture, and society.
Bibliography

1. Mumford, Lewis. The City in History: Its Origins, Its Transformations, and Its Prospects.

Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1989.

2. Tilly, Charles. Explaining Social Processes. Taylor & Francis Group, 2008.

3. “545 Sam Miller, the Cities We Deserve.” 545 Sam Miller, the Cities We Deserve,

www.india-seminar.com/2005/545/545%20sam%20miller1.htm.