[2] There were, in addition, methodological differences between these two disciplines—sociologists would normally study a large population sample while anthropologists relied on fewer informants with deeper relations.
While for a long-time urban anthropology has not been officially acknowledged in the mainstream discipline, anthropologists have been conducting work in the area for a long time.
In its early stages during the 19th century, anthropology was principally concerned with the comparative study of foreign (i.e. non-Western) cultures, which were frequently regarded as exotic and primitive.
[8][9][10] The attitude of ethnographers towards the subject of study was one of supposed scientific detachment, as they undertook the – self-serving and Eurocentric – mission of identifying, classifying and arranging cultural groups worldwide into clearly defined socio-cultural evolutionist stages of human development.
[11] During the 20th century, several factors began leading more anthropologists away from the bipolar notions of foreign savagery versus Western civilization and more towards the study of urban cultures in general.
A strong influence in this direction was the discovery of vast regions of the world thanks to a significant increase in human mobility, which had been brought about, among other factors, by the fast expansion of the rail network and the popularisation of travel in the late Victorian era.
[12] This meant that, by the mid 20th century, it was generally perceived that there were relatively few undiscovered “exotic” cultures left to study through “first contact” encounters.
[16] This realisation opened the door to more anthropologists focusing their study of societies (regardless of whether they were Western or non-Western) from the perspective of the city (conceived as a structuring element).
A significant development in the anthropological study of the city was the research conducted by the Chicago School of Urban Ecology.
As early as the 1920s, the school defined the city, in terms of urban ecology, as “made up of adjacent ecological niches accompanied by human groups in... rings surrounding the core.”[20] The Chicago School became a main referent in urban anthropology, setting theoretical trends that have influenced the discipline until the present day.
[21] Among the various individual scholars who contributed to laying the foundations for what urban anthropology has become today (i.e. the study of the city conceived as a community) was the sociologist Louis Wirth.
[23] William Whyte later expanded Warner’s methods for small urban centres in his study of larger neighbourhoods.
Research design is actually an important part of this process, allowing anthropologists to present a specific question and answer it.
In order to conduct either type of study, the anthropologist must define a basic unit, which is the ethnographic target population.
Low uses several prominent studies from urban anthropologists to compile a list of the different types of cities that do not fall into only one category, and what factors individualize them.
Focuses on these factors include studies on rural-urban migration, kinship in the city, problems that arise from urbanism, and social stratification.
When studying kinship, anthropologists have been focusing on the importance of extended family for urban natives versus migrants.