Here is your essay on Folk Urban Continuum

Robert Redifield’s study, “The Folk Culture of Yucatan” 1941, illustrates the empirical application of a model of great dichotomy folk-urban- continuum. In the Mexican province of Yucatan around 1930 Redfield selected for study four communities, the city of Merida, the town of Diztas, the village of Chan Kom and the village Tuski.

Redfield concerns himself largely with the folk pole of the continuum, however, there is the idea that it stands for urbanized society in general and that modern western society represents the specific polar category. Maine, Tonneies and Durkheim contribute in the development of folk-urban- continuum.

In folk-urban-continuum, folk society comes in contact with urban civilization and inherits certain characteristics. So a folk society has certain characteristics of folk and certain characteristics of urban. It is between literate and illiterate, between developed and undeveloped societies. Folk society is loosing its characteristics because of urban contact. Isolation, kinship system, group feeling, homogeneity, is no more there.

Concerning the Yucatan study Redfield writes, “Increase of contacts, bringing about heterogeniety and disorganization of culture, are sufficient causes of secularization and individualization.” ‘

Thus Redfield says that the folk like community lost its isolation through contact with the city, it became more heterogenous, a market economy developed, and indication of disorganization appeared. Increased contact with any dissimilar society results in change.

Evidence of disorganization and of secularization and impersonal behaviour, is more evident in relationship between members of different ethnic elements of community. Any attempt to characterize the whole society and to compare it with others, highlights that the folk-urban- continuum deals with the problems of the relative degree of presence or absence of polar characteristics.

Concerning the Yucatan Study, Redfiled writes, “The isolation and homogeneity of the community are taken together as independent variables. Organization or disorganization of culture, secularization and individualization are regarded as dependent variables.”

Redfield says that if a society looses its isolation or homogeneity it becomes secularized and its members work more for their own interest rather than in the interest of others.

But comparison of Yucatan with that of Guatemala leads Redfield to the final conclusion that, “there is no single necessary cause for secularization and individualization.”

Soltax says that Guatemala societies are “Small…homogenous in beliefs and practices…with relationship impersonal…and with familial organization weak, with life secularized and with individuals acting more from economic or other personal advantages than from any deep thought of social good.”

Redfield regards Tax’s observation as suggesting that the development of money economy may be another sufficient cause of secularization and individualization.

Criticism

Oscar Lewis did critical study of Tepoztian. in his book, “Tepoztlan village in Mexico” 1967. Lewis pointed out six points against Redfield’s study.

1. The folk-urban conceptualization of social change focuses attention primarily on the city as a source of change, and neglect of other factors of an internal or external nature. For example great heterogeniety in the division of labour requires a large population, while a large population may exist as an elaborate division of labour.

2. Culture change may be a matter of folk-urban-progression, but rather an increasing or decreasing heterogeneity of cultural elements.

3. Some of the criteria used in the definition of the folk society are treated by Redfield as linked or interdependent variables, but might better be treated as independent variables.

4. The question posed by Redfield. namely, what happens to a isolated homogenous society when it comes in contact with an urbanized society can not possibly be answered in a scientific way because the question is too general and the terms used do not give us necessary data. What we need to know is what kind of urban society, under what conditions of contact and a host of other specific historical data.

5. The emphasis upon essentially formal aspect of culture leads to neglect of psychological data.

6. The folk-urban-dichotomy as used by Redfield is a system of value judgement.

Soltax pointed out that world view can bring changes in dependent characteristics of folk society without having any change in independent characteristics.

Maine pointed out that we can not measure the quantity of contact of folk society with urban societies. Criticism can be summarized as follows:

1. The problem of lack of fitness in empirical evidence.

2. The problem of definition of the characteristics of ideal type.

3. The limited theoretical applicability.