Understand different Type of Community

TYPES OF COMMUNITIES

In classifying communities one may use four interrelated criteria, as follows:

1. PRIMITIVE VERSUS CIVILIZED COMMUNITIES

The primitive community was relatively very small, simple and self-sufficient. It was almost homogeneous hot it does not mean that it was lacking in some structural characteristics. Man of primitive community lived in it almost through out his life and had seldom any occasion to go out of the immediate environment of the community; and consequently the organization of such communities was more coherent and spirit of one's attachment of such type of community was very intense.

What distinguishes the local group in primitive as against civilized society is its smallness, its sparsely settled and undeveloped hinterland, its detachment from other communities and its comparatively simple social organization. Slow transportation limits the extent and simple hunting limits the intensity of exploitation

One of the first steps as civilization develops is the break-down of localism and the growth of inter-community contact. The transition from primitive to civilized community is due to several forces. These forces are partly technological; such as the improvement of the means, of communication and transportation: partly economic; such as the demands for the markets and for wider areas of economic exchange neccessitated by the newer process of industrial production, and partly cultural, since the thought and art and science of one country are, whatever the temporary barriers of 'ideological and political construction, inevitably carried on the wings of civilization to others.

2. RURAL AND URBAN COMMUNITIES

For many centuries, village and city have been the two most recognizable general types of human civilization. But between the two, there is no sharp demarcation to tell where city ends and country begins. Rural and urban depict mode of community life, not simply geographical location. Rural and urban distinction has nothing to do with primitive communities because rural community, no matter how small it is, is still subjected to countless urban influences.

Sometimes, urban area is defined in terms of high density of population, but it is not true. Some of the agricultural villages are densely populated yet, cannot be called urban. socially speaking, the city is a way of life. The adjective 'urbane' suggests this way of life very nearly; it indicates a wide acquaintance with things and people, a somewhat suave and polished manner, superficial politeness. But question which arises is how far is the urban way of life limited to the urban population and how far the  physical and the social definitions of urban correspondence. The answer is that there is a causal connection between the two it but not a one to one correspondence.

 The city as a place where population is concentrated inevitably gives rise to and depends upon certain features of social organization that we regard as urban. The fact that the city's effect are wider than the city itself means that we should speak not only of cities but of urbanized societies and regions.

Growth of Village Community : In the primitive societies, people were nomadic and moved from place to i place. Next step came when people began to lead a settled family life.

 It was here that the habitation in the villages started. Each community invariably started its settlement from the village itself. Character of village started changing when people started considering village land as the property of the village as a whole but it belonged to only one lord who exploited all those who tilled the land. The things have much more changed in modern village which is now under impact of urbanization.

Factors Responsible for the Growth of Village Communit

Growth of Urban Community: In reality the transition from a purely rural community to an urban one is not abrupt out gradual. There is no absolute boundary line which would show a clear-cut cleavage between the oral and the urban community. Many differential characteristics of the rural and urban community would consist not so much in the presence of certain traits in rural, and their absence in urban communities, as much as in a quantitative increase of these characteristics.

The above conception has been given the name of “rural-urban continuum by recent writers suggesting that the differences between the two type of community are gradual and continuous, and not qualitative differences per se, resulting in a simple dichotomy. Thus, Stuart A. Queen and David B. Carpenter claim that “there is a continuous gradation from rural to urban rather than a simple rural urban dichotomy. According to Gist and Halbert, the familiar dichotomy between ‘rural’ and ‘urban’ is more of a theoretical concept than division based upon the facts of community life.” Every village possess some elements of the city white every carries some features of the villages. As remarked by Maclver “But between the two there is no sharp demarcation to tell where the city ends and country begins.”

Generally speaking, the urban communities are identified as large and heterogeneous and the rural communities as small less dense and homogenous, yet no hard and fast line can be drawn.

The characteristics of size, density, heterogeneity and occupation exhibit differences in degree from place to place and time to time. Sharp and absolute divisions between rural and urban communities do not exist and therefore we must recognize the fact that rural and urban communities are polar types and that they may be found at many points on the so-called continuum that extends from extreme pole to the other.

RURAL-URBAN CONTRAST

As already pointed out, difference between village and city life is very difficult but neither on the basis of culture nor on that of population it is possible to define either a village or city. Difference between city and village, is more that of degree than of a kind. But in spite of these difficulties, major discerning differences are as follows:

(i)           The most Obvious Difference is the Relative Isolation of the Country Life: The family circle must supply the greater part of economic and social needs of its members. Family custom undisturbed by the constant succession of new contacts and stimuli, characteristics if urban life, grow more deeply rooted. Whereas city family is typically less engrossing Urbanization denudes the household of economic function and throws the individual into association relationship. Social control in the city, reflect the multiplicity of social contacts, the diversity of social codes and pre-dominance of secondary relationships.

(ii)         Difference is the mode of Occupation: The principle occupation of a countryman is farming involving the raising of crops and of stocks. It lacks specialization. Further there is very little scope for occupation mobility, because on condition of specialization is the size of the economic market, a condition guaranteed in the urban society. The economic differentiation of the urban community is the source of social groupings, both vertical, involving occupation divisions on the same level, and horizontal or in terms of social status.

(iii)       Simplicity Versus Complexity : The rewards of the farmer’s toil are rarely bountiful. If the rewards are somewhat speculative it is usually between the limits of penury and a modest livelihood. He is less subject to the stimulations that comes from social proximity, sharp social contrasts and social mobility. Whereas in cities, due to specialization and competitiveness, the speculative element enters strongly into city life.

(iv)       Associative Individualism Versus Persistent Traditionalism: The combined influence of the urban scene stimulate what may be called as associative individualism. The city dweller selectively organizes his social relationship. He is accepted more in terms of his specific qualities. The pre-dominance of secondary over primary relationship distinguishes wide range of social attitudes characteristics of a city, whereas the countryman relies more on primary relationship.

(v)         The Intensity of Community Sentiment in City and Country: The we-feeling of the city dweller is weakened by the complexity of urban life. His role-feeling is similarly affected because he has little awareness of the role of other fellows and his role is at to become less meaningful in his eyes. Thus his dependency feeling is likewise lessened. Whereas in village community, we-feeling and dependency feeling is prevalent.

The Culture Contrasts and Relationship between City and Country: A purely urban culture, divorced from the types of stimulation found in rural community would be fundamentally unbalanced and handicapped. Whereas the country provides the raw materials of the cultural as well as the economic life of man, it tends to retain a relatively simple from of culture expression which is taken up into the arts of city and reshaped to its specialized and “variant demands”. The social structure of the city is necessarily as complex as culture, presenting a variety of extremes and modulations. It stands in contact to the countryside with its forms of accentuation, intensification or sophistication.