The Diverging Paths of American Urban History

Abstract

increased interest in urban themes. As succeeding census reports show growing metropolitan areas and as urban problems attract America's attention, the city looms larger and larger. Historians share in the increased awareness of the city; in the years since 1945 the number of urban histories has increased and the number of historians specializing in urban history has grown commensurately.1 The trend at the present seems irreversible; more not less effort will be devoted to the history of the American city. However, urban historians have not yet agreed upon an all embracing theory, one that would provide an organizing principle upon which the history of the city could be based. Several approaches have been suggested; each approach has had its disciples. No single theory has gained the universal approbation of urban historians. Each is based upon different assumptions and value systems; each has its drawbacks and its virtues. The purpose of this essay is to explore the paths that are now most heavily used by scholars of the city. Part of the dilemma of the urban historian is the dilemma of the recent historian, whether to remain a humanist or become a social scientist, whether to turn to aesthethics or to sociology. More specifically, the problem of the urban historian begins with the subject to be studied. Is the historian to study the city or urban civilization?2 Is urban history to attempt the formulation of a general law of urbanization, or is it to essay a comparative study of persisting institutions? Is the city itself the source