972 Ralph Grillo
economic differentials between sending and receiving areas, the internationalization of the economy creating new linkages and flows, the influx of
refugees and white outmigration (Allen and Turner 1996, p. 8 ff.) all contribute
to increasing ethnic diversity in North American cities.
An outstanding example of such an urban landscape is Los Angeles,
discussed brilliantly by Mike Davis in City of Quartz (1992), and by Soja and
Castells. None thinks the city is easily characterized. For Soja (1989, p. 193) it
exempli.es the ‘many different processes and patterns associated with the
societal restructuring of the later twentieth century’. Its economy is certainly
‘post-Keynesian’, but, as Soja puts it, ‘There is a Boston in Los Angeles, a
Lower Manhattan and a South Bronx, a São Paolo and Singapore . . . Los
Angeles seems to be conjugating the recent history of capitalist urbanization in
virtually all its inflectional forms’ (Soja 1989, p. 193). Once the archetypal
Fordist/Keynesian city, the ‘state-managed industrial metropolis’ (Soja 1989, p.
196), the social and economic crises of the 1960s and 1970s, led to massive
restructuring and deunionization. With a contracting blue-collar ‘middle
segment’, a growing ‘white-collar technocracy’, and a ‘lower-skilled and lowerwage reservoir of production and service workers, swollen by massive
immigration and part-time and female employees (Soja 1989, p. 207), the labour
market became ‘more occupationally differentiated and socially segmented than
ever before’.
‘Fragmentation’ is a key metaphor (Hall 1992, p. 302). Davis refers to the
San Gabriel valley as ‘fragmented into a complex class, ethnic and land-use
mosaic’ (Davis, 1992, p. 206.) The word ‘poly’ occurs frequently in his account:
Los Angeles is poly-ethnic, poly-lingual, poly-centred (perhaps it is a ‘polypolis’?), with ethnicity taking as many forms as its economy:
Los Angeles now contains more poly-ethnic diversity than New York, with
a huge manual working class of Latinos and a growing rentier stratum of
Asian investors . . . great waves of Chinese, Korean and Armenian middleclass immigrants, augmented by Israelis, Iranians and others, have made
Los Angeles the most dynamic center of ethnic family capitalism on the
planet (Davis 1992, p. 104).
Between 1960 and 1990, the non-Hispanic white proportion of the population
fell from 80 per cent to 40 per cent (Allen and Turner 1996, p. 2). During the
1970s and 1980s some two million ‘Third World’ people moved to Los Angeles
(Soja 1989, pp. 215–7) including 1,000,000 Mexicans, 200,000 Koreans,
400,000 Salvadoreans, plus Filipinos, Thais, Vietnamese, Iranians, Guatemalans,
Colombians, Cubans, and so forth. As in many such cities, diversity is
associated with residential segregation (Soja 1989, p. 242), re•ecting the ethnic
or racial distribution of employment. Castells writes:
Plural cities in comparative perspective 973
A sharply polarized labor force, with large segments of minority youth excluded
from it, has led to a highly segregated residential structure (1989, p. 220)….
The vast majority of downgraded workers and new laborers share an excluded
space that is highly fragmented, mainly in ethnic terms (Castells 1989, p. 227).
Ethnic separation (Allen and Turner 1996), reproduced in politics, occurs
alongside other forms of separatism among groups such as gays, Christian
fundamentalists, retired persons, and New Agers (which happen to be mainly
white), who form cultural enclaves within the context of an overall
fragmentation of a previously monolithic, homogeneous American society
(Fitzgerald 1987).
This fragmentation (often seen as a defining feature of postmodernity)
resembles Maffesoli’s ‘neotribalism’ (1988): the multiplicity of eclectic
lifestyles and representations of self, which generate mutual sympathies of an
extremely fluid and fluctuating character. It is totally inadequate, however, to
read ethnicity in Los Angeles as a matter of style or consumption. Rogers (1995),
writing about the ‘Latinization’ of Los Angeles, proposes four models of the
multi-ethnic city: the assimilated city, the city of division, the multicultural city,
the city of difference. In the multicultural city, he argues, ethnicity is reduced to
‘ethnic culture’ and commodified. Allen and Turner (1996, p. 23) remark how
Los Angeles’ diversity is ‘extolled in principle but usually adopted only in the
form of ethnic cuisine and festivals’, and Davis attacks projects which ‘display
Los Angeles as a bazaar of ethnic . . . cultures’ (1992, p. 80). The ‘city of
difference’, by contrast, opposes ‘state-managed pluralism [and] attempts to
transcend the commodifcation and fixity of culture inscribed in the mosaic of
ethnic spaces’ (Rogers 1995, p. 137). Los Angeles may well be a city of
difference, but only for some. Noting the emergence of ‘new racist enclaves’,
Davis remarks how
most current, giddy discussions of the “postmodern” scene in Los Angeles
neglect entirely these overbearing aspects of counter-urbanization and counterinsurgency. A triumphal gloss… is laid over the brutalization of inner-city
neighbourhoods and the increasing South Africanization of its spatial relations
(1992, p. 227)
For many it is, rather, a city of division, where, like Miami, there are ‘parallel
social structures, each complete with its own status hierarchy, civic institutions
and cultural life’ (Portes and Stepick 1993, p. 8), and ‘Anglos, Blacks, and
Latins lead their lives in separate worlds’ (Portes and Stepick 1993, p. 212).
It is, of course, dangerous to conflate the experience of neoliberalpostmodern-global cities as diverse as Los Angeles and New York (or Toronto
or London or Paris). Their modalities of ethnicity, and forms of
974 Ralf Grillo
multiculturalism, which are certainly not the same everywhere, vary much as do
their colonial and postcolonial histories and their experience of dealing with
‘others’. The different ways in which the ethnic population has built up is also
significant, as is the nature of the transnational and other ties it maintains.
However, they are all, in one way and another, obliged to grapple with the
question of making space for ‘difference’. This means that, in gross terms, they
are located within a configuration which is in strong contrast with that of the
modern-industrial-capitalist cities which preceded them.
Other contrasts and similarities suggest themselves. King (1995, p. 553)
concluded a review of work on colonial urban planning by remarking that it is
probably the colonial city which ‘prefigures the urban future in both East and
West’. It may seem odd to think of a postmodern, postindustrial city like Los
Angeles in such terms. Yet the polarization of populations, at the same time
ethnic, ‘racial’, economic and political, creating internal colonies, and ‘flexible’
labour markets, where people muster portfolio careers, scraping together a living
from multiple income-earning opportunities in the informal world of migrants,
marts and casitas (King 1995, p. 545, fn 18; King 1996, p. 10), certainly suggest
a family resemblance with cities of the colonial (and postcolonial) world. It is
ironic, then, that postmodern cities such as Los Angeles may themselves be
models which modernizing cities seek to emulate.
Keyder and Öncü (1994), for example, see Istanbul as having the
opportunity to attain at least the second level of global cities, as a regional
control centre. With medical institutions catering for Middle East customers, and
a catchment area incorporating the Balkans and Central Asia, they argue that
‘the global networks of the health sector, with extensions into high-tech
electronic, education, the pharmaceutical industry and tourism, may potentially
provide a channel for Istanbul’s globalization’ (Keyder and Öncü 1994, p. 416).
The Turkish experience of neoliberal policies and structural adjustment after the
1980 military coup entailed a major restructuring of the urban core under a
mayor capable of ‘bulldozing through some 30,000 dilapidated buildings along
the shores of the Golden Horn within a matter of days’ (Keyder and Öncü 1994,
p. 408), constructing ‘throughways, underpasses, overpasses’ (Keyder and Öncü
1994, p. 409), and large numbers of high-rise suburban housing areas,
desperately unsafe, as the 1999 earthquake showed. The nature of Istanbul
politics, distributing resources through clientilistic networks based on regional
origin, led to an ‘unprecedented’ level of residential segregation (idem), and
globalization ‘proceeded concomitantly with the reconstruction of ‘localisms’
(Keyder and Öncü 1994, p. 411).
Plural cities in comparative perspective 975
Conclusion
Sassen (1996b, p. 188) proposes that ‘the city concentrates diversity’. True, but
if the cities discussed here share the fact of diversity, they offer contrasting ways
of constructing and reacting to it. The preindustrial city (the colonial city, also,
but in a different way) incorporated populations in ‘blocks’ (of religions or
races), reflecting the pluralism of the societies in which they were embedded. In
the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, the solution to the problems of an
industrializing, urbanizing society involved creating a homogeneous population
from the masses who flocked to it: the modern city attempted through processes
of assimilation to dispense with ethnic pluralism altogether. Sometimes it could
do so, mostly it could not. In the USA, the requirement of political economy and
urban politics were ultimately at odds with this project. In any case, the
assimilated city now ‘belongs to the past . . . an unrealisable, and indeed
undesired, dream’ (Rogers 1995, p. 135).
The neoliberal-postmodern-global city, on the other hand, ‘celebrates’
diversity, fragmentation, a multiplicity of voices: it has, after all, less need of an
assimilated, homogenized labour force. There is, however, another side to that
fragmentation. Multiculturalism, suggests Glazer (1997, p. 147), ‘is the price
America is paying for its inability or unwillingness to incorporate into its society
African Americans, in the same way and to the same degree it has incorporated
so many groups’. As Omi and Winant point out (1994, p. 145), the Los Angeles
riots of 1992 ‘served as a dramatic reminder . . . of the continuing economic
marginality, social decay, and human despair of the inner cities’.
As often, language helps illustrate these contrasts. Consider:
Within every twenty-four hours the children of Mombasa crossed
civilizations several times. They might speak Swahili…. at home, take Arabic or
Islamic lessons at the mosque, watch Indian .lms some weekends and be forced
to speak English all the time at school (Mazrui 1996, p. 163)
All the cities I have discussed are/were polyglot. In preindustrial cities there
were certainly dominant (élite) languages, as in the case of the Ottomans, but
also, often multiple, common languages: there was diglossia, but in the market
place, so to speak, linguistic pluralism and equality. Altabev, discussing the
‘Turkish Jews’ of contemporary Istanbul, notes that in the Ottoman past
except for the members of the ruling class, knowledge of Turkish was
not considered to be a necessary condition for interaction in everyday
life. Minorities . . . conducted their private and business lives in their
respective centres of settlement and in their own languages (1997,
p. 62).
976 Ralf Grillo
Ottoman rulers were multilingual, using ‘Arabic for prayers and science, Persian
for literature, Ottoman Turkish for official purposes, and vernacular Turkish for
everyday use’ (Altabev 1998, p. 265). However, Ottoman Turkish (Osmanlika),
the language of administration, education and higher learning, itself heavily
influenced by Arabic and Persian, was ‘incomprehensible to the majority of
Turks’ (Sugar 1977, p. 271). It became increasingly ‘sclerotic’ (Mantran 1965,
pp. 230–2), and distant from popular language: hence the need for specialist
corps of interpreters and translators. The subject peoples were also multilingual,
but in different registers. In modern Istanbul, Young (1926, p. 170) found ‘most
native-born inhabitants express themselves with equal ease in four or five
languages’, and many must have done so in the past, and Armenians, Greeks and
Jews would have spoken vernacular Turkish even if their accents were suspect
or they spoke in an identifiable fashion. In the popular street theatre of
Constantinople, characters mimicked Albanians, Armenians, Jews, Uzbeks, and
so on along with their accents (Mantran 1965, p. 286). Burrows and Wallace
(1999, p. 1140) note a similar phenomenon in late nineteenth-century New York.
The linguistic play which this diglossia-with-popular-multilingualism
allowed is encountered in Chamoiseau’s description of a market in FortdeFrance where Syrian traders ‘jouaient sur plusieurs langages, le créole pour la
proximité, le français pour asséner les prix, leur langue d’origine pour simuler
une idiotie quand le client avait du coffre’ (in Burton 1997, p. 198). The markets
of Constantinople or colonial Kampala would not have been so different. None
the less, in colonial cities such as Fort-de-France or Kampala (also multilingual,
with a variety of linguae francae), the dominant colonial languages (French,
English) permeated society, and were far more pervasive and important in
everyday life than Ottoman-speak. There was a much more invasive form of
linguistic domination. To that extent colonial cities imitated the modern city’s
aspirations to official, public monolingualism. Ottoman Jews felt no compulsion
to forgo their language or their rashi script until modern times and the adoption
of a French-style ‘one language, one nation’ ideology brought pressure for
‘Turki.cation’ (Altabev 1997, p. 97 ff.)
If the preindustrial city was characterized by diglossia and multilingualism, the colonial by diglossia with pressure towards the monolingualism
typical of the modern, what of the neoliberal, postmodern, global city? Sciorra’s
account of Puerto Rican vernacular architecture in New York shows how the
weakening of the state’s attempts to impose a monocultural architectural form in
a deregulated, uncontrolled economy left space where alternatives (for example,
the Puerto Rican casita) might ourish. Amid the devastation of the inner,
neoliberal city, ‘puertorriqueños have claimed a space of their own.
Appropriating land laid waste by the excesses of capital and the neglect of
bureaucracy, they construct wood-frame buildings reminiscent of the Caribbean’
(Sciorra 1996, p. 70).
Plural cities in comparative perspective 977
In discussion, Sciorra turns to the Bakhtinian notion of ‘heteroglossia’, and it is
tempting to suggest that cities like New York or Los Angeles are heteroglossic,
syncretic, and ‘hybrid’, with a plurality of voices, and perhaps of pluralisms, too.
If not totally misleading, it would at least be premature: Puerto Rican Creoleness
has not been uncontested and is in no simple way a celebration of diversity.
There is an optimistic view of New York, say Burrows and Wallace
(1999, p. xxiii), in which ‘despite cultural antagonisms . . . the city remains a
model of rough-hewn cosmopolitanism and multicultural tolerance, with an
astonishing mix of peoples living side by side in reasonable harmony’, and a
pessimistic one which ‘fashion[s] from the shards of morning headlines and
nightly newscasts a grim mosaic of urban decay’. Of Rogers’ possible
trajectories for Los Angeles there is a case for saying that the most likely is the
‘city of division’: ‘Fortress LA’. In state schools, where some ninety languages
are spoken, English is not the primary language of 32 per cent of children, and
in a high proportion of Spanish- and Asian-language-speaking homes English is
not spoken at all (Allen and Turner 1996). A multiplicity of languages (but not
individual multilingualism) is the norm, and the very range ‘has raised barriers
between ethnic communities and native English speakers and immigrants’
(Allen and Turner 1996, p. 24). On the other hand, and countering this trend
towards separatism, US cities appeared in the 1980s to be moving towards
recognizing and adapting to multilingualism in public life (notably in education)
and fostering a genuinely multilingual pluralism. ‘Appeared’, because populist
opposition to immigration sought to reverse this trend. In California,
‘Proposition 227’, voted in 1998, obliged children whose .rst language was not
English (nearly one and a half million), to receive a limited period of linguistic
instruction before entering English-only classes, putting an end to thirty years of
bilingual education. (See Portes and Stepick 1993 for English only legislation in
Florida.) Such measures seem as much at odds with the logic of the neoliberal
city, as was the exclusion of African Americans from modernity. But then, as
Mumford, originally writing in 1938, put it: ‘We still have to create the adequate
political framework for Western Civilization: a political framework which will
recognize both the universalizing forces and the differentiating forces that are at
work’ (Mumford 1981, p. 371).
Acknowledgements
Versions of this article were presented in 1997 to a conference at IMER in Bergen on
‘Transformations in the Plural City’, and at the Dipartimento di Politica, Istituzioni,
Storia, Università degli Studi di Bologna. I thank the organizers for their hospitality,
and colleagues (including this journal’s anonymous readers) for comments and
suggestions.
978 Ralph Grillo
References
ABU-LUGHOD, J. L. 1965 ‘Tale of two cities: the origins of modern Cairo’,
Comparative Studies in Society and History, vol. 7, no. 4, pp. 429–57
—— 1969 ‘Varieties of urban experience: contrast, coexistence and coalescence
in Cairo’, in I. M. Lapidus (ed.), Middle Eastern Cities, Berkeley, CA:
University of California Press, pp. 159–87
—— 1987 ‘The Islamic city: historic myth, Islamic essence, and contemporary
relevance’, International Journal of Middle East Studies, vol. 19, pp. 155–76
ALLEN, J. P. and TURNER, E. 1996 ‘Ethnic diversity and segregation in the
new Los Angeles’, in C. C. Roseman, H.D. Laux and G. Thieme (eds),
EthniCity: GeographicPerspectives on Ethnic Change in Modern Cities,
Lanham, MD: Rowman & Little.eld, pp. 1–29
ALTABEV, M. 1997 ‘Judeo-Spanish in the Turkish Social Context: Language
Death, Swansong, Revival or New Arrival?’ DPhil. Thesis, University of Sussex,
BLDSC DX194636 and DXN012080
—— 1998 ‘The effect of dominant discourses on the vitality of Judeo-Spanish
in the Turkish social context’, Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural
Development, vol. 19, no. 4, pp. 263–81
ARTINIAN, V. 1988 The Armenian Constitutional System in the Ottoman
Empire, 1839–1863, Istanbul: Private
BALIBAR, E. and WALLERSTEIN, I. 1991 Race, Nation, Class: Ambiguous
Identities, London: Verso
BALSDON, J.P.V.D. 1979 Romans and Aliens, London: Duckworth
BAUMANN, G. 1996 Contesting Culture: Ethnicity and Community in West
London, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
BOAL, F. W. 1996 ‘Immigration and ethnicity in the urban milieu’, in C. C.
Roseman, H. D. Laux and G. Thieme (eds), EthniCity: Geographic Perspectives
on Ethnic Change in Modern Cities, Lanham, MD: Rowman & Little.eld, pp.
283–304
BRAUDE, B. and LEWIS, B. 1982 ‘Introduction’, in B. Braude and B. Lewis
(eds), Christians and Jews in the Ottoman Empire, New York: Holmes & Meier,
pp. 1–36
BREESE, G. 1965 ‘Some notes on a case study of European urban ‘‘transplants’’
in Cairo’, Comparative Studies in Society and History, vol. 7, no. 4, pp. 458–60
BRUNER, E. M. 1974 ‘The expression of ethnicity in Indonesia’, in A. Cohen
(ed.), Urban Ethnicity, London: Tavistock Publications, pp. 251–80
BURROWS, E. G. andWALLACE, M. 1999 Gotham: A History of New York
City to 1898, New York: Oxford University Press
BURTON, R. D. E. 1997 Le roman marron: Etudes sur la littérature
martiniquaise contemporaine, Paris: Harmattan
CASTELLS, M. 1989 The Informational City: Information Technology,
Economic Restructuring and the Urban-Regional Process, Oxford: Blackwell
DAVIS, M. 1992 City of Quartz: Excavating the Future in Los Angeles, London:
Vintage
DE BRUIJNE, G. A. 1985 ‘The colonial city and the postcolonial world’, in R. J.
Ross (ed.), Colonial Cities: Essays on Urbanism in a Colonial Context, Leiden:
Martinus Nijhohf Publishers, pp. 231–43
EPSTEIN, A. L. 1964 ‘Urban communities in Africa’, in M. Gluckman and E.
Devons (eds), Closed Systems and Open Minds, London: Oliver and Boyd, pp.
83–102
—— 1967 ‘Urbanisation and social change in Africa’, Current Anthropology,
vol. 8, no. 4, pp. 275–84
FAROQHI, S. 1994 ‘Part II. Crisis and change, 1590–1699’, in H. Inalcik and D.
Quataert (eds), An Economic and Social History of the Ottoman Empire, 1300–
1914, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 411–636
FINDLEY, C. V. 1980 Bureaucratic Reform in the Ottoman Empire: The
Sublime Porte, 1789–1922, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press
FITZGERALD, F. 1987 Cities on a Hill: A Journey Through Contemporary
American Cultures, London: Pan Books
FOX, R. G. 1972 ‘Rationale and romance in urban anthropology’, Urban
Anthropology, vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 205–33
—— 1977 Urban Anthropology: Cities in their Cultural Setting, Englewood
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall
FURNIVALL, J. S. 1948 Colonial Policy and Practice, Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press
FUSTEL DE COULANGES, N. D. 1873 [1864] The Ancient City, New York:
Doubleday Anchor Books
GANS, H. J. 1979 ‘Symbolic ethnicity: the future of ethnic groups and cultures
in America’, Ethnic and Racial Studies, vol. 2, no. 1 January, pp. 1–20
GELLNER, E. 1983 Nations and Nationalism, Oxford: Basil Blackwell
GIBB, H. A. R. and BOWEN, H. 1957 Islamic Society and the West: Volume
One, Islamic Society in the Eighteenth Century, Part II, Oxford: Oxford
University Press
GLAZER, N. 1997 We Are All Multiculturalists Now, Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.
GLAZER, N. and MOYNIHAN, D. 1970 Beyond the Melting Pot (2nd edn),
Cambridge: MIT Press
GRILLO, R. D. 1973 African Railwaymen: Solidarity and Opposition in an
African Labour Force, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
—— 1985 Ideologies and Institutions in Urban France: the Representation of
Immigrants, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
–- 1998 Pluralism and the Politics of Difference: State, Culture, and Ethnicity in
Comparative Perspective, Oxford: Clarendon Press
HALL, S. 1992 ‘The question of cultural identity’, in S. Hall, D. Held and T.
McGrew (eds), Modernity and its Future, Cambridge: Polity Press, pp. 274–316
HANNERZ, U. 1980 Exploring the City: Inquiries Toward an Urban
Anthropology, New York: Columbia University Press
–- 1985 ‘Structures for strangers: ethnicity and institutions in a colonial Nigerian
town’, in A. W. Southall, P. J. M. Nas and G. Ansari (eds), City and Society:
Studies in Urban Ethnicity, Life-Style and Class, Leiden: Institute of Social and
Cultural Studies, University of Leiden, pp. 87–104
ITZKOWITZ, N. 1996 ‘The problem of perceptions’, in L. C. Brown (ed.),
Imperial Legacy: The Ottoman Imprint on the Balkans and Middle East, New
York: Columbia University Press, pp. 30–8
JENKINS, R. 1994 ‘Rethinking ethnicity: identity, categorization and power’,
Ethnic and Racial Studies, vol. 17, no. 2, pp. 197–223
JENNINGS, R. 1976 ‘Urban population in Anatolia in the sixteenth century: A
study of Kayseri’, International Journal of Middle East Studies, vol. 7, no. 1, pp.
21–57
KEYDER, C. and ÖNCÜ, A. 1994 ‘Globalization of a Third-World metropolis:
Istanbul in the 1980s’, Review Fernand Braudel Centre, vol. XXII, no. 3, pp.
383–421
KING, A. D. 1985 ‘Colonial cities: global pivots of change’, in R. J. Ross. and
G. J. Telkamp (eds), Colonial Cities: Essays on Urbanism in a Colonial Context,
Leiden: Martinus Nijhohf Publishers, pp. 7–32
—— 1995 ‘Writing colonial space: a review article’, Comparative Studies in
Society and History, vol. 37, pp. 541–54
—— 1996 ‘Introduction: cities, texts and paradigms’, in A. D. King (ed.), Representing the City: Ethnicity, Capital and Culture in the Twenty-First Century
Metropolis, London: Macmillan, pp. 1–19
LAPIDUS, I. M. 1969 ‘Muslim cities and Muslim societies’, in I. M. Lapidus
(ed.), Middle Eastern Cities, Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, pp.
47–79
LEEDS, A. 1973 ‘Locality power in relation to supralocal power institutions’, in
A. W. Southall (ed.), Urban Anthropology: Cross-Cultural Studies of
Urbanization, New York/London: Oxford University Press, pp. 15–42
LOW, S. M. 1996 ‘The anthropology of cities: imagining and theorizing the
city’, Annual Review of Anthropology, vol. 25, pp. 383–409
LYBYER, A. H. 1966 The Government of the Ottoman Empire in the Time of
Suleiman the Magni.cent, New York: Russell & Russell
MAFFESOLI, M. 1988 ‘Jeux de masques: postmodern tribalism’, Design Issues,
vol. 4, nos 1–2, pp. 141–5
MANSEL, P. 1995 Constantinople: City of the World’s Desire, 1453–1924,
London: John Murray
MANTRAN, R. 1965 La vie quotidienne à Constantinople au temps du Soliman
le Magni.que, Paris: Hachette
MAZRUI, A. 1996 ‘Mombasa: three stages towards globalization’, in A. D.
King (ed.), Representing the City: Ethnicity, Capital and Culture in the TwentyFirst Century Metropolis, London: Macmillan, pp. 158–76
MITCHELL, J. C. 1956 The Kalela Dance, Manchester: Manchester University
Press
MUMFORD, L. 1981 The Culture of Cities, Westport, CT: Greenwood Press
OMI, M. and WINANT, H. 1994 Racial Formation in the United States from the
1960s to the 1990s (2nd edn), New York: Routledge
PARK, R. E. 1925a ‘The city: suggestions for the investigation of human
behaviour in the urban environment’, in R. E. Park, E. W. Burgess and R. D.
McKenzie, The City, Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, pp. 1–46
—— 1925b ‘Community organization and juvenile delinquency’, in R. E. Park,
E. W. Burgess and R. D. McKenzie The City, Chicago, IL: University of
Chicago Press, pp. 99–112
PARK, T. and MILLER, H. A. 1921 Old World Traits Transplanted, New York:
Harper
PARKIN, D. J. 1969 Neighbours and Nationals in an African City Ward,
London: Routledge and Kegan Paul
PORTES, A. and STEPICK, A. 1993 City on the Edge: The Transformation of
Miami, Berkeley, CA: University of California Press
RANGER, T. 1989 ‘Missionaries, migrants and the Manyika: the invention of
ethnicity in Zimbabwe’, in L. Vail (ed.), The Creation of Tribalism in Southern
Africa, Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, pp. 118–50
REISS, A. J. JR. (ed.) 1964 Louis Wirth on Cities and Social Life, Chicago, IL:
University of Chicago Press
ROGERS, A. 1995 ‘Cinco de Mayo and 15 January’, in A. Rogers and S.
Vertovec (eds), The Urban Context: Ethnicity, Social Networks and Situational
Analysis, Oxford: Berg, pp. 117–40
ROSS, R. J. and TELKAMP, G. J. 1985 ‘Introduction’, in R. J. Ross and G. J.
Telkamp (eds), Colonial Cities: Essays on Urbanism in a Colonial Context,
Leiden: Martinus Nijhohf Publishers, pp. 1–6
SANJEK, R. 1990 ‘Urban anthropology in the 1990s: a world view’, Annual
Review of Anthropology, vol. 19, pp. 151–86
SASSEN, S. 1991 The Global City: New York, London, Tokyo, Ithaca, NY:
Cornell University Press
—— 1996a ‘Rebuilding the global city: economy, ethnicity and space’, in A. D.
King (ed.), Re-presenting the City: Ethnicity, Capital and Culture in the TwentyFirst Century Metropolis, London: Macmillan, pp. 23–42
—— 1996b ‘Analytic borderlands: race, gender and representation in the new
city’, in A. D. King (ed.), Re-presenting the City: Ethnicity, Capital and Culture
in the Twenty-First Century Metropolis, London: Macmillan, pp. 183–202
SCIORRA, J. 1996 ‘Return to the future: Puerto Rican vernacular architecture in
New York city’, in A. D. King (ed.), Re-presenting the City: Ethnicity, Capital
and Culture in the Twenty-First Century Metropolis, London: Macmillan, pp.
60–92
SJOBERG, G. 1960 The Preindustrial City, New York: Free Press
SMITH, M. G. 1965 The Plural Society in the British West Indies, Los Angeles,
CA: University of California Press
SOJA, E. 1989 Postmodern Geographies: the Reassertion of Space in Critical
Social Theory, London: Verso
SOUTHALL, A. W. 1961 ‘Introductory summary’, in A. Southall (ed.), Social
Change in Modern Africa, London: Oxford University Press, pp. 1–66
—— 1985 ‘Introduction’, in A. W. Southall, P. J. M. Nas, and G. Ansari (eds),
City and Society: Studies in Urban Ethnicity, Life-Style and Class, Leiden:
Institute of Social and Cultural Studies, University of Leiden, pp. 3–27
—— 1998 The City in Time and Space, Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press
SOUTHALL, A. W. and GUTKIND, P. C. W. 1957 Townsmen in the Making,
Kampala: East African Institute of Social Research
SUGAR, P. F. 1977 Southeastern Europe under Ottoman Rule, 1354–1804,
Seattle, WA: University of Washington Press
THRUPP, S. 1961 ‘The creativity of cities: critique and counter-proposals’,
Comparative Studies in Society and History, vol. IV, no. 1, pp. 53–64
TODOROV, N. 1983 The Balkan City, 1400–1900, Seattle, WA: University of
Washington Press
TODOROVA, M. 1996 ‘The Ottoman legacy in the Balkans’, in L. C. Brown
(ed.), Imperial Legacy: The Ottoman Imprint on the Balkans and Middle East,
New York: Columbia University Press, pp. 45–77
TOURAINE, A. 1974 The Post-Industrial Society, London: Wildwood House
WEBER, M. 1958 The City, Glencoe: Free Press
—— 1978 Economy and Society: An Outline of Interpretative Sociology,
Volume II, G. Roth and C. Wittich (eds), Berkeley, CA: University of California
Press
WILLIAMSON, J. 1993 ‘Democracy and the ‘‘Washington Consensus’’ ’,
World Development, vol. 21, no. 8, pp. 1329–36
WIRTH, L. 1928 The Ghetto, Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press
YOUNG, G. 1926 Constantinople, London: Methuen
RALPH GRILLO is Professor of Social Anthropology at the University of
Sussex.
ADDRESS: School of African & Asian Studies (AFRAS) / Centre for the
Comparative Study of Culture, Development & the Environment (CDE),
University of Sussex, Falmer, Brighton, BN1 9SJ, UK.
email: [email protected]