Introduction:

Continuum means continuity. By rural -urban continuum is meant “continuity

from the village to the city.
One end of this continuous scale is the village: the other is the city. Both these
social formations are in ceaseless interaction.
That is the reason why villagers show the profound impact of city life on them
and certain cultural traits from villages are developed in cities. The continuum
also shows that the development is from the village to the city. Over time,
villages are transformed into towns and cities.
In sociological studies, it was thought that there was a clear contrast between urban and rural societies.
Many sociologists at a later stage started suggesting that a simple rural-urban dichotomy of population
is not sufficient. Gradually, it has become clear that this dichotomy is Insufficient and too simplistic.
There are gradations of urban and rural regions.

Robert Redfield (1930) has made an important contribution to develop the concept of folk, rural and
urban continuum. He has constructed a continuum from small rural villages to large cities. More urban
means that population is more secular, more individualistic and with a greater division of labour.

The concept of a rural-urban continuum is Interpreted in more easy way as continuity in the folk, the
rural and the urban social organisation. The rapid process of urbanization, establishment of new
technologically developed industries in rural areas (near to the urban centres) have exercised a great
impact on rural life.

The spread of modem industrial traits has decreased considerably the differences between the two is
not visible. Thus, invisible rural and urban cultural boundaries have made It difficult to draw a line of
distinction. Hence, the marginal areas show amalgamation and continuation of cultural traits of both the
societies.

Some background about rural-urban continuum

The term rural-urban continuum came into existence because of the fact that a
marked difference between the urban & rural character is not seen in the
settlements abutting the city limits. On one hand, they have characteristics of the
city because of their closeness to it & on the other they cannot deny their rural
characteristics of largely unplanned development.
Some sociologists have used the concept of rural-urban continuum to stress the
idea that there are no sharp breaking points to be found in the degree or quantity
of rural-urban differences. The differences may arise due to various factors. But
the leading factor among them is migration. A lthough, the rapid process of
urbanization through the establishment of industries, urban traits and facilities has
decreased the differences between villages and cities, yet this continuum or loss of
demarcation has proved problematic to planners & other civic departments
because these areas being near the city facilitate movement of people in & out of
the city & hence demand extension of facilities. This is where the entire problem
lies. These areas have been of substratum for immense research in the past
centuries with eminent sociologists, planners & others inferring as well as
proposing ways to tackle this problem of fringe area development.
The concept that the size continuum of settlement from hamlet to city is reflected in a similar
continuum of ways of life form, at one pole, a true rural community to, at the other, a distinctive urban
society. In its most direct form the concept suggests that the population size, density and environment
of a settlement are the determinants of its societal type, and that the most meaningful description of a
way of life is to relate it to the settlement in which it occurs. The notion of the rural-urban continuum
evolved from the work of L.Wirth on the social distinctiveness of the city. Societies at the rural end of
the continuum are envisaged as being close-knit, rigidly stratified, highly stable, integrating and
homogenous in composition. Urban societies are supposed to be loose in association, unstable in
membership, characterized by great, social mobility and with a tendency for inter-individual contacts to
occur only in one situational context (e.g. workplace, kinship, recreation) whereas in rural societies
contact would occur in several different contexts.

There are some sociologists who have differentiated the two at various levels including occupational
differences, environmental differences, differences in the sizes of communities, differences in the
density of population, differences in social mobility and direction of migration, differences in social
stratification and in the systems of social interaction.

A third view regarding rural and urban communities has been given by Pocock who believe that both
village and city are elements of the same civilization and hence neither rural-urban dichotomy, nor
continuum is meaningful. M.S.A. Rao points out in the Indian context that although both village and
town formed part of the same civilization characterized by institution of kinship and caste system in pre-
British India, there were certain specific institutional forms and organizational ways distinguishing social
and cultural life in towns from that in village. Thus, according to Rao, Rural-urban continuum makes
more sense.

Maclver remarks that though the communities are normally divided into rural and urban the line of
demarcation is not always clear between these two types of communities. There is no sharp
demarcation to tell where the city ends and country begins. Every village possesses some elements of
the city and every city carries some features of the village.

R.K Mukherjee prefers the continuum model by talking of the degree of urbanization as a useful
conceptual tool for understanding rural-urban relations.

This tussle continues to exist to find out a clear demarcation of urban & rural limits for the sake of
planning. The United States Dept. of Agriculture (USDA) has devised the Rural-Urban Continuum Codes
in this regard. Rural-Urban Continuum Codes form a classification scheme that distinguishes
metropolitan (metro) counties by the population size of their metro area, and nonmetropolitan (non-
met Conventionally, rural-urban continuum proposes a linear depiction of the contrasting natures of
social relationships characteristic of rural and urban settlements. This was a popular conceptual tool to
classify different types of community and the transition between them. It arose from early 20th century
sociology attempting to understand the social changes consequent upon rapid urbanization. Life in the
countryside occurred in small, geographically isolated settlements which were socially homogeneous,
with high levels of mutual communication and social solidarity, and which changed very slowly. Urban
communities were attributed the opposite characteristics: L. Louis Wirth of the Chicago School, in his
highly influential essay ‘Urbanism as a Way of Life’ (American Journal of Sociology, 1938), thought cities
distinctive because they were large, dense and heterogeneous and that this produced the transient,
disorderly, anonymous and formal associational relationships of urban living.

Such understandings had affinities with Ferdinand Tonnies’ a-spatial distinction between gemeinschaft
(community) and gesellschaft (association). In principle, if all settlements could be placed on such a
continuum we would have a strong account of spatial arrangement influenced social life.

Some sociologists have used the concept of rural-urban continuum to stress the idea that there are no
sharp breaking points to be found in the degree or quantity of rural-urban differences. Robert Redfield
has given the concept of rural -urban continuum on the basis of his study of Mexican peasants of
Tepoztlain. The rapid process of urbanization through the establishment of industries, urban traits and
facilities has decreased the differences between villages and cities.

There are some sociologists who treat rural-urban as dichotomous categories have differentiated the
two at various levels including occupational differences, environmental differences, differences in the
sizes of communities, differences in the density of population, differences in social mobility and
direction of migration, differences in social stratification and in the systems of social interaction.

Another view regarding rural and urban communities has been given by Pocock who believe that both
village and city are elements of the same civilization and hence neither rural-urban dichotomy, nor
continuum is meaningful.

Causes of Rural-urban continuum

Migration has been thought to be the most significant factor contributing to the rural-urban continuum
and thus formation of such settlements. As is evident, the cities are the most prominent service
providers in an area. Hence, these act like nuclei & pull unemployed people towards the city. But the city
centers are either already crowded or are so expensive that the immigrants can hardly afford it. Thus,
these people choose a place that is neither far from the city center nor costly. The city fringes provide an
ideal location for such intentions. It is here that haphazard developments begin without the prior
consent of the municipal body or any other civic body concerned with the management of the city. Such
developments have another aspect too. Houses come up only on major traffic corridors. This is because
surface transport provided by public transport services of the city is cheap & affordable.

Politics too has a role to play in the process of diminishing rural-urban difference of characteristics. Vote
bank in any part of the world is very essential. In order to sustain a large vote-bank, local political
leaders with the help of some local goons, arrange utility services for the area from nowhere else but
the city. This catalyzes the process of erasing the clear demarcation of urban & rural areas. The
development of extensive road networks around major cities and cheap means of transport (buses,
motorcycles, bicycles) allows people to live in the rural areas and to commute on a daily basis to the city
for work. As a result, an increasing number of people find temporary or permanent urban employment
in the urban areas, while living or at least being registered to live in a rural area.

They may have the density and the character of a rural area, with agricultural land surrounding the
villages, but the economic activities of the population are at least partly urban in nature. Colombo is an
example where economic activities are concentrated in the city (with a population of around one
million), while most people live in villages around the city in the extended metropolitan area.