The paradigmatic focus on global and individual networks in communication has suppressed the Chicago tradition of understanding the city as a network of places. But the social ecology of the city continues to structure all aspects of urban communication networks including personal, institutional, and civic life. This article critically examines four major theorists of networked urban communication—Castells, Wellman, Fischer, and Sampson—and argues that the field of urban communication should return to a revitalized ecological tradition, while taking full account of the networked transformation of social life and social structure.
Ball-RokeachS. J. (2001). Storytelling neighborhood: Paths to belonging in diverse urban environments. Communication Research, 28, 392-428.
2.
Ball-RokeachS. J.GibbsJ.Gutierrez HoytE.JungJ.-Y.KimY.-C.MateiS.ZhangL. (2000). The challenge of belonging in the 21st century: The case of Los Angeles (Metamorphosis White Paper No. 1). Los Angeles: Annenberg School for Communication, University of Southern California.
3.
BeckU. (1992). Risk society: Towards a new modernity. London, England: Sage.
4.
BeckU.Beck-GernsheimE. (2002). Individualization: Institutionalized individualism and its social and political consequences. London, England: Sage.
5.
BennettW. L. (1998). The uncivic culture: Communication, identity, and the rise of lifestyle politics. PS: Political Science and Politics, 31, 740-761.
6.
BennettW. L.SegerbergA. (2013). The logic of connective action: Digital media and the personalization of contentious politics. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
7.
BimberB.FlanaganA.StohlC. (2012). Collective action in organizations: Interaction and engagement in an era of technological change. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
8.
CastellsM. (1977). The urban question: A Marxist approach. Cambridge: MIT Press.
9.
CastellsM. (1983). The city and the grassroots: A cross-cultural theory of urban social movements. London, England: Edward Arnold.
10.
CastellsM. (2007). Communication, power and counter-power in the network society. International Journal of Communication, 1, 238-266.
11.
CastellsM. (2010). The rise of the network society: The information age: Economy, society, and culture (2nd ed., Vol. 1). Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.
12.
CastellsM. (2012). Networks of outrage and hope: Social movements in the internet age. Cambridge, England: Polity Press.
13.
CravenP.WellmanB. (1973). The network city. Sociological Inquiry, 43, 57-88.
14.
FischerC. S. (1982). To dwell among friends: Personal networks in town and city. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
15.
FischerC. S. (2010). Made in America: A social history of American culture and character. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
16.
FriedlandL. A. (1985). Cable-broadband communications: The control of information in post-industrial society (Doctoral dissertation). Brandeis University, Waltham, MA.
17.
FriedlandL. A. (2001). Communication, community, and democracy: Toward a theory of the communicatively integrated community. Communication Research, 28, 358-391.
18.
FriedlandL. A. (2014). Civic communication in a networked society: Seattle’s emergent ecology. In GirouardJ.SirianniC. (Eds.), Varieties of civic innovation: Deliberative, collaborative, network, and narrative approaches (pp. 92-126). Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt University Press.
19.
GansH. (1962). The urban villagers: Group and class in the life of Italian Americans. New York, NY: Free Press.
20.
GirouardJ.SirianniC. (Eds.). (2014). Varieties of civic innovation: Deliberative, collaborative, network, and narrative approaches. Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt University Press.
21.
HamptonK. N. (2007). Neighborhoods in the network society the e-neighbors study. Information, Communication & Society, 10, 714-748.
22.
JacobsJ. (1961). The death and life of great American cities. New York, NY: Random House.
23.
JanowitzM. (1952). The community press in an urban setting: The social elements of urbanism. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
24.
JeppersonR. L. (1991). Institutions, institutional effects, and institutionalism. In PowellW. W.DiMaggioP. J. (Eds.), The new institutionalism in organizational analysis (pp. 143-163). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
25.
KatzB.BradleyJ. (2013). The metropolitan revolution: How cities and metros are fixing our broken politics and fragile economy. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
26.
KimY.-C.Ball-RokeachS. J. (2006). Civic engagement from a communication infrastructure perspective. Communication Theory, 16, 173-197.
27.
MachlupF. (1962). The production and distribution of knowledge in the United States. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
28.
MatsaganisM. D.WilkinH. A. (2015). Communicative social capital and collective efficacy as determinants of access to health-enhancing resources in residential communities. Journal of Health Communication, 20, 377-386.
29.
NealZ. P. (2006, March-April). Building a Blauürban space. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Midwest Sociological Society, Omaha, NE.
30.
NealZ. P. (2012). The connected city: How networks are shaping the modern metropolis. New York, NY: Routledge.
31.
NeffG. (2005). The changing place of cultural production: The location of social networks in a digital media industry. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 597, 134-152.
32.
PortneyK. E. (2009). Sustainability in American cities: A comprehensive look at what cities are doing and why. In MazmanianKraft (Eds.), Toward sustainable communities: transition and transformations in environmental policy (pp. 227-254). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
33.
OlikerS. (1989). Best friends and marriage: Exchange among women. Berkeley: University of California Press.
34.
PadgettJ. F.PowellW. W. (2012). The emergence of organizations and markets. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
35.
PoratM. U. (1977). The information economy. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Library.
36.
SampsonR. J. (2012). Great American city: Chicago and the enduring neighborhood effect. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
37.
SampsonR. J.McAdamD.MacIndoeH.Weffer-ElizondoS. (2005). Civil society reconsidered: The durable nature and community structure of collective civic action. American Journal of Sociology, 111, 673-714.
38.
SampsonR. J.SharkeyP.RaudenbushS. W. (2008). Durable effects of concentrated disadvantage on verbal ability among African-American children. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 105, 845-852.
39.
StalderF. (2006). Manuel Castells: The theory of the network society. Malden, MA: Polity Press.
40.
StokerR.StoneC.HorakM. (2015). Contending with structural inequality in a new era. In Urban neighborhoods in a new era (pp. 278-321). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
41.
StoneC. N. (1989). Regime politics: Governing Atlanta, 1946-1988. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas.
42.
StoneC. N. (2005). Looking back to look forward reflections on urban regime analysis. Urban Affairs Review, 40, 309-341.
43.
StoneC. N.OrrM. E.ImbroscioD. (1991). The reshaping of urban leadership in U.S. cities: A regime analysis. In GottdienerM.PickvanceC. (Eds.), Urban life in transition (pp. 222-239). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
44.
SuttlesG. (1972). The social construction of communities. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
45.
WellmanB. (1979). The community question. American Journal of Sociology, 84, 1201-1231.
46.
WellmanB. (1982). Studying personal communities in East York. Toronto, Ontario, Canada: Centre for Urban and Community Studies, University of Toronto.
47.
WellmanB. (1999). The network community: An introduction. In Networks in the global village: Life in contemporary communities (pp. 1-47). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
48.
WellmanB. (2001). Physical place and cyberplace: The rise of personalized networking. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 25, 227-252.
