The most important component of a society is the people who form it, nevertheless at the same time being influenced by the settings under which it forms. Rural and urban settings influence differences in a society in terms of the economic conditions and the way people lead their lives and interact with one another.
In many parts of the world, villages are heavily dependent on agriculture and animal husbandry as the chief source of income and such activities usually thriving on the cooperation from a body of people working together. Thus, the bucolic pastoral villages often provides an insight to inter-human connections building up a society. It is the perfect mirror of co-existence and cooperation keeping society together as a unit. However, villages are less successful as representatives to dynamism of which cities are apt as examples.
Life in cities is fast moving. Residents hold jobs, both in organized and unorganized sectors. Hence, itís common to find employees of an MNC commuting to their workplaces on the same vehicle as a peddler and florist. What cities offer is diversity in terms of occupation of people and how it reflects upon the economy and behavior of people.
However, none of the two settings is a complete representative of a society, often overlapping with each other. To get the holistic picture, it will be relevant to have an understanding of both.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)