To understand the most important characteristics of a society, one must study its major cities.

The author of the statement above believes that to understand the main important characteristics of a society we should focus on the study of its major cities. While the study of the major cities is helpful in understanding the characteristics of a society, it has its own drawbacks. To have a deep understanding of a society we need to make a comprehensive and conclusive study involving all parts of a society.

To begin with, some people believe that study of the major cities provides us with enough information. As samples of different parts of a society are present in the major cities, we can extrapolate the study to the whole society in order to understand the general characteristics of it. In Iran, for instance, one can go to the Tehran and tell about the general religious characteristics of Iranian society. The theme is religious, although its intensity might be different throughout the nation, but being religious is the outstanding character of this society.

However, when it comes to other respects such as welfare and economy, major cities can be misleading to represent the whole society. Major cities receive a bigger share of a national budget while the other parts might suffer from low economy. Consider Pyongyang, the major city and the capital of the North Korea. In such a communist city, everything is provided for everyone and people are content about their lives with the facilities provided there. But, beyond the boundaries of such a city, poverty exists and people are suffering so much from lack of even primary infrastructures to save the day. Therefore, major cities alone can mislead the conclusion of a study and one should include samples from a variety of cities and communities.

Furthermore, Major cities are not conducive to understanding the national characteristic of a society as far as the more marginal parts are. This is because of being exposed to modernity and the impacts of globalization. Take Iranian architecture. For example, kitchen in Iranian culture is regarded as a private place that should be out of seen of a guest. Now in major cities kitchens are open and there is no separate room any more to confine kitchens. At the same time, such signs are more preserved in the more marginal cities and the study of them can portray a more comprehensive image of the Iranian society. Thus, we see that the marginal parts of a society also should be incorporated into any study toward understanding the national characteristic of a society.

In sum, as discussed, we need to include the other parts of a society to have a comprehensive understanding. Despite that major cities are important in showing us some collective features of the people, they are not enough to understand other features such as the economy and the national characteristic of a society.