Chicargo school

8/7/2019 Chicargo school

1/18

Pacific Sociological Association

The Continuing Legacy of the Chicago SchoolAuthor(s): Rose Marie OhmSource: Sociological Perspectives, Vol. 31, No. 3, Waving the Flag for Old Chicago (Jul., 1988),pp. 360-376Published by: University of California PressStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1389204 .

Accessed: 03/03/2011 16:53

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless

you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you

may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at .http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ucal. .

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed

page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

University of California Press and Pacific Sociological Association are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize,

preserve and extend access to Sociological Perspectives.

http://www.jstor.org
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ucalhttp://www.jstor.org/stable/1389204?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ucalhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ucalhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/1389204?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ucal


2/18

THE CONTINUING LEGACYOF THE CHICAGO SCHOOLROSE MARIE OHMThe National Conference ofChristians & Jews, Inc.TheChicagoSchoolmadea significantimpacton theestablishmentoftwentieth-centuryAmericansociology.From the time of its foundingthroughthe first five decades,its scholarshada lastingeffect on bothsociologicalthinkingand socialreform.Moreover,Chicagoansshapedtheintellectualdevelopmentof futuresociologiststhroughteachingandguidingthe researchof theirstudents.Thisarticlereportsthefindingsofacasestudythatexaminestheperceptionsofscholarswho weregraduatedfromtheUniversityofChicago.Itpresentstheirperceptionsof howtheirtrainingat Chicagocompareswith their own work withstudents,theirownstyleofresearch,andtheirviewof thedisciplineitself.AnanalysisofChicagoans'accomplishmentsand contributionsto sociologyprovideinsightonwhetherornotthelegacyof Chicagois beinghandeddowntopresentgenerationacademicians.Two primarysourcesof informationare used to determinethe intellectualtrends and influences of theUniversityof Chicago:(1) focusedinterviewswithsociologyfacultyatArizonaStateUniversitywho weregraduatedfromChicagoafterWorldWarII,and(2)asurveyofASUsociologygraduatestudents.Considered"typical"of manygraduate-degreegrantinguniversitiesin the country,ASUprovidesa sufficientnumberof casesto tracetheimportantaspectsof ChicagoSchoollegacy.

The period extending from the time of its founding till the 1950sare said to be the "golden years" of the Chicago School, circa1892-1950 (Kurtz, 1984). During that era, the University ofChicago nurtured a new technique in the social science disci-pline-coupled with an apolitical approach to social reform(Bulmer, 1984, pp. 28-32).

Chicago School emerged out of a progressive era when the cityof Chicago experienced significant transformations in its social,economic, cultural, and intellectual life. Technological changes inSOCIOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVES, Vol. 31 No. 3, July 1988 360-376o 1988 Pacific Sociological Assn.360


3/18

Ohm / CONTINUINGLEGACY 361

communicationand transportationcontributed to an imagebuildingthat wasnew,innovative,permissive,and "American."By1930,theSchool wastheleadingcenterforempiricalresearchand educational ideas in Chicago (Carey, 1975, pp. 21-37;Bulmer,1984,pp. 4-6).Thecityitself becamea provinggroundforthe School'spragmatistapproach-a traditionthatcontinuedto recenttimes.Theintellectualassumptionsthatwereoperativein theworkofChicago sociologistsset them apartfromsocial scientistselse-where. Particularlyamong the earlystudentsat Chicago,thesociological interests and methodologicalperspectivesweredrawnawayfrom the "inhibitingconsequencesof [European]doctrines,schools of thought,andauthoritativeleaders"(Faris,1970,p. 88;Short,1971,p.xiv).Thisinnovativeapproachcreatedthe ChicagoSchool legacy,whichso stronglyinfluencedtwen-tieth-centuryAmericansociology. Chicagoscholarsshapedtheintellectualdevelopmentof futuresociologists by teachingandguidingtheworkof theirstudentsandby usingfreshapproachesto sociologicalthinking.

RESEARCHAGENDAThis articlereportsthefindingsof a casestudy.Itexaminesthe

perceptionsof scholarswho weregraduatedfromtheUniversityof Chicago.Itpresentstheirperceptionsof how theirtrainingatChicagocompareswiththeirown workwithstudents,theirownstyleofresearch,andtheirviewof thedisciplineitself.Ananalysisof Chicagoans'accomplishmentsand contributionsto sociologyprovidesinsightinto whetherornot thelegacyofChicagoisbeinghandeddownto presentgenerationacademicians.

DATA AND METHODSThe sources of information used to determineintellectualtrendsand influencesare(1) focused interviewswithfacultyat


4/18

362 SOCIOLOGICALPERSPECTIVES/ JULY 1988

Arizona State University(ASU) who weregraduatedfromtheUniversityofChicagoafterWorldWarIIand(2)asurveyof andinterviewswithASU sociologygraduatestudents.Considered"typical"of manygraduate-degreegrantinguni-versities in the country,ASU providesa sufficientnumberofcasesto tracesome oftheimportanteffectsof theChicagoSchoollegacy.ASU claimsanenrollmentof morethan40,000studentsand a core of approximately5,000employees.Of 1,500facultymembers,40(2.7%)earnedatleastonedegreefromtheUniversityof Chicago.Thistranslatesto 27(67.5%)completedtheirPh.D.s,7 (17.5%)earnedtheirmaster's,and 6 (15.0%)theirbachelor'sdegreesatChicago.Intotal, 19(47.5%)ofthe 40facultymembersaresocialscientists,and 5(12.5%)aresociologists(ArizonaStateUniversityBulletin,1985/1986).In total, 4 of the 5 sociologistsinterviewedcompletedtheirdoctoralworkattheUniversityofChicago.The articlefocusesonthose who earnedtheirPh.D.s at Chicago:FrederickB. Lind-strom,Albert J. Mayer,BernardFarber,and A. Wade Smith.Paul C. Glick, an ASU adjunctprofessorwho attendedtheUniversityof Chicagoin the summerof 1935,was also inter-viewed.Of 21tenuredfacultyat theASU SociologyDepartment,the Chicagoansrepresentedthe largestnumberfrom anygivenschool(Departmentof SociologyFacultyRoster,Spring1986).ASU's 30full-timesociologygraduatestudentsweresurveyedregardinginfluencesof facultyintheirintellectualdevelopment.Overall,19 (63%)respondedto the survey.Thosewho did notrespondweremostlystudentsin the master'sprogramandhadnot beenat ASU long enoughto assessfacultyinfluences.InterviewswiththeChicagoansandgraduatestudentsfocusedon issues such as student-mentorrelationships;influencesonstudents'work,such asin thedevelopmentandwritingof thesesand dissertations;comparisonsbetween Chicago and otherleadingschools;contributionsin the discipline;opinionson aparticularcriticismregardingChicago'slack of theoreticalorien-tation;and an assessmentof thefuturetrendsin sociology.


5/18


INTELLECTUALLINEAGE:FORERUNNERSTOTHE PRESENTGENERATIONThegenealogyof the ChicagoSchool is mappedaccordingtothe entryandexit of a cohortwithina time period.There wasmuchoverlappingbetweeneachgenealogicalera. This createddifficultiesin assigningspecifictime lines from onegenerationtothe next. For instance,RobertE. Park'stermextendedfrom thefirst to the second generation(1914-1933)while Ernest W.

Burgess'sfrom the tail end of the firstto the early yearsof thefourthgeneration(1916-1957).The genealogicalchart begins in 1892 when Albion Smallfounded the departmentof sociology at the University ofChicago,thefirstsuchdepartmentin any universityin the world(Vine,1969,pp.346-347;Mullins,1973,p.41;Bulmer,1984,p.8).From thereon, eachgenerationis designatedby a historicalerathat hasa correspondingevent in theChicagoSchoollegacy.Asshown in Figure 1, these generationsare the first generation,1892-1918,fromtheschool'sfoundingto the endof WorldWarI;the secondgeneration,1919-1930,the depressionera;the thirdgeneration,1931-1946,from thedepressionto the end of WorldWarII;the fourthgeneration,1947-mid-1960s,post-WorldWarII years;andthe fifthgeneration,mid-1960sto thepresent.Thereweremajoreventsin Chicagothathadanimpactin theSchool's intellectuallegacy. The first generationended whenW. I. Thomas'steachingtermwas terminatedand most of thefounders retired.Park and Mead's death addedclosure to thesecond generationand left an impacton the thirdgenerationwhentheteachingstylesnolongeremulatedthe Parkianapproachin mentor-studentrelationship.On the otherhand, the fourthgeneration'sendwas markedby the retirement/deathof Wirth,Ogburn, Burgess,and other sociologistsconnected with priorgenerations.Figure 1 shows the first-, second-, and third-generationscholarswho arecitedasamongthe most influentialin ChicagoSchool'sintellectualhistory.PersonsfromthefirstgenerationarecreditedforestablishingthestandardAmericansociology(Kurtz,


6/18

364 SOCIOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVES / JULY 1988

FIRST GENERATIONSCHOLARS(1892-1918)

Albion SmallGeorge VincentW. I. ThomasCharles HendersonGraham TaylerCharles ZueblinIra HowerthJerome H. RaymondClarence RainwaterGeorge H. Mead*Robert E. Park*

SECOND GENERATIONSCHOLARS(1919-1930)

Ernest W. Burgess*William F. Ogburn*Louis Wirth*Herbert Blumer*

THIRD GENERATIONSCHOLARS(1931-1946)

Samuel StoufferEverett Hughes*W. Lloyd Warner*Philip M. Hauser*

FOURTH GENERATIONSCHOLARS(1947-Mid 1960's)

A.S.U. ChicagoansFrederick LindstromAlbert J. MayerBernard FarberNon-A.S.U.Morris Janowitz

FIFTH GENERATIONSCHOLAR(Mid 1960-Present)

Figure 1: Genealogy of the Intellectual Influences from the First- to the Fifth-Gener-ation Chicagoans*The terms extended to the next generation.


7/18


1984,p. 2). Duringtheirterms,Chicago producedthe greatestnumberof graduatestudentsand was unmatchedin theproduc-tion of scholarlymaterialswhen comparedwith otherleadinguniversitiessuchasHarvard,Yale,andColumbia(Mullins,1973,p. 43).Bythe timethe secondgenerationjoinedthefaculty,ChicagoSchool haddominatedthe social sciencesanddrewtheattentionof scholarsthroughoutthe United States and the world. Thisdominancecontinuedthroughthe third andfourthgenerations.Meanwhile,a largebulk of ChicagoPh.D.s "werescatteredindepartmentsacrossthe country,spreadingtheirChicago spiritandtraining,andteachinga fairlyconsistentstyleof sociology"(Mullins, 1973,p. 43). Thus the ChicagoSchool expandeditsinfluencebeyondthe realmof the Universityof Chicagoenvi-ronment.The second andthirdgenerationscholarsnamedin Figure1directlyinfluencedthe intellectualdevelopmentand work ofLindstrom,Mayer,and Farber.Forinstance,WirthandWarnersupervisedLindstrom'smaster'sthesis (1941) and dissertation(1950),respectively.HauserchairedMayer'sdissertation(1950).Onthe otherhand,BurgessinfluencedFarber's(1953)workonpredictingmaritalsuccess.MorrisJanowitzwasincludedamongthefourthgenerationfortworeasons:First,JanowitzwasinthesamecohortofstudentsasLindstrom,Mayer,and Farber.Mayer(1985) confirmedthatJanowitzwas one of severalclassmateswho had gainedprom-inencein the discipline.Second,andmoreimportant,Janowitzwas among several scholars who influencedthe intellectualdevelopmentof Smith.Figure2 linksthefourth-andfifth-generationChicagoanswithcurrentASU doctoralstudents.Sung-LingLin,RumikoNakai,Rose MarieOhm, and Ione DeOllos claimedthat Lindstrom,Mayer,Farber,and/or Smithwereinfluentialin their academicdevelopment.Althoughotherfaculty(non-Chicagoans)hadbeencitedasimportantin theirtraining,thesestudentsindicatedthattheirworkreflectedthe concernsof the "old"ChicagoSchool.For example,Lin's studieson the familywerein line with the


8/18


thinkingand influencesof Farber,Lindstrom,and Glick.UnderMayer'smentorship,Nakai's interest in urban ecology anddemographywas broadened.DeOllos'spreliminarystudyon thehomeless was guided by Farber. On the other hand, Ohm'sattemptto revive Bogardus'sconcept of social distancewasextensionof Smith'sinfluences.In Figure2, Farberis linkedwith all students.It shouldbenotedthat allPh.D. studentswhorespondedto thesurveycitedFarber'sinfluenceintheirtheoreticalviews.Thislinkagemaybeattributedto the curriculumdesignand teaching assignments.Only a handful of sociology faculty offers "standard"theorycoursesthatgraduatestudentsarerequiredto take. Farberis oneof the few assignedto teach advancedand specializedtheorycourses.Theimplicationhereis thatsociologygraduatestudentsare more likely to develop the "Farberian-ChicagoSchool"perspectivefor as long as Farberremainsa dominantfigureinteachingtheoryin thedepartment.

HOW ASU CHICAGOANSBECAMESOCIOLOGISTSThe fourth-generationcohortbelongedto a groupof WorldWar II veteranswho used the G.I. Bill benefitto go to college(Lindstrom, 1985). At the Universityof Chicago, the socialsciencedepartmentexperiencedits shareof an influx in veteranenrollmentafter the war. Between 1945 and 1950,the SocialScienceDepartmenthad approximately200 graduatestudents(Mayer, 1985).Lindstrom,Mayer,andFarberwereamongtheveteranswho took advantageof theG.I.Billeducationalbenefit.Becominga sociologistwas not the primarycareerchoice forthe threeChicagoans.Lindstrom(1985),whoseoriginalinterestwasto makedocumentaryfilms,rememberedbeingpersuadedbyBurgessto major in sociology. Mayer (1985) had an eye onbecominga chemistbutswitchedto sociologyin orderto makeapoint-that thedisciplineneededsomeone"whois wellawareofmathematicsandhardstuff(sciences)"in orderto quantifydataderived from human relationship.Farber (1985) started in


9/18


Fourth Generation Fifth Generation

LINDSTROM

Sung-Ling

/

Lin

MAYER FARBER SMITHI % -I . ~ 'I %? I \I / j*

*'

,, \l~. '. \.

. \I * ' *X -'X; ;

Rmk 'aa I O*1 ^ \?

uIkoNki Rs iOhlo. \

(Current Doctoral Students at Arizona State University)

Frederick Lindstrom's Influence-------- Albert J. Mayer's Influence

.-..-. Bernard Farber's Influence........ A. Wade Smith's Influence

Figure 2: Linkages Between Fourth- and Fifth-Generation Chicago Scholars andCurrent Doctoral Students at Arizona State Universitybusinessschool and hadponderedaboutmajoringin Englishormathematicsbeforedecidingonsociology.Therefore,amongtheASU Chicagoans,Smithwas theonlyone determinedto becomea sociologistat the onsetof hiscollegeeducation.

STUDENT-MENTORRELATIONSHIPAT CHICAGOSCHOOLThegraduate-studentexperienceof Lindstrom,Mayer,Farber,andSmithwiththeirmentorsreflectedtheapprenticeshipmodel

I

I


10/18


practicedat the Universityof Chicago. Smith describedthestudent-mentorrelationshipin thefollowingwords:Ifyouaregoingto graduate,youhaveto latchon to someoneandactuallyworkfor or with them intheirresearch.That'sthe onlywayyou'regoingto learnenoughand/orget enoughdatainorderto publish.... Theyhad to have a researchgrantin orderto hireyou (as researchassistant).It turnsout too that it's the onlywaytheycangetresearchdone,so there'smutualexploitationgoingonhere.Bulmer(1984, pp. 112-113)noted that the apprenticeshipmodelwas an extensionof Park'singenuityin supervisingandbroadeningthe work of graduatestudents.Park encouragedstudentsto reacha highlevel of achievementbyinteractingwiththe student body and by engagingin lengthy discourse andinterviewswiththem.TheParkianapproachto student-mentor

relationswaspromotedbytheSociology Department;however,this approachyieldedmixed results.Forinstance,Mayer(1985)complainedabout Hauser'sasser-tivenessinselectinga dissertationtopic. Apparently,Hauserdid asimilardissertationa decadeearlierand wantedMayerto do thesamethingwith"afew furtherembellishments."Mayerstated,"Since(Hauser)was not only chairmanof my committeebutresponsibleforgivingmefundsto dothis,Iwentalongwithhim."Mayer's greatest comfort was the frequent absences of hismentors(Hauser,Wirth,andOgburn).Thisgavehimfreedomtofinish his worktitled, "Differentialsof Life in Chicago,1880-1940,"andMayerstatedthatthe"distinguishedtriocouldnotsaymuch about it becausetheywere neveraroundto criticizeit."Farber'sdissertation,"An Evaluationand Revision of theBurgessand WallinRatingScale as a PredictionInstrument,"was also influencedby his mentor. Unlike Mayer'sexperiencewith Hauser,Farberviewed his relationshipwithBurgessposi-tivelyandwithfruitfulresults.Accordingto Farber(1985),intheRatingScaleBurgessinitiatedaframeworkon maritalpredictionbutthe conceptsrequiredmorespecifictheoreticalreference.Inhis dissertation,Farber filled the gap in Burgess'swork by


11/18


elaboratinguponthe theoreticalbasisandby providinga closerlinkage betweenthe concepts and empiricalevidence in themaritalpredictionscale.Othermemorablerelationshipswereexemplifiedthroughthelighterside of mentor'sinfluenceson students.For example,Lindstrom(1985)pickedupOgburn'shabitofwritingeverythingon 3 X 5 cards,goingto class,reachingin hispocket,andtakingout the cards. OthersrememberedOgburn's"beingso stately"andhowhe spoke"verydeliberatelyand so slowlythatyou cantake each and everyword down in your notes"(Glick, 1985;Mayer,1985).Notetakingwasmoredifficultforstudentswho satinWirth'slecturesonMax Weber.Lindstrom(1985)commentedthatinclass,"Wirthwouldreadin GermanWeber'sworkinlongsections,andhe wouldsmile,andwouldnot translate."Bytheendof WorldWarII,the Parkianapproachto student-mentorrelationshipappearedto have lost its spark-indicatingthe endof anothergeneration.Theworkingstylesof theChicagofaculty became more individualistic.Thus the strengthsandweaknessesofstudents'associationswiththeirteachersdependedupon who wereinvolved.For instance,Farberfound Burgessvery accessible,but Blumer"a forbiddingindividual."On theotherhand,manystudents"complainedbitterlyaboutHughes'lackof interestin their work"(Farber,1985).Tracesof theirstudent-mentorexperiencesseemedevidentinASU Chicagoans'working styles. Smith attributedhis goodworkingrelationshipswith studentsas an influencefrom hispositiveexperiencesat the Universityof Chicago.Lindstrom's"open-door"policy,Farberas"thegreatmotivator,"andMayer'scandiddialogueon anyissuecouldprobablybelinkedwithhowtheyinteractedwiththeirprofessorsandthe ChicagoSociologyDepartment.

THEORETICALPERSPECTIVESOF ASU CHICAGOANSThestandardAmericansociologyhaditsrootsfromEuropeaninfluences, that is, Tarde and Durkheim (France), Weber,


12/18

370 SOCIOLOGICALPERSPECTIVES/ JULY1988

Tonnies, and Simmel(Germany).Althoughthe UniversityofChicagobecame the intellectualcenterof Americansociologyduringthe early 1900s, this recognitionwas heavilydebatedwithinthe discipline(Mullins,1973,p. 45).ChicagoSchool'sfocus on pragmatismandempiricalresearchprojectedan imagethat suggestedan atheoreticalapproachtosociology.Theoriginalwork at Chicagowasdescribedbycriticsas "dustbowl"empiricism,implyingthatresearchwasundertakenwithout any theoreticalunderstandingof the issues involved.However,a close examinationof theearlyresearchproducedbyChicagoscholarsandtheirstudentsindicatedthattheirworkhadbeen theoreticallyguided. The majortheoreticalperspectiveswere Park'sinterpretationof Simmel,Mead'sanalysisof socialinteraction,"egologism,"the theoryof communitygrowthanddevelopment,which werebeingdistilledat Chicagoduringthatperiod(Mullins,1973,p. 45).Chicago School sociology containeda broad spectrumofspecializations,from the qualitativeapproachesof social psy-chology to quantitativetechniquesin analyzingdemographicdata. Between1945and 1954,Chicago producedthe greatestnumberof symbolicinteractionistswhen comparedwith anyotheruniversity.WhenNORC'ssurveyresearchgroupand thedemographersat theUniversityofChicagointegratedthemselveswith standardAmericansociology, an interestingcoexistence

betweenthe qualitativeandquantitativeorientationsemerged.Thetheoreticalviewsof ASUChicagoanswereasdiverseastheprevailingperspectivesatChicagoafterWorldWarII. Lindstromcontinuedto assertthat therewas no theoryat Chicago,andiftherewas theory,it was minimum.Mayerfelt that therewas alackof coherenttheoreticalbodyandthatadherenceto specifictheorieswentthrough"littlefads."Farberpositedthat therewassometheory,but thatdependedon whichfacultyan individualworkedwith.Ontheotherhand,Smithbelievedthattherewas anoveremphasison theoryat theuniversity.Whetherornottherewasatheoreticalframeworkdidnotseemto affect the extensiveness of Chicago School's influences.DespiteLindstrom'sview that there wasno theory,he credited


13/18


Wirth for teaching him "howto think like a Chicago sociologist."Mayer (1985) shared the following opinion about the differenteffects Chicago perspectives had on Farber, Lindstrom, andhimself:Thinkingaboutthe threeof us, we'renot verymuch alikein anyway.Fred[Lindstrom]is not interestedindoingresearchhimself.... He is actuallya splendidChicagoproduct.RobertMaynardHutchinswouldbeextremelyproudof Fred.... Bernie[Farber]likes his research-his kindof researchwhichis not likemine.Infact,he'sbasicallya researchperson.I thinkBerniewouldhatetoteachthe[course]ModernCity.... ButI likedoingthat[teaching]anddoing myownkind of research.

Smith(1985)confirmedthediversity amongthe fourth-generationChicagoans with these comments:

Theyarecertainlynot a uniformgroup... I wouldjust havetothink that Farber is most likely to be rememberedin anygeneration.... In thecase of Mayer,I thinkhe'sturnedoutsomeveryfine students(nowengaged)in productivecareers.... Thewaythisdepartmentoperatesis dueinlargemeasuretoLindstrom.So, therearethreedifferentwaysofgoingaboutthings... service,research, and teaching. Lindstromdoes his service, Farberthroughhisresearchworkin thediscipline,andMayerthroughhisteaching.Figure 3 is a rough sketch of linkages among differentindividuals influencing ASU Chicagoans. Here, Durkheim,Simmel, and Weber were included to illustrate some influencesfrom European sociology. Not named in Figure 3 were the manyscholars and colleagues whose work directly influenced the

persons in the chart (e.g., Marx, Parsons, Small, Redfield,Goldhammer, Strauss, and others who were mentioned in theinterviews). However, the figure suggests the enormity of influ-ences within a school and the complexity of how an individualinterpretssuch diverse influences in his or herteaching, thinking,and working styles.


14/18


/ BURGESS WIRTH OGBURN

HUGHES BLUMER HAUSER S TOUFFER

FARBER LINDSTROM MAYER JANOWITZ

NORC > SMITHI _ - --

??

Figure 3: Linkages Among Individuals Important to the Development of the ChicagoSchool and Chicagoans at Arizona State UniversitySOURCES: Mullins, 1973; Interviews with Farber, Lindstrom, Mayer, and Smith,1985.KEY: * Influence of teacher to student.

------. Influence via course work or colleague to colleague.

CHICAGOVERSUSOTHERSCHOOLSWhenaskedabouthow they compareChicagoSchool withotheruniversitiessuchasHarvard,Columbia,andBerkeleywhenthey were students,ASU Chicagoans'responsesindicated anethnocentricviewof theiralmamater.However,this wasnot anunusualattitudeamonganyuniversityalumniparticularlywhenpeople'scareerswereassociatedwith theirdegrees.An assessmentof the Universityof Chicagoin recentyearsdrewa moreobjectiveevaluation.Fourth-generationChicagoansagreedthattheschool'sgoldenyearswere over.Theretirement,death,andtransfersto otherschools of manysecond-andthird-


15/18


generationscholarsendedthelast tracesof Chicago'sdominancein thediscipline.Glick(1985)expressedthat

Chicagocertainlyhada veryprimaryinfluencein the trainingofpeoplewhowerestudyingin the 1920'sand 1930'sandwho wereteachingin the 1930's,40's, and throughthe 60's. But they'remostlyretiredor gone. ... As a matter of fact, I have a littleproblemidentifyingor characterizingthe ChicagoSchool at thepresenttime.ComparingtheUniversityof Chicagowith other schools wasnot asgreata concernto ASU Chicagoansastheirinterestin thestate of sociologyin the academicarena.Mayer(1985)foundhimself"not thrilled"about beingin sociology. He expressed,"It'spartlymyfault,partlythe faultof thediscipline,andpartlythe fault of the human race. Sociology really does not getanyplace."For Smith(1985),"sociologyis bankrupt-there are

veryfewnewideasin the discipline."In spite of the perceivedproblemsin sociology, Chicagoansindicateda commitment"toenlist thetop students"(Lindstrom,1985), "to transmitknowledge"(Smith, 1985), and "to trainthem"(Mayer,1985).Farber(1985) suggestedthat the thingtoaimforwasto diversify-"to get out of theseruts,to tryandputthings together,to realize how much fun it is to put literarycriticismandsociologicaltheorytogetherratherthanjustto lookat it."

CONCLUDINGREMARKSBroadlyspeaking,thecontinuityofalegacydependsuponhowthepresentgenerationmaintainsandpasseson thephilosophicalviewpointsandtheoreticaltraditionsofpriorgenerations.Inthis

study, the intellectualinfluenceshave been traced from theChicagoforerunnersto currentASU students.The cases pre-sentedhere provideevidence that the ChicagoSchool legacy,withstandingthe changesin facultyand perspectivesfrom onegenerationto thenext, liveson.


16/18

374 SOCIOLOGICALPERSPECTIVES/ JULY1988

Severallimitationswere encounteredin chartingthe genea-logical lines of ChicagoSchool'sinfluences.First, this study'sviewof intellectualhistorywasguidedby linkagestraceableto theexperiencesof Lindstrom,Mayer,Farber,Smith,andtheirASUstudents.Second,spacedid not allowfor the inclusionof everypossibledetail.Forinstance,each interviewinvolvedanaverageof one and a half hour's discussionon differentissues.Tapedinterviewstranslatedinto more than 100pages of transcripts.Third,therewas much overlappingbetweeneach genealogicalera.Fourth,focusingon anyoneuniversitylimitedthe extent towhichChicagoSchool'slegacycouldbetraced.Finally,therewasa lack of informationregarding previous students of ASUChicagoans.Tracingthe whereaboutsof ASU sociologyalumniwasnot animpossibletask;but,to find non-ASUstudentswouldbe costlyand timeconsuming.Chicagoansand theirstudentshad diverseinterests.Even ifonewereabletoclassifythem,forexample,Burgessites,Parkians,Lindstromites,Farberians,Mayerites,orSmithians,thedynamictransformationof variousinfluencesovertimemakes"unique"identificationelusive.Thus the main limitationin this type ofstudyhadto do with the diffusionof ChicagoSchool'sinfluencesthroughotheruniversitiesandindividualscholars.The experiencesand intellectualorientationsof fourth-andfifth-generationASU Chicagoanswere not that differentfromthoseof theirmentors.Conversely,theirmentorsechoedmostofthe teachingsof the first- andsecond-generationscholars.It isapparentthat the Universityof Chicagono longeremulatestheintellectualstanceof earliergenerations.However,the transfor-mationsin theschool'stheoreticalandmethodologicalviews areevidenceof Chicago'sprogressivethinking,whicharecongruentwith the nation'sgrowthin knowledgeand technology.Whatremainsconstantin the ChicagoSchoollegacyis the "gusto"inteachingand doing sociology. CurrentgenerationChicagoansand their studentsemulatetheenthusiasmof the mentorsbeforethem.TheinfluencesofLindstrom,Mayer,Farber,Smith,and Glickon theirgraduatestudentsare far reaching.The four doctoral


17/18


studentsmentionedin this studyhavetappedthe widerangeofspecializationsof their mentors,representingboth qualitativeand quantitativeorientationsof subdisciplinesin sociology.Upon completingtheir degrees, these students are likely toadvancethe intellectualinfluencesdrawnfromtheirteacherstotheir(future)studentsand/orcolleagues-Lin in Taiwan,Nakaiin Japan,Ohm andDeOllosin settingsoutsideArizona.Itseemsfairto concludethattheso-called"goldenera"didnotend with the retirementand/or death of ChicagoSchool fore-runners.Rather,the goldenera should be appliedto the yearsafterWorld WarII with the scatteringof Chicagosociologiststhroughouttheworldandthegrowthof SociologyDepartmentsacrossmanyuniversitiesandcolleges.

REFERENCESArizonaStateUniversityBulletin.1985/1986."Faculty,UniversityOfficesandServices."Pp. 216-279in GraduateCatalog,1983-84/1984-85(Vol.XCVIII).Tempe:ArizonaStateUniversity.ArizonaState University,Departmentof Sociology. 1986. FacultyRoster.Tempe:ArizonaStateUniversity.Bulmer,Martin.1984.TheChicagoSchoolof Sociology:Institutionalization,Diversity,andthe Riseof SociologicalResearch.Chicago:Universityof ChicagoPress.Carey,JamesT. 1975.SociologyandPublicAffairs:TheChicagoSchool.BeverlyHills,CA:Sage.Farber,Bernard.1985."PersonalInterviewandCommunicationswithProfessorBernardFarber,a Chicagoanat ArizonaStateUniversity."Unpublishedinterviewby RoseMarieOhm,ArizonaStateUniversity,Departmentof Sociology.Faris,RobertE. L. 1970.ChicagoSociology:1920-1932.SanFrancisco:Chandler.Glick,Paul C. 1985."PersonalInterviewand Communicationson ChicagoSchoolExperienceswithProfessorPaul C. Glick."Unpublishedinterviewby Rose MarieOhm,ArizonaStateUniversity,Departmentof Sociology.Kurtz,LesterR. 1984.EvaluatingChicagoSociology:A Guideto theLiterature,WithanAnnotatedBibliography.Chicago:Universityof ChicagoPress.Lindstrom,FrederickB. 1985."PersonalInterviewandCommunicationswithProfessor

FrederickB. Lindstrom,a Chicagoanat ArizonaState University."UnpublishedinterviewbyRoseMarieOhm,ArizonaStateUniversity,Departmentof Sociology.Mayer,AlbertJ. 1985."PersonalInterviewandCommunicationswithProfessorAlbertJ.Mayer,a Chicagoanat ArizonaStateUniversity."Unpublishedinterviewby RoseMarieOhm,ArizonaStateUniversity,Departmentof Sociology.


18/18


Mullins, Nicholas C. 1973. Theories and Theory Groups in Contemporary AmericanSociology. New York: Harper& Row.Short, James F. Jr. 1971. The Social Fabric of the Metropolis: Contributions of theChicago School of UrbanSociology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Smith, A. Wade. 1985. "Personal Interview and Communications with AssociateProfessor A. Wade Smith, a Chicagoan at Arizona State University." Unpublishedinterview by Rose Marie Ohm, Arizona State University, Department of Sociology.Vine, Margaret W. 1969. An Introduction to Sociological Theory. New York: DavidMacKay.

Rose Marie Ohm (Ph.D., Arizona State University, 1971) is a ProgramAssociateat the headquartersof the National Conference of Christiansand Jews. She worksdirectly with group process specialists, teachers, and community volunteers indeveloping and implementing nationwide youth intergroup leadership programssponsored by NCCJ. Her current interests include work in the area of socialdistance, collective behavior, applied sociology, group processes, and cross-culturalgender study.

Documents

Chicargo school