o legado da escola de chicago

7/30/2019 O Legado Da Escola de Chicago

1/18

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: 12/07/2010 11:13

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 is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to

Sociological Perspectives.

http://www.jstor.org
http://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-pdf


2/18

THE CONTINUING LEGACYOF THE CHICAGO SCHOOLROSE MARIE OHMThe National Conference ofChristians & Jews, Inc.TheChicagoSchoolmadea significant mpacton theestablishment ftwentieth-century merican ociology.From the time of its foundingthrough he first five decades, ts scholarshada lastingeffect on bothsociological hinkingand socialreform.Moreover,Chicagoans hapedtheintellectualdevelopment f future ociologists hrough eachingandguiding he research f their tudents.Thisarticle eportshefindingsofacasestudy hatexamines heperceptions fscholarswho weregraduatedfrom heUniversity f Chicago. tpresentsheirperceptions f howtheirtrainingat Chicagocompareswith their own work withstudents, heirownstyleofresearch, ndtheirviewof thedisciplinetself.AnanalysisofChicagoans'accomplishmentsnd contributions o sociologyprovideinsightonwhether rnotthelegacyof Chicagos beinghandeddowntopresentgenerationacademicians.Two primary ourcesof informationare used to determine he intellectual rends and influences of theUniversityof Chicago: 1) focusedinterviewswithsociologyfacultyatArizonaStateUniversitywho weregraduatedromChicagoafterWorldWarII,and 2)asurveyofASUsociologygraduatetudents.Considered"typical" f manygraduate-degreerantinguniversitiesn the country,ASUprovidesa sufficient umber f cases o trace heimportant spectsof 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 / CONTINUING EGACY 361

communicationand transportationcontributed to an imagebuilding hat wasnew,innovative,permissive, nd "American."By1930, heSchool wastheleadingcenter orempirical esearchand educational ideas in Chicago (Carey, 1975, pp. 21-37;Bulmer,1984,pp. 4-6).Thecityitself becamea provinggroundforthe School'spragmatist pproach-a traditionhatcontinuedto recent imes.The ntellectual ssumptionshatwereoperativen theworkofChicago sociologistsset them apartfromsocial scientistselse-where. Particularlyamong the earlystudentsat Chicago,thesociological interests and methodologicalperspectivesweredrawnawayfrom the "inhibiting onsequencesof [European]doctrines, chools of thought,andauthoritativeeaders"Faris,1970,p. 88;Short,1971,p.xiv).This nnovative pproach reatedthe ChicagoSchool legacy,whichso strongly nfluenced wen-tieth-centuryAmerican ociology. Chicagoscholarsshapedtheintellectualdevelopmentof futuresociologists by teachingandguiding heworkof theirstudentsandby usingfreshapproachesto sociological hinking.

RESEARCHAGENDAThis articlereports hefindingsof a casestudy.Itexamines he

perceptions f scholarswho weregraduatedromtheUniversityof Chicago.Itpresents heirperceptions f how theirtrainingatChicagocompareswiththeirown workwithstudents, heirownstyleofresearch, ndtheirviewof thedisciplinetself.Ananalysisof Chicagoans' ccomplishmentsnd contributions o sociologyprovidesnsightnto whetherornot thelegacyofChicagosbeinghandeddownto presentgenerationacademicians.

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


4/18

362 SOCIOLOGICALERSPECTIVES JULY 1988

Arizona State University ASU) who weregraduated romtheUniversityof ChicagoafterWorldWarIIand(2)asurveyof andinterviewswithASU sociologygraduate tudents.Considered"typical" f manygraduate-degree rantinguni-versities in the country,ASU providesa sufficientnumberofcasesto tracesome oftheimportant ffectsof theChicagoSchoollegacy.ASU claimsanenrollmentof morethan40,000studentsand a core of approximately ,000employees.Of 1,500facultymembers, 0(2.7%) arnedatleastonedegree rom heUniversityof Chicago.Thistranslateso 27(67.5%) ompleted heirPh.D.s,7 (17.5%)earnedtheirmaster's,and 6 (15.0%) heirbachelor'sdegreesatChicago. ntotal, 19(47.5%) fthe 40facultymembersaresocialscientists,and 5(12.5%) resociologists ArizonaStateUniversityBulletin,1985/1986).In total, 4 of the 5 sociologistsinterviewed ompletedtheirdoctoralworkattheUniversity f Chicago.The article ocusesonthose 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 21tenuredacultyat theASU SociologyDepartment,the Chicagoansrepresentedhe largestnumber rom anygivenschool(Department f SociologyFacultyRoster,Spring1986).ASU's 30full-time ociologygraduate tudentsweresurveyedregardingnfluencesof faculty ntheir ntellectualdevelopment.Overall,19 (63%)responded o the survey.Thosewho did notrespondweremostlystudents n the master'sprogramandhadnot beenat ASU long enoughto assessfaculty nfluences.InterviewswiththeChicagoans ndgraduate tudents ocusedon issues such as student-mentor elationships;nfluencesonstudents'work,such asin thedevelopmentandwritingof thesesand dissertations;comparisonsbetween Chicago and otherleadingschools;contributions n the discipline;opinionson aparticularriticism egardingChicago'sack of theoretical rien-tation;and an assessment f thefuture rends n sociology.


5/18

Ohm / CONTINUINGLEGACY 363

INTELLECTUAL INEAGE:FORERUNNERSTOTHE PRESENTGENERATIONThegenealogyof the ChicagoSchool is mappedaccording othe entryandexit of a cohortwithina time period.There wasmuchoverlappingbetweeneachgenealogicalera. This createddifficulties n assigning pecific ime lines from onegenerationothe next. Forinstance,RobertE. Park's ermextended rom thefirst to the second generation(1914-1933)while Ernest W.

Burgess'srom the tail end of the firstto the early yearsof thefourthgeneration1916-1957).The genealogicalchart begins in 1892 when Albion Smallfounded the departmentof sociology at the University ofChicago, hefirstsuchdepartmentn any universitynthe world(Vine,1969,pp.346-347;Mullins,1973,p.41;Bulmer,1984,p.8).From thereon, eachgenerations designatedby a historicalerathat hasa correspondingvent in theChicagoSchoollegacy.Asshown in Figure 1, these generationsare the first generation,1892-1918,rom heschool's ounding o the endof WorldWarI;the secondgeneration,1919-1930, he depressionera;the thirdgeneration,1931-1946, rom thedepressiono the end of WorldWarII;the fourthgeneration,1947-mid-1960s,ost-WorldWarII years;andthe fifthgeneration,mid-1960so thepresent.Thereweremajorevents n Chicago hathadanimpact n theSchool's intellectual egacy. The first generationended whenW. I. Thomas's eachingtermwas terminatedand most of thefounders retired.Park and Mead's death addedclosure to thesecond generationand left an impacton the thirdgenerationwhen heteaching tylesnolongeremulated he Parkian pproachin mentor-student elationship.On the otherhand, the fourthgeneration's ndwas markedby the retirement/death f Wirth,Ogburn, Burgess,and other sociologistsconnected with priorgenerations.Figure 1 shows the first-, second-, and third-generationscholarswho arecitedasamongthe most influential n ChicagoSchool's ntellectual istory.Persons rom hefirstgeneration recreditedorestablishinghestandardAmericanociology 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 produced he greatestnumberof graduate tudentsand was unmatchedn theproduc-tion of scholarlymaterialswhen comparedwith otherleadinguniversitiesuchasHarvard,Yale,andColumbiaMullins,1973,p. 43).Bythe timethe secondgenerationoinedthefaculty,ChicagoSchool haddominated he social sciencesanddrew heattentionof scholarsthroughout he United States and the world. Thisdominancecontinued hrough he third andfourthgenerations.Meanwhile,a largebulk of ChicagoPh.D.s "werescattered ndepartmentsacrossthe country,spreading heirChicago spiritandtraining,andteachinga fairlyconsistentstyleof sociology"(Mullins, 1973,p. 43). Thus the ChicagoSchool expandeditsinfluencebeyondthe realmof the Universityof Chicagoenvi-ronment.The second andthirdgeneration cholarsnamedin Figure1directlyinfluencedthe intellectualdevelopmentand work ofLindstrom,Mayer,and Farber.Forinstance,WirthandWarnersupervisedLindstrom'smaster's hesis (1941) and dissertation(1950),respectively.HauserchairedMayer'sdissertation1950).Onthe otherhand,Burgess nfluencedFarber's1953)workonpredictingmarital uccess.MorrisJanowitzwas ncludedamong hefourthgenerationortworeasons:First,Janowitzwas nthesamecohortofstudentsasLindstrom,Mayer,and Farber.Mayer(1985) confirmedthatJanowitzwas one of severalclassmateswho had gainedprom-inencein the discipline.Second,andmoreimportant,Janowitzwas among several scholars who influencedthe intellectualdevelopment f Smith.Figure2 linksthefourth-andfifth-generation hicagoanswithcurrentASU doctoralstudents.Sung-LingLin,RumikoNakai,Rose MarieOhm, and Ione DeOllos claimedthat Lindstrom,Mayer,Farber,and/or Smithwere nfluentialn their academicdevelopment.Althoughother aculty non-Chicagoans)adbeencitedasimportantn theirtraining, hesestudents ndicated hattheirworkreflected he concernsof the "old"ChicagoSchool.For example,Lin's studieson the familywerein line with the


8/18


thinkingand influencesof Farber,Lindstrom, nd Glick.UnderMayer'smentorship,Nakai's interest in urban ecology anddemographywas broadened.DeOllos'spreliminarytudyon thehomeless was guided by Farber. On the other hand, Ohm'sattemptto revive Bogardus'sconcept of social distancewasextensionof Smith's nfluences.In Figure2, Farber s linkedwith all students.It shouldbenotedthat allPh.D. studentswhorespondedo thesurveycitedFarber'snfluence ntheirtheoretical iews.Thislinkagemaybeattributed o the curriculumdesignand teaching assignments.Only a handful of sociology faculty offers "standard"heorycourses hatgraduate tudentsarerequiredo take. Farber s oneof the few assignedto teach advancedand specialized heorycourses.Theimplicationhere s thatsociologygraduate tudentsare more likely to develop the "Farberian-Chicagochool"perspectiveor as long as Farberremainsa dominant igureinteaching heory n thedepartment.

HOW ASU CHICAGOANSBECAMESOCIOLOGISTSThe fourth-generationohortbelongedto a groupof WorldWar II veteranswho used the G.I. Bill benefitto go to college(Lindstrom, 1985). At the Universityof Chicago, the socialsciencedepartment xperiencedts shareof an influx in veteranenrollmentafter the war. Between 1945 and 1950,the SocialScienceDepartmenthad approximately 00 graduatestudents(Mayer, 1985).Lindstrom,Mayer,andFarberwereamongtheveteranswho took advantage f theG.I.Billeducationalbenefit.Becominga sociologistwas not the primary areerchoice forthe threeChicagoans.Lindstrom1985),whoseoriginal nterestwasto makedocumentaryilms,rememberedeingpersuaded yBurgessto major in sociology. Mayer (1985) had an eye onbecominga chemistbutswitched o sociology n order o makeapoint-that thedisciplineneededsomeone"who s wellawareofmathematics ndhardstuff(sciences)"n order o quantifydataderived from human relationship.Farber (1985) started in


9/18


Fourth Generation Fifth Generation

LINDSTROM

Sung-Ling

/

Lin

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

*'

,, \l. '. \.

. \ * ' *X -'X; ;

Rmk 'aa I O*1 ^ \

uIkoki Rs iOho. \

(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 hadponderedaboutmajoringn Englishormathematics eforedecidingonsociology.Therefore, mong heASU Chicagoans,Smithwas theonlyone determinedo becomea sociologistat the onsetof hiscollegeeducation.

STUDENT-MENTORRELATIONSHIPAT CHICAGOSCHOOLThe graduate-studentexperienceof Lindstrom,Mayer,Farber,andSmithwiththeirmentorsreflected heapprenticeshipmodel

I

I


10/18


practicedat the Universityof Chicago. Smith describedthestudent-mentorelationshipn thefollowingwords:Ifyouaregoingto graduate,youhaveto latchon to someoneandactuallyworkfor or with them intheirresearch.That's he onlywayyou'regoingto learnenoughand/orget enoughdata norderto publish.... Theyhad to have a researchgrant n order o hireyou (as research ssistant). t turnsout too that it's the onlywaytheycangetresearch one,so there'smutual xploitation oingonhere.Bulmer(1984, pp. 112-113)noted that the apprenticeshipmodelwas an extensionof Park's ngenuity n supervisingandbroadeningthe work of graduatestudents.Park encouragedstudents o reacha highlevel of achievement yinteractingwiththe student body and by engagingin lengthy discourse andinterviewswiththem.TheParkianapproach o student-mentor

relationswaspromotedbytheSociology Department; owever,this approachyieldedmixed results.Forinstance,Mayer 1985)complainedabout Hauser'sasser-tiveness nselecting dissertationopic. Apparently,Hauserdid asimilardissertation decadeearlierand wantedMayer o do thesamethingwith"afew furtherembellishments."Mayerstated,"Since(Hauser)was not only chairmanof my committeebutresponsibleorgivingmefunds o dothis,Iwentalongwithhim."Mayer's greatest comfort was the frequent absences of hismentors Hauser,Wirth,andOgburn).Thisgavehimfreedom ofinish his worktitled, "Differentials f Life in Chicago,1880-1940," ndMayer tated hatthe"distinguishedriocouldnotsaymuch about it because heywere neveraround o criticize t."Farber'sdissertation,"An Evaluationand Revision of theBurgessand WallinRatingScale as a PredictionInstrument,"was also influencedby his mentor. Unlike Mayer'sexperiencewith Hauser,Farberviewed his relationshipwithBurgessposi-tivelyandwithfruitfulresults.Accordingo Farber1985),intheRatingScaleBurgessnitiatedaframework n maritalpredictionbutthe conceptsrequiredmorespecific heoretical eference. nhis dissertation,Farber filled the gap in Burgess'swork by


11/18


elaboratinguponthe theoreticalbasisandby providinga closerlinkage betweenthe concepts and empiricalevidence in themaritalprediction cale.Othermemorable elationshipswereexemplified hrough helighterside of mentor's nfluenceson students.For example,Lindstrom1985)pickedupOgburn's abitofwriting verythingon 3 X 5 cards,goingto class,reachingn hispocket,andtakingout the cards. OthersrememberedOgburn's"beingso stately"andhowhe spoke"verydeliberately nd so slowlythatyou cantake each and everyword down in your notes"(Glick, 1985;Mayer,1985).Notetakingwasmoredifficult orstudentswho satinWirth'secturesonMax Weber.Lindstrom1985)commentedthatinclass,"Wirthwouldread n GermanWeber'swork nlongsections,andhe wouldsmile,andwouldnot translate."Bytheendof WorldWarII,the Parkianapproacho student-mentorrelationshipappeared o have lost its spark-indicatingthe endof anothergeneration.Theworking tylesof theChicagofaculty became more individualistic.Thus the strengthsandweaknesses fstudents' ssociationswiththeir eachersdependedupon who wereinvolved.For instance,Farberfound Burgessvery accessible,but Blumer"a forbidding ndividual."On theotherhand,manystudents"complained itterlyaboutHughes'lackof interest n their work" Farber,1985).Tracesof theirstudent-mentorxperiences eemedevident nASU Chicagoans'working styles. Smith attributedhis goodworkingrelationshipswith studentsas an influencefrom hispositiveexperiencesat the Universityof Chicago.Lindstrom's"open-door"olicy,Farberas"thegreatmotivator,"ndMayer'scandiddialogueon anyissuecouldprobablybelinkedwithhowtheyinteractedwiththeirprofessorsandthe ChicagoSociologyDepartment.

THEORETICAL ERSPECTIVESOF ASU CHICAGOANSThestandardAmericanociologyhad tsrootsfromEuropeaninfluences, that is, Tarde and Durkheim (France), Weber,


12/18

370 SOCIOLOGICALERSPECTIVES JULY1988

Tonnies, and Simmel(Germany).Althoughthe UniversityofChicagobecame the intellectualcenterof Americansociologyduringthe early 1900s, this recognitionwas heavilydebatedwithinthe discipline Mullins,1973,p. 45).ChicagoSchool's ocus on pragmatism ndempirical esearchprojectedan imagethat suggestedan atheoreticalapproach osociology.Theoriginalwork at Chicagowasdescribedbycriticsas "dustbowl" mpiricism,mplyinghatresearchwasundertakenwithout any theoreticalunderstanding f the issues involved.However,a close examinationof theearlyresearchproducedbyChicago cholarsandtheirstudents ndicated hattheirworkhadbeen theoreticallyguided. The majortheoreticalperspectiveswere Park's nterpretation f Simmel,Mead'sanalysisof socialinteraction,"egologism,"he theoryof communitygrowthanddevelopment,which werebeingdistilledat Chicagoduring hatperiod(Mullins,1973,p. 45).Chicago School sociology containeda broad spectrumofspecializations, rom the qualitativeapproachesof social psy-chology to quantitative echniquesin analyzingdemographicdata. Between1945and 1954,Chicago producedthe greatestnumberof symbolicinteractionistswhen comparedwith anyotheruniversity.WhenNORC'ssurveyresearchgroupand thedemographerst theUniversity fChicago ntegratedhemselveswith standardAmericansociology, an interestingcoexistence

between he qualitativeandquantitative rientations merged.Thetheoretical iewsof ASUChicagoanswereasdiverseastheprevailing erspectivestChicagoafterWorldWarII. Lindstromcontinuedto assertthat therewas no theoryat Chicago,andiftherewas theory,it was minimum.Mayerfelt that therewas alackof coherent heoreticalbodyandthatadherenceo specifictheorieswentthrough"little ads."Farberposited hat therewassometheory,but thatdependedon whichfacultyan individualworkedwith.Ontheotherhand,Smithbelieved hattherewas anoveremphasisn theoryat theuniversity.Whether rnottherewasatheoretical ramework idnotseemto affect the extensiveness of Chicago School's influences.DespiteLindstrom's iew 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 alike n anyway.Fred Lindstrom]s not interestedndoingresearch imself.... He is actuallya splendidChicagoproduct.RobertMaynardHutchinswouldbeextremelyproudof Fred.... Bernie Farber]likes his research-his kindof researchwhich s not likemine.Infact,he'sbasicallya research erson. thinkBerniewouldhatetoteach he[course]ModernCity.... ButI likedoing hat[teaching]anddoing myownkind of research.

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

Theyarecertainlynot a uniformgroup... I would ust havetothink that Farber is most likely to be remembered n anygeneration.... In thecase of Mayer, thinkhe'sturnedoutsomeveryfine students nowengaged) n productive areers.... Thewaythisdepartmentperatess due nlargemeasureoLindstrom.So, thereare hreedifferentwaysofgoingabout hings... service,research, and teaching. Lindstromdoes his service, Farberthroughhisresearchwork n thediscipline, ndMayer hroughhisteaching.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 withotheruniversitiesuchasHarvard,Columbia,andBerkeleywhenthey were students,ASU Chicagoans'responses ndicated anethnocentric iewof theiralmamater.However, his wasnot anunusualattitudeamonganyuniversity lumniparticularlywhenpeople'scareerswereassociatedwith theirdegrees.An assessmentof the Universityof Chicagoin recentyearsdrewa moreobjective valuation.Fourth-generationhicagoansagreed hattheschool'sgoldenyearswere over.Theretirement,death,andtransferso otherschools of manysecond-andthird-


15/18

Ohm / CONTINUINGLEGACY 373

generation cholars nded helast tracesof Chicago'sdominancein thediscipline.Glick(1985)expressed hat

Chicagocertainlyhada veryprimarynfluence n the trainingofpeoplewhowerestudying n 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 littleproblem dentifyingor characterizinghe ChicagoSchool at thepresent ime.ComparingheUniversityof Chicagowith other schools wasnot asgreata concern o ASU Chicagoansastheir nterestn thestate of sociologyin the academicarena.Mayer(1985)foundhimself"not thrilled"about beingin sociology. He expressed,"It'spartlymyfault,partly he faultof thediscipline,andpartlythe fault of the human race. Sociology really does not getanyplace."For Smith(1985),"sociology s bankrupt-there are

veryfewnewideasin the discipline."In spite of the perceivedproblems n sociology, Chicagoansindicateda commitment"toenlist thetop students"Lindstrom,1985), "to transmitknowledge" Smith, 1985), and "to trainthem" Mayer,1985).Farber 1985) suggested hat the thingtoaimforwasto diversify-"to get out of theseruts,to tryandputthings together,to realize how much fun it is to put literarycriticismandsociological heory ogetherrather han ustto lookat it."

CONCLUDINGREMARKSBroadly peaking,hecontinuityofalegacydependsuponhowthepresentgenerationmaintainsandpasseson thephilosophicalviewpointsandtheoretical raditionsofpriorgenerations.nthis

study, the intellectualinfluenceshave been traced from theChicagoforerunners o currentASU students.The cases pre-sentedhere provideevidence that the ChicagoSchool legacy,withstandinghe changesin facultyand perspectivesrom onegeneration o thenext, liveson.


16/18

374 SOCIOLOGICALERSPECTIVES JULY1988

Severallimitationswere encounteredn chartingthe genea-logical lines of ChicagoSchool'sinfluences.First, this study'sviewof intellectual istorywasguidedby linkages raceableo theexperiences f Lindstrom,Mayer,Farber,Smith,andtheirASUstudents.Second,spacedid not allowfor the inclusionof everypossibledetail.Forinstance,each interview nvolvedanaverageof one and a half hour's discussionon different ssues.Tapedinterviews ranslated nto more than 100pages of transcripts.Third,therewas much overlappingbetweeneach genealogicalera.Fourth,focusingon anyoneuniversityimited he extent towhichChicagoSchool's egacycouldbetraced.Finally, herewasa lack of informationregarding previous students of ASUChicagoans.Tracing he whereabouts f ASU sociologyalumniwasnot animpossibleask;but,to find non-ASUstudentswouldbe costlyand timeconsuming.Chicagoansand theirstudentshad diverse nterests.Even ifonewereable oclassify hem, orexample,Burgessites, arkians,Lindstromites, arberians,Mayerites, rSmithians,hedynamictransformation f various nfluencesovertimemakes"unique"identificationelusive.Thus the main limitation n this type ofstudyhadto do with the diffusionof ChicagoSchool's nfluencesthroughotheruniversities ndindividual cholars.The experiencesand intellectualorientationsof fourth-andfifth-generationASU Chicagoanswere not that different romthoseof theirmentors.Conversely,heirmentors choedmostofthe teachingsof the first- andsecond-generationcholars.It isapparent hat the Universityof Chicagono longeremulates heintellectual tanceof earliergenerations.However, he transfor-mations n theschool's heoreticalandmethodological iews areevidenceof Chicago'sprogressivehinking,whicharecongruentwith the nation'sgrowthin knowledgeand technology.Whatremainsconstant n the ChicagoSchoollegacy s the "gusto"nteachingand doing sociology. CurrentgenerationChicagoansand their studentsemulate heenthusiasm f the mentorsbeforethem.The nfluences f Lindstrom,Mayer,Farber,Smith,and Glickon theirgraduatestudentsare far reaching.The four doctoral


17/18


studentsmentioned n this studyhavetappedthe widerangeofspecializationsof their mentors,representingboth qualitativeand quantitativeorientationsof subdisciplines n sociology.Upon completingtheir degrees, these students are likely toadvance he intellectualnfluencesdrawn romtheirteachers otheir(future) tudentsand/orcolleagues-Lin in Taiwan,Nakaiin Japan,Ohm andDeOllosin settingsoutsideArizona.Itseems airto conclude hattheso-called"golden ra"didnotend with the retirementand/or death of ChicagoSchool fore-runners.Rather,the goldenera should be appliedto the yearsafterWorld WarII with the scatteringof Chicagosociologiststhroughout heworldandthegrowthof SociologyDepartmentsacrossmanyuniversities ndcolleges.

REFERENCESArizonaStateUniversity ulletin. 985/1986. Faculty,UniversityOffices ndServices."Pp. 216-279 n GraduateCatalog,1983-84/1984-85Vol.XCVIII).Tempe:ArizonaStateUniversity.ArizonaState University,Departmentof Sociology. 1986. FacultyRoster.Tempe:ArizonaStateUniversity.Bulmer,Martin.1984.TheChicagoSchoolof Sociology: nstitutionalization,iversity,andthe Riseof SociologicalResearch.Chicago:University f ChicagoPress.Carey,JamesT. 1975.SociologyandPublicAffairs:TheChicagoSchool.BeverlyHills,CA:Sage.Farber,Bernard. 985."Personalnterview ndCommunicationsithProfessorBernardFarber,a Chicagoan t ArizonaStateUniversity."Unpublishednterviewby RoseMarieOhm,ArizonaStateUniversity,Department f Sociology.Faris,RobertE. L. 1970.ChicagoSociology:1920-1932. anFrancisco:Chandler.Glick,Paul C. 1985."Personal nterviewand Communications n ChicagoSchoolExperienceswithProfessorPaul C. Glick."Unpublishednterviewby Rose MarieOhm,ArizonaStateUniversity,Departmentf Sociology.Kurtz,LesterR. 1984.EvaluatingChicagoSociology:A Guideo theLiterature,With nAnnotatedBibliography. hicago:University f ChicagoPress.Lindstrom, rederick . 1985."Personalnterview ndCommunicationsithProfessor

FrederickB. Lindstrom,a Chicagoanat ArizonaState University."Unpublishedinterview y RoseMarieOhm,ArizonaStateUniversity,Department f Sociology.Mayer,AlbertJ. 1985."Personal nterviewndCommunications ithProfessorAlbert .Mayer,a Chicagoan t ArizonaStateUniversity."Unpublishednterviewby RoseMarieOhm,ArizonaStateUniversity,Department f 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.

o legado da escola de chicago

Documents