You are on page 1of 18

Pacific Sociological Association

The Continuing Legacy of the Chicago School


Author(s): Rose Marie Ohm
Source: Sociological Perspectives, Vol. 31, No. 3, Waving the Flag for Old Chicago (Jul., 1988),
pp. 360-376
Published by: University of California Press
Stable 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 of
content 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 support@jstor.org.

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
THE CONTINUING LEGACY
OF THE CHICAGO SCHOOL

ROSE MARIE OHM


The National Conference of
Christians & Jews, Inc.

The ChicagoSchool madea significantimpacton the establishmentof


twentieth-century Americansociology. From the time of its founding
throughthe first five decades,its scholarshad a lastingeffect on both
sociologicalthinkingand social reform.Moreover,Chicagoansshaped
the intellectualdevelopmentof futuresociologiststhroughteachingand
guidingthe researchof theirstudents.Thisarticlereportsthefindingsof a
casestudythatexaminesthe perceptionsof scholarswhoweregraduated
fromthe Universityof Chicago.It presentstheirperceptionsof howtheir
trainingat Chicagocompareswith their own workwith students,their
ownstyleof research,andtheirviewof thedisciplineitself.An analysisof
Chicagoans'accomplishmentsand contributionsto sociology provide
insighton whetheror not the legacyof Chicagois beinghandeddownto
presentgenerationacademicians.Two primarysourcesof information
are used to determinethe intellectualtrends and influencesof the
Universityof Chicago:(1) focusedinterviewswith sociologyfacultyat
ArizonaStateUniversitywho weregraduatedfromChicagoafterWorld
WarII, and(2) a surveyof ASU sociologygraduatestudents.Considered
"typical"of manygraduate-degree grantinguniversitiesin the country,
ASU providesa sufficientnumberof casesto tracethe importantaspects
of ChicagoSchool legacy.

The period extending from the time of its founding till the 1950s
are said to be the "golden years" of the Chicago School, circa
1892-1950 (Kurtz, 1984). During that era, the University of
Chicago 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 city
of Chicago experienced significant transformations in its social,
economic, cultural, and intellectual life. Technological changes in
SOCIOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVES, Vol. 31 No. 3, July 1988 360-376
o 1988 Pacific Sociological Assn.

360
Ohm / CONTINUINGLEGACY 361

communicationand transportationcontributedto an image


buildingthat was new, innovative,permissive,and "American."
By 1930,the Schoolwasthe leadingcenterfor empiricalresearch
and educational ideas in Chicago (Carey, 1975, pp. 21-37;
Bulmer,1984,pp. 4-6). The city itself becamea provingground
for the School'spragmatistapproach-a traditionthatcontinued
to recenttimes.
Theintellectualassumptionsthatwereoperativein theworkof
Chicago sociologists set them apart from social scientistselse-
where. Particularlyamong the early students at Chicago, the
sociological interests and methodological perspectives were
drawn away from the "inhibitingconsequencesof [European]
doctrines,schools of thought,and authoritativeleaders"(Faris,
1970,p. 88;Short,1971,p. xiv). Thisinnovativeapproachcreated
the ChicagoSchool legacy, which so stronglyinfluencedtwen-
tieth-centuryAmericansociology. Chicagoscholarsshapedthe
intellectualdevelopmentof futuresociologistsby teachingand
guidingthe workof theirstudentsandby usingfreshapproaches
to sociologicalthinking.

RESEARCHAGENDA

This articlereportsthefindingsof a casestudy.It examinesthe


perceptionsof scholarswho weregraduatedfromthe University
of Chicago.It presentstheirperceptionsof how theirtrainingat
Chicagocompareswith theirown workwith students,theirown
styleof research,andtheirviewof thedisciplineitself.An analysis
of Chicagoans'accomplishmentsand contributionsto sociology
providesinsightinto whetheror not thelegacyof Chicagois being
handeddown to presentgenerationacademicians.

DATA AND METHODS


The sources of information used to determineintellectual
trendsand influencesare (1) focused interviewswith faculty at
362 SOCIOLOGICAL
PERSPECTIVES/ JULY 1988

Arizona State University(ASU) who were graduatedfrom the


Universityof ChicagoafterWorldWarII and(2) a surveyof and
interviewswith ASU sociologygraduatestudents.
Considered"typical"of many graduate-degreegrantinguni-
versitiesin the country, ASU provides a sufficientnumberof
casesto tracesomeof the importanteffectsof the ChicagoSchool
legacy.ASU claimsan enrollmentof morethan 40,000 students
and a core of approximately5,000 employees.Of 1,500faculty
members,40 (2.7%)earnedat leastone degreefromthe University
of Chicago.Thistranslatesto 27 (67.5%)completedtheirPh.D.s,
7 (17.5%)earnedtheir master's,and 6 (15.0%)their bachelor's
degreesat Chicago.In total, 19(47.5%)of the40 facultymembers
aresocialscientists,and5 (12.5%)aresociologists(ArizonaState
UniversityBulletin,1985/1986).
In total, 4 of the 5 sociologists interviewedcompletedtheir
doctoralworkat the Universityof Chicago.Thearticlefocuseson
those who earnedtheir Ph.D.s at Chicago:FrederickB. Lind-
strom, AlbertJ. Mayer, BernardFarber,and A. Wade Smith.
Paul C. Glick, an ASU adjunct professor who attended the
Universityof Chicago in the summerof 1935, was also inter-
viewed.Of21 tenuredfacultyat the ASU SociologyDepartment,
the Chicagoansrepresentedthe largestnumberfrom any given
school (Departmentof Sociology FacultyRoster,Spring1986).
ASU's 30 full-timesociologygraduatestudentsweresurveyed
regardinginfluencesof facultyin theirintellectualdevelopment.
Overall, 19 (63%)respondedto the survey.Those who did not
respondwere mostly studentsin the master'sprogramand had
not been at ASU long enoughto assessfacultyinfluences.
Interviewswiththe Chicagoansandgraduatestudentsfocused
on issues such as student-mentorrelationships;influences on
students'work,such as in the developmentand writingof theses
and dissertations;comparisons between Chicago and other
leading schools; contributionsin the discipline;opinions on a
particularcriticismregardingChicago'slackof theoreticalorien-
tation;and an assessmentof the futuretrendsin sociology.
Ohm / CONTINUINGLEGACY 363

INTELLECTUALLINEAGE:
FORERUNNERSTO THE PRESENTGENERATION

The genealogyof the ChicagoSchool is mappedaccordingto


the entry and exit of a cohort within a time period. Therewas
much overlappingbetweeneach genealogicalera. This created
difficultiesin assigningspecifictimelinesfrom one generationto
the next. For instance,RobertE. Park'stermextendedfromthe
first to the second generation (1914-1933) while Ernest W.
Burgess'sfrom the tail end of the first to the early years of the
fourthgeneration(1916-1957).
The genealogicalchart begins in 1892 when Albion Small
founded the department of sociology at the University of
Chicago,the firstsuchdepartmentin any universityin the world
(Vine,1969,pp. 346-347;Mullins,1973,p. 41;Bulmer,1984,p. 8).
From thereon, each generationis designatedby a historicalera
that has a correspondingeventin the ChicagoSchool legacy.As
shown in Figure 1, these generationsare the first generation,
1892-1918,fromthe school'sfoundingto the end of WorldWarI;
the second generation,1919-1930,the depressionera;the third
generation,1931-1946,from the depressionto the end of World
WarII; the fourthgeneration,1947-mid-1960s, post-WorldWar
II years;and the fifth generation,mid-1960sto the present.
Thereweremajoreventsin Chicagothat had an impactin the
School's intellectuallegacy. The first generationended when
W. I. Thomas'steachingterm was terminatedand most of the
founders retired.Park and Mead'sdeath added closure to the
second generationand left an impact on the third generation
whentheteachingstylesno longeremulatedthe Parkianapproach
in mentor-studentrelationship.On the other hand, the fourth
generation'send was markedby the retirement/deathof Wirth,
Ogburn,Burgess,and other sociologists connectedwith prior
generations.
Figure 1 shows the first-, second-, and third-generation
scholarswho arecited as amongthe most influentialin Chicago
School'sintellectualhistory.Personsfromthefirstgenerationare
creditedfor establishingthestandardAmericansociology(Kurtz,
364 SOCIOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVES / JULY 1988

FIRST GENERATION
SCHOLARS
(1892-1918)

Albion Small
George Vincent
W. I. Thomas
Charles Henderson
Graham Tayler
Charles Zueblin
Ira Howerth
Jerome H. Raymond
Clarence Rainwater
George H. Mead*
Robert E. Park*

SECOND GENERATION FOURTH GENERATION


SCHOLARS SCHOLARS
(1919-1930) (1947-Mid 1960's)

Ernest W. Burgess* A.S.U. Chicagoans


William F. Ogburn* Frederick Lindstrom
Louis Wirth* Albert J. Mayer
Herbert Blumer* Bernard Farber

Non-A.S.U.
Morris Janowitz

THIRD GENERATION
SCHOLARS
(1931-1946)
FIFTH GENERATION
SCHOLAR
Samuel Stouffer (Mid 1960-Present)
Everett Hughes*
W. Lloyd Warner*
Philip M. Hauser*

Figure 1: Genealogy of the Intellectual Influences from the First- to the Fifth-Gener-
ation Chicagoans
*The terms extended to the next generation.
Ohm / CONTINUINGLEGACY 365

1984, p. 2). Duringtheir terms, Chicagoproducedthe greatest


numberof graduatestudentsand was unmatchedin the produc-
tion of scholarlymaterialswhen comparedwith other leading
universitiessuchas Harvard,Yale,andColumbia(Mullins,1973,
p. 43).
By the time the secondgenerationjoined the faculty,Chicago
School had dominatedthe social sciencesand drewthe attention
of scholars throughoutthe United States and the world. This
dominancecontinuedthroughthe thirdand fourthgenerations.
Meanwhile,a large bulk of Chicago Ph.D.s "werescatteredin
departmentsacross the country,spreadingtheir Chicagospirit
and training,and teachinga fairlyconsistentstyle of sociology"
(Mullins, 1973, p. 43). Thus the Chicago School expandedits
influencebeyond the realm of the Universityof Chicagoenvi-
ronment.
The second and third generationscholarsnamedin Figure 1
directly influencedthe intellectualdevelopmentand work of
Lindstrom,Mayer,and Farber.For instance,WirthandWarner
supervisedLindstrom'smaster'sthesis (1941) and dissertation
(1950),respectively.HauserchairedMayer'sdissertation(1950).
On the otherhand, BurgessinfluencedFarber's(1953)work on
predictingmaritalsuccess.
MorrisJanowitzwasincludedamongthefourthgenerationfor
two reasons:First,Janowitzwasin the samecohortof studentsas
Lindstrom,Mayer, and Farber. Mayer (1985) confirmedthat
Janowitzwas one of severalclassmateswho had gained prom-
inencein the discipline.Second, and more important,Janowitz
was among several scholars who influenced the intellectual
developmentof Smith.
Figure2 linksthefourth-andfifth-generationChicagoanswith
currentASU doctoralstudents.Sung-LingLin, RumikoNakai,
Rose Marie Ohm, and Ione DeOllos claimed that Lindstrom,
Mayer,Farber,and/or Smithwereinfluentialin theiracademic
development.Althoughotherfaculty(non-Chicagoans)hadbeen
cited as importantin theirtraining,these studentsindicatedthat
their work reflectedthe concernsof the "old"ChicagoSchool.
For example, Lin's studies on the family were in line with the
366 SOCIOLOGICAL
PERSPECTIVES/ JULY 1988

thinkingand influencesof Farber,Lindstrom,and Glick.Under


Mayer's mentorship, Nakai's interest in urban ecology and
demographywas broadened.DeOllos'spreliminarystudyon the
homeless was guided by Farber. On the other hand, Ohm's
attempt to revive Bogardus'sconcept of social distance was
extensionof Smith'sinfluences.
In Figure 2, Farberis linked with all students.It should be
noted that all Ph.D. studentswho respondedto the surveycited
Farber'sinfluencein theirtheoreticalviews.Thislinkagemaybe
attributedto the curriculumdesign and teachingassignments.
Only a handful of sociology faculty offers "standard"theory
coursesthatgraduatestudentsarerequiredto take. Farberis one
of the few assignedto teach advancedand specializedtheory
courses.The implicationhereis that sociologygraduatestudents
are more likely to develop the "Farberian-ChicagoSchool"
perspectivefor as long as Farberremainsa dominantfigurein
teachingtheoryin the department.

HOW ASU CHICAGOANS


BECAMESOCIOLOGISTS
The fourth-generationcohort belongedto a group of World
War II veteranswho used the G.I. Bill benefitto go to college
(Lindstrom, 1985). At the University of Chicago, the social
sciencedepartmentexperiencedits shareof an influx in veteran
enrollmentafter the war. Between 1945 and 1950, the Social
Science Departmenthad approximately200 graduatestudents
(Mayer, 1985).Lindstrom,Mayer,and Farberwere amongthe
veteranswho took advantageof the G.I. Billeducationalbenefit.
Becominga sociologistwas not the primarycareerchoice for
the threeChicagoans.Lindstrom(1985),whose originalinterest
wasto makedocumentaryfilms,rememberedbeingpersuadedby
Burgess to major in sociology. Mayer (1985) had an eye on
becominga chemistbut switchedto sociologyin orderto makea
point-that the disciplineneededsomeone"whois well awareof
mathematicsandhardstuff (sciences)"in orderto quantifydata
derived from human relationship. Farber (1985) started in
Ohm / CONTINUINGLEGACY 367

Fourth Generation Fifth Generation

LINDSTROM MAYER FARBER SMITH

I ?% I \
I % -I . ~ '
/ *
I
j* '

-'
X ~. \l X; '. \. ;
,,
Rmk 'aa I O
. *1I\ ^ ? \
* ' *

/ uIko
Nki Rs lo. iOh\

Sung-Ling Lin I

(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 and


Current Doctoral Students at Arizona State University

businessschool and had ponderedabout majoringin Englishor


mathematicsbeforedecidingon sociology.Therefore,amongthe
ASU Chicagoans,Smithwasthe only one determinedto become
a sociologistat the onset of his collegeeducation.

STUDENT-MENTORRELATIONSHIP
AT CHICAGOSCHOOL
The graduate-studentexperience of Lindstrom, Mayer, Farber,
and Smithwiththeirmentorsreflectedthe apprenticeshipmodel
368 SOCIOLOGICAL
PERSPECTIVES/ JULY 1988

practiced at the University of Chicago. Smith describedthe


student-mentorrelationshipin the followingwords:

If you aregoingto graduate,you haveto latchon to someoneand


actuallywork for or with them in theirresearch.That'sthe only
wayyou'regoingto learnenoughand/or get enoughdatain order
to publish.... Theyhad to have a researchgrantin orderto hire
you (as researchassistant).It turnsout too that it's the only way
theycanget researchdone,so there'smutualexploitationgoingon
here.

Bulmer (1984, pp. 112-113) noted that the apprenticeship


model was an extension of Park'singenuityin supervisingand
broadeningthe work of graduate students. Park encouraged
studentsto reacha high level of achievementby interactingwith
the student body and by engaging in lengthy discourse and
interviewswith them. The Parkianapproachto student-mentor
relationswas promotedby the Sociology Department;however,
this approachyieldedmixed results.
For instance,Mayer(1985)complainedabout Hauser'sasser-
tivenessin selectinga dissertationtopic.Apparently,Hauserdid a
similardissertationa decadeearlierandwantedMayerto do the
same thing with "a few furtherembellishments."Mayerstated,
"Since (Hauser)was not only chairmanof my committeebut
responsiblefor givingmefundsto do this, I wentalongwithhim."
Mayer's greatest comfort was the frequent absences of his
mentors(Hauser,Wirth,andOgburn).Thisgavehimfreedomto
finish his work titled, "Differentialsof Life in Chicago, 1880-
1940,"andMayerstatedthatthe"distinguished triocouldnot say
much about it becausethey wereneveraroundto criticizeit."
Farber'sdissertation,"An Evaluation and Revision of the
Burgessand Wallin Rating Scale as a PredictionInstrument,"
was also influencedby his mentor.Unlike Mayer'sexperience
with Hauser,Farberviewedhis relationshipwith Burgessposi-
tivelyandwithfruitfulresults.Accordingto Farber(1985), in the
RatingScaleBurgessinitiateda frameworkon maritalprediction
but the conceptsrequiredmore specifictheoreticalreference.In
his dissertation, Farber filled the gap in Burgess'swork by
Ohm / CONTINUINGLEGACY 369

elaboratingupon the theoreticalbasis and by providinga closer


linkage between the concepts and empirical evidence in the
maritalpredictionscale.
Othermemorablerelationshipswereexemplifiedthroughthe
lighter side of mentor'sinfluenceson students. For example,
Lindstrom(1985)pickedup Ogburn'shabitof writingeverything
on 3 X 5 cards,going to class, reachingin his pocket,and taking
out the cards. OthersrememberedOgburn's"beingso stately"
and how he spoke "verydeliberatelyand so slowlythat you can
take each and every word down in your notes" (Glick, 1985;
Mayer,1985).Notetakingwasmoredifficultfor studentswho sat
in Wirth'slectureson Max Weber.Lindstrom(1985)commented
thatin class,"Wirthwouldreadin GermanWeber'sworkin long
sections,and he would smile,and would not translate."
By the end of WorldWarII, the Parkianapproachto student-
mentorrelationshipappearedto have lost its spark-indicating
the end of anothergeneration.Theworkingstylesof the Chicago
faculty became more individualistic.Thus the strengths and
weaknessesof students'associationswiththeirteachersdepended
upon who were involved. For instance, Farberfound Burgess
very accessible,but Blumer"a forbiddingindividual."On the
other hand, manystudents"complainedbitterlyabout Hughes'
lack of interestin theirwork"(Farber,1985).
Tracesof theirstudent-mentorexperiencesseemedevidentin
ASU Chicagoans'working styles. Smith attributedhis good
working relationshipswith students as an influencefrom his
positive experiencesat the Universityof Chicago. Lindstrom's
"open-door"policy,Farberas"thegreatmotivator,"andMayer's
candiddialogueon any issuecould probablybe linkedwith how
they interactedwith theirprofessorsand the ChicagoSociology
Department.

THEORETICALPERSPECTIVES
OF ASU CHICAGOANS
ThestandardAmericansociologyhadits rootsfromEuropean
influences, that is, Tarde and Durkheim (France), Weber,
370 SOCIOLOGICAL
PERSPECTIVES/ JULY 1988

Tonnies, and Simmel (Germany).Although the Universityof


Chicago becamethe intellectualcenter of Americansociology
during the early 1900s, this recognitionwas heavily debated
withinthe discipline(Mullins, 1973,p. 45).
ChicagoSchool'sfocus on pragmatismandempiricalresearch
projectedan image that suggestedan atheoreticalapproachto
sociology.The originalworkat Chicagowas describedby critics
as"dustbowl"empiricism,implyingthatresearchwasundertaken
without any theoreticalunderstandingof the issues involved.
However,a close examinationof the earlyresearchproducedby
Chicagoscholarsandtheirstudentsindicatedthattheirworkhad
been theoreticallyguided. The major theoreticalperspectives
were Park'sinterpretationof Simmel,Mead'sanalysisof social
interaction,"egologism,"the theory of communitygrowthand
development,which werebeing distilledat Chicagoduringthat
period(Mullins,1973,p. 45).
Chicago School sociology contained a broad spectrum of
specializations,from the qualitativeapproachesof social psy-
chology to quantitativetechniquesin analyzingdemographic
data. Between 1945 and 1954, Chicago producedthe greatest
number of symbolic interactionistswhen comparedwith any
other university.When NORC'ssurveyresearchgroup and the
demographersat the Universityof Chicagointegratedthemselves
with standardAmericansociology, an interestingcoexistence
betweenthe qualitativeand quantitativeorientationsemerged.
Thetheoreticalviewsof ASU Chicagoanswereas diverseas the
prevailingperspectivesat ChicagoafterWorldWarII. Lindstrom
continuedto assertthat therewas no theory at Chicago, and if
there was theory, it was minimum.Mayerfelt that there was a
lack of coherenttheoreticalbody and that adherenceto specific
theorieswentthrough"littlefads."Farberpositedthattherewas
some theory,but that dependedon which facultyan individual
workedwith.Onthe otherhand,Smithbelievedthattherewasan
overemphasison theoryat the university.
Whetheror not therewasa theoreticalframeworkdidnot seem
to affect the extensiveness of Chicago School's influences.
Despite Lindstrom'sview that therewas no theory, he credited
Ohm / CONTINUINGLEGACY 371

Wirth for teaching him "how to think like a Chicago sociologist."


Mayer (1985) shared the following opinion about the different
effects Chicago perspectives had on Farber, Lindstrom, and
himself:

Thinkingaboutthe threeof us, we'renot verymuchalikein any


way. Fred[Lindstrom]is not interestedin doingresearchhimself.
... He is actuallya splendidChicagoproduct.RobertMaynard
Hutchinswouldbe extremelyproudof Fred.... Bernie[Farber]
likes his research-his kind of researchwhichis not like mine.In
fact, he'sbasicallya researchperson.I thinkBerniewouldhateto
teachthe[course]ModernCity.... ButI likedoingthat[teaching]
and doing my own kind of research.

Smith (1985) confirmed the diversityamong the fourth-generation


Chicagoans with these comments:

They are certainlynot a uniformgroup ... I wouldjust have to


think that Farber is most likely to be rememberedin any
generation.... In the case of Mayer,I thinkhe'sturnedout some
very fine students(now engaged)in productivecareers.... The
waythisdepartmentoperatesis duein largemeasureto Lindstrom.
So, therearethreedifferentwaysof goingaboutthings... service,
research, and teaching. Lindstrom does his service, Farber
throughhis researchworkin thediscipline,andMayerthroughhis
teaching.

Figure 3 is a rough sketch of linkages among different


individuals influencing ASU Chicagoans. Here, Durkheim,
Simmel, and Weber were included to illustrate some influences
from European sociology. Not named in Figure 3 were the many
scholars 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 the
interviews). However, the figure suggests the enormity of influ-
ences within a school and the complexity of how an individual
interprets such diverse influences in his or her teaching, thinking,
and working styles.
372 SOCIOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVES / JULY 1988

/ BURGESS WIRTH OGBURN

HUGHES BLUMER HAUSER S TOUFFER

FARBER LINDSTROM MAYER JANOWITZ

NORC > SMITH


??
I - --
_

Figure 3: Linkages Among Individuals Important to the Development of the Chicago


School and Chicagoans at Arizona State University
SOURCES: Mullins, 1973; Interviews with Farber, Lindstrom, Mayer, and Smith,
1985.
KEY: * Influence of teacher to student.
------. Influence via course work or colleague to colleague.

CHICAGOVERSUSOTHERSCHOOLS
When asked about how they compareChicago School with
otheruniversitiessuchas Harvard,Columbia,andBerkeleywhen
they were students, ASU Chicagoans'responsesindicated an
ethnocentricviewof theiralmamater.However,this was not an
unusualattitudeamongany universityalumniparticularlywhen
people'scareerswereassociatedwith theirdegrees.
An assessmentof the Universityof Chicago in recent years
drewa moreobjectiveevaluation.Fourth-generation Chicagoans
agreed that the school'sgolden yearswere over. The retirement,
death, and transfersto otherschools of manysecond- andthird-
Ohm / CONTINUINGLEGACY 373

generationscholarsendedthe lasttracesof Chicago'sdominance


in the discipline.Glick(1985)expressedthat

Chicagocertainlyhad a veryprimaryinfluencein the trainingof


people who werestudyingin the 1920'sand 1930'sand who were
teaching in the 1930's,40's, and through the 60's. But they're
mostly retiredor gone. ... As a matterof fact, I have a little
problemidentifyingor characterizingthe ChicagoSchool at the
presenttime.

Comparingthe Universityof Chicagowith other schools was


not as greata concernto ASU Chicagoansas theirinterestin the
state of sociology in the academicarena. Mayer (1985) found
himself "not thrilled"about being in sociology. He expressed,
"It'spartlymy fault, partlythe fault of the discipline,and partly
the fault of the human race. Sociology really does not get
anyplace."For Smith (1985),"sociologyis bankrupt-there are
veryfew new ideasin the discipline."
In spite of the perceivedproblemsin sociology, Chicagoans
indicateda commitment"to enlistthe top students"(Lindstrom,
1985), "to transmit knowledge"(Smith, 1985), and "to train
them"(Mayer, 1985).Farber(1985) suggestedthat the thing to
aim for was to diversify-"to get out of these ruts,to try andput
things together, to realize how much fun it is to put literary
criticismandsociologicaltheorytogetherratherthanjust to look
at it."

CONCLUDINGREMARKS

Broadlyspeaking,the continuityof a legacydependsuponhow


the presentgenerationmaintainsandpasseson the philosophical
viewpointsandtheoreticaltraditionsof priorgenerations.In this
study, the intellectual influences have been traced from the
Chicago forerunnersto currentASU students. The cases pre-
sented here provide evidence that the Chicago School legacy,
withstandingthe changesin faculty and perspectivesfrom one
generationto the next, lives on.
374 PERSPECTIVES/ JULY 1988
SOCIOLOGICAL

Severallimitationswere encounteredin chartingthe genea-


logical lines of Chicago School's influences.First, this study's
viewof intellectualhistorywasguidedby linkagestraceableto the
experiencesof Lindstrom,Mayer,Farber,Smith,andtheirASU
students.Second, space did not allow for the inclusionof every
possibledetail.For instance,eachinterviewinvolvedan average
of one and a half hour's discussionon differentissues. Taped
interviewstranslatedinto more than 100 pages of transcripts.
Third, there was much overlappingbetweeneach genealogical
era. Fourth,focusingon any one universitylimitedthe extent to
whichChicagoSchool'slegacycouldbe traced.Finally,therewas
a lack of information regardingprevious students of ASU
Chicagoans.Tracingthe whereaboutsof ASU sociology alumni
wasnot an impossibletask;but,to findnon-ASUstudentswould
be costly and time consuming.
Chicagoansand their studentshad diverseinterests.Even if
onewereableto classifythem,forexample,Burgessites,Parkians,
Lindstromites,Farberians,Mayerites,or Smithians,thedynamic
transformationof variousinfluencesover time makes"unique"
identificationelusive. Thus the main limitationin this type of
studyhadto do withthe diffusionof ChicagoSchool'sinfluences
throughotheruniversitiesand individualscholars.
The experiencesand intellectualorientationsof fourth- and
fifth-generationASU Chicagoanswere not that differentfrom
those of theirmentors.Conversely,theirmentorsechoedmost of
the teachingsof the first- and second-generationscholars.It is
apparentthat the Universityof Chicagono longeremulatesthe
intellectualstanceof earliergenerations.However,the transfor-
mationsin the school'stheoreticaland methodologicalviews are
evidenceof Chicago'sprogressivethinking,whicharecongruent
with the nation's growth in knowledgeand technology.What
remainsconstantin the ChicagoSchool legacyis the "gusto"in
teaching and doing sociology. CurrentgenerationChicagoans
andtheirstudentsemulatethe enthusiasmof the mentorsbefore
them.
Theinfluencesof Lindstrom,Mayer,Farber,Smith,andGlick
on their graduatestudentsare far reaching.The four doctoral
Ohm / CONTINUINGLEGACY 375

studentsmentionedin this study have tappedthe wide rangeof


specializationsof their mentors, representingboth qualitative
and quantitative orientations of subdisciplinesin sociology.
Upon completing their degrees, these students are likely to
advancethe intellectualinfluencesdrawnfrom theirteachersto
their(future)studentsand/or colleagues-Lin in Taiwan,Nakai
in Japan, Ohm and DeOllos in settingsoutsideArizona.
It seemsfairto concludethatthe so-called"goldenera"did not
end with the retirementand/or death of Chicago School fore-
runners.Rather,the golden era should be appliedto the years
after World War II with the scatteringof Chicagosociologists
throughoutthe worldandthe growthof SociologyDepartments
acrossmanyuniversitiesand colleges.

REFERENCES

ArizonaStateUniversityBulletin.1985/1986."Faculty,UniversityOfficesandServices."
Pp. 216-279in GraduateCatalog,1983-84/1984-85(Vol. XCVIII).Tempe:Arizona
State University.
Arizona State University,Departmentof Sociology. 1986. Faculty Roster. Tempe:
ArizonaStateUniversity.
Bulmer,Martin.1984.TheChicagoSchoolof Sociology:Institutionalization, Diversity,
and the Rise of SociologicalResearch.Chicago:Universityof ChicagoPress.
Carey,JamesT. 1975.Sociologyand PublicAffairs:TheChicagoSchool.BeverlyHills,
CA: Sage.
Farber,Bernard.1985."PersonalInterviewandCommunications withProfessorBernard
Farber,a Chicagoanat ArizonaState University."Unpublishedinterviewby Rose
MarieOhm,ArizonaStateUniversity,Departmentof Sociology.
Faris,RobertE. L. 1970.ChicagoSociology:1920-1932.San Francisco:Chandler.
Glick, Paul C. 1985. "PersonalInterviewand Communicationson Chicago School
Experienceswith ProfessorPaul C. Glick."Unpublishedinterviewby Rose Marie
Ohm,ArizonaStateUniversity,Departmentof Sociology.
Kurtz,LesterR. 1984.EvaluatingChicagoSociology:A Guideto theLiterature,Withan
AnnotatedBibliography. Chicago:Universityof ChicagoPress.
Lindstrom,FrederickB. 1985."PersonalInterviewandCommunications withProfessor
FrederickB. Lindstrom,a Chicagoanat ArizonaState University."Unpublished
interviewby Rose MarieOhm,ArizonaStateUniversity,Departmentof Sociology.
Mayer,AlbertJ. 1985."PersonalInterviewandCommunications withProfessorAlbertJ.
Mayer,a Chicagoanat ArizonaState University."Unpublishedinterviewby Rose
MarieOhm,ArizonaStateUniversity,Departmentof Sociology.
376 SOCIOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVES / JULY 1988

Mullins, Nicholas C. 1973. Theories and Theory Groups in Contemporary American


Sociology. New York: Harper & Row.
Short, James F. Jr. 1971. The Social Fabric of the Metropolis: Contributions of the
Chicago School of Urban Sociology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Smith, A. Wade. 1985. "Personal Interview and Communications with Associate
Professor A. Wade Smith, a Chicagoan at Arizona State University." Unpublished
interview by Rose Marie Ohm, Arizona State University, Department of Sociology.
Vine, Margaret W. 1969. An Introduction to Sociological Theory. New York: David
MacKay.

Rose Marie Ohm (Ph.D., Arizona State University, 1971) is a Program Associate
at the headquarters of the National Conference of Christiansand Jews. She works
directly with group process specialists, teachers, and community volunteers in
developing and implementing nationwide youth intergroup leadership programs
sponsored by NCCJ. Her current interests include work in the area of social
distance, collective behavior, applied sociology, group processes, and cross-
cultural gender study.

You might also like