Chicago School of Sociology

This paper examines the beginnings of the "Chicago School" of sociology, the founding of the University of Chicago's Department of Sociology. This historical overview is intended to show the historical setting and philosophical inclinations of the early school, and to introduce the key individuals behind the department. The history also establishes the relationships between the founders and the practitioners who carried on the development of the department, and to briefly explore the history of the school's theoretical development by examining the basic differences between a Behaviorist and Symbolic Interactionist theoretical approach. Next, the paper examines the definition of "school" and presents arguments from various researchers that demonstrate an ongoing debate about what the "Chicago School" actually means. Finally, basic conclusions that can be drawn from the history, theory, and debate of the definition of "Chicago School," and comments on the Chicago School's influence in the field of sociology are offered.

Keywords American Journal of Sociology (AJS); Behaviorism; Chicago School of Sociology; Empiricism; Ethnography; Fieldwork; National Opinion Research Center (NORC); Society for Social Research (SSR); Symbolic Interactionism; Urban Sociology

Population, Urbanization & the Environment > The Chicago School of Sociology

Overview

The Chicago School of Sociology

The University of Chicago was founded in 1892 and from its inception the University formed the first separate Department of Sociology in the world. The fact that it was the first independent sociology department likely contributed to the department's need to establish a well-contemplated approach to the field, and to develop what could clearly be considered a departmental program. Cortese (1995) notes that the political and philosophical underpinnings in American society at the time were strongly liberal, and this caused the new department to immediately become more concentrated on addressing "social problems" (¶ 12) which probably made theory development a lower priority. Cortese also observes that, in addition to the liberal philosophy permeating the newly founded university, Christianity and the particular values of late 1800's Christian society influenced the development of the new Chicago sociology department. He supports that argument with the interesting observation that four of the first professors — including the founder of the department, Albion Woodbury Small — were all Christian ministers. A.W. Small chaired the new department for its first thirty years, so it is quite likely that the department was influenced with a Christian sense of values and morality.

Cortese asserts that Small did not distinguish between sociology and religious values, and this was probably the main reason that the department was so closely linked to social welfare (Cortese, 1995, ¶ 21). This period in America is concurrent with the Victorian era in England, a period when, in the cities burgeoning from the industrial revolution, a prosperous middle class emphasized the virtues of morality and education, and various social reforms became popular. Thus, from its inception, reform-oriented Christian liberals guided Chicago University's Department of Sociology, and they focused on analyzing and addressing problems in American society from a moral point of view. Their studies were aimed at advising government policymakers toward developing programs that would help decrease poverty, illiteracy, child labor, delinquency, alcoholism or other social ills.

Once the department had become established, it entered a new phase of its development, mainly because of two professors, American sociologist Robert Park and Canadian sociologist Ernest Burgess. These two worked closely together and created a work entitled "The City," and this book essentially formed the foundation of the "Chicago School." According to Burns (1996), both professors believed that the field of sociology should be moved more toward an experimental science, meaning some of the moral and Christian premises underlying sociology should be replaced with a more empirical method (p. 476). Faught (1980) clarifies this philosophical shift of Park's seminal work, "The City," when he argues that Park formulated his sociological concepts empirically "to provide a critical stimulus to legitimating what came to be the Chicago School Paradigm." Faught quotes another important figure in the Chicago School, Everett Hughes, whom Park mentored. Hughes recounts the effect of Park's "The City:"

The City as Social Laboratory

Burns notes that both Burgess and Park encouraged their students to perceive Chicago as a "social laboratory" where sociologists could carry out their studies, research or experiments (Burns, 1996, p. 476). Harvey notes that, during this same period, the department created the Society for Social Research (SSR — organized in autumn, 1921), and that the organization's mission was to gather students and staff so as to develop research projects. According to Harvey, who quotes Park, the SSR was originally founded to "stimulate a wider interest and a more intelligent co-operation among faculty and students in a program of studies that focused investigation on the local community" (Harvey, 1987, p. 257). Thus, the principle of using the city of Chicago as a large sociological laboratory began with Park, and was further developed through the inception of the SSR.

Cortese gives an interesting summary of Park's personality, and the description seems relevant when considering what kind of sociology Park was engaged in at the University of Chicago. Park, who graduated from the University of Michigan in 1887, worked over a decade as a newspaper reporter in various large cities around America — New York, Detroit, Denver, Baltimore, and Chicago. Cortese writes that Park "often roamed urban streets without specific assignment and became enamored with degenerate environments," and that "newspaper assignments … sent him to gambling houses and opium dens that first sparked Park's interest in sociology" (Cortese, 1995, ¶ 37). Thus, Park seems to have understood the importance of observing humanity rather than formulating theories to apply to humanity; his sociological theories were probably guided and formulated through observing people. On the other hand, we should recognize that many of these founding professors, as well as those who most influenced the School, either studied in Germany (like Park) or applied German philosophy and German sociological theory. Thus, theory certainly was not altogether ignored or completely replaced by Christian liberal philosophy, as might seem the case.

Theory in the Chicago School seems to have developed by first analyzing people and the institutions of society. Cortese notes that Park had a tendency to analyze the larger schemes of "revolution, anarchism, crowds, collective behavior, geography, peasants, cities, race relations, and human ecology," and Cortese believes that Park's personality "cannot be overlooked as factors which made him the leader and key figure of the Chicago School" (Cortese, 1995, ¶ 48). Park's fascination with people, from both a social and philosophical standpoint, is probably why the department carried out a lot of research and studies that were about "race and ethnicity, intergroup relations, immigration into American society, and the social problems of urban areas, notably Chicago" (Cortese, 1995, ¶ 51). Harvey observes that, whenever researchers have written about the Chicago "School" of Sociology, Park is usually in the center of the discussion; in fact, what some authors have referred to as the "Golden Era" of the Chicago School is precisely the period in which Park worked within the department. This is why Harvey notes that, "One way of describing the 'school' has been to simply link together the faculty in the Department at the time Park was a member" (Harvey, 1987, p. 261).

During this period, there seems to have been tension in developing the right theoretical approach for sociology. On the one hand there was the fact that sociology is focused on people and societies, which requires observation and interpretation of human behavior. On the other hand there is the desire to be based in objective science and a quantitative scientific method. During this period, the theory of Behaviorism was under development, and Behaviorism is a strongly inductive and data driven approach to human behavior. It may be that the Chicago School was faced with either accepting the tenets of Behaviorism as its theoretical approach, or rejecting it by developing a different theoretical foundation.

The "New" Chicago School

We have already seen the characteristics of the early period as well as the "Golden Era"; from those phases many researchers believe that a "New Chicago School" came into being in the 1950s, and this new school flourished for the next two decades. According to Harvey, this new school was not solely based in Chicago, although that is its source. This is an important point because this distinguishes between "school" as a place and "school' as a set of particular theories and methods to which some group subscribes. Harvey (1987) writes that the New Chicago School arose from a "post-war cohort of graduate students at Chicago, such as Becker and his associates who were heavily influenced by [Everett] Hughes" (p. 267). This new school attempted to change the direction of research away from a strictly "quantitative approach to sociology." Harvey notes that the new generation of sociologists (such as Hughes) thought that a quantitative approach was creating "theoretical sterility of sociology." The New Chicago School concentrated on creating a "systematic, open and empirical approach to theory construction." According to Harvey, this allowed the new generation of academicians to "take into account the richness of social reality while adopting rigorous sociological method" (1987, p. 267). It seems sociologists at Chicago believed that Behaviorism — a strict application of objective science on human beings — might deprive them of interpreting human behavior and society to create a more fruitful body of research. However, the seeds to their new theoretical approach were actually being sown during the "Golden Era" of the Chicago School.

Symbolic Interactionism

The Chicago School is well known for its development and support of the theory of "symbolic interactionism", and we should note that this theoretical approach to human behavior is quite in opposition to the methods of Behaviorism. University of Chicago professor George Herbert Mead, who taught in the Philosophy Department of Chicago, influenced Herbert Blumer, the Chicago sociologist who created the theory of symbolic interactionism. Mead authored the book Mind, Self, and Society, which was published by the University of Chicago Press in 1934. Cortese observes that "Mead's major thesis is that the human mind and self arose in a process of social interaction." Mead also argues that "reflexivity, the ability to objectify oneself, is what differentiates humans from other animals". Blumer, who studied under Mead, seems to have taken Mead's model of the social self, which focuses on "the fluidity and continuous negotiation of the social order," and developed the theory of symbolic interactionism (Cortese, 1995, ¶ 50).

Burns (1996) notes that Mead was very much aware of Behaviorism, and there is evidence Mead was reacting against its basic premises. Burns explains that Mead thought behaviorism — and "radical behaviorism" in particular — "reduces human conduct to the status of being nothing more than reactive animal behaviour, a response to some physiological stimulus" (1996, p. 478). Mead argued that this completely ignores what makes human behavior uniquely "human", which Burns refers to as meaningful behaviour. Mead believed that to explain human behavior, a theory must take this into account. As Burns expresses the argument, "It [an adequate theory] must recognise that what needs to be explained is not simply behaviour, but 'action'" (p. 479). Mead believed that this requires psychologists and sociologists to recognize the existence of the mind and its inner mental states which are not directly observable, and therefore are ignored by the Behaviorist theory (Burns, 1996, p. 479). In short, the Chicago School emphasized subjectivity, and the need to interpret human behavior, which essentially defines what symbolic interactionism is all about. Additionally, this theoretical viewpoint complements an ethnographic approach, since fieldwork involves an interviewer interpreting the actions of a participant.

Further Insights

Becker (1999) summarizes the history and conception of the "Chicago School" (as perceived by many researchers), and Becker's summary expresses the interaction between the various influential practitioners of the Chicago School of Sociology:

Defining the School

However, Becker summarizes the characteristics above, on what sociologists mean when they say "Chicago School", only to call into question the idea of a "Chicago School." Becker observes that there were many sociologists who held quite varying theoretical opinions at Chicago during every period of its development. He writes that "by no means all of them were participants in the "Chicago tradition," as it is now conceived, and some of those whose work was congruent with the Chicago tradition had scarcely heard of it" (p. 7). Becker notes that any of the sociologists who were there during the period that the school was becoming renowned — Becker worked in the department during the late 1940s and early 1950s — were quite aware that there were "great differences that divided the faculty and their styles of work, divisions that were passed on to the students, some of whom became serious devotees of one or another of the faculty, but most of whom made their own idiosyncratic combinations of the variety of ingredients they were offered" (Becker, 1999, p. 5). Thus, Becker points out that nobody in the Chicago Department of Sociology considered themselves devotees of a unified "Chicago School" paradigm.

Harvey (1987) argues that sociologists and historians use the term "school" to help unravel the "complex interrelations of ideas, research practice and personnel in all branches of the sciences and the humanities" (p. 246). The term "school" is then a "nominalist shorthand" that academicians use to "designate a group of academics acting in some co-operative, coincidental or other common manner, usually incorporating the idea that they are using the same basic theoretical or conceptual presuppositions" (Harvey, 1987, p. 246). However, this also brings up an interesting question, Who created and assigned the label, 'Chicago School?' If we look at the sociologists who built the Chicago School, it seems that they were not the ones to create the term, as we can see from Becker's description above. Becker also observes that Louis Wirth, who was a contemporary of Hughes and Blumer, and who studied under Robert Park, often said he "could never understand what people were talking about when they spoke of the Chicago School". Wirth could not identify anything, no idea or style of work, that he and his colleagues shared (Becker, 1999, p. 5). Harvey reaches the same conclusion, after he carried out research into the Chicago sociologists during the period that the Chicago School came into being and flourished. Harvey observes that these sociologists "did not see themselves as a 'school' with a 'founder-leader' nor as working within a set of core presuppositions" (Harvey, 1987, p. 255).

Harvey also points out that there aren't any references to the "Chicago School of Sociology" in any of the published literature during the first fifty years from the time the department was founded, and he argues that the Chicago sociologists did not even use the term informally. This is why, like Becker, Harvey comes to the conclusion that "indeed, the Chicagoans have been more inclined to see themselves a diverse group with wide interests rather than as a sect-like solidarity grouping pursuing common goals" (Harvey, 1987, p. 255). Harvey also quotes one of the main influences on the Chicago School, Everett Hughes, as saying that people other than the Chicago sociologists invented the phrase "Chicago School" (Harvey, 1987, p. 256), and Becker is quite emphatic on this same point:

Thus, it seems that sociologists and historians who were not part of the "School" came up with the label, and have successfully applied and propagated that label until many believe that the Chicago School is something it may not have been. Apparently, the sociologists at Chicago were not, at least consciously and intentionally, carrying on a theoretical tradition that was the center of a specific "School". But are historians wrong to use the term "Chicago School," even if those within the "School" did not create or apply the term? Not necessarily, and especially not if we examine the similarities of the Chicago sociologists in areas other than pure theory. Cortese observes that the Chicago School combined three basic types of sociological method:

• The case study which was descriptive of the "whole;"
• The historical method which included the use of autobiographies, diaries, and personal letters; and
• The statistical method which provided measurement (1995).

Cortese also observes that "there was a sequence in the use of methods during the process of a research project." First, the researcher examined the existing statistical data, any relevant historical narratives, and descriptive accounts. After this, the sociologist conducted case studies through observation, research interview, or diary. The sociologist used historical methods to examine and understand the traditions and past of the group, and then statistical analyses were run with case study results. Cortese argues that "the emphasis on complimentary research methods was characteristic of the Chicago School, reflecting an openness to different approaches and a focus on high quality research" (Cortese, 1995, ¶ 61). The fact that symbolic interactionism theoretically supported such methods may have been secondary, but there were many likenesses in the studies and books that reached publication through the school, and this indicates historians have reason to refer to a "Chicago School". Also, if we look at these studies, they are faithful to the vision of Park, that the city of Chicago should be a giant laboratory where humans and society are studied.

Becker argues for this same view of what the "Chicago School" should mean. Becker notes that the Chicago School is a "school of activity" that concentrates on training new sociologists, awarding degrees and maintaining a high reputation within and beyond the university. Becker hits the central argument when he writes:

Conclusion

Burns recognizes Becker's and others' concept of what the "Chicago School" means. Burns observes that, when examining U.S. history of social sciences, the Chicago School is most significant because it was a move away from abstract social theory to empirical social research (Burns, 1996, p. 475). Also, there definitely was a "Chicago School" in the sense that it was highly influential throughout the U.S., and also throughout the world — not only for the reasons argued above, but for other reasons as well. For example, the National Opinion Research Center made its headquarters at the University of Chicago (and is still headquartered there) and this made survey research an important part of doing sociology. As Becker notes, many students worked at NORC and students got into the habit of using survey data in their dissertations (Becker, 1999, p. 6). Also, even from the beginning of the department, Small founded the American Journal of Sociology (AJS), and served as its editor for 30 years, which meant the Chicago School was highly influential through the main professional journal for the entire field of sociology (Cortese, 1995, ¶ 14). For this and various other reasons given above, some sociologists argue for good reason that the "Chicago School" is the most important influence on the history of American sociology (Cortese, 1995, ¶ 86).

We can see this influential effect in the writings of other sociologists who were not initially connected to the "Chicago School." For example, Schein, who was trained in Sociology at Stanford and Harvard, writes about the importance of his becoming acquainted with the Chicago School, and most likely many other sociologists experienced the same epiphany in varying degrees. Schein writes that he was well-trained in the art of setting up experiments and making variables valid, but he was not aware of "another very important scientific principle, namely, that in order to define variables as good, either in the sense of making a theoretical difference or in the sense of helping one to understand a phenomenon, one had to conduct very good observation in the field" (1989, p. 103). Schein argues that, once he tried incorporating a symbolic interactionist point of view, "suddenly, a great deal of behavior that seemed silly or irrational made complete sense to me" (p. 103). As Faught points out, "It is a testimony to the influence of the Chicago School that many of these presuppositions have become incorporated into much of contemporary sociology" (Faught, 1980, p. 76). Faught has come to the central point about the "Chicago School": Probably, the most important aspect to the "Chicago School" for sociologists, is that it emphasized the importance of using various methods for doing sociology, and these methods, such as ethnography and field work, are common to sociology, in general, as we know it today.

Terms & Concepts

American Journal of Sociology (AJS): The oldest scholarly journal of sociology in the United States. The journal was established in 1895 by Albion Woodbury Small, and is still today published bimonthly by the University of Chicago Press.

Behaviorism: A psychological theory based on the proposition that all things which organisms do must be regarded as behaviors. This school of thought maintains that behaviors can be described scientifically without reference either to internal physiological activity or to hypothetical constructs such as the mind. Learning as a change in behavior brought about by the environment.

Chicago School of Sociology: This school of sociology began with Robert Park and his theories of urban sociology. It has continued studies on human behavior as determined by social structures and physical environmental factors, rather than genetic and personal characteristics.

Empiricism: A theory of knowledge which maintains that knowledge comes from experience. Empiricism is a view of how we know what we know. It emphasizes the role of experience and evidence (particularly sensory perception) in the formation of ideas. Empiricism discounts the notion of innate ideas.

Ethnography: A genre of human society research that uses fieldwork to present a holistic research method founded on the idea that a system's properties are not necessarily accurately understood independently.

Fieldwork: The collection of raw data, mainly in the natural and social sciences studies. Scientific methodologists also call fieldwork "field research." In sociology, fieldwork is interviewing or observing human subjects to learn their language, folklore, and social structures.

National Opinion Research Center (NORC): A social research organization located on the University of Chicago campus. NORC conducts research projects involving opinion survey and other data collection and technology strategies.

Society for Social Research (SSR): The Graduate Student organization serving the Sociology Department at the University of Chicago. SSR was founded in the early 1920s by the Department of Sociology as a collegial research group for advanced graduate students and faculty. Over the course of its history, it has served as the intellectual home for many of the classic Chicago School studies (http://sociology.uchicago.edu/graduate/ssr.shtml).

Symbolic Interactionism: A major sociological perspective that was developed in the work of American sociologist George Herbert Mead. It holds that our 'selves' are social products, but these selves are also purposive and creative.

Bibliography

Becker, H. (1999). The Chicago School, so-called. Qualitative Sociology, 22, 3–12. Retrieved September 25, 2008 from EBSCO online database Academic Search Premier http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=11302651&site=ehost-live

Burns, T. (1996). The theoretical underpinnings of Chicago sociology in the 1920s and 30s. Sociological Review, 44, 474–494. Retrieved September 25, 2008 from EBSCO online database Academic Search Premier http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=9612125443&site=ehost-live

Cortese, A. (1995). The rise, hegemony, and decline of the Chicago School of Sociology, 1892-1945. Social Science Journal, 32, 235–255. Retrieved September 25, 2008 from EBSCO online database Academic Search Premier http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=9508095969&site=ehost-live

Faught, J. (1980). Presuppositions of the Chicago school in the work of Everett C. Hughes. American Sociologist, 15, 72–82. Retrieved September 25, 2008 from EBSCO online database Academic Search Premier http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=4947838&site=ehost-live

Hammersley, M. (2010). The case of the disappearing dilemma: Herbert Blumer on sociological method. History of the Human Sciences, 23, 70–90. Retrieved October 23, 2013 from EBSCO online database SocINDEX with Full Text http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=56097107

Harvey, L. (1987). The nature of "schools" in the sociology of knowledge: The case of the 'Chicago School'. Sociological Review, 35, 245–278. Retrieved September 25, 2008 from EBSCO online database Academic Search Premier http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=5473599&site=ehost-live

Marwell, G. (2012). Departmental demography and reputational success: The fall and rise of top sociology departments 1950–1980. American Sociologist, 43, 294–309. Retrieved October 23, 2013 from EBSCO online database SocINDEX with Full Text http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=78643832

Schein, E. (1989). A social psychologist discovers Chicago sociology. Academy of Management Review, 14, 103. Retrieved September 24, 2008 from EBSCO online database SocINDEX with Full Text http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=4279016&site=ehost-live

Wiley, N. (2011). The Chicago school: A political interpretation. Studies in Symbolic Interaction, 36: 39–74. Retrieved October 23, 2013 from EBSCO online database SocINDEX with Full Text http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=62547833

Suggested Reading

Athens, L. (2012). Mead's analysis of social conflict: A radical interactionist's critique. American Sociologist, 43, 428–447. Retrieved October 23, 2013 from EBSCO online database SocINDEX with Full Text http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=84368863

Kivisto, P. (1990). The transplanted then and now: the reorientation of immigration studies from the Chicago School to the new social history. Ethnic & Racial Studies, 13, 455–483. Retrieved September 24, 2008 from EBSCO online database SocINDEX with Full Text http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=10445921&site=ehost-live

Glenn, D. (2007). A sociologist offers a harsh assessment of how his discipline treats race relations. Chronicle of Higher Education, 54, A13–A15. Retrieved September 25, 2008 from EBSCO online database, Academic Search Premier http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=27600176&site=ehost-live

MacLean, T. (2008). Framing and organizational misconduct: A symbolic interactionist study. Journal of Business Ethics, 78(1/2), 3–16. Retrieved September 25, 2008 from EBSCO online database Business Source Premier http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=buh&AN=28541409&site=ehost-live

Snell, P. (2010). From Durkheim to the Chicago school: Against the 'variables sociology' paradigm. Journal of Classical Sociology, 10, 51–67. Retrieved October 23, 2013 from EBSCO online database SocINDEX with Full Text http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=48052109

Stryker, S. (2008). From Mead to a structural symbolic interactionism and beyond. Annual Review of Sociology, 34, 15–31. Retrieved September 25, 2008 from EBSCO online database Academic Search Premier http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=34131186&site=ehost-live