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: 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 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 is 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 significant of impacton the establishment American From the time of its twentieth-century sociology. founding throughthe first five decades,its scholarshad a lastingeffect on both sociologicalthinkingand social reform.Moreover,Chicagoans shaped the intellectual of futuresociologiststhroughteachingand development thefindingsof a of theirstudents. Thisarticle guidingthe research reports casestudythatexaminesthe perceptions of scholars whoweregraduated fromthe University of Chicago.It presents theirperceptions of howtheir trainingat Chicagocompareswith their own workwith students,their ownstyleof research, andtheirviewof thediscipline itself.An analysisof and contributions to sociology provide Chicagoans'accomplishments or not the legacyof Chicagois beinghandeddownto insighton whether Two primarysourcesof information presentgenerationacademicians. are used to determinethe intellectualtrends and influencesof the with sociologyfacultyat Universityof Chicago:(1) focusedinterviews ArizonaStateUniversity who weregraduated fromChicagoafterWorld WarII, and(2) a surveyof ASU sociologygraduate students. Considered of manygraduate-degree in the country, "typical" grantinguniversities ASU providesa sufficient number of casesto tracethe important aspects 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 disciwith an apolitical approach to social reform pline-coupled (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 / CONTINUING LEGACY

361

communicationand transportationcontributedto an image and "American." buildingthat was new, innovative,permissive, research By 1930,the Schoolwasthe leadingcenterfor empirical and educational ideas in Chicago (Carey, 1975, pp. 21-37; Bulmer,1984,pp. 4-6). The city itself becamea provingground for the School'spragmatist approach-a traditionthatcontinued to recenttimes. Theintellectual thatwereoperative in theworkof assumptions them from set social scientists elseChicago sociologists apart where. Particularlyamong the early students at Chicago, the sociological interests and methodological perspectives were drawn away from the "inhibitingconsequencesof [European] leaders" doctrines,schools of thought,and authoritative (Faris, created 1970,p. 88;Short,1971,p. xiv). Thisinnovative approach the ChicagoSchool legacy, which so stronglyinfluencedtwenAmericansociology. Chicagoscholarsshapedthe tieth-century intellectualdevelopmentof futuresociologistsby teachingand guidingthe workof theirstudentsandby usingfreshapproaches to sociologicalthinking.

RESEARCHAGENDA

This articlereportsthefindingsof a casestudy.It examinesthe of scholarswho weregraduated fromthe University perceptions of Chicago.It presentstheirperceptions of how theirtrainingat Chicagocompareswith theirown workwith students,theirown andtheirviewof thediscipline itself.An analysis styleof research, of Chicagoans' and contributions to sociology accomplishments or not thelegacyof Chicagois being providesinsightinto whether 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 interviews with ASU sociologygraduatestudents. Considered"typical" of many graduate-degree grantinguniversitiesin the country, ASU provides a sufficientnumberof casesto tracesomeof the important effectsof the ChicagoSchool legacy.ASU claimsan enrollmentof morethan 40,000 students and a core of approximately 5,000 employees.Of 1,500faculty 40 at earned least one degreefromthe University members, (2.7%) of Chicago.Thistranslates to 27 (67.5%) completedtheirPh.D.s, 7 (17.5%)earnedtheir master's,and 6 (15.0%)their bachelor's of the40 facultymembers degreesat Chicago.In total, 19(47.5%) aresocialscientists,and5 (12.5%) aresociologists(ArizonaState UniversityBulletin,1985/1986). In total, 4 of the 5 sociologists interviewedcompletedtheir doctoralworkat the University of Chicago.Thearticle focuseson those who earnedtheir Ph.D.s at Chicago:FrederickB. Lindstrom, 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 interviewed.Of21 tenured facultyat the ASU SociologyDepartment, the Chicagoansrepresented the largestnumberfrom any given school (Department of Sociology FacultyRoster,Spring1986). ASU's 30 full-timesociologygraduatestudentsweresurveyed influencesof facultyin theirintellectual regarding development. Overall, 19 (63%)respondedto the survey.Those who did not respondwere mostly studentsin the master'sprogramand had not been at ASU long enoughto assessfacultyinfluences. Interviews withthe Chicagoans andgraduate studentsfocused on issues such as student-mentor relationships;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 criticism lackof theoretical orienparticular regarding Chicago's of the futuretrendsin sociology. tation;and an assessment

LEGACY Ohm / CONTINUING

363

INTELLECTUAL LINEAGE: 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 to difficultiesin assigningspecifictimelinesfrom one generation Park's from the the next. For instance,RobertE. termextended 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 in the world in any university Chicago,the firstsuchdepartment Mullins,1973,p. 41;Bulmer,1984,p. 8). (Vine,1969,pp. 346-347; From thereon, each generationis designatedby a historicalera eventin the ChicagoSchool legacy.As that has a corresponding shown in Figure 1, these generationsare the first generation, fromthe school'sfoundingto the end of WorldWarI; 1892-1918, the second generation,1919-1930,the depressionera;the third from the depressionto the end of World generation,1931-1946, 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 the Parkian whentheteaching stylesno longeremulated approach the other in mentor-student On hand, the fourth relationship. of Wirth, end was markedby the retirement/death generation's Ogburn,Burgess,and other sociologists connectedwith prior generations. Figure 1 shows the first-, second-, and third-generation scholarswho arecited as amongthe most influentialin Chicago are School'sintellectual history.Personsfromthefirstgeneration for establishing thestandard American credited sociology(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 H. Mead* George E. Park* Robert

SECOND GENERATION SCHOLARS (1919-1930) W. Burgess* Ernest F. Ogburn* William Wirth* Louis Herbert Blumer*

FOURTH GENERATION SCHOLARS 1960's) (1947-Mid A.S.U. Chicagoans Frederick Lindstrom Albert J. Mayer Bernard Farber Non-A.S.U. Morris Janowitz

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

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

Ohm / CONTINUING LEGACY

365

1984, p. 2). Duringtheir terms, Chicagoproducedthe greatest in the producnumberof graduatestudentsand was unmatched tion of scholarlymaterialswhen comparedwith other leading suchas Harvard, universities Yale,andColumbia (Mullins,1973, p. 43). joined the faculty,Chicago By the time the secondgeneration 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 Chicagoenvironment. The second and third generationscholarsnamedin Figure 1 directly influencedthe intellectualdevelopmentand work of Lindstrom, Mayer,and Farber.For instance,WirthandWarner master'sthesis (1941) and dissertation Lindstrom's supervised chairedMayer'sdissertation Hauser (1950). (1950),respectively. On the otherhand, BurgessinfluencedFarber's (1953)work on maritalsuccess. predicting for MorrisJanowitzwasincludedamongthefourthgeneration of as cohort students two reasons:First,Janowitzwasin the same Lindstrom,Mayer, and Farber. Mayer (1985) confirmedthat Janowitzwas one of severalclassmateswho had gained prominencein the discipline.Second, and more important,Janowitz was among several scholars who influenced the intellectual of Smith. development with 2 links thefourth-andfifth-generation Chicagoans Figure currentASU doctoralstudents.Sung-LingLin, RumikoNakai, Rose Marie Ohm, and Ione DeOllos claimed that Lindstrom, Mayer,Farber,and/or Smithwereinfluentialin theiracademic hadbeen Althoughotherfaculty(non-Chicagoans) development. 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

and Glick.Under thinkingand influencesof Farber,Lindstrom, Nakai's interest in urban Mayer's mentorship, ecology and was broadened. DeOllos'spreliminary demography studyon 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's influencein theirtheoretical views.Thislinkagemaybe and attributedto the curriculum design teachingassignments. Only a handful of sociology faculty offers "standard" theory coursesthatgraduate studentsarerequired to take. Farberis one of the few assignedto teach advancedand specializedtheory hereis that sociologygraduate courses.The implication students are more likely to develop the "Farberian-Chicago School" for as as Farber remains a dominant long perspective figurein in the teachingtheory department.

HOW ASU CHICAGOANS BECAMESOCIOLOGISTS

The fourth-generation cohort 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 sciencedepartment its shareof an influx in veteran experienced enrollmentafter the war. Between 1945 and 1950, the Social Science Departmenthad approximately 200 graduatestudents and Farber were amongthe (Mayer, 1985).Lindstrom,Mayer, veteranswho took advantage of the G.I. Billeducational benefit. Becominga sociologistwas not the primarycareerchoice for the threeChicagoans.Lindstrom (1985),whose originalinterest wasto makedocumentary films,remembered beingpersuaded by Burgess to major in sociology. Mayer (1985) had an eye on becominga chemistbut switchedto sociologyin orderto makea point-that the disciplineneededsomeone"whois well awareof mathematics andhardstuff (sciences)" in orderto quantifydata derived from human relationship. Farber (1985) started in

Ohm / CONTINUING LEGACY

I

367

Fourth

Generation

Fifth

Generation

LINDSTROM

MAYER
I I

FARBER
%
% ? -I /

SMITH
*

I j*

'
'

,,
Rmk

~. \l
'aa
?

-' X;
I

'.
\

\.
O

I\ . *1

' *

uIko Nki

Rs

lo.

iOh \

Sung-Ling (Current

Lin
Doctoral

Students

at

Arizona

State

University)

Frederick -------.-..-. ........ Albert Bernard A. Wade J.

Lindstrom's Mayer's

Influence Influence

Farber's Smith's

Influence 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 beforedecidingon sociology.Therefore, mathematics amongthe to become ASU Chicagoans, Smithwasthe only one determined a sociologistat the onset of his collegeeducation.

STUDENT-MENTOR RELATIONSHIP AT CHICAGOSCHOOL

the apprenticeship model and Smithwiththeirmentorsreflected

The graduate-studentexperience of Lindstrom, Mayer, Farber,

368

SOCIOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVES / JULY 1988

practiced at the University of Chicago. Smith describedthe in the followingwords: student-mentor relationship
If you aregoingto graduate,you haveto latchon to someoneand That'sthe only actuallywork for or with them in theirresearch. wayyou'regoingto learnenoughand/or get enoughdatain order to publish.... Theyhad to have a research grantin orderto hire research It out too that it's the only way turns (as assistant). you mutualexploitation done,so there's theycanget research goingon here.

Bulmer (1984, pp. 112-113) noted that the apprenticeship model was an extension of Park'singenuityin supervising and broadeningthe work of graduate students. Park encouraged studentsto reacha high level of achievement with by interacting 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'sassertivenessin selecting a dissertation Hauserdid a topic.Apparently, similardissertation a decadeearlierandwantedMayerto do the same thing with "a few furtherembellishments." Mayerstated, "Since (Hauser)was not only chairmanof my committeebut for givingmefundsto do this, I wentalongwithhim." responsible Mayer's greatest comfort was the frequent absences of his mentors(Hauser,Wirth,andOgburn). Thisgavehimfreedomto finish his work titled, "Differentials of Life in Chicago, 1880andMayerstatedthatthe"distinguished triocouldnot say 1940," 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 Burgessposito Farber tivelyandwithfruitfulresults.According (1985), in the Scale a initiated framework on marital Rating Burgess prediction but the conceptsrequiredmore specifictheoreticalreference. In his dissertation, Farber filled the gap in Burgess'swork by

LEGACY Ohm / CONTINUING

369

basis and by providinga closer elaboratingupon the theoretical linkage between the concepts and empirical evidence in the scale. maritalprediction wereexemplifiedthroughthe Othermemorable relationships on students. For example, influences of mentor's side lighter habitof writingeverything Lindstrom (1985)pickedup Ogburn's on 3 X 5 cards,going to class, reachingin his pocket,and taking out the cards. Othersremembered Ogburn's"beingso stately" and so slowlythat you can and how he spoke "verydeliberately take each and every word down in your notes" (Glick, 1985; Mayer,1985).Notetakingwasmoredifficultfor studentswho sat in Wirth's lectureson Max Weber.Lindstrom (1985)commented Weber's workin long wouldreadin German thatin class,"Wirth sections,and he would smile,and would not translate." to studentBy the end of WorldWarII, the Parkianapproach its to have lost mentorrelationship spark-indicating appeared the end of anothergeneration.Theworkingstylesof the Chicago faculty became more individualistic.Thus the strengths and withtheirteachers associations of students' weaknesses depended For involved. instance, Farberfound Burgess upon who were very accessible,but Blumer"a forbiddingindividual."On the other hand, manystudents"complained bitterlyabout Hughes' lack of interestin theirwork"(Farber,1985). seemedevidentin Tracesof theirstudent-mentor experiences ASU Chicagoans'working styles. Smith attributedhis good working relationshipswith students as an influencefrom his positive experiencesat the Universityof Chicago. Lindstrom's andMayer's policy,Farberas"thegreatmotivator," "open-door" candiddialogueon any issuecould probablybe linkedwith how with theirprofessorsand the ChicagoSociology they interacted Department.
PERSPECTIVES THEORETICAL OF ASU CHICAGOANS

Thestandard American sociologyhadits 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). andempirical research ChicagoSchool'sfocus on pragmatism projectedan image that suggestedan atheoreticalapproachto sociology.The originalworkat Chicagowas described by critics as"dustbowl"empiricism, that research was undertaken implying of the issues involved. without any theoreticalunderstanding However,a close examinationof the earlyresearch producedby their their and students indicated that workhad scholars Chicago The theoretical been theoreticallyguided. major perspectives of Simmel,Mead'sanalysisof social were Park'sinterpretation the theory of communitygrowthand interaction,"egologism," which were being distilledat Chicagoduringthat development, period(Mullins,1973,p. 45). Chicago School sociology contained a broad spectrum of specializations,from the qualitativeapproachesof social psychology to quantitativetechniquesin analyzingdemographic data. Between 1945 and 1954, Chicago producedthe greatest number of symbolic interactionistswhen comparedwith any other university.When NORC'ssurveyresearchgroup and the at the University of Chicagointegrated themselves demographers with standardAmericansociology, an interestingcoexistence orientations betweenthe qualitativeand quantitative emerged. Thetheoretical viewsof ASU Chicagoans wereas diverseas the at ChicagoafterWorldWarII. Lindstrom perspectives prevailing 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 adherence to specific theorieswentthrough"littlefads."Farberpositedthattherewas some theory,but that dependedon which facultyan individual workedwith.Onthe otherhand,Smithbelievedthattherewasan on theoryat the university. overemphasis Whether or not therewasa theoretical framework didnot seem to affect the extensiveness of Chicago School's influences. view that therewas no theory, he credited Despite Lindstrom's

Ohm / CONTINUING LEGACY

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 in doingresearch himself. is not interested way. Fred[Lindstrom] ... He is actuallya splendidChicagoproduct.RobertMaynard Hutchinswouldbe extremelyproudof Fred.... Bernie[Farber] whichis not like mine.In likes his research-his kind of research I think Berniewouldhateto fact, he'sbasicallya research person. 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 to Lindstrom. is duein largemeasure operates waythisdepartment So, therearethreedifferent waysof goingaboutthings... service, research, and teaching. Lindstrom does his service, Farber his andMayerthrough workin thediscipline, throughhis research 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 influences 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

/ HUGHES BLUMER

BURGESS

WIRTH

OGBURN

HAUSER

TOUFFER

FARBER

LINDSTROM

MAYER

JANOWITZ

NORC
?? I _ --

>

SMITH

Figure 3: Linkages Among Individuals Important to the Development of the Chicago School and Chicagoans at Arizona State University
SOURCES: KEY: ------. Mullins, 1973; Interviews with Farber, Lindstrom, Mayer, and Smith, 1985. * Influence of teacher to student. Influence via course work or colleague to colleague.

CHICAGO VERSUSOTHERSCHOOLS

When asked about how they compareChicago School with suchas Harvard, otheruniversities andBerkeley when Columbia, they were students, ASU Chicagoans'responsesindicated an ethnocentric viewof theiralmamater.However,this was not an unusualattitudeamongany university alumniparticularly when were with their careers associated degrees. people's An assessmentof the Universityof Chicago in recent years drewa moreobjective evaluation.Fourth-generation Chicagoans the The that school's were over. retirement, years golden agreed to and other schools of secondandthirdtransfers death, many

Ohm / CONTINUING LEGACY

373

dominance generationscholarsendedthe lasttracesof Chicago's in the discipline.Glick(1985)expressedthat

had a veryprimary influencein the trainingof Chicagocertainly 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 the ChicagoSchool at the problemidentifyingor characterizing presenttime.

the Universityof Chicagowith other schools was Comparing 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 "to enlistthe top students" indicateda commitment (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."

CONCLUDING REMARKS

the continuityof a legacydependsuponhow Broadlyspeaking, the presentgeneration maintainsandpasseson the philosophical In this and theoretical traditionsof priorgenerations. viewpoints the intellectual have been traced from the influences study, Chicago forerunnersto currentASU students. The cases presented here provide evidence that the Chicago School legacy, from one withstandingthe changesin faculty and perspectives to the lives on. next, generation

374

PERSPECTIVES SOCIOLOGICAL / JULY 1988

Severallimitationswere encounteredin chartingthe genealogical lines of Chicago School's influences.First, this study's to the viewof intellectual traceable historywasguidedby linkages of Lindstrom, Mayer,Farber,Smith,andtheirASU experiences 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 limitedthe extent to era. Fourth,focusingon any one university whichChicagoSchool'slegacycouldbe traced.Finally,therewas a lack of information regardingprevious students of ASU of ASU sociology alumni Chicagoans.Tracingthe whereabouts to find non-ASUstudentswould wasnot an impossible task;but, be costly and time consuming. Chicagoansand their studentshad diverseinterests.Even if onewereableto classifythem,forexample,Burgessites, Parkians, or Smithians, thedynamic Farberians, Lindstromites, Mayerites, of variousinfluencesover time makes"unique" transformation identificationelusive. Thus the main limitationin this type of studyhadto do withthe diffusionof ChicagoSchool'sinfluences and individualscholars. throughotheruniversities The experiencesand intellectualorientationsof fourth- and ASU Chicagoanswere not that differentfrom fifth-generation theirmentorsechoedmost of those of theirmentors.Conversely, scholars.It is the teachingsof the first- and second-generation apparentthat the Universityof Chicagono longeremulatesthe intellectualstanceof earliergenerations. However,the transformationsin the school'stheoretical and methodological views are of evidence Chicago'sprogressive thinking,whicharecongruent with the nation's growth in knowledgeand technology.What remainsconstantin the ChicagoSchool legacyis the "gusto"in teaching and doing sociology. CurrentgenerationChicagoans of the mentorsbefore andtheirstudentsemulatethe enthusiasm them. of Lindstrom, Theinfluences Mayer,Farber,Smith,andGlick on their graduatestudentsare far reaching.The four doctoral

Ohm / CONTINUING LEGACY

375

studentsmentionedin this study have tappedthe wide rangeof both qualitative specializationsof their mentors, representing and quantitative orientations of subdisciplinesin sociology. Upon completing their degrees, these students are likely to advancethe intellectual influencesdrawnfrom 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 forerunners.Rather,the golden era should be appliedto the years after World War II with the scatteringof Chicagosociologists throughoutthe worldandthe growthof SociologyDepartments acrossmanyuniversities and colleges.

REFERENCES
andServices." Offices Bulletin. ArizonaStateUniversity University 1985/1986. "Faculty, (Vol. XCVIII).Tempe:Arizona Catalog,1983-84/1984-85 Pp. 216-279in Graduate State University. Arizona State University,Departmentof Sociology. 1986. Faculty Roster. Tempe: ArizonaStateUniversity. Martin.1984.TheChicago Schoolof Sociology: Institutionalization, Diversity, Bulmer, of ChicagoPress. Research. and the Rise of Sociological University Chicago: School.Beverly Hills, Carey,JamesT. 1975.Sociologyand PublicAffairs:TheChicago CA: Sage. withProfessor Bernard Interview andCommunications "Personal Bernard. 1985. Farber, interview at ArizonaState University." by Rose Farber,a Chicagoan Unpublished of Sociology. MarieOhm,ArizonaStateUniversity, Department Chandler. San Francisco: Faris,RobertE. L. 1970.Chicago Sociology:1920-1932. on Chicago School Glick, Paul C. 1985. "PersonalInterviewand Communications interview with ProfessorPaul C. Glick."Unpublished by Rose Marie Experiences of Sociology. Ohm,ArizonaStateUniversity, Department to theLiterature, With an A Guide R. 1984.Evaluating Kurtz,Lester Sociology: Chicago of ChicagoPress. AnnotatedBibliography. University Chicago: withProfessor Interview andCommunications B. 1985."Personal Frederick Lindstrom, FrederickB. Lindstrom,a Chicagoanat ArizonaState University." Unpublished of Sociology. interview Department by Rose MarieOhm,ArizonaStateUniversity, Albert J. withProfessor andCommunications "Personal Interview AlbertJ. 1985. Mayer, interview at ArizonaState University." by Rose Unpublished Mayer,a Chicagoan of Sociology. MarieOhm,ArizonaStateUniversity, Department

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 crosscultural gender study.