2017629 Articles

TheChicagoSchool,Socalled

SociologistshavebeentalkingabouttheChicagoSchoolofsociologicalthoughtforavery
longtime.Ithasbecomeasortoforiginmythforasociologyatleastsomeofusnow
approveof.PeoplesayChicagoSchoolandthinktothemselves,asthelateHelenHughes
usedtosay(thoughshesaiditsarcastically),Thereweregiantsontheearthinthosedays,
andthentheyaddthatitistimeweimitatedthosegiantways.Theprincipalchroniclersof
theChicagoSchool,notablyGaryAlanFineandhiscollaborators(1995,especially116and
82107)andMartinBulmer(1984,especially15189),donot,ofcourse,havesosimpleor
simplemindedaviewofwhattheschoolconsistedof.Butthemyth,powerfulenoughto
overcomeanyqualificationorcontradictorydetails,persists.

Whatis(orwas)theChicagoSchool?Attheveryleast,thesethingsgointothe
contemporarypicture,themyth,ofwhattheschoolconsistedof,believedin,and
represented:

1.Thefounders,whoincludedAlbionSmall,W.I.Thomas(ThomasandZnaniecki1918
ThomasandZnaniecki1920),andthephilosopherGeorgeHerbertMead(Mead1934),
createdandheldtoaunifiedschemeofsociologicalthought,shapedbytheguiding
originalityofThomasandMead,whoseideasformedacoherentandcohesiveframework
withinwhichresearchcouldbedone).

2.AsecondgenerationatChicagoundertookavastresearchprogram,basedonthethinking
ofthefoundersandpropelledbytheenergyandvisionofRobertE.Parkandhisjunior
colleagueE.W.Burgess(ParkandBurgess1921).

3.Asaresult,agenerationofresearchersandthinkers,trainedbythesepeopleandledby
EverettC.Hughes(Hughes1943Hughes1984)andHerbertBlumer(Blumer1939Blumer
1969),undertookresearchandtheoreticaldevelopmentwhichcouldbe,andeventuallywas,
characterizedassymbolicinteractionism.

4.AftertheSecondWorldWar,theUniversityofChicagoexperiencedanenormousinflux
ofstudentswhoseeducationwaspaidforbytheG.I.Bill.Thesetalentedandenergetic
studentsofHughesandBlumer,havingbeeninthewar,benefitedfromanexperienceofthe
worlduntilthenuncommonamongstudentsofsociology.TheycreatedaSecondChicago
School,(Fine1995),whosemembersusedtheideasofsymbolicinteractionismcombined
withmethodsoffieldresearchtocreateasubstantialbodyofresearchandthinking,still
relevanttocontemporaryinterestsalmostfiftyyearslater.

5.Andallofthesepeoplewerethecarriersofacommontheoreticaltraditionwhichflowed
fromthevisionofParkandthephilosophyofMead,wasnourishedbythetheoretical
profunditiesofBlumerandtheresearchingenuityofHughes,andwasresponsiblefortwo
greatburstsoftheoreticallyintegratedChicagoSchoolwork,firstinthelate20sand30s,
andagainaftertheSecondWorldWar.

http://howardsbecker.com/articles/chicago.html 1/8
2017629 Articles

Thisisavisionofaschoolinthesensethathistoriansofthoughtspeakofaschool,orwhat
Frenchintellectualssometimesrefertoasachapelle(achapel).Inthestructureofsucha
school,onepersonsthoughtisusuallyseenascentral.Whensociologistsspeakofa
Durkheimianschool,theymeantoindicate,andwithgoodreason,thateverything
connectedwiththatschoolofthoughtwasofapiece.Thetheorywasandisconsistentand
coherent.Thetheoryinformstheresearchdoneinitsname.Thefollowersoracolytes
preservethefoundersmemory,embellishthetheoryanditsassociatedbodyofthought,
andfurtheritsfortunes,correctingerrorsandinconsistenciesinthemastertheoryand
doingworkthatexemplifiesitsvision.

TheChicagoSchoolwasneveraschoolinthatfullsense.AsJenniferPlatt(Platt1996)has
madeamplyclear,Chicago,therealChicagoon59thStreetintheSocialScienceBuildingas
opposedtotheChicagooftheoriginmyth,wasmuchmorevariedanddifferentiatedthan
that.Park,Burgess,andEllsworthFaris,thepeoplenowcommonlythoughttohave
embodiedthegreatChicagotraditionduringthecrucialyearsofthe20sand30s,wereearly
onjoinedbyOgburn,whohadaquitedifferentviewofsociologyanditsmission.Ogburn
wasthegreatestsingleproponentofquantitativeworkduringthoseyears,perhapsinthe
entirehistoryofsociology,andwaspersonallyresponsible(Laslett1991)forconvincingthe
UnitedStatesgovernmentthathisviewofsociologyandsocialsciencequantitative,
empiricalinanarrowsense,andscientificinanequallynarrowsensewasjustwhatthe
governmentneededtodoitsworkefficiently.OgburnhadmanyfollowersatChicago,during
bothperiodsofthesupposedefflorescenceofthetraditionandschool:PhilipHauserand
SamuelStoufferinthe30s,OtisDudleyDuncanandothersinthe50s.

LouisWirth,acontemporaryofHughesandBlumerand,likethem,astudentofParkand
thereforewithafullclaimtohavinglegitimatelyinheritedthetradition,oftensaidthathe
couldneverunderstandwhatpeopleweretalkingaboutwhentheyspokeoftheChicago
School,sincehecouldfindnothing,noideaorstyleofwork,thatheandhiscolleagues
shared.Anyonewhowasthereduringthoseperiods(asIwasduringthelate1940sandearly
1950s)couldnothelpbutbeawareofthegreatdifferencesthatdividedthefacultyandtheir
stylesofwork,divisionsthatwerepassedontothestudents,someofwhombecameserious
devoteesofoneoranotherofthefaculty,butmostofwhommadetheirownidiosyncratic
combinationsofthevarietyofingredientstheywereoffered.

Herearesomedetailsaboutthevarietyoftheallegedlymonolithicschoolinthepost
SecondWorldWarperiod,whenIwasastudent.Thefacultyincluded,ofcourse,thetwo
giantsofthemyth,HerbertBlumerandEverettHughes.Italsoincludedsomeother
Chicagotrainedpeople,notablythedemographerPhilipHauser.Hauserused,itistrue,to
boastthathehaddonefieldwork:hehadhelpedgatherdataontheemployeesofthetaxi
dancehallsdescribedinPaulCresseysbookonthattopic(Cressey1932)bydancingwith
them.But,despitethisboast,Hauserwasinfactastrongproponentofquantitativeresearch
andhadlittleuseforthequalitativeworksocentraltothecontemporaryideaoftheChicago
School.

OgburnandBurgesswerestillteaching,andeachoftheminsistedontheimportanceof
statisticsinsocialresearch.ThoughBurgesshadworkedcloselywithPark,hewasnotso
clearlyaproponentofwhatwenowthinkofasChicagostyleresearch,thoughhedidnot
opposeit.Hedevotedmuchofhisresearchtosuchtopicsaspredictingcriminalbehavior
andmaritalsuccess,usingconventionalquantitativeresearchtechniquestoanalyze
questionnairedata.

Duringthesameperiod,theNationalOpinionResearchCenter,thenarelativelynew
organization,waspersuadedtomakeitsheadquartersattheUniversityofChicago,whereit
stillresides,sothatsurveyresearchwasanactiveandlivelypresence.Manystudents
workedatNORCandsomediddissertationsbasedonsurveydata.
http://howardsbecker.com/articles/chicago.html 2/8
2017629 Articles

TherewerealreadyrepresentativesofthecompetingColumbiaschoolattheuniversity,
particularlyBernardBerelson,whocollaboratedwithLazarsfeldonthefamousstudyof
votinginElmiraCounty(Lazarsfeld,BerelsonandGaudet1948),andwithwhomother
Chicagostudentsworked(e.g.,DavidGold).AfterIleft,butstillinthe50s,otherColumbia
graduatesjoinedthefaculty(PeterRossi,JamesColeman,PeterBlau,ElihuKatz).

Inaquitedifferentdirection,anotherinfluentialmemberoftheChicagosociology
departmentwasW.LloydWarner,nowsomewhatforgotten,butthenwellknownasan
authorandashavingprovidedtheimpetusforanumberofmajorcommunitystudies.
Warnerstudied,butnevercompletedadegreein,socialanthropologyatHarvard,his
dissertationalargebookonthesocialorganizationofanindigenousAustraliansociety,the
Murngin(Warner1937).Thoughthatwasaclassicanthropologicalmonographinthestyle
ofA.R.RadcliffeBrown,whowasoneofWarnersmentors,Warnerworkedafterthat
almostexclusivelyinAmericancommunities.Hewasauthororcoauthorofallthevolumes
intheYankeeCitySeries,thelargestudyofclassandethnicityinwhatwaseventually
revealedtobeNewburyport,Massachusetts(Warnerandal.19411959).Hewasthe
inspirationforandmajoradvisertotheauthorsofDeepSouth,theimportantstudyofcaste
andclassinNatchez,Mississippi,donebyElizabethandAllisonDavisandBurleighand
MaryGardner(Davis,GardnerandGardner1941).Hewasintimatelyinvolvedinthework
donebyConradArensberginIreland(Arensberg1950),andintheworkthatledtoSt.Clair
DrakeandHoraceCaytonsbookonChicagosblackSouthSide,BlackMetropolis.(Drake
andCayton1945)Inthelateforties,WarnerwasjustfinishingacommunitystudyinMorris,
Illinois(called,intheresultingbook,Jonesville(Warneret.al.1947)).

IrecitethislistofWarnersnowmostly(andquiteunjustly)ignoredworktoindicatewhata
presencehewastostudents.Weknewthathewasactivelyinvolvedinmajorpiecesof
qualitativeresearchandsomeusfoundinspirationinwhathewasdoing.But,strangely
enoughfortheoriginmyth,hislineagehadnothingtodowiththeChicagoschool,butwas
classicallyanthropological,traceablebackthroughRadcliffeBrowntoDurkheim.

WarnerwascloselyassociatedwiththethenyoungWilliamFooteWhytewho,thoughhe
receivedhisPh.D.atChicago,hadactuallydonewhatlittlegraduateworkhedidatHarvard,
seriouslyinfluencedbyWarner,andespeciallybyWarnersassociateArensberg.Whytes
StreetCornerSociety(Whyte[1943]1981)wasamodelforallofusofwhataChicagostyle
fieldstudyoughttolooklike,aswereBlackMetropolisandtheotherWarnerinspired
works.But,asIsaid,noneofthiswork,seeminglysoinkeepingwiththeChicagostyleof
thought,hadanythingtodowiththattradition.Infact,aswehaveeventuallylearned,some
ofthemajorrepresentativesoftheChicagotradition,Wirthinparticular,werequite
unhappywithWhyteswork.

HughesdidsimilarworkhismajorcommunitystudyofanindustrializingtowninQuebec
(publishedasFrenchCanadainTransition(Hughes1943))andhislaterstudiesofrace
relationsinAmericanindustry(e.g.,(Hughes1984),pp.26575)whichdidstemdirectly
fromthetraditionofPark.Hughes,infact,quotedParkallthetimeanditwasfromhimthat
someofuslearnedthatwewerespiritualdescendantsofPark.ButtheParkwelearned
aboutfromhimwasnotjusttheParkwhotoldpeopletogettheirhandsdirtyinthereal
world,theadvicethatBlumerincessantlyrepeated.No.HughessParkwastheonewho
wantednotjustinterviewsandobservations,butstatisticalstudiesofthespatialdistribution
ofsocialphenomenaaswell.

SotherewereavariedlotofpeopleatChicagoateveryperiodofitsdevelopmentandbyno
meansallofthemwereparticipantsintheChicagotradition,asitisnowconceived,and
someofthosewhoseworkwascongruentwiththeChicagotraditionhadscarcelyheardofit.

http://howardsbecker.com/articles/chicago.html 3/8
2017629 Articles

(Thereismoretotheconfusion.NelsonFoote,asocialpsychologisttrainedatCornell,came
toChicagoasanassistantprofessorandmadecommoncausewithpeoplelikeAnselm
Strauss,whowerecomingtobeseenassymbolicinteractionists.AndHerbertGoldhamer,
whoseworkwasmuchmorepolitical,muchmoreinfluencedbylargescalesocialtheoryin
theEuropeanstyle,andbypsychoanalysis(seeGoldhamerandMarshall1953),wasalso
present,andhadaremarkableinfluenceonsomepeoplewhoworkedwithhim.)

Further,therewasgravedissensionwithintheranksofthetrueoldChicagoans,the
studentsofParkandBurgessfromthefirstGoldenAge.Inparticular,asthearchival
researchofAbbottandGaziano(1995)hasrevealed,HughesandBlumer,nowthoughtas
thetwinembodimentsofthetraditionintheirgeneration,hadverylowopinionsofone
another.BlumerthoughtHugheshadasecondratemind,andHugheswasopenly
contemptuousofBlumersinabilityorunwillingnesstodoresearch(seealsoLofland1980).
AsimilartensionexistedbetweenHughesandWirth,andHausersided,inacoalitionthat
doesntmakemuchsenseifyouthinkaboutChicagoastheembodimentofasymbolic
interactionisttradition,withWirthandBlumer.

Hughes,ontheotherhand,wasveryclosetotheanthropologists:toRobertRedfield
(Redfield1941)who,likehim,wasaspiritualdescendantofPark(aswellasParkssonin
law)andtoLloydWarner,withwhomhecollaboratedinteachingandinavarietyofother
ways.Itsclear,inthedocumentsAbbottandGazianofound,thatHughesandWarner
regardedthemselvesastheactiveresearchersinthedepartment,asopposedtoWirthand
Blumerwhotheysawasmeretalkersandtendersoftheflame.

WhenAnselmStrauss(Strauss1959Strauss1961Strausset.al.1964)returnedtoChicago,
wherehehadbeenastudentofBlumerandBurgess,hesoonbecameinvolvedwithHughes
andthoughtofhimselfasinthatcamp,insofarashewasinanycamp.

IfyouimaginethatstudentsofthegenerationIbelongedtowerepassiverecipientsofa
greatcoherenttraditionofChicagosymbolicinteractionism,then,youarequitemistaken.
Thedepartmentdidnotgiveusanycoherenttraditiontoreceive.Wewere,instead,
confusedbythemlangeofcontradictoryviewpoints,models,andrecommendationsthe
departmentpresentedtous.Andeachofusmadewhatwecouldofit,emphasizingwhatwe
coulduse,ignoringwhatwecouldnt.Mostofus,forexample,thoughnotall(e.g.,AlbertJ.
Reiss),eventuallyprettymuchignoredBurgess.MostofusignoredOgburn(butnot,of
course,DudleyDuncan).SomeofuswereheavilyinfluencedbyWarner.Warnerwasthe
maininspirationforErvingGoffman(Goffman1961Goffman1963)untilmanyyearsafter
heleftChicago,whenheannouncedanallegiancetoHughesthatwasnotreciprocated.
WarnerwasamajorinfluenceforEliotFreidson(Freidson1970)aswell,andforme,inmy
casemostlybecauseherepresentedtometheromanceIassociatedwithsocial
anthropology,afieldIadmiredbutwhosestrenuousworksettingsIwantedtoavoid.(That
iswhyIwassotakenwiththeideaofurbananthropology:youhadalltheromanceof
anthropologybutcouldsleepinyourownbedandeatdecentfood).DavidGoldthoughtof
himselfasaLazarsfeldian,butlatersawthathehadalotincommonwithpeoplelikeme,
somethingheseemedtohaveabsorbedfromBlumerthathecouldntquiteputhisfingeron.

Andsoon.TheresultofthisofeachpersoninventinghisownprivateChicagowasthatno
twooftheseChicagoswereexactlyalike.Thereweremanythingsthatpeoplewhohadbeen
trainedthereataparticulartimeshared,buttherewerealsoenormousdifferences.Not
usuallycontradictions,butonlybecause(Ithink)weweremoreinterestedinresearch
resultsthaningrandtheorizing.Ithinkitstruethatthisgenerationwasknownfarmorefor
theresearchprojectsitsmemberspublishedthanforanytheoriestheydeveloped.

AndyettherewasaChicagoSchoolandaChicagotradition.Whatwerethey?

http://howardsbecker.com/articles/chicago.html 4/8
2017629 Articles

HereIwanttodrawonacrucialdistinctionmadebySamuelGilmore(Gilmore1988)abouta
quitedifferentarenaofsociallife.Gilmorestudiedcontemporarymusicalcomposersand
foundthatsomecomposerswhowerecommonlythoughttobelongtoaparticularschool
ofcompositionnotonlydidntknoweachother,theyfeltnothingincommonwithpeople
whoseviewstheyweresupposedtoshare,indeedoftenwerentevenawareofthosepeople
andtheirviews.And,ontheotherhand,somepeoplewhosharedlittleornothingintheway
ofcompositionaltheories,ideas,orpractice,neverthelesscollaboratedinallsortsof
musicalactivities.

HecallsthefirsttypeaSchoolofThought,andsaysthatschoolsofthoughtarecreated
fromtheoutside,bycriticswholookatthefieldanddecidethatcertainpeoplesharecertain
ideas,thattheirworksharescertainstylisticfeatures,andthattheythusconstituteaschool.
ThesecondgrouphecallsaSchoolofActivity.Whatmembersofsuchaschoolhavein
commonisthattheyworktogetheronpracticalprojects.Forinstance,theymayorganizea
concertseriestogether,eachonethusgettinghisorhermusicplayed,eventhoughthey
disagreeviolentlyonwhatmusicshouldbe.Sosomepeoplewho,atleastinourlaterview.
thinkandactalike,mayneverhaveactedcollectively(theschoolofthought).Andsome
peoplehaveactedcollectivelyeventhoughtheirideasmaynotbecongruent(theschoolof
activity).AschoolintheclassicalsenseIalludedtoatthebeginningwouldcombinebothof
theseitsmemberswouldthinkalikeandacttogetherinpursuitoftheirsharedideas.

ItmaybethatthechapellesofFrenchsociologicalthought,prominentuntilthemid
1970s,approachedthismodel.Butthatisprobablyaresult,Imtemptedtosayanartifact,
ofthewayFrenchsociologicalactivitywasthenorganized,insmallresearchgroupsheaded
bywellknownleaderswhocompetedwithotherleaderstomaketheirtheoriesdominant.

Americansociologicallife,ontheotherhand,isorganizedindepartments,whichfindtheir
homesinteachinginstitutions,incollegesanduniversitiesinwhichthedepartmentis
requiredtoteachallthesociologycoursesthatneedteaching,andthusveryoftento
encompassagreatvarietyofstylesofwork.SoAmericandepartmentsare,forthemost
part,schoolsofactivity.Theycanonlyharboraschoolofthoughtwithgreatdifficulty
andevensuccessfuleffortstomakethemdosohaveseldomhadlastingresults.Thisisa
longstoryIwontgointofullyhere,butitwouldrepayclosestudy.Ateveryperiodofits
development,Chicagowasaschoolofactivity,anorganizationthatwastryingtocoverthe
majorpossibilitiesavailableinthefieldatanymoment(eventhoughonemightforatimebe
dominant)inordertobeabletofieldanadequateteam.Theobjectwasnottopresenta
unitedtheoreticalfront,buttogetstudentstaughtanddegreesgiven,toraisemoneyfor
researchprojects,andsotodevelopandmaintainareputationforthedepartmentasagood
allaroundplace.SinceChicagohadbeenthefirst(oralmostthefirst,paceAlanSica(Sica
1983))sociologydepartmentinthecountry,quitepossiblyintheworld,thejobwasto
continuetobeNumberOneineveryrespect.

AndsoGoffman,havingfirstbeeninterestedinWirth,finallygotadegreeworkingwith
Warner.MydissertationcommitteeconsistedofHughes,Warner,andtheanthropologist
AllisonDavis,whotaughtintheSchoolofEducation.Researchprojectsweredonebypeople
whohadlittleincommone.g.,WirthandHughescollaboratedonstudiesoftheChicago
publicschools,thoughtheyhadquitedifferentideasaboutwhatwasimportanttostudyand
howtostudythosethings.(Myfieldworkformydissertationwassupportedfinanciallyby
thisprojectIneverhadtwowordswithWirthaboutwhatIwasdoing.)Chicagowas,to
repeat,aschoolofactivity,theactivitybeingthetrainingofmoresociologists,andthe
awardingofdegrees,andthemaintenanceofareputationwithinandbeyondtheuniversity.

Americandepartmentsareseldom,forthereasonsIhavegivenandbecauseofthenatureof
generationalchangeevenifpeoplearefromthesameschool,thesecondgenerationisvery
differentfromthefirstmonolithicallyofonepersuasion.Itonlylooksthatwayifyoudont
http://howardsbecker.com/articles/chicago.html 5/8
2017629 Articles

looktooclosely.TheColumbiadepartmentofthe40sand50s(thegreatdaysofthat
department)lookedquitemonolithic,thetraditiontheyespousedacombinationof
MertonstheorizingandLazarsfeldshustlingofsurveycontractsoutofwhichsociological
silkpursescouldbemade.Buttherewereotherpeopletherethen,whogetleftoutwhenthe
storyistold.Andotherkindsofworkdonetoo.Thatsalsoastoryforanotherday.

ThemoraloftodaysstoryisthatChicagowasnevertheunifiedchapeloftheoriginmyth,
aunifiedschoolofthought.Itwas,instead,avigorousandenergeticschoolofactivity,a
groupofsociologistswhocollaboratedinthedaytodayworkofmakingsociologyinan
Americanuniversityanddidthatverywell.Butwecannotmakeaninferentialjumpfrom
thatpragmaticcollaborationtoatradition,acoherentbodyoftheory.Thereallegacyof
Chicagoisthemixtureofthingsthatcharacterizedtheschoolofactivityateveryperiod:
open,whetherthroughchoiceornecessity,toavarietyofwaysofdoingsociology,eclectic
becausecircumstancespushedittobe.Ithink,andnotjustbecauseIwashisstudent,that
HugheswasinthatsensethetrueChicagoan,therealdescendantofPark,thesociologist
whowasproperlyskepticalofeverywayofdoingsocialscience,includinghisown.

REFERENCES

Abbott,Andrew,andEmanuelGaziano(1995).TransitionandTradition:Departmental
FacultyintheEraoftheSecondChicagoSchool.Pp.221272inTheSecondChicagoSchoo,
editedbyGaryAlanFine.Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress.

Arensberg,ConradM(1950).TheIrishCountryman:anAnthropologicalStudy.NewYork:
P.Smith.

Blumer,Herbert(1939).AnAppraisalofThomasandZnanieckisThePolishPeasantin
EuropeandAmerica.NewYork:SocialScienceResearchCouncil.

Blumer,Herbert(1969).SymbolicInteractionism.EnglewoodCliffs,NewJersey:Prentice
Hall.

Bulmer,Martin(1984).TheChicagoSchoolofSociology:Institutionalization,Diversity,
andtheRiseofSociologicalResearch.Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress.

Cressey,PaulG(1932).TheTaxiDanceHall.Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress.

Davis,Allison,BurleighB.Gardner,andMaryR.Gardner(1941).DeepSouth:ASocial
AnthropologicalStudyofCasteandClass.Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress.

Drake,St.Clair,andHoraceCayton(1945).BlackMetropolis.NewYork:Harcourt,Brace
andCo.

Fine,GaryAlan(1995).ASecondChicagoSchool:TheDevelopmentofaPostwarAmerican
Sociology.Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress.

Freidson,Eliot(1970).TheProfessionofMedicine.NewYork:DoddMead.

Gilmore,Samuel(1988).SchoolsofActivityandInnovation.SociologicalQuarterly29,
203219.

Goffman,Erving(1961).Asylums.GardenCity:Doubleday.

Goffman,Erving(1963).Stigma:NotesontheManagementofSpoiledIdentity.Englewood
Cliffs:PrenticeHall.

Goldhamer,Herbert,andAndrewW.Marshall(1953).PsychosisandCivilization:Two
StudiesintheFrequencyofMentalDisease.Glencoe:FreePress.
http://howardsbecker.com/articles/chicago.html 6/8
2017629 Articles

Hughes,EverettC(1943).FrenchCanadainTransition.Chicago:UniversityofChicago
Press.

Hughes,EverettC(1984).TheSociologicalEye.NewBrunswick,NJ:TransactionBooks.

Laslett,Barbara(1991).BiographyasHistoricalSociology:theCaseofWilliamFielding
Ogburn.TheoryandSociety20,511538.

Lazarsfeld,Paul,BernardBerelson,andHazelGaudet(1948).ThePeoplesChoice:Howthe
VoterMakesUpHisMindInaPresidentialCampaign.NewYork:ColumbiaUniversity
Press.

Lofland,LynH(1980).ReminiscencesofClassicChicago:TheBlumerHughesTalk.
UrbanLife9,25181.

Mead,GeorgeHerbert(1934).Mind,Self,andSociety.Chicago:UniversityofChicago
Press.

Park,RobertE.,andErnestW.Burgess(1921).IntroductiontotheScienceofSociology.
Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress.

Platt,Jennifer(1996).AHistoryofSociologicalResearchMethodsinAmerica.Cambridge:
CambridgeUniversityPress.

Redfield,Robert(1941).TheFolkCultureofYucatan.Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress.

Sica,Alan(1983).SociologyattheUniversityofKansas,18891983:AnHistoricalSketch.
SociologicalQuarterly24,605623.

Strauss,AnselmL.(1959).MirrorsandMasks:TheSearchforIdentity.Glencoe:FreePress.

Strauss,AnselmL(1961).ImagesoftheAmericanCity.NewYork:FreePress.

Strauss,AnselmL.,andothers(1964).PsychiatricIdeologiesandInstitutions.NewYork:
FreePress.

Thomas,W.I.,andFlorianZnaniecki(1918).ThePolishPeasantinEuropeandAmerica.
Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress.

Thomas,W.I.,andFlorianZnaniecki(1920).ThePolishPeasantinEuropeandAmerica.
Boston:BadgerPress.

Warner,W.Lloyd(1937).ABlackCivilization:aSocialStudyofanAustralianTribe.New
York:Harper&Brothers.

Warner,W.Lloyd,andet.al(19411959).YankeeCitySeries.NewHaven:YaleUniversity
Press.

Warner,W.Lloyd,andet.al(1947).DemocracyinJonesville:AStudyinQualityand
Inequality.NewYork:Harper.

Whyte,WilliamFoote([1943]1981).StreetCornerSociety:TheSocialStructureofan
ItalianSlum.Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress.

http://howardsbecker.com/articles/chicago.html 7/8
2017629 Articles

http://howardsbecker.com/articles/chicago.html 8/8