The Sociology o f

R o b e r t E. P a r k *

EDWARD SHILLS

Robert Park was b o r n in 1864, the same year as Max Weber. Emile D u r k h e i m
was eight years older; T6nnies nine years older. He was one of the great genera-
tion o f sociologists, w h o came u n d e r the formative influence of H e r d e r and
Hegel, Adam Smith and H er be r t Spencer. Yet, while his European c o n t e m p o r a r -
ies are still studied, not only for their historical i m p o r t a n c e but for their contem-
p o r a r y relevance, Park has n e v e r been k n o w n in Europe, and he is practically
f o r g o t t e n in the United States. With W.I. Thomas, he was the f o u n d e r of the
"Chicago School" of sociology, w h i c h is m u c h studied at p r e s e n t but only for its
historical interest. I think that this is an injustice to a great intellectual figure
and a disservice to the c o n t e m p o r a r y discipline of sociology.

1. Robert Park was a great t e a c h e r w h o inspired students to go into the field to

o b s e r v e c o n d u c t and elicit information about the e x p e r i e n c e s of ordinary- hum an
beings. He was an o b s e r v e r of the diverse rounds of life in large cities, and he
inspired his students to b e c o m e the same. He himself had b e e n a journalist and
editor, and that journalistic e x p e r i e n c e left a mark on his view of w hat the
w o r l d was like and h o w to study it. His active career as a journalist and sociolo-
gist s p a n n e d about a half century. He was an academic sociologist for nearly half
o f that time.
As a journalist of his time, Park was interested in the daily life of hum an
beings, their routines and their misadventures, their joys and their sorrows. He
took seriously what journalistics called "human interest." Apart from the great
events of the political and e c o n o m i c worlds, he had a d e e p feeling for w h a t
T h e o d o r e Dreiser, w h o was a p p r o x i m a t e l y coeval with him, called "the col or of
the great city"; but he a t t e m p t e d to see that col or in the routines of life and their
disruptions rather than in striking and unique episodes. He was particularly
i n t e r e s t e d in the fate of those routines and the form of their disruptions in their
e x p e r i e n c e s of lifc in a large city. Park was particularly interested in w hat hap-
p e n s to c o u n t r y folk w h o came to live and w o r k in big cities. Overlaying this
topic was his interest in the relations b e t w e e n ethnic groups and nationalities.
At a high level of generality he wished to see the fundamental r e c u r r e n t patterns
Published by permission of Reverdito Press.

88 The American Sociologist/Winter 1996

w h i c h w e r e e m b o d i e d in the c o n c r e t e events of rural and urban life and o f the
forms of manifestation of ethnicity and nationality. W h e n he b e c a m e an aca-
d emic sociologist in 1912, at the age of 48, he began to think about the signifi-
c a n c e o f the spatial distribution of human activities, first b e t w e e n village and
c o u n tr y s id e, t h e n within cities, and finally over the surface of the earth. About
half way t h r o u g h his journalistic and publicistic career, w h i c h ran from about
1888 to 1912, he a t t e m p t e d to c o m e to grips with the "collective mind," or the
forms in w h i c h individual h u m a n beings c o m e to constitute collectivities w i t h
solidarity, ranging f r om the unity in w h i c h individual self-consciousness disap-
pears in a state of "possession" to the consensus arrived at by rational discus-
sion. This was the subject of his doctoral dissertation at Heidelberg.
It could be said that all of the rest of his life as a sociologist was an effort to
refine and differentiate the varieties and combinations w h i c h lie b e t w e e n the
" c r o w d " o r the "mob" and the "public." His o w n studies of races and nationali-
ties, of solidarity and conflict, of strikes and revolutions, of religions and c h u r c h e s
or denominations, of "the city as a spatial p a t t e r n and a moral order" w e r e all
e x p r e s s i o n s o f his effort to c o m e to grips with the forms and condi t i ons of
collective self-consciousness.

2. Despite the eccent r i c i t y of his career, Park's sociological analysis may be

located in the tradition of the great sociologists of the n i n e t e e n t h century. Park,
like them, f o cus e d his attention on the nature of m o d e r n urban, national and
rudimentarily e m e r g e n t international societies in contrast with life in small towns,
villages and the countryside. He, like them, was interested in the transformation
of primordial collectivities in c o n s e q u e n c e of the e x p a n s i o n of their territory,
the e m e r g e n c e of individuality, rationality and civility, and the c o n s e q u e n t at-
t e n u a t i o n o f primordial attachments.
The chief exemplars of this sociological interest were Emile Durkheim, Ferdinand
T6nnies, Georg Simmel, Max Weber, and William I. Thomas. Henry Sumner Maine
was a British f o r e r u n n e r of all of these writers; his c o n n e c t i o n with the w orks
of T6nnies is fairly clear. H er be r t Spencer was a n o t h e r British w r i t e r w h o con-
tributed to this tradition; Durkheim was m u c h affected by Spencer. All four of
the c o n t i n e n t a l writers stood in a stream of traditions w h i c h was a c o n f l u e n c e
of traditions flowing from the ideas of Herder, Hegel and Adam Smith. These
w e r e the idea of the Volk, the idea of the division of labor, the idea of the
bfirgerliche Gesellschaft. Lazarus and Steinthal and Wundt carried the tradition
o f H e r d e r in to the last third of the n i n e t e e n t h century; the ideas of H e r d e r
ultimately culminated in the ideas of the "folk society," a rural society maintain-
ing co n tin u ity by oral transmission of beliefs, i.e., non-literate, and of "status" in
the sense used by Maine, i.e., a society in w h i c h there was little r e c o g n i t i o n of
individuality and w h e r e individuals w e r e c o n c e i v e d as instances of the collectiv-
ity or c a t e g o r y to w h i c h they "belonged." The folk society was the society par
excellence of collective self-consciousness. Hegel's idea of "biirgerliche Gesellschafl"
was a society of the division of labor and of the individual striving for profit in
c o m m e r c i a l and manufacturing enterprises. The idea of civil society b o r e a d e e p

Shils 89
imprint of Adam Smith and Adam Ferguson and was carried on by Marx. The
same result was attained by H e r b e r t Spencer, w h o s e a c c o u n t of "industrial so-
ciety" b o r e close r e s e m b l a n c e to the accounts given by Durkheim of the m o d e r n
society, formed around "organic solidarity." T6nnies's idea of Gesellschaft, Simmel's
ideas about the differentiated individualistic urban society, in w h i c h m o n e y plays
a great part as a measure of value, and finally Max Weber's ideas about m o d e r n
capitalistic and bur e a uc r at i zed society, all belong to the same intellectual family.
W.I. Thomas, w h o p e r s u a d e d Park to b e c o m e an academic sociologist, was m u c h
affected by some of these ideas. He was especially affected by the tradition
w h i c h passed from H e r d e r t h r o u g h Lazarus and Steinthal to Wundt. Although his
r e sear ch was largely on the antithesis of the "folk society," it was his poi nt of
d e p ar tu r e. Th o m as added his o w n views to the tradition he received, especially
his ideas about social re-organization following u p o n social disorganization and
the t h e o r y of the "four wishes."
Park had studied in Berlin, Strasbourg and Heidelberg. In Berlin he a t t e n d e d
the lectures of Simmel, in Strasbourg he w o r k e d u n d e r Windelband, and w h e n
the latter m o v e d to Heidelberg, Park w e n t with him. T h e r e he c o m p l e t e d his
dissertation on Masse u n d Publikum. T he dissertation was primarily an analysis
of the p s y c h o l o g y of the "crowd" or the "mob" on one side, and of the "public"
on the other. The " cr ow d" was an ill-defined object w h i c h engaged the at t ent i on
o f F r en ch and Italian writers such as Gustave LeBon, Scipio Sighele, et al., in the
latter part o f the n i n e t e e n t h century. The "crow d" was not simply the aggregate
of separate individuals on the street, each going his o w n w ay at any one time,
but r ath er a collectivity f or m e d of the individuals w h o previously w e r e often not
a c qu ain ted with each other, but w h o b e c a m e possessed by a " c o m m o n spirit"
or a " c o m m o n will," acting t o g e t h e r in a way w h i c h was o t h e r w i s e alien to
them. Park was interested in the "collective will," i.e., the c o n c e r t e d action of
plurality o f individuals acting as a unity. The "public," as p o r t r a y e d by Walter
Bagehot in the c h a p t e r on "The Age of Discussion" in Physics a n d Politics, was
for Park the o p p o s i t e of the "crowd." It was a loose collectivity w i t h o u t a formal
s t r u c t u r e or a division of labor but differentiated into leaders of o p i n i o n and
t h os e w h o s e o p i ni on they influence. The "public" is charact eri zed by its rela-
tively rational level of discourse. In the "public" individuals think for them-
selves; their views are not s t e r e o t y p e s of the hi t hert o prevailing or traditional
views. T h e y mo v e towards consensus t h r o u g h the e x c h a n g e of rationally t h o u g h t
out opinion. In b o t h cases, in the "crowd" and in the "public," the c o m m o n and
fu nd amen tal feature is the " c o m m o n spirit," in the c r o w d r e a c h e d t h r o u g h "psy-
chic contagion," in the public r e a c h e d t h r o u g h "rational discussion." The c e n t e r
o f Park's attention in bot h cases was w ha t I call an adaptation of Durkheim's,
"collective self-consciousness," i.e., the consciousness of a collective self, or
alternatively, the self-consciousness of a collectivity. (Neither usage is satisfac-
tory but intimates that collectivities are real entities and that their m e m b e r s
share in a collective self-consciousness w h i c h is different from their individual
self-consciousnesses.)
Th e contrast w h i c h was b r o u g h t out in the title of his dissertation was be-

90 The American Sociologist/Winter 1996

t w e e n collectivities in w h i c h collective self-consciousness takes possession of
the minds of the separate individuals so that their o w n individuality, their o w n
individual self-consciousness, their o w n "self-possession" is r e d u c e d , on the one
side, and, on the other, collectivities in w h i c h individuals exercise their rational
p o w e r s to discuss with each o t h e r unsettled public issues about w h i c h t hey are
in disagreement, or on w h i c h none of the participants has as yet c o m e to a
c o n c l u s i o n o f his own.
This latter society has some of the p r o p e r t i e s of Maine's contractually ori-
e n t e d society: Individuals deal w i t h each o t h e r as individuals. In the contractu-
ally o r i e n t e d society t hey bargain with each other, each seeking his o w n advan-
tage, and th ey c o m e to a g r e e m e n t at the p oi nt w h e n each of the participants to
the c o n t r a c t thinks that he will receive the best ret urn possible, u n d e r circum-
stances o f the satisfaction of the o t h e r participant. In the contract, a g r e e m e n t is
sought at a p o int of equilibrium w h e r e each participant obtains w h a t the o t h e r
participant is willing to grant. In discussion, each individual uses his reason to
p e r s u a d e his disagreeing interlocutors; the aim is to c o m e to an a g r e e m e n t by
the use o f a r g u m e n t seeking to modify the o t h e r persons's vi ew by e v i d e n c e and
reason in a c c o r d a n c e with rules of p r o o f and by willingness to modify o n e ' s o w n
v i e w p o i n t in a c c o r d a n c e w i t h e v i d e n c e and reason.
Th e age o f discussion is also an age of contract. T hey are to be f o u n d in the
same society. Contract and discussion bot h draw u p o n realistic empirical knowl-
edge and rational a r gum e nt e x e r c i s e d by individuals. The society of c o n t r a c t and
discussion is a rationally individualistic society.
The age of discussion and its c o u n t e r - p e n d a n t , the age of contract, are in
close affinity wi t h w h a t T6nnies called Gesellschaft or D urkhei m "la solidarit6
organique." It also has an affinity w i t h the highly differentiated urban society
p o r t r a y e d by Simmel, in w h i c h each individual pursues his o w n interests.
T h e r e are obvious affinities b e t w e e n the rational individualistic urban society
as c o n c e i v e d by Park and the society in w h i c h the individual's will and con-
sciousness are stunted or h e d g e d about by his consciousness of being part of a
collectivity and in w h i c h his will is derived from the collective self-conscious-
ness, w h i c h he has jointly with o t h e r m e m b e r s of the collectivity. Elements of
the latter c o e x i s t w i t h the public c ons t i t ut ed by rational individuals in rational
interaction w i t h each other; e l e m ent s of the collective self-consciousness exist
in a market o f rational individuals in c o m p e t i t i v e interaction with each other.
T h es e are central features of m o d e r n societies. In the primordial societies o f t he
village and t h e ' k i n s h i p group, the individuals, although separate, self-locomoting
organisms, do not c o n c e i v e of themselves solely or exclusively as separate indi-
viduals but as parts of a collectivity. The collectivity might be one of intense and
p e n e t r a t i n g collective self-consciousness; it is, in that state, also transient and
capable o f collective action t hr ough "psychic infection." This is a "crow d" or a
"mob," This kind of collective self-consciousness, oppressively dominant, results
s o metimes in internally aimed actions, such as collective trances and ecstatic
collective dances, collective possession or collective ascetic exerci ses (fasting,
self-flagellation, etc.). It also results in externally directed actions, such as loot-

Shits 91
ing and vandalism by mobs, lynching, "running amok." Park distinguished be-
t w e e n the " c r o w d that dances" and the ~crowd that acts." Both w e r e states in
h e i g h t e n e d collective self-consciousness, overflowing individual self-conscious-
ness.

3. All of this is c o n t a i n e d explicitly and implicitly in his doctoral dissertation.

Much o f the rest of his c a r e e r as a sociologist was given over to f u r t h e r explo-
ration and elaboration of these themes. In his "systematic" sociology, the inter-
play b e t w e e n individual selfoconsciousnesses, the m o v e m e n t from the one to the
other, was basic. Like his European f o r e r u n n e r s and c o n t e m p o r a r i e s , he saw
"the individual and the group" as the basic subject m at t er and t h e m e s of soci-
ology. But this was too elementary. It was necessary to go further. From this
t h e m e in Masse und Publikum, from the inspiration of Kistiakowski's Gesellschaft
und Einzelwesen, Park w o r k e d to differentiate the w i de variety of possibilities
b e t w e e n the e x t r e m e of c o m p l e t e l y self-centered, self-sufficient individuals with-
out any ties e x c e p t those resulting from considerations of advantage, t h r o u g h
different degrees of consensus and conflict, to assimilation, w h i c h was the for-
mation o f a c o m m o n collective self-consciousness.
Park s o metim es t h o u g h t that the p h e n o m e n a segregated t ow ards the end of
Introduction to the Science o f Sociology, w h i c h he called Ucollective behavior"
was i n d e e d in m i c r o s c o p i c form the ~foundation" of society. He did not say that
society arose from the heigtening of collective self-consciousness in a dance.
(Du r k h eim did suggest this.)
The fourfold s c h e m e for the classification of social p r o c e s s e s set forth in the
Introduction to the Study of Sociology is a differentiation of the d i c h o t o m y . The
fourfold s c h e m e enumerates: c o m p e t i t i o n , conflict, a c c o m m o d a t i o n and assimi-
lation. Although Park did not say so, this is obviously implicit: c o m p e t i t i o n is a
state in which, in principle, t he r e are no social relationships (i.e., t here is no
collective self-consciousness binding the competitors together). Competition exists
w i th in but also far b e y o n d face-to-face relationships, with the c o m p e t i t o r s not
k n o w i n g each other, but being or i e nt e d towards price rather than towards each
other. This is a condi t i on in w h i c h each individual is a b o u n d e d , conscious,
i n t e r e s t e d o r ient e d entity s e e k i n g - - i n p r i n c i p l e - - w h a t he anticipates will be
advantageous for himself. The r eci pi ent and beneficiary of the advantages is a
self, b o u n d e d by the boundaries of the physical o r g a n i s m - - a s f o r e s e e n at the
p r e s e n t m o m e n t of time. At the o t h e r e x t r e m e is assimilation in w h i c h a g r o u p
or an individual p e r s o n outside a given collectivity is draw n into it so that he
c o m e s to participate fully in the collective self-consciousness of that collectivity.
Assimilation of one collectivity into a n o t h e r collectivity or of t w o previously
separate collectivities into a single collectivity with a single collective self-con-
sciousness is not the final destination of society. Park was not a progressivist.
T he four p r o c e s s e s are not stages in a unilateral sequence. T h e r e are sequences;
a c c o m m o d a t i o n does turn into assimilation; conflict does turn into accom m oda-
tion, but a c c o m m o d a t i o n can also turn into conflict and so can assimilation turn
into conflict.

92 The American Sociologist/Winter 1996

 Park w o u l d emphasize that assimilation is n e v e r definitive and n e v e r com-
plete. All the p r o c e s s e s are occur r i ng simultaneously within the same society.
Park attributed great i m p o r t a n c e to cons e nsus as a necessary c o n d i t i o n for ex-
istence o f any c o l l e c t i v i t y - - o r s o c i e t y - - b u t he t h o u g h t it could n e v e r be com-
p l ete in the sense of embracing all m e m b e r s of the society c o m p l e t e l y at all
times and in all spheres of life.
Consensus, loose, i nc om pl et e, intermittent, growing sometimes into states o f
g reater intensity, at o t h e r times relaxing into individualistic actions of self-ag-
g r a n d i z e m e n t , individual self-defense and individual withdrawal or individual
rebellion, is the normal state of society. It is normal b o t h in the sense of being
statistically f r e q u e n t and of being a c ondi t ion in w h i c h the norm s or rules w h i c h
are e m e r g e n t from collective self-consciousnesses dominate m u c h of the con-
d u ct o f many of the m e m b e r s of society.
It is necessary to state that Park, despite his ecological interest, w h i c h en-
tailed an interest in territory, and despite his interest in nationality, n e v e r ar-
rived at a c o n c e p t i o n of society, i.e., of a w h o l e society as a relatively self-
c on tain ed , territorially b o u n d e d collectivity with an authoritative c e n t e r and
sub-centers and alternative or conflicting centers. This was a d e f i c i e n c y w h i c h
be shared with all of the o t h e r great sociologists of his time and of the e p i g o n e
since then.
He k n ew, h o w e v e r , that t he r e is a normative or moral order, but be did not,
paradoxically enough, given his ecological interest, see the moral o r d e r as pos-
sessing territorial e x t e n s i o n and boundaries within w h i c h certain of the moral
rules (and especially laws) have validity.
Nevertheless, the deficiency, w h i c h w e will e n t e r into f u r t h e r w h e n w e dis-
cuss the place of the c e n t e r in Park's analytical scheme, does not annul the
merit o f his p e r c e p t i o n of the e x i s t e n c e of a moral or normative o r d e r or the
merit o f his r e p e a t e d efforts to c o p e with the p h e n o m e n o n of collective self-
consciousness.
This c o n c e p t i o n of a normative or a moral o r d e r or consensus in urban society
r e p r e s e n t e d a d e p a r t u r e from and an advance on T6nnies and Simmel. N ei t her
o f these writers allowed systematically for the p e r s i s t e n c e o f the moral o r d e r in
urban society. T h e y w o u l d have agreed perhaps that it had a fragmentary sur-
vival, but th ey t h o u g h t that it could not be maintained m u c h longer. Even his
friend, colleague and mentor, W.I. Thomas, although he should have k n o w n
better, t h o u g h t that m o d e r n society still suffered from the vestigial survival--
functionless s u r v i v a l - - o f "primary g r o u p norms." He t h o u g h t that in the course
o f progress, scientific k n o w l e d g e w o u l d replace norms w h i c h are part o f the
"ordering and forbidding techniques."
Park was not of this view. He t hought that collective self-consciousness was
a p e r m a n e n t feature of society, of all societies. He t h o u g h t that collective self-
c o n s c i o u s n e s s was less pervasive and less p o w e r f u l in m o d e r n liberal urban
societies, than in w h a t he sometimes called "folk" societies or w h a t T6nnies
called Gemeinschaften. But it was t he r e b ecause it was part of the p e r m a n e n t
nature of the h u m a n race.

Shlls 93
 Park u n d e r s t o o d o n a c o n c r e t e sociological level w h a t he did n o t grasp at the
level o f p h i l o s o p h i c a l a n t h r o p o l o g y . He k n e w that no c o l l e c t i v i t y c o u l d exist
w i t h o u t s o m e minimal d e g r e e o f c o l l e c t i v e self-consciousness. Yet h e did n o t
see that the h u m a n m i n d n e e d s and g e n e r a t e s a set o f n o r m s to g u i d e its con-
duct. T h e h u m a n has a b e n t for m o r a l i t y - - e v e n w h e n it infringes, as it so o f t e n
does, o n t h o s e n o r m s o f morality. Park o c c a s i o n a l l y t o y e d w i t h T h o m a s ' s four-
fold classification o f f u n d a m e n t a l w i s h e s - - t h e w i s h for security, t h e w i s h for
n e w e x p e r i e n c e , the w i s h for r e c o g n i t i o n and the w i s h for r e s p o n s e , b u t h e did
not use it v e r y m u c h . It is my surmise that he did not use it b e c a u s e it had n o
place for moral c o n d u c t , i.e., c o n d u c t w h i c h a c k n o w l e d g e s t h e e x i s t e n c e o f
moral n o r m s , e v e n w h e r e it infringes o n t h e m . He h i m s e l f n e v e r a r t i c u l a t e d this
view. I o n l y infer it f r o m his o t h e r writings.
O f c o u r s e , it m u s t be said that Park was also v e r y blind in m a t t e r s o f religion.
He was s o m e w h e r e b e t w e e n a D e w e y a n naturalist and a Unitarian. He k n e w
a b o u t missions and missionaries (Maurice T. Price); h e k n e w a b o u t p r o p h e t s and
p r o p h e c y ( K i n c h e l o e ) ; he k n e w a b o u t dissent and sectarianism (Mecklin). Yet,
h e did n o t see that the s a c r e d was at the r o o t o f all o f this, and h e did not see
h o w the s a c r e d p e n e t r a t e s into o s t e n s i b l y secular s p h e r e s o f society. T o w h a t
are w e to a t t r i b u t e his failure to c o m p r e h e n d ? I c a n n o t d o m o r e t h a n to r e f e r
to William J a m e s ' s o b s e r v a t i o n a b o u t a ~a c e r t a i n b l i n d n e s s in h u m a n beings."

4. My i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f Park rests primarily in the i m p o r t a n c e w h i c h h e attrib-

u t e d to the p r o c e s s o f "assimilation." Park did attribute great i m p o r t a n c e to
"assimilation," not b e c a u s e h e was in favor o f it o n moral g r o u n d s b u t b e c a u s e
it c o n t a i n e d w h a t was essential to society. Park had a d e e p e r idea o f s o c i e t y t h a n
Simmel, w h o t h o u g h t that the essential f e a t u r e o f s o c i e t y was "Wechselwirkung"
( i n t e r a c t i o n ) . Park in a n s w e r to the simple q u e s t i o n w h i c h Simmel asked him-
self, "Wie ist Gesellschaft m6glich?', w o u l d have said that it is p o s s i b l e b e c a u s e
t h e r e is s u c h a p h e n o m e n o n as assimilation.
N o w the w o r d "assimilation" is a r a t h e r i m p o v e r i s h e d w o r d . I think that Park
a d o p t e d it b e c a u s e it was c u r r e n t in discussion o f the c o n c r e t e facts in w h i c h
Park was so i n t e r e s t e d , namely, the relations o f e t h n i c g r o u p s in the U n i t e d
States in c o n n e c t i o n w i t h w h i c h a s s i m i l a t i o n - - t h e "melting p o t " - - w a s p u t for-
w a r d as a "solution." (By some, it was called " A m e r i c a n i z a t i o n . " )
But w e will not m i s r e a d Park if w e t h i n k o f assimilation as the f o r m a t i o n o f
c o l l e c t i v e self-consciousness. O t h e r things h a p p e n in society: c o m p e t i t i o n , ac-
c o m m o d a t i o n and conflict. All o f t h e s e are limits in p r i n c i p l e o n c o l l e c t i v e self-
c o n s c i o u s n e s s . T h e y are not h a r m o n i o u s w i t h c o l l e c t i v e s e l f - c o n s c i o u s n e s s b u t
are c o m p a t i b l e w i t h it. At least t h e y testify to the internal diversity o f s o c i e t y
and to the impossibility o f h u m a n b e i n g s living utterly w i t h o u t a n y n o r m a t i v e o r
m o r a l r e l a t i o n s w i t h e a c h o t h e r , i.e., w i t h o u t any c o m m o n set o f m o r a l rules, o r
in o t h e r w o r d s , w i t h any collective self-consciousness. If c o m p e t i t i o n w e r e p e r f e c t ,
s o c i e t y w o u l d b e n o t h i n g b u t a p e r f e c t m a r k e t in w h i c h h u m a n b e i n g s o r i e n t e d
t h e m s e l v e s n o t to e a c h o t h e r as c o - b e a r e r s of certain " r e f e r e n t s " like e t h n i c i t y ,
religious beliefs, nationality, social status, kinship, etc., b u t r a t h e r t h e y w o u l d

94 The American SociologisLtWlnter 1996

o rien t themselves towards price and w oul d regard o t h e r h u m a n beings only as
the "offerers" of a certain price. If a c c o m m o d a t i o n w e r e perfect , h u m a n beings
w o u l d not have relations with each other; t hey w oul d be at p e a c e with each
o t h e r by having no c o n t a c t with each other. And if conflict w e r e c o m p l e t e ,
h u m a n beings w oul d exist in a state of a w a r of each against all (bellum o m n i u m
contra omnes). Park was well aware that n o n e of these e x t r e m e s was possible
in h u m a n society.
Park did think that a world society was in process of f o r m a t i o n - - h e was very
interested in the e x p a n s i o n of technological k n o w l e d g e b e t w e e n civilizations.
But he did n o t think that this spread of technological k n o w l e d g e and the forma-
tion of a world-wide market was a single, unilinear m o v e m e n t w h i c h was driving
all b e f o r e it. He did not think that it w o u l d culminate in a single w o r l d society,
organized entirely as a market of c o m p e t i n g individuals. I w o u l d go so far as to
say that Park did not think that ethnic collective self-consciousness w o u l d ever
disappear. Existing e t hni c groups might dissolve, their m e m b e r s might lose their
e t h n ic collective self-consciousness, but they w oul d b e c o m e assimilated into
o t h e r collectivities, with ethnic intimations in their collective self-conscious-
ness. In acquiring the collective self-consciousness of the collectivities into w h i c h
t h e y w e r e newly i nc or por a t e d, the older ethnic groups w o u l d acquire a n e w
ethnicity w h i c h is defined by d e s c e n t from earlier o c c u p a n t s of the territory but
w h i c h by the fact of d e s c e n t has a certain biological e l e m e n t but not that ele-
m e n t alone. Thus, in principle, in m o d e r n societies, individual interests are el-
evated to a very p r o m i n e n t position in the ideals and in the actual pat t ern of
society, but they can ne ve r b e c o m e all-dominant. This is w h y I think that Park
believed that no society could exist w i t h o u t some e l e m e n t of collective self-
consciousness. Park was no less interested in fissures or disruptions of routines,
w h i c h are the characteristic r e c u r r e n t features of any collectivity. Collectivities
endure. Their e n d u r a n c e is the reiteration or routine of certain patterns, w h i c h
necessarily entail some measure of collective self-consciousness but also a cer-
tain a m o u n t o f conflict, c o m p e t i t i o n and a c c o m m o d a t i o n . Institutions can exist
w i th all of these; but if any of the latter t hree increases to a certain point, the
collectivity is in danger of losing its previous charact er and acquiring a n e w one.
Park was interested in these ruptures and not least w h e n t hey w e r e large or
massive. Revolutions, strikes, riots, sectarian disruptions or secessions from churches,
nationalist m o v e m e n t s within existing states, social reform m o v e m e n t s u h e him-
self did no r es e a r ch on any of these topics, but he read avidly and t h o u g h t
earnestly about them, and w h e n he could find a promising student, he p u t him
to w o r k on a dissertation on the topic. Thus, he supervised dissertations on The
Strike by E.T. Hiller and on The Natural History of Revolution by Lyford P.
Edwards.
Th e fissure w h i c h interested Park in all of its c o n c r e t e n e s s was the fissure
b e t w e e n eth n ic groups living i nt er m i xed in the same territory, interacting with
e ach o t h e r in unavoidable ways, e.g., in c o m p e t i t i o n with each o t h e r in the sale
o f labor p o w e r (not always a sale in the sense of a voluntary transaction), or in
a c c o m m o d a t i o n with e a c h o t h e r (e.g., w o r s h i p p i n g in separate c h u r c h e s w i t h

Shlls 95
 different bishops, or going to "segregated schools," keeping sexual relations and
marriage strictly within ethnically defined boundaries). It was not only the Negroes
in the United States that interested him. He was interested no less in o t h e r
e t h n ic g r o u p s in the United States. His book on The I m m i g r a n t Press a n d Its
Control was p e r h a p s the only p i e c e of elaborate and p r o l o n g e d research w h i c h
he u n d e r t o o k to end in a m onogr aph. (The Race Relations Survey e n d e d badly.)
In the study of the et hni c groups in the United States, he had the opportu~
nity to use his fundamental categories for the analysis of bodies of data with
w h i c h he had long and intimate e x p e r i e n c e . Many m o n o g r a p h s w e r e c o n d u c t e d
u n d e r supervision, w h i c h in the case of Park's m e t h o d of supervision, oft en
a p p r o x i m a t e d co-authorship. The Negro in Chicago was a r e p o r t to the Chicago
Commission on Race Relations about the riots of 1919. T he field w o r k and
p r e s u m a b l y most of the writing w e r e don e by Charles Johnson, a graduate stu-
d e n t o f Park's; Park was officially "director of research" for the Commission.
A n o t h e r dissertation was on The Etiquette o f Race Relations in the South by
Bertram Doyle. This was an analysis of devices for a c c o m m o d a t i o n to minimize
conflict and to k e e p ethnic groups separate from each other. T he et i quet t e of
race relations was a m o d e of peaceful meeting of the t w o groups w h e n t hey
w e r e f o r c e d by their participation in the market to c o m e t oget her, e.g., for the
sale and p u r c h a s e of services. In these respects, Park was s o m e w h a t different
from Durkheim. Although Durkheim t h o u g h t that collective self-consciousness
was i n c o m p a t i b l e with organic solidarity and that the latter was b e c o m i n g the
facult~ maitresse of m o d e r n society, he was also alarmed by and tried, in con-
tradiction to his o w n theory, to find a surrogate for it to forestall the dissolution
o f m o d e r n society into an aggregate of egoistic individuals; Park did not predi ct
such a dissolution of collective self-consciousness.
Park's analysis of w ha t had b e e n called "race" was fully in a c c o r d a n c e with
his c o n c e p t i o n of the "moral order," w h i c h is constituted by its collective self-
consciousness. Park made the constitution of a race a m at t er of a collective self-
consciousness. Negroes w e r e Negroes in their ow n eyes and in the eyes of
o t h er s b ecau s e t hey c o n c e i v e d of themselves with r e f e r e n c e to their color. The
p i g m e n t a t i o n had no i n h e r e n t significance, no direct causal efficacy. It b e c a m e
significant because it had significance attributed to it in the collective self-con-
sciousness. Park did not press far b e y o n d this point. He t h o u g h t that the signifi-
c a n c e o f co lo r lay in its greater visibility.
Park's analysis seems to me to s how bot h his strength as a sociological theo-
rist and his deficiency. On the one side, his analysis of ~race" as an aggregate or
a collectivity c o n s t i t u t e d by "color-consciousness," i.e., as c o n s t i t u t e d by the
focus o f attention on "color" as a referent of the collective self-consciousness:
Similarity o f d e s c e n t from parents and ancestors of the same col or reinforces the
significance of c ol or as a r ef e r ent in the collective self-consciousness of the race.
So far, so good. The deficiency begins w h e r e Park ends his analysis. He does not
ask w h y h u man beings believe that "color" is significant. He seems sometimes
to think that it is because it defines the difference b e t w e e n an "in group" and
an "out g r o u p " - - t o use Sumner's distinction. But this begs the question, w h y

96 The American Sociologist/Winter 1996

does s o m e t h i n g as intrinsically or physiologically or mentally i n c o n s e q u e n t i a l as
p i g m e n t a t i o n have such vast c o n s e q u e n c e s for hum an beings? Here Park's eco-
logical studies should have raised such questions in his mind, but in these stud-
ies he did n o t ask w h y territory has so m u c h significance to h u m a n beings,
e x c e p t as a c o n v e n i e n c e or a utility.
Park n e v e r asked w h y biological d e s c e n t has so m uch significance attributed
to it. The fact is that Park, although he had the capacity to see that primordial
societies, w h i c h he designated as "folk societies," w e r e different from civil,
national and c o m m e r c i a l societies, did not p e n e t r a t e f u r t h e r to the fundamental
differences b e t w e e n them. Park a p p r e c i a t e d ~primordiality" in its c o n c r e t e and
particular manifestations, but he was unable to see more deeply. He could not
re a ch the p o i n t of seeing that p r i m o r d i a l i t y - - t i e s of bl ood and location of nar-
r o w r a d i u s - - i s a poi nt to w h i c h the human mind gravitates.
What made Park unique among the sociologists of this time was his knowl-
edge of the c o m p o s i t i o n of large societies. It is true that for him society was at
best a residual category, but he k n e w that t here w e r e large social entities (so-
cieties!) into w h i c h et hni c and national groups could be assimilated. Whereas
his great c o n t e m p o r a r i e s w r o t e about institutions and the relations of institu-
tions and even about societies (for them, also residual categories), t hey did so
with indifference to ethnicity. T h e y w r o t e as if the societies w e r e ethnically
h o m o g e n o u s . Park saw that no large society was ethnically h o m o g e n o u s , not
least o n e into w h i c h immigration has oc c u rred, but also societies in w h i c h t h e r e
has b e e n interregional migration. Of course, he was aware also of the role played
by c o n q u e s t in the establishment of territorially wide extensive societies or
states.
It was Park's sensitivity to ethnic h e t e r o g e n e i t y that made assimilation so
central in his understanding of society. Park k n e w that assimilation is practically
n e v e r perfect. T h e r e are many obstacles to passing from conflict or c o m p e t i t i o n
or especially a c c o m m o d a t i o n to assimilation. The collective self-consciousness
o f a g r o u p in conflict or a c c o m m o d a t i o n b e c o m e s relatively i m p e r m e a b l e to the
r e f e r e n t s o f o t h e r collective self-consciousnesses.
Th e transition from a c c o m m o d a t i o n to assimilation afforded Park one of his
most original insights. I refer to his p e r c e p t i v e observations about the conse-
q u e n c e o f participating in a plurality of collectivities and collective self-con-
sciousness at m or e or less the same time. This was his idea of the "marginal
man." This idea had already been a d u m b r a t e d by Simmel in his essay on "Die
K r e u z u n g sozialer Kreise." Park h o w e v e r c o n c e n t r a t e d for the p u r p o s e s of this
analysis on the individual w h o is at the point at w h i c h the several "social circles"
overlap or intersect. This is the place at w h i c h the "marginal man" occurs. For
Park, this kind of marginality was the source of intellectual and spiritual creativ-
ity. He had in mind particularly the Jews w h o as a pariah-people w i t h o u t an
internally c o n t i n u o u s and externally b o u n d e d territorially located state and so-
ciety of their own, p r o d u c e d many persons of p e n e t r a t i n g insight and r e c e p t i v e
imagination. Th e matter is more c o m p l i c a t e d than Park c o n c e i v e d it to be or
than his prot~g6, Everett V. Stonequist, in his dissertation w ri t t en u n d e r Park's

ShUs 97
watchful and pervasive supervision, was able to study. Still, in his reflections on
the "marginal man," Park o p e n e d up a field of investigation w h i c h has scarcely
b e g u n to be d evel oped. Especially in the study of intellectuals, w h o always
e x p a n d the collective self-consciousness b e y o n d their primordial and their eth-
nic and civil collectivities, there is a great deal still to be said about the signifi-
c a n ce o f participation in a plurality of collective self-consciousnesses. Park's
interests w e r e too diverse and he read and perhaps e x t e n d e d his interests t oo
r a nd o mly ever to have c o n c e n t r a t e d sufficiently on any topic e x c e p t race rela-
tions. But the idea of the "marginal man" r e c u r r e d frequently in his reflections.
One such m o m e n t is crystallized in the dissertation of H ow ard P. Becker. In the
middle o f the 1920s, Park p r o p o s e d to Becker that he w o r k on secularization in
Greek city states with collectivities o t h e r than their own. (I p r e s u m e that Park
p r o p o s e d the t o p i c - - a very fertile o n e - - f i r s t because it is so consistent with his
o t h e r interests and s e c o n d because Howard Becker himself seems not to have
b e e n sufficiently interested in the topic to pursue it after the c o m p l e t i o n of the
dissertation or e ve n sufficiently to revise it for publication in book-form. He did
publish an article based on the dissertation.)
According to Park, some of the creativity of Greek intellectual activity was to
be attributed to the intercourse among citizens of the different G reek city states
in the co u r s e of maritime com m er c i a l transactions. Park t h o u g h t that this juxta-
position in individual minds of the respective religious collective self-consciousnesses
o f the different city states relativized their deities and led to skepticism about
them. Marginality was c o n d u c i v e to em a nc i pat i on from the religious collective
self-consciousnesses w h i c h the individual had i n c o r p o r a t e d into himself.
A n o t h e r aspect of Park's reflections about assimilation was his interest in
c o m m u n i c a t i o n . Park, as a f o r m e r journalist, was interested in c o m m u n i c a t i o n s
as the v er y f o u ndat i on of the formation of collective self-consciousness. Wi t hout
information about the o t h e r person, c o m m u n i c a t e d by that person, or by third
parties, t h e r e could be no image of him and he could not b e c o m e , e x c e p t in rare
cases, an object of an individual's participation in collective self-consciousness.
Park was particularly interested in the f unc t i on of c o m m u n i c a t i o n in the forma-
tion o f large collectivities far b e y o n d face-to-face relations. Again, his failure to
arrive at a relatively clear c o n c e p t i o n of society made his interest in communi-
cation less fruitful than it can be made.

5. Like most o t h e r sociologists of his generation and since then, Park had no
idea o f society as a collectivity. He had a go od and clear idea of assimilation, but
he did n o t analyze the nature of the assimilating society. He was m ore aware
than any sociologist of his time of the p h e n o m e n o n of the assimilation of immi-
grant or eth n ic groups, but he did not analyze the society into w h i c h t hey
b e c a m e assimilated. He had a very high degree of awareness of certain territorial
aspects o f society. He was especially interested in the location of types of per-
sons and functions in cities; he also had some ideas about the distribution of
various functions in regions. Yet, he had no sense that place and territorial
e x t e n s i o n w e r e i m p o r t a n t referents for collective self-consciousness. His curios-

98 The American Sociologist/Winter 1996

ity was aroused by the differentiation in the spatial distribution of functions and
p e r s o n s in cities. He was interested in account i ng for the differentiated and
d e t e r m i n a t e distribution of various ethnic groups within the city. T he various
immigrant communities, spread like a p a t c h w o r k , w e r e part of "the c o l o r of the
great city" w h i c h keen reporters, such as Park, found so fascinating.
Park was interested in the division of labor in society because he was so
i n ter es ted in the extraordinary variety of specialized o c c u p a t i o n s in cities. He
had the curiosity of Henry Mayhew. T he division of labor as a p r o m i n e n t feature
o f e c o n o m i c and social life interested him less than the specialized activities that
it g e n e r a t e d and their spatial distribution. Adam Smith, H erbert S p e n c e r and
Emile Du r k h eim discussed the division of labor w i t h o u t referring to the spatial
distributions of the pe r s ons engaged in that differentiated labor or to the spatial
distribution o f the functions they p e r f o r m e d . Park at t ended to s o m e t h i n g that
his great p r e d e c e s s o r s did not see, namely, the spatial distribution of specialized
functions. He was, h o w e v e r , insufficiently attentive to the b o u n d e d c h a r a c t e r of
territory o v er w h i c h that distribution occurred. The great self-generating, self-
controlling m e c h a n i s m of the market w h i c h b r o u g h t with it the division of labor
was well a p p r e h e n d e d by Park. Park was a liberal. He gave little credit to the
s t a t e - - h i s sociological t h e o r y is fairly vacant on that subject; yet he failed to see
that self-regulation by rational mutual adjustment o c c u r r e d within the bound-
aries of a national e c o n o m y and national state. (This is strange but it is true; it
was a serious deficiency.)
It may be that this interest in spatial distribution resulted from an acci dent of
his o m n i v o r o u s reading. W h e t h e r he read the b o o k of Eugenius Warming on
P l a n t C o m m u n i t i e s (published in 1895 and translated into English in 1909) by
a ccid en t or because the subject already interested him, I do not know. What is
k n o w n is that he was m uc h affected by that book. It offered him an e x t e n s i o n
of his reflections on com pe t i t i on. He saw that individuals or classes o f persons
or species w h i c h could not c o m p e t e successfully w e r e cast into positions and
locations in w h i c h they could survive while receiving a smaller share o f the
"values" available to their m o r e successful com pet i t ors. Park n e v e r used the
t e r m "relegation" to describe the allocation of inferior r e w a r d s - - a n d inferior
l o c a t i o n s - - t o those defeated in the competition.
Park t h o u g h t that the e c o n o m i c o r d e r had an i n h e r e n t ineluctibility, i.e., he
t h o u g h t that it rested on conditions given by nature to w h i c h hum an beings had
to adapt themselves t hr ough their technological knowledge, instruments and
practices. The ecological or der had as m u ch a life of its o w n as did the moral
order. The relationship b e t w e e n the two orders was never resolved in Park's
mind.
T h e r e was a defect in Park's t h o u g h t w h i c h p r e v e n t e d him from linking the
t w o orders, "the spatial pattern and the moral order," as he o n c e r e f e r r e d to the
city in one o f his most famous essays. Why could he not do it? Perhaps he simply
lacked the ratiocinative p o w e r . Perhaps it was because his c o n c e p t i o n of collec-
tive self-consciousness was insufficiently w o r k e d out to perm i t him to see that
spatial location was one of the criteria or referents by w h i c h hum an beings,

Shils 99
t o g e t h e r with others w h o also possess that referent or criterion, form a collec-
tivity and a collective self-consciousness.
W h a t e v e r it was, hum a n ecology n e v e r b e c a m e a p r o p e r substantive part of
sociology. It d e t e r i o r a t e d into no m or e than a t e c h n i q u e of research, a sort of
sociological c a r t o g r a p h y which, bef or e the d e v e l o p m e n t of sample surveys and
public o p i n i o n polls, was very useful to obtain statistical series and to calculate
coefficients o f correlation. W h e n sample surveys appeared, the ecological tech-
nique was b o u n d to disappear. It was too limited in the kinds o f data w h i c h it
c o u ld deal with, and its measures w e r e too crude; data about individuals w e r e
m o r e p r ecis e than averages about census tracts.
Ecology was a substantive descriptive and analytical b o d y of k n o w l e d g e re-
garding the location of classes of individuals and groups in a territory; it also
b e c a m e , especially in the hands of Ernest Burgess, a cartographic t e c h n i q u e of
correlation o f different series of social characteristics with each other. Park was
delighted by the maps of Chicago w h i c h p u r p o r t e d to show a distribution into
five c o n c e n t r i c zones; he could apply his substantive ecological analyses to try
to explain w h y particular types of persons, particular m o d e s of life, particular
types o f groups w e r e w h e r e t hey were. Burgess, w h o was a m u c h m ore persis-
tent w o r k e r than Park, gave particular attention to the ecological t echni que; he
had little interest in substantive hum a n ecology.
W h e n Park ceased to be a very active m e m b e r of the d e p a r t m e n t of sociology
at Chicago, Burgess's methodological kind of ecol ogy gained the u p p e r hand
o v e r Park's substantive kind w hi c h, in any case, never had many devotees. Eco-
logical or car to gr a phi c correlations of different series distributed over many
census tracts was a very useful t e c h n i q u e of sociological study as long as t here
was not a s u p er i or technique. That superior t e c h n i q u e a p p e a r e d already by the
middle o f the 1930s, and it b e c a m e very well established by the end of that
decade. This was the t e c h n i q u e of the sample survey. It first a p p e a r e d u n d e r the
name of the Gallup Poll; it dealt with opinions. T hen came Elmo Roper and the
"Fortune Poll." It too dealt mainly with opinions, but it dealt with activities as
well. The establishment of the Survey Branch in the D e p a r t m e n t of Agriculture
u n d e r Rensis Likkert, the w o r k of the Survey Branch u n d e r Samuel Stouffer of
the Adjutant General's Office of the D e p a r t m e n t of Defense, and t hen the estab-
lishment of the Survey Research Unit u n d e r Angus Campbell at the Institute of
Social Research at the University of Michigan, and finally the establishment of
the National Opinion Research Center u n d e r Clyde Hart at the University of
Chicago r e n d e r e d the cartographic t e c h n i q u e utterly obsolete. By t he end of his
career, Burgess himself also gave it up. The cartographic t e c h n i q u e had c o m e to
stand for all o f h um an ecol ogy as it was done at Chicago because Park's fragmen-
tary unsystematized views found very few persons w h o wished to c o n t i n u e and
d e v e l o p them. Hence, w h e n Park ceased to teach regularly, beginning in about
1934, t h e r e was no one to carry on substantive human ecol ogy as a part of
sociology. Park himself had not pus he d it far e n o u g h to make it a crucial part
of sociological analysis.
T h e r e w e r e similarities b e t w e e n the process of hum an m o v e m e n t and settle-

100 The American Sociologist/Winter 1996

m e n t and those of plants, but the patterns of h u m a n m o v e m e n t s and s e t t l e m e n t
had to be studied. Park could not go b e y o n d invasion and succession. These
w e r e d o c u m e n t e d by solid pieces of research d o n e for d o c t o r a t e s at Chicago.
Persistence was n e v e r studied by Park, not even resistance against invasion. The
impression left by Park's students' research is that m o v e m e n t or remaining is
entirely a m a t t e r of cost and c o n v e n i e n c e . I think that it was not. Reconstitution
of c o m m u n i t y should have b e e n one of his great interests. He was almost silent
on that q u es tio n as far as his theories w e r e c o n c e r n e d . I have p i c k e d out only
a f e w omissions f r om Park's ecological interests. T hey are aspects w h i c h should
have b e e n included, but Park, although not a rationalist or one w h o t h o u g h t that
primordial things w e r e d o o m e d to pass away and that their p r e s e n c e in cont em -
p o r a r y society n e e d not be a c c o u n t e d for, had no place in his m o r e abstract
r ef lectio n for the c a t e g o r y of the primordial.
Yet, looking at the matter about a half c e n t u r y after Park's death, the links
b e t w e e n the spatial patterns and the moral o r d e r can be illuminated a little m o r e
fully than he himself did. The ecological processes, w h i c h w e r e c o n d i t i o n e d by
and w h i c h also o v e r l a p p e d with e c o n o m i c processes, set limits on the actions
o f h u m a n beings. T he i m p o r t a n c e o v e r l o o k e d by Park was that the spatial loca-
tion has a significance w h i c h is not e x h a u s t e d by the rent w h i c h has to be paid
for it or by the c o n v e n i e n c e s w h i c h it offers. Human beings w e r e c o m p e l l e d as
a result of c o m p e t i t i o n to w o r k in particular places and to reside in particular
places or to move from one place to another. Some had to move great distances
to gain their livelihood; others m o v e d s hort er distances daily to do so. Compe-
tition d e t e r m i n e d w h e t h e r the p r o d u c t s of activities in a particular place w e r e
e x c h a n g e d or sold at o t h e r places or w h e t h e r they w e r e e x c h a n g e d or sold at
all. This d e t e r m i n e d w h e t h e r a given activity could continue, increase in vol-
ume, diminish or even cease entirely. To these given circumstances, the collec-
tive self-consciousness r e s p o n d e d in various ways.
Park was at his best in his analysis of the ecol ogy of immigrants. He s h o w e d
transplanted or immigrant populations r e s p o n d i n g to their p l a c e m e n t in an ac-
c o m m o d a t i n g niche by sustaining themselves t hrough an adaptation of their
original ethic or national collective self-consciousness, maintaining as m u c h of
it as they could conveniently do. They formed themselves into L a n d s m a n n s c b a f t e n ,
read n e w s p a p e r s in the languages of their homeland, and lived t o g e t h e r in the
same eth n ic n e i g h b o r h o o d s . These ethnic or national groups, o n c e they had
settled, gave up their hardly-won residences, w h e n they w e r e invaded by n e w
generations of immigrants of different ethnic stock; t hey m o v e d e n m a s s e to
o t h e r areas w h e r e they f o r m e d n e w niches. Gradually, t hey b e c a m e assimilated
into the larger host society. In this instance it was not the e c o n o m i c p r o c e s s e s
o f c o m p e t i t i o n alone w h i c h caused the earlier residents to r e s p o n d to invasion
by their o w n removal; it is rather the a c c o m m o d a t i v e seeking of a n o t h e r niche
w h e r e th ey can maintain their h o m o g e n e o u s culture. Territoriality was n e v e r
analyzed by Park as an object or r e f e r e n t of collective self-consciousness. He
could see languages as the m edi um of nationality or g r o u p and the possession
o f a c o m m o n language as an object valued in the collective self-consciousness

$hils 101
a r o u n d w h i c h the solidarity of the speakers of the language could be formed. He
did not see the past or p r e s e n t location in a given territory, or an area within
a territory, as such a distinctively significant referent.

6. In the p er io d w h e n radical, m or e or less Marxist criticisms w e r e being di-

r e c t e d against American sociologists, it was charged that American sociology
had o b s c u r e d the stratification of American society. This criticism was bot h true
and untrue. It was untrue because the analysis of the residential distribution of
the urban population, c e n t e r e d as it was on such variables as residential density,
residential, rental, and occupational c o m p o s i t i o n as well as native and foreign
place o f birth did indeed disclose unblinkingly the objective or "material" facts
on inequality of i n c o m e and living conditions of the urban population. (Simi-
larly, the analysis by the sociologists of Chicago of the conditions of the black
p o p u l a t i o n n e v e r o b s c u r e d the fact of civil and occupational discrimination.)
Although o n e of his students, Harvey Zorbaugh, w r o t e a fascinating book, The
Gold Coast a n d the Sl um , w h i c h is about social stratification in the Near North
Side of Chicago in the beginning of the third decade of the t w e n t i e t h century,
Park himself did not quite grasp the pattern of the unity of a society and its
internal stratification as a process of election w h i c h was m ore than ecological.
If the radical critics had accused American sociologists of the charge of dis-
regarding the aspects of social stratification w h i c h have to do with the collective
self-consciousness of classes and of the w h o l e society, they w o u l d have b e e n
closer to the truth. H ow ever , that is not w hat they usually said. T h e y themselves
did not have any understanding of this aspect of social stratification; their only
and slight m o v e m e n t in the right direction lay in their e m p l o y m e n t of the t erm
"false consciousness, ~ but that was an error derived from a plainly baseless
historical metaphysics. T he y did not have a s c h e m e even as good as Park's. The
truth of the mat t e r is that Park's ideas about a c c o m m o d a t i o n in race relations
(i.e., relations b e t w e e n white ethnic immigrant groups and native Americans)
and his unclear c o n c e p t i o n of the "moral order, ~ w h i c h was a step in the right
d i r ectio n towards the c o n c e p t i o n of collective self-consciousness, w o u l d have
allowed him to d e v e l o p a very s u p e r i o r t h e o r y of social stratification. Unfortu-
nately, he did not do that, but to do it, he w o u l d not have n e e d e d to a b a n d o n
his f u n d amen tal postulates. I attribute the failure of Park and the o t h e r Chicago
sociologists to deal with social stratification more amply and m o r e adequat el y
than t h e y did to the absence from their ideas o f a c o n c e p t i o n of society, i.e.,
society as the widest, most c o m p r e h e n s i v e collectivity existing in a b o u n d e d
territory, with authoritative cent er s and sub-centers and of p e r i p h e r i e s at differ-
ent distance from the centers and sub-centers, and with collective self-consciousness
of the entire society as well as n u m e r o u s less inclusive collective self-conscious-
ness referring to the cent er s and sub-centers as well as to the collectivity as a
w h o l e and to the lesser collectivities.
Park u n d e r s t o o d , thanks to his interest in markets and e x c h a n g e and in trans-
p o r t a t i o n and c o m m u n i c a t i o n , b e t t e r than practically any o t h e r sociologist of his
time or since then, the i m por t ant ecological c o m p o n e n t s in the const i t ut i ons of

102 The American Sociologist/Winter 1996

large-scale societies. He saw that this e x t e n d e d the radius of interaction b e y o n d
the b o u n d ar ies of face-to-face and small communities. But he coul d not bring
that understanding to bear in a way w h i c h w o u l d have enabl ed him to see that
t h er e are societies, not just nationalities or national states. He u n d e r s t o o d col-
lectivities and aggregates within societies. He had an especially g o o d grasp o f
e t h n i c collectivities and of their collective self-consciousness. I do not think that
any sociologist since that time was superior to him in this g r a s p m i n c l u d i n g the
great European sociologists. He grasped what was essential in ethnic collective
self-consciousness; he u n d e r s t o o d the national collective self-consciousness of
nationalities as long as t hey w e r e national minorities in a state in w h i c h t hey
w e r e n o t d o min ant and w e r e not satisfied. But the understanding of the collec-
tive self-consciousness of the society of w h i c h they w e r e parts el uded him.
I think that Park came closer to understanding the c h a r a c t e r of a c e n t e r than
any of the major sociologists w h o p r e c e d e d him. Even Max Weber, w h o was far
m o r e learned than Park and w h o had a far m o r e orderly mind than Park, n e v e r
t o o k advantage of his k n o w l e d g e of law and religion and his underst andi ng of
authority in general, and of bureaucratic rational-legal and charismatic types of
a u th o r ity in particular, and did not quite grasp the nature of a c e n t e r of society
as well as Park. Park r e s p o n d e d early to Charles Galpin's The A n a t o m y o f a
Country Town. He u n d e r s t o o d from that m o n o g r a p h the d e p e n d e n c e of a hin-
terland or a p e r i p h e r y on a center, even though the pat t ern w h i c h Galpin stud-
ied was a tiny one. Fur t he r m or e, Park saw something about the f u n c t i o n w h i c h
a m etr o p o lis p e r f o r m e d for its surrounding region in the provision of informa-
tion and focus of attention. His travels in China in the last years of his career,
as an academic sociologist, and his k n o w l e d g e of Africa gained about a quart er
of a c e n t u r y earlier w h e n he was p r e o c c u p i e d as a publicist with King Leopold's
policies in the Belgian Congo gave him a very intimate e x p e r i e n c e of the expan-
sion o f the W e s t e r n c e n t e r s into the Asian and African peripheries.
These w e r e some of Park's deficiencies. T h e y still have not b e e n repaired.
T he m a c r o s o c i o l o g y w h i c h w oul d do that has still to be created.

7. I wo u ld like to say a few words on w h y Park's, i.e., Chicago's, sociology lost

its p r o m i n e n t position in the w o r k of sociologists. I do not think that it was
primarily for his failure as a macrosociologist. The p r o m i n e n t sociologists, Talcott
Parsons, Robert Merton, Paul Lazarsfeld and James Coleman, w h o r e p l a c e d him,
have not made up his deficiences. T he y too failed to p e r c e i v e w h o l e societies.
I think that one essential part of Park's sociology was hum an ecology. That
was r ath er unique. O t he r sociologists had dealt to some e x t e n t w i t h t erri t ory
and location; Simmel certainly dealt brilliantly w i t h the subject, b u t his analyses
w e r e v er y fragmentary and i nc ohe r ent . Those o t h e r s o c i o l o g i s t s - - e x c e p t possi-
bly for S i m m e l m d i d very little with such p h e n o m e n a , and t h e y had no theoreti-
cal ideas ab o u t the pr oces s es w h i c h d e t e r m i n e d location in a territory or about
the significance of location in a territory. Nor did t hey deal w i t h the significance
o f territorial location; T6nnies t o u c h e d on it; Durkheim and Simmel w e r e blind
to it; Max W e b e r r e d u c e d it to habitual association; w hat is surprising is Max

Shlls 103
Weber's failure to appreciate the sacrality of territorial location. After all, he
k n e w more about charismatic things and their diverse manifestations than any
one in his great generation, and he knew, thanks to scholars like Usener, a great
deal about local gods. Nevertheless, with all his advantages, he lost the oppor-
tunity. Park's treatment of place in a territory is unique among sociologists; but
he did not take advantage of his glimpse into a fundamental of h u m a n society.
He did not take the necessary step forward to see the c o r r e s p o n d e n c e b e t w e e n
spatial, ecologically determined residential connections and status, and local and
national, collective self-consciousness. In the same way, he missed the opportu-
nity to study class consciousness, not just the aggressive alienated class con-
sciousness, w h i c h Marxists thought wrongly was the only kind of class con-
sciousness, but the other kinds of class consciousness, w h i c h are neither alien-
ated nor aggressive and which are therefore, according to Marxists, "false con-
sciousness."
I emphasize this point, not because I think that class consciousness, i.e., the
collective self-consciousness of classes, defined by income, wealth, style of life
and power, is so important in itself. It is important. But from the point of view
from w h i c h I am criticizing Park, it would have pressed him to recognize that
the classes were parts of a society with a distinctive collective self-consciousness
of itself as a society.
His ideas about assimilation also brought him face to face with the larger,
more inclusive, territorially b o u n d e d society into which assimilation was occur-
ring, but he did not respond to the challenge of analyzing that assimilating
society, i.e., the society which assimilates into itself the peripheral minority
(ethnic, religious, national, etc.) and which thereby diminishes the distance between
c e n t e r and periphery, w h i c h is one of the major features as it is one of the great
moral achievements of modern liberal democratic societies. To have c o n f r o n t e d
the same challenge laid d o w n by a serious analysis of social stratification and of
class consciousness might have pressed him to see the larger society. After all,
class consciousness presupposes the larger society even more explicity, or dras-
tically, than ethnic collective self-consciousness, which has a center within itself
in its past or its future.

8. Despite these strictures about Park's achievements as a sociological theorist,

I w o u l d insist that he was one of the great sociologists who, like Weber and
Durkheim and T~nnies, still has an important place among those great sociolo-
gists of the past. With Durkheim, Park was the only sociologist w h o understood
something about the nature of collective self-consciousness. He never elaborated
his insight sufficiently systematically and explicitly, but he came closer than any
other sociologist of his time to appreciating, however vaguely, this absolutely
fundamental p h e n o m e n o n of social life.
Why did he fail to exploit the absolutely fundamental insight of his Heidel-
berg doctoral dissertation? I attribute his failure to his blindness to the signifi-
cance of religious belief, which is always oriented towards the center of the
cosmos, and its inevitably strained relationship with the center of society. He

104 The American Sociologist/Winter 1996

had been interested in marginal religious p h e n o m e n a , but he was blind to the
crucial significance of the religious element in all societies, even the allegedly,
secular society of the modern age.

Postscript

Thanks to the efforts of professor Luigi Tomasi of the University of Trento,

the "Chicago School" of sociology has become an interesting object of study by
European sociologists. I would like in a few pages to explain w h y that great
e p i s o d e - - a b o u t two d e c a d e s - - h a s n o w been forgotten. I wish to add an expla-
nation of w h y the "Chicago School" faded in the m e m o r y of living sociologists.
Robert Park was the life and soul of the department. His imposing personality,
his contagious curiosity, his broad culture animated the otherwise dormant spirits
of his colleagues and his students. Ernest Burgess was made into another man
by Park's presence. This may be seen by what he became after Park left the
d e p a r t m e n t at the age of seventy. Park's pupils were young persons of no great
inherent distinction, but under his inspiration and solicitude, they wrote a series
of monographs w h i c h have their place among the classics of empirical research.
An interesting fact about them is that practically none of them wrote anything
of any c o n s e q u e n c e after they passed out of the presence of Park. Park himself
did nothing after he left Chicago, although he was full of ideas and energy until
the m o m e n t of his departure. Park and his students needed each other. It would
seem, therefore, that the intellectual productivity of the "Chicago School" is to
be a c c o u n t e d for by the simultaneous presence of Park and a body of respectful,
upright and moderately intelligent students, capable of working hard and sus-
ceptible to inspiration. When Park left the University of Chicago, there was no
one to replace him in teaching and in the guidance of research and least of all
in arousing in his students a vision of the working of society. Park w e n t to a
minor university in Tennessee where one of his favourite pupils, Charles Johnson,
was president. (Johnson had been his assistant on the p r o d u c t i o n of the great
w o r k on The Negro in Chicago [1915], still a classic of empirical description,
and with W.E.B. DuBois's, The Philadelphia Negro [1899], the best sociological
work ever written on blacks in the United States.) There he had no pupils to stir
up his imagination by their openness to his ideas; the students at Chicago had
no one to stir their imagination. Many of his best ideas were left undeveloped
because he had no responsive audience for them. His ideas were of the richest
potentiality but w i t h o u t intellectual response, his intellectual force subsided.
Park had a decade more of his life in which he p r o d u c e d neither works nor
pupils. It may be asked w h y did not the teachers w h o took over the responsi-
bility for the d e p a r t m e n t carry on Park's work. There was no one to carry on
Park's ideas or Park's role as an inspirer of young scholars. It is not sufficient to
state, as I have above, that Park's technique of research-participant-observation
in the field was rendered antiquated by the formation of more scientific tech-
niques of research. It is true that in many respects the n e w techniques were
more scientific, but the technique which Park had developed still had m u c h

Shlls 105
vitality in it. It is still capable of p r o d u c i n g illuminating works. My a n s w e r to the
q u es tio n as to w h y Park's w or k was not carried on by his colleagues is that they
w e r e p e r s o n s of little intellectual character. At least one of t hem was a p e r s o n
c h o s e n by Park from among his f o r m e r students. All of the ot hers w e r e agreed
to by Park in the system of academic a p p o i n t m e n t w h i c h t hen prevailed at
Chicago, w h e r e b y a p p o i n t m e n t s are p r o p o s e d and in effect made by senior
m e m b e r s o f the d e p a r t m e n t . Park was the dominant p e r s o n of the d e p a r t m e n t ,
but I think that he was in fact not really interested in w h o was appoi nt ed.
Neither at the level of junior nor at the level of senior a p p o i n t m e n t s did Park
s h o w g o o d j u d g e m e n t or a sense of responsibility. Nor did he s h o w m u c h daring
or imagination. T h e r e w e r e t w o sociologists in the w orl d at that time w h o could
have en ab led the d e p a r t m e n t of sociology to go forward enriching and extend-
ing Park's w o r k and drawing out some of its potentialities. It might seem out-
landish to say, after sixty years, that Maurice Halbwachs, at that time at the
University of Strasbourg, and Charles J o h n s o n would have b e e n the salvation of
sociology and that their a p p o i n t m e n t w o u l d have enabled sociology in Chicago
to reach heights b e y o n d its a c h i e v e m e n t s of the t w o previous decades. T hese
observations are not so utopian as it might seem. Haibwachs had b e e n a visiting
p r o f e s s o r at the University of Chicago in 1926 (or 1928). He was very successful
and at the en d of t er m in Chicago w r o t e one of the best essays on the "Chicago
School" that has ever b e e n written, tte alone, w orki ng in the Durkheimian tra-
dition, could have b r o u g h t to fruition the ideas w h i c h P a r k m u l t i m a t e l y com i ng
fr o m the same tradition as D u r k h e i m m h a d d e v e l o p e d in his o w n w ay in the
United States. Halbwachs was not at that time the famous sociologist that he
later became; he might have b e e n willing to c o m e to Chicago. But to have
t h o u g h t of ev en the possibility r e qui r ed a feat of imagination on the part of the
professors at the University of Chicago. I have the impression that Park did not
care e n o u g h to bestir his mind and to a t t e m p t to persuade his colleagues. To
a p p o i n t Charles J o h n s o n also w o u l d have required courage and imagination on
the part o f the professors of sociology and the administrators of the University
o f Chicago. Still it w o u l d have b e e n possible to make a good a r g u m e n t since he
was p r o b a b l y the best and most p r o d u c t i v e sociologist of his age in the United
States. (He b e l o n g e d to the generation born around 1895.) But Park p r o b a b l y did
n o t really care e n o u g h about the d e p a r t m e n t , nor was he sufficiently free from
p r e j u d i c e against blacks as he should have been. (W.I. T hom as said of Park
a b o u t t w e n t y years earlier that he was as free of racial prejudices as it was
possible for a w h i t e man to be.) This is a foray into imaginary h y p o t h e t i c a l
history, and there is nothing to be d o n e about it sixty years later. One lesson to
be drawn, h o w e v e r , is that outstanding intellectual merit, p e r h a p s even intellec-
tual greatness, is not necessarily c o n c o m i t a n t with a sense of responsibility to
the academic institution to w h i c h the intellectually outstanding p e r s o n ow es so
much.

106 The American Sociologist/Winter 1996