Sociology Analysis

Sociology Analysis

1 Introduction In 1892 an exciting experiment in education began on a desolate prairie: The University of Chicago opened its doors and an academic era was born. William Rainey Harper, its first president, was an aggressive upstart who used persuasion, money, and promises of institutional power to lure prominent, but often young, scholars to the “wild” West. Although the university was located on an urban frontier, it wanted to rival the intellectually preeminent East. Largely eschewing the areas of established excellence, the early administrators sought out new disciplines and ambitious faculty. Both groups wanted to build a national and international reputation for the institution, and they did it with a pioneer spirit compatible with the surging city growing rapidly and haphazardly around them. It was this intellectual whirlwind that brought academic sociology to Chicago. At that time, sociology was an amorphous area of study. It had found a tenuous niche in many universities, as an adjunct to more established and legitimized disciplines. A little bit of history, a dash of political economy, and a pinch of social amelioration comprised the general hodgepodge of the “field.” Sociology even gained a reputation for being associated with “radical” ideas about changing society: socialism, feminism, and secularism were all trends that sociologists dared to study and even advocate. Although the Eastern sociologists were just as likely to be conservative as radical, the intellectuals on the “Left” of mainstream America were attracted to this new science of society and the possibility of systematically critiquing established rules

ORDER A PLAGIARISM FREE PAPER NOW

and institutions. The University of Chicago was seeking exactly this type of new discipline. As a new academy, it was in a position to offer legitimacy to a specialization without a home. As a coeducational institution, women faculty and ideas that supported women’s “new” demands were also welcome. Women, moreover, were seen as ideally suited to studying social change, improving society, and questioning the old restrictions of the more established order. Each of these factors combined to make the University of Chicago a center for sociological research and development, and a haven in I 2 Jane Addams and the Men of the Chicago School, 1892-1918 the heartless academic world previously closed to women’s higher education. Over time, the University of Chicago and its Department of Sociology fulfilled, and perhaps even surpassed, Harper’s grand ambitions. Chicago Sociology began to dominate the new discipline.’ As it did so, its more lusty youth passed and a more conservative and powerful structure emerged. The early years of sociology’s development became embedded in myths. As sociologists became members of a new establishment, their early association with radical ideas, especially feminism, became less desirable memories of their past. Sociologists who specialized in criticizing the economic structure of society and women’s limitations within it were particularly subject to neglect or damning interpretations. Although these early Chicago sociologists were prominent, if not notorious, citizens, their effect on urban America and its political life was seen as less important to their successors in sociology than the historical development of an academic discipline. The early passion, political forays, and verve were abstracted from accounts of “scientific” sociology. Thus early male Chicago sociologists were frequently not interpreted as important figures in sociological thought because their more important ideas and contributions were evaluated as “nonprofessional” activities and interests. In such a repressive context, it is not surprising to learn that early female sociologists fared even worse than their male counterparts. Although women flocked to the University of Chicago and to its Department of Sociology, they were unable to gain a foothold in academic sociology. At first, this did not seem to be problematic because there was employment for women sociologists outside of the academy. A dual system of sex-segregated labor was thereby established. Male sociologists were expected to be abstract thinkers, capable of teaching both sexes. Academic positions were to be held by men who were institutionally encouraged to become professors. Female sociologists were expected to work in “women’s” sociological institutions. These employing organizations included social settlements, where sociologists lived in an impoverished community as friends, neighbors, and community organizers; the new Young Women’s Christian Association; and women’s colleges. Female sociologists were expected to be “practical” thinkers, capable of reaching out to strangers in a hostile world and in this way mimicing the female roles of wife, mother, and daughter in the home. In general, both sexes accepted this sex-segregated network. Many “academic” male sociologists forged a bridge between the two groups through their work with female students and their ideological support of women’s equality. In addition, a few outstanding female sociologists were recognized as leaders by the men, and the most important woman in this position was Jane Addams. 2 Introduction 3 Her preeminence as a sociologist is easy to understand. She had a seminal mind, political acumen, administrative brilliance, and moral leadership. she was one of the greatest American leaders of her day, and she is one of the most influential and famous women in our history. Considerable scholarship on her life and influence is now available, yet none of it discusses or documents her central role as a sociologist. The only profession today that acknowledges her preeminent role in its founding is social work. Despite the lack of recognition in sociology, Addams’ social thought as well as her institutional and professional ties were originally grounded in this discipline. She left a legacy that formed a basis for sociology as a way of thinking, an area of study, and a methodological approach to data collecting. Despite her vision and contributions to sociology, her authorship of this work has been obliterated from the annals of the discipline and many of her ideas were only selectively used and thereby distorted. Documentation of Addams as a sociologist and leader of the newly founded discipline is the goal of this book. There is no attempt to elaborate on her vital relationship to social work or other professions, such as political science or philosophy, or to examine her public leadership. The focus here is on sociology and her relationships with the men of the Chicago School. These men and the institution in which they worked were central to the development of sociology, and Addams worked closely with them for decades. Her sociological concepts were incorporated into the profession through their work. Before proceeding with my task, a little sidetrip is necessary. Addams’ leadership in sociology was based on considerably more than her relationship to the now recognized male Chicago School of Sociology. She coordinated and led a massive network of women sociologists who either worked at the “daring” new university or who studied there as graduate students. This book, therefore, is only the first in a series of three volumes. The second book analyzes the role of other female sociologists who worked :is marginal faculty members in the Department of Sociology at the University of Chicago. The third book analyzes the work and careers of the female graduates of the department. These three volumes will describe the “female” Chicago School of Sociology and document the existence of a flourishing and influential school of thought that was systematically discriminated against in the profession. The existence of a dual, sex-stratified network in sociology has rarely been documented. 3 This first volume, then, is only a step toward establishing Addams as a central figure in sociology. Since the University of Chicago and the men who worked there as sociologists are already recognized as the earliest and most powerful institution and figures in Chicago, her work in Chicago and with these men are strong starting points for legitimating her work as a sociologist. Moreover, 4 Jane Addams and the Men of the Chicago School, 1892-1918 because the women’s network and practice of sociology was ultimately less powerful and visible than the male’s, Addams’ most lasting influence over the discipline was channeled through these early male colleagues. In this introductory chapter, Addams’ biography and role as a historical figure are briefly presented. Formal criteria for considering her a sociologist are also given. This is followed by a short biographical introduction to each of the eight male sociologists who were the core faculty of the early Chicago School of sociology. The last section of this chapter is an overview of the organization of the book and the central arguments used to establish Addams as a founder of American sociology. Jane Addams More books and articles have been written about Jane Addams than any other American woman. 4 She captured the dreams, ideals, and imagination of a generation. In the process, her intellectual significance was obscured in light of her popular image as a “saint” or “villain,” a woman who was larger than life and often portrayed as a simple follower of her convictions. 5 Born in 1860, she was a contemporary of the early Chicago men. Addams was raised in a small Midwestern town where she was profoundly influenced by her father, a Quaker, state senator, and mill owner. Her family background was based on several generations of Americans. In 1879 she entered Rockford Female Seminary, in Rockford, Illinois, which was one of the pioneering colleges for women. Unresponsive to the religious message of the school, Addams sought to get “back to a great Primal cause-not nature, exactly, but a fostering Mother, a necessity, brooding, and watching over all things, above every human passion.” 6 After she graduated in 1881, she entered an extended period of unhappiness, nervous strain and depression. Like many of her colleagues, notably George Herbert Mead and William James, Addams sought a meaning for her life but rejected traditional religion as an answer to her questions. 7 This year, 1881, was crucial in her search for a place in the world. In August, her father died and his absence left her confused and despairing. But she also entered the Women’s Medical College in Philadelphia. Before the year was out, she dropped out of medical training and returned home to Cedarville, Illinois. There, she was caught between the demands of her stepmother, a pressing suitor, and her ambition to have a career. Ill and surrounded by family problems, Addams drifted for a year. Finally taking some action, in 1883 she traveled to Europe. Although she was interested in the problems of the poor at this time, she was not too troubled by their plight. “Socially, too, she was still very much the product of her background and education. She was the Victorian young lady, the epitome of American feminine innocence that Henry James was so fond of depict. “8 mg. Introduction 5 Her family attempted to “enter her” into society, but she rejected their social plans. She remained frustrated and sick for the next two years and stayed primarily in Baltimore. Then, once again she traveled to Europe. On this journey, accompanied by her college friend Ellen Gates Starr, she finally found a direction for her life. When she visited Toynbee Hall in London’s East End, she became impressed with their work for the poor. This social settlement was associated with Oxford University and was designed to provide leadership to a district populated by the exploited working classes. Emphasizing urban disorganization as a barrier to needed education and “culture,” Toynbee Hall provided a model for Addams’ resolution of her personal and occupational crisis. Years later, she theorized that one of the most difficult tasks for women was managing the conflicting demands between their “family” and “social” claims. For Addams, this resolution occurred through social settlements where she could remain a “lady” while making a social and political impact. Simultaneously, she was independent of traditional female roles and responsibilities in the family and home. Because of th~se self-benefits for those who helped others, she always emphasized both the “subjective” and “objective” needs for social settlements. This stress on the dual function of settlements prevented her from becoming the sentimental or insensitive “matrician” she is often portrayed as being. With her internal battle in abeyance, she quickly succeeded in assuming leadership of the American social settlement movement and subsequently altered the course of American thought and politics. This dramatic public role began soon after she returned to the United States in January 1889. Addams and Starr moved to Chicago and rented an apartment there. Within a few months they moved onto one floor of a house owned by the Culver and Hull family. “Hull-House,” as it was called, quickly abandoned the British Toynbee Hall model and became more egalitarian, more female-dominated, and less religious. These changes were important intellectual innovations, often implemented by Addams but frequently instigated by the women with whom she surrounded hersel( Moreover, in 1892 the University of Chicago opened its doors bringing many faculty members, predominantly men, as visitors and lecturers to Hull-House. But it was Addams and Hull-House who were the leader and leading institution in Chicago in the 1890s, not the University of Chicago. Not only was she the charismatic head ofa rapidly expanding social movement, but she was also considered one of the leading sociologists of her day. The 1890s were lively and controversial years at Hull-House. Anarchists, Marxists, socialists, unionists, and leading social theorists congregated there. 9 John Dewey and George Herbert Mead, among others, were frequent visitors, lecturers, and close friends of Addams. 10 Chicago prag- 6 Jane Addams and the Men of the Chicago School, 1892-1918 matism was born through their collegial contacts and intellectual exchanges. They wanted to combine scientific and objective observation with ethical and moral values to generate a just and liberated society. A groundbreaking sociological text, Hull-House Maps and Papers,was published by Hull-House residents in 1893, predating and establishing the interests of the early Chicago male sociologists. During this time, HullHouse and Addams gained a national and international reputation as a radical, innovative, and successful institution. Oriented toward social change, they articulated an American dream, particularly adapted to bright, educated, Anglo women who wanted a new role in life and society.11 Addams surrounded herself with brilliant and dedicated people, particularly women. These women formed a core group who lived at the settlement, wrote together, gathered statistics, investigated factories and industries, conducted health examinations, examined sanitary conditions, lobbied for legislative and political reform, and organized for social betterment in their congested, immigrant, working-class district. Out of this welter of activity, Addams was the charismatic leader who translated the “facts” into everyday language, articulating the problems and needs of the community, and forming American ideals and social thought. 12 Author of eleven books and hundreds of articles, Addams continued her teaching and educating efforts through lectures across the country and at Hull-House. She became the spokesperson of her era and, in particular, for women and the working-class immigrant. She led social reform organizations, campaigned for the Progressive Party, and helped to found numerous government agencies-notably the Childrens, Women’s, and Immigration Bureaus. She practiced and advocated free speech for all and “radical democracy-she believed that equality must extend beyond citizenship rights and pervade all aspects of economic and social life. A “critical pragmatist” (defined and discussed in detail in chapters 10 and 11),she sought not only answers to problems, but those answers that were in the best interests of all, including the poor and disenfranchised. Addams was a cultural feminist and her views on women were little understood then or now. Having a popular image as a “saintly” woman who worked for the poor, Addams in fact believed that female values were superior to male ones and that a society built on feminine values would be more productive, peaceful, and just. Despite the lack of complete understanding of her intellectual thought, her innovative and critical ideas were accepted by the public for over two decades, when she was the “Saint Jane” of the popular press. Simultaneously, she was an intellectual leader in sociology as well as in related disciplines. Only her pacifist ideas were truly understood in terms of their radical import. As a pacifist prior to World War I, Addams was lauded as a “good woman.” However, with the building of patriotic feeling from 1913 until Introduction 7 America’s entry into the war in 1917, she became the increasing target of animosity and personal attack. By 1917 she was socially and publicly ostracized. She went from being a saint to a villain. Booed off speaking platforms, abandoned by her friends, colleagues, and, most notably here, other sociologists, Addams was a social pariah. This was an agonizing time for her. Committed to her values based on “feminine” ideals, she maintained her pacifist position. The culmination of her politically untouchable status occurred in 1919, when she was targeted by the U.S. government as the most dangerous woman in America. It is at this point that this book ends, for after 1919 Addams’ role as a sociologist rapidly declined and she was ostracized by succeeding generations of sociologists until the present} 3 To summarize the remainder of her life, however, is important for understanding her total impact on American thought. In 1920, women were granted the franchise, and to Addams and many other suffragists this was a major victory. Contrary to their expectations of a powerful women’s vote, the decade of the 1920s led to an eclipse of the former power of women activists, including Addams. In addition, Progressive leadership was squelched following World War I and the liberal vision of a changing, optimistic, and scientifically rational society was doomed. Addams gradually resumed leadership in American thought during this decade, but it was primarily the impact of the Depression which once again restored her to the forefront of American leadership. 14 Winner of the Nobel Peace Prize in 1931, Addams became the spokesperson for many of the values and policies adopted during the New Deal. She and her female colleagues were instrumental in establishing social security and many other government programs which altered the nature of American capitalism. Dying in 1935 she was mourned worldwide as a great leader and interpreter of American thought. Surrounded by the imagery of a “good and noble woman,” she was able to articulate radical changes in American life and politics, altering the possibilities for human growth and action for the working class, immigrants, youth, the aged, and women. On the one hand, her significant contributions to public life are well known and lauded. On the other hand, her intellectual stature is barely appreciated, and her contributions to sociology totally obscured. 15 This intellectual biography begins a serious reevaluation and assessment of her social thought and its impact on this profession and discipline. The first and most superficial step is to establish her credentials as a sociologist. Jane Addams, Sociologist The lack of documentation of Addams as a sociologist is due to a number of factors. Looking first at her own ideas, she was opposed to 8 Jane Addams and-the Men of the Chicago School, 1892-1918 academic sociology, elitism, partriarchy, and intellectualism. Each of these belief systems is intrinsic to the assumptions of sociology as it was practiced after World War I. Although she considered herself a sociologist, she wanted the profession to develop in a radically different direction than it did. Addams was the greatest woman sociologist of her day. The fact that she was female is vital, for sociology had a sex-segregated system. After World War I, these two tracks within the profession split into social work as female-dominated and sociology as male-dominated. Almost all the women trained in Chicago Sociology prior to 1918 were ultimately channeled into social work positions. Discrimination against hiring women in academic sociology departments was rampant. The major professional association, the American Sociological Society (ASS), limited women’s participation in most of its offices and programs; and the social thought developed after 1918, especially at the University of Chicago, was dramatically patriarchal and opposed to Addams’ vision. 16 An applied, professional component of sociology died when Addams’ severance from sociology occurred, and it has never become a respected alternative to sociologists in the academy. 17 Other social sciences, like geography, economics, and history have developed more than one professional career line, but sociology failed to do this to any considerable extent. Finally, despite the extensive scholarly and popular study of Addams’ life, it is extremely difficult to trace her influence on sociological thought. Because many sociologists claim that she is not a sociologist while many social workers claim that she is a social worker, it has appeared that Addams’ “professional home” has been found. It is as if people assume she must be one or the other! This assumption has led to a profound misunderstanding of Addams’ intellectual contributions and impact on sociology. There is absolutely no attempt here to minimize her impact on social work. Social workers correctly acknowledge Addams as a major thinker and professional model. The problem lies not with social workers but with sociologists. Addams was a preeminent sociologist, and an understanding of her role in sociology is integral to an understanding of this profession. To undertake any analysis of the role of women sociologists or the sociological study of women during the era of interest in this book, Addams’ sociological career and concepts must be considered. When Addams is limited to membership in only one field, social work, the impact she had on sociology is entirely overlooked. Concomitantly, there is an unstated assumption that her ideas and model for action were adopted by social workers and rejected by sociologists. Instead of this dichotomy between two different specialties, a complex pattern of incorporating and modifying her ideas in each profession has occurred. It is beyond the scope or intent of Introduction 9 this book to trace Addams’ influence on social work; the task of discovering her role in sociology is difficult enough. Addams’ influence on sociology must often be inferred because most early sociologists rarely cited the work of their closest colleagues. This has been a problem in documenting the interaction among all the early Chicago men. People who coauthored writings or trained students together, such as Park and Burgess, are easily seen as important colleagues. But people who spoke to each other with great frequency, visited each other’s homes, and engaged in organizational work together have few records of their shared interests that are easily accessible to scholars who study only published writings. Academic sociologists tend to rely heavily on academic publications, organizations, and institutions while overlooking applied sociology that is directed to nonacademic audiences, organizations, and institutions. For applied sociologists such as Addams, indications of mutual influence must often be sought in nonacademic records. Original archival data containing correspondence, newspaper reports, and organizational records relevant to applied sociology can help to fill the gaps in our academic documentation. Such alternative resources are particularly vital in a situation like Addams’ where her influence has been buried over the course of several decades. Because of the lack of scholarship on Addams as a sociologist, some formal criteria are needed to begin this investigation. Klisler, studying early German sociologists, has determined that if one of five criteria is met, then the individual was a member of the profession. He wrote: As sociologistI define those who fulfill at least one of the following five criteria: • occupy a chair of sociology and/or teach sociology • membership in the German Sociological Society (changed here to membership in the American Sociological Society) • coauthorship of sociological articles or textbooks • self-definition as a “sociologist” • definition by others as a sociologist 18 Addams meets not one but all of the above criteria, in addition to other more complex associations with the profession. Each of these points is briefly examined here. Teaching Addams lectured through the country, at numerous colleges and social settlements. For example, In February 1899, she went on a typical lecture tour-leaving Chicago on February 13, she spoke at Wells College in Aurora, New York on the 14th; at 10 Jane Addams and the Men of the Chicago School, 1892-1918 Auburn Seminary the next day; at Wells again on the 16th; then to New York for a quick stopover: then to Boston where she made two appearances at woman’s (sic) clubs on the 18th; two more appearances on Sunday; on to the University of Vermont on Monday; back to Boston for two more appearance (sic) on Tuesday; two more on Wednesday, and two on Thursday: then she was off to Meadville. Pennsylvania; to Harrisburg, Richmond, Virginia, and Columbia, South Carolina, before returning home. 19 Although many of these speeches were not academic, others were, and Addams’ division between academic and everyday thought was dramatically different from that of her male academic colleagues. In addition, she offered college courses through the Extension Division of the University of Chicago. 20 The university offered her at least two chances to become directly affiliated with its staff, both of which she refused. 21 Albion Small, chair of the Department of Sociology there, even offered her a half-time graduate faculty position. 22 She declined these offers because she wanted to be outside of the academy, although she was deeply dedicated to teaching. She wanted to teach adults who could not otherwise enter the academy, because of their poverty or lack of credentials. Furthermore, she was concerned about the limits of speech and political activism associated with university settings. Membership in the American Sociological Society Addams was a charter member of the ASS, founded in 1905. She remained an active member from then until at least 1930.23 She addressed the group, one of the few women to do so, in 1912, 1915, and 1919. These major presentations resulted from invitations extended by the presidents of the association. In 1928 she again addressed the group and was a discussant of a paper in 1908.24 So not only was she a member, she was the most active and illustrious woman member during this period. Coalllhorship of Sociological Articles or Textbooks The most prestigious and central journal to the new discipline, the American Journal of Sociology (AJS), was established at the University of Chicago in 1895. Although Addams published in a number of popular and scholarly journals, using only the AJS as one indicator of her sociological publications, she published five articles there plus a discussion of another paper. 25 In addition, five of her books were reviewed in the journal’s pages, often by leading sociologists. 26 Clearly her work was read and recognized by sociologists of her day. Most telling of all, however, is her publication and editing of the most central text to Chicago sociology, Hull-House Maps and Papers. This groundbreaking book outlined the major issues of the Chicago School of Introduction 11 Sociology and used a methodological technique employed by Chicago sociologists during the next forty years after its publication. Chapter 3 here is an analysis of its role in sociological thought. Addams believed that her books were to be read and used by sociologists. Concern with ethics was central to the work of sociologists at this time; especially to Albion Small, Charles Henderson, and Charles Zeublin, all Chicago Sociologists. Thus her book Democracy and Social Ethics was a major sociological and theoretical statement on the construction of social order and its meaning. 27 Again, while writing on women’s self-reflection, she felt that her daily observation of this phenomenon while living “in a Settlement with sociological tendencies” almost impelled her to write of this event. 28 The reviews of these two latter books and others in AJS indicate that both Addams and sociologists believed them to be sociological treatises. Self-Definitionas “Sociologist” Addams was opposed to formal titles and ties. For example, she felt forced to assume the title of “Head” of the settlement for its board of trustees. In her own speech, however, she referred to herself only as “Jane Addams of Hull-House.” 29 Opposed to hierarchical and elitist structures, she resisted all formal categorizing of her work and profession. Nonetheless, she did consider herself a sociologist during the period studied here. For example, Farrell noted: Miss Addams later identified herself professionally with these sociologists. In 1908 she wrote of her attendance at the American Sociological Association: “I simply have to take care of my professional interests once in a while and this little trip was full of inspiration.” 30 Similarly, in her writings she referred to her sociological work 31 and clearly taught sociology, wrote it, and participated in sociological events. Addams worked within a sociological network, as well. For example, when a representative from the MacMillan Company requested names of college professors who might be interested in her book Newer Ideals of Peace,Addams responded that she only wanted those professors who knew her personally to receive a copy. The male sociologists (the largest single category of professors) included on her list were: Charles Henderson, George H. Mead, George Vincent, William I. Thomas, John Dewey, Graham Taylor, Charles Zeublin, Charles H. Cooley, and Sidney Webb.32 Definitionby Others as “Sociologist” All of the above information indicates the high esteem of her colleagues. In this book, her extensive collegial contacts with the men of the Chicago 12 Jane Addams and the Men of the Chicago School, 1892-1918 School are documented. She was thereby a resource for both the most influential sociological school of thought of her day and for the succeeding generation of sociologists who expanded and modified this early work. Addams was also considered a major sociologist by men outside of the Chicago school. E.A. Ross, one of the leading early figures in sociology,was a frequent visitor to and lecturer at Hull-House. Whenever he came to Chicago he lived at the settlement, and extended her two invitations to speak at the ASS when he was an officer.33 Furthermore, Addams shared the platform with sociologist Franklin Giddings in 1892 when they taught at the Summer School of Applied Philanthropy and Ethics. At this meeting, crucial to women sociologists, it was Addams and not Giddings who made the most impressive statements, thereby drawing a group of women around her and organizing their interests through her leadership. 34 A year later she again assumed a leadership position when she presided over a twoday conference at the Chicago World’s Fair. Sponsored by the International Parliament of Sociology, Addams chaired the sessions as a worldwide leader in applied sociology.35 Addams’ writings were rarely cited by her male colleagues as significant influences. There were, however, notable exceptions. Charles Cooley, an early president of the American Sociological Society, for example, cited Addams seven times in his seminal text Social Organization. 36 E.A. Ross (another early president of the American Sociological Society) also used Addams as a sociological reference and authority. For example, Ross recommended her book The Spirit of Youth to a student who wanted “the best sociological books” to read. Ross also assigned her writings in his coursework. His syllabus for a “Seminary on the American Family” used Addams’ Spirit of Youth, Twenty Years at Hull-House, and Democracy and Social Ethics for major reading material, and her A New Conscience and an Ancient Evil was an additional reference work. 37 E.S. Bogardus, yet another leading early sociologist, provides further documentation of her works being used in sociology seminars. 38 Since her books were reviewed in AJS, as noted above, these specific references are only documenting a small portion of her use in sociological coursework and acknowledgement as a colleague. In addition to recognition by her sociological contemporaries, Addams was often referred to as a sociologist by the popular press. In 1912, one Philadelphia newspaper reported her holding this title. 39 She was also called a sociologist when she presented a paper on crime and the ineffective action of the criminal justice system. Both the publication of the proceedings of the conference and its newspaper reporting endowed her with this title. 40 Introduction 13 Thus, by all formal criteria, Addams more than meets the definition of a sociologist. But these qualifications only reveal a small portion of her influence. For she was the leader of a large number of women sociologists whose work and influence on sociology have also been neglected. The criteria listed above were primarily evidence of male sociologists’ recognition. To women, Addams provided a new legitimate career as a female sociologist. She epitomized the woman who lived outside of the traditional female role and who was esteemed and honored as a result. Addams was not only the image of a society’s “good woman” but she also served as a role model for women professionals. She articulated a vision ,of sociology adopted by many women, all of whom have been deleted from the annals of sociological history. Male American sociologists otherwise ignored or ostracized from the profession a number of sociologists who were also associated with Addams. For example, she was a close friend and colleague of W.E.B. DuBois, the great Black sociologist. Together they formed a sociological network marginal to academic thought, but central to American political and social thought. 41 Similarly, Addams was directly associated with British sociology, exemplified in the work of Beatrice and Sidney Webb. This British influence, however, never flourished in mainstream American male sociological thought, which was dominated by Germanic and French influences. Finally, Hull-House itself was a central institution to sociology. The home to several women sociologists, it was a meeting place for intellectual discussion and debate. Sociologists, both male and female, visited the settlement frequently, thereby influencing American sociological thought. Addams, as the leading figure in the settlement, played a key role in the institutional power of Hull-House, an additional criterion for her inclusion as a sociologist. These wider influences are beyond the scope of this book. Here one central aspect of her sociological influence is studied: her work with the Chicago men, each of whom is introduced later in this chapter. The Significance of Addams as a Sociologist Because Addams is now recognized as one of the greatest women leaders of the United States, it is necessary to address the issue of the importance of documenting her role in one, predominantly academic, discipline. There are several vital reasons why this is a task affecting more than an esoteric minority. First, Addams is a major intellectual who interpreted American life, its heritage, and values. She is a social theorist of major proportions, but because her most radical ideas are unpopular and she has been stigmatized 14 Jane Addams and the Men of the Chicago School, 1892-1918 by being reduced to an image of womanhood, her intellectual leadership has been obscured. Lasch’s book on her social thought is an excellent exception to this treatment, and there are a few other texts on her life that counter this trend toward adulation rather than analysis. 42 This book, then, is part of a larger body of work documenting Addams as a force shaping American thought. Second, this neglect of a major American theorist is partially due to patriarchal ideology. When an intellectual of such magnitude can be neglected and distorted, it is clear that the fate of less eminent, but nonetheless significant, women analysts is similar. This book documents the process of selectively using Addams’ social thought in sociology while denying her significant contributions to it. Simultaneously, knowledge of other segments of her thought has been repressed and her sociological leadership denied. Third, the social thought itself is underanalyzed and has potential impact on the future of ideas in the United States, if not internationally. Addams was an articulate theorist of women’s roles and values as well as a critical thinker of social institutions and social change. This thought is worthy of re-examination in its own right. Fourth, Addams profoundly affected the course of American sociology. The discipline, then, needs to examine its roots in her work in order to understand its own history and epistemology. Concomitantly, the sexism of sociology is revealed in the study of Addams’ thought and professional affiliations. And fifth, Addams was the leader of an extensive network of women sociologists. This entire group of women, ranging in number between fifty and 100, formed a complex network of professional ties, institutions, social activism, and intellectual contributions that has never been seriously analyzed. This vast world of American women professionals has been submerged in a patriarchal society and its academic disciplines. Documentation of this wide and influential group and the study of its erasure from history would require a series of books. 43 This volume is an introduction to this other world, where Addams was the spokesperson for women who were later to be disenfranchised. Any of the above reasons would be sufficient to justify an examination of Addams as a sociologist. As a set of reasons, they are impelling. Addams’ career as a sociologist was a significant one, although it does not encompass her entire contributions to American society, social thought, or academic development. Her greatness exceeds her influence on this one profession. Nonetheless. an analysis of Addams the sociologist reveals a role, her intellectual leadership, and the broad practice of sociological patriarchy that Introduction 15 cannot be shown in any other way. She is the key to understanding an era and a discipline. The Men of the Chicago School The Chicago School of Sociology is unique in the annals of the discipline. Many books and articles have been written on this early sociological institution and the men who staffed it.44 There is a continual theme underlying most of these efforts: that the University of Chicago was significant from 1892 to 1918 because of its role in establishing and legitimating the discipline. Historical precedence, administration, teaching, and a vision of what could be achieved are the major strengths assigned to the period examined here. 45 Only W.I. Thomas is widely recognized as an early intellectual force. In fact, there is a kind of embarrassment over the early scholarship of the male faculty at Chicago (and the women faculty are not even evaluated as an influence or figures in the drama). This book, then, is a study of these early men as well as Addams. Both the men and Addams were erased in many ways from accounts of the intellectual growth and development of sociology due to the bias of their successors, frequently ungrateful students, who were faculty at the University of Chicago during the 1920s. Furthermore, the men of the Chicago School after 19I 8 often claimed that their ideas originated within themselves, disassociating themselves from their reform roots and intellectual forebears. The men of the Chicago School were a strongly in-bred group. As Figure 1.1 shows, the early men were largely trained within the university itself after the original staff was recruited by President William Rainey Harper. During 1892-1918, only Park was “imported” from “outside” the university. (The next “outsider” to be recruited was W.E Ogburn, who came from Columbia University in 1928.)46 George Herbert Mead, the Chicago philosopher, is included as a Chicago Sociologist because of his nearly universal recognition as a major figure there. 47 He is now recognized as the founding figure of “symbolic interactionism” along with his Chicago colleagues W.I. Thomas, Robert E. Park, and Ellsworth Faris.48 The major criteria for including the men, with the exception of Mead noted above, were employment at the university as a sociologist and service there for over fifteen years (the shortest tenure was Zeublin’s seventeen years). It is clear from Figure 1.1that all of the men except Zeublin enjoyed close collegial ties, lengthy years of service, and mutual influences. There were three additional men who were important influences or served on the faculty for an extended period who were excluded: Graham 16 Jane Addams and the Men of the Chicago School, 1892-1918 FIGUREl.1 The Men of the Chicago School, Their Ties and Tenure Charles Zueblin ( 1892-1908) G. H. Mead W. I. Thomas _. ( 1894-1931) / ” R. E. Pork ( 1914-1933) G. E. Vincent ( 1894-1911, U. of C. Ph.D., 1896) ( 1894-1918, U. of C. Ph.D., 1896) / / / / / E.W. Burgess (1916-1957, U. of C. Ph.D., 1913) Key: Teacher-Student Recruitment Relation Relation • ____ _. Introduction 17 Taylor, Ira Woods Howerth, and Edward Bemis. The two former men are briefly mentioned here. Graham Taylor was a “theological sociologist” at the Chicago Theological Seminary. 49 Although affiliated with the University of Chicago, the seminary was never an administrative unit. Taylor held an appointment in the Department of Sociology at the University of Chicago formally for over two years. Since he was a close colleague of Addams, if his work were included here, her influence on the Chicago School would be documented as even more pervasive. Ira Woods Howerth worked in the Extension Division, as did Zeublin, but no references to his work with the other men or Addams came to light during the course of my investigations. 50 Although he worked for eighteen years at the University of Chicago, the lack of information on his career made references to him superfluous. Perhaps more data would reveal additional ties or confirm his isolated position, but this is a moot point here. The third man, Edward Bemis, had a very short tenure at the University of Chicago. Teaching at the University Extension Division as a political economist and sociologist, he was summarily dismissed because of his support of the railroad workers in the 1894 Pullman Strike. His major influence on the Chicago School was his battle for free speech, discussed in more depth in chapter 7. Each of the eight men who formed the early Chicago School are briefly introduced below. Albion W Small Small was nearly universally accepted and liked by his colleagues, friends, students, and administrators. Becker finds this characteristic a key to understanding Small’s sociological vision, 51 for Small wanted to serve humanity and strove for fairness and justice in his relationships and social thought. Born in 1854 in Buckfield, Maine, he was largely responsible for the development of sociology at the University of Chicago and ultimately throughout the nation. In 1879, he studied history in Germany which established the basis for his lifelong interest in Germanic social thought, government, and economics. He was trained in both the ministry and history, and he served as president of and history professor at Colby College from 1889-1892. Committed to social change and wedded to many Victorian and religious ideals, Small reflected the strains between a desire for ethical reform, the then-modern world, and objective science. 52 After his appointment by Harper to open the first Graduate Department of Sociology in 1892, Small became a major figure in defining a special area of expertise for sociology. He hired all of the Chicago faculty studied here and established a strong position for them in the newly founded university. In addition, he was administratively adept at organizing the profession into 18 Jane Addams and the Men of the Chicago School, 1892-1918 powerful alliances. For example, in 1905 he was a charter member of the American Sociological Society and served as its president for two terms, in 1912 and 1913. Similarly, he founded the American Journal of Sociology (AJS) in 1895, quickly establishing it as the foremost journal in the discipline. Its major editorial staff and contributors were Chicago faculty, students, and associates. Small was its editor from 1895 to 1935, so he directly intervened in accepting articles that reflected his vision and control of the emerging discipline. 53 Small set several scholarly precedents as well. With his former student and later colleague, George E. Vincent, Small co-authored one of the most influential introductory textbooks in sociology.54 His two primary interests, ethical reform and economic organization, were later ignored by his successors at Chicago, and as a result he has been traditionally defined as a weak and relatively unimportant scholar.55 Profoundly disillusioned by World War I, aging and in ill health, his last years at the University of Chicago were spent in a withdrawal from many of the department’s and discipline’s politics and leadership. Small, nonetheless, was a formative figure in establishing sociology as an academic specialty and in building a powerful institutional basis for it. After a period of academic neglect, his scholarly work is being reconsidered and reevaluated, providing a new basis for broader understandings of his leadership and influence. Charles R. Henderson Henderson is almost entirely ·forgotten in the annals of Chicago Sociology, but he was one of the most far-thinking and influential men on the faculty. Closely sharing Addams’ ideas on sociology, he was, nonetheless, more religious and less brilliant than she. Born in 1848, he, like Small, his contemporary, was a Baptist minister. Henderson graduated from the old University of Chicago in 1870, and for nineteen years he was a pastor, first in Terre Haute, Indiana, and then in Detroit, Michigan. Hired by Harper in 1892, he became a central figure at the University of Chicago. In 1895 he took a year’s leave of absence and obtained a doctorate in Leipzig, Germany, and reaffirmed the Germanic base of the early male Chicago School. He established a Department of Practical Sociology in the School of Divinity as well as holding a full professorship in the Department of Sociology. As university chaplain, he held dual roles as minister and sociologist throughout his life.56 In addition to being the author of seven books and numerous articles, Henderson was a local, national, and international reform leader. He combined his interest in social amelioration with a continuing commitment to statistical research. His areas of specialization were criminology and prison Introduction 19 reform, juvenile delinquency, health insurance, and the integration of modern man in a religious and secular context. Graham Taylor, his close colleague and friend, wrote in Henderson’s obituary that the latter’s untiring efforts to relieve the plight of the unemployed in Chicago led to a premature death from exhaustion. 57 Charles Zeublin Zeublin is not mentioned in any of the major books on Chicago Sociology,58although he taught sociology in the Extension Division of The University of Chicago from 1892 until 1908, and was a controversial figure in the city and at the university. Born in Pendleton, Indiana, in 1886, Zeublin did his undergraduate work at the University of Pennsylvania and Northwestern University, followed by graduate work in the ministry at Yale. While there he was influenced by the young biblical scholar William Rainey Harper, who would later become the first president of the University of Chicago. 59 Zeublin furthered his studies of the Old Testament in Leipzig, but wrote Harper in January of 1891 that he was abandoning this scholarly work for “political and social science.” 60 Shortly thereafter, Zeublin moved into Hull-House and became one of its earliest residents. This contact with Addams ultimately led to his making social settlement work one of his major interests, and he founded Northwestern University Settlement in 1892.61Simultaneously, he was hired by Harper as secretary ofone of the University of Chicago’s extension divisions and an instructor in sociology, “rising in ten years to full professorship and continuing as such through 1908.”62 An extremely popular lecturer, he augmented his low salary in the Extension· Division by lecturing throughout the city, often on controversial subjects. In one eulogy he was remembered as having “a searching courage.”63He made his audiences see social institutions, their communities, and their economic life with fresh eyes.64Unfortunately for his academic career, his powerful and critical analysis of society, especially the work of businessmen, led to his ultimate removal from the University ofChicago. 65 The author of four books and numerous articles, Zeublin edited the popular Twentieth Century Magazine for three years. He devoted most of his remaining years, from 1908 until his death in 1924, to being a public lecturer or “publicist,” as he called himself.66 GeorgeE. Vincent Vincent was the son of Bishop John H. Vincent, the founder and first president of Chautauqua, a system of popular education and home study for adults. William Rainey Harper was also intimately involved with Chautauqua, so there was a bond between Vincent and Harper prior to their 20 Jane Addams and the Men of the Chicago School, 1892-1918 association at the university. While a student at the University of Chicago, Vincent studied with Small and Henderson, as well as John Dewey, the noted philosopher and educator. 67 Born in Rockford, Illinois, near the birthplace of Jane Addams, on March 21, 1864, he lived until February 1, 1941. In the intervening years his major interests were Chautauqua, sociology, and educational administration. During his early work at the University of Chicago, from 1894 until 1900, he was at the forefront of sociological thought. Gradually, however, he became increasingly interested in administration, holding various positions as a dean there. In 1911he left to accept the presidency of the U niversity of Minnesota, and in 1917 he left this position (which he had successfully filled) to accept the presidency of the Rockefeller Foundation. This latter group was founded by John D. Rockefeller, who had also been the major initial benefactor of the University of Chicago. Vincent served as head of the foundation until his retirement in 1929. Throughout this period he kept actively involved with sociology, but more as an avocation than as his major occupation. An example of his continuing interest in sociology can be seen in his association with AJS. A founding member in 1895, Vincent served as an associate editor from 1895 to 1915and advisory editor from 1915to 1933.68 His professional association with sociology was a continuing thread in his career, enabling him to exert his views during several decades crucial to the development of the discipline. His long-term association with Chicago Sociology is rarely acknowledged in accounts of the profession. William /. Thomas A flamboyant, vital, and charismatic man, Thomas established himself as a leading sociologist in terms of his writings and dedicated students. He was born on a farm in Virginia in 1863, and in 1884 graduated from the University of Tennessee with majors in classical and modern languages. He became an instructor at that university, and then he traveled to Germany in 1888-89, where he studied languages and developed an interest in folk psychology and ethnology. Upon his return, he taught at Oberlin until 1894 when he entered the Department of Sociology at the University of Chicago as a student. Here he studied not only with Small and Henderson, but also enrolled in more “marginal courses” such as biology, physiology, and brain anatomy. 69 From 1895 until 1918, Thomas was a leading figure in the department. His scholarly apogee was reached with the publication of a five volume work between 1917 and 1918, coauthored with Florian Znaniecki, The PolishPeasantin Europeand America.This book was the leading scholarly text in the discipline for almost twenty years. 70 It focused on the need for Introduction 21 careful methodology and analyzed the effect of rapid social change on the immigrant who moved from a stable rural society to the brutal and fast paced urban life found in the United States. Tragically, in 1918 Thomas was dismissed from the University of Chicago on an unproven charge concerning a violation of the Mann Act, i.e., crossing state lines to commit an illegal deed. This abridgement of his rights to fair trial plagued his later year, spanning almost three decades. Although he never held a full-time academic position again, he was restored to professional respectability with his election to the presidency of the American Sociological Society in 1928.71 GeorgeH. Mead Mead’s position in sociology has been increasingly the subject of debate. Clearly an influence on many sociology students, his relationships to the early faculty, particularly to Small, Henderson, and Zeublin, have been generally interpreted as more tenuous. 72 In this book, the social reform work of these men will be seen as close and frequently interactive, thereby documenting a number of clear ties between them. A philosopher, Mead was born in South Hadley, Massachusetts, in 1863, the same year as Thomas’ birth. In 1883 he graduated from Oberlin, where his father was a professor of homiletics and where the young Mead formed an abiding friendship with another student, Henry Castle. From his undergraduate days through his studies in Berlin, Germany, from 1888 to 1891, Mead was plagued with a depression and a Jack of direction in his life. Paralleling the feelings of William James and Jane Addams during the same period, Mead felt that religion was not an answer to modern questions and that it failed to provide the deepest meaning, motivation or method to resolve modern ills.73 Although he did not complete his doctorate in Germany, he joined the faculty at the University of Michigan in l 891 where he met John Dewey. His doubts and anguish subsided and he found his place in life. He was invited by Dewey to come to the University of Chicago in 1894, and Mead worked there until his death in 1931.74 A shy man with strong opinions, he impressed his students with the profundity of his thought. Many of his most important books were written posthumously by his students who appeared to have taken extensive, precise notes in his classes.75 Although his brilliant exposition of the genesis of the self, society, and the mind are notable contributions to American social thought, his pragmatism and work in social reform were to Mead the core of his life’s work and writings. This deep concern with the restructuring of society has been consistently overlooked by sociologists, partially explaining the interpretation of his influence as due to an “oral” tradition of learning at the University of Chicago (an institution otherwise lauded for 22 Jane Addams and the Men of the Chicago School, 1892-1918 its written research tradition).7 6 Mead taught many sociology students, becoming a founder of Chicago symbolic interactionism. This perspective is said to be a common intellectual tie between Thomas, Park, Burgess, and their later colleague, Ellsworth Faris. 77 In this approach to the study of society, humans are the central figures in ordering and maintaining social structures built on language and the capacity to understand and respond to others. Ernest W Burgess Burgess has been characterized by his student Donald J. Bogue as “young, naive, and possessed of a brilliant mind and an affection-starved soul-ripe to be proselyted to a great cause” when he arrived at the University of Chicago in 1908.78 Born in 1886 in Tillbury, Ontario, he received his undergraduate education at Kingfisher College in Canada. Immediately continuing his education at the University of Chicago, he was one of the first men on the faculty to be trained primarily in the new discipline by its early male founders. 79 Although he taught at three universities in Ohio and Kansas from 1912 until 1916, the majority of his career was spent at Chicago. Another quiet and retiring man with humanitarian interests, he was basically conservative and worked with meticulous detail and diligence. There were many parallels between his views and Small’s during the farmer’s early years. Gradually, Burgess became increasingly influenced by the charismatic and opinionated Park, with whom he shared an office and the coauthorship of important texts on sociology and urban life. 80 In 1934, Burgess was elected to the presidency of the American Sociological Society. He was also an associate editor of the AJS during his long career at Chicago, from 1916 until 1952.81 Although generally robust and good-natured, Burgess spent his later years in a nursing home where he declined physically and mentally. His friends and associates were distressed by the dramatic change in him and in 1966, he died there. 82 Although Burgess was a leader in professional associations, his independent scholarly work is not held in high esteem, while the books he wrote with Park are seen as the foundation of the Chicago influence during the 1920s and 1930s. Many of their students became powerful sociologists who published numerous texts in what became known as the Chicago School series of ethnographic studies. Robert E. Park Park was a gruff man, dramatically different in self presentation from any of his colleagues. According to his loyal and professionally successful students, this brusqueness and offensiveness hid a “truly affectionate Introduction 23 man.” 83 Park was a strong influence on his students, directing their work and shaping their ideas. He attained a major role in the development of Chicago Sociology from 1920 until World War II. Extremely egotistical, his one autobiographical statement reads as ifhe founded sociology alone with few collegial influences on his social thought or development. 84 Like Vincent, he was born in 1864 (a year after Thomas and Mead). Throughout his childhood, he lived in various cities and towns in the Midwest. From a poorer background than his colleagues, Park had a checkered career as an adult. While studying at the University of Michigan, he enrolled in several of Dewey’s courses. 85 After graduating from there in 1887, he worked as a muckraking newspaper reporter for over a decade. 86 Loving urban life and its vitality, Park roamed the streets looking for human-interest stories and excitement. From 1899 until 1905, like his sociological colleagues, Park traveled to Germany to study where he “read deeply into the work of the founders of sociology.”87 (Park was particularly fascinated with the work of Simmel who was later introduced into American sociology by Small. 88 After Park worked as an assistant in philosophy at Harvard from 1903 until 1905,89 he left to become the secretary and companion of Booker T. Washington. In this capacity, he met W.I. Thomas who recruited him to a marginal position at the University of Chicago in 1913. Park was hired to teach one course in one academic quarter, a position that he filled from 1913 until Thomas’ dismissal in 1918. It was only in 1919 that Park was given a full-time appointment “instead of his temporary summer quarter tenure which had been renewed from year to year.”90 In 1923, Park was finally appointed a full professor. This long period of apprenticeship must have been a bitter pill for Park to swallow. One indication of his estrangement from Small, Henderson, and Zeublin is his total disregard for their works in his writings and acknowledgements. Park formally recognized only Thomas as a “Chicago” influence on his sociological thought. With a virulent ideology against social reform and “do-gooders,” Park was paradoxically deeply involved with reform movements throughout his life. With Burgess he coauthored Introduction to the Science of Society in 1921,thereby supplanting the 1894 introductory text written by Small and Vincent. The Park and Burgess text became a famous and influential book, defining the field of sociology for beginning students over the next two decades. Similarly, their work on urban ecology became known as the basis for Chicago Sociology and its related social policy studies. 91 Park developed a number of strong relationships with his students whose books were published in a thirty-volume series of studies covering numerous urban districts, ethnic groups, and occupations. 92 Dismissed until recently as an effective teacher but relatively insignificant scholar, his role in 24 Jane Addams and the Men of the Chicago School, 1892-1918 Chicago Sociology is now being reexamined by several scholars. 93 In this book, he is seen as a major factor in obscuring the early history and influence of Chicago sociologists. The Outline of the Book Each chapter supports the major thesis that Addams was a central figure in applied sociology, especially in the Chicago School of Sociology. HullHouse, which she headed and was the major women’s sociological institution, is discussed first (chapter 2). Some of the brilliant women sociologists who lived and worked there are introduced, and the relation of social settlements to male sociology is analyzed. The influence of a core group of residents at Hull-House upon Chicago Sociology is dramatically revealed in the next chapter (chapter 3), which discusses the cooperatively produced and critical text Hull-House Maps and Papers. This book, drawing upon detailed maps of social life on the South Side of Chicago, analyzed the effects of social disorganization, immigration, and the economy on the everyday life of an urban neighborhood. In other words, this book established the major substantive interests and methodological technique of Chicago Sociology that would define the School for the next forty years. Because of its central role in defining the Chicago School of Sociology, an entire chapter is devoted to a discussion of the problems of getting it in print, its contents, and use by male Chicago sociologists. The erasure of its central role in shaping Chicago Sociology is also documented. The next three chapters also examine an interrelated set of ideas. Each of these chapters examines the men’s relation to social reform as it changed over time. The earliest men, Small, Henderson, Zeublin, and Vincent, all worked on topics directly related to the concerns of Addams. Their work differed from her work, however, due to their greater religious emphasis and more conservative politics. Despite these differences, Addams and these “religious” men shared a significant common core of interests centered on urban life and the particular problems besetting Chicago (chapter 4 ). Addams’ relationship with the Chicago men reached its fullest development through her work with Mead and Thomas (chapter 5). With these three as colleagues, a flowering of sociological theory and practice occurred. Uniting an interpretation of the world as social in origin with a commitment to social change, they set the foundation for a separate school of thought-symbolic interactionism. Although all of them were originally intimately tied to pragmatism and to Addams’ particular practice of sociology, the linkages between symbolic interactionism and social reform Introduction 25 have been consistently overlooked in historical accounts of the development of the theoretical perspective. This distortion of their work and the role of applied sociology in its development is largely attributable to Burgess and Park. These two men, therefore, comprise another distinct position toward social reform and sociology that is found within the male Chicago School (chapter 6). With Park’s active hostility to the “label” of social reformer (although he frequently engaged in social reform activities) and Burgess’ wavering commitment to it, the applied, political component of sociology languished and finally died within the Chicago School. Although Park and Burgess denied the significance of the work of Addams and many of the male founders of the Chicago School, these successors in the Chicago School were still affected by the early ideas, substantive concerns, and methodological techniques of their predecessors. But Park and Burgess were not the only cause of the decline of Addams’ type of sociological practice at the University of Chicago. Part of the reason for the transition in emphasis from social reform to “scientific,” apolitical sociology, is due to the limits placed on faculty activism at the University of Chicago. Chapter 7 documents the form and type of political control exercised by the academy concerning the conduct of sociology, and the direct impact such censorship had on the careers of Chicago sociologists. Addams’ relationship to sociology was also directly tied to the status of women as a topic of inquiry and as colleagues in the sociological enterprise. Both of these aspects are discussed in chapter 8 in reference to the eight Chicago men. A direct link between the men’s generalized attitudes toward women and their specific attitudes towards Addams as a colleague and intellectual is thereby established. The final major topic is the sociology of Addams as an intellectual legacy. Her work in this area is analyzed as a function of two major streams of thought: cultural feminism and critical pragmatism. Chapter 9 is a discussion of “cultural feminism,” a theory of society that assumes that traditionally defined feminine values are superior to traditionally defined male values. Chapters 10 and 11 are both discussions of “critical pragmatism,” a term coined here, which is a theory of science that emphasizes the need to apply knowledge to everyday problems based on radical interpretations of liberal and progressive values. Chapter 10 is an intellectual history of Addams’ sociological influences that range beyond the men of the Chicago School. Chapter 11 is an analysis of her explication of critical pragmatism. After both components of her thought have been analyzed, the incompatibility between cultural feminism and critical pragmatism is briefly considered. This internal inconsistency of her work is also partially responsible for the decline in her sociological leadership. Clearly, her choice 26 Jane Addams and the Men of the Chicago School, 1892-1918 of emphasizing cultural feminism with its preference of feminine values over masculine ones was the major reason for her “fall from grace.” Her national censure as a pacifist coincided with her “failure” as a sociologist, and for many years she remained a social outcast. A brief summary of her life and sociological career after 1920 is presented in the concluding chapter. Here, too, a review of the changing times and profession is included and an overview of her legacy provided. Some areas for future research are then considered. Her profound influence on the course and development of sociology can only be suggested in one volume. This book is a beginning analysis of a little-examined, alternative heritage and tradition of American sociology. Notes I. Lester R. Kurtz documents the extensive literature on the Chicago School of Sociology in Evaluating Chicago Sociology: A Guide to the Literature, with an Annotated Bibliography (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1984). More than I 000 references to the school’s first sixty years of influence are annotated there. Out of this vast literature, major statements on the school can be found in Steven Diner, “Department and Discipline,” Minerva 8 (Winter 1975):514-53; Robert E.L. Faris, Chicago Sociology, 1920-1932 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1967); Ernest W. Burgess and Donald J. Bogue, Contributions to Urban Sociology (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, I 964); James F. Short, Jr., The Social Fabric of the Metropolis (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1971); and Edward Shils, “Tradition, Ecology and Institution in the History of Sociology,” Daedul11s94 (Fall 1970):760-825. More general references to the school can also be found in texts on the history of the discipline. A good critical article of the Chicago role in sociology is found in Patricia Lengermann, “The Founding of the American Sociological Review,” American Sociological Review 44 (April 1979):185-98. A more uneven analysis of the school and men is found in Herman and Julia Schwendinger, The Sociologists of the Chair(New York: Basic Books, 1974). Books and articles written on the men of the Chicago School are referenced in the short introductory statements of each (see notes 52-87 below and in notes throughout the book). 2. One of the best bibliographies on Addams and her era can be found in John C. Farrell, Beloved Lady (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1967), pp. 217-6 I. This book provides an excellent interpretation of her social reform ideas. The most critical and insightful analysis of the myth of Addams is Allen F. Davis, American Heroine (New York: Oxford University Press, 1973). Another fine study of her life is Daniel Levine, Jane Addams and the Liberal Tradition (Madison: State Historical Society of Wisconsin, 1971). A good, more informal biography was written by her nephew, James Weber Linn, Jane Addams (New York: Appleton-Century Crofts, 1935). Although not extensively documented, Linn provides inside views and information not found in other biographies. Addams documents her life and era best. See her Twenty Years at Hull-House and The Second Twenty Years at H11ll-House (New York: Macmillan, I 910 and 1930, respectively). Introduction 27 3. See Mary Jo Deegan, “Early Women Sociologists and the American Sociological Society,” The American Sociologist 16 (February 1981): I 4-24, “Women in Sociology: 1890-1930,” Journal of the History of Sociology I (Fall 1978):11-34. An excellent discussion of women’s work in the sciences is found in Margaret Rossiter, Women Scientists in America (Johns Hopkins University Press, 1982). 4. See Davis, American Heroine, p. vii. 5. Ibid. 6. Jane Addams to Ellen Gates Starr, 11 August 1879, Starr Papers, Sophia Smith Collection, Smith College. 7. Addams’ life is documented in many sources. Those used primarily here were Farrell, Beloved Lady, Davis, American Heroine; and Linn, Jane Addams. Their information is based on archival evidence or personal knowledge of Addams and is mutually reinforcing. 8. Davis, American Heroine, p. 35. 9. The best account of these early years is presented by Jane Addams, Twenty Years at Hull-House, hereafter referred to as Twenty Years. 10. Mead is discussed in-depth throughout this book. See esp. chs. 2, 4, 9. Dewey’s friendship with Addams is documented by Jane Dewey, “Biography of John Dewey,” in The Philosophy of John Dewey, ed. Paul A. Schilpp (New York: Tudor, 1951, c. 1939), pp. 1-45. See also Jane Addams, Twenty Years, pp. 236-37, 435; John Dewey, “Introduction,” in Jane Addams, Peace and Bread in Time of War (Boston: Hall, 1960, c. 1918, 1922).Jane Addams wrote the eulogy for Dewey’s son Gordon, reprinted in The Excellent Becomes Permanent (New York: Macmillan, 1932). Dewey even named his daughter after Jane Addams. He is central to Chicago Sociology, but documenting this is beyond the scope of this book. See C. Wright Mills for an introductory analysis of the topic in Sociology and Pragmatism, ed. and intro. by Irving Louis Horowitz (New York: Paine-Whitman, 1964). 11. See ch. 2 in this volume. 12. The best documentations of her influence can be found in the books mentioned in note 3 above. See also a general overview of the contributions of Hull-House in Eighty Years at Hull-House, ed. Allen F. Davis and Mary Lynn McCree (Chicago: Quadrangle, 1969); Jane Addams, Twenty Years; and The Second Twenty Years at Hull-House, with the latter book hereafter referred to as Forty Years. One of the few serious, although limited, treatments of Addams’ intellectual thought is the work by Christopher Lasch. See his introduction to the collected writings of Addams, The Social Thought of Jane Addams (Indianapolis, Ind.: Bobbs-Merrill, 1965), pp. vii-xxvii; and The New Radicalism in America, 1889-1963 (New York: Knopf, 1965). 13. Davis’ excellent documentation of the red-baiting of Addams and other women sociologists is discussed in American Heroine, ch. 14, “The Most Dangerous Woman in American,” pp. 251-81. 14. Ibid., p. 282. 15. In addition to the books noted above, two articles also examine her intellectual contributions: Merle Curti, “Jane Addams on Human Nature,” Journal of the History of Ideas 22 (April-June 1961):240-53; and Staughton Lynd, “Jane Addams and the Radical Impulse,” Commentary 32 (July 1961):54-59. 16. See Mary Jo Deegan, “Early Women Sociologists and the American Sociological Society.” 28 Jane Addams and the Men of the Chicago School, 1892-1918 17. The role of nonacademic sociologists has been problematic for decades. Professional debates about their unequal status in the profession abound and efforts to develop “applied sociology” are continually being made. See discussions, in Footnotes (January 1983):2-3: and newsletters of the Clinical Sociology Association and the Humanist Sociologists. 18. Dirk Kasler, “Methodological Problems of a Sociological History of Early German Sociology,” paper presented at the Department of Education, University of Chicago, 5 November 1981. 19. Davis, American Heroine, p. 125. 20. Addams is listed as lecturer in the Extension Division of the University of Chicago for several years (e.g., 1902, 1909, 19 I 2). For a copy of the syllabus of one of her courses, see “Survivals and Intimations in Social Ethics,” Ely Papers, Wisconsin State Historical Society, 1900. Farrell noted the syllabus of another course in his footnotes, see Belored Lady, p. 83. This was titled “A Syllabus of a Course of Twelve Lectures, Democracy and Social Ethics.” 21. Addams declined Harper’s offers to annex Hull-House with the university on at least two occasions. She refers to this in a letter to William R. Harper, then president of the University of Chicago, on 19 December, 1895, Presidents’ Papers, box I, folder 9, University of Chicago Special Collections, hereafter referred to as UCSC. This attempt to affiliate Hull-House with the university is discussed in depth in chapter 7 in this volume. 22. Small to Addams, 1913, Addams Papers, DG I, box 4, Swarthmore College Peace Collection, hereafter referred to as SCPC. 23. The Publications oft he Sociological Society included a list of members in each of their annual publications from 1906 to 1930. This practice was discontinued after the latter date. 24. Discussant of John Commons, “Class Conflict in America,” Publications of the American Sociological Socie(J·, vol. 2 ( 1907), pp. 152-55; “Recreation as a Public Function in Urban Communities,” Publications of the American Sociological Society, vol. 6 ( 1911), pp. 35-39: “Americanization,” Publications of the American Sociological Society, vol. 14 ( I 919), pp. 206-14. 25. Jane Addams’ American Journal of Sociology articles: “A Belated Industry,” I (March 1896):536-50; “Trade Unions and Public Duty,” 4 (January 1899):488-62; “Problems of Municipal Administration,” 10 (January 1905):425-44; “Recreation as a Public Function in Urban Communities,” 17 (March 1912):615-19; “A Modern Devil Baby,” 20 (July 1914): 117-18. Addams also wrote a comment on an article by John R. Commons, “Class Conflict in America,” I 3 (May I 908):772-3. 26. Book reviews in American Journal of Sociology on Addams books: Charles R. Henderson, “Reviell’ of Democracy and Social Ethics,” 8 (July 1902):136-38; George H. Mead, “Review of The Nell’er Ideals of Peace,” 13 (July 1907): 121-28; Harriet Thomas and William James, “Review of The Spirit of Youth City Streets,” 15 (January 1910):550-53; Florence Kelley, “Review of A New Conscience and an Ancient Evil,” 18 (September 1912):271-72; Jessie S. Ravitch, “Review of The Child, the Clinic and the Court,” 31 (July 1925):834-35. 27. Democracy and Social Ethics (New York: Macmillan, 1902). 28. The Long Road of Uomen s Memory (New York: Macmillan, 1916), p. xi. 29. Lionel Lane, “Jane Addams and the Development of Professional Social Work,” p. 2. Unpublished paper, Addams Papers, DG I, Box I 0, Series 4, SCPC. Introduction 29 30. Farrell, Belm•edLady, p. 68. 31. Hull-HouseMaps and Papers,by Residents of H111/-Ho11se. A Social Settlement, A Presentationof Nationalities and tt-t:zges in a CongestedDistrict o_fChicago. Together With Comments and Essa.rson Problems GrowingOut of the Social Conditions (New York: Crowell, I 895), p. iv; and The Long Road of Womans Memor_r,p. xi. 32. Addams to A. Huelson, n.d. (attached to letter from Huelson to Addams, 11 January, 1907), Addams Papers, DG I, SCPC. The pragmatists Janes Tufts, Ella Flagg Young, and William James were also on the list. 33. Ross to Addams, 12 January, 1912, Ross Papers, box 5, Ross to Addams, 12 September, 1915, Ross Papers, box 7, Wisconsin State Historical Society, hereafter referred to as “Ross Papers”. 34. Addams’ paper on “The Subjective Necessity of Social Settlements” became a classic statement on the need for settlement workers to be in that setting and relying on their neighbors and friends. See Philanthropy and Social Progress: Sel’en Essa.rsb_rMiss Jane Addams. Robert A. iVoods.Father J 0. S. H11ntington. Pro_{essor Franklin H. Giddings and Bernard Rosanquet, intro. Henry C. Adams (New York: Crowell, 1893), pp. 1-26. 35. E.W. Krackowizer, “The Settlement Idea,” Boston Ei·ening Transcript(8 June 1895), in Hull-House Scrapbooks, B-27, p. 40, SCPC. 36. See C.H. Cooley, Social Organi=ation(New York: Scribner’s, 1909), pp. 431-32. 37. E.A. Ross to Dean EB. Taylor, 25 February, 1914; Ross Papers, box 6; E.A. Ross, Seminary On the American Family, Economics 262 (discipline boundaries, as this book continually notes, were very blurred during these years), “List of Books on Reserve” and “List of Additional Books and Bulletins Not on Reserve.” These lists were submitted in 1926 but the course itself is undated. Dummer Papers, box 409, Schlesinger Library. 38. E.S. Bogardus. “Leading Sociology Books Published in 1916,” Journal of Applied Sociology 4 (May 1917):14. 39. “More Campaign Contributions,” North American, Philadelphia (2 October 1912):647-45; (p.148; J.A. Scrapbooks, #5, SCPC). 40. “Problem of Crime Unresolved, Let Us Start at It Anew,” by Jane Addams; “Famous Sociological Authority of Hull House, Chicago,” The Proceedings and C11reof Crime, 1929; and “Jane Addams Discusses Problem of Crime,” Baltimore American (3 July 1927):2-E +. Series 3, box 7, Addams Papers, DGI, SCPC. 41. Addams was one of the founders of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, which DuBois led. The close relationship between DuBois and Addams is noted in several places and deserves an analysis beyond the scope of this topic. For example, see references to their joint activities in Tll’enlyYears,p. 255; Levine, Jane Addams and the Liberal Tradition,pp. 134, 185. See also W.E.B. DuBois to Addams, 11 January, 1932, Addams Papers, DG I, SCPC. 42. Jane Addams, The Social Thought of Jane Addams, ed. Lasch; Davis, American Heroine. Another book which partially demystified Addams’ leadership is Farrell’s Beloved Lad.v. As its title suggests, however, there is still an overlay of mythmaking as “lady” and an emotional image in this work. Two excellent articles are Lynd, “Jane Addams and the Radical Impulse,” and Curti, “Jane Addams on Human Nature.” Although there are some other good resources, especially for documentation of her life and career, there are literally hundreds 30 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52. 53. Jane Addams and the Men of the Chicago School, 1892-1918 of articles on Addams that refer to her saintliness (or villainy) and mythologize her public image. As a group of writings, they symbolize Addams as an unreflective but often holy woman. A large segment of this women’s network was located at or through the University of Chicago and Hull-House. See Mary Jo Deegan, “Women in Sociology: 1890-1930,” Journal of the History of Sociology 1 (Fall 1978):11-34; and “Early Women Sociologists and the American Sociological Society.” Other women sociologists are also briefly examined in a number of other articles. See Barbara Keating, “Elsie Clews Parsons,” Journal of the History of Sociology 1 (Fall 1978):1-11. The writings of a series of women sociologists are summarized in the articles written by Deegan for the American Women Writers series (New York: Ungar Publishing, 1978-81 ). These include entries on Sophonisba Breckinridge, Edith Abbott, Emily Green Balch, Marion Talbot, and Helen Merrell Lynd. See also Mary Jo Deegan, “Sociology at Wellesley College, 1900-1919,” Journal of the History of Sociology 6 (December 1983): 91-115. Faris, Chicago Sociology; Burgess and Bogue, Contriblltions to Urban Sociology; Short, The Social Fabric of the Metropolis; Shils, “Tradition, Ecology and Institution in the History of Sociology”; Lengermann, “The Founding of the American Sociological Review; Schwendinger and Schwendinger, The Sociologists of the Chair. This is clear in Faris, Chicago Sociology, pp. 3-36; Short, The Social Fabric of the Metropolis, pp. xiii-xx; Burgess and Bogue, Contributions to Urban Sociology, pp. 1-14. Faris, Chicago Sociology, pp. 113-16, 159. There is now some debate over the significance of Mead’s role. See J. David Lewis and Richard L. Smith, American Sociology and Pragmatism (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1980); Bernice Fisher and Anselm Strauss, “George Herbert Mead and the Chicago Tradition of Sociology (Part One),” Symbolic Interaction 2 (Spring 1979):9-26 and “(Part Two)” 2 (Fall 1979):9-20. These authors aver that Mead’s role was marginal in sociological thought. This “debate” however is of recent origin and evidence supporting Mead’s significance is very strong. See Herbert Blumer, Symbolic Interactionism (Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, 1969); Faris, Chicago Sociology, pp. 88-99; Symbolic Interaction, 3rd Ed., ed. Jerome Manis and Bernard Meltzer (Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1979). See Faris, Chicago Socio/og_v;Manis and Meltzer, Symbolic Interaction. Jane Addams, “Pioneers in Sociology: Graham Taylor,” Neighborhood 1 (July 1928):6-11. References to Howerth in Faris, Chicago Sociology, were limited to only the titles of his master’s and doctoral theses. Diner mentions him in two of his publications, largely in reference to his work for the Illinois Education Commission, “Department and Discipline,” Minerva 8 (Winter 1975):514-43, p. 529; and A City and Its Universities (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1980), p. 86. No archival deposit of his work and writings is known to the author nor was his name mentioned in the hundreds ofletters and reports read in the course of this investigation. Ernest Becker, The Lost Science of Man (New York: Braziller, 1971), pp. 3-4. Faris, Chicago Sociology, p. 153; Becker, The Lost Science of Man, pp. 3-21. Harper decided between Small and Richard Ely, a close colleague to Addams. The decision for Small led sociology in a less political direction than the choice of Ely would have. See Diner, “Department and Discipline,” pp. 515-21; Faris, Chicago Sociology, pp. 12, 120. Introduction 31 54. Albion W. Small and George E. Vincent, An Introduction to the Study of Sociely (New York: American Book, 1894). 55. Faris, Chicago Sociolog_v, p. 153. A review of these statements is found in chapter 4, nn. 16-20 below. 56. See Steven J. Diner, “Department and Discipline,” pp. 523-25; Graham Taylor, “1848-Charles Richmond HendersonI 915,” Surve)I 34 (IO April 1915):55-56. 57. Taylor, “1848-Charles Richmond Henderson-1915,” p. 56. 58. See Faris, Chicago Sociology, 1967; Short, The Social Fabric of !he Metropolis; Burgess and Bogue, Contriblllions to Urban Sociology. The only references to Zeublin found in sociology texts was a condescending and inaccurate one in the Schwendingers. They state that he was not a radical, left the University in 190I, and never published in the American Journal of Societ_v.These are all inaccurate statements, p. 510. He was an American Fabian, albeit not a Marxist, left the university in 1908, and published four articles in AJS. 59. Steven J. Diner, “Department and Discipline,” p. 519. 60. Zeublin to Harper, 31 January, 1891, Presidents’ Papers, Box 71, Folder 13, ussc. 61. Northwestern University-College of Liberal Arts-Alumni Record, #489. Northwestern University Archives. 62. “Social Work Shoptalk,” The Survey 53 ( 15 October 1924):108. 63. Ibid. 64. Ibid. 65. This is discussed in more depth in ch. 4 below. 66. Diner, citing Whos Who in America (Chicago, 1911). A.N. Marquis, vol. 6, p. 1257. 67. Diner, “Department and Discipline,” p. 526. Note that this also was a possible source of linkage to Mead’s ideas, which were closely tied to those of Dewey. 68. E.W. Burgess, “George Edgar Vincent,” American Journal of Socio/ogy46 (May 1941):887. 69. See Edmund Volkart, ed., “Biographical Note” in Social Behavior and Personalily (New York: Social Science Research Council, 1951), pp. 323-24; Paul J. Baker, “The Life Histories ofW.I. Thomas and Robert Park,” American Journal of Sociology 79 (September 1973):243-60. 70. Herbert Blumer, An Appraisal of Thomas and Znanieckis The Polish Peasant (New York: Social Science Research Council, 1939), pp. 5-6. 71. Mary Jo Deegan, “Early Women Sociologists and the American Sociological Association,” p. 17. 72. See J. David Lewis and Richard L. Smith, American Sociology and Pragmatism. 73. Neil Coughlan, Young John Dewey (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1975), pp. 113-49. 74. Faris, Chicago Sociolog_v,p. 155. 75. See George H. Mead, Mind, Self and Society; The Philosophy of the Act; The Philosophy of the Present (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1934, 1938, 1932, respectively). Each book was edited by a former student with Mind, Self and Society based on 1928 class notes and edited by Charles W. Morris. 76. Gregory P. Stone and Harvey Farberman, eds., Social Psychology through Symbolic Interaction (Waltham, Mass.: Xerox College Publishing, 1970); Jerome Manis and Bernard Meltzer, eds., Symbolic Interaction. 77. Faris, Chicago Sociology, pp. 88-99; Stone and Farberman, Social Psychology through Symbolic Interaction; Manis and Meltzer, Symbolic Interaction. 32 Jane Addams and the Men of the Chicago School, 1892-1918 78. Donald J. Bogue, The Basic Writings of Ernest W Burgess (Chicago: Community and Family Study Center, 1974), p. ix. 79. Faris, ChicagoSociology, p. 157. 80. Ibid, pp. 37-133. 81. Ibid, p. 157. 82. Bogue, The Basic Writings of Ernest W Burgess, p. xxii; interview with Nels Anderson, 28 August 1979. 83. Faris, ChicagoSocio/og_v,p. 30. 84. Robert E. Park, “An Autobiographical Note,” in Race and Culture (New York: Free Press), pp. v-xiv. 85. Fred Matthews, Quest for an American Sociolog_v(Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press, 1977), p. 5. Dewey’s influence on Park was quite extensive, see esp. pp. 20-30. 86. Ibid, pp. 8-30. 87. Ibid, p. 68. 88. See Small’s translations of Simmel, “The Sociology of Secrecy and Secret Societies,” American Journal of Sociology 11 (January 1906):441-98. 89. Matthews, Questfor an American Sociolog.rp. 85. 90. Ibid, p. 86. 91. Faris, Chicago Sociolog.r,pp. 37-133. 92. For a list of the books see Winifred Rauschenbush, Robert E. Park (Durham, N.C.: Duke University Press, 1979), pp. I 96-97. 93. Rauschenbush and Matthews are outstanding examples of this renewed interest. See also Ralph H. Turner’s anthology of Park’s writing, Robert E. Park:On Social Control and Collecti1·eBehai•ior(Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1967). anomic suicide greater comfort and a heightening of general vitality, is an impulse to voluntary death. Whenever serious readjustments take place in the social order, whether or not due to a sudden growth or to an unexpected catastrophe, men are more inclined to self-destruction. How is this possible? How can something considered generally to improve existence serve to detach men from it? For the answer, some preliminary considerations are required. II No living being can be happy or even exist unless his needs are sufficiently proportioned to his means. In other words, if his needs require more than can be granted, or even merely something of a different sort, they will be under continual friction and can only function painfully. Movements incapable of production without pain tend not to be reproduced. Unsatisfied tendencies atrophy, and as the impulse to live is merely the result of all the rest, it is bound to weaken as the others relax. In the animal, at least in a normal condition, this equilibrium is established with automatic spontaneity because the animal depends on purely material conditions. All the organism needs is that the supplies of substance and energy constantly employed in the vital process should be periodically renewed by equivalent quantities; that replacement be equivalent to use When the void created by existence in its own resources is filled, the animal, satisfied, asks nothing further. Its power of reflection is not sufficiently developed to imagine other ends than those implicit in its physical nature. On the other hand, as the work demanded of each organ itself depends on the general state of vital energy and the needs of organic equilibrium, use is regulated in turn by replacement and the balance is automatic. The limits of one are those of the other; both are fundamental to the constitution of the existence in question, which cannot exceed them. This is not the case with man, because most of his needs are not dependent on his body or not to the same degree. Strictly speaking, we may consider that the quantity of material supplies necessary to the physical maintenance of a human life is subject to computation, though this be less exact than in the preceding case and a wider margin 207 208 suicide left for the free combinations of the will; for beyond the indispensable minimum which satisfies nature when instinctive, a more awakened reflection suggests better conditions, seemingly desirable ends craving fulfillment. Such appetites, however, admittedly sooner or later reach a limit which they cannot pass. But how determine the quantity of wellbeing, comfort or luxury legitimately to be craved by a human being? Nothing appears in man’s organic nor in his psychological constitution which sets a limit to such tendencies. The functioning of individual life does not require them to cease at one point rather than at another; the proof being that they have constantly increased since the beginnings of history, receiving more and more complete satisfaction, yet with no weakening of average health. Above all, how establish their proper variation with different conditions of life, occupations, relative importance of services, etc.? In no society are they equally satisfied in the different stages of the social hierarchy. Yet human nature is substantially the same among all men, in its essential qualities. It is not human nature which can assign the variable limits necessary to our needs. They are thus unlimited so far as they depend on the individual alone. Irrespective of any external regulatory force, our capacity for feeling is in itself an insatiable and bottomless abyss. But if nothing external can restrain this capacity, it can only be a source of torment to itself. Unlimited desires are insatiable by definition and insatiability is rightly considered a sign of morbidity. Being unlimited, they constantly and infinitely surpass the means at their command; they cannot be quenched. Inextinguishable thirst is constantly renewed torture. It has been claimed, indeed, that human activity naturally aspires beyond assignable limits and sets itself unattainable goals. But how can such an undetermined state be any more reconciled with the conditions of mental life than with the demands of physical life? All man’s pleasure in acting, moving and exerting himself implies the sense that his efforts are not in vain and that by walking he has advanced. However, one does not advance when one walks toward no goal, or—which is the same thing—when his goal is infinity. Since the distance between us and it is always the same, whatever road we take, we might as well have made the motions without progress from the spot. Even our glances behind and our feeling of pride at the distance covered can cause only deceptive satisfaction, since the anomic suicide remaining distance is not proportionately reduced. To pursue a goal which is by definition unattainable is to condemn oneself to a state of perpetual unhappiness. Of course, man may hope contrary to all reason, and hope has its pleasures even when unreasonable. It may sustain him for a time; but it cannot survive the repeated disappointments of experience indefinitely. What more can the future offer him than the past, since he can never reach a tenable condition nor even approach the glimpsed ideal? Thus, the more one has, the more one wants, since satisfactions received only stimulate instead of filling needs. Shall action as such be considered agreeable? First, only on condition of blindness to its uselessness. Secondly, for this pleasure to be felt and to temper and half veil the accompanying painful unrest, such unending motion must at least always be easy and unhampered. If it is interfered with only restlessness is left, with the lack of ease which it, itself, entails. But it would be a miracle if no insurmountable obstacle were ever encountered. Our thread of life on these conditions is pretty thin, breakable at any instant. To achieve any other result, the passions first must be limited. Only then can they be harmonized with the faculties and satisfied. But since the individual has no way of limiting them, this must be done by some force exterior to him. A regulative force must play the same role for moral needs which the organism plays for physical needs. This means that the force can only be moral. The awakening of conscience interrupted the state of equilibrium of the animal’s dormant existence; only conscience, therefore, can furnish the means to re-establish it. Physical restraint would be ineffective; hearts cannot be touched by physiochemical forces. So far as the appetites are not automatically restrained by physiological mechanisms, they can be halted only by a limit that they recognize as just. Men would never consent to restrict their desires if they felt justified in passing the assigned limit. But, for reasons given above, they cannot assign themselves this law of justice. So they must receive it from an authority which they respect, to which they yield spontaneously. Either directly and as a whole, or through the agency of one of its organs, society alone can play this moderating role; for it is the only moral power superior to the individual, the authority of which he accepts. It alone has the power necessary to stipulate law and to set the point beyond which the passions must not go. Finally, it 209 210 suicide alone can estimate the reward to be prospectively offered to every class of human functionary, in the name of the common interest. As a matter of fact, at every moment of history there is a dim perception, in the moral consciousness of societies, of the respective value of different social services, the relative reward due to each, and the consequent degree of comfort appropriate on the average to workers in each occupation. The different functions are graded in public opinion and a certain coefficient of well-being assigned to each, according to its place in the hierarchy. According to accepted ideas, for example, a certain way of living is considered the upper limit to which a workman may aspire in his efforts to improve his existence, and there is another limit below which he is not willingly permitted to fall unless he has seriously bemeaned himself. Both differ for city and country workers, for the domestic servant and the day-laborer, for the business clerk and the official, etc. Likewise the man of wealth is reproved if he lives the life of a poor man, but also if he seeks the refinements of luxury overmuch. Economists may protest in vain; public feeling will always be scandalized if an individual spends too much wealth for wholly superfluous use, and it even seems that this severity relaxes only in times of moral disturbance.10 A genuine regimen exists, therefore, although not always legally formulated, which fixes with relative precision the maximum degree of ease of living to which each social class may legitimately aspire. However, there is nothing immutable about such a scale. It changes with the increase or decrease of collective revenue and the changes occurring in the moral ideas of society. Thus what appears luxury to one period no longer does so to another; and the well-being which for long periods was granted to a class only by exception and supererogation, finally appears strictly necessary and equitable. Under this pressure, each in his sphere vaguely realizes the extreme limit set to his ambitions and aspires to nothing beyond. At least if he respects regulations and is docile to collective authority, that is, has a wholesome moral constitution, he feels that it is not well to ask more. Thus, an end and goal are set to the passions. Truly, there is nothing 10 Actually, this is a purely moral reprobation and can hardly be judicially implemented. We do not consider any reestablishment of sumptuary laws desirable or even possible. anomic suicide rigid nor absolute about such determination. The economic ideal assigned each class of citizens is itself confined to certain limits, within which the desires have free range. But it is not infinite. This relative limitation and the moderation it involves, make men contented with their lot while stimulating them moderately to improve it; and this average contentment causes the feeling of calm, active happiness, the pleasure in existing and living which characterizes health for societies as well as…
Purchase answer to see full attachment