Robert F. Park and Ernest W. Burgess Essay ⋆ Sociology Essay Examples ⋆ EssayEmpire

This Robert F. Park and Ernest W. Burgess Essay example is published for educational and informational purposes only. If you need a custom essay or research paper on this topic please use our writing services. EssayEmpire.com offers reliable custom essay writing services that can help you to receive high grades and impress your professors with the quality of each essay or research paper you hand in.

Robert Ezra Park and Ernest Watson Burgess advanced American sociology during its formative period, making contributions to ethnic studies, urban sociology, and the study of collective behavior. They were the two central figures responsible for defining and shaping the ”Chicago School” during its most influential period, when Park assumed the chairperson’s position and Burgess became his assistant.

Born in Harveyville, Pennsylvania, Park attended the University of Michigan and Harvard. He spent time in studying in Germany. Upon returning home, Park worked as a muckraking journalist for the Congo Reform Association, where he met Booker T. Washington. After working for Washington at Tuskegee, he began his career at Chicago. Park chaired the department from 1918 until his retirement in 1933, after which time he taught at Fisk University. Burgess was born in Tilbury, Ontario, though his family moved to the USA early in his life. After completing his undergraduate studies at Kingfisher College, he obtained his PhD at the University of Chicago. After teaching elsewhere for a few years, he returned to Chicago, where he remained for the rest of his academic career.

The 1921 publication of their coauthored textbook, Introduction to the Science of Sociology served to codify their perspective on the discipline. Park and Burgess were simultaneously influenced by human ecology and by a perspective that was concerned with meaningful social action. Park and Burgess promoted a sociology that focused on the heterogeneous subgroups of urban dwellers. Of special interest were the ethnic and racial minorities migrating to cities.

Two central characteristics of the Chicago School approach to sociology that emerged out of this focus were: (1) a concern with the ecological patterns of urban life, and (2) attention to the patterns of adjustment and incorporation of newcomers. The ecological perspective borrowed from biology by focusing on competition for and conflict over resources and territory. Ecological sociology placed a premium on spatial dynamics, as is attested by the well-known concentric zone model that Burgess developed. Park and Burgess considered Chicago to be a laboratory for investigation. Given that the boundaries of inquiry were defined in terms of neighborhoods, the methodological approach that they favored was ethnography.

Park in particular was interested in delineating the processes of immigrant adjustment, which he did by developing a version of assimilation theory. Though often viewed as the canonical formulation of assimilation theory, Park’s ideas have been badly misinterpreted. His perspective has been portrayed as the theoretical articulation of the melting pot thesis. However, a close reading of Park’s writings on assimilation leads one to conclude that in fact it does not necessarily entail the eradication of ethnic attachments, but instead can be seen as occurring in a pluralist context where ethnic groups maintain their distinctive identities while also being committed to the larger society.

In their coauthored textbook, Park and Burgess make three points about assimilation. First, it occurs most rapidly and completely in situations where social contacts between newcomers and native-born occur in the realm of primary group life, whereas if contact is confined to secondary groups, accommodation is more likely to result. Second, a shared language is a prerequisite for assimilation. Third, rather than being a sign of like-mindedness, assimilation is a reflection of shared experiences and mental frameworks, out of which emerge a shared sense of collective purpose.

Park and Burgess’ work had a marked impact on American sociology prior to World War II. Among their most prominent students were Herbert Blumer, E. Franklin Frazier, Everett Hughes, and Louis Wirth. However, after 1940 the center of gravity shifted from Chicago to Harvard. The Chicago School brand of sociology was frequently criticized for being atheoretical. Moreover, Park and Burgess were criticized for being inattentive to power and politics. Methodologically, advocates of survey research challenged their emphasis on ethnography. In the area of urban sociology, their ecological approach gave way to approaches more influenced by political economy.

In recent years there is evidence of a renewal of interest in their work. A number of publications have appeared seeking to revisit and reappropriate the legacy of the Chicago School. The general consensus is that they were more theoretically sophisticated than has been appreciated. Ethnographic research is now far more accepted than it was during the heyday of structural functionalism. At the same time, the ecological approach has largely been abandoned because of its theoretical shortcomings. Critics make a persuasive case that Park and Burgess were relatively inattentive to power. In short, what has emerged is a clearer portrait of this influential duo that reveals both the weaknesses and the strengths of their work.

Bibliography:

Kivisto, P. (2004) What is the canonical theory of assimilation? Robert E. Park and his predecessors. Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences 40 (2): 1—15.
Matthews, F. H. (1977) Robert E. Park and the Chicago School. Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press.