German School vs Chicago School – filtered a bit through an IP lens
It’s interesting that although the “German School” and the “Chicago School” are presented as discrete, as many of the scholars later associated with the early Chicago School also came from Germany and presumably were (in)formed by the same temporal milieu. Consistent with the discourse of their day, many of the early scholars from both schools seemed steeped in existential questions, concerned with the personal experience within cities, cities’ amplified psychological effects, and the urban’s philosophical implications. Parker asserts that the German School adopted “the city as the microcosm for modern society in general” (2005, p. 9), and this seems true when comparing early urban sociology with Marxism, which identified the deep spiritual alienation that results from the commodification of labor (Pyles, 2009, p. 28): across disciplines, the era embodied an underlying sense of soul-crushing separation from the natural order of connection, even while recognizing the liberating mobility of this re-ordering. But this initial wave of old-world framing gave way with US-born scholars who had new referents and paradigms of objectively toned, process-based mechanisms which perhaps reflected a new-world framing.
Tönnies’ philosophy of urbanism strongly reflects his native experience as part of the rural bourgeoisie who witnessed not only the rise of mechanization, but participated in his contemporary iteration of the global economy. Thus his formative years were grounded in the folk culture he describes as influenced by traditions and homogeneous norms in morals, religion and relationship (Tönnies, 2010, p. 16). He describes this space as arising from natural law and providing individuals a rooted strength, intrinsically tied to the support of the community (ibid, p. 17). Tönnies refers to this idealized portrayal of rural life as Gemeinschaft, asserting residual yearning for it because it is so deeply fundamental (ibid, p. 19). In “Community and Society,” Tönnies seems to regard the rise of the Gesellschaft – or rational State – as a liberating evolution, in that the commodification of labor and other transactions sever (liberate) the primary relationships found in Gemeinschaft (2010, p. 18); however, unlike Simmel, Tönnies appears to view this liberation in clearly negative terms, portraying the Gesellschaft as a class-based, capricious and dehumanizing alternate reality (ibid, p. 19).
In contrast to Tönnies’ portrayal of urban culture as a kind of death sentence (ibid, p.22), Simmel regards it as a triumph over the “the barriers against individual independence and differentiation within the individual” (2010, p. 28). Simmel shares many of Tönnies’ perceptions, such as the commodification of labor and consequent relationships, a certain “inconsiderate hardness” (ibid, p. 25) of the State, and an intensified basis of interpersonal economic competition (ibid, p. 30) that leads to greater class stratification. Like Tönnies, Simmel sees a type of dehumanization which results from urban overstimulation and unrelenting demand for personal differentiation; this de – or perhaps overhumanization – is expressed through a defensive “blasé attitude” (ibid, p. 26). Yet, unlike Tönnies, Simmel reveals a more conflicted view of the benefits of the urban container, noting that “life is made infinitely easy…in that stimulations, interests, uses of time and consciousness are offered…from all sides” (ibid, p. 31) and each individual is forced to reach deep in order to self-actualize “the utmost in uniqueness and particularization” (ibid, p. 31). Simmel also seems to appreciate that for all the negative aspects of pecuniary interests, there is an “integrative power” which “permits…an inclusion of the most diverse persons…who, because of their spatial, social, personal and other discrepancies…could not possibly” (Parker, 2005, p. 14) have been integrated before. I observe that the similarities between Tönnies and Simmel arise from their common positions as prosperous Germans in a shared intellectual environment. But Simmel diverges from Tönnies’ complete embrace of the Gemeinschaft because of his status as a Jew: unlike Tönnies, Simmel experienced the bitter negative aspects of tribal consciousness, which he was able to cast off, to a degree, only as a “rootless cosmopolitan” (Lin & Mele, 2010, p. 23).
While it may be argued that both Weber and Benjamin attempted objective classification of either urban categories or history, the work of the German School theorists still seems to lie primarily in the descriptive and existential, reflecting and connecting important threads of philosophy,psychoanalysis and positionality. In contrast, Parker (2005) asserts that the Chicago School is marked by an approach to “action research” (p. 39), which sought not only to describe, but to leverage observation into an applied practice.
This transition is seen in the work of Louis Wirth, who like Tönnies, emerged from rural Germany – although a generation later – and like Simmel, occupied outsider status as a German Jew. Following the assertion that this shared intellectual background is tied to an existential quality in their view of the urban, Wirth (2010) carries the trend. He agrees that the city embodies a heterogeneity which changes social relationships and potential personal differentiation (p. 37), and he echoes observations that cities sharpen socioeconomic status (p. 39), even while, in other ways, exercising a “leveling influence” (p. 37). Wirth also shares a sense of the spiritual heaviness discussed by both Tönnies and Simmel, citing it as “the reserve, the indifference, and the blasé outlook” which results from a disintegrated urban society and produces “the state of anomie, or the social void” (p. 35). He ascribes this to the same source as his countrymen: this is what occurs when relationships are reduced to pecuniary interests and individuals reduced to categories (p. 37). However, Wirth’s Urbanism as a Way of Life does not stop at these kinds of observations, but instead moves into the realm of positing an applicable system. Wirth first considers the relationship among population size, density and heterogeneity to determine what patterns might be extrapolated or inferred (p. 34). He also strives to create a set of empirical frameworks from which cities could be studied (p. 38). It is in these ways that Wirth shifts the German School’s experiential descriptions – what Wirth might call “the miscellaneous assortment of disconnected information” (p. 41) – into a cohesive body of knowledge with a praxis process that leads to viable social policy.
This movement away from the personal and philosophical to the systematic and scientific takes a large step forward with Park’s (2010) overlay of social Darwinism onto urban theory. Similarly, Burgess (2010) borrows from the sciences of ecology and biology, imposing their lessons on the urban container. But Burgess takes it further than Park’s theorizing into the realm of a technological methodology, literally mapping social systems and focusing on the systemic processes which unfold in cities. Although Burgess uses metabolic imagery and explicitly embraces the process of disorganization as a necessary prelude to integration and growth (p. 78), there is still yet something less organic and more mechanistic about his approach that I muse may reflect Ford’s influence in then-contemporary American thinking. Burgess’ attempt to break down systemic constituencies by creating comparison maps with data points or a fixed template for expansion – even his discussion around the cycle of mobility – leaves an impression of searching for the rudimentary cogs which, once identified, can be swapped in and out with reliable effects on the whole churning machine. His intent to create tools with which this tinkering could be achieved is both an enduring legacy and, I proffer, a cultural reflection in the shift in thinking between the two “schools.”
Neither the German nor the Chicago Schools had epistemic congruence among their members: as Parker (2005) notes, there was no idea of a “Chicago School” in the time of its contributors, and Wirth considered himself completely distinct from his colleagues (p. 39). More, all contributors to urban sociology and related fields have clearly been influenced by each other and/or common intellectual roots. However, what most interests me in these readings is what I interpret as the influence of cultural history on their approaches. I imagine Simmel and Tönnies as young intellectuals, steeped in the ubiquitous Germanic depression, informed by café discussions of Freud and Marx. On the other side of the Atlantic, I imagine an embrace of industry and science, Park and Burgess drunk on a sort of new world freedom which in many ways echoes the freedom many attribute to the City, and which permeates their perspective to result in an optimistic belief that what may be broken can be fixed.
References
Burgess, E. (2010). Human Ecology. In J. Lin & C. Mele (Eds.), The urban sociology reader (pp. 74-81). New York: Routledge. (Original work published 1925)
Lin, J., & Mele, C. (2010). Editor’s introduction. In J. Lin & C. Mele (Eds.), The urban sociology reader (p. 23). New York: Routledge.
Park, E. (2010). Human Ecology. In J. Lin & C. Mele (Eds.), The urban sociology reader (pp. 66-72). New York: Routledge. (Original work published 1936)
Parker, S. (2004). Urban theory and the urban experience: Encountering the city. New York: Routledge.
Pyles, L. (2009). Progressive community organizing: A critical approach for a globalizing world. New York: Routledge.
Simmel, G. (2010). The metropolis and mental life. In J. Lin & C. Mele (Eds.), The urban sociology reader (pp. 24-31). New York: Routledge. (Original work published 1903)
Tönnies, F. (2010). Community and society. In J. Lin & C. Mele (Eds.), The urban sociology reader (pp. 17-22). New York: Routledge. (Original work published 1887)
Wirth, L. (2010). Urbanism as a way of Life. In J. Lin & C. Mele (Eds.), The urban sociology reader (pp. 33-41). New York: Routledge. (Original work published 1930)