Jane Addams and the Men of the Chicago School, 1892-1918

Mary Jo Deegan

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2017
• eBook ISBN: 9781351511148
• Topic: Social Sciences
• Subtopic: Sociology
• Index: Social Sciences

Jane Addams is well known for her leadership in urban reform, social settlements, pacifism, social work, and women's suffrage.The men of the Chicago School are well known for their leadership in founding sociology and the study of urban life.What has remained hidden however, is that Jane Addams played a pivotal role in the development of sociology and worked closely with the male faculty at the Department of Sociology at the University of Chicago.

By using extensive archival material, Mary Jo Deegan is the first to document Addams's sociological significance and the existence of a sexual division of labor during the founding years of the discipline. As the leader of the women's network, Addams was able to bridge these two spheres of work and knowledge.Through an analysis of the changing relations between the male and female networks, Deegan shows that the Chicago men varied widely in their understanding and acceptance of her sociological though and action.Despite this variation, it was through her work with the men of the Chicago School that Addams left a legacy for sociology as a way of thinking, an area of study, and a methodological approach to data collecting.

This previously unexamined heritage of American sociology will be of value to anyone interested in the history of the social sciences, especially sociology and social work, the development of American social thought, the role of professional women, the Progressive Era, and the intellectual contributions of Jane Addams.

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 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 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.¹ 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

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 as 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, 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 depicting.”⁸

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 these 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 ...

Table of contents

• Cover Page
• Title Page
• Copy Right Page
• Content Page
• List of Tables
• List of Illustrations
• Preface
• 1. Introduction
• 2. Hull-House and Sociology
• 3. Hull-House Maps and Papers: The Birth of Chicago Sociology
• 4. Jane Addams, Social Reform, and the Religious Men
• 5. Jane Addams, Social Reform, and the Symbolic Interactionists
• 6. Jane Addams, Social Reform, and the Urban Ecologists
• 7. Applied Sociology and the Politics of the Academy
• 8. The Chicago Men and the Sociology of Women
• 9. Jane Addams and Cultural Feminism
• 10. Jane Addams and Critical Pragmatism: Her Intellectual Roots in Addition to Chicago Sociology
• 11. Jane Addams and Critical Pragmatism: Democracy and Education as the Cornerstones of Urban Society and Sociology
• 12. The End of Addams’ Career as a Sociologist: From Sociologist to Social Worker
• Bibliography
• Subject Index
• Name Index