Ak

SOCIAL THEORY AND RACE RELATIONS, I

An Analysis of the Race Relations

Theory of Robert E. Park

A THESIS

SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY OF ATLANTA UNIVERSITY

IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT 0? THE REQUIREMENTS FOR

THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS

BY

VERNON FRANKLIN WHITE

DEPARTMENT OF SOCIOLOGY

ATLANTA, GEORGIA

JUNE 1948 ~ ~~ ~

11

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

To Dr. Ira DeA. Reid of the Department of

Sociology at Atlanta University, who first

suggested the study, are offered grateful thanks

for the invaluable counsel, the criticisms ten

dered, and the encouragement given whe.n the.

research and the writing floundered. Apprecia

tion is given to Dr. Jitsuichi Masuoka of the

Department of Social Sciences at Fisk University,

who provided office space and materials, and

made helpful suggestions during a field trip made

possible through the kindness of Dr. Mozell 0.

Hill. 111

TABLE OF CONTENTS Fag e

INTRODUCTION ...... •~•~ iv

THE BACKGROUND OF THE THEORY . . . • • ...... 1

THE FRAMEWORK OF THE 1~EORY ...... 18

THE CONTENT OF THE THEORY .... 32

THE EVALUATION OF THE THEORY ...

APPE~IX .. . •• ... 6~

A, The Published Works of Robert E. Park .. 6~

B. General Bibliography .. 83 INTRODUCTION

The real value of a study of race relations as sociological

investigation inheres in the knowledge it provides of human relations.

A study of race relations is important only when it offers insight

into the nature of the interaction which takes place between groups, and

as it contributes to an understanding of the social processes which

operate in the development of civilization.

Social scientists who study race relations and problems of race

are frequently accused of attaching undue significance to race as an

end in itself. Such reproof is justified if those scientists lose

sight of the greater meanings involved, and choose to become propagan

distic or apologetic when interpreting their findings. Studies of

this nature make no real or lasting contribution to the existing body

of knowledge, although they may enjoy a. fleeting, specious, popular

appeal. Invariably, however, such efforts are discredited and their

scientific pretensions unmasked. Racist literature, as such, has no

place in sociological thinking, since its lack of objectivity robs it

of all scientific validity.

In as much as the thinking on race of Robert E. Park is defined by- his interest in social process and social interaction, an analysis

of his theory should prove valuable. A prolific writer interested in

all social problems, a dynamic personality with a keen knowledge of human nature, and a teacher of great merit, Park has exerted a tremendous influence in the development of a scientific theory of race

iv V relations. Many of his students, and others who recognized the import of his conceptions, have developed frames of reference as extensions of his ideas, and have produced volumes of lasting value. Park was probably responsible for more studies of races and ethnic groups than any other theorist in the history of American sociology. For this reason, if for no other, an analysis of his thinking is warranted.

The concepts which he introduced — the race relations cycle, the marginal man, social distance, the racial frontier, his hypotheses with

reference to the bases of racial prejudices, distinctions and antagonisms — are theories which 8ociologists have found useful and acceptable. The techniques which he considered most essential in making analyses of race relations systems have been tested and used with effectiveness.

They are frequently cited in essays on methods of research as useful tools in other types of social investigation.

Through an analysis of his published writings and speechea~, this study purports to examine the theory of race relations which Park formu lated, in terms of its validity, its significance, and its tenability when applied to present day situations. In addition to these methods and materials, and in order to detect the traces of Park’s influence, the study also utilizes theses whose research Park directed during his years at Fisk, and articles written by students who accepted his pre mises as valid hypotheses for sociological analysis. Particular attention was given to a thesis whose central theme is developed around a concept in which Park was interested, but which does not appear in his published works, except as a mere suggestion. This is his theory vi of ~ main street of the world,11 which one of his students developed at Park’s direction2

Excursions were made to Fisk University, the site of Park’s last productive years in the quest of such information and materials as could be gained at a primary source. Interviews with some of his inti mates and associates there, including Dr. Jitsuichi Masuoka, professor of sociology, and an adherent of Park’s theory; and Mrs. Sol~ P~

Harris, secretary to Park during his period of residence at. Fisk, were utilized in developing a point of view about the man and his theory.

Other valuable suggestions were the result of conversations with Dr.

Cedric Dover and Dr. Reginald Barrett of Fisk. At Atlanta University, interviews with Dr. Herbert Blumer of the University of Chicago, were the source of additional information. Dr. M. C. Hill and Mr. Robert

Armstrong have been generous with suggestions.

In an analysis of a man and his work, no adequate understanding can be gained unless the period in which he lived is taken into consider ation. The nature of existing social conditions during a given time and place sequence, develops a bias which influences the character of thinking about a particular problem. Hence attention is given to the social setting of Park’s social and academic career. The study àeeke to ascertain the extent to which the development of Park’s thinking was conditioned by the elements with which he caine in contact during his

1Herman D. Burrell, “Race Contacts in Three Cities Along the Main Street of the World” (Unpublished Master’s thesis, Department of Social Sciences, Fisk University, l9~8), pp. l—~. vii lifetime. Since Park was interested in everything about him, an arrest ing feature of his writings is that they reflect the influence of what ever issues were of particular concern to him at the moment.

All of this, however, is but a prologue to the basic issue of this study, which is to determine whether or not Park’s theory of race relations represents a consistent and organized theory of racial adjust

ment. The analysis has only one ideological control — the awareness that Park’s interest in race relations grow out of his concern not with the problems of race, 2~ se, but with these problems as they index and illustrate the wider problems of association and the social pro cesses they involve.

The bibliography used is that compiled, by Edna Cooper.1 Certain items not appearing therein have been added and duly noted. Acknowledge ment is made to Phylon for permission to reproduce the article in its entirety.

‘Edna M. Cooper, “Bibliography of Robert E. Park,” Phylon, VI (Fourth Quarter, l94~), ~72—83. CHAPTER I

THE BACKGROUND OF THE THEORY

The nineteen—twenties were the greatest. years of urban socio logical study in the Unite.d~ States. They were characterized by a..vivid, energetic curiosity about.the rich and .mysterious:texture of metropoli tan life. Not the least of those sociologists who pioneered.in this field was Robert E. Park.. No aspect of life. was alien to Park.~e interest and despite the. incoherence of the subject matter of his published writings, a. unified and coherent vision of the main processes of social life .is..found in. the specific researches. to which he set his students. For Park, the loosening and disruption of communal bonds and the increase in personal freedom.were the main facts of modern urban society.1 Though the outsider would never have suspected it, he embarked upon his caroer.with. a reformer’s passion. to improve the. human lot, and ended.. it with the. same goal... However, his interest in the solution of the problems.of human interrelationshipa~was tempered

by a recognition of the facts . of life, and the nature-of social change..

In his drive to understand and.eventually to hel.p.aoive.. the’ problems of human relations, he was esteemed as one who was as nearly impersonal and selfless as a man can be.

‘Edward A. Shils’, “The Present Situation in American Sociology,” Reprint from Pilot Papers: Social Essays and Documents, II (London, June, 1947), p. ~.

1 ____ p. 3.9.

2

Park env.isaged~ and set going: most of the.. important American sociological studies of races and ethnic, groups in the.nineteefl—t~iefltie~?

His writings contain, numerous hypotheses’ on the pr:oeeSSe5 of group and individual conflict., competition, assimilation and. accommodatiOn in. relatiOfl8hip’. to the. contact of ethnic. groups. Although he provided few definitive answers to.the probleme.he posed, few, if any, sociologists excelled him in pointing out relevant subject—matters for investigation.. The chief.vehicles for his ideas were really the investigations carried out by. his students..?

Shils maintains ‘that Park himaelf.did not contribute~greatly to the technique of investigation. He.describea parkts.function, in addition.to.fOcUsiflg the attention of his students. on thes.e main

processes . and their conórete,.manife.statLons.ifl residential and occupa

tional segregation and in particular. forms.. of. superordination .and sub

ordination, as...that of inspiring these students.. to.make direct contact with. the material. in the. field. The procedures. which they used.. were

those curr-ent at.the time,.namely interviews and the gathering of life

histories, and . other human documênts..~

3These works include: Louis Wirth, The Ghetto.(Ohicago, 1928); E. Franklin Frazier, The Negro Family in the United States (Chicago, 1939); Edgar T. Thompson, The Plantation (Chicago, l93~).; Andrew W. Lind, An Island Community: Ecological Succession in Hawaii (Chicago, 1938); Bertram W. Doyle, The Etiquette of Race Relations in the South (Chicacro, 1937); Everett V. Stonequist, The Mar~inai Man (New York, 1937); Pauline V. Young, The Pilgrims of Russian Town (Chicago, 1932); and Romanzo C. Adams’, Interracial Marriage in Hawaii (New York, 1957). One of Park’s students, however, takes. the. opposite view and.eaya that Park did contribute to the technique of investigation.1 Citing his work in the Pacific Relations Survey, Pauline Young writes that the very nature of the data Park sought involved the use of new techniques of social exploration and analysis, the methods he outlined marking a new innovation in social surveys and research.2 Young states further that these methods had been used before by different students of human behavior, but not in relation to such extensive enterprises as Park set in motion. A contemporary of Park, E. S.

Bogardus, one of the regional directors of the survey, tested and later used the methods and techniques proposed by Park, and found them to be of considerable, value not only in the analysis of race relations, but also in the study of other social problems.3

In addition to lifting the study of race relations from the sentimental level on which he found it. to the realm of science, Park virtually founded the discipline of human ecology. In the study of the humancommunity, of collective, behavior and of public.opinion, ho broke new paths and charted the course. that students.of those disciplines were to follow for years to come.4 His published works reflect these

1Pauline Young, Scientific Social Surveys and Research (New York, 1939), pp. 54—39.

2lbid.

SEmory S. Boga.rdus, The New Social Research (Los Angeles, 1926), and “A Social Distance Scale,” Sooio1o~y and Social Research, XVII (January—February, 1933), 26~—7l.

4John Nef, Louis Wirth, and Charles S. Johnson, “Phylon Profile, No. I: Robert E. Park,” Phylon, V (Third ~uartor, 1944), 256. 4 interests: Introduction to the Science of Sociology (with E. W.. Bur

gess), 1921; . Old World TraitaTran8,Plaflted (with HerbertA. Miller),

1921; The Immi~rant. Press. and Its Control, 1922; . The City. — Suggestions for the Study. of ‘~~ri Nature. in the Urban Environment ‘(with E.. W.

BurgeBe, R. D. McKenzie and. Louis Wirth), l92~.; and An Outline of the

Principles of Sociology (editor.)., 1939.. These. volumes represent only a fraction of his total published works,.which were largely in the form of papers for the sociological journals.

Within the last quarter’ of . a century the . problems. of assimilation and the internal and external resistance to immigration have ‘largely receded from the foreground’ of sociological attention, but from 1907 through the nineteen—twenties they formed one of the. crucial issues in this nation’s problem of.inimigration and Americanization.. In 1907,

the Congress of the United. States . created ihe Immigration Commission

for the purpose of. investigating immigration in’ this country. . The plan and.scope of the work as.outlinedby. the Commission included.a study of the sources of recent immigration in Europe, the. general. character..of incoming immigrants, the methods.employed here ‘and’ abroad

to prevent the immigration of persons classed as undesirable . in the

United States immigration law, a thorough. investigation into the.. general status of’ the more recent immigrants as. residents of the’ United

States, and, the effect of. such immigration upon the’ .instituti:one, industries and people of this country..1 In 1910 the Commiaaion made a report of its findings and investigations together with its’ conclusions

1Robert E. Park and Ernest W. Burgess, introduction to the ‘Science of Sociology (Chicago, 1921), pp. 772—7~. and recommendat.ions which were published in forty—one volumes.1

Beca.use. constant applications were. made to it for contributions during the aforementioned period, by numerous agencies which sought to extend among immigrants in the United States.the knowledge of. their. government ..and.their ~ob1igations to it, the CarnegieCorporation made a grant in 1918,2 for studies in methods of Americanization. It was believed, that studie.s which would ~not. set forth theories of social betterment, but which would provide, a description of the methods of agencies engaged in work with immigrants ~wou1d be..of distinct value to those who were interested in, or were working in conta~ct with immigrants. Such studies. would enable these agencies to understand the problems of the alien and help him modify his old world customs and replace with the best in American ways and traditions, anything that might be detrimental to his development in America. Such a study was that made by Park in collaboration with Herbert A. Miller.5 The study explained carefully the widely different heritages the immi grant brings with him from his old life, and the necessity of finding points, of contact between his cultural background and the American customs and institutions to which it is desirable that he conf~orm.

1 United States Immigration Commission, Reports of the Immigration Commission, 41 Vole. (Washington, D. C., 1911).

2 Park and Burgess, op. cit., p. 73~.

3Robert E. Park, and Herbert A. Miller, Old World Traits Trans planted (New York, 1921). I.!! ~.~!!:; ~

6

Park and Miller arguedthat assimilation was as inevitable as it was desirable, and that the process of assimilation can be hastened more by giving the immigrants freedom to make their own connections between old and new experiences in their own way, than by a policy which orders and forbids their movements. They used the human document as a technique in getting at the attitudes of the immigrant, and concluded that these attitudes arise out of the cultural complex which the immigrant brings from his home to this country.

Edward.Amea, who knew Park intimately and followed his.career with interest, writes that Park knew his way around and through the human world as do few men, having studied race relations in America, in the

Orient, in Africa, in Brazil. and in Europe.1 In the course of his life time as he sought to make a genuine sociological study of race relations, Park developed.the hypothesis that raoe.rela.tions.are, on the whole, like any other human relations. Racial conflicts and distances, he believed, may be a little wider and sometimes more aggra vating, but they are not different.2 Johnson writes that just as Park found race and culture in America. an index to human relations,. so race and culture problems throughout the world gave him a key to

1Edward S. Ames, In Robert E. Park, ad. Clara C. Park, (privately printed, (n. p., n. dj), p. 4. All essays appearing in this book are untitled, and represent articles by different authors. Hereafter, when this reference is cited, only the author of the article, the editor’s name and the page will be given.

2Robert E. Park, “Extracts from A 3pe~ch,I~ (unpublished manuscript, (n. p./, l9~~). 7 understanding the. process of. civilization.’ The concept of NOne World” was constantly o.n Park’s mind,, and his coming to the study of sociology was the outcome.of a passionate curiosity.about. men. and their relationships to each other and to the changing patterns of society.

Robert.E. Park.was born in Luzerne Oounty,.Pennaylvania, on

February 14, l8~4, and grew up in Minnesota. Residence in a Scandin avian community gave him his first glimpse of immigrant settlers and proved to be an experience which inspired a life—long interest in immigrant groups and marginal cultures.

As Park grew up, he witnessed at first.. hand the conflicts and adjustments between the immigrants and the native settlers in hi8 comm~nity. He saw the contrasts between the customs.and. modes .of life in both groups.. Modern technological innovations brought sweeping changes in industry and.transportation, affecting communities such as that in which Park lived. As a result, the small prairie towns were being slowly sapped of their irihabitanta.by the cities with their bright lights, rapid pace of.expansion and new. opportunities.

Alihan believes that Park must have been.inf,luenced by these conditions noted during his boyhood, as well as by the non—conformist puritanism of the small town, with its insistence upon industry, its suspicion of gaiety, its consciousness of moral superiority, and its regard of the city as the’sink—hole’of all iniquity. She says this bias is evident in all of Park’s writings and explains his preoccupation

‘Charles S. Johnson, in Clara C. Park, op. cit., pp. 26—~l. 8 with social..problema..and social reform?

As a student Park. became acive. at~ the University of M~ohigan in the social, political and.philoao.phicai activities of the campus, and came in contact there with philosophers John Dewey and George H. Mead.

Upon graduation in 1887, he worked for newspaperS~ in Minneapolis.,

Detroit and Chicago, first as a reporter, then as a writer of special articles of human interest and of social import, and later as a. city editor

Park believed that knowledge consisted of and was gained by the actual experience of associationwith men and women, and notthe abstract formulation of theoretioal.principlea. It was this conviction that attracted.him. to newspaper work, a career~ which afforded him un rivaled. opportunity for observing the active world. It was probably responsible for the investigations whichhe undertook.as a newspaperman in Detroit., of the modes of life and the.. problems of rural. counties in Michigan. Again, it was this attitude that prompted him when at the

University of Chicago., to send his students to.varioua areas of the city to observe whatever might:occur of.humaninterest. For he was convinced that the inductive methods of newspaper reporting had a significant.contribution to make t.o sociology. Alihan says it was his insatiable curiosity about human actions and motives, that, in addition to fashioning the methods of human ecology, made.~ Park a teacher. of

1Milla A. Alihan, Social Ecology (New York, 1938), pp. l—~.

2Ernest W. Burgess, “Robert E. Park,” American Journal of Sociology, XLIX (March, 1944), 478. ii; ~ !!~~],: ].

9 pervasive influence.during his later years as an academician.1..

Finding that. journalism did riot provide the answer.s to the puzzling questions of human.behavior which it often dramatically posed,

Park returned to his studies, first at Harvard University where he received his Master’s degree in philosophy in 1899, under the tutelage of William.James and.Joaiah Royce. He then went abroad for further study.2 Park, writing of his activities during this period says,. “I spent a year at..Harvard and then went abroad. 1 intended to stay abroad for a year, but I remained, four years.”3 There, listening to the lectures of Georg Siminel at Berlin, he received his only formal instruction in sociology. (Park was. not the only person to come to sociology, with little formal training, in the discipline, as Franklin

Giddings, Ellsworth Fans, and William I. Thomas also did this.) He also studied under.Wilhelm Windelband at. the University of Heidelberg and received his doctorate in philosophy there, in 1904. Park states that by this time he was “sick. and tir’ed~” of the academic...world, and wanted to get back into the world of mer, having never given up the ambition to know human nature widely and intimately..4

1. Alihan, op. cit., pp. 1—~.

2Burgeas, op. cit., p. ‘478.

‘Robert E. Park, “An Autobiographical Note,” in Clara C. Park, op. cit., p. 11.

4lbid. 1o~

Returning to the United States, Park sought a more~ active participation in the observation. and study of human behavior than was provided at. that time in the academic environment. Selecting race relations as a pressing problem of great theoreticai..and practical importance,. he spent the years from l9O.~ to 1914 in the South, serving most. of that time in an informal. capacity. as secretary and associate of Booker T. Washington, principal of Tuskegee Institute and: the fore most spokesman for reform in Negro—white relations of that time.

Together they made a. tour of Europe studying the conditions of the peasants in each country. Their findings were published in a. book on which they collaborated.1

Park says that his interest in the study of the Negro and the race problem grow out of his association with Booker T. Washington. He had been invited to become seäretary of the Congo Reform Association, an adjunct of the Baptist Board of Foreign Missions, and was to assist in the publicizing of conditions.. in the Belgian. Congo.2 The scandal created. throughout the. world when the. nefarious, methods used by the colonial administrators of King Leopold. II of Belgium, became a matter. of public concern, had only recently gained momentum. Reform societies in Europe and America were created to evoke world condemnation of the maladroit administration, and to force Belgium to alter i-ta colonial policies through international pressures. In conjunction with his work

1Booker T. Washington and Robert E. Park, The Man Farthest Down (New York, 1912).

2Robert E.Park, “An Autobiographical Note,” in Clara C. Park, ~ cit., p. 12. ____ p. 1~.

11

Park wrote. two magazine articles. in which he told of conditions in the

Congo.1 It.is probable that his theories of the colonial.frontier stem from this early contact.with colonial policies. In discussing his work with.the Association,. he.say.s:

I was not at thattime strong formisaions,but I. undertook the job. Eventually, however, I became genuinely interested. I discovered what I might have

known in advance — that. conditions. in the Congo were about what one might expect, what they have since become, in Kenya, though not by any means so bad. They were, in short, what they were certain to be whenever a sophisticated people invades the territories of a more primitive people in order to exploit their lands and, incidentally, to uplift and.civilize them..2

By this time Park.had become. so interested in the problem that he decided to go to Africa to.. study the situation at first hand.

Washington, who heard of the project, invited~him to visit Tuskegee for the purpose of investigating Negro—white relations in the South as a sort of preparatory phase before starting his. studies in Africa.

He admits that~.~ he probably learned more about human. nature and society in the South with.Booker Washington, than he had learned elsewhere in hia..previous..studies.’ He says:

1Robert E. Park,. “Terrible Story of the Congo,” Everybody’s, XV (November, 1905), 624—33~ and “Blood—Money of the Congo,” Every body’s, XVI (January, 1907), 60—70.

2Robert E. Park, “An Autobiographical Note,” in Clara 0. Park, op. cit., p. 12. 12

I believe in firsthand.knowledge not. as a substitute but as. a basis, for. more formal .and’.syatematic inveatiga— tiori. But the ~r.eason. I profited as much as I did from this experience was due1 I am sure, to the fact that I had a long preparation.~L

Park, ~went to Tuskegee. in l9O~, intending to spend seven days., and remained, seven years. Apparently. chronological reckoning of time was of no importance to park, since, throughout his life, when ho became interested in a particular problem, he lost himself in it,. ignoring completely the passing.of time. He says that during, his years at.Tuskegee he discovered that.he was not interested.in the Negro problem as that prob’lem.is ordinarily conceived, but was interested in the Negro in the South.. and in the.:curious .and intricate system which had grown up to define his. relations: with white folk..

I was interested most. of all, in studying the . details of the process. by which the~~ Negro was making and has made

his slow but steady advance.. . I became convinced, finally, that I was observing the historical process by which civilization., not merely here.but elsewhere, has evolved, drawing into the circle of i~a influence an ever widening cirole of .r.ace.s and.. peoples..

While at ~skegee,’ W. I. Thomas, then a..member.of.the.department of sociology at the. University of Chicago, heard. of Park and. brought

him to the attention of Albion W. . Small, head. of the department and. founder of the American.Journal of Sociology. At the.i.nvitation of

Small, Park joined the staff of tho..depar.tment of.sociology at the.

University of Chicago in. 1914, ‘where he remained’ until his.retirement.

1lbid., p. 13. 13 in 1936.1 Although race was by no means his only interest, he can justly be credited with establishing at the University of Chicago a point of view and a research interest that have influenced the entire literature of race in America.2 His students have continued to cultivate and develop the germs of his thinking.3

Beginning his teaching career at fifty, he developed his own methods of instruction with an emphasis on research and frequent con sultations with each student. His keen sense of the significant in human behavior, his penetrating insight, his stimulating suggestions, his provocative statements of theoretical points, his capacity for stating problems in the framework of a conceptual system, his un swerving devotion to research as central in sociological training, and the impact of his vigorous and vivid personality left a lasting impression upon successive groups of graduate students, many of whona are now well known for contributions to research undertaken under his guidance.4

The years, 1914 to 1936, represent Park’s greatest period of productivity. At various times he was on leaves of absence from his

1Burgess, op. cit., p. 478.

2 Nef, Wirth, and Johnson, op. cit., p. 258

‘Ibid., p. 239.

4 Burgess, op. cit., p. 478. ____ p. 478.

14 post at the University, for the purpose of making studies in race rela

tions. He served as a staff member of the Americanization Study of the

Carnegie Corporation during 1918 and 1919. From 1924 to 1944 he was on

the editorial staff of the American Journal of Sociology. He served as

president of the American Sociological Society during the 1925—26 term.

During the years, 1923—25, he was the general director of the Race Rela

tions Survey of the Pacific Coast; and was a research professor at the

University of Hawaii during 1931 and 1932.1 In 1932, he went as lec

turer to Yenching University, China, where the influence of that Univer

sity on the life of the Chinese people can be traced back to this visit.

Similarly, his visits to India, Africa, and Brazil, in 1933, became

starting points of a new scholarship and understanding of the process

of race relations in those countries.2~

One of the most significant of Park’s research projects was his

Rac~ Relations Survey of the Pacific Coast which he was chosen to

direct by the Institute of Social and Religious Research. This study

which engaged the collaboration of university men in the leading

colleges of the Pacific was one of the major pieces of social intro

spection of the 1920’s. The survey interpreted for the first time in

an inclusive way, problems of immigration in terms of Oriental migra—

tion and settlement, on the land and in industry, singly and in

communities; the persistence of ancient institutiOfl8, and the rise of

2 Nef, Wirth, and Johnson, op. cit., p. 239. bII~ ~

1~ the native born of Oriental parentage.1 Park wrote that the facts which were discovered indicating the nature and extent of the changes

taking place in the manners and character of the younger generation

of Orientals were probably the most significant that the survey dis

closed 2

Growing out of mounting racial tensions on the Pacific Coast and

the agitation resulting from the Oriental Exclusion Act of 1924, the

survey~ was initiated in an effort to gain knowledge which would not

so much change attitudes as opinions of American whites toward the

problems of Oriental immigrants.~ Park wrote of the purposes of

the project:

It was not the purpose of the survey to crystallize opinion on either side of an issue, but rather to pro-. vide a context in which issues could be discussed in a friendlier spirit; create a situation in which the common, as over against sectarian, party, and racial interests, might receive a more deliberate and intelligent considera tion...

...Our survey sought to go behind the opinions and the programs of parties and sects, to the sources of

public opinion — the concrete experiences, the personal sentiments and.private feelings of individual men, compared with which the forensic display of arguments and propaganda is, after all, a kind of masquerade. From

~East by West,° Surve~~r, LVI (May, 1926), l~3.

2Robert E. Park, “Behind Our Masks,” Survey, LVI (May, 1926), 139.

‘Ibii., p. 139. 16

the point of view of the Race Relations Survey, the situation on the Pacific Coast is not so much a problem of politics, in the ordinary sense of that word, as a

problem of behavior — collective behavior.1

From his. observations during the course of the survey, Park. formulated his concept of the race relations cycle. In his article appearing in

1926,2 in which he interpreted the findings, of the study, he. makes his first detailed analysis of this concept of the natural history of race relations..

After his retirement in 1936, from the University of Chicago,

Park became visiting professor of sociology at Fisk University, at which post he remained, until his death in. 1944. ~ch of his significant writing on race relations was done during this period. In the introductions to the published. works of some of his students, in book reviews and articles, he expressed his philosophy of race relations.

Wirth writes that the eleven years between 1933 and his death were. among the most productive years of his scholarship.3 Perhaps his most important work with reference to race relations, written during this.period, is the article whi.ch summarizes his position on. the nature of race relations.4 This essay in.which.he traces the natural history of race relations as a process in the development of Western civilization, represents the culmination of.his thinking.on the

1lbid., p. 139.

2Robert E. Park, “Our Racial Frontier on the Pacific,” Survey, LVI (May, 1926), 192-96.

3Louis Wirth, in Clara Ci. Park, op. cit., p. 21.

4Robert E. Park, “The Nature of Race Relations,11 Race Relations and the Race Problem, (ed.) Edgar T. Thompson (North Carolina, 1939), pp. IdiJil~~~!. !.! ~.

17 problem of race relations. Tracing the history of modern race relations from the expansion of European nations to colonial frontiers by migra tion, invasion, and conquest, he concludes that race relationships are determined by- the cultural differences of a dominant and subordinate people struggling for a vantage position in the ecological, political, economic and social orders. It is within the logical and conceptual limits of this conclusion that this analysis is undertaken.

Johnson writes of Park’s years at Fisk,1 that although he had the nominal title of visiting professor, he was infinitely more than this. He was a great teacher working with students out of a critically marginal population who were unaware of the process of which they were a part. The richness of his ideas, the wealth of his learning, his time and energy, all were freely devoted to the development of these students. Johnson believes that the years will continue to yield the effects of the ideas which he gave to those who had the benefit of his teaching.

1Oharlee S. Johnson, in Clara C. Park, op. cit., pp. 3O—~l. CHAPTER II

THE FRAMEWORK OF THE THEORY

The subject matter of social theory is the action of men in

association. It involves a consideration of the nature of human

beings developing through interaction and communication with other human personalities. To know how such interaction takes place and

to understand how. it creates and defines what is called personality,

it becomes necessary to understand the nature of the relationships

of humans in association with others. This problem can be investiga

ted from several different points of view.

One method of approach to the study of social theory is through

the analysis and comparison of actual social institutions. The major

effect of institutions is to structuralize behavior in given areas of human endeavor. This approach provides insight into the manner in

which men are accommodated to a single mode of procedure and develop

the sentiments and beliefs that harmonize with the behavior forms.

Primarily an historical frame of reference, as the direct material is

to be found in history, it is a method utilized mainly by anthropolo

gists or sociologists intent on studying the institutions of primitive man, or institutional growth and development. Through use of this method, generalizations can be drawn and scientific principles of human organization can be derived. A °positive science” of institutions

is the object of such inquiry.

Another system of analysis lies in the study not of institutions

18 19 in themselves, but of the motives and impulses by which men are moved in their social actions through institutional and.aasociative patterns.

This method involves two theoretical extremes, one of which is the study of the psychology of the crowd, in order to interpret the impulses and ways of action of a barelyorganized human group. At the opposite extreme it studies from the same point of view, the psychological aspects of community life or of a culture group as forms of complicated and highly developed types of association. It seeks, as does the psychology of individual conduct to formulate the general rules which guide the actions of men in association, studying the diseases of association as individual psychology studies the ills of personality.

A third approach to social theory is to seek to discover the universal principles of social association; the values rather than the facts.of society. This method seeks to analyze society in terms of what ‘ought’ to be. rather than what tis.

• Park’s approach to the study of society.. is eclectic in nature.

He selects and uses from each of these methods of interpreting society what is most useful. Bringing to the study of sociology little, in the way of formal training, he could have, no well defined frame of reference for studying society, and would of necessity have to. depend to some extent upon’the thinking of his predecessors in developing his own point of view.

1G. D. H. Cole, ~p~jal Theory (New York, 1920), pp. 17—20. 20

Park sought to cultivate sociology as if it were a natural science. He believed that sociology should collect facts and answer the theoretical questions afterward. Its success in analyzing and amassing data which throw light upon human problems would justify its scientific pretensions.1 Emphasizing the value of the empirical method in sociological research, he believed there was a place for formal and systematic investigation in sociology, but not as a substitute for a firBt—hand encounter with the world of men. It was his opinion that theoretical concepts are tools which serve as means of identifica tion, description, classification, and measurement of social phenomena.

In the sphere of human relations as influenced by the factors of race, Park saw mankind as the possessors of a cultural heritage which furnished the perspective through which they viewed the world, and which shaped the facts they recognized. He saw this social heritage as a complex mixture of reason and irrationality. His philosophy of race relations can be fully comprehended only when viewed as an aspect of the process of civilization itself. Consequently, the theory of this natural history of the human career should be the essential task of social science; and its understanding, the fundamental objective of the sociologist.2

He believed that sociology, like natural science, should aim at prediction and control based on an investigation of those aspects of

1Robert E. Park and Ernest W. Burgess, Introduction to the Science of Sociology (Chicago, 1921), p. 211.

2 John Nef, Louis Wirt13, and Charles S. Johnson, “Phylon Profile, No. I: Robert E. Park,” Phylon, V (Third Quarter, 1944), 256. 21 life that are determined and predictable in the nature of man and society. As a scholarly discipline sociology is the ethically neutral study of group life arid human behavior. Its purpose is to establish a body of valid principles, a fund of objective knowledge, that will make possible the direction and. control of social and human reality..

It is moat immediately concerned with the social problems and practical treatment procedures; it is rather a. Byatematic effort to provide a bias for a more adequate understanding of such problems, and conse quently, for a more effective mode of dealing with the problems that exist or may arise.

The sociologist is particularly interested in describing the process by which social life goes on. Like other scientists, he seeks a body of principles that will enable him to predict, not in the sense of historical prophecy or of foretelling the course of future events, but~ in the scientific sense that given certain facts and relations, other events may be foretold. The ability to predict is the basis of control)

Sociology, according to Park, so far as it can be regarded as a fundamental science, may be desci’ibedas the science of collective behavior.2 He says no matter how great the social distances between individuals, the fact that they are aware of one another’s presence sets up an exchange of mutual influences, and the ensuing behavior is

12 1Edward B. Reuter, Handbook of Sociology (New York, 1941), pp.

2Park and Burgess, op. cit., p. 42. 1 ,. ~ ~ :!.

22 social and collective. It is social in the sense that the train of thought and action in each individual influences., and is in turn in fluenced by,the action of every other. It is.colle.ctive insofar as each individual acts under the influence of a mood in which each shares, and in accordance with conventions, which all. unconsciously accept, and which the presence of each enforces upon the others.1

In Park’s-scheme, collective behavior is.defined as the conduct of individuals acting under the influence.of a common and collective

impulse resulting, from social interaction. People do not behave in the presence of others as if they.were living, in an isolated. condition.

The fact of their consciousness of each other tends to maintain.and enforce .a great body of convention and usage which otherwise falls into disuse and is forgotten. Collective behavior in this frame of reference is the interaction which occurs between two or more

socialized human beings for the duration of the particular situation

in which that interaction occurs.2 . It.. is concerned w.ith the study

of the . elementary and spontaneous. forms of behavior arising, directly from the interaction of.peraons and expressive of common impulses.3

Park views interaction in terms of the behavior of each individual which affects and is in turn affected by the actions of all other individuals. He says society exists. wherever several individuals are

1lbid., p. 86~.

2Robert E. Park, “Collective Behavior,” Enc~rclopaodia of’ the Social Sciences, III (New york, 1950), pp. 631—33.

3Reuter, op. cit., p. 205. 2~ in reciprocal relationship with each other. Men are conditioned by associative impulses which cause them to enter into group relationships in which they act for, with and against, one another. In this process they tend to exercise an influence upon these conditions of association and are in turn influenced by them. Such reactions indicate that

society Comes into being through the unity which is developed among

individual bearers of these impulses. This unity is the outgrowth of

the process of socialization. Socialization is the process by which

the individual finds at his various levels of social organization,

ecological, economic, political, and moral or cultural, his place and function in society through competition and co—operation.1

Society exists for Park through a process of transmission of a given social heritage. Transmission in society takes place through

communication from the older to the younger members, of ways of acting,

thinking and feeling. Without communication of ideals, hopes, expecta

tions, standards and opinions, from those members of society who are

passing out of the group life to those who are coming into it, social

life could not survive.2 Men live in a community because of the

things which they have in common, and communication is the way in which

they come to possess the so—called “group mind” which makes collective

1Robert E.Park, “Symbiosis and Socialization: A Frame of Reference for the Study of Society,” American Journal of Socio1og~y, XLV (July, l9~9), 20. After this, the article will be referred to only as “Symbiosis and Socialization.”

2Park and Burgess, op. cit.’, pp. 185—86. 24 action possible. In order to form a community or society, it is essential that they possess mutual understanding in terms of similar aims, beliefs, aspirations and knowledge.1

Park subscribes to Simmel’s theory that if sociology is to be a study of the science of society, it can only investigate those reciprocal influences which represent forms of socialization.2 In his article on symbiosis and socialization as a frame of reference for

studying society,3 Park says the process of socialization, as it

takes place in the formation of any social group reflects the processes by which existing types of association, or societies, and of institu

tions have come into existence in the course of the historic process.

He says further:

Looked at in a historical perspective, we observe that the progressive socialization of the world, that is, the incorporation of all the peoples of the earth in a world—wide economy, which has laid the foundation

for the rising world—wide political and moral order —

the great society — is but a repetition of the processes that take place wherever and whenever individuals come together to carry on a common life, and to form the

institutions — economic, po~.itioal, or cultural — to make that common life effective.’~

Ibid., pp. l8~—86.

2lbid., pp. 348—49. See also Nicholas J. Spykman, The Social Theory of Geor~ Simmel (Chicago, l92~).

3Park, t~Symbiosis and Socialization,” op. cit., XLV, 2~3. 4 Ibid., p. 23. 25

The theory of the movementtoward ‘tone world” as the universe becomes progressively socialized in terms of the economic interdependence of nations, is no new idea. Park’s thinking at this point, closely parallels that of the philosopher, Graham Wallas. In 1915,1 Wallas wrote in his psychological study of society, that the increasing

industrialization of the world, and the resulting world market for goods,

produced and improved methods of communication. This tends to lessen

distances between nations, and in the process the development of a uni

versal political and moral order based on trade is effected, which

Wallas terms, “the great society.” Park’s views on the socialization of

the world stem from this work of ~ which had a profound influence upon the thinking of his contemporaries.

Describing man’s socialization, or the process by which the

individual learns to conform to group standards, Park says, one begins

life as an individual organism involved in a struggle with other

organisms for mere existence. One becomes involved later in personal,

and moral, eventually in economic and occupational, and ultimately in

political associations; in short, with all the forms of association

which are called social. In this manner society and the socialized

individual come into existence as a result of the same social processes

and as a result of the same cycle or succession of events.2

1Grahana Wallas, The Great Society (New York, 1915), pp. ~—l9.

2Park, “Symbiosis and Socialization,” op. cit., XLV, 25. 26

The process of socialization terminatea in assimilation, which involves

the relatively complete. incorporation of the individual into the

existing social order and the more or less complete inhibition of

competition, which, when it exists, takes the form of a. tolerant rivalry.1

The competitive struggle of an individual organism with other

organisms for existence, introduces another point of view which Park held with reference to the organization.of society. Relating the

interdependence of organisms competing for existence in plant and animal society to human relationships, Park introduces the. concept of

society as being symbiotically structured, although in human society the typical struggle is for livelihood rather than for the means of

existence. Human beings struggle for economic security, for position, power and status.

Symbiosis is the living together of distinct and dissimilar species who, because of physical differences. which prevent, assimilation, become accommodated to each other in superficial ways, but remain distinct entities, never becoming members.of a common life. In most instances the association is mutually beneficial, and any- association of individuals who unconsciously compete and co—operate, or who by any exchange of goods and services constitute themselves an economic unit, may be described as an entity that is symbiotic. Individuals living together symbiotically are in a non—social relationship. Park says:

1lbid., p. 2~5.

2lbid., pp. 24—2~5. 27

It seems that every possible form of association is, or should. be, capable under. certain circumstances, of collective action. But there are types of communities, the individual members of which live in a condition of interdependence that is sometimes des cribed as social, which are, nevertheless, quitein— capable of collective action. With the extension of commercial intercourse to every natural region of the earth, one may perhaps say that the whole world is living in a kInd of symbiosis; but the world community is at present, at least, quite incapable of collective action.1

Since they fit into this pattern, race contacts can be viewed as forms of racial symbiosis. In its.inception, the contact of races is fundamentally non—social., since it is around the axis of exploitative economy that the relation of races gets its first definition and. orientation.2 On the non—social level of race contacts, the relations of individuals are impersonal and symbiotic. In colonial areas, races come together, struggle for a vantage position, and eventually establish a more or less permanent symbiotic relationship.~

Racial. symbiosis is. the first relationship which exists between races when they come together., and.. is superseded in time, by other forms of race relations. In this initial phase., each race regards and treats the other as of different species. They are held together and,iriterlaoed in a nexus of competitive—cooperation because each.

1lbid., p. 3.

Masuoka, 11Racial Symbiosis and Cultural Frontiers: A Frame of Reference,’~ Social Forces, XXIV (March, 19146), 348—~~. After this, the article will be referred to as 11Racia.l Symbiosis and Cultural Frontiers.1t

3lbid. I .111

28

is a necessary component in the economic organization of the region.

The characteristic form of association between races is utilitarian.

No mutual understanding, consensus., or interpenetration of personali

ties exists and.the form of adjustment between different races. is merely an expression of the necessary adjustment of the local economy

to the world economy.1

A customary reciprocation of services among more or less indepen

dent individualities is the characteristic feature of social life.

Individuals grouped together in a single mass, may live not only in

contact with each other, but even in a state of. mutual penetration and

still not necessarily constitute.a society. If their functions, instead

of co—operating, diverge; if the good of one is the evil of the other, whatever the intimacy of their contact may be, no social bond unites

them. In some instances, however, individuals of the same or different

species may be useful to each other at a single point. A habitual relation may be established between their activities, but only on this

one point, and in the time limits in which the usefulnesa.exista.

Such an instance gives the occasion, if not for a society, at least for an association. In other words, in addition to the normal societies formed of elements specifically alike, which cannot exist without each other, there will be room for more accidental groupings, formed of elements more or less specifically unlike, which convenience unites and not necessity.2

1lbid., pp. ~

2Park and Burgess, op. cit., pp. 167—68. 29

Man, as he competes for his sustenance, learns to rely more fully upon his technical skills; he~ learns to organize racial and

cultural dissimilarities to promote further his own well—being.. Where two or more divergent racial groups occupy a common territory and participate in a common economy, the division of labor under certain

circumstances may follow closely, the color line. This color line is a caste relationship based on color which arises as.a superordinate group strives to maintain a social order based on exploitation. It is not necessarily based on color prejudices, but comes into being as a

justification for the subordination of a racial group in the interests of an established economy. In a given area, whether or not the division of labor becomes identified with the color line seems to de pend, first, upon the nature of the local economy, and second, upon the complexity of the racial composition of the area. All these factors depend upon the regional interdependence, with the emporium, which in turn depends upon the state of the world economy. In the early stages of contact between the technologically advanced and culturally backward groups, there is a tendency for the dominant group to exploit, the backward people. But sooner or later the parasitism is superseded by a. form of interdependence. What is characteristic, of symbiotic relations among divergent races in urban areas is that mutual dependence is more pronounced than parasitism.1

1 Jitsuichi Masuoka, “Race and Culture Contacts in the Emporium,” American Journal of Sociology, L (November, 1944), 199—204. Park writes that in a society, the mOBt alien relations of two living beings which can be produced are those of the predator and his prey. In general, the predator is the stronger and overcomes and subdues his prey. Yet smaller ones sometimes attack larger creatures,

subduing them and letting them live that they themselves may live on

them as long as possible. In such a case they are forced to remain

for a longer or a shorter time in a relationship with their victim,

carried about by it wherever its life leads them. This is a

parasitical relationship; an association which does not offer the

essential element of all society, co—operation. Co—operation exists

only when the two individuals are living in a reciprocal relation and

are developing their mutual.activities in corresponding ways toward a

single and an identical goal.1

Park has indicated that a realistic analysis of the relations of

races must be made against its broader context — ecological, political

and moral orders.2 It is within this wider range of contacts and

associations that the individual members of the divergent races first

compete for their sustenance, satisfy their biological needs, and

struggle for a vantage point within ecological and economic orders.

But the struggle for spatial position produces the struggle for social

status and personal and moral integrity. As contacts become more

numerous, personal and lasting, the members of the subordinate group

1 Park and Burgess, op. cit., pp. 167—68.

2Park, “Symbiosis and Socialization,” op. cit., XLV, 1—2~. ~1 become progressively acculturated and they become wiser in the ways of the dominant group. They begin to exert themselves; they struggle for higher economic, political and social status, and finally they fight for greater personal mobility: and 8elf—expreseion. At this stage race problems, as distinct from administrative, colonial problems arise •

Incident to the contacts and communication of divergent races and

cultures, the old order based upon more or less homogeneous races and

cultures invariably changes. To describe systematically in temporal

sequence just what these processes consist of constitutes the essence

of the natural history of race relations. Stated in human terms, the

study of race relations deals with the contacts and meetings of two

societies and the consequent processes of mutual adjustment of

organized social groups whose customary behavior, beliefs, and values

are different. Wherever the mode of life of one racial group is

separated by a broad gulf from that of another, a satisfactory mutual

adjustment between races is difficult to achieve, and the outcome,

quite often, problematic. However, in every instance, it is the

politically subordinated element of the dual society which must bear

the greater burden of social adjustment and change.2

1Maauoka, “Racial Symbiosis and Cultural ~ op. cit., XXIV, ~49—~O.

2 Ibid. CHAPTER III

THE CONTENT OF THE THEORY

I

Race relations emerge in the social process, in social interaction, in contacts and in communication. Park has studied them .iithin that framework. Believing that the interactions-i approach is the most use ful for studying the nature of relations between races, he interprets these relations as a continuous process, cyclical in nature, which terminates in some predestined racial configuration. This configura tion may be explored within the framework of racIal and ethnic contacts.

Park, seeing race relations as inextricably interwoven with economic processes, has developed a theory of race and óulture contacts in the emporium to show that race problems are a direct result of

European expansion into colonial areas. A period of exploration followed by industrial and population expansion in Europe, resulted in the widespread overseas migration of Europeans to many parts of the world. Backed by their superior technology, institutional organiza tion and rational knowledge, Europeans invaded the culturally “back— ward~ regions, established their colonies and divided their spheres of influence among themselves. The cities which developed became trading centers, drawing men of many races and cultures into contacts for commercial purposes.

Park says that it is in the market place where men from distant places come together to bargain and trade that men first learn the

32 5,~ subtleties of commerce and exchange; the necessity- for cool calcula tion, and the freedom to act as individuals, in accordance with interests rather than sentiments. it is with the expansion of the market that intellectual life has prospered and local tribal cultures have been progressively integrated into that wider and more rational social order called “civilization.”1

It becomes necessary to present a brief analysis of the colonial world in order to provide a basis for the ensuing discussion, because

Park believed that the great cities of thecolonial empire represented an ideal area for the study of racial contacts and cultural fusion.

Here, where new racial types constantly- emerge as a result of the inter breeding of divergent races, it is possible to observe racial develop ment as an aspect of the developme~it of civilization. He found the

great colonial cities of the East — Honolulu, Manila, Yokohama,

Batavia, and others — a convenient laboratory in which to study the contact of races and its effect upon race relationships. He believed that by focusing attention upon great cities and their spheres of dominance, insight could be gained not only into the present status o1~ race and culture contacts,2 but also into the dynamics of the race relations cycle.

Before the outbreak of the second world War, approximately- one— third of the land area of the earth was colonial territory, primarily

‘Robert E. Park, “Introduction,” to Everett V. Stonequist, The Marginal Man (New York, 1937), p. xiv.

2Robert E. Park, “Race Relations and Certain Frontiers,” in Edward B. Reuter (ed.), Race and Culture Contacts (New York, 1934), p. ~7. in the possession of European nations. Great Britain held the major proprietary interest, with The Netherlands and France ranking next as owners. Belgium, Portugal, Denmark, Germany, Italy, Japan, and the

United States of America have also been the administrators of lesser colonial holdings.

Colonialism as a way of life has had a long history. It came into existence as a part of the modern world nearly four centuries ago.

As European nations began expanding into neighboring territories searching for raw materials and engaging in small trade, the ever widening circle of influence of Europe began in the fifteenth century, and continued without serious interruption throughout the nineteenth century.1

Numerous colonies were settled in which European powers were represented by soldiers, settlers, missionaries and traders. Gradually, each power gained control over areas containing one or more of Europe’s most needed raw materials. Since the control of these products was in the hands of a few nations, and in view of Europe~s great need of these goods, it became necessary that trading centers be established for the purpose of facilitating distribution of these goods. A net—work of trade routes developed, which shortened the distances around the world, and linked every continent to the world’s commercial thoroughfare, speeding the flow of the desired commodities. Today, the world’s greatest volume of trade continues to flow along this highway which

in Stonequist, op. cit., p. xiv. 3~ is referred to as the HMain Street of the World,”1 and is composed of the principal coastal cities of the Eastern and Western hemisphere8.

The world’s main street is comparable to the major thoroughfare of an urban community; for example, Wall Street in New York City, the avenue along which the principal financial dealings of that metropolis are transacted. Similarly, the business establishments on the city’s principal boulevards correspond to the great cosmopolitan centers along the “Main Street of the World.” Just as most of the financial activity occurs within and among these business houses, so the world’s transactions are effected within and among the great colonial cities along i.ts principal commercial route.2

The cities which have risen and grown in direct response to the world market have a common feature. In these areas the population is multiplying, new ideas are growing and spreading, industry and commerce are expanding, and the sphere of political and cultural influence is extending to an ever expanding frontier.~ The commercial and. manufac— turing cities that have grown most rapidly since 1900, Park believed, are on the whole, those located on the ocean’s main highways. However, not all the racial frontiers are seaport cities. Johannesburg, the

1 Herman D. Burrell, ~ Contacts in Three Cities Along the Main Street of the World” (Unpublished Master’s thesis, Department of Social Sciences, Fisk University, 1938), pp. 1—5.

2 Ibid.

Jitsuichi Masuoka, “Race and Culture Contacts in the Emporium,” ~merican Journal of Sociology, L (November, 19144), 201. ____ p. ~9.

56 capital of the gold region of South Africa; Elizabethville, the center of the Katanga copper mining region in the Belgian Congo; and Nairobi, capital of Kenya, in Central Africa, to which European immigration has turned since World War I, are younger and less important, but in other respects, characteristic frontier cities in which the typical cycle of race relations has just begun.1

The great cities of the colonial empire have always been the melt

ing pot of races and cultures. These cities which developed through migration and conquest by European nations represent areas which were once colonial frontiers. Park refers to the area in which invasion by an expanding people and the initial contact of races takes place, as the ~‘frontier.” In this sense, the frontier of European expansion has been of two types, a frontier of settlement and a frontier of exploitation. In either case the frontier has invariably advanced by

stages, distinguished less by the increasing numbers of the invading population than by the character of the technological innovations which each successive advance of population introduced. Thus, he says, the introduction of an innovation which is sufficiently disturbing to the existing social order may mark the rise of a new frontier, not in every instance a frontier of settlement, but in any case a cultural frontier.2

The colonies representing the frontier of exploitation are located for the most part in tropical territory considered unsuited to European settlement, or in territory already densely populated where the native

in Reuter, op. cit., p. 77. ____ p. 61.

57 populations cannot be displaced. The colonies which represent the

frontier of settlement are those areas where the invading people in their efforts to accommodate themselves to the conditions of life in a new country invariably discard or lose their inherited and tradi

tional ways of life. As a result new peoples and new cultures arise.~

Thus, the frontier is not merely an area where peoples meet, but a

zone of transition where they intermingle.

Geherally, race contacts resulting from exploration, immigration, and eventual settlement have customarily included an excess of males among the invading group. Park says that one evidence and consequence of racial expansion is the existence in both the colonies of settlement and the colonies of exploitation, wherever Europeans have gone to live,

in fact, of a population of half castes and mixed bloods who are a direct result of this situation.2 This indicates that miscegenation takes place most readily and rapidly upon the frontier. It takes place among primitive peoples when their tribal organizations have been under mined by slavery, or by sudden incorporation into the industrial systems of more highly civilized peoples. It occurs in the early period of any invasion of an alien populati.on before stable conditions and a normal distribution of the sexes has been achieved.5 It is in the earlier years of migration to the frontier, that interbreeding takes place rapidly; later, as the disproportionate ratio in the sexes among

1lbid., p. 58.

5lbid., p. 79. the invading population is changed, the rate at which intermarriage and race mixture proceeds will ordinarily decline.1

This interpenetration of peoples and fusion of cultures has pro duced the racial hybrid, a new personality type, which Park calls °the marginal man.I~2 The marginal man is one whom fate has condemned to live in two societies and in two, not merely different, but antagonistic cultures. He lives in intimate association with the world about him, but is never so completely identified with it that he is unable to look at it with a certain critical detachment. The marginal man is an incidental product of a process of acculturation such as inevitably ensues when peoples of different cultures and different races come to gether to. carry on a common life.3

The study of hybrid, marginal peoples is significant for several reasons. The racial hybrid offers the most obvious, tangible evidence of the extent and charaöter of European cultural contact on the fron tier. In terms of their numbers and the particular role assigned them in the communities in which they live, the character of existing race relations and the extent to which racial and cultural assimilation between the parent races has taken place, can be determined.4

‘Robert E. Park, “Introduction,’t to Romanzo Adams, Interracial Marriage in Hawaii (New York, 1937), p. xiii.

2Park, in Stonequist, op. cit., pp. xiii—xviii.

3.Ibid,,:p. xviii.

4Park, in Reuter, op. cit., p. 78. It has been the disposition of the mixed bloods, wherever they

have been denied the status of the dominant race, to compensave them

selves by withdrawing from association with the racially subordinate

parent group and establishing a separate caste. When the Eurasian,

or the Eurafrican, or the mulatto of the United States have sought to~

identify themselves with the dominant group they have been rebuffed,

and have vacillated on the margins of both parent groups. In some

instances they have succeeded in completely segregating themselves.

This has been the case in South Africa, Asia,and the United States.

When this has occurred they have either deteriorated physically or

culturally, and have not shared in the general economic and cultural

progress as a whole.

As an illustrative example, Park cites the Rehobother Bastaards,

an isolated community of mixed Boer and South African natives, who have

succeeded in maintaining their racial identity by refusing to inter

marry or identify themselves with the natives, and who are prohibited

from intermarriage with the white population.1 Another, Macao, an

isolated colony thirty miles west of Hong Kong, was settled by one

thousand Portuguese families, whose descendants have intermarried with

the Chinese to such an ex.tont that they are now predominantly Chinese

in blood, if not in culture. They have succeeded in preserving their

Portuguese heritage by remaining devout Christians in a Confucian world.2

Bond cites two racial islands in Alabama as examples of mulattoes who

1lbid., p. 70.

2lbid., p. 6~. 40 have preserved their racial identity by isolating themselves from both groups, but who are disintegrating culturally in the process.1

It is evident that the processes of acculturation and assimilation do not proceed with the same ease and speed in all cases. Particularly where peoples who come together are of divergent cultures and widely different racial stocks, assimilation takes place more slowly than in other instances. All racial problems grow out of situations in which assimilation does not take place at all, or occurs very slowly. The chief obstacle to the cultural assimilation of races is the reaction to, acceptance or rejection of, certain divergent physical traits by groups conscious of these differences.2 Eventually, however, peoples and races who live together, sharing in the same economy, inevitably become assimilated through the processes inherent in the race relations cycle, the dynamics of which will be discussed in the succeeding section.

II

Park’s interactional approach to the study of race relations is an attempt to develop a systematic theory in that field. He recognized in the operation of race relations the four major processes of social

interaction — contact, competition, accommodation, and assimilation.

1Horace Mann Bond, “Two Racial Islands in Alabama,” American Journal of Sociology, XXXVI (January, 1931), ~2—67.

2Robert E. Park, “Human Migration and the Marginal Man,” American Journal of Sociology, XXXIII (May, 1928), 881—93. 41

In 1926, when reporting the findings of his Pacific Relations Survey,

he introduced the concept of the 11race relations cycl&1 as a systematic

abstraction of the interactional process.1 He wrote:

In the relations of races there is a cycle of events which tends everywhere to repeat itself. Exploration invariably opens new regions for commer cial exploitation; the miasionary...becomes the ad vance agent of the traders. The exchange of commodi ties involves in the long run the competition of goods and of persons. The result is a new distribu tion of population and a new and wider division of labor.

The new economic organization, however, inevi tably becomes the basis for a new po1itical~ order. The relations of races and peoples are never for very long merely economic and utilitarian...We have im ported labor as if it were a commodity, and...we have been disappointed to find that laborers were human like ourselves. In this way it comes about that race relations which were economic became later political and cultural...

The race relations cycle which takes the form, to state it abstractly, of contacts, competition, accommodation, and eventual assimilation, is apparently progressive and irreversible.2

Race relationships tend to take certain forms, of which competi

tion is the most universal and fundamental. Social contact initiates

interaction, but competition is interaction without social contact.

In human society, competition is always interrelated with other pro

cesses of conflict, accommodation and assimilation.3 While social

1Robert E. Park, 11Our Racial Frontier on the Pacific,” Survey, • LVI (May, 1926), 192—96.

2Ibid.

• 3Robert E. Park and Ernest W. Burgess, Introduction to The Science of Sociology (Chicago, 1921), p. ~ .~:! .!:;[~!.I~j. ~

42 contact inevitably initiates these processes, it creates also sympathies,

prejudices, and personal and moral relations which modify, complicate, and control competition.1 On the other hand, within the limits which

the cultural process creates, and custom and tradition impose, compe

tition invariably tends to create an impersonal social order in which

each individual, being free to pursue his own profit, makes every other

individual a means to that~ end. In doing so, however, he invariably

contributes, through the mutual exchange of services, to the common

welfare.

Competition, the process through which the ecological organiza

tion of society is created, determines the territorial and vocational

distribution of the racial elements of a population. The division of

labor and the economic interdependence of racial groups characteristic

of modern life, are products of competition. The social and political

order which imposes itself upon this competitive organization, is a

product of accommodation and assimilation, later stages in the race

relations cycle.2

Competition is universal among living things. Ordinarily, it

goes on unobserved even by the individuals who are most concerned. It

is only in periods of crisis, when men are making new and conscious

efforts to control the conditions of their common life, that the

forces with which they are competing gets identified with persons, and

competition is converted into conflict.~

1lbid., p. ~O7.

2lbid., p. 508.

3lbid., p. 512. In colonial areas where relatively simple conditions of life exi8t, races come together, struggle for a vantage position, eventually

establishing a more or less permanent symbiotic relationship. Park

believed that the process through which racial symbiosis first comes

into being and is later replaced by other forms of race relations,

could be more easily comprehended by observing the origin and growth

of racial symbiosis in the less complex situations of colonial life.

Every community, which is spatially isolated, culturally autono

mous and economically self—sufficient, has a unique ecological organi

zation peculiar to and dependent upon its local resources and the

number of ite inhabitants. In the beginning of the contact and associ

ation of races on the frontier, the ecological organization of the

indigenous population is only slightly affected. The pioneer traders

who desIre materials that lie outside the realm of the native economy

and social order have a relationship with the inhabitants which is

largely transitory. Relations between the traders and the community

remain generally friendly and peaceful. Through contact with the

traders, the natives are introduced to the ways of the outside world

and are prepared thereby for the eventual penetration of their

communities by larger enterprises with substantial capital and organi

zation. It is only after the appearance of these well organized

commercial enterprises that the alien economic penetration is said to

effect any notable infringement on native economic life.1

1Jitsuichi Masuoka, “Racial Symbiosis and Cultural Frontiers: A Frame of Reference,” Social Forces, XXIV (March, l9~46), ~48—~. 44

The introduction of new technological devices for swift exploita

tion of resources upsets the biot.ic balance of the region and. modifies

the man—sustenance relationship peculiar to the native mode of life.

Generally, in the wake of the invaders come new diseases which tend to upset the conventional balance between births and deaths. Where the

depopulation of the natives is associated with an influx of alien

peoples, a drastic change in the local economic and social organization

occurs. The native land.s fall into the hands of the invaders, the

money economy displaces the native economy, and with this transition

the natives become increasingly dependent for their daily existence on

the outer world.1

As racially and culturally divergent groups come to occupy a

common territory and participate in a common economy, there develops a

racial division of labor which gives the area a. measure of stability.

Individuals competing for livelihood and status distribute themselves

in the ecological order. Traditionally, individuals with technical

skills and capital occupy the top of the occupational ladder, control

the center of dominance and direct the activities of their subordinates.

They exploit the natives as another natural resource of the colonial

area.

The symbiotic association of peoples and races is in constant flux,

because the racial division of labor results from and is based upon

cultural and geographical dissimilarities of groups in association.

‘Ibid., pp. 5~l—~2. 45

As the ecological position of the region is modified and acculturation of the natives takes place, the pattern changes. With the increase of culture contacts between the dominant and subordinate groups the social distances separating the two narrow. Race prejudice then be

comes the instinctive and spontaneous reaction of the superordinate race as it. seeks to maintain these social distances.

In this context, the concept of social distance becomes a con

venient tool for measuring racial attitudes. Closeness or distance is not so much a. matter of familiarity and sharing of experience as a matter of attitudes. The likes, preferences, tastes, hatreds, dis

gusts, and dreads of an individual, in so far as they are focused on

another person, will attract or repel, draw them together, or separate

and erect barriers between them.1

Park’s concept of “distance” as applied to human beings has come

into use among sociologists in an attempt to reduce to measurable

terms the degrees of understanding and intimacy which characterize social

relations. The degree of intimacy or reserve which enters into social

relationships, describes, and to some extent measures social distance.

Under certain circumstances reserves may be broken down, and with this

breakdown, social distances dissolve, and the most intimate under

standings are frequently established.

In southern sectionB of the United States of America, social dis

tances are defined and maintained through a pattern of racial etiquette,

which functions to define and maintain the pattern which race relations

1Robert E. Park, “The Concept of Social Distance: As Applied to the Study of Racial Attitudes and Racial Relations,” Journal of Applied Sociolo~, IX (September—October, 1924), 18—24. take. In such a system, when all the social distances are observed and every individual is in his proscribed place, the society or communi

ty has attained a stable balance between races. In such a society,

every individual is “all right” and quite acceptable in his place, and

at his proper distance, even when that distance is only symbolically

expressed. Thus, it was quite possible on the plantation in the ante—

béllum South, particularly in the case of house servants and the

master’s family, to maintain the most intimate relationships between

master and slave, provided the social ritual defining and maintaining

the caste relationships was strictly observed.1

Etiquette and ceremonial are convenient and necessary in facili

tating human intercourse, but they maintain even more effectively

social distances, and preserve the rank and order of classes and indi

viduals essential to social organization and adequate collective action.

When viewed in this light, the ceremonial~ and ritual so rigidly en

forced in the South becomes significant. Such methods of maintaining

social distances tend to preserve racial distinctions amid all the

inevitable changes of an expanding industrial and democratic society.2

The inability of administrators and vested interest groups to

modify their old institutional patterns and to cope with new conditions

gives rise to collective unrest among the individuals of the subordinate

1Robert E. Park, “Introduction,” to Bertram W. Doyle, The Etiquette of Race Relations in the South (Chicago, 1957), pp. xviii—xix.

2Robert E. Park, “The Bases of Race Prejudice,” Annals of the Academy of Political and Social Science, CXL (November, 1928), 11—20. 47 group who focus their attention on race differences and develop race consciousness. As they become more aware of themselves as a racial entity and grow wiser in the ways of the dominant group, they begin to exert themselves and struggle for greater economic, political, and social status. Conflict is the inevitable result, as the forces in power invariably seek to preserve the social distances separating the races.

Nowhere do social contacts so readily provoke conflicts as in the relations between races, particularly when racial differences are re—enforced not only by differences of culture, but of color. Visi bility makes it easy to observe and maintain racial distinctions. It puts between the races the invisible, but no less real, barrier of self— consciousness.1 Park says that because of the distinctive racial features which Orienta].s and Negroes possess, they are condemned to remain in the white world symbols not only of their respective races, but of a vague, ill—defined menace, which in the case of the Japanese is referred to as, “the yellow peril.” This not only determines to a great extent, the attitude of white toward darker races, but the attitude of the suppressed races to the white as well.

Conflict is always a conscious process, evoking the deepest emo tions, and enlists the greatest concentration of attention and effort on the part of contending racial groups. Both competition and conflict are forms of struggle, but competition is continuous and impersonal,

‘Robert E. Park, “Racial Assimilation in Secondary Groups, with Particular Reference to the Negro,” American Journal of Sociology, XIX (March, 1914), 611. Hereafter, this reference will be cited as “Racial Assimilation in Secondary Groups.” 48 while conflict is intermittent and personal. Tn race contacts, con flict arises as the racially subordinate group seeks to gain greater personal and economic status.

Every change in status of a race involves a change in social organi zation. Race prejudice is a manifestation of the manner in which the

social order resists change. Park cites the Negro as the most striking

example,.stating that every effort on the part of the Negro to improve his status has invariably met with opposition, aroused prejudice and

stimulated racial animosities.’ As an elementary form of conservatism, racial prejudices play an important part in the organization of society.

They are spontaneous, instinctive, defense—reactions, whose effect is

to restrict heretofore unrestrained competition between races.2

In the casual contacts of races, it is the offensive rather than

the pleasing traits of races that are noticed. The impressions accumu

late and reinforce natural prejudices. Races distinguished by certain

external marks furnish a permanent physical substratum around which

the irritations and animosities incidental to all human intercourse

tend to accumulate, and so gain strength and volume.’ Park believes

that racial prejudice is ordinarily confused with these racial antag

onisms. There is probably less racial prejudice in America than else—

where, he says, but there is more racial antagonism and conflict.

‘Park, “The Bases of Race Prejudice,” op. cit., CXL, 11—20.

2Park and Burgess, op. cit., p. 623.

3Park, “Racial Assimilation in Secondary Groups,” op. cit., XIX, 611. 49

They exist because there is more~ change and progress in America. For example, the Negro is rising in America, and the measure of the racial antagonism he encounters is, in a very real sense, the measure of his 1 progress.

Racial distinctions, where they exist, will always be supported by racial prejudices. But where distinctions based on race are part of the established order, as they invariably are in a static society, such as the South in the United States, each race lives within the limitations of its own world and accepts the definition imposed upon it as if it were a natural process. Under such circumstances each race, having its own internal organization, maintains its own norms of conduct, and each expects and demands that every individual will comply with the group standards. So far as this normal expectancy is main tained, good—will exists, and each race will tolerate the other; but when efforts are made by the subordinate race to rise, conflict in— evitably~ develops

Conflicts which result when a submerged race seeks to rise and make for itself a place in the world occupied by superior and privileged races, are no less vital and less important because they are often bloodless. They serve to stimulate ambitions and inspire ideals which years of subjection and subordination have suppressed. Park believes that through conflicts, minor peoples are destined to gain the moral

3. Park, °The Bases of Race Prejudice,” op. cit., CXL, 11—20. ~ ~~

concentration and discipline that will fit them to share in the con

scious life of the civilized world on equal terms.’

Conflict sniong races, then, appears to emerge from the unwilling

ness of one race to enter into personal competition with a race of a

different and “inferior” culture. As the racial minority becomes

articulate and seeks to lessen the social distances between the super—

ordinate and subordinate races, racial prejudices are intensified.

They lead to conflict situations which arise when the dominant race

employs measures to maintain an established order which the subordinate

race refuses to respect.

Accommodation arises naturally out of conflict situations. In

an accommodated relationship the antagonism of the hostile elements

is temporarily regulated, and conflict as overt action disappears,

although it remains a potential threat. With a change in. the new

situation, the adjustments that had successfully held the antagonistic

forces in control fails. The resulting confusion and unrest may

develop into new types of conflict. This conflict, whether a war, a

strike, an exchange of polite innuendoes, a lynching, or a race riot,

produces a new accommodated situation, which generally involves a

changed status in the relations among the participants. However, it

is only with complete assimilation that the antagonism latent in th.e

organization of dissimilar groups is likely to be wholly dissolved.2

“Racial Assimilation in Secondary Groups,” op. cit., XIX, 620.

and Burgess, op. cit., p. 66~. Slavery and caste represent forms which accommodation may take in the relationships of races. Slavery has been historically the usual method by which people have become accommodated to alien groups.1 In

America, the social order which emerged with the abolition of slavery was a system of caste based on race and color. The plantation had been organized on the pattern of a feudal, rather than a civil and political society. Caste was the accommodated form which race relations took under conditions which the plantation system imposed.2 Although

caste still persists and serves to regulate race relations — many

factors — education, the rise within the Negro community of a. profess ional class, and of an intelligentsia, seeking to organize and direct

the ~egro~s rising race consciousness — have conspired not merely to undermine the traditional caste system, but to render it obsolete.

Hence, new forms of accommodation must develop. The slow, but steady advance of the Negro, as a result of competition within and without the group, and the gradual rise of a Negro society within the limits of the white man’s world have changed the whole structure of race relations

in the United ~ Park believes that the caste system as a form

of accommodation, so far as it has served anywhere to organize race relations, has been a solution of the race problem. It was after the

abolition of slavery, and with the disintegration of the caste 8yBtOm

that the disorders and racial animosities ordinarily identified with

1Park, ~ Assimilation in Secondary Groups,” op. cit., XIX, 611—12.

in Doyle, op. cit., p. xvi.

in Adams, op. cit., p. xxii. the race problem began.1

Conflict and accommodation bring about modifications in race rela tions as the attitudes and values of the racial groups concerned change.

In the course of time, the relations between the races become personal, and in this process racial differences lose their.significance. People now begin to attribute to others the qualities of human nature which

they value and the attitudes which they possess. The intercommunica

tion among members of the society becomes more extensive and the parti

cipation in common activities becomes more effective and numerous.

When this process of assimilation is reached, the race relations cycle has reached its logical conclusion through natural processes.2

Park views assimilation as the process by which people of diverse racial origins and different cultural heritages living in a common habitat, achieve a cultural solidarity sufficient for sustaining a

national existence. He says an alien may, as in the case of the Chinese

in America, or the European in China, accommodate himself to the condi

tions of life in a foreign country without learning the native language and without adopting, except to a very slight degree, the native customs.

In such instances the relation of the alien to the native may be des

cribed as symbiotic rather than social. When a racial group no longer exhibits the marks which identify him as a member of an alien group,

‘Park, in Doyle, op. cit., p. xxi.

2Jitsuichi Ma.auoka, “Can Progress in Race Relations Be Measured,” Social Forces, XXV (December, 1946), 21~. I I~II

he acquires by that fact, the actual, if not the legal, status of a native. The alien is assimilated when he has internalized the language, customs, and institutions of his adopted country. Mere learning of these factors does not imply assimilation.1 It is ordinarily in the second or third generation of the alien population that assimilation is accomplished.

Assimilation must be distinguished from accommodation with which it is somewhat related. Accommodation is a process of temporary adjust ment in which social relations are organized to prevent or reduce con flict, to control competition, and to maintain a basis of security in the social order for persons arid groups of divergent interests and races to carry on together their varied life activities. Assimilation,

on the other hand, is a process of interpenetration and fusion of

races and cultures in which persons and groups acquire the sentiments

of others, and by sharing their experiences and history are incorpora

ted with the other group into a common cultural life. An accommodation

of a conflict situation usually occurs with rapidity. The intimate.

and subtle changes involved in assimilation are more gradual. The

changes that occur in accommodation represent a. conscious process. In

assimilation, the process is unconscious, and the individual is in

corporated into the common life of the group before he is aware of it,

with little conception of the course of events which brought this

1 II • I Robert E. Park, Assimilation, Social, Encyclopaedia of the Social Sciences, II (New York, 193~), 281—83. 54 integration about.1 Nevertheless, in the case of the racial hybrid whose lack of visibility permits it, submersion into the dominant group may take place through the conscious process of “passing.”

As social contact initiates interaction, assimilation is its final, perfect product. It takes place most rapidly where contacts are primary and. most intimate. Secondary contacts facilitate accommo dation, but do not greatly promote assimilation, since the contacts are external and too remote.2

Assimilation must be distinguished from amalgamation, with which

it is also related. Amalgamation is a biological process through which the fusion of races is effected by interbreeding and intermarriage.

Assimilation, on the other hand, is limited to the fusion of cultures.

Amalgamation, while it is limited to the crossing of racial traits

through intermarriage naturally promotes assimilation through the

cross—fertilization of social heritages. The offspring of a “mixed”

marriage not only biologically inherits physical and temperamental

traits from both parents, but also acquires in the nurture of family

life, the attitudes, sentiments, and memories of both father and mother.

Thus, amalgamation of races insures the conditions of primary social

contacts most favorable for assimilation.3

The rapidity and completeness of assimilation depends directly

upon the intimacy of social contact. Slavery, and especially household

1Park and Burgess, op. cit., pp. 734—36.

2lbid.

3lbid., pp. 737—38. slavery, has probably been, aside from inter—marriage, the most eff i— cient means of promoting assimilation. Park says that when a member of an alien race is adopted into a family as a servant or as a slave, particularly when that status is made hereditary, as it was in the

case of the Negro after his importation to America, assimilation

followed rapidly, and as.a matter of course.1 He says it is difficult

to conceive two races farther removed from each other in temperament and tradition than the Anglo—Saxon and the Negro, yet the Negro in

the South who served as a family servant, learned, in a comparatively

short time the manners and customs of the dominant class. He soon

possessed himself of so much of the language, religion, and the

technique of civilization of his master, as in his station he was fitted

or allowed to acquire.2

The significance of race relations in Park is reflected in an

essay in which he synthesizes the theory of race relations which he has heretofore espoused.3 In this essay Park sees race relations as

the forms of interaction existing between peoples distinguished by marks of racial descent. When the individuals and groups so distin guished become conscious of these differences, and by so doing, deter mine in each case the individual’s conception of himself as well as

1Park, ~Raoial Assimilation in Secondary Groups,” op. cit., XIX, 611—12.

3Robert E. Park, “The Nature of Race Relations,” in Edgar T. Thomp son (ed.), Race Relations and the Race Problem (Durham, N. 0., 1939), pp. 1 udk

his status in the community, a race problem exists. Thus, anything that intensifies race consciousness, particularly, a permanent physical trait, increasing an individual’s visibility and making more obvious his identity with a particular ethnic group, tends to create and main

tain the conditions under which race relations exist. The resulting race consciousness is, therefore, to be regarded as a phenomenon

that enforces social distances. Race relations are not so much the relations that exist between individuals of different races as between

individuals conscious of these differences. They do not exist in

areas where there is a minimum of race consciousness. One speaks of

race relations when there is a race problem.

Race relations include all the associations that exist between

different ethnic and racial groups which are capable of provoking race

conflict and race consciousness, or of determining the status of the

racial~ elements comprising a community. Race relations exist in all

those situations in which some balance between competing races has

been achieved and in which ‘the resulting social order has become fixed

in custom and tradition. - ~

CHAPTER IV

THE EVALUATION OF Il-IE THEORY

The theory of human relations which inheres in Park’s writing on race is but a small portion of his total sociological thinking. One cannot achieve a thorough knowledge of Park without becoming familiar with his studies in ecology, human nature and collective behavior.

To attempt a criticism of the soundness of his hypotheses on race relations without having a definite knowledge of his entire social thinking would be artless. Withal, an evaluation in terms of onets own viewpoint is justified. An analysis of ~ theory of race relations is at once a. fitting introduction to the man and his work, and a stimulus to the further investigation and understanding of the fundamental sociological opinions which he held. Park produced no systematic theory of sociology, nor did he develop an organized scheme of race relations. Yet, it is possible to construct a systematic theory of race relations by culling from his writings on race those ideas which appear most often, formulating them into a sequential order.

The present study represents such a conflation.

While Park Bought to approach the study of race relations in contemporary society with a scientific point of view, it has been demonstrated that he was never to lose the zeal of the reformer. Wit

ness the origin of his interest in the problem of race relations — his desire to expose the conditions in the Belgian Congo, which he labeled

Leopold’s “private estate.” Note, also, his laissez—faire attitude — . ~~ ~ ijl!~ ~ •[!...!!!~!.!:[.~!..~:!!.!:..

toward Oriental and European immigrants in the United States. His argument with reference to the problem of immigration W~8 that the alien be allowed to make his own adjustments to new culture contacts without the interference of external forces of governmental and

institutional restrictions.

Park often spoke of what one must do to “improve11 race relations,

and in so speaking, perhaps moved outside the province of pure

sociological thought. However, it would not be altogether fair to

appraise Park in terms of his interest in human improvement. He re

jected early the coldly intellectual approach to the study of human

interaction, stating emphatically that his primary interest was in

people, not in the formulation of theoretical abstractions. As one

interested in providing a basis for the common understanding among men

living in “the great society,” Park sought always to establish

principles which were universal.

Despite this humaneness, his studies in race relations were under

taken in a scientific spirit, and his predictions as to the future

course of race relations in terms of the race relations cycle are valid.

A recent study of race and culture contacts in Hawaii by Edwin Bur

rows,’ demonstrates the tenability of Park’s theory when applied to a

definite locale. While it was not. made within the conceptual frame— work of Park’s cyclical theory of race relations, Burrows’ study

presents an ideal setting for a practical application of the theory.

1Edwin G. Burrows, Hawaiian Americans (New Haven, 1947). He found that relations between the indigenous population of Hawaii and the invading peoples were at first symbiotic, later becoming competitive. Conflict was resolved in accommodated situations, and. eventual assimilation took place through a fusion of all the races and cultures which met on the islands. Burrows also supports ~ theory that assimilation takes place most easily through amalgamation, and that succeeding generations are more easily incorporated into the

culture than was the founding immigrant family.

Among the criticisms which have been leveled against Park, the most recent is that of Oliver Cox.1 In a study which has itself

aroused considerable controversy, -Cox sees Park’s theory as “weak,

vacillating, and misleading.” He goes so far as to label it “insidi

ous” to the extent that it lends scientific confirmation to the rationalizations of racial exploitation in the United States.

The position which Cox takes is that the existing character of race relations in America, with particular emphasis on Negro—white

relationships in the South, stems from the attempts of the capitalistic

interests to keep all labor exploitable. With this Marxist interpre

tation, Cox proceeds to explain race prejudices and antagonisms as

developing from a conscious effort on the part of vested interest groups

to serve their own ends, by “keeping black labor and white labor in

the South glaring at each other.” He states further, that it becomes

necessary to rationalize the exploitative purposes of capitalist

1Oliver C. Cox, Caste, Class and Race (Garden City, N. Y., 1948). 60 faction~ as the rationalizations produce a collective feeling of antago nism and contempt for the exploited races. Through these rationaliza tions, the white working class develops the belief that it is the natural right of a superior people to suppress and exploit an “inferior” race. The rationalization is the defense of the systerr~ and race prejudice is the defensive attitude which develops when the system is threatened. Since certain social ideas developed under capitalism which threaten to overcome and destroy it if left unchecked, Cox says the rationalizations of racial exploitation became necessary. This is essentially Cox’s point of view, and it is within this pattern that he attacks Park’s analysis of race relations.

Cox rejects Park’s definition of race prejudice, saying that the latter’s interpretation of that phenomenon as a spontaneous, instinctive reaction, restricting free competition between the races, implies the existence of feelings of inferiority on the part of the prejudiced race. But Cox loses sight of the fact that in Park’s scheme, all races are capable of race prejudice since it is an instinctive reaction.

Furthermore, he fails to note that Park saw race prejudice as developing from the efforts of a race to preserve existing barriers between races which show signs of disintegrating. In ~ inter pretation, race prejudice results from the fear that the intimate con tact of races in unrestrained competition will result in the assimi

lation of the subordinate race through intermarriage. Cox would say

that this is but another manifestation of the manner in which

Southern agricultural capitalists control their labor supply. They 61 marshal the emotional power of the masses of poor whites in a cam paign of race hatred, with sexual passion as the emotional core.

He says, too, that the “place” of the Negro which Park speaks of

in term8 of social distance, is that of the freely exploitable worker — a place he could not possibly keep if intermarriage were permitted.

The major failing of Park’s race relations theory as Cox sees

it, is in Park’s interpretation of caste. He says that his theory

of caste is too broad, that it encompasses all of human society,

since Park saw almost all human associations — even religious — as

essentially caste relationships. Also, Cox attacks Park’s idea

that etiquette is the basis of caste as it operates in race relations

in the South. Cox’s criticism is that it would be the basis for

any “superior—inferior” relationship.

Cox mentions one aspect of park’s theory which was especially

confusing in the present analysis. Park is not at all clear on the

origin of the caste system in Southern race relations. He states

that slavery was a caste relationship, but also makes mention of

the fact that a caste system based on race and color developed with

the abolition of slavery. This would indicate that the caste sys

tem in slavery was composed of the master class and the slave class,

with the poor whites as a casteless group, this system being super

seded by the racial caste system after the fall of slavery. It is

an example of the conflicting and contradictory thinking of which

Park was capable in his writing. However, caste was significant 62

to Park as an accommodation of race conflict and not as a system of

race relations.

The Cox analysis of Park is made almost entirely within the

racial framework which exists in the southern sections of the United

States. But Park’s theory of race relations is one designed to

apply to any racial situation where race problems exist which have

been influenced by European expansion. In this context, Negro—white

adjustments in the South, or the lack of them, are important only

in terms of the universal aspects of race.relations which they display.

Everett C. Hughes of the University of Chicago, an ardent

defender of Park, has written a review of the Cox book.’ He main

tains that much of Park’s work was written to show just what were

the results of the capitalistic exploitation of culturally “inferior”

peoples. Park has said, too, that all race problems which exist in

the modern world are the direct result of~ European expansion as the

nations of Europe sought greater world markets for their goods, or

areas whose resources they could exploit. The Southern racial situa

tion in the United States is but an extension of European influence.

This would seem to refute the statement which Cox makes to the effect

that Park fails to see racial antagonism as a recent European develop— ment. It is somewhat astonishing to find this in Cox, since Park has

stated this fact clearly in his discussions of “the marginal ~

1 Everett C. Hughes, Review of Caste, Class and Race, by Oliver C. Cox, Phylon, IX (No. 1, 1948), 66—67. bUP~d~J~I&

6~

Extensions of this theory are to be found also in the writings of

students of Park. Furthermore, Park never sought to defend exploi

tation or suppression in any form, but sought always to expose it.

As a aociologi8t, he was unique in his humanitarianism, being per haps the only modern social theorist to take such an active interest

in the problems of men in association. His is not a Marxian view

point, but he can hardly be called an apologist for capitalism.

Hughes attacks the position Cox maintains on the use of the con

cept of caste in race relations. He asserts that caste in the Cox

sense is too limited, and that to consider it only in terms of the

social structure which exists in India is to lose sight of the univer

sality of caste relationships. He feels that Park was justified in

defining race relations in the South as a caste relationship, because

the races are stratified along rigid lines based on race and color,

across which neither may move. The existence of caste is the factor

which produces the awareness of racial differences which lead to

race problems.

The only valid criticism which can be proposed with reference to

the caste hypothesis predicated by Park is in terms of its limited

scope. Park sees caste in the South as a system rigidly- defining

the positions of the races — a superordinate white race, a hybrid racial group which acts as a buffer between the controlling faction

and the controlled, and a subordinate Negro group which occupies the

lowest level in the caste structure. The caste—class hypothesis 64 developed by W. Lloyd Warner and his school, has, of course, outmoded the Park analysis. However, an evaluation of Warner’s point of view is beyond the scope of the present study.1

One of the weaknesses in a theory such as that formulated by Park is that it is replete with conflicting and contradictory postulations.

Examination of his writings in chronological order indicates that his thinking at certain points changed with the onset of time, although his basic ideas remained constant. Nevertheless, it becomes possible for anyone making an analysis of such a theory to develop arguments either for or against the theory, using all the while, ~ own statements as documentary evidence. The outcome of the analysis will depend to a very great extent upon the bias of the writer.

No such negative summation, however, could adequately explain ~ theory. His works contain no duplicity, though the arguments he used were frequently contradictory. All of this to the contrary, the record of Park’s efforts to study man and his behavior in a rapidly changing sequence of human relationships provided a sound basis for social investigation. It yielded a body of social thought, of constructive postulates for an understanding of human nature, that enables this analyst to see in the work of Park’s disciples and their

students, sufficient logic, reason, and comprehension to warrant his being known as the precursor of the American school of race relations

theory.

1For a. detailed statement of Warner’s position, see W. Lloyd War ner, “A Methodological Note,” in Horace R. Gayton and St. Olair Drake, Black Metropolis (New York, l94~), pp. 769—82. ______.,______•______(ed.).TheandBurgess,“Editor’sPrinciplesMiller,Burgess,ImmigrantAnErnestOutlinepreface,”HerbertErnestPressofW.,HumanofA~W.andtotheThrasher,Behavior.OldMcKenzie,IntroductionItsPrinciplesWorldControl.FredericRoderickTraitsChicago:oftoNewSooiol~gy.theTransplanted.York:M.D.ScienceTheTheThe City.Newof

APPENDIX A

THE PUBLISHED WORKS OF ROBERT E. PARK

(This bibliography is based upon the “Bibliography of Robert E. Park,” compiled by Edna Cooper, Phylon, VI (Fourth quarter, l94~), 372-83. Additions, indicated by asterisks, have been made by the writer.)

Books

Park, Robert E. Masse wad Publilcum: ~jnoMethodologi5Che und Soziolo— gisohe Unterauchung. Bern, Buchdr: Lack und Grunau, 1904.

* ., and Washington, Booker T. The Man Farthest Down. Garden City, New York: Doubleday, Page & Co., 1912.

Zalas Corp., l9l~.

New York: Harper & Bros., 1921..

Sociology. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1921. (Rev. ed., 1924).

Harper & Bros., 1922.

Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 192~.

York: Barnes and Noble, Inc., 1939.

Introductions to Published Works by Other Authors

* • Ulntroduction,U to Steiner, Jesse F. The Japanese Invasion. Chicago: A. C. McClurg & Co., 1917.

* . “preface,” to Bogardus, Emory S. The New Social Research. Los Angeles: J. R. Miller, 1926.

Gang. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1927, pp. ix—xii.

6~ ______•______•______•______“Introduction,”“Foreword,~’“Intro&uct~on,°“Introduction,”“Introduc~~ion,”“Introduc~ion,”“Introduction,”“German“A~~KingCityinArmy,”ofBusiness,”Racialto Wirth,Munsey’stotototoPeace,”Young,Zorbaugh,Johnson,Adams,Hughes,Lind,Stonequist,Everybody’s,Loai~.Magazine,AndrewPauline.Romanzo.WorldHelenCharlesHarveyTheEverettW.To—Day,XVM.Ghetto.XXIVW.TheS.InterracialAn(November,NewsV.Island(December,ThePilgrimsShadowIXandChicago:The(August,GoldCommunity:theofMarginall9Q~),Coastofthe1900),

66

and the Slum. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1929, pp. vii—x.

University of Chicago Press, 1929, pp. ix—xi.

Russian—Town. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1932, pp. xi—xx.

Plantation. Chicago: University of Chicago Prose, 1934, pp. xi—xxiv. “Introduct~Lon,” to Gosnell, Harold F. Negro Politi cians, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, l93~, pp. xiii—xxv.

Marriage in Hawaii. New York: The Macmillan Co., 1937, pp. vii—xiv.

—. “Introduc~ion,” to Doyle, Bertram N. The Etiquette of Race Relations i~ the South. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1937, pp. xibxxiv.

Man. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1937, pp. xiii—xviii.

Ecological Success1~on in Hawaii. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 193~, pp. ix—xvi.

Human Interest Story. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, pp. xi—xxiii.

Articles

376—9~.

l90~), 897—9.

763—72. ______•______•______•______•______“Agricultural“Negro“Racial“Education“Foreign“Letters“The“Immigrant“SociologyConflictCity:HomeAssimilationLanguageCollectedHeritages,”SuggestionsandinLifeExtensionandItstheandRelationPressFusionbySocialStandardsinR.forinAmongSecondaryandE.ofProceedingsSciences,”totheParkCultures,”SocialthetheofInvestigationandNegroes,”Living,”Groups,ConflictProgress,”AmericanBookerofJournalNationalwithAnnalsandWorldT.ofJournalProceedingsParticularWashington,”FusionofHumanTo—~y,ofNegroConfertheof

I I,NI U

67

_. “Terrible Story of the Congo,” Everybody’s, XV (December, l9O~), 765—72.

—. “Blood—Money of the Congo,” Everybody~, XVI (Ja~ary, 1907), 60—70.

XV(August, 1908), 820-6.

I American Academy of Political and Social Science, XLIX (September, 1913), 147—65.

* • “Tuskegee International Conference on the Negro,” Journal of Race Development, III (July, 1912), 117—20.

* . “The International Conference on the Negro,” Southern Workman, XLI (June, 1912), 347.

Reference to the Negro,” American Journal of Sociolo~gy, XIX (March, 1914), 6O~—25.

* • “The Tuskegee Kind of Educatiofl,’1 Reprint of a paper, Tuskegee, Alabama j5~. d.7.

Behavior in the City Environment,” American Journal of Sociol— ~ XX (March, 1916), 577—612.

Cultures: with Special Reference to the Problems of the Immi grant, the Negro, and Missions,” Publications of the American Sociological Society, XIII (1918), 58—63.

of Negro History, IV (April, 1919).

of National Conference of Social Work, 1920. Chicago: Univer sity of Chicago Press, 1920, pp. 493—500.

ence of Social Work, 1921. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1921, pp. 492—7.

Journal of Negro History, VII (April, 1922), 20S22.

Sociology, XXVI (January, l~2l), 401—24; XXVII (July, 1921), 1—21; XXVII (September, 1921), 169—83. ______•______•______•______•______•______• “Magic,“TheUNegro“A“Play“The“Experience“Culture“Our“The“Community“MethodsRaceNaturalSignificanceRacialConceptMindImmigrantandRaceMentality,RelationsandofJuvenileofOrganizationConsciousnessandFrontierAHistoryofCulturaltheRaceCommunityRaceSocialPositionHobo:andSurvey,”ofDelinquency,”Survey,”ofRelations,”SocialonCityTrends,”Distance:ReflectionstheandtheandinasLife,”JournalNewspaper,”ResearchJournalPacific,”JuveniletheSociology,”ReflectedthePub1ioation~RomanticPlayground,JournalAsImmigrantPublicationsofuponAppliedofinDelinquency,”AppliedSurvey,inAppliedAmericanSocialPublicationstheofTemper,”RacePress,”toAppliedRelationofXVIIISociology,LVIofLiterature,”Service,”theSociology,JournaltheJournal(May(May,AmericanStudyinBetweenof1,

I~b

68

American Sociological Society, XVIII (1923), 1O2—1~.

of Sociology, XXIX (November, 1925), 273—89.

American Review, I (1923), ~O~5—17.

VIII (March—April, 1924), 19~—2O~.

1924), 9~—6.

Journal of Applied Sociology, VIII (May—June, 1924), 265—7.

of Racial Attitudes and Racial Relations,” Journal of Applied Sociology, VIII (July—August, 1924), 339—44.

Sociology, IX (September—October, 1924), 18—24.

Sociological Society, XIX (1924), 24—36.

Review, III (March—April, l92~), 143—~2.

of Social Forces, III (May, l92~), 673—77.

Park, Burgess, ani McKenzie. The City. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, l92~, pp. 99—112.

the American Sociological. Society, XX (l92~), 1—14.

Mentality and Locomotion,” in Park, Burgess, and McKenzie. The City. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, l92~, pp. l~6—6O.

• “Behind Our Mask,” Survey, LVI (May 1, 1926), l3~—9.

X (May-June, 1926), 4lO-~.

1926), 192—6. ______•______•______•______• “The“Human“Topical“The“Human“Migration“Mentality“Human“Personality“The“Sociology,”“Urbanization“MurderUrbanY~ellowBasesCityNatureMigrationNature,andSummariesasCommunityofand.Press,”the.andAinandRaceRacialasAttitudestheSocialGee,CaseandMeasuredCulturalCollectiveofPrejudice,”MarginalSociologyas~8tudytheWilsonHybrids,”CurrentLaboratory,”AMarginalandSpecialbyConflict,”Method,”Man,”(ed.).Behavior,”theNewspaperLiterature:andAnnalsAmericanMores,”PatternMan,”SocialininResearchAmericanPublicationsBurgess,ofSmith,Circulation.”AmericanJournalResearch,theinandTheYoung,AmericanJournalT.inAAmericanErnestMoralV.,theofJournalofXIIKimball.Sociol—andSocialW.theof

69

Order,” in Burgess, Ernest W. (ed.). The Urban Community. Chicago: University of Chicago Press., 1926, pp. 3—20.

of Sociology, XXXII (March, 1927), 733—41.

Newspaper,” American Journal of Sociology, XXXII (March, 1927), 806-13.

(September—October, 1927), 3—11.

of Sociology, XXXIII (May, 1928), 881—93.

Academy of Political and Social Science, CXL (November, 1928), 11—20.

(ed.). Personality and the Social Group. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1929, Chapter VI.

White, Leonard (ed.). An Experiment in Social Science Research. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1929, pp. 1—19.

Sciences. New York: The Macmillan Company, 1929, pp. 3—33.

American Journal of Sociology, XXXV (July, 1929), 60—79.

Sociology, XXXVI (November, 1950), 447—54.

* . “Collective Behavior,” Encyclopaedia of the Social Sciences, III. New York: The Macmillan Co., 1930, pp. 631—33.

~ XXXVI (January, 1931), 534—51.

Social Attitudes. New York: Henry Holt & Co., 1951, pp.

American Sociological Society, XXV (May, 1931), 95—110. ______•______.______•______• “The“The“Abstract“Newspaper“Dominance:“Industrial“Race“Assimilation,“Human“Social“Succession,“The UniversitySociologicalCityRelationsEcology,”PlanninginandOiroulationTheFatigueRacialanCivilization,”Social,”andConcept,andEcologicalandAmericanMethodstheContactsandCertainHumanandCommunityGroupinItBofJournalMetropolitanEncyclopaediaNature,”Concept,”Frontiers,”WilliamandOrigininMorale,”SyllabusSocialofofandPublicationsGrahamRaces,”AmericanSociology,AmericanResearch,”Regions,”NaturalinofandReuter,SumnertheSelectedPacificSociologicalHistory,”JournalXLIISocialof(withandEdwardthe

70

‘~The Problem of Cultural Differences,11 in Problems.of of the Pacific: Proceedings of the Institute of Pacific Rela tions. Data Paper No. l~. New York: Institute of. pacific Affairs, 1931.

of William I.. Thomas and Floriañ Znaniecki,” in Rice, Stuart A. (ad.). Methods in Social Science. A Case Book. Chicago: Uni versity of Chicago Press, 1931, pp. i~4—7~.

Affairs, V (AuguBt, 1932), 69~-7~.

Proceedings of the American Sociological Society, XXVII (1953), 101—2.

Newcomb, Charles), in M~Ken~ie,..R.~D. (ad.). The Metropolitan Community. New York: McGraw—Hill Book Co., 1953, pp. 98—100.

“William Graham ~ Conception of Society,” Chinese Social and Political Science Review, XVII (October, 1933), 430-41.

in McKenzie, R. D. (ed.). Readings in Human Ecology. Rev, ad. Ann Arbor: George Wahr, 1934, pp. 38l—8~.

of Sociology, XL (November, 1954), 349—~6.

B. (ed.). Race and Culture Contacts. New York: McGraw—Hill Book Co., 1934, pp. ~

Sciences, II. New.York: The Macmillan Co., l93~, 281—3.

American Sociological Society, XXIX (August, l93~), 19—28.

Review, I (April,. 1936), 171—79.

(July, 1936), l—l~.

Readings, Second—year Course in the Study of Contemporary Society, (Social Science II). ~th. ad. Chicago: University of Chicago Bookstore, September, 1956, pp. 204—20. ______•______•______•______• “A“Reflections“The“Education“Symbiosis“Morale“Methods“Social“News“Physics“Education“TheMemorandumNatureSocialAsandContributionsandAofandtheandFormofAsofTeaching:theFunctiononSociety,”onPowerARacetheSocia1ization~CommunicationNews,”SocialRoteCulturalKnowledge:Relations,”ofofLearning,11ofImpressionsAmericanProcess.”CanadiantheWar:Physics,”Press,”Crisis,”ObservationsandA JournalinFrameChapterAmericanNashville:Culture,”andThompson,AmericanAmericanAofVerdict,”ofinReferenceJournalandEconomicstheSociology,AmericanPhysicsJournalFiskEdgarJournalNotes,”SociolUniofSocialT.forofandof

I Ii

71

Sociology, XLII (July, 1937), 23—36.

Journal of Sociology, XLIV (September, 1938), l87—2O~.

Cod.). Race Relations and the Race Problem. Durham, N. C.: Duke University Press, 1939, pp.

the Study of Society,” American Journal of Sociology, XLV (July, 1939), l—2~.

Teacher, VII (October, 1939), 327—29.

ogy of Knowledge,” American Journal of Sociology, XLV (March, 1940), 669—86.

Political Science, VI (May, 1940), 13>-52-. Also in Hart, C. W. M. (ed.). Essays in Sociology. Toronto,Canada: University of Toronto Press, 1940.

versity, 1941. Mimeographed.

* . “Culture and Civilization,” in Park, Robert E. Race and Culture. Nashville: Fisk University, Department of Social Sciences, Ln.d7. Mimeographed.

American Journal of Sociology, XLVI(January, 1941), ~51—70.

* ______. “An Autobiographical Note,” in Park, Clara C. (ad.) Robert E. Park. Privately printed, [n. p., n. d~/, pp. 11—13.

Sociology, XLVII (July, 1941), 1—11.

Forces, XX (October, 1941), 36—46.

XLVII (November, 1941), 360—77.

Sociology, XLVIII (May, 1943), 728—36. ______•______•______•______•______Review“Racial“MissionsReview ofofIdeologies,”andPublicPrestige:TheNegroProblemsColoredBlackSocialThe theFreeDevelopmentCollectionEducationCultureandOpinionandModernSchoolNegroofAwhiteinEconomicPsychologicalCommunityOgburn,inof~andinChildrenofofinWesttheVirginia,SocialPopularModerntheSurveyNegroWilliamAfrica,Life.AmericanSoutherninSurveyTurkeyStudyGovernment,PriorNewof1619—1865,AnF.byAOutlineYork,JournalofMaterials,CommunityStates,(ed.).GeorgeAstoSocialMeasuredl86L,bybyofAmericanofW.FrancesbyJohnA.Estimates,AppliedbyinEllis.Mauricebyby

72

Society in Wartime. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1943, pp. 165—84.

Sociolçgy, L (November, 1944), 177—83.

Book Reviews

Lawrance Lowell. American Journal of Sociolo~gy, XX ~September, 1914), 270—1.

H. Russell. American Journal of Sociology, XX (September, 1914), 274—6.

by Lewis Leopold. American Journal of Sociology, XX (January, 1915), 5~46—7.

Its Press, by Ahmed Emin. American Journal of Sociology, XX (January, 1915), 547—8.

American Journal of Sociology, XX (May, 19l5),64l—2.

Carter G. Woodson~ American Journal of Sociology, XXf~uly, 1915), 119—20.

Sociology, by Seba Eldridge. American Journal of Sociology.

Balcoer. American Journal of Sociology, XXI (November, 1915), 418—9.

Florence R. Cutting. American Jöurnalof Sociology, XXI (November, 1915), 420..

S. Evans. American Journal of Sociology, XXI cMarch, 1916), 696—7.

Northeastern Minnesota, by Gustave P. Warber. American Journal of Sociology-,.XXII (September, 1916), 276—7. ______•______•______•______.______•______.______•______. ReviewReviewReviewReview ofofofof RaceInstinctsTheIndiana:SocialPlanHumanHarvardNegroAnCommunity:FirstTheAmericanPsychologyPlanningBostonChallengeOrthodoxyofYear’sWelfareEducation,andElgin,Studies.AofSocialEconomicASocialintheofWorkSociologicalinofinofbyThetheHerdbyChicago,I.Pitt~sburgh,theandE.Survey,ofMaking:ModernSurveyVariaThomasH.theSouthandNegro:EconomicBennett.InstitutePeacebyStuç~y,Africana,City,ofJ.TheandAnGroverHarvey.byAJones.Survey,LifeOtherandExperimentalCommunityDaniellbyAmericanforWar,NelsonJ.OricR.C.StoryAspectsAmericanbyM.Shoholm.PublicZorbaugh,L.byBates,FrankMclver.inofP.JournalMarsh;W.Study,NorthAnofLewis,SerTrotter.JourD.ed.the by

7~

Negro Problem, by Thomas P. Pailey. Journal of Negro Histor~y, I (October, 1916), 447—9.

American Journal of Sociology, XXII (November, 1916), 410—12.

George 0. Ferguson, Jr. American Journal of Sociology, XXII (March, 1917), 680—5.

Streightoff and Frank H. Streightoff. American Journal of Sociology, XXII (May, 1917), 8116.

American Journal of Sociology, XXII (May, 1917), 841—2.

eastern Minnesota, No. 5, Current Problems, by Gustav P. Warber; The Social Anatomy of An A~ricu1tura1 Community, by 0. J. Galpin. Amen— can Journal of Sociology, XXII. (May, 1917), 844—6.

of Sociology, XXII (May, 1917), 846—7.

American Journal of Sociology, XXII (May, 1917), 847.

American Journal of Sociology, XXIII (January, 1918), 542—4.

vice, by William H. Allen; Health Survey of New Haven, Connecticut, by C. E. A. Winslow, .J. 0. Greenway, and David Greenberg; ‘Peters— burg, Virginia,. Economic and Municipal, by LeRoy Hidges; Technique of Social Surveys, by Manuel 0. Elmer. American Journal of Sociol— .2~Z’ XXIII (March, 1918), 689—90.

ed. American Journal of Sociology, XXIII (March, 1918), 689—90.

Journal of Negro History, III (April, 1918), 198—202.

nal of Sociology, XXIII (May, 1918), 8~l—3.

Immigrant, by M. E. Ravage. American Journal of Sociology, XXIII, (May, 1918), 8~9—4O.

The Challenge of St. Louis, by George B. Mangold. . American Journal of, Sociology, XXIII (May, 1918), 840. ______•______.______• ReviewReviewReviewReview ofofofof CityPool,HumanSexTravelii~Morale,LibertyTheLaLosSociologie,andMaidenDaimonsIdeaandBilliardsGeography,TraitsSoxWôrshi~,andbyCountyofPublicityG.Survey,theProgress,duandStanleyQuiteas.AdministrationandNews,byTheirNature,byBowlingJoanCampaigns,byVoudo,byWalterHall.bySocial0.Bruxthes;WalterJ.sonA..Wall,AlleysB.byS.AmericanSignificance,Contenu,inbyBury;ArthurLippmann,Athearn.Springfield,PrinciplesM.AsAmericanS.SocialA~PhaseJournalHolly.seaRoutzahn;AmericanAttaches,byDecayJournalofJournalofofIrwin—

74

inois, by D. 0. Decker and Shelby M. Harrison; Social Surveys of Three Rural Townships in Iowa, by Paul S. Pierce; Methods of Investigation in Social and Health Problems, by D. B. Armstrong, Franz Schneider, Jr., and L. I. Dublin; Chicago Social Service Directory, by V. D. McDermott and A. E. Trotter. American Journal of Sociology, XXIV (July, 1918), 109—111.

Commercialized Amusements in Toledo, Ohio, by J. J. Phelan. American Journal of Sociology, XXVI (March, 1920), 663.

of Sociology, XXVI (March, 1920), 66~.

Human Geography, by Ellsworth Huntington and Sumner W. Gushing. American Journal of Sociology, XXVI (May, 1921), 78~—6.

Elements of A Social Publicity Program, by E. G. Routzahn; The Health Show Comes to Town, by E. G. Rbutzahn; The ABC of Exhibit Plannipg, by E. G. and M. S. Routzahn. American Journal of Sooiolqgy, XXVII (July, 1921), ii4—~.

Journal of Sociology, XXVII (July, 1921), 116.

Journal of SociolQgy, XXVII (July, 1921), 118—9.

Edman. American Journal of Sociology, XXVII (January, 1922), ~24-~.

Sociology, XXVII (January, 1922), ~2>-6.

by Rome Worms. American Journal of Sociology, XXVII (March, 1922), 662—4.

and Regeneration, by- R. Austin Freeman; Invention: A Master—Key to Progress, by- B. A. Fiske; A Philosophy of Social Progress, by E. J. Urwick; Los Indices Numerigues do is. Givilisation at du Progres, by Aifrodo Niceforo. American Journal of Sociology, XXVII (March, 1922), 668-71.

of Negro History, VII (April, 1922), 22~—26. ______•______•______•______• ReviewReviewReview ofofof ThePublicCommunityAAfrica,LondonTheNegroYoungLithuanianNewCzechoslovaksNegroPoeticCommunityWitch—CultFolkOpinion,ofWorld,Girl’sSlaveLifetheProblem,inRhymes,Mind,Vil1ag~,OurorFuture,Newspaper,Problemsand.Diary,inbyFree?,History,byWesterninCivicWalterbyF.America,byJuliaed.ThomasC.Prescott;inbyProblems,SigmundLeonbyLippmann.byEurope,PoliticalJohnE.EmersonAshtonW.CarterKobrin.byJohn8en,H.Talley.FreudKennethbyby-Harris,PrimitiveWebb.Woodson;P.Geograpl~y,AmericanMargaretH.AmericanHarris(translatedCompiler.C.I).AmericanAmericanHill.Miller;Menta1it~,SocialJournalA.andby by

7~

Isaia.hfBowman. American Journal of Sociology, XXVIII (July, 1922), 97.

American_Journal of Sociology, XXVIII (July, 1922), 97—9.

of Sociology, XVIII (September, 1922), 232—4.

Eden and Cedar Paul.). American Journal of Sociology, XXVIII (Sept ember, 1922), 239—40.

— Journal of Sociology, XXVIII (September, 1922), 242—3.

Journal of Sociology, XXVIII (November, 1922), 356—7.

Journal of Sociology~, XXVIII (November, 1922), 363—4.

The Poles in America, by Paul Fox; The Russians and Ruthonians in America, by Jerome Davis. American Journal of Sociology, XXVIII (January, 1923), 485.

American Journal of Sociology, XXVIII (January, 1923), 486.

Journal of Sociology, XXVIII (January, 1923), 486—7.

History of the American Negro, by Benjamin Brawley. American Journal of Socio1~~gy, XXVIII (March, 1923), 613—5.

• Review of An Introduction to Reflective Thinking, by Columbia Associates in Philosophy. American Journal of Sociology, XXIX (November, 1923), ~64—~.

Florence Harris. American Journal of Sociology, XIX (November, 1923), 372.

by Lucien Levy—Bruhl. American Journal of Sociolqgy, XXIX (January, 1924), 503—5.

Murray. American Journal of Sociology, XXIX (March, 1924), 615—6. ______•______•______• ReviewReviewReview ofofof ~pulation,TheDaysTwoPsychologyVonTheGroupThe CatholicPortugueseNegroNewspaperWirtachaftageistJews,BirthPopulistofPsychologyDelusion,FrombyofandbyReactionHilairPsyche,MovementandCarr—Saundera.CommunitiesPolitics,AfricaandbytheBelloc;ClaraimThebyinHistorian,toinOrient,L.France,America,Georgia,andAnalysisE.inGharles—Baudouin.PatriotismOtherNewSears.AmericanbybybyEngland,bybyofAlfredEssays,DenisLucyW.A.theAmericanofJournalD.M.M.Ego,Gwynn.Ruhl.thebyWeather—byArnett;Salmon.DonaldW.AmeribyJournalofAmeriH. of

76

can_Journal of Socio~gy, XXX (September, 1924), 240.

• Review of Charles E. Chapinta Story, by Charles E. Chapin; News and the Newspaper, by Journalism Week, 14th Annual. American Journal of Sociolqgy, XXX (November, 1924), 558—9.

The Fascist Movement in Italian Life, by Pietro Gorgolini. Ameri can Journal of Sociology, XXX (November, 1924), ~60—i.

Sigmund Freud. American Journal of Sociology, XXX (January, 1925), 485-6.

can Jew, by S. W. McCall; Truth About the Jews, by Walter Hurt; !gith the Judeans in the Palestine Campaign, by J. I-I. Patterson; Inter marriage in New York City: A Statistical Study of the Amalgamation European Peoples, by Julius Drachaler. American Journal of Sociol— ~ XXX (January, 1924), 486-8.

R. Rivers; Medicine, Magic, and Religion, by W. H. R. Rivers. Ameri can Journal of Sociology, XXX (March, 1925), 6O4—~.

American Journal of Sociology, XXX (March, l925),617—8.

• Review of Free Speech Bibliography, by Theodore Schroeder. American Journal of Sociology, XXX (May, 1925), 759—40.

American Journal of. Sociology, XXXI (September, 1925), 258—9.

ford. American Journal of Sociology, XXXI (September, 1925), 259—60.

• Review of Christian Literature in Moslem Lands.. American Journal of Sociology, XXXI (September, 1925), 260—70.

R. Taft. American Journal of Sociol~g~, XXX (September, 1925), 272.

Sociology, XXXI (September, 1925), 272.

Sociology, XXXI (September, 1925), 275—4.

can Journal of Sociology, XXXI (September, 1925), 274—~. ______•______•______• ReviewReview ofof ModernRaces,MedievalTheGypsyNegroTheBeforeScience,MenaceHumanSouthernYearbook,FiresTurk~y,NationstheCities:Religion,SideofDawn,in0ligarc}~y,Color,byandAmerica,ofbybyEliotTheirHawaii,Classes,MonroeandToyohikoby Reality,G.J.Origin8byN.byMears.W.WilliamIrvingbyWork.Kagawa;A.Gregory,HerbertandbyW. Brown.AmericanH.Palmer,ArthurTheAmericanASkagga.AmericanA.DaughterRevivalMiller.James,AmericanAmenJournalJournalofof

77

of Sociology, XXXI (November, 192~), 401—2.

Journal_of Sociology, XXXI (November, 192~), 4~—4.

American_Journal of Sociology, XXI (January, 1926), ~3~—37.

Trade, by Henry Pirenne; London Life In The XVIIIth Century, by M. Dorothy George; The Color of A Great City, by Theodore Dreisser; Around the World in New York, by Konrad Bercovici; Paris of Today, by Ralph Nevill; The Taming of the Frontier, by Ten Authors • Amer i— can Journal of -Sociology, XXXI (March, 1926), 675—77,

• Review of Foundations of Christianity, by Karl Kautsky. American Journal of Socio1og,~, XXXI (March, 1926), 675—77.

• Review of Secret Societies and Subversive Movements, by Nests. H. Webster. American Journal of Sociology, XXXI (March, 1926), 694—95.

American Journal of Sociology, XXXI (March, 1926), 695—96.

of Sociology, XXXI (March, 1926), 696.

Journal of Sociology, XXXI (May, 1926), 836.

—. Review of Mellows: A Chronicle of Unknown Singers, by R. Emmet Kennedy; On The Trail of Negro Folk-Songs, by Howard W. Odum and Guy B. Johnson; The Book of American Negro Spirituals, ed. by James Weldon Johnson; Negro Poets and Their Poems, by Robert Ker— un; The New Negro: An Interpretation, ed. by Alain Locke. Ameri can Journal of Sociology, XXXI (May, 1926), 821—24.

can Journal of Sociology, XXXI (May, 1926), 838.

the Samurai, by Etsu Inagoki Sugimoto; A Gentleman in Prison, with The Confessions of Tokichi Iahii. American Journal of Sociolo~y, (July, 1926), 126-28.

Bronislaw Malinoweki, Charles Singer, et. al. American Journal of Sociology, XXXII (July, 1926), 135—6. ______•______•______•______• ReviewReviewReviewReview ofofofofof WorldPost—WarPleasureSelectiveCodesIndia,AWhiteAsia:GeographicalMissionaryofServitudeAbyShortBritain:andEthics:Immigration,SirPain:ValentineHistoryIntroductioninAtlas,AAAHandbook,Pennaylvahia,FrenchTheoryFrombyed.Chirol;JamesAnalysis,thebyoftobyH.theHistory,EarliestJ.EdgarEconomicbyP.Davis.EnergeticOheesmanBeach,byL.AndrebyLucienTimesHeerinance.ConditionsAmericanandFoundaA.SiegtoHer—the

78

Charles H. Faha. American Journal of Sociology, XXXII (July, 1926), 137—8.

fried. American Journal of Sociology, XXXII (July, 1926), 138—9.

Journal of Sociology, XXXII (July, 1926), 149—50.

tions of Feeliflg, by PaulBousfield. American Journal of Sociology, XXXII (July, 1926), 150.

American Journal of Sociology, XXXII (July, 1926), 150—1.

—. Review of The Melting Pot Mistake, by Henry Pratt Fairchild; Eugenics and Politics, by Ferdinand C. S. Schiller; Temperament and Race, by- S. D. Portens and Marjorie E. Babcock; Intelligence and Immigration, “Mental Measurement Monographs, Serial No. ~ by Clifford Kirkpatrick; The Immigration Problem, by Jeremiah W. Jenks and W...Jett Lauck. American Journal of Sociology, XXXII (September, 1926), 300—3.

in India, by P. Padma.nabha Pillal; The PunjabPeasant in Prosperity and Debt, by Malcolm L. Darling; Women in Ancient India, by Olarisse Rader. American Journal of Sociology, XXXI (September, 1926), 5~—5.

Febvre; Principles of Human Geography, by Vidal de la Blache; The Environmental Basis of Society, by Franklin Thomas; Regional Sociology, by Radhakamal Mukerjee. American Journal of Sociol~gy, XXXII (November, 1926), 486—90.

rick; The Southern Plantation Overseer: As Revealed in His Letters, by John S. Bassett; The Negro in South Carolina During Reconstruction, by A. A. Taylor; Free Negro Heads of Families in the United States in •~183O, by Carter G. Woodeon; Free Negro Owners of Slaves in the United States in 1830, ed. by Carter G. Woodeon; Between Black and White, by H. H. Proctor; TheNegro in American Life, by Jerome Dowd. American Journal of Sociology, XXXII (January, 1927), 638—42.

Present Day, by Herbert H. Gowen; China and the West: A Sketch of their Intercourse, by W. E. Soot.hill; What’s Wrong With China?, by Rodney Gilbert; The Girl From China, by B. Van Vorat. American Journal of Sociology, XXXII (January, 1927), 642—5. ______•______•______•______•______•••• ReviewReviewReview ofofof Psyche,AreHomesMigrationAMs.inTheMotherAI NationHistoryAmtheAnti—SlaveryRevoltFuggerCurrentsAofWomanIndia,byJewsthePlan:andofErwinNewsletters,ofAFreed,—Barbados,BusinessinAsia,byRace?,AandRhode.MovementBasistheKatherineAbybyHistoryJew,Karl.UptonRosaforCycles,1625—1685,1568—1605.AmericaninbyJ.Co—ordinatedMayo.B.England,ofLeahClose;Kautsky.Cooley.byAmericanJournalHarryMorton;AmericanbyAmericanChinaVincentbyAmericanPhysicalJerome;JournalF.ofandI,JournalJ.Sociol—T.Thethe

79

2~Z’ XXXII (January, 1927), 661—2.

Journal_of Sociology, XXXII (January, 1927), 671.

• Review of Ritual and Belief in Morocco, by Edward Weet,ernaarok, American Journal of Sociology, XXXII (March, 1927), 855—6.

Journal of Sociology, XXXII (March, 1927), 856.

Development of the United States of America, with A Suggestion for A World—Plan, by Cyrus Kerr. American Journal of Sociology, XXXII (March, 1927), 859—60.

Peopling the Argentine Pampa, by Mark Jefferson. American Journal of Sociology, XXXIII (September, 1927), 26—8.

Klingberg; British Slavery and Its Abolition, 1823—38, by W. L. Mathieson. American Journal of Sociology, XXXII (September, 1927), 290-1.

ism1 American Journal of Sociology, XXXIII (September, 1927), 291—5.

Journal of Sociology, XXXIII (September, 1927), 299-500.

Occident, by G. N. Steiger; China and the Powers, by H. K. Norton; China and Her Political Entity, by Shuhsi Hau; In China, 1920—21, by Abel Bonnard; China’s International Relations and Other Essays, by H. F. Ma~Nàir. American Journal of Sociology, XXXIII (November, 1927), 472-5.

• Review of Das Gesetz der Nacht, by Friedrich Wieser; Die Masse Und ihre Aktion, by Theoder Geiger. American Journal of Sociol— ~ XXXIII (January, 1928), 642-5.

of Sociology, XXXIII (January, 1928), 660—1.

Harlow. American Journal of Sociology, XXXIII (January, 1928), 669—70.

Jew, by Maurice Samuel; An American Saga, by Carl C. Jensen. American Journal of Sociology, XXXIII ~March, 1928), 829—50. ______•______•______•______•______• ReviewReviewReviewReviewReview ofofofof TheSocialThomasRainbowStandingThe NegroSouthJamesNewCurrentsPaine,RoundWorld:RoominAfricans,GordontheProphetMyOnly,ProblemsinReconstructionShoulder,Bennette,Japan:bybyandSarahB.inWithMartyrA.byFatherPoliticalG.Ross;HowardSpecialofMillin.ofandVirginia,HeredityDemocracy,W.Geography,Son,ReferenceOdum;AmericanbyandbyNegroDonbyA.by

80

A. Taylor; Negro Labor in the United States, 1850—l92.~, by Charles H. Wesley, American Journal of Sociology, XXXIII (March, 1928), 852—3.

Journal of Sociology, XXXIII (March, 1928), 854—~.

to the Press, by Harry B. Wildes. American Journal of Sociology, XXXIII (March, 1928), 856—7.

Mary A. Best. American Journal of Sociology, XXXIII (March, 1928), 843-4.

Workaday Sopg~, Howard W. Odum and Guy B. Johnson; Folk Beliefs of the Southern Negro, by N. N. Puckett; Congaree Sketches, by B.C. L. Adams; Singing Soldiers, by John J. Niles; Plays of Negro Life, ed. by Alain Locke and Montgomery Gregory; Caroling Dusk, ed. by Countee Cullen; God’s Trombones, by James Weldon Johnson; Ebony and Topaz, ed. by Charles S. Johnson; Religious Folk—Songs of the Neg~, ed. by R. Nathaniel Dett, American Journal of Sociology, XXXIII (May, 1928), 988—9~.

Human Affairs, by Edward M. East; Immigration Restriction, by R. L. Garis; Immigration Crossroads, by Constantine Panunzio; Immi gration Backgrounds, ed. by Henry P. Fairchild; Immigration and Race Attitudes, by Emory S. Bogardus; A Chinaman’s Opinion of Us and of His Own People, by Hwuy—Ung. American Journal of Sociol— ~ XXXIV (September, 1928), 576—82.

0. Seitz; An Ame~ioan~?hènomenon, by John K. Winkler; Lord North— eliffe, A Study, by R. MacNair Wilson; Ballyhoo: The Voice of the Press, by Silas Bent; Covering Washington: Government Reflected to Public in the Press, 1822—1926, by.J. Frederick Essary; The Law of Newspapers, by William R. Arthur and Ralph L. Crosman. American Journal of. Sociology, XXXIV (March, 1929), 912—7.

• Review of Readings in Public Opinion: Its-Formation and Control,. ad. by W. Brooke Graves; The Public and Its Problems, by John Dewey. American Journal of Sociology, XXXIV (May, 1929), 1192—4.

Isaiah Bowman, American Journal of Sociology, XXXIV (May, 1929), 1204.

—• . Review of A Bibliography of the Negro in Africa and America,

6 N. Work. Americ~.n~ourna1 of Sociology, XXXV (July, 1929), ______•______•______•______•______ReviewReview ofofof MobilitatDiePersonJewsTheCalibanEnquiriesNegroChristianIdeas:DreiDevelopmentGeographicInterpretationAutobiographyWithoutAmericans,undGeneralinNationalokorm~eifl,derMassintoMasse,Africa:Mon~y,BevolkerungReligionMovementsFactor:IntroductionofWhatbyofExtraterritorialityofAnbyGeorgLincolnDevelopmentImpressionNow?,MichaelItsandininbyStieler.RoleCulture,byIndia,todenSteffena,WernerGold.JamesPureInVereinigtenofandbyLifePhenomenolpgy,Colour—Madness,AmericanSombart.WeldonbyAmericanHeredity,J.inbyandChristopherW.China,LincolnJohnson;Pickett;Civi—JourJour

81

Sta.aten, by Rudolph Heberle. American Journal of Sociology, XXXVI (January, 1931), 656—8.

American Journal of Sociology, XXXVI (May, 1931), 1071—7.

nal of Sociology, XXXVII (January, 1932), 654—7.

nal of Sociology, XXXVII (January, 1932), 669—70.

by E. S. Russell. American Journal of Sociology, XXXVII (March, 1932), 796-801.

by G. W. Keeton. American Journal of Sociology, XXXVII (March, 1952), 80~—9.

by Leonard Barnes; Negro: National Asset or Liability?, by John L. Hill. American Journal of Sociology, XXXVII (March, 1932), 812—3.

Steffens. American Journal of Sociology, XXXVIII (May, 1935), 954—7.

Along This Way, by James Weldon Johnson. American Journal of Sociology, XL (May, 1935), 857—40.

Dawson. American Journal of Sociology, XLI (July, 1955), 109—11.

Christian and New World Culture, by Archibald Baker. American Journal of Sociology, XLI (September, 1935), 247—9.

by Edmund Husserl. American Journal of Sociology, XLI (November, 1935), 571—3.

lization, by Roy H. Whitbeck and Oliver J. Thomas; The Geographic Basis of Society, by C. C. Huntington and Fred A. Carison; Economic and Social Geography, by Ellsworth Huntington, Frank E. Williams, and Samuel Van Valkenburg. American Journal of Socio1o~y, XLI (January, 1936), 520—52. ______•______•______•______•______ReviewReviewReview ofofof PrimitiveMigrantSocialAnte—BellumAsia;AnPersonality:CollectiveAfterJewsTheEuropeanFolkwaysWorldSumnerEcologicalUseinAnFreedom,OrderandToday.Asia,ALGentileofEconomic(CentennialColonialBehavior,CulturalBehavior,PersonalNorthinAbyGlossary,PsychologicalHistorical:bySelectedRadhakamalQarolina:andHortenseWorld,ExpansionbyDynamics,DocumentsbyEdition),RegionalWilliamRichardbyEssaysthePerspective,AJ.Powdermaker.Mukerjee.SinceSocialProblemInterpretation,byRichardinI.Geography,byT.PitrimPsychologicalThomas.‘1871,WilliamLaPiere.History,ofCarpenter.AmericanbyA.byAnti—Semi~AmericanbyGrahamHansAraeri—Sorokin.MarybyL.Amen—Kohn.E.Sum—

82

can Sociological Review, II (April, 1937), 286—90.

• Review of Life in A Haitian Valley, by Melville J. Herakovits. American Journal of Sociolo~gy, XLIII (Septembe~, 1937), 31~16~8.

Journal of Sociology, XLIII~ (September, 1937), 348—9.

American Journal of Sociology, XLIII (March, 1938), 824—32.

Guion. G. Johnson. American Journal of Socio~ogy, XLIV (July, 1938), l~7—8.

Dudley Stamp. American Journal of Sociology, XLIV (September, 1938), 323—4.

American Journal of Sociology, XLIV (May, 1939), 1012—3.

- Sociological Review, IV (June, 1939), 404—6.

Gordon W. Aliport, American Journal of Sociology, XLV (July, 1939),

Journal of Sociology, XLV (January, 1940), 612—3.

Sumner. American Sociological Review, VI (February, 1941), 129.

ner, ed. by Maurice R. Davia.’ American So-aiolàgi.dal Review, VI (June, 1942), 4o~-6.

Science, by Gordon W. Aliport. American $óciologicè.l~Beview, VII (June, 1942), 43~-7.

American Sociological Review, VII (August, 1942), 56l—~.

Townsend. American Journal of Sociology, XLVIII (January, 1945),

tiam, by Isacque Graeber, Stuart H. Britt, et. al. American Sociological R~view, IX (December, 1944), 710—11. APPENDIX B

GENERAL BIBLIOGRAPHY

Books

Alihan, Milla A. Social Eco1og~. New York: Columbia University Press, 1958.

Bogardus, Emory S. The New Social Research. Los Angeles: J. R. Miller, 1926.

Burrows, Edwin G. Hawaiian Americans. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1947.

Cole, G. D. H. Social Theory. New York: Frederick A. Stokes Co., 1920.

Cox, Oliver 0. Caste, Class and Race. New York: Doubleday and Co., 1948.

Park, Clara. 0. (ed.). Robert E. Park. Privately printed, n. p., n. d.

Spykman, Nicholas J. The Social Theory of Georg Simmel. Chicago: University of Chiéago Press, l92~.

Reuter, Edward B. Handbook of Sociology. New York: The Dryden Press, 1941.

Wallas, Graham. The Great Society. New York: The Macmillan Company, l9l~.

Young, Pauline V. Scientific Social Surveys and Research. New York: Prentice Hall, Inc., 1959.

Public Documents

United States Immigration Commission. Reports of the Immigration Comm ission. 41 Vole. Washington: Government Printing Office, 1911.

Ar tic lea

Bogardus, Emory S. “A Social Distance Scale,” Sociology and Social Re search, XVII (January—February, 1953), 26~—7l.

Bond, Horace Mann. ~ Racial Islands in Alabama,” American Journal of Sociology, XXXVI (January, 1931), ~~2—67.

83 ______• GRace and. Culture Contacts in the Emporium,”

84

Burgess, Ernest W. ~ E. Park,” jmerican Journal of Sociology, XLIX (March, 1944), 478.

BEast by West,” Survey, LVI (May, 1926), 1~3.

Masuoka, Jitsuichi. “Can Progress in Race Relations Be Measured,” Social Forces, XXV (December, 191~16), 211—17. • ~ Symbiosis and Cultural Frontiers: A Frame of Reference,” Social Forces, XXIV (March, 19)46), ~48—~.

American Journal of Sociology, L (November, 1944), 199—204.

Nef, John, Wirth, Louis, and Johnson, Charles S. “Phylon Profile, No. I: Robert E. Park,” Phylon, V (Third C~uarter, 1944), 23~—4O.

Shils, Edward A. “The Present Situation in American Sociology, “ Reprint from Pilot Papers: Social Essays and Documents, II (London, June, 1947), i—4~.

Unpublished Material

Burrell, Herman D. “Race Contacts in Three Cities Along the Main Street of the World,” Unpublished Master’s thesis, Department of Social Sciences, Fisk University, l9~8.

Book Reviews

Hughes, Everett C. Review of Caste, Class and Race, by Oliver C. Cox, Phylon, IX (No. 1, 1948), 66-67.