Download SOC 531\Middletown2

SOC 531: Community Organization
Fall 2010
Who Was Robert S. Lynd?
After considerable thought and perusal of my history of sociology books and various
web-based resources (especially J-STOR) I offer the following tentative conclusions. First,
Robert S. Lynd (according to his FBI files)1 received an A.B. degree from Princeton in 1914 and
a Bachelor of Divinity degree in 1923. He studied both at the New School (in Greenwich
Village) and at Columbia (uptown) and received a Ph.D. in sociology from Columbia (which
now has a distinguished chair named after Lynd) in 1931. Various sources indicate that he
taught at Columbia, but it seems that he went from Divinity School to Muncie. His son (in his
PBS interview) tells some interesting stories about why Rockefeller gave the Lynds money to
study religion in an American community. My impression is that there is nothing unusual about
a Rockefeller grant to study religion and nothing unusual about a funding source refusing to
publish the result of a research project that strayed considerably from the original proposal.
More important, Ernest Burgess reviewed Middletown in AJS in 1931 (AJS 37, No. 3
[Nov. 1931], pp. 486-7) and was quite favorable, while noting that it would benefit from
consideration of the work of sociologist Charles Horton Cooley and philosopher George Herbert
Mead. His review of Middletown in Transition (AJS 43 3 [Nov 1937], pp. 486-9) is more
pointed in this regard. Burgess reports, "no use is made of the methods of urban ecology." He
continues to explain that "Middletown professed to be an anthropological inquiry [but the second
book] has moved almost completely into the sociological field." (p. 487). Nevertheless, Burgress
concludes, "As a contribution to sociology the two Middletowns are ... descriptive rather than
analytical." (p. 488). The review in the American Anthropologist (AA 32 2 [Apr 1930], pp. 31920) reports that even the first volume "bears superficially but little semblance of being
anthropological literature." (p. 319). The American Historical Review (43 2 [Jan 1938], pp. 4267) was less critical of the second volume (I saw no review of the first) but did recognize that
"both these volumes ... are not wholly free from the same weakness which has beset social
historians... [Conclusions were reached] without an adequate sampling of the rank and file of
industrial workers." (p. 427). The American Sociological Review was not yet published when the
first volume appeared but offered a very favorable review of the second. The harshest review
that I found was by Ellworth Faris, in the Journal of Higher Education (9 4 [Apr 1938], pp.22930), entitled, "Journalism—Not Sociology," and excoriating the popular yet decided unscientific
study. "The first study was made in 1925, before the author had received any adequate training
in sociology. Mr. Lynd received his doctorate in 1931, six years later, and the first study, as well
as this one, reveals clearly the effect of the attitudes which are appropriate to the theological
seminary. (p. 230). Social Forces (16 1 [Oct 1937], pp. 150-1) was more charitable, reporting,
"This re-survey is, if anything, more interesting than the earlier study. (p. 150). "This time also
the narrative is reinforced by footnotes and appendix data that validate and clarify." (p. 151).
1. Helen also is discussed in the Lynd FBI file, which claims "numerous affiliations and
activities on her part with Communist front organizations"
Pulling back from the details to survey the impression that I have drawn from this limited
research effort, I might offer the following conclusions. First, when they wrote Middletown the
Lynds lacked the academic credentials to validate their research. Their son identifies his father
as a professor of history. Perhaps his A.B. from Princeton was in history, but Lynd's historical
credentials were limited. At best, he was considered one of those social historians. It is
conceivable that Helen had an advanced history degree, but teaching at Sarah Lawrence does not
suggest as much and there is little evidence of historical (or anthropological) or sociological
training in the first volume. Thus there was a fair amount of academic posturing on this lay
effort to do scholarly work. Second, even after Robert obtained a Ph.D. in sociology he was
caught between the emerging structural functionalism and the declining urban ecology. He
semed to prefer the Chicago School and eventually became embroiled in a turf battle between
interpretive and analytical sociology, as the Frankfurt School moved to New York during the
Hitler years and the critical and phenomenological critiques of positivism came to roost in the
rather marginal regions of Columbia and the New School, while Parsonian functionalism (and
Harvard) became the center of the sociological universe, beginning in around 1937. Of course,
Robert Merton later came to Columbia, which might have helped Lynd's position there, since
Merton was a liberal and, apparently, less hostile than Parsons to the conflict theories that were
becoming more popular in the Fifties and Sixties. Third, and finally, the fact that both volumes
were so popular must have inspired tremendous jealousy, particularly among those (like Parsons)
whose writing was especially painful for non-specialists. The fact that the FBI was investigating
the Lynds and that their son was an activist did not, of course, help this situation. Helen's
friendship with Mary Beard probably did not help much either, particularly as the Progressive
Era drew to a close and the New Deal was criticized as socialism by the more conservative Ivy
League intellectuals. Parsonian functionalism and the bitter debate between Parsons and
Homans over who was really more scientific became more central and Lynd and the conflict
theorists continued to occupy the margins of contemporary sociology. Even within community
studies, the Warner's Yankee City series and the second generation Chicago School participant
observation studies became more popular. The Lynds remained as the patron saints of Muncie
and the grand parents of what came to be community studies, but their overall impact on
sociology is debatable. Most sociologists are exposed, in stratification courses, to excerpts from
volume II, where the "X Family pattern of business class control" is described. Obviously, no
one reads Middletown anymore.
Questions for Consideration
Why has Middletown gone out of print?
Is this a good model for community studies?
Aside from Ball State and Columbia, what is the legacy of Middletown studies?
Aside from bringing The Philadelphia Negro back in, should we campaign for Middletown?