[p.225] species as there are techniques to which he is devoted. The
attitudes, the sentiments, the life organisation of the city man are as
different from the country man as those of the civilised man are from the
primitive. As the city extends its influence over the country the rural man
is also being remade, and ultimately the differences between the two may
become extinguished.
Park, R.E.
1944
"An Autobiographical Note"
(Dictated to his secretary at Fisk University and found among his
papers after his death)
I can trace my interest in sociology to the reading of Goethe's Faust. You
remember that Faust was tired of books and wanted to see the world - the
world of men. At any rate, after leaving college I gave up a position as
teacher in a high school at Red Wing, Minnesota, and went to Minneapolis on
the chance of getting a job as a reporter. I got the job, and I saw a lot
of the world-the kind of a world that a reporter does see. I finished with
Minneapolis in about three years and started out for New York. New York was
the mecca of every ambitious newspaperman. I did not get to New York at
that time but stopped six months in Detroit; went from there to Denver,
finally got to New York. But once there I was shortly disenchanted with the
prospect. The life of the average newspaperman seemed, at that time to be
about eight years. After that if he remained in the profession his value
steadily declined.
Meanwhile I had gained an insight into the functioning of the newspaper.
The newspaper and news became my problem. About that time I was introduced
by
John Dewey, who
was then at Ann Arbor, to a very interesting man named
Franklin Ford. Ford had been a newspaper reporter. He had reported Wall
Street and gained a conception of the
function of the press by observing
the way in which the market responded to news. The market price was, from
his point of view, a kind of public opinion, and, being a man of
philosophic temperament, he drew from this analogy far-reaching inferences.
I cannot go into that. Suffice it to say he came to believe, and I did too,
that with more accurate and adequate reporting of current
events the historical process would be appreciably stepped up, progress
would go forward steadily, without the interruption disorder of depression
or violence, and at a rapid pace.
It was interest in the newspaper that sent me back to the university I had
graduated at Ann Arbor. I decided to
go to Harvard. I studied philosophy
because I hoped to gain insight into the nature and function of the kind of
knowledge we call news. Besides I wanted to a fundamental point of view
from which I could describe the behaviour of society, under the influence
of news, in the precise and universal language of science.
I spent a year at Harvard and then went abroad. I intended to stay abroad
for a year, but I remained for four years. There, listening to the lectures
of
Georg Simmel, at Berlin, I received my only formal instruction
in sociology.
While I was in Berlin I ran across a little treatise on the logic of the
social sciences by a Russian, Kistiakowski. It was the first thing had
found anywhere that dealt with the problem with which I was concerned in
the terms in which I had come to think of it. Kistiakowski had been a
student of Wilhelm Windelband, so I went to Strasburg and later to
Heidelberg, when Windelband succeeded Kuno Fischer in the chair of
philosophy in that university. I wrote a the under Windelband. I called it
Masse und Publikum ("Crowd an Public").
I returned in
1903 to Harvard,
giving my thesis the final touches there. It was during that period that I
was assistant, " assistant professor, in philosophy.
By this time, however, I was sick and tired of the academic world and I
wanted to get back into the world of men. I had never given the ambition I
gained from reading Faust - the ambition to know human nature, know it
widely
and intimately.
While I was at Harvard, William James read to us one day essay on "A
Certain Blindness in Human Beings." I was greatly impressed at the time,
and, as I have reflected upon it since, the ideas suggested there have
assumed a steadily increasing significance.
The "blindness" of which James spoke is the blindness each of is likely to
have for the meaning of other people's lives. At any rate what sociologists
most need to know is what goes on behind the faces of men, what it is that
makes life for each of us either dull or thrilling. For "if you lose the
joy you lose all." But the thing that gives zest! life or makes life dull
is, however, as James says, "a personal secret" which has in every single
case, to be discovered. Otherwise we do not know the world in which we
actually live.
Well this is merely to suggest how, after I had grown tired of books and
while I was looking about for something more thrilling than a logical
formula, I discovered a new interest in the study of the Negro and the race
problem.
This new interest grew out of meeting Booker Washington. The result of that
meeting was that I spent seven winters, partly at Tuskegee but partly
roaming about the South, getting acquainted with the life, the customs, and
the condition of the Negro people.
It happened in this way: While I was living outside of Boston, having just
completed the writing of a Doctor's thesis and having lost for the moment
any ambition to teach, as I had once intended to do, I was invited to
become secretary of the Congo Reform Association. There were at the time
reports of great scandals in the Congo, and the secretary of the Baptist
Foreign Missions, Dr Barbour, wanted someone to help him advertise the
atrocities in order to prepare for some sort of political action which
would insure reform. I was not, at that time, strong for missions, 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, though
not by any means so bad, in Kenya. 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 civilise them. I knew enough about
civilisation even at that
time to know that progress, as James once remarked, is a terrible thing. It
is so destructive and wasteful.
I was so interested by this time that I was about to go to Africa to study
the situation at first hand. It was at this moment that Booker Washington
invited me to visit Tuskegee and start my studies of Africa in the southern
states. I think I probably learned more about human nature and society, in
the South under Booker Washington, than I had learned elsewhere in all my
previous studies. I believe in firsthand knowledge not as a substitute but
as a basis for more formal and systematic investigation. But the reason I
profited as much as I did from this experience was due, I am sure, to the
fact that I had a long preparation. As a result I was not, as I found
later, interested in the Negro problem as that problem is ordinarily
conceived. I 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
civilisation, not merely here but elsewhere, has evolved,
drawing
into the circle of its influence an ever widening circle of races and
peoples.
Since then I have been around a good part of the world. I was a year in
Honolulu as research professor, at the University of Hawaii I was in
Peiping a few months, where I learned a great deal about China from the
members of my class at Yenching University. I attended the Fourth Pacific
Science Congress in Java in
1929. Two years later I visited India, South
Africa, and South America. In
July, 1937, I went
again to Brazil, to visit
the city of Bahia, which is a kind of centre of African
culture, so much as
remains of it, in Brazil.
I have told you how I came to be interested in the newspaper, in the crowd
and the public, in collective psychology, generally. I have indicated how I
came to get interested in the races and racial attitudes and the incidental
problems of cultural conflict and cultural change. There remains the
studies of the city, of urban and rural communities, what R. D. McKenzie
and I call, quite properly I believe, "human ecology."
While I was a newspaper reporter I used to do a good deal of writing for
the Sunday papers. In those days the daily papers wrote their own Sunday
papers and did not depend to the extent they do now upon syndicated
articles.
I found that the Sunday paper was willing to publish anything long as it
concerned the local community and was interesting. I wrote about all sorts
of things and became in this way intimately acquaint with many different
aspects of city life. I expect that I have actually covered more ground,
tramping about in cities in different parts the world, than any other
living man. Out of all this I gained, amongst other things, a conception of
the city, the community, and the region not as a geographical phenomenon
merely but as a kind of social organism.
My interest in the newspaper had grown out of the discovery that a reporter
who had the facts was a more effective reformer than an editorial writer
who merely thundered from his pulpit, no matter how eloquently.
According to my earliest conception of a sociologist he was to
be a kind of super-reporter, like the men who write for Fortune. He
was to report a little more accurately, and in a manner a little more
detached than the average, what my friend Ford called the "Big News." The
"Big News" was the long-time trends which recorded what is actually going
on rather than what, on the surface of things, merely seems to be going on.