Reflecting on the Capstone class, I realize that the graduating seniors are walking into dangerous ground. Last week and this week, they are providing historiographical presentation of several subfields. The results vary, but that in itself is not a problem. Its an interesting exercise and they learn (some of them learn) valuable truths about the evolution of academic thought. The reality of a small history department is that the full complexity of the historical study may be loss to one our students. They probably cannot with real understanding describe what each faculty member specializes in beyond, geographic and chronological grouping. Thus to them ( and the public at large) our department is two American historians, two European historians and one Asian historian. The truth is far more complex, but from the student perspective meaningless. In part, this explains why, the historiographical presentation matters. As a urban historian (yes, I'm an Americanist, but I'm really an urbanist), I reference a very distinct chain of ideas and literature.
New methods and concerns connected to social science developed in the 1960's as a consensus among scholars pushed for scholarship with greater social relevance. Many believed that the social sciences could find solutions to modern social problems. Several unexplored fields of historical study received consideration with the intent that new scholarship would highlight different viewpoints. Urban historians abandoned examinations of elite political and social groups, instead studies began to ponder the actions and motivations of the common man living in the city. As a consequence, the "new" urban history focused on particular social questions concerning women, labor, immigrants, African-Americans and other issues. Methodological demands pushed aside themes of culture and ecology that formerly guided urban studies. Without a unifying concern urban history struggles to provide a unique insight to the city. Urban history's early foundation drew on several different sociological and historical theories. Among these early urban scholars were Max Weber and Robert Park. Weber's The City (1905) asserted that capitalism produced a crude urban environment, but not strictly in the marxist model of structure development. In 1916, Park developed the concept of urban ecology. He believed that studying the city could reveal how the urban environment shaped human culture. These works remain important because they stimulated interest in urban culture. Each essay stresses that the city's culture resulted from the cumulative effects of people living together. These early works inspired other scholars to investigate the city further.
The most prominent members of this new school of urban thinkers were not historians, but their influence shaped historical works. Louis Wirth, a sociologist from the Chicago school developed many key ideals about urban living. Wirth believed that sociology should be built around questions of human behavior. The urban environment is especially important for behavioral studies because the city's social organization leads to behavior changes and consensus driven actions. Lewis Mumford developed the community concept further. Mumford's theories on the city strove to place the urban environment within some kind of context apart from other subjects. He does not dissect the elements of the urban environment, instead he looked at the city as a separate entity apart from the country, but intimacy connected to the land and people.
The formal study of urban history started with Arthur M. Schlesinger Sr.'s 1933 volume, The Rise of the City. This book, a part of the History of American Life series, along with Schlesinger's seminal essay, "The City in American History" set the city apart from historical studies of political or industrial issues. These works established that the city itself was a framework comparable to Frederick Jackson Turner's frontier thesis. Schlesinger's urged historians to produce more urban studies that considered the unique relationships found in the city.
Several scholars answered with studies that focus exclusively on urban developments. Period history from Carl Bridenbaugh and Thomas J. Wertenbaker produced studies of Boston, New York, and Charleston during the colonial period. Urban biography offered close examination of a single city. Some notable examples are Bessie L. Pierce's Chicago (1937), Blake Mckelvey's Rochester (1945), and Bayrd Still's Milwaukee (1948). Edward Kirkland's Men, Cities, and Transportation (1948) and James W. Livingwood's The Philadelphia-Baltimore Trade Rivalry, 1780-1860 (1947) addressed issues of economics and transportation development. Various works also examined themes of immigrant life and housing. Oscar Handlin's Boston's Immigrants, 1790-1865 (1941) ranks as one of the first examinations of immigrant life. Edith Abbott's Tenements of Chicago, 1908-1935 (1936) added greater depth to questions of urban slums and housing reforms.
These histories considered the city as a community of individuals working together to build distinct cultural sphere. At their core, these early urban histories reflected the theoretical assumptions that grew out of urban social analysis. Urban biography celebrated cultural development. Each biography highlighted the organization and consensus that allowed cities to grow and prosper. These works aimed at developing a cultural interpretation of urban living that resisted broad categorization. Every city told a different story, each region reflected a different kind of community.
Stephan Thernstrom's work revealed the limitation of these studies. Thernstrom's Poverty and Progress (1964) and The Other Bostonians (1973) established a new framework in urban history. In Thernstrom's words his work differed because until then, "Virtually the only systematic mobility research in America has dealt with the social origins of members of American business elite." Thernstrom's works revealed a new complexity in American culture. Thernstrom's examination of Newburyport, Massachusetts examined social mobility in the lower classes. He characterized this mobility in terms of increasing achievement through time. Meaning that each subsequent generation had a better economic standing compared to the previous generation. The Other Bostonians furthered his study of mobility to include factors of ethnic groups and races. Both studies used examinations of census tracts, tax records, and other data to track individuals over time.
Thernstrom established several things with Poverty and Progress. First, it marked the merger of the new urban history and the new social history. Second, it was the first book to look at history from the bottom up. Third, this book brought the question of mobility to forefront of social study. Finally, it represented a methodological evolution in the historical field. Whereas general topic oriented around the culture or ecology drove urban history prior to it, after Poverty and Progress urban history strove to answer specific questions and followed assumptions connected to interpreting data on the mass population. In this framework, the United States represented a unique model of cultural assimilation and development. Class was not conceptualized clearly and the inevitable change from traditional to modern society had special ramifications for the community.
The Urban History Group's round table conference in 1966 marked the first serious evaluations of the new urban history. H.J. Dyos's essay "Agenda for Urban History," called for increased clarity, more analysis, cooperation between scholars, and greater unity in the scholarship's new direction. Urban historians debated whether or not the new social science techniques were worthwhile and how they applied directly to the study of history. It seemed obvious to most historians that the merging of more science to history was beneficial, especially in light of Thernstrom's work, but the apparent problem laid in the aims of urban history apart from the methods used. Scholars seemed unsure where the new direction in urban history would end up.
Conzen stresses that prior to quantification, urban history's concerned itself with the city, "The city itself functioned as an intervening variable in some more general historical process such as populism or slavery."
After quantification scholars asked new questions with different goals in mind. The new methods needed specific factors that could be coded and analyzed. Complex questions of culture and ecology were not easy confronted with the new methods historian now utilized. The Yale conference on Nineteenth Century Cities held in 1968 reflected on the intellectual framework that developed within the field. At the conference, Norman Birnbaum's "Afterword" spoke to this point. Birnbaum pointed to common intellectual dimensions in the conference's varied presenters. First, the studies highlight a social structure in the United States that is more complex than any theorized before. Second, most of the conceptional structure associated with American society were "uncertain and fragile." Finally, quantification was an accepted tool in historical analysis.
This neat summary of trends is misleading. In reality, many urban scholars found a blanket description of urban history impossible. Leo F. Schnore pointed out that many historians argue that the new urban history seemed limited to questions of urban stratification, mobility, or spatial patterns. Furthermore, the elements of the new urban history could be traced to older works. In this atmosphere, however, agreement on two conflicting points emerged. First, historians agreed that quantitative methods addressed a limited range of substantive questions and problems. Second, scholars needed to identity what those questions should be. This inability to judge the exact direction of urban history is directly linked to quantification's influence.
The problems associated with historians and their methods is nothing new. David Potter pointed out that often, "The most important achievements of historians were attained in spite of their methods rather than by means of it." Potter's statement referred to the variety of generalizations that historian must make while writing history. Potter asserted that historians often directly slight matters of motivation, classification, and causation. In a way, quantification has directed historical studies away from these issues as they relate to the urban culture by demanding that issues that could be coded for mathematical models had to be the focus of research.
By the 1970's the search for a broader conceptual perception that would produce a unique city perspective apart from other frameworks led to new works influenced by historians like Eugene Genovese and Theodore Hershberg. The complexity of urban history is matched by other subfields. As faculty members we are tasked with making the complex clear throughout the student academic career, but in the Capstone class this complexity returns with jarring results for graduating seniors. Yet, they are not without the tools to understand these arguments.
