Whyte and Cornerville, Part III: Getting Out
White left Cornerville in 1940 and then returned in 1980 to discover that Doc had lost interest (p. 348) and Chick was somewhat concerned that Bill had "caught people wiith their hair down" (p. 352).
Bill had left Cornerville and Harvard and had gone to Chicago to publish his book and earn his Ph.D. As he tells the story (pp. 354-60) he had difficulty on both fronts. It might be helpful to recognize that Whyte was moving from relatively conservative structural and scientific sociology at Harvard to the more liberal, progressive and process-oriented sociology of Chicago, just as the center of gravity for American sociology was moving in the opposite direction: from Chicago to Harvard in the 1940s. This, together with Whyte's strong advocacy for reorienting sociology, which he continues to support in late career—see his presidential address in 1980, makes him a particularly interesting character in the history of American sociology. When he died in 2000 some of his colleagues offered the following tribute: Colleagues Salute William Foote Whyte.mht
Aside from his contribution to methods, including his book, Participant Observation: An Autobiography (IRL Books, 1994), Whyte made a number of contributions to sociological theory.
First, and perhaps most obvious, he argues against the social disorganization, "death of community" perspective on the urban slum. He argues that the peer groups are organized but are very different in content. For corner boys there is a group orientation. For college boys there is a success orientation that is often seen as selfish within the corner boy group. This theme was further developed by Herbert Gans (see Whyte1 for reference).
Methodologically, he argues (along with the second generation of the Chicago School) that sociology needs to move from the objective analysis of facts (including attitude surveys) toward the subjective, sympathetic understanding of groups and the mean the group attributes to social action. At the same time, however, Whyte moves beyond the group-orientation of what comes to be known as Symbolic Interactionism into the study of organizational structure. This is most apparent in contrasting Whyte's organizational explanation of how Cornerville obtained a park fence (pp. 249-52) with Gans explanation of the peer group orientation of the Westenders limited their political influence.
Whyte is an organizational theorist and a structuralist (certainly when compared to Herbert Blumer, an early anti-structuralist Symbolic Interactionist). He builds the world of corner boys and college boys in the North End of Boston within the context of Harvard and the world of academia, politics, and the racquets, which represent the three paths out of the slum. As he notes, "the racquets took the place of legitimate business in relation to politics." (p. 200). The same could be said with regard to social mobility, more generally. In the Northend, gangs were more important than family for men, but both were building blocks for politicians. Clubs and similar organizations were an important organizational base for politicians and a potential path for corner boys, but this path generates potentially conflicting loyalties (pp. 208-10). For the politican,"as he rises in position, he loses touch with the day-to-day activities of the boys." (p. 214). The same might be said of the college educated professional.
Whyte offers two critical points that have now become conventional wisdom within the study of social movements. First, parties don't attempt to mobilize individuals. Instead they attempt to mobilize constituencies that are already organized (hence the importance of clubs) (p. 215). Second, parties offer primarily "emotional appeal ... to activate those who are already persuaded" (p. 235) as opposed to efforts to educate or persuade potential supporters.
With regard to ward politics in 1940, Whyte characterizes the standard appeal as constituted by "five main points" (p. 330): racial appeal, class appeal, personal appeal, qualifications, and political strength. By "racial" Whyte refers to the ehtnic differences between, primarily the Italians and the Irish (p. 227). Particularly interesting here is the extent to which these five point move from what politicians and constituents share (race and class background and sensibility) to what distinguishes the politician: personal character, qualifications, and power—the latter being clearly those things that constituents lack and need to find in their leader.