A dialectic of racial enlightenment

Abstract

For over a quarter of a century, Stanford M. Lyman has been engaged in a dialogue with the ghost of Robert E. Park. His oft-cited essay on Park's race relations cycle constitutes his initial meditation on the continued rele? vance of the "ambiguous generality" that characterizes Park's formulation of a processual four-stage model of race relations. Lyman (1968) argued at that time that despite the problematic dichotomy that Park introduces by, in effect, separating process from events, his work nonetheless has much to offer those engaged in current efforts to comprehend the differential potentials for conflictual and harmonious race relations. Since the essay was primarily a critique, the brief on behalf of the relevancy of Park's model was necessarily no more than a skeletal outline. Militarism, Imperialism and Racism (1992) puts flesh on the bones. To appreciate the Park that emerges from Lyman's most recent archival forays and hermeneutical endeavors, it is important to contextualize this volume in terms of recent exegetical work by a range of other scholars. In recent years we have witnessed a widespread renewal of interest in the work of Robert E. Park, as sociologists and historians alike have sought to reassess his place in the history of the discipline, his role in shap? ing the form and content of the Chicago School, and the matter of whether or not his work is of enduring relevance to the discipline as it positions itself for the twenty-first century (Matthews, 1977; Raushenbush, 1979; Wacker, 1983; Vidich and Lyman, 1985; Faught, 1986; Harvey, 1987; Hel? mes-Hayes, 1987; Deegan, 1988; Lengermann, 1988; Smith, 1988; Kivisto, 1990; Lai, 1990). This interest in Park's work is somewhat surprising for at least two reasons. In the first place, Park's political and economic views ? or what com? mentators take his views to be ? have been the object of sustained criticism. Even the sympathetic former student, Horace Cayton, would de? pict Park's economic stance as "conservative, if not reactionary" (quoted