Introduction
When it comes to social psychology, Charles Holton Cooley is one of the founding representatives of the field. Being an American social psychologist, sociologist, and educator, he finds that personality emerges under social factors, and individuals and groups are complementary aspects of human society. Having devoted his entire life to researching and formulating the fundamental pillars of social psychology, he often questioned the fundamental fallacies of the most famous academic researchers, including Sigmund Freud. As any researcher of this magnitude, the biography of this person is inseparable from his education and consistent academic activities, which need to be analyzed.
Chronology of Academic Activity
On August 17, 1864, Charles Cooley was born to the family of famous lawyer Thomas M. Cooley in Ann Arbor, Michigan (Misheva, 2018). After he graduated from the University of Michigan in 1887, Cooley majored in mechanical engineering and economics. In 1889 he first became a civil servant on the Civil Service Commission and then the Census Bureau (Siljanovska & Stojcevska, 2018). Young scholar taught political economy from 1892 until 1904 and sociology up to 1924 at the University of Michigan (Misheva, 2018). Coolie’s first major study, Transportation Theory, written in 1894, was devoted to economic theory. Consequently, this event can be considered a starting point in his path of becoming a researcher, which several more important academic works will follow.
Transportation Theory was noteworthy because cities tend to be located at the confluence of traffic routes known as traffic gaps. Thus, Coolie (2017) analyzed the urban approach to creating cities as drivers’ and pedestrians’ psychology, interaction, and attitude to various urban methods. According to Cooley (2017), transportation is a geographical and physical mode of communication (p. 53). He also offers an interactionist valuation theory, articulating how communication and interaction shape and alter value as a goal of action (Longo, 2021). As a result, if one would compare his subsequent works with this one, it could be logically concluded that the author moved on to an analysis of more profound and more meaningful social problems for society, including the psychology of society.
Cooley quickly moved on to a more comprehensive analysis of the interactions between personal and social processes. In his book Human Nature and Social Order, written in 1902, he anticipates George Herbert Mead’s argument about his symbolic foundation and how social reactions affect the emergence of regular social participation (Cooley & Rieff, 2017). This paper is still considered a seminal sociological study of American society (Siljanovska & Stojcevska, 2018). Cooley concludes that the social order cannot be imposed from outside human nature but instead originates from the self, perceiving the person not as a product of society but as its mirror reflection (Cooley, 2017). With the publication of Human Nature and the Social Order, Cooley (2017) sparked a scholarly investigation into the dynamics of society. It is also a famous study on social communication as the “very substance” constructed from the self (Siljanovska & Stojcevska, 2018). As a result, the conclusions made in this book allowed Cooley to delve into the study of social organizations as a psychological construct and establish himself in the academic community.
In his next book, Social Organization, published in 1909, Cooley (2017) extended this “mirror self” notion to outline a comprehensive approach to society and its primary process (p. 24). The first 60 pages of Social Organization were sociological antidotes to Sigmund Freud. In this often-quoted passage, Cooley (2017) underscores the vital role of influential groups, like family or friends, as a source of human morality, emotions, and ideals. However, the impact of primary groups is that individuals with more complex associations may stick to the primary ideals and create new primary groups within a formal organization. Cooley saw society as an ongoing experiment to expand social experience and adjust diversity. Therefore, he analyzed the workings of complex social forms such as formal and social class institutions and the subtle mechanisms for controlling public opinion. He concluded that class differences reflect differences in social contributions and the phenomenon of expansion and exploitation (Jonathan, 2017). Thus, Cooley opposed his theses to well-known researchers in psychiatry and social psychology and asked many essential questions requiring further research.
Cooley’s final major work, The Social Process, written in 1918, emphasized social organizations’ irrational and temporary nature and the importance of social competition. He interpreted current difficulties as a conflict between primary values of love, ambition, loyalty, and institutional, like impersonal idealism, progress, and Protestantism. According to him, when society tries to deal with difficulties, it coordinates these two values as much as possible (Cooley, 2017, p. 79). Such a discovery became a solid thesis to which many researchers in social psychology are referred to this day (Siljanovska & Stojcevska, 2018). Moreover, Cooley’s information has been provided based on his previous work, creating a kind of cyclicality that sends readers back to the very beginning. In the later years of his life, he no longer published any other significant works, and his academic career was thus completed.
Personal Life and Worldview
In 1890, Cooley married Elsie Jones, the daughter of a University of Michigan professor of medicine (Misheva, 2018). Mrs. Cooley was unlike her husband in that she was vivacious, active, and capable of organizing their daily life in such a way that trivial concerns did not burden her husband (Misheva, 2018). The couple had three children, a boy and two girls, and lived in a house near campus that was peaceful and secluded (Misheva, 2018). Cooley used the children as his laboratory subjects for his research into the origins and development of the ego. He would study his three children’s mimicking behavior and assess their replies based on their ages. Aside from his study, Cooley enjoyed amateur botany and bird-watching in his leisure time (Misheva, 2018). Thus, it is logical to conclude that Cooley had strong support from his family, focusing on his research and academic activity.
Analyzing Cooley’s worldview, it is worth considering its relationship to many social sociological processes that are an integral part of society. He had a different approach regarding the economy, claiming that “…even economic institutions cannot be understood purely as a product of impersonal market processes” (Cooley, 2017, p.95). In terms of the sociological perspective and its relevance to traditions, Cooley claims that dissolving traditions may be beneficial, resulting in “the type of qualities, as well as vices, that we see on the frontier: honest dealing, love of character and force, compassion, hope, hospitality, and courage” (Cooley, 2017, p.97) Moreover, it is apparent that sociology continues to contribute to the increasing efficiency of intellectual processes that would educate the stronger public will. Based on the above facts, it can be concluded that his opinion about the economy and the functionality of society involved the rejection of traditions and subsequent unification.
Cooley is known for his dissatisfaction with the sociological community’s disagreements about technique. He favored an observational, empirical approach. After working as a statistician for the Interstate Commerce Commission and the Census Bureau, Cooley valued the use of statistics and case studies, frequently using his children as the focus of his observations (Misheva, 2018). He also urged sociologists to employ sympathetic introspection while striving to comprehend an individual’s consciousness. The only feasible solution, according to Cooley (2017), is to analyze the current issue “closely and kindly” with other individuals concerned, then gradually work out the problems and replace them with solutions (p.15). Identifying how and why human beings’ human nature has come to operate that way is the only way to comprehend it. Cooley effectively distinguished himself from the bulk of sociologists who favored more traditional, scientific procedures because he believed it was vital to grasp the actions taken from the actor correctly (Jonathan, 2017). As a result, his approach was efficient enough to conduct major studies and research on society, touching on both sociological and psychological aspects while having a modern approach to his contemporaries.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the comparison of Cooley with other sociologists and analysis of his academic work, including life chronology, prove that he is one of the critical researchers in the field of social psychology of the last century. Moreover, his view of the economy and the future of society was also concretely shaped and formulated, closely interacting with his ideas about sociology. Last but not least is Cooley’s rethinking of many sociological concepts and structures and the publication of critical works that are the source of many studies to this day. Following the conducted analysis, his books are considered a profound contribution to the development of many humanitarian branches of sociology.
References
Cooley, C. H. (2017). Human nature and the social order. Routledge.
Cooley, C. H., & Rieff, P. (2017). Social organization: A study of the larger mind. Routledge.
Longo, M. (2021). Charles Horton Cooley. The emotions in the classics of sociology (pp. 113-133). Routledge.
Siljanovska, L., & Stojcevska, S. (2018). A critical analysis of interpersonal communication in modern times of the concept “Looking Glass Self (1902)” By Charles Horton Cooley. Seeu review, 13(1), 62-74.
Misheva, V. (2018). Lost in vicissitudes of greatness and decline: Charles Horton Cooley’s unique contribution to sociology. Updating Charles H. Cooley (pp. 37-73). Routledge.
Jonathan, B. I. (2017). Life and the student roadside notes on human nature, society, and letters: Charles Horton Cooley. Routledge.