Classical sociology from the metropolis

Abstract

This introductory article to the special issue ‘Classical Sociology from the Metropolis’ provides a comprehensive exploration of the profound influence of metropolises, particularly Berlin, on the development and discourse of classical sociology. Emphasizing the metropolis as a social space and promoter of sociological thought, it delves into the lives and works of key figures such as Georg Simmel, Robert E. Park, W.E.B. Du Bois, Frieda Wunderlich and Rose Laub Coser. Their interactions, perspectives and transnational exchanges, particularly between Berlin and other urban centres such as Chicago and New York, are highlighted, illustrating the global interconnectedness of sociological discourse. While acknowledging established sociological icons, the article also highlights the often overlooked contributions of women and scholars of colour, challenging and expanding the traditional understanding of the ‘classical’ in sociological thought. The narrative travels from the early urban sociological and feminist theories that emerged in the metropolis of the 1920s to the complexities of Marxist sociology in a divided Berlin after the Second World War. Through a curated selection of articles in the special issue, the work underlines the central role of the metropolis in shaping foundational sociological concepts and the thinkers who championed them.

Introduction

One of the Journal of Classical Sociology’s (JCS) most celebrated articles in recent years is Georg Simmel’s classic essay, ‘The metropolis and the life of spirit’ (‘Die Großstädte und das Geistesleben’, 1903). ¹ Having been reintroduced in its third English translation published in this journal (Boy, 2021), Simmel’s essay has captivated audiences and scholars alike. ² Sigmund (1993) astutely observed that the essence of this essay, capturing the dramaturgy and dynamism of the metropolis, starkly contrasts with the serene environment Max Weber might have experienced while writing, for instance, Die Stadt (Weber, 1921) ‘in the quaint Heidelberg milieu’ (Boy, 2021: 190). Hence, Sigmund (1993) suspects that Simmel’s essay could only have been written in a city that can qualify as a metropolis. This observation hints at a profound connection between the actual environment of intellectual creation – be it a quiet parlour in a tranquil town or a bustling café in an ever-moving metropolis – and the resulting intellectual product.

Building on this foundation, one could venture to say – as many before us have done – that the social context in which academics nurture a discipline like sociology significantly shapes its theoretical constructs, methodologies and knowledge (see, for instance, Bourdieu, 1988, 1993; Foucault, 1970, 1972; Merton, 1973; Smith, 1987, 1990). One could argue that challenges, especially those arising from social transformations and associated crises, often have a productive effect on an intellectual field (Geiger, 1949; Mannheim, 1936). However, this interaction between environment and intellect can be a double-edged sword. On the one hand, social upheavals can catalyse academic work and produce ground-breaking knowledge; on the other, such major transformations might pose challenges, even setbacks, to a discipline (Holzhauser et al., 2023).

Now, before immersing ourselves in the vibrant dynamics of urban life and its profound interactions with and influences on classical sociology, we must address a crucial distinction. Are we discussing the tangible, immediate, physical environment and the social situation at the time of our given object of study, such as when and where a paper was actually written? Or are we delving into the inscribed ‘habitus’ – the deeply ingrained dispositions imprinted upon an individual through their cumulative experiences over time in specific social contexts (Bourdieu, 1980, 1984)? Alternatively, and to complete the spectrum, we could also deal with a purely hypothetical question: Is it at all possible to have thoughts completely independent of influences of habitus and immediate environment? (We believe not).

As we know, these positions represent different classical theoretical perspectives in the sociological explanation of behaviour (Collins, 1990; Durkheim, 1895; Goffman, 1959; Mead, 1934). Depending on our theoretical disposition, the above comparison with Weber and his writing situation may vary in its aptness. Weber may have written in Heidelberg (or someplace else, Bruhns, 2020: 363), but at the same time he had also gained experiences in the metropolis when he studied in Berlin, completed his legal clerkship there, received his doctorate, and was a private lecturer and associate professor at the Friedrich Wilhelm University Berlin (Weber, 1926). In other words, Weber was also more or less at home in the metropolis, at least in the period from 1882 until his appointment to Freiburg in 1894, and this may have affected him and influenced his work in a variety of ways.

For our purposes, it seems inappropriate to adhere to just a single perspective. Instead, we wish to emphasize that both lived experiences in specific social contexts as well as contemporary environments shape intellectual creativity and the habitus of intellectuals, often competing for influence (Moebius, 2017). Our exploration highlights the interconnectedness between a metropolis’s physical and social realms and the intellectual discourse it engenders. Using Berlin as our focus, we will investigate how the city’s rhythm has historically shaped (and continues to shape) significant sociological works. As we delve into this, we will focus on the interrelation of lived experiences, academic milieus, habitus, and the environments in which they manifest.

While we turn our gaze towards metropolitan Berlin, tracing its influence during the eras of Simmel, his classical contemporaries, and sociologists who followed, we will introduce the special issue ‘Classical Sociology from the Metropolis’, which delves deeper into the manifold dimensions of this topic.

Using the example of Berlin at the beginning of the 20th century as an exemplar, we want to characterize the metropolis as a special environment for sociological thought and research. It was a place of academic exchange for mainstream sociologists as well as visiting scholars and it enabled contributions that were not recognized in mainstream sociology at the time. As is evident from the example of Simmel and Berlin and both their influences on the Chicago School, the metropolis as an object of study also marked a decisive contribution to the development of urban sociology in particular as well as of sociology in general.

Understanding the metropolis: A sociological lens

Metropolitan areas have long been of interest to sociologists, policymakers, and visionaries (Boy, 2021: 188f.). Urbanism, modernity, and the growth of the metropolis have been deeply intertwined with the development of sociology (Durkheim, 1893; König, 1987; Marx, 1867; Park and Burgess, 1925; Simmel, 1903; Tönnies, 1887; Wirth, 1938). The discipline itself emerged in the context of rapid urbanization and dramatic societal changes brought about by the Industrial Revolution and the spread of capitalist modes of production (Moebius, 2021a). The late 19th and early 20th centuries witnessed profound transformations. The rise of industrial capitalism, the growth of cities, the spread of secularism, and the onset of political revolutions were shaking the very fabric of society. Urban centres became magnets for migration, changing the social landscape dramatically. These shifts raised new questions about human interaction, societal cohesion, and the nature of modern life (Castells, 1977).

Essentially, a metropolis is a grand city that stands out not only for its size but also for its importance in economic, political, and cultural spheres (Park and Burgess, 1925). Metropolises, with their towering skylines and bustling streets, typically dominate entire regions or countries (Mumford, 1961). They are not merely large cities but rather centres of gravity, attracting resources, talent, and attention from all over the world. They serve as hubs of cultural dynamism, foster creativity, intellectual discussions, and ground-breaking ideas (Florida, 2002; Zukin, 1995). Art galleries, theatres, festivals, and literary events, but also scientific centres, universities, and international academic exchanges make these cities veritable hotspots of cultural progress, impacting both local and global preferences and inclinations (Glaeser, 2011; Sassen, 1991). These large, vital, urban zones have come to symbolize human advancement, difficulty, and perseverance in different arenas (Jacobs, 1961).

However, the factors that make cities captivating, namely their density, diversity, and pace, also present unique social challenges. The urban condition is deeply tied to the broader societal fabric and is affected by political, economic, cultural, and social forces. The organization of space in the metropolis is intrinsically linked to social relationships and the means of production (Lefebvre, 1991). Hence, the spatial form of a city is also not accidental but shaped by social dynamics, and, in turn, shapes those dynamics (Castells, 1977). Metropolitan life often overwhelms its inhabitants with stimuli (Simmel, 1903). The metropolis is characterized by contradictions inherent to the capitalist mode of production. For instance, there is a tension between the role of the metropolis as a centre of consumption and its function in production (Castells, 1977). The coexistence of wealth and poverty, opportunity and inequality in the vast urban centres gives rise to a variety of pressing problems, from housing crises to crime (Anderson, 1923). These urban crises, for Castells (1977), are reflections of broader societal contradictions. Despite these challenges, however, the resilience of the metropolis is evident. Time and time again, these cities have displayed an extraordinary capacity to innovate, adapt, and transform themselves. Metropolises are an endlessly fascinating subject for sociologists, as they continuously redefine themselves through innovative urban planning, community-driven initiatives, and policy reforms.

In a nutshell, the metropolis, as conceptualized in sociological discourse, goes beyond its basic definition as a densely populated area. It serves as a locus of entangled socio-economic and cultural interactions, with inherent complexities and structural dynamics. The sociological interpretation explores the complex web of human interactions, cultural exchanges, and power dynamics that form the essence of urban giants. In this setting, a metropolis takes on the role of a theatre of social intricacy (Goffman, 1959; Park and Burgess, 1925). It showcases the diverse range of human hues that coexist within its streets, markets, and neighbourhoods, offering a captivating study of coexistence and conflict between classes, cultures, religions, ethnicities, generations, and genders (Collins, 1990; Jacobs, 1961; Sassen, 1991; Zukin, 1995). Hence, the metropolis is of significant sociological importance.

As the 19th century transitioned into the 20th, the rapid growth of urban centres marked a pivotal change in societal structures (Glass, 1955; Tönnies, 1887). The meteoric rise of urbanization, with its scale and pace, presented complex challenges that called for scholarly examination. Classical sociologists frequently anchored their work in the context of these burgeoning metropolises. For instance, the intricate interplay of social interactions and evolving bureaucracies within these cities profoundly influenced thinkers like Karl Marx, Ferdinand Tönnies, Émile Durkheim, Max Weber, and Georg Simmel. Their foundational works were shaped by urban experiences. Marx saw urbanization and capitalism as deeply connected. The metropolis symbolized the epicentre of capitalist exploitation but also the potential for class consciousness and revolution. For Marx, cities like Paris, London, and Manchester exemplified the contradictions of capitalism: immense wealth alongside abject poverty. With the rise of the modern city, administrative and bureaucratic systems expanded. Weber (1921) questioned the processes of bureaucracy and rationalization that had become intrinsic to urban administrative structures. Durkheim (1893, 1897) shed light on evolving social norms and introduced the concept of ‘anomie’ to articulate the potential sense of normlessness and alienation that could arise in urban settings. As cities grew, anonymity and social isolation became a central theme (Geiger, 1931/32; Simmel, 1903; Tönnies, 1887). Simmel’s (1903) contributions are notable for their depth and nuance. His exploration of the ‘blasé attitude’ and his analysis of the ‘stranger’ provided insights into the coping mechanisms adopted by individuals in response to the sensory overload characteristic of urban life. Simmel’s discourse highlighted the dialectical nature of urban existence, in particular the tension between the desire for individual distinction and the overwhelming collective nature of urban life. These investigations led to pivotal concepts highlighting the urban experience’s dichotomies, such as Tönnies (1887) dichotomy between Gemeinschaft as experienced in traditional communities and Gesellschaft as a place where former connections were severed and new, typically impersonal ones were formed, Simmel’s (1903) tension between anonymity and community, Durkheim’s (1893, 1897) balancing act of individual and collective needs, and Weber’s (1922) juxtaposition of personal freedoms against bureaucratic constraints. Thus, prominent early sociological theorists made significant contributions to the burgeoning field of urban sociology and in their analyses of metropolises ‘traces of [a] cosmopolitan sociology – implicitly trans-national – can be detected’ (Pendenza, 2015: 362; see also Chernilo, 2007; Inglis, 2009; Turner, 2006).

Meanwhile, the Chicago School emerged as a key movement in early 20th-century sociology, founding the subdiscipline of urban sociology in the United States of America (Bulmer, 1984). Using Chicago as a microcosm, sociologists such as Robert E. Park, who had studied with Simmel in Berlin, embarked on empirical studies to understand urban behaviour, patterns, and the influences of the environment on its inhabitants (Park, 1928; Wirth, 1928). Their approach emphasized the importance of ethnographic and observational methods in understanding urban dynamics (Bulmer, 1984).

In 1925, Park and Ernest W. Burgess published The City. This work offers studies of the urban environment, urban ecology, and the concentric zone model to explain urban growth and decay (Bulmer, 1984). Louis Wirth, who had studied with Albion W. Small, William I. Thomas, and his later mentor Park at the Department of Sociology, also belongs to the founding milieu of the Chicago School. In 1930, Wirth went to Berlin on a Travelling Fellowship from the Social Science Research Council (SSRC) to study urban issues and the growing phenomenon of large cities. This period greatly influenced his subsequent work on urban sociology. Building on this empirical foundation, Wirth (1938) investigated the wider implications of urban living. He argued that the metropolis created a distinct way of life, characterized by particular social patterns. Wirth’s urban area was a domain of segmented roles, brief interactions, and an overall sense of impersonality – a setting where the individual was simultaneously freed and disoriented (Bulmer, 1984).

It is important to note that urban experiences were (and still are) not monolithic. They are significantly modulated by factors such as gender, ethnicity and socio-economic status. Just as women in the metropolis have their specific horizons of experience, they also contribute to sociology with their specific research perspectives. Although women still play a minor role in classical sociology (Holzhauser, 2018, 2021, 2023), there were women who contributed to classic urban sociology and who enriched this approach with their perspectives (Sibley, 1990). However, in the early stages of sociology during the 20th century, there was a clear gender divide in academia. While numerous male sociologists effortlessly transitioned into professorship roles within developing sociology faculties, their female peers encountered significant obstacles in obtaining academic appointments (Deegan, 1988; Lengermann and Niebrugge-Brantley, 1998; Rossi, 1973). Many of these women were drawn to fields such as social work, social politics, and welfare (Deegan, 1988). However, it would be a serious misjudgement to sideline these pioneering women in the annals of sociological history based on their job titles (Lengermann and Niebrugge-Brantley, 1998). Their valuable insights, research, and contributions remain significant embodiments of some of sociology’s fundamental inquiries and viewpoints, despite being conducted outside formal academia (Smith, 1987).

Under the title The Chicago Women’s School of Sociology, Lengermann and Niebrugge-Brantley (1998: 229) describe a whole network of women ‘who worked collaboratively to produce a body of sociology linking social theory, sociological research and social reform”’, representing a specific ‘school of thought’. However, their research has been widely neglected. ‘Gender and politics appear to be critical in understanding the isolation of these women from the mainstream of urban social theory’ (Sibley, 1990: 733). Jane Addams’ (1860–1935) work, particularly through initiatives such as Hull House of which she was a co-founder, brought diverse urban narratives to the fore, highlighting the experiences of women, immigrants, and other marginalized communities. Her work also exemplifies the integration of activism and sociological research. ‘Addams played a pivotal role in the development of sociology’ at the university of Chicago (Deegan, 1988) and her initiatives demonstrated the crucial roles of social activism in urban environments and presented the city as a context for spirited women’s engagement. Charlotte Perkins Gilman (1860–1935) explored the field of urban sociology by critiquing domesticity. She envisioned a cityscape that promotes communal living, shared domestic responsibilities, and a strong sense of community. Gilman envisioned the metropolis as a space providing the potential for women to attain economic independence, utilizing the city as a facilitator for societal reforms beneficial to women’s emancipation (Lengermann and Niebrugge-Brantley, 1998: 105–148). The progressive underpinnings of the metropolis often provide platforms for these voices, enriching the broader discourse of urban sociology. It is not surprising that these women were accused of radicalism (Lengermann and Niebrugge-Brantley, 1998: 230), given that the women’s rights movement is closely linked to metropolitan spaces. ‘These women, connected in varying degrees of closeness, formed a genuine power base, and were not afraid (. . .) to use that power’ (Lengermann and Niebrugge-Brantley, 1998: 230). We cannot discuss all the women in this context here, but we will at least mention them: Julia Lathrop, Florence Kelley, Marion Talbot, Sophonisba Breckinridge, Annie Marion MacLean, Frances Keller, Edith Abbott and Grace Abbott.

This sociology from a female outsider’s perspective ‘developed out of the interaction among several factors: the women’s confrontation with the problems of a shared environment – Chicago; their work out of shared bases; their wish to create, despite patriarchal restrictions, a career in social science; their determination to use social science to achieve social change; and their creation of networks to achieve these ends’ (Lengermann and Niebrugge-Brantley, 1998: 233). They were confronted with the problems and crises associated with urban metropolitan life:

It was marked by extremes—of affluence and poverty, of privilege and oppression, of rapid expansion in material possibility and the multiplication of social problems, of ideological defenses of capitalism and of class, race, and gender privilege, and anarchist, socialist, and feminist critiques of these inequalities. The women discovered in Chicago dirt, disease, exhaustion, crowding, confusion, hopelessness, overwork, pain, and the overwhelming fact of difference introduced by the multitudes of nationalities who came as immigrants to work in the burgeoning industries. (Lengermann and Niebrugge-Brantley, 1998: 233)

In short, while the metropolis was a place of great social upheaval and challenges, it also provided the initial conditions for these women to undertake their pioneering work.

While urban sociology has its roots in Western contexts, particularly in the early work of the Chicago School, the study of urban environments has expanded significantly to encompass diverse global perspectives, particularly from Black and non-Western scholars. African American sociologists such as W.E.B. Du Bois, Booker T. Washington, St. Clair Drake, and Horace R. Cayton Jr. made important contributions to further the understanding of modern urban life. Du Bois, who also studied in Berlin for 2 years (Du Bois, 1968: 154–177), conducted pioneering studies on the conditions of African Americans in urban areas. His work The Philadelphia Negro: A Social Study (Du Bois, 1899) is an exhaustive sociological study of the Black community in Philadelphia and is often considered the first scientific study of African Americans. In this special issue, Reiland Rabaka introduces Du Bois’s approach to intersectionality in the context of urban sociology. In the 1940s, Drake and Cayton (1945) published Black Metropolis, a detailed account of the Black experience in Chicago during the Great Migration. The study delves into the intricacies of economic, social, and political life within the Black Belt of Chicago, highlighting the community’s resilience, creativity and the complexities of racial identity in the midst of segregation, economic disparities and social stratification. By integrating personal interviews, historical data, and sociological analysis, Drake and Cayton provided an unprecedented and multidimensional portrait of urban Black life during a pivotal period in American history (see also Abu-Lughod, 2007; Pattillo, 1999).

Speaking of intersectionality, women of colour are often marginalized in multiple ways. While Ida B. Wells-Barnett (1862–1931) is primarily known for her fearless anti-lynching advocacy, she also made significant contributions to understanding urban life for Black Americans in the post-Civil War era. Her sociological studies on racial violence, especially in urban settings, are considered pioneering. Her detailed documentation in Southern Horrors: Lynch Law in All Its Phases (Wells-Barnett, 1892) and The Red Record (Wells-Barnett, 1895) not only expose the horrors of lynching but also delve into the socio-economic conditions of Black people in urban settings (Giddings, 2008). Often considered one of the earliest Black feminists, Cooper’s (1892) work A Voice from the South is not strictly urban sociology, but it does explore the intersections of race, gender, and the societal roles of Black women, some of which pertain to urban settings (Johnson, 2023). Many women of colour made indirect contributions to urban sociology through their activism, community work or writings that highlighted issues related to urban life. However, their works might not have been recognized or categorized within the confines of academic urban sociology.

In the Global South, scholars have elucidated unique urban dynamics, drawing from postcolonial contexts and the experiences of rapid urbanization in regions like Africa, Asia and Latin America. These sociologists confront issues of neo-colonialism, globalization, informal economies and the complexities of urban sprawl. Their work highlights the rich tapestry of urban life outside of Western metropolises and poses a challenge to Eurocentric perspectives, ensuring that urban sociology remains a vibrant and inclusive field that captures the multiplicity of urban experiences worldwide (Appadurai, 1996; Bayat, 2000; Davis, 2006; Patel et al., 2002; Robinson, 2006; Simone, 2004).

One of the aims of this special issue is to listen to the quiet (or silenced) voices amid these big, noisy cities. The metropolis remains central to sociological discourse because of its multifaceted structure and dynamism. Its evolution, challenges, and the myriad human experiences it encapsulates make it a focal point for academic study and sociological reflection. Following the spirit of a true metropolis, when selecting the articles to include in this special issue we have consciously chosen to give more space to sociological minorities within this early period of sociological research.

Berlin: A metropolis at the heart of urban sociology

Berlin is a testament to the interweaving forces of modernity, urbanism, and intellectual ferment within the sphere of urban evolution and sociological thought. The city’s kaleidoscopic history and rich cultural tapestry provide a compelling backdrop for comprehending how metropolises influenced sociological inquiry. From its rapid industrialization in the late 19th century to the devastation of World War II, the division during the Cold War, and its subsequent reunification and redevelopment, Berlin offers a rich terrain for sociological research (Bernt et al., 2013; Bisky, 2023; Ladd, 1998; Large, 2000).

Throughout the transition from the 19th to the 20th century, Berlin emerged not only as socio-cultural magnet but also as a critical epicentre of sociological inquiry, deeply influencing urban sociological paradigms (Lepenies, 1992). This prominence can be attributed to both its tangible urban transformation from being the centre of the Kingdom of Prussia to the hub of the German Empire and the vibrant intellectual environment it cultivated. Berlin thrived, became a modern city, and attracted intellectuals, artists, and activists from across Europe and elsewhere, drawn in by its dynamic blend of commerce, politics, and the arts (Frisby, 2001). The multifaceted dynamics of Berlin’s urban growth, ‘accompanied by a strong migration to the city’ (Lanz, 2013), offered an unparallelled case study, enabling scholars to discern and dissect the intricate complexities of urbanization. This busy environment was not overlooked by intellectuals such as Georg Simmel, whose influential work ‘The metropolis and mental life’ (1903) analysed the urban mentality, drawing on the energy of Berlin’s streets and cafés.

The industrial revolution, coupled with significant demographic shifts characterized by urban migration, meant that Berlin exhibited stark socio-spatial dichotomies. As early as 1846, Ernst Dronke’s groundbreaking social report provided an incisive and critical account of living conditions in Berlin, vividly depicting the harsh realities and hardships faced by the working class in the rapidly industrialising city. These spatial and social contrasts, manifested through the juxtaposition of the city’s modernist infrastructural developments against the backdrop of densely populated working-class quarters, provided fertile ground for sociological examinations. Berlin became a microcosm of the broader societal shifts underway across Europe. The inherent tensions between the burgeoning middle class, the aristocracy, and the working masses, each laying claim to spaces within the city, painted a vivid tableau of the challenges and opportunities posed by rapid urbanization (Clark, 2006).

Berlin’s intellectual significance was anchored in the bohemian art scene and in the city’s academic institutions. The modernist movement in art and culture in Berlin can be seen as a reaction to the social changes happening at the time. Key figures like Siegfried Kracauer, who critically analysed the cultural landscape of the Weimar Republic, and Benjamin (2019), with his illuminative interpretations of urban life and cultural forms, were deeply influenced by and contributed to this intellectual milieu (Frisby, 1986). The city’s culture was both a product of and a response to its rapid modernization. The Berlin University, now known as Humboldt University, was one of Europe’s leading educational institutions. The university not only shaped academic discourse within the city but attracted a cohort of scholars and thinkers from various disciplines, fostering interdisciplinary engagements. Simmel, whose work epitomizes early urban sociological thought, is exemplary in this regard, since he was notably influenced by Berlin’s multifarious urban phenomena (Frisby, 1986).

Wilhelm von Humboldt’s educational programme and the founding of the University of Berlin in 1809 had a wider impact on the German ideal of education, influencing the guiding ideals of culture and education of the early sociologists. It was in Berlin that Marx and Engels came into contact with the Young Hegelians, who would prove to be crucial to their development of historical materialism as a method. The folk psychologist Moritz Lazarus, who was central to Simmel’s sociology, taught in Berlin. Wilhelm Dilthey should also be mentioned here, since his thought influenced both George H. Mead and Karl Mannheim. Dilthey helped to launch a form of sociology in Germany that was shaped by historicism and the discussion of the humanities. Another feature unique to German sociology was the impulses from the ‘state sciences’, which were closely linked to the national economy. Here it was above all the economist Gustav Schmoller, who taught in Berlin from 1882, who helped to found the ‘social sciences’ in Germany. Schmoller and his historical-ethical economics in turn influenced Werner Sombart, Max and Alfred Weber, even though they opposed Schmoller’s position in the value judgement controversy. One result of this controversy was the founding of the German Sociological Association in Berlin in 1909 (Moebius, 2021a).

Since the beginnings of the discipline in Germany, Berlin has unquestionably been an academic centre of German and transnational sociology (Heilbron, 1995; Moebius, 2021a). Internationally networked and transnationally mobile sociologists of the most diverse nationalities have lived and worked here (students, research assistants, private lecturers and professors as well as sociologically active politicians, writers, etc.) (Kaes et al., 1994). Berlin served as the birthplace and home, travel destination, place of study and work, start and destination of academic work, immigration and emigration for numerous sociologists – many of whom are still widely known today whereas others have long since been forgotten (Frisby, 1986). In addition, of course, Berlin itself was part of two German states for decades, which also raises questions about a German-German sociology.

Beginning with the period after the First World War, Berlin’s complex identity can be understood through four distinct periods. The era of the Weimar Republic saw Berlin as a global centre for arts and progressive thought. Berlin in the 1920s was a hotspot of cultural, political, and social experimentation (Isherwood, 1939; Kirchheimer, 1961). The Weimar era, in particular, was marked by a cultural renaissance and the rise of modernism. However, this cosmopolitanism also coexisted with political unrest, culminating in the rise of Nazism, which marks the city’s second era (Evans, 2003). The Nazi era drastically changed the social and intellectual landscape in Berlin, as it did throughout Germany, Europe, and many parts of the world (Evans, 2003). During this time, countless intellectuals and artists were suppressed, expelled and, like so many other people who were persecuted for their beliefs, origins or political views, even murdered, which had a profound impact on the sociological and cultural fabric of the city (Evans, 2003; Friedlander, 1997; Grüttner and Kinas, 2007). The post-war era saw Berlin divided by the Wall, which became a symbol of Cold War tensions (Taylor, 2006). Each side of the Wall developed distinct urban and social characteristics, offering a unique sociological insight into the impact of political ideologies on urban life. And then there is the fourth era, which starts with the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989 and the subsequent reunification of Germany. This brought about a wave of urban and social transformations. Berlin’s re-emergence as a cosmopolitan hub and its struggles with memory and identity offer rich material for sociological exploration.

The first sociology chairs in Germany were established in Frankfurt and Cologne in 1919, soon followed by chairs in Berlin (Moebius, 2021b). Werner Sombart, Alfred Vierkandt, Kurt Breysig, Ernst Troeltsch, Frieda Wunderlich, Karl Dunkmann, Goetz Briefs and Richard Thurnwald were particularly active there in the interwar period (Moebius, 2021a). Also, sociologists, such as Theodor Geiger or René König, a central figure in the institutionalization and professionalization of sociology in West Germany after 1945, lived and worked for some time in the capital. Female pioneers of social work like Elisabeth Franzen-Hellersberg, Marie Baum or Alice Salomon should also be remembered (Hering and Waaldijk, 2003).

Then the rise of the Nazi regime transformed Berlin’s identity as a metropolis, from a vibrant centre of intellectual and cultural exchange to a city marked by totalitarian control, censorship, and a profound loss of its diverse and dynamic character. This period dealt a devastating blow to the field of sociology in Berlin and throughout Germany, leading to the suppression of critical sociological thought and the forced emigration or silencing of many prominent and even more non-prominent sociologists, fundamentally changing the academic landscape of the city, Germany, and Europe (Becker, 2014; Christ and Suderland, 2014; van Dyk and Schauer, 2014; Grüttner and Kinas, 2007; Holzhauser, 2015). For example, Frieda Wunderlich, one of the first female professors in Germany at the time and one of the sociologists featured in this special issue (see Golesorkhi et al.), was persecuted by the Nazis, as was Rose Laub Coser, who emigrated to the United States in the late 1930s (see Hönig in this issue). In response to the hostile environment and threat posed by the Nazi regime, Wunderlich fled Germany in 1933. She emigrated to the United States, where she continued her academic career. In the US, she became a founding member of the New School for Social Research in New York, an institution that became a refuge for many scholars displaced by the Nazis. At the New School, she made significant contributions, particularly in the fields of labour and social policy. Her experience is a poignant example of the intellectual exodus from Nazi Germany and the impact of the regime on academia.

After the Second World War, Otto Stammer and Hans-Joachim Lieber expanded sociology at the Free University (FU) Berlin, which had emerged from the ideological struggles of the Cold War. They were supported by assistants such as Renate Mayntz, Dieter Claessens, and Wolfgang Schluchter. In the German Democratic Republic (GDR), a Marxist-Leninist sociology prevailed for a long time (see Grüning in this issue). It was only in the 1980s that this was broken up, with feminist sociologists such as Hildegard Maria Nickel or Irene Dölling playing a significant role, influenced by Pierre Bourdieu, Symbolic Interactionism or structuralism. In 1991, the Berliner Journal für Soziologie (Berlin Journal of Sociology) was founded on the initiative of the East German Sociological Society. Hans-Peter Müller, who taught in Berlin, served as one of its editors for many years (Moebius, 2021a).

Especially after the fall of the Berlin Wall, the metropole once again became an intellectual hub in Germany. One of the internationally best-known sociologists from Berlin is Hans Joas, who has been teaching there since 1990. Younger sociologists from Berlin who are also internationally recognized for their work include Steffen Mau and Andreas Reckwitz.

Sociology’s engagement with Berlin was never confined to mere academic discussion. Beyond institutional boundaries, Berlin’s iconic venues such as the Romanisches Café, theatres and galleries provided fertile ground for interdisciplinarity, fusing art, politics and sociological thought (Gay, 1968). Such venues, along with other coffeehouses and salons, served as epicentres of critical debate, bohemian art and avant-garde thought. This intellectual fervour flourished against a backdrop of social dichotomies: the vibrancy of the Weimar Republic juxtaposed with the shadow of the rise of Nazism. Berlin’s distinctive historical arc, especially during the Weimar period, heightened its sociological significance. As a city at the nexus of its storied past and progressive visions, Berlin confronted a mixture of socio-political shifts, economic challenges, and cultural renaissances. Its cosmopolitan allure attracted a wide array of minds – from artists to political dissidents – making it a hotspot for sociological inquiry. After the Second World War, Berlin’s symbolism evolved to epitomize global Cold War divisions in the form of the Berlin Wall (Ladd, 1998), each side reflecting contrasting sociological trajectories (see Grüning in this special issue).

The academic contributions undertaken in Berlin soon emanated beyond its boundaries. Scholars from metropolises like Paris and London but also from other places in Europe and the world engaged with Berlin’s sociological discourses, either drawing upon or critiquing them, culminating in a comprehensive and robust urban sociological framework that bore Berlin’s distinctive imprint. Among others, Durkheim and his student Célestin Bouglé studied in Berlin. Woodbury Small also studied there, before founding the first sociology department in the USA and the American Journal of Sociology, propagating Simmel’s sociology. So too did Park (1904) when he wrote his dissertation on Masse und Publikum (Mass and Audience). And, as mentioned above, W.E.B. Du Bois also spent part of his studies in Berlin. Of course, this is just a snapshot of a much larger phenomenon; indeed, it is surprising to see how many early scholars in the history of sociology actually had some relationship with Berlin at some stage in their careers.

Berlin also paved the way for feminism and multiculturalism. Indeed, at the turn of the 20th century, the city became a hub for women’s rights movements (Evans, 1976). Women like Clara Zetkin, Rosa Luxemburg, and Frieda Wunderlich campaigned for gender equality and challenged social norms in Berlin’s vibrant urban environment (Frevert, 1989). While Zetkin and Luxemburg are often remembered for their political activism, Wunderlich’s significant contributions to economics and sociology, especially her work on social policy, added depth to the intellectual discourse on women’s roles and rights in society. In addition, Germany’s colonial aspirations manifested themselves in a diverse demographic that added new dimensions to the city’s social and cultural tapestry (Conrad, 2011). People from far-flung colonies grappled with issues of identity, race, and integration, while adding to Berlin’s intellectual and cultural richness. Feminist movements and non-Western perspectives, despite appearing separate, intersected in Berlin’s urban landscape. The challenges faced by non-Western women, resulting from their gender and cultural identities, demonstrated the complex nature of urban modernity. The accounts of these women, as well as other feminist and non-Western scholars, presented crucial critiques of established sociological ideas, leading to the emergence of fresh paradigms and perspectives.

To conclude, Berlin’s dynamic and diverse history, shaped by political turmoil, cultural upheavals, and continuous transformations, provides an unparallelled perspective for comprehending urbanism’s profound impact on classical sociological thought. Essentially, Berlin represented more than just a city; it embodied a concept, a meeting point for intellectual excellence, where renowned but also underrepresented voices cooperated to mould the framework of classical sociology. The multifaceted metropolis served as both a source of inspiration and a laboratory, cultivating a period of sociological research that retains its significance to this day.

As an anchoring point for our discussion, Berlin underscores the inextricable links between urban environments and sociological inquiry. Its tumultuous history, vibrant culture, and ongoing transformations encapsulate the broader themes of urbanism and modernity, serving as both a lens and a microcosm for sociological explorations, exemplars of which can be found in the following contributions to this special issue. In what follows, we will give a short overview of what the reader can expect.

Delving deeper: Introduction to the content of the special issue

With this special issue we want to contribute to the sociological-historical analysis of the metropolis as a transnational urban and social space for the production of classical sociological knowledge and as a promoter of sociology. We will consider protagonists from different intellectual traditions such as Georg Simmel, Robert E. Park, W.E.B. Du Bois and Frieda Wunderlich in their historical contexts, tracing some of them from Berlin to the United States. The contributors to this special issue address a variety of disciplinary perspectives, in particular the development of early urban sociology and feminist theory as a result of an engagement with the metropolis. Their case studies focus on examples of transnational scholars, traditional key thinkers and minorities, tracing not only the interactions of this diverse group but also their sociological thinking. The authors also focus on traditional theories of classical sociology as well as on previously neglected critical issues, particularly in urban sociology and feminist theory. It is in the metropolis, they argue, that the classical and the modern meet at the dawn of modern society, and this constellation influences and inspires sociology in crucial ways.

Hans-Peter Müller’s article ‘Strangeness as home: Georg Simmel in Berlin’, explores the fascinating life of Simmel. Often regarded as the founder of urban sociology, Simmel’s relationship to Berlin is both complex and deep. His sense of ‘foreignness as home’ underlines the duality with which many urban intellectuals struggle: to be part of their environment and yet to feel alienated from it. Such contradictions were the very fuel for Simmel’s exploration of modernity.

Meanwhile, Julian Müller’s article ‘Import and export of ideas: Georg Simmel in Chicago, George M. Beard in Berlin’, reminds us of the symbiotic relationship between Berlin and other urban centres, especially Chicago. The transatlantic exchange of ideas, as seen in Simmel’s influence on American sociology and his subsequent absorption of American thought, illustrates the global nature of sociological discourse.

While Simmel and Park undoubtedly enjoy the status of classics, in this special issue we also consider minorities such as women or scholars of colour in classical sociological thought and in the history of sociology. In doing so, we aim to rethink and disrupt the traditional notion of the classic. Historically, the metropolis of the 1920s opened up extraordinary opportunities for women. Using Frieda Wunderlich as an example, Lara-Zuzan Golesorkhi, Ellen M. Freeberg and Gina Walker, highlight the contributions of women sociologists from Berlin in various fields. ‘Feminist research and activism in Berlin’ offers an in-depth look at Wunderlich’s sociological work and its challenges and triumphs against the backdrop of Weimar era Berlin. Wunderlich’s story, seen in the context of other female intellectuals of her time, reveals the transformative role of women in shaping socio-political landscapes.

In American sociology, Reiland Rabaka’s ‘Embryonic intersectionality: W.E.B. Du Bois and the inauguration of intersectional sociology’ explores Du Bois’s seminal contributions, highlighting his unique perspective shaped by his experiences in the United States, but also by his time in Berlin. Through Du Bois, the article draws links between racial struggles in the United States and European sociological discourse and introduces Du Bois as a pioneer of intersectional sociology.

Moving forward in time, Barbara Hönig’s study of Rose Laub Coser, ‘Women of courage and the seedbed of autonomy in modernity’, continues the theme of Berlin’s influence on sociological thinkers. Coser’s life, shaped by her migrations and the influences of different metropolises, especially Berlin, leads to poignant insights into the complexities of roles, identity and modernity. Hönig introduces us to the influences of Simmel and the metropolis on Coser’s work and discusses her approach to a theory of the autonomy of courageous women, using the example of Jewish and Italian immigrant women in New York.

Back in Germany, after the end of the Second World War, Berlin underwent major changes and became a divided city, separating two German states. Finally, in ‘Marxist sociology in East Berlin (1949–1989): A field-spatial analysis’, we are introduced to the complexity of sociological practice in East Berlin during the Cold War era. The article highlights the rich tapestry of sociological thought, even under the constraints of a strictly regimented political system.

In summary, the authors analyse the influence of metropolises on the history and course of sociology against the background of different transnational constellations and at different times, using the historical case of Berlin.