Cochran's Legacy: A Cultural Path Not Taken

David B. Sicilia •
Universityof Maryland

ThomasChildsCochran,todaynearlyaslong-livedasour century(he was

bornin 1902),is oneof itspreeminent
[Link] especially
truein thefield
of businesshistory,which owes to him much of its existenceas a legitimate
scholarly
[Link] a steadyoutpouring
of books(twenty-fiveauthored
or
co-authored,anotherfive jointly-edited)and academicarticlesandessays(fifty-
seven)that reflecta remarkablerangeof topicaland methodological diversity,
Cochranemergedas the first well-publishedand widely-recognizedacademic
business
historianof the postwarera.2 Along with an impressive
rosterof
specializedmonographs,Cochranwrote severalbroadly-gauged overviewsof
Americanbusiness
history,rangingfromtextbooktreatments
to sweepingworksof
synthesis.
3 Andheroseto thehighest
ranksof theprofession
aspresident
of the
EconomicHistoryAssociation,theOrganizationof AmericanHistorians,andthe
American Historical Association.
Yet Cochran'slegacyto datehasbeenperplexingly [Link] themost
part, academicbusiness historyfolloweda pathdifferentfrom the one trod by
[Link] life to the studyof business
asa socialandculturalphenomena, mostspecialists in ourfield havefollowedthe
lead of Alfred Chandler,with his focus on institutionalstructureand change,
especially
theevolution
of largeindustrial
corporations.
4 In spiteof thevolume,
scope,and qualityof Cochran'swork, his approachto businesshistorywas not
widely emulated.

•I wouldliketothankRichard
John,KenLipartito,DavidHounshell,
andMaryYeagerfor
their useful comments.

2Fora complete
bibliography
of Cochran's
worksupto 1983seeSharlin[48,pp.215-219].

3The1974editionof theHarvardGuidetoAmericanHistoryliststwenty-sixworksunder
the category"Business- General." None of authorslistedhad more thanone work except
Cochran,who hadfour [27, pp. 397-398].

4Onecrudemeasure
-- thenumber
of timesthepublications
bythetwomenhavebeencited
in socialscience
journalswhenbothwereactivebetween1966 and 1985-- showsCochran
with a stable averageof about fifteen to twenty per year, while the numberof times
Chandler's workis citedroughlydoubleseveryfive years,reaching841 in 1981-1985,or ten
times the rate for Cochran [46].

BUSINESS AND ECONOMIC HISTORY, Volume twenty-four,no. 1, Fall 1995.

Copyright¸1995 by the [Link] 0849-6825.

27
28

In thatsense,Cochran's
legacybringsto mindSherlockHolmes'observation
that one candeduceas muchfrom the dogthat doesn'tbark as from the onethat
does. But whereasHolmesusedsuchnon-events to solvecrimesand,ultimately,
affixingblame,my purposehereis to examinethe courseof ProfessorCochran's
careerfor whatit revealsabouttheculturalstudyof businesshistoryin theUnited
State sincethe SecondWorld War: its context,its inner dynamics,its leading
scholarsanddominantmethodologies.

Cochran the Synthesizer

ThomasCochran'sformativeyearswere markedby mobility,insecurity,

individualism,andeclecticinterests-- manyof thesamequalitieshe wouldportray
decadeslater, in Frontiersof Change,as prevalentamongthe opportunistic
Americansof early nineteenthcentury. He wasbornandraisedin the Brooklyn
Heightssectionof New York City. His fatherfailed in businessand becamea
[Link]' socio-economic positioneroded,forcingthem
at timesto [Link] school,butread
widelyandputin a stintat a localprivateacademy.
Heedinghisfather'swishes,CochranenteredNew York Universityin 1919,
but performedsporadically, spurningclassesto carousewith friendsandenjoy
sports,music,bridge(thesubjectof hisfirsttwobooks),[Link] collegehis
academicfocus shifted from naval architectureto chemicalengineeringto
theoreticalphysics,but thesescience-based endeavorsleft him uninspired. He
graduated with a doublemajorin [Link] 1923,he marriedand
accepteda graduateteachingassistantship at NYU, declininga similaroffer from
Princetonout of his loyaltyto New York. Two yearslater,he earnedan M.A. and
enteredthe Ph.D. programat the Universityof Pennsylvania[29, pp. 110-111].
Cochran's1930 dissertationwas a studyof "economicrelations"between
New York stateandtheConfederation -- mainlypatternsof finance,debt,andland
[Link] circumscribed conclusionswouldhavepleasedCharlesBeard. "The
movementfor theFederalConstitution wasprimarilya financialone,"he wrote,due
to security holders seekingthe repaymentof public debt and shaky state
governments. NeithertheRevolutionnortheConstitutionwroughtmuchsocialor
economicchange;largelandholders andmerchants retainedcontrol,and"therewas
nogreatgainin democracy."Here,in rudimentary form,couldbe seenan emphasis
on continuityover changeas well as a mutedcritiqueof vestedinterests,both to
figure prominentlyin Cochran'slater work [15, pp. 181-182].
CochranspenttheDepression decadeteaching, partying,remarrying(twice),
writing,and ruminatingaboutthe limitsof traditionalapproaches to American
history. Little of his writtenwork waspublished, for Cochranhelpedsupport
himselfby writingcompanyhistoriesusedinternallyfor tax litigation[29, p. 111;
47, p. 75]. But intellectuallyhe focusedin waysthatwouldshapehis longand
prolificcareer. By the late 1930she exhibitedstrongloyaltiesto threecritical
historicalapproaches: synthesis,businesshistory,and"socialscience" history.
Cochranwasfrustratedby the nationalpoliticalorientationthatdominated
thestudyof U.S. [Link] historiansperiodizedhistoryaround
wars, presidentialadministrations, sectionalstruggle,and othergrandnational
events. But Cochranhadbegunto readwithinothersocialsciences, particularly
sociology,wherehe foundan emphasison massgroupbehaviorandsocialnorms
 29

[29, p. 111; 18]. This methodological reorientation,in turn,drewCochranto the

studyof America'sprevailingactivity: business.
Cochranwasnot alonein hisinterestin a socialscienceapproachto history.
Duringthe interwaryears,a small cadreof historiansturnedto the socialsciences
in reactionto thematerialismandrelativismof Beard,Turner,andotherprogressive
[Link] Curti becamea centralfigurein the riseof this "New History,"
andinfluenced Cochrandirectlybyencouraging theyoungerscholarto presenthis
first AHA paper(in 1939) andto co-edita volumewith therevealingtitle War as
a SocialInstitution[29, pp. 111-112; 31, pp. 104-131;40, p. 180; 5, p. 134].
Cochran'sprewar interestin businesshistory,social sciencehistory,and
synthesis yieldedafterthe war two worksof enormousimportance-- probablythe
most influentialin his career. For yearsCochranstruggledto fashiona new
synthesis of nineteenth
andearlytwentiethcenturyAmericanhistorywith business
as its core. After he marriedRosamondBeebein 1937, "Ro" prevaileduponhim
to elicit the editorialhelp of William Miller, a Penngraduatestudentwho had
worked with Cochranat NYU. The result was The Age of Enterprise: A Social
History of Industrial America, which covered the nineteenthand twentieth
centuries."We havenotbeena peopleessentiallypolitical,literary,metaphysical,
or religious,"wrote CochranandMiller. "Our habitsandfolkwayshavenot been
formedonly by voting,reading,logic-chopping,or prayer. Our mannersare not
simply those of conventions,lyceums,schools,and churches. We have been
primarilya business people,andbusiness hasbeenmostimportantin ourlives"[29,
p. 111; 25, p. 2].
Cochran and Miller hoped to provide a synthesisat once fuller, more
engaging,and more valid than suggestedby simple economicexplanations.
Institutionsplayed a role in the story, but as shapersof America, the business
society. To be sure,theevolutionof the firm -- includingthe critical"separation
of ownership fromcontrol"thataccompanied theriseof big business,
emphasized
earlierby BerleandMeansandlaterby Chandler-- wereduly noted. But Cochran
and Miller devoted considerable attention to industrial laborers, urban dwellers,
social philosophers(especiallyHerbert Spencer),politicians,and commercial
farmers [25].
Comparedwiththenon-academic, hagiographic
businessbiographies of the
day or the "robberbaron"classicsby Josephson,
Allen, andtheir ilk, TheAge of
Enterprise was comprehensive,balanced,and synthetic[35, 1]. Even so, and in
spite of its missionto demonstratethe centralityof businessin the American
experience,the book was infusedwith populism. It portrayedcompanyowners
"stripped of control"by financiers andmanagers in a process
that"graduallydulled
the initiativeof erstwhileAmericanentrepreneurs" and "profoundlythreatened"
Americandemocracy. Cochranadmittedprivatelyto friendsthat he harbored
socialistsympathies [25, p. 202; 40, p. 325]. But he kepthisleft-leaningempathies
concealed in publicandrestrained in print-- althoughlesssoin thisbookthanin
later works.
The fruitfulness
of thebook'sculturalperspective canbe seenclearlyin his
treatment of industrial
labor. Whiletheriseof organizedlabor(like theriseof big
business) is treatedadequately,
the focusis on the natureof work [Link]
the Gilded Age, workerswere motivatedto organizenot merelyby "simple
questions of wagesandhours"butalsoby their"eroding feelingof selfimportance"
in the faceof sporadic,monotonous, anddangerous factorywork. Cochranand
30

Miller also considered the social conditions that hindered unionization such as
"geographical dispersion of theworkingforce,racialandlinguisticantagonisms,"
and even viewed the work experiencewithin the contextof worker'sleisure
activities[25, pp.231-235]. In theseways,theauthors' dedication to understanding
theworkers' plightledthemto raisequestions thatlaterwouldinspirea generation
of leadingNew Labor historianssuchas David Brody, HerbertGutman,David
Montgomery,andRoy Rosenswieg[4, 30, 39, 45].
The rise of big business staffedwith professional middlemanagers that
wouldform the centerpieceof Alfred Chandler'swork wasviewedin TheAge of
Enterprise in both economicand cultural terms. (In the burgeoningnew
bureaucracies "skilledjobs and minoradministrative positionswerereservedfor
native white Americans.") Cochran and Miller discussedthe significant
"economies" capturedthroughthegiantmergers,butalsohighlightedthe leverage
thatbusinessmen gainedin politicsandagainstlaboraswell as"thegrowingappeal
to businessmen of sheer'bigness' itself." Unfortunately, theystoppedshortof
closingtheloopby considering thewaysin whichprevailingsocialattitudesboth
nourished andimpingedthis"fetishfor monopoly"andthus,in turned,shapedfirm
and industrystructure[25, pp. 230, 189, 192].
Publication of TheAgeof Enterprise earnedCochrantenureandpromotion
andwiderecognition,andbroughthim into regularcontactwith otherscholarsin
thebuddingfield. Duringthewarhe beganto work closelywith ArthurCole, who
directedresearchin entrepreneurial historyat Harvardsupported by theRockefeller
[Link] a grantfromNYU's GraduateSchoolof Businessto
launcha business historyseriesby writinga historyof thePabstBrewingCompany.
He andCole sawthe projectasan opportunityto applysocialsciencemethodsto
the companyhistoryapproachexemplifiedby N. S. B. Gras of the Harvard
BusinessSchool. The Pabsthistory(1948) becamea modelfor the scholarly
corporatehistory,insightfulabouttheinnerworkingsof thefirm, andwell-situated
in [Link] because Cochranfelt constrained by censorship; because
it wasdifficultto writesynthesis throughthevehicleof thecorporate history;and
becauseof his abidinginterestin culturemore than institutions,he turnedaway
from the corporatehistorygenre[29, pp. l 11-112; 16; 40, p. 197].
Instead,Cochranformulatedambitiousplansto write an intellectualhistory
of the Americanbusinessman throughoutU.S. historythat encompassed ideason
businessas well as non-business matters. He securedfinancialsupportfor the
projectfromCole'sprojectin 1946,butonlyby limitingits scopesignificantly:to
railroadexecutivesbetween1840 and 1880. Cole had invitedCochranto join his
informalgroupof EastCoastentrepreneurial historians(institutionalized
in 1948
as the ResearchCenter for EntrepreneurialHistory). Accordingto the Center's
historianStephenSass,Cochranwas "themostpromisinghistorian"amongCole's
recruits[47, pp. 75, 78-79; 29, pp. 112-113].
Cochran'ssecondearly seminalwork, "The 'PresidentialSynthesis'in
AmericanHistory,"appearedin 1948. By criticizingthe dominantparadigms
"basedon the writingsof a smallgroupof culturalleaders,"and by calling for
greater concern with "the normal ideas of the average citizen," Cochran
foreshadowedthe emergenceof the New SocialHistory that would sweepthe
profession morethana generation later.
Cochranhopedto "builda socialsciencesynthesis" to replacethedefunct
[Link] time at Harvard would reinforceand deepenhis
 31

professionalcommitmentto the applicationof social sciencemethodologies,

especiallythoseborrowedfrom [Link] Cochranrevealinglyhad deemed
the"presidential
synthesis"
a failurewhen"judgedeitherby thecomplexof values
andstandards thatmaylooselybe referredto ashumanisticor by thoseof thesocial
sciences"[18]. As his publicreputationas a socialsciencehistoriancameinto
sharper
relief,Cochranalsofoundhimselfstruggling
with thekindof "humanistic"
sensibilitiesthat so animatedThe Age of Enterprise.

Cochran the Sociologist

Lookingbackon theeffortsof sociologically-minded U.S. historians during

theinterwaryears,RichardHofstadternotedin 1965 that"historianswere tryingto
writea kind of sociologicalhistorywithouthavinganysociologicalideas"[32, p.
8]. Cochranwasamongthefirst historians to embracenewly-emerging sociological
theoryin an attemptto solvethat dilemma. His frequentvisitsto Harvardhelped
Cochransharpenandcrystallizehis sociologicalapproachto the studyof business
[Link] wellspringof sociologicalthoughtin the 1930sand 1940s,
thankslargelyto thetoweringpresence of TalcottParsons;andsociology left a deep
andenduringmark on thestudyeconomicandbusiness history,in particular[28].
By drawingon aspectsof Parsoniansociologyto inform and shapehis studyof
railroadleaders,Cochranemergedasoneof the historicalprofession's mostvisible
practitionersof sociologicalhistory [32, p. 9; 31, p. 120]. But to understand
Cochran's legacy,we mustconsiderthespecificintellectualvein thathe tappedin
therich andvariegatedmine of Parsonianthought.
Talcott Parsons-- trained in economics,sociology,and philosophyand
influenced heavilyby Weberianthought--joined Harvard'seconomics department
in 1926, and helpedfoundthe university'ssociologydepartmentfive yearslater.
In hisfirst majorwork, The Structureof SocialAction(1937), Parsonsrelied on
socialscientificmodelsto explainculturalformation,persistence, [Link]
arguedthateconomicandpoliticalprocesses wereinextricablylinkedwith social
institutions,and presentedthe rudimentsof what would evolve into his highly
influential"actiontheory."
At the time Cochranjoined Cole'sCenter,Parsonswas in the midst of a
critical theoreticalshift. Parsonshad begun to articulate his theories of
functionalism,shiftinghis emphasistowarda morerelationaldefinitionof human
actionwithinsocialandculturalcontexts(includingpoliticsandeconomics).The
essentialbuildingblockof his analysisevolvedfrom the discreteactionto, as
Parsonsputit, the"actor-orientating-to-a-situation."
Socialroleswerecreatedand
definedby culture,andsanctioned by socialgroupsor institutionsandlaws[36, pp.
609-630]. Parsons,buildingon the worksof prominentEuropeanandAmerican
philosophers, sociologists,anthropologist,and behavioralscientists(including
Durkheim,Royce,Dewey, andJames),joineda growingrosterof academicswho
publishedon socialrole theoryin the 1940sand 1950s[3, pp. 6-9].
In 1949, Parsonspublishedhisfirst workon structuralfunctionalism(which
he soonexplicatedfully in hismagnumopus,TheSocialSystem)[41; 42; 36, pp.
621,627]. The sameyear,ThomasCochranpublished anessaycalled"Roleand
Sanctionin AmericanEntrepreneurial History"in a collectionof worksfrom Cole's
Center[44]. The essayexploredParsonian socialroletheoryasit mightapplyto
thestudyof businesscultureandentrepreneurship. Businessmen andothersactin
32

ways that "accordcloselywith the conceptions of the role held by peoplein

general,"explainedCochran."Thepatternof sanctions in anyculturemaybe seen
astheexpression of certainimplicitculturalthemes,or basicattitudes,
in interaction
with socialenvironment."Sanctions,bothinformal (internal) and formal (external
or codified)werea society's"anchorsof socialstability."
How to accountfor change,especially entrepreneurial
innovation?Cochran
emphasizedbehavior("innovatingacts")andenvironmentmorethanindividuals,
persistence [Link] Cochran,the studyof entrepreneurial history
entailed a searchfor "powerfuland tough... basicculturalthemes"and social
sanctions thatcreatedconditionsin whichAmericanentrepreneurship flourished.
As he identified them, sanctionsthat encouragedinnovationincludeda love of
efficiencyand technologicalprogress,the desirefor profit and personalwealth,
honestyandperseverance, andthepreferenceof practicalexperienceoverbook
learning; while the nation'sbasic cultural themesincluded individualism,self
determination, egalitarianism,
andwhathecalledthe"importance of theuseable"
andthe "importance of thephysicallyspectacular" [21].
This roster of themes and sanctions reveals another constant in Cochran's
intellectualcareer. In spiteof Cochran'sclaim that America'ssalientsanctionsand
themeshadchangedlittle sincethe [Link] identifiedbestdescribed
the preindustrialnation. Certainly "book learning,"for example,had gained
prominence in scienceandindustrywiththeriseof professionalism, expertise,and
institutionalR&D at theturnof [Link],throughout hiscareerCochran
wasmostat homein the historyof early America,when the machinestill stoodin
the garden. Taken as a whole,his work tells a storyof declensionand downfall,
whena systemof valuesandnormsthatfosteredeconomic
growthyetpreserved
freedomandegalitarianism
clashedwith the large-scaleinstitutionsthatemerged
out of wholesale industrialization.
Role theorywasonlyoneof severalapproaches exploredby thetheoretically
hungryscholars at Cole'[Link] differenttactby drawingon the
workof JosephSchumpeter, Parsons'formercolleaguein HarvardEconomicsand
by then the foremosttheoristof entrepreneurship.
WhereasCochranfocusedon
persistence andequilibrium,Schumpeter andhis followerssawentrepreneurs as
creativeandvisionaryindividualswho wroughteconomicgrowththrougha breed
of disequilibriumthattheMoravian-borneconomistcalled"creativedestruction"
[47, pp. 119-123, 156-161;38, pp. 371-392].
But Cochranwashardlyalonein [Link]'snewly-established
departmentof socialrelationswas attractingtalentedscholarsin sociologyand
relateddisciplines:
RobertMerton,oneof Parsons' prot•g•s,wasbeginning to make
important contributionsin referencegroups; and others at the Center for
EntrepreneurialHistory-- DavidLandes,JohnSawyer,SigmundDiamond,andthe
prominenteconomist LelandJenks-- wereapplyingvariationsof role theoryto their
work. Cochranmovedto the forefrontof that groupwhenhis studyof railroad
executivethoughtwaspublished in 1953[36, p. 619; 33, p. 356; 47, pp. 145-148,
174, 180-186]. In RailroadLeadersCochranappliedrole theoryrigorously-- more
sothananyworkof business historyeverwould-- to formulatethebook'squestions
and structure.
Basedon theanalysisof thousands
of lettersof sixty-oneEasternrailroad
executives,Railroad Leaderswas a singularstudyin the vast railroad history
literature. Cochranfoundremarkablecontinuitybetween1845 and 1880, when
 33

railroadexecutives remainedpreoccupied with growth,stability,andprofitsbut

showedrelativelylittle interestin organizational matters. Although"railroad
leaderswere,in effect,shapingnewrolesin a newinstitution," concluded Cochran,
thoseroleswere"largelyconditioned by existingAmericanculturepatterns."In
contrast,Jenksa decadeearlier and Chandlera decadehenceemphasizedthe
revolutionary characterof theAmericanrailroads,economically andmanagerially.
Cochran'srailroad leaders were conformists,conservativelycarrying early
nineteenth centuryvaluesintothe latecentury;Chandler's werethepioneersof a
new organizational age[20; 47, pp. 174-175;34; 6; 7, pp. 79-205].
RailroadLeadersalsobetrayedsomemethodological weaknesses. Except
when it cameto raisingand allocatingcapital,Cochranfoundlittle evidenceof
societalsanctioning (by thepublic,government,labor,competitors, andthe like).
Railroadleadersseemedto define their roles and sanctionsalmostsolely with
referenceto themselves. In addition,thestudywassomewhat formulaicin structure
andtone. Cochransomehowhadimbibedthequintessentially dynamicAmerican
railroadbusiness with a staticquality.
In thelate 1950sand 1960s,Parsonian sociologyevolvedin waysthatwere
increasingusefulto historiansof [Link]
in whichinstitutions andmanagerial organizationswereintegralcomponents. By
the middleof the 1960s,he had recasthis four-functionmodelin evolutionary
terms,makingit moregermaneto the studyof [Link]
othersdiscoveredin this work generalways to think aboutthe evolutionof
organizations,but sawno needto rigorouslyor explicitlyapplyParsonianmodels
in their work. Parsons also extended structural-functionalism further into the realms
of personality andculture[36, pp. 616-617,621-624;28, p. 33].
Meanwhile,socialrole theorywassufferingan identitycrisis. To be sure,
Merton and otherselaboratedreferencegrouptheorywith key conceptssuchas
comparative,normative,positive,[Link] the paceof
scholarlypublicationon role theorywanedin the 1960sas the field struggledto
defineitself. As a leadingauthority(oneof thefew remaining)admittedin 1979,
"to datetherehasbeenlittle formalizationin role theory. Severalcriticshavenoted
thatroletheorylacksan integrative,propositional structure"
[2, pp. 1, 13-17; 3, pp.
334-336].
Cochranneverfully abandoned roletheory,butnordid he employit asfully
[Link] 1955heacknowledged hisprofession'srecalcitrancetowardsocialscience
methodologies. "Theinclusion of historyasa full-fledgedcooperating memberof
the socialsciencegrouphasnot appealedto mosthistorians in theUnitedStates"
[quotedin 32, p. 9].
His shifttowardotherapproaches wasnot drivensimplyby professional
disillusionment. It also reflected his ambiguousintellectualand visceral
relationship withscientific-style
[Link] left-leaningscholarslike Cochran,the
rise of conformisttimesand"consensus" historiography afterthewar meant-- in
thewordsof hisclosefriendMerle Curti-- thearrivalof "darkandwintrytimes."
Like Curti and many others,Cochranwas "disinclinedto swim againstthe
overwhelmingcurrent."In a letterto Curti in 1951, he admittedhavingretreated
intoa socialscienceshell. "I guesswhatI've doneis buildanivorytowercalledthe
SocialScienceApproachto HistorywhereI canlive wrappedup in socialroles,
protected fromrealityby sanctions,basicpersonalitiesandculturalthemes"[quoted
in 40, p. 325].
34

Perhapsin an effort to resolvethis ambivalencetowardhis subject-- but

certainlyoutof hisceaselessexperimentalism andopportunism-- Cochranmoved
along. Anothersocialscienceawaited.

Cochran the Anthropologist

The year after Railroad Leadersappeared,Cochranwas offeredthe Pitt

Professorshipat Cambridge [Link] postpone
the appointment
in order to undertakea studyof PuertoRicanbusinesssponsored by the Social
ScienceResearch Centerat theUniversityof PuertoRico. Cochranwasintensely
interestedin using comparativestudyto help understandculture. Out of this
researchcame The Puerto Rican Businessman:A Studyin Cultural Changein
1959.
Onceagain,Cochranspurnedhard,easilymeasurable evidencein favor of
"lesstangibleelements."He foundthatPuertoRico'suniquesetof conditionsand
constraintsoftenstifledentrepreneurship
andproduceda form of "family-centered"
capitalismthatpersistedevenwith the transitionfrom agricultureto industry. But
Cochran tried his best to remain neutral about the course of Puerto Rican business
practices,refusingtojudgewhether"theyhavebeengoodor badfor PuertoRican
life." To that end, he againemployedsocialscienceresearchmethodssuchas
formal surveysand interviewsprotocols. And althoughhe exploredintriguing
questionsaboutpersonalityin socialcontextand aboutthe transferof business
practices fromthemainland, Cochrangarbedmanyof hisconclusions in stultifying
jargon. Comparedwith their mainlandcounterparts,he wrote, Puerto Rican
business eliteswere"moreinterestedin innerworthandjustificationby standards
of personalfeelingthantheyare in the opinionof peergroups"[19, pp. 16, 117-
118, 131,167-181].
On the heels of this Puerto Rican study, Cochran acceptedanother
opportunityto conduct cross-cultural
research in business
history,whenItalian-born
heavyindustrymagnate GuidoDi Tello invitedCochranto chroniclethehistoryof
his family'sArgentineanmanufacturing firm, S.I.A.M. Di Tella. Working with
Argentine-born Universityof Pennsylvania anthropologistRubenReina,Cochran
co-authored Entrepreneurship in ArgentineCulture(1962), oneof the first studies
by Americanscholars of [Link] authorstookpainsto steer
their readersawayfrom ethnocentrism with illuminatingcontextualpassages and
gentle admonitions. ("The natureof this bond many be baffling to North
Americans"[26, pp. 111, 170, 266].) Beyondthat, however,the studywas a
straightforwardbusinessbiography,with little to suggestthe applicationof
anthropologicalmethodologies. Still, these two studiesdeepenedCochran's
understanding of historicalcausality,convincinghim that apparentlyidentical
phenomenamighthavedistinctorigins,dependingon their culturalcontexts.

Apex: Cochran in the 1970s

Cochranreturnedto [Link],andits chief practitioner,

hadadvanced considerably sincethedaysof TheAgeof Enterprise,andCochran
aspiredto write anotherbroadly-conceived treatmentof businessandAmerican
culture. He agreeto contributeto a multi-volumeserieson U.S. business
history
launchedby McGraw-Hill in theearly 1960s. While thisambitiousprojecttook
 35

shape,hepublished severalshortersurveysof U.S. business andeconomichistory,

producedsomeeditedvolumes,servedas presidentof the EHA and OAH, and
turnedoutnumerous articles,someof [Link] also
enjoyedtwo stintsas a visitingscholarin England:thelong-delayedPitt visiting
professorship at Cambridge(1965-1966) and a distinguished lectureshipat St.
Anthony'sCollege,Oxford(1970). In 1968,Pennhonoredhim with an endowed
chair,theBenjamin FranklinProfessorship [29, p. 114;43, pp. 123-124;8 and24,
amongothers].
This enormously productiveperiodin Cochran's life reacheda climaxin
1972,theyearhe publishedhis new synthesis, retiredfrom Penn,andwaselected
presidentof [Link] in AmericanLife was
animpressive work,basedmainlyona hugenumberof secondary workson a broad
range of subjects. The mix of topicswas quintessential Cochran: thorough
coverageof managementand firms, but even more on governmentand law,
education,and-- thesubjecttreatedthemostthoroughly-- business andreligionin
Americanlife. CochrandividedAmericanhistoryinto four periods: Heritage,
1607-1775; Transition, 1775-1850; Industrialism,1850-1915; and Affluence, 1915-
1970. He chartedtheevolutionof Americanvalues,norms,andpractices asthey
were slowly transformedover theselong eras, first by early nineteenthcentury
industrialization,
thenby theriseof [Link] of thepassages on subjects
suchaschild-rearing practices,theimpactof Freudianpsychology, andreligious
doctrine as it related to businessare innovativeand insightful. And for the
uninitiatedreader,Businessand AmericanLife includesthoroughcoverageof
business practice,regulation,organizedlabor,andsimilartopics[9].
But its tentative quality makes Businessin American Life ultimately
unsatisfying as a scholarlywork. To be sure,partof the problemrestswith the
nature of the subject;when dealing with attitudes,values, beliefs, and even
practices,Cochranrightlyemphasized the "slowprocessof culturalchange."But
considerCochran'sdiscussionof the rise of rational,economically-instrumental
behaviorin antebellum [Link] beginswitha quotation fromMax Lerner,then
hints that we might agree with Lerner'scharacterization"withoutnecessarily
accepting Lerner'sprecisedates,"addingthatnewbehaviorsafter 1840"appeared
to manyobservers to be undermining theold agrarianorder... eventhoughno great
changeappearedto be takingplacein theunderlyingvaluesystem."Similarly,it
is not clear why Cochranchose 1915 as a turningpoint for the rise of "big
management" [9, p. 170]. This prevalentqualitypromptsthe readerof Business
and AmericanLife to ask two fundamentalquestions:When did changeoccur?
And what is the book'sthesis? (The contrastwith Chandler'sforcefully-argued
Visible
[Link]
other
questions,
butnever
these.)
Cochranwasnotsimilarlyrestrained in his 1972presidentialaddressbefore
theAmericanHistoricalAssociation,"HistoryandCulturalCrisis." Returningto
his early-careercritiqueof modernAmericanindustrialcapitalism,he soughtto
understand the currentculturalcrisisas a tensionbetweenmodern,hierarchically-
orderedinstitutions anddeeplyembeddeddemocraticvalues. These"largeand
highly impersonal... bureaucraticautocracies," he said, recentlyhad become
problematic in thefaceof newsocialconcerns(suchaspollution)andenduring
individualones(suchasthedesirefor "noneconomic"
fulfillmenton thejob) [ 14].
Here, at the peakof hiscareer,the seventy-year-old
erstwhilesocialistandhistorian
36

of businesswas in effect a spokesmanfor the counterculturalmovementin its

critiqueof big business.
For anotherdecade,Cochrancontinueto [Link]
he gravitatedtowardthe subjectshe understood bestandcaredfor most: early
industrialization,entrepreneurs, Americanvalues. His long associationwith
EleutherianMills-HagleyFoundation intensifiedin the 1970s,aidinga newround
of researchontheearlyindustrialization thatledto thepublication of Frontiersof
Changein 1981. In thisbook,Cochranlargelyovercametwo problemsthathad
weakened someof hisearlierwork: lackof forcefulargument,andisolationfrom
[Link] Frontiersof Change,Cochranputfortha "geo-cultural"
interpretation
to arguethatAmerican industrializationwasmoreindependent from
GreatBritain,cameearlier(by 1840),andwasmorecenteredin theMiddle Atlantic
than most scholarsbelieved. The key actors in the processwere "artisan-
entrepreneurs"who,because of theirculture,responded to "thepossibilities
opened
to them"in waysthatbroughtaboutthisearlyandrapidindustrialization. Thereis
an intenseoptimism,almostwhiggishness, aboutCochran's portrayalof thesego-
getters;Cochraneven interpretedhigh rates of businessfailure as a searchfor
opportunity,for instance. But most scholarswelcomedthe book as a useful,
concisetreatmentof an importantsubject. Finally, Cochranhad writtena book
abouthis heroes[13, [Link]. 13 and65].
Cochran's final bookwasan extendedessayof reflections,Challengesto
AmericanValues. In this evocativevolume-- inspiredby America'sdeclining
fortunesin the 1970sand 1980s -- Cochran's perennialoptimismis interspersed
withcautionary [Link] book'scentralthemeis thatAmerica'senduringvalues
had outlived their usefulnessin the face of late twentiethcenturyscienceand
[Link] longerwereeconomicindividualism andbusiness-government
antagonism appropriate [11]. WasCochranjoiningtheranksof thosewhocalled
for industrialpolicy and lookedtowarda new form of cooperativeAmerican
capitalism?Or washe acknowledging thatthe valuesystemhereveredsohighly
finallyhadsuccumbed? Onecannotbesure;in theend,theintriguingtensions and
contradictions between Thomas Cochran and his social context remained alive.

Thomas C. Cochran and Alfred D. Chandler, Jr., the dual founders of

academicbusiness historyin the UnitedStates,led somewhat parallelcareers.
(Chandleris youngerby sixteenyears.) Bothmenwereinfluencedheavilyby
Parsoniansociology, andparticipatedactivelyin theArthurCole'sResearch Center
for EntrepreneurialHistorybetween1948and 1958. Bothw•otebooksabout
aspectsof railroadhistoryand corporatehistoriesearly in their careers,and
publishedwhatwerearguablytheirgreatestworksof synthesis in the 1970s. Both
soughtto dispelthe "robberbaron"traditionin business history. Both held an
abidinginterest
in historyasa [Link],mostimportantly, both
dedicatedtheir long careersto the notion that businesshas been the central,
transformingfact in Americanhistory.
Beyond [Link],the differencesin the lives and
academic
workof thetwomenhavebeenstrikingandin largemeasure antithetical.
Cochran's
erodingmiddle-class
status
duringhisformativeyearscontrasted
sharply
withChandler's
patrician
upbringing.
Cochran'ssocialist
leaningshavenoapparent
 37

analogin Chandler;indeed,the aspectof industrializationthatCochranfoundmost

unsavory-- the rise of managerialbig business-- is preciselywhat Chandler
considersto be economichistory'[Link]'swork emphasized
persistenceand the evolutionary nature of social change, Chandler'sthe
revolutionary characterof institutional
[Link] scientismin the
practiceof history,yet focusedconsistentlyon humanisticquestions,even when
employingscientificmethodologies; Chandlerhasbeenscientificin his concerns
(with institutionaleconomicsratherthanvalues,equity,culture,and the like) and
useshistorical narrativeandquantitative datato [Link],
Cochran'scareer-longapproachhas been experimentaland eclectic,topically
(withinbusiness history)aswell asmethodologically (within thesocialsciences).
As Harold Sharlin noted in Cochran's festschrift, Cochran is best known for his
"separatelandmarkideas"ratherthana centralthesis[48; e.g. 10, 12, 17, 18]. In
contrast,ThomasMcCraw observedof Chandler:"thesalientaspectof Chandler's
boardcareerhasbeenhismaintenance of a sharpfocusin hiswork" [37, pp. 1-21].
Cochranhastheproverbialfox who "knowsmanythings,"Chandlerthe hedgehog
who "knowsonebig thing."
This kind of focuscan be usefulin a professionin whichreputationsare
[Link] Cochran's comparative
lackof influenceon business
historyrestspartlywith the natureof his subject. Ideas,values,aesthetics, and
otheraspectsof cultureon the humanisticsideof thedisciplinehaveprovento be
far more contentiousthan the "hard" facts and quantifiablephenomenaon its
scientificside. Too, culturalcontinuity-- Cochran's
bailiwick-- is intrinsicallyless
engagingthandramaticchange.
The largerhistoriographic trendsthat framedCochran'scareer-- especially
when it came to the place of scientific method in the profession-- were an
inhospitableenvironmentfor his ideas. Neoclassicaleconomistsemerged to
dominateeconomichistoryat a time whenCochranemphasizedthe salienceof
culture over the rationalismof the marketplace. At the sametime, sociological
methodologies [Link] theory,
althoughfailingto coalesceasa distinctdiscipline,contributedenduringconcepts
andmethodsto thesocialsciences andprovedto be usefulin thestudyof deviancy,
family,therapy,sex,learningandsocialization, [Link],it is
still usedregularlyby socialandculturalhistorianssuchas thosewho studythe
construction of [Link]'s relianceonsocialscienceapparatus(in part
to copewithhisambivalence towardhissubject),sappedvitality from someof his
work, and intrudedbetweenthe [Link] fallaciouslybelieved
that in historicalwriting narrativeand dramawere necessarilyantitheticalto
analysisandscience[22, p. 2; 23, pp. 348-359].
Instead,CochranmighthavefruitfullyengagedtheNew Left thatdominated
the historicalprofessionduringthepeakof [Link] theearly 1970s,"New
Labor" historians who shared Cochran's concern with culture, workers, and the
natureand control of work; "ethno-cultural"historianswho rose to the fore in U.S.
political historyduringthe 1970s;and early Americanistsworkingwithin the
"republicanism" paradigm-- all hadmuchto learnfromandteachthedistinguished
[Link] onlythecontextist
historiansof technologyat Hagleyseem
to havemademuchconnectionwith the distinguished scholar.
To be sure,there is a generationaldimensionto this story. As the first
academic business historian, Cochran was closer than his followers to the
38

muckrakers andprogressive historians

whofirstcommanded thesubject,closerto
theheartof socialism in [Link] romance withsociologyblossomed
duringParson's earlycareer,beforethegreatsociologist developed theevolutionary
andculturalmodelsthatmighthavebettersuitedCochran'swork.
In the introduction to Business in AmericanLife, Cochranobservedthat
political historylent itself more readily to "the writing of a coherentinternal
narrative" thanbusiness [Link],Chandlerprovedhim wrongwith
TheVisibleHand. (Andpoliticalhistorians haveyetto produceanequallycoherent
narrative.) But in the samepassage, Cochranalsonotedthat "theinstitutionsof
businessare inextricablyintertwinedwith their social environmentand can be
satisfactorilyinterpretedonly in relationsto otherinstitutions"[9, p. 2].
Therein lies our [Link] work of CochranandChandlerspeakto
halvesof the gianthistoricalpuzzle: institutionsand culture,firms andcontext.
Chandlerhasshownhow little we understood aboutthe internaldynamicsof the
firm whenCochranbeganhis career. Chandler'scontribution probablywasthe
properstartingpointfor our [Link] politicalhistoriansbegan
withpartiesandelectionsand movedoutwardtowardculture,and laborhistorians
beganwith unionsand strikesbeforeturningto "work, culture,and society"(to
borrowHerbertGutman'sphrase),business historyneededto beginwith the firm
[Link] nowwe needto turnoutward,towardcultureandcontext,and
to look for waysto fit togetherthe pieceshonedby ChandlerandCochran. The
fullest understanding will come only throughcombiningboth perspectives.I
suspectthat moreandmorebusiness historianswill follow Cochran'spathin the
future,andthathisgreatest legacywill bethequestions [Link] not,it is likely
our field will becomeincreasinglymarginalized,andneverfulfill Cochran'shope
thatbusiness serveasthe key to understanding theAmericanpast.

References

FrederickLewisAllen, The lairdsq/'Creation(New York, 1935).

BraceJ. Biddie,RoleTheory: Expectations, Identities,and Behaviors(New York, 1979).
andEdwinJ. Thomas,eds.,Role Theory: Conceptsand Research(New York,
1966).
David Brody,Steelworkers in America(New York, 1969).
David L. Carlton,"Merle E. Curti," in Clyde N. Wilson, ed., Twentieth-Century
American
Historians,vol. 17,Dictionaryof LiteraryBiography(Detroit,1983).
AlfredD. Chandler,Jr., "TheRailroads:Pioneersin ModemCorporate Management," Business
HistoryReview,34 (Spring1965): 16-40.
, The VisibleHand (Cambridge,MA, 1977).
8. ThomasC. Cochran,AmericanBusinessin the TwentiethCentury(Cambridge,MA, 1972).
9. , Businessin AmericanLi/k: A History(New York, 1972).
10. "The BusinessRevolution,"American Historical Review,79 (December 1974).
11. , Challengesto AmericanValues(New York, 1985).
12. __., "Did theCivil War RetardIndustrialization?"
Mississippi
ValleyHistoricalReview
(December 1961).
13. Frontiersq/'Change(New York, 1981).
14. , "HistoryandCulturalCrisis,"AmericanHistorical Review,78 (February1973).
15. New Yorkin the Con/kderation(Philadelphia,1932).
 39

16. , ThePabstBrewingCompany(New York, 1948).

1T __., "TheParadoxof AmericanEconomicGrowth,"Journal of AmericanHistory, 61
(March 1975).
18. __., "The'Presidential
Synthesis'
in AmericanHistory,"AmericanHistoricalReview,
53 (July 1948).
19. __., ThePuertoRicanBusinessman: A Studyin CulturalChange(Philadelphia,1959).
20. Railroad Leaders,1845-1890: The BusinessMind in Action(Cambridge,MA,
1953).
21. _,"RoleandSanctionin AmericanEntrepreneurial History,"reprintedin HughG.
J. Aitken,Explorationsin Enterprise(Cambridge,MA, 1965).
22. , SocialChangein America(New York, 1972).
23. "TheSocialSciences andthe Problemof HistoricalSynthesis,"reprintedin Fritz
Stern,ed., The Varietiesqf History: From Voltaireto thePresent(New York, 1956).
24. , Two Hundred YearsqfAmericanBusiness(New York, 1977).
25. andWilliam Miller, TheAge qfEnterprise(New York, [Link]., 1961).
26. andRubenE. Reina,Entrepreneurship in ArgentineCulture(Philadelphia,1963).
27. FrankFreidel,ed.,Harvard GuidetoAmericanHistory(Cambridge,MA, 1974).
28. LouisGalambos, "ParsonJanSociology andPost-Progressive
History"SocialScienceQuarterly,
50 (June 1969).
29. Steven P. Gietschier,"ThomasC. Cochran,"in Clyde N. Wilson, ed., Twentieth-Century
AmericanHistorians,vol. 17, Dictionaryqf LiteraryBiography(Detroit, 1983).
30. HerbertG. Gutman,Work,Cultureand Societyin IndustrializingAmerica(New York, 1976).
31. JohnHigham,History(EnglewoodCliffs, New Jersey,1965).
32. RichardHofstadter,
"HistoryandSociology in theUnitedStates,"
in SeymourMartin Lipsetand
RichardHofstadter,Sociology andHistory.'Methods(New York, 1968).
33. HerbertH. Hyman,"ReferenceGroups,"in DavidL. Sills,InternationalEncyclopedia •/'the
Social Sciences(New York, 1968), vol. 13.
34. Leland Jenks,"Railroadsas an EconomicForcein AmericanDevelopment,"
Journalof
EconomicHistory,4 (May 1944).
35. MatthewJosephson, The RobberBarons(New York, 1934).
36. MartinU. Martels,"TalcottParsons,"
in DavidL. Sills,ed.,InternationalEncyclopedia
qfthe
SocialSciences,BiographicalSupplement(New York, 1979), vol. 43.
37. ThomasK. McCraw, "Introduction:The IntellectualOdysseyof Alfred D. Chandler,Jr.," in
McCraw,ed., TheEssentialA!fi'edChandler(Boston,1988).
38. "Schumpeter Ascending,"TheAmericanScholar,60 (Summer1991).
39. David Montgomery,Workers'Controlin America(New York, 1979),
40. PeterNovick, TheNobleDream (Cambridge,England,1988).
41. TalcottParsons,
Essaysin Sociological
Theory:PureandApplied(New York, 1949).
42. TheSocialSystem(New York, 1951).
43. Jacues
CattellPress,ed.,DirectoryqfAmericanScholars,vol. 1, History(New York, 7thed.,
1978).
44. Research
CenterforEntrepreneurial
History,HarvardUniversity,
ChangeandtheEntrepreneur
(Cambridge,MA, 1949).
45. RoyA. Rosenzweig,
EightHours./brWhatWeWill (New York, 1983).
46. SocialSciencesCitationIndex (Philadelphia,1979...1986).
47. StevenA. Sass,Entrepreneurial
HistoriansandHistory(New York, 1986).
48. HaroldIssadoreSharlin,Business
andIts Environment(Westport,Connecticut,
1983).