This essay examines the growth of symbolic interactionism (SI) as a specialization in English-language Canadian sociology, 1922–1979. We do not focus on theoretical and/or methodological developments. Rather, we document three empirical indicators of the institutionalization of SI: faculty members hired, research published, and SI-receptive programs established. We find that Canadian sociologists institutionalized SI in two phases. From 1922 to 1959, SI institutionalized slowly. There were few SI “core” faculty and scarcely more “SI-accommodative” faculty. Little SI-based literature was published. McGill had Canada’s only SI-friendly program. After 1960, SI grew rapidly and, by 1979, was well institutionalized: over ninety SI and SI-accommodative faculty had been hired, SI literature (journal articles, textbooks) was commonplace. Many sociology departments offered an SI-accommodative program. Sometime in the 1980s, classical SI began to “de-institutionalize.” Ironically, as SI’s footprint grew and influence spread, it appeared to become less discernable, less coherent and less viable as a distinct and unified approach.

According to the conventional account of the history of English-Canadian sociology, the discipline was established in the 1920s at McGill, followed by developments at Dalhousie, Toronto and elsewhere. I dispute this account by documenting the substantial institutional footprint of so-called "social gospel" sociology in Canada's Protestant universities and religious colleges, 1889-1921: courses taught; faculty appointments made; programs established. Between 1889 and 1921, 28 men, many of them clerics, taught sociology for two years or more in one of Canada's English-language universities or Protestant denominational colleges. By 1921, 11 institutions offered sociology courses, 7 institutions had made a dedicated faculty appointment in sociology, and 8 institutions offered a program in sociology. In most cases, their teaching reflected the political -but not theological -principles of the social gospel. I argue that these men are the true pioneers of Canadian sociology and that we should rewrite the first chapter of Canadian sociology to give them their due.

Although struggle, domination, competition, and hierarchy were central concerns of Robert Park and the human ecologists during the 1920s and 1930s, they did not specifically set out to articulate a comprehensive theory of social inequality in their work. Indeed, the period of Chicago school dominance has been portrayed by some analysts as one during which sociologists for the most part ignored the study of social inequality. This article suggests, by contrast, that social inequality was a central focus of the human ecological perspective and outlines the basic assumptions, intellectual origins, components, structure, and logic of the classical ecological account of inequality.

No abstract