Ryan, Debi, and Toren Cragun's Blog

Roof, Wade Clark, and William McKinney. 1987. American Mainline Religion: Its Changing Shape and Future. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.

Rating:
10

Summary:
The broad goal of this book is to explore the changes experienced by mainline religious groups. The authors are a bit schizophrenic in their use of “mainline.” Their first definition seems simple enough, “By mainline (or mainstream which is a frequently used synonym), we mean the dominant, culturally established faiths held by the majority of Americans” (p. 6). But they later change their definition to reflect a more nuanced understanding of the religious landscape of the 1980s, “What is meant by the term religious mainline? If mainline means anything it means a place in the center, but even that is not easy to define in today’s fluid religious context. “The ‘mainline’ or ‘mainstream’ of a phenomenon,” writes Richard John Neuhaus, “would seem to be that reality which requires little explanation. It is the obvious, the normative, the taken-for-granted. It is the standard of comparison against which the marginal, the fringe, the curious are all defined” (p. 73). In a sense the authors are forced to change their definition of the mainline to reflect the growth of conservative Protestantism that started in the 1970s; given its prominence, the second definition would increasingly be referring to conservative religious groups in the U.S. Despite recognizing the changing religious landscape, the authors continue to use their earlier definition of mainline, using the older religious traditions in the U.S. (Methodists, Episcopalians, Presbyterians, etc.) as their comparison groups.

The authors argue that mainline religions, those traditionally considered to belong to the WASP (white Anglo-Saxon Protestant) category, dominated the religious establishment throughout the nineteenth and much of the twentieth century, “For a hundred years or more, Americans made very little of pluralism; in self-perception if not in fact, the United States was a white country in which Protestant Christianity set the norms of religious observance and moral conduct. WASP influence shaped much of the public life. Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Jews, and blacks often experienced prejudice and discrimination at the hands of a religious majority that viewed its identity as the same as the nation’s. The dominant religious tradition provided the symbolism and mythology that shaped the nation’s folklore, literature, theater, art, and music” (p. 35). But the authors also find that the cultural dominance of the mainline religions is on the decline, with two categories increasing both their share of the U.S. religious market and their sway on its culture: secular individuals or religious nonaffiliates (or “religious nones”; see p. 170) and religious conservatives, particularly conservative Protestants.

These changes are attributed, at least in part, to the “new voluntarism” and religious pluralism that leads to a breakdown in plausibility structures that function to maintain religious belief and affiliation. Voluntarism is a key focus of the book and refers to, “greater choice in religious affiliation and the more privatized psychology of religious faith and identity, in keeping with the cultural mood of the sixties and seventies” (p. 9). The religious nones have benefited the most from voluntarism and pluralism as the undermining of plausibility structures leads toward a disillusionment from organized religion.

The breakdown of plausibility structures also helps explain the rise of conservative groups – they tend to develop stronger plausibility structures (support networks of both people and ideas) that help to maintain religious belief. As a result, they have positioned themselves well in the religious marketplace and have a compelling product to sell (regardless of whether you believe they are actually providing a tangible product or not).

The ultimate conclusion of the book is that the religious mainline in the U.S. is on the decline. It not only isn’t holding the center, which was its former bastion of strength, but is losing its long-time adherents as they age and die. What’s more, the elderly are not being replaced by the young. Individuals raised in mainline religions today are more likely to drop out of religion altogether or move toward more conservative religious belief. In short, the future of mainline religions in the U.S. is bleak (later research has confirmed these findings).

Review:
Anyone interested in the growth and decline of mainline religions up to the mid 1980s must read this book. It is well-written and on-target. The authors are clearly informed about their subject matter and present remarkable insights about the both the history and future of mainline religions.

The only problem I had with this book is that the authors tend to get a little wordy in their descriptions and explanations, which led my mind to wander at times. There are plenty of concrete examples and statistics in the book, but the occasional, longer-than-necessary tangent into the abstract makes the book a bit more boring than it needs to be. Other than this small, general problem, the book has everything going for it.

In addition to the general conclusions drawn from the text, the book makes a variety of very good points, some of which are worth noting here. For instance, the authors note that the percentage of United Statesians who are Protestants is on the decline (from 67% in 1952 to 57% in 1985). While that finding is not surprising on its own, the corresponding change in the Protestant mentality in the U.S. as noted by Herberg is interesting, “Protestantism in America today presents the anomaly of a strong majority group with a growing minority consciousness” (p. 15). As anyone who follows the religious right can attest, this politically powerful block of voters are keen to claim they are picked on and shunned, when in fact Protestantism in the U.S. remains the dominant religious group. The “victim” mentality, while effective in gaining attention and media exposure, is a ruse and should be seen for what it is – a ploy to increase political influence and power. Protestantism may be a shrinking religious body in the U.S., but it is still the 600 lb. gorilla among chimps (well, Catholicism is now about a 500 lb. gorilla).

Another interesting point worth noting here is the contrast between nonaffiliates and individuals who are the most likely to be religious, “Studies show that the “unchurched” are disproportionately young, male, white, well educated, nonsouthern, and frequent movers. They are less conformist on social issues and cultural attitudes and far more tolerant and open to change. In profile characteristics they are the mirror image of those who are the most religiously committed—older persons, females, blacks, the lesser educated, southerners, and the geographically stable. So striking are the contrasts that the possibility of a growing cleavage between religious and secular America appeared more likely during the 1970s than at any time in the past quarter century” (p. 17). While I don’t think anyone should find it surprising that these two groups of people are extremely distinct, I do think many of the implications that can be drawn from this finding are interesting. For instance, if you look toward the specific congregations that are growing today, the “mega-churches,” it’s not hard to see where they are targeting their marketing efforts – toward those who fit the profile of the nonaffiliates rather than those who are traditionally religious. Additionally, and I find this point particularly interesting, many of the values embodied in U.S. culture are actually those seen in the nonaffiliates – young, educated, successful, mobile, tolerant (well, kind of). The fact that those values are prized in U.S. culture but the U.S. remains highly religious is an intriguing contrast.

An extension of the previous point is hinted at in the book, but not pushed toward its ultimate implication, “Among the religious communities there are disparities in age structures, some being more lopsided than others… Affiliates of all faiths are older than nonaffiliates; Jews are older than both Protestants and Catholics; Protestants are older than Catholics. Within Protestantism there are some striking differences: white Protestants are older than black Protestants, and liberal Protestants are older than conservative Protestants” (p. 153). What the authors imply but do not state outright is that the growing and vibrant religious groups (including religious nones) also tend to the be youngest ones (in terms of the age of the adherents and not necessarily in terms of the ages of the religions themselves). Certainly youth plays a part in that, but it also seems to tie into the marketing strategies of the religious groups who are growing (mega-churches and conservative bodies; there is no marketing strategy for religious disaffiliation, at least not a concerted one). While the authors may not have wanted to push their findings to include this assertion, I find the possibility of such a connection fascinating.

Overall, this is a well-written (if occasionally boring) book that is well worth reading for anyone with an interest in mainline religions, their history, and their future. The findings of the book point toward an increasingly bleak future for the religious bodies that at one time dominated the religious landscape in the U.S. Barring substantial changes and revitalizing efforts within their ranks, the future of the mainline is decline, obsolescence, and ultimately demise.

Goffman, Erving. 1986. Stigma: Notes on the Management of Spoiled Identity. Touchstone.

Rating:
8

Summary:
Insightful, but not particularly groundbreaking

The book is basically an application of Meadian Symbolic Interactionism to the phenomenon of stigma. Stigma are defined by Goffman as, “…the situation of the individual who is disqualified from full social acceptance” (preface).

The basic point made is that stigma are not physical attributes or characteristics but social ones, “…stigma involves not so much a set of concrete individuals who can be separated into two piles, the stigmatized and the normal, as a pervasive two-role social process in which every individual participates in both roles, at least in some connections and in some phases of life. The normal and the stigmatized are not persons but rather perspectives. These are generated in social situations during mixed contacts by virtue of the unrealized norms that are likely to play upon the encounter” (pp. 137-138).

An additional point made by Goffman surrounds the adoption of a stigmatized personality. Goffman argues that there are two phases in the learning process of stigmatized individuals: (1) learning the normal point of view and that he/she is disqualified from it; (2) learning to pass or get along in society in such a fashion that he/she either entirely conceals the stigmatic characteristic or minimizes it to alleviate the discomfort it brings to all involved parties (both normal and stigmatized) in social situations (see quote from p. 80).

Goffman follows this point with the argument that ‘normals’ really do not understand the plight of the stigmatized, primarily because they place stigmatized individuals into a bind: they force them to recognize their difference yet expect them to act as though it does not exist, should not exist, and/or can be ignored. The result is nothing short of cognitive dissonance for the stigmatized individual – they can’t deny they belong to the ‘stigmatized’ group, yet they are forced to try to conform to the ‘normals’ group.

Review:
Anyone who has studied role theory or symbolic interactionism will find the contents of this book familiar. The application of Symbolic Interactionism to stigma in such a forthright analysis like that presented in this book was, in all likelihood, novel at the time, but it would not be seen as groundbreaking today. Generally speaking, the application of a theory to a phenomenon that does not advance the theory – either through proof or disproof – would seldom result in publication in modern academia.

But by criticizing Goffman on this front I don’t mean to demean his work. The book is well-written, clear, and insightful and, apart from the lack of novelty, is an informative work on the social nature of stigma. While I don’t claim any expertise on social stigma or the study of characteristics that somehow result in differential treatment, I would guess that this book, like many of Goffman’s other books (e.g., Asylums), is simultaneously the apogee of previous work and the primary or seminal source for all work following this book. If you plan on studying stigma, you’ll have to read this book.

I do have two additional criticisms of the book. First, while it is undoubtedly written from a Symbolic Interactionist perspective, there is also a hint of structural-functionalism. This comes across at times as Goffman seems to indicate that stigma are a ‘necessary’ component of society. While they, like some form of religious belief, have likely existed in all known human societies, this does not mean that stigma are necessary. Though undoubtedly utopian, it is not too much of a stretch to imagine a society where stigma causing characteristics are socially deconstructed and therefore do not result in differential treatment. It may not ever happen, nor happen for generations, but it is feasible.

The second problem I had reading Stigma was that Goffman seems to be using secondary sources throughout the book for his insights. Goffman does not seem to have conducted any empirical investigation into the issue (e.g., interviewing maimed or deformed individuals who are socially stigmatized, etc.). Instead, Goffman relies heavily on autobiographies of stigmatized individuals and previous sociological and psychological research in this area. While the result remains informative and presents a coherent accumulation of the then known understanding, the arguments and claims would have been bolstered had they been situated in novel empirical findings.

Overall, students of stigmata and students of symbolic interactionism will find this book an invaluable reference.

Hoge, Dean R. 1981. Converts, Dropouts, Returnees: A Study of Religious Change Among Catholics. New York: Pilgrim Press.

Rating:
7

Summary:
The book reports the findings of a study conducted in the late 1970s and early 1980s that was sponsored by the National Conference of Catholic Bishops Committee on Evangelization. The goal of the study was to explore why and how people convert to and leave the Catholic Church. In addition to looking at converts and dropouts, the research project interviewed “returnees,” or people who returned to active participation in the religion after a period of inactivity. The book begins by explaining how each of these categories was defined for the study:

CATHOLIC – anyone baptized as one; people who attend but are not baptized are not Catholics
ACTIVE – attended mass twice in the past year apart from holidays and celebrations
INACTIVE – did not attend mass at least two times in the past year apart from holidays and celebrations
DROUPOUT – someone who changed from active to inactive in the past three years
RETURNEE – someone who changed from inactive to active in the past three years

To explore the experiences of these people, the author, with the assistance of a number of researchers, interviewed roughly 600 people, 200 from each category from a variety of locations in the United States. The author is quick to point out that there are some likely biases in the study due to the response rates for the given categories. One group was particularly unwilling to participate – young dropouts in their late teens or early twenties (close to 50% refused to participate). That this group was less likely to participate likely indicates the information on that group is even less representative than the information from the other groups. The author notes that, while he tried to develop a representative sample of Catholics that fall into these groups, he does not claim to have achieved anything close to a perfect random sample, though it is likely the findings from this study can be generalized to their corresponding populations.

As the author breaks the findings down by category, I’ll do the same:

Converts -
Hoge presents data on gender breakdowns in his samples tentatively, as the samples are very likely not representative. Even so, he found that 60% of converts were female, 85% were white (10% were black), and that most converts are young adults. Interestingly, the number of black converts to Catholicism had dropped off substantially at the time of the study, a trend the author attributes to a declining penetration of Catholic schools in black neighborhoods and stronger black churches. Most Catholic converts are the result of relationships, primarily through intermarriages (i.e., a non-Catholic marries a Catholic and converts). Most people who convert to Catholicism belonged to a different Christian religion (almost none came from a secular background; see Bibby and Brinkerhoff). Most converts reported positive changes in their family life and personal outlook on life as a result of their conversion. Most participated in their local parish for a while before converting. Many reported changes in personal habits as a result of their conversion (e.g., reduced smoking, drinking, etc.). Few reported changes in their friendships and most attended mass weekly. Many were active in other Catholic groups (e.g., Bible studies) and most said that religion was important in their lives. Finally, most Catholic converts more closely adhered to Catholic teachings – with the exception of abortion – than did life-long Catholics.

Hoge broke the group of converts he interviewed down into three categories based upon the reasons they gave for converting: (1) intermarriage, which was by far the largest reason; (2) family life converts, who had children that were being raised Catholic; and (3) seekers, who were looking for some form of spirituality or looking to have spiritual needs met. Hoge also used a modified Lofland and Stark model for explaining what led these people to convert to Catholicism, “For an understanding of religious change among Catholics, a simplified process model based on Lofland appears most accurate and most useful. It is a flow chart showing three conditions, or decision points, in the process of becoming a Catholic convert. The first condition is that the potential convert have a Christian world view. Past research indicates that few persons who do not have this world view become members of Christian groups. The second is that the person have a felt need, at least minimally, inducing him or her to take Catholic teaching seriously or to participate in a Mass or a group activity… The third condition is a summary of the facilitating relationships and lack of competing relationships discussed by all theorists” (p. 16-18).

Dropouts -
Dropouts from Catholicism also tended to be young and, as noted above, were much less willing to talk to the researchers involved in the study. Many felt the researchers would try to encourage them to return to active participation (a concern that was mostly, but not entirely unfounded). According to Hoge, some of the dropouts felt guilty for having left. Many attended church regularly while growing up and many thought their parents had pressured them to attend too strongly. The strongest reason given for leaving was dissatisfaction with the Catholic Church, though a close second, according to Hoge, was family or interpersonal problems (e.g., teen rebellion). Most experienced increased tension in their family as a result of dropping out, but they also reported more positive outlooks on life and even positive life changes (e.g., reduced smoking, drinking, etc.). Most also changed their friends and many reported that religion was not particularly important in their lives. It is interesting to note that while, “Intermarriage between Catholics and Protestants is the greatest single source of new Catholic converts, it is also the greatest single source of disidentification from Catholicism” (p. 72).

Similar to what he did with converts, Hoge grouped the dropouts into five categories: (1) family-tension dropouts, who left for interpersonal relationship reasons; (2) weary dropouts, who left because they were bored with the religion; (3) life-style dropouts, who left because they were doing things in their personal lives that made them feel guilty attending mass; (4) spiritual-need dropouts, who said the Catholic Church did not meet their personal needs; and (5) anti-change dropouts who left as a result of the relatively progressive changes resulting from Vatican II. Hoge concludes that, “Dropping out by teenagers is so common nowadays that some religious educators wonder if it should not be seen as normal and expected” (p. 84). He certainly isn’t encouraging it, but he is recognizing that it is very common.

Returnees -
Returnees also tended to be young, most returning before the age of 30. They are similar to converts in a lot of ways. Many return for their children and to ensure that they receive a religious education. Some return seeking spiritual fulfillment. Most have had lots of religious training while growing up. Many are in intermarriages to non-Catholics and have kids. They often report that they left because they were bored, but report being more happy as a result of their return.

Hoge also develops a typology of returnees, developing four groups: (1) marriage life returnees, who return as a result of intermarriages; (2) family life returnees, who return for their kids; (3) guilt-feeling returnees who return because they feel guilty for having left; and (4) seekers, who feel a spiritual need. One important point to make regarding all of these typologies is that the categories are not mutually exclusive. In most cases people reported multiple motivations that led them to return. I point this out here because Hoge makes a special point of noting that for returnees it was very common for them to report both motivations 2 and 4 (or 1 and 4). Finally, the number of returnees is unknown, but it is less than the number of dropouts, as there are a significant number of people dropping out of religious life. Hoge mentions that another researcher, Roozen (1980), found that about half of dropouts return at a later point, meaning half never return. This does not mean they don’t join another religion, as many dropouts do (meaning they are technically switchers and not dropouts), but a significant number do give up religious life altogether.

Review:
There are a number of reasons to like this book. First, it is pretty up front about its biases, though it does tend to subtly place them in the text in surprising places (more on this below). Even so, it does not hide the fact that the study was sponsored by a religious group and that the goal of the group is to facilitate both member retention and growth. The final two chapters are explicitly application oriented, meaning they tie the findings of the study into Catholic practice and make recommendations for Priests and Catholics based on the findings. The last chapter is actually written by a Catholic Bishop who also outlines the goals of the National Conference of Bishops regarding conversion and retention. So, while the book has specific, non-objective goals, it is up front about what they are.

The other thing I really like about this book is that it does not try to overgeneralize from its findings. It is quick to point out its failings and biases and limits the generalizability as a result. The author doesn’t hide that there were problems getting people to participate and that those problems were specific to certain groups. He also doesn’t claim that the sample is random and representative, even though it is likely pretty representative of these populations.

Finally, I think the book is generally very informative. It includes an introductory chapter on the history of Catholicism in the U.S. – emphasizing changes in the 1950s and 1960s – that situates the findings in a historical and sociological context. Also, despite not attempting any particularly complicated analyses, the book draws on a lot of resources to present a pretty clear picture of the state of Catholic growth and decline in the early 1980s. Two findings in this vein are worth mentioning. First, Hoge notes that the number of conversions per 1,000 Catholics in the U.S. has declined since 1950. In 1950 it was 4.3 per 1,000, in 1979 that number had dropped to 1.6. That is a very low rate of conversion. Unfortunately, no corresponding statistics are given for the number dropping out, but that data would be very difficult to put together. The author also notes the breakdown of Catholics by ethnicity, something I found particularly intriguing, “The largest group is probably the Hispanics, comprising about 20% to 25% (although this is only a guess), followed by the Italians, making up about 18%. The Irish are about 15% and the Germans are about 14%. The Polish are about 10% and the French (including French Canadians) about 9%. Finally, the English are about 3%, the blacks about 2%, and a11 others about 6%” (p. 25). I wasn’t aware that even in the 1980s Hispanics made up the majority of Catholics in the U.S. I find that very interesting.

There are two problems with the book, both related to the inherent biases of writing this book with the agenda of supporting the Catholic cause. The first is the periodic display of bias, especially when the book recounts the stories of individuals who have left the religion. In the chapters where he develops his typologies, Hoge also provides excerpts from the interviews that illustrate the different categories. After one example of a dropout who had left as a result of engaging in “immoral” behavior (she had an affair with a married man), Hoge says the following, “She would be helped by a trusting relationship with a spiritual adviser or counselor. Even our interviewer for this study helped her gain insight during a single interview. If somehow she could be reconciled with the church, it would be an occasion of great joy” (p. 116). I don’t disagree that the interviewee seemed to be distraught as a result of her affair, but there are other means of resolving those problems, including irreligious, secular therapists who can help people work through issues. Again, the author is upfront about his biases, but sometimes they are dropped into the otherwise objective discussion when it does not seem appropriate.

The second problem I had with the book is that it didn’t make a point that I think is a more general failing of the literature on religious apostates. You may or may not have noticed that in the descriptions given of each category of people investigated in this study – converts, dropouts, and returnees – every group reported that they had a more positive outlook on life as a result of their decision. It is often argued that dropouts are less happy than religious people. While there is no way to do a direct comparison in this study – the interviewers did not employ a scale – it seems pretty clear to me that, despite the questions being subject to respondent bias and the employment of vague questions, all the groups report that they are happy as a result of their decisions. That would seem to indicate that dropping out does not necessarily result in decreased happiness. Given the abundance of publications arguing that is the case, it would have been nice to see Hoge make mention of this fact.

Overall, this is a pretty good book and is likely a very good resource for Catholic practitioners (i.e., Priests, missionaries, nuns, lay leaders, etc.) who are interested in boosting member retention or in activating members who have slipped into inactivity. Academics who are interested in the topics of conversion, dropping out, and returning will also likely find this book informative, though the information is clearly dated at this point and the author explores very little new theoretical ground. Even so, the book is a quick and engaging read and is worth picking up.

Wilson, William J. 1980. The Declining Significance of Race: Blacks and Changing American Institutions. 2nd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Rating:
8

Summary:
Makes a good point, but you have to read the book close to tease it out

The primary gist of the book is, best outlined in the postscript that was included in the second edition (1980) of the book, “Even if all current discrimination were eliminated, the differences in the economic resources of blacks and whites would persist for years until the effects of past racial oppression disappear. Thus, when I speak of the declining significance of race, I am neither ignoring the legacy of previous discrimination nor am I arguing that racial discrimination no longer exists. I am referring to the relative role race plays in determining black life chances in the modern industrial period–in other words, the changing impact of race in the economic sector and, in particular, the changing importance of race versus class for mobility opportunities” (p. 167).

Let me see if I can further elucidate this point, as I think the basic argument of the book is commonly misunderstood. What the author is saying is not that race is no longer important but that a better understanding of the class structure of blacks is now what is needed in order to continue to help blacks. The author outlines a class structure specific to blacks (as opposed to the commonly referenced general class structure in the U.S.) that is polarizing: there is a growing distinction between black educated professionals and the black urban poor living in ghettoes. The point the author is making is that efforts to help blacks as a race (e.g., affirmative action) are primarily benefiting the educated professionals while the urban poor are being overlooked entirely. The author is not claiming that race no longer matters but rather is saying that if we are going to do something about inequality in America today we need to begin looking past race and focus on poverty, which disproportionately affects blacks, but also affects many other groups, all of whom need help.

How the author goes about building his argument is outlined in the quote from pages xi and xii below.

Review:
I think I need to explain, to begin with, the expectations I had of this book before reading it. This book, and the position of the author, was often referenced in a course I took on race and health. The instructor of the course seemed to indicate that the book made a very strong case that race no longer mattered in the U.S. and that class accounted for racial differences. While William Julius Wilson seems to be headed somewhat in that direction, after having finally gone to the source and examined the book, I think his book is misconstrued by many sociologists as indicating something that it never intended to indicate. Basically, the book is a very ‘toned-down’ version of that argument. It does not say that race is unimportant, it simply says that if we want to address race issues in the U.S. today, we are implementing policies that disproportionately benefit those who are already doing well – black educated professionals – and are over-looking the blacks who really need help – the urban poor. In making this argument, the author, almost in passing, groups the black poor with all the poor (race and ethnicity aside) in his attempt to reorient policy makers as to the real problem in America today – poverty!

Thus, while the misconstrued notion is seemingly related to the actual argument of the book, I think a closer reading of the text by those who use it so commonly in their courses, research, and conversations would reveal that the author is not making an ‘anti-black’ argument but rather a ‘let’s do something about poverty’ argument that overlooks racial and ethnic boundaries. When the author’s real argument is understood, I can’t help but admit that I agree with his point 100%. That said, let me move on to some of the criticisms I have of the book.

On a purely literary note, the book is not very clear, often repetitive, and has a tendency to get off topic and roam on unrelated tangents. If the author had stuck more closely to his arguments and the primary thesis, not only would it have made for more engaging reading but it may have prevented the necessity for including an entire chapter to explain the book in the second edition. Interestingly, the postscript is a good example of the benefits of criticism – the postscript is the clearest and most lucid part of the book. The postscript seems to illustrate that there is very little as effective as criticism for getting an author to clarify his/her argument.

As far as the author’s theoretical analysis, I have several criticisms. First, I’m not really sure why the author feels it is necessary to claim he is creating a class structure specific to blacks. Despite his claims, he proceeds to use the existing class model of the U.S. (i.e., lower, middle, and upper classes) for blacks. Perhaps the author felt that by illustrating how blacks are fanning out and even polarizing in the class structure that he was in some way moving beyond traditional understandings of class, but in the end I was left with the impression that his discussion of class structure could have been tremendously simplified if he had just said, ‘Blacks are spreading out over the traditional U.S. class structures, but they seem to be pooling primarily in two places – on the very lowest rung and near the upper-middle class.’ That is really the gist of his argument.

Another theoretical point the author tries to develop is that there is a difference between sociopolitical and economic racism. The author argues that in the past blacks suffered primarily from forms of economic racism (they did not control the means of production and, in fact, didn’t even control their labor), but now, the author argues, the racism blacks suffer is primarily sociopolitical in form – they are not in power politically and live in segregated sections of cities. I won’t disagree that the forms of racism have changed over time, but I’m not sure that this distinction adds additional understanding and, in fact, it may actually cloud understanding. Where one lives and political power are both based on economic power (as much as I hate to admit that money rules our lives, it certainly seems to be the case). Given this fact, sociopolitical racism is, at very best, a disguised form of economic racism. Thus, to draw distinctions between the two isn’t necessarily informative and may actually be misleading.

Despite my minor theoretical disagreements with the author, I should point out that the book is also informative. The author presents some very interesting information (primarily historical in nature) on racism during the 18th and 19th centuries, like the fact that in the Southern U.S. cities and towns were not segregated (to prevent blacks from building a power base). This discussion ultimately led to the author illustrating how the white, slave-holding class in the South worked to keep the poor whites and blacks down. Whether this was intentional or simply the wranglings of a group that wanted to maintain their wealth and power is uncertain (though Wilson seems to depict it as intentional), but it certainly does not present the wealthy whites of the Southern U.S. in the 18th and 19th centuries in a positive light.

Overall, though I’m a bit hesitant to admit it due to the lack of clarity in developing his argument, I will admit that I can see why this book deserves its place as a classic sociological work. By refocusing policy and research toward the real disparity in the U.S. – poverty – Wilson has made a solid contribution to both sociology as an impactful science and to humanity.

Lindblom, Charles E. 1979. Usable Knowledge: Social Science and Social Problem Solving. Yale University Press.

Rating:
4

Summary:
This book was written by a couple of Yale social science professors who interested in applied social research. The book is relatively short, coming in at just under 100 pages. The basic idea is to raise some issues about the practicality of what they call Professional Social Inquiry (or PSI), which is just another term for social science in all its flavors – sociology, psychology, economics, political science, etc. In particular, they are interested in applied social science, which includes things like policy research. Several of the points they make are interesting, but much of the book is spent just defining what they mean by PSI and what their definition includes.

I found one of their major points intriguing. The authors point out that a significant problem with PSI is that it is “destined for steady obsolescence” (p. 52) because society and social problems are constantly changing. This is both good and bad for PSI. It’s good in that PSI is constantly necessary – the phenomena it examines is constantly evolving, meaning the theories, methods, and data need updating. It’s bad in that, unlike the hard sciences, it is very difficult to develop over-arching theories of social life because social life is constantly under flux. As a result, PSI is not, as the authors describe it, “independently authoritative.” PSI relies on common sense and common knowledge for many of its insights and is often seen as the study of common sense. Additionally, PSI relies on the hard sciences for many of its methodologies. In a certain sense, PSI lies somewhere between the hard sciences and common knowledge – it takes the methodologies of the hard sciences and applies them to social issues that common knowledge can and often does address without the help of PSI. Thus, the object of study is both a problem and an opportunity for practitioners of PSI.

While the authors talk at length about this problem and a few others, they don’t actually offer any solutions for the problems they raise; they specifically state at the beginning of the book they go “no further with each issue raised than to indicate that it poses a challenge to research” (p. 3). Thus, the book is a short treatment of some of the problems faced by practitioners of PSI without any solutions offered.

Review:
I think I picked this book up from my department in one of the periodic book “give aways” that occurs when professors are trying to find more book space on their shelves and get rid of old stuff they don’t want. I thought it looked interesting. This past Saturday I was looking for something to read not directly related to all of the other stuff I am constantly reading and I saw this book. I didn’t really plan on finishing it in less than 2 hours, but I did (I did a lot of skimming).

Admittedly, some of the issues the authors raised were intriguing, but for the most part I thought the book was tedious and boring. They did, however, finally hit on one point I really liked on page 99, which is almost the last page of the book. I have often pondered the idea that sociology doesn’t really seem to have a clear agenda in terms of research questions or topics of interest – sociologists just study whatever they want to study and somehow this results in some of the major social problems being addressed. Apparently I’m not the only one to consider this oddity, “The most carefully thought out version of these possibilities is Michael Polanyi’s. His thesis is that science is well guided by a mutually interactive process among scientists in which the “system” achieves a rationality superior to that of any individual in it. … [H]e may be right in arguing that under appropriate circumstances mutual adjustment can achieve defensible coordination and guidance of the complex processes of scientific choice. He points to the market as an example of a different but related kind of mutual adjustment in another area in which coordination is required. He suggests that a “hidden hand” may operate to guide science, even though it is a different hidden hand from Adam Smith’s” (p. 99). The point the authors are developing here is that there is a sense of direction guiding the discipline of sociology, but it’s not something tangible – it’s a “hidden hand” like Adam Smith’s “hidden hand” of the capitalist market. Unseen forces direct research interests toward pressing social issues. And while some people clearly have divergent and odd research interests that have little or no practical bearing on social life, that research is quietly selected against in the marketplace of ideas. The hidden hand pushes an unseen agenda that results in relevant research being valued more than less relevant research. While sociologists may not feel a lot of affinity for economists, in a subtle bit of irony, an element of economic theory may be guiding the very discipline of sociology.

Overall, I’m not sure this book is really worth going out of your way to find. It does make some intriguing points and is probably worth the 2 hours or so it takes to read it, but it’s probably not worth the several hours it would take to find a copy (unless you want mine). It raises some important questions, but it doesn’t answer them. The lack of answers combined with the tedium of defining the issues result in a mostly boring book.