Riesman, David, Nathan Glazer, and Reuel Denney. The Lonely Crowd: A Study of the Changing American Character. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1953.
Argument
The social character of the American people has shifted from "inner-directed" - those who internalize authority, as pioneers and individualists - to "other-directed" - those whose characteris formed through their peer-relationships. Riesman believes this occurs in all civilizations as they move from a period of rapid population growth to population equilibrium.
The underlying theory draws from and wrestles with both Weber's broad perspective of social changes in history, and Freud's conception of personality developing in childhood. Riesman believes character development has been changed by the many new influences on children outside of the home. These influences are tied to the development of history as evidenced most broadly by population change.
Riesman is careful throughout not to criticize "other-directness" and idealize "inner-directness," often resisting the label of "social criticism" for the book. But there is certainly social criticism here.
Key Terms (Note: Riesman admits this are ideal rather than real concepts)
high growth potential - no or slow growth rate, high birth and death rate.
tradition-directed people - not concerned with progress. Intent on continuing life as their ancestors did. Goals are established by the community to meet expected role.
transitional population growth - advances in health, technology, food production, etc lead to decreasing death rate. Population growth is high.
inner-directed people - tendency early in life to internalize a set of goals, inspired to do better than parents.
incipient population decline - death rate and birth rate regain equilibrium while life expectancy remains longer
other-directed people - tendency to be sensitized to the expectations and preferences of others
Key Developments
Morality - system of how you treat others - is important conforming system for inner-directed, while morale - system of how you feel and how you make others feel - is important conforming system for other-directed.
Parents play a much larger role in personal development for tradition-directed and inner-directed. Other-directed have a wider variety of influences: parents, teachers, peers, song and story, mass media.
Memory of the Book
Riesman acknowledges that he finds "other-directed people" mainly in the rising urban middle class. This is, indeed, how this book has come to be remembered for typifying the 1950s: the suited businessmen working in large organizations, the suburb as a false retreat, the rise of new prosperity inducing accumulation of material goods aimed at feeding the inner desires, the strong conformity from behavior to dress to politics. And yet, it was written in 1950 and reflects 30s and 40s characteristics.
Showing posts with label sociology. Show all posts
Showing posts with label sociology. Show all posts
Tuesday, March 1, 2011
Tuesday, November 2, 2010
Hunter - Culture Wars
Hunter, James Davison. Culture Wars: The Struggle to Define America. New York: BasicBooks, 1991.
I've hit a busy stretch with job search reading and grading, but I managed to grind out Culture Wars, so let's get right to it...
Scope & Argument (and connection to Election Night 2010)
Published about a year before Clinton's election and three years before the 1994 Republican Revolution, Hunter describes the cultural tension between conservative Orthodox religious groups (Protestant, Catholic, & Jewish) and Progressivists in America from the late-1970s. On its shallowest level, this is a book about the key political issues contested by the two sides. Going deeper, it is about the core Religious beliefs held by both sides that make it nearly impossible for both sides to engage in a constructive debate. (Using a broad definition, Hunter argues that even the moral framework under which the most secular Progressives act constitutes a Religious belief. p.119)
Hunter levels some criticism at the media, which boils dialogue down to short soundbites and thus adds to the polarity of cultural and political discourse. But most of all, the problems lies with the methods and language of both sides. Admittedly, it is difficult to foster a polite discourse between two sides with such drastically different core values. Nevertheless, Hunter shows how both sides seek to discredit the opposition rather than understand, de-legitimize rather than engage, and describe with hyperbole rather than fairness.
Indeed, it is ironic that I am writing this on the night of the 2010 election, one of the most bitter in recent memory. It feels to most observers that America has never been so divided. The campaigns seemed to emphasize this division, with ever-increasing negativity typifying races across the country. Furthermore in light of the economic woes, there is a strong anti-incumbent mood. The Tea Party seems to have taken advantage of the setting, channeling voter anger towards their anti-government, libertarian message. Conspicuously absent from the main Tea Party (and indeed, Republican) professed ideals is a strong emphasis on Orthodox religion. Their influence, even on the right, seems to have faded somewhat, perhaps after the failure of Bush II. Perhaps 1994 was their pinnacle, a point that supports Hunter's argument in 1991 that, contrary to what some observers believed and in light of the decline of the Moral Majority and televangelist scandals, the Orthodox right had not run out of steam.
Hunter correctly describes the important coalition between neo-conservatives, fiscal conservatives, and the Orthodox (socio-cultural conservatives) that led to Ronald Reagan. I wonder if perhaps this coalition has re-aligned slightly, taking more of a libertarian stance in 2010. We shall see how the Tea Party candidates mesh with the Republican party once tonight's turnover is in place.
Key term
secular humanism - The Orthodox "dirty-word" for the Progressivist agenda which the Orthodox say is anti-religious belief and anti- moral absolutes. The Progressivists respond by saying they are merely upholding American ideals of nonsectarianism and individual autonomy and responsibility. (202-3, 206)
Outline
Hunter spends parts I-III describing the historical roots of the conflict, drawing the fault lines, explaining their respective moral visions, and comparing the discourse of the two sides. Part IV describes, in turn, five "fields of conflict" - family, education, media and arts, law, and electoral politics.
Critique
This is a splendidly written book, accessible to a wide audience. The introduction sets Hunter's balanced tone brilliantly, with a series of "dispatches" from the culture front, each revealing the background and beliefs of key actors on both sides of key conflicts. Thus, Hunter humanizes both sides, giving the reader a chance to develop sympathy and understanding towards the characters. The balanced tone continues throughout, as Hunter delves into both sides of controversies with fairness and understanding. The book is itself, thus, a model of a better discourse.
Recommendation
Most of my friends, from the more Orthodox who tend toward conservatism to the more Progressive, could learn from this book. I wonder what each side's reaction would be? My gut tells me an Orthodox reader would have a more difficult time with the scholarly tone, detached as it is from the Orthodox conception of a moral authority.
I've hit a busy stretch with job search reading and grading, but I managed to grind out Culture Wars, so let's get right to it...
Scope & Argument (and connection to Election Night 2010)
Published about a year before Clinton's election and three years before the 1994 Republican Revolution, Hunter describes the cultural tension between conservative Orthodox religious groups (Protestant, Catholic, & Jewish) and Progressivists in America from the late-1970s. On its shallowest level, this is a book about the key political issues contested by the two sides. Going deeper, it is about the core Religious beliefs held by both sides that make it nearly impossible for both sides to engage in a constructive debate. (Using a broad definition, Hunter argues that even the moral framework under which the most secular Progressives act constitutes a Religious belief. p.119)
Hunter levels some criticism at the media, which boils dialogue down to short soundbites and thus adds to the polarity of cultural and political discourse. But most of all, the problems lies with the methods and language of both sides. Admittedly, it is difficult to foster a polite discourse between two sides with such drastically different core values. Nevertheless, Hunter shows how both sides seek to discredit the opposition rather than understand, de-legitimize rather than engage, and describe with hyperbole rather than fairness.
Indeed, it is ironic that I am writing this on the night of the 2010 election, one of the most bitter in recent memory. It feels to most observers that America has never been so divided. The campaigns seemed to emphasize this division, with ever-increasing negativity typifying races across the country. Furthermore in light of the economic woes, there is a strong anti-incumbent mood. The Tea Party seems to have taken advantage of the setting, channeling voter anger towards their anti-government, libertarian message. Conspicuously absent from the main Tea Party (and indeed, Republican) professed ideals is a strong emphasis on Orthodox religion. Their influence, even on the right, seems to have faded somewhat, perhaps after the failure of Bush II. Perhaps 1994 was their pinnacle, a point that supports Hunter's argument in 1991 that, contrary to what some observers believed and in light of the decline of the Moral Majority and televangelist scandals, the Orthodox right had not run out of steam.
Hunter correctly describes the important coalition between neo-conservatives, fiscal conservatives, and the Orthodox (socio-cultural conservatives) that led to Ronald Reagan. I wonder if perhaps this coalition has re-aligned slightly, taking more of a libertarian stance in 2010. We shall see how the Tea Party candidates mesh with the Republican party once tonight's turnover is in place.
Key term
secular humanism - The Orthodox "dirty-word" for the Progressivist agenda which the Orthodox say is anti-religious belief and anti- moral absolutes. The Progressivists respond by saying they are merely upholding American ideals of nonsectarianism and individual autonomy and responsibility. (202-3, 206)
Outline
Hunter spends parts I-III describing the historical roots of the conflict, drawing the fault lines, explaining their respective moral visions, and comparing the discourse of the two sides. Part IV describes, in turn, five "fields of conflict" - family, education, media and arts, law, and electoral politics.
Critique
This is a splendidly written book, accessible to a wide audience. The introduction sets Hunter's balanced tone brilliantly, with a series of "dispatches" from the culture front, each revealing the background and beliefs of key actors on both sides of key conflicts. Thus, Hunter humanizes both sides, giving the reader a chance to develop sympathy and understanding towards the characters. The balanced tone continues throughout, as Hunter delves into both sides of controversies with fairness and understanding. The book is itself, thus, a model of a better discourse.
Recommendation
Most of my friends, from the more Orthodox who tend toward conservatism to the more Progressive, could learn from this book. I wonder what each side's reaction would be? My gut tells me an Orthodox reader would have a more difficult time with the scholarly tone, detached as it is from the Orthodox conception of a moral authority.
Wednesday, October 6, 2010
Slater - The Pursuit of Loneliness
Slater, Philip Elliot. The Pursuit of Loneliness; American Culture at the Breaking Point. Revised Edition. Boston: Beacon Press, 1976.
Argument
Writing at about the same moment of American 70s malaise as Lasch (Culture of Narcissism) and Bell (The Cultural Contradictions of Capitalism), Slater also begins with the assumption that America is in decline. He argues that three positive societal needs - community, engagement, and dependency - have been marginalized by American individualism. (p.33) Chapter two, "Kill Anything That Moves," expresses Slater's horror at the technological developments seen in the recent Vietnam war that allowed the American military to kill indiscriminately from the air with napalm and cluster bombs.
In chapter three, Slater briefly uses The Graduate along with a dash of Freud to critique familial relationships. He argues The Graduate shows how parents see their children in a "vimpiresque way. They feed on the child's accomplishments..." (p.66) Homebound mothers look to sons to provide the satisfaction and achievement they themselves cannot achieve and they cannot get from the absent working husband. Slater also critiques the concept of romantic love as another symptom of individual - a selfish belief that there is one match in the world that a person is meant to be with that leads the individual to close himself out to broader social relationships.
Chapter 5, "Divided We Sit," addresses countercultural movements that arose in the sixties. Slater approves of some of their ideas which encourage community and attack traditional romantic love notions. But he senses an undercurrent of individualism that encourages people to "do your own thing" without concern for the needs of the group. (p.128)
Proposed Solutions - Chapter 6 & 7
Slater proposes some radical (somewhat half-baked) ideas to address these problems. One goal he has is to remove the incentive to achieve wealth. To do this, Slater suggests a 100% tax on income beyond $100,000. He is also disgusted with inherited wealth, and similarly proposes strict limits on money that can be passed down to generations; he suggests estates be pooled and distributed fairly to all members of the following generation, perhaps in an education fund.
Use of Evidence
This is clearly written for a popular audience, and the footnotes are few and far between. Slater offers his own intellectual musings rather than rely on a body of research or connect with any other works.
Critique
Slater makes his claims without a strong base of evidence, so it is difficult to take him seriously. It feels like he is just throwing ideas up in the air. Still, he fits right into the Bell/Lasch category in underlying tone, if not in academic rigor. I'm not quite sure how useful a read this was, but it certainly was a change of pace from the academicky stuff I have been grinding through.
Argument
Writing at about the same moment of American 70s malaise as Lasch (Culture of Narcissism) and Bell (The Cultural Contradictions of Capitalism), Slater also begins with the assumption that America is in decline. He argues that three positive societal needs - community, engagement, and dependency - have been marginalized by American individualism. (p.33) Chapter two, "Kill Anything That Moves," expresses Slater's horror at the technological developments seen in the recent Vietnam war that allowed the American military to kill indiscriminately from the air with napalm and cluster bombs.
In chapter three, Slater briefly uses The Graduate along with a dash of Freud to critique familial relationships. He argues The Graduate shows how parents see their children in a "vimpiresque way. They feed on the child's accomplishments..." (p.66) Homebound mothers look to sons to provide the satisfaction and achievement they themselves cannot achieve and they cannot get from the absent working husband. Slater also critiques the concept of romantic love as another symptom of individual - a selfish belief that there is one match in the world that a person is meant to be with that leads the individual to close himself out to broader social relationships.
Chapter 5, "Divided We Sit," addresses countercultural movements that arose in the sixties. Slater approves of some of their ideas which encourage community and attack traditional romantic love notions. But he senses an undercurrent of individualism that encourages people to "do your own thing" without concern for the needs of the group. (p.128)
Proposed Solutions - Chapter 6 & 7
Slater proposes some radical (somewhat half-baked) ideas to address these problems. One goal he has is to remove the incentive to achieve wealth. To do this, Slater suggests a 100% tax on income beyond $100,000. He is also disgusted with inherited wealth, and similarly proposes strict limits on money that can be passed down to generations; he suggests estates be pooled and distributed fairly to all members of the following generation, perhaps in an education fund.
Use of Evidence
This is clearly written for a popular audience, and the footnotes are few and far between. Slater offers his own intellectual musings rather than rely on a body of research or connect with any other works.
Critique
Slater makes his claims without a strong base of evidence, so it is difficult to take him seriously. It feels like he is just throwing ideas up in the air. Still, he fits right into the Bell/Lasch category in underlying tone, if not in academic rigor. I'm not quite sure how useful a read this was, but it certainly was a change of pace from the academicky stuff I have been grinding through.
Tuesday, September 14, 2010
Putnam - Bowling Alone
Putnam, Robert D. Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community. New York: Simon & Schuster, 2000.
Related Simpsons Quote
"I haven't felt this energized since my last...er...boweling!" - Mr. Burns in the Pin Pals episode
Argument
Section II: Trends in Civic Engagement and Social Capital
Since the 70s, American participation in politics, civics, religion, community, and other social activities has decreased drastically, to the detriment of the society. Americans trust their neighbors less than they used to, engage beyond the nuclear family less than they used to, and give their time to society less than they used to.
Section III: Why?
The key factors are
pressures of time and money - only 10%, because while two-career families certainly was an important development in the period, in fact heavy time demands do not correlate to limited engagement in society - ie unemployed participate LESS than employed
suburbanization, commuting and sprawl - 10%, because disengagement is still seen in areas untouched by sprawl
electronic entertainment particularly television - 25%, because television sucks time and keeps people indoors
generational change - 50% (with overlap with TV). The generation that was born before the Depression were and continue to be more engaged.
Evidence
Surveys, group membership data, and other relevant quantitative data. The evidence is presented in countless charts and graphs that perfectly illustrate Putnam's argument.
Key Terms
Social Capital - (p. 19) the value society gets from connections among individuals
specific reciprocity - (20) "I'll do this if you do that for me (in short term)"
generalized reciprocity - (21) "I'll do this without expecting anything specific back from you, in the confident expectation that someone else will do something for me down the road." (Golden Rule)
bridging social capital - (22) inclusive. outward looking and encompass diverse social groups. ie Civil Rights movement, ecumenical religious orgs
bonding social capital - (22) exclusive. inward looking, reinforce exclusive identities and homogeniety. ie church based reading groups, restricted country clubs.
Long Civic Generation - (chapter 14) - the generation born before the Depression. More likely to have served in military. Lived through the depression.
Critique
This is sociology at its best. Putnam takes a commonly held perception or sense - that America is less-community oriented and less active in the community than it had been - and applies a thorough quantitative analysis to it. He offers explanations, but only as his "best guess," giving each a percentage of how much he thinks they are a factor. This is a tremendously useful book for historians and thoroughly convincing. Plus, he's a good writer.
The latter chapters are interesting, but less useful to historians, as Putnam offers thoughts on how to improve civic engagement, and argues that civic engagement has come in waves throughout American history. (The Progressive Era ended a long period of disengagement throughout the Gilded Age).
Related Simpsons Quote
"I haven't felt this energized since my last...er...boweling!" - Mr. Burns in the Pin Pals episode
Argument
Section II: Trends in Civic Engagement and Social Capital
Since the 70s, American participation in politics, civics, religion, community, and other social activities has decreased drastically, to the detriment of the society. Americans trust their neighbors less than they used to, engage beyond the nuclear family less than they used to, and give their time to society less than they used to.
Section III: Why?
The key factors are
pressures of time and money - only 10%, because while two-career families certainly was an important development in the period, in fact heavy time demands do not correlate to limited engagement in society - ie unemployed participate LESS than employed
suburbanization, commuting and sprawl - 10%, because disengagement is still seen in areas untouched by sprawl
electronic entertainment particularly television - 25%, because television sucks time and keeps people indoors
generational change - 50% (with overlap with TV). The generation that was born before the Depression were and continue to be more engaged.
Evidence
Surveys, group membership data, and other relevant quantitative data. The evidence is presented in countless charts and graphs that perfectly illustrate Putnam's argument.
Key Terms
Social Capital - (p. 19) the value society gets from connections among individuals
specific reciprocity - (20) "I'll do this if you do that for me (in short term)"
generalized reciprocity - (21) "I'll do this without expecting anything specific back from you, in the confident expectation that someone else will do something for me down the road." (Golden Rule)
bridging social capital - (22) inclusive. outward looking and encompass diverse social groups. ie Civil Rights movement, ecumenical religious orgs
bonding social capital - (22) exclusive. inward looking, reinforce exclusive identities and homogeniety. ie church based reading groups, restricted country clubs.
Long Civic Generation - (chapter 14) - the generation born before the Depression. More likely to have served in military. Lived through the depression.
Critique
This is sociology at its best. Putnam takes a commonly held perception or sense - that America is less-community oriented and less active in the community than it had been - and applies a thorough quantitative analysis to it. He offers explanations, but only as his "best guess," giving each a percentage of how much he thinks they are a factor. This is a tremendously useful book for historians and thoroughly convincing. Plus, he's a good writer.
The latter chapters are interesting, but less useful to historians, as Putnam offers thoughts on how to improve civic engagement, and argues that civic engagement has come in waves throughout American history. (The Progressive Era ended a long period of disengagement throughout the Gilded Age).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)