Intellectuals in Liberal Democracies: Political Influence and Social Involvement. by Alain G.GagnonReview by: Raj P. MohanSocial Forces, Vol. 68, No. 2 (Dec., 1989), pp. 658-660Published by: Oxford University PressStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2579274 .

Accessed: 10/06/2014 06:52

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

.

Oxford University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Social Forces.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 195.34.79.195 on Tue, 10 Jun 2014 06:52:34 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

658 / Social Forces Volume 68:2, December 1989

Kansas farmers held a specific place in the emergent class structure. Sum- mer encampments in Kansas brought together hundreds of farmers to discuss their problems and shared values. For McNall, these summer encampments served to foster a movement culture. Farmers were able to work with the Affiance since it reflected their immediate self-interest, yet they never understood why it was also in their class interest. While voting for farmers' slates provided the context for which people could act in concert, operating on the level of politics also served to exacerbate divisions within the movement itself. The Kansas alliances were formed in a very short period of time-in a one-year period. For McNall, this short period of time did not allow people in the movement to develop a coherent movement ideology. Moreover, there was no organizational mechanism to link local alliances with the new national political party, the Populist party. For McNall, although farmers were a distinct class, and did form a political organization, they were unable to sustain the organization because of the lack of a shared class ideology. As such, the movement was open to appropriation by a group of people who did not share their class interests.

The case of the Farmers' alliance and the Populist movement makes it quite clear that without a strong political organization with a clearly defined ide- ology, class movements are bound to fail. The Populist movement was a rational reaction. It failed because of its inability to broaden its base and sustain a distinct class organization. The Road to Rebellion provides an excellent model for analyzing classes and their formation and is essential reading for those interested in Ameri- can history, class analysis, and the sociology of social movements.

Intellectuals in Liberal Democracies: Political Influence and Social Involvement. Edited by Alain G. Gagnon. Praeger. 242 pp. $39.95.

Reviewer: RAiJ P. MOHAN, Auburn University

Intellectuals are mystifiers and demystifiers. The world of ideas is the intellectual domain. It is in this domain that the intellectuals carry on the life of mind as interpreters and creators of ideas in institutional and societal contexts. Intellectual activities are determined by the sociocultural milieu of the intellectuals.

Literature on intellectuals has a constancy to it. There are always books, articles on the ideological and territorial assumptions, and commentaries by intel- lectuals of their counterparts. There is a kind of dialectic in these writings.

This volume is based on some of the papers presented at a conference orga- nized by the Department of Political Science at Carleton University in October 1985, with two additional papers especially commissioned for this publication. The book is divided into three parts. The first part contains an introductory essay by Alain Gagnon which discusses the problems of discussing intellectuals and the intelligentsia and sets the stage for the entire volume.

The second section contains case studies of intellectuals in Canada, France, America, England, Italy, West Germany, and Israel. The section opens with an essay by Stephen Brooks and Alain Gagnon which examines the historical and contemporary roles of social science intellectuals in the Canadian political arena (both in Quebec and English Canada) in the area of social policy. Chapter 3 is a

This content downloaded from 195.34.79.195 on Tue, 10 Jun 2014 06:52:34 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Book Reviews / 659

case study of French intellectuals by Ross, who highlights "markets" where intel- lectuals decide to invest their "cultural capital" and change their investment strate- gies with the changing markets. Paul Hollander, in his study of American intellec- tuals, finds that "American intellectuals today divide between a majority who are critically inclined, to different degrees, and a minority critical of critics and willing to legitimize the system in its current and historical incarnation." Carl Boggs' study of postwar intellectuals in Italy suggests that "intellectuals are neither innately conservative nor radical, hegemonic nor subversive, elitist nor populist ... the political future of intellectuals is likely to be shaped by the . .. pluralist integration and economic rationalization." Alan Swingwood's case study of English intellectu- als suggests that as compared to intellectuals in other European countries, the English have failed to organize themselves as a critical opposition. In his conclu- sions he says that "historically, English intellectuals during the period from the 1930s to the present have tended to be on the Left. But in the 1970s and 1980s intellectuals moved increasingly to the right ... one of the most striking features of the English intellectual culture is the absence of an avant-garde intelligentsia." Hauke Brunkhorst gives us a contrast between intellectuals and antiintellectualism in West Germany using the perspective of Critical Theory, especially of Habermas, examining the social roles of the intellectuals in the classical sense and contrasting it with their role in modem times. Michael Keren examines the relationship be- tween Israeli intellectuals and the power structure in Israel and impact of this relationship on liberal democracy.

Part three contains perspectives for comparative analysis. The first essay in this section, by Eisenstadt, assesses the role of intellectuals in the reproduc- tion and transformation of institutional structures and spheres of public image. He shows the importance of intellectual production and reproduction in social change. Michele Lamont argues that there has been a general decline in the influ- ence of American mntellertials As Russell Jacoby would suggest, one draws a blank if one attempts to rornpile a list of intellectuals under 45 in America. On the other hand Lamont argue- that the influence of French intellectuals has been on the increase. This view sta-nds in stark contrast to the case studies of American and French intellectuals by Hollander and Ross. The third essay in this section, by Rubinstein, tries to put to rest some leftist stereotypes about the Jewish intelligen- tsia and says that "in most other Western countries (France at some recent elec- tions, for example that of 1981, being the chief exception), the majority of the Jews have largely moved to the Right politically and now support the conservative par- ties, often by substantial majorities." Rubinstein finds much diversity in social, cultural, and educational experiences among the Jewish intelligentsia.

Are intellectuals autonomous or bound by their social and politial milieu? In the last chapter of this volume, Robert Brym, building on the work of Antonio Gramsci, tries to answer this question and argues that the thesis linking radicalism to malintegration is empirically inaccurate. He believes that an intellectual estab- lishment is a rhetoric, suggesting that "wide variations ... exist between intellec- tuals' structural locations and their political orientations and actions."

Among the many strengths of this volume an important one is that it brings together diverse perspectives on the state of intellectuals, their orientations, and their activities in various countries. Since intellectual activity is so diverse, intellec- tuals can be classified into five types: Silent Spectators, Legitimizers, Nonlegiti-

This content downloaded from 195.34.79.195 on Tue, 10 Jun 2014 06:52:34 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

660 / Social Forces Volume 68:2, December 1989

mizers, Mediators, and Entrepreneurs (advantage takers). These essays lend sup- port to this typology. There are certainly some contradictions among some of the essays but this is expected when you have such a diverse group of contributors. All in all it is an important volume and a welcome addition to the literature.

Black Radicals and the Civil Rights Mainstream, 1954-1970. By Herbert H. Haines. University of Tennessee Press. 231 pp. $24.95.

Reviewer: WILLIAM A. SAMPSON, Northwestern University

For the student of the civil rights movement interested in a clear, thorough, and reasonably concise review of the organizational structure of that movement, this book will be welcomed. For those interested in some new perspective, or useful new data, or probing new analysis of that movement, this book may well be a disappointment. This is true more for the first half of the book than for the second.

The author sets out to show how what he calls "radical flank effects," or "the consequences which radicals and their actions have for moderates," affected the civil rights movement. The argument is not new: radicals "force" observers and participants to view moderates differently than they might otherwise have been viewed, because they force a redefinition of the actions of the moderates in light of the actions of the radicals. Haines argues, "Little attention has been paid to radical flank effects as recurrent features of social movements. Thus, this inquiry cannot add to a distinct and specialized literature on such phenomena, for no such literature yet exists."

Yet he goes on to discuss the work of Nye, Killian, Drake, Freeman, and others which does in fact look at these effects on the civil rights movement. Fur- thermore, the whole radical-moderate paradigm would seem to be relative, and Haines does not take this into account in his analysis. That is, that which appears radical to one observer may well be conservative to others. This relativity should be considered in any analysis of the effects of radicals on movements. It is difficult to do, but would aid the analysis considerably.

Haines makes the point that the actions of radicals often cause those upon whom claims are made to view the demands of the moderates more positively. While this is often true, he fails to touch the more exciting and provocative option: given that the radical and moderate groups are often at odds, why don't those against whom claims are made simply pit one group against the other and grant nothing? Again, the analysis is fine, but doesn't seem to move us very far along.

There are some small problems which could have been avoided: Haines confuses desegregation and integration and fails to define integration, so that we really cannot interpret the data (actually Sheatsley's data) which he presents on approval of integration; and he skips very lightly over the crucial role played by black colleges and black college students in the development of radicalism. On the other hand, I thought that the discussion of the response of whites to cultural nationalism was exciting and powerful.

Haines offers his idea of radical flank effect to explain changes in the finan- cial base of the various civil rights organizations, but he fails to consider alternative explanations for the changes. Perhaps the organizations became more sophisti-

This content downloaded from 195.34.79.195 on Tue, 10 Jun 2014 06:52:34 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions