Sage Publications, Inc.

American Sociological Association

Review
Author(s): Michael S. Olmsted
Review by: Michael S. Olmsted
Source: American Sociological Review, Vol. 23, No. 6 (Dec., 1958), pp. 752-753
Published by: American Sociological Association
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2089073
Accessed: 16-10-2015 00:58 UTC

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 of content
in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.
For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Sage Publications, Inc. and American Sociological Association are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend
access to American Sociological Review.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 130.15.241.167 on Fri, 16 Oct 2015 00:58:10 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
752 AMERICAN SOCIOLOGICALREVIEW
Given the setting sketched above it is intelli-
gible why some political scientists devote them-
selves in this symposium to the mission of
showing how philosophy and the history of
political theory can contribute to the scientific
study of politics. Carl J. Friedrich calss atten-
tion to three philosophical positions which, he
believes, challenge the normative assumptions
upon which much empirical work is expressly
or implicitly based. Robert G. McCloskey is
especially original in suggesting how the history
of American political theory, as exemplified
chiefly in our institutions, can be used to demon-
strate the basic characteristics of "the American
political mind." Frederick M. Watkins draws an
adroit parallel between the role of experimental
psychology in relation to case studies, on the
one side, and the place of behavioral research
in relation to the history of politics (including
theory). Mulford Z. Sibley states some propo-
sitions of Plato in ways that can stimulate the
imagination and perhaps guide the research of
students of politics. Louis Hartz exemplifies his
general contention that the structure of ideas
has creative impact upon the political process
by considering the factors that account for the
weakness of Marxism in America. Each of these
articles-and some others of this group-con-
tains valuable proposals for the political sociolo-
gist.
Political scientists who are less committed to
"political theory" as a whole than the preceding
scholars, and who are more narrowly focussed
upon systematic description, are represented by
Richard C. Snyder and Charles B. Hagan.
Snyder gives a brief recapitulation of a "De-
cision-Making Approach" and Charles B. Hagan
deals with the "Group."
The papers from non-political scientists are
well-calculated to serve many valuable purposes.
They will probably exercise a substantial im-
pact upon seminar reading in graduate depart-
ments. Charles E. Osgood gives a masterly
exposition of learning theory as a preface to
his own specialized models relating to communi-
cation. T. W. Newcomb does an equally dis-
tinguished job on communication theory. Angus
Campbell puts the problem of "identification"
squarely as the focus of investigation. Harold
Guetzkow writes a superbly lucid, creative and
critical introduction to "small-group models."
The paper that will probably have the most im-
mediate effect upon political scientists is Scott
Greer's bold and fact-packed challenge to the
traditional interpretation of what the city does
to people. Political scientists feel at home with
the urban context and are immediately capable
of using and adopting many of the methods
suitable to its study.
It was a happy thought to invite Talcott Par-
This content downloaded from 130.15.241.167 on Fri, 16 Oct 2015 00:58:10 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
sons to provide an outline of his "Theory of
Action." Parsons rises to the occasion by sug-
gesting some applications to the study of politics.
Meagre as these hints are they will be of use
in the task of discovering equivalencies, defi-
ciencies, and advantages in such systematic
theories of the political and social process as
now exist.
It will not be feasible to go much further
than to add a word of welcome to the remain-
ing non-political scientists: Marion J. Levy, Jr.,
Gordon W. Blackwell, Floyd Hunter, Peter H.
Rossi. Sociologists who interest themselves in
intellectual and historical institutions will find
many fascinating exhibits in this collection. They
will, for instance, compare the vision and tem-
perateness of most of the political scientists
with Lindsay Rogers. Hans Morgenthau, for
example, presents a plausible, if debatable, solu-
tion to the curricularproblem of political science
by suggesting that it rest on three cornerstones:
political sociology, political theory, and political
institutions. The sociologist who reads Rogers
will have a better understanding of the factors
that explain why so many valuable advances in
political science have been made outside the
framework of the departments conventionally
entrusted with this responsibility. I am, of
course, sure that no sociologist would be so nar-
rowly identified with the interests of his own
conventional label that he would take pleasure
in our handicaps.
HAROLD D. LASSWELL
Yale University
The Affluent Society. By JOHN KENNETH
GALBRAITH. Boston: Houghton Miffin Co.,
1958. xii, 368 pp. $5.00.
In his latest book, Galbraith employs to great
advantage the abilities exhibited in his earlier
works, principally American Capitalism and
Economics and the Art of Controversy: a wide-
ranging intelligence, a lucid and pleasantly mor-
dant style, and, above all, a keen eye for un-
analyzed assumptions. Galbraith's targets are
now more central than the ones previously en-
countered and the fire aimed at them is more
concentrated and of a heavier caliber. His con-
cern is not only with the central problem of
economics-affluence, its preconditions and con-
sequences-but the social and cultural context
within which this wealth is generated. For these
reasons, Galbraith's new book is much more
far-reaching and more exciting than his earlier
works.
The Affluent Society's most general theme is
the not-unfamiliar one that our theories have
failed to keep pace with our practices. Custom-
arily this theme has been treated in terms of
some naive conception of "cultural lag." Gal-
 BOOK REVIEWS
braith, however, is more systematic and more
penetrating in his assessment of old assumptions
in the light of new conditions: as the Malthu-
sian society of the Industrial Revolution shaped
the perspectives of classical economics, so an
affluent, anti-Malthusian society-that is, one
where resources (goods) press on population-
requires a new set of postulates. ". . . how new
and varied become the problems we must pon-
der," writes Galbraith (p. 160), "when we break
the nexus with the work of Ricardo and face
the economics of affluence of the world in which
we live. It is easy to see why the conventional
wisdom resists so stoutly such change. It is a
far, far better thing to have a firm anchor in
nonsense than to put out on the troubled seas
of thought."
The axiomatic importance of productivity is
one of the legacies from the era of Malthus and
Ricardo which Galbraith calls into question. He
finds our concern with it fundamental and at
the same time uneven and inconsistent. More-
over, he finds it is in basic conflict with our
surplus economy wherein (in what might be
called a modern version of Say's Law) produc-
tion is made to create its own demand through
the agency of salesmanship. Galbraith contrasts
our artificially stimulated consumer demand
with an economic theory which formally ad-
heres to the doctrine that wants are indigenous,
equal, and unlimited. These theoretical issues
are woven together with discussions of a host
of practical matters: income inequality, eco-
nomic stability, inflation, taxes, national security,
etc. One of the author's principal contentions is
that the pursuit of goods produced and marketed
in the private sector of the economy (e.g. cars)
has meant a massive neglect of services pro-
duced in the public sector (e.g. education). Once
again, this is not a new argument but Galbraith's
presentation of it is of an altogether superior
cogency. His treatment is the more compelling
in that he is able to demonstrate, in terms of
both theory and history, how we got ourselves
into this contretemps and what keeps us there.
He even offers some suggestions as to how we
might get out of it.
Galbraith's is not, of course, the first revolt
economics has seen since Adam Smith smote
the Mercantilists and established the new veri-
ties. The reader could, however, come away
with that impression, so dashingly does Gal-
braith carry off his critique of earlier stages of
economic thinking. His exposure of the pre-
sumed deficiencies of "the conventional wisdom"
of economics is probably better calculated to
endear him to non-economists than to his fellow
professionals. Yet The Affluent Society is nei-
ther a debunking of academic economics in the
name of socialism or common sense, nor an
This content downloaded from 130.15.241.167 on Fri, 16 Oct 2015 00:58:10 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
753
institutionalist attack on old-fogey theorizers.
Nor is it merely a garland of happily contrived
epigrams, or a popular primer on economics pre-
sented in the modern idiom-richer, smoother,
definitely milder. Finally, it is not another exer-
cise in that now tiresome genre, the awestruck
celebration of the American success wherein
Marx is cunningly refuted by the appearance
of the middle classes and the new, chastened
corporation. Rather, this book is a knowledge-
able, carefully reasoned, and highly sophisticated
critique of central problems of economic theory
and of social life.
In his frontal attack on the key assumptions
and problems of economics, Galbraith finds him-
self carried right out of that well-tilled domain
into the rude frontierlands of sociology. He is
confronted with the question: "What ends do
people seek and what are the consequences of
their doing so?" This sort of query can prove
very exasperating for economists who, assuming
efficiency in the use of resources as a standard
for evaluation, are accustomed to dealing with
quantifiable problems in a relatively precise
fashion. Sociologists are more likely (though
increasingly less so) to have adjusted themselves
to such woolly inquiries and should welcome
a book which, by implication, attests to the
potential significance of their discipline.
The Affluent Society is, however, an excellent
piece of evidence for the contention that the
most seminal books on American society are not
written by professional sociologists. From Veb-
len to our own era, natives who come originally
at least from another part of the forest seem
to have discovered the best water holes. Just
why this should be the case is a question to oc-
casion some somber thoughts among us.
MICHAEL S. OLMSTED
Smith College
The Changing Population of the United States.
By CONRADTAEUBERand IRENE B. TAEUBER.
Census Monograph Series. New York: John
Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1958. London: Chapman
& Hall, Ltd. xi, 357 pp. $7.75.
In many countries students of population are
still bedeviled by the lack of accurate and re-
liable demographic source materials. Only in
advanced industrial nations are population sta-
tistics relatively adequate although major defi-
ciencies and important lacunae still persist in
the primary demographic sources of all nations,
even the most advanced. Despite the remaining
limitations, demographers in modern countries
now also face the opposite problem: decennial
censuses and continuous records of vital sta-
tistics furnish more data than can be conveni-
ently analyzed and interpreted.