Ethics, Politics, and Social Research. by Gideon SjobergReview by: Eloise C. SnyderSocial Forces, Vol. 47, No. 2 (Dec., 1968), pp. 226-227Published by: Oxford University PressStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2575156 .

Accessed: 15/06/2014 07:40

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 195.78.109.162 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 07:40:13 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

226 SOCIAL FORCES

of revolt in groups wlhen they are described in terms of the theme of the sacred king, or the totem feast? I am forced to doubt. Slater notes at one point (p. 171) that he has resorted to "superficial analogical resemblances." But why is this analogy (its particularities are unimportant) more superficial than others presented and clearly not so regarded? What are the rules that make an enterprise such as this more than an act of faith, that give it the intersubjectivity vital to a social science ?

One must question the interpretations of T- group behaviors on still other grounds-indeed, one must question whether the behaviors may be taken as uncontaminated data. After all, the in- structor assigns the reading, and his assignments- Freud, Ferenczi, Jung, Neumann, Redi, Bettel- heim, Fraser, Jane Harrison-will make clear what the language and style of group discussion are to be. Beyond this, the leader interprets, and through interpretation introduces the very notions that he later (as social analyst) draws out of the groups' experiences. Thus, for example, in the midst of descriptions of member interaction one reads: t. . . the group leader suggested that a fear of

'engulfment' by the group was present" (p. 206). Or, "The group leader asked if the problem here was not rather one of the teachers being viewed as fathers" (pp. 115-116). An irreverent, but possibly relevant, aside: I have the sense that the subjects of these observations are prototypically highly intellective, introspective, middle class, and Jewish-and at an age when the problematics of the legendary "Jewish mother" impress strongly. One wonders, under these circumstances, whether the apparent preoccupation of group members with food and with mother are indeed universals of group experience.

Finally, I can-in good conscience and in spite of such serious reservations as argued above-insist that this is a book social scientists should read for themselves.

SHELDON STRYKER Indiana University

ETHICS, POLITICS, AND SOCIAL RESEARCH. Edited by Gideon Sjoberg. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Schenkman Publishing Company, 1967. 358 pp. $8.95.

Persons interested iti social research should find this book quite worthwhile. It concerns the in- volvement of ethics and politics in the research process and focuses on social science. The many difficulties involved in achieving objectivity are dis- cussed and the opinion expressed that social re- searchers confront no difficulties not confronted by all other researchers. Suggested solutions to the problem of achieving objectivity, or some de- gree thereof, range from feelings that ethical cannons of objectivity must remain a matter of individual judgment to feelings that objectivity is not realized by an individual simply repeating

"I am objective" but rather by a thorough exam- ination of the impact which ethics and politics have upon social research. This latter position sets the framework within which the essays are writ- ten, their purpose being to demonstrate how ethical and political decisions affect the research process and particularly how they affect the products of investigation.

The book contains two sections. One, A View From the Outside, in which among others, essays are written about such studies as the Wichita Jury Recordings, the AMA and the Gerontolo- gists, the Harvard Drug Controversy, and Project Camelot, by persons not engaged in the studies, and the second, A View From the Inside, in which among others, essays are written about Re- search in South Africa, Revolution in Brazil, and Studies of Minority Populations and Juvenile De- linquency, by persons conducting the research. In each section the effects of ethics and politics on research are analyzed both at the ideological level, i.e., how the researcher's political ideology may influence his work, and at the structural level, i.e., how the positioin of the researcher in the social order determines the consequent controls wAThich can be exerted on his work.

Concerning the ideological level, it is agreed that detached objectivity is a myth which fortunately is not as widespread today as it was several years ago; Irving Louis Horowitz states "the psychology of sociological performance is not at all separated from the final product." However, when the sec- ond level, the controls which may be placed upoIl the researcher's work, is considered, the attempt to achieve objectivity becomes even more com- plex; particularly when large funding organiza- tions are involved in supporting research or when important influence-groups are concerned with the area being investigated. The power ex- erted by such groups may affect research botl positively and negatively and Jane Record notes, for example, that in spite of the advantages of ini- stitutionalizing academic research, such institu- tionalization actually may have weakened the will of scholars to overcome the negative pressures exerted by powerful and influential groups. Sim- ilarly, Gideon Sjoberg confronts not only the prob- lems posed by the power of influential groups but also the problems posed by the inherent power of science itself when he refers to several important questions raised by Jessie Bernard, who asks, "By whom should research be funded and what are the moral or social responsibilities of the social researcher with respect to the uses of the results of his work ?" Bernard notes that, even if re- search were funded by neutral organizations, the findings could still be used by both "good guys" and "bad guys" suggesting that perhaps what is needed, particularly in research areas which are politically sensitive, is a new concept which would make the findings of research non-suspect.

Thus, in considering the role of ethics and poli-

This content downloaded from 195.78.109.162 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 07:40:13 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

BOOK REVIEWS 227

tics in social research, this book is really dealing with the relationship between the science of power and the power of science and suggests that an understanding of this relationship might result in research that is both socially valuable and intel- lectually stimulating, although, of course, neither result is inevitable. If the goal of this book is, as I presume it to be, to demonstrate some of the difficulties which stand in the way of making such research possible, the book has achieved its purpose, and as such should aid in provoking thought about allegedly value-free research in an allegedly value-laden, society.

ELOISE C. SNYDER

University of South Carolinia

IDEOLOGY AND THE DEVELOPMENT OF SOCIOLOGICAL TIIEORY. By Irving M. Zeitlin. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1968. 326 PP.

This book is conveniently divided in four parts: The Enlightenment, Post-Revolutionary Thought, The Marxian Watershed, and The Debate with Marx's Ghost. Of the 326 pages, 243 are devoted to Marx's watershed and ghost. For each of the post-Marxian thinkers who, according to the au- thor, are doing quixotic battle in the watershed with the ghost, the author provides at the end of his analysis a page or more summarizing their private and public acts. Weber and Mannheim are, as can be imagined, bourgeois Marxes; Pareto gave wholehearted approval to moderate forms of fascism; Durkheim regarded society as the "su- preme God"; while Mosca and Michels were re- interpreting Marx's earlier writings more or less correctly. Throughout the book we are confronted with artful interpretations of Marx's works at- tempting either to show that he was right and the others wrong, or that present interpretations fail to show the proper indebtedness of these authors to Marx. Also, Marx's precursors had already fallen under his spell; for example Rousseau, who "saw clearly that the existence of classes anid class conflict affected all aspects of men's lives."

The disturbing aspects of this book are twofold. Obviously the book is intended to prove a point, viz., that ideological conservatism is an inherent aspect of the theoretical position taken by several "fathers" of sociology. The able examination of this proposition is marred by an undue emphasis on ideological and/or personal characteristics. Thus Weber's "Rusophobia," "an unquestioning hatred and fear of the Russian colossus," is in- troduced as evidence that "Weber believed in the validity of certain judgments made outside the sphere of reason." However, the basic issue pur- sued by the author is not if any of the fathers of sociology, or Marx for that matter, had beliefs that were not the result of reason. Rather it is presented as reinforcing the analysis by the use rhetoric. While ad horninem arguments have been the trademark of some writers ("Parson"

Malthus) their acceptanice an(d worth for science are minimal. Newton's violent diatribes do not detract from his scientific contributions in the slightest. In the case of Marx, his paranoia re- garding philosophical anarchism was closer to the points of view of de Bonald or de Maistre. Furthermore, his middle-class german Bir-gersihn can be viewed with amusement, but is no basis for despisal or veneration of particular Marxian social theories or propositions.

A second disturbing aspect is the heavy emphasis throughout the book on the Hegelian ( - Marxian) theory of emergence as the Ioit pluts ultra of ideological and scientific sophistication. For in- stance, the premise from which Marx starts his general theory is real "flesh-and-blood human individuals." His emphasis on these flesh-and- blood people is regarded by the author as a major aspect of the transition from social phi- losophy to sociological theory. This section reads more or less like a good theological interpretatioln of Genesis, in which flesh and blood is substituted for clay. That is, from these physiological char- acteristics emerge a number of social interactive relationships (the serpent in this case being repre- sented by the mode of production). More spe- cifically, one problem associated with theories of emergence is that their basic premise is the in- variate existence of a conflict situation. While this precludes predictioln (except in terms of an a priori belief system not the result of reason), it also pari passu has to state its propositions in terms of polar opposites having at least elemental separate- ness. Thus, approaches employing this dialectical framework are not characterized, as the author claims, by the universal doubt of the Enlightein- ment, but rather by a polemical attitude orientec4 at polarization and leading to theories of sociat life based on conflict. Parenthetically, the author's arguments are theoretical elaborations of the con- flicts between flesh and blood, rather than of socialt individuals.

Finally, the author has, in addition to his ex- tensive personal analyses, ably used the works of others to emphasize certain points he develops, As such his presentation is far from provincial and displays the serious concern in the profession with the scientific ideology of sociology. His selectivity regarding the "critical intellectual re- sponse" provoked by Marx is not framed by his title. To characterize the book's content properly it would need to read: "Marxian Ideology and the Development of Sociological Theory."

ANDREAS N. MARIS VAN BLAADEREN

Washington State University

ORDER AND CHANGE: ESSAYS IN COMPARATIVE SO- CIOLOGY. By Wilbert E. Moore. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1967. 313 pp. $8.95.

Of all the theorists who have been in the main- stream of American sociology since World War II,

This content downloaded from 195.78.109.162 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 07:40:13 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions