Eleanor Townsley

Making Capitalism without Capitalists: The New Ruling Elites in Eastern Europe

I do not know what is like elsewhere, but in Poland sociologists look at social policy writers with a bit of superiority, as the former deal mainly with ‘pure’ science, and social policy analysts represent rather mundane, practical perspectives. And indeed, after reading Making Capitalism Without Capitalists, written by three sociologists based in the USA, I have become much more aware of how close to practice I am as a policy analyst, even if I am interested primarily in social policy strategies and not so much in their implementation. The main purpose of the book is to set a new research agenda for a neo-classical sociology, an agenda concerned with the origins and character of capitalist systems emerging in post-communist Central Europe. In my opinion the authors have succeeded in this. The book is very helpful in explaining how capitalism is developing on the basis of ‘real’ socialism, what actors are building postcommunist capitalism, how social structures are being shaped and the origins and ideology of the new power-elite. From this point of view the most important achievement of the authors seems to be a refutation of a ‘political capitalism’ thesis; in the countries of Central Europe (i.e. Czech Republic, Hungary and Poland) there is little evidence that the nomenclatura (i.e. members of the power-elite under socialism) was successful in acquiring private property. In this respect Central Europe differs substantially from Russia and other East European countries, where conversion of political power into private wealth is evident. Readers interested in theoretical problems of shaping a new socio-economic system and in capturing the dynamics of transformation from a ‘real’ socialism into a market-oriented economy will certainly enrich their knowledge about how these processes are unfolding in the countries of Central Europe. They will learn how capitalism is being created from above and in which ways the formation of private property and class relations affect the nature of capitalism that is being built in the region. All these theoretical issues are obviously of great interest for social policy analysts, but while reading this book I constantly wondered what were the practical implications of ‘capitalism from above’ for dealing with old and newly emerging social problems. The authors admit that they are not fully prepared to answer this question yet. In my opinion, theoretical considerations on ‘making capitalism without capitalists’ are not very helpful in pointing to solutions to the socio-political dilemmas of the transformation process. The book, however, also makes several casual remarks of direct importance for social policy analysts. First of all, the authors identify winners and losers of the transformation. According to them, the main winners are highly educated middle-aged men; major losers are less educated people in their fifties, employed in highly subsidized sectors of the socialist economy. The authors also stress the significance of cultural capital as the most important form of capital in post-communist societies. The Polish experiences also confirm the authors’ belief that the development of the ‘right’ institutions is not sufficient to generate ‘appropriate’ behaviour, and it is certainly not enough to change post-communist mentality. Summing up, it seems to me that the book might be especially interesting to readers from ‘mature’ capitalist countries, providing them with a multifaceted picture of an emerging post-communist capitalist system. One has to remember, however, that the post-communist system in Central Europe is constantly changing, and that the nature of the system will certainly be different in the years to come. The authors are perfectly aware of the ‘transitory’ character of the present conditions, but BOOK REVIEWS

The space of opinion : media intellectuals and the public sphere

Chapter 1. Media Commentary and the Space of Opinion Chapter 2. A History of Opinion in the U.S. Media Chapter 3. Media and Opinion Formation: Toward a New Theory of Deliberative Politics Chapter 4. Who Speaks in the Space of Opinion? Chapter 5. Formats and Norms in the U.S. Space of Opinion Chapter 6. Rhetorics in the Space of Contemporary U.S. Opinion Chapter 7. The Enron Scandal Chapter 8. The War on Terror Chapter 9. The Future of Opinion

The Utopia of Postsocialist Theory and the Ironic View of History in Neoclassical Sociology1

Michael Burawoy offers three thought-provoking criticisms of our book: (1) that we abandon class analysis, (2) that we do not suggest an alternative to the present capitalist order, and, therefore, (3) that our “neoclassical sociology” abandons the critical vision of classical sociology. At this abstract level, we plead not guilty to all three charges. First, instead of abandoning class analysis, our book offers a comprehensive theory of class structure in state socialism and postcommunism. True, we pay far less attention to the working class than Burawoy finds acceptable, but this is because we analyze a situation in which the working class is far from fully formed: we do not assume that classes, like Pallas Athena, issue forth fully armed from Zeus’s head. Second, rather than joining the chorus heralding the end of the history, we think our book injects historical openness into the analysis of postcommunism. We do not assume one single capitalism as the last station of history. Instead, we argue for a research agenda framed in terms of “comparative capitalisms.” Such an agenda addresses the diversity of market economies without ordering these forms into a single hierarchy from “advanced” to “backward” or from “central” to “peripheral.” Finally, we do not contrast different capitalisms with a utopia, “concrete” or otherwise, but we do approach them “critically,” with a measure of Socratic irony. Moving beyond these abstractions, we reformulate Burawoy’s criticisms empirically, and ask the following questions:

On Irony: An Invitation to Neoclassical Sociology

This article proffers an invitation to neoclassical sociology. This is understood as a Habermasian reconstruction of the fundamental vision of the discipline as conceptualized by classical theorists, particularly Weber. Taking the cases of Eastern and Central Europe as a laboratory, we argue against the idea of a single, homogenizing globalizing logic. Currently and historically what we see instead is a remarkable diversity of capitalist forms and destinations. Neither sociological theories of networks and embeddedness nor economic models of rational action adequately comprehend this diversity. A neoclassical approach enjoins an empirical research agenda comparing capitalisms, and an ironic, historical approach to analysis to inform an immanent critique of capitalist possibilities.

The Social Construction of Social Facts: Using the U.S. Census to Examine Race as a Scientific and Moral Category.

This article describes an exercise that explores how race categories and classifications are socially constructed scientifically. In an introductory sociology setting, students compare their perceptions of the size of minority populations with counts from the U.S. Census. In a series of debriefing sessions, students analyze both their perceptions and Census counts as social constructions of the moral phenomena we call race. In the process, students are introduced to Census data and the Census web site as well as to historical and theoretical literature on the social construction of race. Students are then asked to reflect critically about the scientific practices in which race is constructed as a social fact, and in particular, to consider their own roles in these practices as users and subjects of race categories. The larger goal is to help students to develop a critical sociological imagination that productively engages the analysis of race in contemporary society.

A history of intellectuals and the demise of the new class: Academics and the U.S. government in the 1960s

Les rapports entre professionnalisation academique et son influence sur le gouvernement des Etats-Unis dans les annees 60 sont analyses : quel a ete le role des intellectuels dans les politiques sociales? En quoi consiste cette influence?

The Hermeneutics of Hannity: Format Innovation in the Space of Opinion After September 11

This article explores changes in media and political culture in the US since 11 September 2001. Our specific focus is opinion media on cable television, in particular Fox News Channel’s Hannity & Colmes program. We argue that the events of September 11 provided an opportunity for conservative pundits to respond to some of the cultural limitations that had been associated with the cable talk format, creating a new cultural environment for mediated political debate in the US. These changes have pushed the cable talk shows even further away from the dominant practices of the journalistic field, turning them into clearly-delineated partisan interpretive communities, in which the crafting of political narratives is moving beyond the control of political party leaders.

Ironie als Methode

Dieser Artikel stellt theoretische und methodische Ansätze einer neoklassischen Soziologie vor. Die neoklassische Soziologie versteht sich als eine Habermas’sche Rekonstruktion der von ihren klassischen Theoretikern, hier vor allem Max Weber, konzeptualisierten, grundlegenden Idee der Disziplin. Mit Blick auf die Entwicklungen in Ost- und Mitteleuropa widersprechen wir der dominanten Vorstellung einer einzigen, homogenisierenden Globalisierungslogik. Sowohl in der Geschichte als auch in der Gegenwart lässt sich nämlich eine bemerkenswerte Vielfalt kapitalistischer Formen und Ausprägungen feststellen. Weder soziologische Netzwerktheorien oder Theorien der „Einbettung“ noch ökonomische Modelle rationalen Handelns vermögen diese Vielfalt angemessen zu erfassen. Der hier vorgestellte neoklassische Ansatz verknüpft empirische, vergleichende Ansätze der Untersuchung des Kapitalismus mit einem ironischen historischen Analyseansatz und ermöglicht so erst eine differenzierte und kritische soziologische Analyse der verschiedenen Formen des Kapitalismus.SummaryThis article proffers an invitation to neo-classical sociology. This is understood as a Habermasian reconstruction of the fundamental vision of the discipline as conceptualized by classical theorists, particularly Weber. Taking the cases of Eastern and Central Europe as a laboratory, we argue against the idea of a single, homogenizing globalizing logic. Currently and historically what we see instead is a remarkable diversity of capitalist forms and destinations. Neither sociological theories of networks and embeddedness nor economic models of rational action adequately comprehend this diversity. A neo-classical approach enjoins an empirical research agenda comparing capitalisms, and an ironic, historical approach to analysis to inform an immanent critique of capitalist possibilities.RésuméCet article présente les énoncés théoriques et méthodologiques d’une sociologie néo-classique. La sociologie néo-classique est une reconstruction d’après Habermas de l’idée fondamentale de discipline, idée originellement conceptualisée par les théoriciens classiques, surtout par Max Weber. Considérant l’Europe centrale et Orientale, nous réfutons l’idée dominante d’une seule et unique logique homogénéisante de mondialisation. Que ce soit dans le passé ou dans le présent, on peut constater une remarquable diversité de formes capitalistes. Ni les théories sociologiques des réseaux, ni les modèles économiques de l’agissement rationnel ne parviennent à saisir convenablement cette diversité. Le présent énoncé néo-classique joint des énoncés empiriques et comparatifs relatifs à l’étude du capitalisme à un énoncé historique et ironique et permet ainsi une analyse sociologique différenciée et critique des différentes formes du capitalisme.

Media meta-commentary and the performance of expertise

This article examines the rise of meta-commentary in US media, and considers the consequences it has for the social construction and the performance of intellectual expertise. Media meta-commentary is defined as critical reflection about media practices and performances, in which the primary basis for criticism is the comparison of different media formats. Meta-commentary began to emerge with the differentiation of the aesthetic sphere and the development of a new kind of expert, the cultural critic. Cultural criticism led to a proliferation of expert performance styles, including a type of counter-performance that rejects the somber and serious nature of traditional intellectual practices. By the 1980s, these new styles of intellectual performance were being reinforced by important institutional and regulatory changes within the media industry, and ultimately by the proliferation of new digital technologies and DIY culture. By the twenty-first century, media meta-commentary had become a distinctive and peculiar form of expert discourse, which legitimates the act of criticism while also relativizing it. The current environment suggests two possible outcomes: a hopeful one that encourages greater reflexivity, and a more ominous one that points toward populism.

Reviews: Views of Australia: John Germov and Tara Renae McGee, eds, Histories of Australian Sociology. Carlton, Victoria: Melbourne University Press, 2005, 448 pp., ISBN 0522852246, AUS

Sociologists seem to be fascinated by their history. This might reflect anxieties about sociology’s latecomer status compared to traditional disciplines such as law and philosophy. Or, perhaps it testifies to the powerful reflexivity of the disciplinary project, which requires sociologists to consistently question their relationship to power. In the famed social laboratory of Australia, the question is one of late institutionalization. Why did academic sociology come so late, with no university departments or chairs until the 1960s? Is the answer connected to Australian exceptionalism? How? And how, specifically, is sociology’s story connected to colonialism, nation-building, immigration, industrial conditions, labour organizing and feminism? This expansive volume engages these questions in a four-part survey of academic sociology in Australia. R. W. Connell (‘Australia and World Sociology’) opens the first part of the volume, ‘Contemporary Reflections on Australian and New Zealand Sociology’, with a compelling analysis of Australian sociology at two historical moments. At the first moment, in the 19th century, Australia served as a source of raw data for a wide variety of social evolutionary theorists. Located mostly in Europe and North America, these intellectuals and their ideas were profoundly implicated in processes of colonial expansion. They contributed to a picture of the colonized as backward and primitive, with Spencer and Gillen’s problematic The Native Tribes of Australia (1899) used famously by Durkheim (and also by many others) to describe the most elementary forms of social life. At the second moment, Connell describes how the importation of North American and West European ideas into Australian