Open Institutions: The Hope for Democracy. by John W. Murphy; Dennis L. PeckReview by: Brad BuchnerSocial Forces, Vol. 73, No. 1 (Sep., 1994), pp. 329-331Published by: Oxford University PressStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2579938 .

Accessed: 16/06/2014 00:11

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 62.122.76.45 on Mon, 16 Jun 2014 00:11:19 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Book Reviews / 329

Science is becoming human. It is packed with errors and mistakes." More concretely, the probabilistic nature of modern risks presents special problems in assigning blame and in apportioning justice. If we are all responsible, if "everyone is cause and effect," then there is no responsibility and there are no real causes. The invisible, intangible nature of modern threats makes the problem all the fuzzier. In the clouds of such ambiguity powerful organizations evade political accountability, promote more risk production, and dismiss critics as irrational and emotional.

The key contribution of Risk Sociehy is that it allows us to use its ideas about risk, danger, and society to create a theory of modernity. Although the book does not accomplish all the tasks entailed in such a project, it does pose the right questions.

Open Institutions: The Hlope for Democracy. Edited by John W Murphly and Deninis L. Peck. Praeger, 1993. 224 pp. $49.95.

Reviewer: BRAD BUCHNER, King's College

The observer of American society must have long since become skeptical of the concept of democracy. Despite all the rhetoric about political rights and civil liberties, it is clear to most that policy is not made by the masses but by various elite groups in society.

The editors of this collection have compiled a series of essays on democracy, or the lack thereof, in a number of critical institutions. Murphy and Peck note, for example, that our reliance on science has given that institution tremendous influence in society, ostensibly because science is "objective." In terms of open democracy, however, the voice of anyone coming from a nonscientific perspective is mar- ginalized. The authors also point out the current reliance on political pragmatism. Political policy making tends to seek short-term gain, while ignoring long-term implications. When this happens, government with its laws and ideals becomes merely an abstraction - a chimerical topic for high school civics classes.

Whereas America's founders envisioned public servants who would serve briefly and then go home, Murphy and Peck observe that modern government comprises a "cabal of technocrats," to which few citizens belong. Finally, the authors cite the prevalence in society of a structuralist view that some individuals and groups are more important than others, making their contributions more highly valued. The result of all this is that "democracy" is limited in scope in American society.

Cozzens and Jalbert critically examine the scientific institution. Cozzens notes that the expansion of specialized graduate education in the U.S. between 1870 and 1920, accompanied by a proliferation of professional societies and journals, limited widespread participation in scientific endeavors. Later in the century, as science was pushed to seek funding for its work, alliances were formed with military and industrial institutions, further eroding internal democracy. Jalbert complements Cozzens's essay with an analysis of technology assessment. He argues that the social sciences and humanities have a legitimate role in technology assessment -

establishing a moral framework - that has been largely ignored in recent history. The hope for democracy in these essays lies in the necessity for institutions to become more inclusive or risk stagnation.

This content downloaded from 62.122.76.45 on Mon, 16 Jun 2014 00:11:19 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

330 / Social Forces 73:1, September 1994

The modern workplace, says Riemer, is "employer-controlled, autocratic, and bureaucratic." Even workers engaged in sophisticated technical occupations experience classic Marxian alienation, with little control over their circumstances. Riemer suggests an emerging balance between the interests of capital and labor that would be beneficial to society. Unfortunately, he is unable to give much evidence that such a balance is emerging.

Folse and Burry examine George Bush's "America 2000" plan for educational institutions and find it wanting in democratic value. Their chief criticism of the program is that it is too closely tied to economic goals and scarcely tied at all to social goals, such as equality of opportunity and social justice. The rhetoric of political elites "manipulates public thought so that the new goals and values are seen as the goals and values of the collectivity rather than the view of those with a vested interest." This is a telling argument against current trends in American education.

There once were limits on ownership of the media by an individual or group. Kramer discusses how these limits were eroded during the deregulation frenzy of the Reagan era. The resulting concentration of mass media in the hands of a few has led to the virtual exclusion of marginal voices. The author challenges the conser- vative idea of information as a commodity. In the process he laments that political discourse, in the age of mass media, has been reduced to entertainment. The mass media have as their product "audiences of variable value" based on demographics and socioeconomic position, and programming is intended merely to hold the attention of the consumer until the next commercial. He offers solutions based on accountability as the hope for democratization of the media in the future. The alternative is "faith in the social responsibility of corporations." Overall, chances of democratization seem slim.

Herbert Rubin addresses the issue of community empowerment, and Vega and Del Valle argue for a community-based health policy. Their essays are among the most optimistic in the collection. Clearly, community-based action is the best hope not only for democracy but for workable solutions to serious social problems. Rubin's article, in particular, shows some remarkable successes of community-based development organizations.

Crime and justice are the focus of Richard Wright's piece. Surveying the typical solutions offered by conservatives, liberals, and radicals, he observes that all claim to offer the single best and most socially sensitive system. Wright concludes that single-system solutions are only workable in small homogeneous states. In the end, democracy and social justice must rest on community-based solutions to local problems.

The two closing essays, one by Murphy and Choi, the other by Mickunas, evaluate the findings and recommendations of the others. Murphy and Choi recommend the "decentering" of culture as a way to open up institutions and overcome reductionism and racism. This process occurs only through intense political dialogue between groups, something largely lacking in modern society. Mickunas, too, emphasizes the need for a political dialogue free from the obfuscation that promotes the interests of one group over others.

All in all, this book does not offer much hope for democracy in our institutions. Each of the contributors offers solutions and alternatives to current practice, but with the exception of those who extol community-based activities they take ap almost uniformly pessimistic view of what lies ahead. Self-interest, racism, greed, and all

This content downloaded from 62.122.76.45 on Mon, 16 Jun 2014 00:11:19 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Book Reviews / 331

the other characteristics of past and present societies seem likely to control our destinies well into the future.

Globalization, Knowledge and Society. Edited by Martin Albrow and Elizabeth King. Sage Publications, 1990. 280 pp. Cloth, $45.00; paper, $18.95.

Reviewer: JOHN H. SIMPSON, University of Toronto

This volume comprises 15 articles drawn from the journal International Sociology that address topics arising from the increasing interpenetration of national traditions, cultures, and economies through global change. The essays cover epistemological questions (e.g., Is a universal sociology possible?), the teaching of international sociology, sociologically informed local participatory action, the construction of indigenous sociologies, alternative dependency theories, the sociopsychological consequences of underdevelopment, the interdependence of Orientalism and Islamic fundamentalism, and world movements. Sociologists who locate their work within a global paradigm will find the essays informative and provocative. Those whose teaching and research programs do not yet encompass the realities of globalization will find no better introduction to the range of sociological problems and oppor- tunities arising from globality. All the essays are of high quality.

American sociologists may wish to begin their reading with Edward Tiryakian's wake-up call, "Sociology's Great Leap Forward: The Challenge of Internationaliza- tion." He notes that even though the world has grown smaller, "international competency" is not widespread among American elites, intellectuals, and students. He offers valuable practical suggestions for internationalizing the sociology curriculum in order to upgrade international competence.

As the title of the book suggests, epistemological concerns define a common thread running through many of the essays. In "Resisting the Revival of Relativism" Margaret Archer argues vigorously against the notion that knowledge can only be local. What is at stake is whether sociology has a role in explaining all human action. If the "determinate beliefs of [all] human subjects" are not commensurable at some level, then sociology cannot theorize action in a universal sense. Archer rejects the idea that all knowledge is ultimately socially determined and therefore incommensurable since social variation cannot be denied. Among other things, her arguments underwrite a defense of the possibility of translation and thus provide an epistemological foundation for cross-cultural research.

In "Conceptual Frameworks in Comparative Inquiry: Divergent or Convergent?" Piotr Sztompka notes that when sociology was founded comparative research sought uniformities in a 'sea of differences." The relative isolation of societies was the reality of the day. Diversity was taken for granted. What was problematic and baffling was the discovery of commonalities. Under globalization, however, there has been a reversal. What is now problematic is uniqueness amid growing homo- geneity, suggesting a shift from uniformity-seeking to uniqueness-seeking com- parisons.

Mona Abaza and Georg Stauth, in "Occidental Reason, Orientalism, Islamic Fundamentalism: A Critique," argue that Islamic fundamentalism - the search for authenticity through an imagined return to tradition - is in modern times "no less modern than modernity itself." In other words, there is nothing traditional about

This content downloaded from 62.122.76.45 on Mon, 16 Jun 2014 00:11:19 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions