Journal of Reviews Contemporary Sociology: A
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Contemporary Sociology: A Journal of Reviews http://csx.sagepub.com/ Une Laïcité 'Légitme': La France et ses religions d'État ['Legimiate'Laicité: France and its State Religions.] Margarita A. Mooney Contemporary Sociology: A Journal of Reviews 2010 39: 319 DOI: 10.1177/0094306110367909hh The online version of this article can be found at: http://csx.sagepub.com/content/39/3/319 Published by: http://www.sagepublications.com On behalf of: American Sociological Association Additional services and information for Contemporary Sociology: A Journal of Reviews can be found at: Email Alerts: http://csx.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Subscriptions: http://csx.sagepub.com/subscriptions Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav Downloaded from csx.sagepub.com at NORTH CAROLINA UNIVERSITY on August 10, 2010 Ó American Sociological Association 2010 DOI: 10.1177/0094306110367909 http://cs.sagepub.com REVIEWS ‘‘selling’’ of American science in Chapter Master Mechanics & Wicked Wizards: Images of Three without any apparent reference either the American Scientist as Hero and Villain to the work of sociologist Dorothy Nelkin or from Colonial Times to the Present,byGlen to that of media historian Marcel Lafollette, Scott Allen. Amherst, MA: University of two scholars especially well-known for their Massachusetts Press, 2009. 304pp. $29.95 careful documentation of how media repre- paper. ISBN: 9781558497030. sentations of science and technology have SUSANNA HORNIG PRIEST historically served this purpose. Then, in University of Nevada, Las Vegas Chapter Four, Allen presents American [email protected] Pragmatism without reference to John Dewey, who makes only a cameo appear- This book has a catchy title and nice cover ance a few pages later. Surely Dewey’s con- art, adding to the reader’s anticipation that tribution to Pragmatism would have been it will be an absorbing—and entertaining— an excellent pillar on which to build any read. The price is reasonable, making it argument about American perspectives on potentially attractive as a text. And the practical knowledge. book is, in fact, generally quite well written. Finally, as a postscript about two pages America’s romance with technology is com- from the end of the entire work, Allen con- plicated, contradictory, and confusing, and it fesses that two issues ‘‘not specifically certainly deserves more scholarly attention. addressed in this book are race and gender’’ However, much has already been written (p. 260). Struggling to express my reaction to on this subject, not enough of which finds this latter statement in particularly appropri- its way into the pages of this book. The intro- ate scholarly language, the phrase that duction suggests that its author, fiction writ- seems to sum it up best is : ‘‘Well, duh!’’ er and English professor Glen Scott Allen, While some of Allen’s insights into Amer- imagines an audience largely unfamiliar ican culture are intriguing—for example, our with social and cultural studies of science preference for the practical and our obses- and technology, and tends to leave the sion with efficiency certainly ring true—they impression that he is unfamiliar with much are not ideally persuasive as presented of this work himself. because of the book’s tendency to ignore Allen concentrates on what he sees as too many important issues and scholars. Americans’ suspicion of the purely scientif- Allen may have read more broadly in the ic, as opposed to the technological, a suspi- sociology and history of science – as well cion that he correctly surmises may have as in media studies and philosophy—than roots in social class distinctions. He reports this presentation of his subject matter that in researching this book, he ‘‘began to implies; if so, he ought to have reflected wonder to what extent . American culture this reading in what he has written here. [has] shaped American scientific practice’’ A dose of empiricism may be helpful in (p. 5), as though this were an entirely origi- this context. While it seems to be true (on nal question. In Chapter One, he marvels the basis of most relevant opinion polls) that in 1848 the American Association for that today’s Americans prefer science that the Advancement of Science adopted pro- has economic or social benefits (for example, motion of the ‘‘purer’’ sciences as its goal science that creates jobs, health, and wealth), (p. 17), and in general implies surprise at it is also true that Americans continue to like his discovery of the social, political, and and trust science as well as technology (even class-based character of science (although it while some segments are doubtful about is not exactly clear how the AAAS vision is specific points, such as evolution and cli- an argument that Americans distrust sci- mate change). If, as Allen apparently takes ence, instead of an argument that at least as his premise, suspicion of all things purely some of us approve of it). He discusses the scientific is a peculiarly American cultural Contemporary Sociology 39, 3 270 Downloaded from csx.sagepub.com at NORTH CAROLINA UNIVERSITY on August 10, 2010 Reviews 271 characteristic, then what is wrong with all and pooled data from multiple ethno- these polls? And are there really no heroic graphies and interview studies that include images of scientists to be found in American largely white, middle-class, university- popular culture that effectively compete attending men in the United States and Brit- with the ‘‘wicked’’ ones? Not Einstein, not ain. A total of 276 interviews with gay male Schweitzer? If not, and if popular culture is athletes, fraternity brothers, rugby and soc- such a reliable window on popular senti- cer players, male cheerleaders, and others, ment, then why is it so clearly at odds with inform Anderson’s thinking—214 inter- public opinion? More likely, our relationship views ‘‘formally feed the results’’ (p. 15). with science is simply a complicated one, Anderson links his notion of inclusive with cautionary morality tales consistently masculinity to the degree to which reminding us that some science, some of homohysteria—a combination of the ‘‘cul- the time, can run amok, coexisting alongside ture of homophobia, femphobia, and com- less critical perspectives. pulsory heterosexuality’’ (p. 7)—gains That public perceptions of technical exper- traction in a particular cultural context. For tise (‘‘master mechanics’’) should be differ- Anderson, three cultural phases contribute ent from those of more purely scientific to how gender relations occur: high homo- genius (‘‘wicked wizards’’) is plausible, if hysteria, diminishing homohysteria, and arguably overdrawn in this volume. Even if diminished homohysteria. Whereas a hege- accurate, this tendency likely began earlier monic or dominating pattern of masculinity than Allen’s focus on a couple of recent cen- typically characterizes the first phase, a less turies in colonial and post-colonial North hierarchical model is expected to surface America is capable of detecting. Longer- once homohysteria diminishes. standing class divisions between (working Anderson’s qualitative research and per- class) tradespeople possessed of ‘‘technical’’ sonal observations as a sociology professor, knowledge and early (upper class, usually gay man, and former coach lead him to white and male) scientists may be one root believe that, on average, recent cohorts of he overlooks by focusing so closely on the young men (and women) in North American recent history of North America, which and many European cultures perceive and hardly created this distinction. Allen’s effort experience gender relations, masculinity in would have been more valuable had it been particular, differently than their older coun- set in the context of more of the work – and terparts. Accordingly, he argues, as gender history – that preceded it. norms become more fluid and alterative models of producing masculinity gain wider acceptance, men are less apt to embrace an orthodox, hegemonic version of masculinity. Instead, alternative expressions of masculin- Inclusive Masculinity: The Changing Nature of ities are thought to co-exist on an increasing- Masculinities,byEric Anderson. New York, ly level playing field and compete for boys’ NY: Routledge, 2009. 190pp. $105.00 cloth. and men’s recognition. ISBN: 9780415804622. In his introductory remarks, Anderson WILLIAM MARSIGLIO promises to render his ideas in a manner University of Florida ‘‘accessible for public consumption’’ because [email protected] he is committed to ‘‘emancipatory research’’ (p. 14). On this front, Anderson achieves Motivated to explain why many male partic- mixed success. Some sections are lively, ipants in his assorted qualitative studies flow well, and are likely to engage academic reject expressing orthodox styles of mascu- and nonacademic readers alike; others are linity, Eric Anderson inductively develops cumbersome, redundant, and resemble text- ‘‘inclusive masculinity’’ theory. This model book prose with extensive foreshadowing challenges Raewyn Connell’s prevailing the- and summary. Many lay readers, and some ory of hegemonic masculinity. Anderson academics, will lose interest when they selectively draws on several theoretical tra- encounter the latter. Although the book ditions, including social constructionism, would have benefited from an additional Contemporary Sociology 39, 3 Downloaded from csx.sagepub.com at NORTH CAROLINA UNIVERSITY on August 10, 2010 272 Reviews round or two