BOOK REVIEWS Ralf Dahrendorf, Essays in the Theory Of
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
BOOK REVIEWS Ralf Dahrendorf, Essays in the Theory of Society. Stanford : Stanford U. Press. 1968. 300 pp. $ 8.50. I Philosophy is dead; long live philosophy. Or is it alive (but hiding) in sociology? Sociology purports to tell us how society works; social philosophy how it ought to work. Ralf Dahrendorf explains both how society works and how it ought to work and the happy coincidence of the is and ought, as long as we don't meddle with the machinery. If this 'hands off' policy sounds rather like 19th Century liberalism, the similarity is far from coincidental. For Essays in the Theory of Society is an extremely articulate, sophisticated, and informed statement of liberal social philosophy. Dahrendorf's basic premise is the uncertainty of both what ought to be and what will work. From this premise follows the strategy for the organization of human affairs: The only adequate response to the human condition of uncertainty, ... is the necessity of maintaining a plurality of decision patterns, and an opportunity for them to interact and compete, in all spheres for which the assumption of uncertainty holds. Uncertainty demands variety and competition. (p. 240) In the pursuit of knowledge, competition of ideas is the crucial ingredient of progress. Scientific truth is not a product of 'morning exercises in objectivity', but of the dynamics of the intellectual marketplace. Likewise, because the na- ture of the 'just society' is uncertain, we can come closest to justice by insuring a continuing competition between social policies and societal forms. The best social arrangements, then, are those which incorporate and en- courage these fruitful competitions, which recognise their own historicity and allow for the inevitable change and modification. This open society is best represented by liberal society and its institutions of representative democracy which attempt to 'domesticate conflict in recognition of its fruitfulness in a world of uncertainty'. (p. 249) But whether or not a society is foresighted enough to provide for change, it will nonetheless fall to its own contradictions: The structures of power in which the political process takes place, offer an explanation not only of how change originates and what direction it takes, but also of why it is necessary. Power always implies non-power and therefore resistance. The dialectic of power and resist- ance is the motive force of history. From the interests of those in power at a given time we can infer the interests of the powerless, and with them the direction of change. Here is the nexus where norms are laid down, called into question, modified, and called into question again. Here is the source of initiative, and thus of the historicity-and that means the vitality, the openness, the freedom-of human societies. Power produced conflict, and con- flict between antagonistic interests gives lasting expression to the fundamental uncertainty of human existance, by ever giving rise to new solutions and ever casting doubt on them as soon as they take form. (p. 227). 141 As we cannot escape history, and the inevitable changes which determine it, we can choose to structure our institutions to flow with its tide, or to be washed away by it. Destined for the latter fate are the closed, totalitarian, utopian societies, which are based upon an assumption of certainty. In attempting to force reality into their model, they must institute a reign of terror to produce consensus and conformity. This results in resistance and ultimately breakdown of the order, but not before much human misery. II Closely associated with Dahrendorf's espousal of liberalism is his position in the consensus-conflict, or integration-coercion debate that has formed a central issue of recent theoretical dialogue in sociology. Indeed, his early article 'Out of Utopia' (reprinted here as Ch. 4) played a major part in the genesis of the debate. But far from remaining static, his position has become even more vehement, not to say extreme. Where he earlier argued for attention to change, he now sees everything as change, with stability being only a special case of change. Where originally a synthesis or at least mixture of consensus and con- flict theory was desired, now only the replacement of consensus theory by con- flict theory is considered satisfactory. Let us try to summarize the opposed positions, as Dahrendorf presents them, drawing mainly from Chapters 4 through 9, but leaning toward the more . recent position where there is a divergence: Structural-Functionalists ConflictTheorists Ancestors : Plato, Rousseau Thrasymachus, Hobbes Mode of Analysis : a priori, ahistorical problem-oriented historical analysis Assumptions society as equilibrium, society as unstable opposition About continuity is normal of forces; change is normal Society : based upon norm consensus based upon power and conflict results from coercion and resistance to psychopathology or from power sources outside the system outside the system structural conflict is an in- tegral element arising from the nature of society Overview : utopian orientation leads to anti-utopian orientation leads society as a closed system to society as an open system Latent Function : totalitarian perspective liberal perspective Perhaps it would be carping to refer here to Dahrendorf's comment on 'the many unhappy dichotomies characteristic of German thought.' (p. 234, Footnote 3) in regard to the above formulation, or to his other thought-provok- ing distinctions between homo sociologicus and the human individual the problematic and assertoric concepts of liberty, and market rational and plan rational. Nonetheless, he sometimes leaves himself open to charges of attacking straw men in his attempt to formulate strongly and elegantly. We should not, .