BOOK REVIEWS 329 volumes on Indian tradition are a valuable resource already; but perhaps Professor Saxena or a student of his would give us further handy selections on "Readings in Early Indian Sociology" comparable to J. S. Slotkin's Readings in Early Anthropology ( 1965, Viking Fund Publications in Anthropology). Indra Deva, Y. B. Damle, Yogendra Singh, and several others, also discuss the extent to which western sociological concepts should be imported into India. We face an acute structural problem here. The mainstream of socio­ logical theory flows out of a wide, massive range of data: remember that the sociologist Talcott Parsons was a student of the anthropologist Bronislaw Malinowski at the London School of Economics. Indian sociologists have plugged into the theories of western sociologists but have neglected the mono­ graphic literature which provides its underpinnings. Lacking both the direct, personal experience of western society and the control over the monographic literature, can most Indian sociologists assess, discard, and innovate in the mainstream of sociological theory? The question is posed as a structural problem, not as a rhetorical device. In a volume by sociologists on their profession for their colleagues I would have expected them to apply their professional tools for incisive analyses of the state of their profession. Only the papers by B. R. Chauhan and Y ogendra Singh meet this expectation. Singh examines "schools" of sociology in India, but does not push the analysis in the direction of relating the concerns of these schools with their social matrix: affiliation with diverse "schools" abraod, the nature of the relationship between teachers and students in India, availability (or otherwise) of funds for field research (or library resources), and so forth. Chauhan accurately and honestly notes that "In India, the growth of sociology in modern times has not occurred in response to any challenging problems" (p. 106). Again, "In consonance with the ::limate of transition in everything in India, ... Indian sociology ... in ... its development has followed the serendi­ pity pattern than ... a goal directed activity" (p. 113). It is this reviewer's unhappy task to conclude by noting the volume's editorial faults despite itsfour editors: accuracy in citing names is low (Edward Shils is spelt in three different ways on pp. 16, 94, and 139); linguistic rattle is considerable; bibliographic citations are chaotic; and proof-reading is atrocious.

McGill University SATISH SABERWAL Montreal, Canada

Talcott Parsons, Societies: Evolutionary and Comparative Perspectives, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, I Y66, 120 PJJ·

S. N. Eisenstadt, Modernization: Protest and Change, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1966, 166 pp.

Though these two volumes are small in size, they are addressed to the "big" questions of social analysis. How is the road to modernity traversed? Which way is society going? What way has it come? Both Parsons and Eisen­ stadt are in basic accord in seeing modernization centering around the ability 330 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF COMPARATIVE SOCIOLOGY of a social system to adapt to change. Yet, despite their basic agreement, these two eminent sociologists present somewhat distinctive interpretations on the nature of large-scale societal change. Parsons sees modernization originating in Western European societies as they developed from their medieval bases. It was from these societies that the organizational patterns of modernization were diffused to other areas; first to the European offshoots of America and Russia, then Japan, and presumably eventually to encompass all major societies of the contemporary world. Parsons places this professedly evolutionary view of history within his well-known action-scheme. Much of the generating aspect of change is found in the cultural system. In fact, for Parsons the hallmark of the movement toward higher-order systems is the increasing differentiation and autonomy of the cultural system from the constraints of the social and physical environment. While Societies subscribes to an evolutionary perspective, the Leitmotiv is the variable and multiple origins of the earlier types of societies. Thus, we are given an overview of "primitive" societies, "archaic" societies (e.g. Egypt, Mesopotamia), "historic intermediate" societies (e.g. China, India, the Islamic Empire, Rome), and "seed-bed" societies (e.g. Israel and Greece). Inasmuch as this book is only the first part of an extended work, an analyses of "advanced" societies is delayed until the appearance of a forthcoming sequel to the present volume. However, we can anticipate a further amplification of Parsons' view that development and Westernization are coterminous. Eisenstadt complements Parsons in also seeing modernization entailing a secularization of cultur~ as well as structural differentiation, and social mobili­ zation. But unlike Parsons, Eisenstadt places great stress on patterns of dis­ organization and breakdown. If social decay is to be avoided, Eisenstadt argues, protest groups must be heard and accomodated; a circumstance requiring a high degree of flexibility and cohesion among elites of modernizing societies. Eisenstadt especially distinguishes between the modernization prob­ lems faced by the "oldtimers" (e.g. Western Europe, the United States, Japan) with those of the "newcomers" (e.g. the newly independent states of the third world). Unlike their predecessors, the newcomers are undergoing uneven change and a "split level" development. That is, modernization for the new­ comers is frequently imposed by elites-initially the colonial rulers, later the independence leaders-without the gradualism characteristic of the older nation-states. If Eisenstadt has a "determinism" in his analysis, it is largely found in his emphasis on the role of elites in furthering or thwarting social change. In trying to evaluate these two books by such distinguished men, one has conflicting views. Both of these volumes are lucid, informed, and theoretically elegant. Even though they have asked important questions, however, one unavoidably-and reluctantly-concludes they have given us trivial answers. Thus, Eisenstadt consistently ignores, much less explores, the ramifications of the growing gap between the rich and poor nations and the constraints this imposes on the direction and form of social change in underdeveloped areas. Not only are the emerging nations discussed in vacuo with regard to the global scene, but there is little consideration given to alternative courses of develop­ ment which would open if the structure of international stratification was altered. Cognizance of the consequences of economic dependency and military