Irving Louis Horowitz. The Decomposition of Sociology. New York: Oxford University Press. 1993. $35.00 hardcover

Falk, William W.

English

ScholarWorks at WMU

The Journal of Sociology & Social Welfare Volume 22 Issue 3 September Article 11 September 1995 Review of The Decomposition of Sociology. Irving Louis Horowitz. Reviewed by William W. Falk, University of Maryland. William W. Falk University of Maryland Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.wmich.edu/jssw  Part of the Social Work Commons Recommended Citation Falk, William W. (1995) "Review of The Decomposition of Sociology. Irving Louis Horowitz. Reviewed by William W. Falk, University of Maryland.," The Journal of Sociology & Social Welfare: Vol. 22 : Iss. 3 , Article 11. Available at: https://scholarworks.wmich.edu/jssw/vol22/iss3/11 This Book Review is brought to you for free and open access by the Social Work at ScholarWorks at WMU. For more information, please contact maira.bundza@wmich.edu. 158 Journal of Sociology & Social WelfareIrving Louis Horowitz. The Decomposition of Sociology. New York:Oxford University Press. 1993. $35.00 hardcover.Horowitz's book follows by over 20 years the well known"sociology of sociology" critiques by Robert Friedrichs and byHorowitz's former colleague at Washington University, AlvinGouldner. Like them, Horowitz analyzes the present and pon-ders the future. Unlike them, his account is very, very personal,somewhat autobiographical at times. In the end, he gives us twobooks or at least two quite different parts to one book: In the first129 pages, his target is contemporary sociology. In the remaining130 pages or so, he focuses on social science, not just sociology.My review does likewise and I conclude with a personal reactionto each of these things.Horowitz begins by lamenting sociology's current state. Hesees the discipline as having become balkanized, especially alongpolitical lines driven by an expanding number of interest groups(both social--e.g., feminists, blacks, hispanics, gays, etc.-andintellectual-political economy of the world system, rationalchoice, environmentalists, etc.). Thus, "Sociology has become aseries of demands for correct politics rather than a set of studiesof social culture" (p. 17). Instead of traditional, separate spheresfor the analytical and the ideological, they become fused andconfused. The net effect to this balkanization is "the breakdown ofany notion of a core discipline" (p. 18). In its ostensibly weakenedstate, then, "sociology has become a simulated replica of real-world confusions, rather than an analytical tool for explainingor predicting behavior. Opera seria turns into opera buffa" (p. 35).Lacking any coherent theoretical ideas to hold it together, sociol-ogy becomes a series of empirical exercises each of which canbe given whatever meaning one chooses, depending on theirpolitics.Horowitz draws heavily upon historical events to provide thecontext within which American sociology evolved and changedinto its present form. Along the way, his chapters touch on suchthemes as sociology's (and sociologists) relationship to subjectiv-ity, fascism, communism, socialism (wherein he focuses especiallyon Jews and their relationship to American sociology), democ-racy, public (viz., scientific) access to information, and the rationalBook Reviews 159choice model from economics which has emerged so prominentlyin sociology (especially via the work of James Coleman).He concludes the first part of his book with what for me wasthe most thought-provoking chapter, on "Social Contexts andCultural Canons." Here, his prose takes on an edge that is espe-cially sharp. It is also for this reason that many readers will reactmost strongly to this part of the book. His barbs find easy targetsin such things as multiculturalism, affirmative action programs,and the new pluralism. The main lesson he draws from thesethings is rooted in the canons which guide the knowledge wecreate in sociology, especially "to appreciate the multiple sourcesof values, not to pontificate in the name of dogma which valueis correct. For ultimately the cultural canon is not a thing but anawareness of a process" (p. 128-29). The importance of this needhardly be emphasized.In the second part of the book, "The Reconstruction of SocialScience," Horowitz's gloomy description of sociology is replacedby a more hopeful-sounding future for social science which hebelieves is undergoing a kind of renaissance. Here again, though,he worries about the politicization of social science activity: "Wemust finally get beyond the notion that a social variable is a polit-ical cause" (p. 185). This shift will occur in a reconstructed socialscience "not [by virtue of] the size or importance of the subjectunder discussion but [by] the generalizability of the finding" (p.186). For Horowitz, then, the hope for social science comes from itspotential to rise above any particular historic moment or politicalcause and seek the larger truths which may be drawn from theseevents. Only in this way do we achieve a more independent,depoliticized form of knowledge.Irving Louis Horowitz has written a highly analytical but alsovery personal account of late 20th century American sociology.The story he tells is not a happy one. Indeed, it is one that willmake most sociologists uncomfortable at the least and probablyoutright angry. Why? Because Horowitz describes a sociologywhich has veered sharply off course from its original intellectualunderpinnings. It has, according to him, become so interest groupdriven that its intellectual breadth has been drastically curtailedand as a corollary, its intellectual breath has been stifled. To carrythe metaphor one step further, sociology needs to be hooked up to160 Journal of Sociology & Social Welfarea life support system. To resuscitate itself, sociology must revisitand rediscover its intellectual roots; to recapture the things it didbest and could still do well. Myopic empirical exercises must bereplaced by broader theoretical questions and a willingness toengage in research less bent on proving what researchers want tohave happen. (Horowitz cites James Coleman's unhappy exodusfrom sociology precisely because his data on school desegregationdid not support what most sociologists wanted to believe.)I found myself captured by Horowitz' s analysis and the pas-sion of his prose. I liked better his analysis than proscription forchange but even there his writing is very thought-provoking. Ifhe does nothing else, he will have served an important purposein holding a mirror up to sociology (and its practioners) andtelling them: "Here's what I see. What do you see?" The knee-jerkreaction by many sociologists, I suspect, will be to disagree withHorowitz. They will neither like his analysis nor his proscription.A more detached, dispassionate, reflective reading, however, maylead them to my own conclusion. To wonder about where weare as a discipline and what future we have-in and out of theacademy. Like Pogo, Horowitz has "met the enemy and it's us." Iwonder. I wonder enough that I recommend the book as a "mustread" for sociologists and social scientists more generally sincehis message must be heard and considered by them as well.William W. FalkUniversity of MarylandStanley Aronowitz: Dead Artists Live Theorists. New York: Rout-ledge, 1994. $49.95 hardcover, $16.95 papercover.This book represents a genre of literature that has come tobe known as cultural criticism. To borrow from Tony Bennett,these writers examine "cultural practices from the point of theirinteraction with, and within, relations of power". Within this con-text, the exercise of power is broadly defined to exist in economicleverage, class domination, symbolic violence, gender discrimi-nation, the literary canon, and a host of other covert and overtsources of influence and coercion. The aim of this kind of work isto demonstrate how power is both accumulated and undermined

Review of \u3cem\u3eThe Decomposition of Sociology.\u3c/em\u3e Irving Louis Horowitz. Reviewed by William W. Falk, University of Maryland.

https://scholarworks.wmich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2269&amp;context=jssw

Review of \u3cem\u3eThe Decomposition of Sociology.\u3c/em\u3e Irving Louis Horowitz. Reviewed by William W. Falk, University of Maryland.

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

ScholarWorks at WMU