* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Download Renovating Russia: The Human Sciences and the Fate of Liberal
Survey
Document related concepts
Social Bonding and Nurture Kinship wikipedia , lookup
Postdevelopment theory wikipedia , lookup
History of social work wikipedia , lookup
Social psychology wikipedia , lookup
Sociological theory wikipedia , lookup
Social perception wikipedia , lookup
Other (philosophy) wikipedia , lookup
Social Darwinism wikipedia , lookup
Classical liberalism wikipedia , lookup
Unilineal evolution wikipedia , lookup
Social theory wikipedia , lookup
State (polity) wikipedia , lookup
Transcript
756 B O O K R EV I EW S Renovating Russia: The Human Sciences and the Fate of Liberal Modernity, 1880– 1930, by Daniel Beer (Ithaca: Cornell U.P., 2008; pp. 229. £22.95). This book describes the influence on nineteenth-century Russian sociologists, psychiatrists, pedagogues, physicians, and criminologists of biological theories of social deviance. These include the related fields of social Darwinism, degeneration theory, criminal anthropology, and social psychology (including crowd psychology). Four chapters concentrate on the period from the Great EHR, cxxv. 514 (June 2010) B O O K R EV I EW S 757 Reforms of the 1860s to the end of the Tsarist regime in 1917; the last covers the first thirteen years of the Soviet era. Beer describes how the Russian exponents of such ideas adapted them to local circumstances and also to the changing political situation in Russia. He does not focus on the inner workings of the professions to which these experts belonged, but rather on the development of their thinking, as expressed in published sources. These theories, as he shows, were ambivalent: reflecting the widespread anxiety about the social effects of modernisation, particularly under the stress of revolution in 1905, while at the same time offering the hope of improvement. Some of this territory, as Beer acknowledges, has been the subject of recent scholarship. Beer’s contribution is to focus specifically on ideas of social deviance and pathology and to trace the evolution of these ideas after 1917. He uses the material to support an argument about the political character of ‘modernity’. Following theorists of coercive modernity such as Michel Foucault and Zygmunt Bauman, and historians in the Russian field such as Peter Holquist, Yanni Kotsonis, and David L. Hoffmann, Beer offers imperial Russia as a case-study of the way in which modern states utilise the social sciences to shape and control society. Regardless of political ideology, according to this view, all such states are in the business of social engineering, which by definition cannot avoid elements of compulsion or even physical violence. Foucault indeed saw the social-science disciplines as themselves inherently coercive and therefore in tension with the liberating promises of the Enlightenment from which they derive. In fact, despite these promises, the Enlightenment project does not result in freedom but in new forms of constraint; liberalism itself is not liberal in the original sense of the term. In this spirit, Beer shows how the same theories used by professionals to criticise both the autocracy and the impact of the capitalism emerging under the old regime helped to justify Soviet-style social engineering after 1917. Beer does not examine the impact of such thinking on public policy before 1917, but he demonstrates how these theories were invoked by the political authorities in the years following the Revolution. A similar argument for disciplinary continuity in the health professions has been made by John Hutchinson, as Beer notes. To some extent, Beer frames his argument with reference to one which this reviewer made fifteen years ago in an article on Foucault and the Russian case. Engaging in genial and welcome polemic, he faults me for two things: first, for thinking that liberals failed to achieve their political objectives in Russia; second, for considering liberalism to be ‘an essentially benign, if naïve, political force’ (p. 17). He argues, by contrast, that liberalism did not fail, but eventually attained its goals in alliance with the Soviet regime, which promoted ideals of social improvement derived from the same Enlightenment source. ‘Russian liberalism in the late imperial period did not “fail”’, Beer writes, ‘rather, it contained—precisely in its modernist [sic] preoccupations with science, crisis, and solutions—a dangerous potential that could be radicalized and implemented in unforeseen ways’ (pp. 207–8). Yes, I do think liberalism in Russia failed, if by liberalism you mean a state recognising the principles of civil rights, citizenship, and rule of law. My point was not, however, that liberalism was innocent or naïve. My point was to argue that ‘liberalism’ does not consist merely of theories, techniques, and disciplines; that the political consequences of these human disciplines are shaped by the institutional context in which they operate. That seems to be exactly what Beer EHR, cxxv. 514 (June 2010) 758 B O O K R EV I EW S himself has concluded. The desire to alter, through purposeful intervention, the lives of people suffering from poverty, ignorance, disease, or madness can legitimate or facilitate forms of tyranny, even mass murder; or it can motivate what we would consider to be humane social policy. Some social theories have greater potential for non-liberal applications than others: social Darwinism and pseudo-scientific racism have justified the abuses of fascist regimes. Euthanasia has been popular at times in democratic societies, which also practise various forms of discrimination. But it is a far cry from the injustices committed by democratic states, significant though they may be, to the mass murders perpetrated by ideologically driven authoritarian regimes in the modern era. As Beer himself notes, the social sciences offer the potential for certain kinds of abuses; but they do not make them inevitable. Where is the argument, then? Laura Engelstein doi:10.1093/ehr/ceq083 Yale University EHR, cxxv. 514 (June 2010)