Liberal Democracy 3.0: Civil Society in an Age of Experts

Books

Stephen P. Turner

  • Citations
  • Add to My List
  • Text Size

  • Chapters
  • Front Matter
  • Back Matter
  • Subject Index
  • Theory, Culture & Society

    Theory, Culture & Society caters for the resurgence of interest in culture within contemporary social science and the humanities. Building on the heritage of classical social theory, the book series examines ways in which this tradition has been reshaped by a new generation of theorists. It also publishes theoretically informed analyses of everyday life, popular culture, and new intellectual movements.

    EDITOR: Mike Featherstone, Nottingham Trent University

    SERIES EDITORIAL BOARD

    Roy Boyne, University of Durham

    Mike Hepworth, University of Aberdeen

    Scott Lash, Goldsmiths College, University of London

    Roland Robertson, University of Aberdeen

    Bryan S. Turner, University of Cambridge

    THE TCS CENTRE

    The Theory, Culture & Society book series, the journals Theory, Culture & Society and Body & Society, and related conference, seminar and postgraduate programmes operate from the TCS Centre at Nottingham Trent University. For further details of the TCS Centre's activities please contact:

    Centre Administrator The TCS Centre, Room 175 Faculty of Humanities Nottingham Trent University Clifton Lane, Nottingham, NG11 8NS, UK

    e-mail: tcs@ntu.ac.uk

    web: http://tcs.ntu.ac.uk

    Recent volumes include:

    The Tourist Gaze

    John Urry

    Critique of Information

    Scott Lash

    French Social Theory

    Mike Gane

    Veblen on Culture and Society

    Stjepan Mestrovic

    Copyright

    View Copyright Page

    For Douglas Carrera Turner

    …in the general interest, domination should be proportionate to enlightenment.

    (Henri Comte de Saint-Simon [1803]1952: 8)

    The decision of the question whether a man do reason rightly, belongs to the city.

    (Thomas Hobbes [1651]1839: 268–9)

    The Republic has no need of scientists.

    (attributed to the Presiding Judge in the trial of Antoine Laurent Lavoisier, in response to the chemist's request for a delay in his execution to enable him to complete some scientific work)

    Foreword

    This book may be read in a number of ways, and by a number of audiences, so it is perhaps my task as author to identify, or confess to, a few of the ways it was intended to be read, and in the course of this to explain its relation to a number of other texts that are important to it, but either unmentioned or undiscussed.

    The series in which this book appears, Theory, Culture & Society, together with my role in relation to the journal and its concerns, suggests one way of reading it: as a text that is in a broad sense a ‘Weberian’ or Weberian-Schmittian account of the problem of experts and its bearing on Liberal Democracy. The mode of explanation and the conclusions parallel, in some respects, the historical accounts that Weber gives of the origins of modern bureaucracy in the slow rise of the royal staff in its struggle with the feudal aristocracy, and, in his Agrarian Sociology of Ancient Civilizations (1976), the slow transformation of slaves and small-holders into serf-like dependents. In Liberal Democracy 3.0, the slow transformation is from a politics of sovereign citizens to a politics of diffused experts, in which electoral struggle is gradually supplanted by what I call ‘commissions,’ that is to say expert bodies. The ‘3.0’ in the title refers to a periodization of Liberalism that is elaborated in Chapter 5, from the initial forms of Liberalism in which the franchise was restricted, to the late nineteenth century form, of government by discussion with full franchise, to the form that I argue is now emerging: a form in which ‘discussion’ is limited to those topics not delegated to experts. The argument, in this reading, can be seen to contrast to that of Foucault and Habermas, for reasons that will be discussed in the text itself. Habermas, like much of the Left today, has taken up the idea of civil society as an ideal. One of the followers of Habermas wrote a paper on the theme of nostalgia as critique. One point of this book is to ask whether a critique based on the ideal of civil society is an exercise in nostalgia.

    The book may also be read as a text in political theory. It updates and extends arguments made by the great nineteenth century liberals, from Tocqueville and John Stuart Mill to Albert Venn Dicey, who lived long enough to see and understand what was happening as the older liberalism began to turn into the mode of governance we are familiar with today, which he identified with the ‘collectivist’ current of opinion that emerged, by his reckoning, in the period after the American Civil War. Dicey associated this socialist current with the idea of rule by experts, a political idea with an interesting subsequent history on the Left, which eventuates in one or another model of ‘the democratic control of science.’ To this largely familiar story, something is added: a consideration of the thinking of James Bryant Conant. Conant grasped that ‘democratic control’ was a dangerous illusion, and argued instead, so I will claim, for a different strategy, which I call ‘Liberalizing Expertise,’ by which I mean controlling experts indirectly and also by forcing the opinions of experts into the light provided by contentious discussion outside of the body of experts.

    The text also has some philosophy, and even a few philosophical distinctions and theses, though these are purposely kept to the side, for the most part. A more detailed discussion of the issue of the corporate character of scientific authority can be found in my ‘Scientists as Agents’ (2002a). Another set of issues involves the status of rational considerations and their relation to disciplined communities: science is a paradigm case of the organization of discourse around a scheme of common skills and exacting training. ‘Political’ rationality is not organized in this way. But even science depends on ‘political’ discussion about itself. The claims I make here involve a defense, of sorts, of the primacy of non-disciplined rationality. It has affinities with a more general anti-Kantian line of argument I have developed elsewhere, particularly in Brains/Practices/Relativism: Social Theory after Cognitive Science (2002b).

    The book is also a text in science studies, and its relation to that body of thought is sufficiently complex that a more complex explanation is owed. A better subtitle might have been ‘A Political Prolegomena to Science Studies,’ for that is what it attempts, in part, to provide: the tools for understanding the political significance of science studies. I considered, and indeed in an earlier draft attempted to formulate, the argument of the book as a critique of a series of various science studies authors, ranging from Ulrich Beck to Sheila Jasanoff and Brian Wynne, whose writings on science and politics have seemed to me interesting enough to be worthy of criticism. I decided that detailed critique was inappropriate. There was some point to a dialectical analysis of the inner contradictions of the attempt to be anti-essentialist (or ‘social constructionist’) about science and at the same time to provide some sort of external God's eye view ‘critique’ with ‘policy’ implications which bedevils ‘science studies’ attempts to be normative. But in the end I decided that this severely textual approach demanded too much and produced too little. It demanded too much from the reader, who would need to be provided with a great deal that was not in the text, notably the common ground of political theory and legal philosophy necessary to see the point of the analysis, and would produce little in the way of positive argument. But trying to do this reminded me of the difficulties that those of us with an interest in science and politics have had in establishing enough of a common problematic to start a meaningful discussion. I hope that the argument of this book, right or wrong, is sufficiently panoramic and rooted in the larger tradition of political and social theory to do so, and that someone rises to the bait.

    My point about these writers, if I was to elaborate it, would be that they are insufficiently political – not in the sense that they are insufficiently critical, for they each in their own way make gestures toward critique, or in the case of Beck formulate an elaborate critical ‘theory’ of the problem of science and politics – but in the sense that each appears, in the words of Casablanca, to be ‘shocked, shocked,’ to discover that questions like ‘what is science’ are indeed ‘political.’ Evelleen Richards, whose studies of science controversies I greatly admire, concludes one of these studies, a study of the controversy over the therapeutic value of Vitamin C as a cancer treatment, with the following: ‘therapeutic evaluation is inherently [!] a social and political process, and … the idea of neutral appraisal is a myth.’ (1988: 685). This, it seems to me, is naive, and naive not about science, but about politics. The point of this book, in a phrase, is this: to be apolitical is a political strategy, and ‘myth’ is a political term. But understanding what sort of political questions these are requires more than slogans.

    The implications of the argument for Beck are that he has stumbled upon the right problem, but addresses it with the wrong intellectual tools, leading him to what is essentially a retrograde conclusion – an attempt to reinscribe the nineteenth century problem of ‘interests’ onto the problem of experts, and then to solve this problem politically by insisting that everyone is an expert, which is a novel form of the nineteenth century solution of extending the franchise. To make this solution plausible, he must imagine that science can become a reflexive activity and thus in effect to equalize itself, and that citizens want, or should want, a form of decision-making based on discussions in which non-experts engage with ‘experts’ on equal terms, and in which considerations of competence are excluded as ‘monopolization.’ In my view, one of the implications of science studies is that science assures ‘consensus’ by the careful control (or ‘social construction’) of what is counted as science, what is counted as competent (for example in the form of the problem of who possesses the relevant tacit knowledge). Announcing ‘demonopolization’ is thus an empty gesture. ‘Monopolization’ is part of the point of the activity of scientists; so is a kind of self-discipline about what counts as science that excludes the kind of reflexivity Beck calls for. Not surprisingly, there has been a large chasm between science studies and the kind of concern reflected in Beck.

    Saying this raises a more general question about the political meaning of science studies, at least science studies in the constructionist tradition, and its relation to ‘critique.’ Many scholars of science studies are sufficiently embattled in their struggles against the political myths of science to think of themselves as engaged in a project of critique related to the Left, and in some writers, like Steve Fuller, there is a systematic attempt to carry this idea out (2000). In my view, the naive form of this self-concept is a piece of self-misunderstanding. The social constructionist account of science is symmetrical with the Oakeshottian critique of Liberal theory. Like Oakeshott, it says that the theories of the nature of the activities, politics for Oakeshott, science for writers like Harry Collins, are false – ‘abridgements,’ in Oakeshott's language – that misrepresent the activity. The ‘activity’ in each case is shown to be practical, irreducible to explicit rational principles, dependent on the tacit, and has the form, as Oakeshott says, of a tradition: ‘It is neither fixed nor finished; it has no changeless centre to which understanding can anchor itself; there is no sovereign purpose to be perceived or invariable direction to be detected; there is no model to be copied, no ideal to be realized, or rule to be followed …’ (Oakeshott 1962: 128). But in neither Oakeshott's nor Collins' case is this a critique of the activity. It is rather a critique of crippling, or selfserving, misunderstandings of the activity.

    Yet this critique does align with a ‘political’ understanding of the role of science in society: it aligns with Conant's. I might note that The Golem (Collins and Pinch 1993) is the kind of text that Conant would have commended, for it is a text about science that does not pretend that a little knowledge of scientific fact can make a good ‘citizen scientist’. For Conant and for Collins and Pinch, the understanding we need of science as citizens is of what sorts of activity are the basis of the expert claims that are presented to us as citizens. To understand this rather cryptic comment, however, one needs a big picture of the political problem of expertise, something which Collins does not provide, but this book does.

    I would like to acknowledge the support of various institutions: The National Science Foundation Ethics and Values Studies program funded the basic research out of which this project flowed; a second NSF grant (SBR-9810900) enabled me to examine thousands of actual expressions of ‘political’ thinking by scientists, which is in part the basis for the arguments in this book; SCASSS, the Swedish Center for Advanced Studies in the Social Sciences, where I was able to do some of the work on the book as a Fellow in 1998; and, finally, the University of Manchester, which enabled me, while an Honorary Simon Visiting Professor, to immerse myself in the papers of Bernard Lovell, but more importantly, to browse in the personal library of Lord Simon himself, which contained the writings of the Webbs, the British Left of the thirties and forties, and much more, about housing, municipal administration, and sewers, especially in Moscow. This was a lost letter from a world where the idea of benevolent rule by experts was not only alive, but revolutionary, and the object of passionate devotion.

  • References

    Agrawal, A. (1995) ‘Dismantling the Divide between Indigenous and Scientific Knowledge’, Development and Change, 26: 3, pp. 413–39. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-7660.1995.tb00560.x
    Aristotle ([1921] 1972) The Works of Aristotle: Volume X: Political. Tr. B.Jowett. J. A.Smith and W. D.Ross (eds). London: Oxford University Press.
    Austin, Paul Britten (1968) On Being Swedish: Reflections towards a Better Understanding of the Swedish Character. Coral Gables, FL: University of Miami Press.
    Beck, Ulrich (1992) The Risk Society: Towards a New Modernity. London; Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
    Beck, Ulrich (1994). ‘The Reinvention of Politics: Towards a Theory of Reflexive Modernization’, in UlrichBeck, AnthonyGiddens, and ScottLash (eds), Reflexive Modernization. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, pp.1–55.
    Beck, Ulrich (1995). Ecological Enlightenment: Essays on the Politics of the Risk Society. Tr. M.Ritter. Atlantic Highlands, NJ: Humanities Press International, Inc.
    Bernal, J. D. (1939) The Social Function of Science. London: Routledge & Sons Ltd.
    Bernal, J. D. (1979) Science in History. Vol. 4, The Social Sciences: Conclusion. Cambridge, MA: The M.I.T. Press. (
    1st edn, 1954
    .)
    Bliss, William D. P. (ed.) (1908) The New Encyclopedia of Social Reform. New York; London: Funk & Wagnalls Company.
    Bloch, Marc (1964) Feudal Society. Vol. 1 & 2. Tr. L.A.Manyon. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
    Bloor, David (1976) Knowledge and Social Imagery. London: Routledge.
    Bohman, James (1996) Public Deliberation: Pluralism, Complexity, and Democracy. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    Brandom, Robert (1994) Making It Explicit: Reasoning, Representing, and Discursive Commitment. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
    Beck, Ulrich (1998) Democracy Without Enemies. Cambridge: Polity Press.
    Breslau, Daniel (1998) In Search of the Unequivocal: The Political Economy of Measurement in U.S. Labor Market Policy. Westport, CT: Praeger.
    Brown, E. Richard (1979) Rockefeller Medicine Men: Medicine and Capitalism in America. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
    Burnham, James (1941) The Managerial Revolution. New York: John Day Company.
    Burtt, Edwin A. (1927) The Metaphysical Foundations of Modern Physical Science; A Historical and Critical Essay. London: K. Paul, Trench, Trubner & Co., Ltd.; New York: Harcourt, Brace & Company, Inc.
    Buxton, William and StephenTurner (1992) ‘From Education to Expertise: Sociology as a “Profession”’, in Terence C.Halliday and MorrisJanowitz (eds), Sociology and its Publics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. pp. 373–407.
    Calhoun, Craig (1992) Habermas and the Public Sphere. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    Callon, Michel and BrunoLatour (1981) ‘Unscrewing the Big Leviathan: How Actors Macro-Structure Reality and How Sociologists Help Them Do It’, in K.Knorr-Cetina and A.Cicourel (eds), Advances in Social Theory and Methodology: Towards An Integration of Micro-and Macro-Sociologies. London: Routledge and Keegan Paul, pp. 277–303.
    Chambers, Clarke (1971) Paul U. Kellogg and the Survey; Voices for Social Welfare and Social Justice. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
    Christie, Richard and MarieJahoda (1954) Studies in the Scope and Method of ‘The Authoritarian Personality. ’Glencoe, IL: The Free Press.
    Chubin, Daryl and EllenW. Chu (eds) (1989) Science off the Pedestal: Social Perspectives on Science and Technology. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
    Chubin, Daryl and EdwardHackett (1990) Peerless Science. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
    Clarke, William (1891) The Clarke Papers. Vol I, C. H.Firth, (ed). London; Royal Historical Society. The Putney Debates 1647.
    Collins, Harry M. (1992[1985]) Changing Order: Replication and Induction in Scientific Practice.
    2nd edn
    . Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
    Collins, Harry and TrevorPinch (1993) The Golem: What Everyone Should Know About Science. Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press.
    Conant, James B. (1940) Charter Day Address delivered at the University of California on March 28, 1940. The Atlantic Monthly. http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/95sep/ets/edcla.htm
    Conant, James B. (1947) On Understanding Science. New York: New American Library.
    Conant, James B. (1951) Science and Common Sense. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
    Conant, James B. (1952) Modern Science and Modern Man. Garden City, NY: Doubleday & Co.
    Dahl, Robert (1989) Democracy and Its Critics. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
    Dahl, Robert A. (1993) ‘Finding Competent Citizens: Improving Democracy’, CurrentVol. 351, pp. 23–30.
    Darnton, Robert (1984) The Great Cat Massacre and Other Episodes in French Cultural History. New York: Basic Books.
    Davidson, Donald (1973–74) ‘On the Very Idea of a Conceptual Scheme. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Association’Vol. 47. Reprinted in Davidson (1984) Inquiries into Truth and Interpretation. Oxford: Clarendon Press, pp. 183–98.
    de Man, Henry ([1928] 1974) The Psychology of Socialism. Tr. Eden and Cedar Paul. New York: Arno Press.
    Dewey, John (1922) Human Nature and Conduct: An Introduction to Social Psychology. New York: Henry Holt and Co.
    Dicey, Albert Venn ([1905]1962) Lectures on the Relations between Law & Public Opinion in England During the Nineteenth Century. London: MacMillan & Co. Ltd. (
    1st edn, 1905
    .)
    Dicey, A. V. (1962[1914]) Law and Public Opinion in England during the Nineteenth Century.
    2nd edn
    . London: MacMillan & Co. (
    1st edition 1905
    )
    Durkheim, Émile ([1902]1933) The Division of Labor in Society. Tr. George Simpson. New York: Free Press. (First published as De la division du travail social, 1902).
    Durkheim, Émile (1984[1902]) ‘Some Remarks on Professional Groups’, Preface to the Second Edition, The Division of Labor in Society.
    2nd edn
    . Tr. W. D.Halls. New York: Macmillan. (
    1st edn
    . De la division du travail social, 1893).
    Eisenstadt, S. N. and LuisRoninger (1984) Patrons, Clients and Friends: Interpersonal Relations and the Structure of Trust in Society. Cambridge: Oxford University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511557743
    Eliaeson, Sven (2000) ‘Constitutional Caesarism: Weber's Politics in Their German Context’, in The Cambridge Companion to Weber. Stephen P.Turner (ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 131–50.
    Engels, Frederick ([1894]1947) Anti-Düring: Herr Eugen Düring's Revolution in Science. Moscow: Progress Publishers. Translated from the 3rd German edition (1894).
    Feyerabend, Paul (1978) Science in a Free Society. London: NLB.
    Fish, Stanley (1994) There's No Such Thing as Free Speech and It's a Good Thing, Too. New York: Oxford University Press.
    Flyvbjerg, Bent (1998) Rationality and Power: Democracy in Practice. Tr. by StevenSampson. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
    Fosdick, Raymond (1952) The Story of the Rockefeller Foundation. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.
    Friedman, Michael (1999) Reconsidering Logical Positivism. New York: Cambridge University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139173193
    Fuller, Steve (1999) The Governance of Science: Ideology and the Future of the Open Society. Buckingham, UK; Philadelphia, PA: Open University Press.
    Fuller, Steve (2000) Thomas Kuhn: A Philosophical History for Our Times. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
    Furêt, François (1981) Interpreting the French Revolution. Tr. ElborgForster. New York: Cambridge University Press.
    Galison, Peter (1997) Image and Logic: A Material Culture of Microphysics. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
    Gieryn, Thomas F. (1994) ‘Boundaries of Science’, in SheilaJasanoff, GeraldMarkle, Trevor Pinch and JamesPeterson (eds.), Handbook on Science, Technology and Society. Newbury Park, CA: Sage, pp.393–443.
    Gieryn, Thomas F. and AnneFigert (1986) ‘Scientists Protect Their Cognitive Authority: The Status Degradation Ceremony of Sir Cyril Burt’, in G.Boehm and N.Stehr (eds.) The Knowledge Society. Dordrecht: Reidel, pp.67–86.
    Goetzmann, William H. (1966) Exploration and Empire: The Explorer and the Scientist in the Winning of the American West. New York: Norton.
    Goldgar, Anne (1995) Impolite Learning: Conduct and Community in the Republic of Letters, 1680–1750. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
    Graham, Loren (1985) ‘The Socio-Political Roots of Boris Hessen: Soviet Marxism and the History of Science’, Social Studies of Science, Vol.15, pp. 705–22. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/030631285015004005
    Greenberg, Daniel S. (2001) Science, Money, and Politics: Political Triumph and Ethical Erosion. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
    Greenwald, Maurine and MargoAnderson (eds) (1996) Pittsburgh Surveyed: Social Science and Social reform in the Early Twentieth Century. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.
    Guston, David H., WilliamClark, TerryKeating, DavidCash, SusanneMoser, ClarkMiller, CharlesPowers (2000) Report of the Workshop on Boundary Organizations in Environmental Policy and Science. Environmental and Occupational Health Sciences Institute, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ.
    Guston, David H. (2000) Between Politics and Science: Assuring the Integrity and Productivity of Research. Cambridge. New York : Cambridge University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511571480
    Habermas, Jürgen ([1962]1991) The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere: An Inquiry into a Category of Bourgeois Society. Tr. ThomasBurger. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
    Habermas, Jürgen (1970) ‘Technology and Science as Ideology’, in Toward a Rational Society: Student Protest, Science, and Politics. Tr. Jeremy J.Shapiro. Boston: Beacon Press, pp. 81–122.
    Habermas, Jürgen (1973) Theory and Practice. Tr. JohnViertel. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.
    Habermas, Jürgen ([1981]1984). The Theory of Communicative Action. Vol. 1. Tr. ThomasMcCarthy. Boston, MA: Beacon.
    Habermas, Jürgen ([1985]1987). The Theory of Communicative Action. Vol. 2. Tr. ThomasMcCarthy. Boston, MA: Beacon.
    Hahn, Roger (1971) The Anatomy of a Scientific Institution: The Paris Academy of Sciences, 1666–1803. Berkeley: The University of California Press.
    Halévy, Daniel (1974) The End of the Notables. Tr. AlainSilvera and JuneGuicharnaud, AlainSilvera (ed.). Middletown, CT: Wesleyan University Press.
    Handelman, Don (1995) ‘Cultural Taxonomy and Bureaucracy in Ancient China: The Book of Lord Shang’, International Journal of Politics, Culture and Society, Vol. 9, pp. 263–93. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF02904336
    Haraway, Donna (1984–85) ‘Teddy Bear Patriarchy: Taxidermy in the Garden of Eden, New York City, 1908–1936’, Social Text, Vol. 11, pp. 20–64. Reprinted in Donna Haraway (1989) Primate Visions: Gender, Race, and Nature in the World of Modern Science. New York: Routledge, pp.26–59.
    Hayek, Friedrich A. von (1937) ‘Economics and Knowledge’, Economica, NS 4, pp. 33–54. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2548786
    Hessen, Boris (1931) ‘The Social and Economic Roots of Newton's Principia’, in N. I. Bucharin et al., Science at the Crossroads, Papers from the 2nd International Congress of the History of Science and Technology. London: Kniga. (
    2nd ed. 1971
    , London: Frank Cass and Co. Ltd.)
    Hinde, Julia. (1997) ‘Wales Gets Genes Jury’, Times Higher Education Supplement, January 6, p. 17.
    Hobbes, Thomas ([1651]1839) De Cive: Philosophical Rudiments Concerning Government and Society. London: R. Royston. Sir W. Molesworth's edition of the complete works, 11 vol., 1839-268-9. http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/en/decive.htm;
    Ilves, Toomas Hendrik (2001)' Constructing a New Europe', Lecture by Toomas Hendrik Ilves Minister of Foreign Affairs, Estonia at Humboldt University, Berlin 5 February 2001.
    Jaffe, Naomi (1994) ‘A Hard Look at a Controversial New Book on Race, Class and Success’, Letter to the Editor regarding IQ (October 24, 1994, pp. 53–62). Newsweek, Nov.21, p. 26.
    Jasanoff, Sheila (1995) Science at the Bar: Law, Science, and Technology in America. Cambridge, MA; London: Harvard University Press.
    Johnson, Guy and GuionJohnson (1980) Research in Service to Society: the First Fifty Years of the Institute for Research in Social Science at the University of North Carolina. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.
    Jonsen, Albert R. and Toulmin, Stephen (1988). The Abuse of Casuistry: A History of Moral Reasoning. Berkeley: University of California Press.
    Kant, Immanuel ([1784]1963) ‘What is Enlightenment?’, in On History. Tr. Lewis WhiteBeck, Robert E.Anchor and Emil L.Fackenheim, Lewis WhiteBeck (ed.). Indianapolis, IN: Bobbs-Merrill.
    Kautsky, John H. (1971) The Political Consequences of Modernization. New York: Wiley.
    Kaye, Harvey J. (1984) The British Marxist Historians: An Introductory Analysis. New York: Polity Press.
    Kellogg, Paul U. (1912) ‘The Spread of the Survey Idea. The Social Survey’, in Papers, by PaulKellogg, Shelby M.Harrison and George T.Palmer. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
    2nd edn
    . Reprinted from The Proceedings of the Academy of Political Science. Vol. II, no. 4, July 1912.
    Kettering, Sharon (1986) Patrons, Brokers, and Clients in Seventeenth Century France. New York: Oxford University Press.
    Kevles, Daniel J. (1977) The Physicists: The History of a Scientific Community in Modern America. New York: Knopf.
    Kuhn, Thomas S. ([1962] 1996). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.
    3rd edn.
    Chicago: Chicago University Press.
    La Follette, Marcel C. (1992) Stealing into Print: Fraud, Plagiarism and Misconduct in Scientific Publishing. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
    Lagemann, Ellen Condliffe (1989) The Politics of Knowledge: The Carnegie Corporation, Philanthropy and Public Policy. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
    Lanouette, Willliam, with BelaSzilard (1992) Genius in the Shadows: A Biography of Leo Szilard, the Man Behind the Bomb. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons.
    Lasswell, Harold (1936) Politics: Who Gets What, When, How. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc.
    Latour, Bruno (1987) Science in Action: How to Follow Scientists and Engineers through Society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
    Lenin, Nikolai (1918) ‘Lenin on the “Taylor Society”, abstract in the form of quotations from the principal parts of an article by Nikolai Lenin entitled “The Urgent Problems of the Soviet Rule”, translated from Pravda of April 28, 1918, in Donald DelMar and Rodger D.Collons (eds.) Classics in Scientific Management: A Book of Readings. University, AL: The University of Alabama Press, pp. 375–79.
    MacKinnon, Catherine (1989). Toward a Feminist Theory of the State. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
    McGucken, William (1984) Scientists, Society, and State. The Social Relations of Science Movement in Great Britain 1931–1947. Columbus, OH: Ohio State University Press.
    Marcuse, Herbert (1968) ‘Industrialization and Capitalism in the Work of Max Weber’, in Negations: Essays in Critical Theory. Tr. Jeremy J.Shapiro. Boston: Beacon Press, pp. 201–26.
    Mayer, Arno J. (1981) The Persistence of the Old Regime : Europe to the Great War. New York: Pantheon Books.
    Mayer, Jacob P. (1974) ‘Reflections on Equality’, in Kolakowski, Leszek and StuartHampshire (eds), The Socialist Idea: A Reappraisal. New York: Basic Books, pp. 59–73.
    Medvedev, Zhores A. (1971) The Rise and Fall of T. D. Lysenko. Tr. I. MichaelLerner. Ed.LucyG.Lawrence. New York: Doubleday
    Merton, Robert K. (1976) Sociological Ambivalence and Other Essays. New York: Free Press.
    Mill, J. S. (1861) Representative Government. London: Parker, Son, and Bourn, West Strand.
    Mill, J. S. ([1873]1990) Autobiography, ed. JohnRobson. New York: Penguin. http://www.knuten.liu.se/~bjoch509/philosophers/intros/mill/youth.html
    Morgenthau, Hans J. (1946) Scientific Man vs Power Politics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
    Morgenthau, Hans J. (1972) Science: Servant or Master?New York: The New American Library, Inc.
    Morone, Joseph G. and Edward J.Woodhouse (1989) The Demise of Nuclear Energy: Lessons for Democratic Control of Technology. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
    Myrdal, Gunnar (1944) An American Dilemma: The Negro Problem and Modern Democracy. With the assistance of Richard Sterner and Arnold Rose. New York, London: Harper & Brothers.
    National Committee of Confederated Supply Associations (1916) ‘The American Plan for Public Comfort Stations Approved by the Public Comfort Station Bureau of the National Committee of Confederated Supply Associations’. New York.
    Oakeshott, Michael (1962) Rationalism in Politics and Other Essays. London: Methuen.
    Oakeshott, Michael (1975) On Human Conduct. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
    OlwellR. (1996) ‘Condemned to Footnotes: Marxist Scholarship in the History of Science’, Science & Society. Vol. 60, no. 1, pp. 7–26.
    Parsons, Talcott (1964) Essays in Sociological Theory. New York: Free Press of Glencoe. (
    1st edn.1954.
    )
    Pearson, Karl ([1892]1937) The Grammar of Science. Everyman ed. London: J. M. Dent and Sons Ltd. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/12962-000
    Pearson, Karl (1919) The Function of Science in the Modern State. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    Peirce, Charles Sanders (1901) ‘Review of Pearson's Grammar of Science’, Popular Science MonthlyVol. 58 (January 1901), pp.296–306. Reprinted in CharlesHartshorne, PaulWeiss & Arthur WBurks (eds) (1931–58) Charles Sanders Peirce, Collected Writings (8 Vols.), Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, vol. 8, pp. 132–52.
    Polanyi, Michael (1946) Science, Faith and Society: A Searching Examination of the Meaning and Nature of Scientific Inquiry. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
    Polanyi, Michael (1951) The Logic of Liberty: Reflections and Rejoinders. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
    Polanyi, Michael (1962) ‘The Republic of Science: Its Political and Economic Theory’. MinervaVol. 1, no. 1, pp. 54–73. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF01101453
    Porter, Theodore (1986) The Rise of Statistical Thinking 1820–1900. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
    Porter, Theodore (1995) Trust in Numbers: The Pursuit of Objectivity in Science and Public Life. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
    Posner, Richard (2001) Breaking the Deadlock: The 2000 Election, the Constitution, and the Courts. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
    Price, Don (1965) The Scientific Estate. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
    Rawls, John (1971) A Theory of Justice. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
    Rawls, John (1996) Political Liberalism. New York: Columbia University Press.
    Reisner, Marc (1986) Cadillac Desert. New York: Viking.
    Richards, Evelleen (1988) ‘The Politics of Therapeutic Evaluation: The Vitamin C and Cancer Controversy’, Social Studies of Science, Vol.18, no. 4, pp. 653–701. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/030631288018004004
    Rosenberg, Charles (1962) The Cholera Years, The United States in 1832, 1849, and 1866. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
    Saint-Simon, Henri de (1952) Social Organization, the Science of Man and Other Writings. Ed. and Tr. FelixMarkham. New York: Harper & Row. Selected and translated from Oeuvres Complètes de Saint-Simon et Enfantin, Paris 1865–76.
    Saint-Simon, Henri de (1972) The Doctrine of Saint-Simon: An Exposition, First Year, 1828–1829, Tr. Georg G.Iggers. New York: Schocken Books. (
    1st edn. 1958
    ).
    Salter, L. (1988). Mandated Science: Science and Scientists in the Making of Standards. Dordrecht, Boston, London: Kluwer Academic Publishers. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-2711-7
    Sandel, Michael (1996) Democracy's Discontent: America in Search of a Public Philosophy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
    Scheuerman, William E. (1999) Carl Schmitt: The End of Law. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
    Schmitt, Carl ([1925]1986). Political Romanticism. Tr. GuyOakes. Cambridge, MA and London: MIT Press.
    Schmitt, Carl ([1926]1985). The Crisis of Parliamentary Democracy. Tr. E.Kennedy. Cambridge, MA and London: MIT Press.
    Schmitt, Carl ([1934]1985). Political Theology: Four Chapters on the Concept of Sovereignty. Tr. G.Schwab. Cambridge, MA and London: MIT Press.
    Schmitt, Carl ([1923]1988) The Idea of Representation 1st Rev. Edition, trans. E. M.Codd. Washington, DC: Plutarch Press. First published as Römischer Katholizismus und Politische Form, Hellerau, Germany: Jakob Hegner.
    Schneider, Stephen H. (1997) ‘Three Questions to Make a Citizen-Scientist’. Paper presented at the American Association for the Advancement of Science Annual Meeting, Seattle, Washington.
    Schudson, Michael (1997) ‘Cultural Studies and the Social Construction of “Social Construction”: Notes on “Teddy Bear Patriarchy”’, in ElizabethLong (ed.) From Sociology to Cultural Studies. New Perspectives. Oxford: Blackwell. pp. 379–99.
    Schumpeter, Joseph ([1942]1950) Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy. New York: Harper and Row.
    Sclove, Richard (1997). Loka Alert 4:1, February 14.
    Sealander, Judith (1997) Private Wealth & Public Life: Foundation Philanthropy and the Reshaping of American Social Policy from the Progressive Era to the New Deal. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
    Shils, Edward (1956) The Torment of Secrecy: The Background and Consequences of American Security Policies. Glencoe, IL: Free Press.
    Shils, Edward (1972) ‘The Scientific Community: Thoughts after Hamburg’, in The Intellectuals and the Powers and Other Essays. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
    Simon, Herbert A. (1977). Models of Discovery and Other Topics in the Method of Science. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Reidel.
    Singer, S. Fred (1999) Hot Talk, Cold Science: Global Warming's Unfinished Debate. Oakland, CA: The Independent Institute.
    Skocpol, Theda (1979) States and Social Revolutions: A Comparative Analysis of France, Russia, and China. Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press.
    Small, Albion (1909) The Cameralists: The Pioneers of German Social Polity. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
    Smith, Alice Kimball (1971) A Peril and a Hope: The Scientists' Movement in America 1945–47. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. (
    1st edn. 1965
    ).
    Stehr, Nico (1992) Practical Knowledge: Applying the Social Sciences. London, Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
    Sullivan, Winifred Fallers (1994) Paying the Words Extra: Religious Discourse in the Supreme Court of the United States. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
    Thomas, W. I. (1923) The Unadjusted Girl. Boston: Little, Brown, and Co.
    Thompson, E. P. (1966) The Making of the English Working Class. New York: Vintage Books.
    Tocqueville, Alexis de ([1850]1969) Democracy in America. Tr. GeorgeLawrence, J. P.Mayer (ed.). Garden City, NY: Doubleday & Company.
    Turner, Stephen P. and RegisFactor (1994) Max Weber: The Lawyer as Social Thinker. London: Routledge. http://dx.doi.org/10.4324/9780203202043
    Turner, Stephen P. (1979). ‘Translating Ritual Beliefs’, Philosophy of the Social SciencesVol. 9, pp. 401–23. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/004839317900900401
    Turner, Stephen P. (1987). ‘The Survey of Nineteenth-Century American Geology: The evolution of a Form of Patronage’, Minerva, Vol. 25, no. 3, pp. 282–330. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF01097786
    Turner, Stephen (1989) ‘Truth and Decision’, in DarylChubin and Ellen W.Chu (eds.), Science off the Pedestal: Social Perspectives on Science and Technology. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, pp.175–88.
    Turner, Stephen (1990) ‘Forms of Patronage’, in SusanCozzens and Thomas F.Gieryn (eds) Theories of Science in Society. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, pp. 185–211.
    Turner, Stephen P. (1994). ‘Relativism Hot and Cold’, History of the Human Sciences, Vol. 7, pp.109–15. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/095269519400700107
    Turner, Stephen P. (1996) ‘Religious Pluralism, Toleration, and Liberal Democracy: Past, Present, and Future’, in JacobNeusner (ed.), Religion and the Political Order: Politics in Classical and Contemporary Christianity, Islam, and Judaism. Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, pp. 275–99.
    Turner, Stephen P. (1999) ‘The Significance of Shils’, Sociological Theory, Vol. 17 no. 2, pp. 125–45. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/0735-2751.00072
    Turner, Stephen P. (2001) ‘What is the Problem with Experts?’Social Studies of Science, Vol. 31, no.1, pp. 123–49.
    Turner, Stephen P. (2002a) ‘Scientists as Agents’, in PhilipMirowski and MiriamSent (eds), Science Bought and Sold. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, pp. 362–84.
    Turner, Stephen P. (2002b) Brains/Practices/Relativism: Social Theory after Cognitive Science. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
    Unger, Roberto Mangabeira (1998) Democracy Realized: The Progressive Alternative. London: Verso.
    Veblen, Thorstein ([1921]1963) The Engineers and the Price System. New York: Harcourt, Brace and World.
    Weber, Max ([1919]1978) ‘Politics as a Vocation’, Tr. EricMatthews, in W. G.Runciman (ed.), Weber: Selections in Translation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 212–25
    Weber, Max ([1921]1966) The City. Tr. and ed. DonMartindale and GertrudNeuwirth. New York: Free Press.
    Weber, Max (1976) The Agrarian Sociology of Ancient Civilizations. Tr. R. I.Frank. London: New Left Books; Atlantic Highlands, NJ: Humanities Press.
    Wildavsky, Aaron B. (1995) But Is It True?: A Citizen's Guide to Environmental Health and Safety Issues. Cambridge, MA : Harvard University Press.
    Wynne, Brian (1996) ‘May the Sheep Safely Graze?: A Reflexive View of the Expert-Lay Knowledge Divide’, in S.Lash, B.Szersynski, and B.Wynne (eds), Risk, Environment, and Modernity: Towards a New Ecology. London, Thousand Oaks, New Delhi: Sage Publications, pp. 44–83.

    • Loading...
Back to Top

Copy and paste the following HTML into your website