 | It is always important to note when a book was written. This helps locate it in a socio-historical time frame. Habits of the Heartwas first published in 1985. The Updated Edition came out in 1996. There have been a number of criticisms of the book, many of which charged the authors with being too conservative, of diminishing the individual, while idealizing the community. The authors address some of these criticisms in the new "Introduction." They explain to the reader some of the cultural traditions that think important, such as civic republicanism and biblical religion.The terms, as they use them, are defined in the Glossary. But they are best understood in the context of the discussion.
A number of theorists are mentioned in passing, including Max Weber, Robert Reich, Lester Thurow, Herbert Gans, R.M. Kanter, and, especially, Robert Putnam. Putnam's Bowling Alone(see Shared References) Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community. Touchstone Books, 2003 (softcover) ISBN 0743203046] is a recent (2000) empirical study of the decline in association membership since the 1950s, and especially since the 1970s. He broadens our familiarity with the term, social capital, that, for some reason, is not included in the Glossary. Here is a brief description of the term. Note 11 on p. xxxvi of Habits is worth checking.
As you read the "Introduction," ask yourself what is the "house," and how is it "divided." Is the point of view here different from that of Ehrenhalt, or an extension of it? Why? After reading the "Introduction" and "Preface," do you think the authors believe that some of the points they made in the mid-1980s were misunderstood by some of their critics? What's an example of this? Your contributions to the Discussion Area for this module might address one or more of these questions.
The "Appendix" is important to understand the standpoint from which this books was written. Not only are the thors firmly grounded in the tradition of Alexis de Tocqueville [Click here to read about Tocqueville between Two Worlds: The Making of a Political and Theoretical Life, a 2003 biography by Sheldon Wolin] and to Democracy in America (also, see Shared References), but they are insistent that there is no such thing as "value-free" social science. See what they say on p. 301 about the assumptions we all, including social scientists, make. What are some of their own assumptions? What do they mean by "social science as public philosophy"? |
