Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
by Jon Oplinger
Review by: Nachman Ben-Yehuda
American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 97, No. 2 (Sep., 1991), pp. 582-584
Published by: The University of Chicago Press
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2781411 .
Accessed: 23/12/2014 09:24
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
The University of Chicago Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
American Journal of Sociology.
http://www.jstor.org
Book Reviews
manufacture of deviance should be thought of as a "sensitizing concept"
(p. 18). While Oplinger seems to rely on functionalism for developing his
conceptual scheme, it is not always clear to what extent he is committed
to functionalism. Moreover, his discussion of functionalism tends to ignore the major criticisms leveled against this approach and the more
recent developments in neofunctionalism (e.g., Jeffrey Alexander, Michael Faia). The discussion of conflict theory (p. 25) is likewise shallow
and does not differentiate among different types of conflict. Oplinger
views deviance as "a . . . social status that is determined by those in
power" (p. 24). Hence, while "power" is an extremely important variable in Oplinger's work, the book lacks any useful discussion of the
concept. Depending on the apporach one takes to a sociological characterization of power, it can be shown that power is negotiable and hence the
"powerful" are not always able to "deviantize" others. Sometimes the
"powerless" can negotiate and manipulate processes of "deviantization"
(e.g., see the history of prohibition and, more specifically, Joseph Gusfield's work). These are not small oversights on Oplinger's part. Relying
on old-fashioned functionalism (i.e., "society does this or that") and on
an overgeneralized and undifferentiated concept of conflict creates major
theoretical flaws in the book.
The rather strange tendency in the book to ignore new, relevant, and
important works is not limited to the area of functionalism; also ignored
are works related to the persecution of deviants (i.e., Albert Bergesen's
work), major and relevant works in social control theory (e.g., Stanley
Cohen, Donald Black), the very relevant works on moral panics, collective behavior, and, most important, constructionism (e.g., Joel Best,
Erich Goode). He ignores even more specific works that are relevant to
the cases discussed (e.g., Richard Weisman's work on the Salem witchhunts). To say that the review of the literature is sloppy is, perhaps, to
call attention to a minor fault, but some better knowledge and understanding of recent works in relevant areas could help the author create
a much better and more distinctly sociological product. Thus, the overall
result of the effort to develop a theoretically sound sociological conceptualization in this book leaves much to be desired. An opportunity has been
lost.
The European witch craze can be used to provide a few illustrations.
Currie implies that the confiscations of property from those accused in
witchcraft (during the European witch craze) played a major part in the
zeal of the prosecutors. Oplinger tends to accept this claim despite the
fact that Erik Midelfort's empirical work does not corroborate this.
Oplinger tends to invoke anthropological explanations in the context of
the European witch craze. However, the European society where the
witch craze occurred was very different from the societies investigated
by anthropologists. While Oplinger maintains that the "public" was
agitated (p. 42) or anxious (p. 54) during the period of the witch craze,
no explanation is provided as to why, or why such anxiety would explain
the specificity of the persecutions (the same criticism about specificity is
583
584