Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 4

The Politics of Demonology: The European Witchcraze and the Mass Production of Deviance.

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

This content downloaded from 128.184.220.23 on Tue, 23 Dec 2014 09:24:53 AM


All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

American Journal of Sociology


discourse. Both writers could have made more of the younger generation
of evangelical leaders who are determined to keep the fire burning while
shedding their image of reactionary politics and undue dependence on
North America.
Finally, neither Stoll nor Martin, in my view, draws a sufficiently
sharp distinction between evangelicals and pentecostals. The latter, according to some scholars, notably Karla Poewe of the University of
Calgary, must be understood as part of a worldwide change in the very
nature of religion, away from cognition and propositional belief and toward experience and imagination in the spiritial life. Will this powerful
new current relate itself positively to liberation theology eventually, thus
becoming part of a massive new religious ground swell in Latin America?
It is too early to predict, but stranger things have happened.
The Politics of Demonology: The European Witchcraze and the Mass
Production of Deviance. By Jon Oplinger. Selinsgrove, Pa.: Susquehanna University Press; London and Toronto: Associated University
Presses, 1990. Pp. 311. $39.50.
Nachman Ben-Yehuda
Hebrew University and University of Toronto
Basing his view on functionalism and emphasizing the concepts of moral
boundaries and moral landscapes, Jon Oplinger develops a theoretical
model to explain the "mass productuion of deviance" (pp. 29-33). Using
Elliott Currie's work, Oplinger makes what he calls a "self-evident statement" within which he finds "four categorical variables" (pp. 29-30)
that he uses to develop eight specific hypotheses (pp. 31-32). The scheme
is too complicated to be presented here, but its acceptance depends on
accepting the theoretical background on which it is founded.
The book offers a few rather fascinating and easy to read descriptive
chapters about cases of "mass production of deviants"; the European
"witch craze," the Salem witch-hunt, the Red scare, the McCarthy era,
the Great Purge (in the Soviet Union), the Holocaust, and, in the last
chapter, the U.S. government's treatment of Americans of Japanese descent after the attack on Pearl Harbor.
However, for a 1990 publication, this work presents a set of problems,
both in theory and in its empirical treatment. The theoretical base presented in this book is rather unclear, partly because the author both
commits himself to and shies away from central conceptualizations. For
example, Oplinger relies on such concepts as moral boundaries and moral
landscapes. However, the discussion of moral boundaries is short and
shallow. The concept of moral landscapes is unclear, and, despite its
centrality, the author suggests that it be used merely as "a root metaphor" (p. 28). Likewise, while Oplinger's claim that cultures manufacture deviance on a mass scale is very central, he also suggests that this
582

This content downloaded from 128.184.220.23 on Tue, 23 Dec 2014 09:24:53 AM


All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

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

This content downloaded from 128.184.220.23 on Tue, 23 Dec 2014 09:24:53 AM


All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

American Journal of Sociology


true for the other cases). On page 60 the author claims that the Spanish
Inquisition "did not produce a vast number of deviants." The author
should be reminded that around 1492 all Jews were expelled from
Spain-as deviants. There are a few other examples like this (e.g., the
Holocaust), which suggest that the historical reality was far more complex than Oplinger's description allows and that in compressing these
cases accuracy and reliability may have been sacrificed.
Second, the logic of comparison is a most troubling issue. The method
of comparative sociology is very powerful and suggestive but also one
that can be abused. Making a comparison requires some compelling arguments regarding the nature of the objects chosen and the rationale behind
the specific selection. Thus, it is not too difficult to realize that there is
some logic behind attempts to compare the European witch craze to
the Salem witch-hunts and other cases of witch persecutions. However,
comparing the Holocaust with the Red scare, or putting in one basket
the Soviet's Great Purge with the detention of Japanese Americans during part of World War II leaves one with some questions to be asked,
especially regarding the details.
The comparison brings forth some problematic issues inherent in this
book. The Holocaust can, perhaps, be thought of as one monstrous example of genocide. However, Oplinger virtually ignores almost all the relevant literature on genocide. There is a very bitter argument whether the
Holocaust is at all comparable to other events (and, if so, in what sense).
Oplinger chooses to ignore this rather important debate too. Moreover,
the comparison puts religious, political, and cultural persecutions together in the same category, without even attempting to find out the
sociological meaning of these differences. Oplinger seems to be quite
aware of the problems (p. 33) but states that "the differences are not at
issue" and suggests that the cases he uses, and others besides, "share
certain underlying features." This, I find, is a weak statement. Looked
at from a very wide-angle lens, from a great distance, many "things"
may look alike. However, details, accuracy, and reliability are crucial
issues for (social) sciences. In many of these details, and in some very
major issues as well, the rationale for comparing the cases is far from
being clear or persuasive.
Overall, this is an interesting, easy to read, provocative, suggestive,
and thought-provoking book. The late 1960s or maybe even the early
1970s would have been a better time to write and publish it. The book
virtually ignores important and relevant developments in theory, especially in neofunctionalism, conflict theory, social control, and, most important, constructionism. While the cases are presented in an interesting,
readable, and challenging way, the details are sometimes lost in the broad
and sweeping presentation, and the logic of the comparison leaves much
to be desired.

584

This content downloaded from 128.184.220.23 on Tue, 23 Dec 2014 09:24:53 AM


All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Вам также может понравиться