Review: How to Become a Dominant American Social Scientist: The Case of Theda Skocpol

Author(s): Jeff Goodwin

Review by: Jeff Goodwin
Source: Contemporary Sociology, Vol. 25, No. 3 (May, 1996), pp. 293-295
Published by: American Sociological Association
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2077433
Accessed: 20-05-2015 21:10 UTC

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.

American Sociological Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Contemporary
Sociology.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 77.105.21.162 on Wed, 20 May 2015 21:10:14 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

II

Featured
Essays

How to Become a Dominant

American Social Scientist: The
Case of Theda Skocpol
JEFFGOODWIN

New York University

Original review, CS 9:3 (May 1980), by
Walter L. Goldfrank:

States and Social Revolutions marks a

leap forwardfor scholarship in historically oriented macrosociology,and thus
promises to raise the collective statureof
the discipline as a whole ... It brilliantly
dissects a set of sufficiently similar
structures,processes, and outcomes ...
Its major drawback in my view is its
tendencytowardpositivistahistoricity.
somepurelytheLetmebeginbysuggesting

oreticalconjecturesthatmighthelp to explain
how States and Social Revolutions propelled
Theda Skocpol into the frontranksof American social scientists.Hypothesisnumber one:
For anybook to become widelycited today,let
alone to influencehow people actuallythink,it
mustbe reducible to a few general and easily
grasped formulations.Many texts are "formunot by their authors,but
lated," furthermore,
by more or less officiallydesignated readers
(call them DRs), includingreviewersfor academic journals.Books thatcannot be formulaically summarizedby DRs, accuratelyor otherwise, are unlikely to generate much
discussion,let alone to change minds.
The process of "formulation" typically
results in simplifications,half-truths,and
outright errors, particularlywhen DRs are
ill-disposed toward a particular text. The
more complex the text,moreover, the more
simplificationis essential ifthe "formulation"
that is a prerequisite of broad influenceis to
occur at all. Ensuing "discussions" and
"debates" about a particulartext oftenbuild
upon these simplifications,half-truths,and
errors. Before long, scholars can be "influenced" by these "debates," or even partici-

States and Social Revolutions: A Comparative

Analysis of France, Russia, and China, by
Theda Skocpol. New York: CambridgeUniversity Press, 1979. 407 pp. $18.95 paper. ISBN:
0-521-40088-0.

pate in them, without actually having read

the text supposedly at issue; one need simply
familiarizeoneself with the formulaic "summaries" and "discussions" of it thatDRs have
produced. Hypothesis number two: No book
can claim to be "influential"today untillarge
numbers of people who have not read it (or
have not read beyond its introduction) have
strongopinions about it. In fact,some of the
most frequentlycited books are, paradoxically,not verywidely (or closely) read at all.
Hypothesis number three:A text thatactually
had to be carefullyread by large numbers of
people in order to be "understood" would
never become "influential."
Whether these hypotheses actually shed
much light on the intellectual impact of
Skocpol's States and Social Revolutions
(hereafter, States) is a matter best left to
sociologists of knowledge. But it seems
certain that a good part of Skocpol's fame is
due to the wide diffusionof several misformulations of some key ideas in States.
(Walter Goldfrank'sreview of States in these
pages, I hasten to add, was unusually careful
and insightful.)Mind you, as a protege and
collaborator of Skocpol's, I would be delightedto attributethe broad impact of States
to the fact that it really is a well-researched,
brilliantlyargued,carefullycrafted,and clearly
written book on an important subject.
Unfortunately,it would be simplistic to
attributethe vast influence of States, or of

293

This content downloaded from 77.105.21.162 on Wed, 20 May 2015 21:10:14 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

294

CONTEMPORARYSOCIOLOGY

Skocpol, entirelyto the many merits of that

book. (I have no desire, let me add, to play
Skocpol's Wacquant. In any event, she requires no such services-as anyone who has
crossed intellectual paths with her can
attest!)
The factis that Skocpol is frequently-and
largely ritualistically-cited as a preeminent
spokesperson for one or more ideas that a
careful reading of States would quickly
dispel. Partlyfor this reason, a vast number
and remarkablywide assortment of books,
articles,and unpublished screeds in the areas
of political sociology, comparative politics,
social movements, and sociological theory
and methods are litteredwith those familiar
parentheticals"see Skocpol 1979," "see, e.g.,
Skocpol 1979," and the like. Citations of
particular chapters or pages of States, by
contrast,are relativelyfew and far between
(see hypothesisnumber three,above).
Let us examine some of the formulations
that are allegedly found in "Skocpol 1979":

1. Only state institutionsmatterin explaining how or whyrevolutions(or political changesgenerally)occur.Accordingto

The section of States in which Skocpol

introduces her perspective on states, it
should also be noted, is entitled "The
Potential Autonomy of the State." And yet
the idea persists that Skocpol's "statecentered" approach portraysstates as invariably powerfuland autonomous organizations
floating above society (see, e.g., Migdal,
Kohli, and Shue 1994, Introduction,ch. 1).
This is especially ironic insofaras Skocpol's
account of the prerevolutionaryFrench and
Chinese states,in particular,emphasizes how
dominant classes penetrated and effectively
weakened those states in a context of
intensifiedgeopolitical conflict.

2. Ideas and beliefsdon't matterin revolutions(or inpoliticsgenerally).Thisformu-

lation is a widespread misunderstandingof

Skocpol's self-proclaimed"structuralist"approach-the actual point ofwhich is thatcomplex processes like revolutions cannot be
viewed as the self-consciousideological or politicalproject of any single group of actors (as
some scholars, incidentally,continue to argue). As Skocpol has writtenelsewhere,"nonintentionalistat the macroscopic level" might
have been a more accurate (if rathercumbersome!) label forthisclaim (1994, p. 199). Nothing in States,in any event,suggeststhatideas
don't matterto people or thatSkocpol rejects
a priorithepotentialusefulnessofculturalvariables in explanations of revolutionsor other
political processes.
Chapter 4 of States, in fact, discusses a
number of ways in which political ideologies
matteredin the revolutionaryconflictstraced
out in the second halfof that book: as forces
for cohesion among particularpolitical leaderships; as universalistic creeds that have
facilitated joint action by socially diverse
actors; as programs for proselytizing and
mobilizing specific groups of people; and as
justifications for acting ruthlessly against
political opponents. This list is undoubtedly
incomplete, and States has been fairlycriticized for neglecting what Skocpol later
termed the "culturalidioms" of social groups
(1994, ch. 8). Still,the undoubtedly greater
empirical emphasis on culture, public opinion, and discourse in Skocpol's more recent
work indicates just that: a greater emphasis,
not the sort of epistemological break with
her earlier work that some have perceived.

this common interpretation of Skocpol's

"state-centered" approach, which is taken
nearlyverbatimfroma recent review in this
journal (Hochschild 1996, p. 43), States
propounds a sort of "state determinism."
(One scholar has even accused Skocpol of
"statolatry"!)Yet the principle argument of
States is rathermore complex and interesting
than this: Skocpol argues that the French,
Russian, and Chinese revolutions were the
result of a conjuncture of "(1) state organizations susceptible to administrative and
militarycollapse when subjected to intensified pressures from more developed countries abroad and (2) agrarian sociopolitical
structuresthatfacilitatedwidespread peasant
revolts against landlords" (1979, p. 154).
Skocpol's extensive explanation of peasant
revolts in chapter 3 of States may be
criticized on any number of grounds,including its neglect of local peasant cultures;what
cannot be fairlyclaimed, however, is that
only state institutions figure in Skocpol's
explanation of these revolts-or that they
themselvesare some sort of "statist"variable.
(Dogged by the state-deterministreading of
States, Skocpol has abandoned the "state3. A general theorythat explains social
centered" label, describing her more recent
revolutions(or any othersocial orpolitical
work as "historicalinstitutionalist.")

This content downloaded from 77.105.21.162 on Wed, 20 May 2015 21:10:14 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

CONTEMPORARYSOCIOLOGY 295
derivedthrough unwittingrefutationof her own book. This
process) can be inductively
comparisons. For every scholar who draws
inspirationfromor bemoans (as the case may
be) Skocpol's "state-centered" perspective,
there seems to be another who claims that
she has no theoretical perspective at all.
According to the latter view, States is an
exemplarypiece of positivisticinduction.
In the preface to States, Skocpol does
celebrate the fact that her initial research
into revolutions was not influenced by a
close familiaritywith (let alone a dogmatic
commitment to) any particular theory of
revolutions; and she has been downright
disdainful of "metatheory" (i.e., theorizing
about theory). But it hardly follows that
Skocpol is a pure inductivistwho imagines
that her research is unburdened by any
theoreticalbaggage. On the contrary,Skocpol
clearlycompares cases of revolutionin States
(including several cases where revolutions
did not occur) in order to develop and test
theoretically informed hypotheses-including but not limited to state-centeredideasabout revolutionaryprocesses. Her method,
in other words, is as deductive as it is
inductive. (Although it is not deductive
enough, clearly, for certain Marxist and
rational-choicetheorists.)
States, furthermore,does not in any way
attemptto derive the "covering laws" or to
formulatea "general theory"of social revolutions, as many seem to think.Skocpol draws
her cases from an analytically delimited
universe of "proto-bureaucratic" agrarian
autocracies that had not been colonially
subjugated (p. 41); and she explicitlywarns
that her conjunctural explanation for social
revolutions in this particularcontext cannot
be mechanicallyextended to others (p. 288).
This has not prevented a small army of
scholars, however, from pointing to this or
that case of revolution as supposedly "refuting," or requiring the "respecification" of,
Skocpol's "model." When Skocpol herself
published an account of the Iranian Revolution thatdifferedin several respects fromher
analysis in States (see Skocpol 1982; 1994,
Ch. 10), some even interpreted this as an

interpretation,
however,restsupon an assumption that Skocpol has never made, namely,
that all revolutions have exactly the same
causes and can be explained, therefore,by
the same general theory.
The preceding misformulationsserved to
transmogrifySkocpol's pragmatically constructed state-centered, structuralist, and
comparative perspective on the specific
problem of social revolutionsinto a dogmatic
state-determinist,
anticultural,and inductivist
Weltanschauung. By so simplifying
Skocpol's
ideas, however, these misformulationsundoubtedly facilitated the diffusionof "her"
thoughtto more scholars than would otherwise have been the case. Skocpol's "influence" was therebymultiplied:Following the
publication of States, there have been, to be
sure, many interestingdiscussions and debates about Skocpol's analysis;but there have
been even more numerous "discussions" and
"debates" about "Skocpol's" analysis.(And, to
add to the confusion, the line between the
two has oftenbeen blurred and indistinct.)
Thus, the case of Theda Skocpol-or, more
accurately, of "Theda Skocpol"-suggests
that at least one path by which one becomes
a dominant American social scientist (see
Lamont 1987) leads through a bog of
misunderstanding.One must wonder, in fact,
ifthis is not the only path to academic fame.

References
L. 1996. Review ofSocial Policy
Hochschild,Jennifer
in the United States: Future Possibilities in
Historical Perspective,by Theda Skocpol (Princeton,NJ:PrincetonUniversity
Press,1995). ContemporarySociology 25:42-44.
Lamont,Michele. 1987. "How to Become a Dominant
FrenchPhilosopher:The Case ofJacques Derrida."
AmericanJournal of Sociology 93:584-623.
Migdal,Joel S., Atul Kohli, and Vivienne Shue, eds.
1994. StatePower and Social Forces:Domination
and Transformationin the Third World. CamPress.
bridge:CambridgeUniversity
Skocpol, Theda. 1994. Social Revolutions in the
Modern World. Cambridge:CambridgeUniversity
Press.
1982. "RentierState and Shi'a Islam in the
Iranian Revolution."Theoryand Society 11:265283.

This content downloaded from 77.105.21.162 on Wed, 20 May 2015 21:10:14 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions