Hodge, Carole: Britain and the Balkans, London: Routledge 2006, 320 pp., ISBN 9-7804-4152-9889-6, hardback, £65.00
The tone of this book is evident from the Preface: it is polemical, it believes in conspiracy and in the exposing of myths. Britain was attempting to punch above its weight. As one reads the book, one might feel that Britain was a superpower, as it ‘contrived to control the political process’ (xi). British policy ‘nipped in the bud’ the CFSP (2), ‘Britain steered the process’ (5) and ‘Britain was fully back in the saddle’ (49).
Not only that, but Douglas Hurd (British Foreign Secretary) was ‘overly casual’ (54). Paddy Ashdown (Liberal Democrat Leader) was ‘the butt of government ridicule whenever he spoke on Bosnia’ (60) – despite later on becoming the High Representative in Bosnia. British military staff caused an ‘erroneous view [to] gradually seeped into the mindset’ (66). Hurd's speech to the House of Commons in May 1995 was a ‘study in chicanery’ (108). Tony Blair ‘was rather out of his depth’ and this was ‘not the only myth that Blair had swallowed’ (112). Bildt had ‘a distinct animus towards the Bosniacs’ (132). Misha Glenny was ‘largely erroneous’ (198).
The author claims that ‘an empirical account has been adopted … through a chronological analysis of events’ (xi) but without a thorough knowledge of international relations, the politics of the European Union, how the C(O)SCE works, and the nature of power the analysis is flawed. What could the CSCE have done, given that it had and has no military forces? Given that it has taken the EU another decade to decide on battle groups, what could it have in the 1990s? Was Britain wrong to help others understand the consequences of Northern Ireland for trying to impose peace through military force? At what point should the lives on 18-year-old servicemen have been put on the line?
There is no doubt that the author knows some of the story, but there is no context to put that story into. Without the context or concepts or theory or understanding, no is left with a very, very partial view. Perhaps some of this would not matter, if there was firmer evidence for some of author's claims, although the author berates General Sir Michael Rose for ‘a different version of the incident, uncorroborated by evidence’ (84). Much of the author's ‘evidence’ and footnotes (over 60 pages) seem to rely on newspapers or reports, without any assessment of their veracity or authority.
There is a story to be told, but that story deserves better.
Trevor Salmon, Aberdeen, Scotland
Abbott, Pamela, Claire Wallace and Melissa Tyler: An Introduction to Sociology. Feminist Perspectives, London: Routledge, Third Edition, 2005, 448 pp., paperback, ISBN 4-415-31259-0, £20.99
This work was first published in 1990, a second edition followed 1997. The authors of this third edition are Pamela Abbott, Director of the Centre for Equality and Diversity at Glasgow Caledonian University, Claire Wallace, Professor of Sociology at the University of Aberdeen and Melissa Tyler, Lecturer in Organisation Studies at Loughborough University. They want to describe and analyse the debates within feminism and within sociology, that have moved on considerably in the last ten years. The term ‘feminist’ is used ‘to refer to those who see women as exploited, devalued and oppressed, who are committed to changing this, and who consequently adopt a critical perspective towards dominant intellectual traditions, modes of social organisation and cultural belief systems that have ignored or justified women's oppression’ (xiii). ‘Sociology’ is defined as ‘understand the relationship between our own personal experiences and the social structures we inhabit’ (4). The three writers are convinced sociologists, but they argue that malestream sociology has ignored the experiences and perspectives of women. Sociological theory and practice needs to recognise ‘the importance of sexual differences (sex, gender and sexuality) as well as class, ‘race’, age disability and other forms of differentiation … the world needs to be understood as being shaped by these forms of differentiation’ (14). So the ‘sociological imagination’ of the authors is not to fill the gaps or tinker with existing sociologist theories but to reconceptualise sociology itself.
The position of the authors is thus the critical perspective of a sociologist, but as feminists they are also critical of sociology itself. In this sense the introduction of sociology has a double insight in its subject: on the one hand it is an introduction of key sociological concepts and critical feminist perspectives on this, on the other hand an (even critical) introduction into a broad range of feminist theories. This double inside is to find in the whole book and in every chapter.
In the eyes of Abbott, Wallace and Tyler there are many feminist perspectives and this diversity helps to understand the world. Their position is rather more eclectic than to pursue a purity of theory. In the past the authors defined themselves as Marxist and socialist feminists. Now they are influenced by poststructuralist and postmodernist critique of modernism and associated theories and they have also been influenced by the claim made by Black and post-colonial feminists. They made this position clear because they do not see themselves as neutral reporters and make this transparent for the readers. And they know that ‘all knowledge is partial and provisional, and this applies to feminist as to malestream knowledge’ (xiv).
The third edition, completely revised, is more comparative than the other editions. Whereas the first edition was written from a British perspective, the third has a more comparative perspective. By this way the ethnocentrism of British sociology is critically taken into account.
The book is divided into 13 chapters. The first two chapters form the basis of the feminist perspectives: in the first chapter the authors give a broad overview of the feminist critique of malestream sociology as it is described above. In chapter two, it is first shown how sociology as a discipline is to be understood. Four theoretical positions of social reality are outlined – positivist, idealist, realist and postmodernist. Before secondly introducing different feminist theories, the authors explain how ‘sexual difference’ mainly is understood. Here they also mention four main ways in which it can be understood: humanist, gynocentric, postmodernist and critical feminist. In the next 24 pages Abbott, Wallace and Tyler give a short overview over feminist theories that have had the most significant impact on sociology: liberal/reformist, Marxist, radical, dual-systems, postmodern, feminist critical theory and Black/post-colonial feminism are introduced and explained. This explanation is good, and gives a very comprehensive introduction. So it is helpful for readers who want to go further into the theories that some books for further reading are given at the end (as is given after every chapter).
The following chapters give an overview over the main fields in which (feminist) sociology is actually engaged: stratification and inequality; education; the life course, the family and the household, health, illness and caring; sexuality; work and organisation; crime violence and criminal justice; politics; mass media and popular culture; and last but not least feminist knowledge. In every chapter the differences gender, class and ‘race’ are considered. In some chapters age, disability or other forms of differentiation like ‘The West and the Rest’ are taken into account. the authors give a sophisticated view on these themes, and also the specific feminist perspective that has the aim of helping to understand the subordination and exploitation of women and girls. Although the authors say that they are influenced by poststructuralist and postmodern critics of modernism (which made it uncertain, what ‘women’ means), their understanding from feminism is clearly in favour of women. Throughout the book one can find many examples of subtle and obvious discrimination against women. This perspective is on the one hand appropriate in view of the existing oppression of women in many countries. On the other hand the reader can sometimes have the impression that women and girls are only victims of still existing patriarchy. Their own share of existing models of ‘femininity’ and the consequences of this do not shine through so noticeably. But this could be a challenge for the next edition.
Anyway, the book has to be in so many ways differentiated: showing feminist perspectives on sociology, showing different feminist politics and theories, showing different ways of gender differences, considering class, ‘race’, age, global perspectives and so on. This is a great work and the three authors are successful in it. The book is useful and an enriching contribution for a feminist introduction in sociology.
Marita Kampshoff, Gieβen, Germany
Robyn, Richard (ed.): The Changing Face of European Identity, London: Routledge, 2004, 256 pp., ISBN 0-415-34815-3, hardback, £75.00
The book purports to analyse a particular form of identity, European identity, in seven European countries (Denmark, the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands and Sweden). Richard Robyn defines the ‘goal […] to uncover the forms and relative intensity of attachment that Europeans feel toward their evolving national and non-national political institutions’ (13–4). The background to his and his colleagues’ contributions to research on European identity is given by their observation of rising nationalism and the simultaneous ‘increasing presence of the European Union in the daily lives of many people’ (4). Questions such as whether the European Union can demand allegiance of the people, whether support for the European Union is even possible given strong national identities, and whether people are willing to die for the EU in wars let the editor ask if existing cultures and identities hinder the development of a new identity in Europe.
Robyn criticises previous studies on European identity in many ways. He observes a dominance of ‘macro type’ research based on large-scale surveys, the lack of research on more specific forms of attachment (instead of levels of support) and a tendency to essentialise national identities as the criteria of comparison in European identity research. His comparative study, however, shall allow for various forms of identity, ranging from national, pluralist to functionalist (supranationalist) identity as outlined by Pentland. Whereas the nationalist identity entails the acknowledgement of the nation only, the functionalist appreciates the European Union, primarily due to perceived economic needs of intensified cooperation in a modern world. The pluralist takes a middle position. He perceives the nation as ‘naturally’ given, however, recognises the need for international cooperation on the basis of subsidiarity.
After a brief introduction and the explanation of the method used (see below), Robyn and his contributors look at the attachments of people in the core part of the book (chapter 3–10, separated by country). Based on a conceptual framework incorporating social identity theory, banal nationalism (Billig) and the emphasis on people's perception and their subjective understandings, they find evidence that the applied framework by Pentland is too narrow for Europeans: forms of attachment to Europe vary across countries; and there is not much (open) support left for ‘pure’ nationalistic identities.
The national findings are described in the subsequent chapters, based upon the application of Q methodology. The method seeks for an ‘orderly examination of human subjectivity’ (19) by following a multi-step approach to gather data. In the first place, an analysis of the literature and the public debate reveals the content of an ongoing discourse. Second, a questionnaire is developed based upon those findings, which thirdly is answered by the respondents by using ranking scales. Whereas the first analysis is seen as representative for the actual debate, the selection of respondents does follow a theoretical sample (Glaser and Strauss) based on gender, age, class and living area, and thus is not representative in the sense of quantitative social research. In Robyn's study, the French discourse on European and national identity has functioned as the major source (Robyn's dissertation from 1998), whereby some of the items where replaced in other countries by the rating of experts to establish equivalence of meanings. The respondents (more than 300 Europeans have been asked, which equals an average national sample size of 43) have to rank 36 statements (12 items for each theoretically outlined type of identity have to be put into three piles (agree, neutral, disagree) before answering them separately on a scale of ‘agree’ (+4) to ‘disagree’ (−4)) in order to establish their ‘whole response’ (Brown 1980, cited in Robyn: 22) on the topic of identity. Finally, the national sub samples have been factor-analysed to deduct the prevailing patterns of response. Additionally, in-depth interviews validate the findings.
Some remarks shall be made to inform the reader about possible shortcomings of the design of importance for the subsequently interpretation of findings. Q methodology satisfies qualitative and quantitative social research standards to different degrees. The survey of the discourse results in a refined description of the discourse, and portrays the different positions taken from a social scientific perspective. Whereas hardly any objection will be found towards this part, researchers using quantitative methods in cross-national comparative ways, however, will certainly come up with critique on the design. First, the comparability of findings is likely to be not as evident as Robyn imagines. Based on a French source questionnaire, items where translated by experts in the field of identities (not translators) and replaced according to their perceived needs. According to Harkness et al. (2003) this is no way to establish equivalence of measurement across national contexts. Even between equally worded questions, equivalence is not intrinsic but must be analysed by using statistical methods. Other important points concern the sampling procedures and sample sizes. The study's samples are based on ‘settings’ of study intrinsic interest (given by gender, age, class and living area). The contributors acknowledge that such a design (non-random) does not allow for generalisations in the statistical sense. Nevertheless, one has the impression that findings are implicitly generalised to the national level. Robyn and his colleagues use samples of size 40 or smaller and argue that ‘[b]eyond this point, research is simply adding more participants to the study and nothing to the theory’ (31). Interestingly, some pages earlier (27–8), Robyn describes the incredibly large number of possible answer patterns arising from 36 items with each nine answer categories. Now, he covers all those possible answer patterns with a small selection of respondents. An oxymoron? Not necessarily, but one should expect the results of such an analysis to be too simplistic as they are likely to show a small number of rather heterogeneous response sets, hence, in the study specific case identities. Further, the claim that ‘nothing can be added to theory’ by larger sample sizes is not true, as larger sample size could lead towards the detection of (a) left out dimensions of the theoretical constructs of identities (by a large number of missing values or a large number of ‘neutral’ responses, for instance) and (b) a more differentiated approach towards the theoretical positions on the questions.
The substantial findings across the seven countries studied inform about the forms of attachment to Europe (and the nation) in too much detail to be accurately presented here. The contributors (Schrøder, Hansen, McCormack, Robyn, Colegrove, Pitasi, Marchionni, Massoni, Landtsheer, Caroll, Hekscher and Barry) usually describe the national context of European identity before they present the results of the study in the country. They most often detect four different responses towards identities. Those found vary to considerable degrees across the seven countries. But, cross-national comparisons are only a very small part of Robyn's concluding chapter, however, one expects them to be essential for a study claiming to be cross-national in scope. For the purposes of this review, it shall be tried to combine the national findings. Supranationalists are found (labelled) in France, Germany, The Netherlands and Sweden. Pluralist identities are observed in all countries, however their labels vary from ‘pragmatic European’ (Denmark), ‘optimistic’ (England and Scotland, France), ‘patriotic’ (England and Scotland), ‘pluralist’ (Germany, The Netherlands, Sweden), ‘United States of Europe supporter’ (Italy), or ‘pro-European Irishness’ (Northern Ireland). Examples mentioned are a subjective selection and the list can be extended according to the national findings.
These different types pose very interesting approaches towards identities in the selected countries. Their value for research on identities can be particularly seen in the fact that identities take different positions on the continuum from national to European identity and that similar types can be found in many countries. In this sense, the book contributes substantively to more accurate research on identities in Europe and reaches its self-imposed goal. But, on the other hand, does it really? An interesting question in cross-national research could be whether supranationalist or pluralist identities are the ‘same’ across countries or not. But throughout the book the reader waits in vain for such an analysis and comparative perspective. But as can be easily seen, the study would offer such interpretations. For instance, given the same labels of supranationalist identities in France, Germany, The Netherlands and Sweden, however, disguises some important differences as a simple comparison of the scores of those people on the 36 items reveals. For instance, French and German supranationalists extremely differ on item 5 (‘I do not hate foreign persons in my country, but they are polluting our national identity’ in the English translation for France; and ‘I have nothing against foreigners in my country, but I think they have a significant impact on our national identity’ in the German version). Whereas French supranationalist decisively reject the item (−4, disagree), the equivalent group in Germany even agrees to a considerable degree (2). Further strong differences can be found on seven out of the 36 items. Similar results can be presented for the comparison of ‘pluralists’ in Germany and The Netherlands (strong cross-national disagreement on 11 items), optimistic pluralists in England, Scotland and France (14 stronger disagreements) and nationalists in France, Germany, Italy and The Netherlands.
These findings show a major shortcoming of the book: what common labels largely disguise is the national difference of meanings of the ‘same’ response sets – that perception that identities such as nationalist and even pluralist or supranationalist vary to considerable degrees across countries. Put differently, these concepts are not equivalent in a strong sense. They might, but there is no evidence given for, function equivalently across countries, but given the different question wording and particularly the measured differences across countries in this study it is hardly possible to compare findings and thus identities across the selected countries. But, in the end, this is what cross-national research can and should offer to the reader.
Florian Pichler, Aberdeen, Scotland
Crompton, Rosemary: Employment and the Family. The Reconfiguration of Work and Family Life in Contemporary Societies, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006, 244 pp., ISBN 0-521-60075-8, paperback, £17.90
There have been considerable changes in the sphere of work and in family life in contemporary societies: rising employment rates of women, changes in the attitudes and practices of gender roles, new management concepts, work intensification, flexibility of working conditions together with changes of related political and economical frameworks (neoliberalist deregulation and welfare state adaptations and globalisation) are some of the most important keywords here. Does this mean that central institutions of capitalism like employment, class and gender have been replaced in late modern societies, and that new concepts and approaches of social analysis are needed? Following R. Crompton's analysis, the answer to these questions is, no. These institutions are nor being replaced, nor are they redundant, but they are reconfigured. Raising female employment rates and changes of the gender contract can be interpreted as driving forces of social change during the last decades. But, despite these changes, gender roles seem to be highly persistent regarding the ascription of care responsibilities to women. Theoretical concepts which focus on individualisation (Beck), on ideas of preference-based free choice of biographical decision making about employment and family (Hakim) or on the predominance of culture in postmodern societies (Baudriallard) ignore the persistence of normative and material patters, which guide people's life and decisions. Even more than that: together with the shift from Fordist class-based politics to fragmented issue-based politics and identity politics the postmodern left-wing theorists tend to converge with the neoliberalist promotion of the market. From the left and from the right, the contemporary individual is mainly characterised by his freedom and obligation to choose. Contrary to this one-sided position R. Crompton convincingly demonstrates in her book the structural effects of gender, class and normative frameworks on individual preferences, choices and well-being, which then serve to reproduce social hierarchies.
In her argumentation she refers to own empirical research on changes in work and family life in Great Britain including quantitative and qualitative data as well as international comparison. Especially the latter is closely linked to Esping-Andersen's classification of the welfare state and its impact on women's employment. This research together with the following critical feminist comparative research on the interlinkages between welfare states and gender arrangements manifests considerable variations between nation states. The results indicate the strong influence of political frameworks on the gendered division of labour. As international comparison shows, so Crompton's conclusion, statuary politics, which supports dual-earner families reduces class inequalities and gender equality is more likely to occur in this case.
Crompton's overall argumentation refers to Miriam Gluckmanns's concept of the ‘total social organisation of labour’ (TSOL). TSOL is about the division of all labour in a particular society and its allocation to different structures, institutions and activities. The TSOL concept takes up the longstanding feminist critique of the restricted definition of labour in modern societies, which puts paid labour into the centre of scientific, economic and public attention. The necessity of care (for children, elderly people or husbands) for the functioning of marketised work is little regarded in this predominant perspective. In her research R. Crompton tries to capture national variations in the TSOL along the continuum of traditional to less traditional gender relations. In traditional gender relations care and gainful work is clearly divided between the male breadwinner and the female carer. On the other side of the continuum, characterised as less traditional gender relations, the dual earner/dual carer arrangement is located. Between the two poles are the ‘neo-traditional’ combination of work and care with a male breadwinner and a female part-time earner. Less traditional than this are household arrangements with dual earners and state or marketised carers. According to her typology Crompton classifies Great Britain as mainly ‘neotraditional’. Less traditional with regard to gender relations are the Scandinavian countries, which have supported, for many decades, dual-earner families and provided an extensive infrastructure of care by the state. Marketised care is common in the Anglo-American countries (USA, Canada and Great Britain) with negative effects on less educated and thus less wealthy employees. As international research shows, mothers with less advantaged material background are more likely to opt for family and not for employment due to both the costs of care and the restricted choice in employment. Well-educated women on the other hand are more likely to remain working after they have become mothers.
The division between women's orientation towards employment and family manifests not only with respect to class but also with respect to ethnicity. This is not new for feminist research but it has become a new shaping, establishing of ‘care chains’ of migrant women (Hochschild and Ehrenreich). The global flow of migrant female care- (and sex-) workers has received, just recently, public and scientific attention. The total number of women who migrate and work as nannies, cleaners or carers for elderly private households is hard to guess, since this type of migration often is illegal. Within Europe there seem to be differences which are related to the given infrastructure of care. Especially in Southern Europe, working mothers rely on migrant carers since other possibilities are rare. Even if this arrangement might solve reconciliation problems for those (women) who can afford it, it does not solve the problem of gender inequality: again the responsibility for care is ascribed to women. This development does not promote less traditional gender relations: the dual-earner/dual-carer model. To make this come true, evidently men have to change tremendously; or how N. Fraser has put it, men have to become more like women, in the sense that men have to become responsible for care too (Fraser). But the articulation of employment and family is still treated as a womens’ problem. R. Crompton delivers many arguments against this perspective.
What is striking for a German reader is the reader-friendly organisation of the book. The argument that is made by the author is clearly outlined at the beginning of the book and its components are unfolded step by step throughout the subsequent chapters. The chapters are closed by a summary of the most important issues for the argumentation leading up to the provision of the following part.
I can strongly recommend R. Crompton's book for different types of readers. First of all for those who are carrying out research in this field; they will find interesting empirical results, well framed and discussed within a broad range of sociological theoretical approaches. This includes gender studies as well as the sociology of the family, the sociology of employment and general sociological theory. The second group of readers are engaged stakeholders in the field of employment and the family. For them the book offers empirically based arguments for the promotion of gender equality and against essentialist assumptions about the nature of men and women.
And last but not least I would recommend this book to students of sociology. They can learn from this book how a comprehensive study on a certain topic shall be designed, empirically as well as on the theoretical level. And that at least a certain tradition in sociology is about changing unjust social relationships.
Beate Littig, Vienna, Austria
Auel, Katrin and Arthur Benz (eds): The Europeanisation of Parliamentary Democracy, London: Routledge, 2006, 228 pp., ISBN 10: 0-415-37133-3, hardback, £70.00
The aim of this edited collection, previously a special issue of The Journal of Legislative Studies, is to link research on the EU national parliaments with research on Europeanisation. It is in three parts. The first comprises theoretical approaches to the study of the role of parliaments in the fifteen member-states (the post-2004 enlargement countries are not included). Raunio uses a ‘fuzzy-set’ method to probe the possible causes of cross-national variation in the level of parliamentary scrutiny in EU matters. Saalfeld deploys a delegation model of institutional choice to analyse variations in the relationships between ministers and government backbenchers in the member-parliaments. In particular, his focus is on the institutional opportunities available to rank-and-file MPs to influence the government's bargaining position before and during negotiations in the Council of Ministers. The second part of the book comprises five empirical chapters on various aspects of the Europeanisation of parliamentary structures and decision-making. They cover the Europeanisation of legislative-executive relations (Damgaard and Jensen), the Danish European Affairs Committee (Laursen), the role of the parliamentary opposition in European scrutiny (Holzhacker), the orientation of legislators to European integration (Wessels) and relations between the European Parliament and the national legislatures (Neunreither). The third part consists of a piece by Fraga, analysing the proceedings and results of the European Convention on the future of Europe. The book is co-edited by Auel (who provides the Introduction) and Benz (the Conclusion). They also combine to write a chapter on strategic adaptation in EU matters.
It may seem harsh, and apologies for the cricketing metaphor (it was reviewed in August), but after a promising ‘opening stand’ – challenging essays from Raunio and Saalfeld – the ‘innings’ appears to lose some momentum. There is a solid contribution ‘in the middle order’ from Damgaard and Jensen, which effectively demystifies the activities of the Danish European Affairs Committee. As they note, ‘the party dimension is lurking just below the institutional surface of the committee’ (99) and ‘the committee is an instrument with which the opposition seeks to exercise control over ministers’. (108) But, although there are some worthwhile insights, a number of the subsequent empirical studies are rudimentary and superficial. The fact that three chapters deal wholly, or in large part, with the Danish EAC leads to inevitable duplication and repetition. The English is convoluted and hard going in places and, ultimately, Benz's conclusion has very much ‘I thought as much’ quality. ‘The power of national parliaments and their role in EU governance’, he opines, ‘is difficult to evaluate, because it depends on many factors, varies from member state to member state and is subject to ongoing change’ (216). The ‘uneven bounce’ of edited collections is difficult to avoid, but ‘batting’ would have been easier perhaps had the central, thematic question been more clearly defined. Overall, despite some useful work, there is a lack of continuity and progression in the analysis, although Benz's future ‘research agenda’ (218–9) points perhaps to more in later innings.
David Arter, Aberdeen, Scotland