The monochrome society /
Amitai Etzioni.
Princeton, N.J. : Princeton University Press, 2001.
xxiii, 309 p.
0691070903 (cloth : alk. paper)
More Details
series title
Princeton, N.J. : Princeton University Press, 2001.
0691070903 (cloth : alk. paper)
catalogue key
Includes bibliographical references and index.
A Look Inside
About the Author
Author Affiliation
Amitai Etzioni is a University Professor at The George Washington University.
First Chapter

Chapter One

The Monochrome Society

Various demographers and other social scientists have been predicting for years that the end of the white majority in the United States is near, and that there will be a majority of minorities. A 1997 CNN special program was devoted to the forthcoming majority of people of color in America. That same year, President Clinton called attention to this shift in an address at the University of California at San Diego on a renewed national dialogue about race relations. His argument was that such a dialogue is especially needed as a preparation for the forthcoming end of the white majority, which will occur somewhere in the middle of this century. In his January 2000 State of the Union address, Clinton claimed that "within ten years there will be no majority race in our largest state, California. In a little more than fifty years, there will be no majority race in America. In a more interconnected world, this diversity can be our greatest strength." While House staffer Sylvia Mathews provided the figures as 53% white and 47% a mixture of other ethnic groups by 2050. Pointing to such figures, Clinton asked rhetorically if we should not act now to avoid America's division into "separate, unequal and isolated" camps.

    Some have reacted to the expected demise of the white majority with alarm or distress. Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr., decries the "cult of ethnicity" that has undermined the concept of Americans as "one people." He writes, "Watching ethnic conflict tear one nation after another apart, one cannot look with complacency at proposals to divide the United States into distinct and immutable ethnic and racial communities, each taught to cherish its own apartness from the rest." He also criticizes diversity and multiculturalism, arguing that "the United States has to set a monocultural example in a world rent by savage ethnic conflict; the United States must demonstrate `how a highly differentiated society holds itself together.'" James Q. Wilson writes, "The third condition [for democracy] is homogeneity ... as Daniel P. Moynihan has observed, the deepest and most pervasive source of human conflict is ethnic rivalry."

    Dale Maharidge, a professor and journalist who has conducted hundreds of interviews concerning race, class, and ethnicity in California, has written about the end of the white majority in America in his book, The Coming White Minority: California's Eruptions and America's Future . He reports that sometime between the date of his book's publication in 1996 and the year 2000, California's population will have become less than 50% white. He writes, "`Minorities' will be in the majority," a precursor to the 2050 state of racial composition nationwide, when "the nation will be almost half nonwhite."

    Maharidge comments that his interviews, observations, and research have shown that, especially in California,

[W]hites are scared. The depth of white fear is underestimated and misunderstood by progressive thinkers and the media. Whites dread the unknown and not-so-distant tomorrow when a statistical turning point will be reached that could have very bad consequences for them. They fear the change that seems to be transforming their state into something different from the rest of the United States. They fear losing not only their jobs but also their culture. Some feel that California will become a version of South Africa, in which whites will lose power when minorities are the majority.

    Whites in California have demonstrated their fear of the "browning" of America by forming residential "`islands' that are surrounded by vast ethnic or transitional communities, as well as deserts, mountain wilderness, and the ocean," demonstrating, Maharidge predicts, "what the rest of America might become." Whites and nonwhites alike also passed the anti-immigrant Proposition 187, which Maharidge links to these same fears about the end of the white majority. He warns, "California's electoral discord has emanated from whites. There is ample evidence that white tension could escalate. What will California be like in 2010, when nonwhites make up 60% of the population? ... And how will California's actions influence the rest of the nation as non-Hispanic whites fall from 76% of the U.S. populace to just over half in 2050?"

    In contrast, John Isbister, a professor of economics at the University of California at Santa Cruz, asks us to ponder whether America is too white. He contends, "The decline in the white proportion is a healthy development for the country.... The principal case for a falling white proportion is simply this: it will be easier for us to transform a society of hostility and oppression into one of cooperation if we are dealing not with a majority versus several small minorities, but with groups of roughly equivalent size."


As I see it, both views -- that of alarm and that which celebrates the ending of the white majority and the rise of a majority of minorities -- are fundamentally wrong because these positions are implicitly and inadvertently racist: they assume that people's pigmentation, or, more generally, racial attributes, determine their visions, values, and votes. Actually, I claim and will show that very often the opposite is true. The fact is that America is blessed with an economic and political system as well as culture and core values and much else that, while far from flawless, is embraced by most Americans of all races and ethnic groups. (To save breath, from here on, race is used to encompass ethnicity.) It is a grievous error to suggest that because American faces or skin tones may appear more diverse some fifty years from now, most Americans who hail from different social backgrounds will seek to follow a different agenda or hold a different creed than a white majority. While, of course, nobody can predict what people will believe or do fifty years hence, there is strong evidence that if they behave in any way that resembles current behavior of white, black, brown, yellow, red, or other Americans, they will share the same basic aspirations, core values, and mores. Moreover, current trends, during a period in which the nonwhite proportion of the population already has increased, further support the thesis that while the American society may well change, whites and nonwhites will largely change together.

    A fair number of findings, we shall see shortly, support the thesis that American society is basically much more of one color -- if one looks at conduct and beliefs rather than pigmentation and other such external, skin-deep indications.

    A word about the inadvertent racism involved in the opposite position. To argue that all or most members of a given social group behave the way some do is the definition of prejudice. This holds true not merely when one argues that all (or most) Jews, blacks, or those belonging to any other social group have some unsavory qualities, but also when one argues that all (or most) of a given group are antiwhite, alienated, and so on because some (often actually a small minority) are.

    One may argue that while of course there is no direct correlation between race and political conduct, social thinking, and the values to which one subscribes, there are strong correlations. But is this true? Even if one controls for class differences? Or, is race but one factor among many that affect behavior? And if this is the case, might it be that singling out this biological given and unyielding factor, rather than paying full attention to all the others, reflects a divisive political agenda rather than social fact? Above all, are there significant correlations between being nonwhite and most political, social, and ideological positions? I turn now to findings supporting the thesis that there are many more beliefs, dreams, and views that whites and nonwhites of all colors share than those that divide them.

    Some findings out of many that could be cited illustrate this point: A 1992 survey found that most black and Hispanic Americans (86% and 85%, respectively) desired "fair treatment for all, without prejudice or discrimination." One may expect that this value is of special concern to minorities, but white Americans who took part in this survey felt the same way. As a result, the proportion of all Americans who agreed with the quoted statement about the importance of fairness was close to the above figures, at 79%.

    A poll of New York residents showed that the vast majority of respondents considered teaching "the common heritage and values that we share as Americans" to be "very important." One may expect this statement to reflect a white, majoritarian value. However, minorities endorsed this position more strongly than whites: 88% of Hispanics and 89% of blacks, compared to 70% of whites agreed.

    A nationwide poll found that equal proportions of blacks and whites, 93%, concurred that they would vote for a black presidential candidate. Another national poll found that "over 80% of all respondents in every category -- age, gender, race, location, education, and income -- agreed" with the statement that freedom must be tempered by personal responsibility.

    Far from favoring placing stress on different heritages, approximately 85% of all parents; 83% of African American parents; 89% of Hispanic American parents; and 88% of foreign-born parents agreed with the statement, "To graduate from high school, students should be required to understand the common history and ideas that tie all Americans together."

    And far from stressing differences in the living conditions and economic status of different groups, views about the nature of life in America are shared across racial lines. According to the National Opinion Research Center's (NORC) 1994 General Social Survey, 70% of blacks and 60% of whites agreed that "the way things are in America, people like me and my family have a good chance of improving our standard of living." Likewise, 81% of blacks and 79% of whites reported to NORC that "the quality of life is better in America than in most other advanced industrial countries." And, 84% of all parents surveyed -- 80% of foreign-born parents, 87% of Hispanic American parents, 73% of African American parents -- agreed that "the U.S. is a unique country that stands for something special in the world." Lawrence Otis Graham, an African American author, writing about African Americans, sums up the picture by stating, "Blacks, like any other group, want to share in the American dream." The American dream, not some other or disparate one.

    Close percentages of blacks (70%) and whites (65%), in a poll conducted in 1994, agreed that "the U.S. has made some or a lot of progress in easing black-white tensions in the past ten years." In the same poll, 70% of whites and 65% of blacks said that "racial integration has been good for society."

    Sociologist Alan Wolfe finds in his middle-class morality project, which surveyed whites, blacks, Hispanics, Asians, Native Americans, and "others," that a striking majority of respondents disagreed or strongly disagreed with the statement, "There are times when loyalty to an ethnic group or to a race should be valued over loyalty to the country as a whole."

    Even in response to a deliberately loaded question, a 1997 poll showed that similarities between the races are much larger than differences. Asked, "Will race relations in this country ever get better?" 43% of blacks and 60% of whites replied in the affirmative. (The pollsters tended to focus on the 17% who struck a different position rather than on the 43% who embraced the same one. The difference between 57% of blacks and 40% of whites who did not believe that race relations were going to get better was also 17%.)

    While Americans hold widely ranging opinions on what should be done about various matters of social policy, people across racial and ethnic categories identify the same issues as important to them, and to the country. For instance in a 1996 survey, whites, African Americans, Latinos, and Asian Americans concurred that education was "the most important issue facing [their] community today." Similarly, more than 80% of blacks, Latinos, and whites shared the belief that it was "`extremely important' to spend tax dollars on `educational opportunities for children.'" In another survey, 54% of blacks and 61% of whites ranked "increased economic opportunity" as the most important goal for blacks. And 97% of blacks and 92% of whites rated violent crime a "very serious or most serious problem" in a 1994 poll.

    As we can see in Table 1, whites, African Americans, Latinos, and Asian Americans agreed about areas of life that had gotten worse or harder for "people like [them]" between 1985 and 1995. Between 45% and 55% agreed that public schools had worsened; 50 to 60% agreed that getting a good job was more difficult; between 48% and 55% within each group agreed that finding "decent, affordable housing" was tougher, and between 34% and 48% found it more challenging "for families like [theirs] to stay together."

    More specifically, the following percentages said that each area was "worse" or "harder": public schools -- whites 55%, African Americans 57%, Latinos 45%, Asian Americans 47%; getting good jobs -- whites 56%, African Americans 60%, Latinos 50%, Asian Americans 56%; finding decent, affordable housing -- whites 55%, African Americans 49%, Latinos 55%, Asian Americans 48%; for families like theirs to stay together -- whites 45%, African Americans 48%, Latinos 40%, Asian Americans 34%.

    Other problems that troubled America's communities highlighted points of convergence among the views of members of various racial and ethnic groups. "Between 80 and 90% of black, white, and `other' Americans agreed that it was `extremely important' to spend tax dollars on `reducing crime' and `reducing illegal drug use' among youth." In addition, some shared public policy preferences emerged. Among whites, African Americans, Latinos, and Asian Americans surveyed by the Washington Post /Kaiser Family Foundation/Harvard School of Public Health Survey Project, between 75% and 82% of each group felt "strongly" that Congress should balance the budget. Between 30% and 41% were convinced that Congress should instate limited tax breaks for businesses; between 46% and 55% concurred that Congress should cut personal income taxes; between 53% and 59% agreed that Congress should reform Medicare (see Table 2).

    More specifically, the following percentages of each group felt "strongly" that Congress should take action on the following items: balance the budget -- whites 82%, African Americans 79%, Latinos 75%, Asian Americans 75%; provide limited tax breaks for businesses -- whites 39%, African Americans 41%, Latinos 41%, Asian Americans 30%; cut personal income taxes -- whites 52%, African Americans 50%, Latinos 55%, Asian Americans 46%; reform Medicare -- whites 53%, African Americans 58%, Latinos 59%, Asian Americans 58%. As well, 67% of all parents -- 68% of African American parents, 66% of Hispanic American parents, and 75% of foreign-born parents -- told Public Agenda that the most important thing for public schools to do for new immigrant children was "to teach them English as quickly as possible, even if this means they fall behind in other subjects."

    More African-Americans than whites or Hispanics thought that "the U.S. is the greatest country in the world, better than all others." However, the differences were small (African Americans 60%; whites 55%; Hispanic Americans 48%). The percentages were similarly close when respondents were asked to what extent they were proud to live under the American political system -- 76% of whites, 73% of African Americans, 71% of Hispanic Americans said they were proud.

    All this is not to suggest that there are no significant differences of opinion along social lines, especially when matters directly concern race relations. For instance, many whites and many blacks (although by no means all of either group) take rather different views of the guilt of O. J. Simpson. One survey will stand for many with similar findings that could be cited: 62% of whites believed Simpson was guilty, of the murders of which he was accused and acquitted, in contrast to 55% of African Americans who believed he was not guilty.

    Likewise, concerning affirmative action, 51% of blacks in a 1997 poll favored programs which "give preferential treatment to racial minorities," a much higher percentage than the 21% of whites who favored such programs. And a very large difference appears when one examines voting patterns. For instance, in 1998, 55% of whites versus 11% of African Americans voted for Republican candidates for Congress. And recent surveys have found several startling differences in the extent to which African Americans trust the government (Table 3).

    Still, if one considers attitudes toward the basic tenets of the American creed, the overwhelming majority of blacks are surprisingly accepting of them. A 1998 Public Perspective poll found that 54% of blacks and 66% of whites agreed with the statement, "In the United States today, anyone who works hard enough can make it economically." A 1994 national survey reported that 67% of blacks and 77% of whites agreed that "a basic American belief has been that if you work hard you can get ahead -- reach your goals and get more," was still true. Most blacks (77%) said they preferred equality of opportunity to equality of results (compared to 89% of whites). When it came to "Do you see yourself as traditional or old-fashioned on things such as sex, morality, family life, and religion, or not?" the difference between blacks and whites was only 5%. When asked whether values in America were seriously declining, the difference was down to one percentage point.

    A question from an extensive national survey conducted at the University of Virginia by James Davison Hunter and Carl Bowman asked: "How strong would you say the U.S. decline or improvement is in its moral and ethical standards?" Twenty-three percent of blacks and 33% of whites said there was a strong decline, while 40% of blacks and 38% of whites said there was a moderate decline, and 29% of blacks and 24% of whites said the standards were holding steady. When asked "How strong would you say the U.S. decline or improvement is in the area of family life?" 18% of blacks and 26% of whites said there was a strong decline, while 42% of blacks and 40% of whites saw a moderate decline, and 31% of blacks and 25% of whites said family life had held steady. Roughly the same percentages of blacks and whites strongly advocated balancing the budget, cutting personal income taxes, reforming the welfare system, and reforming Medicare. Percentages were also nearly even in responses to questions on abortion and marijuana.

    Hunter and Bowman found that "the majority of Americans do not ... engage in identity politics -- a politics that insists that opinion is mainly a function of racial, ethnic, or gender identity or identities rooted in sexual preference." While there are some disagreements on specific issues and policies, this study found more similarities than discrepancies. Even when asked about such divisive issues as the direction of changes in race and ethnic relations, the similarities across lines were considerable. Thirty-two percent of blacks, 37% of Hispanics, and 40% of whites felt these relations were holding steady; 46%, 53%, and 44%, respectively, felt they had declined. (The remainder felt that they had improved.) That is, on most issues, four out of five -- or more -- agreed with one another, while those who differed amounted to less than 20% of all Americans. There is no anti-anything majority here, nor is there likely to be one in the future.

    Similarly, 81% of blacks, like 71% of all Americans, in a 1998 survey thought that blacks and whites "generally get along fairly well." When asked in 1994, "When today's/your children reach your age, do you expect that race relations will have improved, will have worsened, or will be about the same as today?" a close 48% of blacks and 51% of whites concurred that relations would be better. In 1998, the Gallup Organization found a similar position among whites and blacks (60% of whites and 54% of blacks agreed) that only a few white people dislike blacks. Only 5% of blacks and 2% of whites said that "almost all white people dislike blacks."

    Notably, nearly half of both blacks and whites want to set racial questions aside as much as possible. In a 1995 survey for Newsweek , Princeton Survey Research Associates found that 48% of blacks and 47% of whites agreed that the Census Bureau should stop collecting information on race and ethnicity "in an effort to move toward a more color-blind society -- even if it becomes more difficult to measure progress on civil rights and poverty programs."

    As already suggested, many pollsters and those who write about their findings, tend to play up small differences and downplay large similarities. During my days at Columbia University's Bureau of Applied Social Research we were advised to use the "fully-only" writing device. Thus, we would write that fully, say 9% agreed with whatever we wanted to play up, while only 43% disagreed. It should hence be stressed that in most of the figures cited above the differences among the races are much smaller than the similarities. On most issues there are no findings that could be considered, even by a far-fetched interpretation, to show a "white" versus a "black" position, nor a single position of any group of people of other colors. That is, none of these findings suggest -- in fact, they directly contradict -- that race determines a person's views, values, or votes.

    Most interestingly, differences among social groups that include both blacks and whites are often larger than differences among races . For instance, sociologist Janet Saltzman Chafetz concludes her study of such differences with the statement that "in any dimension one wishes to examine -- income, education, occupation, political and social attitudes, etc. -- the range of difference within one race or gender group is almost as great as that between various groups." A 1994 Kansas City study showed that "income differences between age groups in a given race are greater than income differences between entire races." While much has been made of the digital divide, Alan Westin -- the most systematic surveyor of this field -- reports that differences in the use of computers and the Internet are larger between men and women than between the races.

    Rather little attention has been paid in this context to the fact that while African Americans are the least mainstreamed group, there is a growing black middle class, many members of which have adopted lifestyles and aspirations similar to those of other middle-class Americans -- and which diverge from those of other black Americans. For instance, a 1998 Wall Street Journal public opinion poll showed differences within distinct classes of a single race to be greater than differences among those races, on several, albeit not on all, key issues. For instance, 82% of middle-class whites and 70% of non-middle-class whites reported satisfaction with their personal finances (a disparity of 12%), while 74% of middle-class blacks and 56% non-middle-class blacks reported such satisfaction (a difference of 18%). The differences of 12% and 18%, respectively, are higher than the differences in opinion between the races (8% difference between middle-class whites and blacks, and 14% difference between non-middle-class whites and blacks). (William Julius Wilson is among the scholars who have pointed out the significance of class differences when studying racial differences.)

    I am not suggesting that race makes no difference in a person's position, feelings, or thinking. And one can find polls, especially in response to single questions, that show strong racial influence. However, race does not determine a person's response and often, on all important matters, Americans of different social backgrounds share many convictions, hopes, and goals, even in recent years, as we see the beginning of the decline of the white majority. Moreover, each racial group is far from homogeneous in itself. Differences within each group abound, further contradicting any notion of a nonwhite united majority facing a unanimous white group, a view often promoted by champions of identity politics.


Copyright © 2001 Princeton University Press. All rights reserved.

Full Text Reviews
Appeared in Library Journal on 2001-05-01:
Communitarian thinker Etzioni's (The Limits of Privacy) new collection of 13 essays centers on American social virtues and the elements underpinning these values. Disagreeing with the notion of a racially divided America, he argues that most Americans, regardless of racial or ethnic background, support a common set of virtues and goals. These values are shaped by communities rather than government through informal checks and balances, such as shame or common rituals and holidays. Etzioni sees similar structures appearing in cyberspace through self-regulating attitudes arising in chat rooms and other virtual communities. He also answers critics of communitarianism by stating that both societal rights and individual rights may coexist as counterbalances to extreme individualism and oppressive collective action. Even readers unsympathetic with communitarian ideas will find these well-thought-out and well-written essays thought-provoking. For all libraries. Stephen L. Hupp, Urbana Univ., OH (c) Copyright 2010. Library Journals LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary of Media Source, Inc. No redistribution permitted.
Appeared in Publishers Weekly on 2001-05-07:
"Young drug dealers, caught for the first time peddling, should be sent home with their heads shaved and without their pants instead of being jailed," proposed noted sociologist Etzioni (The New Golden Rule) to his more liberal friends, who rejected his idea forthrightly. But in "Is Shaming Shameful?," one of 13 essays here, he makes the case that a community's cultivated sense of personal shame including signs on the lawns of pedophiles and DUI bumper stickers on the cars of convicted drunk drivers is a civil, and useful, form of social regulation and inculcation of personal responsibility. Always provocative and thoughtful, he charts how racial polarities are changing and potentially disappearing in U.S. culture, and what this means for a society based on the contradiction of pluralism and uniform national identity. While some of Etzioni's suggestions such as public shaming, the promotion of "virtues" over "values" and his arguments against extending the First Amendment to children may appear to line up with the political and religious right, he is careful in his dialogue here with Robert P. George to separate himself from traditionally conservative politics. Though Etzioni, a professor at George Washington University, is frequently extremely insightful, as in his discussion of the social role that public holidays play in structuring moral education within the family unit, his theoretical claims can also feel shortsighted. He doesn't, for instance, consider possible vigilantism against those publicly shamed. But even when inflammatory, Etzioni is always thoughtful and deliberate. (May) (c) Copyright PWxyz, LLC. All rights reserved
Review Quotes
"A readable collection of essays . . . Sometimes diffuse, more often enlightening: essays that make good individual points and together form a social philosophy worth considering."-- Kirkus Reviews
"A series of absorbing and significant reflections on how virtue-sustaining communities may be possible under modern conditions that, at first glance, seem stacked against them . . . A robust defense of communitarianism. . ."-- Jonathan Marks, The Responsive Community
"Etzioni's liberal communitarianism addresses a serious problem, namely how to arrest the atomisation of modern societies and improve the quality not only of citizenship but of life in general."-- Bhikhu Parekh, Times Higher Education Supplement
"Even readers unsympathetic with communitarian ideas will find these well-thought-out and well-written essays thought provoking."-- Library Journal
"Insightful. . . . Etzioni is always thoughtful and deliberate."-- Publishers Weekly
"Written in an uncomplicated style, The Monochrome Society is a significant contribution."-- Sean Donlon, Sunday Independent (Dublin)
This item was reviewed in:
Kirkus Reviews, March 2001
Booklist, May 2001
Library Journal, May 2001
Publishers Weekly, May 2001
To find out how to look for other reviews, please see our guides to finding book reviews in the Sciences or Social Sciences and Humanities.
Back Cover Copy
"These wide-ranging essays are full of fresh insights and challenging ideas. Etzioni takes us on a voyage of discovery, in an open-minded spirit of study and exploration. He suggests ways of thinking about specific policy areas, including crime, child protection, and the Internet, as well as basic issues in moral and social theory, such as making cross-cultural moral judgments. Anyone interested in communitarian thinking will find much refreshment in this book."-- Philip Selznick, University of California, Berkeley "These essays apply sound sociological reasoning to such themes as diversity, human rights, and the maintenance of social norms. They are very well written, avoiding both excessive academicism and a popularizing tone that seems to talk down to the reader. Thus, these essays are both highly readable and informative."-- Dennis Wrong, author of The Problem of Order and The Modern Condition
Main Description
Amitai Etzioni is one of the most influential social and political thinkers of our day, a man synonymous with the ideas of communitarianism. In this book, Etzioni challenges those who argue that diversity or multiculturalism is about to become the governing American creed. On the surface, America may seem like a fractured mosaic, but the country is in reality far more socially monochromatic and united than most observers have claimed. In the first chapter, Etzioni presents a great deal of evidence that Americans, whites and African Americans, Hispanics and Asian Americans, new immigrants and decedents of the Pilgrims, continue to share the same core of basic American values and aspirations. He goes on to show that we need not merely a civil but also a good society, one that nurtures virtues. He assesses key social institutions that can serve such a society ranging from revived holidays to greater reliance on public shaming. The most effective sources of bonding and of shared ideas about virtue, he insists throughout, come from the community, not from the state. Etzioni also challenges moral relativists who argue that we have no right to "impose" our moral values on other societies. He responds to those who fear that a cohesive community must also be one that is oppressive, authoritarian, and exclusive. And he explores and assesses possible new sources and definitions of community, including computer-mediated communities and stakeholding in corporations. By turns provocative and reassuring, the chapters here cut to the heart of several of our most pressing social and political issues. The book is further evidence of Etzioni's enduring place in contemporary thought.
Publisher Fact Sheet
Presents a case that despite the diversity of the American population, we all still develop a core of basic American values & aspirations.
Unpaid Annotation
"These wide-ranging essays are full of fresh insights and challenging ideas. Etzioni takes us on a voyage of discovery, in an open-minded spirit of study and exploration. He suggests ways of thinking about specific policy areas, including crime, child protection, and the Internet, as well as basic issues in moral and social theory, such as making cross-cultural moral judgments. Anyone interested in communitarian thinking will find much refreshment in this book."--Philip Selznick, University of California, Berkeley"These essays apply sound sociological reasoning to such themes as diversity, human rights, and the maintenance of social norms. They are very well written, avoiding both excessive academicism and a popularizing tone that seems to talk down to the reader. Thus, these essays are both highly readable and informative."--Dennis Wrong, author of "The Problem of Order and The Modern Condition
Table of Contents
Acknowledgmentsp. ix
Introductionp. xiii
The Monochrome Societyp. 3
Is Shaming Shameful?p. 37
The Post-Affluent Societyp. 48
Can Virtual Communities Be Real?p. 79
Suffer the Childrenp. 102
Holidays: The Neglected Seedbeds of Virtuep. 113
Salem without Witchesp. 141
Social Norms: The Rubicon of Social Sciencep. 163
Why the Civil Society Is Not Good Enoughp. 186
Table of Contents provided by Syndetics. All Rights Reserved.

This information is provided by a service that aggregates data from review sources and other sources that are often consulted by libraries, and readers. The University does not edit this information and merely includes it as a convenience for users. It does not warrant that reviews are accurate. As with any review users should approach reviews critically and where deemed necessary should consult multiple review sources. Any concerns or questions about particular reviews should be directed to the reviewer and/or publisher.

  link to old catalogue

Report a problem