Coherent Variety: The Idea of Diversity in British and American Conservative Thought byMichael D. ClarkReview by: Ronald LoraThe American Historical Review, Vol. 89, No. 1 (Feb., 1984), pp. 97-98Published by: Oxford University Press on behalf of the American Historical AssociationStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1855931 .

Accessed: 16/01/2014 12:56

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 ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

.

Oxford University Press and American Historical Association are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize,preserve and extend access to The American Historical Review.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 193.144.79.222 on Thu, 16 Jan 2014 12:56:07 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

General 97

SYLVIA STRAUSS. "Fraitors to the Masculne Cause": The Men's Campaigns for Womenl's Rights. (Contributions in Women's Studies, number 35.) Westport, Conn.: Greenwood. 1982. Pp. xix, 290. $35.00.

'Throughout the long fight for women's rights, some men not only supported but also led the struggle against the tyranny of their own sex. 'The list is long-Thompson, Holyoake, Mill, Dell, and Shaw were but a few. Sylvia Strauss has wr-itten a history of' the role such men played in Britain and America from the eighteenith century through the 1920s. 'This book consists primarily of sumnmaries of the intellectual and political contributions of individual men. In her choice of subjects, the author demon- strates a strong preference f'or Br-itons over Ameri- cans, who do not loom large in her account.

"Traitors to the Masculine Cause" is not, in general, based on research in unprinted material. Not even the easily accessible papers of J. S. Mill or H. N. Brailsford have been used. TFhe author also seems to be unaware of some recent scholarly works of considerable bearing on her subject. In many in- stances she has relied on inaccurate autobiographies or seriously outdated secondary sources such as Roger Fulford's Votes for Women, published in 1947. Errors have resulted. 'The first women's suffrage society was founded neither in Manchester nor in 1867. TFhe Women's Social and Political Ution (WSPU) was never known as the Women's Labour Representation Committee. "Votes for Women NOW!" (sic) was not the WSPU's slogan (the "NOW!" is apocryphal), nor did the WSPU adopt its slogan at or soon after its founding. Keir Hardie did not wear his "miner's outfit" (p. 204) when he first entered the Commons. And it cani hardly be claimed that "Trhe Liberals swept to power in 1905" (p. 205), inasmuch as the election began onJaanuary 12, 1906. ("1905" may of course be a typographical error- there are many in this book.)

Strauss also makes a nurmber of curious state- ments, such as "American f'eminists acquired an abiding faith in the beneficence of' patriarchal au- thority and in its modern manifestation, the bureau- cratic, corporate state. They have maintained this trust even though the realities of American politics have shown that what the lef't hand gives the right hand in due time takes away" (p. 271). All American feminists? On what evidence?

TFo touch br-iefly on another issue, Strauss's assess- ment of' the effect of World War I on the struggle for women's rights is striking in that it is the exact opposite of what most other scholars contend. She argues that women's struggle to achieve equality with tnen was drastically undermined by the war, which represented the triumph of aggressive male values. She igtiores women's war work. In a recent article in Sig-ns, Sandra Gilbert has argued persua-

sively for the remarkably liberating effect that the war had on British women. Strauss, however, con- tends that the war, by emphasizinig brute force, and Freudianism, by emphasizing women's traditional roles, combined to undermine feminist advances until the renaissance of the last fifteen vears. Her thesis is interesting and deserves a longer and more precise exposition than it receives in these pages.

ANDREW ROSEN

St. Mary's College of Maryland

MICHAEL D. CLARK. Coherent Vanrety: Thte Idea of Diversity in British and American Conservative Thought. (Contributions in Political Science, nunmber 86.) Westport, Conn.: Greenwood,. 1983. Pp. viii, 228. $35.00.

Whether or not the modern world embodies a degree of diversity and freedom of choice compara- ble to that of earlier centuries has been an underly- ing concern of investigators ranging from Alexis de 'Focqueville and Henry Adams to Edward Shils and other intellectuals of a generation ago, who pondered the putative emergence in the West of a nmass society." TFhe specific purpose of Coherent

Vanrety, with its smaller focus, is to examine the idea of diversity in British and American conservative thought and to demonstrate its importance to the conservative tradition. By "diversity" Michael D. Clark means multiplicity, whether of natural life forms, objects, qualities, communities, or nationali- ties. Its opposite is not unity but uniformity or sameness.

Following a fine introduction that defines diversi- ty, the book is divided into three equal parts: the first discusses the important stake conservatives have in a world of variegated phenomena; the second compares the British and American tradi- tions of diversity; and the third examin-es twentieth- century conservatives who have commented on the polar qualities of uniformity and diversity. Throtighout, Clark's technique is to highlight vari- ous formulations of the general theme of diversity and of supplementary thenmes like ttradition and federalism. Uncertain as to which school of conser- vatism-the traditionalist, stemming from Burke; the libertarian, dedicated to freedom of choice; the American, with its free-market and pro-business predilections; or some other synthesis-is most au- thentic, he draws oti individuals from all schools that have defended diversity. TFhis eclecticism in meth- odology is not always prudent, for it results fre- quently in too broad a sampler. William James receives considerable attention because of his "tem- peramental delight in diversity" (p. 154). But his spontaneity, ethical relativism, and experimental notion of truth most conservatives find suspect.

This content downloaded from 193.144.79.222 on Thu, 16 Jan 2014 12:56:07 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

98 Reviews of Books

Would it not have been better to have devoted more attention to James's Harvard colleague Josiah Royce? The latter's philosophical idealism, his inter- est in human values realized in a universe far less open than James's, and his sense of community based on local spirit and local pride are qualities much esteemed among conservatives.

Elsewhere, Clark's analysis is suggestive, even when not persuasive. Aware that traditionalists and libertarians disagree on matters such as abortion, censorship, the draft, and the Monroe Doctrine, he argues that they join in opposing collectivism and in venerating private-property rights. Years ago, Frank Meyer, the leading champion of "fusionism," edged beyond this bare formulation. Clark asserts that "the idea of diversity offers another common denominator" (p. 186) around which various schools of conservatism can coalesce. But the point is imma- terial because the meaning of diversity varies in the work of Frank Meyer and Russell Kirk, Eric Voege- lin and Murray Rothbard, John Hallowell and Mil- ton Friedman. Kirk excoriated Meyer for deifying an abstract conception of liberty around which no society could long remain cohesive. An overflow of diversity and "licentious freedom" was "metaphysi- cally mad" and incompatible with an ordered com- munity. Diversity promises even fewer returns as an organizing conservative principle when we find it affirmed by liberals so contrasting as Thomas Jeffer- son and John Dewey.

Nevertheless, Coherent Variety demonstrates real differences between British conservatives, who sought diversity among groups, and their more individualistic American counterparts who, living among many religions, sects, races, and unmeltable ethnics, found less enchanting the actual lineaments of diversity.

RONALD LORA

University of Toledo

PETER CALVERT. The Concept of Class: An Historical Introduction. New York: St. Martin's Press. 1982. Pp. 254. $22.50.

Peter Calvert's purpose is to study the different concepts of class in the West; his work is what he calls a "taxonomy of definitions" (pp. 202, 209). He begins with the classical concept of class as balance and continues with discussions of the pre-Marxian and Marxian concepts of class struggle and the well- known post-Marxian complex of class, status, and power. He then surveys the concepts of class in advanced capitalism and in socialist states and ends with observations on the difficulty of applying the concept of class to the analysis of contemporary Britain, the United States, and France. Calvert concludes that presently the concept of class is

considerably confused, since it does not mean exact- ly economic standing, status, or power. In fact, class has been an essentially contested concept among users, and so we might as well abandon it altogether, thus overcoming the prejudice of "classism" (p. 216).

According to Calvert, concept means a label, a name we give to an abstract entity. And his taxono- my of the concepts of class actually turns out to be a survey of the changing definitions of class. The very use of the word taxonomy is revealing, for accord- ing to Foucault taxinomia is the seventeenth- and eighteenth-century classification of things in a static, mechanical space (The Order of Things, chap. 5). Therefore, what Calvert is giving us is the natural history of a concept. Concepts do change. But Calvert assumes there ought to be an unchanging, Platonic or scientific, idea. Since his survey proves to him that universality is not attainable, he advocates the abolition of the concept of class.

But class as an essentially contested concept, al- though an obstacle to academic objectivity, is an integral part of the real world. People are oppressed and killed in the name of class. Because class is contested, it ought to be studied as the ideological iceberg of a structured, dynamic social totality. In other words, we study the changing concept of class in order to obtain an intimation of the changing class conflict in society.

DONALD M. LOWE

San Franciso State University

CARROLL QUIGLEY. Weapons Syste and Politcal Stabil- ity: A History. Washington: University Press of Amer- ica or Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Service, Georgetown. 1983. Pp. xvii, 1043. $36.50.

On his death in 1977, Carroll Quigley, professor at Georgetown University, left a long, but incomplete, manuscript, which his colleagues have now put into print (by photocopy of the typescript) together with appreciative comments and a list of his publications. The author's objective is to enlighten Americans on "the history of weapons systems and tactics, with special reference to the influence that these have had on political life and the stability of political arrangements" (p. 35).

Early in the work we are given an analysis of several dichotomies in military development: (1) amateur versus specialized weapons, the former of which could encourage the rise of democracy; (2) missile versus shock weapons, the former of which were preferred by Asiatic peoples 2000 B.C. to A.D.

1400, while Indo-European stocks tended to use shock weapons in that period; (3) the relative advan- tage of offensive or defensive tactics, a field in which oscillations have repeatedly taken place.

This content downloaded from 193.144.79.222 on Thu, 16 Jan 2014 12:56:07 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions