Robert A. Nisbet (1913–1996)

This is a peculiar book. The author summarizes its argument on two occasions. Summary number one: "It is the argument of this book that the ominous preoccupation with community revealed by modern thought and mass behaviour is a manifestation of certain profound dislocations in the primary associative area of society, dislocations that have been created to a great extent by the structure of the western political state" (p.42). Summary number two: "The argument of this book is that the single most decisive influence upon western social organization has been the rise and development of the centralized territorial state" (p.89).

The first summary encapsulates Part One of this book nicely, because it's hard to make any sense of it. In fact early on in this book I was so frustrated by bad arguments that I felt like abandoning the book entirely. The author writes about how "alienated" and "dislocated" modern man feels. He seems to consider this so obvious that it needs little elaboration, only repetition. But I could not understand which persons or groups have been so tragically dislocated, from what they have been dislocated, or even what "dislocation" or "alienation" is supposed to mean. At first I thought it had something to do with the fact that this book was written shortly after World War II, but the author clearly has more abstract "dislocations" in mind. Whatever they may be, the first part of the book is awful.

But the second summary I quoted above seems sensible and interesting. As it happens it actually fits Part Two, which contains well-reasoned and interesting arguments on many important questions. It's almost as if a different author had written this part of the book. I was impressed by how broadly the author manages to argue without diluting the point he is trying to make. The argument flows from political history to the history of political thought and to cogent theoretical analyses of both totalitarian and liberal state systems. The author laments the decline of small-scale communities - families, cities, workplaces etc. - under the extensive canopy of modern government. I can't say I share any of his concerns, but at least he makes an interesting case with many points worthy of serious consideration.

The third part of the book seemed a bit superfluous since it didn't add much to what had been said before. All in all I can recommend this book to readers with theoretical and historical interests in the modern state. If you skip directly to Part Two and ignore every mention of alienation or dislocation, it should be worth your while.… (mere)