Michael Mann (1) (1942–)

Between the lines I got the impression that the author sees himself as a successor to Marx and Weber. That ambition is not misplaced, and someone might say it is not unwarranted, either. This four-volume series in historical sociology is clearly intended to be a work for the ages. I can't even imagine how much time it must have taken to read through, or even browse, all the references cited in this book. It takes a unique mindset and great determination to attempt macrohistorical analysis on this scale, and we might have to wait a hundred years until another work with comparable scope is published. So if you're collecting modern books that might one day become true classics, placing a bet on this series might not be the worst idea.

But there's one problem: this book is really dull. When I read volume one I classified it as a difficult book because I got the feeling that I lacked the necessary background knowledge to appreciate the author's theorizing. But now, having read selected parts of this second volume, I realize that there's also something lacking in his writing. I can't exactly put my finger on what it is but I noticed that his theoretical framework is distressingly unclear. For example, he repeatedly refers to different state "crystallizations" without ever explaining what this physical metaphor is supposed to signify. He also relies heavily on Marxist class terminology such as "petite bourgeoisie". I'm sure Marxists could make the argument that it is a correct term for a certain social class in 19th century Europe, but it still becomes annoying when used over and over again. And I didn't know where to look up what a "sectional-segmental" organization is supposed to be, either. These are just a few examples of unclear terminology - I could give at least twenty more.

But in addition to the fact that the so-called "theories" presented in this book are to some extent just empty wordplay, the author also does not possess any particular talent for lucid presentation. His erudition is undeniable and he may have had a clear train of thought in his own mind when he wrote this book, but he failed to transfer it to the text. I constantly found my thoughts drifting away due to sheer boredom and I skipped some sections because I could see just by browsing that I wouldn't find them interesting. You really need a very clear overall plan if you're going to write an argument which is more than 800 pages long. I'm not sure what the plan for this book was, other than "I'm going to describe how economics, politics, ideology and war influenced societies in 19th century Europe". That is not clear enough.

The explanatory value of the author's conclusions is in my opinion not particularly high because so many of them are embedded in his flawed terminology of "crystallizations". But other readers might certainly enjoy his style more than I did. To be fair, I did like a couple of sections, for example the ones on taxation and revenue (p. 381-389), reasons why socialism did not succeed in the United States (p. 644-654) and the sociological analysis of the decisions that led to World War I which concludes the book. But in conclusion, while I salute the author for completing this ambitious project, I have no intention of ever reading volumes three and four.… (mere)