Ben Yehuda.oplinger

8/19/2019 Ben Yehuda.oplinger

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/ben-yehudaoplinger 1/4

The Politics of Demonology: The European Witchcraze and the Mass Production of Deviance.by Jon OplingerReview by: Nachman Ben-YehudaAmerican Journal of Sociology, Vol. 97, No. 2 (Sep., 1991), pp. 582-584Published by: The University of Chicago PressStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2781411 .

Accessed: 23/12/2014 09:24

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 of content 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 [email protected].

.

The University of Chicago Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to American Journal of Sociology.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 128 .184.220.23 on Tue, 23 Dec 20 14 09:24:53 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ucpress

http://www.jstor.org/stable/2781411?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp





http://www.jstor.org/stable/2781411?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ucpress



American Journal of Sociology

discourse. Both writers could have made more of the younger generationof evangelical leaders who are determined to keep the fire burning while

shedding their image of reactionary politics and undue dependence onNorth America.Finally, neither Stoll nor Martin, in my view, draws a sufficiently

sharp distinction between evangelicals and pentecostals. The latter, ac-cording to some scholars, notably Karla Poewe of the University ofCalgary, must be understood as part of a worldwide change in the verynature of religion, away from cognition and propositional belief and to-ward experience and imagination in the spiritial life. Will this powerfulnew current relate itself positively to liberation theology eventually, thusbecoming part of a massive new religious ground swell in Latin America?It is too early to predict, but stranger things have happened.

The Politics of Demonology: The European Witchcraze and the MassProduction of Deviance. By Jon Oplinger. Selinsgrove, Pa.: Susque-hanna University Press; London and Toronto: Associated UniversityPresses, 1990. Pp. 311. $39.50.

Nachman Ben-Yehuda

Hebrew University and University of TorontoBasing his view on functionalism and emphasizing the concepts of moralboundaries and moral landscapes, Jon Oplinger develops a theoreticalmodel to explain the mass productuion of deviance (pp. 29-33). UsingElliott Currie's work, Oplinger makes what he calls a self-evident state-ment within which he finds four categorical variables (pp. 29-30)that he uses to develop eight specific hypotheses (pp. 31-32). The schemeis too complicated to be presented here, but its acceptance depends onaccepting the theoretical background on which it is founded.

The book offers a few rather fascinating and easy to read descriptivechapters about cases of mass production of deviants ; the European

witch craze, the Salem witch-hunt, the Red scare, the McCarthy era,the Great Purge (in the Soviet Union), the Holocaust, and, in the lastchapter, the U.S. government's treatment of Americans of Japanese de-scent after the attack on Pearl Harbor.

However, for a 1990 publication, this work presents a set of problems,both in theory and in its empirical treatment. The theoretical base pre-sented in this book is rather unclear, partly because the author bothcommits himself to and shies away from central conceptualizations. Forexample, Oplinger relies on such concepts as moral boundaries and morallandscapes. However, the discussion of moral boundaries is short andshallow. The concept of moral landscapes is unclear, and, despite itscentrality, the author suggests that it be used merely as a root meta-phor (p. 28). Likewise, while Oplinger's claim that cultures manufac-ture deviance on a mass scale is very central, he also suggests that this

582







Book Reviews

manufacture of deviance should be thought of as a sensitizing concept(p. 18). While Oplinger seems to rely on functionalism for developing his

conceptual scheme, it is not always clear to what extent he is committedto functionalism. Moreover, his discussion of functionalism tends to ig-nore the major criticisms leveled against this approach and the morerecent developments in neofunctionalism (e.g., Jeffrey Alexander, Mi-chael Faia). The discussion of conflict theory (p. 25) is likewise shallowand does not differentiate among different types of conflict. Oplingerviews deviance as a . . . social status that is determined by those inpower (p. 24). Hence, while power is an extremely important vari-able in Oplinger's work, the book lacks any useful discussion of theconcept. Depending on the apporach one takes to a sociological character-ization of power, it can be shown that power is negotiable and hence the

powerful are not always able to deviantize others. Sometimes thepowerless can negotiate and manipulate processes of deviantization

(e.g., see the history of prohibition and, more specifically, Joseph Gus-field's work). These are not small oversights on Oplinger's part. Relyingon old-fashioned functionalism (i.e., society does this or that ) and onan overgeneralized and undifferentiated concept of conflict creates majortheoretical flaws in the book.

The rather strange tendency in the book to ignore new, relevant, and

important works is not limited to the area of functionalism; also ignoredare works related to the persecution of deviants (i.e., Albert Bergesen'swork), major and relevant works in social control theory (e.g., StanleyCohen, Donald Black), the very relevant works on moral panics, collec-tive behavior, and, most important, constructionism (e.g., Joel Best,Erich Goode). He ignores even more specific works that are relevant tothe cases discussed (e.g., Richard Weisman's work on the Salem witch-hunts). To say that the review of the literature is sloppy is, perhaps, tocall attention to a minor fault, but some better knowledge and under-standing of recent works in relevant areas could help the author createa much better and more distinctly sociological product. Thus, the overallresult of the effort to develop a theoretically sound sociological conceptu-alization in this book leaves much to be desired. An opportunity has beenlost.

The European witch craze can be used to provide a few illustrations.Currie implies that the confiscations of property from those accused inwitchcraft (during the European witch craze) played a major part in thezeal of the prosecutors. Oplinger tends to accept this claim despite thefact that Erik Midelfort's empirical work does not corroborate this.Oplinger tends to invoke anthropological explanations in the context ofthe European witch craze. However, the European society where thewitch craze occurred was very different from the societies investigatedby anthropologists. While Oplinger maintains that the public wasagitated (p. 42) or anxious (p. 54) during the period of the witch craze,no explanation is provided as to why, or why such anxiety would explainthe specificity of the persecutions (the same criticism about specificity is

583







American Journal of Sociology

true for the other cases). On page 60 the author claims that the SpanishInquisition did not produce a vast number of deviants. The author

should be reminded that around 1492 all Jews were expelled fromSpain-as deviants. There are a few other examples like this (e.g., theHolocaust), which suggest that the historical reality was far more com-plex than Oplinger's description allows and that in compressing thesecases accuracy and reliability may have been sacrificed.

Second, the logic of comparison is a most troubling issue. The methodof comparative sociology is very powerful and suggestive but also onethat can be abused. Making a comparison requires some compelling argu-ments regarding the nature of the objects chosen and the rationale behindthe specific selection. Thus, it is not too difficult to realize that there issome logic behind attempts to compare the European witch craze tothe Salem witch-hunts and other cases of witch persecutions. However,comparing the Holocaust with the Red scare, or putting in one basketthe Soviet's Great Purge with the detention of Japanese Americans dur-ing part of World War II leaves one with some questions to be asked,especially regarding the details.

The comparison brings forth some problematic issues inherent in thisbook. The Holocaust can, perhaps, be thought of as one monstrous exam-ple of genocide. However, Oplinger virtually ignores almost all the rele-

vant literature on genocide. There is a very bitter argument whether theHolocaust is at all comparable to other events (and, if so, in what sense).Oplinger chooses to ignore this rather important debate too. Moreover,the comparison puts religious, political, and cultural persecutions to-gether in the same category, without even attempting to find out thesociological meaning of these differences. Oplinger seems to be quiteaware of the problems (p. 33) but states that the differences are not atissue and suggests that the cases he uses, and others besides, sharecertain underlying features. This, I find, is a weak statement. Lookedat from a very wide-angle lens, from a great distance, many thingsmay look alike. However, details, accuracy, and reliability are crucialissues for (social) sciences. In many of these details, and in some verymajor issues as well, the rationale for comparing the cases is far frombeing clear or persuasive.

Overall, this is an interesting, easy to read, provocative, suggestive,and thought-provoking book. The late 1960s or maybe even the early1970s would have been a better time to write and publish it. The bookvirtually ignores important and relevant developments in theory, espe-cially in neofunctionalism, conflict theory, social control, and, most im-

portant, constructionism. While the cases are presented in an interesting,readable, and challenging way, the details are sometimes lost in the broadand sweeping presentation, and the logic of the comparison leaves muchto be desired.

584





Ben Yehuda.oplinger

Documents

Transcript of Ben Yehuda.oplinger