Strategy

by Lawrence Freedman

  16. Nadezhda Krupskaya, Memories of Lenin (London: Lawrence, 1930), 1: 102–103, citing One Step Forward, Two Steps Back.

  17. Beryl Williams, Lenin (Harlow, Essex: Pearson Education, 2000), 46.

  18. Hew Strachan, The First World War, Volume One: To Arms (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003), 113.

  19. Robert Service, Comrades: A World History of Communism (London: Macmillan, 2007), 1427, 1448.

  21 Bureaucrats, Democrats, and Elites

  1. At the same time, Mauss also records Durkheim’s concern that his students’ interest in Marxism was leading them away from liberalism, his distrust of the “shallow philosophy of the radicals,” and his “reluctance to submit himself to party discipline.” Marcel Mauss’s preface to Emile Durkheim, Socialism (New York: Collier Books, 1958).

  2. David Beetham, “Mosca, Pareto, and Weber: A Historical Comparison,” in Wolfgang Mommsen and Jurgen Osterhammel, eds., Max Weber and His Contemporaries (London: Allen & Unwin, 1987), 140–141.

  3. See Joachim Radkau, Max Weber: A Biography (Cambridge, UK: Polity Press, 2009).

  4. Max Weber, The Theory of Social and Economic Organization, translated by Henderson and Parsons (New York: The Free Press, 1947), 337.

  5. Peter Lassman, “The Rule of Man over Man: Politics, Power and Legitimacy,” in Stephen Turner, ed., The Cambridge Companion to Weber (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2000), 84–88.

  6. Sheldon Wolin, “Legitimation, Method, and the Politics of Theory,” Political Theory 9, no. 3 (August 1981): 405.

  7. Radkau, Max Weber, 487.

  8. Ibid., 488.

  9. Nicholas Gane, Max Weber and Postmodern Theory: Rationalisation versus Re-enchantment (London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2002), 60.

  10. Max Weber, “Science as a Vocation,” available at http://mail.www.anthropos-lab.net/wp/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Weber-Science-as-a-Vocation.pdf.

  11. Radkau, Max Weber, 463.

  12. Wolfgang Mommsen, Max Weber and German Politics, 1890–1920, translated by Michael Steinberg (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1984), 310.

  13. Ibid., 296.

  14. Max Weber, “Politics as Vocation,” available at http://anthropos-lab.net/wp/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Weber-Politics-as-a-Vocation.pdf.

  15. Reinhard Bendix and Guenther Roth, Scholarship and Partisanship: Essays on Max Weber (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1971), 28–29.

  16. Isaiah Berlin, “Tolstoy and Enlightenment,” in Harold Bloom, ed., Leo Tolstoy (New York: Chelsea Books, 2003), 30–31.

  17. Philosophers of Peace and War, see Chapter 8, n. 6, 129.

  18. Rosamund Bartlett, Tolstoy: A Russian Life (London: Profile Books, 2010), 309.

  19. Leo Tolstoy, The Kingdom of God and Peace Essays (The World’s Classics), 347–348. Cited by Gallie, Philosophers of Peace, 122.

  20. The essay appears as the introduction to Lyof N. Tolstoi, What to Do? Thoughts Evoked by the Census of Moscow, translated by Isabel F. Hapgood (New York: Thomas Y. Cromwell, 1887).

  21. Ibid., 1.

  22. Ibid., 4–5, 10.

  23. Ibid., 77–78.

  24. Mikhail A. Bakunin, Bakunin on Anarchy (New York: Knopf, 1972).

  25. Jane Addams, Twenty Years at Hull House (New York: Macmillan, 1910).

  26. Ibid., 56.

  27. Jan C. Behrends, “Visions of Civility: Lev Tolstoy and Jane Addams on the Urban Condition in Fin de Siècle Moscow and Chicago,” European Review of History: Revue Européenne d’Histoire 18, no. 3 (June 2011): 335–357.

  28. Martin, The Chicago School of Sociology: Institutionalization, Diversity and the Rise of Sociological Research (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1984), 13–14.

  29. Lincoln Steffens, The Shame of the Cities (New York: Peter Smith, 1948, first published 1904), 234.

  30. Lawrence A. Schaff, Max Weber in America (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2011), 41–43.

  31. Ibid., 45. Schaff suggests that the descriptions of violence may have been overdrawn.

  32. Ibid., 43–44.

  33. James Weber Linn, Jane Addams: A Biography (Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 2000), 196.

  34. Addams, Twenty Years at Hull House, 171–172. Her approach is set out in Jane Addams, “A Function of the Social Settlement” in Louis Menand, ed., Pragmatism: A Reader (New York: Vintage Books, 1997), 273–286.

  35. Ibid., 98–99.

  36. Lear was also Tolstoy’s favorite Shakespeare play. The king’s character at the end of the play was “English literature’s nearest equivalent to the holy fool (yurodivy)—that peculiarly Russian form of sainthood to which Tolstoy aspired, and which is not encountered in any other religious culture.” Bartlett, Tolstoy, 332.

  37. Jane Addams, “A Modern Lear.” This 1896 speech was not published until 1912. Available at http://womenshistory.about.com/cs/addamsjane/a/mod_lear_10003b.htm.

  38. Jean Bethke Elshtain, Jane Addams and the Dream of American Democracy (New York: Basic Books, 2002), 202, 218–219.

  39. The quality of the Hull House research has led to suggestions that were it not for the misogynist male sociologists at the University of Chicago, Addams and her colleagues would be properly appreciated as important figures in the history of American sociology. Mary Jo Deegan, Jane Addams and the Men of the Chicago School (New Brunswick: Transaction Books, 1988).

  40. Don Martindale, “American Sociology Before World War II,” Annual Review of Sociology 2 (1976): 121; Anthony J. Cortese, “The Rise, Hegemony, and Decline of the Chicago School of Sociology, 1892–1945,” The Social Science Journal, July 1995, 235; Fred H. Matthews, Quest for an American Sociology: Robert E. Park and the Chicago School (Montreal: McGill Queens University Press, 1977), 10; Martin Bulmer, The Chicago School of Sociology.

  41. Small, cited by Lawrence J. Engel, “Saul D. Alinsky and the Chicago School,” The Journal of Speculative Philosophy 16, no. 1 (2002): 50–66. In addition to a mass of case studies in its neighborhood, the university had the added advantage of John D. Rockefeller’s generous endowment, a free intellectual atmosphere, and a lack of the social elitism and discrimination associated with the Ivy League universities.

  42. Albion Small, “Scholarship and Social Agitation,” American Journal of Sociology 1 (1895–1896): 581–582, 605.

  43. Robert Westbrook, “The Making of a Democratic Philosopher: The Intellectual Development of John Dewey,” in Molly Cochran, ed., The Cambridge Companion to Dewey (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2010), 13–33.

  44. Among the most important titles are Democracy and Education (New York: Macmillan, 1916); Human Nature and Conduct (New York: Henry Holt, 1922); Experience and Nature (New York: Norton, 1929); The Quest for Certainty (New York: Minton, 1929); Logic: The Theory of Inquiry (New York: Henry Holt, 1938).

  45. Small, “Scholarship and Social Agitation,” 362, 237.

  46. Andrew Feffer, The Chicago Pragmatists and American Progressivism (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1993), 168.

  47. Ibid., 237.

  48. William James, “Pragmatism,” in Louis Menand, ed., Pragmatism, 98.

  49. Louis Menand, The Metaphysical Club (London: HarperCollins, 2001), 353–354.

  50. Ibid., 350.

  51. Dewey came “perilously close to reconciling desire with deed.” John Patrick Duggan, The Promise of Pragmatism: Modernism and the Crisis of Knowledge and Authority (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1994), 48.

  52. Dewey, Human Nature and Conflict, 230.

  53. Menand, The Metaphysical Club, 374.

  54. Robert K. Merton, “The Unanticipated Consequences of Purposive Social Action,” American Sociological Review 1, no. 6 (December 1936): 894–904.

  22 Formulas, Myths, and Propaganda

  1. H. Stuart Hughes, Consciousness and Society: The Reorientation of European Social Thought (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1958).

  2. Robert Michels, Political Parties: A Sociological Study of the Oligarchical Tendencies of
Modern Democracy (New York: The Free Press, 1962), 46. First published in 1900.

  3. Wolfgang Mommsen, “Robert Michels and Max Weber: Moral Conviction versus the Politics of Responsibility,” in Wolfgang and Jurgen Osterhammel, 126.

  4. Michels, Political Parties, 338.

  5. Gaetano Mosca, The Ruling Class (New York: McGraw Hill, 1939), 50. First published in 1900.

  6. Ibid., 451.

  7. David Beetham, “Mosca, Pareto, and Weber: A Historical Comparison,” in Wolfgang Mommsen and Jurgen Osterhammel, eds., Max Weber and His Contemporaries (London: Allen & Unwin, 1987), 139–158.

  8. Vilfredo Pareto, The Mind and Society, edited by Arthur Livingston, 4 volumes (New York: Harcourt Brace, 1935).

  9. Geraint Parry, Political Elites (London: George Allen & Unwin, 1969).

  10. Gustave Le Bon, The Crowd: A Study of the Popular Mind (New York: The Macmillan Co., 1896), 13, available at http://etext.virginia.edu/toc/modeng/public/BonCrow.html.

  11. Hughes, Consciousness and Society, 161.

  12. Irving Louis Horowitz, Radicalism and the Revolt Against Reason: The Social Theories of George Sorel (Abingdon: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 2009). He notes, however, Sorel’s “poverty of formal organization … indiscriminate shifting of the basis of an argument from fact to hypothesis to free speculation … tendentious style” (p. 9).

  13. Jeremy Jennings, ed., Sorel: Reflections on Violence (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1999), viii. First published 1906 in Le Mouvement Sociale.

  14. Antonio Gramsci, The Modern Prince & Other Writings (New York: International Publishers, 1957), 143.

  15. Thomas R. Bates, “Gramsci and the Theory of Hegemony,” Journal of the History of Ideas 36, no. 2 (April–June 1975): 352.

  16. Joseph Femia, “Hegemony and Consciousness in the Thought of Antonio Gramsci,” Political Studies 23, no. 1 (1975): 37.

  17. Ibid., 33.

  18. Gramsci, The Modern Prince, 137.

  19. Walter L. Adamson, Hegemony and Revolution: A Study of Antonio Gramsci’s Political and Cultural Thought (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1980), 223, 209.

  20. Ibid., 223.

  21. T. K. Jackson Lears, “The Concept of Cultural Hegemony: Problems and Possibilities,” The American Historical Review 90, no. 1 (June 1985): 578.

  22. Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, vol. I, ch. X. First published in 1925.

  23. James Burnham, The Managerial Revolution (London: Putnam, 1941). See also Kevin J. Smant, How Great the Triumph: James Burnham, Anti-Communism, and the Conservative Movement (New York: University Press of America, 1991).

  24. Bruno Rizzi, The Bureaucratization of the World, translated by Adam Westoby (New York: The Free Press, 1985).

  25. Ibid., 223–225, 269.

  26. See, for example, C. Wright Mills, “A Marx for the Managers,” in Irving Horowitz, ed., Power, Politics and People: The Collected Essays of C. Wright Mills (New York: Oxford University Press, 1963), 53–71. George Orwell voiced many misgivings, noting Burnham’s earlier presumption of German victory in the war, yet he nonetheless used Burnham’s geopolitical analysis, predicting a world divided into three strategic centers for world control, each similar to the other yet engaged in a constant struggle, as the basis for his dystopian novel, 1984. As always, Orwell’s analysis makes for fascinating reading. See his “James Burnham and the Managerial Revolution,” New English Weekly, May 1946, available at http://www.k-1.com/Orwell/site/work/essays/burnham.html.

  27. This was not fully published in English until 1972, although it was reflected in other writings of Park.

  28. Stuart Ewen, PR! A Social History of Spin (New York: Basic Books, 1996), 69.

  29. Ibid., 68.

  30. Robert Park, the Mass and the Public, and Other Essays (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1972), 80. First published in 1904.

  31. Cited by Ewen, PR!, 48.

  32. Ronald Steel, Walter Lippmann and the American Century (New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers, 1999).

  33. W. I. Thomas and Dorothy Swaine Thomas, The Child in America: Behavior Problems and Programs (New York: Knopf, 1928). Robert Merton, who turned Thomas’s aphorism into a theorem, described it as “probably the single most consequential sentence ever put in print by an American sociologist.” “Social Knowledge and Public Policy,” in Sociological Ambivalence (New York: Free Press, 1976), 174. See also Robert Merton, “The Thomas Theorem and the Matthew Effect,” Social Forces 74, no. 2 (December 1995): 379–424.

  34. Walter Lippmann, Public Opinion (New York: Harcourt Brace & Co, 1922), 59, available at http://xroads.virginia.edu/~Hyper2/CDFinal/Lippman/cover.html.

  35. Michael Schudson, “The ‘Lippmann-Dewey Debate’ and the Invention of Walter Lippmann as an Anti-Democrat 1986–1996,” International Journal of Communication 2 (2008): 140.

  36. Harold D. Lasswell, “The Theory of Political Propaganda,” The American Political Science Review 21, no. 3 (August 1927): 627–631.

  37. Sigmund Freud, Group Psychology and the Analysis of the Ego (London: The Hogarth Press, 1949). First published 1922, available at http://archive.org/stream/grouppsychologya00freu/grouppsychologya00freu_djvu.txt.

  38. Wilfred Trotter, Instincts of the Herd in Peace and War (New York: Macmillan, 1916); Harvey C. Greisman, “Herd Instinct and the Foundations of Biosociology,” Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences 15 (1979): 357–369.

  39. Edward Bernays, Crystallizing Public Opinion (New York: Liveright, 1923), 35.

  40. Edward Bernays, Propaganda (New York: H. Liveright, 1936), 71.

  41. The title of a 1947 article, Edward L. Bernays, “The Engineering of Consent,” The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 250 (1947): 113.

  42. There remains debate about whether or not this really made a difference to women’s smoking habits. See Larry Tye, The Father of Spin: Edward L. Bernays and the Birth of Public Relations (New York: Holt, 1998), 27–35.

  43. “Are We Victims of Propaganda? A Debate. Everett Dean Martin and Edward L. Bernays,” Forum Magazine, March 1929.

  23 The Power of Nonviolence

  1. Laura E. Nym Mayhall, The Militant Suffrage Movement: Citizenship and Resistance in Britain, 1860–1930 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003), 45, 79, 107, 115.

  2. Donna M. Kowal, “One Cause, Two Paths: Militant vs. Adjustive Strategies in the British and American Women’s Suffrage Movements,” Communication Quarterly 48, no. 3 (2000): 240–255.

  3. Henry David Thoreau, Civil Disobedience, originally published as Resistance to Civil Government (1849). Available at http://thoreau.eserver.org/civil.html.

  4. Writing in 1942 “To American Friends,” he wrote how, “You have given me a teacher in Thoreau, who furnished me through his essay on the ‘Duty of Civil Disobedience’ scientific confirmation of what I was doing in South Africa.” For evidence on Thoreau’s influence, see George Hendrick, “The Influence of Thoreau’s ‘Civil Disobedience’ on Gandhi’s Satyagraha,” The New England Quarterly 29, no. 4 (December 1956): 462–471.

  5. Leo Tolstoy, A Letter to a Hindu, introduction by M. K. Gandhi (1909), available at http://www.online-literature.com/tolstoy/2733.

  6. These paragraphs draw on Judith M. Brown, “Gandhi and Civil Resistance in India, 1917–47: Key Issues,” in Adam Roberts and Timothy Garton Ash, eds., Civil Resistance & Power Politics: The Experience of Non-Violent Action from Gandhi to the Present (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009), 43–57.

  7. Sean Scalmer, Gandhi in the West: The Mahatma and the Rise of Radical Protest (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2011), 54, 57.

  8. “To the American Negro: A Message from Mahatma Gandhi,” The Crisis, July 1929, 225.

  9. Vijay Prashad, “Black Gandhi,” Social Scientist 37, no. 1/2 (January/February 2009): 4–7, 45.

  10. Leonard A. Gordon, “Mahatma Gandhi’s Dialogues with Americans,” Economic and Political Weekly 37, no. 4 (January–February 2002): 337–352.

  11. J
oseph Kip Kosek, “Richard Gregg, Mohandas Gandhi, and the Strategy of Nonviolence,” The Journal of American History 91, no. 4 (March 2005): 1318–1348. Gregg published a number of books on nonviolence. The most influential was The Power of Non-Violence (London: James Clarke & Co., 1960). First published in 1934.