170
LEWIS COSER
crucial question and ends up by stating with disanning naivete
". . . values inherent in the traditions of social science are neither
transcendent nor immanent. They are simply values proclaimed by
many and within limits practiced in small circles."
While most of the great sociologists of the past tried fumblingly
to find ways of asking the right questions, Mills writes as
if
he
already knows most of the answers. But does he? I cannot help but
feel that the
air
of certainty which emanates from this book, as it
emanates from his earlier work, stems from a decided superficiality
of approach. Mills always thinks on the skin of things. He is too
much in a hurry, too eager to get at the "big problems" to afford
the patience for the painful compilation of detailed knowledge
which is one of the marks of the major scholar. When Max Weber
ventured into his "big" projects he did so only after being deeply
immersed for many years in the minutiae of detailed research, after
agonized appraisals of method, and of the evidence as it related to
his thesis. But when Mills tackles the "large issues" one cannot but
feel that he does so mainly because he just does not care for the
small ones, is too impatient to concern himself with them. Such a
procedure must lead to the temptation to substitute catchy sloganiz–
ing for real thinking- and unfortunately Mills does not resist these
temptations nearly enough.
When working with a meat axe, one may cut up reality into
large serviceable ch.unks, but one is hardly in a position to pay at–
tention to the marvellous intricacy of the tissue which is thus
severed. And the chances are that one becomes a sophisticated sim–
plifier instead of a major analyst. Just one example: "Popular
categories of criticism," writes Mills, "high, middle, and low-brow,
for example-are now at least as much sociological as esthetic." In
what sense can high-brow criticism be popular? But, more impor–
tant, Mills must be thinking of the 'thirties, not of the 'fifties. Re–
cent trends in literary criticism do not fit into his general thesis–
so they are conveniently neglected. Where a careful analyst would
see a problem in the shift in critical method since the 'thirties, Mills
is so engrossed in making his point that he misses the chance to
make a
fruitful
inquiry.
