300
GEORGE LlCHTHEIM
He even commits the alarming heresy of stating that "the economic
institution provides the major dimension for stratification in Amer–
ican society . . . it is the economic base that is generic and all
others are derivative" (p. 205). Translated back into ordinary
language this comes pretty close to saying that ownership is what
distinguishes one class from another.
If
this is not actual heresy, it
is
the nearest thing to it, and since Reissman also notes that class
lines show a tendency to harden
(op. cit.,
pp. 297
ft,
340
ff),
the
picture one gets from him is not so different from that painted by
Mills. It
is
true that, by way of light relief, he also provides a
certain quantum of standard sociological textbook absurdities, e.g.,
"Hyman has reported the results of an NORC survey, in which it
was found that not only the class of the individual but also the class
of his parents was important in explaining his aspirations" (p. 365) .
But I take this kind of solemn nonsense to be a mere ceremonial
bow to the reigning academic fashion. Presumably if one wants to
hold one's own in the fraternity, one has to include a minimum
amount of this kind of thing, on pain of not being taken seriously.
On the whole Reissman is on the side of the angels. His work is
much superior to that of his near-namesake, and hence unlikely to
win him fame and promotion. It may even give him a reputation
for being dangerously inclined to question some of the established
idols of the market-place.
No such fate threatens his colleague Mr. Lipset, whose essay
collection,
Political Man,
brings together a number of previously
published studies and some new material, ranging from strictly pro–
fessional writings to semi-popular reflections on a variety of current
issues. Even a cursory reading of this closely printed and densely
argued work shows
him
to be well in tune with the prevailing con–
sensus of opinion upon almost every imaginable topic. At first sight
the reader who has just absorbed a heavy diet of Reissman is agree–
ably impressed by Lipset's fluent style
i
but the comparison does not
altogether work out in his favor. Reissman's pontifical manner–
like that of his masters, Weber and Parsons-is the penalty exacted
from a writer who has something important to say, and is careful
to guard against misunderstanding by a triple layer of impenetrable
academic prose. This does not make for lively reading, and one
