130
LEWIS A. COSER
really thought through his main argument. The knowledge-makers may
conceivably help improve the policy choices of the decision-makers, but
they do not themselves make these choices. The notion of Scientist–
Kings is as far-fetched today as it was in Saint-Simon's days. The
Saint-Simonians built many of Louis Napoleon's railroads and canals, but
they did not dislodge him and his banker-financiers from the house of
power.
The character of politics in post-industrial society remains as
nebulous as the character of power. We are told that "th'e politics of the
future ... will not be quarrels between functional economic-interest
groups for distributive shares of the national product, but the concerns
of communal society." Politics will turn upon such issues as greater
public amenities, a better quality of life, and assorted improvements in
the character of our culture. But we are also told that "the control
system of the society is lodged not in a successor-occupational class but
in the political order, and the question of who manages the political
order is an open one," since the knowledge class need not necessarily
become a new political class. This amounts to saying that though Bell
knows already what the political issues of the future will be, he has no
idea who will control the levers of politics. Notwithstanding all that
uncertainty he is yet certain that, "the scientific estate ... is the monad
that contains within itself the image of the future society."
Public opinion pollers have often found that people belonging to
occupational categories, be they plumbers or surgeons, tend to over–
estimate the power and prestige of their occupations; they claim higher
standing for it than others are willing to concede. Bell seems to have
fallen victim to the same conceit. How else is one to explain that this
university professor can say that, "The University, which once reflected
the status system of the society, has now become the arbiter of class
position. As the gatekeeper, it has gained a quasi-monopoly in determin–
ing the future stratification of the society." I know of no better example
of professorial hubris.
Let me reiterate that this book abounds in superb observations on
an amazing variety of topics. This is a work that will be around for quite
a while. But it is hard indeed to fully appreciate its many peripheral
insights when the center plainly does not hold. Many years ago, when
discussing Mills's
Power Elite,
Bell argued that it was "a book which
discusses power, but rarely politics. And this is curious, indeed." But
The
Coming of Post-Industrial Society
does not discuss politics, nor does it
elucidate power. And this is even more curious.
Lewis A. Coser
