Review

Author(s): John C. Touhey

Review by: John C. Touhey
Source: Contemporary Sociology, Vol. 4, No. 2 (Mar., 1975), pp. 169-171
Published by: American Sociological Association
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2062223
Accessed: 25-02-2016 01:19 UTC

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 forms of scholarship.
For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Sage Publications, Inc. and American Sociological Association are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend
access to Contemporary Sociology.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 130.113.111.210 on Thu, 25 Feb 2016 01:19:56 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 SOCIALPSYCHOLOGY
fect that other and later institutional influ-
ences can be just as compelling, and that the
personality regularly goes on developing and
changing far past childhood and on through
adult life. In so doing, they fail to deal with
the critical issue: which developmental stages
are more consequential, and more likely to
limit the range of possible options at later
stages? And what is the evidence?
In fact, a persistent weakness of this work
is a pervasively cavalier attitude toward em-
pirical evidence. It is their opinion that
neither a personal psychoanalysis, nor do-
ing psychoanalytic clinical work, are neces-
sary qualifications for doing psychoanalytic
social science. As a psychoanalytic sociolo-
gist who does qualify on both these counts,
I strongly disagree with them, on both points.
For these are the very special kind of sus-
tained empirical exposures on which the con-
cepts and insights of psychoanalysis have
been built, and there is no adequate substitute
for this kind of empirical grounding. With-
out them, use of psychoanalytic ideas can
easily become an arid intellectual game. Clin-
ical work gives sustained contact with un-
conscious material-the gut data of psycho-
analysis-and constantly confronts hypotheses
(tentative interpretations) with evidence:
How do we know?
This is no mere matter of guild-like ex-
clusiveness; in any case, a social scientist can
get this training and do clinical work; with
Roheim, Eissler, and others, I believe he
should, if he wants to do psychoanalytic
social science. Sure the theory is open for
anyone to use (as Weinstein/Platt defensively
assert), but using it well is another matter-
this is a treacherous field for amateurs.
Where they do make reference to empirical
situations, e.g. as illustrations for some gen-
eral points, it is often disappointing. As an
example of major personality change in adult
life, they refer to what amount to conver-
sion experiences, e.g. from establishmentarian
to revolutionary, or from devout Catholic to
devout Communist. This supposedly backs
up the Eriksonian view of openness to major
character change at any time in adult life.
But such conversions might represent only a
change in cognitive contents (e.g., overt
ideology) without any basic change in
psycho-dynamics, or in mode of object-
relations. The point (which they don't raise)
is: to decide which it is, we have to know
the person and the milieu in detail.
The basic problem for psychoanalytic so-
cial science, is how to get the requisite
evidence, at the necessary levels of depth
This content downloaded from 130.113.111.210 on Thu, 25 Feb 2016 01:19:56 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
169
in reference to individuals, to substantiate
psychoanalytic interpretations, and of ex-
tensity and detail in reference to social struc-
ture, culture and milieu, to permit specifying
the relationship of individuals to social
forces. Most studies that are strong on one
of these are weak on the other. Looking at
certain collective behavior and trying to ad-
duce some kind of psychodynamics,we are
confronted with the probability that many
different individual dynamics, rather than a
common one, are involved. And without de-
tailed studies of each of the individuals in-
volved, how can we know? How much can
we trust extrapolativeleaps from limited data
which are far short of those demanded to
substantiatean interpretationin the clinical
situation? These are big unresolved ques-
tions in this field. I wish Weinstein/Platthad
paid more attention to them.
It is refreshing, however, to find two
sophisticated social scientists who take psy-
choanalysis seriously, and especially, who do
not go along with the radical-chic canard
many social scientists repeat-which they
bluntly call a myth-that psychoanalystsare
committed to adjusting their patients to the
established order no matter what. "From a
psychoanalyticpoint of view, there are obvi-
ously very dysfunctionalforms of conformity
and compliance, and very syntonic forms of
rebellion." Good! Keep reminding our anti-
psychoanalyticbrethren of that.
Aggression: A Social Learning Analysis, by
ALBERT BANDURA. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.:
Prentice-Hall, 1973. 323 pp. $8.95.
JOHN C. TOUHEY
Florida Atlantic University
Albert Bandurahas long been one of the
foremost advocates of social learning ap-
proaches to psychotherapythrough behavior
modification, and he was recently elected
Presidentof the American PsychologicalAs-
sociation on a platform that promised in-
creased involvement of psychologists in so-
cial problems.In accord with these activities,
Bandura's book attempts to apply social
learning theory to the analysis and control
of aggressivebehavior,but the strengthsand
weaknesses of Aggression may be of greater
interest to sociologists than psychologists,
because the limitationsof Bandura'sapproach
may be characteristicof several forthcoming
efforts to deal with social problems in terms
of psychological principles and methods.
The first chapter purports to present a
comparison of psychoanalytic, ethological,
170 CONTEMPORARY SOCIOLOGY: A JOURNAL OF REVIEWS
drive and social learning theories of aggres-
sion. No one who is familiar with Bandura's
previouswritingswill be surprisedto learn of
the inadequaciesof the firstthree theoriesand
the manifest superiority of social learning
theory. Unfortunately, the first chapter also
gives the impression that these controversies
have been (or will soon be) resolved to the
satisfaction of virtually all psychologists;
Bandurasimply ignores much of the evidence
that favors competing theories, and sociolo-
gists who prefer Bandura'stheory of aggres-
sion to theories of Freud, Lorenz, or Dollard
and Miller should be preparedto base their
choice on sociologicalrather than psychologi-
cal consideration.
In Chapter two Banduradiscusses the ori-
gins of aggression in terms of several of his
well-known studies in which children are
invited to respond aggressivelyfollowing ob-
servation of adult models who are rewarded
or punished for aggressive behavior. Soci-
ologists who recall the problems in the ap-
plication of laboratoryfindingson persuasion
to attitude changes in nonexperimentalset-
tings, might do well to suspect the generaliz-
ability of Bandura'smodel.
Following yet another attack on the new
straw man of vulgar Freudianism(psycholo-
gy's equivalentto vulgar Marxism), Bandura
proposes three mechanisms for the trans-
mission of aggression: families, subcultures,
and symbols. But it turns out that families
indicate parents, subculturesthe peer group,
symbols television, and findings for the first
two cases are already familiar to sociologists.
Instigators of aggression (Chapter 3) are
first approached from a Skinnerian model
consistingof cues and reinforcersthat precede
and follow aggressive behavior. This model
is then elaborated in a series of experiments
in which anger arousal, aggressive models,
and differentialreward are combined to ac-
count for added variance in laboratorymeas-
ures of aggression. Of greater interest to
sociologists is Bandura's critical review of
Feshbach's and Singer's recent field study
of television violence and aggression.Several
pages are devoted to criticism of their find-
ing of a catharsis rather than modeling re-
sponse to violence, and Bandura cites a
much less widely publicized replication that
obtainedthe opposite results.In point of fact,
there are serious methodologicalflaws in both
studies, but compared to the avalanche of
laboratory findings on this topic, field ex-
perimentscan only provide a step in the right
direction.
Findings of these and several other studies
This content downloaded from 130.113.111.210 on Thu, 25 Feb 2016 01:19:56 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
cited are interpreted to suggest that social
unrest is not primarily caused by physical
deprivation, and the author focuses on social
comparison processes and relative deprivation
as instigators of civil disorder. Milgram's
controversial studies of obedience are cited
as examples of aggression in compliance to
demands of legitimate power, and the chapter
ends with a brief study of nonrecurrent ag-
gressors, political assassins and the like, in
terms of the reinforcement history of the
aggressor.
Consistent with the author's Skinnerian
orientation, the maintaining conditions of
aggression are the rewards that follow aggres-
sive behavior. These rewards are grouped
under headings of tangible rewards, social
and status rewards (invoked to explain gang
conflict, for example), victims' expressions of
injury, and the alleviation of aversive treat-
ment. Structural provisions and ideological
justifications for aggression include bureau-
cratic decision-making, dehumanization and
attribution of blame to the victim, and mini-
mization of consequences. Individual de-
terminants of collective aggression involve the
reinforcement histories of the participants
(Keniston's studies of student activists are
frequently cited), and estimates of the conse-
quences of forceful aggression provide an-
other determinant of group aggression.
The concluding chapter describes several
proposals for the control of aggression. Role-
playing is proposed as a technique for the
development of social skills that can be sub-
stituted for aggressive behavior. Modeling
procedures and reinforced practice are seen
as especially suitable training for reducing the
aggression of the police, a proposal which has
at least as much merit as sending the police
to college (or to psychiatrists). Purification
of the mass media requires several steps,
such as the establishment of violence ratings
for specific television programs and promot-
ing consumer activity necessary to broaden
the scope of public broadcasting; a similar
program is proposed for cleaning up televi-
sion news. The message is clear: the reduc-
tion of aggression can be effected at the
individual level with minimal changes in the
social system. The few required changes at
the macrosocial level are already exemplified
in the programs of public interest groups
such as Common Cause.
Lack of space and also boredom threshold
preclude criticism of Bandura's book from so-
ciological perspectives, and in all fairness, it
should be noted that the author is not a soci-
ologist. But neither are most psychologists,
 SOCIALPSYCHOLOGY
and this, perhaps, is the trouble. Like many
social psychologists with extensive training in
experimental psychology, I doubt that social
policy can be formulated on the basis of
laboratory findings, and I am seriously con-
cerned by what appears to be a growing
conviction among psychologists, that one or
two field experiments are sufficient to estab-
lish policies for dealing with complex social
behaviors.
With respect to television violence, as a
case in point, rhetoric has simply engulfed
evidence and each school of thought has
hardened into a party line. Moreover, when
theories of aggression do not explicitly em-
brace psychological reductionism, they pre-
suppose vastly oversimplified statements of
social psychological processes that link indi-
vidual behaviors to social structures. The
assumptions concerning the influence of mass
media, for example, were refuted by Lazars-
feld and his associates more than twenty
years ago. Thus, while psychology's recent
concern with relevance is most laudable, I
do not think we can expect many insights
into social problems from psychological ap-
proaches that abuse sociology in this fashion.
Loneliness: The Experience of Emotional
and Social Isolation, by ROBERT S. WEISS,
Cambridge, Mass.: The M.I.T. Press, 1973.
236 pp. $8.95.
WILLIAM A. SADLER, JR.
Bloomfield College
Robert Weiss has put together a first rate
book about loneliness. It is a small, tightly
organized book that is full of empirical evi-
dence, careful analysis, humane understand-
ing, and useful suggestions for further
investigation. In this book Weiss has intelli-
gently integrated articles and parts of studies
done by others with his own work, which
amounts to fifty percent of the material. Both
types of material contain theoretical sections
and reports on research. Even though there
are a few parts of his book that leave some-
thing to be desired, the total result is a
satisfying balance of theory and investigation.
The book has seven sections, not counting
a thoughtful forward by David Riesman. The
first and last two parts are by Weiss and are
mainly theoretical. The other four parts in-
clude material from other sources as well
as case studies by Weiss. Each section has an
introduction; these introductory parts are
consistently rewarding, sometimes better than
the material being introduced. The heart of
the book is to be found in the sections that
This content downloaded from 130.113.111.210 on Thu, 25 Feb 2016 01:19:56 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
171
concentrate on two aspects of the experience
of loneliness: emotional and social isolation.
In his primary introduction Weiss reflects
at length on the scarcity of responsible studies
on loneliness. He notes that we underesti-
mate the power of loneliness and its role in
personal lives. This book calls attention not
only to the power of loneliness but also to
its prevelance in many segments of modern
society. One reason, he feels, that scientists
have ignored loneliness is because it is such
a painful, threatening experience one tends
to ignore it through repression. More likely
the reason is that it has been hard to pin
loneliness down into something concrete
enough to be measured.
Weiss makes some moves in that direction.
He distinguishes loneliness from mere alone-
ness or isolation. Furthermore he points out
that it should not be confused with either a
simple desire for company or with depression
or grief. In separating out these other ex-
periences from loneliness, Weiss provides a
definition taken from Harry Stack Sullivan:
"an exceedingly unpleasant and driving ex-
perience connected with inadequate discharge
of the need for human intimacy." The driv-
ing element can be detected through inter-
views; and the consequences of the inade-
quate discharge can be observed, as case
studies indicate. Weiss contributes a provoca-
tive distinction between two types or aspects
of loneliness. While at first attractive, how-
ever, the distinction does not quite hold up.
One of the weakest parts of this book is
precisely where it at first glance seems to
have strength. Other studies that have men-
tioned loneliness have usually failed to define
it, including the now classic works by Fromm
and Riesman. Weiss confronts the experience
with what looks like a definitional tight net;
the experience doesn't get away, but it is not
because of his net.
Sometimes he treats social isolation as
though it is a simple quantifiable fact. He
acknowledges that it is much easier to estab-
lish situational determinants of isolation than
to delineate the subjective aspects of the ex-
perience and trace these to determinable
causes. But his own studies and those in-
cluded in this book demonstrate that social
isolation cannot be equated with loneliness.
Peter Townsend's study of the aged in Great
Britain and Helen Znaniecki Lopata's study
of widows in the Chicago area provided suffi-
cient evidence; less than half the isolated old
people interviewed complained of loneliness.
Situational factors contribute to but cannot
be said to be a sufficient cause of loneliness,