American Sociology: Worldly Rejections of Religion and Their Directions - A Summary of all Reviews

American Sociology: Worldly Rejections of Religion and Their Directions - Book Reviews.

In 1985 Yale University Press published Arthur Vidich and Stan Lyman’s book titled American Sociology: Worldly Rejections of Religion and Their Directions. One of the first review by Lewis Coser was an unfortunate “low blow” to the authors from a man who had spent a career critical of Art Vidich’s work.  Rather than finding common ground, Coser sought to find fault with the author’s assessment of the history of sociological thought – what might be called a “I am smarter than you are” attitude. 

Subsequent reviews by James Casey, James Rule, Henrika Kuklick, Stephen Baskerville, Peter Kivisto, Robert J. Antonio, James A. Beckford, Edward Gross, Susan E. Henking, J. David Hoeveler, Jr.,  Danièle Hervieu-Léger, Charles H. Page,  William H. Swatos, Jr., Joseph A. Varacalli, Edward A. Tiryakian, Jessie Bernard, Alan Sica, Gerd Kahle and Eli Zaretsky were generally favorable even though some had their own “bone to pick” about why the authors selected certain sociologists for analysis and omitted others or focused too narrowly on Puritanism in view of the variety of other Christian and Judaic influences in America. Kuklick found the author’s analysis compelling and went so far as to suggest that their analysis should have been expanded beyond the arena of sociology to address other disciplines that have been similarly affected by the legacy of Puritanism in American social and political values. Tiryakian felt American Sociology was its best in its analysis of trends prior to World War II. The emergence of Jewish, Catholic and Black voices in latter half of the twentieth century was not addressed – an omission that Tiryakian found troubling even though he praised the authors by stating “not only is the substance of this book intrinsically interesting, but so also is the technical execution of top caliber...”

Arthur J.. Vidich

Perhaps the most compelling reviews were written by Peter Kivisto, Jessie Bernard and Edward Gross.  Kivisto offered insights in Max Weber’s theories and how these influenced the author’s analysis of American Sociology.  In contrast Bernard praised the authors for their open mindedness to heterodox conceptions of sociodicy as sources for "intellectual visions" suitable for modern societies.  Similarly, Gross lauds the authors for their emphasis on the role of sociology in offering hope of insight and light in place of the comfort and warmth of religion. After reading all of these reviews, I was impressed by the overwhelming support for the fundamental theory of sociodicy that Art Vidich and Stan Lyman set forth in this magnum opus work.

Stanford Lyman

Readers interested in an independent analysis of American Sociology will find below brief excerpts from these disparate reviews published in the American Journal of Sociology, Sociological Analysis, Theory and Society, The Journal of Interdisciplinary History, History, The British Journal of Sociology, Symbolic Interaction, Sociology, Bulletin of Sociological Methodology, The Journal of Religion, The American Historical Review, Archives de sciences sociales des religions,  Contemporary Sociology, Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, the Review of Religious Research, American Journal of Education, Sociological Forum, Science, Zeitschrift für Politik and Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences.

1.      Review by Lewis Coser (1913-2003)

Having myself defended heterodox ideas about the past and the present of sociology, I approached American Sociology with favorable anticipation. Alas, this proved to be unwarranted.

Lewis Coser, American Journal of Sociology, Volume 91, Number 5, March 1986, pp. 1231-1232.

Blog Author’s Historical Comment:  It is worthy of note that Lewis Coser’s worldviews received unflattering treatment in Vidich and Lyman’s book and therefore his review of this book appears to reflects a disgruntled critic nursing a long term tête-à-tête with the authors.

2.      Review by James T. Casey

“The authors argue that the failure of the Puritan goal to establish the kingdom of God on earth did not lead, in later sociological thought, to the rejection of that kingdom, but rather to its secularization-it was to be a kingdom without God. I would take issue with some of the authors' arguments. They see sociology's development in the United States as working through questions bequeathed by our Puritan heritage. It was most certainly more of a reflection of what was happening on the Continent as well. Others might take issue with Vidich's and Lyman's neglect or dismissal of some sociological giants, but I think their fundamental thesis is provocatively stated and suggests that now that we've exorcized our Puritan past we are ready to develop a science of society appropriate for a modern industrial age.”

James T. Casey, Sociological Analysis, Volume 48, Number 1, Spring 1987, pp. 91-93

3.      Review by James Rule (1943-)

“This is an idiosyncratic and provocative book. The authors hold that the history of American sociology is to be understood as a quest for secular substitutes for an earlier world-view shaped by Puritan theology. At best, this is an illuminating look at intellectual and cultural forces whose role in shaping the study of society have been poorly understood. At worst, it is a one argument book whose single argument is made to carry more weight than it can bear.”

James Rule, Theory and Society, Volume 17, Number 1, January 1988, pp. 147-151

4.      Review by Henrika Kuklick (1942-2013)

Like other disciplines, sociology has a history rich with incidents that its present practitioners would rather not remember, some of which its founding fathers concealed. If you delight in revelations of such incidents, you will enjoy this book. The expose form of this book follows from the authors' concern to define the distinctive national character of American sociology, and to explain this character as a function of the intolerant Protestantism of the discipline's founders. The theme of the book is an eccentric variation on a familiar argument: because American sociology was developed by persons who were either former ministers or men of the social type who would have become clergymen in earlier times, the discipline translated Protestantism's concerns for worldly reform into secular terms, seeing social scientific research as worthwhile because it could be used to improve the lot of humankind. Unlike other historians of sociology, however, they stress the Protestant tradition of conceiving the polity as a covenant between God and the citizenry, representing normative social theories as secularized prescriptions for the realization of the covenant.

Henrika Kuklick, The Journal of Interdisciplinary History, Volume 18, No. 3, Winter 1988, pp. 556-557

5.      Review by Stephen Baskerville (1950- )

Their central thesis is that American sociologists in the mainstream of this evolutionary progression 'transvalued' the theological ethics of Protestant Christianity, and Social Gospel movement, into a set of equally teleological, a priori, assumptions about the 'purpose' of human existence and the perfectibility of human beings in society.  The main problem with the theological motif is that, whereas several of the sociologist considered were avowedly influenced by Protestant associations and values, others, doubtless the majority after the First World War, were not…

….Vidich and Lyman are alone in trying to set the substance of sociological research within a meaningful and intellectual development. Their study is worth reading if only for the range and significance of the issues it raises.

Stephen Baskerville, History, Vol. 71, No. 233, October 1986, pp. 468-470.

6.      Review by Peter Kivisto (1949- )

 The book is clearly not an apologia for sociology, but neither is it a condemnation of the entire enterprise. Rather, it is a sustained and careful critique from the vantage of two senior scholars who are, simply put, 'for sociology’. To better understand their complaints with sociological orthodoxy, it is useful to identify who among the heterodox they identify with as well as to determine what it is about the work of these thinkers that suggests a promising basis for an alternative sociological vision. Rather than eschewing any effort aimed at contributing to social change, they offer the possibility of constructing a new sociodicy. The task in a post-Puritan America is to build upon their work in the process of constructing an appropriate sociodicy, one that meets the demands of the day in our errand in the industrial wilderness. Seen in this light, this exceptional book is a prolegomenon to that task.

Conceived as 'neither a history nor an exegesis' (Vidich and Lyman 1985: xi), the book is, instead, a hermeneutic effort to ferret out the linkages between Protestantism and the variegated forms of sociology that took root in American soil. Underpinning it is a conviction that it is impossible to simply cast off the cloak of one's culture at will. Though not made quite so explicit, it seems to me that this assumption serves to distinguish this analysis from more conventional treatments, which tend to treat the history of the discipline as entailing a unilinear progressive emancipation from religion. Put another way, the book casts doubt on the belief, held not merely by American sociologists, but by Enlightenment intellectuals in general: namely, that it was possible to illumine the world, to construct a world free from myth, by severing any connectedness from tradition.

  Peter Kivisto, The British Journal of Sociology, Vol. 38, No. 1 (Mar., 1987), pp. 112-120

7.      Review by Robert J. Antonio (1945- )

Vidich and Lyman contend that functionalism and statistical sociology were components of a single paradigm that provided a rationale for technocratic practices. Functionalism provides an inner-worldly substitute (institutionalized value patterns) for other-worldly religious belief. In the Rational Society redemption is the outcome of sociologically enlightened state policymaking, which perfects social structure in the image of its immanent Protestant value pattern. Vidich and Lyman brand this technocratic “sociodicy” as eviscerated theology.

The sociological “establishment” has weathered many assaults over the past twenty five years and will undoubtedly survive this one. On the other hand, this book points to cracks in its foundation. Despite its limitations, American Sociology deserves attention because it raises dramatically a most important intellectual problem. It declares that the Protestant value base of mid-twentieth century American society is in ruins. For this reason. Vidich and Lyman are in direct opposition to neo-functionalist efforts to shore up the old liberal meta-theoretic edifice. American Sociology points explicitly to the bankruptcy of technocratic liberalism.

 The genius of American Sociology is the argument that the course of secularization ultimately returns science and society to their subjective moorings. In the end the good ship has already set sail for the life-world and public philosophy. Vidich and Lyman, however, overestimate Protestantism’s contribution to the present crisis and consequently exaggerate the positive cultural consequences of its decline. Claims about the pacifying effects of secularization must be conditioned by a much deeper analysis of culture and technocracy and broader consideration of the Enlightenment tradition and political economy.

Robert J. Antonio, Symbolic Interaction, Vol. 9, No. 2 (Fall 1986), pp. 259-265

8.      Review by James A. Beckford (1942- )

If you have ever wondered how the USA, the hot-house of many varieties of individualism, also became a veritable laboratory of scientifically engineered collectivisms, you will find Vidich and Lyman's book an invaluable source of solutions. The central thesis is that strains of Protestant meliorism and reformism were mixed with versions of Comtean evolutionism to produce distinctive visions of perfectible communities of free individuals.

Thus, beginning with ante-bellum theorists of a slavery-based society and concluding with Bellah-inspired pleas for the restoration of a sacred covenant between the American people and their many gods, this scholarly and readable book charts the trajectory of American sociology's twin origins in Protestantism and science. The sub-title misleadingly implies a unilinear trend away from the former towards the latter, but both personal experience and much of Vidich and Lyman's own material convince me that American sociology continues to hold Protestantism and science in an uneasy yet creative, tension.

But the originality of their book lies in its relentless, and absorbing, documentation of the many- sided connection between the Christian religion and the problematics of classical American sociology. The history of sociology was badly in need of their irreverence and iconoclasm. Perhaps the decline of hagiography is another indicator of secularization.

James A. Beckford, Sociology, Vol. 20, No. 1 (February 1986), pp. 158-159

9.      Review by Bulletin of Sociological Methodology

This book is the first historical study by senior scholars that attempts to rewrite the discipline’s first century by putting forward a powerful thesis. The authors do not write from a predominantly political angle. Rather, they have taken an idea from Max Weber's sociology of religion and tried to show that (American) sociology, until very recently, was religion by another name.

Bulletin of Sociological Methodology / Bulletin de Méthodologie Sociologique, No. 9 (January, 1986), pp. 56-57

10.  Review by Edward Gross (1921-2013)

In their social and intellectual history of American sociology, Vidich and Lyman seek to tell us not only what various sociological theorists and schools have contributed but to do something more difficult and more revealing. They argue that whatever their differences, theorists have been engaged in a search for ways in which it might be possible to substitute “a language of science for the rhetoric of religion.” Even when they turned their backs on society and rejected any role in government, sociologists, with their roots in Protestant religion, could not stop themselves from seeking ways to form a better, even a utopian, social world. For myself - thinking of the special interest of the journal - I had intended only to skim the first 150 pages that precede the discussion of Chicago sociology and the symbolic interactionists. But, once started, 1 found myself reading the whole book from start to finish, almost in a single sitting. Students should have the same experience, not the least reason being the exposure to an unusually high caliber of sophisticated, parsimonious, and elegant style of writing.

But if we look more deeply into the thesis that the authors advance, something additional is revealed. They give us not only a brilliant light on this history of American sociology but provide us with what Lyman, in one of his seminal articles, refers to as an “account” of that history. We are told not only what sociologists had to say about society and what sort of vision they brought to their work but why they offered it. We see them as seeking unceasingly not only to “do” sociology but to offer justifications for the sociological way of seeing the world and of its potential for carving meaning in what seems a fragmented, anomic, desperate world. Perhaps the crowning justification is still the towering Durkheimian achievement in showing that even the ultimate rejection of life itself, suicide, is socially structured.

One final recollection is worth making, this one from Louis Wirth. He was fond, in his elementary theory course, of offering his own justification of sociology. He posed a scene in which a man was lying unconscious on the street. A medical person could test for signs of life; a psychologist could test for reflexes. But what could a sociologist do, being interested only in the group? A sociologist, said Wirth, could start going through the man’s pockets, where documents would speak to his family attachments, his citizenship and community rights, memberships, and other indications of wealth and status, all generating far more information than other scientists might give us. I believe it was Park who said that a person’s memberships and affiliations make up much of his identity and the whole of his obituary. The loss of religion that Vidich and Lyman describe with such intensity has, on balance, yielded a sociology that is no substitute for the abandoned religion and cannot offer any hope of such a religion. But in place of the comfort and warmth that have been lost, sociology offers the hope of insight and light. The question of whether that justification is sufficient can only be answered by sociological research itself.

Edward Gross, Symbolic Interaction, Vol. 9, No. 2 (Fall 1986), pp. 265-268

11.  Review by Susan E. Henking (1955- )

This volume is a welcome addition to literature on the place of religion in the history of the human sciences, in particular to that literature that identifies connections between American Protestantism and the discipline of sociology as institutionalized in the United States. In it, Arthur J. Vidich and Stanford M. Lyman provide a synopsis of sociological ideas ranging from antebellum proslavery systems to such contemporary varieties of sociological endeavor as social systems theories, neo-Marxism, and the work of Erving Goffman.

Unfortunately, this depiction of the connections between Protestantism and sociology is not fully satisfactory for the student of religion. Vidich and Lyman are clearly neither theologians nor historians of American religion, and, hence, their attention to the theologies and movements of Protestantism does not match the subtlety of their presentation of sociological ideas. Seen through their eyes, American Protestantism is substantially more monolithic than American sociology.

A final flaw, somewhat startling given the professional identifications of the authors, is the emphasis on ideas almost to the exclusion of institutional interactions. The authors point to the formative role of structural transformations of late nineteenth- and early twentieth-century American society, yet they virtually ignore institutional connections between religion and sociology evident in the history of the discipline and the relevance, for example, of sociological analyses of disciplinary formation and professionalization for their topic. This is perhaps not surprising given the Weberian flavor of the work, but it is disappointing.

Susan E. Henking, The Journal of Religion, Vol. 67, No. 1 (Jan., 1987), pp. 140-141

12.  Review by J. David Hoeveler, Jr. (1943- )

American sociology is replete with the language of Protestantism, and unquestionably many of its tenets are the secular variants of inherited religious views of life. The authors make this pattern clear in some convincing and useful chapters, especially those dealing with Giddings, Talcott Parsons, and Albion Small. In these sections the evidence is more carefully marshaled and more concrete; the authors are not left to apply a priori a mechanistic framework to their subjects.

J. David Hoeveler, Jr., The American Historical Review, Vol. 91, No. 1 (Feb., 1986), pp. 215-216

13.  Review by Danièle Hervieu-Léger (1947- )

This French language review praises Vidich and Lyman’s work for its insights in American social science. He contends that the author provide an exceptional analysis of the role of religion in American sociology.

Danièle Hervieu-Léger, Archives de sciences sociales des religions, 32e Année, No. 64.2 (Jul. - Dec., 1987), p.348

14.  Review by Charles H. Page (1910-1992)

The "secular covenant," the role of the state, and the "civil covenant," the authors contend, have been the guiding concerns of "virtually all" American sociologists from the outset. Although some of these influences - for example, Midwestern Progressivism and the rise of the counter- culture in California-are attended to by Vidich and Lyman, their rewriting of the history of American sociology comes close to a religious determinism that goes far beyond the constraints of Weber's classic. However legitimate these criticisms may be (of course they reflect my own biases), I strongly recommend this erudite, provocative, and indeed enchanting book to all serious students of American sociology. Those who fail to read it will be losers.

Charles H. Page, Contemporary Sociology, Vol. 15, No. 2 (Mar., 1986), pp. 209-211

15.  Review by William H. Swatos, Jr. (1946- )

The book can be assessed at many levels. With regard to the straightforward thesis that early American sociology reflected in many ways the social and cultural systems of its founders who had entirely been reared in Protestantism, the argument is overwhelmingly compelling. But why should we expect otherwise? American culture was permeated by a Protestant worldview, and social science intellectuals just as all American intellectuals in this period – were largely the produce of that worldview, whether they thought they were or not. This has clearly shaped the agendas not only of sociology but also of all other disciplines practiced in the United States to some degree or another. To the extent that sociologists are unaware of this heritage, the book makes a valuable contribution. Particularly important, though not to be overemphasized, in this connection is their forthright treatment of the earliest uses of sociology in this country in the context of the justification and maintenance of Afro-American slavery, a fact too often suppressed in disciplinary histories: The authors skillfully use the "race problem" as illustrative of the salvationist character of American sociology. The book is so persuasively written that it is tempting to swallow it whole. In fact, it needs careful dissection, with the various strands that are bundled together teased out to see whether or not they provide the sustenance claimed for them. The compelling thesis that establishment sociology in America perpetuated establishment ideology when establishment theology became intellectually bankrupt can be maintained without forcing early American sociology to lie on a Procrustean bed.

William H. Swatos, Jr., Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, Vol. 25, No. 2 (Jun., 1986), pp. 261-262

16.  Review by Joseph A. Varacalli (1952- )

The Vidich and Lyman volume provides a powerful, scholarly, lucid, useful, and "neat" (perhaps a bit too neat) interpretation of the emergence and subsequent evolution of American sociology. The authors argue that the foundations of American sociology, from the Civil War through roughly World War I, were significantly (not totally) based on American Protestant theology, especially that of the "Social Gospel" which was concerned with establishing the Kingdom of God on earth.  In large part, American sociologists, at least until the anomic and alienating 1960's, had thus retained the original spirit of Protestant world salvation by translating the idea of the sacred Puritan covenant into that of a utopian, secular civil society in which the science of sociology would provide authoritative grounds for America's moral redemption. That no sociodicy is capable of serving as the functional equivalent of a theodicy is an issue that the authors leave unaddressed.

One final and significant assumption must be brought to the fore: in accepting Weber's understanding that the Occident is undergoing a pervasive rationalization and secularization of thought, Vidich and Lyman eliminate, by fiat, any possible positive integrative role for religion in modern society and in the construction of sociological theories. Whether the authors have tapped correctly an irreversible historical watershed in the relationship of man to the universe or whether their analysis suffers from a secular myopia generated, in part, by their immersion in the milieu of the New School for Social Research remains to be seen.

Joseph A. Varacalli, Review of Religious Research, Vol. 29, No. 3 (Mar., 1988), pp. 306-307

17.  Review by Edward A. Tiryakian (1921- )

Briefly, American Sociology is at its best in examining the pre-World War II interplay in the United States between the development of sociology and the Protestant/Puritan cultural matrix. The geographical or regional coverage is wider than that in most accounts, since Vidich and Lyman examine early southern sociology as well as the important ‘nativistic’ Midwestern setting and also the California setting of sociology, the latter a sort of crossroads between southern and eastern influences that produced some important innovations. Not only is the substance of this book intrinsically interesting, but so also is the technical execution of top caliber, with historical inaccuracies and typographical mistakes virtually absent, making for solid reading pleasure.

Perhaps, in the spirit of Weber's analysis, we should say that, for American sociology, the search for a this-worldly sociodicy has been more important than finding it-or, as Lessing once pointed out, the search for truth is more bearable than finding it. Vidich and Lyman have provided us with a good search of the deep structures of American sociology, but there are other diggings to be done before we get to the roots of our contemporary situation. In any case, for their search we are thankful.

Edward A. Tiryakian, American Journal of Education, Vol. 95, No. 2 (Feb., 1987), pp. 375-378

18.  Review by Jessie Bernard (1903-1996)

When justice was removed from sociology, when both theodicy and sociodicy were wiped off its slate, when only the "logy" (or science or means) component remained that could be used for any end, or by anyone or anything, something critical happened to the discipline. It became less and less a liberal art or one of the humanities and more and more a professional technological skill available to anyone who could pay for it. "Thereafter sociology turned away from a vision of the ends [justice] and toward an unstinting effort to improve the means (methods)" (288). In this effort it was spectacularly successful. As a dedicated sociologist who wants to see her discipline become as good as possible, I welcome this. As Vidich and Lyman seem also to do. For, as noted at the beginning of this essay, they look to heterodoxies as sources for "intellectual visions" of sociodicies suitable for modern societies (307). Feminism is one such heterodoxy. As a feminist I am happy to be engaged in this enterprise.

Jessie Bernard, Sociological Forum, Vol. 1, No. 3 (Summer 1986), pp. 525-535

19.  Review by Alan Sica (1949-)

This is… a valuable book, for its bibliographical mining, its strong thesis, the unusually clear writing, and the scholarly gravity-especially now when sociology has reached dire straits and needs, perhaps, to look backward before mastering the future. Yet it is not about American sociology altogether. It is more a monograph that highlights the place of religious thinking and feeling in selected works of some American intellectuals, most of whom have passed into quiet oblivion precisely because their ideas became utterly antique. It is not quite accurate to equate or merge true theodicy with today's sociodicy.

Alan Sica, Science, New Series, Vol. 229, No. 4719 (Sep. 20, 1985), pp. 1255-1257

20.  Review by Gerd Kahle

Kahle’s review is printed in German and explains how this book reflects the history of American sociology.

Gerd Kahle, Zeitschrift für Politik, NEUE FOLGE, Vol. 35, No. 2 (Juni 1988), pp. 215-217

21.  Review by Eli Zaretsky

If the purpose of this work was to establish that there were many important connections between Protestant thought, both in its evangelical and its earlier Puritan incarnations, and sociology, especially in its early phases, then the work must be considered a success. Among the Protestant themes that the authors discern in American sociology are the idea of a saving elite (saints, social scientists), the idea of civil society as a moral covenant or brotherhood, the need to justify the existence of evil or suffering (theodicy, sociodicy) as well concurrent longings toward perfectionism, utopianism, and perfect management.

But if the authors' intention was to offer an overall interpretation of American sociology, as their title suggests, the book must be judged a failure. There are several reasons for this. First, simply to link a body of modern social thought to religion is to state a truism. Human beings are moral creatures with moral feelings about themselves and others. Ever since the first millennium B.C., and in certain ways much earlier, the basic framework for thinking about human life has been religious. Only in the nineteenth century, the intellectual history of which is dominated by the process of secularization, did this begin to change. Simply linking secular thought to religious thought tells us nothing; there are implications to this link that the authors never draw.

In spite of these criticisms, this remains an important work for all students of the history of the behavioral sciences. American sociology is a unique tradition; whatever its connections with classical European social theory it comes deeply out of the American reform tradition and nineteenth-century American thought. This tradition was, at its core, evangelical Protestantism in its ambivalent relationship to market individualism and the spread of corporate capitalism. The authors have made an important contribution in pointing to the existence of this connection. Unfortunately, the real task of specifying its nature and evaluating its meaning do not seem to have been considered by the distinguished authors of this study.

Eli Zaretsky, Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences, Volume 22. October 1986, pp. 382-3

Professors Vidich and Lyman Respond:

The reviewer misstates the theme of the work and thus has been led into judging it "a failure" for not offering "an overall interpretation of American sociology." Our book is an examination of American sociological knowledge, with a specific focus on the transvaluation of the rhetorics of that knowledge from religious to scientific terminologies. By "usurping the traditional position of theology," sociologists have taken God's work (we believe unwittingly) out of His hands and put it ever so confidently into their own. The search for secular solutions to problems of theodicy has pushed American sociology into a wide variety of applied and social work directions, leading it to formulate sociodicies for any and all social problems. Our book examines the consequences and the directions taken by American sociology as a result of its commitment to the cure of souls and the perfection of society. It does not proceed as "conventional intellectual history" nor does it "follow Edward Shils's lead in organizing [its] material 'ecologically.' “Insofar as our book traces sociological developments in specific schools and regions of the United States, it stands as a corrective to Shils's study. The authors and schools we selected for treatment were purposefully chosen to cover the full range of theoretical problems confronting the field, in areas such as self-formation, community, race relations, stratification, work, industrialization, mass phenomena, social movements, the state, and the moral foundations of social order. They cover the entire history of American sociology from 1854 to the present. That less attention is paid to some thinkers, as, for example, W. I. Thomas and Charles Horton Cooley, is fully explained and justified in the text (pp. 145, 146, 180, 195, 206, 210; 57, 153, 164) and accords with the thematic of our project. It is wrong to claim that we do not given attention to George Herbert Mead (see pp. 270-272). The reviewer has not grasped the argument of our book. Our position is that the heritage of Protestantism has not provided sociology with an adequate public philosophy for comprehending, let alone ameliorating, the problems of a secularized society. The reviewer's view of Robert Bellah's exhortation, that sociology should "live up to its responsibilities," is not our own, but an unsupported quasi-secular canopy covering up contemporary sociology's embarrassing lack of new clothes. If it were true that "to link a body of modern social thought to religion is to state a truism," all criticism would be superfluous. It is tendentious trivializing to assert that "ever since the first millennium B.C., and in certain ways much earlier, the basic framework for thinking about human life has been religious." That statement misses our point: Protestant thinking has had a special and limiting effect on American sociology's capacity to think about American society and its human life.

Vidich & Lyman, Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences, Volume 22. October 1986, pp. 384