In Laurence Veysey’s article, A Postmortem on Daniel Bell’s
Postindustrialism, he points out the flaws of Daniel Bell’s arguments in
his two books: The Coming of
Post-Industrial Society (1973) and The
Cultural Contradictions of Capitalism (1976). Veysey obtained a degree in
Sociology from the University of California- Santa Cruz and is now a professor
of Sociology there. Besides being a professor, he also manages the Bike Hut at
Pier 40 where he rents and repairs bikes in impoverished areas. He’s best known
for his sense of community. (1) Daniel Bell is a sociologist and journalist who
used sociological beliefs to point out contradictions of a capitalist society.
He received a BS at the City College of New York and was employed as a
journalist for 20 years. Bell, like Veysey, was a professor of Sociology, but
at Harvard University. He has a great deal of works that focus on the
relationship between social technology and capitalism, which is what sparked
the controversy between Veysey and Bell. (2) Both of these individuals have a great
professional background in the topic of sociology, but I believe that Bell has
more experience in the field and is therefor more credible due to his great
number of awards he’s received for his work.
In this
article, Veysey explains what postindustrialism is. In short, he states how
this was a time period after the start up of America’s economy and the greatest
advancement in our industry. Veysey believes that this time period showed a
decline in the importance of the manufacturing sector due to the age of
affluence (a phrase Veysey often uses to describe an increased period of
leisure), dependence on technology, and the population’s general switch from
producing to consuming. This time period was considered to be the 1920’s, 1950’s,
and 1960’s. Veysey then comes to describe Bell’s view of postindustrialism, containing
two different ideas than what he had described. Bell’s first idea was of
futurology and the attempt to study and predict the future from technocratic
means, and neoconservatism, which defends capitalism. Veysey argues that many
of Bell’s theories as confusing and hypocritical. Some of this criticism
includes Bell’s theory of “theoretical knowledge” and it taking over society
through the new relationship of science and technology. Veysey states, “It is
completely devoid of humanistic content.” Another central argument that Veysey
argues is Bell’s idea of romanticism and how it has taken over American culture
due to the youth revolt of the 1960’s. Bell says this creates dijointedness in
his arguments. Veysey can’t accept this theory due to Bell’s major beliefs in
science and technology, which contradicts the theory of romanticism. I don’t
agree with Veysey’s major criticism of this part because this shows Bell’s
ability to see all different aspects of society and find a reason for the
development of different relationships.
As you read through this article,
there is a clear difference between these two individuals. Veysey has a more
historical, or philosophical, view of the different aspects of
postindustrialism, whereas Bell has a more updated and relevant view on the
matter. I believe more in what Bell presents because as a Sociologist, he is
able to see the changes in our society and determine why or how they occur. His
credibility, experience in the field, and support of arguments makes him the
better candidate for this criticism piece.
(1) (n.d.). Business Profiles and
Company Information | ZoomInfo.com. Laurence Veysey | University of
California , Santa Cruz | ZoomInfo.com. Retrieved from
http://www.zoominfo.com/p/Laurence-Veysey/368899250
c(2) (n.d.). Encyclopedia
Britannica. Daniel Bell (American sociologist) -- Encyclopedia Britannica. Retrieved
from http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/59595/Daniel-Bell
No comments:
Post a Comment