Nathan Glazer (1923–2019)

Monumentale e indispensabile, la principale sensazione dopo la lettura è: come ho fatto a non conoscerlo finora? Non soltanto è un classico del pensiero sociologico moderno (1950), ma resta un riferimento attualissimo che chiarisce cose che già sappiamo (o pensiamo di sapere) fornendo categorie interpretative precise e ricche di esempi “pop” tratti da letteratura e cinema (uno dei tratti più godibili del libro). Soprattutto, il libro evoca ulteriori riflessioni sulla compresenza e sulla distribuzione sociale dei tre “tipi” descritti dal libro (diretto dalla tradizione, auto-diretto, etero-diretto) che portano a rileggere criticamente lo sviluppo storico/geografico di specifiche macro o micro-comunità (fino alla famiglia). Imprescindibile poi l’approfondimento dedicato al mondo del lavoro, che affianca questo libro ad altri classici come “L’uomo dell’organizzazione” di Whyte (1956). Infine, il libro fa ben notare, indirettamente, quanto eravamo già americani forse senza saperlo.… (altro)

Originally published in 1950, this fascinating sociological analysis was one of the assigned readings for a college course I once took on the intellectual history of twentieth-century America, and has - despite its flaws - been very influential in shaping my own ideas about conformity and independent thinking. An examination of the various "character types" to be found in the American middle class, Riesman, Glazer and Denney's magnum opus tackles the difficult topic of conformity, seeking to determine what type of person is most dominant in society, and the implications this has for autonomous thought and action.

The authors lay out three basic character types, comprising: the "tradition-directed" person, who takes his or her behavioral cues from long-established social patterns; the "inner-directed" one, who is motivated largely by internal moral/ethical concerns and standards; and the up-and-coming "other-directed" type, who is zealously tuned in to the behavior of their group (whatever that might be). While all of these "types" represent ways of being in the world that allow the individual to integrate into society, and are thus all, to one extent or another, encouraging of conformity (there being, thankfully, no cartoon-like Ayn Rand characters in The Lonely Crowd), Riesman et. al. note that it is the third and final character type alone - the "other-directed" - that emphasizes behavioral conformity for its own sake.

Paradoxically, it is this same type - the one the authors believed was rapidly coming to dominance in the American culture at the time they were writing - that also seemed to offer, through its emphasis on self-analysis, the possibility of a shift toward a more autonomous "inner-directed" type. That shift toward greater autonomy, and the seeking after it, was something the authors envisioned as occurring in a number of counter-cultural arenas (notably: "Bohemia," "sex," and "tolerance"), although it is instructive to note that they also observed that supposedly rebellious enclaves could be as rigidly conformist, internally, as anything they opposed externally.

Although it has been some years since I last picked it up, I can still call to mind the mixture of admiration and frustration I experienced, when first reading The Lonely Crowd (a memorable title, if ever there was one). On the one hand, I found the authors' character-type analysis very persuasive, particularly as I think that the "other-directed" type has continued to dominate the American scene. On a personal level, as someone raised in a progressive home - someone who had always been willing to champion unpopular causes - I found the discussion of conformity within counter-cultural groups very enlightening. It seems self evident to me now, but the idea that rebellion might go hand in hand with obedient conformity, that the mores of the dominant society might simply have been replaced by those of a smaller group, was revelatory.

But although there is no denying the importance of this book, as a means of understanding 20th-century American culture, it is not without significant flaws. The limitations inherent in an analysis that focuses exclusively on the middle class, however dominant that class might be, leap immediately to mind, all the more so given the racial divisions that run alongside class ones, in the American model. Prescient in some ways, and oblivious in others, The Lonely Crowd is still a book that I would recommend to all readers with an interest in group and identity formation, and issues of independence and conformity.… (altro)