Abstract
This book is bold in its aims from the outset, arguing for ‘a sociological reappraisal of the historical origins, intellectual foundations, and contemporary salience of moderation’ (p. 8) which, the editors argue, is long overdue. Their aspiration is that by exploring the idea and concept of moderation in ‘a range of eclectic topics relating to democracy, expertise, media, pragmatism, religion, science and social theory’, this volume will ‘provoke further interest and research in sociologies of moderation’ (p. 8).
One overarching issue throughout the volume is the intangible nature of concepts of moderation and the editors fully acknowledge they are not seeking ‘to offer the final word on moderation’ (p. 15). To this end ‘moderation’ is discussed from a diverse variety of positions and contexts by each author. Indeed this book explores the work of ten contributors over what at first appears to be a seemingly disparate assortment of subject matters including: the use of hyperbole in the communication of pre-peer reviewed science outputs; the neoliberal demonization of profligate citizens; LGBT rights and religious moderation; the inability to deal with uncertainty and challenges to ‘expertise’ in public health policy; the crisis of ‘moderate’ feminisms; through to grassroots republican party moderates in Kansas. However, as you read through the book it turns out they are all surprisingly and intriguingly interlinked. The papers most closely aligned to my own disparate subject areas certainly contributed to existing debates within their wider fields, and the other papers I can only assume are of equal standing in their own right. However, this is no mere collection of singles – it is a concept album, and it is as a sum of all its parts that it works in convincing the reader that there is more to the idea of ‘sociologies of moderation’ than is first apparent.
One might argue that ‘moderation’ as a lens contributes nothing new to existing debates or approaches to research in these fields. This would be to constrain (as Chris Shilling highlights in his introduction) ‘moderation’ to being a space on a spectrum or ‘a middle ground for reasons of compromise’ (p. 1). As Henry Yeomans highlights in his chapter on the promotion of moderate drinking in this context moderation ‘cannot be defined solely in reference to what it is not’ (p. 60). This is also applicable to the broader concept of sociologies of moderation. In many of the debates discussed within this volume – or indeed any debate of societal relevance today – the extremes are themselves fluid. Therefore any middle ground is intrinsically in a process of continual renegotiation. The ‘middle ground’ today may have been viewed as extreme yesterday, and may be again tomorrow. What we recognize or describe as ‘moderate’ can also be culturally contingent. This is particularly evident in Srila Roy's contribution on moderate feminism in differing geopolitical contexts. The challenge to a narrow notion of moderation as ‘middle ground’ is echoed throughout this volume and Roy also gives a compelling analysis of her hopes for moderation as a practice as opposed to a position to open up ‘a “third space” of political possibility’ (p. 106). Furthermore, she argues that this will ‘prompt a rethinking of the political, away from the antagonisms and oppositions that mark current academic assessments (of feminism and beyond)’ (p. 108). Responding to her own note of caution with regards the all encompassing broad nature of the term, she argues that ‘the mileage in using the concept of moderation in a broad, non-essentialist and non-purist manner stems from its very capacity to transgress … binary distinctions and exclusionary either/or logics’ (p. 114). Smith further suggests that ‘moderation is better grasped as a disciplined engagement with divided publics. Conceived primarily as a dialogue open to learning from others …’ (p. 133). On reading this volume I similarly came away with a sense of the value of moderation as a fluid dialogical, yet critical, approach to understanding society that enticingly could allow us to intellectually negotiate landscapes of pluralism in all their forms.
It would be easy to deride the lack of moderation in public space scholarly discourse as purely down to the incursion of political jockeying and the role of the media hyperbole. This clearly plays a significant role as Brigitte Nerlich notes in her chapter on moderation and hype in natural science communication ‘modesty and moderation do not seem to get stories published in newspapers’ (p. 45). However, we cannot as scholars absolve ourselves of responsibility, as Nerlich goes on to observe in this context ‘moderation seems as much impossible as modesty on the part of the scientists involved’ (p. 54). I agree with this sentiment. Whilst the overlooking of ‘moderation’ as a serious frame for research both in sociology and beyond is also no doubt in part due to the legacy of disciplinary specific internal constraints and hegemonic processes, we also need to reappraise the role of our own expertise in public space. At a time when those of us in higher education are under increasing pressure to produce shiny high profile results and (rightly) demonstrable impact from our research, there can be a short-termist tendency to focus on the immediacy of controversial positions often found at the very extremes of public debates. This will inevitably push scholarly discourse away from less polarized positions or moderate approaches. This volume is, therefore, a timely reminder that a ‘moderate’ approach to research and public space discourse is actually often counter to the mainstream and thus can in and of itself be innovative, controversial or indeed challenging to the status quo.
As an academic who intersects both the humanities and social sciences I found the breadth of topics covered brought this volume to life in a way that was both accessible and thought provoking. In subject areas far from my own, I found it equally engaging for a non-specialist and specialist audience alike. As someone who has worked in very diverse international contexts, I found this book a welcome and much needed antidote to the all too often employed binary explanations of what are extremely complex societal debates in culturally and epistemologically pluralist settings. In this reviewer's moderate opinion this book, and its broader research agenda, is certainly worth a second look.