Bjos_088.qxd

explains the unease researchers, including seems to me to devalue drastically the rich- Skeggs, have characteristically found when ness of working-class life, experience and abstract nature of the book. I was disap- of a series of essays dealing with specific pointed that little use was made of Skeggs’ aspects of this theoretical model. They cover topics such as the emergence of the bour- empirically grounded sections (Chapter 2; geois individualist self; popular representa- the discussion of cosmopolitanism utilizing a tions of the working class, the deployment of study of Manchester’s ‘Gay Village’). Skeggs class in politic rhetoric, narratives of self, has made a useful theoretical contribution contemporary theories of the aestheticized and her work highlights that class is not a monolithic structure but varied and contex- tanism. I particularly enjoyed chapter 2, tual. The book, for me, points to the need for which discusses the historical emergence of more empirical exploration of working-class alongside the notion of the ‘rational self’: the middle-class self is seen as reasoning, reflex- ive, constrained, while the working-class selfwas associated with primitivism, lack ofcontrol and a ‘deficit culture’. The chapter is Stehr, N. (ed.) Biotechnology: Between
necessarily brief but this topic would make Commerce and Civil Society Transaction
a fine extended study in itself. A general aim Publishers 2004 376 pp. $49.95 (hardback) is to demonstrate that current approaches toclass are euphemistic, so that terms such as social exclusion, ‘sink estates’, ‘yob culture’ are used to name the classed ‘Other’. The expanded from a rather marginal speciality chapters illustrate how ‘class is valued, con- to a major research milieu during the first ceptualized, coded, re-signified, produced by decade of the twenty-first century, and they rhetoric and representation, or displaced continue to prosper. This book illustrates from academic and popular agendas’ (p.
quite well some current trends. The major- This is an interesting, ambitious project, biotechnology, reflecting the fact the recent expansion of social studies on biotechnology demanding on the reader. It is distinctly has mainly taken place around medicine and health-related issues. Topics like compara- spectives of contemporary cultural tive perspectives on prenatal screeningsstudies, which may put off some more (Elizabeth Ettorre), problems with informa-conventionally–minded sociologists.
tion sharing, informed consent and patient’s strength is that it integrates ideas and rights in genetic diagnostic testing (Anneconcepts from a wide range of disciplines (including history, sociology, politics, media Somek, Kerr), the Icelandic-experiment in genomic business (Gíslí Pálsson), images informative to readers whose understanding Hornig Priest and Toby Ten Eyck), the ques- Skeggs’ own stance and values, it is perhaps organisms (Javier Lezaun) and the impact of working class(es) is downbeat throughout: they are stated to lack (discursively framed) selves, access to culture and property, to discussions.
be negatively valued; narrative telling is described as a middle-class mode. All this London School of Economics and Political Science 2005 implies a rather narrow notion of citizen- cial interests, and there is an urgent need for ship. By contrast, Steve Fuller demands a social sciences to study the impact of busi- full-frontal challenge to the current neolib- ness activity and big corporations in devel- eral ethos of biotechnological progress. His opment and use of biotechnology, especially analysis is swift and remarks felicitious but, in the end, his visions of ‘biosocialism’ and social science that would provide a frame- upon this question. A lot of interest is cur- work for democratic steering of biotechnol- rently focused on changes in the institu- ogy to purposes serving all ‘humanity’ tional organization and epistemic conditions of biological and biomedical science. This is The faltering of social science on the polit- brought about because of the growing influ- ical side of biotechnology is regrettable, par- ence of big transnational medical and agri- ticularly if seen in the light of Nico Stehr’s cultural corporations not only as providers observations. He compares biotechnological of funding but also interest in the institu- conquest to other modern scientific revolu- tional context where innovative research is tions and remarks that major technological carried out. This is discussed especially by Nikolas Rose and Steven Vallas et al. Rose’s way today than they did in the past. Many paper is a thorough overview of the way in biotech innovations have to negotiate their way through moral controversies and polit- nant in Western mental health care. He ical regulation, which according to Stehrsuggests that ‘disorder mongering’ by phar- provides the momentum for social sciences maceutical companies should be considered to actually influence how biotechnology will a key factor in this development and shows be deployed. However, social sciences seem how intensification of professional interests to lack both power and ideas to live up to in a particular mental disorder (e.g. ‘gener- alized anxiety disorder’) and the growth of There is hardly a discussion on social con- turnover of a particular drug (Paxil) have sequences of biotechnology without ‘ethics’ as a main topic, and this book is no excep- The reference to ‘Civil society’ in the sub- tion. Interestingly, the focus of social title indicates a real concern about undemo- worry over back door eugenics to concerns cussing discriminating potentials of the new medical technology, scarce public participa- of the latter are Jürgen Habermas, Francis tion in policy-making or limited access to information by the lay public, social scien- the new molecular medicine provides effec- political character of biotechnology.
and should therefore be severely restricted.
Herbert Gottweis’s paper on stem cell and This argument, based on a ‘pure’ ethical cloning disputes and Richard Hindmarsh’s theory, is affirmed especially by Nico Stehr’s on lobbying networks making the ‘GM rev- introductory chapter and Steven Best’s and olution’ in Asian agriculture are examples of Douglas Kellner’s discussion of stem cell fine analyses of political aspects of biotech- nology. Yet social scientists seem to have sociologists do not go all the way and, again, little new to say about the particular char- acteristics of biotech politics. For example, Anne Kerr ‘s analysis of ‘genetic citizenship’ ends up with discussion on personal rights not to gain genetic information and not to show well how political issues of biotech- nology become encapsulated by ‘ethics’, of London School of Economics and Political Science 2005 which the rise of neo-humanism is a clear analysis of childhood as the standard for indication. More generally, this transforma- research in the social sciences. Indeed, as well as social scientists, students and practi- establishment of bioethics as a philosophical tioners specializing in child care and welfare expertise and a safeguard for swift advances practice and policy will welcome the detail in medical genetics, especially in the USA.
bioethics. However, critical analyses of the ological rules, the book centrally raises the neo-humanistic argument and of the ratio- question of research partnerships between nales and practices of bioethics should be science, policy, and practice. The weight of the argument throughout, i.e. for diversity, equity and inclusion in multicultural soci- eties, is coupled with what Weisner in his Introduction calls, ‘a drive to solve societalproblems’. This is not a book about childrenand families as objects of social policy and Weisner, T.S. (ed.) Discovering Successful
intervention. Nevertheless, the overarching Pathways in Children’s Development:
conceptual framework of the various studies Mixed Methods in the Study of Childhood
and Family Life Chicago and London: The
children, families, and race. Together, the University of Chicago Press 2005 426 pp.
authors offer a new perspective on the study of childhood from the viewpoint of ‘developmental pathways’. By pathways the This book combines an innovative approach to social science methodology with interdis- everyday life, including the activities and ciplinary studies of childhood, focusing on cultural and ecological contexts that chil- schooling, poverty, and racial identity. Inno- dren ordinarily traverse as they make their vations in methodology involve the use of way around the world. The conceptual focus multiple or mixed methods, both quantita- on ‘activities on a pathway’ promises to link tive and qualitative, combined with the idea the cultural ecology of childhood with some of ‘research partnerships’ between field- of the more rigorous contributions to our workers, families, schools, and funded com- understanding of the child’s internal world.
munity initiatives. The use of various types This may yet prove to be the most valuable of data throughout the volume, ranging from contribution of the pathways framework to child assessments and teacher ratings, is jus- tified on both scientific and administrative extends the scope of this approach to the grounds. The authors of the studies claim discovery of successful pathways. It provides that the science of child development is best more than an analysis of the activities chil- served by a multiple methods approach, and dren most of the time are engaged in when making their way through life’s routines. In between research, social policy, and inter- addition, the studies set about identifying vention. The accumulated evidence on edu- ‘good pathways’ for children and their fam- cational achievement, parental involvement, ilies, including above all ‘educationally good pathways’. In chapter 11, Catherine Cooper and colleagues present two studies, the first ment and family intervention studies. This parents’ beliefs establish a ‘good path of life’ for their children. The question of how to secure ‘good pathways’ in ‘multiple worlds’ London School of Economics and Political Science 2005

Source: http://www.zu.de/deutsch/lehrstuehle/kulturwissenschaften/Helen__Ilpo__Biotechnology_British_Journal_of_Sociology_December_2005.pdf