Disaster and the Millennium by Michael Barkun (review)

REVIEWS 173 science asanindependent discipline. Fewsceptics willbeconverted intobelievers by the graphsandscales or bythe useof reconditewordsandjargon to describe the patently obvious. Yetthisisathoughtful anderuditesynopsis ofmost oftheexisting theoriesof revolution,playing,in itssomewhat morelimitedfield,the samerole as WillDurantintherealmofphilosophy. And,hadDurantlivedageneration later,he mightconceivably havedescribed hisworkas'philosophical science.' DON GOODSPEED Brock University Disaster and theMillennium.MICHAEL BARKUN. New Haven, Yale University Press, 1974.PP.x, 243.$io.oo. It isnotoftenthata scholarly study,bearingthefull cargoof an academic thesis, is disturbing. Professor Barkunpoints tomajorandthreatening reversals inthehistory of the relationship betweendisaster andmillenarianmovements. His thesis isthat millenarianism usedto betherural response to multipledisasters - onedisaster is neverenoughto provokeutopianism. This thesis isillustrated bylightlyskipping fromtheTaborites totheCargocults of Melanesia, fromtheheresies ofJoachim of Fioreto Anabaptism in Munsterduringthe earlyyearsof the Reformation,and to theenthusiasms of theGreatAwakening in America.The Fifth Monarchists of the EnglishCivil War amongthe millenariangroupsare linked through their antinomianism to theSpanish Anarchists of the 193os. Historianswithlessinclination to recognize uniformpatterns mightreckonthisindiscriminate. The emphasis ison thegeneralmodel. It is suggested that charismatically inspiredchoruses, risingfrom largelyrural localities, tendedtofollowrecitatives of natural,political,andmilitarydisasters. But thehallowed traditionofmillenarian movements being'outside' movements hasnow altered;newmillenarianism hasbecome thetoolandhallmarkof powerfulpolitical groups,living at the centreof power,with urbanorigins,who both respondto disaster and also create them. The totalitarians and marxists enshrine a secularized millenarianism; andtheyengineerdisasters likeprolonged reignsof terrorandthe victimization of minorities, tosustain thefervourof theirsupporters. So,deftly,the originalcorrelation between multipledisasters andmillenarianism isreversed; cause andeffectchangeplaces. Yet, the originalcorrelationseems shaky;there hasbeenno controlstudy,no examinationof momentsof multipledisasterwhen no chiliasmfollowed.Sucha simple controlmighthaveshifted theemphasis totheintellectual traditionofecstatic expectation anditsradicalreshaping fromrootsintheHebrewmessianic tradition.It mighthaveencouraged moreattentiontobiography andless totheuniformities of thesociological equation. Martin Bubersawlongagothe messianic desirefor the righteous kingdomin Marxism.He wouldhavedistinguished messianism from millenarianism, however, withitsdeliberate periodicities anditsclaimtoknowledge ofthefutureofhistory in specific ways. The worditselfsuggests certainties aboutthespanof timebeforethe Divinewillvisittheearth.Messianism preaches nochronological certainties andisa 174 THE CANADIAN HISTORICAL REVIEW calling-forth of peopleto righteousness ratherthana sureconviction in a comingdownof the god,or gods.Messianism islessesoteric thanchiliasm. One wonders whether Fascism and Bolshevism really belongwith Jehovah'sWitnesses, in any significant sense. Nevertheless, thereversals of process urgedbyBarkunareworryingandprovocative .Articulate,thoughtful,expansive, and gifted,Barkun'shypothesis aboutthe interrelationships between disaster andmillenarianism should engage allscholars of chiliasm. joH• g.H. University ofWaterloo Ideology andSocial Knowledge. HAROLDJ. BERSHADY. Oxford, Blackwell,•973. PP.•78. œ3.•5. The verymonumentality of TalcottParson's intellectual objectives places hiscriticin adifficultposition. Not contentwithlimitinghimselftothestudyof particularsocial phenomena,Parsons hasattemptedthroughoutto equiphissocialanalysis with a new technique,functionalism,that in turn restsuponwhat he believesto be a new understanding of theverynatureof social knowledge andaction.Facedwithsuchan imposingfacade,it is hardly surprisingthat much of the criticismof Parsonian sociology hasfocused uponwhatarethecomparatively minorsubthemes ofhiswork. Howeverpersuasive some of theseare,thefactthatthese subthemes aretiedorganicallyto largerquestions of epistemology and methodology makesuchcriticisms appearincomplete if notunsubstantive. The synthetic qualityof Parsons' epistemology itselfraises additional problems for thecritic.Ashisvoluntaristic theoryof knowledge sponges up supposedly allthatis validin everyothersocial theory,thecriticseems tobeleft withnoplacetostandor reducedto workingimplicitlywithinthe generalpremises of Parsons' ownsocial theories.Alvin Gouldner'sattempt,for example,to explaincertainaspects of Parsons 'socialtheoriesasfunctionsof their creator'ssocialconditions,withoutfully evaluating Parsons' critiqueof radicalpositivism, tendstoleaveGouldner's verylong bookdanglinglike a participlefrom the conclusion of oneof Parsons' convoluted explanations. Similarly,the current concernwith the consequences of Parsonian sociology (asopposed toitsinnernature)betrays autilitarianfascination withjudging something by itsuse- rather than by itsown substance. Somewhat ironically,the inadequacies ofutilitarianthoughtareoneofthefewpoints uponwhichParsons and hiscritics seemtoagree,atleastin thetheory. The realstrengthof Bershady's bookisprecisely itswillingness to confrontParsoniansociology onthesemajorlevels. BothParsons' epistemology andhisnewtechniquefor 'scientific' social analysis, Bershady persuasively argues, areorganically tied toacontinuing efforttoovercome theintellectual scepticism implicitin theconcept of historical relativity.Only by settingout a non-relative epistemology, Bershady contends, canParsons hopetoconstruct asinglesetof sociological theorems thatcan dealin theorywithallsocial situations. Similarly, it isthisclaimto totalnon-relative applicability whichturnsallproblems of historical substance intomalleable questions ...