Book reviewslcomptes rendus I 85

de la force de travail qui existent dans les zones rurales, et dans les villes voisines en crise. La place manque pour donner tous les rksultats de I’ittude ritcente sur laquelle nous nous appuyons, mais aucun doute n’est possible : le ramassage doit se lire aujourd’hui essentiellement comme un moyen pour organiser et pit+niser une varietk de modes spatiaux de reproduction de la force de travail et non comme un moyen conjoncturel de mobilisation d’une main d’auvre ,uppl&nentaire. (Cet eclatement spatial a bien entendu unc dimension poli- tique, et concerne la gestion des rapports sociaux; mais nous ne considkrons pas ce probltme ici.) Pour illustrer ceci d’un exemple, disons simplement que Usinor n’accorde a ses salariks des prtts pour construire que si la maison se trouvesituke sur une des lignes de ramassage de I’entreprise! O n constate d’ail- leurs des modifications dans le rble attribuk pour la reproduction a telle ou tellefraction de I’espace : la cite des Nouvelles Synthes, d’abord utilisi:e surtout F u r les ouvriers qualifiks, I’est aujourd’hui surtout pour les nouveaux Venus et les jeunes mknages, c’est devenu une zone d e transition. Cet exemple du ramassage, et la brutalitk du renversement de conjoncture sur le marchi: du logement, mettant a ma1 les knonces des techniciens sur les ‘besoins en loge- ment’, illustre bien la nkessitk d’une analyse trts fine des liens qui existent entre le fonctionnement des entreprises et I’organisation de I’espace, et la Econ- ditk du raisonnement en termes de filieres de reproduction. Les knormes diffi- cult& qui restent a surmonter, tant du point de vue thkorique que mkthodolo- gique, pour mieux maitriser cette approche, indiquent croyons-nous la nkces- siti‘ de poursuivre plus avant dans cette ligne plutbt que le besoin de la mettre en cause.

Institut d’Urbanisme de Paris, Uniuersiti Paris Val de Marne

Henri Coing

Methodological sectarianism in urban sociology

Becquart-Leclercq, Jeanne, 1976 : Paradoxes du pouuoir local. Paris : Presse de la fondation nationale des sciences politiques, I 15 francs (cloth) and 80 francs (paper). Biarez, S., Bouchet, C., de Boisberranger, G., Mingasson, C., Monies, M-C. and Pouyet, C., 1973 : Institution communale et pouuoir politique. Paris : Mouton, 28 francs.

Cet article rend compte de deux ouvrages franqais sur la politique locale, le premier une ktude bake sur une enqu6te dans 41 petites villes, suit la perspective des ktudes comparatives des communautts, le second une analyse de la politique urbaine a Roanne suit pour sa part une perspective structuraliste marxiste. I1 y est affirm6 que I’utilisation de mkthodologies trop ktroites nuit aces deux ouvrages. La premikre etude est marquee par son accrptation sans critiques de I’importance du systime des acteurs, vue qui ne s’accorde pas particulikrement bien avec les preuves decrites. En ce qui concerne I’ktude de Roanne, bien qu’elle fasse des avances importantes en se servant avec succes au

I 86 Book reviewslcomptes rendus

niveau urbain de la theorie structuraliste, son rejet des methodologies likes a la socio. logie bourgeoise. prive I’analyse d’un fondement empirique suffisant. I1 est suggeri qu’on doit commencer a kliminer le particularisme mkthodologique dans la sociologie urbaine.

Reading these two books in tandem left me with a depressing realization of how little common ground there is in current work on urban sociology in terms of methodological approaches. Mme Becquart-Leclercq is very closely con. fined to the strongly empirical but theoretically barren policy outputs/com- parative community studies tradition. The study by Biarez et al . in contrast is a sophisticated development and application of structuralist marxist writings to the field of urban politics. Yet despite these differences in perspective one might reasonably expect to see some common elements of approach in the two books. As it is both books seem to fail in their purpose at least in part because they have learnt so little from each other. There are virtually no points of contact, too few common criteria of evidence and an almost complete rejec- tion of each others’ methodology and general approach. The implications of this are asymmettical. Paradoxes de pouvoir local is simply another careful study of a basically trivial topic, lacking in any major theoretical resonance. Zmtitu- tion communale etpouvoir politigue on the other hand could have become a classic text, except that the analytic framework which it develops fails to have much empirical bite. The book thus succeeds only in being potentially plausi Me, when with a little more effort it could have been definitive.

Paradoxes depouvoir local is based on a survey of 41 small, mainly rural com- munes in the north-east of France, almost all with populations of 2000 to 6000 people. It is clearly modelled on the National Opinion Research Centre’s 5 I

city studies carried out in the USA in 1966-7, and much the same format is used. Interviews were carried out with mayors and in a smaller number of cases with ten people in each area, and data from these were correlated with a composite scale of policy outputs to try to assess the importance of the commune mayors’ role.

The study’s major contribution is to the existing literature on French local government. The most interesting chapters focus on some prima facie paradoxes of voting behaviour. Despite the communes’ lack of power and autonomy, de- spite the extensive phenomenon of single lists being submitted for election, and despite a pervasive non-political ideology, electoral turnout in such com- munes is very high-ver 8o%-and does not appear to be affected in the ways suggested by conventional theories of representative democracy. This situation is successfully analysed in terms of a developed system of persona1 and political favouritism controlled by the mayors, which maintains consider- able interest in the elections for mayor and council, since even when a single list is presented opportunities for voting for personalities remain. The ‘non- political’ ideology is interpreted as an attempt to suppress the intolerable reality of favovritism with its divisive implications for communal relations by an insistence on the possibility of full and equal political access for everyone. A convincing picture is also drawn of the communes’ political life and depen-

Book reuiewslcomptes rendus I 87

dence on central government, mediated via the mayors’ personal relations with higher officials. More routine analysis of the social background of mayors and their councils and of the basis of their ‘legitimacy’ is also provided.

The study is open to criticism on a number of grounds. I t is irretrievably and organized almost comPletely round the survey. This is not a

particularly appropriate tool for analysing the paradoxes of the title ; in fact these are treated in a rather general descriptive way which owes little to the

results. There is only a perfunctory theoretical introduction and the is justified primarily in terms of a gap in the existing literature, the

lack of a comparative study of small to medium communes. The empirical chapters focus overwhelmingly on correlations between political variables and policy outputs. There is a strong individualistic bias and although some com- munal background variables are included they are given little prominence. The emphasis on the system of actors seems rather implausible for two reasons : i) because of the lack of local power or financial autonomy the measure of policy outputs used is actually a composite scale of investment in local facilities overavery long period of time. It is thus indicative of the infrastructural situa- tion of the communes rather than of policy outputs in the conventional sense. It seems inappropriate to correlate such a measure with shorter-term political variables. Where a relationship is established it is difficult to know what it means. ii) Much of the variance in the level of facilities is explained by socio- economic variables, such as commune size, the occupational base and growth/stagnation. Correlations with political variables are drawn from a much smaller data base and are generally weaker than those with important socio-economic variables.

These criticisms must immediately be qualified by noting that they could not be made at all were it not for the scholarly and lucid presentation of the research. Mme Becquart-Leclercq presents her data fully, describes all the steps in her analysis and ties her conclusions very firmly to the evidence. These are surely the best qualities ofpositivist research, qualities which unfortunately were less apparent in the study by Biarez et al.

Institution communale et pouvoir politique is a community study of Roanne, a town of 75000 people in an economically stagnant area of crntral France. Thr authors focus on local government as an instance of a social formation by means ofwhich the state intervenes at the urban level. They closely follow Poulantzas in rejecting the view that actors should form the fundamental units of analysis (the problematic of the subject) ; instead they argue that all power is class power and that institutions are only centres in which class power is exercised. The exercise of power should be understood in terms of the development of economic, political and ideological structures. In the case of (French) local government, the local authority functions as a subordinate branch ofthe state but is also vulnerable to apparent control by non-dominant classes, since the balance of class power may differ between the national level and particular localities. This balance is particularly expressed via universal suffrage which, while it legitimates the exercise of power and confines the class

I 88 Book reviewslcornptes rendus

struggle to a narrow ‘political scene’, also makes possible the capture of local political institutions by economically non-dominant classes. The impact of this will be limited, and has been controlled primarily by the centralization of power in the national state or by the creation of local institutions bypassing universal suffrage. Biarez et al. see the hegemonic fraction of the bourgeoisie in France as monopoly capital, organized politically in the Gaullist UXR, while the working class are a dominated class. The objectives of state inter- vention at the local level are to maintain the unity of the social brmation, Both ensuring the continuation of domination and disguising its reality seem to be covered by this maintenance of social cohesion.

In applying these ideas to Roanne, Biarez et al. discuss the local political scene and then present four case studies of local decision-making. A k r y rolr in these accounts is played by the development of the town’s economy. After a period of stagnation Roanne entered a phase of relative prosperity i n the I 950s, during which the hosiery and engineering industries expandcd. T h e local community was dominated by the interests of medium capital i n these industries. This fraction of the bourgeoisie were organized in a loose crntre- right coalition which retained control of the mairie and of the deputy‘s scat in opposition both to the left-wing parties, which lost ground electorally from 1945 on, and to the Gaullists representing the interests of monopoly capital. In 1965, however, the slow expansion in the industrial base ceased. sr\rcra*l firms closed down, unemployment increased, and the town was pe rcc i \d to have entered on a phase of economic crisis. Biarez et al. view this as a con- sequence of the development of the national economy which bypasscd the region, a situation which the state did little or nothing to alter. One immcdiatr political consequence was that the centre-right coalition lost the deputy‘s scat a t the 1967 elections to the UNR, whose candidate claimed he could srcurr state intervention from the Gaullist government to reverse the threat of rco- nomic decline. This on the whole he was unable to do and the UNR tailed to win control of the municipality in 1971.

The economic crisis also moved the municipality to launch schcmcs to attract new industry into the town and to improve its image. The first aim led to a plan for creating new industrial zones. This issue is analysed i n terms of the conflicting interests of the owners and managers of the enginerring in- dustry, who wished to maintain the stability of the local male labour market which might be threatened by new arrivals, and of the hosiery industry. Ivhich drew mainly on female labour and thus welcomed the arrival of industries attracting or retaining a male labour force and enlarging the pool of married women needing work. The local chamber of commerce attempted to control the issue as a means ofregulating entry from outsidc the region, but the Roannc municipality pushed through a vigorous zoning policy and the cham txr was able to gain control only of two smaller zones in the surrounding communes. The second aim led to the creation of an association for the strategic planning of the town. This was a quasi-non-governmental body controlled by thc muni- cipality and local industry, bypassing the conflicts of electoral politics and hav-

Book reviewslcomptes rendus I 89

ing the ideological function of maintaining social cohesion on the town’s eco- nomic ills. Its major output, a planning document, is analysed to show the emasculation ofany criticism oflow wage levels, poor industrial infrastructure, etC.

In the general ideological sphere a project for a municipal Youth and Culture Centre is seen as an attempt by the municipality (a public ideological agency) to intervene to control or combat the ideological non-conformity of the young, evidenced amongst other things by the incidence of vandalism, juvenile crime and the existence of teenage gangs. This was necessary because of the perceived failure of the private ideological agencies previously active in the field, such asvoluntary associations and youth clubs. The Centre became the focus of a long controversy between the municipality and the associations with the mayor finally pushing through a scheme under his direct control. The last issue area studied concerns housing. The historical housing situation is successfully related to the town’s economic development, but a description Of three rccent public housing projects does not link effectively with the rest of the analysis.

There are some striking gaps and biases in the study which seem to derive directlv from Poulantzas’ work. Like Poulantzas, Biarcz et a/. are more inter- ested in rclations between different fractions of the bourgcoisie than thcy are in the class struggle. Very littlc attcntion is paid to thr situation of Roannc’s working class. The poor electoral performance of the left-wing parties is rather simply ascribed to the anti-communism of the social democrats (viewed as a bourgeois party dirccted at the working class), and to thc lack of local rele- vance of the Communists’ anti-monopoly stancc. In thc chapter on industrial zones thcrt- arc some scathing refcrcnccs to the inefficacy of workers’ protests and thc absence of strikes, but there is no developed analysis of industrial rela- tions in thc town, or of union organization or strength. The occurrence of fac- tory occupations in May 1968 is mentioned only in one throwaway scntcnce. The domination of the town’s workforce is frcquently asscrtcd but is barely descrihcd, cxcept in tho discussion of the low wages and poor conditions of the female workforce in the hosiery industry and at timcs in thc chapter on housing. In thcsc circumstances the authors’ concentration on state intcr- vention to maintain social cohesion, in the sense of maintaining a camouflage around an oppressive situation rather than maintaining the actuality of domination, seems to be a product of their restricted theoretical focus more than an empirically supported procedure. The purpose of state interven- tion to maintain social cohesion also remains obscure. If the working class are in a condition of economic and political domination then the importance ofsocial cohesion for the state is presumably lessened. Rather i t is when this domination is weakened that intervention in the ideological sphere seems most necessary and effective from the viewpoint of the hegemonic class or fraction.

But thc most serious problems raised by the Roannc study conccrn thc rcla- tionship 1)ctwccn structuralist theory and empirical rcscarch. Biarcz r t a/. are

I go Book reuiewslcomptes rendus

clearly concerned to maintain the theoretical relevance of their research. Their method of doing so entails considerable costs, however.

A preliminary point concerns their vocabulary, which relies on the extensivc repetition ofa few key terms. At times this approaches jargon, and is not n e w - sarily appropriate to the direct presentation of evidence. The terms in which questions are posed too often produce answers which consist of assertion, not ‘facts’. Secondly, although the conclusion includes a brief discussion on the typicality of the study, in the empirical chapters answers about Ruanne arc often phrased as answers about all urban communities. One consequrncr which is of considerable theoretical importance, is that no adequate account is given of the impact of political control of municipal institutions resting with working-class organizations rather than with a fraction of the bourgeoisie.

Thirdly evidence in the empirical chapters is scattered about by the theorcti- cal subdivision of the subject matter in a way which becomes anecdotal at points. I doubt if Biarez et al. have really chosen the right kind of case study approach. For structuralist theory the in-depth exploration of the logic of structural determination of the system of actors may be more relevant than a repeated assertion that they are not important. Biarez et al. seem to be so convinced ofthis unimportance that they almost seem to suppress information. Quite a detailed reading of the footnotes is necessary to find some of the evi- dence. The result of this, however, is just to leave the empirical chapters at the level ofa rather sporadic contemporary history. The discussion of the stakcs of particular groups becomes abstract, divorced from its concrete setting. Motives are ascribed theoretically rather than demonstrated. Little or no allowance is made for misperception of interests. Partly this reflects a certain paucity of evidence. Thus the written sources used are all publicly availahlc documents and no interview material is employed. I t seems odd to reject the problematic of the subject for academic analysis, but then to found an empiri- cal account of the motivations for policies and actions almost completely on what members of the bourgeoisie say in public.

Fourthly, there just is not enough empirical evidence or sufficient analysis of the evidence. The chapter on the political scene is particularly poor in this respect. Raw election figures are presented but there is no analysis of the social bases of voting. Voting trends are interpreted in terms of local economic and political factors but there is nothing to show that this is correct. For example, there is no attempt to demonstrate the conformity or deviance of Roanne from voting trends nationally or in similar areas. (In Britain Ken Newton has shown the existence of a 0.95 correlation between voting in Birmingham’s local elec- tions and movements ofnational opinion (Newton, 1976, ch. 2). One corollary of this is that the actions and policies of the local political parties have almost no effect on local voting. If the same were true of Roanne a key element would be removed from the overall account given by Biarez et al.)

Biarez et al. succeed in bridging the gap between the very general texts of structuralist marxism and the analysis of urban politics, a major achievement and one full of potential for further studies. They demonstrate how rich in

Book reviewslcomptes rendus I 9 I

explanatory power their approach could be. But because of their handling ofevidence it does not seem to me that they demonstrate that their account ofRoannc is actually the correct one. Indeed their refusal to use developed sociological techniques-such as survey research, interview material, tech- niques for analysing data or conducting decision-making research-from all ofwhich their study would have benefited, suggests that they were not much concerned with securing general acceptance for their account. Rejecting the methodology of bourgeois sociology in these circumstances seems to indicate either acute theoretical uncertainty leading to a fear of contamination, which I doubt, oran inward lookingness which amounts to methodological sectarianism. Unless one has a naive belief that theoretical purity and methodological

are intrinsically linked this does not appear to be a necessary or fruitful path. If structuralist urban sociology is to reach the wider audience it deserves, .some progress towards formulating clearer standards of evidence and more rigorous testing of propositions, i.e. towards a generalization of its methodology, is necessary. In the meantime Biarez et al. provide a notable, if flawed, contribution to the discipline.

Nu$ield Collpge, Oxford Patrick Dunleavy

Reference

Newton, K. 1976 : Second city politics. London : Oxford University Press.