Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Sociology in The Twenty First Century Key Trends Debates and Challenges Simon Susen Full Chapter PDF
Sociology in The Twenty First Century Key Trends Debates and Challenges Simon Susen Full Chapter PDF
Sociology in The Twenty First Century Key Trends Debates and Challenges Simon Susen Full Chapter PDF
https://ebookmass.com/product/the-evolution-of-horror-in-the-
twenty-first-century-lexington-books-horror-studies-simon-bacon-
editor/
https://ebookmass.com/product/governing-california-in-the-twenty-
first-century-seventh-edition/
https://ebookmass.com/product/militant-aesthetics-art-activism-
in-the-twenty-first-century-first-edition-martin-lang/
https://ebookmass.com/product/contributory-negligence-in-the-
twenty-first-century-james-goudkamp-and-donal-nolan/
Solferino 21: Warfare, Civilians and Humanitarians in
the Twenty-First Century Hugo Slim
https://ebookmass.com/product/solferino-21-warfare-civilians-and-
humanitarians-in-the-twenty-first-century-hugo-slim/
https://ebookmass.com/product/commonwealth-history-in-the-twenty-
first-century-1st-ed-edition-saul-dubow/
https://ebookmass.com/product/documentarys-expanded-fields-new-
media-and-the-twenty-first-century-documentary-jihoon-kim/
https://ebookmass.com/product/water-crime-and-security-in-the-
twenty-first-century-1st-ed-edition-avi-brisman/
https://ebookmass.com/product/tactical-publishing-using-senses-
software-and-archives-in-the-twenty-first-century-alessandro-
ludovico/
Sociology
in the
Twenty-First Century
Key Trends, Debates, and Challenges
Simon Susen
Sociology in the Twenty-First Century
Simon Susen
Sociology in the
Twenty-First Century
Key Trends, Debates, and Challenges
Simon Susen
City, University of London
London, UK
© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020
This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher, whether the
whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations,
recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or informa-
tion storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology
now known or hereafter developed.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does
not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective
laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.
The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are
believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors
give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions
that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps
and institutional affiliations.
This Palgrave Macmillan imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG.
The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland
Foreword
News of the demise of sociology comes regularly across my desk, and if not of
its death, then at least reports of life-threatening epidemics.1 In the social sci-
ences, sociology is peculiarly afflicted by the instability of its paradigms, con-
flicts over methods, and disagreements about the most basic issues. What is
the social? Are we to study individuals or whole societies? The problem is not
that sociology is a relatively new discipline. We can trace its origins to at least
the 1820s. One can identify various causes that underpin its dilemmas.
Sociology is more driven by fashions in theory than other academic disci-
plines. In the 1970s the fashions came from Germany—notably with Jürgen
Habermas, Niklas Luhmann, Hans-Georg Gadamer, Arnold Gehlen, among
others. Later we had a ‘French period’—with Michel Foucault, Jean-François
Lyotard, Jacques Derrida, Pierre Bourdieu, and Luc Boltanski. Perhaps one
peculiarity of contemporary British sociology is the absence of commanding
figures, with the exception of Anthony Giddens. By contrast, we can readily
count the many foreign academics who have brought intellectual brilliance to
our shores—Zygmunt Bauman, Norbert Elias, Ernest Gellner, Hermínio
Martins, John Rex, and more. Simon Susen draws attention to this peculiarity
of British sociology in his discussion of ‘canonicity’, illustrating how British
universities were able to recruit a generation of displaced academics, especially
(albeit not exclusively) those who were fleeing from fascism in continen-
tal Europe.
These fashions are, to some extent, fuelled by the demands of publishers for
new ideas, titles, and authors. In this regard, there is arguably at least one
more positive reason that may explain these fashion-driven episodes of insta-
bility. Over time, there are—unsurprisingly—major changes to society; soci-
ologists have to re-tool to make sense of wholly new phenomena. Technological
v
vi Foreword
changes—such as the role of social media, the use of drones in warfare and
domestic surveillance, or cloning—have demanded new concepts, theories,
and methods. Susen correctly draws attention to aspects of such changes—for
instance, in his analysis of ‘metric power’ and the transformations brought
about by the ‘digital age’. The sociological understanding of new forms of
communication and their consequences required radical changes in sociologi-
cal theories. Susen considers both problems and possibilities in his discussion
of advanced digital technologies, which are powerful research tools employed
largely outside the academic world by corporations to gather and to process
data sets for commercial and strategic reasons. Such research technologies
make traditional sociological methods look insignificant by comparison.
There are less obvious reasons for the constant fluctuations within sociol-
ogy. At least some of its problems appear to be associated with its connection
to social reform movements; hence, its concepts and theories seem to be as
much embedded in advocacy as they are in science. Through their engage-
ment with social movements and their commitment to critical and public
research and debate, sociologists have embraced working-class socialism, the
women’s movement, racial equality, decolonization, and—more recently
still—animal rights movements. These engagements brought on to the scien-
tific agenda a more or less endless cycle of commitments to good causes that
have the unintended consequences of critiques that reformulate and disrupt
existing paradigms. For example, the central concern for class, status, and
power—as basic ingredients of social structure—has been displaced by atten-
tion to gender, sexuality, and identity in contemporary sociology. One result
is a new discourse of intersectionality and positionality that displaced more
conventional approaches.
Against this background, it is perhaps only to be expected that the sociol-
ogy curriculum is constantly challenged and changed. From my own experi-
ence of teaching in North America, there was some agreement of what
constituted the foundations—Karl Marx, Max Weber, Émile Durkheim, and
Georg Simmel—but almost no agreement about what was accepted as ‘mod-
ern sociology’. Was the lecture course to be made up, for instance, of the work
of Robert N. Bellah, C. Wright Mills, Robert K. Merton, Talcott Parsons, and
Charles Tilly? Or was it constituted around European social theorists such as
Habermas, Foucault, Giddens, and Boltanski? What about W. E. B. Du Bois,
Frantz Fanon, and E. Franklin Frazier to question the ‘whiteness’ of the socio-
logical canon? What about recruiting women to challenge this array of elderly
men? My department never came up with a satisfactory solution to these
questions. There was little comfort in the realization that adjacent disciplines
(in particular, anthropology) were confronted with similar problems.
Foreword vii
the foibles of sociology, while at the same time offering new possibilities of
developing sociology in the context of global interconnectedness. He wants to
treat the crises of the discipline of sociology as opportunities for development
and growth. Postcolonial sociology and subaltern studies represent attempts
to come to grips with global interconnectedness. National sociologies (espe-
cially British and Anglo-American sociology) fail adequately to reflect these
fundamental changes to the modern worlds in which we live. Some of these
concerns were articulated by Ulrich Beck, notably in his criticisms of ‘meth-
odological nationalism’ and his notion of ‘world risk society’,8 and developed
in collaboration with the Korean sociologist Chang Kyung-Sup.9
Many attempts have been made to overcome the war of paradigms to stabi-
lize sociology around an agreed set of theories, concepts, and concerns. Yet, at
the end of the day, sociological scholarship revolves around ‘making social
science matter’.10 In the light of that goal, the quest for normality may be a
false endeavour. It is crucial to illuminate the structure of human societies in
a manner that engages us with issues that are significant and provides us with
clarity of understanding to improve the way we live. Simon Susen’s kaleido-
scopic overview of such sociological endeavours to describe important sub-
jects offers a perspective that is both challenging and rewarding. Established
scholars, as well as both undergraduate and postgraduate students, will find
the clear development of his argument, the comprehensive coverage of issues,
and the cornucopia of references an indispensable resource for further study.
ACU (Sydney, Australia) and CUNY (New York, USA) Bryan S. Turner
Notes
1. See Susen (2020).
2. Kuhn (2012 [1962]).
3. Cf. O’Neill and Turner (2001) as well as Susen and Turner (2011a).
4. See Connell (2007).
5. See, for example, Eisenstadt (2000). Cf. Susen and Turner (2011b) as well as
Turner and Susen (2011).
6. See Skinner (1951).
7. Weber (1976 [1924/1909/1896]).
8. Beck (1999).
9. Kyung-Sup (2010).
10. Flyvbjerg (2001).
x Foreword
References
Beck, Ulrich (1999) World Risk Society, Cambridge: Polity.
Connell, Raewyn (2007) Southern Theory: The Global Dynamics of Knowledge in
Social Science, Cambridge: Polity.
Eisenstadt, Shmuel Noah (2000) ‘Multiple Modernities’, Daedalus 129(1): 1–29.
Flyvbjerg, Bent (2001) Making Social Science Matter: Why Social Inquiry Fails and
How It Can Succeed Again, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kuhn, Thomas S. (2012 [1962]) The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 4th Edition,
with an introductory essay by Ian Hacking, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Kyung-Sup, Chang (2010) ‘The Second Modern Condition? Compressed Modernity
as Internalized Reflexive Cosmopolitization’, The British Journal of Sociology
61(3): 444–464.
O’Neill, John and Bryan S. Turner (2001) ‘Introduction—The Fragmentation of
Sociology’, Journal of Classical Sociology 1(1): 5–12.
Skinner, G. William (1951) ‘The New Sociology in China’, The Far Eastern Quarterly
10(4): 365–371.
Susen, Simon (2020) Sociology in the Twenty-First Century: Key Trends, Debates, and
Challenges, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Susen, Simon and Bryan S. Turner (2011a) ‘Tradition and Innovation in Classical
Sociology: Tenth Anniversary Report of JCS’, Journal of Classical Sociology
11(1): 5–13.
Susen, Simon and Bryan S. Turner (2011b) ‘Introduction to the Special Issue on
Shmuel Noah Eisenstadt’, Journal of Classical Sociology 11(3): 229–239.
Turner, Bryan S. and Simon Susen (eds.) (2011) Special Issue: Shmuel Noah Eisenstadt,
Journal of Classical Sociology 11(3): 229–335.
Weber, Max (1976 [1924/1909/1896]) The Agrarian Sociology of Ancient Civilizations,
trans. Richard Iva Frank, London: NLB.
Contents
xi
xii Contents
Conclusion343
References351
Index of Names445
Index of Subjects477
About the Author
xiii
Introduction
The main purpose of this book is to examine key trends, debates, and challenges in
twenty-first-century sociology. Interrogations regarding the nature of sociology
(‘What is sociology?’), the history of sociology (‘How has sociology evolved?’), and
the study of sociology (‘How can or should we make sense of sociology?’) have been,
and will continue to be, essential to the creation of conceptually informed, method-
ologically rigorous, and empirically substantiated research programmes in the disci-
pline. Over the past years, however, there have been numerous disputes and
controversies concerning the future of sociology. Particularly important in this respect
are recent and ongoing discussions on the possibilities of developing new—and,
arguably, post-classical—forms of sociology. The central assumption underlying most
of these projects is the contention that a comprehensive analysis of the principal chal-
lenges faced by global society requires the construction of a sociology capable of
accounting for the interconnectedness of social actors and social structures across
time and space. Exploring the significance and relevance of such an ambitious ven-
ture, this book aims to provide an overview of crucial past, present, and possible
future trends, debates, and challenges shaping the pursuit of sociological inquiry. To
this end, it is structured as follows:
xv
xvi Introduction
normative implications of this concurrence are, let alone how they should be
conceptualized and problematized. As maintained in this chapter, the rise of
postcolonial studies in the late twentieth century is indicative of the need to
grapple with these implications. Postcolonial approaches are confronted with
a twofold challenge: first, to provide a comprehensive critique of the multilay-
ered impact of colonialism on world history; and, second, to take on the task
of crafting viable visions of a genuinely postcolonial world. The chapter sug-
gests that, faced with this twofold challenge, the field of postcolonial studies
has made substantial—and, in several respects, indispensable—contributions
to the development of contemporary sociology.
Chapter 2—entitled ‘Postcoloniality and Decoloniality’—gives a brief
overview of prominent approaches associated with postcolonial studies and,
more recently, decolonial studies. The former have been profoundly shaped by
diasporic scholars from the Middle East and South Asia. The latter have been
developed, above all, by diasporic scholars from South America. Despite sig-
nificant points of divergence, the numerous frameworks situated within these
two currents of analysis are united by the ambition to take issue with
Eurocentric conceptions of history in general and of modernity in particular.
In order to demonstrate that valuable insights can be gained from these two
traditions of thought, the chapter elucidates significant contributions made
by the following thinkers: in relation to postcolonial studies, Edward Said,
Gayatri Spivak, Homi K. Bhabha, Raewyn Connell, and Boaventura de Sousa
Santos; and, in relation to decolonial studies, Aníbal Quijano, Walter
D. Mignolo, and María Lugones.
which aim to make sense of key societal developments on a global scale: (1)
the paradigm of multiple modernities, (2) the paradigm of multiculturalism,
and (3) the paradigm of cosmopolitanism. Upon closer examination, however,
it becomes apparent that these currents of thought fall short of acknowledg-
ing the role that connected histories have played, and continue to play, in
shaping the constitution of modern societies. As illustrated in this chapter, the
emergence of ‘postcolonial sociology’ and ‘subaltern studies’ reflects a serious
effort to account for the global interconnectedness of social realities.
Chapter 4—entitled ‘Globality and Connectivity’—makes a case for a con-
nectivist sociology, insisting that modernity can be regarded as a product of
multiple interconnections across the world. To the extent that we recognize
both the existence and the significance of ‘connected histories’, it becomes
possible to take seriously those ‘other histories’ that are commonly ignored by,
or relegated to the margins of, ‘Western’ collective memories. Such a connec-
tivist approach requires us to face up to the fact that the numerous behav-
ioural, ideological, and institutional patterns of functioning associated with
the historical condition called ‘modernity’—far from possessing a monolithic
origin in the cradle of European civilization—stem from a transcontinental
confluence of human practices and social structures. A truly global sociology,
while rejecting the assumption that civilizations constitute distinct and self-
sufficient entities, subverts the mainstream historical narrative according to
which, in the context of modernity, the European continent represents the
principal driving force behind, and the crucial reference point for, civiliza-
tional developments across the world. A connectivist approach, in other
words, takes issue with the separation, isolation, and hierarchization of civiliza-
tions as building blocks of human existence. Furthermore, it calls into ques-
tion (1) the historical assumption that modernity has existed as ‘only one
experience’ and (2) the sociological assumption that modernity, insofar as it is
portrayed as a largely European affair, can make a legitimate claim to ‘unique-
ness’ and ‘progressiveness’. Having exposed the fragile foundations of such an
ethnocentric perspective, it becomes feasible, if not imperative, to pursue the
methodological strategy of ‘provincializing’ Europe by deconstructing its epis-
temic claims to universality. Arguably, such an undertaking contributes to the
creation of a ‘global social science community’.
works that have shaped its disciplinary identity from the beginning of its exis-
tence. Notwithstanding the question of whether or not Karl Marx, Émile
Durkheim, and Max Weber deserve to be regarded as the ‘founding figures’ of
sociology, the far-reaching significance of their legacy is undeniable. It appears,
however, that classical sociology is characterized, at best, by a deficient engage-
ment with or, at worst, by the almost complete neglect of the wide-ranging
impact of colonialism on historical developments across the world. This omis-
sion is especially problematic to the degree that Marx, Durkheim, and Weber
have acquired the quasi-religious status of a ‘holy trinity’ in the history of
sociology. A key question that arises in this context is why some scholars have
been more successful than others in setting the agenda and shaping the canon
of their discipline. One of the most remarkable features of canon formation
in British sociology is that—to a large extent—it has been, and continues to
be, based on the works of non-British scholars. More specifically, it is charac-
terized by a curious paradox: non-Anglocentric Anglocentrism. While it has
offered a domestic framework to an impressively large number of non-British
scholars, it has greatly contributed to the hegemonic influence of Anglophone
sociology—not only in Europe, but across the world. Canon formation in
sociology is marked by an asymmetrical distribution of power, as is particu-
larly evident in the field of social theory, which suffers from the ‘white-theory-
boys syndrome’. In mainstream sociology, theoretical debates tend to be
dominated by privileged, white/Western, male, middle- or old-aged, and
highly educated experts. Irrespective of this socio-epistemic inequality, sociol-
ogy still provides a safe home for scholars from adjacent disciplines.
Chapter 6—entitled ‘Canonicity and Exclusivity’—contends that intellec-
tual canons in mainstream sociology have systematically excluded, and effec-
tively silenced, non-white scholars. A salient example of academic
marginalization processes based on ethnicity is the sidelining of ‘African American
Pioneers of Sociology’—notably W. E. B. Du Bois, E. Franklin Frazier, and
Oliver Cromwell Cox. Through processes of canon formation, it is decided
who is, and who is not, allowed to set the (implicit or explicit) rules underly-
ing social mechanisms of inclusion and exclusion at work in the academic
field. As posited in this chapter, the broadening of a canon may require its
deconstruction, thereby exposing the relatively arbitrary criteria by means of
which scholars and research traditions are included in, or excluded from,
hegemonic processes and structures of knowledge production. It is, to say the
least, an irony that Western discourses of emancipation gained intellectual
currency in the ‘Old World’ at the same time as slavery was being instituted
in the ‘New World’. The serious implications of this matter are hardly ever
explored, let alone problematized, by mainstream Western sociologists. The
Introduction xix
be defined as the belief that the current era constitutes a historical stage that
is not only fundamentally different from previous ones, but also qualitatively
unique and unprecedented, reflecting a radical break with prior forms of soci-
etal existence. The chapter draws attention to central issues arising in the face
of epochalism, particularly with regard to its reductionist implications—such
as the simplistic juxtaposition between ‘past’ and ‘present’, the proliferation of
sweeping statements concerning allegedly ‘new’ developments, and the incon-
gruity between theoretical and empirical accounts of temporality. The chapter
defends the claim that, as critical sociologists, we need to distinguish between
objective, normative, and subjective dimensions influencing both realities and
narratives of development in general and of change in particular. Informed by
the preceding reflections on the nature of historical analysis in sociological
inquiry, the chapter goes on to give an overview of both the merits and the
pitfalls of Parsonian versions of evolutionism and neo-evolutionism. Parsonian
sociology has been largely sidelined in the contemporary social sciences. Given
its influence on the development of sociology, this seems hardly justified,
especially when considering the question of whether or not it is possible to
provide a non-Eurocentric understanding of modernity. The chapter discusses
the possibility of developing a ‘middle position’ between Eurocentric univer-
salism and anti-Eurocentric relativism, focusing on the epistemic benefits
gained from such a venture.
both negative and positive trends affecting the discipline’s development. The
chapter concludes by proposing a tentative outline of the crucial issues upon
which contemporary sociologists can, and should, focus when defending the
value and importance of their discipline.
realities in the national contexts of both ‘the colonized’ and ‘the colonizers’—
that is, in a global universe characterized by a profoundly asymmetrical divi-
sion of power. Notwithstanding the question of which particular stance in
relation to this issue one may wish to defend, a key challenge consists in
exploring the actual (or at least the potential) usefulness of postcolonial stud-
ies ‘for reorienting sociological theory and research’.3 Before fleshing out the
main facets of this task, it is imperative to scrutinize the motivational back-
ground to this endeavour, by reflecting on the historical context in which
sociology emerged and succeeded in establishing itself as one of the most
prominent disciplines in the social sciences.
In this respect, two events that took place in the past centuries are of para-
mount significance:
1. The ‘violent imperial expansion of the European and Anglo-American
states’4 across the world in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, particu-
larly in Africa and Asia, constitutes a large-scale conglomerate of historical
processes generally described as colonization and associated with the era of
colonialism. The acquisition, establishment, and maintenance of colonies
entail the systematic exploitation of territories and populations by foreign
powers. By definition, colonialism represents a form of imperialism, to the
extent that it sets up an unequal relationship between ‘the colonizers’ and
‘the colonized’—that is, between an exogenous and oppressive force and an
indigenous and oppressed population. ‘Beginning in the late nineteenth and
continuing through the early twentieth century, powerful states like
England, France, Germany, the USA, Belgium, Italy, and others mounted
new territorial assaults upon Africa and Asia, creating what has become
known as the period of “high imperialism”.’5 Indeed, it took only a few
decades for ‘modern colonial empires’6 to rule almost ‘all of the globe’7 and
thereby spread their imperial wings to exercise their hegemonic power over
the political, cultural, ideological, linguistic, economic, military, demo-
graphic, and territorial organization of foreign lands and regions.
2. Shortly after the end of World War II in 1945, a historically significant
process commenced, which continued through the 1960s: decolonization.
This tension-laden dynamic was characterized by ‘imperial retrenchment
and decline’8 and, consequently, by ‘the dismantling of those very same
colonial empires that had been expanding previously’.9 To be sure, this
period did not necessarily signal the end of imperialism; rather, it indicated
the transformation of the international division of power into a global
system in which the label ‘colony’ and the reality of ‘colonialism’ were no
longer ideologically defensible, but in which transnational structures of
1 Postcoloniality and Sociology 5
• In relation to the former point, it is worth stressing that sociology came into
existence ‘during the first moment—the age of high imperialism—in the late
nineteenth and early twentieth centuries’.14 In fact, given the allegedly
Eurocentric outlook of its classical variants, one may claim that sociology
was largely complicit in fostering the spirit of epistemic imperialism.
Notwithstanding the question of whether the ‘founding figures’ of the dis-
cipline reinforced or undermined, reproduced or transformed, advocated
or criticized, supported or subverted, sympathized with or distanced them-
selves from Western forms of imperialism, large parts of social-scientific
research—especially to the extent that it involved comparative historical
analysis—‘depended on knowledge of the Other’15 acquired through
European expansion across the world. Some of the central issues with
which classical sociology was grappling were inextricably linked to the mul-
tiple material and symbolic manifestations of imperialism that were present
6 S. Susen
in both the colonizing and the colonized countries in the nineteenth and
early twentieth centuries.16
• In relation to the latter point, it is hard to deny that ‘sociology’s engagement
with the issues surrounding the second moment of postcoloniality remains
obscure’.17 Indeed, while sociology has produced an eclectic body of research
on both the constitution and the various normative implications of ‘the
new imperialism’,18 it is far from obvious to what degree it has provided an
adequate analysis, let alone a comprehensive assessment, of both the reality
and the consequences of decolonization, epitomized in the historical condi-
tion of postcoloniality and expressed in the rise of postcolonial studies. Owing
to this deficient engagement with one of the most fundamental aspects of
the modern world, the concern with the role of postcoloniality in shaping
the course of history has been taken more seriously in recent years, leading
to fruitful debates and controversies in contemporary sociology.19
• The ‘first wave’ of postcolonial studies emerged in the 1950s and 1960s,
shaped by intellectuals such as Aimé Césaire (1913–2008),21 Albert Memmi
(1920–),22 Frantz Fanon (1925–1961),23 and Steven Biko (1946–1977).24
• The ‘second wave’ of postcolonial studies emerged from the 1970s onwards,
shaped by intellectuals such as Edward Said (1935–2003),25 Gayatri Spivak
(1942–),26 and Homi K. Bhabha (1949–).27
dominant ideologies, they run the risk of being defused in a way that renders
them toothless, implying that they may be reduced to serving a decorative,
rather than transformative, function in the construction, and constant recon-
struction, of interconnected and interdependent societies.
Hence, postcolonialism faces a twofold normative challenge:
1. Agency
In modern social theory, the concept of agency has been a key issue of conten-
tion, illustrating the impact of underlying epistemic presuppositions on con-
temporary understandings of the human subject. In a traditional sense, agency
may be regarded as a privilege of human beings, given that, presumably, they
are the only creatures in the world capable of speech, reflection, and self-
justification. As such, they are able to engage in symbolically mediated
1 Postcoloniality and Sociology 11
interactions and to provide reasons for their actions, as illustrated in the pur-
posive power of their Verstand, the normative power of their Vernunft, and the
evaluative power of their Urteilskraft.64 What traditional social theory has
failed to deliver, however, is a typology of agency.65 Such a conceptual endeav-
our would need to take on the investigative challenge of identifying and
examining crucial forms of agency, such as the following:
that these (and other) capacities are conditioned by people’s unequally distrib-
uted access to socially relevant resources, by means of which they manage, or
fail, to take control of their own destiny.
Far from being reducible to a scholastic exercise of intellectual speculation,
the point of rendering subaltern forces ‘agentic’68 is to demonstrate that such
an endeavour ‘does offer insights on questions of agency’69—notably in terms
of postcolonial subjects’ ability to liberate themselves ‘in the face of perpetual
Western power’,70 by emancipating themselves from their putative depen-
dence upon exogenous forces that appear to determine the scope of the pos-
sibilities, and limitations, of their everyday lives.
Such a project, however, rejects ‘any naïve romanticization of subaltern
agency’71 by acknowledging the tension-laden—and, in many ways, contradic-
tory—nature of all individual and collective processes oriented towards the
construction of emancipatory life forms. An undertaking of this kind aims to
provide a comprehensive picture of global society by ‘excavating non-Western
voices and perspectives so as to give voice to voices which had been previously
repressed or ignored’.72 The corresponding paradigmatic shift from a ‘history
from above’ to a ‘history from below’73 is motivated by the conviction that it is
essential to conceive of ‘the subaltern as the maker of his [or her] own des-
tiny’,74 thereby shedding light on, and taking seriously, ‘the contributions made
by the people on their own, that is, independently of the elite’.75 Such a profound
shift in emphasis can be realized only by moving away from the ‘universalist
histories of capital’,76 the nation-state, the rational subject, and other forces
whose presumed significance is captured in specific metanarratives.
‘Refusing to reduce difference to historical time (i.e. rendering peasants
“backwards”) or Orientalist categories (the peasant as “irrational”), it sought
alternative ways of thinking about, and representing, subaltern subjects.’77 On
this account, subaltern agency has to be recognized, and scrutinized, in terms
of its historical specificity, without reducing it to an epiphenomenon of a
teleologically determined history. Following this approach, the subaltern is
not only able to speak but also, crucially, able to speak for itself—that is, on its
own behalf and, thus, without being patronized by exogenous voices legiti-
mized to represent, or to misrepresent, it. This horizon-broadening endeavour
permits us to render visible the limits of subaltern agency as well as ‘the limits
of the West’s own agency’.78 Even if one comes to the conclusion that—owing
to its complexity, heterogeneity, and irreducibility, which can hardly be cap-
tured by Western categories of objectifying scrutiny—the subaltern cannot be
adequately represented,79 a critical sociology of both local and global struggles
needs to contribute to equipping marginalized actors with a sense of material
and symbolic re-empowerment. In order to accomplish this, it has to draw
1 Postcoloniality and Sociology 13
2. Binaries
In contemporary social theory, the role of binaries has been a central issue of
controversy, implying that even those who are highly critical of them acknowl-
edge their impact upon concept-formation and system-building in modern
intellectual thought. Irrespective of whether one focuses on ‘relations between
colonizer and colonized, metropole and colony, center and periphery’,89
debates on both colonial and postcolonial societies are profoundly marked by
binaries, which are referred to as ‘dichotomies’, ‘antinomies’, ‘oppositions’, or
‘dualisms’.90 Undoubtedly, the question of the extent to which conceptual
divisions in the social sciences serve a useful function remains a subject of
contention.91 From a Bourdieusian point of view, ‘[o]f all the oppositions that
artificially divide social science, the most fundamental, and the most ruinous,
is the one that is set up between subjectivism and objectivism’.92 From a post-
colonial perspective, of all the oppositions that erroneously divide social sci-
ence, the most crucial, and the most damaging, is the one that is constructed
between ‘the West’ and ‘the Rest’. In both theoretical and practical terms, this
antinomy is detrimental in that it prevents not only critical researchers but
also ordinary actors from comprehending the degree to which ‘identities,
institutions, spaces, or places that might be deemed separate were in fact con-
nected, intertwined, and mutually constituted’.93
3. Hegemony
In the contemporary social sciences, the power of hegemony has been exam-
ined and discussed from different perspectives and in relation to diverse his-
torical contexts. The question of which individual or collective actors have the
upper hand in setting behavioural, ideological, and institutional agendas
remains a concern of paramount importance in critical sociology. The ques-
tion of the extent to which sociology has taken, and continues to take, an
imperial standpoint—thereby reinforcing, rather than undermining, the hege-
mony of ‘the West’—remains controversial. Regardless of whether or not one
comes to the conclusion that sociology, in one way or another, takes an impe-
rial standpoint, the accusation stands that it is guilty of a substantial degree of
complicity in terms of stabilizing, rather than subverting, the hegemonic influ-
ence of Western powers across the globe.
16 S. Susen
a. that ‘the understanding of the world by far exceeds the Western under-
standing of the world’,111 implying that symbolically mediated horizons of
vocabularies, grammars, and pragmatics must be grasped, and studied, in
terms of their particularity, heterogeneity, and irreducibility;
b. that ‘there is no global social justice without global cognitive justice’,112
meaning that issues of rightness, fairness, and integrity constitute funda-
mental aspects of everyday normativity, whose socio-ontological centrality
is expressed in the quotidian exchange of value-laden claims to validity;
c. that ‘the emancipatory transformations in the world may follow grammars
and scripts other than those developed by Western-centric critical theory,
and such diversity should be valorized’,113 suggesting that processes of
empowerment and mechanisms of disempowerment are embedded in local
contexts, whose sociohistorical specificity is irreducible to the overarching
logic of species-constitutive universality.
The aforementioned dichotomy between ‘the West’ and ‘the Rest’ is con-
verted into a normative antinomy between ‘advanced’ and ‘backward’, thereby
establishing a hierarchy between ‘superior’ and ‘inferior’ players in the global
division of power. The result is the self-legitimizing construction of an
imperial(ist) standpoint, whose seizure of epistemic power is reflected in its
capacity to exercise hegemonic influence on the production and distribution
of knowledge across the globe by inferiorizing, trivializing, marginalizing, or
simply ignoring ‘non-Western’ modes of relating and attributing meaning to
reality.119
The question remains, then, what role sociology can, or should, play in
these local and global struggles for epistemic influence and recognition. In
this respect, two (diametrically opposed) options stand out:
Notes
1. Go (2013a), p. 3 (italics added). Cf. Go (2016).
2. Go (2013a), p. 3.
3. Ibid., p. 3.
4. Ibid., p. 3.
5. Ibid., p. 3 (italics added).
6. Ibid., p. 3.
7. Ibid., p. 4.
8. Ibid., p. 4.
9. Ibid., p. 4.
10. This view is forcefully expressed in the concepts of ‘neoimperialism’ and
‘neocolonialism’. On the concept of ‘(neo-) imperialism’, see, for instance:
Brewer (1990 [1980]); Bush (2006); Etherington (1984); Mommsen (1980
[1977]); Mommsen and Osterhammel (1986); Noonan (2017); Semmel
(1993). On the concept of ‘(neo-) colonialism’, see, for instance: Crozier
(1964); Jarrett (1996); Ngũgı ̃ (1986); Nkrumah (1965); Sartre (2001
[1964]); Vidyarthi (1988); Woddis (1967).
11. Go (2013a), p. 4.
12. Ibid., p. 4.
13. Ibid., p. 4.
14. Ibid., p. 4 (italics added).
15. Ibid., p. 4.
16. On this point, see, for example: Connell (1997); Giddings (1911); Go
(2013b); Steinmetz (2009). See also Go (2013a), p. 4.
17. Go (2013a), p. 4 (italics added).
1 Postcoloniality and Sociology 19
18. Ibid., p. 4.
19. On this point, see, for instance: Bhambra (2007a); Bhambra (2013);
Bhambra (2014a); Bhambra et al. (2014); Brisson (2008); Brisson (2018);
Chakrabarty (2003); Connell (2014); Cooper (2005); Dainotto (2007);
Decoteau (2013); Go (2013a); Go (2013b); Hoogvelt (2001 [1997]);
Kerner (2012); Kerner (2018); Lionnet and Shi (2011); McLennan (2013);
Mouzelis (1999); Patel (2014); Persaud and Walker (2015); Santos (2014);
Steinmetz (2009); Steinmetz (2013).
20. See Go (2013a), p. 4. See also, for instance: Young (2001); Young (2003);
Young (2004 [1990]). Cf. Go (2016), esp. Chapter 1.
21. See, for example, Césaire (1970 [1955]).
22. See, for example, Memmi (2003 [1957]).
23. See, for example, Fanon (2004 [1961]).
24. See, for example, Zephaniah (2001) [see poem entitled ‘Biko The Greatness’].
25. See, for example, Said (1978).
26. See, for example, Spivak (1988).
27. See, for example, Bhabha (1994).
28. On this point, see Go (2013a), p. 4.
29. For an excellent critique of this project, see, for example, Allen (2016). See
also, for instance, Wolff (1994).
30. Go (2013a), p. 5.
31. Ibid., p. 5.
32. On the concepts of ‘the Global North’ and ‘the Global South’, see, for example:
Blumberg and Cohn (2016); Chant and McIlwaine (2009); Chant and
McIlwaine (2016); Collyer (2018); Collyer et al. (2018); Confraria et al.
(2017); Farran and Hultin (2016); Green and Luehrmann (2017 [2003]);
Hooks (2016); Horner and Nadvi (2018); Jackson et al. (2016); Mahler
(2018); Mayer-Ahuja (2017); Miller (2013); Miraftab and Kudva (2014);
Pradella (2017); Rigg (2007); Wieringa and Sívori (2013).
33. Spivak (1990), p. 166 (quotation modified). See also Go (2013a), p. 6.
34. On this point, see Susen (2014c) and Susen (2016c).
35. Go (2013a), p. 6.
36. Ibid., p. 6.
37. Ibid., p. 6.
38. Ibid., p. 6.
39. Young (2003), p. 4 (quotation modified). On this point, see also Go
(2013a), p. 6.
40. Go (2013a), p. 6.
41. Ibid., p. 6 (italics added) (quotation modified).
42. On the relationship between postcoloniality and intersectionality, see, for exam-
ple: Banerjee and Ghosh (2018); Bartels et al. (2019); Brah and Phoenix
(2004); Kerner (2017); Mirza (2009); Mollett (2017); Radcliffe (2015), esp.
20 S. Susen
86. On this point, see, for example: Armitage (2007); Brisson (2018); Bush
(2006); Chakrabarty (2000); Chakrabarty (2003); Chatterjee (1993); Go
(2013a), esp. p. 13; Moraña et al. (2008); Skocpol (1979).
87. Go (2013a), p. 14 (italics added).
88. On this point, see Chaps. 3 and 4. See also, for example: Bhambra (2007a);
Bhambra (2013); Bhambra (2014a); Fanon (2004 [1961]); Memmi (2003
[1957]).
89. Go (2013a), p. 15.
90. On this point, see Jenks (1998).
91. On this point, see, for example, Susen (2007), esp. pp. 18 and 149.
92. Bourdieu (1990 [1980]), p. 25. See also original publication: Bourdieu
(1980a), p. 43: ‘De toutes les oppositions qui divisent artificiellement la sci-
ence sociale, la plus fondamentale, et la plus ruineuse, est celle qui s’établit
entre le subjectivisme et l’objectivisme’. On this point, see also, for example:
Mouzelis (2000); Susen (2007), pp. 149–157 and 239–240; Susen (2011a),
pp. 456–458; Susen (2011c), pp. 368, 374, and 394; Susen (2011e),
pp. 51–53 and 73–74; Susen (2014d), pp. 679, 690, and 763n569; Susen
(2016a), pp. 45–47 and 104; Susen (2017a), pp. 139–141 and 146.
93. Go (2013a), p. 15 (italics added).
94. Ibid., pp. 3, 10, 14, 15, 17, 22, and 23. On this point, see also Go (2013c).
95. Go (2013a), p. 15.
96. Ibid., p. 15.
97. Ibid., p. 15.
98. On this point, see also, for example: Bhambra (2007a); Bhambra (2013);
Bhambra (2014a); Bhambra (2015); Bhambra et al. (2014); Boatcă (2013);
Boatcă and Costa (2010); Boatcă et al. (2010).
99. See, for example: Craib (1997); Giddens (1996 [1971]); Hawthorn (1987
[1976]); Morrison (2006 [1995]); Sayer (1991). See also Susen (2015a),
pp. 11, 12, 236, and 248. In addition, see Susen and Turner (2011a).
100. Go (2013a), p. 15. On this point, see Seidman (2013).
101. Go (2013a), p. 15 (italics added). On this point, see also Go (2013b).
102. Go (2013a), p. 15. On this point, see also Stoler (1995). Cf. Foucault (1978
[1976]), Foucault (1979 [1975]), Foucault (1980), Foucault (1988),
Foucault (1988 [1984]), Foucault (1997 [1984]), Foucault (2001 [1961]),
Foucault (2002 [1966]), and Foucault (2002 [1969]).
103. Go (2013a), p. 16 (italics in original).
104. Ibid., p. 17.
105. Ibid., p. 17 (italics in original).
106. Ibid., p. 17.
107. Ibid., p. 17 (italics in original).
108. See, for example: Alexander et al. (2002); Alexander and Keiger (2002);
Windrow (1997).
109. See Go (2013a), p. 17.
1 Postcoloniality and Sociology 23
Prichard was evidently well known and well liked at the Greenwich
Country Club. He had no difficulty in making up a foursome from among
the crowd clustered about the first tee. Rodrigo was introduced to a Mr.
Bryon and a Mr. Sisson, men of about Pritchard's own age and standing. The
latter and his guest teamed against the two other men at a dollar a hole.
Rodrigo was quite aware that the eyes of the other three players were
critically upon him as he mounted the tee. He made a special effort to drive
his first ball as well as possible. He had learned golf at Oxford and was a
good player. But he had not hit a ball for months and was uncertain how the
lay-off and the strange clubs he was using would affect his game. However,
he got off a very respectable drive straight down the fairway and was
rewarded by the approbation of his mates.
After the first few holes, in which Rodrigo more than held his own, the
other developed a more friendly and natural attitude toward the titled
foreigner. Rodrigo, due to his English training, his predilection for
Americans like Terhune at Oxford, and his previous visit to the States,
together with his unaffectedness and adaptability, had few of the marked
unfamiliar characteristics of the Latin. Soon he was accepted on a free and
easy footing with the others. He laughed and chaffed with them and had a
very good time indeed.
Warren Pritchard took golf too seriously to derive much diversion out of
it. The money involved did not mean anything to him, but he was the sort of
intensely ambitious young American who always strove his utmost to do
even the most trivial things well. He whooped with childish joy at
extraordinary good shots by either himself or Rodrigo. At the end of the
match, which the Dorning representatives won by a substantial margin, he
congratulated the Italian heartily and uttered an enthusiastic tribute to his
game. Pritchard seemed more at home with average, go-getting Americans
like Bryon and Sisson than he had with the Dornings, Rodrigo thought. On
the way back from the links, they post-mortemed the match gayly. Warren
Pritchard, who had been inclined to look a little askance at first at his
brother-in-law's rather exotic acquaintance, was now ready to concede
Rodrigo was very much all right.
Having taken a shower and changed his clothes, Rodrigo came down and
pulled up a chair beside Henry Dorning on the front piazza. Alice had at the
last moment joined John in his ride over to the Fernalds, it seemed, and
Warren was down at the stables talking with the caretaker of the estate.
Henry Dorning remarked pleasantly that John and Alice had not returned
as yet but would doubtless be back any moment. "I am somewhat worried
about John," the elderly man continued. "He is not so very strong, you know,
and he applies himself altogether too steadily to business. He tells me that
you are rapidly taking hold and are of great assistance to him already." He
looked intently at Rodrigo, as if debating with himself whether or not to
make a confidant of him. Then he asked quietly, "You like my son very
much, do you not?"
"You are a man of the world. You can see for yourself that John's
development has been—well, rather one-sided. It is largely my own fault, I
admit. He has been reared upon Dorning and Son from the cradle. But there
are other things in life. He has no predilection whatever, for instance, for
feminine society. Oh, he adores his sister and he mingles with women and
girls we know. But he takes no especial interest in any of them except Alice.
That is wrong. Women can do a lot toward developing a man. They can do a
lot of harm to a man, too, but that has to be risked. A man has not reached
real maturity until he has been violently in love at least once. He does not
acquire the ability to look upon life as a whole until he has been through
that. Of that I am quite convinced."
Had John told his father of Rodrigo's former career of philandering? The
Italian wondered. Then he decided that John was no tale-bearer. Henry
Dorning must have deduced from his guest's general air of sophistication and
his aristocratic extraction that he was worldly wise.
The elder Dorning went on, "I have sometimes wondered what will
happen to John when he has his first love affair. Because sooner or later it
will happen, and it will be all the more violent because of its long
postponement. And the girl is quite likely to be of the wrong sort. I can
imagine an unscrupulous, clever woman setting out deliberately to ensnare
my son for his money and succeeding very handily. He is utterly
inexperienced with that type of woman. He believes they are all angels.
That's how much he knows about them. He is so much the soul of honor
himself that, though he has developed a certain shrewdness in business
matters, in the affairs of the heart he is an amateur.
"Yes, I told you he crossed with us," John replied. "I understand he has
bought a building on Forty-Seventh Street, a converted brown-stone front
and intends opening up an antique shop very soon."
John frowned. "I wish he hadn't bothered you about that. He is such a
nervous, irritating little man. He could just as well have come to me, and you
wouldn't have been annoyed."
"I didn't mind. And you needn't either, John. I got in touch with Bates
and he is taking care of the whole matter. We can both dismiss it from our
minds." Emerson Bates was the Dornings' very efficient and very expensive
lawyer. Mr. Dorning smiled reminiscently. "Rosner was always such a fretty,
worried type, as you say. I tried diplomatically to dissuade him from
attempting a big undertaking such as he is in for. He hasn't the temperament
or the business ability to swing it. If anything goes wrong, he is liable to
suffer a nervous breakdown or worse. This failure in London nearly did for
him for a while, I understand. And he tells me he married over there, and
they have two small children. Such men should be kept out of large business
undertakings. They aren't built for it."
"And yet you advanced him fifteen thousand dollars," John smiled
affectionately at his father. He knew this white-haired man's weakness for
helping others. He had inherited it himself.
"Well, Rosner was with me quite a while at the shop. He is getting along
in years now, and he is fearfully anxious to make a success. We old chaps
have to stick together, you know."
CHAPTER VII
When Rodrigo reached his office the next morning, his exasperatingly
efficient spinster secretary had long since opened his mail and had the
letters, neatly denuded of their envelopes, upon his desk. That is, all but one.
She had evidently decided that this one was of too private a nature for her to
tamper with. The envelope was pale pink and exuded a faint feminine scent.
It was addressed in the scrawly, infantile hand of Sophie Binner and was
postmarked Montreal. Rodrigo fished it out of the pile of business
communications, among which it stood out like a chorus girl at a Quaker
meeting, and, breaking the seal, read it:
Dearest Rod,
Your loving
SOPHIE.
Rodrigo smiled wryly as he folded up the letter and slipped it into his
pocket. He had received scores of such communications from Sophie. He
had been used to replying to them in kind. He had seldom been temperate in
his letters to her. He rather prided himself upon the amount of nonsense he
was able to inject into plain black ink. That had been the trouble in the case
of his billets doux to Rosa Minardi.
But he was not thinking of Rosa at the present moment. It had occurred
to him that some use might be made of the invitation in the pink letter in
connection with the promise he had made to Henry Dorning to broaden
John's horizon. By Jove, he would take up Sophie's suggestion for a party on
the night of the New York opening of the Christy Revue. He would invite
John and another of Sophie's kind to accompany them. Pretty, thrill-seeking
Sophie—she was certainly a great little horizon-broadener. And he would
leave it to her to pick from the Christy company another coryphee of similar
lightsomeness.
He resolved to set the ball rolling at once and, the rest of his mail unread,
rose and started into the neighboring office. Opening the door of John's
sanctum, he stopped for a moment to view the tableau inside.
Two blond heads were bent absorbedly over a letter on John's desk, a
man's and a woman's. They were talking in low voices, and Mary Drake's
pencil was rapidly underscoring certain lines in the letter. She was advancing
an argument in her soft, rapid voice, evidently as to how the letter should be
answered. John was frowning and shaking his head.
Rodrigo, standing watching them, wondered why they were not in love
with each other. Here was the sort of woman John needed for a wife. Though
he could not catch her exact words, he gathered that she was trying to
influence him to answer this letter in much more decided fashion than he had
intended. That was Mary Drake all over. Thoroughly business-like,
aggressive, looking after John's interests, bucking him up at every turn. That
was the trouble as far as love was concerned. John regarded her as a very
efficient cog in the office machinery rather than as a woman. And yet she
was very much of a woman. Underneath the veneer of almost brusqueness,
there was a tender stratum, as Rodrigo thought he had discovered in her
unguarded moments. Love could be awakened in Mary Drake by the right
man, and it would be a very wonderful sort of love.
"Don't let me drive you away, Mary," Rodrigo said in a genial voice.
"You're not. I was just going anyway." She turned to Dorning. "Then I'll
write Mr. Cunningham we cannot take care of him until he pays for the other
consignment?"
She enjoyed her little triumph. "Don't worry, John. I know Mr.
Cunningham, and he's no person to be treated with silk gloves on." And she
hurried into her office and closed the door behind her. In an instant they
heard the hurried clack of her typewriter.
"John, I can't tell you how much I enjoyed that little visit with your
folks," Rodrigo began sincerely.
John beamed. "That's fine. And I can tell you they liked you too."
Rodrigo continued, "Maybe I'm to have the chance soon to repay you in
some small measure. Do you remember Sophie Binner, the English actress
we met on the ship coming over? The pretty blonde we walked around the
deck with?" After a slight pause, John concluded he did.
Rodrigo produced the little pink missive from his pocket and flourished
it. "Well, Sophie has invited you and me to a party the night her show opens
here in town. A week from to-night. It will be a nice, lively time. You'll like
it. Shall I answer her it's a date?"
Perhaps John agreed with him. Perhaps it was merely the eagerness in
Rodrigo's voice that swung him. At least he finally concluded, "You're right.
We have been sticking pretty close. I'll be glad to come along, though the
girls will probably find me a bit slow."
"Nonsense," cried Rodrigo, and slapped his friend lustily on the back.
"That's fine," he added. "I'll write Sophie directly."
Falling into an old habit, he started the letter "Dearest Sophie" almost
subconsciously and he used rather intimate language, without paying much
heed to what he was doing. He would rather like to see Sophie again and
bask in her effulgence for a few hours. But as she would be merely the
means of carrying out his and Henry Dorning's purpose, he excused himself.
There would be none of the old thrill in flattering her in ink, he feared, as he
sat down to write her. Yet he surprised himself with the warmth he worked
up in the letter to her.
"COME ON OUTSIDE AND I'LL SHOW YOU HOW MUCH OF A
SHEIK YOU ARE," SNARLED HIS ANTAGONIST.
He received an immediate reply from her. She was tickled as pink as her
note-paper, he gathered. He wrote her two more notes, even more
affectionate than the first—one had to pretend to be mad over Sophie or she
would lose interest at once—and was rewarded with many long, scrawled
pages telling of joy over their coming meeting, the selection of one Betty
Brewster as "a great sport and a neat little trick" as the fourth member of the
party, complaints about Christy and the neutral reception the show had
received in Canada.
Rodrigo's face fell. But his first feeling of irritation and disappointment
passed quickly. John was so frankly mortified. He had so completely
forgotten all about Sophie. It was almost funny. Rodrigo said, "Can't you put
off your trip? Sophie will be very much disappointed."
Rodrigo shrugged. "Well, I dare say I can patch it up with Sophie. We'll
make it some other time. I'll give her a ring later and call it off for to-night."
"Oh, don't worry, old boy. I'll fix it up. You just go right ahead down to
Philadelphia, and bring home that contract. Business before pleasure, you
know."
But, around six o'clock, Rodrigo wondered if that were such an excellent
motto after all. He had been too busy all day to call Sophie. Dorning and Son
closed at five o'clock, and he was all alone there now in the deserted quasi-
mausoleum. Mary Drake, who was usually a late worker, had left in the
middle of the afternoon, because her mother was not feeling well. Now that
the party with Sophie was definitely off and he had nothing but a long
lonesome evening to look forward to, Rodrigo had a feeling of
disappointment. He had been working hard and faithfully for three months,
and he had been looking forward to this evening of pleasure. He deserved it,
by Jove.
On an impulse, he located Bill Terhune's telephone number and picked
up the instrument. Waiting while the bell buzzed, he told himself that
Terhune had probably long since left his office. He half guiltily hoped the
former Oxonian had. But Terhune's familiar voice smote his ear with a bull-
like "Hullo!"
"Fine! Great!" fairly shouted Terhune. "I'll call my wife up and tell her
I've dropped dead or something."
"Sure. All architects have to get married. It gives them the necessary
standing of respectability that gets the business. I even live in Jersey. Think
of that, eh? Don't worry about my wife. I can fix it up. She's used to having
me stay in town over-night, and has gotten tired of asking questions. I'll
bring the liquor, too. What's that? Oh, sure—we need liquor. This Binner
baby's a regular blotter, if I remember her rightly. I've got a stock right here
in the office. Good stuff too. I'll meet you in the lobby of the Envoy. I'll take
a room there for the night. What's that? Oh, no—couldn't think of staying at
your place. You know me, Rod—what would your cultured neighbors say,
eh? Don't forget now—lobby of the Envoy at six-thirty. I'll dash right around
there now and book a room."
Bill Terhune had already registered at the plush-lined Hotel Envoy and
was waiting at the desk, key in one hand and a suitcase in the other, when
Rodrigo walked in. Terhune was bigger, especially around the waistline, and
more red-faced than ever, Rodrigo saw at a glance. The waiting man
greeting the Italian with a lusty roar, bred on the broad Dakota prairies, that
could be heard all around the decorous, palm-decorated lobby.
"Well, well," Bill rumbled, "who would have thought the Count would
have come to this, eh? But say, boy, I'm sure glad to see you. Come up and
have a drink. Hey, bellboy! Grab that bag, will you, and be very careful with
it too. It contains valuable glassware."
Up in the twelfth floor room which Bill had hired for the night at a
fabulous stipend, the American at once dispatched the bellboy for ice,
glasses, and White Rock. Then he disrobed, sputtered in the shower-bath for
a few minutes, rubbed himself a healthy pink and dressed in his dinner
clothes, which he had brought along in his bag.
"Always keep them at the office," he chuckled. "I can't tell when I might
have an emergency call." He poured bootleg Scotch into the glasses and
rocked the ice around with a spoon.
"How do you get away with it, Bill?" Rodrigo asked, smiling. "I thought
American wives were regular tyrants."
"That's how much you foreigners know," scoffed Bill. "All women love
my type. You can always keep their love by keeping them wondering. That's
my system—I keep my wife wondering whether I'm coming home or not."
He handed Rodrigo a full glass with a flourish. "To good old Oxford," he
toasted with mock reverence. Rodrigo echoed the toast.
The Italian refused another drink a few minutes later, though his action
did not discourage Terhune from tossing off another. In fact, the genial Bill
had three more before he agreed that they had better eat dinner if they
wished to make the Christy Revue by the time the curtain rose. Rodrigo did
not fancy Bill's taking on an alcoholic cargo that early in the evening. Bill
was a nice fellow, but he was the sort of chronic drinker who, though long
habit should have made him almost impervious to the effects of liquor,
nevertheless always developed a mad desire to fight the whole world after
about the fifth imbibing.
They descended in the elevator, Bill chattering all the while about his
pleasure at seeing his old friend again and about the extreme hazards of the
architect business in New York. A small concern like his didn't have a
chance, according to Bill. The business was all in the hands of large
organizations who specialized in specific branches of construction, like
hotels, residences, restaurants and churches, and made money by starving
their help.
After dinner the two men made jerky, halting taxicab progress through
the maelstrom of theatre-bound traffic and reached their seats at the Times
Square Theatre over half an hour late. The house was filled with the usual
first-night audience of friends of the company, critics, movie stars, society
people, chronic first-nighters, men and women about town, and
stenographers admitted on complimentary tickets given them by their bosses.
It was a well-dressed, lively crowd, and one that was anxious to be very kind
to the show. In spite of this, Rodrigo was quite sure by the middle of the first
act that the revue wouldn't do. It was doomed to the storehouse, he feared.
The girls were of the colorless English type, comparing not at all with the
hilariously healthy specimens one found in the American musical comedies.
Christy had skimped on the costumes and scenery, both of which items were
decidedly second rate. The humor had too Londonish a flavor, and the ideas
behind the sketches were banal in the extreme.
However, when Sophie Binner came on quite late in the act, Rodrigo sat
up and admitted that the sight of her again gave him decided exhilaration.
She was alluring in her costume of pale blue and gold, a costume which
exposed the famous Binner legs to full advantage and without the
encumbrance of stockings. The audience liked her also. She was the prettiest
woman the footlights had revealed thus far, and she had a pleasing, though
not robust voice. Coupled with this was an intimate, sprightly personality
that caught on at once. She responded to two encores and finally disappeared
amid enthusiastic applause.
CHAPTER VIII
For an enormous bribe, the head waiter at the Quartier Latin removed the
"Reserved" sign from a cozy table very near the dance floor and assisted the
two ladies in draping their cloaks about their chairs. The "club" was crowded
with the usual midnight-to-dawn merry-makers—brokers, theatrical
celebrities, society juveniles of both sexes, sweet sugar daddies and other
grades of daddies, bored girls, chattering girls, and plain flappers.
With the orchestra in action, one had to almost shout across the table to
be heard above the din. Bill Terhune shouted at once to the waitress for
glasses and the non-spiritous ingredients of highballs. They arrived, were
flavored with libations from Bill's hip, and were consumed with approval.
Then they danced, Rodrigo with Sophie and Bill with Betty Brewster. The
latter was older than Sophie and much less vivacious and attractive. There
were suggestions of hollows in her neck, her hair was that dead blond that
comes from an excessive use of artificial coloring, and her eyes had a lack-
lustre gleam. She was a typical show-girl who is nearing the declining period
of her career. Next year one would find her on the variety stage, the
following in a small-time burlesque production, then God knows where. To
Rodrigo, there was, at first glance, something a little pathetic about her. He
had expected that Sophie would invite a girl somewhat less radiant than
herself. It is the habit with beauties to eliminate as much competition as
possible of their own sex in their engagements with men.
But Rodrigo had little time to think about Betty. The highball, the
disarmingly close presence of Sophie, and the general hilarious laxity of his
surroundings were lulling his feelings. Sophie snuggled more closely to him.
He breathed the faint, sweet perfume of her hair. The throbbing jungle music
beat. The close atmosphere scented with cigarettes and cosmetics, the faces
of dancing couples near him smothered thoughts of Dorning and Son. For
the time being, he was the old Rodrigo.
"Boy, you can dance," breathed Sophie, slowly disengaging herself from
his embrace as the music stopped.
He looked at her. "You're a witch, Sophie, a soft, white witch," he
whispered.
After the next dance, Terhune again produced his enormous flask, whose
contents seemed capable of flowing endlessly, like Tennyson's brook.
Rodrigo suggested mildly that they had all had enough. But the motion was
overruled, three to one. Bill's watery and roving eye caught the equally
itinerant optics of a sleek, dark girl two feet from him, at the next table. She
smiled veiledly, and he elaborately offered her a drink. Rodrigo was not
pleased with this by-play. He had been watching the girl's escort, a florid
chubby stock-broker type who had also been drinking copiously and who
now eyed Bill Terhune with a decidedly disapproving frown. With a defiant
toss of her shiny bobbed head at her middle-aged table-mate, the dark girl
accepted the glass and bent her ear to hear Bill's blurred invitation to dance
that accompanied it. The tom-toms and saxophones commenced their lilting
cadence, and Bill's new conquest and Bill arose simultaneously to dance. So
did the fat man. He seized Bill's wrist, which was around the girl.
Rodrigo was to his feet in a flash. He knew Bill Terhune. He caught the
Dakotan's wrist as, eluding the jealous sugar daddy's grip, it was whipped
back and started on its swift devastating journey to the corpulent one's jaw.
"No rough stuff, Bill," Rodrigo cautioned rapidly in a low voice. Bill turned
angrily upon his friend, but the Italian held his wrist like a vise. The eyes of
all three girls were popping with excitement. They were in the mood to
enjoy the sight of embattled males.
"Come on outside and I'll show you how much of a sheik you are,"
snarled Bill's red-faced antagonist.
Bill was keen to comply, and Rodrigo, welcoming the chance at least to
transfer the impending brawl to a less conspicuous battleground, loosed him.
The two champions set off for the lobby, picking their way unsteadily
through the staring dancers, Rodrigo by Bill's side, endeavoring to talk him
into a less belligerent mood, hopeless as the task was. Once in the wide open
spaces of the lobby, Bill suddenly eluded Rodrigo's arm upon his shoulder,
leaped toward his adversary, and smote him cleanly upon the jaw. The fat
man crashed against a fantastic wall painting of Gilda Grey and remained
huddled quietly where he had landed. All the fight had been knocked out of
him by this one sledge-hammer blow. Bill, his honor vindicated, was
contented also. All that remained was for Rodrigo to soothe the feelings of
the worried manager, who arrived on the run, and two husky bouncers, now
standing by to toss the embroiled patrons out upon the sidewalk.
Rodrigo did his task of diplomacy very nicely. The manager cooperated,
being anxious to avoid trouble. Cold water was administered to the fallen
gladiator. The girl who had caused all the trouble was summoned. Contrite at
the sight of her escort's damaged countenance, she readily agreed to take him
home, and the two were bundled into a taxicab.
Then the manager turned to Rodrigo and insisted firmly that the other
brawler should leave also. He could not afford further disturbances, which
might involve the police, however loathe the bluecoats might be to interfere
with the licensed Quartier Latin. Bill began to see red all over again at this
edict. But there were two husky bouncers at his elbow, and Rodrigo
supported the manager. Betty Brewster was paged, and Bill, muttering and
defiant to the last, followed in another taxi in the wake of his enemy.
Having banished Bill Terhune to the cool night air, Rodrigo turned to
hasten back to Sophie, who, he was afraid, would be furious at him for
leaving her sitting alone for such a long time.
"I want you to meet my niece, Elise Van Zile," said Mrs. Palmer.
He bent and kissed the glamorous lady's hand and was aware of her
languid eyes upon him. A moment later, he was introduced to Mr. Porter
Palmer, the twittering bald-headed little man who had been disposing of his
ladies' wraps.
"Elise has just come on from San Francisco for a few weeks, and we are
showing her the sights," explained Mrs. Palmer, and then to her husband. "It
seems terribly crowded and noisy in there, Edward. Do you think it's quite
respectable?" Mr. Palmer waved his hands in the air, deprecating his wife's
fastidiousness. She turned to Rodrigo, "Won't you join us at our table, Count
Torriani?"
"Thanks, really, but the lady I am with and I are just leaving," he made
haste to reply, immediately afterward wondering why he had invented this
falsehood. He glanced at the coolly beautiful Miss Van Zile, on whom his
refusal had apparently made no impression. Was he foolish in sensing, at his
very first glimpse of this girl from the West, something that warned him?
"But you will come to the tea I am giving for Elise next Saturday
afternoon at the Plaza, will you not, Count Torriani?" Mrs Palmer insisted.
He hesitated, then accepted. He again kissed the hand of Elise Van Zile,
and he raised his eyes to find her looking enigmatically at him. Somehow he
was reminded of the Mona Lisa, in whose dark eyes are painted all the
wisdom and intrigues of the world.
"Where have you been, Rodrigo?" she fretted as he sat down. "At least
you might have come back as soon as you made Betty leave me. I have felt a
perfect fool—sitting here alone, with everybody in the place staring at me."
In the shadowy depths of the taxi tonneau a few moments later, she made
herself comfortable against his shoulder. It was long after midnight. Save for
machines bound on errands similar to theirs, the streets were deserted. The
car sped westward toward the river. Sophie broke a long silence by
murmuring, "You write the most wonderful letters, Rodrigo. I've saved them
all. Though I don't suppose you mean a word you say in them."
"Do you love me, Rodrigo—more than you ever did in London?" she
asked suddenly.
"You are lovelier than you ever were in London, Sophie," he quibbled.
"You are the loveliest girl I have ever known." But the image of Elise Van
Zile obtruded itself and rather spoiled this bit of flattery.