Ideas in Development

Peter Nettl described Moore well in an article for the UK magazine, New Statesman: “He is a radical of great and austere scholarship who takes nothing for granted and will use the devil himself if he advances understanding. Though he treats those he criticizes with courtesy and respect, he is bound to no tradition and accepts a priori no disciplinary hierarchy into which he feels he must fit.  A loner.”  This was reflected in the fact that he worked in the Russian Research Center at Harvard, rather than the Social Relations Center, because he would not follow the established sociological paradigm.

Though capable of doing small, focused quantitative studies, he was really after the “big game” —how history permitted or hindered the creation of worthwhile modern societies.  Here are a few questions that propelled his work:

• What accounted for the evolution of democracy in the United States, Britain and France?
• Why did industrialization and modernization in Germany and Japan give rise to fascism?
• Is there an alternative to moral relativism in the modern world?
• How much choice and freedom do we have, given the large social and historical facts that shape our lives?
• What are the prospects for freedom and decency in the latter half of the 20th century?
• Why do some people resist exploitation and others do not?
• Could the United States realize its claim to be a democracy of, by, and for the people?
• Were violence and conflict inevitable parts of large-scale, needed social change?
• Why was the key to understanding the social origins of democracy and dictatorship linked to the relationship of the landed aristocracy and the urban bourgeoisie?
• Why can democracy not be imposed?
• Is the U.S. fated to experience another Vietnam War?

It’s no wonder that friend and radical historian Gabriel Kolko described him as the “most creative and brilliant person [I] had ever met.” 

Moore worked for “Wild Bill” Donovan, head of the OSS during World War II, the precursor of the CIA.   Moore’s work there intensified his interest in war, revolution, democracy and dictatorship, which led to his specialization in Soviet Union studies and a position at Harvard University’s Russian Center.

His first book, Soviet Politics (1950) examined a number of dilemmas facing Communist leadership and the citizenry.  How does this society manage the inconsistency between its founding, egalitarian ideology and the facts of dictatorship and repression?  How does Russia manage its development of a technological, wealthy economy, while exercising rough justice and discouraging free speech and inquiry?  What role does international relations have in maintaining a closed society?  To what degree does industrialization impose harsh measures in any society?  For example, British elites used very harsh measures when they deprived its peasants of access to the commons, as well as when they launched Britain’s manufacturing revolution.  Was Stalin just creating his own version of what British capitalists implemented in the 19th century?

Terror and Progress USSR explored the potential of Russia’s leaders finding a better balance between rationality, repression and tradition in coordinating their economy, educating the people and advancing scientifically.  The book also discussed the dangers posed, as shifts in certain promising directions might also undermine the elite’s power base and legitimacy.

Next, Moore authored an interesting book on social science methodology.  He then took more than a decade to create his masterpiece, The Social Origins of Democracy and Dictatorship: Lord and Peasant in the Making of the Modern World (1966).  With this book, Barrington Moore, Jr. singlehandedly resurrected the field of historical sociology. According to New Republic reviewer Joseph Featherstone, he did “what many historians dream of doing: he sees general truths in historically unique situations. Using a vast range of theories and kinds of explanations, he [wrote] a work of deep, cumulative insight into the forces that make our turbulent age.”  C. Vann Woodward said in his review that Moore “undertakes in this big and closely argued book to map the historical routes that the major nations of the West and East have taken to reach the stage of modern industrial society.”

Moore followed this work of genius with two other fascinating works.  Reflections on the Causes of Human Misery (1972) grappled with the whys for war, poverty, hunger and disease, injustice and oppression, and persecution for beliefs.  Using his tried and true techniques of discovery, explanation, and moral assessment, he concluded that neither left nor right had a corner on the truth and that no easy solutions exist to put these scourges behind humanity.  Especially noteworthy are the “extra” chapters looking at American society during the sixties and the Vietnam War and his analyses and speculations regarding whether the United States was likely to give up its imperial intentions, try to understand other ways of cultural, economic and political life, and undertake meaningful reforms to heal the injuries caused by racism, poverty and inequality.  He concluded that fate and capitalism did not preclude these transformations, but it would be an unlikely chain of events.

He took these issues further in his next book, Injustice: The Social Bases of Obedience and Revolt (1978).This is really two books rolled into one.  The first is an inquiry into injustice – its constants and variables. It looks at moral codes across the world, ways to stifle a sense of unfairness, moral relativism, and the inevitability of codes of reciprocity in social life.  The second “book” is a case study of the German working class from 1848 until the arrival of Nazism.  It delves into their daily lives, the impact of unions and political parties on their beliefs and values, and the repressive aspects of moral outrage—Nazism.

Compared to other academic super stars, he was not a highly prolific writer.  Yet, he worked into his nineties, churning out another four books.  The best of the four was: Privacy: Studies in Social and Cultural History (1984), which looked at two phenomena—the sense and permission to refuse access to other persons in particular situations and the creation and evolution of social mechanisms that protect the individual against arbitrary political demands.  He writes: “the less one believes in the prospects of a perfectly just society, the more one is likely to value protections against injustice.”  He also showed how privacy has led to the questioning of authority.

Also noteworthy is Moral Purity and Persecution in History (2000).  This is obviously a timely work, meant to help the reader grapple with everything from God-commended genocide in the Bible to Communism, Nazism and the Taliban.  He pulls this trick off in an account of these issues in the Old Testament, the wars of religion in sixteenth century France, the French Revolution, and purity and pollution in Asiatic civilizations.

Why read Moore?  His is a sharp mind that refuses to ignore the big questions revolving around “why we can’t just get along.”  And what’s the relevance to a blog on economic and community development policy and practice?

His work allows you to see the present as history and be forewarned. 

He helps you to think more broadly about the moral questions in public policy.

He imparts a way of viewing the history of social, economic and political life, since capitalism as we now know it began and made industrialization and technological change self-sustaining.

His is a perspective that allows for fraud, force, tribalism, new technologies, charismatic individuals and chance.  These are not just dangers for failed states, but for advanced and seemingly healthy economies as well.

Depressing?  Yes.  Possibilities for change for the better?  Yes.  It has happened before.

Let’s close with a statement by economist Joan Robinson that Moore used as an epigram for one of his books: “Anyone who writes a book, however gloomy its message may be, is necessarily an optimist.  If the pessimists really believed what they were saying, there would be no point in saying it.”