A good collection of Simmel's important essays, especially the parts from Philosophy of Money are useful, but it also carries the weaknesses of its original author. Whether you call it impressionistic sociology or whatever, it lacks explanatory vigour, and in so far as philosophical insight is concerned it is not good enough for a devoted philosopher. We know that Simmel's interests span a wide range of domains, and if this is a strength it is also a major source of weakness in his case.

Georg Simmel's social thought having being neglected for several decades, experiences a revival since the early nineties. A reason for this may be traced in his "gifted" - almost literary - style and in his breadth and vision regarding the state of modern urban culture. The collection of Simmel essays assembled in this volume by Donald Levine, covers a wide variety of the topics with which Simmel was preoccupied during his lifetime. One will find here Simmel's seminal work on social types, particularly on the "stranger" and the "poor". Simmel's brilliant essays on the "conflict in modern culture", the "tragedy of culture" and on the modern metropolis are included constituting essential reading for those who apart from a sociological perspective wish also to gain an aesthetic view of social reality. Simmel's intellectual roots are manifold. One can trace them back to Kant and Hegel but equally to the existentialist thinkers Schopenhauer and Nietzsche. Many of the arguments raised by Simmel in these essays bear the marks of the aforementioned philosophers while others sound incredibly relevant for today's (post)modern culture (for example the essay on "fashion" and on the "conflict in modern culture". The reader of this volume is introduced to Simmel's thought through an excellent and scholarly essay by D.Levine which also locates Simmel's sociology in the American intellectual context (i.e Parsons and Park). This collection has become a classic among Simmel scholars and it provides essential reading for sociologists and philosophers alike.

This book is an effort to bring to bear the tools of social science (Janowitz is a sociologist) in explaining the interrelationship between the military establishment and civil society in America. In the author's own words, this work is "an attempt to describe the professional life, organizational setting, and leadership of the American military as they have evolved during the first half of this century." Of particular interest to the era in which this book was published (1960) is the role of the military in the age of atomic warfare. Janowitz discusses the power the military establishment has as a "pressure group" over domestic affairs and international relations. In this world of technological change, Janowitz explores the adaptability that is required of the military establishment in order to keep the system "healthy" and how this affects not only society's view of the military, but the military's view of itself. Janowitz identifies a rift in professional military thinking, one which he compares to civilian disagreements over conservative and liberal policy. In modern society, the military has necessarily come into close contact with the "political fabric of contemporary society" and has thus come to play a role in sociopolitical affairs--both directly and indirectly. Janowitz's focus is on how both civil society and the military establishment will be changed by this modern interdependency.

In the vein of the social scientist, Janowitz puts forth five basic hypotheses and seeks to test them. Briefly encapsulated, these five hypotheses concern: a changing organizational authority, one more oriented to group consensus than to unqualified directives; a narrowing skill differential between military and civilian elites, brought together by the military's increasing dependence on technical specialists; a shift in officer recruitment to a broad socioeconomic base; the importance of adaptiveness and boldness in reaching an elite position in the military; and the development of a "political ethos" around the military profession in the modern age. He describes a changing role for the military elite; the modern "professional" soldier must somehow maintain an aura of "heroism" while also serving in a position of management of men and machines, topped off by a commitment to public service--both nationally and internationally.

Determining the future role of the military is made more difficult by a rift between two schools of thought within the military profession. The traditional school sees war as "absolute" and inevitable, a means by which to achieve political goals. This "conservative" mindset has been challenged during the atomic age, as more "liberal" thinkers, fearing the unpredictable effects of modern warfare, promote a "pragmatic" approach to warfare, with an emphasis on adaptation of military means and negotiation as the proper means by which to secure political ends. Janowitz and other social scientists favor the "pragmatic" approach, arguing that because the military cannot possibly remain in isolation from the polity, both civilians and the military elite must cooperate in the interest of mankind both at home and abroad.

Janowitz incorporates into his study qualitative sources involving individual human perceptions as well as quantitative data from questionnaires and statistical profiles. He is not entirely successful at incorporating a historical dimension into his argumentative framework, and there is a lack of documentation for a number of generalized notions he espouses. There are, as well, a number of factual errors--e.g., his reference to the historian John Hope Franklin as James Franklin Hope. This book is designed to make the reader ask new questions of the role of the military in American society, and in this it is successful. 40+ years after its original publication, it is still a valuable read.