Among assorted pungent insights, TW:
". . . The point isn't that Lewin's theory was diabolically clever, just
that it got adopted (by the Ford Foundation) in the war against that most
salient
of 1950's social problems, "juvenile deliquency". In turn, the Ford
Foundation model became the template for the "maximum feasible
participation" clause of the War on Poverty. Like Bill Gates' DOS, Karl
Lewin's social psychology became the OS of habit for social engineering in
America. . . .
I recently finished reading "Maximum Feasible Misunderstanding"
by Daniel Moynihan. IF there is anything to it as history,
the author's ideology aside, the above assertion is totally off-base.
A basic point in MFM is the duelling social theories, bureaucracies,
and political interests underlying the launch of the War on Poverty
(as reflected in the evolution of the Mobilization For Youth project
in the Lower East Side of NYC). There was nothing so coherent as
a single 'model,' Ford's or anyone's, underlying what unfolded.
And Ford's influence was well-eclipsed early in the process.
If nothing else, the book made me more aware of the role of
social theory in the 1960's, in relation to politics and
policy. The ensuing debacle evidently helped economics to
displace sociology, not necessarily an improvement.
In any case, the account encourages me to crack a sociology
textbook and see what lies therein (any suggestions for
good ones?). I am also looking for good histories of
the war on poverty.
mbs
