Theory, Epistemology, and Methodology–311 The Sociology of Norbert Elias, edited by Steven Loyal and Stephen Quilley. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press, 2004. 300 pp. $29.99 paper. ISBN: 0521535093. TIM NEWTON University of Exeter, UK T.J.Newton@exeter.ac.uk In their introductory chapters to this edited collection, Quilley and Loyal present an in- teresting account of a writer who is difficult to survey. Although they succeed in extend- ing Eliasian argument into new arenas, one could raise questions about their argument (see Quilley and Loyal, 2005a, 2005b; Smith 2005; Srinivas, 2005; Szakolczai, 2005). For instance, Quilley and Loyal seem to disap- prove of the “ad hoc character” and “sub-dis- ciplinary fragmentation” of current sociology (p. 2) Yet Elias’s figurational perspective could be read to suggest that proliferation within sociology is inevitable given the loose interdependencies between sociologists and the consequent tendencies, as Richard Whit- ley (2000) put it, toward a state of “fragment- ed adhocracy?” Similar questions arise with the normative desires which are later ex- pressed by Quilley. In a chapter which adds to the growing interest in the intersection be- tween sociology and biology (e.g., Newton, 2003; Shilling, 2003), Quilley suggests that extinction of the human race will be less like- ly if humans exhibit a “progressive shift in the involvement-detachment balance” (p. 55). Yet this seems somewhat conjectural: will “more reality-congruent knowledge” re- ally save us (p. 55)? However, these ques- tions do not detract from the overall value of these opening chapters by Quilley and Loyal which provide a useful introduction to some key Eliasian issues and a different assessment of the “biosocial” landscape. Texts focusing on Elias can, however, be rather defensive and this posture character- izes some of the contributions to this book. Yet that from Barry Barnes works against this trend through its continual juxtaposition of praise for, and critique of, Elias. Barnes notes how Elias presents a delightful confusion to contemporary sociological perspectives, at one time appearing to hold social construc- tionist proclivities, while at others seeming to share notable realist sympathies. These at- tributes mean that he is unlikely to appeal exclusively to either of these epistemological “camps.” As Barnes observes, therein lies much of Elias’s contemporary charm since his argument unsettles dominant epistemolo- gies. Elias also holds appeal because there re- main sociological fields in which his argu- ment can still appear relatively novel, even though he wrote his detailed account of the civilizing process over six decades ago. One such field is the sociology of race and chap- ters by Eric Dunning and Loïc Wacquant, which help to open up this area to Eliasian analysis. Wacquant provides the more con- troversial argument through his suggestion that there has been “a de-civilizing [sic] of the segregated core of large U.S. cities” (p. 96) particularly as it is witnessed in the “evolu- tion of the black American ghetto” (p. 97). Wacquant suggests that this decivilizing is a consequence of the decreasing complexity and shortening of interdependency networks in the black urban ghetto. In so doing, he presents an absorbing application of Eliasian argument in keeping with Wacquant’s gener- ally engaging style of writing. Yet there re- mains some inconsistencies in his overall the- sis. For instance, although high unemploy- ment may have occasioned shorter interde- pendency networks in the formal economy, there are indications that there are still com- plex and lengthy interdependencies within the informal economy. Wacquant points to this complexity when he notes that the infor- mal economy of the ghetto “has witnessed a proliferation of small sub-proletarian ‘trades’ typical of the Third World cities” (p. 104). Such observations might be seen to question Wacquant’s central thesis. In particular, the existence of informal interdependency com- plexity in the black American ghetto presents a challenge to the argument that less com- plex interdependencies have occasioned ur- ban de-civilizing. The last two chapters of this collection provide some of the most interesting materi- al, in part because they deal with an obvious omission in Elias’s work, namely a satisfacto- ry account of the way in which religion re- lates to the civilizing process. Bryan Turner draws on the Weberian theme of charisma as a means to explore the significance of reli- gion for social regulation, with particular at- Contemporary Sociology 35, 3 #2790-CONTEMPORARY SOCIOLOGY—VOL 35 NO 3—FILE: 35303-reviews