Vol. 9 No. 11 (November 1999) pp. 482-485.

THE HORIZONTAL SOCIETY by Lawrence M. Friedman. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1999. 310 pp. Cloth $29.95.

Reviewed by Herbert M. Kritzer, Department of Political Science, University of Wisconsin-Madison.

Lawrence Friedman's work is always interesting to read. In THE HORIZONTAL SOCIETY, he has produced what might best be described as a meditation on modernity (or, stealing from Sigmund Freud, "modernity and its discontents"). Friedman's metaphor for late 20th century modernity is the "horizontal society" which he contrasts to the more vertical structure of society of earlier days. By horizontal society, Friedman is referring to a social structure in which relationships link largely to persons similarly situated and identified through categories such as gender, ethnicity, or nationality; this social structure, he argues, differs from vertical structures built around family, extended kinship, and authority relationships (master-servant, landowner-tenant, priest-parishioner, etc.). The book is an analysis of the implications of this restructuring of society. The thrust of Friedman's argument is that "modernity has two faces: it homogenizes and differentiates. It pulls people apart and pushes them together. It accentuates ethnic differences, but in the context of a single (and powerful) world culture" (p. 132). THE HORIZONTAL SOCIETY develops this argument over nine chapters that combine history, law, and rumination.

Central to Friedman's discussion is the concept of identity discussed in detail in chapters 5 and 6), and how the structure of identity both reflects and affects society. Identity, he observes, "is not just a sense of who we are...it is a lens through which we see the world." What has changed, according to Friedman, is that "modern men and women are much freer to form relationships on a plane of equality," and people are much more able to make choices in their identity and relationships. This mobility of identity comes from both knowledge and opportunity (i.e., people are aware of options and frequently have the opportunity to make choices among those options), reflecting economic growth and communication growth. Importantly, the vertical identities and structures continue to exist, and form part of the set of choices facing 21st century women and men.

As I write this review, news reports discuss assassination in Armenia, conflict in Chechnya, and Pat Buchanan's jump to the Reform Party (see p. 117 for Friedman's thoughts about Buchanan, circa 1996). These are phenomena that Friedman would link to the horizontal society. In Armenia one sees the struggle to rebuild an independent society in the wake of the dissolution of the Soviet Union. In Chechnya, the conflict is between a people long part of Russia but which has never felt fully part of it (in significant part because of religious differences). In the United States Buchanan seeks to find a way to fulfill his presidential ambitions through what may or may not become a significant long-term force in American politics; what kind of ultimate identity will the amorphous group

Page 483 begins here

associated with the Reform Party create; will it be the social conservatism of Pat Buchanan, the seeming libertarianism of Jesse ("I want to come back as a 38DD bra") Ventura, or something altogether different? These are the kinds of issues and phenomena that motivate Friedman's inquiry.

A central element of horizontal society is the growth of global culture, what Barber (1995) refers to as "McWorld." Technology is the major vehicle for the spread of this culture, but it is largely a product of Western urban society. Integral to today's global culture is change, chaNGE, CHANGE; ever present, ever accelerating, ever more encompassing change. This changing global culture is a mass culture; it may be driven by images of celebrity, but the average person embraces it. If Americans are today "bowling alone" (Putnam, 1995; but see Ladd, 1999), it is probably electronic bowling (or electronic golf, or electronic chess) in their homes using the same electronic toys that are being used in Japan, Latin America, Australia, Europe, South Africa, and Singapore. Friedman notes that this globalization of culture is met with resistance in various quarters, particularly where the perception that it is largely Americanization rather than globalization raises particular strain (e.g., Canada and France).

Where in the past, access to leisure and the toys of leisure were closely linked to class, today the consumer society has made these available to the majority of persons living in economically developed societies. Furthermore, those living outside those societies are increasingly aware of what they do not have, and large numbers of people seek to partake in the global culture by immigrating to societies where they will have access. This movement of people creates one of the great tensions of the horizontal society: to admit or not admit these immigrants into a society. The immigrants want to exercise choice and identify as part of the United States, or Germany, or England, or France, or Finland, or Japan. Some societies, particularly those that themselves were fashioned by immigrants, are more accommodating that are others.

Two phenomena connected to horizontal society are of particular interest to Friedman: the development of rights and rise of nationalism. One reflects the justification for the freedoms of horizontal society and the other a consequence. American exceptionalism in the realm of constitutions and rights is no more; among democracies, it is today the exception to be without written constitutional structures guarded over by some form of judicial body. The new democracies of Latin America and Eastern Europe have strongly embraced this model of nation building. These developments do not go unchallenged. Perhaps the strongest resistance lies in the rise of religious fundamentalism, particular in Islam, but also as found in Christianity, Hinduism, and Judaism. Fundamentalism reflects a desire to hold on to vertical society, and the apparent certainties it provides. One of the reasons that resistance is rooted in fundamentalism is that rights are so closely tied to individualism, and individualism both challenges core tenets of fundamentalism and is central to horizontal society (it is the right of individuals to choose their identification that makes horizontal society horizontal). In some way the signature institution of vertical society is the traditional marriage where paternal dominance and hierarchy were the rule, and choice was minimal; fundamentalism seems closely aligned with a desire to maintain (or return to) this image of the family rather

Page 484 begins here

than to accept the modern family structure based on companionate marriage (p. 76).

The rise of nationalism grows from the right to choose with whom or what one identifies. Although at one level individuals in the horizontal society identify with global culture, at another level individuals want to choose their ethnic group identification, and want that identification to play a large role in their lives. The vehicle for ethnic identification is the nation, and so we no longer have Czechoslovakia or Yugoslavia, both perhaps somewhat artificial in their structure. But this breakdown extends further as witnessed by developments within Russia and elsewhere. New nations, or demands for new nations, have ceased to be news. It is a common occurrence, and garners little note unless accompanied by outbursts of violence. Some of these developments reflect resurgence in language consciousness (how long before Welsh returns as the dominant language of Wales, or Gaelic of Ireland, or Yiddish of Brooklyn?). Others reflect religious divisions; and others a renewing of historical memories of long-ago violations of group symbols. It is enhanced by the fact that many of the new nations of the first three quarters of the twentieth century (and a good bit of the nineteenth century in Latin America) were artificial creations of colonial powers rather than natural groupings of a single "people" (Friedman points out that this artificialness can be found also in recent developments such as "panethnicities," where dominant cultures lump together disparate "outsider" groups to create groupings that lack internal coherence, "Asian- American" representing a prime example). Further analogues to "nationalism" lie in groups that have long existed (women, the deaf, etc.) but which today take on significance in ways that reflect the structure of horizontal society and its emphasis on individualism and individual choice (p. 105).

The impact of this surge of nationalism is to create new boundaries (p. 106). Where a central boundary used to be class, today a multitude of dimensions (social, cultural, etc.) serve as boundaries, and those boundaries seem to be ever shifting as new groups arise seeking to secure the benefits of recognition. These boundaries need not reflect traditional geographic separation but exist internally to states. Groups often choose to oppose or oppress others with whom they disagree (Jerry Falwell's recent meeting with gay activists notwithstanding), and this oppression often takes violent turns. In fact, one feature of many new nations is the apparent need to find some internal group to label as outcasts (homosexuals in Africa, or "gypsies" in the Czech Republic, being good examples recently in the news). It would be incorrect to say that Friedman sees nationalism as entirely negative; he recognizes the positives it brings in terms of giving value, and purpose to life (p. 111).

Given that Friedman is a legal historian, it is not surprising that some of the most interesting sections of the book reflect the specific mix of law and history. In chapters 5-7 one finds discussions of the history of identity categories such as race and citizenship, how those identities have been reflected in the law and policies adopted by various nations, and the linkage of these to the history and law of immigration. Central to Friedman's discussion is the decision both as to who to include and who to exclude. Law can be created based around inclusionary goals, such as when citizenship laws are structured to let people into national identity, jus soli (as in the United States and other immigrant countries); alternatively the law can be

Page 485 begins here

designed to exclude, such as by effectively limiting citizenship to those born into a category, jus sanguinis (so those of Japanese ancestry who are returning to Japan from South America after their families have lived outside Japan for several generations can become Japanese citizens while those of Korean ancestry who have lived in Japan for several generations continue to be excluded). Similarly, ethnic labeling is a highly contentious issue, whether it be the "one drop" rule for excluding someone from the "white" community or the "born to a Jewish mother" rule governing Israel's "right of return." As Friedman makes clear, American legal history is rife with examples, including miscegenation laws, immigration laws explicitly excluding persons from China, the Dawes Act which intended to break up Native American tribes, and, most recently, the English-only or English as "official language" laws.

To reprise, although historically divisions were based on legally defined nation states and on ethnicity, contemporary divisions reflect identities that go "beyond ethnicity" (the title of Chapter 8). Today, we see demands for "plural equality"; that is, the recognition of divisions, categories, and identities defined along multiple dimensions coexisting with traditional categories. These "all bubble up out of the culture of modernity; they all reflect the power of expressive individualism; they are all aspects of the horizontal society" (p. 223). The forces of modernity have created what we know as the modern nation-state. These same forces, communication and transportation, in particular, have created the demands for new forms of identification and new bases of group autonomy. These new groups function much as a nation when the "generate a strong sense of belonging and demand high levels of commitment" (p. 231). They are often prime forces pushing for separation, and challenging modernist views of the value of assimilation. The modern consciousness of rights has created demands from individuals, and those rights allow individuals to form new groupings that can in turn threaten the very rights that allowed groupings to form.

What Friedman has done in THE HORIZONTAL SOCIETY is to lay out in his own way the modern dilemma. Although for most of the second half of the 20th century, the dominant story was the Cold War, the demise of the Soviet Union has brought to the forefront the tensions created by modern western culture and technology. Friedman does not have any clear answers to the question of where we should seek to go to get out of the prisoners' dilemma we have created for ourselves. He does, however, provide a powerful portrait of that dilemma. As one would expect, this book is a lively read; it would be a great book to use in an undergraduate liberal arts course where the goal is to get students thinking and talking about the world in which they live and about the dilemmas that their generation faces.

REFERENCES:

Barber, Benjamin R. 1995. JIHAD VS. MCWORLD. New York: Times Books.

Ladd, Everett C. 1999. THE LADD REPORT. New York: Free Press.

Putnam, Robert. 1995. Bowling Alone: America's Declining Social Capital. JOURNAL OF DEMOCRACY 6: 65-78.