become marginal, and this corroborated his theory. His first example of a 'postindustrial' theorist was FoucaultF ! ) It is surprising that a book on French sociology can avoid reference to the influence of academic Marxism and structuralism of 1968 to the present. Whether onewants to call it postindustrial society or late capitalism, the sphere of production has become less important. Not just Foucault, but French Marxists withdrew attention from production and examined knowledge, the state, culture and laws. And this has been absolutely central in the development of academic sociology. To wit, who are the most widely known junior associates of Touraine in Britain today? Not Claude Durand, but Marxist urbanist M. Castells and the PCF'sJean Lojkine. Equally, in a book in partconcerned with labour process theories, how can the work of Christian Palloix whose Proces de production et crise du capitalism is by far the most sophisticated macro-theoretical treatment of the labour process, be omitted ? Despite these drawbacks, Rose's book is worth reading. Both for the interesting information provided, and the beginnings of a model for a sociology of knowledge as applied to industrial sociology. Scott M. Lash University of Lancaster
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Lewis et al. (1978) studied this question.