SOURCE: “Progress or Providence,” in Modern Age, Vol. 25, No. 1, winter, 1981, pp. 80-83.

In the following review of History of the Idea of Progress, Andelson criticizes Nisbet for including too many divergent ideas under the title “progress,” thereby failing to give a coherent criticism of any particular idea of importance in contemporary debate.

Robert Nisbet is a scholar and thinker of deserved distinction, but this ambitious work [History of the Idea of Progress], despite much that merits commendation, does not qualify as one of his more impressive efforts. J. M. Cameron calls it “a scissors-and-paste job, and dull one,”¹ but this evaluation seems far too harsh. It is difficult to imagine how anyone could recount the history of an idea without substantial use of scissors and paste, and, by and large, Professor Nisbet's treatment is not dull. Nonetheless, the uneven quality of the book does invite objection.

The volume...