Lewis Feuer and the Study of American Jewish History

From 1976–1988, Lewis Feuer produced a series of significant papers in American Jewish History dealing with such subjects as Harry Wolfson, Joachim Gaunse, the history of Jews in the American academy, James Joseph Sylvester, and more. In each case, Feuer glimpsed himself in what he studied. He selected and viewed his subjects from the perspective of his own life, values and intellectual concerns.     

Lewis S. Feuer: The Scholar as Intellectual

The career of Lewis S. Feuer spanned several disciplines—Philosophy, Sociology, Politics, and History (especially the History of Ideas); his books and articles covered several centuries, and were devoted primarily to exposing the emotional undercurrents that animated the thought of intellectuals. Feuer tended to be highly suspicious of intellectuals, because they were susceptible to the allure of ideologies, which masked a dangerous will to power. His greatest achievement was to connect the contours of political and social thought to the drives of persons and to the context of institutions; his greatest limitation was to miss, at least in the United States, the deeper problem of popular hostility to science and to knowledge itself.     

The Bureaucrat Who Fell Under a Bus: Ministerial Responsibility, Executive Agencies and The Derek Lewis Affair in Britain

Various concerns have been raised about the practicability of Next Steps and the adequacy of accountability mechanisms in Britain, particularly after the dismissal of Derek Lewis as chief executive of the Prison Service. This article critically reviews these concerns. It argues that the agency model is viable notwithstanding doubts about the practicability of the policy–operations distinction; that Next Steps is not the cause of defective accountability or the scapegoating of bureaucrats by ministers; and that a commonly proposed solution—making agency heads accountable to parliamentary select committees—has fundamental drawbacks of its own. The conventional wisdom that Next Steps cannot work ignores important evidence and badly needs reassessment.