However, Gouldner was not the first sociologist to be critical of objective knowledge of society, see for example Theodor W. Adorno's Negative Dialectics.
[6] Gouldner devotes the largest portion of his book to Talcott Parsons and to the Parsonian brand of functionalism, which in his eyes dominated American sociological thinking in the 1930’s, 40’s, and 50’s.
[8] In his view, the US institutionalized some evolutionary universals such as money and markets, legal codes, and democratic associations, which were not fully developed within totalitarian systems.
[10] Wildcat strikes are characterized by their grassroots, rebellious nature and usually challenge both the employer’s authority and the official structures of the labor movement.
[9] Gouldner writes, "as a consequence, some of the very issues which precipitated the strike, the changing speed of the machine, the demotion of the old supervisors and their replacement with new ones, were defined by management as non-legitimate.
[9] In the context of Gouldner’s work, wildcat strikes represent a form of worker resistance against bureaucratic authority and control.
When a pattern of work conditions not specified in the contract, but which the workers had every reason to count on, was destroyed, the resultant dissatisfaction and insecurity generated a wildcat strike and its "illegitimate" demands.
[11] Some of these principles seem obvious truisms clothed pretentiously, but all ring true, and many provide genuine insight toward the author's goal of erecting a bridge between pure and applied sociology.
[10] In his study of the gypsum plant, Gouldner identified that when management imposed stricter bureaucratic rules and tried to enforce greater control, workers reacted with forms of informal resistance, including wildcat strikes.
Additionally, Feudalism’s decline and the market economy’s growing prominence gave this New Class more separation and independence from the traditional elite, and the rise of public education systems further pushed them to shape society beyond the rule of local authority.
[14] These ideas go on to say that the New Class will eventually become combined with the aforementioned traditional elites, creating a refined high society superior to its predecessors.
[14] Gouldner rejects this statement as well, for similar reasons to his opposition to New Class as Benign Technocrats as he believed that both groups would act in their own interests and would be willing to “exploit the other”.
Gouldner’s thesis was released too late, and by the time the book was published the middle-class radicalism he mentions was already fading, being replaced by a “new conservatism” that many educated youth adopted.
Historian Martin Jay contended that the work thwarted itself into dichotomies and fragments while attempting to unifying a single social theory because of Gouldner’s deep confliction with Marxist contradictions and gaps.
[19] Sociologist James J. Chriss summarizes Against Fragmentation as a work where Gouldner’s ideas are picked apart for understanding at one level but are found to hold contradictions at another, the limitations being the inability to show complexity wholly and still being able to see what may be forgotten.
[21] One of the main limitations that Gouldner highlights within the functionalist theory is the idea behind reciprocity, and its role in the social system established by Parsons.
[22] Combining autonomy with reciprocity is the key component to which Gouldner suggests stability within a social system, creating a balance between mutual exchange and a sense of personal independence while trying to avoid power imbalances among individuals and institutions.