VARIETIES <i> by Jonathan Lieberson (Weidenfeld & Nicolson: $18.95)</i>

From a high perch in the ivory tower, the author, a philosophy teacher at Barnard College and a contributing editor of the New York Review of Books, observes American culture, social science and the humanities. In the first part of this book it’s obvious that he’s looking downward. Between meandering social commentary, he sniffs at Middle Americans (“Few of these people could have been said to be profoundly absorbed in great literature or rational politics”), careless chauffeurs (“To ensure that he was on the ball, I periodically shouted at him . . . to ignore the passing spectacles”) and a “pretty blonde” hotel desk clerk who audaciously directs him to a restaurant when he asks her to send a waiter, “as I’ll be dining in my room in about an hour.” Some of these essays seem innocuous at first, but as prelude, they serve a purpose: to make it clear that Lieberson and his readers stand on higher ground than the hoi polloi. In fairness, it should be said that Lieberson’s piece on Esalen in this section, while negligibly inquisitive, features some marvelously wacky quotes. “I have too many cars in my emotional garage,” remarks one man, while a naked masseuse says “muscles have memories. My deep tissue work may be reviving them. I may touch your foot and . . . You may cry, you may get angry. Here is a pillow to scream into.”

Parts two and three of “Varieties” are far more impressive. Feeling he’s on common ground with the major thinkers and theories he discusses, Lieberson lets his ego fade and his intellect shine. Essays on Karl Popper and Isaiah Berlin are particularly clear and compelling, showcasing his ability to get to the heart of philosophical issues. Here too there are limitations, however. Those of a critic issuing pat dismissals: He contends that Clifford Geertz’ impressive theory about Balinese cockfighting lacks “clear and cogent evidence,” for example, though he doesn’t consider the evidence. And those of an academic discussing economics with an overly narrow philosophical frame: He comes to conclusions about modernizing the Third World by hypothesizing about the peasants’ desires (“the Indian untouchable who resists vitamins . . . might not be a ‘rational actor’ ”), but he ignores more worldly factors, such as the need for the First World to channel capital into the Third.