In the following excerpt, Hoeveler argues that Nisbet combined belief in the power of social science with an attachment to traditional social institutions, which allowed him to formulate a powerful critique of centralized political and economic power.

In the following interview, Glasgow asks Nisbet his views on the growth of centralized bureaucratic and military power and the role each has played in fostering individual alienation.

In the following symposium, written by James S. Coleman, Morris Janowitz, Harry G. Johnson, Robert Lekachman, Martin Mayer, Daniel P. Moynihan, Harold Orlans, Thomas Sowell, and James Q. Wilson, the writers debate the merits of Nisbet's characterization of social scientists as discredited, inept meddlers in public policy.

In the following review of History of the Idea of Progress, Beauchamp dismisses Nisbet as a dishonest scholar and apologist for American business interests.

In the following essay, Horowitz laments the deaths of Nisbet, E. Digby Baltzell, and Anselm L. Strauss, highlighting their common dislike of the entrenched elites of the late twentieth century.

In the following essay, Perrin reviews Nisbet's life's work, focusing on Nisbet's developing theories concerning the cause of growth of the centralized territorial state and how that state has affected more local, social institutions.

In the following essay, Eberstadt considers Nisbet's increasing alarm at the increase of centralized political power in the United States and its effects on primary social institutions.

In the following essay, Kirk praises Nisbet's Quest for Community for showing the individual's natural desire to form strong social attachments and the ways in which this drive persists in an era of centralized political and economic power.

In the following review of Social Change and History, Wrong favorably compares the work to Nisbet's earlier The Sociological Tradition since Social Change and History foregoes broad characterizations of individual thinkers in favor of close examination of the metaphor of growth as it developed throughout Western history.

In the following essay, Lemann assesses the continuing influence of Nisbet's Quest for Community, arguing that Nisbet powerfully captured Americans' nostalgia for small-town life, but that this nostalgia interferes with state actions needed to protect the nation and its values.

In the following essay, Stone briefly reviews Nisbet's life and work, emphasizing Nisbet's criticisms of centralized power and the romantic individualism of Jean Jacques Rousseau.

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.

In the following essay, Ohmann faults Degradation of the Academic Dogma for blaming the politicization of American universities on post-World War II political developments rather than late-nineteenth-century educational reforms.

In the following review of Quest for Community, Kurtz argues that Nisbet's work is part of a useful trend in social science toward examining people as part of social units or communities rather than as isolated individuals.

In the following review of Twilight of Authority, Gellner criticizes Nisbet for overemphasizing the role ideas play in fostering social trends.

In the following essay, Brooks praises Nisbet's analysis of the sources of increased political centralization and the inevitable effects of this centralization on social institutions.

In the following excerpt, Regnery emphasizes Nisbet's criticisms of Enlightenment ideas and their tendency to overestimate the individual's capacity for reason and virtue.

In the following review of Conservatism, Gottfried argues that Nisbet's rejection of both egalitarianism and religious enthusiasm renders his conservatism interesting but largely irrelevant to contemporary political debates.

In the following review of History of the Idea of Progress, Solomon praises Nisbet for undermining a unitary theory of progress that has no tolerance for cultural differences.

In the following review of Sociology as an Art Form, Burch finds value in Nisbet's insights and analogies, which give a new perspective to old issues.

In the following review of Social Change and History, Mazlish praises Nisbet for revealing the notion that universal laws of economic and political development is culturally biased.

In the following essay, Gow compares Nisbet's Social Philosophers with Wilson Carey McWilliams' The Idea of Fraternity.

In the following essay, Goodman reviews Nisbet's changes in political ideology, noting the consistency of Nisbet's defense of the family and other social institutions.

In the following review of Twilight of Authority, Kelly criticizes Nisbet's book as a simple-minded attack on the pursuit of equality through political means.

In the following review of Quest for Community, Davis argues that Nisbet should build on his understanding of the conflict between local associations and large, centralized organizations like the state by examining the need for political action to protect communities from economic dislocation.

In the following eview of Twilight of Authority, Gow outlines Nisbet's argument that centralized government is sapping vitality from social institutions such as the family, which are crucial to protecting liberty and forming full social lives.

In the following essay, the editors of the American Enterprise argue that Nisbet's focus on the need for strong social institutions has become a dominant theme in American conservatism.