Is the reviewer having a bit of a go at the book’s superficial exploration of group membership and social cohesion? I know the social sciences deal in a lot of

Is the reviewer having a bit of a go at the book’s superficial exploration of group membership and social cohesion? I know the social sciences deal in a lot of questionable science-like work, so it’s hard to tell from the review if the book has a proper point (or two) and if the reviewer is making light of that meandering, albeit fascinating, incoherence.