Book Description
While everything appears to be collapsing around us -- ecodamage, genetic engineering, virulent diseases, the end of cheap oil, water shortages, global famine, wars -- we can still do something about it and create a world that will work for us and for our children’s children. The inspiration for Leonardo DiCaprio’s web movie Global Warning,
The Last Hours of Ancient Sunlight details what is happening to our planet, the reasons for our culture’s blind behavior, and how we can fix the problem. Thom Hartmann’s comprehensive book, originally published in 1998, has become one of the fundamental handbooks of the environmental activist movement. Now, with fresh, updated material and a focus on political activism and its effect on corporate behavior,
The Last Hours of Ancient Sunlight helps us understand--and heal--our relationship to the world, to each other, and to our natural resources.
Customer Reviews:
If this is the answer, we are doomed. .......2007-09-23
As a biology teacher, I bought this book because I thought it would be a scholarly analysis of the current environmental crisis. Instead, it is largely a diatribe against all the "evils" of Western civilization, followed by plenty of New Age mumbo.
Here are a few gems of the author's "analysis":
--All human civilizations throughout history can be divided into just two groups: Old Cultures and Young Cultures. Old Cultures universally loved each other, lived in peace, respected the earth, helped old ladies cross the street and lived sustainably. Young Cultures (Europe, USA) rape and pillage, are resource-extracting, and practice despicable acts like ownership of property and buying and selling things in an economy, rather than communally sharing all the resources.
--To get back to Old Culture, you should leave your job, home and 401k and join with small bands of like-minded individuals to buy enough rural land to build basic shelters, grow crops, and grab your own solar energy. This will re-create the small, sustainable, "tribes" of the past.
--The author proposes walking outside with the book and attempting to talk to plants and animals, waiting until they talk back. At one point, he caresses a tree and apologizes to it.
--Just by thinking good thoughts you can effect planetary change. Since the entire planet is interconnected by a "morphic energy field" any good thoughts dumped into it will improve the whole "cosmic soup."
--If you get to the end of the book, the afterword tells you that you are an exceptional person (literally, a "Chosen One") and that you should run out and buy 10 more copies of the author's other books to distribute to friends.
If this is the "strategy" of the new environmental movement, we are doomed. The author is clearly passionate about the issue and is attempting to drive deep cultural change to solve the problem, but his prescriptions are hopelessly utopian. I don't see how aboriginal mysticism is going to scrub the carbon dioxide out of our air or invent a better fuel cell.
Instead of buying 10 copies of this book, try Jared Diamond's "Guns, Germs and Steel" or "Collapse."
Guns, Germs, and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies
Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed
If there is a more important and powerful book out there, I haven't found it........2007-09-02
Better than anyone I've ever read or heard, Hartmann explains the cultural and environmental crises we have wrought, how we got there, and what we can do to overcome them. It is full of factual evidence and well-thought-out insights.
Hartmann is a brilliant and prolific writer as well as an Air America radio host. If everyone would read it, there would be a lot more hope for our future.
Everyone should READ THIS.......2007-08-01
A brilliant book, very well researched and taking us thru the times in a very easy to read style. It is not fiction but feels like a good thriller at times with a cannot put down flavour to it. It is educational and informative and moves thru the subjects systematically with a deep spiritual element towards the end and finalising with an action plan and on a positive note that all is not lost. I initially borrowed this from my library but decided I want to add this to my collection of books - it is so good ! Happy reading and please share what you have read with others so that there is a world movement to improve our environment for this earth belongs not only to humans but to all other living creatures and plants as well.
A wake up call.......2007-07-23
This is a great book that addresses a number of critical issues, and it provides a good springboard to look at our future and how we must change to survive. Disappointing to some is that he doesn't reach any conclusions, however the purpose of the book is not to be "A idiots guide to survival" rather to force the reader to draw his own conclusions.
I feel that he either missed some research or simply left it out. Two cases in point are tribalism and democracy. What he said about ancient tribes is mostly correct, however there are strong indications that some ancient tribes that pre-dated modern civilization were exceedingly warlike and did kill their neighbors, just because they were not of the same tribe. I admit that they were the exception, but they did exist and perhaps they are the root of the modern civilization of dominance.
The other issue that could have been explored is the difference in democracies between republics and confederations. Republics always consolidate power and historically have failed as he points out. However he doesn't take a look at confederations which by his definitions are more tribal in outlook. I lived in Switzerland for many years and they are the oldest surviving democracy in the world at more than 700 years. The government was influenced by the Allemanes (sic) a German tribe that had a very grass roots form of democracy. I have lived all over the world in many different countries and the only place I have lived that had a genuine democracy that represented the individual was Switzerland. Interesting to note is that they are also the "greenest" country that I have ever lived in, recycling and environmental consciousness is a part of the culture with few exceptions.
Good read........2007-07-14
I found Thom's book a very interesting read. His science was a bit basic but he is trying to get through to the average couch potato who is more interested in American Idol than what is really happening to the world around them. Thom's out look on the world is a bit melancholy but he has good reason to be. For the average person who feeds their mind with junk T.V and their body with junk food then they might learn something by having a read of Thom's books. Although I don't agree with everything Thom is saying I think his heart is in the right place and he really wants to see a better world for all of us. This is a good read and a good wake up call!!
Book Description
What does economics have to do with law? Suppose legislators propose that armed robbers receive life imprisonment. Editorial pages applaud them for getting tough on crime. Constitutional lawyers raise the issue of cruel and unusual punishment. Legal philosophers ponder questions of justness. An economist, on the other hand, observes that making the punishment for armed robbery the same as that for murder encourages muggers to kill their victims. This is the cut-to-the-chase quality that makes economics not only applicable to the interpretation of law, but beneficial to its crafting.
Drawing on numerous commonsense examples, in addition to his extensive knowledge of Chicago-school economics, David D. Friedman offers a spirited defense of the economic view of law. He clarifies the relationship between law and economics in clear prose that is friendly to students, lawyers, and lay readers without sacrificing the intellectual heft of the ideas presented. Friedman is the ideal spokesman for an approach to law that is controversial not because it overturns the conclusions of traditional legal scholars--it can be used to advocate a surprising variety of political positions, including both sides of such contentious issues as capital punishment--but rather because it alters the very nature of their arguments. For example, rather than viewing landlord-tenant law as a matter of favoring landlords over tenants or tenants over landlords, an economic analysis makes clear that a bad law injures both groups in the long run. And unlike traditional legal doctrines, economics offers a unified approach, one that applies the same fundamental ideas to understand and evaluate legal rules in contract, property, crime, tort, and every other category of law, whether in modern day America or other times and places--and systems of non-legal rules, such as social norms, as well.
This book will undoubtedly raise the discourse on the increasingly important topic of the economics of law, giving both supporters and critics of the economic perspective a place to organize their ideas.
Download Description
What does economics have to do with law? Suppose legislators propose that armed robbers receive life imprisonment. Editorial pages applaud them for getting tough on crime. Constitutional lawyers raise the issue of cruel and unusual punishment. Legal philosophers ponder questions of justness. An economist, on the other hand, observes that making the punishment for armed robbery the same as that for murder encourages muggers to kill their victims. This is the cut-to-the-chase quality that makes economics not only applicable to the interpretation of law, but beneficial to its crafting. Drawing on numerous commonsense examples, in addition to his extensive knowledge of Chicago-school economics, David D. Friedman offers a spirited defense of the economic view of law. He clarifies the relationship between law and economics in clear prose that is friendly to students, lawyers, and lay readers without sacrificing the intellectual heft of the ideas presented. Friedman is the ideal spokesman for an approach to law that is controversial not because it overturns the conclusions of traditional legal scholars--it can be used to advocate a surprising variety of political positions, including both sides of such contentious issues as capital punishment--but rather because it alters the very nature of their arguments. For example, rather than viewing landlord-tenant law as a matter of favoring landlords over tenants or tenants over landlords, an economic analysis makes clear that a bad law injures both groups in the long run. And unlike traditional legal doctrines, economics offers a unified approach, one that applies the same fundamental ideas to understand and evaluate legal rules in contract, property, crime, tort, and every other category of law, whether in modern day America or other times and places--and systems of non-legal rules, such as social norms, as well.
Customer Reviews:
Layman Introduction to Economics of Law.......2007-08-04
Law's Order is an introduction of applying economics analysis on laws for common layman. Comparing with the other textbooks on economics analysis of law, Law's Order is less academic. In Law's Order, David Friedman firstly introduces daily life situations, such as "marriage, sex and babies", "tort", "antitrust", etc..., and apply the economic analysis on these situations and discuss how the law can help these situations attain a better result according to economics analysis. The reader should find that the Law is more or less economics efficiency. Although this is not a textbook but it is suitable to be used as a textbook on Law and Economics.
chris tam
hong kong
Enlightening, Fun & Important Read.......2006-05-27
It's a dense and fun work in a very interesting and important topic. It was my first book on law&economics, and I am very satisfied with it. I highly recommend it especially for those who love economics--you will learn fascinating insights. The chapters on tort and criminal law were my favorites. David Friedman is a great teacher, in print or talk (if you haven't seen him speak, don't miss a chance).
Should Voodoo practice be punishable?.......2004-01-06
As soon as I was finished with this book, I turned around and read it again. Friedman is picking up a theme that he introduced towards the end of the revised Machinery of Freedom, in which he states that in order to understand certain mechanisms, we must undertake the economic analysis of law. This discipline was generally considered to have been initiated by Ronald Coase and taken up and popularized by Richard Posner. Friedman's own work advances the study into areas of law that relate to the internet and computers.
This particular book, however, concentrates on advancing the work done by Posner to a wider audience. Posner's perspective is that of a very, very talented legal theorist attempting to apply economic tools to law; Friedman's is that of a very talented economist applying his own discipline to law.
The complete book is available online; in fact the book was intended to be an off-line anchor for a number of other links. Friedman does away with references to landmark cases, mathematics, and other references in the book, and moves them all to the online version. While it seemed like a good idea at thte time, I ultimately found it to be annoying.
I would say that this is the first book I've read that connects technical economic ideas - like efficiency, the Coase Theorem, externalities, and rent-seeking - to the real world with practical applications.
Like whether or not voodoo practice should be punishable as attempted murder (huh? Read the book - this and other stories are both entertaining and enlightening).
interesting read, annoying footnote approach.......2003-08-07
Liked the book. But instead of using citations and footnotes, he uses icons that point to his web site. This is supposed to be make it easier to read, but it's very annoying. I hope this doesn't become a trend.
Nice, but a little bit too biased.......2003-07-14
David Friedman is anarcho-capitalist who teaches economics to law students. This book, written mainly for laymen, shows both sides of him. He explains the relevant ideas from economics quite well and applies them to legal questions. He argues that even apart from moral arguments, many laws can be justified by economic efficiency.
The logic is something like this: Stealing is a process where someone takes something away from someone without the consent of that person. One loses, one gains. So what's the problem? The problem is that the thief spends energy on stealing, the potential victims on securing themselves and to some degree they produce less, since they may not keep everything. Therefore stealing is inefficient in a certain sense. Many laws can be justified on such grounds.
He also describes the legal system of ancient Iceland, a system that worked without government. Inspired by that, Friedman proposes some rather radical ideas like allowing murderes to buy themselves free. It also happens that the more radical ideas are the ones with the worst arguments in favor of them. He makes some rather strange assumptions (like that murderes are able to pay millions of dollars...).
The book is clearly biased, but it is well written and explains economic ideas quite nicely. It's also pobably the only book on law and economics that is written for laymen.
Book Description
This new collection of essays by the author of Life at the Bottom bears the unmistakable stamp of Theodore Dalrymple's bracingly clearsighted view of the human condition. In these pieces, Dr. Dalrymple ranges over literature and ideas, from Shakespeare to Marx, from the breakdown of Islam to the legalization of drugs. Here is a book that restores our faith in the central importance of literature and criticism to our civilization. Theodore Dalrymple is the best doctor-writer since William Carlos Williams. --Peggy Noonan. Includes When Islam Breaks Down, named the best journal article of 2004 by David Brooks of the New York Times.
Customer Reviews:
Our Cutlture, What's left of it: The Manadins and the Masses.......2007-09-11
Excellent. Should be a must in every Sociology class in every university. Ah, but that won't happen in any Govt run school. Too bad.
Stop Comparing Him to C.S. Lewis and George Orwell.......2007-08-14
I don't think there's any doubt that Dalrymple blames the welfare state for the cultural rot we're experiencing now in the West. But to call this a polemic against socialism misses the mark in my humble opinion. In fact most of these essays have nothing to do with socialism whatsoever. This is more of a cultural autopsy than an actual survey because realistically the corpse has been rotting for sometime now. And while the third world barbarian hordes overrun the lands our ancestors bled for, we, the heirs of a once magnificent Judeo-Christian civilization do nothing more than stand over the proverbial bloated corpse and inhale the intoxicating fumes as they waft upwards. It's not a polemic, it's a chronical of one man's disbelief at how low we've truly sunk as a society.
Naturally then Dalrymple spends alot of time scolding us for what a bunch of infants we've all become and really who can blame him? As he himself points out people can't even evoke the First Ammendment properly anymore. Every day we're forced to listen to the pedlers of smut, gore, and treason lecture us on what a bunch fascists Middle Americans are for daring to stand up and speak against the filth that is put over their airwaves. As if the First Ammendment were somehow equatable to a right to offend. Folks literally can't tell the difference anymore between purposive criticism of the status quo and deliberately vile and offensive behavior. Indeed the very notion that there's a difference between the two at all has been denied by the collective weight of the American academic establishment (i.e. the American Reeducation Camps).
Admittedly this unjustified sense of entitlement might be the logical conclusion of socialism as Dalrymple suggests but I would dig alot deeper than just this book alone before jumping to any conclusions. Where Dalrymple succeeds wonderfully is in calling American popular culture out for the dangling of the keychain that it really is. I think his phrase "amuseing ourselves to death" is an appropriate assessment of what's really going on, alot of stimulation and not much else.
This book is good for the cultural criticism that it supplies but it doesn't do much beyond that. At least in these essays Dalrymple chooses to focus on culture rather than on humanity, a distinction that alot of the reviews failed to take into account. I commend anyone who works to prevent the loss of our heritage but the comparissons to CS Lewis are totally unwarranted. This book is not the revolutionary tract some of you make it out to be and Dalrymple is not saying anything particularly profound about what humanity desires and needs. All he's doing is saying aloud what anyone with half a spec of dignity realized long ago.
A stimulating collection from this compassionate conservative.......2007-05-31
"Our Culture, What's Left of It: The Mandarins and the Masses" is a collection of 26 essays by Theodore Dalrymple the pseudonym of Anthony Daniels a former English prison doctor and psychiatrist.
If you read and enjoyed Dalrymple's "Life at the Bottom" published in 2001 you will find much to enjoy here.
Dalrymple is a "compassionate conservative" deeply concerned about the devastating consequences that liberalism has brought to society.
Dalrymple's basic thesis is the the changes to society brought about by progressive intellectuals has devastated the working classes leading to the social problems we have today - single mothers, social welfare dependency, social dislocation, drug use, etc, etc.
Dalrymple also rails against art intellectuals who automatically equate "shocking", "disturbing", "breaking taboos" as good. He makes the point that once you start breaking taboos you have to keep going further to continue to shock.
The highlight for me was "How to Read a Society", which discusses a series of letters first published in 1843 written by the French aristocrat the Marquis de Custine on his experiences in Russia.
Dalrymple explores how the insights in these letters on Russian society do so much to explain how communism could take root in Russia, and how closely the tyranny of communism followed on from the tyranny of the Tsarist era.
Altogether this is a stimulating and entertaining collection.
Thought provoking. Hard going, but worth the effort.......2007-05-13
I found the first part of this book quite hard going, however that is due to my own intellectual limitations. It's a book which needs to be pondered and reflected on and I intend to return to it with that aim in mind. If you want to be stretched then this is the book for you. Theodore Dalrymple is a man who does a lot of thinking and it's very sensible, obvious stuff.
Outstanding book .......2007-04-09
I am one who is deeply concerned about the destruction of western civilization. Much of my reading the last 3 years has been on the subject. Perhaps Dalrymple has made the best of the bunch. He far easier to read than Alexander Boots' "How the West was Lost". And far more scholarly than works by Michael Savage, Neil Boortz and Oriana Falluci. Dalrymple also mixes personal experience with research to sell his point in easilu digestable chapters. Although much of his writings are in regard to England it can easily be related to america as well. My only regret is that the book was not longer, even 500 pages wouldn't be enough. I am anxouisly awaiting his next book.
Average customer rating:
- An Impolite Feud Properly Gerrymandered
- Are the Science Wars a Social Construction?
- Balanced and helpful, but also frustrating
- A Pacifist in the Culture Wars
- How to take imperfect knowledge seriously
|
The Social Construction of What?
Ian Hacking
Manufacturer: Harvard University Press
ProductGroup: Book
Binding: Paperback
 General
| Criticism & Theory
| History & Criticism
| Literature & Fiction
| Subjects
| Books
Epistemology
| Philosophy
| Nonfiction
| Subjects
| Books
General
| Philosophy
| Nonfiction
| Subjects
| Books
History & Surveys
| Philosophy
| Nonfiction
| Subjects
| Books
Political
| Philosophy
| Nonfiction
| Subjects
| Books
General
| Science
| Subjects
| Books
General
| History & Philosophy
| Science
| Subjects
| Books
All Titles
| Qualifying Textbooks - Fall 2007
| Stores
| Books
Literature & Fiction
| Qualifying Textbooks - Fall 2007
| Stores
| Books
Nonfiction
| Qualifying Textbooks - Fall 2007
| Stores
| Books
Science
| Qualifying Textbooks - Fall 2007
| Stores
| Books
Similar Items:
-
Historical Ontology
-
The Construction of Social Reality
-
Laboratory Life
-
Epistemic Cultures: How the Sciences Make Knowledge
-
We Have Never Been Modern
ASIN: 0674004124 |
Book Description
Lost in the raging debate over the validity of social construction is the question of what, precisely, is being constructed. Facts, gender, quarks, reality? Is it a person? An object? An idea? A theory? Each entails a different notion of social construction, Ian Hacking reminds us. His book explores an array of examples to reveal the deep issues underlying contentious accounts of reality.
Especially troublesome in this dispute is the status of the natural sciences, and this is where Hacking finds some of his most telling cases, from the conflict between biological and social approaches to mental illness to vying accounts of current research in sedimentary geology. He looks at the issue of child abuse--very much a reality, though the idea of child abuse is a social product. He also cautiously examines the ways in which advanced research on new weapons influences not the content but the form of science. In conclusion, Hacking comments on the "culture wars" in anthropology, in particular a spat between leading ethnographers over Hawaii and Captain Cook. Written with generosity and gentle wit by one of our most distinguished philosophers of science, this wise book brings a much needed measure of clarity to current arguments about the nature of knowledge.
Customer Reviews:
An Impolite Feud Properly Gerrymandered.......2003-10-19
For about forty years now there's been a war between two groups of knuckleheads. One group uses social constructionism (or constructivism) to deflate the necessity and relevance of their pet peeves - science is sometimes one of the peeves. The other group of knuckleheads, usually professional peevers, argue back that social constructionists are a bunch of knuckleheads. The practical result of this feud has been significant shifts in social policies, research grant funding, tenure, education programs and a host of tangible issues that bother a lot of knuckleheads, like me.
Professor Hacking tries to take the middle ground in this debate. In a series of disjointed chapters (some of which were published before in different contexts) he explains social constructionism in a way that both (a) deflates some of the bad armchair constructionist-speak and (b) makes good sense of constructionism to skeptics of the *discipline* - who really can't be blamed after all. I mean, since Berger and Luckmann's outstanding treatise so much poop has been published under that rubric.
Professor Hacking admirably accomplishes this mediation by clarifying, loudly and slowly as it were, exactly what social constructionism IS NOT. This is a handy way to quell mis-directed criticisms, hopefully. Less ink is spent telling us what it IS in any way that wasn't already (mis)understood by its critics. It's not a bad idea to have some basic understanding of the sociology of knowledge going into this - and I don't mean the kind of knowledge one gleans from reading books which APPLY constructionism; they're usually the poop.
The chapter about Child Abuse and the chapter about Weapons Research (and parts of the one on Natural Sciences) are worth the price of the book. For me it didn't get going 'till about half way through. Professor Hacking's style was sometimes strained to be neutral. The book did not flow well from chapter to chapter - and I was surprised that he could write a chapter called "Madness: Biological or Constructed?" with only a glance toward Thomas Szasz. Maybe I'm just old fashioned.
I gained a lot of respect for the author while reading this. The book both educated me on the state and history of the feud AND provided me with a better understanding of where Professor Hacking is coming from. This knucklehead gives it 4 stars.
Are the Science Wars a Social Construction?.......2003-03-31
Like many people might, I looked at the title of this one and fell in love. "Social construction of what?" I'm in, I said to myself, for a great 'take em down' kind of book a la Dawkins and Sokal and, honestly, I love those kind of books. Well, I used to; untill Hacking took all the fun out!!
Why do I say that? Because I've been fooled all these years by gross caricaturizations of social constructionism (which, as were told, ALWAYS must be synonymous with relativism). This book, the only neutral one I've seen, is devoted to explaining, I think, to both sides of the debate (if you want to call it that!) that there is much more middle ground than is realized. Like most answers to most questions, the most likely answer to "Are you a social constructivist?" should be "It depends on the circumstance".
Hacking, a philosopher of science, goes through different meanings of social construction: on the less contreversial side, we have laws and I.Q. Not many will say these aren't real in the sense that they work, but besides that they don't really exist. You can't hold them, directly observe them; they are social tools. In the middle, you have mental disorders and averages. Like the others, they don't exist outside of our classification of them. (one might make a case for mental retardiation, but ask five psychiatrists what "schizophrenia" is and you will get five different answers). The most contreversial, of course, are things like gender and physical matter. Both of these things are observable, thus, it is hard t osee how social construction can change anything with them. Hacking calmly explains how some people suggest you can.
Anyhow, Hackings point is that most of us, however small a degree, are social constructionists about something; we just didn't know it. For my part, on Hackings three part quiz (try it, you'll like it!) I scored a 4-5-1. I never would've realized that by reading more of the polarized books about the science wars and the straw-men therein. Makes me woner...Are the science wars social constructs?....
Balanced and helpful, but also frustrating.......2001-02-28
In the neverending battle to define "what is real" for each other, to persuade each other of what is good, bad, and important, one disturbing trend in academia is to jump on the bandwagon of things considered "socially constructed." The banner of social construction has become a lightning rod of sorts for all sorts of bizarre things that represent what the author refers to in terms of "rage against reason." X was socially constructed, and therefore is unreal, and even bad, and should be modified or replaced by Y.
Emotions, knowledge, the mind, the economy, the deficit, gender, mental illness, even facts and reality, all have been subjected to literary claims that they are "socially constructed."
Hacking provides an interesting perspective on this whole trend by de-emphasizing the social aspect and focusing on the construction aspect. He views this simply as a way of arguing against the inevitability of something. For example, arguing about 'social construction' of our understanding of quarks in physics, part of the standard model, the question becomes whether an alternate equally successful science could have arisen that had no such concept as a quark. Hacking then struggles with what a successful science means, and how we would recognize it. There are many examples that follow this pattern, each discussed in terms of whether X was inevitable, and thus how else it could have been constructed in our minds and in culture.
Hacking goes as far as an offhanded treatment of nominalism and essentialism relevant to this inevitability question (essential qualities are those that are seen as inevitable). He breaks down difficult questions into relatively simple ones using this same kind of straightforward procedure. In analyzing the social construction of X for many examples, he looks for those elements of X that were inevitable, and those that serve "extra-theoretical" purposes and could have been constructed differently.
One particularly unique aspect of hacking's work here, the prototype of social constructionism here is not the sociology of science in general. He uses Pickering, LaTour, and Woolgar as his prime examples, rather than folks like Harry Collins and Trevor Pinch, who are often considered in the same category. Hacking considers them distinct for his purposes, and this reveals some interesting distinctions.
What I liked best about this book is that while it is carefully done, there is an offhanded air about the points Hacking makes. He makes some very difficult analyses seem very easy by pulling particularly useful examples from the literature. He navigates a lot of difficult philosophy by asking deceptively simple questions, like "what is the point ?" rather than "what is the meaning ?"
There are some interesting sweeping gestures here like claiming that social construction can simply by thought of as an argument against the inevitability of X, and then analyzed for how committed the author is to claiming X is bad and overturning X. Another interesting example is Hacking's description of essentialism as simply a way of talking about inevitability.
This book is somewhat disappointing if you're looking for simple answers to each of the questions posed, "is X socially constructed or not ?" However, it provides an extremely helpful way of looking at each case and trying to decide whether a 'social construction' critique actually has any value, or whether it just gives the history of the topic. Perhaps most useful is Hacking's "3 sticking points" with which to address the construction of a concept: contingency, nominalism, and stability.
This is a thinking person's book, but not nearly as incomprehensible to the layman as most works of modern philosophy, and much easier to read and more helpful than most of the "social construction" literature itself.
I'd go as far as to say that in many cases, we could replace the "social construction of X" arguments with Hacking's style of analysis about inevitability and the 3 sticking points, and come up with a more enlightening answer about the reality of the X in question.
If there is any flaw that I found here it is that I didn't think there was enough detail provided on any one topic to resolve the questions asked, they are pretty much all examples, and more questions are raised than answered. That can get maddening when you are just getting interested in the topic.
A Pacifist in the Culture Wars.......2000-05-05
This book is terrific. Humane, balanced, measured observations of the battle between those who see science as socially constructed and those who hew to a more naive realism (most scientists, like myself), written by a self-professed non-combatant. The views expressed are insightful, sophisticated and very informative for those not familiar with this kind of internecine warfare. Some of the chapters were written at other times and do not fit completely, but there is enough here to satisfy anyone wanting to know what the fuss is all about and how it might be understood. A really wonderful book that deserves a wide readership.
How to take imperfect knowledge seriously.......2000-01-15
One of the things Hacking has taken from Wittgenstein is his aversion to grand theory-making in philosophy. Unlike some philosophers, Hacking has learned from mistakes of the past and is not doomed to repeat them. Those who want grand, clear-cut theories in their philosophy are liable to be frustrated by the present book, and come up short in their interpretations of it (see the reviews in the Economist and the NY Times Book Review, for example). It's not that Hacking does not have a position, it's just that, as the reviewer from New York wrote, his distinctions are finely-spun and less subtle minds may have trouble getting a grip on them. Hacking is too humane and takes the world, people, and people's coping far too seriously to be glib about things (_pace_ the one-star reviewer below). Indeed, his writings, from the earlier books on probability and scientific realism to his paper on "Styles of reasoning" and his later books on psychiatric issues, can all, I think, be illuminated by the rubric "how to take imperfect knowledge seriously".
Those rare science warriors, on either side of the debate, who polemically espouse the perfection of their cause will therefore be disappointed. For the rest of us, Hacking's careful commentary on the issue comes like a gust of fresh air. Hacking really admires science, and he understands it pretty well, too. But remember the rubric: "taking imperfect knowledge seriously". Hacking certainly doesn't think that all that's true and can be said about science is said by science or dogmatic scientists themselves. Some of the social constructionists have exposed important if imperfect historical truths, too.
Those who are interested in broader debates on social constructionism will certainly profit from this book. I will not say more, as I think the reviewers from New York and London have summed things up well. Although this book is topical and has a nice, shiny cover, I will say that if you are mainly interested in getting acquainted with Hacking's style of philosophy, one of his earlier books will serve you better. Representing and Intervening is probably your best bet.
One more thing: while Hacking is serious, as the reviews suggest, he can also be extremely funny, if in a dry way. Hacking's books, unlike some philosophy, are a joy to read.
Amazon.com
Charles Murray first got famous for his book Losing Ground's argument that welfare programs actually hamper the progress of poor people. Then he got even more famous for saying (along with his co-author Richard Herrnstein) in The Bell Curve that genetically-based IQ deficits also hamper their progress. This little book is worth the read because we get to see what he thinks the government should really do about all this: not much. On the plus side, Murray is a very clear writer. So we get, for instance, a nicely drawn discussion of the nature of public goods. But although this book is offered in the spirit of the Revolutionary pamphleteers, when it gets down to cases, Murray comes across as a man who's lost his common sense. For example, he claims that if all businesses were allowed to opt out of the current government regulatory scheme, provided that they display prominent signs saying UNREGULATED, "just about every small business will want to be unregulated. ... No more building inspectors, elevator inspectors, or restaurant inspectors. Owners of unregulated small businesses will have to answer to no one but their customers." He doesn't seem to notice that those customers will be running at top speed away from those clearly marked buildings, elevators, and restaurants.
Book Description
"In the last quarter of the eighteenth century, the American Founders created a society based on the belief that human happiness is intimately connected with personal freedom and responsibility. A few people, of whom I am one, think that the Founders' insights are as true today as they were two centuries ago. We believe that human happiness requires freedom, and freedom requires limited government. Limited government means a very small one, shorn of almost all of the apparatus we have come to take for granted during the last sixty years.
Most people are baffled by such views. Don't we realize that this is post-industrial America, not Jefferson's agrarian society? This book tries to explain how we can believe the less government, the better. It contains no footnotes. It has no tables and but a single graph. My purpose is to explain a way of looking at the world." --Charles Murray, from the Introduction
The twin pillars of the nation created by America's Founders were strict limits on the power of central government and strict protections of individual rights. Now, at the close of the twentieth century, that state is gone--and Charles Murray wants to bring it back. In What It Means to Be a Libertarian, he offers a radical blueprint for overhauling our dysfunctional government and replacing it with a system that fosters human happiness because it safeguards human freedom.
Most Americans, Murray argues, have reluctantly come to accept that a sprawling, costly, and intrusive government is an inevitable part of modern life. What It Means to Be a Libertarian encourages each of us to liberate ourselves from ingrained ideas of what government is and consider instead what it ought to be. Imagine, for example, a federal government that is not just smaller, but small, with an executive branch reduced to the White House and trimmed-down departments of state, defense, justice, and environmental protection. Imagine a federal code stripped of all but a handful of regulations and a Congress so limited in power that it spends only a few months of each year in session. Imagine a society in which the government's role is once again to prevent people from initiating the use of force, leaving them otherwise free, in the words of Thomas Jefferson, "to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement."
In this very personal book, Charles Murray paints a vivid portrait of life in a genuinely free society. He explains why limited government would lead to greater individual fulfillment, more vital communities, and a richer culture. He shows why such a society would have stronger families, fewer poor people, and would care for the less fortunate far better than does the society we havenow.
Writing in the tradition of the Revolutionary pamphleteers, Charles Murray has crafted a brilliant treatise that presents a clear, workable alternative to our
current government. Without footnotes, in plain language, What It Means to Be a Libertarian returns to the truths our Founders held to be self-evident
and applies them, justly and compassionately, to this country's most urgent social and political problems.
Customer Reviews:
Fantastic, clearly written book!.......2007-04-10
Charles Murray eloquently explains the reasoning and ideals of Libertarians in a straight-forward, no-nonsense fashion. Easily the best book I've read this year.
Murray The Part-Time Monster Shrinker .......2006-05-30
What it Means to Be a Libertarian is a clear, concise and compelling account of Murray's brand of libertarianism. Murray fluidly moves from point to point, covering the broad range of social and political topics that concern libertarians.
Murray makes particularly good use of his "trendline test" to argue that government interventions are almost always ineffective. His claim is that we can spend a lot of money on government programs to solve what ails us (with respect to crime, poverty, health care, safety, education, etc.) but when you compare trends before government intervention and after intervention, there is usually no positive change. We are wasting our resources. Worse, by intervening, government agencies strip communities and citizens of important functions. Since, "to live a satisfying life, you have to spend a goodly portion of your waking hours doing important things," the pernicious effect of government "help" is incalculable. Murray shows heightened sensitivity to the actual places people live. "When the government stripped neighborhoods of functions, the consequences were most devastating where the geographic neighborhood was most important." 167
Murray separates himself from the strictest libertarians by allowing for legislation in matters where the public good is at stake and the transactions costs of solving problems through common law prohibit tort solutions. For example, "zoning rules provide a way for collections of people to shape the future of their neighborhood and are based on the consensual agreement of the people already living there." "The smaller the municipality, the more likely that the services have consensual support. The larger the municipality, the more likely that they are political arrangements for taking from one set of citizens to benefit another." Murray makes a convincing case for appropriately scaled government under local control of the people.
If Murray's principle is the greater the power, and the further removed the power is from local control, the more objectionable the power is, then it is fair to ask whether this principle applies to all powers that are great and removed from local control, or whether this principle is to apply only to government. Murray asserts that "over time, political and social freedom invariably correspond to the degree of economic freedom that people have retained." Is local control less important if the power is organized in the form of a corporation as opposed to a government?
In our current version of what passes for a "free market" with the putative benefit of unrestrained economic competition between individuals, Wal-Mart, because it enjoys the legal status of a person, is considered the theoretical equal of Bob the local appliance store owner. And if Bob happens to lose in the retail competition because he can't order 50,000 coffee-makers at a crack from a factory 12, 000 miles away, and receive a deep discount for being such an important customer, well, at least Bob was "free" to compete. Right? (Kunstler, The Long Emergency). Bob might expect Charles (Murray), a lover of freedom and defender of the locals against the imposition of remote power, to say something about his plight. Murray, however, gives no indication he is interested in shrinking the monster unless the monster is a government.
Murray gives a couple clues as to why this is the case. "The reality of daily life [Murray says] is that, by and large, the things the government does tend to be ugly, rude, slovenly - and not to work. Things that private organizations do tend to be attractive, courteous, tidy - and to work. That is the way America really is." This is the first clue - corporations (power and location not otherwise specified) come out on the happy side of the attractive / ugly split. The second clue is Murray's working hypothesis with respect to the psychology of human beings. "Libertarians assume that, absent physical coercion, everyone's mind is under his own control." And, "if I cannot use force, everything I get has to be given voluntarily."
With rose colored glasses and a simple psychology, Murray is able to decry the evils of governmental regulation while oblivious to the impact of mega-corporate bullies on the environment and local communities across the country. The attractive products courteously delivered from mega-corporations that have no real stake in any particular local community come with costs that are hidden only from those who do not want to see. And if Murray really thinks that a mega-corporation is powerless to shape his world against his interest and will merely because the mega-corporation does not wield police-power, then he is enjoying quite a fantasy.
I recommend What it Means to be a Libertarian. If Murray had applied his principle of local control to corporate as well as governmental power, he would have written a five star book. He stops short so he gets four stars.
Excellent introduction to Libertarian Thought.......2006-05-10
Murray gives a wonderful introduction to the way a Libertarian looks at and thinks about the issues in modern American life. He also gives many recommendations as to how to make American government better and what an ideal Libertarian government might look like. He even describes how he believes this revolution might come about, and almost predicts that it's closer than we might think. Great read for anyone who is a Libertarian or wants to know more about how Libertarians think... and it's a GREAT book to read if you're a liberal, conservative, or a statist, especially.
Excellent Introduction to Libertarian Thought.......2006-05-01
This is the best single book introduction to libertarian thought. It is better in this regard than the Boaz book in that it is shorter and more personal/philosophical (although the Boaz book is more rigorously argued and comprehensive). Murray gives general principles first and then goes on to make concrete suggestions for improving and limiting the government. At a time when "big government conservatives" are running (and ruining) the country, this sets out a coherent alternative for all those who still believe in the Enlightenment principles of individual freedom and personal responsibility.
Compelling Vision of Libertarianism.......2006-02-07
This book would be more accurately titled 'One Man's Argument for Libertarianism,' as Murray's particular brand of libertarianism is not necessarily that shared by either the Libertarian Party or the average libertarian. Nonetheless, the book makes a very good case for his brand of libertarianism and at least lays out the basics of what libertarianism is and is not.
The book presents libertarianism is two parts: descriptive and prescriptive, with the prescriptions building naturally from the description. Murray lays out his views on the proper role of government in society in the descriptive part of the book, providing a reasonably coherent explanation of how the basic theory of libertarianism applies in specific cases.
The second part of the book is where things get particularly interesting, as Murray starts prescribing how the government should be reshaped to form a libertarian government. He lays out an ambitious agenda and does a remarkably good job of defending it given his space limitations. His arguments for paring away a sizable chunk of the regulatory state will not be accepted by many readers, but his arguments are cogent and reasonable. As he notes in the text, there is no way to be certain that his prescriptions would result in better economic health for the nation. On the other hand, there's also no way to demonstrate that government regulation has provided more than a marginal benefit to the public (and certainly no way to demonstrate its benefits have outweighed its costs). It is unlikely Murray's arguments will win over many converts, as political affiliation is a very difficult thing for people to change, but most who dismiss his arguments will do so from emotion rather than logic.
Murray's writing is crisp and clean, making the already small book a very pleasant read. While the reader will not truly understand what it means to be a libertarian in this small volume, he will certainly understand the basics of the philosophy and how it can be applied to some of the political problems we face today. Well worth a look for anyone curious about libertarians and libertarianism.
Book Description
This is a new translation of one of the classics of the traditions of anarchism and socialism. Pierre-Joseph Proudhon was a contemporary of Marx and one of the most acute, influential, and subversive critics of modern French and European society. What is Property? (1840) has become a classic of political thought through its wide-ranging and deep-reaching critique of private property as at once the essential institution of Western culture and the root cause of greed, corruption, political tyranny, social division, and violation of natural law.
Download Description
Property is impossible; equality does not exist. We hate the former, and yet wish to possess it; the latter rules all our thoughts, yet we know not how to reach it. Who will explain this profound antagonism between our conscience and our will? Who will point out the causes of this pernicious error, which has become the most sacred principle of justice and society?
Customer Reviews:
property.......2006-05-14
proudhon didn't mean all property is theft. he didn't advocate no owner ship. He is indicating that the labourer-boss relationship is bad. that the laborourer deserves the fruits of his work and that they should not be taken away for the sake of making money to the boss and the people on the top of the hiearchy, one of the concepts that anarchism opposes.
The classic of Western European anarchist thought.......2006-02-11
The title is perhaps one of the most famous rhetorical questions ever, and should be placed historically in the same range as "Quo usque tandem, Catilina" etc. Proudhon sets himself the task of analyzing the foundations of modern society, and inevitably is drawn towards a critique of the modern political economy, as was popular in the 19th century.
Just like Locke, he then "reverse engineers" the economic relations to find their basis in private property, but quite unlike Locke he brilliantly argues why this is in fact an evil thing and not a force for good, as Locke thought. Working from the hypothetical "state of nature", he shows how possession during use is a natural phenomenon, but a permanent property claim over something that was once part of nature is a later invention, and has since caused all strife and misery that competition over scarce goods is wont to do.
As a critique of modern society, this work deserves reading by everyone, regardless of whether you approve of current economic structures or not. The only downside to the book is Proudhon's rather messy attempt to offer an additional immanent critique of capitalism, which only leads the reader to conclude economic ignorance. That is a pity, for the question itself is not only worth asking, but of the various historical answers given this is one of the best argued and most radical.
Notable is Proudhon's influence on Marx and their subsequent falling out over Proudhon's idealism, as seen in his later work "The Philosophy of Poverty" and Marx's reply "The Poverty of Philosophy".
A Useful Text.......2004-05-09
Note: The previous reviewer is a known troll on various political discussion boards; he has developed a rabid hatred towards Anarchist ideology, so, if I were a customer considering this book, I would take his review with a grain of salt - it's full of very personal venom. For instance, to put Proudhon and Marx in the same category is blatant proof of the reviewer's prejudices; clearly, he has either not read the text or he is purposefully misrepresenting it. Proudhon would never have supported the authoritarianism espoused by Marx or any of his contemporaries and successors.
Proudhon's discourse on property is a great thing to pit against the theories of Hobbes, Locke, and others. He examines property both as a natural right and as one derived from labor, attempting to prove both as false. Whether or not he successfully does so is up to the reader. This is a great book for people interested in political thought and social theory; regardless of whether or not you are a staunch capitalist or socialist, this book will either give you something to think about. For strong supporters of property, it may help solidify your beliefs while you read it with critical analysis. For opponents of property, it may give you support in your beliefs, or re-affirm that which you already feel.
This book is recommended to any and all interested in the history of modern political thought; you just can't review literature as an ideologue, as the previous reviewer has shamefully done.
Scary stuff.......2003-12-04
One of the basic concepts of Anarchism can be found within this tome, and that is the idea that "property is theft." In other words, the very act of ownership over a resource is a criminal action against the public.
I would venture to say that this book alone has killed more people than the Malleus Maleficarum. Proudhon's basic reasoning is that property depends upon the State, and the State is inherently coercive and tyrannical, therefore property must be abolished along with the State. Marx was influenced by Proudhon, and some of the ideas expressed in the Communist Manifesto are similar to what we see here.
Of course it does not logically follow that the act of ownership over an object is to deprive someone else of their ability to enjoy that object as well. That would mean that everyone is entitled to all the goods and resources the world has to offer. One could easily say "I am entitled to use your house tonight", break in and crawl into your bed. By stopping him, you would be exercising coercion and authority, which under Anarchist precepts, is forbidden.
The movement to abolish private property led to Lenin/Stalin's nationalization efforts. The confiscation of farms and property. Starvation, and even mass murder.
Read it is a curiosity peice, nothing more. It is disturbing that some young people still find Proudhon's theories desirable.
Not against property.......2002-11-22
The idea that Proudhon was against property is one of the greatest myths about him and quite a surprising one as such. His famous statement, "Property is Theft," is later accompanied by, "Property is Liberty." In fact, his whole aim seems to be to show that property on the one hand corrupts, but that this corruption is the only possible basis for liberty - which is the ultimate aim. While Proudhon may be considered a radical, he sure was no leftwinged radical. Read for yourself! Overall he is a bit confused and confusing, his ideas of law and justice rather strange and even disturbing (law is what you cannot avoid admitting, and justice the right balance (supply and demand)). This guy took Smith a bit seriously and didn't care much about Marx's critique of society - although he has some surprisingly great critiques of communism.
Book Description
From the late-fifteenth century onwards, scholars across Europe began to write books about how to read and evaluate histories. These pioneering works - which often take surprisingly modern-sounding positions - grew from complex early modern debates about law, religion, and classical scholarship. In this book, based on the Trevelyan Lectures of 2005, Anthony Grafton explains why so many of these works were written, why they attained so much insight - and why, in the centuries that followed, most scholars gradually forgot that they had existed. Elegant and accessible, What Was History? is a deliberate evocation of E. H. Carr’s celebrated and icononclastic Trevelyan Lectures on What Is History?, and will appeal to a broad readership of students, scholars and historical enthusiasts. Anthony Grafton is one of the most celebrated historians writing in English today, and What Was History? is a powerful and imaginative exploration of some central themes in the history of European ideas.
Amazon.com
The impulse in the 1960s and `70s to achieve fairness and a balanced perspective in our nation's textbooks and standardized exams was undeniably necessary and commendable. Then how could it have gone so terribly wrong? Acclaimed education historian Diane Ravitch answers this question in her informative and alarming book, The Language Police: How Pressure Groups Restrict What Students Learn. Author of 7 books, Ravitch served as the U.S. Assistant Secretary of Education from 1991 to 1993. Her expertise and her 30-year commitment to education lend authority and urgency to this important book, which describes in copious detail how pressure groups from the political right and left have wrested control of the language and content of textbooks and standardized exams, often at the expense of the truth (in the case of history), of literary quality (in the case of literature), and of education in general. Like most people involved in education, Ravitch did not realize "that educational materials are now governed by an intricate set of rules to screen out language and topics that might be considered controversial or offensive." In this clear-eyed critique, she is an unapologetic challenger of the ridiculous and damaging extremes to which bias guidelines and sensitivity training have been taken by the federal government, the states, and textbook publishers. In a multi-page sampling of rejected test passages, we discover that "in the new meaning of bias, it its considered biased to acknowledge that lack of sight is a disability," that children who live in urban areas cannot understand passages about the country, that the Aesop fable about a vain (female) fox and a flattering (male) crow promotes gender bias. As outrageous as many of the examples are, they do not appear particularly dangerous. However, as the illustrations of abridgment, expurgation, and bowdlerization mount, the reader begins to understand that our educational system is indeed facing a monumental crisis of distortion and censorship. Ravitich ends her book with three suggestions of how to counter this disturbing tendency. Sadly, however, in the face of the overwhelming tide of misinformation that has already been entrenched in the system, her suggestions provide cold comfort. --Silvana Tropea
Book Description
Before Anton Chekhov and Mark Twain can be used in school readers and exams, they must be vetted by a bias and sensitivity committee. An anthology used in Tennessee schools changed “By God!” to “By gum!” and “My God!” to “You don’t mean it.” The New York State Education Department omitted mentioning Jews in an Isaac Bashevis Singer story about prewar Poland, or blacks in Annie Dillard’s memoir of growing up in a racially mixed town. California rejected a reading book because The Little Engine That Could was male.
Diane Ravitch maintains that America’s students are compelled to read insipid texts that have been censored and bowdlerized, issued by publishers who willingly cut controversial material from their books—a case of the bland leading the bland.
The Language Police is the first full-scale exposé of this cultural and educational scandal, written by a leading historian. It documents the existence of an elaborate and well-established protocol of beneficent censorship, quietly endorsed and implemented by test makers and textbook publishers, states, and the federal government. School boards and bias and sensitivity committees review, abridge, and modify texts to delete potentially offensive words, topics, and imagery. Publishers practice self-censorship to sell books in big states.
To what exactly do the censors object? A typical publisher’s guideline advises that
• Women cannot be depicted as caregivers or doing
household chores.
• Men cannot be lawyers or doctors or plumbers.
They must be nurturing helpmates.
• Old people cannot be feeble or dependent; they
must jog or repair the roof.
• A story that is set in the mountains discriminates
against students from flatlands.
• Children cannot be shown as disobedient or in
conflict with adults.
• Cake cannot appear in a story because it is not
nutritious.
The result of these revisions are—no surprise!—boring, inane texts about a cotton-candy world bearing no resemblance to what children can access with the click of a remote control or a computer mouse. Sadly, data show that these efforts to sanitize language do not advance learning or bolster test scores, the very
reason given for banning allegedly insensitive words and topics.
Ravitch offers a powerful political and economic analysis of the causes of censorship. She has practical and sensible solutions for ending it, which will improve the quality of books for students as well as liberating publishers, state boards of education, and schools from the grip of pressure groups.
Passionate and polemical,
The Language Police is a book for every educator, concerned parent, and engaged citizen.
Customer Reviews:
Now language is policed.......2007-07-26
Millionaire in 365 Days: The Daily Plan to Get There
Your kids do not have a chance to get anything that may be the truth until it is filtered to suit all kinds of activists agendas.
Do they know facts or a fictional agenda...you decide...it looks like they are getting a lot of bull....and then they start to believe it....
The lunatic asylum is being run by the inmates.......2007-03-10
"How many roads must an individual walk down before you can call them an adult?" (Bob Dylan's song "How many roads must a man walk down/ Before you call him a man?" as modified by state textbook sensitivity regulations.
Today's parents may wonder why more than half of American high school seniors test below the "basic" level (which is the lowest score) in knowledge of U.S. history. But a glance at any high school history book quickly gives the appalling answer: These "textbooks" have been squeezed utterly dry of all meaningful content. The list of words, phrases, concepts, and grammar that is forbidden to be used boggles the mind. By forcibly eliminating a long list of words, concepts and expression, whole subjects can not be written about because the vocabulary to describe them is taboo. Here is a sample of some of the 484 words and phrases that are banned in textbooks in the United States, along with their recommended replacements.
"Able-bodied" (banned as offensive, replace with person who is non-disabled.)
"Bubbler" (banned as regional bias, replace with water fountain.)
"Caveman" (banned as sexist, replace with cave dweller.)
"Courageous" (banned as patronizing when referring to persons with disabilities.)
"Disadvantaged" (banned, replace with reference to the resources or rights that are absent in an individual's or group's life circumstances.)(!)
"God" (banned.) (!)
"Homosexual" (banned, replace with person, child)
"Limping along" (banned as handicapism.)
"Lunatic" (banned as offensive, replace with person with a psychiatric illness.)
"Man and wife" (banned as sexism, replace with husband and wife.)
"Overcoming a disability" (banned as offensive when referring to a person with disabilities.)
"Polo" (banned as elitist.)
"Soda" (banned for regional bias, replace with Coke, Pepsi.)
"Teenager" (banned, replace with adolescent.)
Un-American (banned, no replacement.) (!)
Under the guise of "sensitivity" analysis, a long string of everyday concepts, ideas, beliefs, arguments, accounts and just plane historical description is banned outright from textbook publication. The theoretical idea of sensitivity recommendations does sound helpful: avoid writing about subjects in a way that would deeply distress students who are required to read them. But when you discover to what extreme this lovely idea has been taken, you realize that something very much different than sensitivity is being protected. The result is that practically everything that is written in textbooks about the world, the public, notable people, historic events, religion, war, and society has been tampered with, excised, rewritten, or eliminated to the point that familiar subjects are often unrecognizable. In March 2006, the California textbook review board gave to publishers (already sensitive to the board's predilections) a 126-page list of "suggested (sic) tweaks, trims and fixes" for the next buying season editions. (NY Times 10 Mar 07)
Ms Ravaitch offers some tactics to try to reverse this stupefaction of our children's' education. Yet the problem seems so thoroughly entrenched, the ideologues so determined to get their way at any cost. For the college educated soccer mom who wonders--between kiddy chauffeuring--what she might do to help, the first thing is to buy this book. Then prepare for another 30-years religious war.
Eye Opening and Thought Provoking.......2007-03-03
Did you know that for every textbook and standardized test for school children in America there is a bias review standard that must be met? Did you know that these textbooks and tests are edited to eliminate any topic, word, phrase, illustration, or concept that might be upsetting to a particular student based on gender, race, religion, or content? For example, test questions are encouraged to refrain from mentioning the beach or bodies of water for fear of alienating those students that have no personal experience with these landscapes because of where they live. Textbooks are not to mention the contributions and developments of European history through time because it is seen as too ethnocentric. Instead, history should be illustrated by the assets provided by African, Asian, and Native American influences in an effort to include everyone regardless of historical inaccuracies. Gender, under this theory, should always be portrayed equally by finding replacements for "offensive" terms such as Forefathers, "all men are created equal," or any references to men working as plumbers and lawyers and women as teachers and nurses. This book quotes one editorialist who imagined the Gettysburg Address as it would read in order to comply with sensitivity guidelines: "The Biglerville Address, by Abraham Lincoln: We have a really cool country, and we should keep it that way."
Ravitch has put her finger on why American (excuse me, United States since American should properly include all of North, Central and South America) students are not stimulated by their school work and continue to fall behind their international counterparts. Our society has become so obsessed with political correctness that in our fear to offend we have made textbooks and other school curriculum so bland that students simply ignore it. Other forms of information including TV, movies, and the internet provide students with a variety of sources for information both impartial and biased. But one seeking information can find anything they are looking for through those media. School books, however, have been neutered and dumbed down so as not to offend or represent any person's interests disproportionately. Ravitch points out that this censorship has done a huge disservice to our country's students who are no longer taught to think, analyze, or interpret the information they are provided in school. Not only that, but the information is not always accurate because of the attempts to make everything "fair." She proposes that textbook adoption processes end so that the industry becomes more competitive, that the public demand disclosure of bias screening in American education, and that teachers become better educated themselves so that they can teach without relying on bland textbooks. Regardless of the reader's personal viewpoints, one cannot argue with the premise that children are no longer required to think for themselves under this structure. An extremely eye opening look at the state of American education.
Too Many Chefs Spoil the Pot.......2007-03-01
just as too many critics spoil the textbooks as Diane Ravitich explains in this aptly titled book, "The Language Police: How Pressure Groups Restrict What Students Learn."
Ravitch identifies how pressure groups try to change every book from literature to history to satisfy their agendas, at the sacrifice of the students. In the intensely competitive textbook market, publishers go out of their way to make learning as bland as possible so that it will not offend some group.
In my state, New York, there is a perfect example of textbook manipulation and historical revisionism that makes me bristle. Our history textbooks must include a passage thanking New York tribal Indians for their contribution to the creation of the US Consititution. The Iroquois and other tribes have insisted that this be added to textbooks used in our state. Actually, these tribes came together to solve inter-tribal issues. There was no representation as we know it. The supposed connection comes from a letter that Benjamin Franklin wrote to a friend venting his exasperation at the lack of progress in congress. He cited this confederation of Amerinds saying in effect, if savage Indians can resolve their differences, why not civilized, educated men? This was their contribution!
Other pressure groups of ethnic, religious, national, and political agendas have sanitized books to the point of uselessness. I have borne witness to history texts that I have read about the American Revolution. One passage said that we should thank the Hanseatic League for their contribution to...
The Hanseatic League?
Perhaps one day, people will recognize that not all groups contribute to our economy or our inventions in the same amounts or at the same time. When people realize that revisionism is no substitute for psychotherapy, as Arthur Schlesinger asserts, and they can put learning of our children above petty, personal agendas, our children may learn that Hiroshima is not in Vietnam, and that the Alamo is not a Latin word.
One of the Ravitch's descriptions shows grandpa reshingling the roof so that seniors are not stereotyped as incapable or lacking in energy. Old enough to be a grandfather, I may show just enough energy to reach for my wallet, and let a younger person shingle, while I chill under them.
I also recommend you reach for your wallet to buy this book.
The sequel to Fahrenheit 451.......2006-09-19
In a world where no minority can be discussed without someone being offended, where all special interest groups boycott books and publishers for offensive language, where every conceivable component of society cries and complains of an ism of some sort (e.g. sexism, racism, ageism), it is nearly impossible to convey a message, and even more impossible to retell stories of historical significance. The Language Police shows that political correctness has a strangle hold on textbook publishers, and the grip is slowly restricting the educational airflow necessary for the broadening of young minds.
The Language Police is the real-life sequel to Fahrenheit 451, and proof that much of what Bradbury warned has come true.
What's interesting is that despite the burning, discarding, and trashing, regardless of how powerful the perceived influence may be, the negative effect of literature becomes inconsequential when ubiquitous mass media consistently provides a much less "refined" product. It's truly frightening how this book displays the gap between actual freedom of speech and the eroded pacification to which America's society now abides. When passages are eliminated from classic literature like Macbeth and Huck Finn, the censorship renders literature impotent.
The one negative to this book, despite the fact that it made me weep for the American education system, is that, at times, much of the book felt repetitious. Perhaps it's the nature of the book, the vanilla topic, but finishing this book without feelings of deja vu was difficult.
Nonetheless, it's no wonder why American education is in shambles, and The Language Police perfectly uncovers the erosion. I highly recommend this book to all educators, and to anyone interested in the future of American education.
Book Description
This primer for teachers (prospective and practicing) asks students to question the historical present and their relation to it, and in so doing, to construct their own understandings of what it means to teach, to study, to become "educated." Curriculum theory is presented as the interdisciplinary study of educational experience. The mentral concept of curriculum studies as a "complicated conversation" is explored.
Within this framework, Pinar offers a compelling interpretation of contemporary "school reform" policies and practices, and an explication of curriculum theory's power to bring forth understanding, resistance, and change. His argument is this: Public education today is dominated by a conservative agenda based on a business model of education focused on the "bottom line" (test scores). The origins of this agenda go back to the 1950s, when gendered anxieties over the Cold War and racialized anxieties over school desegregation coded public education (not for the first time) as "feminized" and "black." The nature of many politicians' and some parents' criticisms of public education is intelligible only as a recoding of these gendered and racialized anxieties, deferred and displaced from their originating events onto "school reform." This has rendered the classroom a privatized and racialized domestic sphere which politicians--mostly (white) men--endeavor to control, disguised by apparently commonsense claims of "accountability." What is dangerously at stake is academic freedom and control of the curriculum--what teachers are permitted to teach, what children are permitted to study.
This text offers both an understanding of the problem and a way to address it. Pinar uses the concept of currere--the Latin infinitive of curriculum--to describe an autobiographical method that provides a strategy for self-study, a way for both individuals and groups to understand their situations, leading to action. Through currere, it is possible for educators to begin to reconstruct the public sphere--now a "shopping mall" in which citizens and students have been reduced to consumers--by connecting academic knowledge to their students (and their own) subjectivities, to society, and to the historical moment. In doing so, they can take back (relative) intellectual freedom and rebuild schooling to speak to persisting problems of race, class, and gender. It is this link, this promise of education for our private-and-public lives as Americans, that curriculum theory enables.
Comprehensive and ground-breaking, What Is Curriculum Theory? is indispensable for scholars and students worldwide across the fields of curriculum studies, foundations of education, educational policy, school reform, and teacher education.
Book Description
With the disintegration of state socialism came the re-emergence of aggressive nationalism and racism. The lid of repression lifted, the desires that emerged have been far from democratic. To explain this apparent paradox, socialist critical thought must turn to psychoanalysis says Slavoj Zizek. For they know not what they do seeks to understand the status of enjoyment within ideological discourse, from Hegel through Lacan to these political and ideological deadlocks. The author's own enjoyment of popular culture makes this an engaging and lucid exposition.
Books:
- The Maginot Line 1928-45
- The Modern Mind: An Intellectual History of the 20th Century
- The Painter IX Wow! Book (WOW!)
- The Science Fiction Hall of Fame, Volume One: The Greatest Science Fiction Stories of All Time Chosen by the Members of the Science Fiction Writers of America (SF Hall of Fame)
- The Sectional Anatomy Learning System (2-Volume Set Includes Text and Study Guide)
- The SERPENT AND THE RAINBOW
- The Thracians 700 BC-AD 46 (Men-at-Arms)
- The U.S. Cavalry Horse
- The Wages of War: When America's Soldiers Came Home : From Valley Forge to Vietnam
- Thomas Paine : Collected Writings : Common Sense / The Crisis / Rights of Man / The Age of Reason / Pamphlets, Articles, and Letters (Library of America)
Books Index
Books Home
Recommended Books
- The Effective Executive in Action: A Journal for Getting the Right Things Done
- The 90/10 Weight-Loss Plan: A Scientifically Desinged Balance of Healthy Foods and Fun Foods
- Not a Sparrow Falls
- Not a Good Day to Die: The Untold Story of Operation Anaconda
- Smoke Your Firefighter Interview
- Planet Earth: As You've Never Seen It Before
- Precious Records: Women in China's Long Eighteenth Century
- Biodiversity and Ecosystem Functioning: Synthesis and Perspectives
- Merry Mischief: Celebrating the Childhood of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother : The Stor
- A Field Guide to Australian Wildflowers
The Prophet's Way: A Guide to Living in the Now
What Would Jefferson Do?: A Return to Democracy
Screwed: The Undeclared War Against the Middle Class - And What We Can Do about It (BK Currents)
The Greatest Spiritual Secret of the Century
Unequal Protection: The Rise of Corporate Dominance and the Theft of Human Rights
