PDA

View Full Version : The Age of American Unreason


juryjone
22nd May 2008, 04:01 PM
An interesting concept for a book – 300+ pages describing why the book will not be read by the American public at large.

Susan Jacoby tries to delve into most of the reasons why Americans, led by President Bush, repudiate knowledge and state their pride of their ignorance. There are so many reasons covered, however, that the book is not as focused as I would have liked.

Jacoby starts by stating that the current mindset is not just one of anti-intellectualism (although that is certainly present) but of anti-rationalism. She traces the history of anti-intellectualism, where people of great learning are denigrated as “elites”, from the colonies through the present. She shows how intellectuals on the Left were branded as anti-American during the McCarthy hearings, and how, during the uproar of the late Sixties, intellectuals on the Right began distancing themselves from the very name of intellectual and therefore conflated “intellectual elite” and “liberal” as things to be shunned. She also shows how the rise of fundamentalist religion, as it has on several occasions in our nation’s history, has led to anti-rationalism, where unquestioning faith has been valued above reasoned discourse.

In one telling chapter, she describes how Robert Kennedy, on the occasion of Martin Luther King Jr.'s death, extemporaneously gave a speech lamenting the divisiveness of American society, including a quote from Aeschylus. She describes how FDR, on the occasion of his first Fireside chat, asked Americans to pull out maps of the Pacific so that he could explain to them in detail why the US was failing in the early battles of the war. She then contrasts them to our current president, whose most telling quote is "I'm the decider."

Although she voices her scorn for the Right in no uncertain terms, the book shows that the rise of unreason is not all one-sided. Her chapter on junk though in the present day is full of examples of how the Left has aided in dumbing down curriculum and promoting junk science. At this point I would have welcomed a lengthier discussion of how to recognize a well-designed experiment – she touches on sample size as an indicator but mentions nothing else (such as proper controls) explicitly.

She also goes into the decline of print as a major reason for the lowering standards we, as a nation, set for ourselves. She also lays the blame on technological advances, such as television, the Internet, and even the iPod. She is no Luddite, however – she concedes the rewards that are inherent from visual media, but states the truth that these media are great for presenting individual facts quickly but woefully inadequate for presenting the full context necessary to use these facts in decision making.

Jacoby also laments the decline in conversation brought about by television, texting, e-mailing and blogs. Although the book is unfocused at times, I recommend The Age of American Unreason for aiming to stimulate conversation and perhaps starting a dialogue to help stem the decline in American thinking.

<iframe src="http://rcm.amazon.com/e/cm?t=thejamesrandi-20&o=1&p=8&l=as1&asins=0375423745&fc1=000000&IS2=1&lt1=_blank&lc1=C50B25&bc1=000000&bg1=FFFFFF&f=ifr&nou=1" style="width:120px;height:240px;" scrolling="no" marginwidth="0" marginheight="0" frameborder="0"></iframe>

SamanthaMc
6th June 2008, 11:30 PM
Great review!

I picked this book up at the library a few weeks ago and I was surprised at how often Jacoby seems to have read my mind! Her discussion of the word "troop" when referring to individual people in the military mirrors my confusion with how the term is currently being used. She opines that the media chose to use "troop" rather than "soldier" because more and more women were joining the military, and "soldier" sounded too masculine. It feels like more of a euphemism to me because the media wants to downplay the seriousness of sending our citizens into battle.

Jacoby and I also had similar aspirations regarding e-mail. We assumed the contents of an e-mail from a friend would be similar to a letter sent via snail mail, but that is not the case. She writes that she finally stopped e-mailing her friends long, descriptive narratives and began keeping things short and sweet because no one ever responded in kind. I still write lengthy missives upon occasion but I very rarely receive anything substantial in return.

We seem to be of the same mind as well that religious fundamentalists are irrational and illogical. She is more tolerant of religious moderates than I am, however. I find it illogical to believe there is a supreme being because a book tells me so, yet at the same time not believe that said book is the literal word of God, because it says that, too. To me, the fundamentalists seem to follow some sort of logical path within the confines of their own beliefs. I understand why Jacoby sees fundamentalists as more of a threat, however; moderates tend to want to adhere to the ideals that the founding fathers put forth while many fundamentalists want to reject them if they are at odds with their faith.

Jacoby does a good job of explaining just how many factors there are that worked together to bring us to where we are today. I only wish she included a solution.

a_unique_person
11th June 2008, 07:31 AM
Summed it up in one sentence.

Piggy
14th June 2008, 08:35 PM
She opines that the media chose to use "troop" rather than "soldier" because more and more women were joining the military, and "soldier" sounded too masculine. It feels like more of a euphemism to me because the media wants to downplay the seriousness of sending our citizens into battle.

Not all of our troops are "soldiers". Describing the current force in Iraq as "soldiers" would bring down a flurry of mail and email on any media outlet that did so.

It is indeed the gender integration of the US military which has left us with this rather unsatisfactory word "troop" to refer to a "member of the military", which is too long a phrase to use journalistically.

And it has nothing at all to do with sounding "too masculine".