nghia's review
2.0
Going in, I knew this book was going to be a bit of a personal challenge for me. Written by a conservative, religious leader ... about morality? But we need to expose ourselves to different points of view once in a while so I vowed power through it regardless of whatever disagreements I had. I was prepared to object at many points with the claims and lines of argument. But I wasn't prepared for just how dreadfully boring it was.
Sacks's theme is that our societies have shifted from "we" to "I" and that we need to go back to having a single common, shared morality. What we actually get, though, is chapter after chapter completely devoid of anything original.
Would you be surprised that a religious conservative is in favor of strengthening marriage? Maybe if you've been living under a rock for the past 30 years Chapter 4 will contain something you didn't already know. Maybe if you've been living under a rock for a few decades, you'll be surprised to learn in Chapter 9 that conservatives are against "identity politics".
And the chapters that aren't completely obvious, decades old, exactly what you'd expect and nothing more conservative thinking are simply regurgitating extremely well-trod topics that Sacks has no special insight into. If this were a "popular book" targeted at the masses then this kind of summarization could perhaps be forgiven. But let's be serious here: this is a niche book from a university press (with a terrible cover that is never going to pull in a random reader).
Are there actually any readers of this book who don't know about Putnam's [b:Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community|478|Bowling Alone The Collapse and Revival of American Community|Robert D. Putnam|https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1424632781l/478._SY75_.jpg|4743] and the startling rise in loneliness across much of the developed world (Chapter 1)? Is there anyone who isn't aware of the many dark sides of social media (Chapter 3)? Of the apparent ascendance of a new kind of amoral capitalism (Chapter 6)? Of the fractured nature in so many modern democracies (Chapter 8)?
I mean...didn't you pick up this book because you already knew all that? Sacks spends virtually the entire book trying to motivate the problem but anyone who picks up this book is almost certainly understands the problems and is looking for proposed solutions.
And this is the next area where Sacks completely falls down. One would hope that a well-known, highly-educated, religious leader with decades of experience would have some thoughtful solutions that grapple with some of the complexities inherent. Instead we get warmed over bromides that offer nothing useful.
The chapter on the breakdown on marriage is probably the best chapter in the book. He goes beyond telling us things we already knew and makes the case that the rise of eternal single-hood, people living alone, people not having kids, and so on is a prime example of the "I" triumphing over "We". Yet what is his proposed solution for doing anything about this?
That's it. We should be "advocates" for marriage, whatever that means. The same wishy-washy uselessness comes when Sacks (finally) gets around to his main point: the glory days were when we all had a single religion and thus a single morality. So we should go back to that. In the "Which Morality?" he firmly comes down on the side of...whatever this is:
As long as we just pick one...any one...then it is okay? What is he even suggesting here? That we try on a bunch of different moralities until we find on that fits?
Throughout the book I kept waiting for Sacks, who is Jewish and thus not part of the single religion and single morality that he alleges unified society previously, would tackle the issue with some nuance. His repeated message is that in order to be a single society we must all be willing to give up something important. But I can't help but wonder what he would be willing to give up.
In the passage on marriage I previously quoted notice he's anti-gay marriage. He's not even willing to give that up in order to unify society! In the section on identity politics he argues against multiculturalism ... and I felt this would have been a perfect place for him to deep dive in how he thought maintaining a distinct Jewish identity wasn't identity politics and so explore what seems like a complicated, nuanced issue.
It is hard not to feel that, though he's never brave enough to come out and say it, underlying all of Sacks's writing is the belief that he doesn't actually just want everyone to coalesce around any single morality...he wants them to coalesce around his so only other people are making sacrifices.
Sacks's theme is that our societies have shifted from "we" to "I" and that we need to go back to having a single common, shared morality. What we actually get, though, is chapter after chapter completely devoid of anything original.
Each of these developments has tended to place not society but the self at the heart of the moral life.
Would you be surprised that a religious conservative is in favor of strengthening marriage? Maybe if you've been living under a rock for the past 30 years Chapter 4 will contain something you didn't already know. Maybe if you've been living under a rock for a few decades, you'll be surprised to learn in Chapter 9 that conservatives are against "identity politics".
And the chapters that aren't completely obvious, decades old, exactly what you'd expect and nothing more conservative thinking are simply regurgitating extremely well-trod topics that Sacks has no special insight into. If this were a "popular book" targeted at the masses then this kind of summarization could perhaps be forgiven. But let's be serious here: this is a niche book from a university press (with a terrible cover that is never going to pull in a random reader).
Are there actually any readers of this book who don't know about Putnam's [b:Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community|478|Bowling Alone The Collapse and Revival of American Community|Robert D. Putnam|https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1424632781l/478._SY75_.jpg|4743] and the startling rise in loneliness across much of the developed world (Chapter 1)? Is there anyone who isn't aware of the many dark sides of social media (Chapter 3)? Of the apparent ascendance of a new kind of amoral capitalism (Chapter 6)? Of the fractured nature in so many modern democracies (Chapter 8)?
I mean...didn't you pick up this book because you already knew all that? Sacks spends virtually the entire book trying to motivate the problem but anyone who picks up this book is almost certainly understands the problems and is looking for proposed solutions.
And this is the next area where Sacks completely falls down. One would hope that a well-known, highly-educated, religious leader with decades of experience would have some thoughtful solutions that grapple with some of the complexities inherent. Instead we get warmed over bromides that offer nothing useful.
The chapter on the breakdown on marriage is probably the best chapter in the book. He goes beyond telling us things we already knew and makes the case that the rise of eternal single-hood, people living alone, people not having kids, and so on is a prime example of the "I" triumphing over "We". Yet what is his proposed solution for doing anything about this?
But our compassion for those who choose to live differently should not inhibit us from being advocates for the single most humanizing institution in history. The family—man, woman, and child—is not one lifestyle choice among many.
That's it. We should be "advocates" for marriage, whatever that means. The same wishy-washy uselessness comes when Sacks (finally) gets around to his main point: the glory days were when we all had a single religion and thus a single morality. So we should go back to that. In the "Which Morality?" he firmly comes down on the side of...whatever this is:
Out of the many moralities available, there is one that is ours
As long as we just pick one...any one...then it is okay? What is he even suggesting here? That we try on a bunch of different moralities until we find on that fits?
Throughout the book I kept waiting for Sacks, who is Jewish and thus not part of the single religion and single morality that he alleges unified society previously, would tackle the issue with some nuance. His repeated message is that in order to be a single society we must all be willing to give up something important. But I can't help but wonder what he would be willing to give up.
In the passage on marriage I previously quoted notice he's anti-gay marriage. He's not even willing to give that up in order to unify society! In the section on identity politics he argues against multiculturalism ... and I felt this would have been a perfect place for him to deep dive in how he thought maintaining a distinct Jewish identity wasn't identity politics and so explore what seems like a complicated, nuanced issue.
It is hard not to feel that, though he's never brave enough to come out and say it, underlying all of Sacks's writing is the belief that he doesn't actually just want everyone to coalesce around any single morality...he wants them to coalesce around his so only other people are making sacrifices.
tamzinlittle's review
1.0
I feel sick.................................
What did I expect:
‘We are all individualistic now. And that’s a good thing! But community is still important and there are some things we should ALL work towards as a society.’
What did I get:
‘We are all individualistic now. That’s a bad thing. We need family back. Let’s respect other people’s choices whilst also acknowledging that what my belief is is the best way for everyone to live.’
Do you see the difference?
Unfortunately I was still hit by Sacks’ attitude that HIS morals are the ultimate morals (ironic huh....)
I knew this was coming when I was reading the chapter about family. It was all well and good until he started talking about how in the creation story the created model for a human family is a man and a woman. And then (quote from pg 123-4)
‘The family- man, woman and child- is not one lifestyle among many. It is the best means we have yet discovered for nurturing future generations of enabling children to grow in a matrix of stability and love.’
1) you see what I mean? His definition of family is paraded over us as the best.
2) NO SHIT SHERLOCK! Of course that’s the best means we have found because we haven’t BEEN ABLE TO FIND ANY OTHER MEANS... like legally. Like because of the strict moral codes that ruled our society.........
I need a break... after a religious upbringing and a spiritual journey I have been trying to open my heart more to Judeo-Christian people/ belief but oh my gosh these people are still so judgmental and holier-than-thou despite their inviting guise.
What did I expect:
‘We are all individualistic now. And that’s a good thing! But community is still important and there are some things we should ALL work towards as a society.’
What did I get:
‘We are all individualistic now. That’s a bad thing. We need family back. Let’s respect other people’s choices whilst also acknowledging that what my belief is is the best way for everyone to live.’
Do you see the difference?
Unfortunately I was still hit by Sacks’ attitude that HIS morals are the ultimate morals (ironic huh....)
I knew this was coming when I was reading the chapter about family. It was all well and good until he started talking about how in the creation story the created model for a human family is a man and a woman. And then (quote from pg 123-4)
‘The family- man, woman and child- is not one lifestyle among many. It is the best means we have yet discovered for nurturing future generations of enabling children to grow in a matrix of stability and love.’
1) you see what I mean? His definition of family is paraded over us as the best.
2) NO SHIT SHERLOCK! Of course that’s the best means we have found because we haven’t BEEN ABLE TO FIND ANY OTHER MEANS... like legally. Like because of the strict moral codes that ruled our society.........
I need a break... after a religious upbringing and a spiritual journey I have been trying to open my heart more to Judeo-Christian people/ belief but oh my gosh these people are still so judgmental and holier-than-thou despite their inviting guise.
csd17's review
5.0
When Great Britain appointed Boris Johnson as prime minister, I took a screenshot and sent it to my husband and asked him who it reminded him of. His response was "Britain has one too??? As time passed, it became apparent that appearances were not the only similarities. But, as Sacks points out in this book, our unnaturally blond-thatched leaders are also not the only struggles our two nations(or, indeed, the Western world itself) face.
Our shared issues include:
-Global Warming
-Shattered Families
-Decline of Civility
-Rise in violence, racism, and hatred
-Our inability to see and care for the Other
-Unethical Businesses
-A Rise in Inequality
-Increased Loneliness
-Increased Victimisation
Somehow, they are all woven together to make one cohesive worldview. I particularly liked his reasoned indictment of inequality and capitalism. Not that he believes that Socialism(Marxism) works---don't accuse me of false advertising. His argument is rather that capitalism is created for a certain type of society and, where it may have functioned well in the past, given our current circumstances we are not that type of society.
Superb synthesis of years of personal research and observations, reasoned so that---even when you disagree---you at least understand. It was a book to be savored, which I did for over a month. I'm rather devastated that it's over.
Published in Great Britain as COVID19 was just barely crossing the continent, the US version (published months later) has the bonus of an added introduction and ending sections. I highly recommend that version. Fingers crossed that it isn't his final project and that he gets to finish that commentary on the books of Moses that he was talking about.
Jan 2021 update:
I'm heartbroken that this will be his last official book. But, more so, I'm wary for the future of our dialogue regarding our shared spaces as a society and a world. We have lost a powerful, brave, and courteous voice that was always loyal to the truth that he knew and lived. There is already a hauntingly empty space in my online social media feed.
Our shared issues include:
-Global Warming
-Shattered Families
-Decline of Civility
-Rise in violence, racism, and hatred
-Our inability to see and care for the Other
-Unethical Businesses
-A Rise in Inequality
-Increased Loneliness
-Increased Victimisation
Somehow, they are all woven together to make one cohesive worldview. I particularly liked his reasoned indictment of inequality and capitalism. Not that he believes that Socialism(Marxism) works---don't accuse me of false advertising. His argument is rather that capitalism is created for a certain type of society and, where it may have functioned well in the past, given our current circumstances we are not that type of society.
Superb synthesis of years of personal research and observations, reasoned so that---even when you disagree---you at least understand. It was a book to be savored, which I did for over a month. I'm rather devastated that it's over.
Published in Great Britain as COVID19 was just barely crossing the continent, the US version (published months later) has the bonus of an added introduction and ending sections. I highly recommend that version. Fingers crossed that it isn't his final project and that he gets to finish that commentary on the books of Moses that he was talking about.
Jan 2021 update:
I'm heartbroken that this will be his last official book. But, more so, I'm wary for the future of our dialogue regarding our shared spaces as a society and a world. We have lost a powerful, brave, and courteous voice that was always loyal to the truth that he knew and lived. There is already a hauntingly empty space in my online social media feed.
More...