kimscozyreads's review against another edition
3.0
I'm so split about this book. I think it had important things to say and chunks of it were quite engrossing. I learned a lot that I was quite shocked by, particularly regarding intentionally suppressed writings of major enlightenment thinkers.
However, I know the author is quite proud of coining new terms and turns of phrase for this subject, and I get this is a book with quite the academic bent, but I found all that insufferable and more confusing than if she had just made her point with more extant terminology. I also thought some points were sort of meaninglessly abstract and over-worded.
My main take away?
1) Those in power use plausible deniability to get away with a LOT and convince us of their good character- while also claiming superior knowledge to dismiss the demands and testimonies of the working class and marginalized. This serves to protect existing institutions.
2) much of history has been intentionally suppressed or erased to serve narratives that benefit those in power
3) acknowledging that we know so little as a collective species, and far, far less as individuals- particularly in comparison to what there is left for us to discover and discern- enables the masses to refute claims of superiority by the ruling class. It's a tool to dismantle acceptance of hierarchy.
It would have been easier to extract that meaning without a lot of rambling about strongs and smarts and whatnot. I didn't find those to be useful distinctions.
Frankly the best and most communicative parts of the book were examining corporate fraud, regulatory failures, and suppressed texts directly from well known philosophers.
I think this book would find a wider audience if it tried to be less scholarly and just let the reader get the point from the evidence presented- that's what I wound up doing anyways, and I'm not entirely a stranger to sociologists' writing.
However, I know the author is quite proud of coining new terms and turns of phrase for this subject, and I get this is a book with quite the academic bent, but I found all that insufferable and more confusing than if she had just made her point with more extant terminology. I also thought some points were sort of meaninglessly abstract and over-worded.
My main take away?
1) Those in power use plausible deniability to get away with a LOT and convince us of their good character- while also claiming superior knowledge to dismiss the demands and testimonies of the working class and marginalized. This serves to protect existing institutions.
2) much of history has been intentionally suppressed or erased to serve narratives that benefit those in power
3) acknowledging that we know so little as a collective species, and far, far less as individuals- particularly in comparison to what there is left for us to discover and discern- enables the masses to refute claims of superiority by the ruling class. It's a tool to dismantle acceptance of hierarchy.
It would have been easier to extract that meaning without a lot of rambling about strongs and smarts and whatnot. I didn't find those to be useful distinctions.
Frankly the best and most communicative parts of the book were examining corporate fraud, regulatory failures, and suppressed texts directly from well known philosophers.
I think this book would find a wider audience if it tried to be less scholarly and just let the reader get the point from the evidence presented- that's what I wound up doing anyways, and I'm not entirely a stranger to sociologists' writing.
elripou's review against another edition
informative
inspiring
reflective
slow-paced
4.0
Content Warnings
Moderate: Suicide, Suicidal thoughts, and Suicide attempt
joanna_mward's review against another edition
4.0
very nice easy and fun read from Left Book Club
not totally convinced by like , the thoroughness or radicalness of the framework / conclusions (though I appreciated the optimism) but I learned a lot !!!!
not totally convinced by like , the thoroughness or radicalness of the framework / conclusions (though I appreciated the optimism) but I learned a lot !!!!
briles34's review against another edition
2.0
Maybe I wasn’t quite the target audience for this one, but I found it pretty dry and convoluted, hard to follow the core arguments. I hate to rate a book 2 stars but I honestly couldn’t wait to be finished with this one.
That being said — the conclusion is a particularly strong chapter of writing, and moved me so much I considered upping my rating of the book. There was definitely some interesting / thought provoking stuff in here, just…hard to find/track in my opinion.
That being said — the conclusion is a particularly strong chapter of writing, and moved me so much I considered upping my rating of the book. There was definitely some interesting / thought provoking stuff in here, just…hard to find/track in my opinion.
More...