Scan barcode
A review by themtj
The Coddling of the American Mind: How Good Intentions and Bad Ideas Are Setting Up a Generation for Failure by Greg Lukianoff
3.0
At its best it is an irenic plea for reasonableness. The authors strive for centrism and civility above most everything else.
At its worst it is a warm blanket to coddle thin-skinned people who are upset by others that they perceive as thin-skinned (the irony is overwhelming). They argue against reductio ad absurdum by appealing to it with their stories. Countless lengthy and detailed anecdotes accumulate to a rhetoric similar to watching cable news, "look at how extreme/crazy/irrational those people are." In this instance, the authors use these examples to shake their heads and say, "if only all of those people could be more like us."
The fundamental flaw in this book is the failure to recognize that marginalized people groups are so frequently told to remain calm that it leads to accumulated frustration. It is the forest/tree distinction that these authors miss for so many of the groups they attack. While I agree with their principles and I personally insist on well-reasoned and fair-minded policies, I am also aware that lengthy processes have been drawn out for the sake of "fairness" when they are sometimes a thinly veiled mask to prolong oppression. I DO NOT believe that is what the authors are advocating, but I do think it is a potential misuse of this book. The authors repeatedly emphasize the reality of systemic injustice yet this book positions itself mostly as a defense for the powers that be.
All this being said, you may notice that I still gave the book three stars. I was frustrated reading it but I think that is a good thing. It was helpfully disruptive at times and I sided with the authors interpretation of the most extreme events that were re-played in the book, but is it a summative view of the culture at large or are they fringe examples used for rhetoric? Probably something in between, I believe they fear the trajectory of these examples. I actually agree with much of what is said, but the condescending narration commits the same error that the book is positioned against. They want to control people who want to control people. Finally, I think they make the ever-increasing era of subconsciously reverting back to some golden age that never actually existed.
The name bears intentional resemblance to Bloom's The Closing of the American Mind and bears most of its strengths and flaws in equal measure.
At its worst it is a warm blanket to coddle thin-skinned people who are upset by others that they perceive as thin-skinned (the irony is overwhelming). They argue against reductio ad absurdum by appealing to it with their stories. Countless lengthy and detailed anecdotes accumulate to a rhetoric similar to watching cable news, "look at how extreme/crazy/irrational those people are." In this instance, the authors use these examples to shake their heads and say, "if only all of those people could be more like us."
The fundamental flaw in this book is the failure to recognize that marginalized people groups are so frequently told to remain calm that it leads to accumulated frustration. It is the forest/tree distinction that these authors miss for so many of the groups they attack. While I agree with their principles and I personally insist on well-reasoned and fair-minded policies, I am also aware that lengthy processes have been drawn out for the sake of "fairness" when they are sometimes a thinly veiled mask to prolong oppression. I DO NOT believe that is what the authors are advocating, but I do think it is a potential misuse of this book. The authors repeatedly emphasize the reality of systemic injustice yet this book positions itself mostly as a defense for the powers that be.
All this being said, you may notice that I still gave the book three stars. I was frustrated reading it but I think that is a good thing. It was helpfully disruptive at times and I sided with the authors interpretation of the most extreme events that were re-played in the book, but is it a summative view of the culture at large or are they fringe examples used for rhetoric? Probably something in between, I believe they fear the trajectory of these examples. I actually agree with much of what is said, but the condescending narration commits the same error that the book is positioned against. They want to control people who want to control people. Finally, I think they make the ever-increasing era of subconsciously reverting back to some golden age that never actually existed.
The name bears intentional resemblance to Bloom's The Closing of the American Mind and bears most of its strengths and flaws in equal measure.