The Age of American Unreason (Hardcover) by Susan Jacoby - Reviews, Discussion, Bookclubs, Lists

rating	frequency	%
5		21%
4		40%
3		27%
2		7%
1		2%

topics	posts	views	last activity
50 Books A Year: Tiffany vows to work less and read more in 2009	27	109	32 minutes ago
Daily Show / Colb...: What are you reading Now?	8	64	1 day ago, 11:56AM
Atheists and Skep...: Atheist President????	14	71	01/10/2009 05:45PM

12/18/08

Trevor rated it:

Once upon a time, and a very good time it was indeed, there was an America that proudly stood as the intellectual beacon of the world, the light on the hill which shone and illuminated even down into those darkest of places the light of reason and hope. Because reason and hope are sisters and hand-in-hand they can transform the world.

Then one day one of these sisters got lost in the woods, lost in the dark and impenetrable woods of ignorance and stupidity and aggressive ignorance. ...more

Like this review? yes (12 people liked it)

9 comments

04/14/08

Kristine rated it:

Read in April, 2008

recommended to Kristine by: Katie Schreiner
recommends it for: everyone, but take it with a grain of salt

If you agree with everything Jacoby says, you're not paying enough attention. She's out to diagnose all the reasons why Americans are falling behind the rest of the world intellectually. I think she's right about a lot of what she says, but she blames quite a bit on conservatives and on religion that I don't agree can be laid on those particular doorsteps. At the same time, it's fascinating to read her take on the 60's--particularly given that my in-laws were definitely part of the counter-co...more If you agree with everything Jacoby says, you're not paying enough attention. She's out to diagnose all the reasons why Americans are falling behind the rest of the world intellectually. I think she's right about a lot of what she says, but she blames quite a bit on conservatives and on religion that I don't agree can be laid on those particular doorsteps. At the same time, it's fascinating to read her take on the 60's--particularly given that my in-laws were definitely part of the counter-counterculture (i.e.--they're conservative boomers who worked hard to make a lot of money, and still see liberals and intellectuals basically lazy--thus, their constant teasing of my long-haired husband for his "early retirement" to academia).

The main weakness of this book for me is that it's a 350 page rant directed toward liberal intellectuals who already agree with Jacoby. I think what she's saying about our culture is important, especially when she talks about the influence of the media and of celebrity culture on our intellectual life. After reading this book I am more convinced than ever that we as a nation need to have a conversation about intellectualism and education, and how to encourage true learning and critical thought in our children, and I had high hopes this book would serve as a starting place for that conversation. Unfortunately, I don't think it will, precisely because Jacoby, like the conservatives she pillories, isn't talking to anyone who doesn't already agree with her.

I wish the book were written in a way that it were more accessible to those who disagree politically with Jacoby. Her underlying message is definitely one all Americans should hear, not just those who are democrats, and I think it highly unfortunate this is written in such a way anyone of a different political stripe will likely dismiss the good points of her argument because of her politics. I would suggest this to everyone to read, but I will warn those of you who are LDS that she sees the Mormon church as a fundamentalist cult, and says so repeatedly. (less)

Like this review? yes (7 people liked it)

add a comment

02/17/09

Skylar Burris added it

bookshelves: nonfiction, politics, unfinished

Read in February, 2009

Because I am a product of the Age of American Unreason, I’m going to begin reviewing this book before I’ve finished reading it. Besides, I don’t have time to read the entire book. I have to watch all the re-runs I’ve DVRed of America’s Biggest Loser and Bachelor, and then I need to fantasize about the end times when everyone who disagrees with me gets theirs, and I’ve also got to spend a few minutes irrationally doubting whether macroevolutionary theory is a fully sufficient explanat...more Because I am a product of the Age of American Unreason, I’m going to begin reviewing this book before I’ve finished reading it. Besides, I don’t have time to read the entire book. I have to watch all the re-runs I’ve DVRed of America’s Biggest Loser and Bachelor, and then I need to fantasize about the end times when everyone who disagrees with me gets theirs, and I’ve also got to spend a few minutes irrationally doubting whether macroevolutionary theory is a fully sufficient explanation for the origins of Handel’s Messiah.

At first, I thought I might like this book. Jacoby promised to lament the collapse of reason, critical thinking, and nuanced debate in modern American culture among both liberals and conservatives, and I thought I probably had a decent enough dose of intellectual snobbery to enjoy it. I knew she was going to lambaste Christian fundamentalists, but, being a traditionalist Christian with my own set of concerns about fundamentalism, I thought I could weather that assault pretty well.

As it turns out, she only paid lip service to the “both” liberals and conservatives part; she primarily talks about the unreason of the right. And her religious targets were considerably broader than fundamentalists; they seemed to encompass anyone who sincerely believes anything that cannot be empirically verified. For example, she can only shake her head to discover that in America, unlike in other more enlightened parts of the globe, four out of five people actually believe in miracles. If only the central government had more power and we didn't allow localities to govern themselves, we could enforce more conformity of thought in this country! Or so Jacoby opines in her quest to restore reason to America.

I agree with Jacoby that there seems to be a real dearth of critical thinking these days. I agree that modern technology is conditioning us, at least to some extent, to have shorter attention spans when it comes to processing and analyzing arguments. I agree that it is, all other things being equal (which they never are), preferable to have a president who is capable of stringing together a complete, grammatically correct sentence using formal rhetorical devices than one who is not. With all this I agree. Here’s where I disagree:

(1) Jacoby generalizes in her dismissal of modern media. She fails to acknowledge that movies and television shows, much like the novel, are art forms capable of containing either trash or greatness, and that this media can, like the novel, be processed, analyzed, considered, and discussed with intellectual rigor or consumed as mere entertainment. When the novel first broke on the scene, it was considered by many to be the domain of the intellectually slovenly as well, but it eventually earned the nod of intellectuals as an art form worthy of as much respect as the poem or the play. She dismisses the idea of “choice” in media entertainment as an illusion, but this to me seems…unreasonable. What possessor of Direct-TV or cable can really believe he has no real choice in what he consumes? From trash reality television, to historical documentary, to liberal-leaning news or conservative-leaning news, to period pieces based on classical English literature, to educational children’s programming, to…I won’t go on, but choice, and real choice – real differences – abound.

(2) Jacoby sees conservatives as having pulled the wool over the eyes of the public by convincing them that there exist “liberal intellectual elites” who are out of touch with reality, when conservative intellectual elites exits too, and when we shouldn’t be deriding intellectualism the first place. What she doesn’t adequately address is the reason why this has been possible for conservatives to pull off, despite their own prominent think tanks, and that is because, in the U.S., liberals absolutely dominate the academy. Conservatives don’t make up the bulk (or, in some departments, even a sizeable minority) of professors in elite universities. (Statistics show that in most universities, between 80-97% of liberal arts professors are registered Democrats, which is completely unrepresentative of the population at large.) And some of the things coming out of the mouths of professors at elite universities do, indeed, seem downright out-of-touch to the average American. Therefore this image of the reality-divorced, liberal intellectual surrounded in his ivory tower by other liberal intellectuals is not all that difficult to promulgate. If the conservatives controlled the academy (as they have in other eras), one would have considerably more difficulty associating the “out-of-touch elite intellectual” picture with liberals and excusing conservatives from the caricature.

(3) Despite her support of reason, she has a tendency to make sweeping and unsubstantiated generalizations. So, for example, if you’re a Christian who thinks Revelation will "come true," then you must perforce believe in “the massacre of everyone who has not accepted Jesus as the Messiah.” Never mind that nothing like the phrase “accepting Jesus as the Messiah” occurs in Revelation, and never mind that those in Revelation against whom the saints are crying out are those in the act of violently persecuting Christians. As another example of generalization, take this: “Part of” Don Imus’s radio audience, she tells us, “was undoubtedly composed of hard-core racists and misogynists.” Undoubtedly? Hard-core? Upon what rational foundation is she basing this blanket statement? Did she perform a demographic survey of his audience? I rather doubt not. I’m guessing the only “reason” she needed to muster for that statement is that Imus is considered to be a “conservative talk show host,” and, as, everyone JUST KNOWS, conservatives are racists and misogynists. At least, it’s difficult for me to imagine her having said, “Part of Jeanie Garafalo’s audience is undoubtedly composed of hard-core Anti-Semites,” even though she would have as much rational basis for making such a statement. These are but two examples in the opneing pages, but, in general, she does not seem to feel most of her statements require substantiation, which is an odd position for someone who is lamenting the collapse of reason to take. She's apparently of the school of debate that believes one should not dignify any counter-argument with a response. I'm right, and it's so OBVIOUS I'm right, that I can't be bothered responding to your objections. There's also no need to name my sources because, after all, I'm right.

(4) Unlike Jacoby, I don’t think conservatives are wrong to point out that intellectualism is potentially problematic and that intellectuals (whether conservative or liberal) can, in fact, be dangerously divorced from reality. While I consider myself to have an intellectual bent, I am well aware of how easy it is for intellectually minded people to become so consumed by ideas that they fail to consider the actual, real-life consequences of those ideas. Supporting and pursuing the idea becomes, for many intellectuals, worth any price that must be paid. It was not the masses hungering for vengeance that led to a mismanaged war in Iraq, but the neo-conservative think tanks churning out ideas about American hegemony and theories of domino democratization. It was not the generals who did not foresee the complications, but the intellectuals. Nazism was bred in the universities and mounted up on the wings of intellectual philosophies such as Nietzscheism. Communism was a product of the intellectual class. The terrorists of violent jihadism largely hail from the educated classes in their countries. The “irrational masses” give birth to the occasional riot and bad reality television show, but it is largely the educated, intellectual classes who give birth to the ideologies whose real-life consequences are widespread, long-term, large-scale suffering, ideologies eventually filtered down to the masses through an academy that lacks intellectual diversity. Does all this mean I believe we shouldn’t think? That we shouldn’t create and defend ideas? No, but it means I believe it is not unwise to maintain a healthy dose of skepticism about intellectuals and that it is not necessarily a terrible thing that Americans, unlike the other more enlightened peoples of the globe, have a habit of not accepting everything the educated authorities tell them.

Jacoby speaks of how people are inclined only to read what reinforces their view. She’s right about this, and I certainly fall into that trap too often myself. So, if you want to take up Jacoby’s call not to be a part of the Age of American Unreason, and therefore not just read what reinforces her view, you’ll want a counterbalance to this book. I recommend that anyone who reads this also read Paul Johnson’s Intellectuals.

Intellectuals is a book that explores the lives of ten famous intellectuals. But it also talks about the way intellectuals divorce themselves from reality with their ideas, not really caring how those ideas might actually affect the average, real-life person. It is a portrait, ten portraits really, of the out-of-touch intellectual. Jacoby will tell you that Americans are a pack of ignoramuses for approaching intellectuals and intellectualism with such extreme wariness. Paul Johnson, reaching into history, will give you some idea of why that may not be such a bad idea after all.

One more point. The problem with all of these books that pine for the loss of something is that the something, very often, never really existed. Were people really more reasonable in the past, or was it simply that fewer common people were allowed to participate in things and easily voice their opinions? For instance, she laments the dumbing down of political language, but the surest way to prevent that is to get rid of the idea that every Tom, Dick and Harry over the age of 18 should vote and once again make property ownership a condition for voting. Is that what she wants to see done? And when we stop educating primarily the elite and start educating absolutely everyone, including those who can barely speak the dominate language of the land, isn't it inevitable that the average student will perform at a lower level? When the percentage of the population that can read a book jumps from 15% of the population to 90% of the population, isn't inevitable that there will be a lot more lower quality literature in production? In other words, aren't there other explanations for why things are as they are than that more people, on average, are more irrational than in previous generations? Really, aren't the elites, by definition, a minority in any age? But that, I suppose, is not Jacoby's problem. Her problem is that today, the peons have more influence than ever before. Well, you can't have your cake and eat it too. Democracy or meritocracy. One must choose. Most people are happy to choose the meritocracy until they discover that they are not considered to be a part of the elite.
(less)

Like this review? yes (5 people liked it)

3 comments

03/19/08

Lunnon rated it:

This book has been hyped with a lot of articles in newspapers, esp. a big one in the New York Times and sounded interesting. I found that the sections of the book where she laid out the historical foundations of American anti-intellectualism were not as interesting as the sections towards the end where she starts cataloging all the junk science, junk thought, obsession with celebrities,technological distractions, and 'us folks' relativism that have taken over society today. Some of it approaches...more

Like this review? yes (5 people liked it)

add a comment

06/22/08

Michael rated it:

Read in July, 2008

There's some interesting material in this book, mostly historical, but overall it's deeply flawed. Jacoby likes to lump things together with no real justification. All TV, movies, internet content, and music which happens to be on an iPod become the scourge that is "infotainment", which is to be blamed for most, if not all, of society's problems. There's nothing here to support this idea other than the author's repeated pejorative use of the dubious term. To her, books are active enter...more

Like this review? yes (2 people liked it)

4 comments

06/10/08

Heather rated it:

Read in August, 2008

recommended to Heather by: The internet... bad, bad internet
recommends it for: Liberals who like to look down on others in snobby fashion

If goodreads had any intention of fixing their broken code so I could rate this book, I would give it the "I HATED IT" rating.

Jacoby presents her book in a chronological order. So, I thought I really liked the book up until she started talking about present day stuff. Then her bias became so unbelievably clear to me that I no longer trust any of the things she said about the past and I realize I only accepted her view because I didn't really know much about the things she...more If goodreads had any intention of fixing their broken code so I could rate this book, I would give it the "I HATED IT" rating.

Jacoby presents her book in a chronological order. So, I thought I really liked the book up until she started talking about present day stuff. Then her bias became so unbelievably clear to me that I no longer trust any of the things she said about the past and I realize I only accepted her view because I didn't really know much about the things she was discussing.

Before you read her book, understand that Jacoby HATES conservatism and religion. Her basic premise can be summed up by saying: "If you disagree with my liberal outlook on the world, then you're anti-intellectual and stupid." She likes to pretend she is neutral by saying underwhelming things like, "it happens with both liberals and conservatives." Yet, does she ever discuss any junk thought by liberals? Or does she ever discuss how conservative intellectuals are mistreated by liberals? No. Again, like I said, if you disagree with her then you are anti-intellectual. She gives the statistics of educated people who believe in the creation story over and over and over again. What I'd like to know is how she'd explain educated people who DO believe the creation story? How does she explain scientists and academics who are profoundly religious? She doesn't... because it doesn't fit her liberal bent.

Furthermore, her whining about the loss of middlebrow culture is snobbish and annoying. She has an agenda, she's set on her agenda and that is the focus of her book. She doesn't look at things objectively and attempt to find other explanations for them... as she'd like you to believe she does.

The only thing I liked about this book is that the author would be furious to know that I listened to this book, ON MY IPOD. I turned her intellectual snobbery into infotainment. HAAAAAAAAA. Or, did I possibly discredit her theory by proving that one can be intellectually stimulated online, by movies, by tv and by the audio they listen to?

As my rant might indicate, I was insulted by this book. I'm VERY conservative, I belong to a VERY conservative religion and I'm an educated person who considers herself an intellectual. So yeah, this book was an insult to me and others like me. Just because we don't reach the same conclusions about things as she does... doesn't make us anti-intellectual, junk thought believing, infotainment addicted morons. If I didn't need to read this book to participate in my book club I would have deleted if from my Itunes LONG ago.

Oh, and as a side note, I wonder if anyone has told Ms. Jacoby that it's possible to convey the idea "to mistakenly compare or combine" by using words OTHER than "conflate". I swear, if I ever hear that word again it will be too soon. (less)

Like this review? yes (2 people liked it)

2 comments

05/06/08

Sally rated it:

Read in June, 2008

recommended to Sally by: Andrew Baird

Ultimately, this book did its job, or a job, because I feel strongly enough about it to write a review. Jacoby's broad intention is, I think, heartfelt and needed. And many of her subarguments are coherent and compelling. It is her own emphasis on high intellectual standards that invites criticism of otherwise minor points. She demands rigor in American thought, so I shall apply rigor to my evaluation of her book.
Her willingness to express not just amusement but alarm at the inability of...more Ultimately, this book did its job, or a job, because I feel strongly enough about it to write a review. Jacoby's broad intention is, I think, heartfelt and needed. And many of her subarguments are coherent and compelling. It is her own emphasis on high intellectual standards that invites criticism of otherwise minor points. She demands rigor in American thought, so I shall apply rigor to my evaluation of her book.
Her willingness to express not just amusement but alarm at the inability of President Bush and others to speak properly makes legitimate criticism of the imperfect grammar displayed in the book. Overall, her grammatical accuracy is undoubtedly higher than the average writer's, but the (not undue) emphasis she places on the written word leads one to expect perfection in form as well as content.
The content of some of her arguments, though, also leaves something to be desired. Toward the end of her book, on page 297, she says, "The general decline in American civic, cultural, and scientific literacy has encouraged political polarization because the field of debate is often left to those who care most intensely - with an out-of-the-mainstream passion - about a specific political and cultural agenda." The rest of the paragraph does nothing to elucidate or support her statement. The meaning of the statement remains uncertain - is the passion directed toward an out-of-the-mainstream agenda, or is the degree to which the agenda is cared-about merely out-of-the-mainstream in its intensity? If she meant the latter, is there evidence that caring most intensely about a specific agenda leads to polarization of the field of the debate? A good case could certainly be made - but the case should be presented to the reader rather than the conclusion offered as forgone fact. If she meant the latter, where is the evidence that those who care most intensely tend to possess out-of-the-mainstream agendas - and if it is so, where is the speculation on the causes of this phenomenon? Whichever interpretation is correct, her proposition is intriguing, but unsupported. The argument deserves at least a journal article's worth of words, but she refers us to none.
As counter-intuitive (and perhaps anti-intellectual) as it seems, Jacocy makes her best points through anecdotes, as in her story of a stalled subway ride with a brilliant old British man who lectures were enthusiastically about the ideal relationship for one to have with the Greek classics. When the train finally pulls into the station, a "scruffy" (read: plebian) young dude comments to them on how cool it was to listen to his diatribe, and Jacoby rightly notes that, if the incident had occured a decade later, after "the proliferation of headphones and personal listening devices... Philip's young admirer would probably have been walled off in a private world of noise." Even though she fails to acknowledge the very real value of creating a private world , especially of music, from time to time, she did provide me with the first resonating argument I've heard for turning off my iPod once in a while.
The book is divided into chapters, at first roughly chronological and tracing America's history in relation to intellectualism, and later noting a number of overlapping themes in recent and contemporary American unreason. Certain chapters were markedly more engaging to me than others (The way we lived then: intellect and ignorance in a young nation; Middlebrow culture from noon to twilight; Junk thought; The culture of distraction; and Public life: defining dumbness downward were the good ones), although I learned even from the chapters that were harder to get through (notably, the chapter called "Reds, pinkos, fellow travelers" was a less spell-binding read but taught me a lot I should have known about intellectualism's (and America's) relationship to Communism in the 1930s-1950s).
The other way I know that this book has gotten under my skin, other than that I'm writing such a long review of it, is by the near-anger I felt this afternoon when I postulated to my coworkers that perhaps we will need to improve the quality of the American education before we can pass good climate change legislation, because the public needs to be willing and able to read and comprehend multiple sentences - paragraphs even - of summary and analysis in order to understand the impetus and effects of putting a price on carbon, and my coworkers - both of whom have more political and campaign experience than I do - countered that, rather, we needed to make the laws simpler. Not even the message, but the actual laws. One explained to me that it's a common misperception that more-educated people gravitate toward complexity because it is inherently better, when in fact simplicity and "common sense" are often the better metrics by which to judge laws and other important bodies of thought. I'm all for a unified theory of the universe, but legislation is complicated for good reasons, not least among them is the fact that it almost inevitably creates real winners and losers. Rather than ignoring that reality and hoping the opposition doesn't pick up on it, we should be eager to explain the complexities of policy to the public - and they should be eager to understand (Jacoby uses the excellent example of Roosevelt's urging Americans to follow along on a map during his weekly address soon after Pearl Harbor - an address to which 80% of American adults tuned in). We should expect the average American to engage in thought rather than passively accept the 8-second soundbite messages he's offered by mainstream politicians and media - and we should give him the education he needs to engage in that thought. It was heartening to hear a smart, sane, pragmatic voice affirm this instinct.
In short, this is probably a book worth reading. It might make you angry, it might make you guilty, it might make you indignant. It probably won't bore you, at least not usually, and you will probably learn something.
Lastly, thanks to Andrew Baird who let me borrow this book and keep it for an inordinate amount of time (probably related to the fact that the beginning is the slow part!)(less)

Like this review? yes (2 people liked it)

add a comment

03/06/08

Scot rated it:

Read in March, 2008

This book is thoroughly researched, logically organized, eloquently written, and incredibly significant for the real problem it points out: the severe dumbing down of America that has occurred in the past forty years. With wit and wisdom, the author puts this troubling phenomenon in the larger historical context of the history of this country, and traces the strong and virulent forces that coalesced to set us on the path toward the bleak future sardonically portrayed in the 2006 film Idiocracy...more This book is thoroughly researched, logically organized, eloquently written, and incredibly significant for the real problem it points out: the severe dumbing down of America that has occurred in the past forty years. With wit and wisdom, the author puts this troubling phenomenon in the larger historical context of the history of this country, and traces the strong and virulent forces that coalesced to set us on the path toward the bleak future sardonically portrayed in the 2006 film Idiocracy (that's my allusion, not hers--one gets the sense she would never watch such a lowbrow movie). These forces have led to the rise of anti-rationalism, which is sustained by disinterest in perspectives different from one's own, lack of basic critical thinking and statistical evaluation skills, inability to distinguish between facts and opinions, and a culture of distraction. The political power rise of the fundamentalists, a celebrity culture spread through infotainment, mediocre (at best) public education, and the general abandonment of both reading for pleasure and engaged conversations have thrown fuel on the fire.

I might quibble with a small point here and there (I would suggest we can and should learn useful things by analyzing the impact and meaning of pop culture artifacts, for instance), but I find her argument extremely persuasive: the very way we think and retain or remember knowledge--and what knowledge the masses of society choose never to acquire--is at the crux of most of our other problems. She provides some very scary statistics of just how ignorant most of us are about basic geography, math, history, science, etc. The irony is, those suffering from the problems delineated in this book will never take the time or trouble to read it, and will dismiss it as "egghead intellectualism"--that disregard being one of the American cultural traditions she traces in the book. But such disregard for critical thinking combined with not only lack of general knowledge but often an openly proud disavowal of the need to know such information has had dire consequences for our culture already, and it will likely get worse. This is a book American people who still read books should definitely read--and discuss!(less)

Like this review? yes (2 people liked it)

add a comment

02/18/08

David rated it:

bookshelves: nonfiction

Read in March, 2008

Jacoby's book begins as a discussion of the historical context of American anti-intellectualism, and ends as a jeremiad. The transition from a detached analysis to a personal cry occurs around Chapter 6, "Blaming it on the Sixties," in which Jacoby begins weaving personal anecdotes into the main thread of the text. The subsequent chapters remain grounded in studies and in reporting, but with an increasingly exasperated tone as Jacoby writes of youth and celebrity culture, of the resu...more

Like this review? yes (2 people liked it)

add a comment

09/26/08

Rodhilton rated it:

bookshelves: -own-, audiobooks, politics, religion

Read in September, 2008

For a book that laments the decline of reason in American culture, this book sure does manage to avoid it's use when making arguments.

Essentially the book's real premise is this: Americans are increasingly anti-rational, largely due to the fact that they are reading fewer books. Considering this is coming from a book author, it's hard not to face this argument with some skepticism. Indeed, Jacoby never really provides much in the way of evidence, assuming her claims to be self-evid...more For a book that laments the decline of reason in American culture, this book sure does manage to avoid it's use when making arguments.

Essentially the book's real premise is this: Americans are increasingly anti-rational, largely due to the fact that they are reading fewer books. Considering this is coming from a book author, it's hard not to face this argument with some skepticism. Indeed, Jacoby never really provides much in the way of evidence, assuming her claims to be self-evident to the reader.

Much of what she states as unquestionably true are things that, frankly, are questionable, so the fact that she makes no attempt to truly justify her beliefs is troubling.

In the end, Jacoby comes off as an anti-technology luddite, hating technology, television, the internet, and other forms of modernity because they decrease the amount of precious time people spend reading books. She even goes so far as to whine about the decline of reading poetry and fiction, though she makes no evidence whatsoever that these styles of writing contribute in any way to intellectualism.

This book is infuriating to read because there's nothing I hate more than an extremely poor argument in favor of a position with which I agree. Much of what Jacoby says is agreeable, and some of it even intuitive. But she often shifts from the intuitive to the extremist in her belief set, never providing powerful rationale for opinions being espoused from either area.

My 'favorite' part of the book was when Jacoby rambled on about the Harvard president that supposedly claimed that the reason for few female professors could be genetic. Jacoby is infuriated by this claim, and the feminist in her takes over the chapter that discusses this matter. I found this entertaining primarily because it was also discussed in the last book I read, 'Super Crunchers', which explains that the vast majority of people didn't understand the president's real claim because people don't understand the difference between average and standard deviation. Super Crunchers discusses this issue at length, explaining what the president ACTUALLY meant and providing citations of studies which back it up. It turns out there's nothing sexist or demeaning about the statement that the president actually made, but the public's grasp of statistics (Super Cruncher's main focus) is so weak that it has been misunderstood by many.

Having just read that, reading Jacoby rant on about how offended she was by his claim, revealing that she belongs in the "bad at math" category, was nothing short of hilarious.

This book is downright embarassing, I've lost nearly all respect I gained for Jacoby while reading Freethinkers.(less)

Like this review? yes (1 person liked it)

add a comment

07/25/08

Jesse rated it:

Read in July, 2008

Irritating, and not even that good a screed. Jacoby's history off why people believe dumb things, or don't believe in reason, is pretty solid, but after the 60s chapter, which has a nice balance, it starts to feel more and more like a scattershot attempt to rewrite The Closing of the American Mind, except this time by someone who has actually stepped outside the classroom in the last 30 years.

It's not entirely successful. Parts of it feel like journalistic pieces plopped in where th...more Irritating, and not even that good a screed. Jacoby's history off why people believe dumb things, or don't believe in reason, is pretty solid, but after the 60s chapter, which has a nice balance, it starts to feel more and more like a scattershot attempt to rewrite The Closing of the American Mind, except this time by someone who has actually stepped outside the classroom in the last 30 years.

It's not entirely successful. Parts of it feel like journalistic pieces plopped in where they fit (Baby Einstein is bad! video games are bad! blogs don't really foster discussion!), and others are simply massive dismissals of entire fields: 60s scholarship, she says, absent a single citation, has recently been score-settling, not history: "most 'histories' of the sixties being written today are really memoirs by authors intent on justifying or repudiating their youthful selves and taking one more whack at their old adversaries." (This from someone whose quotation from WEB Du Bois is footnoted to an online source.) That is just flat-out wrong. Twenty years ago, sure, you could make that claim about Todd Gitlin and Norman Podhoretz and Elaine Brown. But now? It's laughably out-of-date, since all the good 60s scholarship now focuses precisely on just the stuff she is discussing: the rise of conservatism, the sense that there was "another 60s" that was just as powerful, if not more so, than the radical one. Kind of makes me doubt her blanket assertions in other areas about stuff about which I am not as well-read.

And, worse, that assertion is followed by discussions of how the old middlebrow Saturday Review market--for which she used to write massive, 5000-word thinkpieces--is now dead, as are serious articles in women's magazines, both of which are signals of the serious downturn of our culture. All modern music is "vulgar," TV is terrible, IPods are distractions and distancers, and nothing is really as good as it was in her comfortable middlebrow upbringing in Okemos, MI in the 1950s. Good thing HER book is not "taking one more whack at old adversaries." Because that would be wrong.(less)

Like this review? yes (1 person liked it)

add a comment

06/26/08

Jane rated it:

Read in June, 2008

recommended to Jane by: found at library

I suspected before I began this book that I would agree with many of the author's opinions, and in fact, I did. While one needs to keep in mind that Jacoby, like every other person, is biased by her own experiences/education/upbringing, she nevertheless points out many things that I, too, believe to be true about American society today--that much of it is "dumbed down," that too high a percent of our population is preoccupied by cable TV, reality shows, video games, iPods, etc., that ...more I suspected before I began this book that I would agree with many of the author's opinions, and in fact, I did. While one needs to keep in mind that Jacoby, like every other person, is biased by her own experiences/education/upbringing, she nevertheless points out many things that I, too, believe to be true about American society today--that much of it is "dumbed down," that too high a percent of our population is preoccupied by cable TV, reality shows, video games, iPods, etc., that people lack curiosity about higher culture, that they increasingly don't read (she cited one NEA study from 2002 that said fewer than half of adult Americans had read ANY work of fiction or poetry in the preceding year), and that they are increasingly suspicious of "academics" and "intellectuals" (witness the George Bush following; take THAT, you Ph.D.s--I say only in jest!). Titles of chapters I particularly liked included "Junk Thought," "Blaming It on the Sixties," and "The Culture of Distraction." I mean, MUST we have a TV screen shoved in our faces at every restaurant, store and transportation waiting area??? If any of the rest of you read this--and even if you don't--I'd be curious about your personal takes on TV viewing, for instance (among other points). We pulled the plug on our home cable TV about 7-8 years ago and neither we nor our kids watch much--but it sure seems that (around here at least???) we are the grand exception.
Also, Jacoby is not anti-technology, but seems to say we should all be more mindful of the time we devote to our "gadgets" and to the effect and grip they have on us. I say amen to that! Most likely I'm preaching to the choir here--you all read, like, 6 books each week and so clearly value the advantages gained and the pleasures received from the printed word. I close with one quote from p. 243: "The most trashy newspaper and the most sublime work of literature share a crucial characteristic: each can be picked up, perused, contemplated, and put down at will. Printed works do not take up mental space simply by virtue of being there; attention must be paid or their content, whether simple or complex, can never be truly assimilated. The willed attention demanded by print is the antithesis of the reflexive distraction encouraged by infotainment media..."

(less)

Like this review? yes (1 person liked it)

1 comment

06/15/08

Ken Elser rated it:

Read in August, 2008

recommended to Ken by: Mike

It wasn't that this was a bad book--it was the expected rant on the dilapidation of intellectualism in the US, particularly as illustrated in the political arena and enabled by our 24/7, ADD culture--it's just that it seemed a bit pointless to me. One of my biggest concerns (and I share many with the author) is that the more polarized our society becomes, the more that having a different view somehow automatically puts that view equal footing with all others, and the more that "because tha...more

Like this review? yes (1 person liked it)

add a comment

06/10/08

lisa_emily rated it:

Read in June, 2008

recommends it for: critics

Jacoby was inspired, or rather compelled to write this book after hearing a conversation on 9/11/2001- according to The New York Times, it went something like this: “This is just like Pearl Harbor,” one of the men said. The other asked, “What is Pearl Harbor?”
“That was when the Vietnamese dropped bombs in a harbor, and it started the Vietnam War,” the first man replied. At that moment, Ms. Jacoby said, “I decided to write this book.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/14/books/......more

Like this review? yes (1 person liked it)

add a comment

05/26/08

Ben Babcock rated it:

bookshelves: 2008-read, culture, non-fiction, own, politics, via-colbert

Has a copy to sell/swap — Read in May, 2008

I heard of Susan Jacoby's book (and Jacoby herself, I might add) through her interview on The Colbert Report. The topic struck a chord with me. I suppose I could describe myself as an intellectual even though I am only a teenager/young adult--I read for pleasure, as my membership on this site would indicate, and I regularly engage in thought and discourse about matters that may be labelled intellectual. As a result, a book about anti-intellectualism and anti-rationalism in America piqued my int...more I heard of Susan Jacoby's book (and Jacoby herself, I might add) through her interview on The Colbert Report. The topic struck a chord with me. I suppose I could describe myself as an intellectual even though I am only a teenager/young adult--I read for pleasure, as my membership on this site would indicate, and I regularly engage in thought and discourse about matters that may be labelled intellectual. As a result, a book about anti-intellectualism and anti-rationalism in America piqued my interest (I may as well note at this point that I am Canadian).

My overall impression of Jacoby's book is that it is extremely well-written. Whether you agree with her arguments or not, to any degree, the book is a worthwhile exploration of the subject it discusses. Jacoby charts the American attitude toward intellectualism, learning, religion, science, and more, throughout its history, from its founding to the present day. She does this in a lively, thought-provoking manner, providing quotations and statistics to back up her assertions. I found the trip through history alone quite pleasant; I enjoy books that link their subjects to historical and social contexts, thereby increasing my awareness of how the past influences our present day actions.

What of Jacoby's thesis? Well, I can't say I agree 100% with her. The great thing about living in a free country and being intellectual is the capacity to read and respect another's opinion without totally agreeing with it, of course. I share Jacoby's worries about how infotainment is crippling our children and our culture. I despise the plague of reality television and daytime TV such as Dr. Phil or Oprah. The fact that more people turn to that medium for their relaxation and entertainment--especially people may age--than read a book saddens me. I enjoy my books.

As a technophile, I can't fully support Jacoby's attitudes toward technology's role in this matter. I definitely agree that the public too often tries to find technological solutions to what are essentially social problems--as a programmer, I lament this fact daily, because it makes it harder for me to program when people constantly insist I add a feature designed to restrict something that should be common sense. I love technology; I really do. But that's because I use it responsibly. I spend what may be an unhealthy time on the Internet, I admit, but I do read books. I talk with friends, try to prod them into a vaguely intellectual discussion. I do my part.

The Age of American Unreason is a welcome break from the polarized polemics of political pundits obsessed with the upcoming American election. Jacoby may be a secularist and an atheist, but she gives the right its dues and criticizes the left when appropriate. She is emphatic and resolute in her opinions, but at the same time, Jacoby is humble--in her conclusion, she notes, "I too am nibbling at the edges. . . None of these suggestions addresses the core problem created by the media--the pacifiers of the mind that permeate our homes, schools, and politics" (315). To me, this combination makes her an effective author.

Her remarks remind me of Douglas Coupland's novel Girlfriend in a Coma, in which the main characters go through the apocalypse in order to be reminded of the most important aspects of life: to challenge everything. To question everything, to constantly seek answers and explanations. Exploration has been a constant driving force of humanity. Just because we've mapped the Earth doesn't mean exploration needs to stop. It simply means it must metamorphose into a mental exercise; we must continue to explore the nature of humanity. But we can't do that if we continue to ignore it by becoming slaves to television or shooting down opponents with ad hominem attacks. We must challenge everything we think is right, because so often, history has proven we've been wrong. And if we are right, then our efforts to prove ourselves wrong will merely make our conviction stronger.(less)

Like this review? yes (1 person liked it)

add a comment

05/21/08

Don Diego Ramirez rated it:

bookshelves: resit-everything--recommended-readi

Read in May, 2008

recommended to Don by: The Colbert Report
recommends it for: any one

I started Susan Jacoby's Free Thinkers in 2004 when it was first published and I could not finish it!
It was like reading a dry freshman year college text book.
I would use the word BORING, but I knew she was passionate about her writings; but it simply does not come through. Her new book The Age of American Unreason fairs no better!
I finished this one! I work night shifts and was too lazy to stop and get another book! The first half of her book was horrible, how ever she gets ...more

Like this review? yes (1 person liked it)

add a comment

04/16/08

Griffin rated it:

bookshelves: read---nonfiction

Read in May, 2008

Susan Jacoby's book can be divided into two parts. First Ms. Jacoby examines the historical roots of America's penchant for resisting intellectuals and intellectualism. Second, Ms. Jacoby fumes about the changes in our culture since the '60s.

The first portion of the book is an excellent investigation and discussion of 75% of 'how we got to where we are now.' The second part of Ms. Jacoby's book is essentially 'The '60s and the other 25% of how we got to where we are now' and is a...more Susan Jacoby's book can be divided into two parts. First Ms. Jacoby examines the historical roots of America's penchant for resisting intellectuals and intellectualism. Second, Ms. Jacoby fumes about the changes in our culture since the '60s.

The first portion of the book is an excellent investigation and discussion of 75% of 'how we got to where we are now.' The second part of Ms. Jacoby's book is essentially 'The '60s and the other 25% of how we got to where we are now' and is a bit more problematic for me.

Her basic premise for 'The '60s' is that the youth of the era, the baby boomers, divided themselves into two opposing camps. One was either a member of the counter-culture (a hippie) or of the counter-counter-culture (an anti-hippie) and the two sides haven't agreed on anything since then. To me, this seemed pretty logical. How many Republicans still see every liberal as a DFH?

Her examination of how the Culture Wars, efforts to combat the Civil Rights movement and the rise of the Evangelical Movement promote unreason all rang true for me but, like most of the people reading The Age of American Unreason, Ms. Jacoby was preaching to the choir.

Where things bogged down for me was when Ms. Jacoby sounded a bit too much like every other geezer out there ranting about 'kids these days.' I'm less than half of Ms. Jacoby's age and at times she seemed too willing to condemn our culture simply because it is now very different from what it was when she was growing up.

Youth culture, technology and the studying of pop culture in college classes is not the end of the world Ms. Jacoby thinks it is. Yes, email has destroyed the letter. Yes, the vast majority of us are dependent on spell check. College classes studying 'Buffy the Vampire Slayer' don't carry the gravitas of classes on Shakespeare or Chaucer or even Bram Stoker. I would argue that if a student can approach 'Buffy' with the same close reading and analytic mindset she or he would have approached 'Cantubury Tales' that student has both learned to think about all the media they consume and has gained the skills to apply that mindset to 'the classics.' I digress...

Changes in how we transmit our thoughts and who sets our tastes in clothes do not, however, do anything to decrease our trust in scientists, experts, and intellectuals or explain why Americans are peculiar in our celebration of being 'just folks' and our pride in our own ignorance. This isn't to say that Ms. Jacoby doesn't address those things, but her 'you kids stay off of my lawn!' attitude weakens her arguments.

In the end, The Age of American Unreason is a valuable and timely look at who we are as Americans. Sadly, it's scholarly style and mildly combative stance (and the fact that it's a book and not a TV show) ensures that those who need to hear Ms. Jacoby's message most will be completely unaware that it exists.(less)

Like this review? yes (1 person liked it)

add a comment

03/05/08

Colin rated it:

bookshelves: philosophy, scholarly-works

Read in April, 2008

An occasionally brilliant account of growing American anti-intellectualism. Some parts are a bit dry (I found chapter 4 "Reds, Pinkos, Fellow Travelers" and 5 "Middlebrow Culture From Noon to Twilight" excessively so), but the more brilliant bits more than make up for them. Chapter 11, "Public Life: Defining Dumbness Downward" is a must-read, especially as we proceed towards this year's (2008) elections that will shape public policy for years to come. I think this o...more

Like this review? yes (1 person liked it)

add a comment

02/19/08

M rated it:

bookshelves: history

It has been interesting to read The Age of American Unreason during the 2008 US Presidential ~~media circus~~ campaign. In this well-researched social commentary, Susan Jacoby traces the history and causes of anti-intellectualism in the United States over the past two decades. The culprits? The celebrity/youth culture that feeds media infotainment, technologies that are replacing face-to-face conversations and reading, the growth of Christian fundamentalism, uneven educational expectations in sch...more It has been interesting to read The Age of American Unreason during the 2008 US Presidential ~~media circus~~ campaign. In this well-researched social commentary, Susan Jacoby traces the history and causes of anti-intellectualism in the United States over the past two decades. The culprits? The celebrity/youth culture that feeds media infotainment, technologies that are replacing face-to-face conversations and reading, the growth of Christian fundamentalism, uneven educational expectations in schools, and contempt for countervailing facts and expert opinion. She refers to the latter as junk thought.

I found this to be a very persuasive and thought-provoking book. In regards to mass media and infotainment, it seems to be increasingly difficult to find reliable sources of actual news. Just this morning, for example, a major US newspaper devoted more space on its webpage to a feature on famous film weddings than to the CERN particle collider passing its first key tests, or explaining why the collider is even important. The growing influence on public policy of people who interpret the Bible literally is scary to me mainly because the mingling of religion and government has not had a good track record throughout world history. It baffles me that the quality of public education can vary so much from state to state. I could get on my geek soapbox and write pages on junk thought, but my top two pet peeves would have to be quoting results of surveys that are not statistically valid and claims regarding the effectiveness of medical or pseudo-medical interventions that are not based on the results of double-blind tests. I don’t agree as much with Jacoby about technologies like computers and the various iGadgets available as long as they are used with a discerning eye (and ear).

Before starting this book, I wondered if the last chapter would be a predictable call to action. Fortunately, Jacoby does not fall into that trap. I think that, rather than expect an author or anyone else to get us out of this hole, we must each use critical thinking skills to wade through the nonsense around us, become lifelong learners, and act accordingly. An informed public is less easily manipulated.

Despite Jacoby’s dislike of soundbites, she manages to incorporate many memorable one-liners. I will end with my favorite from p. 230: “Public ignorance in large and powerful countries is particularly dangerous to the rest of the world precisely because of the capacity of powerful states to inflict damage on the weak.” (less)

Like this review? yes (1 person liked it)

3 comments

02/20/08

Tiffoknee the 3rd rated it:

Read in March, 2008

recommended to Tiffoknee the 3rd by: My brain.
recommends it for: Those interested in light social criticism.

I can agree that this book did not quite live up to the hype which preceded it. However, I did find quite a bit of substance to Jacoby's arguments. What's more, I was sincerely provoked by her commentary on the current state of intellectual inquiry in the United States insofar as her book serves as a worthwhile starting point for further investigation. This is not a definitive polemic. There were times when the tone was a bit too inconsistent for my tastes, but I did not buy this book thinki...more

Like this review? yes (1 person liked it)

add a comment