Sarah Hazzard
asked:
Is this from an unbiased (as much as one could be) viewpoint, or is it noticeably conservative/liberal?
To answer questions about
The Madness of Crowds: Gender, Race and Identity,
please sign up.
Andrew
One distinction I see a lot of people get wrong is different political/ideological terminology, so I'd like to clear that up first:
Left vs. Right: Social equality vs Social hierarchy. Left-wingers generally want everyone to be the same (egalitarianism), while right-wingers generally accept there are inherent hierarchies and there's no way around it.
Progressive vs. conservative: Progressives want change because things could be better (for progress, because things are backwards and antiquated), conservatives are skeptical of change because change is scary (conserve what we have because we understand it and it works more-or-less).
Liberal vs Authoritarian: Liberals want freedom for the individual and the people (small government, civil rights, free market), while authoritarians (has a bad connotation but not necessarily entirely bad) want centralized control (big government, regulation) and conformity to rules.
Long story short, you can be a liberal conservative (someone who prioritizes individual freedom, but is averse to change).
Anyway here's my perspective on the political bias of this book:
I think the conversation revolving around the topic of this book inherently addresses social progressive/leftist viewpoints because it addresses gender/race identity and madness that spawns from ideologies that value group identity above all else. In that sense I would call it conservative because Murray is basically saying "Look at this is insanity. This is going too far. And here are strange and startling examples why."
I really enjoyed this read (listened to the audiobook) and I learned a lot about the nuance in gay politics for example. I wasn't aware of the contentious divide between the original gay rights movement (we want certain rights we don't have as a class) vs. today's postmodern identitarian/social-justice-warrior movement (we are an unhappy mob of many minority groups who have no clear agenda other than to get what we want whatever that may be).
On the other hand, by writing about the madness and comparing it in a historical context (gay rights, women's rights, civil rights, etc.) of what the pivotal movements were trying to achieve, Murray highlights the good progressive ideas from the bad, and illustrates it beautifully by providing current events, rational observations of said events, and logical fallacies (red herrings, strawmen, ad hominems). I ended up looking up a lot of the events that he outlines in the book.
In good faith, I would say this is as unbiased as one could be on the topic of discussion.
Left vs. Right: Social equality vs Social hierarchy. Left-wingers generally want everyone to be the same (egalitarianism), while right-wingers generally accept there are inherent hierarchies and there's no way around it.
Progressive vs. conservative: Progressives want change because things could be better (for progress, because things are backwards and antiquated), conservatives are skeptical of change because change is scary (conserve what we have because we understand it and it works more-or-less).
Liberal vs Authoritarian: Liberals want freedom for the individual and the people (small government, civil rights, free market), while authoritarians (has a bad connotation but not necessarily entirely bad) want centralized control (big government, regulation) and conformity to rules.
Long story short, you can be a liberal conservative (someone who prioritizes individual freedom, but is averse to change).
Anyway here's my perspective on the political bias of this book:
I think the conversation revolving around the topic of this book inherently addresses social progressive/leftist viewpoints because it addresses gender/race identity and madness that spawns from ideologies that value group identity above all else. In that sense I would call it conservative because Murray is basically saying "Look at this is insanity. This is going too far. And here are strange and startling examples why."
I really enjoyed this read (listened to the audiobook) and I learned a lot about the nuance in gay politics for example. I wasn't aware of the contentious divide between the original gay rights movement (we want certain rights we don't have as a class) vs. today's postmodern identitarian/social-justice-warrior movement (we are an unhappy mob of many minority groups who have no clear agenda other than to get what we want whatever that may be).
On the other hand, by writing about the madness and comparing it in a historical context (gay rights, women's rights, civil rights, etc.) of what the pivotal movements were trying to achieve, Murray highlights the good progressive ideas from the bad, and illustrates it beautifully by providing current events, rational observations of said events, and logical fallacies (red herrings, strawmen, ad hominems). I ended up looking up a lot of the events that he outlines in the book.
In good faith, I would say this is as unbiased as one could be on the topic of discussion.
Harry
There is certainly what would be considered a conservative bias from a modern perspective. The book would seem very liberal if it were released twenty years ago. Expect to be challenged if you align with the extremes of modern social science. Expect your beliefs to be reaffirmed if you align with modern science.
Zein
No. I'm almost done with this book, and one aspect of it is infuriating. The views found within are of a conservative bent. I had hoped this book was more social science, as opposed to what it is: a conservative's view, hell-bent on pointing out the ridiculousness of the far left's lowest common denominator, without EVER mentioning the same of the far right.
Turns out, due to lack of research on my part, I mistakenly bought an opinion editorial that leans hard right, as opposed to the psychological studies I like to read in nonfiction.
Turns out, due to lack of research on my part, I mistakenly bought an opinion editorial that leans hard right, as opposed to the psychological studies I like to read in nonfiction.
DAVE VANAUKEN
It drags some hard and uncomfortable facts, events and results into the open, and largely states "seems to be something wrong here". If facing difficult facts about ones point of view have you resort to screaming "stalin" or "hitler" in response, then some portions may seem biased. If listening to other points of view have you reflect, consider, and adjust where necessary then you will find well founded criticism that warrants thought and further consideration. Those two statements apply regardless of your current "camp" or leaning as it is not gentle to either.
Rob Damon
I'd say Murray is being as neutral as possible given the contentious topics he decided to write about. To me he was trying to bring perspective and act as a mediator between the identitiy politics crowd and everyone else.
Darren
On Bret Weinstein's podcast, Weinstein asked Murray if he's a conservative. Murray replied that he is a UK conservative, but not a US conservative. I would say he's a free thinking conservative.
Keith Hughes
I would have to go with unbiased. His arguments are nuanced and very well presented.
José Antonio Lopez
The question itself is biased. Read it if you are interested and use your judgement to take what is good and discard what is not. With current polarization no book is "unbiased".
About Goodreads Q&A
Ask and answer questions about books!
You can pose questions to the Goodreads community with Reader Q&A, or ask your favorite author a question with Ask the Author.
See Featured Authors Answering Questions
Learn more