counter create hit The Rhetoric of Reaction: Perversity, Futility, Jeopardy - Download Free eBook
Ads Banner
Hot Best Seller

The Rhetoric of Reaction: Perversity, Futility, Jeopardy

Availability: Ready to download

With engaging wit and subtle irony, Albert Hirschman maps the diffuse and treacherous world of reactionary rhetoric in which conservative public figures, thinkers, and polemicists have been arguing against progressive agendas and reforms for the past two hundred years. Hirschman draws his examples from three successive waves of reactive thought that arose in response to the With engaging wit and subtle irony, Albert Hirschman maps the diffuse and treacherous world of reactionary rhetoric in which conservative public figures, thinkers, and polemicists have been arguing against progressive agendas and reforms for the past two hundred years. Hirschman draws his examples from three successive waves of reactive thought that arose in response to the liberal ideas of the French Revolution and the Declaration of the Rights of Man, to democratization and the drive toward universal suffrage in the nineteenth century, and to the welfare state in our own century. In each case he identifies three principal arguments invariably used: (1) the perversity thesis, whereby any action to improve some feature of the political, social, or economic order is alleged to result in the exact opposite of what was intended; (2) the futility thesis, which predicts that attempts at social transformation will produce no effects whatever--will simply be incapable of making a dent in the status quo; (3) the jeopardy thesis, holding that the cost of the proposed reform is unacceptable because it will endanger previous hard-won accomplishments. He illustrates these propositions by citing writers across the centuries from Alexis de Tocqueville to George Stigler, Herbert Spencer to Jay Forrester, Edmund Burke to Charles Murray. Finally, in a lightning turnabout, he shows that progressives are frequently apt to employ closely related rhetorical postures, which are as biased as their reactionary counterparts. For those who aspire to the genuine dialogue that characterizes a truly democratic society, Hirschman points out that both types of rhetoric function, in effect, as contraptions designed to make debate impossible. In the process, his book makes an original contribution to democratic thought.The Rhetoric of Reaction is a delightful handbook for all discussions of public affairs, the welfare state, and the history of social, economic, and political thought, whether conducted by ordinary citizens or academics.


Compare
Ads Banner

With engaging wit and subtle irony, Albert Hirschman maps the diffuse and treacherous world of reactionary rhetoric in which conservative public figures, thinkers, and polemicists have been arguing against progressive agendas and reforms for the past two hundred years. Hirschman draws his examples from three successive waves of reactive thought that arose in response to the With engaging wit and subtle irony, Albert Hirschman maps the diffuse and treacherous world of reactionary rhetoric in which conservative public figures, thinkers, and polemicists have been arguing against progressive agendas and reforms for the past two hundred years. Hirschman draws his examples from three successive waves of reactive thought that arose in response to the liberal ideas of the French Revolution and the Declaration of the Rights of Man, to democratization and the drive toward universal suffrage in the nineteenth century, and to the welfare state in our own century. In each case he identifies three principal arguments invariably used: (1) the perversity thesis, whereby any action to improve some feature of the political, social, or economic order is alleged to result in the exact opposite of what was intended; (2) the futility thesis, which predicts that attempts at social transformation will produce no effects whatever--will simply be incapable of making a dent in the status quo; (3) the jeopardy thesis, holding that the cost of the proposed reform is unacceptable because it will endanger previous hard-won accomplishments. He illustrates these propositions by citing writers across the centuries from Alexis de Tocqueville to George Stigler, Herbert Spencer to Jay Forrester, Edmund Burke to Charles Murray. Finally, in a lightning turnabout, he shows that progressives are frequently apt to employ closely related rhetorical postures, which are as biased as their reactionary counterparts. For those who aspire to the genuine dialogue that characterizes a truly democratic society, Hirschman points out that both types of rhetoric function, in effect, as contraptions designed to make debate impossible. In the process, his book makes an original contribution to democratic thought.The Rhetoric of Reaction is a delightful handbook for all discussions of public affairs, the welfare state, and the history of social, economic, and political thought, whether conducted by ordinary citizens or academics.

58 review for The Rhetoric of Reaction: Perversity, Futility, Jeopardy

  1. 4 out of 5

    Andrew

    A slim and extremely useful meditation on the forms that reactionary arguments--which Hirschman cleverly defines as those arguments which deny not so much the validity of an aspiration to change, but simply the practicality, safety, or governability of a recommended alteration in the status quo--routinely, almost deterministically fall into. His point here is to show that reactionary arguments are not the product of case-specific reasoning against a given social, political, or economic change, b A slim and extremely useful meditation on the forms that reactionary arguments--which Hirschman cleverly defines as those arguments which deny not so much the validity of an aspiration to change, but simply the practicality, safety, or governability of a recommended alteration in the status quo--routinely, almost deterministically fall into. His point here is to show that reactionary arguments are not the product of case-specific reasoning against a given social, political, or economic change, but rather revert to simplistic meta-framings often (implicitly) reliant on mythological topoi--Oedipus, Nemesis, or hubris. For all that, the study is not psychoanalytic but straightforwardly rhetorical--it bases its counterarguments on essentially prima facie readings of classic conservative texts--Burke, de Maistre, Hayek, et al. I really enjoy the way that Hirschman proceeds through his evidence, and I find the trio of reactionary arguments (perversity, futility, or jeopardy) that Hirschman elaborates very helpful in parsing the cant that I encounter on a day-to-day basis in the media, or in listening to relatives or friends. I am surprised to find that more historians and political scientists--or journalists for that matter--do not make use of this book. Its lucidity would be a great model for many writers and its content a valuable resource in political argumentation.

  2. 4 out of 5

    Sean Chick

    I almost do not want to give this book four stars, for Hirschman is at times too brief. His statements about the flaws in certain reactionary arguments are short and therefore lack bite. Yet, he does a fair job of exploring three common conservative arguments against reform and revolution. His most effective passage is on the perverse effect of Burke's argument in favor of slow change and minor reforms, the perverse effect being that it can spurn radical change in places where slow reform is bot I almost do not want to give this book four stars, for Hirschman is at times too brief. His statements about the flaws in certain reactionary arguments are short and therefore lack bite. Yet, he does a fair job of exploring three common conservative arguments against reform and revolution. His most effective passage is on the perverse effect of Burke's argument in favor of slow change and minor reforms, the perverse effect being that it can spurn radical change in places where slow reform is botched and there is no history of rights and reform.

  3. 4 out of 5

    Marcelo

    Interesting framework to evaluate political debate fallacies. Especially the last chapter is a masterclass.

  4. 4 out of 5

    Dario Andrade

    A retórica da intransigência O livro é interessante e tem alguns pontos que realmente estimulam a reflexão. Mas alguns elementos precisam ser mais bem elaborados. A retórica nem sempre é uma palavra que tenha uma conotação positiva. Muitas vezes – e de maneira enganosa – a retórica é vista como uma forma de enganar as pessoas. Não é o caso aqui. A retórica é uma técnica de argumentação utilizada para o convencimento de pessoas. É, pois, um elemento fundamental em uma sociedade democrática, em qu A retórica da intransigência O livro é interessante e tem alguns pontos que realmente estimulam a reflexão. Mas alguns elementos precisam ser mais bem elaborados. A retórica nem sempre é uma palavra que tenha uma conotação positiva. Muitas vezes – e de maneira enganosa – a retórica é vista como uma forma de enganar as pessoas. Não é o caso aqui. A retórica é uma técnica de argumentação utilizada para o convencimento de pessoas. É, pois, um elemento fundamental em uma sociedade democrática, em que a alternância de poder se faz, é claro, por meios não-violentos. Pois bem, Hirschman – um economista estruturalista, com bastante conhecimento de América Latina – escreveu o texto para entender os argumentos daqueles setores sociais que são contrários à mudança política. Ele encontra três argumentos principais. O primeiro é o da perversidade. O segundo é da futilidade. O terceiro é o da ameaça. O primeiro argumento trata dos efeitos colaterais negativos da mudança. O segundo é o da inutilidade da mudança, ou seja, nada se muda. O terceiro é que arrisca ganhos já existentes na sociedade. A despeito de ser de esquerda, ele também, em um rápido capítulo, analisa os argumentos mais utilizados pela esquerda, como o da inevitabilidade da história ou da ameaça às inversas, em que não a não mudança é um risco. Um ponto importante, pois, é que esses argumentos da intransigência não são necessariamente falsos. A mudança não traz, obviamente, mudanças necessariamente positivas. E aqui está um ponto de me incomodou: ele coloca no mesmo saco figuras tão distintas como Burke, Tocqueville, Benjamin Constant. Estão juntos conservadores, liberais, reacionários indistintamente, o que, para mim, é algo equivocado. De qualquer modo, me parece que o livro tem, como se pode dizer, elementos que instigam a uma reflexão sobre o debate político e a recuperação da retórica como um elemento relevante da vida democrática.

  5. 5 out of 5

    Ferda Nihat Koksoy

    ALBERT HIRSCHMANN -Gericiliğin (Reaksiyonerliğin/Muhafazkarlığın) Retoriği : *İlerici ve muhafazakarların, kesin olmayan fikirlerle anlamlı tartışmalar yaptığı dostça-demokrasi istemeliyiz (Bamberg Katedrali'ndeki Tartışan İki Peygamber figürü gibi). *Muhafazakârlık argümanı sadece Emir Kipleri ile biçimlenegelmiştir ve reform/ devrimlere şu kategorilerinden saldırır: -AKSİ TESİRE YOL AÇAR (Fransız Devrimi sonrasında Bonapartizm'e yani despotizme yol açmıştır), -BOŞUNADIR (Bir şey değilmez; Pareto' ALBERT HIRSCHMANN -Gericiliğin (Reaksiyonerliğin/Muhafazkarlığın) Retoriği : *İlerici ve muhafazakarların, kesin olmayan fikirlerle anlamlı tartışmalar yaptığı dostça-demokrasi istemeliyiz (Bamberg Katedrali'ndeki Tartışan İki Peygamber figürü gibi). *Muhafazakârlık argümanı sadece Emir Kipleri ile biçimlenegelmiştir ve reform/ devrimlere şu kategorilerinden saldırır: -AKSİ TESİRE YOL AÇAR (Fransız Devrimi sonrasında Bonapartizm'e yani despotizme yol açmıştır), -BOŞUNADIR (Bir şey değilmez; Pareto'nun %80-%20 kuralı hep geçerlidir: bir olayın %80 nedeninden %20 etken sorumludur; %80 para/güç %20'de toplanır) -MEVCUDU TEHLİKEYE ATAR (1832 ve 67 Britanya Oy Hakkı Reformlarında, 'Britanya Anayasası Kültü' denilen Krallık/Aristokrasi/Demokrasi hassas dengesini tehlikeye atar gerekçesiyle liberal ve muhafazakârların birlikte davranmıştır) *En temel saldırı eksenleri 2 gruptadır: -YURTTAŞLIK ve GENEL OY HAKLARI (Kalitesizlik, Sürü içgüdüsüyle hareket, seçme değil seçtirme, aptal çoğunluğun yönetimi ve devletin hâkim sınıfların yağma makinesi haline getirilmesi) -REFAH DEVLETİ (Sosyal haklar, İşsizlik Sigortası ve sigortadan vergi alınmaması, tembellik ve ahlaksızlık yaratır, alt sınıfları daha da fakirleştirir) *Muhafazakâr savunmanın temsilcilerinden örnekler: Burke, Schiller, Malthus, Dickens, Nietzsche, Bentham, Ricardo, Tocqueville, Pareto, Flaubert, Max Scheler, Friedman, Hayek, Huntington.

  6. 4 out of 5

    Styer

    Pretty easy read. Great analysis of political rhetoric in the modern times. The same basic arguments have been made since the French Revolution regarding trying to make political progress towards democracy, liberalism, better living/working conditions. The three types of arguments is that a specific political-economic change will make things worse (perversity), that trying to make such a change will not make things any better (futility) or that it will put all progress so far made into jeopardy. Pretty easy read. Great analysis of political rhetoric in the modern times. The same basic arguments have been made since the French Revolution regarding trying to make political progress towards democracy, liberalism, better living/working conditions. The three types of arguments is that a specific political-economic change will make things worse (perversity), that trying to make such a change will not make things any better (futility) or that it will put all progress so far made into jeopardy. Sometimes the people trying to make these changes adopt the same rhetoric. This isn't really a partisan book. It is easy to detect where Hirschman's sympathies lie, and what he thinks the truth about the historical record is, but he is more concerned to show that this sort of rhetoric, from either side, doesn't represent useful political discourse. Good perspective, a great (again, fairly easy and quick) read. Unlike most historians/philosophers, Hirschman writes pretty simply and straightforwardly.

  7. 5 out of 5

    Marks54

    This is a terrific short book by the author of "Exit, Voice,Loyalty" - and like it combines some penetrating thought with historical examples of political and economic rhetoric. The point is to show how discourse that is strongly opposed to political/economic change has some standard lines of attack that can be identified acrosso a wide range of changes. The first is perversity -- that change will lead to the opposite of what those initiating change want - an unintended consequences argument. Th This is a terrific short book by the author of "Exit, Voice,Loyalty" - and like it combines some penetrating thought with historical examples of political and economic rhetoric. The point is to show how discourse that is strongly opposed to political/economic change has some standard lines of attack that can be identified acrosso a wide range of changes. The first is perversity -- that change will lead to the opposite of what those initiating change want - an unintended consequences argument. The second argument is futility- that the change cannot work and so is a great waste of time and effort. The third argument is jeopardy - namely that the costs of change will be significantly higher than the benefits and put the status quo at risk. The key takeaway is that these arguments are generic and seldom depend on the data situation at hand. This is a very thoughtful book and a fairly quick read - for economic tracts at least.

  8. 5 out of 5

    Robert Wechsler

    An excellent look at the arguments reactionaries make in response to various kinds of political reform, as well as, in a later chapter, arguments made by progressives. Hirschman critiques reactionary arguments and discusses why such arguments are made and why they are often accepted. Highly recommended for anyone interested in political rhetoric.

  9. 4 out of 5

    Jonathan

    A short, useful, and insightful book about political rhetoric. Hirschman's "The Rhetoric of Reaction" was published in 1991, a time when those on the left and center-left were trying to understand the conservative turn in politics of the past decade. Hirschman focuses not on the conservatives themselves (the psychoanalyzing of political ideology that one can often see), but on their arguments. To do this, he analyzes the responses from reactionaries to three different waves of progress: (1) the A short, useful, and insightful book about political rhetoric. Hirschman's "The Rhetoric of Reaction" was published in 1991, a time when those on the left and center-left were trying to understand the conservative turn in politics of the past decade. Hirschman focuses not on the conservatives themselves (the psychoanalyzing of political ideology that one can often see), but on their arguments. To do this, he analyzes the responses from reactionaries to three different waves of progress: (1) the wave that produced civil rights, or the rise of individual liberties, starting with the French Revolution, (2) the wave that led to political rights, namely, democracy/universal suffrage, and (3) the wave that led to social rights, i.e., the welfare state. In examining the arguments used to oppose each wave of progress, he comes up with another triad: perversity, futility, and jeopardy. And he presents examples from each period, noting as well how the arguments can work together (or coexist despite seeming incompatibility). The perversity thesis is that the contemplated action will have disastrous consequences--it will, in fact, move in the opposite direction of what its proponents claim. One of the most notable examples of this is Burke's writings on the French Revolution. But this was seen as well in how reactionaries claimed that democracy would lead to bureaucratic tyranny or that the welfare state would corrupt its beneficiaries or that a minimum wage increase leaves workers worse off. The perversity thesis presents a volatile world in which providence shatters any good intentions humans may have. The futility thesis is that the contemplated action will run up against permanent structural characteristics ("laws") of the social order and, thus, end up ineffective. With this focus on "laws," the futility thesis often has a social scientific bent to it. Examples include Alexis de Tocqueville's writings on the French Revolution (in which he claimed that the positive advances were already happening in the first place), Mosca and Pareto's writings of democracy (which argued that divides between the rulers and the ruled or between the elite and the non-elite would resurface regardless of political form), and the writings of conservative economists who claim that money allocated to help the poor will just end up in the hands of the middle class. The jeopardy thesis argues that the contemplated action, even if desirable in itself, involves unacceptable costs or consequences of one sort or another. We can see this in how opponents of universal suffrage claimed that democracy would be a threat to political liberty and how people like Samuel Huntington and Friedrich Hayek claimed that the welfare state was a threat to democracy. Although Hirschman starts the book with a focus on reactionary arguments, he spends some time toward the end analyzing simplistic and common arguments used in favor of progressive change. They function as inverses of the reactionary arguments. Rather than arguing that taking action will have disastrous consequences, progressives say that inaction will have disastrous consequences (“imminent danger”). Rather than arguing that social laws render changes futile, progressives say that social laws make change inevitable (“history is on our side”). Rather than arguing that a change will risk past advances, progressives argue for a relationship of mutual support between new and old advances (“synergy illusion”). And the progressive mentality itself is the antipode of the perversity thesis-in viewing the possibility of rebuilding society according to the dictates of reason. It's a handy framework for analyzing political rhetoric (especially amidst an election season like now) and an encouragement to strengthen (and add nuance to) one's own lines of argumentation. 4.5 stars

  10. 5 out of 5

    ehk2

    I am not sure that I'm fully convinced by Hirschman's attempt to expose "the simplicity of reactionary rhetoric" -I guess I could find some really powerful argumentation among them, even if I am much more inclined to side with progressives in most cases. Hirschman is too brief on individual thinkers. But I liked the book (in the idea that there are identifiable-similar-recurring structures of rhetorics in political thought) and think it is an important text in intellectual history.

  11. 5 out of 5

    David

    Awesome. You will think of this book whenever you spot obstructionist drivel, which you will get very good at.

  12. 4 out of 5

    Aaron Aoyume

    I remember reading Albert Hirschman a long time ago, in college, when I was studying the debt crisis in Latin America during the 1990s... So, against my recollection of Hirschman as a Latin America specialist, this book comes as a big and positive surprise because it goes way beyond economics, while still benefiting from it. This book is essential manifold: for once, it rigorously put the arguments that are typically used against change into a crystal-clear and efficient analytical framework, wh I remember reading Albert Hirschman a long time ago, in college, when I was studying the debt crisis in Latin America during the 1990s... So, against my recollection of Hirschman as a Latin America specialist, this book comes as a big and positive surprise because it goes way beyond economics, while still benefiting from it. This book is essential manifold: for once, it rigorously put the arguments that are typically used against change into a crystal-clear and efficient analytical framework, which Hirschman ended up acknowledging to be useful for conservatives and progressists alike. Although Hirschman does not hide his political inclinations, he is extremely fair when dealing with divergent ideas and explore these themes with genuine and philosophical curiosity. As such, this book ends up as a study about intransigence, as Hirschman himself admits it in the last chapter. It goes beyond conservative rhetoric and expands into all kinds of arguments against "the different, the other": the other is perverse, because it does exactly the opposite he or she says to be done; the other is futile, because he or she can't change how things are supposed to be: or the other is dangerous, because he or she threatens to destroy something we praise and value. Originally written in 1991, this book couldn't be more pertinent to the problems of our time...

  13. 4 out of 5

    Jeremy D.

    For a text that reads like a peer-reviewed dissertation, an often wordy and high-minded study of reactionary political arguments, there is much to take away and process for anyone willing to concede, on either side of partisanship, that the means to our successful and peaceful human co-existence demands a better, more realistic approach to conversation and debate. Hirschman suggests that all political reactions to new endeavors are rooted in one of three points of view, either that such new acti For a text that reads like a peer-reviewed dissertation, an often wordy and high-minded study of reactionary political arguments, there is much to take away and process for anyone willing to concede, on either side of partisanship, that the means to our successful and peaceful human co-existence demands a better, more realistic approach to conversation and debate. Hirschman suggests that all political reactions to new endeavors are rooted in one of three points of view, either that such new actions, as progressive as they usually are, will make things worse, that they will accomplish nothing at all, or that they will create a series of other unintended and more dire consequences, brought about by the naivety of the actor(s). But in presenting these arguments, Hirschman also notes their flaws of impossibly arrogant foresight, as if every argument against every idea were capable of guaranteeing, without question, the failed ends of whatever well-intentioned means were considered. And in the end, we are left to ask conservative reactionaries whether, in the core of their objections, they truly wish to discourage any and every proactive effort or idea within humankind, whether there is ever an idea that they would concede was worth a shot, whether it came from the mind of a progressive or anyone else.

  14. 4 out of 5

    Bryan Jones

    One of my favorites. Describes three arguments depolyed to stop progress: perversity "this will backfire, causing even more damage to those you wish to help" ; futility, "this will never result in actual change" ; and jeopardy, "this is so radical, it could cause us to lose the progress we have gained so far." Contains excellent and useful examinations of each, including arguments against Social Security. The closing chapters focus on progressive arguments that are also problematic. There is a l One of my favorites. Describes three arguments depolyed to stop progress: perversity "this will backfire, causing even more damage to those you wish to help" ; futility, "this will never result in actual change" ; and jeopardy, "this is so radical, it could cause us to lose the progress we have gained so far." Contains excellent and useful examinations of each, including arguments against Social Security. The closing chapters focus on progressive arguments that are also problematic. There is a lot of research on the first three arguments in the book, but not much on the closing chapters. That's a gap that needs to be filled.

  15. 5 out of 5

    Mlhoganjr

    Hirshman examines over several centuries reactionary conservative objections to progressive social policies based on the idea that forward change will either be futile, will have an effect that is the opposite of its desired effect (perversity), and/or will put some other policy in jeopardy.

  16. 4 out of 5

    Ali Karimzadeh

    One of the greatest books I’ve ever read. You can put any controversial conversation that currently is happening in any society into Hirshman’s framework and see the continuing resistance of the reactionary forces.

  17. 5 out of 5

    Ali Berkok

    Essential reading for those working in politics of any kind. Look at how conservatives argue. Listen to the voices inside that are holding you back. Some reading advice: unless you want the deep dive, you can skip Chapter 5.

  18. 4 out of 5

    Carlos Freitas

    Acho que o esquema de Hirschman pode até funcionar para categorizar os argumentos ditos reacionários, mas não serve para refutá-los. E embora o autor negue, às vezes parece que ele está tentando fazer justamente a segunda coisa (principalmente nos trechos sobre o Welfare State).

  19. 5 out of 5

    pplofgod

    Surprisingly weak/thin.

  20. 4 out of 5

    Django

    Required reading for policymakers. Hirschman masterfully categorizes reactionary arguments against progressive policies into three rhetorical buckets: perversity, futility, and jeopardy.

  21. 4 out of 5

    Turner Bitton

    One of the best books I’ve ever read on the science of argumentation and debate. It still informs me to this day.

  22. 5 out of 5

    Linus Johansson

    Probably a book I will appreciate more in retrospect than during the read.

  23. 4 out of 5

    노은경

    So relevant to what we are situated....

  24. 4 out of 5

    Mz

    This review has been hidden because it contains spoilers. To view it, click here. Έχει ειπωθεί επανειλημμένα ότι ο σύγχρονος Δυτικός κόσμος είναι σε μεγάλο βαθμό προϊόν του Διαφωτισμού της Γαλλικής Επανάστασης, ενώ είναι γνωστό πως τόσο τα δημοκρατικά δικαιώματα (πχ καθολική ψηφοφορία) και το κράτος πρόνοιας δε θα είχαν λάβει χώρα δίχως αυτά. Πράγματι, τόσο ο Διαφωτισμός του 18ου αιώνα, όσο τα δικαιώματα του 19ου και το κράτος πρόνοιας του 20ού αιώνα σήμερα αντιμετωπίζονται από τους περισσότερους ως σπουδαία επιτεύγματα της Δύσης και ελάχιστοι πια τολμούν να αμφισβητήσουν ευθ Έχει ειπωθεί επανειλημμένα ότι ο σύγχρονος Δυτικός κόσμος είναι σε μεγάλο βαθμό προϊόν του Διαφωτισμού της Γαλλικής Επανάστασης, ενώ είναι γνωστό πως τόσο τα δημοκρατικά δικαιώματα (πχ καθολική ψηφοφορία) και το κράτος πρόνοιας δε θα είχαν λάβει χώρα δίχως αυτά. Πράγματι, τόσο ο Διαφωτισμός του 18ου αιώνα, όσο τα δικαιώματα του 19ου και το κράτος πρόνοιας του 20ού αιώνα σήμερα αντιμετωπίζονται από τους περισσότερους ως σπουδαία επιτεύγματα της Δύσης και ελάχιστοι πια τολμούν να αμφισβητήσουν ευθέως; Τι συνέβη όμως την εποχή που θεσπίστηκαν; Πόσο εύκολα έγιναν αποδεκτά; Σε αυτό το ερώτημα είναι αφιερωμένο το βιβλίο του Albert O. Hirschman Η αντιδραστική ρητορική (The rhetoric of reaction, 1991), το οποίο αναλύει και σχηματοποιεί τα τρία κύρια κύματα της αντιδραστικής σκέψης ενάντια στους τρεις μεγάλους νεωτερισμούς του σύγχρονου κόσμου: τη ρητορική ενάντια στην «αστική» όψη (18ος αιώνας), τις απειλές ενάντια στην «πολιτική» όψη (19ο αιώνας) και τέλος, τις δυσοίωνες προφητείες ενάντια στην «κοινωνικοοικονομική» όψη του πολίτη στον σύγχρονο κόσμο (20ός αιώνας).

  25. 4 out of 5

    Stefan

    Having only heard of Hirschman recently through the media obituaries, I decided to read some of his work. This was a clear appraisal of reactionary rhetoric from late in his career and I found it to still apply today. Recommended.

  26. 4 out of 5

    !Tæmbuŝu

    KOBOBOOKS KOBOBOOKS

  27. 5 out of 5

    Jennifer

    Look - I know this is Atul Gawande's favorite book or whatever, but all this hypothetical philosophizing is exhausting for my simple brain.

  28. 5 out of 5

    Taneli Viitahuhta

    Very useful, if a bit too economic in the design of the argument. Good companion piece to Alberto Toscano's Fanaticism.

  29. 4 out of 5

    Elena

    didn't read it all, so I'm kind of cheating here. it was interesting though, provided some new angles to my analysis.

  30. 5 out of 5

    Ralph

  31. 5 out of 5

    Erin Mcgee

  32. 5 out of 5

    Can

  33. 4 out of 5

    John Taylor

  34. 5 out of 5

    Mark Smith

  35. 5 out of 5

    Meredith

  36. 4 out of 5

    Wrb

  37. 5 out of 5

    Dietmar

  38. 5 out of 5

    Mike

  39. 4 out of 5

    Eric

  40. 5 out of 5

    Dan

  41. 4 out of 5

    Dave

  42. 4 out of 5

    Sam

  43. 5 out of 5

    Ilya Gerner

  44. 5 out of 5

    Lars

  45. 5 out of 5

    Mandy

  46. 4 out of 5

    Jonathan Hagel

  47. 4 out of 5

    Joseph Mornin

  48. 5 out of 5

    Annie

  49. 4 out of 5

    Brandon Wu

  50. 4 out of 5

    Pavol Hardos

  51. 4 out of 5

    Amy

  52. 4 out of 5

    Peter Norman

  53. 5 out of 5

    Andrew Schirmer

  54. 4 out of 5

    Ben

  55. 5 out of 5

    Adam Kanzer

  56. 5 out of 5

    Ilidio

  57. 5 out of 5

    Jason Furman

  58. 5 out of 5

    Vitali

Add a review

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Loading...
We use cookies to give you the best online experience. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies in accordance with our cookie policy.