A coservative website asked a panel of conservative scholars to compile a list of ten most harmful books of the 19th and 20th centuries. The answers are pretty much what you'd expect - they hate communists, nazis, feminists, and atheists. But still, some are a little strange. Kinsey? Keynes? Comte? OK, so he gave us the word "altruism" and the idea of sociology as a discipline, as well as a whole lot of other stuff that can be charitably described as "eccentric" and is now pretty much ignored, but the part they're objecting to is his idea of positivism - essentially a restatement of the Aristotelian idea that we should actually look at the world and think. The only people this is "harmful" to are those who have something to gain out of people not thinking - which pretty much describes "conservatives" to a "T"...
It's also interesting to see which books didn't quite make the list. Mill's On Liberty - one of the clearest statements of the sanctity of individual freedom in the face of state oppression - and Darwin's Origin of Species. If the subject period had been longer, would they have condemned Newton's Principia or Galileo's Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems as well?
Could we be clear here that the "conservatives" in question are the American evangelical Christian variety, who in many ways might be better described as reactionary? 'Cause that "not thinking" barb is a bit mean, otherwise.
ReplyDeleteWhich books would you consider werethe most dangerous?
ReplyDeleteI can see the arguments mostly from the perspective that the books have been misused as oppsoed to having evil intentions (although in a sense 2 and possibly 1 and 3 did indeed have such intentions and 9 did not care and thus some might say its the same thing)
Yeah, they dislike Comte and positivism because it holds that any statements that are unverifiable (meaning those that cannot be empirically tested and falsified) are meaningless, which in a stroke relegates religion to the scrap heap. As they teach you in Phil 101 however, the central tenet of positivism is in fact an example of an unverifiable statement, so a militant adherence to positivistic epistemology is untenable because it is self-defeating. The list of books is nonetheless a rather sad indictment of US conservative thinking -- some of the most brilliant and portentous books ever written are ones which this panel consider harmful. On Liberty, Origin of Species, Democracy & Education, Silent Spring, harmful: yeah right.
ReplyDeleteI'd have the mind to call some of the books which these conservatives love, maybe something like Milton Friedman's Capitalism & Freedom, one of the most harmful books of the last two centuries. After all, isn't it substantially responsible for neo-liberal economic dogma and the IMF?
As I read down the list, moving past the usual suspects (Marx, Hitler, Mao) to hit Kinsey it really struck me that what they're opposed to is ... thinking. Y'know, good old fashioned thinking - particularly thinking for one's self, and systematically investigating subjects of interest, rather than just accepting the "received wisdom".
ReplyDeleteIn particular, the list seems to be based on an objection to thinking about society (even in a fairly descriptive way) and what goes on in it ... a la Kinsey, Marx, and even Nietzche in his own convulted way.
As for alternative candidates, how about the best-selling book of the C19th & C20th - the Bible (in its various forms)?
did anyone else notice that there was only one woman on the panel of 15 judges???!
ReplyDeletei can't believe that they would put Marx ahead of Hitler. I mean politics aside, Mein Kampf is surely insurmountable? (not to say it should be banned btw)
Yeah, and did you notice how much higher they scored Marx than anything else? Marx got 74, whereas the next highest - Hitler - only got 41.
ReplyDeleteGenius: The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. This Tsarist forgery has been used to justify anti-Semitism ever since, and is still in circulation among western neo-Nazis and anti-Semitists, and in wide circulation in the Middle East (its even been televised as a "documentary"). As memes go, it is pure poison.
ReplyDeleteAnd just to make this clear, I do not think it should be banned. The answer to bad speech is more speech, and if you ever hear anyone ranting about how the Protocols prove a "Jewish conspiracy", make sure they (or rather their audiance) know that it is fraudulent.
dc_red: given the notable absence of crusades in the last two hundred years, I'm not sure that the Bible meets a credible standard of "harm" (especially when you consider the number of early socialists and reformers who were motivated by it).
ReplyDeleteBut then, much of the conservatives' analysis is one sided and short-sighted. For example, take The Communist manifesto. Yes, it has given us unrest and revolution since 1848. But because of that threat, it has also led to real and positive reform which has made life better for millions. Without the threat of Communism, we wouldn't have social democracy. But I suppose the conservative judges of that list would have regarded that in itself as harmful...
Icehawk: You're right. I did indeed confuse positivism and logical positivism, so thanks for pointing that out. Comte did lay the foundation for the logical positivists with his emphasis on empiricism as the source of knowledge, however. Thus even with my fuzzy misattribution it's still plain to see why Auguste Comte is derided by some conservatives. And then there's the whole "altruism" thing...
ReplyDeleteI think the basic argument is that communism killed MANY more people than hitler.
ReplyDeleteIf we consider that communism was wrong then the order makes sense unless you want to ignore effect and just concentrate on content in which case the list would be almost entirely unrecognisable books probably written by some devil worshipers or somthing.
> The Protocols of the Elders of Zion.
Not bad example. where does it get placed? Im thinking somwhere below mein kamph since even all its effect thorugh history probably falls behind WWII.
Im thinking freud might be in it too.
> Without the threat of Communism, we wouldn't have social democracy.
hmm things get complex then - you could easily see positive implications from hitlers if you wanted. For example somthing about hte weakening of europe alowing the spread of power across the world or discrediting nationalism or somthing.
Genius: Yes, things get complex. If you're going to measure harmfulness by Utiliterian criteria, then you run smack bang into computational intractability. Which is why, when asked about the impact of the French Revolution, Mao famously said that it was "too early to tell"...
ReplyDeleteHeck I'm amazed they didn't have the Qu'ran up there.
ReplyDeleteHeck I'm amazed they didn't have the Qu'ran up there.
ReplyDelete