| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Product Details
Would you like to update product info or give feedback on images?
|
|
Share your thoughts with other customers:
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Most Helpful Customer Reviews
11 of 12 people found the following review helpful:
4.0 out of 5 stars
Hughes' history is both insightful and limited.,
By A Customer
This review is from: Consciousness and Society: The Reorientation of European Social Thought, 1890-1930 (Paperback)
H. Stuart Hughes accepted a difficult job when he tried to
write what has understandably become a classic
history of social ideas about the generation which came
to intellectual maturity between 1890 and 1930. Published
in 1958, the discussions of the major philosophical and
social theories of Max Weber, Sigmund Freud, and Emile
Durkheim (among others) are explained, and the
impact of these theoretical giants on one another is
masterfully undertaken. Readers interested in the
intellectual powerhouses of this time period are
encouraged to read the history.
The weakness of the book, however, lies in what Hughes failed
to tell us. Maintaining what he contended was a "high" rather
than a "low" discussion of this pivotal period of history,
he chose only to speak of German, French, and Italian
intellectuals, leaving out the contributions of the British,
American, Spanish, Russian, or Scandinavian thinkers.
He also deliberately chose to limit explanations
about or comments on some pretty critical historical events
-- like the Russian Revolution and World War I. And while he spent
much time talking of positivism, rationalism, socialism,
etc., there is little or no mention of fascism, nationalism,
imperialism, industrialism, and other "isms" that figure
powerfully into this time period.
2 of 2 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
Clear Thinking Vs. Wishful Thinking,
This review is from: Consciousness and Society: The Reorientation of European Social Thought, 1890-1930 (Paperback)
H. Stuart Hughes (1916-1999) wrote a thoughtful book on men who carefully reflected on political power at a time when Marx (1818-1883) & co. were misunderstood or taken too seriously. Hughes had this book published in 1958, and the book still serves as a guide to understand actual political power vs. "ivory tower" theory which avoids tough questions and bona fide history.
The time frame for this book is between 1890-1920. Hughes cited such men as Vilfredo Pareto (1848-1923), Gaetano Mosca (1858-1941), Georges Sorel (1847-1922), Max Weber (1864-1920), Freud (1855-1939), Carl Jung (1875-1961), Robert Michels (1876-1936),etc. Hughes diagnosed these political thinkers' careful analysis of Marxism, actual political power, and misconceptions of popularizers who distorted political theory and history. Hughes began this book with comments at the end of the 19th. century. Some political and psychological pioneers were concerned with irrational behavior. Hughes was clear that these thinkers were NOT praising irrational behavior, but they wanted to understand it. For example, Darwin's work (1809-1882)was distorted by political populizers who claimed that human existence was determined by environment and heredity rather than reason, clear thinking, and conscience. While some of those men mentioned in the second paragraph dealt with political power, they were certainly not determinists. The problem was seen as a struggle for political existence vs. a refined social order which has been a historical conflict for c. 6000 years. One of the problems was the "correct" interpretation of Marx and Marxism. The "revisionists such as Kautsky and Bernstein argued that Marx's prophetic views did not take place, and these men argued that political and economic reform were more important than a workers' revolution. Hughes' description of Bernstein's book titled EVOLUTIONARY SOCIALISM is solid. Obviously Lenin (1870-1924)disapproved, but others saw Bernstein and socialist "revisionists" as practicle and useful for the working classes. Hughes concluded that Marx as a prophet was passionage, unreasonable, etc. Yet, Marx as a scholar gave men a background from which to more clearly understand economic and social relationships. Lenin argued that there could be no successful revolution by inciting the masses whom he thought too unaware and apthetic to sustain a revolution. Lenin's solution was to organize a professioal, well disciplined party to take power in the name of the workers. The response to Lenin and other Marxist revolutionaries was precise so much so that Lenin & co. supposedly stayed awake late at night trying to rebut Marxist critics. Pareto argued in his book titled LES SYSTEMES SOCIALISTS (1902)that no matter what "the calling card" of the Marxists, the fact was socialist revolutionary theories and slogans were a facade to conceal that one elite political group would always try to oust another political group. Hughes made the point that history showed that elites use "the common people" as foot soldiers and pawns to grab political power. Robert Michels held a similar view as Pareto. Michels effectively argued that members of political parties regardless of their official titles would always be oligarchs competing for power regardless of their alleged slogans and party platitudes. He argued that once members of a revolutionary party took power, they would resort to any means to keep their power. A good look at Lenin's and Stalin's massive police state and concentration camp empire is a good example of Michels' assessment. Georges Sorel added "further fuel to the fire." Sorel argued that those with wealth and the capitalists undermined social and economic reform and used political violence to preserve their status. Sorel wrote a book titled REFLECTIONS ON VIOLENCE. Basically Sorel wrote that violence "is a two edged sword." In an obvious way Sorel argued that the working classes use the violent big labor strike to gain reforms and power. However, Sorel was clear that violence has been part of political history. Sorel praised both Mussolini and Lenin. However, just before Sorel died, he had doubts about Lenin and did not live long enough to understand Mussolini. Hughes devoted part of his fook to Sigmund Freud, Carl Jung, Nietzche, and Croce (1866-1952). Hughes briefly explained the disputes between Freud and Jung about the human psyche. Jung believed that religious convictions could improve mental health while Freud condemned religion. Hughes treament of Nietzche needed improvement. Had Hughes waited to read Walter Kaufmann's books on Nietzche, Hughes may have better understook Nietzche's work. Hughes also included the historian Croce and Max Weber. Many of the socialists and Marxists critisized Croce for being a "dabbler" re socialism and Marxism when Croce was basically a hitorian of philosophy. Hughes also gave a careful explanation of Max Weber's (1864-1920)work titled THE PROTESTANT ETHIC. Hughes could have seriously questioned Weber's thesis that Calvinist Protestantism created dynamic capitalism. Weber argued that the Hindus of India and the Chinese were static. Careful historical examination would have shown that the people of India China actively supported trade which reached Western Europe during The High Middle Ages. Hughes could have also cited Medieval capitalism and how the Catholic Church authorities addressed such issues as contacts, interest rates, etc. Weber did comment that "dynamic capitalism",while rational, was souless and joyless. Hughes' book is worth reading. Those who are intellectually timid and afraid of facing political realities should avoid this book. A good companion book is James Burnham's book titled THE MACHIAVELLIANS: DEFENDERS OF FREEDOM. Hughes book and that of Burnham's warn readers of actual political power vs. wishful thinking and pious platitudes.
Share your thoughts with other customers: Create your own review
|
|
Suggested Tags from Similar Products(What's this?)Be the first one to add a relevant tag (keyword that's strongly related to this product).
|
|
This product's forum
Active discussions in related forums
Search Customer Discussions
|
Related forums
|
