The European Dream: How Europe's Vision of the Future Is Quietly Eclipsing the American Dream (Paperback)

by Jeremy Rifkin (Author) "I WAS A YOUNG ACTIVIST in the 1960s..." (more)
Key Phrases: European Union, United States, American Dream (more...)

Editorial Reviews

From Publishers Weekly
Why are so few Americans paying attention to the dramatic changes taking place across the Atlantic, Rifkin (The End of Work) asks in his provocative and well-argued manifesto for the new European Union. Famously, Americans "live to work" while Europeans "work to live," and Rifkin demonstrates statistically and anecdotally that Europe's humane approach to capitalism makes for a healthier, better-educated populace. The U.S. lags behind in its unimaginative approach to working hours, productivity and technology, Rifkin claims, while Europe is leading the way into a new era while competing well in terms of productivity. Rifkin traces the cultural roots of what he says is America's lack of vision to its emphasis on individual autonomy and the accumulation of wealth; Europe's dream is more rooted in connectedness and quality of life. Americans may be risk takers, but Rifkin is more admiring of risk-sensitive European realism, as well as its secularism and social democracy. Exploring the history behind the two continents' wildly differing sensibilities, Rifkin examines the myth of the U.S. as "land of opportunity" and the two continents' contrasting attitudes to foreign policy, peace keeping and foreign aid. Rifkin's claims are not new, but he writes with striking clarity, combining the insights of contemporary sociologists and economists with up-to-the minute data and powerfully apt journalistic observations. While he may appear to idealize Europe's new direction, Rifkin's comparative study is scrupulously thorough and informative, and his rigor will please all readers interested in the future of world affairs.
Copyright © Reed Business Information, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. --This text refers to the Hardcover edition.

From Booklist
The American Dream is not dead, says Rifkin, but it's showing its years. Contrasting definitively American fantasies of individual autonomy, material wealth, and cultural assimilation with an emerging European vision of community relationships, quality of life, and cultural diversity, Rifkin argues that the great bloodshed of the twentieth century liberated Europeans from their past, better preparing them for global citizenship in the twenty-first century. Rifkin paints this contrast with grandiose, if sometimes messy, strokes, blending an intellectual history of the Enlightenment into an informed discussion of modern European political infrastructure. Rifkin is an American who has spent much of his life doing business in Europe, and his reasoned arguments are likewise often accompanied by personal anecdotes; it's clear on which continent his heart lies. But those who would dismiss Rifkin's polemics as rewarmed socialism miss the author's core argument. It is not a clash-of-civilizations diatribe but rather an appeal to Europeans to back their emergent vision with (American) courage and to Americans to temper their intemperate optimism with (European) moral perspective. The point is conversation, not competition. Brendan Driscoll
Copyright © American Library Association. All rights reserved --This text refers to the Hardcover edition.

See all Editorial Reviews

Product Details

• Paperback: 448 pages
• Publisher: Tarcher (August 18, 2005)
• Language: English
• ISBN-10: 1585424358
• ISBN-13: 978-1585424351
• Product Dimensions: 8.8 x 5.8 x 1.4 inches
• Shipping Weight: 1.1 pounds (View shipping rates and policies)
• Average Customer Review: 3.4 out of 5 stars See all reviews (65 customer reviews)
• Amazon.com Sales Rank: #160,043 in Books (See Bestsellers in Books)

Customer Reviews

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

79 of 91 people found the following review helpful:

4.0 out of 5 stars Is there a European Dream?, August 23, 2004

By	Stuart Gardner "www.sdgardner.com" (Fair Lawn, NJ) - See all my reviews

This review is from: The European Dream (Hardcover)

This is a well written, comprehensively researched and thought provoking book that attempts to define a developing "European Dream". A parallel argument is also made that the " American Dream" has run its course. A good case is made for suggesting the American work ethic and optimism for the future is being replaced by a society where luck is more important than hard work and a pesimistic outlook is starting to prevail.

Riffkin accuratley describes key and fundamental differences that do exist between the USA and Europe. He suggests the US is more religous, less concerned about environment and measures sucess by wealth. Europeans are more interested in quality of life and are increasingly matching or surpassing the productivity of the US worker (my summary does not do justice to his text).

Where I do think Rifkins work becomes prophecy is the concept of a European dream. I am English, and I do recognise the UK isn't the most pro european of member states. However, the concept of a United States of Europe with a shared dream appears far off, and getting further away with the inclusion of so many new eastern european states (having got shot of the USSR they are only now enjoying a renewed sense of national identity). There isn't even agreement within the UK for a common dream (between the Scots, Welsh, English and not forgetting the folks in Northern Ireland).

This is a fascinating book with numerous interesting predictions. Only time will tell.

113 of 138 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars Compelling Reading, October 1, 2004

By	Erin Campbell (Minneapolis, MN) - See all my reviews (REAL NAME)

This review is from: The European Dream (Hardcover)

Rifkin provides a sorely needed counter-perspective to the current American assumption of the universalism of its values. By tracing the transplanting of Enlightenment ideas to the undeveloped New World, Rifkin shows how the American character of staunch individualism and unfettered expansionism were created. While these qualities have made America a superpower, Rifkin calls to question their efficacy in the new era of globalization where sustainability and collective action may prove more important. Rifkin outlines how Europe is conducting its own experiment in creating a system of cooperation among disperate partners which may prove more compatible with the emerging new world order. Currently, many European countries score very high in quality of life measurements, while the United States lags behind most of the industrially developed nations in many critical areas, like access to health care. By accepting lower levels of materialism, Europeans have more "quality time" for people and activities important to them. Rifkin does point out the potential pitfalls of this European experiment (e.g., tough enough in a hostile world?). Still, examining another system -- which is successful in different ways than America -- provides an opportunity to reflect on how American values may or may not mesh with the rest of the world.

33 of 43 people found the following review helpful:

2.0 out of 5 stars Post-modernism run amuck..., July 20, 2005

By	Paul M. Day (Maryland, USA) - See all my reviews (REAL NAME)

This review is from: The European Dream (Hardcover)

I should start by saying that I find the idea of a European challenge to America quite exciting, and being an American that view puts me with the minority who you would expect would buy this book.

However, Mr. Rifkin disappointed me with his analysis. It seemed to me that the man has little reverence for the truth, and uses quite a bit of interpretation to substantiate his claims. The book is soft on facts. He perpetuates myths about the American culture which were more applicable to 1920's American than to "post-modern" society. The book would have been far better if it were shorter. He often elaborates as if children whom know nothing of history were reading the book.

The first thing that infuriated me was that he constantly refers to modern science as "enlightenment science". He is actually referring to both the so-called science of eugenics and scientific management culture which were state and corporate inventions of the 19th century. Thomas Jefferson and Adam Smith had nothing to do with these perversions of science. While the enlightenment figures had a respect for objectivity in analysis, Mr. Rifkin makes it seem like Adam Smith, Thomas Jefferson, and Ben Franklin would have supported the barbarity science has been put to in the past 200 years. It was Smith himself who opposed turning man into machines. In Wealth of Nations, he believed that the government should step in to protect workers from the overuse of the division of labor, because it would "turn them into creatures as stupid and ignorant as it is possible for a human to be". In all, the enlightenment was humane and had a respect for humanity.

Corporate science, however, is what he is basically talking about. That came about with the industrial revolution and Taylorism. It has its roots more in Herbert Spencer and the Functionalist school of sociology, not John Locke or Descartes'. He is referring to the unrestrained science of the 19th and 20th century which puts profit over precaution. That came about with advent of capitalism, not the enlightenment. The enlightenment was about bettering humanity with science, not subordinating it to science. I mean, Thomas Jefferson (to take a crucial example), probably would have opposed genetically modified foods, because he wanted a classical agricultural society without factories.

Rifkin is wrong and too general about science to be taken seriously. Throughout his book he attributes much to the different American and European perspectives towards science. When in reality it is the European and American attitudes towards corporations which really need to be examined. To take genetically modified foods as an example, the reason Americans do not know the dangers is not because they are more risk taking and put more faith in science, it is because they have a media and an FDA which is in bed with corporations which intend to keep that issue out of public scrutiny. It isn't the same in Europe, where people are more willing to cede corporate control to government regulators.

Another crucial example of Rifkin's "soft social science" is his discussion on Animal Rights. Rifkin believes, for instance, that animals can use tools, hold conversations with people, and care about their appearance. None of this research has been taken seriously by science or linguists, including the very liberal ones (like Noam Chomsky, who says the scientists practicing this research are falling victim to their own biases and interpretations of data). Rifkin's source on this information is the website of the organization which does the animal research. Had Rifkin cared to review a wide range of research, he would have found that these questions (of Animal intelligence) are largely unanswered, and his conclusions are highly arguable. As he poses as someone deeply committed to post-modernism, he would probably oppose the idea that he would need to review a large range of research. His approach to data collection doesn't even amount to a basic literature review. He finds one study that supports what he thinks, and writes about it as if it were truth...

Rifkin's obvious vegetarian bias is evident throughout the text, and he makes sweeping generalizations based on that bias. Not that I have a problem with vegetarians. I used to be a vegetarian. But when he attributes meat consumption to perpetuating poverty, the result is distortion. What he doesn't realize is that it is the globalization of production itself which creates poverty. It is the fact that people in the third world no longer produce for themselves, but for transnational corporations, which exacerbates hunger and sweatshop labor. While meat production for the OECD is part of that cycle, by blaming meat production alone you effectively eclipse capitalism as the culprit. And in fact, throughout the book Mr. Rifkin ignores class conflict. Everything is about the different European and American perspectives, not corporate hegemony.

The foreign policy comparisons were incredibly boring. He has no original ideas. He should have talked more about the trade deficit and how America no longer produces anything of value, but he would rather talk about anthropology. Not that anthropology is bad, but his view of things is such a fairy tale. Like he says that American's are a bunch of risk takers, as he believes we have a "frontier mentality" (still?!?!?!). Rifkin ignores the economic and sociological literature from the 1960's (namely John Kenneth Galbraith), which concluded that risk is no longer part of the corporate equation. The entrepreneurial spirit is far behind us. The thing now is to mitigate risk, at least for the elites and the upper middle class, through management and planning. And if you use your common sense, ask yourself why everyone coops themselves up in the suburbs and rural areas. It isn't just because we want autonomy and independence from everyone else, as he mistakenly believes. It's because we want safety. It is because the middle class and rich snobs want to get away from the black and Hispanic people in the cities.

I find it dubious anyway that we even need to talk about these things. The book is entirely too long, and most of the things Rifkin is right about are things everyone knows already. Like the fact that Europeans enjoy a far vaster welfare state than us Americans do. Rifkin attributes this to our "frontier mentality". I think it is more propaganda than anything else. Americans vastly supported the welfare state 50 years ago, so how can you attribute the hatred of the welfare state to frontier mentality? There is nothing original here that you wouldn't learn about if you read The Nation, or any other mainstream liberal publication which subordinates economics to culture and politics.