Customer Reviews

The European Dream

5 star:		(22)
4 star:		(15)
3 star:		(10)
2 star:		(11)
1 star:		(10)

 

 

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.

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.

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.

Just started reading the book and can say it is necessary reading to understand how corporate america is making us feel like we are achieving an advanced state of being while secretly placing the middle class in economic bondage.

As an American who has spent 5 years living in Belgium, I found Mr. Rifkin's book to be oversimplified and full of stereotypical errors. The first big one was assuming Europe, as a whole, is one monogamous culture. Each country has their own set of beliefs and ideologies, and while these states reconcile their differences vis-a-vis European policy, it is totally inaccurate to refer to a 'European dream' as a pan-continent phenomenon. A simple example would be to compare any two states. Belgians are very different from the Greeks, the Spaniards different from the British, the Germans different from the French.

This isn't just a language issue either. In Belgium, where the people living in the south speak french and the people in the north speak dutch, a distinct difference is made in their culture compared to their 'linguistic parents.' Simply put, call a Walloon french or a Fleming dutch, and you will have greatly insulted them. To bring this back home, it's like referring to Americans as North Americans. The US isn't the same as Canada, and it certainly isn't the same as Mexico. Does an American like being called a Canadian? I think not. This is just the same as grouping A Romanian in with a Swede; While they come from the same continent, they have different beliefs and cultural values that very few people are willing to give up. However, these states get along and have healthy, normal relations that insure peace and prosperity for its citizens.

As for calling the American dream obsolete in favor of a 'European' one, I would have to completely disagree. This is a matter of interpretation. One poster said that the American middle class is bound to economic enslavement. I beg to differ. The whole point of the American dream is to have the freedom to move away from it. Sure, you can work to get into the US middle class and live a comfortable life, or you can go out on your own and make your dreams come true. Many western European nations have a much larger middle class, where wealth and equality are much more evenly distributed. However, for those who want to break out, they are much more restricted in how they can. And this isn't to say that there is a right one or a wrong one, it's just a matter of opinion.

In the end, America isn't dying. Sure, the American dream is unique to America, but that's our culture, and, as we have painfully learned throughout history (Vietnam, Iraq II), it's extraordinarily hard to kill an idea. This book, in my opinion, is detrimental to American opinion on the 'outside world.' My recommendation to any American who wants a real take on the way the world is shaping, is to go live abroad for a while. The world isn't going to bite, and no one will single you out for being an American, unless you do something stupid, in which case you're singled out for being stupid. The world doesn't hate us, it's just the foreign policy they don't like.

As European, a very proud one, I can only agree to Mr. Rifkin's analytical view of my continent. I have been living in the US for 5 years now, and it still struck how little you folks enjoy life. We have one life only, and you spend the msot of it, running, working, exercesing, and with fake ideal of eternal beauty whereas we might not look superpowerful as you, but we do like to live I strongly recommend this book to people who want to open their eyes to a reality beyond their borders there is a whole world beyond your boundaries and Mr. Rifkin's book will show you.

Jeremy Rifkin's father once said to him: "What separates the dreamers from the doers is discipline and hard work." Jeremy Rifkin has obviously put an enormous amount of both discipline and hard work into this book. But the reader remains searching for inspiration and new major thinking.

Rifkin's thorough comparison of American to European thought and attitudes is outstanding. That comparison alone makes the book worth buying. Rifkin concludes amazingly:

"Europe is busy preparing for a new era while America is
desperately trying to hold on to the old one."

Rifkin is an outstanding historian and a person with excellent understanding of both Europe and USA. His chapter on "The Immigrant Dilemma" is also well worth reading.

I have learnt several tidbits from the book; but nothing earthshaking.

Obviously, "The European Dream" was written by an optimistic American. I couldn't imagine a cynical European sitting down to write a long book with that title.

Gunnar Beeth

I read this book already being deferential to Europe for its foreign policy. I had long thought that Europe was "ahead of the game" in terms of the way the world is going. Rifkin's book, however, provided a wealth of information and analysis of where Europe's policy is coming from and where it is going. I was startled by some of the facts pointed out in the book, such as how much more crime and poverty the United States has versus Europe.
Rifkin's winding journey through the Western World and its history touches a plethora of topics, but they all tie in to his message. He evidently has a very broad knowledge of world affairs, culture and history.

Some reviewers have said "it's easy to see which side he's on" but I say, "so what?" Taking sides is what one has to do when one feels something is right and it deserves to be argued for. This is not an encyclopedia article.

Coming from someone who tries to keep abreast of where the world is heading, I found Rifkin's book thoroughly persuasive. Some of the information is already a bit dated, (the EU constitution) but it doesn't detract from the strength of his arguments. I hope the title of the last chapter "Universalizing the European Dream" becomes a fulfilled prophecy.

Apparently this book was written for me as the author states this was written for "A generation of college students in Europe" in the year 2005. Well, I happened to be a California University student doing a year at the University of Tuebingen in Germany that very year.
I found this a facinating read, difficult to put down and I was sad when I finished reading it so I may read it again.
Highly recommended for any student of the European Union which happens to be one of my interests.
This book mixes political, philosophical history with geo-politics and "mid-level" futurism. The author supports his arguments very well although as many of his generation do, he finds American "Gen-X-ers" lazy. I wonder where that ever came from? Every '"Gen-X" young person I ever knew worked very hard. They just possesed a cynisism towards what consitutes the values of success in American society which this author ought to understand. "Inconveneint Truth" ought to explain Gen -X angst to a great degree.
Gen-Y on the other hand..seem to be more ensnared in the gambling-minded, short-fused and violent set of attitudes that some population scientists see as symptoms of overpopulation and economic tension.
Perhaps this review is veering off the subject. This is definatly a book to get one thinking. Rifkin does go on a bit on the dangers of Europe's population decline as does the author of "Menace In Europe" (I would be very curious to know what Mr. Rifkin thinks of that book) when authors such as Paul Ehrlich ("One With Nineveh"p.99, a great read along with this book) say that..well...as rich developed countries devouring our small planet's resources like rabbits on Easter Island, we ought to thank the Europeans for not breeding so much. I'm sorry, some of us fail to see the crisis there. I'm sure this book will offend someone. Yawn.
But..the comparisons between the US and the EU are a great deal of fun for someone like me who feels much safer walking in muslum neighborhoods abroad than I often, sadly,do hanging out with other Americans.

Rifkin does a good job spelling out the thesis of this book, and the organization of the chapters seems to reveal a thoughtful, if tedious, building of his main argument. (Since others have commented about this, I won't repeat it here). However, the writing contains many superficial detours through armchair history economics and sociology that feel like they were fleshed out by legions of RA's doing his research. So the writing can make you feel like he's lost in the details at times. I didn't feel this with Age of Access.