11 of 13 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
Amazing, December 30, 1998
By A Customer
This review is from: Faces of the Enemy: Reflections of the Hostile Imagination : The Psychology of Enmity (Hardcover)
This book should be required reading for anyone that has the slightest interest in international affairs. I wouldn't go so far as to say this book changed my life, but I would say that it radically altered my thinking and lead me down paths of human understanding that I wouldn't traveled if not for this book.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
8 of 9 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
What we need to remember, May 5, 2004
By A Customer
This review is from: Faces of the Enemy: Reflections of the Hostile Imagination : The Psychology of Enmity (Hardcover)
Whatever side of the war argument the reader lands on, this book will provide necessary information to supplement the discussion.
This book addresses the way past wars have been intensified by demonizing the enemy beyond whatever real reasons caused the wars.
The history presented in this book -- the posters, the commentary, the pictures -- is not commonly taught. The author may have a point a view with which the reader disagrees, but the examples presented should be known if society is to make reasoned decisions on behavior and not just react to base emotions.
I recommend this book highly for a look at an aspect of history that we often quickly forget once the battles are over.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
8 of 10 people found the following review helpful:
3.0 out of 5 stars
A Very Good Idea, September 17, 2005
This review is from: Faces of the Enemy: Reflections of the Hostile Imagination : The Psychology of Enmity (Hardcover)
Altogether, this is a very good book but there are several serious problems that affected my enjoyment of this book. First, the graphics and quotes reproduced throughout this book are excellent. In the one-sided world we are forced to live in it is really refreshing to see the other perspective and for me it brings a whole range of thoughts and emotions to realize that the other perspective is really our own. The world really is round.
I consider this a philosophy book. There really are no sources or studies to back up the author's ideas. There is a short bibliography section but it is short and philosophical, in my opinion it falls far short of "rigorous", in a scientific sense. There is also a short notes section for sources in the text, but again it is short, there is no expansion on the notes, and mostly they seem to me to be attributions for quotes. I would say that part 4 "In the Meantime" is a complete waste of time. In a few paragraphs the author tries to elucidate a new world order (there are several different scenarios), a new paradigm on how to govern our planet. Obviously, in a few paragraphs all these ideas feel shallow and short, very unsatisfactory; the inevitable conclusion is "Viola...details to follow at a later date". This is a completely unacceptable way to promulgate policy and the book would have been much better without this section, or at least a radically changed section.
Another major problem is that there will always be people who just don't get it. In the back of my mind I always was thinking about these people. Obviously the other reviewer from Canada who resents violence being committed in his name being compared to other people's violence is one of these people and his review is just plain silly (is George Bush's pre-emptive war for peace really being fought in his name?...I guess that is a thought for another time). The author is not trying to describe a utopia, but is actually trying to explore a way to make our world a better place; therefore, I believe he should confront the issue of what to do with people who just don't get it. I would say that if you look at the last 100 years (even 10 years) of history you could make a strong argument the really high possibility that at least one of these people will find his way into a position of power...what then?
There seemed to me to be several contradictions in this book; for me the most glaring was the following. On page 178 the author states "we are not instinctually sadists...Homo hostilis must be created by the media and the institutions that subject him to constant indoctrination". From this (and the rest of what he states on this page) it seems to me an obvious conclusion that without extra effort we would naturally revert to a more peaceful state; that there is a natural energy already pushing us in that direction. However, on page 184 the author then states, "Since the process of education for paranoia and warfare requires a total social effort, we must assume that the effort to create a compassionate psyche and society will require a similar or greater effort." Such obvious contradictions should not be in a well thought-through book.
Finally, for a book that seems to have such direction, a pre-determined point to make, the author ends the book with five pages of unanswered questions. I don't really understand this. It is OK to have some questions, but five pages of them seems like a lot to me. Did the author start out with a strongly held position, then after exploring it for 200 pages end up only with questions? I don't really believe this but I don't have a good explanation either.
So I would say that this book has serious problems, but even after considering these, I would still recommend reading it, this is a very good book.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
