Customer Reviews

The Horizontal Society

5 star:		(0)
4 star:		(0)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

I did not gain so much insight from this book, which has a politically correct "generic-neutral" tone throughout, which for me makes it not as palatable. There were however interesintg observations which I've added to my repertoire. My main dislike in reading it was the political correctness, which is vaguely defined, more easily as neutral language which won't offend anybody. Unfortunately fear of being labeled as politically uncorrect or with harsher epithets that people use is one reason why many people don't say whats on their minds, otherwise we would all be misanthropic, homophobic, racist, xenophobic, religious, republican/democrat, conservative (but not really liberal), patriarchial bigots.

In my opinion liberal ideology is more responsible for propogating political correctness, would you honestly be afraid of being labeled a liberal at your university, a bastion of political correctness? Or would being labeled as conservative cause more discomfort in your sociology class? To explain my view, because these issues touche nerves and upset emotions, liberal and conservative are stupid labels. There is no ideal "liberal" or model "conservative" among the american public, aside from the stereotypes. And if there was an "ideal" liberal or conservative, their position would then become fundamental by the definition of ideal (the right attitude/moral/method etc.) and debate would be shut down. Its impossible to debate with fundamentalists, religious or secular, because for them there is no debate on the validity of their opinions, they only want to convince you that they're right, not rationally but to resist change and the potential pain it brings.

This is a perfect example for demonstrating my contention with some of the material in this book, which examines identities. So here, for example, you have a liberal or a conservative view, part of your identity. You then belong to a group, you have a membership, and this membership has benefits and downsides. A downside of being liberal is conservatives might not respect you (though they should as we're all human) and a downside of being conservative is the same, although from my perspective liberals are much more bellicose towards conservative ideology and I have read and heard nasty insults aimed at conservatives.

As further demonstration for identities being unreliable and often vague, american liberals and conservatives differ very much from european progressive and conservative thinkers. So much depends on cultural and environmental factors, all the way down to the level of the individual, that creating categories in order to define thinking, reasoning beings, while helpful in some cases, is absurd. In taxonomy there are often species which don't appear to clearly belong to one genus or another and its even more so when you consider the spectrum of human opinion.

There are other arguments for explaining why its absurd to treat people differently because of skin color, appearance, sexuality, nationality, religion, consumer preferences or social stand. I treat people based on the choices they make and I judge these choices according to my personal moral standard, which I also hold myself to. I don't care about skin color, sexual preference or any of these although I will readily admit it takes effort to overcome the prejudices you receive from your environment. I do not try to maintain a specific "identity", nor do I care what others view is of my "identity", I prefer intellectual autonomy much more than intellectually constrictive membership. Who you are is who you are, what you think and why you think it, NOT what you wear, who you find attractive, what you buy, what race you are, if you're handicapped, deaf, blind, azerbaijani or whatever. However we are all responsible for our choices, some of which do affect our external identity. With that I mean that nobody else chooses for us, we own our will.

These identities and memberships, while they unite a collective on the microlevel, serve to divide society on the macrolevel. People form an "us vs. them" mentality. Its dangerous to lump people in the "them" category haphazard, because you create a common enemy out of a fragmented group, who doesn't evern share a uniform ideology (unless led by a leader a la Fascism or hypernationalism).

The tacit imposition of political correctness is one reason one group's ideology holds sway over that of another group, because their usually the group to be offended, typical good guy - bad guy scenario where nobody wants to be the bad guy, so they avoid expressing themselves in ways that could be interpreted as such. In my personal opinion, the individual can choose to be offended or not, however an individual is responsible for their choices and not the choices of others. This concept is called "owning your will" and is consistent with the golden rule.

This review is more a reflection on the culture represented in this book than on the book itself, so apologies if it doesn't help you. If you want a different opinion read the book (actually the author, in staying PC, does not offer anything other than a generic "safe" opinion in the conclusion) The book was interesting in the beginning but I lost interest and had to drag through it to finish. Honestly the first couple chapters give you enough understanding. He mentions a lot of subgroups, but does not go into much detail or examination.

One insight I gained from this book is the very prevalent role our identities and who we are and how we are perceived have in our daily lives. I came to understand how, even in the USA, people willingly choose to seperate and segregate themselves from others when they claim to belong to a certain group, subgroup or clique. By including something you are also excluding something else, and groups which include members by this definition are also excluding individuals who don't have the desired qualities. I'm talking here about race, sexual orientation, ideologies etc. I'm not making judgements on these categories, just pointing out that they serve to divide just as well as they serve to unite. If humans are ultimately looking for solidariety with each other, condoning tribalistic behavior and promoting "identities" and trying to find membership in specific groups will make it difficult to achieve this goal.

The book examines identities as part of modern society. It does not trace their roots or offer any examination arriving at a concrete conclusion in a scientific manner, instead its mostly sociological commentary. The author is a lawyer at Stanford university, and although an "intellectual", is not, in my opinion after reading this book, giving ground-breaking insights. But it will encourage you to examine groups, subgroups, identity politics and what role they have in society, which is important for general understanding.

If you read this entire review I commend you and you probably have an opinion yourself which you are welcome to share. Why not by this book? No harm in a broadened understanding of he universe.