Customer Reviews

Sham: How the Self-Help Movement Made America Helpless

5 star:		(35)
4 star:		(17)
3 star:		(11)
2 star:		(13)
1 star:		(21)

 

 

I bought SHAM after reading the glowing PW review. It's true that Salerno's tone is "blistering," but his arguments are so lousy that the I couldn't help thinking to myself, "Yes, but...." (and I'm no friend of self-help movements, believe me).

When Salerno is following the money, he's excellent. (Who knew that Hooked on Phonics, a program unceasingly promoted by Dr. Laura, was created by one of the partners in the company that owned Dr. Laura's show?) His chapter on Sportsthink and the corporate world is also worth reading. But when he tries to prove that the self-help movement has caused various other social trends (this occupies most of the book, unfortunately), he relies on vague assertions and rhetorical overstatements. "Politicians and their operatives also saw the possibilites here [in self-help theories]," he writes. "They stirred the pot, adding to the sense of disenfranchisement among already disgruntled factions while reinforcing their feelings of oppression and entitlement....Inexorably, such notions began to undermine clear-cut judgments about morality." Good gracious me. Who were these politicians? Who were their operatives? What disgruntled factions? Whose clear-cut judgments got undermined, and how do we know?

Salerno not only throws out this sort of unsupported statement over and over, but also draws clear connections between cause and effect while claiming not to. Here's a typical statement, following on his assertion that the self-help movement is damaging boys because it teaches them to behave like girls: "Boys have been playing with toy guns and soldiers, and before that toy cowboys and Indians, pretty much since toys existed. But it is only in recent years--since the advent of 'sensitivity,' 'self-esteem,' and 'getting in touch with your feelings'--that America has seen so many boys and young men acting out in horrific ways. Is it fair to draw a straight line of psychological causation that connects the two? No. But the coincidence is hard to ignore." Salerno uses this horrendously deceptive rhetorical technique again and again, apparently as a way of avoiding an actual claim of causation (that might require actual proof).

In addition, Salerno can't seem to restrain his loathing for his subjects. His analyses of the theories and profit-making techniques of self-help experts from Dr. Phil to Dr. Laura are plenty damning, but Salerno has to throw in gratuitous personal slams. "Perhaps [Marianne] Williamson is well aware that her ideas break down in the end, but she's just having a jolly time on her way to the bank." "Just as harmful as the photos were Schlessinger's coy efforts at damage control." "Orman has never married--a bit odd for a woman who spends so much time talking about balance in life."

And finally, he makes inexpert use of his sources. To prove that classrooms are damaging children by prioritizing feelings over learning, he quotes Grace Llewellyn's Teen Liberation Handbook, which says, "Healthy children can teach themselves what they need to know," as an example of this damaging trend. But Llewellyn's handbook is a radical tome on home education/unschooling; it has nothing to do with classrooms. (As a matter of fact, it recommends children get OUT of classrooms, because classrooms are damaging children." He quotes Leon Podles to prove that self-help is "feminizing" American culture (this, by the way, is a BAD thing, according to Salerno); Podles' book actually is about Protestantism and Protestant evangelical churches, and is itself very sketchily argued, since it depends heavily on Ann Douglas's outdated and polemical book on the feminization of America. He sums up his characterization of Dr. Phil by quoting Dr. Phil's ex-wife, as proof that Dr. Phil is a self-obsessed jerk. (What did he expect her to say?)

The sad thing about this book is that so much of what Salerno argues strikes me as being true. The self-help industry is out of control; it is wildly profitable at the expense of far too many desperate people; and I'm no fan of Dr. Phil, who does indeed seem to be a self-obsessed. Unfortunately, I can't give Salerno's book to any of the people who need to read it. It's just too easy to poke holes in his logic and dismiss his conclusions.

Steve Salerno's "SHAM" is worth reading despite its weaknesses and shortcomings. Essentially, this book is an angry, one-sided attack on the money-grubbing stars of the self-help industry -- the big name hucksters such as Tony Robbins, Dr. Phil, Marianne Williamson, John Gray, Dr. Laura and their ilk. Salerno demonstrates over and over again that they're motivated primarily by greed and lust for personal power. He's also concerned about the long-term effects of the "victim" mentality and "human potential" mindset on American society.

Salerno does an outstanding job following the money trail, which is not surprising given his background in financial journalism. He also unveils the fundamental dishonesty behind this burgeoning industry -- the idea that you never really "get better." Instead, followers are urged to keep buying more tapes / books / videos / etc. ad infinitum. The intellectual emptiness beneath most of these self-help programs is pretty obvious, as is the widespread tendency for gurus to use phony credentials and mail-order academic degrees.

Where Salerno fails is clear: He is so darn angry that he undercuts his own credibility from time to time. And, more importantly, he doesn't really answer the basic question: "Why are Americans pouring all this money and time into the self-help industry?" In other words, are we so overwhelmed with change that we can no longer cope? Have the old sources of value / direction / meaning failed us? And why have so many Protestant Christian congregations started mimicking the self-help movement?

These are profound questions that deserve answers. I'm not sure Salerno is up to that task, but I sure wish Karen Armstrong would tackle it. (See Armstrong's "The Battle for God" to find out why.) Bottom line on SHAM: Salerno exposes the darkness of the self-help industry but doesn't shed much light on our nation's seemingly endless hunger for shallow, simplistic solutions.

Several of the other reviewers cite Salerno's "arguments". And that is largely what we have here. Not a serious fact/theory- based study, but an extended journalistic article, shoehorning a wide diversity of 'teachers' to align with the author's two - scarcely original - central conceptual slants: empowerment and victimization. There is scarcely any discussion of the core ideas propounded by various self-help practitioners; scarcely any reference to evidence of the validity or - likely - invalidity of these teachings, their relationship to established psychological theories, or indeed the content of what is taught. Instead, we get a scattering of scornful examples of language used by people such as Tony Robbins, Dr. Phil, Dr. Laura, etc. and anecdotes discrediting their pasts. In the case of Tony Robbins, we get a criticism of his spelling.

There's an important job to be done in analyzing what's going on in the self-help movement. This book does not do it.

Dick Westwood

I give the book two stars for presentation. The man can write, and he's certainly dug up some interesting tidbits on various famous self-improvement gurus. I actually laughed out loud several times while reading it, it was so entertaining. But I have to disagree with his main arguments.

Salerno is shocked that there's overlap in the content of a lot of these books. He supposedly first "saw the light" while working at Rodale, and saw how self-improvement text was recycled in several books. Why does this surprise him? Especially if you realize that he's a professional writer, and he ought to be familiar with the idea of recycling information. I understand it's pretty common to research and write an article, then tailor it for different readerships so the same basic article can be sold to several magazines. I'm sure Salerno has done it himself.

Also, he's upset that people who've bought one self-help book are apt to buy another one, and that publishers take advantage of that fact. He assumes that if you feel the need for book number two, it's proof that the first one must have been useless.

Let's extend this to the field of cookbooks, because there's kind of a similarity there. Just like a self-help book, you read a cookbook to get new ideas, make your life a little more pleasant, and to find directions for accomplishing certain goals.

So. People who buy one cookbook are liable to buy another one, and publishers take advantage of that. Does that mean the first cookbook was no good, or that the whole cookbook industry is a scam?

There's a sameness to a lot of cookbooks, as with self-help books. The same basic recipes keep turning up, with a few little variations. People know this, but they tend to keep checking out new cookbooks because if they find just one or two new ideas per book, it can make their everyday lives more enjoyable. Sometimes the exact same recipes are repackaged in various cookbooks, just like advice is recycled in self-help books. But maybe I'm looking for a general cookbook that covers all courses, and someone else wants one just on desserts. Would it really be so awful if the same chocolate mousse recipe appears in both books?

He brings up example after example of gurus with questionable credentials, and never mentions the hundreds of legitimate experts who write practical, useful books based on proven ideas. He seems to have never heard of reputable mental health professionals actually assigning self-help books to patients as "bibliotherapy."

It makes about as much sense as dissing the whole cookbook industry by digging up a lot of dirt on certain celebrity chefs who never went to culinary school, yell at their kitchen staff, etc. First off, would it really matter, if people found their recipes useful? Second, it wouldn't be fair to just ignore all the other well-trained, nice, hard-working folks who happen to write cookbooks.

Finally, when he talks about the danger of bad ideas people can pick up from self-help books and seminars, he is exhibiting the same belief in the victim mindset that he criticizes in his own book! Give people some credit for having common sense and a working baloney-detector. Besides, a bad idea for one person might be a great idea for somebody else. Let us read the advice and think about it for ourselves.

I have read a number of Salerno's critiques of 'self-help books'. He has a sense of humor, and he attacks interestingly. The question of whether he is wholly fair to those he attacks has to be answered case- by- case.
The basic idea that the whole 'self- help' genre is simply self- deluding nonsense probably takes it a bit far. Surely there is a lot of nonsense, a lot of triviality, a lot of repetition, a lot of common sense stuff translated into fancy new jargon, a lot of stuff which is there primarily for the personal profit of the author, nothing else.
On the other hand, the very idea of improving ourselves, of finding out where we have gone wrong, and correcting it, is basic to our culture. It is a natural element of a society that is always looking 'for the better mouse- trap'. Just as we try all the time to make the world better, so we try all the time to make ourselves better.
Therefore there is sense in looking to books that can give us guidance, and help us out.
I read such books not with the sense that I am going to take them literally, and simply fall for all they say. Rather, I read them as I suspect most people do , looking for the point here or there which might be of help to me.
In this regard Salerno's thoughts are also a help. They after all constitute a kind of 'self- help book ' for freeing us of self- help books. The literary analogy is to that great book of chivalrous romance Don Quixote whose aim is to ostensibly free us forever of the genre of chivalrous romance.
I don't think that this book is going to make people stop reading self- help books, or stop learning from them.
Now I am waiting for someone to come along and write a book telling us why 'Self- Help Books' have been since the time of Franklin's 'Autobiography' one of the fundamental subgenres of American Literature ; and how they may contribute to making us all just a little bit better tomorrow than we have been today.

Okay. What I don't get about so many of the critical customer reviews of this book is that the reviewers almost sound as if they've done their own independent study of the world of self help, and they know things the author doesn't. Where are they getting the information on which they're basing their disagreement with author Salerno? All I know is that if you take the book at face value, which seems the only fair way to evaluate a book if you're not an expert in your own right, it presents a great deal of food for thought, and puts America's passion for self help in a light in which most of us may not have thought of it previously. There is a wealth of information in this book, on the "gurus," their methods, the science behind them (or lack of same), the results (or lack of same). Give it a chance, it's a worthwhile investment.

The negative reviewers of this book sound like professional fault-finders. Sure the book is not perfect, but the author has to be congratulated for taking on such big names in a litigation-obsessed society like the U.S. The book meets a desperately important need to question the validity of the self-help industry. The author has started a vitally important conversation that will surely help us make more informed choices when we seek help on personal matters. There is little doubt that many self help ''experts'' are parasites feeding off human weaknesses. Such activity is little better than drug peddling or ambulance chasing. At the same time, we need to ask whether Steve Salerno needed to sensationalize the topic as he has done. On the one hand, such a black and white picture draws more attention to itself and this is a good promotional tactic. On the negative side, Salerno commits similar crimes to his accused - he attacks self help gurus for painting an overly simplistic picture of life, but he is equally guilty of failing to give us a balanced picture. He makes no effort to sort the wheat from the chaff, so all self help gurus are tarred with the same brush. Sensationalism is stock and trade in journalism, a tactic to sell more books. Salerno could have made a stronger case with a more balanced picture, but then how many readers would have sat up and taken notice?

Based on the subtitle and summary of this book, I imagined it would be an argumentative piece. I found, however, that the author seems to have had a predisposition which he felt inclined to defend, making it an overly-justified premature opinion. I'm convinced that the author did little more than glance in the direction of self help when researching "measurable results", however he extensively researched why self help provides negative results. I'm taking away one star for the gross lack of formal references, which anything argumentative piece should have. Some of his quotes don't even qualify the person making the statement. The precedent of this book makes for a good editorial, however I'm not convinced that even the author believes all that he has written.

The overall presentation of the argument seems like either a lawsuit or a high school debate. His side was obviously chosen early on in the project (probably before the project), and he felt the need to defend his position at all costs. He essentially blames self help for the decline in the prevalence of conservative Christian values (not necessarily a bad thing), feminization of society, youth violence, poor scholastic aptitude, degradation of "the queen's English", people taking medicine into their own hands, and numerous other things. He attempts to tilt the scale all to one side; he entirely ignores the fact that anything at all beneficial may come of self help, ignorantly villanizing the entire industry based on a 1% sample at best. For this I take another star.

I admit that this is an entertaining piece of work. Some of the things he says are funny, and some are shocking (if they are, in fact, true). I don't like the potential slander thrown out to discredit specific people, however. Some things are useful to know (such as Dr. Laura having a PhD in physiology and not psychology), but other things aren't necessary (I won't perpetuate needless disrespect). Yet another star lost.

I'll have to give him an "A" for effort; he does have a lot of research, even if it's misguided and misused (quite an understatement). Unfortunately that doesn't improve the books rating; it just keeps me from discounting it that much more.

If anything, this book will likely make you critical of self help as a consumer. It reminded me of the "Killing Us Softly" series of videos, which point out how media influences subtly promote objectification of women and promote many of the things (i.e. "you're broken, but I have the cure") that this book points out. Although both may seem over the top in many cases, they do make you think about what is going on around you; something that you can't ignore once you've been enlightened to it. I don't think all self help providers are out to create problems for which a cure exists, but I do think that some are, and that they are making a lot of money from it. I think this is fairly obvious to most people, however. Those who could benefit from this book, unfortunately, would be extremely offended by it's tone. (Please note that I in no way find this book to be on the level of "Killing Us Softly"; I just find the precedents to be similar.)

With that, I leave this book with it's remaining 2 stars. Overall, I'd recommend this to people enjoy a passively cynical view of the world. I would not recommend this in any sense to convince yourself or anyone else to avoid self help, however.

I checked this book out at the library; because I read self help books and I enjoy some of them and despise some as well. For every truly good piece of "help" there are 4-5 books of regurgitated garbage out there. I was for the most part disappointed with this book, it seems as if the writer has a serious beef with the whole industry, as a former editor of Men's Health book division it makes me wonder if his leaving that position was less than kindly.
He does have some good points on the fact that most people will read the same book from the same author and get no results, it is also true that some carry their "guru" in higher regard than their family and religious figures, but isn't that a commentary on society not so much the SHAM industry, in fact I believe that the SHAM industry operates just as any industry does and I would say most if not all industries feed on our society's shortcomings and insecurities.
I find particular fault with the notion that as SHAM infested our culture, its mantras have filtered into our school systems and has in some way led to the increased incidents of school shootings. Would increased violence on TV, 24 hour news networks and the increasing epidemic of latch key kids have anything to do with that, not so much what Tony Robbins or Dr. Phil preach on the T.V. or write in their books.
As far as the self help junkie syndrome goes that is true of anything. There are salon junkies, star bucks junkies...etc.... and yes business and editors will capitalize on that, that is the by product of free enterprise. To those that read many books and doesn't see any results... I challenge you to actually work some of the principles in the book you read before buying the next one, that in my mind id the biggest problem with the self help book, is that people don't apply what they read...
Mr. Salerno is no doubt a talented writer and the flow and style of the book is very open to any reader. It is an enjoyable book, but I feel the writer has it backwards and it is society and the average American who have shaped the self help industry.

* Sloppy writing ("Beg the question" should not be used to mean "prompt the question", for one).

* Shallow, inept analysis.

* Suggests all self-help books are inherently worthless. No treatment of the idea that one might actually benefit from some (any?) of the self-help literature.

* It is as if he hasn't actually read any of the books, just flipped through them to the bullet points.

* Wild overextension from self-help to a wide range of societal problems with no data at all to back it up.

* Overall, an unconsidered book on a topic which demands a more serious and careful treatment.