Customer Reviews

Voltaire's Bastards : The Dictatorship of Reason in the West

5 star:		(31)
4 star:		(10)
3 star:		(8)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(12)

 

 

It takes tremendous courage to open a book with such a subtitle. It is human nature to construct an ideology based on our favorite thoughts, and then live cozily inside as master of the realm. For then we can use that ideology as shield and weapon.

But then John Ralston Saul comes face to face with you, removes his glove, and with a gentleman's flourish, whips the leather across your face. Saul is the master of gauntlet-throwing, and after one read of this hefty tome, you will be begging for more.

"The undoubted sign of a society well under control or in decline is that language has ceased to be a means of communication and has become instead a shield for those who master it."

Does this remind you of your country's political process? Or possibly of those ivory-tower publications that you so treasure? How is it that our species has been able to use words to cloak double and triple meanings within the most seemingly innocuous sentences? Is this what we truly want?

"The structures of argument have been co-opted so completely by those who work the system that when an individual reaches for the words and phrases which he senses will express his case, he finds that they are already in active use in the service of power. This now amounts to a virtual dictatorship of vocabulary."

The Inquisition, Machiavellian belief, the Napoleonic Wars, and the Holocaust can be rationally justified, says Saul. The tools of rationality provide the means to any desired end. Men participated in these events of their own free will, and even added their input to make said processes more `efficient'.

"The Inquisitors were the first to formalize the idea that to every question there is a right answer. The answer is known, but the question must be asked and correctly answered. Relativism, humanism, common sense, and moral beliefs were all irrelevant to this process because they assume doubt. Since the Inquisitors knew the answer, doubt was impossible. Process, however, was essential, for efficient governance and process required that questions be asked in order to produce the correct answer."

Is it worth having the tools of reason if they can be manipulated to cause the deaths of 200 million human beings? We all know the answer, as gut-wrenching as it may be... regardless, we can't disassociate our minds from reason any more than we can live without lungs.

So how do we move forward? How do we evolve with such a legacy behind and such uncertainty ahead? First, says Saul, we must remember:

"Memory is always the enemy of structure. The latter flourishes upon method and is frustrated by content. Our need to deny the amorality of reason ensured that memory would be the first victim of the new structures."

Secondly, we open our eyes. Who is it that truly controls our society and its governance? Saul has correctly identified the "men behind the men", the counselors and courtiers whom our leaders turn to for advice, and the bureaucrats, none of whom are elected or held to accountability by our constitution. These puppeteers, say Saul, are the "technocrats" who co-opt reason for limited ends:

"In the context of the technocratic mind, truth, like history and events, is what suits the interests of the system or the game plan of the man in charge."

Thirdly, we do not allow rationality to freeze our minds and our humanity in the cement of process. We employ skepticism (not cynicism) to constantly keep our eyes fresh. When skepticism reveals doubt, we employ common sense and morality, neither of which can or should be defined by, you guessed it, rationality.

Saul is not an enemy of reason. Quite the opposite, his purpose here is to rescue reason from those who fly its banner upon high while secretly using it to shine their shoes.

And how does Saul go about making his argument without using... argument? His method is brilliant. He has constructed a book that reads like a great speech, an enthralling lecture. Saul is discursive... he introduces literally dozens of seemingly unrelated subjects, draws truth from each, and makes his points without needing to build upon the pages before. Saul doesn't lead you from point A to point Q, as his enemies would; he simply enlightens you on many topics and allows your mind to form the connections... a truly satisfying experience.

This book is a fine wine, with the strong tang of truth. These pages are filled with aphorism and information on the widest variety of topics: national defense, economics, television, the Supreme Court, warfare, Congress, science, and celebrity; all of these cloths are woven with the same fundamental threads. Saul unmasks many clandestine operations, most of which are still being played out today.

Your hunger for knowledge will be greatly satisfied (almost satiated) here. Page one will be distinguished as an important point in your life, and we all know how precious such eye-opening works are.

This book sat on my shelf for a couple of years but I'm glad to finally finish it. Even though it was written over ten years ago, Saul's observations and witty insights are still very relevant. Saul helped me better articulate my abstract thoughts and feelings on our so-called civilization, e.g., how our technology has evolved faster than our ability to use it responsibly with a long-term view; how governments rationalize dark deeds in the name of national security; and how people come to feel powerless and indifferent.

I think the book is too long, somewhat repetitive, and contradicts his own argument of keeping cultural criticism inviting and easily understandable to the majority. While I don't agree with everything, there is much truth in these pages and it was worth seeing it through. Those critics who got hung up on the subtitle and tried to defend/define/debate reason missed the point. It's too much truth for many, and to seriously ponder the issues raised in this book risks an identity crisis they are not ready to endure. While it may appear to some that Saul is utterly condemning govt, business and education institutions and management, I think he does a great service by shocking folks out of their inertia to reflect on how they've been groomed, become aware of their blind spots and question their assumptions.

One of the lessons that can be derived from this book is the greatest threat to America's dream of "liberty and justice for all" is not from outside terrorists, but from within - those in positions of power or influence who are not enlightened but are enabled by the apathetic ignorant who blindly trust them to know what's best, or share in their fear-based selfish and myopic motives.

I can see this book prompting people to become more aware and politically active and that can only be good for democracy. Well-off Americans need to get off of the materialistic merry-go-round and focus on what really matters instead of self-indulgence. Only when the quest for global domination and corporate profits become subordinate to the long-term well being of the planet and future generations, can humans truly be called civilized.

There is much in this book, depending on one's particular interests, that can be skimmed or skipped. With patience, however, the book in its entirety is a rewarding experience for it calls into question much about how we organize ourselves politically, economically, and socially.

The bottom line, and very consistently with other great books such as "The Manufacture of Evil" on the low end and "Consilience" on the high end, is that Western thinking has been corrupted to the point that the West has become, as the inside flap says, "a vast, incomprehensible directionless machine, run by process-minded experts....whose cult of scientific management is bereft of both sense and morality."

As my own interests run toward public intelligence and public effectiveness in guiding the polity, I found his several chapters related to secrecy, immorality, and the "hijacking of capitalism" to be especially worthwhile.

He concludes that secrecy is pathological, undermining both public confidence and the public dialog. Intelligence in his view is about disseminated knowledge, not secrets.

Throughout the book the author discusses the contest between those who feel that the people cannot be trusted--the elites who strive to remain in power by making power appear an arcane skill with rites and formulas beyond the ken of the people--and those who feels that the people--and especially the larger consciousness of the people--are more in touch with nature and reality and the needs of the people than these elites.

This is a difficult book to absorb and enjoy, but I recommend because it sets the broad outlines for the real power struggle in the 21st Century--not between terrorism and capitalism, but rather between the government-corporate elites with their own agenda, and the larger body of people now possibly ready to turn every organization into an employee-owned and managed activity.

Much has been said amongst the other reviews about the seemingly incoherent, diatribal and drawn-out nature of Saul's book. And I agree. It's far from being a masterpiece in the larger sense of the world. What's brilliant about this book is not how right the author is but how wrong (often infuratingly so!) he is. Because I found that I've learnt more from this book, including the wrong parts than I have from many books that were more coherent or right. Unfortunately this does not seem to be Saul's aim.

He begins with section 1 called "Argument". However it read like a bunch of generalisations and sweeping statements without much argument. What he seems to be saying is this: that the concept of reason has been hijacked in the last century of public life in the west. That it has come to mean a bureaucratic, elitist, undemocratic, secretive, closed approach that also refuses to take into account the realities of life. That this style of reason is fanatical in that insisting that it is always right as a dogma. And finally, that it has been the result of untold amounts of suffering because it proclaims itself as a moral system, whereas it's only a system of management. Because of this, it can and is used to inhuman ends because it is itself devoid of any values.

All this I largely agree with. Especially in terms of the last point about reason being amoral you only need to read some Hume. However this exposition of his argument comes only from his second section, where he actually gives some concrete examples. The second section is largely a diatribe that attempts to apply these arguments to concrete historical examples. I think this is the strongest section of the book in that it is actually about something. The third section is some musings on art, individualism etc. much of which was entirely disagreeable.

What then are the strengths of the book? It is a hodge-podge that speaks of everything under the sun and often misses as a result. But by speaking about everything Saul successfully expresses the extent to which things are a problem. If he were more methodical one could claim that such-and-such and such-and-such institution is broken. However this book has convinced me that the world is much more broken than even I previously thought. He just could have done it in a third of the word count. I would definitely recommend the book but not as some incredible analysis but rather as something that will provoke and engage almost every reader. It seems paradoxical but in the chaos that is criticised by so many, Saul makes some surprising observations that would have been missed if he was more careful.

John Saul makes the argument that when the world swung away from the faith-based beliefs of the Middle Ages to the rational thinking of the Age of Reason, it over-reacted in equating rational thinking with truth. In other words, rational arguments may lead to false conclusions.

He then argues that the modern world has become so committed to rational thinking that the entire structure of Western culture is predicated on the belief that rational solutions are always best and that since rationality and efficiency go hand in hand, we downgrade anything that is deemed not efficient or less efficient. Because we do this, we denigrate intuition and common sense in the way we run the world.

Saul makes powerful arguments and draws surprising conclusions about a vast array of issues, beliefs, and practices. Unfortunately, some of his generalizations are too sweeping, and he tends to imply universality in his examples, when modifiers like many, sometimes, and occasionally might have been more appropriate. Nevertheless, there is no denying his basic thesis is compelling.

It is important when reading this book to keep an open mind. No book of such vast scope will find many in complete agreement. There is a tendency to shout "Nonsense!" after some of his assertions and conclusions, and then reject his entire argument, but that is a mistake.

Saul seems like a "Liberal" (that despised word) social philosopher, but his critique of society is not merely of the Right, but rather of what he calls "elites" (many of whom are Liberals) who are those highly trained "technocrats" and professionals who run the modern world. Their training is to operate by the principal that there are answers to all problems, which require only the right questions to sort out, and that solutions rationally arrived at will be efficient and therefore optimal, even when they violate common sense and are sometimes even amoral.

My favorite examples that he uses are of the law, where justice is no longer the objective, but the correct playing of the "game" according to the rules, which are only properly understood by lawyers. The most "efficient" lawyers win, regardless of the often nonsensical nature of the outcome. Thus it is seen as a proper outcome when an obviously guilty individual escapes punishment due to a legal technicality, while it is perfectly OK for a battered woman who kills her abusing husband to be incarcerated as a murderer.

Similarly, as long as all the rational laws are observed, it is OK for a corporate raider to buy a company with borrowed money, load it down with the debt taken on to make the acquisition, and then either gut the company to raise cash or fire large number of employees in "cost cutting" moves, even though the company and its employees were profitable and productive participants in the economy prior to takeover. The impact on real people's lives is seen as immaterial because rational procedures were followed.

Naturally, anyone taking on "everyone" (as Saul does) will slaughter some of any reader's "sacred cows" and raise howls of protest that he goes too far (which he does in spots). Nevertheless, the book is an intellectual tour de force of breathtaking sweep that provides real savoring for readers who like to be mentally challenged. It is not a quick read, but also not a difficult one. Rather, it is one best enjoyed in small doses at times when you have the luxury to reflect. Although written in 1992, virtually all of the arguments are valid today, and his descriptions of how the world works sound like they were written in 2008. This is a marvelously enjoyable book to read.
Ken Veit, January, 2008

This intellectual tour-de-force by author John Ralston Saul comes quite close to mirroring my own beliefs regarding the massive, corrosive effects of the increasing domination of so-called rational thought in post-modern culture. Saul traces with both scathing sarcasm and incredible acumen the ways in which this insidious set of precepts and notions surrounding our rational word view informs our every action, behavior and disposition, and acts to rob us of a much wider and deeper set of understandings, interpretations, and recognitions regarding the world around us and our place in it. He engages in a wide-ranging analysis of contemporary society, turning all our closely-held ideals on their heads by critically examining the contexts in which these notions arose in the first place.

He shows that although we describe ourselves in terms of individual freedom, we in fact live (quite unnecessarily) in a stringently conformist culture. While everyone from industrialists to government leaders to software gurus describe themselves as capitalist entrepreneurs, relatively few individuals have the power or latitude to act with any independence outside the limited confines of their highly structured organizational hierarchies. Indeed, while we debate passionately about the intrinsic power of Adam Smith's invisible hand of the market and the corollary power of market competition, in actuality there is little true competition found in the market place. We studiously ignore, for example, the many ways in which modern commerce is aided, abetted, and subsidized by federal, state, and local governments, such that these hardy entrepreneurs are given advantages as corporate entities that no individual citizen shares. Around us institutions traditionally key to past success and growth are now each stumbling and progressively failing even in this time of great prosperity and corporate wealth.

Most interesting is the way in which Saul traces the blind faith we have come to place in the intrinsic value of reason as a guiding force, and in the corallary importance of what we have come to call "progress', which is usually defined in material terms,; more bread, more clothing, better shelter. etc. The author argues persuasively that this poorly constructed edifice of reason has no moral force, and in fact is no more than an administrative method designed to promote effectiveness and efficiency. In this way, tied to the rigors of math and science, we have come to view that which is both effective and efficient and somehow signifying a higher order of truth rather than recognizing it is simply a very useful operational approach toward accomplishing quite complex tasks. In this sense, we have come confuse effectiveness and efficiency on the one hand with the good and the true on the other, and Saul illustrates just how grievous such an intellectual and philosophical error this is. According to the author, this confusion had transformed western civilization into a vast, incomprehensible, directionless machine, run by what he terms to be process-oriented experts, or as he names them, "Voltaire's bastards".

Anyone doubting the veracity of this view is invited to try to argue any truth about any subject without recourse to the exclusive use of rational proof or scientific protocols, but first take fair warning; you will laughed off the stage. Trying to use any other sort of argument will be summarily dismissed as nothing more than subjective nonsense. Our culture has come to the point where rational discourse is now seen as the only legitimate discourse allowed or taken seriously. Recourse to arguments regarding tradition, values, or "common sense" have no currency. More to the point, non-rational (as opposed to irrational) modes of understanding are simply no longer tolerated; no longer do we even pay lip service to the idea of moral responsibility to the poor or the unfortunate. We may be good scientists, but in the fact of being so singularly bound to the characteristic rational perspective associated with rational thought, we are much less worldly, experienced, tolerant, or understanding human beings as a result. Indeed, the inevitable result of all this is that we have a much less comprehensive and much more constrained reality paradigm to use to perceive, interpret, and understand the world outside us with. As Saul remarks, we may have immense technological power, yet we dwell increasingly in an unimaginative and illusory world whose dimensions are restricted to all things rational. Welcome to our brave new world!

I'm finishing Voltaire's Bastards for the third time and I can honestly say that I have enjoyed the book more, and have gotten more out of it with each reading.

This book is an attack on the rational system of thinking that has produced a world of technocrats and second rate managers, kept the United States in a wartime economy for 50 years and enveloped our government in a cult of secrecy. Saul's attacks- whether they be against the political system, modern culture or our convoluted economy- are dead on. As Jim Hoagland stated in his Washington Post review, "Voltaire's Bastards is a hand grenade disguised as a book."

Though Saul's writing style can be a tad stilted and occasionaly repetitious, this book is very well written- despite comments to the contrary in other reviews. Whatever flaws one chooses to find in Saul's writing style, they certainly don't detract from the overall importance of this major work.

I recommend that anyone who is even remotely concered with the course modern civilization is taking should read this book.

This is not the best book I ever read, but it is an intelligent one, with good ideas and excellent arguments against some naive optimistic positions about our modern world. Well-explained and clear, the book gives you a big deal of information. Unfortunately, sometimes you can get lost in the thousand of examples presented in the book. I would like a little more of organization. Moreover, I think it is too long (there are a lot of repetition of ideas and examples).

Briefly, Saul's book gives you some powerful ideas that you can use in your reflections, but it is not a comprehensive explanation of the modern world, even if Saul looks for that.

Because I believe in the diversity of the ideas, I am reading a Hayek's book now. Quite different, but both interesting authors.

Throughout our high school years, sadly when we are at our weakest analytically, we inquired as to why we had to read books like the Handmaid's Tale or the yawning Tess of the D'Urbervilles. Ralston Saul finally answers the question. His argument, that the printing press and the novel are the driving forces behind much of the postive social change and negative propaganda, reteaches the much needed lesson, that even in the age of the perceived electronic media domination, the printed word, wrapped by a hardboard or paper cover, still contains the eloquent voice and raw power to evoke the most devastating and critical analyses of our societies. With his printed word, Ralston Saul has shown us that the true definition of the freedom of speech is not the ability to say what we want, but to question those people and institutions in power. Voltaire's Bastards does just that; it questions the rhetoric and consequences of corporatism, management schools, military dogma, false capitalism, vaucuous and inconsistent ideology, contempt of public eduction, and, in the end, our own (and his own I'm sure) participation in any or all of these areas. Too bad, I am unable, now in my role as a high school teacher, to convince so few of my students of the sheer rebelliousness of reading a novel or book such as Voltaire's Bastards. Hopefully, they will when they are ready.

"Voltaire's Bastards" is a withering critique of the ideology of rational management that has come to pervade and choke virtually every corner of our lives. Saul assails his enemy on many fronts, but in the end his charges boil down to two: a.) Rational Management doesn't work because reality is more complicated than reason can model and b.) Rational Management encourages corruption because it is blind to moral standards. In those central contentions lie both the strengths and weaknesses of this brilliant book. The first is undoubtedly true, but it does not necessarily follow that management is irreformable. Systems thinking has been the rage in business management for half a decade now, for more or less the same reasons Saul is assailing management. Whether that will provide a more effective tool remains to be seen, but but it is certainly a possibility. More to the point is his impoverished notion of reason. The idea that reason cannot tell us about right and wrong is a modern prejudice built on the rejection of metaphysics after Newton's science became the paradigm of knowledge in the West. This reduced reason to calculation. In previous eras a broader conception of reason, that enabled discourse about goodness and similar allegedly subjective matters, was a staple of intellectual life; Saul, however, seems totally unaware of this fact. Because of this, he is implicitly buying into the idea that what we call "reason" really is rational, which is to support the self-justifying propaganda of the present managerial elites. Thus, by closing off ethical questions to rational discussion, Saul leaves himself no logical basis for his critique.

In spite of these flaws, this book is a potent attack on the perversions of present power structures and a clear diagnosis of what is wrong with them. It is highly recommended.