Most Helpful Customer Reviews
|
|
295 of 334 people found the following review helpful:
1.0 out of 5 stars
Dreadfully argued, June 25, 2005
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.
|
|
|
18 of 19 people found the following review helpful:
4.0 out of 5 stars
A Good Opening Salvo...But Much More Is Needed, August 15, 2005
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.
|
|
|
25 of 29 people found the following review helpful:
1.0 out of 5 stars
Misfiring on all cylinders, January 16, 2007
This book is a crock. And here's why:
The book claims that all aspects of American society - values, morality, education, the family, etc. - are being undermined by so-called Self-Help gurus. And one of their main techniques is to encourage everyone to think like victims. In essence: "I can't help what I do - I'm the victim of forces beyond my control".
Yet the book's title is: "SHAM : How the gurus of the self-help movement made us helpless".
The phrase "the gurus ... MAKE US helpless" is clearly designed to get us to think like VICTIMS!
Even the word SHAM (used here as an acronym for "Self-Help & Actualization Movement"), is a complete non-starter, because there's no such a thing as "the" self-help and actualization movement in the sense that this book implies.
Many individuals and groups could be lumped together under this label, ranging from the totally nutty to the barely "off mainstream". Trying to hang the whole bunch with a single rope just doesn't make sense. Even something as simple as learning a few basic stress reduction techniques would qualify me as a victim of SHAM.
Oh really?
Although the book attacks some people and groups by name, it is essentially based on blatant stereotyping. For example, page 134 refers to:
"SHAM gurus like Phil McGraw, Tony Robbins, and John Gray..."
Yet the book also refers to well-known business gurus such as "... Warren Bennis, a professor of business administration at the University of Southern California's business school ..." (p.107) and "... people like Harvard's John Kotter..." (p.112) as though their every word should be taken as gospel.
McGraw, Robbins or Gray, and co. may have their flaws, by why is Kotter so much better? There may be a reason, but this book certainly doesn't supply it.
Likewise welcome "... world-class debunker, James Randi...", (p.116). What qualifications does Mr Randi have, other than his career as a "repentant magician"? None - as far as I know. He certainly doesn't have a background to match that of Phil McGraw, of whom the book admits, "... at least [he] holds a degree to practice what he now preaches." (p. 15)
Yet Randi is cited as a reliable investigator, whilst page after page is devoted to criticising the content and value of what McGraw does and preaches.
In fact the book is short of sensible discussion on all fronts.
Thus we are told that "Even a leading medical dictionary describes codependency as `a relational pattern in which a person attempts to derive a sense of purpose through relationships with others.' [no reference given] ... the definitions put forth for codependency could describe most people whose lives are built around empathy and self-sacrifice, which are qualities we once admitted in ourselves and others." (p.262)
This seems to be saying that the ONLY motive for empathy and self-sacrifice is "attempting to derive a sense of purpose", though in practise any genuine example of empathy and self-sacrifice is far more likely to be the result of HAVING a sense of purpose, not from a lack thereof.
And the unsubstantiated claims, like:
"Up to one-fourth of all hospital admissions are believed to be alcohol-related in some way." (p.228)
As to how close a link qualifies as "alcohol-related in some way", the book doesn't say, and with no indication as to where this "information" came from, readers cannot check for themselves.
Indeed, whilst there are numerous references to individuals, reports etc., there is barely a single complete citation giving document title, date, publisher, page number, even in the case of a direct quote.
The "Notes" section is 8 pages long, with just three semi-complete references. Compare this with, say, Daniel Goleman's book "Emotional Intelligence" (Bloomsbury, London (paperback): 1996). Goleman's book is not quite 30 pages longer, yet it has 29 pages of "Notes", in which at least 75 percent of the entries are detailed references.
Plus a dollop of plain old-fashioned ignorance. For instance, the attack on the idea of unwarranted self-belief tells us that the web site of:
"... life coach Mark Gibson begins, `Whether you believe you will succeed, or you believe you will fail, you are right'." (p.110).
But overlooks the fact that this epigram is not "new age" waffle - it's an almost exact quote of a statement by Henry "Production Line" Ford, who went bankrupt twice - but succeeded three times.
Likewise, on the subject of helplessness the book asks: "If a person has no power over his or her weakness, how does society credibly decide whose weaknesses are tolerable and whose isn't?" (p.153). This is presented as though the claim and problem has only arisen in the last 30-40 years. So naturally there is no indication that famed American lawyer Clarence Darrow was a leading supporter of the "no responsibility" viewpoint as far back as the 1920s.
This ignorance even extends to widely-discussed topics such as homeopathy where we read that:
"... homeopathy employs trace dosages of substances (some of them toxic, like mercury or lead)..." (p.215)
Yet the most frequently voiced objection to homeopathic remedies is that they are SO diluted that not even a trace of the original substance remains in the final dosage.
And why complain that "the Recovery ethic strongly implies that a genetic predisposition exists for whatever ails us." (p.141) when it is in fact scientists such as the evolutionary biologists who have been trying for decades to convince us that genetics influence everything we think, say and do?
Lastly, isn't the promise that `anyone can achieve anything' built right into US culture? Surely it's the keystone of "The American Dream"?
The fact is that things are indeed in a mess, but not simply because of the actions of one relatively small group of people. Those that the book attacks may well be exploiting the situation - but they didn't MAKE anyone do anything. By taking such a biased position the book not only fails to provide answers - it actively obscures the real nature of the question.
|
|
|
Most Recent Customer Reviews
|
by Micki McGee
by James Randi
by Lisa McIntyre
See all Editorial Reviews
Visit our huge selection of magazine subscriptions often to see the latest special offers and bonuses. Check out magazines like
The New Yorker,
Wired, and
Vanity Fair. 
