Gönderi
·
Not rated
This book aims to identify the dynamics of all types of mass movements, including religious, social and nationalist movements. Since a significant number of people are one way or another part of one of these movements, the book appeals to a big audience. I found the book interesting as a devout Muslim especially given the fact that Hoffer categorizes me as a “fanatic frustrated”.
Although I disagree with most of the author’s arguments & theories, I kind of liked the book since it expanded my intellectual capacity by provoking me with out of the box claims/questions and making me think over the things that I have never thought before. Also, some useful information on human psychology is scattered throughout the book.
I think, the main weakness of Hoffer’s arguments is the fact that they are mostly oversimplified generalizations. He draws generalized conclusions from very specific events in history which does not apply to all mass movements. For example, he claims that “All mass movements generate in their adherents a readiness to die, fanaticism, hatred, intolerance; demand blind faith and singlehearted allegiance.” Just to refute that we can easily tell that God asks Muslims to use their minds 49 times in Quran (Holy book). How can such a religion be called as “demanding blind faith”?
Another example of an invalid generalization is this: “Where opinion is not coerced, people can be made to believe only in what they already know.” Based on this claim there is no such thing as people learning, researching something new and then accepting it on their own without coercion.
I believe Hoffer focused too much on communism and fascism while drawing these kinds of conclusions about mass movements.
Another interesting point is Hoffer implicitly claims that man shall think for himself, focus on his “self” to be happy. This egocentric approach to happiness and satisfaction proved to be wrong in our current society. Citizens of western society focus only on their selves, careers, personal developments, financial well beings, and yet their depression levels rise exponentially.
I wanna finish my review with a passage from the book where Hoffer confesses that he “exaggerated”, “omitted” facts just to “illustrate a point” which I find highly disturbing:
The reader is expected to quarrel with much that is said in this part of the book. He is likely to feel that much has been exaggerated and much ignored. But this is not an authoritative textbook. It is a book of thoughts, and it does not shy away from half-truths so long as they seem to hint at a new approach and help to formulate new questions. “To illustrate a principle,” says Bagehot, “you must exaggerate much and you must omit much.”
·
124 views
Yorum yapabilmeniz için giriş yapmanız gerekmektedir.