So on Friday night, I went to see Naomi Klein speak at a little event here. You might have read her book, No Logo, a few years ago, and now she has a new book out. Anyway, I went in thinking it would be kind of propagandist, and wasn't heartened when there were war protesters handing out tons of fliers outside the event when I walked in.
Her whole thesis is just really interesting, though. Maybe it's not her idea, but she's calling this "new economy" which seems to be thriving on natural disasters and terrorism, "disaster capitalism." As opposed to the dot-com capitalism of the 90s, where rich equals flashy, this capitalism is secretive, trying to hide their wealth. And we're not doing anything about it because we don't know about it because they're good at hiding it. She's proposing that the only way to overcome the "shocks" (her book is The Shock Doctrine) we've sustained is to reclaim history, and by understanding it to have our eyes opened to what's going on now.
I'm always hesitant to read a book like that, since I know hardly anything about economics, and even less about history, politics and current events. I'd like to learn things for myself and then decide, instead of having someone present information in such a way as to render me unable to make my own conclusions. (Not that every history book doesn't have its own point of view.) But there's only so much time to read things, and if this idea makes sense on the face of it, and she had obviously done her research, I suppose it couldn't hurt to take this shortcut.
Do you think it's probably not a good idea to read a book like that for information, rather than to find out one person's opinion? Not that your opinions will stop me.
(By the way, an interesting tidbit. I was sitting there, waiting for this thing to start, and all of a sudden there's this really tall guy blocking the light near me. I look up, and it's John Cusack. I was like, weird, John Cusack's here. I guess he must be a big fan. (This thing was held in sort of a shithole.) Turns out he was there to introduce her, and they're friends. Funny.)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
I absolutely think it's possible to read biased books for information. If I were you I would assume the information they provide is true, then test their logic. If their logic seems sound, then tentatively agree until you can verify the information yourself (with other sources or whatever).
Typically the information will be true... it may not be the whole story, but I can't imagine many people can get away with outright lies in non-fiction writing.
Besides... she's friends with John Cusack... if you can't trust a friend of John Cusack then who can you trust?
I agree with you, tcd. I am often concerned that I'm reading biased information, so I've found that a good, and pretty painless, way to get two sides is to read several reviews of a given book from high-profile newspapers. Since I know papers will often assign reviews to people within the same field, I can usually count on either a different perspective, or at least confirmation of the thesis from another source. Not foolproof, but it's better than nothing.
I'm still not sure. There's a part of me that's saying, "You don't have any business reading a book like that when you're probably not at all familiar with the history that has informed the opinion being presented." Sure, Naomi Klein did a lot of research and spent time in Baghdad, but I can't help but feel that reading her book (and by doing so being swayed to her opinions) is a way for me to avoid doing the same work. It's the lazy way out.
Also, a part of me rebels against her and her ideas simply because she is who she is, and I already kind of know what she's going to say. I don't want to take the standard position just because it seems like the informed, compassionate one, and that's what I'm afraid I'd be doing if I read her book (or other, similar, books).
You can learn things on your own even while reading the book. One does not negate the other. In fact, I would go so far as to suggest it would be easier to come to your own conclusions by reading her book than it would be without it.
At least for me, whenever I read something by someone who has a strong opinion it helps me formulate my own opinion through either agreeing or opposing each point they make.
I agree with tcd. I understand your concerns because I often feel the same way, initially, but I agree with tcd. The only way you're going to learn about something (for the most part) is by reading about it or watching shows on it and those will always be presented through biased perspectives. So...you can't get away from that. You will form your opinions as you go...the more you read, the more you learn, the more you converse, the firmer your wyd opinions become, apart from anyone else.
Besides, she's friends with John Cusack. I mean common.
I still just think it's a cop-out. (Where does this expression come from? I'm too lazy to Google it.) I can only have a reaction against her opinions if I actually know something that would lead me to think otherwise. I don't know anything like that, so I'll probably just end up believing her. I won't fall into your trap! I do think it's a good thing we got into this war! I do! I do! Okay, well, I certainly have my doubts, but someone should be doing something. Right? I'm definitely not inclined to just go with the idea that this war is based on absolute evil, especially since Hussein was taken down. But I don't think I'm willing, at this point, to go in for any sort of conspiracy theory. On the other hand, her ideas didn't sound like conspiracy theory, they sounded like they made fucking good sense.
I refuse to just be totally anti-war, because I think sometimes war is probably a pretty good way of dealing with really awful things.
Post a Comment