Re: Amy Chua: World on Fire

[Jurriaan Bendien <bendien@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

> If this is the level of  analysis and knowledge displayed in the rest of
> the book, then I wouldn't waste my time reading the book.  It suggests a
> profound ignorance of Balkan history and the politico-economic basis of
> the ethnic divisions that resulted and which were fanned, not by
> democracy and markets, but by outside intervention from Germany, the US
> and the Catholic Church.

That could well be true - but... here's me reflecting on it, I hope you
don't mind. Suppose that you are constantly having to contend with
godfearin' folks who deeply believe in the American way as the foundation of
the market, freedom and democracy, and cannot conceive that anybody else
might think differently about it, or understand how different that view
might be. The question is then whether such a book as by Amy Chua might be a
bridge that opens a path to another way of looking at the subject - how you
could actually take an existing theme, and show that you might reach a
different conclusion, if you took the idea seriously. So the question is
then, about how you might actually put a book that already exists to good
use. I don't pretend to have all the answers to that, I don't pretend always
to do this, most times I struggle more with the questions, but I am just
offering this as a constructive thought, if you think it is rubbish, so be
it.

Personally I have had quite a lot of criticism for my reading habits from
people who considered them incomprehensible, as they could not see what
those reading habits had to do with anything going on in my life. Probably
some of the criticism is quite valid, since one can have one's nose too deep
in the books and live in another world, a mental world not accessible to
anybody else, but each book is also possibly a pathway to a new
understanding, a new view of things. In this Internetised world, I often
wonder why it is that people still enjoy reading books and buy them in large
quantities (particularly women, actually). It seems to be that reading a
book involves an inner world involving a relationship between the reader and
a text which people value highly, they can read and think their own
thoughts, undistracted by all sorts of other influences, as sort of personal
liberty if you like, an experience which, if not sacred, is at least
self-nurturing, a meaning which cannot easily be stolen. They will read in
the bus, on the tram, in the laundromat and all sorts of unlikely places in
which it is difficult to believe how you could concentrate at all on reading
a text...

Generally, I do consider Yoshie a bridge builder, opening up new vistas for
people interested in her area of concern. That's a capacity I think we ought
to value highly. Of course, there are no guarantees of success - one might
build a bridge too far, or get run over by the traffic, or build a bridge in
the wrong place, at least that's among the klutzy personal experiences I
have had (as anyone knows, I'm far removed from Georges Simenon right now).
Nobody gets it correct all of the time, even if inspired by the most sincere
spirit.  If however we all share approximately the same goals, it occurs to
me that, if we disagree about the pathways to those goals, we would support
each other best by showing an alternative route which could be taken for the
same theme, a different "take". In that way, people can learn something new,
and decide for themselves if it's something for them. We're all for some
things, and we're all against some things, so then it would be useful if we
built each other up, by adding alternatives, while directing negative
criticism primarily at the opposition.

No mass movement was ever built on the basis of explaining how different we
all are. Rather, it is built on what we have in common, but what we have in
common must be asserted in a way which doesn't obliterate individual
differences, respects subjectivities, and doesn't concede to leadership
cults. And that takes a constructive habit of mind, which, rather than
negating, just shows a different pathway which could work much better. We
may not be able to prove definitely that it is better, or in what sense it
is better, but at least we have shown that it exists, and no one can
complain that we haven't. Frequently sectarians and dogmatists present this
interpretation as "liberal nonsense" - they feel threatened when their
cherished beliefs are challenged, or of reformist co-optation - and of
course it could be, but it could also be applied in a way that definitely
convinces people of an alternative along the lines that we really share.

If indeed it was "liberal nonsense" then an alternative could be presented
to that nonsense, and the inability to do this really shows we are just
dealing with abuse rather than serious thought about the topic. Real
leadership, surely, is formed when we stop negating ourselves and think in
terms of: if we cannot do it this way, we do it that way. It's terribly
difficult at times, we all have our gripes, foibles and misgivings, things
we dislike about ourselves, and there might be confusion about who's leading
and who's led, nevertheless, this seem to be the contours of an approach
that could lead to success. Like I say, there are no guarantees of success -
my personal experience was being floored by more alternatives I could
handle, and finding it difficult to focus and concentrate as a result,
slumping into inactivity. But, probably, it's better to have too many
alternatives than no alternatives at all, since one can always opt to switch
off the PC and say basta, I'm going to concentrate on something else...
maybe reading that book that I found very pertinent, even if I didn't quite
agree with it.

Respectfully,

Jurriaan