Scan barcode
drillvoice's review against another edition
3.0
Actually some pretty cool ideas in this book but it is WAY longer than it needs to be - the whole thing could be a document of 1-2 pages.
Basically, let me do you the favour: reactionary arguments against reform take one of three main forms.
PERVERSITY: this reform will backfire and make the situation worse.
FUTILITY: this reform will do nothing.
JEOPARDY: this reform will undo previous good work.
It's sort of useful having this in mind - for example, when real estate lobbyists argue against rental reform by saying it will make rents higher, it's a classic PERVERSITY argument and can be exposed and critiqued as such.
But anyway, that's the whole thing, you don't need a book to say it.
Basically, let me do you the favour: reactionary arguments against reform take one of three main forms.
PERVERSITY: this reform will backfire and make the situation worse.
FUTILITY: this reform will do nothing.
JEOPARDY: this reform will undo previous good work.
It's sort of useful having this in mind - for example, when real estate lobbyists argue against rental reform by saying it will make rents higher, it's a classic PERVERSITY argument and can be exposed and critiqued as such.
But anyway, that's the whole thing, you don't need a book to say it.
nick_jenkins's review against another edition
4.0
A slim and extremely useful meditation on the forms that reactionary arguments--which Hirschman cleverly defines as those arguments which deny not so much the validity of an aspiration to change, but simply the practicality, safety, or governability of a recommended alteration in the status quo--routinely, almost deterministically fall into. His point here is to show that reactionary arguments are not the product of case-specific reasoning against a given social, political, or economic change, but rather revert to simplistic meta-framings often (implicitly) reliant on mythological topoi--Oedipus, Nemesis, or hubris. For all that, the study is not psychoanalytic but straightforwardly rhetorical--it bases its counterarguments on essentially prima facie readings of classic conservative texts--Burke, de Maistre, Hayek, et al.
I really enjoy the way that Hirschman proceeds through his evidence, and I find the trio of reactionary arguments (perversity, futility, or jeopardy) that Hirschman elaborates very helpful in parsing the cant that I encounter on a day-to-day basis in the media, or in listening to relatives or friends. I am surprised to find that more historians and political scientists--or journalists for that matter--do not make use of this book. Its lucidity would be a great model for many writers and its content a valuable resource in political argumentation.
I really enjoy the way that Hirschman proceeds through his evidence, and I find the trio of reactionary arguments (perversity, futility, or jeopardy) that Hirschman elaborates very helpful in parsing the cant that I encounter on a day-to-day basis in the media, or in listening to relatives or friends. I am surprised to find that more historians and political scientists--or journalists for that matter--do not make use of this book. Its lucidity would be a great model for many writers and its content a valuable resource in political argumentation.
hikemogan's review against another edition
4.0
Hirshman examines over several centuries reactionary conservative objections to progressive social policies based on the idea that forward change will either be futile, will have an effect that is the opposite of its desired effect (perversity), and/or will put some other policy in jeopardy.
janthonytucson's review against another edition
5.0
A surprisingly less popular work of Hirschman that is just as important today as the day it was published. Creating a framework to analyze the common rhetorical tropes conservatives have used for the past 400 years, Hirschman explicates in detail the Perversity thesis, Futility thesis , and Jeopardy thesis.
Anyone not living in a cave for the last 15 year (or 15 days!) would recognize all three of these being employed ad nauseum from the right. These three rhetorical techniques have truly been supercharged and weaponized with the advent of 24 hours news and the bifurcation of information streams with the rise of social media.
In the last section of this book, Hirschman shows how progressives use the inverse of these rhetorical techniques, to less of a successful effect. As Hirschman said “Progressives have remained mired in earnestness. Most of them have been long on moral indignation and short on irony.” Previously stating that conservatives have effectively used the potent weapon of irony with a clear advantage over progressives in this decisive department. I will however admit his points were very illuminating and showed some of my own biases, which I appreciated.
Anyone not living in a cave for the last 15 year (or 15 days!) would recognize all three of these being employed ad nauseum from the right. These three rhetorical techniques have truly been supercharged and weaponized with the advent of 24 hours news and the bifurcation of information streams with the rise of social media.
In the last section of this book, Hirschman shows how progressives use the inverse of these rhetorical techniques, to less of a successful effect. As Hirschman said “Progressives have remained mired in earnestness. Most of them have been long on moral indignation and short on irony.” Previously stating that conservatives have effectively used the potent weapon of irony with a clear advantage over progressives in this decisive department. I will however admit his points were very illuminating and showed some of my own biases, which I appreciated.
nick_jenkins's review
4.0
A slim and extremely useful meditation on the forms that reactionary arguments--which Hirschman cleverly defines as those arguments which deny not so much the validity of an aspiration to change, but simply the practicality, safety, or governability of a recommended alteration in the status quo--routinely, almost deterministically fall into. His point here is to show that reactionary arguments are not the product of case-specific reasoning against a given social, political, or economic change, but rather revert to simplistic meta-framings often (implicitly) reliant on mythological topoi--Oedipus, Nemesis, or hubris. For all that, the study is not psychoanalytic but straightforwardly rhetorical--it bases its counterarguments on essentially prima facie readings of classic conservative texts--Burke, de Maistre, Hayek, et al.
I really enjoy the way that Hirschman proceeds through his evidence, and I find the trio of reactionary arguments (perversity, futility, or jeopardy) that Hirschman elaborates very helpful in parsing the cant that I encounter on a day-to-day basis in the media, or in listening to relatives or friends. I am surprised to find that more historians and political scientists--or journalists for that matter--do not make use of this book. Its lucidity would be a great model for many writers and its content a valuable resource in political argumentation.
I really enjoy the way that Hirschman proceeds through his evidence, and I find the trio of reactionary arguments (perversity, futility, or jeopardy) that Hirschman elaborates very helpful in parsing the cant that I encounter on a day-to-day basis in the media, or in listening to relatives or friends. I am surprised to find that more historians and political scientists--or journalists for that matter--do not make use of this book. Its lucidity would be a great model for many writers and its content a valuable resource in political argumentation.
More...