Take a photo of a barcode or cover
3.82 AVERAGE
3.82 AVERAGE
I found this book enlightening. Overall it was a thoughtful examination of how life in modern society and the isolation it perpetuates can affect people, in particular veterans.
It's a clear examination of how the loss of tribal society has been detrimental to our support systems. It also covers some very interesting history regarding Native Americans and early American settlers. Overall I found it to be a good read.
It's a clear examination of how the loss of tribal society has been detrimental to our support systems. It also covers some very interesting history regarding Native Americans and early American settlers. Overall I found it to be a good read.
I'm having a hard time figuring out how to rate this book.
The concept behind it boils down to the idea that humans are happier when we're forced (though hardship, usually) to band together and look after the needs of one another, rather than just our own. Examples include how early white settlers who were abducted and joined Native American tribes didn't want to come back; how in the wake of Hurricane Katrina, survivors banded together to share their resources; and how the same occurred during the Blitz in WWII Britain. Consequently, mental health conditions (at least in the latter example, and after 9-11 as well) actually improved across the board, suicides decreased, and people generally counted themselves happier than they had been before tragedy struck. The point the author made wasn't necessarily that it was the tragedy that made people rate their overall happiness levels higher, but the community.
I agree, of course--community and a sense of belonging is one of the fundamental building blocks for health which I can identify in my clinical practice, and the lack of it does tend to drive pathology in some cases (mental or otherwise). But I think the examples given, particularly given their intensity, misses something else fundamental: a sense of purpose, which Abraham Maslow considers the pinnacle of his "hierarchy of needs." In a world where all our needs are generally provided for (well, used to be anyway--who knows where we're currently headed), and where opportunities and options for how to spend our time are endless, I think many people struggle with a sense of aimlessness. In a crisis, opportunities shrink dramatically. Survival becomes paramount: both one's own, and that of one's fellow men. Suddenly the people in those situations found that someone else needed them, when perhaps they'd never had that feeling before. One of the fastest ways to forget about one's own problems is to focus on helping someone else. Community is a byproduct of this: it's natural to bond with those who serve us, and whom we serve. That's kind of what a good church should be.
(Side note: I had family in New Orleans during Hurricane Katrina, who would dispute the author's commentary on the social dynamic there at the time. I can't comment on the other examples he gives, though.)
The concept behind it boils down to the idea that humans are happier when we're forced (though hardship, usually) to band together and look after the needs of one another, rather than just our own. Examples include how early white settlers who were abducted and joined Native American tribes didn't want to come back; how in the wake of Hurricane Katrina, survivors banded together to share their resources; and how the same occurred during the Blitz in WWII Britain. Consequently, mental health conditions (at least in the latter example, and after 9-11 as well) actually improved across the board, suicides decreased, and people generally counted themselves happier than they had been before tragedy struck. The point the author made wasn't necessarily that it was the tragedy that made people rate their overall happiness levels higher, but the community.
I agree, of course--community and a sense of belonging is one of the fundamental building blocks for health which I can identify in my clinical practice, and the lack of it does tend to drive pathology in some cases (mental or otherwise). But I think the examples given, particularly given their intensity, misses something else fundamental: a sense of purpose, which Abraham Maslow considers the pinnacle of his "hierarchy of needs." In a world where all our needs are generally provided for (well, used to be anyway--who knows where we're currently headed), and where opportunities and options for how to spend our time are endless, I think many people struggle with a sense of aimlessness. In a crisis, opportunities shrink dramatically. Survival becomes paramount: both one's own, and that of one's fellow men. Suddenly the people in those situations found that someone else needed them, when perhaps they'd never had that feeling before. One of the fastest ways to forget about one's own problems is to focus on helping someone else. Community is a byproduct of this: it's natural to bond with those who serve us, and whom we serve. That's kind of what a good church should be.
(Side note: I had family in New Orleans during Hurricane Katrina, who would dispute the author's commentary on the social dynamic there at the time. I can't comment on the other examples he gives, though.)
Read for my company’s veterans ESG. Introduced me to some new concepts and frameworks. Interested to hear the veterans’ responses.
Only the second 5-star rating I've given in a long time. This is as close to a "must read" as I've found in many years. Do yourself a huge favour. It's only short - but I found it incredibly profound. It touched on things I already knew instinctively but produced hard data and personal testimony to back that intuition up.
This book was recommended to me on the subject of PTSD but it is so, so much more than that. I hope you find it more than that too.
This book was recommended to me on the subject of PTSD but it is so, so much more than that. I hope you find it more than that too.
Really interesting view on the meaning we get from war, stress, societal collapse, and shared suffering. He also goes semi-deep in some Peace Corps stuff which is cool because PC doesn't get mentioned too much. Quick read with a mix of long form journalism and autobiography.
Author Junger, having served in the military, gives insight into our contemporary military, and the challenges that soldiers face on their integration back into modern society after having served. Junger relates it to the pre-modern tribe, a place of shared social meaning where "we take care of our own". He uses examples of the American Indians of the United States and even the military of Israel, where groups work together in one shared experience and efforts are for the good of the group, and people are not individualized.
Unfortunately, a cosmopolitan society such as the US, is far removed from the battle location and the human qualities demanded and cultivated by war are fundamentally at odds with our public principles. Instead of putting our soldiers back to work after returning from battle and affirming their continuity in their contribution to the common good, we actually receive them as victims, thus making them feel damaged. We put them on disability and submit them to therapy.
Junger covers a lot of ground in this small book. A great read in being enlightened on how are treatment of vets has gone wrong and the hope of how we can do it right.
Unfortunately, a cosmopolitan society such as the US, is far removed from the battle location and the human qualities demanded and cultivated by war are fundamentally at odds with our public principles. Instead of putting our soldiers back to work after returning from battle and affirming their continuity in their contribution to the common good, we actually receive them as victims, thus making them feel damaged. We put them on disability and submit them to therapy.
Junger covers a lot of ground in this small book. A great read in being enlightened on how are treatment of vets has gone wrong and the hope of how we can do it right.
Really great book, quick read. My startup employer bought a bunch of copies for us to read. It has some great insights about how humans developed and what we need, as well as how modern society falls short. I liked this book because it tapped into what we all need as a society. It’s about belonging and we all share it. Soldiers shouldn’t be treated like victims and there should be jobs for it. We’re in it together. It makes sense to be competitive and have competition but you need to be part of something and share the group
Explained so much. Made so much of our current world clear. Depressing and scary, but also with some guidance and hope. Does leave me questioning what we can and should do at our level. Little steps I guess... and hope that enough of us take little steps, that it will eventually equal out to a big improvement.
This book dropped my jaw again and again, and not in a good way. The author does a very superficial job of interrogating his beliefs and practices lots of confirmation bias while at the same time refuting his own opinions and theories in the next chapter because he apparently can't be bothered to keep track of things. What really, really angers me about this book is that there are interesting moments, where the author shares facts and insight from field professionals. Then he gets distracted by a pet theory, bulks it up with mental leaps, and sputters off into the abyss.
The author adores the noble savage myths, lumps a diverse group of people with diverse beliefs and practices under the name "American Indians" and treats them as interchangeable for the first ~1/2 of the book, refers to them as a Stone Age society, despite what we know about their advance governments, city designing, and agricultural accomplishments, and fails to acknowledge the role of racism in his tales. Also: pet peeve. Why does he spell Lakotah with an "h?" I honest to God googled it. My first hand experience with Lakota individuals is short, but I stood in probably 8 community buildings, spoke with 100s of Lakota individuals and read dozens of signs, and not a single one included an "h" in the spelling. My google search seems to agree based on a search of Lakota Nation. I trust them more than the author.
He makes mental leaps about the differences between men and women, despite our now established recognition that assigning behaviors by gender isn't backed up by science, and much of what we consider gender divides are actually due to long trained societal norms, not differences set in stone by genetic differences. He is so deep in his white male power fantasies about the tribe that he doesn't even catch himself when he makes claims about "Stone Age" societies not having a hierarchy because all the men come together to shun the badly behaving men, not just the leader. The men. Men. Men only. Do you know why that is men only? Because in most societies ("Stone Age" or not) they are hierarchical along lines of gender. If all you see is men, then you're not seeing the vast majority of society, including women, children of any gender, and non-binary people. If you can't see the hierarchy because you only study the top strata, you're doing a shit job of researching. (Just today my mother was horrified that I tried to stop and help someone with vehicle issues, because as a woman that could get me killed or raped, whereas for men that's far less likely, and they never get talks like "never leave your drink alone" which leaves us female types potently aware of how dangerous everyday life is. That is, IMHO, 99% of the reason you don't see women helping with physical things. Because it's mostly strangers and it puts us at risk. Does the author interrogate why women help in one way and men in another? No, he's too busy buying into the gender role binary and skipping on.)
The author claims he thought referencing throughout the text would be distracting, as such, he often presents his opinions and mental math as facts. There were places where I knew he was using superficial knowledge and that a more thorough reading of the text I suspected he was building off of would unravel his theory. Hard to search out what document he was using because he failed to drop a tiny little digit down to allow fact checking against any references. He also, at least twice, spends a chapter arguing something, and then in the next chapter skims over a comment or statement that completely unravels his entire argument. Sloppy. Lazy. Confirmation bias all over the place. Just an absolute disappointment because I think the topic is interesting and he mostly did a poor job discussing the military and American Indian groups. (No comment on whether that should be the properly used term, as he decided it is thanks to that one person he spoke to, and he clearly believes groups are a monolith.)
Overall, a huge disappointment.
The author adores the noble savage myths, lumps a diverse group of people with diverse beliefs and practices under the name "American Indians" and treats them as interchangeable for the first ~1/2 of the book, refers to them as a Stone Age society, despite what we know about their advance governments, city designing, and agricultural accomplishments, and fails to acknowledge the role of racism in his tales. Also: pet peeve. Why does he spell Lakotah with an "h?" I honest to God googled it. My first hand experience with Lakota individuals is short, but I stood in probably 8 community buildings, spoke with 100s of Lakota individuals and read dozens of signs, and not a single one included an "h" in the spelling. My google search seems to agree based on a search of Lakota Nation. I trust them more than the author.
He makes mental leaps about the differences between men and women, despite our now established recognition that assigning behaviors by gender isn't backed up by science, and much of what we consider gender divides are actually due to long trained societal norms, not differences set in stone by genetic differences. He is so deep in his white male power fantasies about the tribe that he doesn't even catch himself when he makes claims about "Stone Age" societies not having a hierarchy because all the men come together to shun the badly behaving men, not just the leader. The men. Men. Men only. Do you know why that is men only? Because in most societies ("Stone Age" or not) they are hierarchical along lines of gender. If all you see is men, then you're not seeing the vast majority of society, including women, children of any gender, and non-binary people. If you can't see the hierarchy because you only study the top strata, you're doing a shit job of researching. (Just today my mother was horrified that I tried to stop and help someone with vehicle issues, because as a woman that could get me killed or raped, whereas for men that's far less likely, and they never get talks like "never leave your drink alone" which leaves us female types potently aware of how dangerous everyday life is. That is, IMHO, 99% of the reason you don't see women helping with physical things. Because it's mostly strangers and it puts us at risk. Does the author interrogate why women help in one way and men in another? No, he's too busy buying into the gender role binary and skipping on.)
The author claims he thought referencing throughout the text would be distracting, as such, he often presents his opinions and mental math as facts. There were places where I knew he was using superficial knowledge and that a more thorough reading of the text I suspected he was building off of would unravel his theory. Hard to search out what document he was using because he failed to drop a tiny little digit down to allow fact checking against any references. He also, at least twice, spends a chapter arguing something, and then in the next chapter skims over a comment or statement that completely unravels his entire argument. Sloppy. Lazy. Confirmation bias all over the place. Just an absolute disappointment because I think the topic is interesting and he mostly did a poor job discussing the military and American Indian groups. (No comment on whether that should be the properly used term, as he decided it is thanks to that one person he spoke to, and he clearly believes groups are a monolith.)
Overall, a huge disappointment.