You need to sign in or sign up before continuing.
Take a photo of a barcode or cover
A review by julia_roxxanne
Assholes: A Theory by Aaron James
2.0
I was unfortunately disappointed in Assholes: A Theory. It had a lot of promise but I found that many of its individual parts fell short of presenting a unified theory. The writing style is more akin to a stream of consciousness, as Aaron James presents one idea/micro-theory after another, question after question with no clear answers. Shortly after beginning Chapter 2, I found myself completely confused and lost, wondering what topic I was even reading about in the first place.
I was mostly confused about why the chapter on Asshole Capitalism was included. Short of presenting an all-out attack on capitalism itself, which has no bearing on the rest of the book, I have no idea why James would choose to include a chapter on assholes in capitalism and not the assholes of society in general. There was a lot of name-dropping—Hobbea, Rousseau, Aristotle, Freud, Kant, Marx, etc.—but I got the impression they were merely intended to impress or confuse the reader and draw attention away from the fact that there was no unified "asshole theory" to be found in this book. I, for one, am certainly confused but not impressed.
I'm glad that Chapter 1 at least was clear about the theory presented, because without it I would have had no idea what I was reading. There were a few statements that I agreed with at the beginning, such as the claim that assholes believe themselves either morally superior or morally exempt. Most of the claims after that were unsupported and vague. There was virtually no attempt to prove the ideas presented here through any scientific data; all evidence was circumstantial. James uses examples that are either clearly special cases, such as celebrities, or generalizations, which certain could happen but are not proven to happen with any consistency. Many "asshole moves" described in this book sound very much like imagined situations presented as real ones in order to further James's argument. Now, I'm no expert, but I do know that if you're going to present a strong case, you have to have compelling evidence that is NOT made up to support it.
Speaking of unbiased support, I find that not only does James use questionable evidence, he also editorializes where it is unnecessary. He writes on page 130 "As the wise Epictetus explains..." and on page 173 "G.A. Cohen, the brilliant but sadly missed political philosopher...". I'd never heard either of those names before I read this book and now that I've read them, accompanied by such lofty descriptions, I don't think they are wise or "brilliant but sadly missed", I think they were philosophers being used by James to present a case for an argument I can't even understand, and by introducing them in such a way, James thinks he increases his credibility. I say let the quotes present their credentials for them and worry about constructing your argument in a way that makes it stronger, instead of trying to hide a half-assed argument behind tricks and subterfuge.
I have only two other major problems with this book. The first is that I find it sexist. In the chapter entitled "Gender, Nature, Blame", James points out that "assholes" are most often considered to be men and that when we think of women being assholes, we call them bitches. He starts an argument that blames society for training people to think an act this way, which is one of the few things in this book that I agree with, but then makes a claim that asshole men are preferable to bitch women, because at least with assholes you know where you stand because they are rude to your face. Now, I don't claim that some women don't go around behind others' backs, but I think it's a huge disservice to assume that all women are like that. Some certainly fit James's description of the asshole, but he just blows on past that and assigns the labels as he sees fit. I don't consider myself an asshole and I'm not taking this personally, but I will always fight for women's rights to be considered on the same gender-neutral terms as men, even those of us who are unabashedly horrible people. "Asshole" doesn't necessarily have to refer to men; after all, women have them too. It's a gender-specific insult because society has made it so. I think the way James addresses this issue is retroactive and short-sighted. I expected much more from a chapter on how the term "asshole" came to have its gender-specific connotation.
And lastly, I was horrified to find that James labeled all the whites of South Africa as assholes for their relation to the apartheid system. Apartheid was undoubtedly horrific and bloody, but it's irresponsible to assume that all the whites were assholes. And if we're going to be calling people names, "asshole" is not the one that comes to mind regarding people who intentionally held an entire country in slavery, poverty, and violence. It was an inappropriate example and I think it detracts from the gravity of the apartheid situation simply to call its perpetrators "assholes". Even James admits in his opening chapter that you can't compare someone like Hitler or Stalin, men who committed repeated, intentional atrocities, to the everyday Asshole who may be frustrating but ultimately doesn't change the course of one's life. Maybe the whites of South Africa were to blame for apartheid, maybe some were guilty of being apathetic bystanders, but that makes them either worse than assholes or simply people who were blinded and misguided by their society.
Overall, I'd say that, as a theory, Assholes is a flop.
I was mostly confused about why the chapter on Asshole Capitalism was included. Short of presenting an all-out attack on capitalism itself, which has no bearing on the rest of the book, I have no idea why James would choose to include a chapter on assholes in capitalism and not the assholes of society in general. There was a lot of name-dropping—Hobbea, Rousseau, Aristotle, Freud, Kant, Marx, etc.—but I got the impression they were merely intended to impress or confuse the reader and draw attention away from the fact that there was no unified "asshole theory" to be found in this book. I, for one, am certainly confused but not impressed.
I'm glad that Chapter 1 at least was clear about the theory presented, because without it I would have had no idea what I was reading. There were a few statements that I agreed with at the beginning, such as the claim that assholes believe themselves either morally superior or morally exempt. Most of the claims after that were unsupported and vague. There was virtually no attempt to prove the ideas presented here through any scientific data; all evidence was circumstantial. James uses examples that are either clearly special cases, such as celebrities, or generalizations, which certain could happen but are not proven to happen with any consistency. Many "asshole moves" described in this book sound very much like imagined situations presented as real ones in order to further James's argument. Now, I'm no expert, but I do know that if you're going to present a strong case, you have to have compelling evidence that is NOT made up to support it.
Speaking of unbiased support, I find that not only does James use questionable evidence, he also editorializes where it is unnecessary. He writes on page 130 "As the wise Epictetus explains..." and on page 173 "G.A. Cohen, the brilliant but sadly missed political philosopher...". I'd never heard either of those names before I read this book and now that I've read them, accompanied by such lofty descriptions, I don't think they are wise or "brilliant but sadly missed", I think they were philosophers being used by James to present a case for an argument I can't even understand, and by introducing them in such a way, James thinks he increases his credibility. I say let the quotes present their credentials for them and worry about constructing your argument in a way that makes it stronger, instead of trying to hide a half-assed argument behind tricks and subterfuge.
I have only two other major problems with this book. The first is that I find it sexist. In the chapter entitled "Gender, Nature, Blame", James points out that "assholes" are most often considered to be men and that when we think of women being assholes, we call them bitches. He starts an argument that blames society for training people to think an act this way, which is one of the few things in this book that I agree with, but then makes a claim that asshole men are preferable to bitch women, because at least with assholes you know where you stand because they are rude to your face. Now, I don't claim that some women don't go around behind others' backs, but I think it's a huge disservice to assume that all women are like that. Some certainly fit James's description of the asshole, but he just blows on past that and assigns the labels as he sees fit. I don't consider myself an asshole and I'm not taking this personally, but I will always fight for women's rights to be considered on the same gender-neutral terms as men, even those of us who are unabashedly horrible people. "Asshole" doesn't necessarily have to refer to men; after all, women have them too. It's a gender-specific insult because society has made it so. I think the way James addresses this issue is retroactive and short-sighted. I expected much more from a chapter on how the term "asshole" came to have its gender-specific connotation.
And lastly, I was horrified to find that James labeled all the whites of South Africa as assholes for their relation to the apartheid system. Apartheid was undoubtedly horrific and bloody, but it's irresponsible to assume that all the whites were assholes. And if we're going to be calling people names, "asshole" is not the one that comes to mind regarding people who intentionally held an entire country in slavery, poverty, and violence. It was an inappropriate example and I think it detracts from the gravity of the apartheid situation simply to call its perpetrators "assholes". Even James admits in his opening chapter that you can't compare someone like Hitler or Stalin, men who committed repeated, intentional atrocities, to the everyday Asshole who may be frustrating but ultimately doesn't change the course of one's life. Maybe the whites of South Africa were to blame for apartheid, maybe some were guilty of being apathetic bystanders, but that makes them either worse than assholes or simply people who were blinded and misguided by their society.
Overall, I'd say that, as a theory, Assholes is a flop.