What do you think?
Rate this book
The Birth and Death of Meaning: An Interdisciplinary Perspective on the Problem of Man
Uses the disciplines of psychology, anthropology, sociology and psychiatry to explain what makes people act the way they do.
296 pages, Kindle Edition
First published August 1, 1962
220 people are currently reading
5258 people want to read
About the author
Ernest Becker
18 books914 followersErnest Becker was an American cultural anthropologist and author of the 1974 Pulitzer Prize-winning book, The Denial of Death.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 76 reviews
October 12, 2014
An absolutely amazing work. In the introduction, Becker sets out to answer the question "Why do people do what they do?" What follows, across 200 pages, is a remarkably well-constructed and well-written study on the development of selfhood and culture. Becker's work is truly interdisciplinary and draws on evolutionary biology, developmental psychology, anthropology, philosophy and literature. The book reveals the link between the organization of human societies and the vital, personal need for self-esteem: the feeling that one is valued, loved, and has a chance to be a hero in their narrative. The role of culture is to set up a system of rules for achieving this self-esteem and heroism. However, as Becker explores in the later chapters, problems arise these systems of self-esteem are frustrated, denied or no longer able to function. Overall, a very compelling study that should perhaps be read before "The Denial of Death."
December 7, 2010
After reading "The Birth and Death of Meaning" along with "The Denial of Death", Ernest Becker quickly became one of my personal heroes. Who else would have had the guts to write something so penetrating, so frightening, so threatening to the mechanisms we use every day to cope with life? Becker makes shockingly clear the fictitious nature of human meaning and the contrived nature of social game: if you've ever wondered why the mentally ill are so neglected as a minority and generally spurned even by so called "activists" for racial acceptance, etc, you won't wonder after reading this book. For all that Becker is gentle, not some arrogant nihilistic jerk. There is no typical existentialist self pity here, no "nausea", simply a tough recognition of the way things actually are and a few relative ideas as to how we should deal with them. This is what differentiates Becker from the postmodernists and others who delight in impotence: he is open to solution, to creative play and even religious answers (of an unconventional kind, of course.) His insight and intellect are so powerful as to be scary, and one wonders how such a man dealt with the trivialities of everyday life knowing that they are part of a gigantic charade of illusory meaning. He makes it clear that man is a social animal, and that we are built from the outside in rather than the other way around. His theory of the "urge toward cosmic heroism" fits perfectly into actual concrete everyday life, where anyone and everyone is eager to stand out in some way as cultural heroes. Like Nietzsche, perhaps even better, Becker illustrates the way in which we deceive ourselves and deliberately confuse the cultural game with underlying material reality. He offers four levels of possible solution, the first of which he warns can lead to narcissism and mandess, the second and third being religious in an abstract and metaphysical way. Becker is not, like so many sociologists, drunk on his own lucidity or on a power trip: he is telling us to relax, because the question of relevance is very much up in the air. Authenticity is his message. I would recommend this book as it is easily one of the most important philosophical awakenings that are on the bookshelf, but I would qualify that statement by also recommending it be taken in small doses.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
June 20, 2017
I remember really liking this book when I was in undergrad and feeling very inspired about its message on how to find meaning in the modern world. Recently, I tried re-reading the first few chapters and felt very disenchanted by what turned out to be a horribly facile take on evolution and the cognitive abilities of non-human animals. For all the good Becker understood of psychology, psychoanalysis, and anthropology, his research for this work was limited by the knowledge available at the time of its publishing in 1962 and it shows.
March 19, 2020
Becker uses a multidisciplinary approach to explore questions of human meaning and existence through the lens of culture. Here is an outline of his arguments:
PASS THE PARADOX PLEASE
Becker begins by laying out a psychological theory of man predicated on Existentialist schools of thought (Kierkegaard) and modern psychoanalysis (Freud, Fromm, et al). Alone among the animals, man is saddled with symbols, self-consciousness, and self-esteem. He contemplates his own death and finitude while also trying to maintain his belief that he is a unique individual, imbued with some sort of intrinsic value and meaning in the face of a vast, seemingly indifferent cosmos. Becker terms this foundational psychology problem as the “individuality-within-finitude” paradox, and he believes it is the key to understanding the basic motivations and behaviors of men.
Our mechanisms to cope with this paradoxical existence are myriad. Whether we embed ourselves into higher causes of community and conscious or become obsessively controlling of each aspect of our environment, most of our actions serve as convenient distractions, diverting our eyes from our ultimate impotence against death and dissolution. Only after we have looked this despairing fate squarely in the eye can we achieve some higher level of psychological freedom and self-knowledge. Such a task is beyond most of us though; our daily thought processes are aimed more at avoiding cognitive dissonance than acknowledging the final, bleak truth of our situation.
HELP ME HEROISM
Defining culture is a tricky, nebulous task, but for Becker its function is clear: culture gives us the resources we need to cope with our individuality-within-finitude problem. The most effective vehicle culture uses to this end is structured heroism: the establishment of well-defined, commonly understood heroic roles that afford us the essential meaning and significance we need to get on with the daily chore of living. Each of us has a perpetual “newsreel” running in our heads where we project ourselves carrying out an important role in society. In antiquity, the available roles were narrow and generally clear-cut: warrior, prophet, priest, ruler, matriarch, patriarch, farmer, shepherd. All of these (even the seemingly benign latter two) were tinged with a sense of cosmic significance: nature was enchanted, and the material world’s connection to the spiritual world was palpable, bringing a sense of real import to something as innocuous as raising sheep.
The problem, according to Becker, is that current forms of heroism are becoming increasingly tenuous. For modern Westerners, nature is simply one more thing to be controlled and conquered; the tribe has dissolved into the immediate family (and, beyond that, into an amorphous association of friends and acquaintances); religion is a nonessential preference; and our available modes of work and living are so numerous as to be overwhelming. While many of the old heroic forms are still with us (television seems to have an inexhaustible supply of police, firefighter, doctor, lawyer, and teacher shows), very few of us actually fulfill these roles in daily life. Additionally, our material-technic society is becoming increasingly detached from any sense of a spiritual world and the significance it can confer on the common, seemingly weary happenings of our lives.
Where does the modern data analyst look for his heroic fulfillment? Or the delivery truck driver? Or the dental hygienist? What is heroic about having an average job, living in an average house on an average street in an average neighborhood (on the outskirts of an average city), all while consuming the average cultural entertainment and indulging in the average materialistic comforts? When faced with such a situation, how easy it is for people to either give up their quest for heroic meaning and resign themselves to an acceptance of a bland fate, or, conversely, to fanatically bury themselves in some finite cause which they try to inject with infinite meaning (sports teams, politics, investment portfolios, science).
RELIGIOUS RESILIENCE
Becker concludes his discussion by exploring the one form of heroism that he believes is both universally available and seemingly immune to the material and corporeal vicissitudes of life: the religious. Becker argues that the religious hero derives his value not simply from finite sources; rather, by connecting himself to a source whose power and purpose is conceived as infinite, the religious hero is armed with a resilience not to be found in any other type of self-conception. By finding value and meaning in this higher calling, he frees himself from the foundational self-esteem reliances other men cling to: the approval of friends and family; the size of one’s house and bank accounts; good standing within a professional community; physical beauty and sexual prowess; and countless other edifices – each of which can tumble to the ground in a completely unforeseen and uncontrollable fashion (wherein lies the lesson of Job).
It is important to note that, like William James, Becker is far more interested in the psychological function of religion than its empirical truth claims. James once noted that, from a psychological needs perspective, anything less than an infinite, religious aspiration could be seen as irrational. Yet this is exactly what modern man has mastered – imputing infinite value to finite causes. Militaries, given the dangerous nature of their work, have always been particularly skilled at this. More recently, certain sects of the scientific community have gained religious-like fervor as they increasingly view their work as nothing short of the salvation of mankind. In smaller ways, individuals pull the same conjuring trick, finding meaning and self-worth through cars, clothes, careers, and coupling. We suck these finite sources dry of whatever satisfaction they offer us and then move on to another watering hole, hoping the next might not prove so exhaustible.
What is it that makes these sources seem so finite compared to the religious though? After all, isn’t the meaning we assign to them what really matters? If I believe my military service or my teaching career is infinitely valuable in the same way a priest believes his service to God is infinitely valuable, isn’t that good enough? No says Becker. Only when we have found the resources to truly face the paradox of our existence – individuality-within-finitude, life with knowledge of death – can we hope to escape our endless wondering from one temporary source of meaning to another. Becker believes this ability to support contradiction, interpret death and suffering, and provide meaning that is immune to worldly causality is the great strength of the religious sentiment. Indeed, countless modern ideologies have recognized and tried to misappropriate this strength: transcendental idealism, Hegelian statehood, communism, fascism, scientism. Each desperately tries to provide a religious-like cause whose fulfillment would render the life of its acolyte worthy of existence.
CRITIQUES
1. Becker argues that the “self” is essentially a social construct, but then gives a characterization of man that has a heavily Western, atomistic flavor to it – one in which communities primarily exist to serve individuals and not the other way around. He claims that “the highest possible standard of health for man would be a humanistic-critical one that would help him develop as a free, self-reliant, independent being,” yet this idea of man as some sort of “truly free” individual - unencumbered with the social mores of his disposition - would seem nonsensical in many non-Western societies. Notions of radical individual freedom and self-reliance are modern creations not much older than I am.
Becker also believes democratic society is the best society because it fosters a plurality of individuals that somehow serve as a macro self-correcting mechanism in which extreme and harmful ideologies are eliminated. This is quite the claim that I can’t help but call into question. If Becker’s overarching thesis is correct, two counter possibilities have to be considered: some men simply embed themselves even deeper into finite causes, making them more – not less – radical; other men give up on heroic, fiery causes altogether, and any appearance of tolerance or large scale societal self-correction is really just apathy in disguise.
2. There is a lingering sense of naturalism in the background of Becker’s thought that he never explicitly lays bare. He hints that man is nothing more than a physiological, chemical conglomeration of organic matter accidentally forged over eons in the furnace of evolutionary processes. Whether man is simply this, or whether he is this AND something more (as the religious sentiment suggests) is not a trifling point. In fact, it is exactly this point that lead men with incredibly similar views of human psychology (Pascal and Kierkegaard on one hand, Sartre or Camus on the other) to come to such radically different conclusions on how men should live their lives and where they should look for meaning. The irony here is that Becker seems to share the secular metaphysics of a Sartre or a Camus, yet come to the religious conclusions of Pascal and Kierkegaard! I don’t know whether to fault him for incoherence or applaud him for originality.
3. Similar to his analysis in The Denial of Death, Becker builds part of his argument on the proclamations of a child psychology that I just find hard to swallow at times. As a father of three, when I read Becker’s suggestions of hands-off parenting approaches so that children can escape repression and discover the true and the beautiful for themselves, I wonder whether he ever actually raised any children.
4. Finally, the religious life is not without it’s own problems. Some readers might invoke the horrors of religion fanaticism and then accuse Becker of engineering a sophistic argument in its defense. While Becker does note that “the ideal critique of a faith must always be whether it embodies within itself the fundamental contradictions of the human paradox and yet is able to support them without fanaticism, sadism, and narcissism,” he has little else to add to this cursory defense – an unfortunate omission since the religious sentiment he proffers as the psychological elixir of life has come under increasing suspicion in modern secular culture. Something more needs to be said, lest it become too easy to dismiss Becker’s arguments out of hand.
What I think Becker might have offered had he expounded on the topic is this: violent fanaticism is not an inevitable characteristic of the religious sentiment but rather a result of people’s inability to successfully cope with their innate psychological disposition. Fanaticism has many faces, and if there is one thing the 20th century has taught us, it is that secular ideologies and regimes are just as good at meting out death and destruction as religious ones. If anything, religious violence has probably become a bit of a red herring, distracting us from more fundamental psychological issues at play. Nearly all forms of violence are failed attempts to resolve our individuality-within-finitude problem; we seek security and self-aggrandizement through the lording of physical force over others. To cover such acts with a veneer of divine warrant is perhaps little different from killing in the name of one’s country or to save mother nature. Ideologies are only symptomatic; the real pathogen is our abortive attempts to reconcile our infinite yearnings with our finite existence. So says my hypothetical Becker defense.
To close, this passage is perhaps most emblematic of Becker’s central thesis:
“Modern man is denying his finitude with the same dedication as the ancient Egyptian pharaohs, but now whole masses are playing the game, and with a far richer armamentarium of techniques. The skyscraper buildings, the cloverleaf freeways, the houses with their imposing façades and immaculate lawns—what are these if not the modern equivalent of pyramids: a face to the world that announces: “I am not ephemeral, look what went into me, what represents me, what justifies me.” The hushed hope is that someone who can do this will not die. Life in contemporary society is like an open-air lunatic asylum with people cutting and spraying their grass (to deny untidiness, hence lack of order, hence lack of control, hence their death), beating trails to the bank with little books of figures that worry them around the clock (for the same reason), ogling bulges of flesh, bent over steering wheels and screeching around corners, meticulously polishing their cars, trimming their hedges (and of course spraying them), giving out parking tickets, saluting banners of colored cloth with their hand on their heart, killing enemies, carefully counting the dead, missing, wounded, probable dead, planning production curves that will absolutely bring about the millennium in thirty-seven years (if quotas are met), filling shopping carts, emptying shopping carts, nailing up vines (and spraying them)—and all this dedicated activity takes place within a din of noise that tries to defy eternity: motorized lawn mowers, power saws, electric clipping shears, powered spray guns, huge industrial machines, jack hammers, automobiles and their tires, giant jets, electric shavers, motorized toothbrushes, dishwashers, clothes washers, dryers, vacuum cleaners. This is truly obsessive-compulsiveness on the level of the visible and the audible, so overpowering in its total effect that it seems to make of psychoanalysis a complete theory of reality. I mean that in this kind of normal cultural neurosis man’s natural animal spontaneity is almost wholly stifled: the material-technological character-lie is so ingrained in modern man, for the most part, that his natural spontaneity, his urges toward mystery, awe, and beauty show up only minimally, if at all, or in forms that are so swallowed up in culturally-standardized perceptions that they are hardly recognizable: I have, for example, seen someone in ecstasy over a new Edsel, and looks of beatitude on the faces of people contemplating a vast new stretch of concrete or a box-like new apartment building. Modern man is closed off, tightly, against dimensions of reality and perceptions of the world that would threaten or upset his standardized reactions: he will have it his way if he has to strangle the segment of reality that he has equipped himself to cope with.”
PASS THE PARADOX PLEASE
Becker begins by laying out a psychological theory of man predicated on Existentialist schools of thought (Kierkegaard) and modern psychoanalysis (Freud, Fromm, et al). Alone among the animals, man is saddled with symbols, self-consciousness, and self-esteem. He contemplates his own death and finitude while also trying to maintain his belief that he is a unique individual, imbued with some sort of intrinsic value and meaning in the face of a vast, seemingly indifferent cosmos. Becker terms this foundational psychology problem as the “individuality-within-finitude” paradox, and he believes it is the key to understanding the basic motivations and behaviors of men.
Our mechanisms to cope with this paradoxical existence are myriad. Whether we embed ourselves into higher causes of community and conscious or become obsessively controlling of each aspect of our environment, most of our actions serve as convenient distractions, diverting our eyes from our ultimate impotence against death and dissolution. Only after we have looked this despairing fate squarely in the eye can we achieve some higher level of psychological freedom and self-knowledge. Such a task is beyond most of us though; our daily thought processes are aimed more at avoiding cognitive dissonance than acknowledging the final, bleak truth of our situation.
HELP ME HEROISM
Defining culture is a tricky, nebulous task, but for Becker its function is clear: culture gives us the resources we need to cope with our individuality-within-finitude problem. The most effective vehicle culture uses to this end is structured heroism: the establishment of well-defined, commonly understood heroic roles that afford us the essential meaning and significance we need to get on with the daily chore of living. Each of us has a perpetual “newsreel” running in our heads where we project ourselves carrying out an important role in society. In antiquity, the available roles were narrow and generally clear-cut: warrior, prophet, priest, ruler, matriarch, patriarch, farmer, shepherd. All of these (even the seemingly benign latter two) were tinged with a sense of cosmic significance: nature was enchanted, and the material world’s connection to the spiritual world was palpable, bringing a sense of real import to something as innocuous as raising sheep.
The problem, according to Becker, is that current forms of heroism are becoming increasingly tenuous. For modern Westerners, nature is simply one more thing to be controlled and conquered; the tribe has dissolved into the immediate family (and, beyond that, into an amorphous association of friends and acquaintances); religion is a nonessential preference; and our available modes of work and living are so numerous as to be overwhelming. While many of the old heroic forms are still with us (television seems to have an inexhaustible supply of police, firefighter, doctor, lawyer, and teacher shows), very few of us actually fulfill these roles in daily life. Additionally, our material-technic society is becoming increasingly detached from any sense of a spiritual world and the significance it can confer on the common, seemingly weary happenings of our lives.
Where does the modern data analyst look for his heroic fulfillment? Or the delivery truck driver? Or the dental hygienist? What is heroic about having an average job, living in an average house on an average street in an average neighborhood (on the outskirts of an average city), all while consuming the average cultural entertainment and indulging in the average materialistic comforts? When faced with such a situation, how easy it is for people to either give up their quest for heroic meaning and resign themselves to an acceptance of a bland fate, or, conversely, to fanatically bury themselves in some finite cause which they try to inject with infinite meaning (sports teams, politics, investment portfolios, science).
RELIGIOUS RESILIENCE
Becker concludes his discussion by exploring the one form of heroism that he believes is both universally available and seemingly immune to the material and corporeal vicissitudes of life: the religious. Becker argues that the religious hero derives his value not simply from finite sources; rather, by connecting himself to a source whose power and purpose is conceived as infinite, the religious hero is armed with a resilience not to be found in any other type of self-conception. By finding value and meaning in this higher calling, he frees himself from the foundational self-esteem reliances other men cling to: the approval of friends and family; the size of one’s house and bank accounts; good standing within a professional community; physical beauty and sexual prowess; and countless other edifices – each of which can tumble to the ground in a completely unforeseen and uncontrollable fashion (wherein lies the lesson of Job).
It is important to note that, like William James, Becker is far more interested in the psychological function of religion than its empirical truth claims. James once noted that, from a psychological needs perspective, anything less than an infinite, religious aspiration could be seen as irrational. Yet this is exactly what modern man has mastered – imputing infinite value to finite causes. Militaries, given the dangerous nature of their work, have always been particularly skilled at this. More recently, certain sects of the scientific community have gained religious-like fervor as they increasingly view their work as nothing short of the salvation of mankind. In smaller ways, individuals pull the same conjuring trick, finding meaning and self-worth through cars, clothes, careers, and coupling. We suck these finite sources dry of whatever satisfaction they offer us and then move on to another watering hole, hoping the next might not prove so exhaustible.
What is it that makes these sources seem so finite compared to the religious though? After all, isn’t the meaning we assign to them what really matters? If I believe my military service or my teaching career is infinitely valuable in the same way a priest believes his service to God is infinitely valuable, isn’t that good enough? No says Becker. Only when we have found the resources to truly face the paradox of our existence – individuality-within-finitude, life with knowledge of death – can we hope to escape our endless wondering from one temporary source of meaning to another. Becker believes this ability to support contradiction, interpret death and suffering, and provide meaning that is immune to worldly causality is the great strength of the religious sentiment. Indeed, countless modern ideologies have recognized and tried to misappropriate this strength: transcendental idealism, Hegelian statehood, communism, fascism, scientism. Each desperately tries to provide a religious-like cause whose fulfillment would render the life of its acolyte worthy of existence.
CRITIQUES
1. Becker argues that the “self” is essentially a social construct, but then gives a characterization of man that has a heavily Western, atomistic flavor to it – one in which communities primarily exist to serve individuals and not the other way around. He claims that “the highest possible standard of health for man would be a humanistic-critical one that would help him develop as a free, self-reliant, independent being,” yet this idea of man as some sort of “truly free” individual - unencumbered with the social mores of his disposition - would seem nonsensical in many non-Western societies. Notions of radical individual freedom and self-reliance are modern creations not much older than I am.
Becker also believes democratic society is the best society because it fosters a plurality of individuals that somehow serve as a macro self-correcting mechanism in which extreme and harmful ideologies are eliminated. This is quite the claim that I can’t help but call into question. If Becker’s overarching thesis is correct, two counter possibilities have to be considered: some men simply embed themselves even deeper into finite causes, making them more – not less – radical; other men give up on heroic, fiery causes altogether, and any appearance of tolerance or large scale societal self-correction is really just apathy in disguise.
2. There is a lingering sense of naturalism in the background of Becker’s thought that he never explicitly lays bare. He hints that man is nothing more than a physiological, chemical conglomeration of organic matter accidentally forged over eons in the furnace of evolutionary processes. Whether man is simply this, or whether he is this AND something more (as the religious sentiment suggests) is not a trifling point. In fact, it is exactly this point that lead men with incredibly similar views of human psychology (Pascal and Kierkegaard on one hand, Sartre or Camus on the other) to come to such radically different conclusions on how men should live their lives and where they should look for meaning. The irony here is that Becker seems to share the secular metaphysics of a Sartre or a Camus, yet come to the religious conclusions of Pascal and Kierkegaard! I don’t know whether to fault him for incoherence or applaud him for originality.
3. Similar to his analysis in The Denial of Death, Becker builds part of his argument on the proclamations of a child psychology that I just find hard to swallow at times. As a father of three, when I read Becker’s suggestions of hands-off parenting approaches so that children can escape repression and discover the true and the beautiful for themselves, I wonder whether he ever actually raised any children.
4. Finally, the religious life is not without it’s own problems. Some readers might invoke the horrors of religion fanaticism and then accuse Becker of engineering a sophistic argument in its defense. While Becker does note that “the ideal critique of a faith must always be whether it embodies within itself the fundamental contradictions of the human paradox and yet is able to support them without fanaticism, sadism, and narcissism,” he has little else to add to this cursory defense – an unfortunate omission since the religious sentiment he proffers as the psychological elixir of life has come under increasing suspicion in modern secular culture. Something more needs to be said, lest it become too easy to dismiss Becker’s arguments out of hand.
What I think Becker might have offered had he expounded on the topic is this: violent fanaticism is not an inevitable characteristic of the religious sentiment but rather a result of people’s inability to successfully cope with their innate psychological disposition. Fanaticism has many faces, and if there is one thing the 20th century has taught us, it is that secular ideologies and regimes are just as good at meting out death and destruction as religious ones. If anything, religious violence has probably become a bit of a red herring, distracting us from more fundamental psychological issues at play. Nearly all forms of violence are failed attempts to resolve our individuality-within-finitude problem; we seek security and self-aggrandizement through the lording of physical force over others. To cover such acts with a veneer of divine warrant is perhaps little different from killing in the name of one’s country or to save mother nature. Ideologies are only symptomatic; the real pathogen is our abortive attempts to reconcile our infinite yearnings with our finite existence. So says my hypothetical Becker defense.
To close, this passage is perhaps most emblematic of Becker’s central thesis:
“Modern man is denying his finitude with the same dedication as the ancient Egyptian pharaohs, but now whole masses are playing the game, and with a far richer armamentarium of techniques. The skyscraper buildings, the cloverleaf freeways, the houses with their imposing façades and immaculate lawns—what are these if not the modern equivalent of pyramids: a face to the world that announces: “I am not ephemeral, look what went into me, what represents me, what justifies me.” The hushed hope is that someone who can do this will not die. Life in contemporary society is like an open-air lunatic asylum with people cutting and spraying their grass (to deny untidiness, hence lack of order, hence lack of control, hence their death), beating trails to the bank with little books of figures that worry them around the clock (for the same reason), ogling bulges of flesh, bent over steering wheels and screeching around corners, meticulously polishing their cars, trimming their hedges (and of course spraying them), giving out parking tickets, saluting banners of colored cloth with their hand on their heart, killing enemies, carefully counting the dead, missing, wounded, probable dead, planning production curves that will absolutely bring about the millennium in thirty-seven years (if quotas are met), filling shopping carts, emptying shopping carts, nailing up vines (and spraying them)—and all this dedicated activity takes place within a din of noise that tries to defy eternity: motorized lawn mowers, power saws, electric clipping shears, powered spray guns, huge industrial machines, jack hammers, automobiles and their tires, giant jets, electric shavers, motorized toothbrushes, dishwashers, clothes washers, dryers, vacuum cleaners. This is truly obsessive-compulsiveness on the level of the visible and the audible, so overpowering in its total effect that it seems to make of psychoanalysis a complete theory of reality. I mean that in this kind of normal cultural neurosis man’s natural animal spontaneity is almost wholly stifled: the material-technological character-lie is so ingrained in modern man, for the most part, that his natural spontaneity, his urges toward mystery, awe, and beauty show up only minimally, if at all, or in forms that are so swallowed up in culturally-standardized perceptions that they are hardly recognizable: I have, for example, seen someone in ecstasy over a new Edsel, and looks of beatitude on the faces of people contemplating a vast new stretch of concrete or a box-like new apartment building. Modern man is closed off, tightly, against dimensions of reality and perceptions of the world that would threaten or upset his standardized reactions: he will have it his way if he has to strangle the segment of reality that he has equipped himself to cope with.”
February 15, 2018
You can read texts of great literature, the novelists, the existentialists etc; to understand what is the human condition. But in my opinion, no amount of reading fictional literature can compare to what psychology and anthropology can offer on this topic, probably because they have a more systematic or 'scientific' method of inquiry.
My thoughts upon reading this book: it's a genuinely penetrating book, but don't read it; not every brilliant book has to be read. Go on living your life, performing your act in your social stage as skillfully as you can, make a meaning out of it.
My thoughts upon reading this book: it's a genuinely penetrating book, but don't read it; not every brilliant book has to be read. Go on living your life, performing your act in your social stage as skillfully as you can, make a meaning out of it.
July 22, 2015
Culture is fictional.
May 31, 2012
Quite simply one of the most important books that I have ever read - the work of an absolute genius of the very first order. To read it with an open mind and with a willingness to attend is to usher in the possibility of super-pleasure and super-thought. Buy, read. Digest. Read again. Percolate. Read again.
October 24, 2015
Read Denial of Death first. If you want more, try this.
January 27, 2021
What an absolutely remarkable book. I've always been fascinated by philosophy and psychology, and how the two intertwine - and this book is the best exploration of this concept I've ever read. Explorations of existentialism, life meaning, positioning and value within society, adherence to societal norms, and definitions of normal vs. abnormal behavior are all explored to great, and valuable extent.
I found myself marking this book up continually as I was reading, and it is by far the most "highlighted" book now in my possession.
I'm sure I will be returning to it time and time again as I continue to try to understand the human animal.
I found myself marking this book up continually as I was reading, and it is by far the most "highlighted" book now in my possession.
I'm sure I will be returning to it time and time again as I continue to try to understand the human animal.
November 19, 2022
This book will kill your ego like no other. The "newsreel" concept is still incredibly relevant today in the social networks era. It makes you understand just how much of your active thoughts stem from the ego and why.
December 2, 2024
Had to read this for an undergrad psych class. It was very interesting but I have no idea how to review it due to the amount of varied topics that were covered. Worth it if you are interested in psychological processes from someone other than Freud (yuck).
December 15, 2021
What is the self? How is it formed? How do people arrive at quite divergent types of selves? Mostly by accident, according to Becker.
Above all, Becker posits a human self that is social. The center of this social self is self-esteem and the purpose of most of our inner life is to feed and to protect this self-esteem. He is not referring to the conception of self-esteem foisted upon American schoolchildren over the last few decades. He is driving at something much deeper and very easily recognized once you read about it.
The self is formed during the socialization process of young childhood. This process can be traumatic and alienating in that it represses the individual, yet it is necessary in the world of interdependent human beings. An individual's sense of self can be formed in a dysfunctional way because of this trauma.
Culture is the medium in which the socialization takes place and its idiosyncracies heavily shape the sense of self. Becker broadly explores two basic types of cultures - religious and secular and how they affect psychology and the social world.
Becker describes the social world in a way that kept reminding me of Shakespeare's quote about the world being a stage and we are players. But our roles are not concocted. They are the best way we have to connect as an individual with other individuals. We can never truly know the inner world of another, but these roles are a language that we use as a sort of shorthand. And these roles are also the protectors of our self-esteem.
The book is a surprisingly easy read even though I didn't catch the full meaning of his redefinition of the Oedipus myth. Science has disproven parts of his theory (one example is about parenting being a root cause of autism) but at the time of his writing it seems that Freud still had a major grip on psychology and scientific studies of these subjects had not been performed yet.
This work has helped enlighten other psychology I've explored in reading and podcasts and I believe a second reading would be more illuminating. Another reading would also solidify in my mind his proposed solutions to the problem of being an individual in a species that must be social for its (and our individual) survival, as I didn't retain those very well.
This book actually caused me to recall personal memories of my self being formed that I had not thought of since childhood. So it was an interesting exploration of the self indeed.
Above all, Becker posits a human self that is social. The center of this social self is self-esteem and the purpose of most of our inner life is to feed and to protect this self-esteem. He is not referring to the conception of self-esteem foisted upon American schoolchildren over the last few decades. He is driving at something much deeper and very easily recognized once you read about it.
The self is formed during the socialization process of young childhood. This process can be traumatic and alienating in that it represses the individual, yet it is necessary in the world of interdependent human beings. An individual's sense of self can be formed in a dysfunctional way because of this trauma.
Culture is the medium in which the socialization takes place and its idiosyncracies heavily shape the sense of self. Becker broadly explores two basic types of cultures - religious and secular and how they affect psychology and the social world.
Becker describes the social world in a way that kept reminding me of Shakespeare's quote about the world being a stage and we are players. But our roles are not concocted. They are the best way we have to connect as an individual with other individuals. We can never truly know the inner world of another, but these roles are a language that we use as a sort of shorthand. And these roles are also the protectors of our self-esteem.
The book is a surprisingly easy read even though I didn't catch the full meaning of his redefinition of the Oedipus myth. Science has disproven parts of his theory (one example is about parenting being a root cause of autism) but at the time of his writing it seems that Freud still had a major grip on psychology and scientific studies of these subjects had not been performed yet.
This work has helped enlighten other psychology I've explored in reading and podcasts and I believe a second reading would be more illuminating. Another reading would also solidify in my mind his proposed solutions to the problem of being an individual in a species that must be social for its (and our individual) survival, as I didn't retain those very well.
This book actually caused me to recall personal memories of my self being formed that I had not thought of since childhood. So it was an interesting exploration of the self indeed.
December 26, 2020
I'd write a longer review but one arm is in a sling and I'm loopy from pain meds. This book is phenomenal. I could really just do a review by copying fantastic snippets from the book but I'm too lazy for that right now and it wouldn't be fair to Becker. If you have ever wondered what it means to be human, read this book. It doesn't give you all the answers, but it asks all the right questions. We're born, we die, and Beker tries to help us understand what to do in between.
October 27, 2017
Interesting (and depressing) existentialist book about how everything we do is basically meaningless. Difficult to get through
June 29, 2021
It's hard to fault a work which undertakes so successfully a synthesis of the collected thinking of psychology, sociology, anthropology, language, and religion all at once. I found myself asking over and over, "Is there more beyond this?" In the last 50 years, what revisions might be now made to Becker's thoughtful and imaginative conclusions? A combination of methodic reasoning (supported by dozens of thinkers) and diagnosis of the human hero-culture of insecurity, I find that most everything else I read is a minor exemplar of what he has already outlined. Remarkable.
November 13, 2018
One of the best books I have read in a long time. I wish I had read this book before The Denial Of Death since it would have better prepared me. Truly an amazing piece of work. Unimaginable what Becker would have accomplished had he had 20 more years on this planet. Highly recommended, no, a MUST READ.
July 25, 2021
"The Birth and Death of Meaning [by Ernest Becker] begins with evolution and progresses logically from its first page to its last. When you finish this book, you will have a much better understanding of yourself, the people in your life, historical and current events, and problems ranging from anxiety and depression to interpersonal conflict to prejudice."
January 11, 2010
Life changing.
August 11, 2012
Mind: Blown.
May 21, 2020
Blew my mind, re-wired by brain. Sent me into a 2 week depression. A must read - but be prepared to have your perspective permanently changed.
January 8, 2025
This is the problem of our most intimate lives — our friendships and our marriages — we are thrown against people who have very unique ways of deriving their self-esteem, and we never quite understand what they really want, what’s bothering them; we don’t even know what special inner -newsreel they are running. On the rare occasion that we make a break-through and communicate about these things, we are usually shocked by how finely they have sliced their perceptions of reality. Almost all of one’s inner life, when he is not absorbed in some active task, is a traffic in images of self-worth.
Really interesting perspective and some major detours from Freud in terms of what drives us. Becker believes that the dominant meaning of man is upholding his self-esteem. He talks about an inner newsreel that spins a narrative which portrays us as competent, heroic, and valuable — allowing us to believe that we matter. However this creates a sense of gap between ourselves and those around us, including our own selfhood.
The desire to have someone understand our inner dialogue is about being seen, not just for the fleeting content of our thoughts, but for the experience of being ourselves. But at the same time, there’s this meta-awareness that the "self" we wish to share is transient so this paradox aka wanting to be known yet recognizing that there’s no stable “self” to fully grasp can make connection feel both profound and elusive, thus creating a gap.
For Becker, love is one of the places where the gap becomes especially obvious. We often hope another person can help us feel whole like they’ll bridge the gap by fully understanding and validating us. But no one can ever completely fill that role because they too are struggling with their own mortality and symbolic quests.
This reminded me of the philosopher Merleau-Ponty who also talked about how perception is inherently ambiguous. When we try to fully "see" ourselves in another, there’s always something slippery. He emphasized the primacy of perception and the centrality of the body in shaping our experience of the world. For him, however, our subjective experience is not detached from the physical world at all but arises through our embodied interaction with it.
But going back to Becker, it made me think about how when we cling too tightly to an identity, it can reinforce isolation because it’s built on the belief that we are separate and unchanging. Yet when we let go of that attachment, there’s a possibility for something more expansive: to be understood not as a static "self" but as a dynamic flow of presence and becoming. Maybe what we truly seek isn’t for someone to understand every thought but to share a kind of presence where we can be, fully and fluidly, without needing to define ourselves.
Question this book made me ponder on:
It's often exhausting because we play symbolic roles with those around us but also crave authenticity behind that portrayal. How does one bridge the gap between those two?
Really interesting perspective and some major detours from Freud in terms of what drives us. Becker believes that the dominant meaning of man is upholding his self-esteem. He talks about an inner newsreel that spins a narrative which portrays us as competent, heroic, and valuable — allowing us to believe that we matter. However this creates a sense of gap between ourselves and those around us, including our own selfhood.
The desire to have someone understand our inner dialogue is about being seen, not just for the fleeting content of our thoughts, but for the experience of being ourselves. But at the same time, there’s this meta-awareness that the "self" we wish to share is transient so this paradox aka wanting to be known yet recognizing that there’s no stable “self” to fully grasp can make connection feel both profound and elusive, thus creating a gap.
For Becker, love is one of the places where the gap becomes especially obvious. We often hope another person can help us feel whole like they’ll bridge the gap by fully understanding and validating us. But no one can ever completely fill that role because they too are struggling with their own mortality and symbolic quests.
This reminded me of the philosopher Merleau-Ponty who also talked about how perception is inherently ambiguous. When we try to fully "see" ourselves in another, there’s always something slippery. He emphasized the primacy of perception and the centrality of the body in shaping our experience of the world. For him, however, our subjective experience is not detached from the physical world at all but arises through our embodied interaction with it.
But going back to Becker, it made me think about how when we cling too tightly to an identity, it can reinforce isolation because it’s built on the belief that we are separate and unchanging. Yet when we let go of that attachment, there’s a possibility for something more expansive: to be understood not as a static "self" but as a dynamic flow of presence and becoming. Maybe what we truly seek isn’t for someone to understand every thought but to share a kind of presence where we can be, fully and fluidly, without needing to define ourselves.
Question this book made me ponder on:
It's often exhausting because we play symbolic roles with those around us but also crave authenticity behind that portrayal. How does one bridge the gap between those two?
March 1, 2022
“We might say that the problem of authentic growth in a person’s life is to get rid of neurotic despair so as to come face to face with real despair, and then make a creative solution of his existence in greater freedom and full knowledge. This is the conclusion of Kierkegaard’s teaching now supported by the full weight of a mature scientific psychology.” - Becker, p. 206
Becker was one hell of a writer and thinker, one of the greatest (of both, actually), and arguably the profoundest and most important philosopher of the 20th century. He covers so much in this 199-page book (plus detailed endnotes) that I dare not try to summarize it in a review. But it’s the third book of his that I read (the other two being “The Denial of Death” and “Escape from Evil”), and he’s blown my mind once again, digging so penetratingly deep into the human psyche and unconscious, using psychology, anthropology, sociology, philosophy, and sometimes even film, to get a point across. From primate state, to tribal state and creature of symbols that accursedly has self-consciousness and realizes its own mortality, to modern-day hero-seeking man lost in the concrete wilderness of modern civilization, fragmented within himself and disconnected from his true, authentic self while not realizing it and that it is his lifelong neurosis along with the baggage of his childhood upbringing, hopelessly trying to justify his absurdly short time in a seemingly meaningless universe with no inherent purpose offered or any rationally objective cosmic roadmap to follow from cradle to grave, Becker takes you through the journey of human evolution from the prehistory of humanity to the modern-day, forlorn individual destined to die and know it. He states that “we can flatly and empirically say that everyone is neurotic, some more than others” (p. 151). Becker lays out all the ways society, culture, politics, business, materialism, religion and even dialogue between people try to give us the illusion of strength, hope, security and significance in order to appease our unconscious by assuring it that we’re more than just finite beings destined for permanent cessation. “Generally,” he says on page 33, “the more anxious and insecure we are, the more we invest in these symbolic extensions of ourselves.” This is why after I read “The Denial of Death” a little over 12 years ago, I never bothered to do a book review of it at all, despite how much I loved it, as he covered way too much in it, and my intimidation was justified.
Becker was one hell of a writer and thinker, one of the greatest (of both, actually), and arguably the profoundest and most important philosopher of the 20th century. He covers so much in this 199-page book (plus detailed endnotes) that I dare not try to summarize it in a review. But it’s the third book of his that I read (the other two being “The Denial of Death” and “Escape from Evil”), and he’s blown my mind once again, digging so penetratingly deep into the human psyche and unconscious, using psychology, anthropology, sociology, philosophy, and sometimes even film, to get a point across. From primate state, to tribal state and creature of symbols that accursedly has self-consciousness and realizes its own mortality, to modern-day hero-seeking man lost in the concrete wilderness of modern civilization, fragmented within himself and disconnected from his true, authentic self while not realizing it and that it is his lifelong neurosis along with the baggage of his childhood upbringing, hopelessly trying to justify his absurdly short time in a seemingly meaningless universe with no inherent purpose offered or any rationally objective cosmic roadmap to follow from cradle to grave, Becker takes you through the journey of human evolution from the prehistory of humanity to the modern-day, forlorn individual destined to die and know it. He states that “we can flatly and empirically say that everyone is neurotic, some more than others” (p. 151). Becker lays out all the ways society, culture, politics, business, materialism, religion and even dialogue between people try to give us the illusion of strength, hope, security and significance in order to appease our unconscious by assuring it that we’re more than just finite beings destined for permanent cessation. “Generally,” he says on page 33, “the more anxious and insecure we are, the more we invest in these symbolic extensions of ourselves.” This is why after I read “The Denial of Death” a little over 12 years ago, I never bothered to do a book review of it at all, despite how much I loved it, as he covered way too much in it, and my intimidation was justified.
September 19, 2023
Thought-provoking. This book is far from a light read and it delves deeply into complex theoretical concepts, making it challenging but rewarding journey.
The author is influenced by a range of philosophical and psychological thinkers; Freud, Kierkegaard, Adler… and provides profound insights into the development of the human psyche.
I liked the following:
“Self-esteem is the dominant motive of man”. It’s a very interesting concept saying that protecting our inner self and feeling good about who we are is the motivating factor propelling us forward in life.
“Flexibility of the self is the real power”. Basically our adaptability and lack of attachment to positions, money, power is a sign of maturity and strength. How far can we adapt to changing circumstances? That’s a measure of our power
Several chapters navigate childhood experience. The author suggests that children grow to become less of themselves as they navigate limitations and social norms. It basically encouraged me to say no less to my own child & see the world from his perspective.
The author is influenced by a range of philosophical and psychological thinkers; Freud, Kierkegaard, Adler… and provides profound insights into the development of the human psyche.
I liked the following:
“Self-esteem is the dominant motive of man”. It’s a very interesting concept saying that protecting our inner self and feeling good about who we are is the motivating factor propelling us forward in life.
“Flexibility of the self is the real power”. Basically our adaptability and lack of attachment to positions, money, power is a sign of maturity and strength. How far can we adapt to changing circumstances? That’s a measure of our power
Several chapters navigate childhood experience. The author suggests that children grow to become less of themselves as they navigate limitations and social norms. It basically encouraged me to say no less to my own child & see the world from his perspective.
July 4, 2022
In an age of behaviorism, where technical, precise writing renders science without a subject, leaves us numb from extracting the human condition from the study of the human condition, Becker writes to create an atmosphere that contains breathable oxygen.
By synthesizing insights from anthropology and psychology, Becker's thesis helps us understand how our need to defend against death terror leads to civilizations built upon totems and symbols that keep us perpetually defending against death anxiety.
In the process, we all participate in cultures that create the unnecessary evils in world as a means to create a sense of self, or meaning. Since people cannot accept their humble, insignificant place in the universe, society and its language creates an absurd hall of mirrors to keep all the loonies on the path. To do so, we must ignore our humble place in the universe. It's from this place of perpetual insecurity that humans do the most evil.
By synthesizing insights from anthropology and psychology, Becker's thesis helps us understand how our need to defend against death terror leads to civilizations built upon totems and symbols that keep us perpetually defending against death anxiety.
In the process, we all participate in cultures that create the unnecessary evils in world as a means to create a sense of self, or meaning. Since people cannot accept their humble, insignificant place in the universe, society and its language creates an absurd hall of mirrors to keep all the loonies on the path. To do so, we must ignore our humble place in the universe. It's from this place of perpetual insecurity that humans do the most evil.
January 28, 2023
تولد و مرگ معنی نوشته ارنست بکر . کتابی میان رشته ایست که به لزوم ظهور معنی و در پی آن ارتباط و شکل گیری زبان در انسان های نخستین و ماحصل آن در سیر تکامل و تمدن پرداخته .
به زعم من پیام کتاب خواه به علت وسعت میان رشته ای آن یا پراکنده گویی و عدم تمرکز نویسنده و خواه به علت کیفیت ترجمه سید مهدی ثریا آن طور که باید و شاید به مخاطب منتقل نمیشود
در قسمتی از برجسته تریم فصل های کتاب میخوانیم :
محور اصلی سازگاری خود با دیگران بر پایه پاسخ به این سوال قرار دارد که : افرادی که با آنها رو به رو خواهم شد چه جور آدم هایی هستند و علت این است که پاسداری از خود مستلزم داشتن این پاسخ است که رفتار بعدی دیگران با من چه خواهد بود؟ و داشتن پاسخ کمک میکند شخص واکنش مناسب در پیش گیرد .
این عنصر عقلانی ترس اجتماعی است که وجود هرکس از صد ها راه وابسته به در نظر گرفتن واکنش دیگران است.
از این رو و به علت پیچیدگی پیش بینی رفتار انسانی انسان ها دست به کلیشه پردازی از رفتارها و واکنش یکدیگر میزنند تا امنیت خود را حفظ کنند..
به زعم من پیام کتاب خواه به علت وسعت میان رشته ای آن یا پراکنده گویی و عدم تمرکز نویسنده و خواه به علت کیفیت ترجمه سید مهدی ثریا آن طور که باید و شاید به مخاطب منتقل نمیشود
در قسمتی از برجسته تریم فصل های کتاب میخوانیم :
محور اصلی سازگاری خود با دیگران بر پایه پاسخ به این سوال قرار دارد که : افرادی که با آنها رو به رو خواهم شد چه جور آدم هایی هستند و علت این است که پاسداری از خود مستلزم داشتن این پاسخ است که رفتار بعدی دیگران با من چه خواهد بود؟ و داشتن پاسخ کمک میکند شخص واکنش مناسب در پیش گیرد .
این عنصر عقلانی ترس اجتماعی است که وجود هرکس از صد ها راه وابسته به در نظر گرفتن واکنش دیگران است.
از این رو و به علت پیچیدگی پیش بینی رفتار انسانی انسان ها دست به کلیشه پردازی از رفتارها و واکنش یکدیگر میزنند تا امنیت خود را حفظ کنند..
January 4, 2026
This book has a lot of what I’d agree on, I like some of the perceptions on philosophy, psychology, society, but…
The author seems to be traumatized and worried exactly about the topic of the book. Likely this writing, this aim to bring together random quotes to support own assumptions, reminding me of how I was writing my bachelor thesis…; likely this writing aimed to help him finally process this issue of meaning of life. Sad it wasn’t successful.
It shows up in the little bitterness over the reality in the world. It shows up in belief in heroism while invalidating modern society values and mentioning narcissism out of context…
Man. I would tell - get out of the books, you drank too much, go sleep. It feels like gluing a lot of ideas together and trying too hard while sometimes aiming to sound poetic.
Again, some formulations were quite cool, but my overall perspective is very… confused. It doesn’t feel like a very mature writing.
The author seems to be traumatized and worried exactly about the topic of the book. Likely this writing, this aim to bring together random quotes to support own assumptions, reminding me of how I was writing my bachelor thesis…; likely this writing aimed to help him finally process this issue of meaning of life. Sad it wasn’t successful.
It shows up in the little bitterness over the reality in the world. It shows up in belief in heroism while invalidating modern society values and mentioning narcissism out of context…
Man. I would tell - get out of the books, you drank too much, go sleep. It feels like gluing a lot of ideas together and trying too hard while sometimes aiming to sound poetic.
Again, some formulations were quite cool, but my overall perspective is very… confused. It doesn’t feel like a very mature writing.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
June 12, 2018
Too a long time to finish this book. I find it helps me to integrate various ideas. The author provided a view of human (or humanity) development, learning the language (symbols) gave man the ability to put distance between immediate environment, how that formed the mind. Man being "cursed" in a way to be aware of our mortality, caught in anxieties. The effect of socialisations, and man's different ways to manage that anxieties. I think (at least in my understanding) ultimate solution is finding meaning in the spiritual level? I don't think I have fully grasp the ideas here. Will have to revisit again.
March 7, 2023
I’m reminded of The Simpsons, when a young Ned Flanders is in the psychologist’s office yanking books off the shelf. “Hey, get down from that bookshelf please, most of those books have yet to be discredited.” Such is the lot with social science publications: they often do get revised or overturned as better ideas come along. In reading this book I felt it was past its prime, leaning heavily on “primitive” man as a means of highlighting humankind’s similarities with primates or other mammals generally. A pretty gross concept if you think about it. I would hope there is more modern material available that better explains how humans construct meaning and purpose in their lives.
April 24, 2018
This book is fully the most eye-opening and uniquely fascinating book I've ever read. It's hard to write a review of it without sounding some overzealous fan, but I can't recommend this book enough. Anyone looking to understand the human condition and how we relate to each other and the world around us should read this cover to cover. Becker breaks everything down clearly and concisely and then uses those pieces to build a view of humanity that is as insightful as it is impressive. There should be a rating higher than five stars...
July 30, 2021
Denial of Death is one of my favourite books of all time, one that irrevocably changed my worldview and has left a deep mark on me. I was hoping for more of this in The Birth and Death of Meaning and was sadly underwhelmed. It is Becker still underdeveloped, although a preview of his genius comes through in chapter 11: What is Normal? I would recommend anyone interested in Becker’s thought to go straight to his final work; however, this book may serve as a better introduction to someone who is unfamiliar with or yet unconvinced by psychoanalysis.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 76 reviews