What do you think?
Rate this book
The Age of Insecurity: Coming Together as Things Fall Apart
These days, everyone feels insecure. We are financially stressed and emotionally overwhelmed. The status quo isn’t working for anyone, even those who appear to have it all. What is going on? In this urgent cultural diagnosis, author and activist Astra Taylor exposes how seemingly disparate crises―rising inequality and declining mental health, the ecological emergency, and the threat of authoritarianism―originate from a social order built on insecurity. From home ownership and education to the wellness industry and policing, many of the institutions and systems that promise to make us more secure actually undermine us. Mixing social critique, memoir, history, political analysis, and philosophy, this genre-bending book rethinks both insecurity and security from the ground up. By facing our existential insecurity and embracing our vulnerability, Taylor argues, we can begin to develop more caring, inclusive, and sustainable forms of security to help us better weather the challenges ahead. The Age of Insecurity will transform how you understand yourself and society―while illuminating a path toward meaningful change.
352 pages, Paperback
First published September 5, 2023
123 people are currently reading
2363 people want to read
About the author
Astra Taylor
24 books206 followersAstra Taylor is a writer, documentary filmmaker, and activist. Her films include Examined Life, and her books include The People’s Platform.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 53 reviews
January 24, 2024
A m a z i n g. If I haven’t already recommended this book to you, this is my official plea to grab a copy or borrow from me.
April 26, 2025
Oh boy, I don’t know if this was the best time or worst time to read The Age of Insecurity. It was certainly A Time. Written just prior to Donald Trump’s second term as President of the United States, Astra Taylor’s Massey Lectures for 2023 nevertheless capture the zeitgeist of the 2020s with uncomfortable clarity and, dare I say, prescience. This book is not a salve for our age, alas, but it might be a good treatment nonetheless.
Taylor’s lectures, organized as always into five chapters or nights of lecturing, focus as the title implies on the topic of insecurity. Specifically, she believes that insecurity is one of the primary tools capitalism uses to keep workers beholden to the powerful. So much of what drives our economy and our efforts is the fear of insecurity—a fear shared by the rich, Taylor points out, as well as the poor.
This book took me a while to read. In part that’s just because it is dense, well referenced, well argued. In part because I needed frequent breaks, for the topics Taylor covers are not easy. I am a fairly secure, middle class, privileged white woman here in Canada. I have a good union job, benefits, a pension. Yet Taylor describes my condition exactly in these pages. She seizes upon the fear I experience, along with the rest of the middle class: the fear of falling. The fear of our quality of life decreasing, of a reduction of station. The precarity we feel is the insecurity, she argues, that drives our fears of socialism, fears of helping people more marginalized than ourselves.
Taylor weaves an insightful and interesting history lesson throughout each chapter. From there, she actually gives prescriptions on what she thinks we can do. Always, her advice centres on organizing. The power of collective action. This, I think, is what makes this book so redeeming despite its fairly bleak outlook at the big picture: Taylor is not beaten down, and she isn’t suggesting we accept defeat.
I’m not sure who the audience for this book is. Maybe it’s me prepandemic? I think the past year or so have honestly woken a lot of people to the issues Taylor covers here, though I guess that the connective tissue of her exposition and history lessons helps too.
If I have a criticism, it’s simply that, like most of the Massey Lectures, this one opts for breadth over depth. Taylor touches on so many issues: Indigenous land defence and sovereignty, insurance and subprime loans, housing, food, etc. She does a great job showing us how everything is connected, yet at the same time, I suspect most people will need additional texts to truly grasp most of the issues she mentions here. The Age of Insecurity is an intriguing starting point yet far from an endpoint.
Not the greatest Massey Lecture I have ever read but certainly one of the most urgent, most topical entries. Well done.
Originally posted on Kara.Reviews.
Taylor’s lectures, organized as always into five chapters or nights of lecturing, focus as the title implies on the topic of insecurity. Specifically, she believes that insecurity is one of the primary tools capitalism uses to keep workers beholden to the powerful. So much of what drives our economy and our efforts is the fear of insecurity—a fear shared by the rich, Taylor points out, as well as the poor.
This book took me a while to read. In part that’s just because it is dense, well referenced, well argued. In part because I needed frequent breaks, for the topics Taylor covers are not easy. I am a fairly secure, middle class, privileged white woman here in Canada. I have a good union job, benefits, a pension. Yet Taylor describes my condition exactly in these pages. She seizes upon the fear I experience, along with the rest of the middle class: the fear of falling. The fear of our quality of life decreasing, of a reduction of station. The precarity we feel is the insecurity, she argues, that drives our fears of socialism, fears of helping people more marginalized than ourselves.
Taylor weaves an insightful and interesting history lesson throughout each chapter. From there, she actually gives prescriptions on what she thinks we can do. Always, her advice centres on organizing. The power of collective action. This, I think, is what makes this book so redeeming despite its fairly bleak outlook at the big picture: Taylor is not beaten down, and she isn’t suggesting we accept defeat.
I’m not sure who the audience for this book is. Maybe it’s me prepandemic? I think the past year or so have honestly woken a lot of people to the issues Taylor covers here, though I guess that the connective tissue of her exposition and history lessons helps too.
If I have a criticism, it’s simply that, like most of the Massey Lectures, this one opts for breadth over depth. Taylor touches on so many issues: Indigenous land defence and sovereignty, insurance and subprime loans, housing, food, etc. She does a great job showing us how everything is connected, yet at the same time, I suspect most people will need additional texts to truly grasp most of the issues she mentions here. The Age of Insecurity is an intriguing starting point yet far from an endpoint.
Not the greatest Massey Lecture I have ever read but certainly one of the most urgent, most topical entries. Well done.
Originally posted on Kara.Reviews.
April 2, 2024
3.5 rounded up to 4.
It's a mostly solid book looking at the implications of rising uncertainty across many domains, and how we might help people be secure so that we can pursue worthwhile collective ends, like climate stability and democracy.
There are some gaps I wasn't able to look past:
1. She introduces the book with two kinds of insecurity: existential (being a mortal in a vulnerable physical body) and manufactured (income insecurity and other kinds of policies that keep people feeling off balance, or unable to meet their material needs in a predictable way). This is true, and a good distinction. The problem is that the first kind is then ignored unless it's rhetorically convenient (I noticed this because it was the kind of insecurity I was most interested in), and in between those times, it's treated as if resolving manufactured insecurity was a) possible and b) would also resolve existential insecurity. As if, in other words, it is possible for people to truly be fundamentally safe and secure.
2. She wants us to consider ourselves commoners rather than barons, and pursue the kinds of policies that benefit commoners. But, while Canadians/westerners are largely commoners within the borders of their own countries, globally, we are barons; and I think some of the disconnects Taylor writes about result from a split class consciousness where we know what we would risk losing if we expanded the policies she's talking about beyond our national borders. Don't get me wrong -- we should expand them. This equality should be global. But I think the reason people see themselves as barons isn't just a false consciousness, it's looking at the work and income and social support options in non-industrialized nations and feeling scared.
Otherwise it's well-written and solidly argued. I'd recommend both the book and the largely identical Massey lectures it was based on, available online or via podcast from CBC.
It's a mostly solid book looking at the implications of rising uncertainty across many domains, and how we might help people be secure so that we can pursue worthwhile collective ends, like climate stability and democracy.
There are some gaps I wasn't able to look past:
1. She introduces the book with two kinds of insecurity: existential (being a mortal in a vulnerable physical body) and manufactured (income insecurity and other kinds of policies that keep people feeling off balance, or unable to meet their material needs in a predictable way). This is true, and a good distinction. The problem is that the first kind is then ignored unless it's rhetorically convenient (I noticed this because it was the kind of insecurity I was most interested in), and in between those times, it's treated as if resolving manufactured insecurity was a) possible and b) would also resolve existential insecurity. As if, in other words, it is possible for people to truly be fundamentally safe and secure.
2. She wants us to consider ourselves commoners rather than barons, and pursue the kinds of policies that benefit commoners. But, while Canadians/westerners are largely commoners within the borders of their own countries, globally, we are barons; and I think some of the disconnects Taylor writes about result from a split class consciousness where we know what we would risk losing if we expanded the policies she's talking about beyond our national borders. Don't get me wrong -- we should expand them. This equality should be global. But I think the reason people see themselves as barons isn't just a false consciousness, it's looking at the work and income and social support options in non-industrialized nations and feeling scared.
Otherwise it's well-written and solidly argued. I'd recommend both the book and the largely identical Massey lectures it was based on, available online or via podcast from CBC.
January 2, 2024
A really good account of how manufactured insecurity keeps the working class subdued and powerless and the wealthy unhappy in their positions. This, starting from the privatization of land in the 17th century where the commons was transferred to private ownership up to the removal of collective rights (unions) and the usage of debt to keep individuals powerless and insecure. She gives some great examples of how insecurity shows itself in many areas of our modern day lives and how relieving this would make us happier and more empathetic towards others. I also really enjoyed how the author used examples of Canadian politics since most of the books I read are very US centric in their examples. Very much recommend!
Read
April 8, 2025a highly interesting book with pretty illuminating and wide-ranging analysis. This book positions the concept of insecurity as a central historical and economic determinant in human society. To varying degrees, we are all either affected by the concept of insecurity, this book points out that the materially indigent are afflicted by it in daily life, the wealthy are acquainted with it. In its forms of food insecurity, housing insecurity, health insecurity, job insecurity, environmental insecurity, and overwhelming existential insecurity, it has been brought to the forefront of our minds' considerations that in either the present or the future, we can fail to have food on the table, or a residence to sleep in, or lose our livelihood, or be reduced to penury by health or disability issues, or live in a collapsing planet. The calculus of insecurity shapes the choices of our lives as we shore up, each in our own way, securities against the portentous existential risks.
The chief point of the book is this: we have two pathways of responses to insecurity. We can either focus on individualist striving, aiming for safe refuge through capitalist accumulation, or we can aim for safety through the bulwark of community, or communal solidarity through a strengthened welfare state. Among many points, the author argues that the first pathway of response offers illusory safety, pointing out that accumulated investment portfolios can collapse, pensions can wither, house properties can sink in value, retirements can vanish, health costs can lead to rising debts, siloes may not succeed in protection or insulation from a warming world. Instead, she argues for the second pathway, one that offers public health care, universalized education, mutual help.
The author also reframes history through the lens of insecurity. She posits that 'manufactured insecurity' was not an organic development, rather it arose in the beginnings of capitalism in England, when previously common and accessible land, such as forests and meadows, were enclosed by royal decrees and ducal handouts to be private property that's reserved for royalty (or nobility). In such a snap decision, ordinary people were transformed from 'commoners' -- peasants who could subsist as a last respite through foraging and hunting in free lands-- to 'wage-earners'-- ones who must deserve their existence through the earning of survival off the labors of their backs, lest they be launched to the pits of desperation and starvation of a new condition, 'pauperism'.
The author points out that this trend towards insecurity has been part of the human condition ever since, as 'negative rights' or rights of protection, such as protection of privately accumulated property from threats, have been ascendant, while 'positive rights' or rights of support for security or liberty have been forgotten. For example, she points out that the Reaganite and Thatcherite administrations coopted the counterculture era's values of individual freedom to mean freedom in the marketplace, while taking away baseline supports against insecurity, such as subsidized or free university education.
The condition of insecurity has been transformative. People now take degrees to jumpstart practical careers and economic protections, not primarily to expand their minds. People challenge unfair or health-threatening job conditions less when the insecurity of losing their roles exists permanently. Insecurity itself partly fuels the economic engine-- ads on social media and traditional platforms brew the idea that purchasing and consumption can complete us, and engender unhealthy insecurities about physical appearance among young and old alike. Even more generally on the societal and individual level, our morals or norms or ethical behaviors are defined by insecurity. People and societies afflicted by insecurity-- a scarcity mindset or awareness of an economic downturn-- are more likely, as this book points out, to lose tolerance and generosity, to be more authoritarian, and persecutory towards minorities. And of course, insecurity is not just a historical relic of a force-- it has even more power to warp our future destinies, as a warming world with tapering resources can either descend as the author says to dystopian destabilization and division, or globalized communitarianism and cooperation.
Whether this book is convincing in its entirety to its readers or not, it definitely provides a lot of food for thought and subjects for discussion.
The chief point of the book is this: we have two pathways of responses to insecurity. We can either focus on individualist striving, aiming for safe refuge through capitalist accumulation, or we can aim for safety through the bulwark of community, or communal solidarity through a strengthened welfare state. Among many points, the author argues that the first pathway of response offers illusory safety, pointing out that accumulated investment portfolios can collapse, pensions can wither, house properties can sink in value, retirements can vanish, health costs can lead to rising debts, siloes may not succeed in protection or insulation from a warming world. Instead, she argues for the second pathway, one that offers public health care, universalized education, mutual help.
The author also reframes history through the lens of insecurity. She posits that 'manufactured insecurity' was not an organic development, rather it arose in the beginnings of capitalism in England, when previously common and accessible land, such as forests and meadows, were enclosed by royal decrees and ducal handouts to be private property that's reserved for royalty (or nobility). In such a snap decision, ordinary people were transformed from 'commoners' -- peasants who could subsist as a last respite through foraging and hunting in free lands-- to 'wage-earners'-- ones who must deserve their existence through the earning of survival off the labors of their backs, lest they be launched to the pits of desperation and starvation of a new condition, 'pauperism'.
The author points out that this trend towards insecurity has been part of the human condition ever since, as 'negative rights' or rights of protection, such as protection of privately accumulated property from threats, have been ascendant, while 'positive rights' or rights of support for security or liberty have been forgotten. For example, she points out that the Reaganite and Thatcherite administrations coopted the counterculture era's values of individual freedom to mean freedom in the marketplace, while taking away baseline supports against insecurity, such as subsidized or free university education.
The condition of insecurity has been transformative. People now take degrees to jumpstart practical careers and economic protections, not primarily to expand their minds. People challenge unfair or health-threatening job conditions less when the insecurity of losing their roles exists permanently. Insecurity itself partly fuels the economic engine-- ads on social media and traditional platforms brew the idea that purchasing and consumption can complete us, and engender unhealthy insecurities about physical appearance among young and old alike. Even more generally on the societal and individual level, our morals or norms or ethical behaviors are defined by insecurity. People and societies afflicted by insecurity-- a scarcity mindset or awareness of an economic downturn-- are more likely, as this book points out, to lose tolerance and generosity, to be more authoritarian, and persecutory towards minorities. And of course, insecurity is not just a historical relic of a force-- it has even more power to warp our future destinies, as a warming world with tapering resources can either descend as the author says to dystopian destabilization and division, or globalized communitarianism and cooperation.
Whether this book is convincing in its entirety to its readers or not, it definitely provides a lot of food for thought and subjects for discussion.
March 26, 2024
I think this an awesome book, the concept of manufactured insecurity and it's role in capitalism is an important subject. Everyone should read this.
December 19, 2023
The first two sections of this book were really strong and I questioned and learned a lot. I liked reframing our current economic age in terms of security and insecurity. I thought it was really insightful that everyone, no matter what your economic and social status in life is, grapples with insecurity and that we're all acting from some sort of insecurity. Astra Taylor talks about existential insecurity (part of human nature) and manufactured insecurity (capitalism). I read some chapters twice because there was a lot to unpack.
February 13, 2025
holy wow. in these horrible scary political/cultural/economic times, this book somehow faces our shared troubles while also feeling like a hug. with a primary call to action rooted in caring for others and combatting oppressive capitalist powers, taylor beautifully illustrates compounding factors of insecurity and how we might shift our collective perspective to fight back.
put-aside
January 1, 2024I've liked what I've read so far, but I don't have the brain for it right now.
December 29, 2023
A must read!
August 23, 2025
“Roosevelt insisted that treating risk as a commons, instead of privatizing it, would make everyone safer and better off in the end. “There can be no security for the individual”, he said, “in the midst of general insecurity””.
“The more we can understand the nature of insecurity - the systems that manufacture it for power and profit, and the existential forms of insecurity that shape us - the more capable of forging solidarity and caring for each other we will be.”
““Along with the carrot of pecuniary reward must go the stick of personal economic disaster, “ Galbraith observed. Manufactured insecurity reflects a cynical theory of human motivation, one that says people will work only under the threat of duress, not from an intrinsic desire to create, collaborate, and care for one another.”
==
Wasn’t on my list, got it as a gift. Was pleasantly surprised tbh. I had low expectations given the book’s general lack of recognition and bc my first interaction w Astra Taylor was that ridiculous doc she made 20 years ago, The Examined Life, which seemed to be nothing more than getting grant money from the Canadian government to go hang out in New York City for a summer chatting with public intellectuals - musta been nice lol.
GOOD
The point of the book is to frame familiar political problems (positive vs. negative liberty, small vs. large state, tight vs loose labour market, low vs. high interest rates, etc.) and events (2008 Financial Crisis, Climate Change, etc.) through the lens of “personal security”, which is an interesting and original lens. She does a decent job of intellectual history, drawing through lines from what the Ancients had to say about “insecurity” all the way through Medieval, Renaissance and Enlightenment thinkers to the present day. Her love of etymology and desire to draw conceptual points out of it is cute.
At the very least one picks up some original factoids, e.g. Jack Welch’s insane, candid comments about annual workforce reductions regardless of downturn just to keep workers hungry and scared, as well as Yellen and Greenspan’s dehumanizing remarks about wage suppression. As a history dork I enjoyed learning about the ‘forgotten’ history of the Magna Carta (being its sister document the "Charter of the Forest", a collectivist legal instrument benefitting commoners as opposed to the negative liberty rights achieved for the barons through the MC). Definitely makes you rethink the barons, who are generally presented to high school students as heroic constitutionalists. Actually, they were more like private equity dickheads.
In a similar vein, I really enjoyed reading Elinor Ostrom’s takedown of the Tragedy of the Commons myth. Surprised to not have heard it before, as someone who with a more than passing interest in this stuff (for example, Rutger Bregman’s book on human nature and communalism was widely publicized and he popped up everywhere to talk about it; why wasn’t Ostrom hailed like Piketty when she won her Nobel in Economics?)
The stretch getting into Kafka’s day job was awesome. I had known he was some civil servant/bureaucrat, but getting more detail about the nature of his work and his own expressed, non-fic opinions on it was very cool and interesting. “Instead of assaulting the company and destroying everything, they submit petitions!” indeed.
The strongest chapters were definitely those on Housing and Debt, though even those were less than comprehensive takes (she only indirectly takes on the most common right-wing housing canard - that supply can’t be built without bribing the private sector - which has been disproven by studies she could have cited). The final chapter on debt had a clear thesis, interesting little-known histories and facts, and nice exposure of ridiculous modern injustices.
BAD
Honestly for stretches it just reads like a fairly surface-level ‘right wing things are bad’ screed, and an unremarkable one at that. The book sometimes loses focus and lapses into eye-roll inducing, superficial leftist dogma (ironically, given the author’s expressed distaste for dogma). It’s a shame because “insecurity” is an interesting lens to view politics and reform, if one retains the capacity to do it objectively. For instance, it might have been interesting to explore the state coercion that emerged in many countries where communitarian politics were taken the furthest, and how insecure that coercion made many people feel. Any good lefty will have counters to those ‘bad apple’ examples, but she mostly skirts the issue absent a single (token?) page, which is lazy.
Taylor doesn’t really address the growth issue either - she complains about underinvestment in Canadian health care, but doesn’t address common and obvious Conservative retort that health care spending already makes up by far the largest share of provincial budgets. So what do we do exactly? Bump the corporate tax rate a point to pull in a couple extra hundred million bucks and invest that in healthcare? And when the Cons respond that that will chase away FDI, leaving even fewer dollars to invest in healthcare, how do we respond to that? Omitted details like these show the limitations her ‘enclosures vs. commons’ frame.
There is, unsurprisingly, the typical uncritical reverence for indigenous traditions so common among white progs of Taylor's generation. Why is it exactly that murdering animals and rival tribes, and chopping down trees to build canoes and longhouses, counts as showing “respect” for the land, but industrial strip mining doesn’t? I guess it has something to do with “sustainability” (just don’t tell that to the individual dead trees and animals). That might have been interesting to interrogate.
Applying Indigenous law to the modern world is complex and challenging, and Canada, because of its constitutional commitments, is in desperate need of some middle ground, some framework between the starry-eyed hippy-dippy stuff and the scoffing indifference of capitalists and industrialists. You won’t find it here unfortunately.
Another example of uncritical Millennial prog groupthink is that she locates the “woke bashers” (p. 145; 289) as the enemies of “curiosity”, which is just beyond delusional. I guess she missed Murray-Middlebury 2017, Weinstein-Evergreen 2017, Christakis-Yale 2015, the academy’s retort to the 1612 Project, all the gross thuggish stuff documented by FIRE, etc. etc. The idea that young progressives are, on the whole, “curious” rather than propagandistic, intolerant, and violently self-righteous, is laughable.
There is similar uncritical support for defund the police, without much interest in the polling data demonstrating huge majority opposition to that policy among Blacks, specifically because they feel insecure about the violent crime committed against them in their communities by members of their communities, not by the rich. One could argue that these crimes are being committed due to insecurity, and that capitalism creates and maintains the conditions for such crime. But that would require wading into criminology, which Taylor doesn’t bother to do. She doesn’t seem very interested in the short-term needs of communities, preferring instead to focus solely on the big picture, long-term solutions to problems. That’s a problem, because if you can’t bridge from the former to the latter, you’ll find movement-building to be difficult, at least in the formal politics realm.
Sometimes the “insecurity” frame is stretched beyond credibility. For example, the residential schools scandal had more to do with racism and a lack of accountability through decentralized implementation than the “defensive settler security” she alleges - this is pretty clear if you read the statements of its architects, McDonald and Ryerson, and when you consider the complete military domination and displacement of Indigenous people by the time the schools got off the ground).
There is occasional self contradiction - e.g. ‘don’t blame the rich they are just part of the system, and are conditioned by the system' - but then she expresses clear ire for the personalities and decision making of Zuckerberg, Musk, etc. Which is it, then?
There is a weird turn to the personal/autobiographical halfway through, which is not always obviously relevant to the central thesis, and so the book reads more like a memoir all of a sudden.
Finally, it suffers from repetition and could have used better editing. For instance, the reader is unlikely to forget that Astra Taylor “founded the Debt Collective, a union for debtors”, mainly because she found about four hundred opportunities to remind us of that fact.
--
Ultimately, a breezy read, a progressive manifesto of sorts that somehow avoids being overly confrontational despite being firmly positioned. Probably make a great gift for a parent or relative who is not overly political, or hell, maybe even a conservative uncle.
“The more we can understand the nature of insecurity - the systems that manufacture it for power and profit, and the existential forms of insecurity that shape us - the more capable of forging solidarity and caring for each other we will be.”
““Along with the carrot of pecuniary reward must go the stick of personal economic disaster, “ Galbraith observed. Manufactured insecurity reflects a cynical theory of human motivation, one that says people will work only under the threat of duress, not from an intrinsic desire to create, collaborate, and care for one another.”
==
Wasn’t on my list, got it as a gift. Was pleasantly surprised tbh. I had low expectations given the book’s general lack of recognition and bc my first interaction w Astra Taylor was that ridiculous doc she made 20 years ago, The Examined Life, which seemed to be nothing more than getting grant money from the Canadian government to go hang out in New York City for a summer chatting with public intellectuals - musta been nice lol.
GOOD
The point of the book is to frame familiar political problems (positive vs. negative liberty, small vs. large state, tight vs loose labour market, low vs. high interest rates, etc.) and events (2008 Financial Crisis, Climate Change, etc.) through the lens of “personal security”, which is an interesting and original lens. She does a decent job of intellectual history, drawing through lines from what the Ancients had to say about “insecurity” all the way through Medieval, Renaissance and Enlightenment thinkers to the present day. Her love of etymology and desire to draw conceptual points out of it is cute.
At the very least one picks up some original factoids, e.g. Jack Welch’s insane, candid comments about annual workforce reductions regardless of downturn just to keep workers hungry and scared, as well as Yellen and Greenspan’s dehumanizing remarks about wage suppression. As a history dork I enjoyed learning about the ‘forgotten’ history of the Magna Carta (being its sister document the "Charter of the Forest", a collectivist legal instrument benefitting commoners as opposed to the negative liberty rights achieved for the barons through the MC). Definitely makes you rethink the barons, who are generally presented to high school students as heroic constitutionalists. Actually, they were more like private equity dickheads.
In a similar vein, I really enjoyed reading Elinor Ostrom’s takedown of the Tragedy of the Commons myth. Surprised to not have heard it before, as someone who with a more than passing interest in this stuff (for example, Rutger Bregman’s book on human nature and communalism was widely publicized and he popped up everywhere to talk about it; why wasn’t Ostrom hailed like Piketty when she won her Nobel in Economics?)
The stretch getting into Kafka’s day job was awesome. I had known he was some civil servant/bureaucrat, but getting more detail about the nature of his work and his own expressed, non-fic opinions on it was very cool and interesting. “Instead of assaulting the company and destroying everything, they submit petitions!” indeed.
The strongest chapters were definitely those on Housing and Debt, though even those were less than comprehensive takes (she only indirectly takes on the most common right-wing housing canard - that supply can’t be built without bribing the private sector - which has been disproven by studies she could have cited). The final chapter on debt had a clear thesis, interesting little-known histories and facts, and nice exposure of ridiculous modern injustices.
BAD
Honestly for stretches it just reads like a fairly surface-level ‘right wing things are bad’ screed, and an unremarkable one at that. The book sometimes loses focus and lapses into eye-roll inducing, superficial leftist dogma (ironically, given the author’s expressed distaste for dogma). It’s a shame because “insecurity” is an interesting lens to view politics and reform, if one retains the capacity to do it objectively. For instance, it might have been interesting to explore the state coercion that emerged in many countries where communitarian politics were taken the furthest, and how insecure that coercion made many people feel. Any good lefty will have counters to those ‘bad apple’ examples, but she mostly skirts the issue absent a single (token?) page, which is lazy.
Taylor doesn’t really address the growth issue either - she complains about underinvestment in Canadian health care, but doesn’t address common and obvious Conservative retort that health care spending already makes up by far the largest share of provincial budgets. So what do we do exactly? Bump the corporate tax rate a point to pull in a couple extra hundred million bucks and invest that in healthcare? And when the Cons respond that that will chase away FDI, leaving even fewer dollars to invest in healthcare, how do we respond to that? Omitted details like these show the limitations her ‘enclosures vs. commons’ frame.
There is, unsurprisingly, the typical uncritical reverence for indigenous traditions so common among white progs of Taylor's generation. Why is it exactly that murdering animals and rival tribes, and chopping down trees to build canoes and longhouses, counts as showing “respect” for the land, but industrial strip mining doesn’t? I guess it has something to do with “sustainability” (just don’t tell that to the individual dead trees and animals). That might have been interesting to interrogate.
Applying Indigenous law to the modern world is complex and challenging, and Canada, because of its constitutional commitments, is in desperate need of some middle ground, some framework between the starry-eyed hippy-dippy stuff and the scoffing indifference of capitalists and industrialists. You won’t find it here unfortunately.
Another example of uncritical Millennial prog groupthink is that she locates the “woke bashers” (p. 145; 289) as the enemies of “curiosity”, which is just beyond delusional. I guess she missed Murray-Middlebury 2017, Weinstein-Evergreen 2017, Christakis-Yale 2015, the academy’s retort to the 1612 Project, all the gross thuggish stuff documented by FIRE, etc. etc. The idea that young progressives are, on the whole, “curious” rather than propagandistic, intolerant, and violently self-righteous, is laughable.
There is similar uncritical support for defund the police, without much interest in the polling data demonstrating huge majority opposition to that policy among Blacks, specifically because they feel insecure about the violent crime committed against them in their communities by members of their communities, not by the rich. One could argue that these crimes are being committed due to insecurity, and that capitalism creates and maintains the conditions for such crime. But that would require wading into criminology, which Taylor doesn’t bother to do. She doesn’t seem very interested in the short-term needs of communities, preferring instead to focus solely on the big picture, long-term solutions to problems. That’s a problem, because if you can’t bridge from the former to the latter, you’ll find movement-building to be difficult, at least in the formal politics realm.
Sometimes the “insecurity” frame is stretched beyond credibility. For example, the residential schools scandal had more to do with racism and a lack of accountability through decentralized implementation than the “defensive settler security” she alleges - this is pretty clear if you read the statements of its architects, McDonald and Ryerson, and when you consider the complete military domination and displacement of Indigenous people by the time the schools got off the ground).
There is occasional self contradiction - e.g. ‘don’t blame the rich they are just part of the system, and are conditioned by the system' - but then she expresses clear ire for the personalities and decision making of Zuckerberg, Musk, etc. Which is it, then?
There is a weird turn to the personal/autobiographical halfway through, which is not always obviously relevant to the central thesis, and so the book reads more like a memoir all of a sudden.
Finally, it suffers from repetition and could have used better editing. For instance, the reader is unlikely to forget that Astra Taylor “founded the Debt Collective, a union for debtors”, mainly because she found about four hundred opportunities to remind us of that fact.
--
Ultimately, a breezy read, a progressive manifesto of sorts that somehow avoids being overly confrontational despite being firmly positioned. Probably make a great gift for a parent or relative who is not overly political, or hell, maybe even a conservative uncle.
September 13, 2023
Some things in life are so familiar to us that they seem inevitable, even natural. That’s probably how you feel about the idea that, to secure life’s basic necessities, you must spend the majority of your waking moments “earning a wage” from your “employer,” a legal entity that works as hard as it can to ensure that it has no social or ethical responsibilities to you whatsoever, beyond paying your wage. You might even think that if you question this arrangement, that this means that you are “lazy,” “unproductive,” even morally corrupt. You couldn’t really be blamed for this, as it’s been beaten into your head your entire life.
If that’s the case, then Canadian-American writer, filmmaker, and activist Astra Taylor’s latest book, The Age of Insecurity: Coming Together as Things Fall Apart, will make you question all of these dubious assumptions and more. It turns out that there is nothing “natural”—or even preferable—about living in an environment of cutthroat capitalism.
Taylor’s key idea is that modern capitalism relies on what she refers to as “manufactured insecurity,” which is not a side effect of capitalism, but rather a core feature. Capitalism, by nature, requires unrelenting growth, which relies on consumption, which itself depends on a thriving public relations and advertising industry that has to convince us that what we have, regardless of how much we have, is never enough. It’s all very calculated, with one goal in mind—ever-increasing profits. If the environment, consumer safety, or worker rights get in the way, to hell with them.
Now, to be honest, if the output of all this capitalist production was more evenly distributed, this would be less of a problem (except for environmental concerns). If we all were, for example, more or less guaranteed affordable housing, a basic income, and access to education and healthcare, then capitalism in general would be easier to swallow, maybe even preferred (see Scandinavian social democracy).
However, this is unequivocally not what happens, especially in the US, as Taylor so painstakingly documents. While we actually have enough economic output to go around, people are still financially ruined by our healthcare system when they get a cancer diagnosis, or are otherwise buried in ridiculous levels of debt from a college education or even from purchasing a modest family home.
Inequality itself has truly become absurd. As Taylor writes, “Inequality is, indeed, out of control, with ten billionaire men possessing six times more wealth than the poorest three billion people on earth.” And yet many of us just shrug this off.
The reason things have gotten so bad in the US, as Taylor correctly points out, is that we obsess over negative rights—or the freedom from tyrannical government rule—at the total exclusion of positive rights—or the rights to government-ensured affordable housing, education, and healthcare. We consistently conflate totalitarian rule with government-provided benefits.
But as the anthropologist David Graeber said, “The ultimate, hidden truth of the world is that it is something that we make, and could just as easily make differently.” Things, in other words, could be better, and we need look no further than across the Atlantic for examples. Scandinavian countries, for instance, are both capitalist and have governments that support positive rights, reducing insecurity across the board and resulting in a happier, more productive population.
Finland, for example, is a great model for the reduction of homelessness. As Taylor writes:
“In Finland, where housing is constitutionally guaranteed, 16 percent of homes are social housing, and over a quarter of new construction is supposed to fit into that category….These policies have made Finland the only country in the European Union with falling homelessness rates.”
The fact is, there are solutions to our major social problems; the issue, of course, is that the market won’t provide them, as big business has no interest in addressing them. Reducing homelessness simply doesn’t fit into the invest-produce-consume cycle that maximizes profits for the already wealthy. Why build affordable housing when you can build more profitable luxury housing serving as second homes for the rich? Housing obviously requires a public solution, as Finland demonstrates.
Taylor provides countless additional examples of how we might fix healthcare, education, and more, to create a more secure society, which, after all, is truly better for everyone. Well, except for the billionaires, who do stand to lose some of their money and power. But I wouldn’t lose too much sleep over that.
I suppose the counter-argument is that, if you create too much security, productivity and the incentive to work disappears. If everything is handed to me, why would I exert any effort at all? The inherent risk associated with destitution spurs creativity, innovation, and productivity.
This argument, however, has always struck me as manifestly absurd and unnecessarily cynical. The idea that people only work when forced to is actually inconsistent with human nature; the reality is that when people are more secure—when they don’t have to live paycheck-to-paycheck, forgo necessary medical care, and work to fill a landlord’s pockets—they become more curious, confident, and productive. Consistent with Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, once people are liberated from the bottom rungs of material necessity, they can then properly address concerns of self-actualization. But this isn’t going to happen when almost the entirety of your McDonald’s paycheck is going to your landlord—who just raised rent for the third time this year because there are no regulations stopping him from doing so. (When will we realize that housing is not a commodity but a right?!)
Overall, this book is effective in that it brings political attention back to economic concerns, where the left ultimately thrives. If we start to think in terms of reducing insecurity, we can see that economically progressive reforms—which have already been implemented successfully elsewhere in the world—are the way forward, if we want to get out of this polarized mess.
If that’s the case, then Canadian-American writer, filmmaker, and activist Astra Taylor’s latest book, The Age of Insecurity: Coming Together as Things Fall Apart, will make you question all of these dubious assumptions and more. It turns out that there is nothing “natural”—or even preferable—about living in an environment of cutthroat capitalism.
Taylor’s key idea is that modern capitalism relies on what she refers to as “manufactured insecurity,” which is not a side effect of capitalism, but rather a core feature. Capitalism, by nature, requires unrelenting growth, which relies on consumption, which itself depends on a thriving public relations and advertising industry that has to convince us that what we have, regardless of how much we have, is never enough. It’s all very calculated, with one goal in mind—ever-increasing profits. If the environment, consumer safety, or worker rights get in the way, to hell with them.
Now, to be honest, if the output of all this capitalist production was more evenly distributed, this would be less of a problem (except for environmental concerns). If we all were, for example, more or less guaranteed affordable housing, a basic income, and access to education and healthcare, then capitalism in general would be easier to swallow, maybe even preferred (see Scandinavian social democracy).
However, this is unequivocally not what happens, especially in the US, as Taylor so painstakingly documents. While we actually have enough economic output to go around, people are still financially ruined by our healthcare system when they get a cancer diagnosis, or are otherwise buried in ridiculous levels of debt from a college education or even from purchasing a modest family home.
Inequality itself has truly become absurd. As Taylor writes, “Inequality is, indeed, out of control, with ten billionaire men possessing six times more wealth than the poorest three billion people on earth.” And yet many of us just shrug this off.
The reason things have gotten so bad in the US, as Taylor correctly points out, is that we obsess over negative rights—or the freedom from tyrannical government rule—at the total exclusion of positive rights—or the rights to government-ensured affordable housing, education, and healthcare. We consistently conflate totalitarian rule with government-provided benefits.
But as the anthropologist David Graeber said, “The ultimate, hidden truth of the world is that it is something that we make, and could just as easily make differently.” Things, in other words, could be better, and we need look no further than across the Atlantic for examples. Scandinavian countries, for instance, are both capitalist and have governments that support positive rights, reducing insecurity across the board and resulting in a happier, more productive population.
Finland, for example, is a great model for the reduction of homelessness. As Taylor writes:
“In Finland, where housing is constitutionally guaranteed, 16 percent of homes are social housing, and over a quarter of new construction is supposed to fit into that category….These policies have made Finland the only country in the European Union with falling homelessness rates.”
The fact is, there are solutions to our major social problems; the issue, of course, is that the market won’t provide them, as big business has no interest in addressing them. Reducing homelessness simply doesn’t fit into the invest-produce-consume cycle that maximizes profits for the already wealthy. Why build affordable housing when you can build more profitable luxury housing serving as second homes for the rich? Housing obviously requires a public solution, as Finland demonstrates.
Taylor provides countless additional examples of how we might fix healthcare, education, and more, to create a more secure society, which, after all, is truly better for everyone. Well, except for the billionaires, who do stand to lose some of their money and power. But I wouldn’t lose too much sleep over that.
I suppose the counter-argument is that, if you create too much security, productivity and the incentive to work disappears. If everything is handed to me, why would I exert any effort at all? The inherent risk associated with destitution spurs creativity, innovation, and productivity.
This argument, however, has always struck me as manifestly absurd and unnecessarily cynical. The idea that people only work when forced to is actually inconsistent with human nature; the reality is that when people are more secure—when they don’t have to live paycheck-to-paycheck, forgo necessary medical care, and work to fill a landlord’s pockets—they become more curious, confident, and productive. Consistent with Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, once people are liberated from the bottom rungs of material necessity, they can then properly address concerns of self-actualization. But this isn’t going to happen when almost the entirety of your McDonald’s paycheck is going to your landlord—who just raised rent for the third time this year because there are no regulations stopping him from doing so. (When will we realize that housing is not a commodity but a right?!)
Overall, this book is effective in that it brings political attention back to economic concerns, where the left ultimately thrives. If we start to think in terms of reducing insecurity, we can see that economically progressive reforms—which have already been implemented successfully elsewhere in the world—are the way forward, if we want to get out of this polarized mess.
October 1, 2023
An important message on the importance (and benefits) of becoming a more caring society. I enjoyed some of the research she cites on the high costs and meager benefits of carceral capitalism.
"Rather than something to pathologize, I want us to see insecurity as an opportunity – an opportunity to come together and create alternative routes and more fulfilling destinations. An ethic of insecurity can provide a powerful moral framework to help us reimagine and reorganize our social and economic systems. The simple recognition of our mutual vulnerability – of the fact that we all need and deserve care throughout our lives – has potentially revolutionary implications. Indignation at the way insecurity is fostered and exploited under capitalism can help strengthen existing movements and galvanize new ones, coalescing powerful coalitions with the capacity to expand and fight for collective forms of security based in compassion and concern instead of desperation and fear."
"Rather than something to pathologize, I want us to see insecurity as an opportunity – an opportunity to come together and create alternative routes and more fulfilling destinations. An ethic of insecurity can provide a powerful moral framework to help us reimagine and reorganize our social and economic systems. The simple recognition of our mutual vulnerability – of the fact that we all need and deserve care throughout our lives – has potentially revolutionary implications. Indignation at the way insecurity is fostered and exploited under capitalism can help strengthen existing movements and galvanize new ones, coalescing powerful coalitions with the capacity to expand and fight for collective forms of security based in compassion and concern instead of desperation and fear."
January 10, 2024
Second half was a bit of a slog.
July 22, 2025
In the Age of Insecurity, Astra Taylor charts how insecurity underpins the modern economic order – and why recognising it can help us change it.
“Even if existential insecurity is indelible to being human, the ways we structure our societies – at least, material and emotional insecurity – are on the rise.” With this, Taylor reframes insecurity not as an unfortunate byproduct of modern life, but as its engine. The result is a political intervention, tracing insecurity through capitalism’s historical DNA, its emotional toll, and its capacity to mobilise us toward collective transformation.
Insecurity, Taylor argues, is not new – “stoic quests for securitas and Zen Buddhism’s emphasis on impermanence” show that humans have always grappled with life’s uncertainty. But under capitalism, insecurity becomes infrastructure – weaponised through competition, market dependency, and the dismantling of social protections. “Insecurity plays a unique role in the liberal capitalist order,” she writes, “a role underscored by the fact that the modern word ‘insecurity’ entered into common usage in the seventeenth century, just as our market-driven society was coming into being.”
The first chapter, “Cura’s Gift,” lays the ideological groundwork. Taylor resists easy explanations that blame today’s inequality on “a handful of greedy bosses,” instead showing how capitalist competition compels profit-maximising behaviour across the board. All capitalists are acting in their interest, she reminds us, highlighting how wage suppression and job precarity are structural, not simply moral, failures. She deftly links this logic to the transition from feudalism to capitalism: the enclosure of the commons in England, the erosion of customary protections, and the later erosion of postwar welfare gains. The gig economy, zero-hour contracts, and platforms are the latest chapter in this long story of dispossession.
But what makes The Age of Insecurity compelling is its attention to the emotional register of capitalism. Precarity, in Taylor’s hands, is not just an economic condition, but a felt one – an ambient fear that shapes our relationships, our politics, and even our bodies. “Millions of people had only precarious access to housing, health, food, and employment… we fretted over information security, devising passwords to access passwords, fearful we might be hacked or exposed.” In this diagnosis, climate change, pandemic-induced isolation, and digital surveillance are all part of the same affective landscape, one of chronic, low-grade fear.
Taylor also indicts the psychological cost of insecure labour, not just for the lowest-paid, but for all. She notes the emotional toll: exhaustion and quiet desperation. “We follow the prescribed course – work, consume, save, strive – because we want to make our lives better, which is not the same as being selfish. In the absence of new pathways to security, we can only continue along the old routes, even as they are collapsing beneath our feet.”
Chapter two, “Barons or Commoners?”, is a sharp exploration of the ideological construction of security. Taylor unearths the largely forgotten Charter of the Forest, a companion to the Magna Carta that granted commoners access to shared land, an early vision of material security. In contrast, she argues, modern legal and political systems have come to define security in terms of property rights, not collective wellbeing. She poses a disarming question: do we see ourselves as barons or commoners? A provocation aimed at unmasking the illusory individualism many cling to in a rigged game.
“Consumed by Insecurity,” the third chapter, takes aim at advertising and its corrosive effect on public life. Drawing on the legacy of Edward Bernays – Freud’s nephew and the architect of “public relations” – Taylor shows how insecurity is now manufactured for profit. “Advertising isn’t just bigger and richer than ever – it has become automated, personalised… trapping each of us in what media critic Eli Pariser has dubbed a ‘filter bubble’.” She writes that “advertising is incompatible with truth; public relations is, by definition, hype,” offering a bleak diagnosis of our disinformation-plagued media ecosystem.
Particularly incisive is her take on wellness culture – once a spiritual critique of capitalist alienation, now reabsorbed into it. “Post-materialist values are repackaged to soothe the insecurities of daily life: eat superfoods, pop some supplements, breathe deeper, try journaling, practice gratitude, steam your yoni.” In the absence of collective alternatives, wellness becomes a privatised, feminised response to structural crises.
Taylor doesn’t end with despair, but with a proposal: an ethic of insecurity. If insecurity is a shared condition, she argues, then it can become a foundation for solidarity. Rather than promising to eliminate all risk, we can build systems rooted in mutual care and collective flourishing – a radically different idea of security, one that acknowledges our interdependence.
Clear-eyed but not cynical, at a time when tech billionaires promise digital immortality, The Age of Insecurity insists that facing our vulnerability together may be the only way to survive, and to live well.
“Even if existential insecurity is indelible to being human, the ways we structure our societies – at least, material and emotional insecurity – are on the rise.” With this, Taylor reframes insecurity not as an unfortunate byproduct of modern life, but as its engine. The result is a political intervention, tracing insecurity through capitalism’s historical DNA, its emotional toll, and its capacity to mobilise us toward collective transformation.
Insecurity, Taylor argues, is not new – “stoic quests for securitas and Zen Buddhism’s emphasis on impermanence” show that humans have always grappled with life’s uncertainty. But under capitalism, insecurity becomes infrastructure – weaponised through competition, market dependency, and the dismantling of social protections. “Insecurity plays a unique role in the liberal capitalist order,” she writes, “a role underscored by the fact that the modern word ‘insecurity’ entered into common usage in the seventeenth century, just as our market-driven society was coming into being.”
The first chapter, “Cura’s Gift,” lays the ideological groundwork. Taylor resists easy explanations that blame today’s inequality on “a handful of greedy bosses,” instead showing how capitalist competition compels profit-maximising behaviour across the board. All capitalists are acting in their interest, she reminds us, highlighting how wage suppression and job precarity are structural, not simply moral, failures. She deftly links this logic to the transition from feudalism to capitalism: the enclosure of the commons in England, the erosion of customary protections, and the later erosion of postwar welfare gains. The gig economy, zero-hour contracts, and platforms are the latest chapter in this long story of dispossession.
But what makes The Age of Insecurity compelling is its attention to the emotional register of capitalism. Precarity, in Taylor’s hands, is not just an economic condition, but a felt one – an ambient fear that shapes our relationships, our politics, and even our bodies. “Millions of people had only precarious access to housing, health, food, and employment… we fretted over information security, devising passwords to access passwords, fearful we might be hacked or exposed.” In this diagnosis, climate change, pandemic-induced isolation, and digital surveillance are all part of the same affective landscape, one of chronic, low-grade fear.
Taylor also indicts the psychological cost of insecure labour, not just for the lowest-paid, but for all. She notes the emotional toll: exhaustion and quiet desperation. “We follow the prescribed course – work, consume, save, strive – because we want to make our lives better, which is not the same as being selfish. In the absence of new pathways to security, we can only continue along the old routes, even as they are collapsing beneath our feet.”
Chapter two, “Barons or Commoners?”, is a sharp exploration of the ideological construction of security. Taylor unearths the largely forgotten Charter of the Forest, a companion to the Magna Carta that granted commoners access to shared land, an early vision of material security. In contrast, she argues, modern legal and political systems have come to define security in terms of property rights, not collective wellbeing. She poses a disarming question: do we see ourselves as barons or commoners? A provocation aimed at unmasking the illusory individualism many cling to in a rigged game.
“Consumed by Insecurity,” the third chapter, takes aim at advertising and its corrosive effect on public life. Drawing on the legacy of Edward Bernays – Freud’s nephew and the architect of “public relations” – Taylor shows how insecurity is now manufactured for profit. “Advertising isn’t just bigger and richer than ever – it has become automated, personalised… trapping each of us in what media critic Eli Pariser has dubbed a ‘filter bubble’.” She writes that “advertising is incompatible with truth; public relations is, by definition, hype,” offering a bleak diagnosis of our disinformation-plagued media ecosystem.
Particularly incisive is her take on wellness culture – once a spiritual critique of capitalist alienation, now reabsorbed into it. “Post-materialist values are repackaged to soothe the insecurities of daily life: eat superfoods, pop some supplements, breathe deeper, try journaling, practice gratitude, steam your yoni.” In the absence of collective alternatives, wellness becomes a privatised, feminised response to structural crises.
Taylor doesn’t end with despair, but with a proposal: an ethic of insecurity. If insecurity is a shared condition, she argues, then it can become a foundation for solidarity. Rather than promising to eliminate all risk, we can build systems rooted in mutual care and collective flourishing – a radically different idea of security, one that acknowledges our interdependence.
Clear-eyed but not cynical, at a time when tech billionaires promise digital immortality, The Age of Insecurity insists that facing our vulnerability together may be the only way to survive, and to live well.
February 25, 2024
An intelligent, well-researched & expansive look at how we got to a world of inequality. I first heard a recorded Massey lecture on CBC Radio with Astra Taylor, then determined I needed to read the whole book.
Well-written and stimulating, I blew through it, soaking in her various historical references from ancient Rome to what is happening in today's age of divisions of economic, race, gender injustices to name a few & climate's instability, affecting us all.
The author who began life in Canada, home-schooled by "hippies" and a student in an indigenous school in the Yukon, moved with her family to the U.S. I found it fascinating how she saw education so differently and held values learned from indigenous peoples. She later went on to become part of the Occupy Wall Street movement in 2011, as part of the 99% protesting corporate greed, financial influences that pushed inequality to the limits. Following the Occupy Wall Street protest, she later became part of the Debt Collective in the U.S. that advocates for student loan cancellation.
She doesn't spend much time in the Coda, on what are "next steps." From the title, I presume the book is a call to everyone to begin taking measures from where we see we are personally affected. Armed with the background and knowledge in the book, I can see how we got to this point of hyper-capitalism that's burning out. If more people begin to understand how the structure is affecting them, the path to action will be theirs to find. In doing so, together with many others, there's more power in numbers. Change is possible.
I read this after watching a documentary that underlined to me what's going on. It's called "The Divided Brain and the Making of the Western World." The subject of the documentary is Dr. Iain McGilchrist, a neuroscience researcher, psychiatrist & literary scholar who worked with stroke patients for 14 years, learning in depth, what happens when different hemispheres of the brain are wiped out by stroke. His book, "The Master and his Emissary: "The Divided Brain and the Making of the Western World" advanced his radical theory. It suggested our world has become dominated by the left brain, which is "mechanistic, reductive, compartmentalized" and lacks the Big Picture thinking of the right brain. Most critical, though, is the left ignores context, compassion, empathy and creativity... to see the world as a whole. It has become so entrenched, Dr. McGilchrist says, that it looks like we have "right brain damage." After hearing his theory, I kept seeing this happening as Ms. Taylor's book examined what has happened to turbocharge inequality.
I'd suggest you read The Age of Inequality. Give it as a gift. Pass it around, if it's your copy. Borrow it from the library. Listen to it on audio or online in the CBC podcasts. In other words, educate yourself and others so we can put creative ideas, solutions and intelligent approaches together to clean up our mess.
Well-written and stimulating, I blew through it, soaking in her various historical references from ancient Rome to what is happening in today's age of divisions of economic, race, gender injustices to name a few & climate's instability, affecting us all.
The author who began life in Canada, home-schooled by "hippies" and a student in an indigenous school in the Yukon, moved with her family to the U.S. I found it fascinating how she saw education so differently and held values learned from indigenous peoples. She later went on to become part of the Occupy Wall Street movement in 2011, as part of the 99% protesting corporate greed, financial influences that pushed inequality to the limits. Following the Occupy Wall Street protest, she later became part of the Debt Collective in the U.S. that advocates for student loan cancellation.
She doesn't spend much time in the Coda, on what are "next steps." From the title, I presume the book is a call to everyone to begin taking measures from where we see we are personally affected. Armed with the background and knowledge in the book, I can see how we got to this point of hyper-capitalism that's burning out. If more people begin to understand how the structure is affecting them, the path to action will be theirs to find. In doing so, together with many others, there's more power in numbers. Change is possible.
I read this after watching a documentary that underlined to me what's going on. It's called "The Divided Brain and the Making of the Western World." The subject of the documentary is Dr. Iain McGilchrist, a neuroscience researcher, psychiatrist & literary scholar who worked with stroke patients for 14 years, learning in depth, what happens when different hemispheres of the brain are wiped out by stroke. His book, "The Master and his Emissary: "The Divided Brain and the Making of the Western World" advanced his radical theory. It suggested our world has become dominated by the left brain, which is "mechanistic, reductive, compartmentalized" and lacks the Big Picture thinking of the right brain. Most critical, though, is the left ignores context, compassion, empathy and creativity... to see the world as a whole. It has become so entrenched, Dr. McGilchrist says, that it looks like we have "right brain damage." After hearing his theory, I kept seeing this happening as Ms. Taylor's book examined what has happened to turbocharge inequality.
I'd suggest you read The Age of Inequality. Give it as a gift. Pass it around, if it's your copy. Borrow it from the library. Listen to it on audio or online in the CBC podcasts. In other words, educate yourself and others so we can put creative ideas, solutions and intelligent approaches together to clean up our mess.
February 2, 2025
Reads like a social sciences PhD dissertation, but an impassioned one at least. I certainly share some of Taylor's feelings about our modern economic era; this prevailing feeling of insecurity is unpleasant, and unnatural, and it feels like something needs to eventually change. It feels like this shouldn't be the way in which we all (well, most of us) have to live our lives. But it is. It does feel perverse to live in a country that will help you die (if you tick the necessary boxes), but won't necessarily help you live. And yet, how can a better way be constructed?
I don't know that I needed the Roman myth framing (Cura, etc.) I think if Taylor had done away with that and just made her points more quickly, I would have been OK with that. Also had some bones of contention with some of Taylor's tangential arguments, such as that the US government's response to 9/11 was wrong (p. 43). I believe that at least the initial invasion of Afghanistan to deny al-Qaeda and other Islamist militants a safe base of operations was, in fact, warranted, but that's a discussion for a different book review, I suppose.
When Taylor calls for more solidarity, I do wonder if that amounts to more than: "be there for each other; be kind to each other; be empathetic, etc." I don't disagree with her, but it's difficult to see how that sentiment translates to specific policy prescriptions. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is well-meaning but it's also impractical. HOW are we going to go about automatically ensuring an income and housing for everyone? "More social housing" is too simplistic an answer because there have been problems there too, as in the Vienna example that Taylor gives (see The Economist article: "Vienna’s social housing, lauded by progressives, pushes out the poor"). Simply calling to go back to UBI initiatives such as Mincome also seems misguided; such programs didn't survive for various reasons, including the fact that they're very expensive to run and would require a lot of taxation and government spending.
I do agree with her desire to place more limits on the excesses of billionaires. But this sentence on page 92 gives me pause: "socialists believed that poor people DESERVED to live in beautiful, safe, and centrally located buildings"...but why should poor people DESERVE that? What does this entitlement do to the motivation to work and contribute to society/economy? Surely, it is important to motivate people, to some extent, to strive to better themselves and contribute economically, no? Otherwise, we might all just be content to be poor. Nevertheless, I appreciate where Taylor is coming from in writing this book, and I share some of her concerns.
In chapter 3, I think Taylor demonizes the entire marketing/advertising industry a little too much. Sure, marketing can be overdone at times and compel people to buy stuff they don't really need, and body-shaming ads are bad, but advertising can also be authentic, positive and affirming at times, while also selling a product, such as in the case of Dove's famed "Real Beauty" ad campaign.
Note: There are various unfortunate inaccuracies throughout the text, such as on pg. 69 where it says that Humphrey "retired at the age of 90" when, according to his wiki, he died at 89.
I don't know that I needed the Roman myth framing (Cura, etc.) I think if Taylor had done away with that and just made her points more quickly, I would have been OK with that. Also had some bones of contention with some of Taylor's tangential arguments, such as that the US government's response to 9/11 was wrong (p. 43). I believe that at least the initial invasion of Afghanistan to deny al-Qaeda and other Islamist militants a safe base of operations was, in fact, warranted, but that's a discussion for a different book review, I suppose.
When Taylor calls for more solidarity, I do wonder if that amounts to more than: "be there for each other; be kind to each other; be empathetic, etc." I don't disagree with her, but it's difficult to see how that sentiment translates to specific policy prescriptions. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is well-meaning but it's also impractical. HOW are we going to go about automatically ensuring an income and housing for everyone? "More social housing" is too simplistic an answer because there have been problems there too, as in the Vienna example that Taylor gives (see The Economist article: "Vienna’s social housing, lauded by progressives, pushes out the poor"). Simply calling to go back to UBI initiatives such as Mincome also seems misguided; such programs didn't survive for various reasons, including the fact that they're very expensive to run and would require a lot of taxation and government spending.
I do agree with her desire to place more limits on the excesses of billionaires. But this sentence on page 92 gives me pause: "socialists believed that poor people DESERVED to live in beautiful, safe, and centrally located buildings"...but why should poor people DESERVE that? What does this entitlement do to the motivation to work and contribute to society/economy? Surely, it is important to motivate people, to some extent, to strive to better themselves and contribute economically, no? Otherwise, we might all just be content to be poor. Nevertheless, I appreciate where Taylor is coming from in writing this book, and I share some of her concerns.
In chapter 3, I think Taylor demonizes the entire marketing/advertising industry a little too much. Sure, marketing can be overdone at times and compel people to buy stuff they don't really need, and body-shaming ads are bad, but advertising can also be authentic, positive and affirming at times, while also selling a product, such as in the case of Dove's famed "Real Beauty" ad campaign.
Note: There are various unfortunate inaccuracies throughout the text, such as on pg. 69 where it says that Humphrey "retired at the age of 90" when, according to his wiki, he died at 89.
January 31, 2024
A view of the world - perspective on "insecurity" in the modern society.
The theme is that individuals are really insecure because of larger systems with which they engage - that have the result of making them insecure (fearing a loss of job; lack of access to healthcare; adequate housing, and etc.)
The theme continues that ..."individuals increasingly cooperate as a function of their security level....the higher their security level the more they cooperate...." Think of Maslow's Hierarchies of Needs - and the basic items including security should be provided. Sample ideas involve restricting funding for the Police - so as to decrease policing and increase medical and psychological care for certain individuals.
Book has some interesting history models - providing the 'background' of the English Commons and later "The Tragedy of The Commons"
The book advocates enhanced engagement, organization and redesign of major systems in the current (Canadian) society.
within the US - there is enough polarization and distrust so as to NOT support any major systemic restructure at this time - especially one involving granting more powers/capabilities to the U.S. Government - I reference policy models that have been resurrected and are being worked to 'Kill' - the Affordable Care Act - even as the Act has more enrollees.
Taylor makes a strong case for her 'viewpoint' - but her viewpoint includes her experience with a Debt Collective - through Non-Profits (with their funds) purchase debt (student, credit card) and 'forgiving it'. I can see this working through Non-Profit efforts.
Taylor's argument would have been stronger had she prioritized one or two items; and have provided a workable/revised model - and how she would obtain it - to generate credibility concerning how to and if to change these larger systems. Additionally once we begin to change major systems there are second and third order effects which need to be understood and, if negative, addressed - I'm not sure I saw much of this thinking here - may have missed it. Finally, all complex systems have delays; those proposing these changes should have some idea of systemic-delays and follow up steps.
One viewpoint of how to mitigate risk for a large population.
Some provided history should be of interest to those who study Social Theory.
Should be of interest to those who follow Public Policy.
Carl Gallozzi
Cgallozzi@comcast.net
The theme is that individuals are really insecure because of larger systems with which they engage - that have the result of making them insecure (fearing a loss of job; lack of access to healthcare; adequate housing, and etc.)
The theme continues that ..."individuals increasingly cooperate as a function of their security level....the higher their security level the more they cooperate...." Think of Maslow's Hierarchies of Needs - and the basic items including security should be provided. Sample ideas involve restricting funding for the Police - so as to decrease policing and increase medical and psychological care for certain individuals.
Book has some interesting history models - providing the 'background' of the English Commons and later "The Tragedy of The Commons"
The book advocates enhanced engagement, organization and redesign of major systems in the current (Canadian) society.
within the US - there is enough polarization and distrust so as to NOT support any major systemic restructure at this time - especially one involving granting more powers/capabilities to the U.S. Government - I reference policy models that have been resurrected and are being worked to 'Kill' - the Affordable Care Act - even as the Act has more enrollees.
Taylor makes a strong case for her 'viewpoint' - but her viewpoint includes her experience with a Debt Collective - through Non-Profits (with their funds) purchase debt (student, credit card) and 'forgiving it'. I can see this working through Non-Profit efforts.
Taylor's argument would have been stronger had she prioritized one or two items; and have provided a workable/revised model - and how she would obtain it - to generate credibility concerning how to and if to change these larger systems. Additionally once we begin to change major systems there are second and third order effects which need to be understood and, if negative, addressed - I'm not sure I saw much of this thinking here - may have missed it. Finally, all complex systems have delays; those proposing these changes should have some idea of systemic-delays and follow up steps.
One viewpoint of how to mitigate risk for a large population.
Some provided history should be of interest to those who study Social Theory.
Should be of interest to those who follow Public Policy.
Carl Gallozzi
Cgallozzi@comcast.net
April 28, 2024
In an age marked by social upheaval, we find ourselves ensnared in a cycle of relentless crises, perpetuated by the strain of financial instability that gnaws at our sense of well-being. The environmental peril, precarious employment, and mounting economic burdens serve as mechanisms that exploit us, profiting from our anxiety and disillusionment.
In her book, Astra Taylor undertakes a comprehensive exploration spanning historical, political, social, economic, and personal dimensions. She adeptly reveals how the pervasive "state of insecurity" plaguing our lives is not an inherent condition but rather a construct meticulously engineered by entities capitalizing on our mental strain and well-being. This "manufactured insecurity" coerces us into compliance, enforcing control, regulation, and isolation, thereby eroding our collective solidarity in favour of individual gain. Yet, amid this disarray, Astra elucidates the existence of an "ethic of insecurity" rooted in solidarity and community.
Amidst the crumbling façade of certainty, as insecurity becomes a pervasive norm, embracing our shared vulnerability emerges as the cornerstone of the security we seek in these turbulent times.
****
En esta era de inestabilidad social, nos enfrentamos a un escenario de crisis recurrentes, auspiciado por un estrés financiero que atormenta nuestro sentido de seguridad. La crisis ambiental, la precariedad laboral, la deuda económica son mecanismos que facilitan nuestra explotación y sacan ganancia de nuestro agobio, de nuestra frustración.
En este libro, Astra Taylor hace un trabajo histórico, político, social, económico y personal para demostrarnos como el "estado de inseguridad" que vivimos no es "existencial" sino "manufacturado" por fuerzas que sacan provecho y ganancia de nuestro estrés y salud mental. La "inseguridad manufacturada" nos pone en línea, nos controla, nos regula, nos aísla. Nos hace perder el sentido de lo "común" por la ganancia de lo "individual". Sin embargo, Astra nos recuerda que existe la "ética de la inseguridad", esa que se gesta en la solidaridad y en la colectividad.
Cuando el mundo se cae a pedazos, cuando la inseguridad se vuelve permanente, abrazar nuestra vulnerabilidad compartida será la seguridad que necesitamos en tiempos que nos necesitan.
In her book, Astra Taylor undertakes a comprehensive exploration spanning historical, political, social, economic, and personal dimensions. She adeptly reveals how the pervasive "state of insecurity" plaguing our lives is not an inherent condition but rather a construct meticulously engineered by entities capitalizing on our mental strain and well-being. This "manufactured insecurity" coerces us into compliance, enforcing control, regulation, and isolation, thereby eroding our collective solidarity in favour of individual gain. Yet, amid this disarray, Astra elucidates the existence of an "ethic of insecurity" rooted in solidarity and community.
Amidst the crumbling façade of certainty, as insecurity becomes a pervasive norm, embracing our shared vulnerability emerges as the cornerstone of the security we seek in these turbulent times.
****
En esta era de inestabilidad social, nos enfrentamos a un escenario de crisis recurrentes, auspiciado por un estrés financiero que atormenta nuestro sentido de seguridad. La crisis ambiental, la precariedad laboral, la deuda económica son mecanismos que facilitan nuestra explotación y sacan ganancia de nuestro agobio, de nuestra frustración.
En este libro, Astra Taylor hace un trabajo histórico, político, social, económico y personal para demostrarnos como el "estado de inseguridad" que vivimos no es "existencial" sino "manufacturado" por fuerzas que sacan provecho y ganancia de nuestro estrés y salud mental. La "inseguridad manufacturada" nos pone en línea, nos controla, nos regula, nos aísla. Nos hace perder el sentido de lo "común" por la ganancia de lo "individual". Sin embargo, Astra nos recuerda que existe la "ética de la inseguridad", esa que se gesta en la solidaridad y en la colectividad.
Cuando el mundo se cae a pedazos, cuando la inseguridad se vuelve permanente, abrazar nuestra vulnerabilidad compartida será la seguridad que necesitamos en tiempos que nos necesitan.
October 18, 2025
Astra Taylor is an architect of Occupy Wall Street and a founder of Strike Debt, the Rolling Jubilee, and the Debt Collective. In 2023, she was commissioned to do the Massey Lectures, a prestigious Canadian annual lecture series. This book is the printed version of those lectures.
Taylor's essential thesis is that security/insecurity is a more useful frame than equity/inequity for looking at contemporary economic and social problems. I was deeply taken by her point that insecurity is something everyone feels, and thus it is a better framing to reach people. She also divides insecurity into two buckets: existential insecurity caused by mortality and danger, and manufactured insecurity, caused by capitalism. She talks very clearly about how insecurity can drive us apart from one another (and how manufactured insecurity is designed to exacerbate that), but it can also drive us together.
The lectures are conversational, sometimes very personal -- Taylor had a very radical, atypical childhood and education -- and extremely erudite. She's interested in etymology (I didn't know that the "capit" in "capitalism" comes from counting heads of cattle, which were the measure of wealth at the time the word was coined. Her history is detailed, off-trail, and illuminating. I was especially interested in the way she writes about the Charter of the Forest, a document only two years younger than the Magna Carta which, for centuries, was considered at least as important as its predecessor. Where the Magna Carta defined the rights of noblemen vis-a-vis the king, the Charter of the Forest defined the rights of commoners. So it's no surprise that most of us have never heard of it.
There's a lecture on education, one on the history and social implications of insurance, one on climate change. All are viewed through the lens of existential and manufactured insecurity, and infused with Taylor's belief that we can make things better by connecting with each other, dealing with insecurity in community.
I didn't expect to like this book, and I certainly didn't expect to get as much out of it as I did.
Taylor's essential thesis is that security/insecurity is a more useful frame than equity/inequity for looking at contemporary economic and social problems. I was deeply taken by her point that insecurity is something everyone feels, and thus it is a better framing to reach people. She also divides insecurity into two buckets: existential insecurity caused by mortality and danger, and manufactured insecurity, caused by capitalism. She talks very clearly about how insecurity can drive us apart from one another (and how manufactured insecurity is designed to exacerbate that), but it can also drive us together.
The lectures are conversational, sometimes very personal -- Taylor had a very radical, atypical childhood and education -- and extremely erudite. She's interested in etymology (I didn't know that the "capit" in "capitalism" comes from counting heads of cattle, which were the measure of wealth at the time the word was coined. Her history is detailed, off-trail, and illuminating. I was especially interested in the way she writes about the Charter of the Forest, a document only two years younger than the Magna Carta which, for centuries, was considered at least as important as its predecessor. Where the Magna Carta defined the rights of noblemen vis-a-vis the king, the Charter of the Forest defined the rights of commoners. So it's no surprise that most of us have never heard of it.
There's a lecture on education, one on the history and social implications of insurance, one on climate change. All are viewed through the lens of existential and manufactured insecurity, and infused with Taylor's belief that we can make things better by connecting with each other, dealing with insecurity in community.
I didn't expect to like this book, and I certainly didn't expect to get as much out of it as I did.
September 28, 2023
When I first learned about this book, I was very excited; the ideas it seemed like it was going to explore have been bouncing around in my head over the last few years, and I was enthusiastic about reading perhaps a more concrete distillation of how to think about them.
Ultimately, it was not quite what I had anticipated. The concept of insecurity is still present, but the book is punctuated by a variety of meandering historical anecdotes that gnaw on the edges of insecurity but don't always go directly for the kill. There is also a large focus on Canadian history, which is of course fine, but which again avoids what I was really hoping for the book to tackle.
This brilliant quote from the final chapter gets to the heart of what I'm most interested in, and where the book most excels:
Taylor's prose is nimble and enjoyable. Her historical examples feel fresh and she weaves them together deftly. For a book about what many will likely find a stressful and difficult topic, the book doesn't drift into excessive pessimism or nihilism. Absolutely worth reading to better understand how it feels to be in the world right now.
Ultimately, it was not quite what I had anticipated. The concept of insecurity is still present, but the book is punctuated by a variety of meandering historical anecdotes that gnaw on the edges of insecurity but don't always go directly for the kill. There is also a large focus on Canadian history, which is of course fine, but which again avoids what I was really hoping for the book to tackle.
This brilliant quote from the final chapter gets to the heart of what I'm most interested in, and where the book most excels:
This heated reaction ignores the fact that police are not equipped to address the root cause of homelessness or addiction, and that people on the streets are more likely to be the ones facing mortal danger, rather than my safely housed neighbors. That said, the explosion of homeless encampments should spark feelings of insecurity--not because the unhoused are threats to us, but because we live in a rich society that refuses to provide struggling people basic shelter and dignity. In this sort of society, how can any of us feel secure?
Taylor's prose is nimble and enjoyable. Her historical examples feel fresh and she weaves them together deftly. For a book about what many will likely find a stressful and difficult topic, the book doesn't drift into excessive pessimism or nihilism. Absolutely worth reading to better understand how it feels to be in the world right now.
November 9, 2023
غالبًا ما تتضمن القصص حول كيفية ظهور جنسنا البشري الطين، بما في ذلك القصة التي سأرويها. إنها أسطورة الإلهة الرومانية «كورا»، وهي شخصية يدل اسمها على أنها تجسد الاهتمام والهموم والقلق والتوتر.
في أحد الأيام، بينما كانت كورا تعبر النهر، رأت قليلا من التربة الطينية، فتناولتها بعناية وبدأت بتصميم شخصية ما. وبينما كانت تفكر فيما صنعته للتو، ظهر «جوبيتر»، ملك الآلهة؛ طلبت منه كورا أن يمنح التمثال الحياة، ووافق جوبيتر على رغبتها بسهولة، ونفخ الروح في خليقتها.
ولكن عندما أرادت كورا إعطاء هذا الكائن الحي الجديد اسمه، اعترض جوبيتر بشدة وأصر على حقّه في منح الاسم. وبينما كانا يتشاجران، قامت أمنّا الأرض، «تيلوس» نفسها، وطالبت بمنح الشرف لها؛ بعد كل شيء، هي التي منحت جسدها لمشروع كورا. وبعد أن وصلوا إلى طريق مسدود، دعوا «زحل»، إله الزمن، ليأتي ويسوي النزاع. كان حكم زحل سريعًا وحاسمًا:
"بما أنك يا جوبيتر أعطيت المخلوق حياته، خذ روحه بعد الموت. وبما أن تيلوس قدمت جسدها، فلتستقبل جسده بدورها بعد موته؛ ولأن كورا هي التي صنعته بالأساس، فلتمتلكه طوال حياته. وبما أن هناك جدلاً حول التسمية، فليكن الاسم هومو Homo ، حيث يبدو أن المخلوق مصنوع من التربة Humus أي من التراب".
.
Astra Taylor
The Age Of Insecurity
Translated By #Maher_Razouk
في أحد الأيام، بينما كانت كورا تعبر النهر، رأت قليلا من التربة الطينية، فتناولتها بعناية وبدأت بتصميم شخصية ما. وبينما كانت تفكر فيما صنعته للتو، ظهر «جوبيتر»، ملك الآلهة؛ طلبت منه كورا أن يمنح التمثال الحياة، ووافق جوبيتر على رغبتها بسهولة، ونفخ الروح في خليقتها.
ولكن عندما أرادت كورا إعطاء هذا الكائن الحي الجديد اسمه، اعترض جوبيتر بشدة وأصر على حقّه في منح الاسم. وبينما كانا يتشاجران، قامت أمنّا الأرض، «تيلوس» نفسها، وطالبت بمنح الشرف لها؛ بعد كل شيء، هي التي منحت جسدها لمشروع كورا. وبعد أن وصلوا إلى طريق مسدود، دعوا «زحل»، إله الزمن، ليأتي ويسوي النزاع. كان حكم زحل سريعًا وحاسمًا:
"بما أنك يا جوبيتر أعطيت المخلوق حياته، خذ روحه بعد الموت. وبما أن تيلوس قدمت جسدها، فلتستقبل جسده بدورها بعد موته؛ ولأن كورا هي التي صنعته بالأساس، فلتمتلكه طوال حياته. وبما أن هناك جدلاً حول التسمية، فليكن الاسم هومو Homo ، حيث يبدو أن المخلوق مصنوع من التربة Humus أي من التراب".
.
Astra Taylor
The Age Of Insecurity
Translated By #Maher_Razouk
May 18, 2025
Taylor posits her ‘ethics of insecurity’ as a way to understand today’s current political climate of polarization and division as being a logical and planned outcome of ‘manufactured insecurity’ that is the goal of capitalism. The corporations and elites thrive on the instability the average person feels in terms of income, housing and healthcare where one mishap can ruin a person’s lifetime of savings. This leads to a ‘passive’ workforce that will work for low wages because they are living just a paycheck away from homelessness. She calls for a shared understanding that to be human is to be insecure and that we need to set up systems of collective care for us to thrive and be free. This includes human needs such as universal basic income, universal healthcare and a housing guarantee. But what makes this most interesting is her call to treat the environment and animals with rights to sustainability which in turn will start to address the necessary changes needed to heal our planet. It is a hopeful book that shows a way towards a future that can be one of collective action and security and turns us away from the false promises of authoritarianism that plague our times.
June 6, 2025
A great storyline with rich and captivating historical examples. Taylor's thesis is that 1) insecurity is unnecessary, 2) insecurity is manufactured and can thus be undone, 3) people would live happier lives if they were secure. Compelling! While 2 and 3 are well argued (and not that controversial) I was unconvinced by Taylor's argument that insecurity is unnecessary, at least to the extent she suggests (and this despite wanting to believe the claim). Taylor dismisses inflationary concerns and never addresses globalization's pressures but these are core counterarguments that should've been addressed directly to be convincing. For the fascinating history of the commons and the origins of human rights, as well as the engaging writing this book nonetheless deserves 4 stars.
May 26, 2025
Astra Taylor spoke right to my soul with this book.💛
It pulled together so many threads that I have been turning over in my mind since I was a child. Why do we not value care in our society and why do so many of our systems, institutions and structures seem to do the exact opposite—leaving us to feel consistently insecure and anxious. She encourages and reminds us that through organizing we can build anew and we are not doomed to an existence without care at the centre.
Read this book and if it resonates with you, please let me know! I’d love to hear from you✨💛
It pulled together so many threads that I have been turning over in my mind since I was a child. Why do we not value care in our society and why do so many of our systems, institutions and structures seem to do the exact opposite—leaving us to feel consistently insecure and anxious. She encourages and reminds us that through organizing we can build anew and we are not doomed to an existence without care at the centre.
Read this book and if it resonates with you, please let me know! I’d love to hear from you✨💛
February 29, 2024
This book is INTENSE. Packed full of knowledge on politics and history as they relate to capitalism, consumerism, and human insecurity. The chapters are long and filled with big words that I wasn't familiar with (was googling a lot lol). But it was worth working through because it opened my eyes. If you're curious about perspectives on making change in the US where we still struggle with oppression, privilege, and massive financial gaps then this is the book for you.
April 20, 2024
Taylor puts forth an intelligent and well researched argument to address our messy and challenged world. Insecurity has created a great divide and threatens to lead us (and well the whole planet) to a point of collapse. What if we actually looked out for one another, including the plants and animals, we might just create a better way of living. I’ve way oversimplified her meticulously researched work so I suggest you read it for yourself and then share it.
February 3, 2024
I quite liked this book. It was an interesting read, although it was preaching to the choir as far as manufactured insecurity goes. There were nice touches about specific actions that they've taken to address insecurity, but I would have liked it if more was spent on more general steps that we can take to address insecurity and promote solidarity.
February 4, 2024
Sharp, insightful, and inspiring. So many approaches to this massive existential topic tend toward the defeated, apocalyptic, and pessimistic. Instead, Taylor infuses her analysis with hope and direction, and a deep and infectious compassion. This is one I'll be passing around to friends and loved ones.
March 10, 2024
Solid 3.9/5 rounded up to 4/5. I enjoyed this book, and really liked the first half but found it a bit repetitive towards the end. I also wasn’t a huge fan of many of the metaphors, and found the author boiled everything down to be less nuanced than it should be. I would definitely suggest the book though, if you’re interested in the subject matter of insecurity.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 53 reviews