What do you think?
Rate this book
Roots Of Radicalism: Jews, Christians, And The Left
When Roots of Radicalism first appeared. Nathan Glazer noted "this is a major work on the relationship between radical politics and psychological development." He went on to predict "no one will be able to write about the left and radicalism without taking it into account." Now finally available in a paperback edition, with a new introduction, the reader can evaluate just how prescient the authors are in their review of the student radical movement. Replete with interviews of radical activists, their provocative book paints a disturbing picture.
The book raises critical questions about much previous social science research and ultimately about the reason an entire generation of Americans was so infatuated with the radical mystique. Robert A. Nisbet called the book "an extraordinarily skilled fusion of historical and psychological approaches to one of the most explosive decades in American social history." Robert E. Lane added "it will be prudent to read Rothman and Lichter along with our well worn copies of Keniston and Fromm." Writing in Political Psychology, Dan E. Thomas argued "the [book] is arguably the most important and definitely the most provocative book in the field of personality and politics to have appeared in the past several years." Recently, in Forbes. Peter Brimelow referred to Roots of Radicalism as "Rothman's main achievement as a political scientist...his definitive study of the 1960s New Left."
In the new introduction, the authors review the initial reception of Roots of Radicalism and its subsequent treatment. They also review the major literature on the causes, course, and consequences of the student movement of the 1960s which has appeared since the publication of the book. Finally, they update their own analysis.
The book raises critical questions about much previous social science research and ultimately about the reason an entire generation of Americans was so infatuated with the radical mystique. Robert A. Nisbet called the book "an extraordinarily skilled fusion of historical and psychological approaches to one of the most explosive decades in American social history." Robert E. Lane added "it will be prudent to read Rothman and Lichter along with our well worn copies of Keniston and Fromm." Writing in Political Psychology, Dan E. Thomas argued "the [book] is arguably the most important and definitely the most provocative book in the field of personality and politics to have appeared in the past several years." Recently, in Forbes. Peter Brimelow referred to Roots of Radicalism as "Rothman's main achievement as a political scientist...his definitive study of the 1960s New Left."
In the new introduction, the authors review the initial reception of Roots of Radicalism and its subsequent treatment. They also review the major literature on the causes, course, and consequences of the student movement of the 1960s which has appeared since the publication of the book. Finally, they update their own analysis.
466 pages, Paperback
First published November 4, 1982
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 of 1 review
September 11, 2013
A fascinating book (leaving aside the Freudianism and other questionable psychological instruments) that raises more questions than it answers. The American New Left, as the authors ably demonstrate, was largely a movement of deracinated Jews. Baltzell argues in The Protestant Establishment that American ruling establishment would (or was, I don't remember) pay the price in social upheaval for excluding qualified Jewish elite aspirants from power, and that seems to be what is documented here, although the exclusion was mild and the Rothman & co. are interested in the more personal psychic dynamics of dissent.
They use West Germany (devoid, of course, of Jews) as a test case, and strangely enough, it seems that despite the absence of a large, aggressive cohort of Jewish radicals, or perhaps because of it, the New Left in Germany was a stronger and more lasting movement.
One of many interesting asides that isn't followed up:
"Jews' self-doubt tends... to inhibit their effectiveness as revolutionaries. Thes the 'militant' activity of the Weathermen was largely play-acting, which could only have taken place in a society in which the 'Establishment' acted under serious restrictions inhibiting its retaliatory powers. When Jewish radicals have engaged in contests with their less inhibited Christian counterparts in the aftermath of revolutions, they have invariably lost out. Kamenev and Zinoviev, after considerable vacillation both during and after the revolution, were easily shoved aside. And Trotsky... exhibited a self-defeating passivity in his struggle with Stalin."
They use West Germany (devoid, of course, of Jews) as a test case, and strangely enough, it seems that despite the absence of a large, aggressive cohort of Jewish radicals, or perhaps because of it, the New Left in Germany was a stronger and more lasting movement.
One of many interesting asides that isn't followed up:
"Jews' self-doubt tends... to inhibit their effectiveness as revolutionaries. Thes the 'militant' activity of the Weathermen was largely play-acting, which could only have taken place in a society in which the 'Establishment' acted under serious restrictions inhibiting its retaliatory powers. When Jewish radicals have engaged in contests with their less inhibited Christian counterparts in the aftermath of revolutions, they have invariably lost out. Kamenev and Zinoviev, after considerable vacillation both during and after the revolution, were easily shoved aside. And Trotsky... exhibited a self-defeating passivity in his struggle with Stalin."
Displaying 1 of 1 review