First World War: Still No End in Sight

by Frank Furedi

That the conflicts unleashed by Great War did not end in 1918 is well known. World War II and the Cold War clearly constitute key moments in the drama that began in August 1914. This book argues that the battle of ideas which crystallised during the course of the Great War continue to the present. It claims that the disputes about lifestyles and identity – the Culture Wars of today –are only the latest expressions of a century long conflict. There are many influences that contributed to the outbreak of World War One. One significant influence was the cultural tension and unease that disposed significant numbers of artists, intellectuals and young people to regard the War as an opportunity give meaning to their existence. Later these tensions merged with social unrest and expressed themselves through the new ideologies of the Left and the Right. While these ideologies have become exhausted the conflicts of culture persist to this date. That is why there is Still No End In Sight for the battle of ideas set in motion in August 1914. Modern wars did not only lead to the loss of millions of lives. Wars also played a significant role in changing attitudes towards the political ideals of modern time. The Great War called into question the future of liberal democracy. It led to the emergence of radical ideologies, which were in turn discredited through the experience of the Second World War and the Cold War. The current Culture Wars have significantly eroded the status of the values associated with modernity. Through exploring the battle of ideas set in motion in August 1914 – First World War- Still No End In Sight – provides a framework for understanding the changing focus of political conflict from ideology to culture.

Genres: History, Politics, Nonfiction, Sociology, Society, Cultural

288 pages, Hardcover

First published January 1, 2014

About the author

Frank Furedi is a professor of sociology at the University of Kent, UK.

Reviews

[Sara · Rating 2 out of 5]

The fallacy of value-neutrality

[Through my ratings, reviews and edits I'm providing intellectual property and labor to Amazon.com Inc., listed on Nasdaq, which fully owns Goodreads.com and in 2013 posted revenues for $74 billion and $274 million profits. Intellectual property and labor require compensation. Amazon.com Inc. is also requested to provide assurance that its employees and contractors' work conditions meet the highest health and safety standards at all the company's sites].

This book is unbearable, unless you think of it as part of Thomas Mann's The Magic Mountain. Imagine you're very rich, bored, and prepared to spend a couple of years at a sanatorium in Switzerland, to cure an hypothetical disease, around 1913. You can use this book, its very wording and tone of voice, to beef up your conversations with the other semi-intellectuals hanging around. You only have to forget that your Author, Thomas Mann, unlike Furedi, is ironical and that the Magic Mountain is wondrous, unlike this book.

Book of (minor) books, its main thesis is that the First World War broke out - as in the Magic Mountain - as a result of a value crisis, and that that very value crisis is still haunting us. Thesis which might be good enough to inspire a novel but does not make for particularly convincing history or sociology.

The blame for western elites' lack of self-belief is put on democracy and capitalism, both described as empty boxes, that can be filled with any set of values along the political spectrum without jepardizing their functionalities and identity. Democracy and capitalism's lack of 'normativity' is discussed over and over again, never taking into account the possibility of its negation.

What I mean is that far from being value-neutral, both democracy and capitalism are highly value-charged, but present each a set of values that put them at odds with one another. The crisis more likely arises from the contrast between democracy's demands for equality and therefore uncertainty and disorder on the one hand, and capitalism's need for hierarchy, predictability and discipline on the other.

Failing to admit this, the author happily embraces Fukuyama's end of history - an endgame that has been dragging its feet for one hundred years.

[Liquidlasagna · Rating 1 out of 5]

As another review noted:

"the author happily embraces Fukuyama's End of History"

---

my gut instinct is that people were dissatisfied before the Great War, and they were a bit more dissatified after the Great War....

...and i just wonder to a very slight degree if Furedi just has a touch of that neo-Trotskyite appeal to a Neoconservative like Fukuyama who is about as wrong as you can get these days about 'history'

[Jean · Rating 3 out of 5]

This is a newly published book (May 2014) about the WWI by Frank Furedi, a professor of Sociology at the University of Kent at Canterbury. Furedi contest with unlimited pessimism and references to an army of intellectual social commentators, academics and sociologist, (not a single reference or diary by a common person) that spans the century is that the First World War has never ended. Furedi quoted Tony Judt (“Ill Fares the Land”),” the First World War was followed by epidemics, revolutions, the failure of States, currency collapse, unemployment, dictatorship and fascism. Democracy, however, has proved resilient, if battered”. Furedi is not the first to argue that the Great War brought about our decline of trust in our institutions, notions of authority and our lack of values. Furedi’s argument in this book hinges on three main concepts, usefully emboldened in the text.
1)“Existential insecurity”, which he sees as extending throughout western society
2)“Exhaustion” which is more than battle-weariness and closer to the “end of everything” that has fuelled cultural studies since the oil crisis in the 1970s.
3)The last is an “intellectual crisis experience by western capitalism-recast as the crisis of the intellectual”.
This is an interesting book about the sequence of political thinkers on liberalism, authority and power since 1914. I would have found this book’s arguments more convincing if it had been backed up with some hard detail of how people lived, and how their lives changed in the decades after 1918, in addition to how sociologist argued that their lives were changing. It is an interest exercise; though ultimately somewhat unconvincing in the way it follows a complex event through very different sequences of cultural and intellectual moods. The author framed the book by his own politics. He is self-described as a Libertarian with his roots in the Revolutionary Communist Party (RCP). The book will stimulate your vocabulary, which makes the book ideal for an e-book as the dictionary is only a finger tap away.

[Guna · Rating 4 out of 5]

The problems the West has struggled with before and during WWI have not disappeared. They go on, and Furedi does a good job explaining how they continue over the decades since. The flyleaf says the book "provides a framework for understanding the changing focus of political conflict from ideology to culture."
Although this applies to the US as well as to Europe, I believe that our strength is in our written constitution. Most of us believe 'authority' rests in it - the problem is that there are varying views on its interpretation and these strongly affect our struggles with the issues brought up in the book.
So, the social, cultural aspects are there, but perhaps it would be a mistake to ignore the political aspects.
All in all, I found the book very illuminating.

[Lorenza · Rating 4 out of 5]

I have always been fascinated by WWI and have often found myself reading books about not only the causes and events of the war, but its outcomes and consequences. I was particularly drawn to this book because I believe that the First World War brought about change on a global scale, especially Europe, in all sectors including political, economic and especially social. I enjoyed how Furedi discussed the change in culture and political ideals and how it consequently changed the mindset of the next generations. At times, I did believe it to be repetitive but the ideas discussed are relevant and important. I recommend it!

[Warren · Rating 2 out of 5]

My review of this book can be summed up in the mail I sent to the author and publisher ...

Sirs,

I recently finished the above title. While the book had some interesting insights, I was extremely disappointed by both a lack of attention to editing and some of the arguments advanced.

1. Editing

Was this book actually properly edited? Here is just a snapshot of some of the editing issues in the book:

Inconsistent use of "First World War" and "World War One". The same issue is repeated with "Second World War" and "World War Two". "Chose one and stick to it" was a common exhortation from professors at the universities I have attended. However, that doesn't seem to be the case in this text.
On page 119 a sentence reads, "During the early years of the Second World it became ...". I read this sentence and asked myself, "Second World what?!". It's obvious that the word "war" is missing, but this example just further highlights the shoddy editing.
On page 196 a phrase reads, "one of the most important insight (sic)". It should surely by "most important insights"?
On page 208 a phrase reads, "serves as resource that". The article "a" appears to be missing.

The lack of attention to editing is extremely annoying and detracts from some of the interesting points raised in the book. I found myself reading the book waiting for the next editing and/or grammatical faux pas as a form of comic relief.

I turn now to some of the arguments raised in the book.

2. Arguments

I acknowledge on this issue some of the points raised, at this juncture in my mail, are matters of conjecture. However, here goes:

Reference is made to social democrats on the left and the right. Social democracy is hardly an ideology that people on the right of the spectrum would identify with, given that social democracy is a strand of socialism. Whilst conservative governments after the Second World War may have adopted policies that reinforced the Welfare State (as a form of social democracy), is this just not symptomatic of the dearth of ideas amongst conservatives and a tacit acknowledgement of the failure of capitalism and the free market? This hardly means conservatives had suddenly become socialists.
Capitalism is referred to as a social system. I would rather argue that capitalism is a way for society to organise its economic affairs. This does not mean that a society's social systems are capitalist. Arguing that capitalism is a social system conflates our economic lives with our social lives. Whilst these two aspects of a society are inter-related, they should not be conflated.
The arguments around democracy and the promotion of democracy at the end of the Second World War seem to conflate the concepts of capitalism and democracy. Capitalism is not democracy and democracy is not capitalism. Indeed, it could be argued that democracy and capitalism are antithetical.

Unfortunately all of the above, in particular the editing, detracted from the read. To be honest, I found these issues extremely irritating and insulting to me, the reader. I was left with the impression that if you aren't prepared to take your reader seriously and edit the book properly, why should I take you, the author and publisher, seriously.

If a second edition and/or paperback is ever published I would suggest that the book be proofread - properly this time - and the editing issues dealt with, at the very least.

Yours faithfully,

Warren Weertman

[Eric · Rating 3 out of 5]

Books makes its point that the Great War (WW I) is more of a major turning point in intellectual culture in the West (especially Europe) than is generally recognized. Has a tendency to repeat itself, and uses too many summary statements rather than citing and analyzing original sources.

Does a good job of a quick survey of thought to bring the impact of the Great War down to the present and inform, to an extent, the bitterness of the current political debate in the U.S.