What do you think?
Rate this book
States of Denial: Knowing about Atrocities and Suffering
Blocking out, turning a blind eye, shutting off, not wanting to know, wearing blinkers, seeing what we want to see ... these are all expressions of 'denial'. Alcoholics who refuse to recognize their condition, people who brush aside suspicions of their partner's infidelity, the wife who doesn't notice that her husband is abusing their daughter - are supposedly 'in denial'. Governments deny their responsibility for atrocities, and plan them to achieve 'maximum deniability'. Truth Commissions try to overcome the suppression and denial of past horrors. Bystander nations deny their responsibility to intervene. Do these phenomena have anything in common? When we deny, are we aware of what we are doing or is this an unconscious defence mechanism to protect us from unwelcome truths? Can there be cultures of denial? How do organizations like Amnesty and Oxfam try to overcome the public's apparent indifference to distant suffering and cruelty? Is denial always so bad - or do we need positive illusions to retain our sanity?
States of Denial is the first comprehensive study of both the personal and political ways in which uncomfortable realities are avoided and evaded. It ranges from clinical studies of depression, to media images of suffering, to explanations of the 'passive bystander' and 'compassion fatigue'. The book shows how organized atrocities - the Holocaust and other genocides, torture, and political massacres - are denied by perpetrators and by bystanders, those who stand by and do nothing.
States of Denial is the first comprehensive study of both the personal and political ways in which uncomfortable realities are avoided and evaded. It ranges from clinical studies of depression, to media images of suffering, to explanations of the 'passive bystander' and 'compassion fatigue'. The book shows how organized atrocities - the Holocaust and other genocides, torture, and political massacres - are denied by perpetrators and by bystanders, those who stand by and do nothing.
360 pages, Paperback
First published March 5, 2001
38 people are currently reading
2424 people want to read
About the author
Stanley Cohen
72 books36 followersThere are more than one Stanley Cohen author.
*Stanley Cohen (1922-): USA biochemist
*Stanley Cohen (1928–2010): USA crime novelist
*Stanley Cohen (1934-): USA sport writer
*Stanley Cohen (1937-): USA biologist
*Stanley Cohen (1942–2013): South Africa-British sociologist
*Stanley Cohen (1922-): USA biochemist
*Stanley Cohen (1928–2010): USA crime novelist
*Stanley Cohen (1934-): USA sport writer
*Stanley Cohen (1937-): USA biologist
*Stanley Cohen (1942–2013): South Africa-British sociologist
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 18 of 18 reviews
Want to read
March 9, 2013Referred to in the "New Jim Crow". Expensive, though, and no Kindle edition. Try the library.
June 3, 2018
I wish he'd lived long enough to comment on the Trump/new alt-right movement. Its elevation of denial into a near-religion in celebrated anti-factness as morally superior would have been fascinating to see through his eyes, and I think we would have been better equipped to handle it. (If anyone knows of someone building off Cohen's ideas and applying them to those modern crises, please let me know! I'd want to read it.)
On to the review:
This book gutted me. It took me forever to read it, not because it is poor or not compelling, but because the material is so emotionally difficult that I could often read only twenty or thirty pages at a stretch. It was well worth working through, and I would recommend it without hesitation to anyone active in any field where public and official denial (whether in the form of lack of knowledge, lack of acknowledgement, lack of caring or lack of action) is a significant barrier to progress. Cohen's book was cited as a primary source and inspiration for one of my recent favourite books on climate change, Living in Denial: Climate Change, Emotions, and Everyday Life by Kari Norgaard, which is why I hunted it down (it's not easy to find, which is a shame).
It's not perfect, of course, but its very imperfections speak to the ideas Cohen relates: he himself is in denial. For instance, he describes "domestic violence" as a problem that's been solved, in which denial was a barrier to progress but isn't any longer. Keeping in mind that this book was published in 2001 and that, in 2018, domestic violence and predatory relationships are still significant problems for women, his characterization of this seems particularly and falsely optimistic: he certainly would have known and interacted with women in abusive relationships throughout his life, and yet he somehow remained oblivious to this fact.
Also, his declaration of success on environmental issues was premature. This line in particular made me rage-laugh:
Virtually non-political! Oh, Stanley.
And the book is itself somewhat dated. For example, the last section of the last chapter is titled "The Photo Never Lies." And, well. Photoshop.
(And not even photoshop. There's a meme going around on FaceBook--maybe you've seen it--with a picture of a lot of parked cars and people milling around, and a caption claiming that this is a photo of a protest in Germany when the government raised the taxes on gasoline and people revolted by staging mass park-ins on highways, which succeeded in eliminating the tax. Every word of it is a lie. There was, in 2001 or so, a raise in the price of gasoline in Germany; some truckers parked their trucks in protest, which caused local traffic problems and a couple of factories shut down for a few days; the price was not reduced, except for pensioners and others on fixed incomes. The photo itself is of a traffic jam in China, which should be obvious since every person in the photo is Chinese. Yet this fact-free narrative circulates on online spaces, encouraging people to revolt against governments raising gasoline prices, even though those price increases have the potential to save vulnerable lives and entire species through mitigating climate change. The whole thing makes me so angry I can't even tell you. What kind of cynical asshole would produce this, knowing it to be a lie and knowing that most people would care so little that they would circulate it anyway; and what kind of monster cares more for 4c/L on gasoline than the fate of island nations? This isn't the only one, either. I'm sure you have many of your own examples.)
Regardless, these flaws don't take away from the usefulness or value of the book's ideas.
Denial is a big subject, and this is a big book. He begins by describing what denial is: that peculiar mental state in which a fact or idea is simultaneously known and not-known. Known enough to know that further knowledge will be too difficult, and so must be avoided. He applies this to the micro problems of daily life (abusive relationships, alcoholism and addictions, etc.) and the macro problems of societies and large-scale atrocities, though the latter appropriately takes up the bulk of his focus and the book. It's impossible to avoid, though, seeing the ways in which even the macro discussions apply to the micro. You should expect this to make the book harder to read if you have personally experienced the ways in which denial can kill in intimate settings.
He explores the denial paradox at some length: in small doses denial allows us to have enough optimism to function in our daily lives. In large doses or about destructive enough problems, at any scale, denial kills. How to have enough denial to be in mental health while not so much denial as to contribute to mass atrocities and suffering is a conundrum he finds essentially unanswerable, suggesting that the answer is being aware of this dilemma.
After exploring what denial is and some thoughts on how the psychology of it works, he then spends the bulk of the book discussing specific mechanisms and techniques governments use to facilitate denial in their own ranks and in the population more broadly, and how advocacy and humanitarian organizations can counter this. It's very messy and wide-ranging and there are no specific or concrete solutions, largely because the techniques of denial shift to meet the latest techniques to counter it in a kind of mental arms race (see: Trump. Now we will no longer even pretend to be telling the truth. We'll call what we say "alternative facts" and act hurt when called liars in sheer manipulation.)
It's not a manual or self-help book; you can't pick it up and go through the steps in Chapter X to determine the correct anti-denial procedure to guarantee public support for program Y. But it is an extremely thorough exploration of the problem and its solutions as they stood in 2001 that should guide a reader through possible solutions and their downsides, and inspire possible approaches.
I have notes, underlines and scribbles on almost every page. This is what I call one of my Everything Books; it makes connections in hugely disparate subjects and spheres and sparks ideas in problems not in any obvious way connected to the story at hand. Following are a few of my favourite passages:
(That one was relied on to great effect in Living in Denial wrt not talking about climate change, and also not talking about how it's not ok to talk about climate change.)
Everything in that section wasn't just hugely interesting and informative, but also seemed like case accounts of the denials of perpetrators exposed by the #metoo movement. If you know an abuser, you will find much of this section familiar, and it might make sense of previously unanswerable problems. Rapists, for instance, don't get themselves and their victims drunk and they mistakenly proceed on the basis of misunderstood consent; they get themselves and their victims drunk because they know it's an excuse that will get them off the hook in a court of law (and in fact there's other evidence to support this specific example). Here he applies it to societies: governments don't mistakenly perceive black people, for example, as more dangerous, and then accidentally create police forces with the arms and permission to routinely exterminate them for minor law violations; they use this as an excuse after the fact to continue racist programs against black people to keep them in a subservient societal position. Governments don't mistakenly take masses of indigenous children from their families to place them in residential schools or white families for their own good--industries don't accidentally continue environmentally and potentially biospherically destructive practices in the noble intent to maintain high quality jobs--etc. These are excuses adopted before the atrocity/crime in order to be used afterwards, effectively, to avoid consequences.
Hmm, who does that remind me of?
This one needs to be blown up to 1000-point type and printed on the side of every fifth building in the world.
No one needs to be Nice, to be likeable, to placate or flatter, in order to deserve justice and human rights. You can be difficult and angry and still, on the basis of being a living human being, deserve an equal measure of justice for crimes against you. That's why they're HUMAN RIGHTS, not "Friendly Human Rights" or "Human I Like Rights."
On to the review:
This book gutted me. It took me forever to read it, not because it is poor or not compelling, but because the material is so emotionally difficult that I could often read only twenty or thirty pages at a stretch. It was well worth working through, and I would recommend it without hesitation to anyone active in any field where public and official denial (whether in the form of lack of knowledge, lack of acknowledgement, lack of caring or lack of action) is a significant barrier to progress. Cohen's book was cited as a primary source and inspiration for one of my recent favourite books on climate change, Living in Denial: Climate Change, Emotions, and Everyday Life by Kari Norgaard, which is why I hunted it down (it's not easy to find, which is a shame).
It's not perfect, of course, but its very imperfections speak to the ideas Cohen relates: he himself is in denial. For instance, he describes "domestic violence" as a problem that's been solved, in which denial was a barrier to progress but isn't any longer. Keeping in mind that this book was published in 2001 and that, in 2018, domestic violence and predatory relationships are still significant problems for women, his characterization of this seems particularly and falsely optimistic: he certainly would have known and interacted with women in abusive relationships throughout his life, and yet he somehow remained oblivious to this fact.
Also, his declaration of success on environmental issues was premature. This line in particular made me rage-laugh:
The success of the environmental movement has been striking. Its initial rise, till the end of the eighties, was partly achieved at the expense of humanitarian causes. Its message was safer, virtually non-political and easily appeals to self-interest.
Virtually non-political! Oh, Stanley.
And the book is itself somewhat dated. For example, the last section of the last chapter is titled "The Photo Never Lies." And, well. Photoshop.
(And not even photoshop. There's a meme going around on FaceBook--maybe you've seen it--with a picture of a lot of parked cars and people milling around, and a caption claiming that this is a photo of a protest in Germany when the government raised the taxes on gasoline and people revolted by staging mass park-ins on highways, which succeeded in eliminating the tax. Every word of it is a lie. There was, in 2001 or so, a raise in the price of gasoline in Germany; some truckers parked their trucks in protest, which caused local traffic problems and a couple of factories shut down for a few days; the price was not reduced, except for pensioners and others on fixed incomes. The photo itself is of a traffic jam in China, which should be obvious since every person in the photo is Chinese. Yet this fact-free narrative circulates on online spaces, encouraging people to revolt against governments raising gasoline prices, even though those price increases have the potential to save vulnerable lives and entire species through mitigating climate change. The whole thing makes me so angry I can't even tell you. What kind of cynical asshole would produce this, knowing it to be a lie and knowing that most people would care so little that they would circulate it anyway; and what kind of monster cares more for 4c/L on gasoline than the fate of island nations? This isn't the only one, either. I'm sure you have many of your own examples.)
Regardless, these flaws don't take away from the usefulness or value of the book's ideas.
Denial is a big subject, and this is a big book. He begins by describing what denial is: that peculiar mental state in which a fact or idea is simultaneously known and not-known. Known enough to know that further knowledge will be too difficult, and so must be avoided. He applies this to the micro problems of daily life (abusive relationships, alcoholism and addictions, etc.) and the macro problems of societies and large-scale atrocities, though the latter appropriately takes up the bulk of his focus and the book. It's impossible to avoid, though, seeing the ways in which even the macro discussions apply to the micro. You should expect this to make the book harder to read if you have personally experienced the ways in which denial can kill in intimate settings.
He explores the denial paradox at some length: in small doses denial allows us to have enough optimism to function in our daily lives. In large doses or about destructive enough problems, at any scale, denial kills. How to have enough denial to be in mental health while not so much denial as to contribute to mass atrocities and suffering is a conundrum he finds essentially unanswerable, suggesting that the answer is being aware of this dilemma.
After exploring what denial is and some thoughts on how the psychology of it works, he then spends the bulk of the book discussing specific mechanisms and techniques governments use to facilitate denial in their own ranks and in the population more broadly, and how advocacy and humanitarian organizations can counter this. It's very messy and wide-ranging and there are no specific or concrete solutions, largely because the techniques of denial shift to meet the latest techniques to counter it in a kind of mental arms race (see: Trump. Now we will no longer even pretend to be telling the truth. We'll call what we say "alternative facts" and act hurt when called liars in sheer manipulation.)
It's not a manual or self-help book; you can't pick it up and go through the steps in Chapter X to determine the correct anti-denial procedure to guarantee public support for program Y. But it is an extremely thorough exploration of the problem and its solutions as they stood in 2001 that should guide a reader through possible solutions and their downsides, and inspire possible approaches.
I have notes, underlines and scribbles on almost every page. This is what I call one of my Everything Books; it makes connections in hugely disparate subjects and spheres and sparks ideas in problems not in any obvious way connected to the story at hand. Following are a few of my favourite passages:
Whole societies have unmentioned and unmentionable rules about what should not be openly talked about. You are subject to a rule about obeying these rules, but bound also by a meta-rule which dictates that you deny your knowledge of the original rule.
(That one was relied on to great effect in Living in Denial wrt not talking about climate change, and also not talking about how it's not ok to talk about climate change.)
Perpetrators of gross atrocities and offenders against ordinary criminal codes invite the same set of questions: "Why did they do something like that?" Further, "How could they do it, but still believe in the rules they break?" Yet further, "How could they do such atrocious things, yet still think of themselves as good and decent people?"
...Offender and bystander denials belong to a wider category of speech acts known as 'accounts,' 'motivational accounts' or 'vocabulary of motives.' Motives, Wright Mills argued, are not mysterious internal states, but typical vocabularies with clear functions in particular social situations. They serve to realign people to groups whose norms and expectations they have confounded. There is no point in looking for deeper, 'real' motives behind these verbal accounts ... verbal statements of motives are initial guides to behaviour. An account is not just another defence mechanism to deal with guilt, shame or other psychic conflict after an offence has been committed; it must, in some sense, be present before the act. That is ... I must say to myself, "If I do this, what will I then be able to say to myself and others?" ...
...Such internal soliloquies are not private matters. On the contrary: accounts are learnt by ordinary cultural transmission, and are drawn from a well-established, collectively available pool. An account is adopted because of its public acceptability. ... The denials we see are those offered in the expectation that they will be accepted.
Everything in that section wasn't just hugely interesting and informative, but also seemed like case accounts of the denials of perpetrators exposed by the #metoo movement. If you know an abuser, you will find much of this section familiar, and it might make sense of previously unanswerable problems. Rapists, for instance, don't get themselves and their victims drunk and they mistakenly proceed on the basis of misunderstood consent; they get themselves and their victims drunk because they know it's an excuse that will get them off the hook in a court of law (and in fact there's other evidence to support this specific example). Here he applies it to societies: governments don't mistakenly perceive black people, for example, as more dangerous, and then accidentally create police forces with the arms and permission to routinely exterminate them for minor law violations; they use this as an excuse after the fact to continue racist programs against black people to keep them in a subservient societal position. Governments don't mistakenly take masses of indigenous children from their families to place them in residential schools or white families for their own good--industries don't accidentally continue environmentally and potentially biospherically destructive practices in the noble intent to maintain high quality jobs--etc. These are excuses adopted before the atrocity/crime in order to be used afterwards, effectively, to avoid consequences.
"General Videla's empty references affirming that he takes full responsibility but that nothing happened expose a primary thought process which, giving magical power to words, tries through them to make reality disappear because one wishes to deny it.
Hmm, who does that remind me of?
To be co-operative perpetrators or complicit bystanders for years requires a sense of the world in which the others' presence is hardly recognized. They get what they deserve, not because of what they do, but because of who they are.
The principle of social justice does not depend on your moral awareness of people like you--but your readiness to extend the circle of recognition to unknown (and even unlikable) people who are not at all like you.
This one needs to be blown up to 1000-point type and printed on the side of every fifth building in the world.
No one needs to be Nice, to be likeable, to placate or flatter, in order to deserve justice and human rights. You can be difficult and angry and still, on the basis of being a living human being, deserve an equal measure of justice for crimes against you. That's why they're HUMAN RIGHTS, not "Friendly Human Rights" or "Human I Like Rights."
February 7, 2015
Every now and then a book comes along which changes the way you think. This is one of them. Cohen searches for the truth and it's not very nice. He delves into why we lie, to ourselves, to others, to preserve the life we like to think we're living. As a psychologist Cohen has evaluated how we so much want to maintain our self identity of being that good person that we construct a world that suits us. In this book various issues are covered in the chapters and chapters six and seven on how we avoid the humanitarian request were so good my own work in this area relied on Cohen's insights. Peter Singer ought to read this book. Read it if you enjoy something concerning human nature to think over.
November 23, 2011
This is partly a primer in moral psychology, partly a synopsis of 20th-century atrocities.
Cohen engages the social science of individual denial to explain political/cultural denial. He examines common ways we mentally adapt to personal trauma -- then extrapolates to explain the responses (or lack thereof) of perpetrators, victims, and bystanders to mass suffering.
I enjoyed the later chapters in which he analyzes shaming tactics used by Amnesty et al, "pornography of pain" debates triggered by war photos, feel-good charity schemes, and "banal" heroes who risked their necks for strangers. This material is illuminating, though not original, and partly atones for earlier sections wasted on Freud.
But in applying concepts to a wide panoply of cases, Cohen swaps depth for breadth. He leaves us with a vague sense that he's onto something, but without grounds for a robust intellectual or emotional commitment to his message.
Cohen engages the social science of individual denial to explain political/cultural denial. He examines common ways we mentally adapt to personal trauma -- then extrapolates to explain the responses (or lack thereof) of perpetrators, victims, and bystanders to mass suffering.
I enjoyed the later chapters in which he analyzes shaming tactics used by Amnesty et al, "pornography of pain" debates triggered by war photos, feel-good charity schemes, and "banal" heroes who risked their necks for strangers. This material is illuminating, though not original, and partly atones for earlier sections wasted on Freud.
But in applying concepts to a wide panoply of cases, Cohen swaps depth for breadth. He leaves us with a vague sense that he's onto something, but without grounds for a robust intellectual or emotional commitment to his message.
June 1, 2018
This is a fantastic text for someone researching past atrocities and the ways historians do and do not write about, like I am. It is also quite timely to make sense of the current political order. The maneuvers, the denials, disavowals, lies, and B.S.-ing, are all the same and motivated by similar goals. I'd love to see 2nd edition updated for today.
Read
March 11, 2021[school]
although I admit that I have not read this book word-by-word (I had to skim through lengthy examples as I'm mostly using this book for the purpose of writing a shool essay), i can still confidently state that it was eye-opening. Cohen's theories of denial and acknowledgement seem to be more and more relevant with each day; hence, I wish the content of this book was taught at school. perhaps the fact that it isn't only proves how deeply in denial we all live.
although I admit that I have not read this book word-by-word (I had to skim through lengthy examples as I'm mostly using this book for the purpose of writing a shool essay), i can still confidently state that it was eye-opening. Cohen's theories of denial and acknowledgement seem to be more and more relevant with each day; hence, I wish the content of this book was taught at school. perhaps the fact that it isn't only proves how deeply in denial we all live.
February 7, 2016
Five stars for the authors deep discussions of an immensely important topic.
Cohen’s writing style is two stars.
Some of the major themes of the book are The Holocaust, Amnesty International work, the South African Truth and Reconciliation Commission. Cohen also criticizes Freud’s old ideas of denial. Cohen talks about denial at all levels form global atrocity to peoples’ daily lives. He clarifies the differences between the types of denial and makes recommendations based on their distinctive behaviors.
The author makes strong statements against post-modern ideas that truth is relative. Torture and murder are universal wrongs despite what people claim about unique situations in different cultures.
Cohen’s writing is best when he tells stories. Unfortunately, much of the book is academic discussion. Some of the issues that I found were: 1) Very long lists in parenthesis. These lists break up the flow of the text. (Sorry, I am giving a long list here too.) 2) Asides that interrupt the reading. 3) Lack of a transition between topics, or a poorly handled one. 4) Long arguments that he appears to support, but then at the end he finally says he’s against. 5) Reliance on vocabulary that readers may not be familiar with unless they had University courses in sociology.
Cohen’s writing style is two stars.
Some of the major themes of the book are The Holocaust, Amnesty International work, the South African Truth and Reconciliation Commission. Cohen also criticizes Freud’s old ideas of denial. Cohen talks about denial at all levels form global atrocity to peoples’ daily lives. He clarifies the differences between the types of denial and makes recommendations based on their distinctive behaviors.
The author makes strong statements against post-modern ideas that truth is relative. Torture and murder are universal wrongs despite what people claim about unique situations in different cultures.
Cohen’s writing is best when he tells stories. Unfortunately, much of the book is academic discussion. Some of the issues that I found were: 1) Very long lists in parenthesis. These lists break up the flow of the text. (Sorry, I am giving a long list here too.) 2) Asides that interrupt the reading. 3) Lack of a transition between topics, or a poorly handled one. 4) Long arguments that he appears to support, but then at the end he finally says he’s against. 5) Reliance on vocabulary that readers may not be familiar with unless they had University courses in sociology.
May 7, 2025
This book is more relevant than now than ever as we wonder why so many people can deny the genocide happening in Palestine right now. But not just that. We are in currently - especially those of us in America - are witnessing the largest collective denial in our nation's history. We are held hostage by those in denial. They deny science, climate change, history, and even their own religion. They cheer on suffering and seemingly revel in the collapse of global stability. And they act like everything is normal. But why?
In States of Denial, Stanley Cohen offers tremendous insights on the nature of denial. Although this book was written before social media, it still holds remarkable relevancy.
This book comes along well into a journey I've been on for nearly a decade trying to understand the nature of denial. That journey started in grad school while writing a paper on something relating to climate change. I found myself wondering why so many people can deny things so blatantly obvious. In a moment my worldview was changed. I realized that no matter how much I studied and understood climate science that it was meaningless if people denied the truth. So I set off to read as many books as I could find to understand things like denial, bias, and ignorance.
Somehow this book eluded me for years but I still found it to be a rewarding read. While some of Cohen's notions may seem antiquated and incomplete, there is still profound knowledge to be found within this work. The only reason it lost a star for me was the writing style itself, which at times as meandering and repetitive. While not being an outright academic text, this book does read as one and will not pull you along like popular non-fiction. But as the resurgence of fascism threatens our democracies and as climate change threatens civilization as we know it, all of us should be able to find the time to read texts like this. The future may hinge upon us willing enough to accept the truth. And if not, we shall simply watch truth die.
In States of Denial, Stanley Cohen offers tremendous insights on the nature of denial. Although this book was written before social media, it still holds remarkable relevancy.
This book comes along well into a journey I've been on for nearly a decade trying to understand the nature of denial. That journey started in grad school while writing a paper on something relating to climate change. I found myself wondering why so many people can deny things so blatantly obvious. In a moment my worldview was changed. I realized that no matter how much I studied and understood climate science that it was meaningless if people denied the truth. So I set off to read as many books as I could find to understand things like denial, bias, and ignorance.
Somehow this book eluded me for years but I still found it to be a rewarding read. While some of Cohen's notions may seem antiquated and incomplete, there is still profound knowledge to be found within this work. The only reason it lost a star for me was the writing style itself, which at times as meandering and repetitive. While not being an outright academic text, this book does read as one and will not pull you along like popular non-fiction. But as the resurgence of fascism threatens our democracies and as climate change threatens civilization as we know it, all of us should be able to find the time to read texts like this. The future may hinge upon us willing enough to accept the truth. And if not, we shall simply watch truth die.
January 8, 2025
A waste of time. Even at the time of writing, Cohen's understanding of psychology was nowhere near sophisticated enough to understand why individuals or collectivities deny their violence or how they approach suffering. Now, with advances in psychology and neurospychoanalysis, his analysis is totally obsolete.
January 4, 2021
This book has many insights on the psychology and sociology of denial but it could’ve lost at least a hundred pages with no detriment to the argument. Also, the extended discussion on Freudian analysis is dated and quite superfluous. Cognitive science is far more illuminating in this score.
April 13, 2019
A provocative, wise, impressively wide-ranging treatment of the topic, which tragically seems more relevant now than ever.
May 20, 2022
Several years of a living taught in one book.
November 18, 2023
for college but surprisingly enjoyed
July 15, 2014
Cohen explores denial in a wide variety of forms from the individual to the institutional to the social. It is astounding the different ways that humans have developed to deny anything that is unpleasant to them. Cohen points out that the consequences of denial are denied by those in denial. Yet people may still feel guilty about this nonetheless. What is good about this book is that it draws connections between those different forms. So they are not seen in isolation from one another, but form part of a pattern.
December 12, 2016
My IHR prof really thought this book was worth reading. I can see that from her perspective - it's a very organized account of the denials people form/issue re: HR abuses. But tbh, I don't really see the point of breaking down the different types of denial - we're familiar with all of them anyway, even if we haven't created strict categorizations for them?
April 15, 2013
a very interesting and relevant account about denial of states and states of our denial of near and far atrocities. and then also what factors change that attitude. relevant for many countries. (recent talkback to an article about torture "there.is.no.torture.in.Israel"),
Want to read
February 6, 2013I must admit, I did not read it entirely. I skipped to the chapters that interested me. Those I did read had a profound impact on my thought process.
Read
May 21, 2017Cohen käsittelee todella mielenkiintoisesti sekä yksilöpsykologisella että yhteisöjen tasolla, mitä tarkoittaa todellisuuden kieltäminen: tässä yhteydessä, miten elää sulkien silmänsä ja korvansa muiden - erityisesti kaukaisten muiden - kärsimykseltä. Kyseessä on hyvä perusteos kaikille, jotka ovat pohtineet kärsimystä ja siihen puuttumista.
Kirjassa käydään läpi eri teorioita (tarvitsiko Freud oikeasti niin_paljon tilaa) ja johtopäätös on, että kieltäminen on lähtökohta, ja tiedostaminen on poikkeus. Oikea kysymys ei siis ole, miten on mahdollista, että niin monet ohittavat kerjäläisen kadulla tai katselivat kaikessa rauhassa, kun heidän naapurinsa vietiin keskitysleirille. Oikea kysymys on, miten tiedostamiseen voitaisiin kannustaa.
(On muuten kummallista, kuinka paljon ruma taitto voi häiritä lukukokemusta. Oikein silmiä särki tätä lukiessa.)
Kirjassa käydään läpi eri teorioita (tarvitsiko Freud oikeasti niin_paljon tilaa) ja johtopäätös on, että kieltäminen on lähtökohta, ja tiedostaminen on poikkeus. Oikea kysymys ei siis ole, miten on mahdollista, että niin monet ohittavat kerjäläisen kadulla tai katselivat kaikessa rauhassa, kun heidän naapurinsa vietiin keskitysleirille. Oikea kysymys on, miten tiedostamiseen voitaisiin kannustaa.
(On muuten kummallista, kuinka paljon ruma taitto voi häiritä lukukokemusta. Oikein silmiä särki tätä lukiessa.)
Displaying 1 - 18 of 18 reviews