What do you think?
Rate this book
Unconcious Civilization
A critique of our corporatist society and a compelling argument for big G government.
200 pages
First published January 7, 1995
51 people are currently reading
1525 people want to read
About the author
John Ralston Saul
57 books229 followersJohn Ralston Saul is a Canadian writer, essayist, and public intellectual best known for his provocative works on themes such as individualism, citizenship, democracy, globalization, and the role of the public intellectual. His books, widely translated and read around the world, challenge conventional economic and political thinking and advocate for civic responsibility and ethical governance. A celebrated critic of technocratic and corporatist ideologies, Saul is often recognized for his passionate defense of the public good and his deep belief in the transformative power of engaged citizenship.
Born in Ottawa, Saul was educated in Canada, France, and the United Kingdom. He holds a PhD from King’s College London, where he focused on the modernization of France during the Algerian War. Early in his career, he worked in both the corporate world and in diplomacy, notably serving as an assistant to André Malraux, the famed French novelist and minister. These experiences informed his understanding of the interplay between power, culture, and politics, which would later become central to his writing.
Saul first gained international attention with his 1988 philosophical novel Voltaire’s Bastards: The Dictatorship of Reason in the West, a critique of how rationality, while necessary, had been distorted into a cold, managerial ideology disconnected from ethics, culture, and human values. The book, and subsequent works like The Unconscious Civilization and The Doubter’s Companion, positioned him as a leading voice in what he called “responsible humanism”—a worldview that values reason but insists it be balanced by intuition, memory, and imagination.
His 2008 book A Fair Country: Telling Truths About Canada argued that Canada’s political culture is deeply shaped by Indigenous values, particularly egalitarianism, negotiation, and mutual respect. The book challenged traditional Eurocentric narratives and emphasized the need for a new national conversation built on inclusion and reconciliation. This work reflects Saul’s long-standing commitment to Indigenous issues in Canada, which has also shaped his public advocacy.
Saul served as president of PEN International, the global writers’ organization, from 2009 to 2015, where he championed freedom of expression and supported writers under threat around the world. He is also the longtime companion and husband of Adrienne Clarkson, former Governor General of Canada, and served as her close advisor during her tenure from 1999 to 2005.
His many awards include the Governor General’s Literary Award for Non-Fiction, the Pablo Neruda Medal, and the Canada Council Molson Prize. Saul is also a Companion of the Order of Canada and a Chevalier of the Ordre des Arts et des Lettres in France.
Through his essays, novels, lectures, and international work, John Ralston Saul has established himself as one of Canada’s foremost thinkers—a defender of thoughtful dissent and a persistent voice for a more just, inclusive, and imaginative society. His work continues to influence debates on democracy, culture, and civic engagement both in Canada and abroad.
Born in Ottawa, Saul was educated in Canada, France, and the United Kingdom. He holds a PhD from King’s College London, where he focused on the modernization of France during the Algerian War. Early in his career, he worked in both the corporate world and in diplomacy, notably serving as an assistant to André Malraux, the famed French novelist and minister. These experiences informed his understanding of the interplay between power, culture, and politics, which would later become central to his writing.
Saul first gained international attention with his 1988 philosophical novel Voltaire’s Bastards: The Dictatorship of Reason in the West, a critique of how rationality, while necessary, had been distorted into a cold, managerial ideology disconnected from ethics, culture, and human values. The book, and subsequent works like The Unconscious Civilization and The Doubter’s Companion, positioned him as a leading voice in what he called “responsible humanism”—a worldview that values reason but insists it be balanced by intuition, memory, and imagination.
His 2008 book A Fair Country: Telling Truths About Canada argued that Canada’s political culture is deeply shaped by Indigenous values, particularly egalitarianism, negotiation, and mutual respect. The book challenged traditional Eurocentric narratives and emphasized the need for a new national conversation built on inclusion and reconciliation. This work reflects Saul’s long-standing commitment to Indigenous issues in Canada, which has also shaped his public advocacy.
Saul served as president of PEN International, the global writers’ organization, from 2009 to 2015, where he championed freedom of expression and supported writers under threat around the world. He is also the longtime companion and husband of Adrienne Clarkson, former Governor General of Canada, and served as her close advisor during her tenure from 1999 to 2005.
His many awards include the Governor General’s Literary Award for Non-Fiction, the Pablo Neruda Medal, and the Canada Council Molson Prize. Saul is also a Companion of the Order of Canada and a Chevalier of the Ordre des Arts et des Lettres in France.
Through his essays, novels, lectures, and international work, John Ralston Saul has established himself as one of Canada’s foremost thinkers—a defender of thoughtful dissent and a persistent voice for a more just, inclusive, and imaginative society. His work continues to influence debates on democracy, culture, and civic engagement both in Canada and abroad.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 56 reviews
July 16, 2007
Saul is a beautifully simply writer. His thesis is that we live in a civilization that is fundamentally deluded about the type of society we actually are. We believe we live in a time of remarkable peace, but really there have never been so many wars. We think we are free and that we live in a democracy, but people have never felt so alienated from 'power'. This book is a call to arms over how to make our society more aligned to the myths of our society. Just because things have gotten worse since it was written does not take away from his message. If anything, it only makes it more urgent.
March 6, 2018
"There is absolutely no indication that the Industrial Revolution imbalance had a self-rectifying mechanism to archieve any social balance — by which I mean reasonably shared prosperity. It was the citizenry and democracy that forced the economic mechanism into a socially acceptable and reasonably stable shape; what I would call the shape of a civilization."
...
"The November 1929 issue of McCall's Magazine celebrated this victory [supposed period of unstoppable market-led prosperity] with a conversation between the novelist Sinclair Lewis, columnist Walter Lippmann and Will Durant, the popular historian of philosophy. The atmosphere in this conversation was summarized by the editor in his introduction:
«Our prosperity is doubtless very great. Invention, machinery, labor-economizing devices, keep devoloping so vigorously that, despite those who believe the machines will soon overwhelm and enslave us, both our output and our leisure time keep increasing. The worker, the artisan as well as the housewife in the kitchen, have more leisure today than was dreamed of a generation ago.»
By the time the magazine actually reached the stands, businessmen were throwing themselves out of windows and the latest [ehm ehm] depression had begun. After that it seemed as if we had finally learned our lesson: learned that the marketplace could not learn its lesson. Therefore it was up to the individual as citizen, through a careful definition and implementation of the public good, to make sure that the innate economic imbalance benefited from the rules of the civilization.
Yet, here we are, a mere 65 years later, with a financial market which by comparison makes that of 1929 seems responsible, a stock market which, once again, moves in a manner unrelated to investment in real production, declining real wages for the vast majority of the population, chronic unemployment not as serious as that of 1929 but far higher than statistics admit and high enough to stultify the economy. Finally, real growth disappeared two decades ago and has yet to return.
Even more astounding, we keep on hoping that we will rediscover prosperity through this mechanism called market forces. In imitation of the nineteenth century and the 1920s, we are deregulating everything in sight and even restructuring government and education along industry lines. We have fallen back in love with an old ideology that has never paid off in the past."
— Published in 1995.
...
"The November 1929 issue of McCall's Magazine celebrated this victory [supposed period of unstoppable market-led prosperity] with a conversation between the novelist Sinclair Lewis, columnist Walter Lippmann and Will Durant, the popular historian of philosophy. The atmosphere in this conversation was summarized by the editor in his introduction:
«Our prosperity is doubtless very great. Invention, machinery, labor-economizing devices, keep devoloping so vigorously that, despite those who believe the machines will soon overwhelm and enslave us, both our output and our leisure time keep increasing. The worker, the artisan as well as the housewife in the kitchen, have more leisure today than was dreamed of a generation ago.»
By the time the magazine actually reached the stands, businessmen were throwing themselves out of windows and the latest [ehm ehm] depression had begun. After that it seemed as if we had finally learned our lesson: learned that the marketplace could not learn its lesson. Therefore it was up to the individual as citizen, through a careful definition and implementation of the public good, to make sure that the innate economic imbalance benefited from the rules of the civilization.
Yet, here we are, a mere 65 years later, with a financial market which by comparison makes that of 1929 seems responsible, a stock market which, once again, moves in a manner unrelated to investment in real production, declining real wages for the vast majority of the population, chronic unemployment not as serious as that of 1929 but far higher than statistics admit and high enough to stultify the economy. Finally, real growth disappeared two decades ago and has yet to return.
Even more astounding, we keep on hoping that we will rediscover prosperity through this mechanism called market forces. In imitation of the nineteenth century and the 1920s, we are deregulating everything in sight and even restructuring government and education along industry lines. We have fallen back in love with an old ideology that has never paid off in the past."
— Published in 1995.
December 21, 2020
The denial of the public good in favor of private interests is a theme which gives this book as much relevance now as when it first came out. In this critique of modern society the author, J. R. Saul, raises the humanist banner of Socrates against the ideological standard of Plato.
Since about 1870, he tells us, Western individualism has given way to “corporatism,” the idea that power involves only group interests. The corporatist world view denies that individuals can be a source of social legitimacy in light of the manifest differences among them. Humans, so the theory goes, are incapable of objective thinking; their needs, even their very speech, reduce simply to self-interest. The displacement of the individual by group interests has given rise to an “unconscious” civilization in which people specialize in one subject and suffer almost childlike ignorance of other branches of knowledge.
Why would corporatism, or group interest, necessarily undermine the public good? The answer lies in the uniquely disinterested nature of the public good as opposed to the inherent self-interest of groups. A significant corollary of this definition is that the opposite of self-interest isn’t altruism at all, as is commonly supposed, but rather disinterest.
A society based in the power of group interest has disturbing deficiencies. Absent the disinterested authority of the public good, individuals are reduced to their immediate needs. Freedom becomes linked in people’s minds with a winner-take-all version of capitalism. The educational system actually impedes integrated thought as it changes to turn out a class of technicians and small-picture experts serving some private group or other, usually business interests.
A society with a weak sense of the public good has no memory from which to act. By the same token it becomes directionless, with a decreasing capacity to plan for the future. Knowledge, in such a scheme, cannot be converted to meaningful action by individuals. Free speech has little practical effect on policies. Public discourse lacks any appeal to human decency, grinding down instead into discussions among professionals about technicalities.
Economically, a false capitalism emerges in which efficiency substitutes for effectiveness, and decisiveness crowds out thoughtful action. Low interest rates lead to inflation, not growth: Economic activity gets dissipated in property speculation, mergers and acquisitions, and privatization of public goods. People, for their part, become functions, rewarded by their ability to integrate into groups in which loyalty trumps merit. Such a structure strands us with a sense of being entrapped in an imaginary dialectic yielding ineluctable conclusions. Neoliberalism and the end of history have arrived.
By contrasting the public good to private groups, the author exposes in libertarian thinking the fallacy of the excluded middle. When libertarians limit the scope of the public good, Saul argues, power simply moves into the hands of private organizations, not private individuals. That’s because any privatization scheme involves three players, not two. Individuals are little more than a third wheel to this power play between public and private. The dangerous end product of the elimination of the public good from decisions is power without responsibility.
How can we counteract that? The author suggests vaguely that we insert the individual wherever we can into ongoing debates and discussions. While individuals may not be able to change policies, they may be able to affect the dynamics of a society. Above all, individuals should develop personal virtues antithetical to a corporatist social structure, virtues such as common sense, creativity, personal ethics, memory and reason.
By looking carefully at the concept of the public good, Saul orients readers dramatically away from useless thinking about current social trends. The book is engaging, if at times rhetorical. Fifteen years in print, it is more relevant today than it was when it first appeared. The concise, innovative thinking the author brings to these pages makes the book a must-read for any reflective citizen anywhere in the developed world.
Since about 1870, he tells us, Western individualism has given way to “corporatism,” the idea that power involves only group interests. The corporatist world view denies that individuals can be a source of social legitimacy in light of the manifest differences among them. Humans, so the theory goes, are incapable of objective thinking; their needs, even their very speech, reduce simply to self-interest. The displacement of the individual by group interests has given rise to an “unconscious” civilization in which people specialize in one subject and suffer almost childlike ignorance of other branches of knowledge.
Why would corporatism, or group interest, necessarily undermine the public good? The answer lies in the uniquely disinterested nature of the public good as opposed to the inherent self-interest of groups. A significant corollary of this definition is that the opposite of self-interest isn’t altruism at all, as is commonly supposed, but rather disinterest.
A society based in the power of group interest has disturbing deficiencies. Absent the disinterested authority of the public good, individuals are reduced to their immediate needs. Freedom becomes linked in people’s minds with a winner-take-all version of capitalism. The educational system actually impedes integrated thought as it changes to turn out a class of technicians and small-picture experts serving some private group or other, usually business interests.
A society with a weak sense of the public good has no memory from which to act. By the same token it becomes directionless, with a decreasing capacity to plan for the future. Knowledge, in such a scheme, cannot be converted to meaningful action by individuals. Free speech has little practical effect on policies. Public discourse lacks any appeal to human decency, grinding down instead into discussions among professionals about technicalities.
Economically, a false capitalism emerges in which efficiency substitutes for effectiveness, and decisiveness crowds out thoughtful action. Low interest rates lead to inflation, not growth: Economic activity gets dissipated in property speculation, mergers and acquisitions, and privatization of public goods. People, for their part, become functions, rewarded by their ability to integrate into groups in which loyalty trumps merit. Such a structure strands us with a sense of being entrapped in an imaginary dialectic yielding ineluctable conclusions. Neoliberalism and the end of history have arrived.
By contrasting the public good to private groups, the author exposes in libertarian thinking the fallacy of the excluded middle. When libertarians limit the scope of the public good, Saul argues, power simply moves into the hands of private organizations, not private individuals. That’s because any privatization scheme involves three players, not two. Individuals are little more than a third wheel to this power play between public and private. The dangerous end product of the elimination of the public good from decisions is power without responsibility.
How can we counteract that? The author suggests vaguely that we insert the individual wherever we can into ongoing debates and discussions. While individuals may not be able to change policies, they may be able to affect the dynamics of a society. Above all, individuals should develop personal virtues antithetical to a corporatist social structure, virtues such as common sense, creativity, personal ethics, memory and reason.
By looking carefully at the concept of the public good, Saul orients readers dramatically away from useless thinking about current social trends. The book is engaging, if at times rhetorical. Fifteen years in print, it is more relevant today than it was when it first appeared. The concise, innovative thinking the author brings to these pages makes the book a must-read for any reflective citizen anywhere in the developed world.
December 27, 2014
The book discusses the phenomena of neo-conservatism, the economy's shift from the expansion of the 1960s, and related changes in society. However, that's not exactly what it's about. The author's view is that the central problems today are people thinking in terms of being part of a group rather than as an individual, people operating according to "ideologies", and people not thinking and questioning everything as Socrates did - and the philosophical perspectives behind these tendencies.
In some ways, the book seems more oriented to academic types. On the other hand, he feels academic jargon is a problem, and he doesn't use academic jargon as we usually understand that. However, there are questions about his use of some words. For instance, he opposes "ideology" as if he defines that as a dogma immune to evidence. Of course, humans often hold on to "beliefs" more strongly than is called for by cold logic. But the author never attempts to distinguish efforts to construct a system of ideas which reflects reality as close as is humanly possible versus "ideology."
There's also some possible confusion in his use of "corporatism" as meaning reducing the significance of individuals (and thinking as group members) - not necessarily having anything to do with shareholder-owned businesses ("corporations"), although there are many references to the economy, company management, etc.
He has much to say about problems in the economy and the role of corporation management, but he blames "managers" and "technocrats" while saying little about owners / investors playing a role in decisions (or their choice of executives to make decisions). He speaks positively of "capitalists" (I assume the owner of a privately-owned business). He even refers to the "bad" managers and technocrats as being "honorable men". [This seems to ignore the existence of a minority of ruthlessly selfish businesspeople. For the majority, a unique definition of honorable would be needed which permits the use of misleading ads, the laying off of workers (who had no say in business decisions) after management makes poor choices (and executives don't resign themselves), not taking a proactive stand against dishonest businesses (which would be in the self-interest of honest businesses), etc.] Instead, the problems are attributed to "ideology" or faulty philosophy. The fact the end result of this "bad thinking" appears to be a consistent pattern of increasing income inequality doesn't lead the author to suspect simple greed is the primary issue.
In view of that, it's interesting that the author has an extended discussion of Socrates and Plato. He explains that Plato's earlier writings portray Socrates as more democratic, and his later writings as more elitist. While to me, this sounds like Plato succumbing to the temptations of privilege, the author perceives it as a wrong turn in philosophy.
Generally, the book left me with the impression his solution is individuals using the Socratic method to think things through and vote in elections based on that. While he wrote about suppression of labor unions as a bad thing, he didn't really speak of unions, civil rights groups, consumer groups and the like as being good things. His "think as an individual" approach may run counter to such groups. Meanwhile, he also used the term "interest groups" as a bad thing. Much of the time if he used the term in a context which suggested particular kinds of groups, they seemed to be business groups or others with similar goals. Yet, in the real political world, "interest groups" is also used to refer to unions, women's groups, environmental groups, etc. I'm left thinking he may advocate individuals not participate in these groups. Yet, it seems to me that would put average people at a greater disadvantage relative to the wealthy.
On one level, he understands that the shaping of society has to do with the influence of money, but generally expresses the problem as philosophy. He says the rich should look beyond their selfish financial benefit. It's almost as if all of us individuals should be encouraging the rich to study philosophy and attain enlightenment, which will then cause them to behave better and we'll all live happily ever after. But if Socrates' own student Plato, a philosopher, become an anti-democratic elitist, what can we expect of today's rich and CEOs?
In the last chapter, he explains the industrial revolution's first century actually saw a lowering of living standards for most people. It was only in the 20th century that people acted to reverse that. However, in his discussion of the efforts to improve livings standards he doesn't really speak of organizations such as unions, women's rights, civil rights groups, etc. I'm left with the impression that he is telling us that if we take on the billionaires and all their minions it should be with neither organizations nor a system of understanding of the social forces who would stop us.
In some ways, the book seems more oriented to academic types. On the other hand, he feels academic jargon is a problem, and he doesn't use academic jargon as we usually understand that. However, there are questions about his use of some words. For instance, he opposes "ideology" as if he defines that as a dogma immune to evidence. Of course, humans often hold on to "beliefs" more strongly than is called for by cold logic. But the author never attempts to distinguish efforts to construct a system of ideas which reflects reality as close as is humanly possible versus "ideology."
There's also some possible confusion in his use of "corporatism" as meaning reducing the significance of individuals (and thinking as group members) - not necessarily having anything to do with shareholder-owned businesses ("corporations"), although there are many references to the economy, company management, etc.
He has much to say about problems in the economy and the role of corporation management, but he blames "managers" and "technocrats" while saying little about owners / investors playing a role in decisions (or their choice of executives to make decisions). He speaks positively of "capitalists" (I assume the owner of a privately-owned business). He even refers to the "bad" managers and technocrats as being "honorable men". [This seems to ignore the existence of a minority of ruthlessly selfish businesspeople. For the majority, a unique definition of honorable would be needed which permits the use of misleading ads, the laying off of workers (who had no say in business decisions) after management makes poor choices (and executives don't resign themselves), not taking a proactive stand against dishonest businesses (which would be in the self-interest of honest businesses), etc.] Instead, the problems are attributed to "ideology" or faulty philosophy. The fact the end result of this "bad thinking" appears to be a consistent pattern of increasing income inequality doesn't lead the author to suspect simple greed is the primary issue.
In view of that, it's interesting that the author has an extended discussion of Socrates and Plato. He explains that Plato's earlier writings portray Socrates as more democratic, and his later writings as more elitist. While to me, this sounds like Plato succumbing to the temptations of privilege, the author perceives it as a wrong turn in philosophy.
Generally, the book left me with the impression his solution is individuals using the Socratic method to think things through and vote in elections based on that. While he wrote about suppression of labor unions as a bad thing, he didn't really speak of unions, civil rights groups, consumer groups and the like as being good things. His "think as an individual" approach may run counter to such groups. Meanwhile, he also used the term "interest groups" as a bad thing. Much of the time if he used the term in a context which suggested particular kinds of groups, they seemed to be business groups or others with similar goals. Yet, in the real political world, "interest groups" is also used to refer to unions, women's groups, environmental groups, etc. I'm left thinking he may advocate individuals not participate in these groups. Yet, it seems to me that would put average people at a greater disadvantage relative to the wealthy.
On one level, he understands that the shaping of society has to do with the influence of money, but generally expresses the problem as philosophy. He says the rich should look beyond their selfish financial benefit. It's almost as if all of us individuals should be encouraging the rich to study philosophy and attain enlightenment, which will then cause them to behave better and we'll all live happily ever after. But if Socrates' own student Plato, a philosopher, become an anti-democratic elitist, what can we expect of today's rich and CEOs?
In the last chapter, he explains the industrial revolution's first century actually saw a lowering of living standards for most people. It was only in the 20th century that people acted to reverse that. However, in his discussion of the efforts to improve livings standards he doesn't really speak of organizations such as unions, women's rights, civil rights groups, etc. I'm left with the impression that he is telling us that if we take on the billionaires and all their minions it should be with neither organizations nor a system of understanding of the social forces who would stop us.
December 11, 2009
Sort of a follow-up to Voltaire's Bastards which simply asked a lot of questions. This book begins to offer something in the way of an answer out of the predicament of modern civilization.
November 29, 2009
i encountered this book just after my daughter was born. It articulated the sense she had given me, about civic responsibility, and my connection, however tenuous to society around me.
it is still the most concise argument available that demonstrates the need for citizenship and the dangers of narcissistic individualism.
it should be in highschool curriculums everywhere.
it is still the most concise argument available that demonstrates the need for citizenship and the dangers of narcissistic individualism.
it should be in highschool curriculums everywhere.
April 26, 2014
I am always so disappointed to read such great books only to see them fail to change anything. I read this book so long ago, maybe 15 years ago, and still the dumbness of our culture pervades. It taught me the difference between being a mob thinker or a true thinker. Loved this book. It probably also messed me up for ever achieving success in the corporate world.
December 8, 2016
These are a few of the things Saul’s least favorite things…
The corporatist system
Ideology
Certainty
Neo-conservatism
Individualism in caricature
Misunderstanding Adam Smith
The senior Plato
Financial wealth vs productive wealth
I had a lot of bookmarks of things I wanted to remember or check later in this book. And it was a good thing because even though I enjoyed the act of reading this relatively short work, by the end I mostly forgot what I just read. Which is on me, but still to my mind it did seem knd of rambling even if the chapters were logical. And jeepers this guy has loads of really interesting historical quotes.
If I try to distill it, if only to anchor things in my brain, I think he is saying…
Our western society is in danger of losing those humanist attributes that most of us value and this loss will change us from a truly free society of active citizens into a collection of mostly unconscious “subjects” existing as separate beings only focused on our own self interests.
He makes a lot of a citizenry and how the public good is based on “dis-interest” which I take to mean something that is not close “self interest”
I believe that our ability to reassert the citizen-based society is dependent upon our rediscovery of the simple concepts of disinterest and participation. pg.35
He uses the changes made after the crash of 1929, where he says “we” recognized the failings of unregulated capitalism and put in place, with calm disinterest, mechanisms to allow economic enthusiasm but with added safeguards to prevent disaster. AND he feels these precautions are now being erased. But it is a little fuzzy on who the "individuals" were that so nobly saved the day during the depression. I kinda feel it was way more complicated than he is intimating.
And much of the blame lands on the neo-conservatives and their drive to ridicule government as an operating principle. This and even worse ideas, like fascism or communism are fueled by what seems to be a primal human force, Ideology. And there is a sameness to ideologies that leads to the bane of civilization, Corporatism.
We suffer from an addictive weakness for larger illusions. A weakness for ideology. Power in our civilization is repeatedly tied to the pursuit of all-inclusive truths and utopias….As always with ideologies, the Day of Judgment is imminent and terrifying. I would suggest that Marxism, fascism and the marketplace strongly resemble each other. They are all corporatist, managerial and hooked on technology as their own particular golden calf. Pg. 19
Consequently our conservative zeitgeist is doesn’t fare well as in it’s hatred of a “public good” which is dedicated to NOT spending money for thing we previously thought of as good for the public.
There has never been so much disposable money, yet there is no money for the public good. In a democracy this would not be the case, because the society would be centered, by general agreement, on disinterest. In a corporatist system there is never any money for the public good because the society is reduced to the sum of the interests. It is therefore limited to measurable self-interest. Pg36
The problem they have discovered is the “you can’t shrink to greatness”….When you cut seriously, the first thing to go is creativity and risk taking. Pg. 105
He goes on about how a true civilization is a constant tension of disequilibrium vs equilibrium. And one of his key points is the a real individual is an active part of the broader society and is best exemplified by Socrates who was determine to throw doubt in the face of the powers that be. And that his determination to be the gadfly is critical for a true civilization.
In fact he finished the book with this…
The virtue of uncertainty is not a comfortable idea, but then a citizen-based democracy is built upon participation, which is the very expression of permanent discomfort. The corporatist system depends upon the citizen’s desire for inner comfort. Equilibrium is dependent upon our recognition of reality, which is the acceptance of permanent psychic discomfort. And the acceptance of psychic discomfort is the acceptance of consciousness. Pg. 190
I am still letting it stew, but in general I really like this book, although he seemed a little vague on some definitions. Like how do you actually define a corporatist system? And he offers up a jury as an example of people operating with disinterest for the public good. But has he every actually been on a jury and seen how they work? Sometimes it is Ok but then again, it can be scary.
The corporatist system
Ideology
Certainty
Neo-conservatism
Individualism in caricature
Misunderstanding Adam Smith
The senior Plato
Financial wealth vs productive wealth
I had a lot of bookmarks of things I wanted to remember or check later in this book. And it was a good thing because even though I enjoyed the act of reading this relatively short work, by the end I mostly forgot what I just read. Which is on me, but still to my mind it did seem knd of rambling even if the chapters were logical. And jeepers this guy has loads of really interesting historical quotes.
If I try to distill it, if only to anchor things in my brain, I think he is saying…
Our western society is in danger of losing those humanist attributes that most of us value and this loss will change us from a truly free society of active citizens into a collection of mostly unconscious “subjects” existing as separate beings only focused on our own self interests.
He makes a lot of a citizenry and how the public good is based on “dis-interest” which I take to mean something that is not close “self interest”
I believe that our ability to reassert the citizen-based society is dependent upon our rediscovery of the simple concepts of disinterest and participation. pg.35
He uses the changes made after the crash of 1929, where he says “we” recognized the failings of unregulated capitalism and put in place, with calm disinterest, mechanisms to allow economic enthusiasm but with added safeguards to prevent disaster. AND he feels these precautions are now being erased. But it is a little fuzzy on who the "individuals" were that so nobly saved the day during the depression. I kinda feel it was way more complicated than he is intimating.
And much of the blame lands on the neo-conservatives and their drive to ridicule government as an operating principle. This and even worse ideas, like fascism or communism are fueled by what seems to be a primal human force, Ideology. And there is a sameness to ideologies that leads to the bane of civilization, Corporatism.
We suffer from an addictive weakness for larger illusions. A weakness for ideology. Power in our civilization is repeatedly tied to the pursuit of all-inclusive truths and utopias….As always with ideologies, the Day of Judgment is imminent and terrifying. I would suggest that Marxism, fascism and the marketplace strongly resemble each other. They are all corporatist, managerial and hooked on technology as their own particular golden calf. Pg. 19
Consequently our conservative zeitgeist is doesn’t fare well as in it’s hatred of a “public good” which is dedicated to NOT spending money for thing we previously thought of as good for the public.
There has never been so much disposable money, yet there is no money for the public good. In a democracy this would not be the case, because the society would be centered, by general agreement, on disinterest. In a corporatist system there is never any money for the public good because the society is reduced to the sum of the interests. It is therefore limited to measurable self-interest. Pg36
The problem they have discovered is the “you can’t shrink to greatness”….When you cut seriously, the first thing to go is creativity and risk taking. Pg. 105
He goes on about how a true civilization is a constant tension of disequilibrium vs equilibrium. And one of his key points is the a real individual is an active part of the broader society and is best exemplified by Socrates who was determine to throw doubt in the face of the powers that be. And that his determination to be the gadfly is critical for a true civilization.
In fact he finished the book with this…
The virtue of uncertainty is not a comfortable idea, but then a citizen-based democracy is built upon participation, which is the very expression of permanent discomfort. The corporatist system depends upon the citizen’s desire for inner comfort. Equilibrium is dependent upon our recognition of reality, which is the acceptance of permanent psychic discomfort. And the acceptance of psychic discomfort is the acceptance of consciousness. Pg. 190
I am still letting it stew, but in general I really like this book, although he seemed a little vague on some definitions. Like how do you actually define a corporatist system? And he offers up a jury as an example of people operating with disinterest for the public good. But has he every actually been on a jury and seen how they work? Sometimes it is Ok but then again, it can be scary.
October 21, 2022
Seven out of ten. Definitely merits four stars though.
I guess it's a reflection of the current general political entropy of the West that I had so little conception of a non-conservative argument toward individualism and responsible democracy. Saul's perspective is fascinating, though I sometimes found myself wondering how he approaches the same topics today. I'd really like to see him in conversation with the likes of Jordan Peterson or Douglas Murray.
Saul's basic argument begins with a recognition that our free societies and democratic processes are really degrees of corporate control - "interest mediation" - in various guises. He then sets up a series of oppositions between this corporatism and true liberalism / humanism: propaganda versus language; corporatism versus democracy; management and speculation versus growth; ideology versus equilibrium. Saul argues convincingly that the passivization of the average citizen through the removal of his responsibility into the hands of "specialists" and "experts" is incredibly damaging to the public good.
I'd like to see a conservative reply to Saul's argument that pushes back against his opposition of gods, kings, and groups to individual responsibility. Though I sympathize with his denunciation of passivity and irresponsibility, I'm not at all convinced that any of those categories precludes individual involvement in the public space. Furthermore, I question Saul's insistence on the ideal public sphere as exclusively disinterested.
Finally, Saul doesn't clearly mark a way forward. He states that only a "persistent public commitment by the citizenry" can bring about the engagement he calls for - but fails to suggest a method to educate said citizenry. Besides, his idea of progress ultimately seems to hinge on the evidentially deficient hypothesis of basic human decency.
Still, I really enjoyed this book. It wasn’t too long, too dense, or too far out. I'd recommend it to any politician, economist, philosopher, or responsible citizen.
I guess it's a reflection of the current general political entropy of the West that I had so little conception of a non-conservative argument toward individualism and responsible democracy. Saul's perspective is fascinating, though I sometimes found myself wondering how he approaches the same topics today. I'd really like to see him in conversation with the likes of Jordan Peterson or Douglas Murray.
Saul's basic argument begins with a recognition that our free societies and democratic processes are really degrees of corporate control - "interest mediation" - in various guises. He then sets up a series of oppositions between this corporatism and true liberalism / humanism: propaganda versus language; corporatism versus democracy; management and speculation versus growth; ideology versus equilibrium. Saul argues convincingly that the passivization of the average citizen through the removal of his responsibility into the hands of "specialists" and "experts" is incredibly damaging to the public good.
I'd like to see a conservative reply to Saul's argument that pushes back against his opposition of gods, kings, and groups to individual responsibility. Though I sympathize with his denunciation of passivity and irresponsibility, I'm not at all convinced that any of those categories precludes individual involvement in the public space. Furthermore, I question Saul's insistence on the ideal public sphere as exclusively disinterested.
Finally, Saul doesn't clearly mark a way forward. He states that only a "persistent public commitment by the citizenry" can bring about the engagement he calls for - but fails to suggest a method to educate said citizenry. Besides, his idea of progress ultimately seems to hinge on the evidentially deficient hypothesis of basic human decency.
Still, I really enjoyed this book. It wasn’t too long, too dense, or too far out. I'd recommend it to any politician, economist, philosopher, or responsible citizen.
April 23, 2013
For those of us who are at odds with the free market mumbo jumbo machine and the endless references to Frederick Hayek and Ludwig von Mises as the godheads of the so-called market, John Ralston Saul will help to unwind the knots of ideology and show where the holes are in not only free market ideology but in America's drift into corporatism. His contention? The most important factor in contemporary civilization--individualism--is being hijacked and re-defined in such a way as to so limit us into believing self-interest is the equivalent of individualism, and that unless we begin to inculcate ourselves with the dismissed ideals of "obligation" and "publc good" we are heading away from democracy itself. Saul points out, for example, that Adam Smith's "The Wealth of Nations" is not his only contribution to the liberal democratic tradition's juncture with capitalism, and that Smith would himself be quite miffed that another work of his, "Theory of Moral Sentiment" is casually being ignored by the self-interest crowd.
May 15, 2015
This book is the written edition of the Massey Lectures John Ralston Saul gave in 1995, and is a densely philosophical treatise on where, in his opinion, society in general is heading. This is neither a happy book, nor is it likely that it has been well understood by many who may have or will read it. His concepts are deeply troubling and as he states a number of times, it is incredibly difficult to remove ourselves from our normal mindset and see our political and societal situations from such a different perspective. While this is not an easy read, I do think it a necessary one, especially for those in, or on the edge of the political spectrum.
March 27, 2011
Coming from a position that cannot be easily characterized as either Left or Right, Saul critiques technocracy and the anti-democratic culture of management and conformity, the favoring of private profit to public good, which comprise what he calls "corporatism." Regularly citing Adam Smith in opposition to the received truths of contemporary "free market" evangelists, Saul argues that markets do have a proper place in society (a fun game for those with the means to enjoy them!), but that they do not necessarily lead to free speech or democracy. For Saul, the corporatist emphasis on management involves aversion to risk and innovation (hence the past three decades of financial card shuffling in lieu of real economic activity), short-term decision-making without long-term vision (e.g., over-fishing, inaction on global warming, etc.), and an absence of critical thinking and reflection in general. He isn't what you would call a "conspiracy theorist" (i.e., someone like Jim Marrs) in regard to the corporatist culture he critiques. In fact, for Saul, "there is no need for a conspiracy. These are structures managed by servants. Their logic is public and self-evident. Complex, long-range conspiracies require conscious leaders. To treat the technocrats as such is to give credence to their illusions about themselves" (122-3).
If society will permit and reward robbery, robbery will be invested in. (151)
Practical humanism is the voyage toward equilibrium without the expectation of actually arriving there. (154)
At the very origin of management theory lies the falsely scientific Taylorist model of the mechanistic human. The uncertainty of time, which surrounds human activity, is to be removed by encasing us in a structure fit for machinery. Machines may depreciate, but they do not fear death....[C]orporatism--with its markets- and technology-led delusions--is profoundly tied to a mechanistic view of the human race. This is not an ideology with any interest in or commitment to the shape of society or the individual as citizen. It is fixed upon a rush to use machinery--inanimate or human--while these are still at full value; before they suffer any depreciation. (156, 158)
The intellectual life of both Right and Left is thus similar because both are based upon a conception of individualism as self-absorption or selfishness. The Left, of course, would protest that these rights are equally distributed and therefore represent a form of fairness. They would also protest that they see government, regulation and taxation as making up the essential structure that enables society to function fairly. But if their definition of rights creates a form of individualism independent from that essential structure, well then, they have created the conditions for the aborting--both theoretical and practical--of the fair society they wished to create.... As for the version of individualism advocated by the Right, it is the product of either naivete or cynicism. What are they saying? That individualism requires the individual citizen to deny himself the use of his ability and his right to pool his strengths with those of other citizens through the public mechanisms of their on making. This is a maniacally self-destructive view of human society. It abandons the individual to isolation before enormous, unpredictable and uncontrollable forces. (159)
I would like to mention one last source of the Left's weakness. From the beginnings of the Enlightenment there has been among reformers at least the hint of a fear of the citizen. The liberals in particular have been devoted to the citizen in theory, but not really to the citizen in flesh and bone and in mind. (162)
The individual's rights are guaranteed by law only to the extent that they are protected by the citizenry's exercise of their obligation to participate in society. Rights are a protection from society. But only by fulfilling their obligations to society can the individual give meaning to that protection. (163-4)
Now the very essence of corporatism is minding your own business. And the very essence of individualism is the refusal to mind your own business. This is not a particularly pleasant or easy style of life. It is not profitable, efficient, competitive or rewarded. It often consists of being persistently annoying to others as well as being stubborn and repetitive....Criticism is perhaps the citizenry's primary weapon in the exercise of her legitimacy. That is why, in the corporatist society, conformism, loyalty and silence of so admired and rewarded; why criticism is so punished or marginalized. (165)
We have progressed in our control of high treason. We no longer need to draw and quarter. The heretic today merely finds his career shattered and himself cast to the margins of corporatist society. (169)
It is through language that we will find our way out of our current dilemma, just as a rediscovery of language provided a way out for Westerners during the humanist breakthrough that began in the twelfth century. For those addicted to concrete solutions, this call for a rebirth or rediscovery of meaning may well seem vague and unrelated to reality. But language, when it works, is the tool that makes it possible to invoke reality. (171)
The difficulty with many of the arguments used today to examine reigning fallacies is that they have fallen into the general assumptions of deconstructionism. They do not seek meaning or knowledge or truth. They seek to demonstrate that all language is tied to interest. The deconstructionists have argued against language as communication in order to get at the evils of rhetoric and propaganda. But if language is always self-interest, then there is no possibility of disinterest and therefore no possibility of the public good. The net effect has been to reinforce the corporatist point of view that we all exist as functions within our corporations.
To rephrase this problem in terms of my argument, the deconstructionists have effectively attacked our addiction to answers, but in such a way as to undermine the validity of our questions. And so the answers, assertive as they are, stand reinforced. (172-3)
It seems to me that a sensible list of the human qualities would run as follows: common sense, creativity or imagination, ethics (not morality), intuition or instinct, memory and, finally, reason.
I have arranged all six in alphabetical order because I do not believe that equilibrium is aided by attempts to create orders of importance or precedence. (182)
November 25, 2020
We live in a corporatist society with soft pretensions to democracy. More power is slipping every day over towards the groups. That is the meaning of the marketplace ideology and of our passive acceptance if whatever form globalization hsppens to take.
June 8, 2023
Draws from diverse fields and selectively quotes various thinkers to argue that society isn’t what it could or should be.
July 2, 2021
This work has somehow become more important in the 20 years since it was written, Saul so clearly saw the flaws in society at the turn of the millennium and if anything the problems he identified have merely been exacerbated over the last two decades.
The central premise of this book and the series of lectures it is based on is that our democracies have become disconnected with the public good and the responsibilities of a citizen. Individualism instead of being about the freedom of individuals over state control has been twisted to be about self-interest. We have also lost track of the fact that power comes from the people in a democracy, not the small set of elites who create and perpetrate a corporatist myth about how society should work. I can provide a simple test of how you know whether Saul's claims are right or not.
When people talk about their role in society both to you personally and in public discourse, how often to you hear them talking about their responsibilities and the duty they have to society. I'd hazard a guess, almost never. On the other hand how often do you hear people talking about or rather affirming their rights. That's against my rights, I have a right to, it's my right, me, me, me. People have lost track of what the purpose rights are.
“Rights are a protection from society. But only by fulfilling their obligations to society can the individual give meaning to that protection."
That is to say rights are a backup that shouldn't be needed.
How have we ended up like this? Saul says.....
"We suffer from an addictive weakness for larger illusions. A weakness for ideology. Power in our civilization is repeatedly tied to the pursuit of all-inclusive truths and utopias….As always with ideologies, the Day of Judgment is imminent and terrifying. I would suggest that Marxism, fascism and the marketplace strongly resemble each other. They are all corporatist, managerial and hooked on technology as their own particular golden calf."
We've replaced our own thinking with ideologies, slogans and parties we can easily fall in behind.
This book made me identify a modern symptom of the corporatist mindset I'd never though of before. When the literature on Nudges (how to create mass behavioural changes with subtle changes) came out I remember thinking it was both awesome and seemed a bit dodgy. Ultimately its scientific validity is not the dodgy part. The dodgy part is that this sort of behavioural science is actually an output of the corporatist mindset that Saul outlines in this book. Rather than addressing the problems front on and trying to improve society, the people in power instead choose to keep the masses unconscious of their errors and manipulate them to do what they want/think is best for them. It's actually really bleak when you think about it because it's another little lie we tell ourselves is doing us good but is actually doing us harm.
So what does Saul think we should be doing? And how should we be living? Well he thinks the opposite of self-interest is not altruism as some believe but rather disinterest. So what, we twiddle our thumbs? No what he means is that we should be living for the public good, that is making decisions on things without self-interest as the driving force. Saul is a serious historian, in many ways his philosophy is just his historical interests playing themselves out. Of special fixations in this book are Socrates and Adam Smith. Socrates Saul tells us had it right.
"The unexamined life is not worth living."
He thinks that Socrates was all over it like a rash and Plato was actually the first corporatist and his later work twists Socrates' teaching into his own ideas about essentially controlling the great unwashed masses. It's a little hard to get as fired up about, knowing that Plato is pretty much the only reason we know about Socrates (sorry Xenophon). But basically Saul believes we should be thinking everything through just like Socrates and doing it in a disinterested fashion so as not to conflate our own self-interest with the public good.
Smith, Saul reminds us, wrote another piece along with his Wealth of Nations, a philosophical treatise that told us how we're supposed to live, this seems to have been cast aside by lupine economists who much prefer the all powerful market as an ideology. The Theory of Moral Sentiments is where we should be taking directive from on the structure of society. If only.
As for Saul's values. We should spend our lives trying to keep in equilibrium the essential human qualities of: Common sense, Creativity or Imagination, Ethics (not morality), intuition or instinct, memory, and reason.
Through Saul's argument we digress to address various symptoms of this unconscious state we're in. Here are some of them.
On criticism and why it has no place in the corporatist society.
“Criticism is perhaps the citizen's primary weapon in the exercise of her legitimacy. That is why, in the corporatist society, conformism, loyalty and silence are so admired and rewarded; why criticism is so punished or marginalized. Who has not experienced this conflict?”
Fashion as the lowest form of ideology, ideology being what distracts from the important processes of democracy.
“Fashion is merely the lowest form of ideology. To wear or not to wear blue jeans, to holiday or not to holiday in a particular place can contribute to social acceptance or bring upon us the full opprobrium of the group. Then, a few months or years later, we look back and our obsession, our fears of ridicule, seem a bit silly. By then, we are undoubtedly caught up in new fashions.
From the very beginning democracy was founded on sacrifice not gain.
“In general, democracy and individualism have advanced in spite of and often against specific economic interest. Both democracy and individualism have been based upon financial sacrifice, not gain. Even in Athens, a large part of the 7,000 citizens who participated regularly in assemblies were farmers who had to give up several days' work to go into town to talk and listen.”
On why narrow technical training is not great AKA a defence of a liberal arts degree.
“Basic technical training is, of course, useful. But to treat it as anything more than that is to lock students into technology that will be obsolete by the time they graduate. The time wasted will also deprive them of the basic training in knowledge and thinking that might help them adjust to the constant changes outside.”
On how much money is in the system and how little of it is in the people's hands.
There has never been so much disposable money, yet there is no money for the public good. In a democracy this would not be the case, because the society would be centered, by general agreement, on disinterest. In a corporatist system there is never any money for the public good because the society is reduced to the sum of the interests. It is therefore limited to measurable self-interest.
On how knowledge becomes twisted for financial gain
Knowledge is owned and controlled, bought and sold, in a corporatist society - knowledge which matters, that is. The people who have it, do have power as we understand power today, given our mangerial, technocratic elite. Knowledge is one of the currencies of systems men, just as it was for the courtiers in the halls of Versailles. They require a position in the structure that provides them with some ability to deny access to others and gain access for themselves. Then they require currency or chips to play the system's game. That is, they need information.
Raulston Saul is a brilliant philosopher and this is an absolute must-read. Unfortunately, he still suffers from the illness he diagnoses the rest of these jargon filled niche professions with; much of his prose is too dense for the lay person. You could listen to the 5 hours of the lecture series this book is a transcript of but I'm not sure that will make the interpretation of his work any easier. Instead I think his work is summed up quite adequately by the Rastafarian concept of Babylon. Babylon and Saul's loathed Corporatism are very similar. The Rastafarians probably see a deeper and more malevolent history to Babylon but the overall gist is the same. I think you could get a similar feeling from this lecture series/book as you could from listening to Mattafix's Big City Life - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O3bHN....
Big City Life, me try fi get by
Pressure nah ease up, no matter how hard me try
Big City Life, here my heart have no base
And right now Babylon de 'pon me case
The central premise of this book and the series of lectures it is based on is that our democracies have become disconnected with the public good and the responsibilities of a citizen. Individualism instead of being about the freedom of individuals over state control has been twisted to be about self-interest. We have also lost track of the fact that power comes from the people in a democracy, not the small set of elites who create and perpetrate a corporatist myth about how society should work. I can provide a simple test of how you know whether Saul's claims are right or not.
When people talk about their role in society both to you personally and in public discourse, how often to you hear them talking about their responsibilities and the duty they have to society. I'd hazard a guess, almost never. On the other hand how often do you hear people talking about or rather affirming their rights. That's against my rights, I have a right to, it's my right, me, me, me. People have lost track of what the purpose rights are.
“Rights are a protection from society. But only by fulfilling their obligations to society can the individual give meaning to that protection."
That is to say rights are a backup that shouldn't be needed.
How have we ended up like this? Saul says.....
"We suffer from an addictive weakness for larger illusions. A weakness for ideology. Power in our civilization is repeatedly tied to the pursuit of all-inclusive truths and utopias….As always with ideologies, the Day of Judgment is imminent and terrifying. I would suggest that Marxism, fascism and the marketplace strongly resemble each other. They are all corporatist, managerial and hooked on technology as their own particular golden calf."
We've replaced our own thinking with ideologies, slogans and parties we can easily fall in behind.
This book made me identify a modern symptom of the corporatist mindset I'd never though of before. When the literature on Nudges (how to create mass behavioural changes with subtle changes) came out I remember thinking it was both awesome and seemed a bit dodgy. Ultimately its scientific validity is not the dodgy part. The dodgy part is that this sort of behavioural science is actually an output of the corporatist mindset that Saul outlines in this book. Rather than addressing the problems front on and trying to improve society, the people in power instead choose to keep the masses unconscious of their errors and manipulate them to do what they want/think is best for them. It's actually really bleak when you think about it because it's another little lie we tell ourselves is doing us good but is actually doing us harm.
So what does Saul think we should be doing? And how should we be living? Well he thinks the opposite of self-interest is not altruism as some believe but rather disinterest. So what, we twiddle our thumbs? No what he means is that we should be living for the public good, that is making decisions on things without self-interest as the driving force. Saul is a serious historian, in many ways his philosophy is just his historical interests playing themselves out. Of special fixations in this book are Socrates and Adam Smith. Socrates Saul tells us had it right.
"The unexamined life is not worth living."
He thinks that Socrates was all over it like a rash and Plato was actually the first corporatist and his later work twists Socrates' teaching into his own ideas about essentially controlling the great unwashed masses. It's a little hard to get as fired up about, knowing that Plato is pretty much the only reason we know about Socrates (sorry Xenophon). But basically Saul believes we should be thinking everything through just like Socrates and doing it in a disinterested fashion so as not to conflate our own self-interest with the public good.
Smith, Saul reminds us, wrote another piece along with his Wealth of Nations, a philosophical treatise that told us how we're supposed to live, this seems to have been cast aside by lupine economists who much prefer the all powerful market as an ideology. The Theory of Moral Sentiments is where we should be taking directive from on the structure of society. If only.
As for Saul's values. We should spend our lives trying to keep in equilibrium the essential human qualities of: Common sense, Creativity or Imagination, Ethics (not morality), intuition or instinct, memory, and reason.
Through Saul's argument we digress to address various symptoms of this unconscious state we're in. Here are some of them.
On criticism and why it has no place in the corporatist society.
“Criticism is perhaps the citizen's primary weapon in the exercise of her legitimacy. That is why, in the corporatist society, conformism, loyalty and silence are so admired and rewarded; why criticism is so punished or marginalized. Who has not experienced this conflict?”
Fashion as the lowest form of ideology, ideology being what distracts from the important processes of democracy.
“Fashion is merely the lowest form of ideology. To wear or not to wear blue jeans, to holiday or not to holiday in a particular place can contribute to social acceptance or bring upon us the full opprobrium of the group. Then, a few months or years later, we look back and our obsession, our fears of ridicule, seem a bit silly. By then, we are undoubtedly caught up in new fashions.
From the very beginning democracy was founded on sacrifice not gain.
“In general, democracy and individualism have advanced in spite of and often against specific economic interest. Both democracy and individualism have been based upon financial sacrifice, not gain. Even in Athens, a large part of the 7,000 citizens who participated regularly in assemblies were farmers who had to give up several days' work to go into town to talk and listen.”
On why narrow technical training is not great AKA a defence of a liberal arts degree.
“Basic technical training is, of course, useful. But to treat it as anything more than that is to lock students into technology that will be obsolete by the time they graduate. The time wasted will also deprive them of the basic training in knowledge and thinking that might help them adjust to the constant changes outside.”
On how much money is in the system and how little of it is in the people's hands.
There has never been so much disposable money, yet there is no money for the public good. In a democracy this would not be the case, because the society would be centered, by general agreement, on disinterest. In a corporatist system there is never any money for the public good because the society is reduced to the sum of the interests. It is therefore limited to measurable self-interest.
On how knowledge becomes twisted for financial gain
Knowledge is owned and controlled, bought and sold, in a corporatist society - knowledge which matters, that is. The people who have it, do have power as we understand power today, given our mangerial, technocratic elite. Knowledge is one of the currencies of systems men, just as it was for the courtiers in the halls of Versailles. They require a position in the structure that provides them with some ability to deny access to others and gain access for themselves. Then they require currency or chips to play the system's game. That is, they need information.
Raulston Saul is a brilliant philosopher and this is an absolute must-read. Unfortunately, he still suffers from the illness he diagnoses the rest of these jargon filled niche professions with; much of his prose is too dense for the lay person. You could listen to the 5 hours of the lecture series this book is a transcript of but I'm not sure that will make the interpretation of his work any easier. Instead I think his work is summed up quite adequately by the Rastafarian concept of Babylon. Babylon and Saul's loathed Corporatism are very similar. The Rastafarians probably see a deeper and more malevolent history to Babylon but the overall gist is the same. I think you could get a similar feeling from this lecture series/book as you could from listening to Mattafix's Big City Life - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O3bHN....
Big City Life, me try fi get by
Pressure nah ease up, no matter how hard me try
Big City Life, here my heart have no base
And right now Babylon de 'pon me case
November 22, 2021
I agree with Saul's primary thesis that corporatism undermines democracy. But the execution of this thesis was disappointing-- the author frequently makes claims that lack evidence, he goes on tangents, the writing is primarily focused on rhetoric rather than substance, and the chapters are cobbled together with no real... theme? Overall, this work is largely unmemorable and lacks the academic rigor that I would expect from a work of political philosophy. I give it 2 stars because, well, at least I learnt something!
August 19, 2009
I want to highlight most of this book
July 26, 2011
Perhaps the most succinct summary of his ideas and criticisms of modern society. Only Voltaire's Bastards is better.
August 6, 2021
From the perspective of my personal experience and looking at what has happened during last thirty years in Canada, I thought that political system here is technocratic fascism. Now I understand that it is technocratic corporatism. Surprisingly, it seems even more so in the United States.
The government wants to control everything about personal life of a citizen, hence our medical records are now accessible in some database, nurses' and hockey players' wages are lowered, and we have no chance on winning Stanley Cup anymore.
It was also a learning experience to find out that the biggest expenditures that we bear are not going towards the government services, but financial and consulting ones. As author explained, laying people off and cutting services did not lead to greatness and financial balance. It only left citizens bewildered, paying same taxes but receiving less in exchange. The small companies that are pushing growth of economy are soon acquired by huge corporations, and stagnate.
The book is an eye-opener, although it is not easy to read, and sometimes plainly boring. I liked a concept that government is not only my servant, but my employee. Recently (I'm an immigrant, but since 1992 paying taxes citizen) somebody mentioned that it is right that I'm chronically unemployed, because I dared to criticize the reality. Somebody else advised that if I don't want to accept discrimination, and work on lover position for lower salary, I should go back to Poland. Well, as I told her, I haven't paid taxes last thirty years in Poland. There is something very unfair in government taking your money and mistreating you.
The other interesting new term was "lobbying industry." It seems to be oxymoron to me, but such is reality. I probably missed some ideas, but still enjoyed reading this book.
The government wants to control everything about personal life of a citizen, hence our medical records are now accessible in some database, nurses' and hockey players' wages are lowered, and we have no chance on winning Stanley Cup anymore.
It was also a learning experience to find out that the biggest expenditures that we bear are not going towards the government services, but financial and consulting ones. As author explained, laying people off and cutting services did not lead to greatness and financial balance. It only left citizens bewildered, paying same taxes but receiving less in exchange. The small companies that are pushing growth of economy are soon acquired by huge corporations, and stagnate.
The book is an eye-opener, although it is not easy to read, and sometimes plainly boring. I liked a concept that government is not only my servant, but my employee. Recently (I'm an immigrant, but since 1992 paying taxes citizen) somebody mentioned that it is right that I'm chronically unemployed, because I dared to criticize the reality. Somebody else advised that if I don't want to accept discrimination, and work on lover position for lower salary, I should go back to Poland. Well, as I told her, I haven't paid taxes last thirty years in Poland. There is something very unfair in government taking your money and mistreating you.
The other interesting new term was "lobbying industry." It seems to be oxymoron to me, but such is reality. I probably missed some ideas, but still enjoyed reading this book.
July 3, 2023
Honestly, this book was a real slog for me. I'm generally a fan of the Massey Lectures, but I found this one rather unapproachable, difficult to engage with, and meandering in a frustrating way.
There's a real irony, since JRS argues relatively early on that "the sign of a sick civilization is the growth of an obscure, closed language that seeks to prevent communication" (p. 57), only to write just such a high theory, inaccessible treatise. Some of this comes from his obscure use of "corporatist" in an unintuitive way; other parts just from the density of the prose and hopping between ideas.
To be fair, there are a smattering of quotable moments. "Knowledge is more effectively used today to justify wrong being done than to prevent it," he opines (p. 46). "I love the market," he argues elsewhere, "but I'm not fool enough to mistake these necessary and important narrow mechanisms for a broad, solid, conscious force that can lead society" (p. 122-123).
I also appreciate his defusing of the 'smaller government' arguments (p. 79-80), pointing out how disingenuous it is to suggest that citizens will be better served by eliminating the most powerful institutions they have to advance their common interests. And, he engages in some provocative challenging about how we think about education and retirement (p. 180) as lifespans lengthen.
But, look. I have a PhD from a high theory discipline and generally like to think of myself as moderately competent... and, honestly, it's hard for me to distill a core argument from the book. It's probably my own deficiency, but it's certainly not a volume I'd recommend to anyone else.
There's a real irony, since JRS argues relatively early on that "the sign of a sick civilization is the growth of an obscure, closed language that seeks to prevent communication" (p. 57), only to write just such a high theory, inaccessible treatise. Some of this comes from his obscure use of "corporatist" in an unintuitive way; other parts just from the density of the prose and hopping between ideas.
To be fair, there are a smattering of quotable moments. "Knowledge is more effectively used today to justify wrong being done than to prevent it," he opines (p. 46). "I love the market," he argues elsewhere, "but I'm not fool enough to mistake these necessary and important narrow mechanisms for a broad, solid, conscious force that can lead society" (p. 122-123).
I also appreciate his defusing of the 'smaller government' arguments (p. 79-80), pointing out how disingenuous it is to suggest that citizens will be better served by eliminating the most powerful institutions they have to advance their common interests. And, he engages in some provocative challenging about how we think about education and retirement (p. 180) as lifespans lengthen.
But, look. I have a PhD from a high theory discipline and generally like to think of myself as moderately competent... and, honestly, it's hard for me to distill a core argument from the book. It's probably my own deficiency, but it's certainly not a volume I'd recommend to anyone else.
January 27, 2024
The dreadful template for every contemporary vague anti-neocon screed. Dressed up in erudite references, a sequence of poorly-connected and under-explored thoughts will persuade those who already have an opinion connecting these things that "Yeah, that makes sense!" But what?
-A thoughtful framing of "corporatism" as "groups", perhaps illuminating the degree to which a society ostensibly devoted to individualism is actually built on various sub-state level groups is quickly ignored in favour of the meaning of "corporatism" that kid in undergrad had on day one of Politics 101
-a snide swipe at the rate of incarceration in the US which remains unconnected to anything else and, more importantly, does nothing to tell us whether that rate is bad, good, or increasing solely because of the vile forces he's railing against
-in a democracy "society would be based, by general agreement, on disinterest" - is this the most ignorant assessment of human nature imaginable or is it merely the most useless prescription political theory has ever offered?
None of which is a defence of neoconservatism, nor should a failure to critique it, operating at this level of educated writer, prove it a legitimate or valuable force. But this isn't worth the time.
-A thoughtful framing of "corporatism" as "groups", perhaps illuminating the degree to which a society ostensibly devoted to individualism is actually built on various sub-state level groups is quickly ignored in favour of the meaning of "corporatism" that kid in undergrad had on day one of Politics 101
-a snide swipe at the rate of incarceration in the US which remains unconnected to anything else and, more importantly, does nothing to tell us whether that rate is bad, good, or increasing solely because of the vile forces he's railing against
-in a democracy "society would be based, by general agreement, on disinterest" - is this the most ignorant assessment of human nature imaginable or is it merely the most useless prescription political theory has ever offered?
None of which is a defence of neoconservatism, nor should a failure to critique it, operating at this level of educated writer, prove it a legitimate or valuable force. But this isn't worth the time.
August 13, 2018
I’ve read this during my commutes (which explains:), as much as Saul had been quite readable, my reception of his many tangents was short-lived. This might also be because I am not properly attuned to political or economic thought. When I find time and space for a more deliberate reading I would often flip back to past pages to connect them. But this is not to say that Saul’s work was a droning, tiresome read. In fact, should reading his work be more purposeful, it’s a bloody good lecture. Something I wish I was able to sit in on during my university days.
There are many brilliant ideas written in the last chapter on how to reform the dynamics of the current corporation-driven economy and politics. One of them, I found very agreeable, was spending more time on receiving quality education to truly and fully equip students before they graduate from university, which means coming into the ‘job market’ will be much later but might promise a more effective craftsmanship given exceptional schooling and ‘training.’
Many good points have been made in this 1995 lecture, perhaps points more than worthy (and necessary) to be re-examined or re-introduced through about most of the world’s education, politics, and economics. I’ve read in a previous review how Saul’s lectures are just as applicable today (and I think evidently beyond Western democracies) as they have been during the time he delivered them and I agree.
There are many brilliant ideas written in the last chapter on how to reform the dynamics of the current corporation-driven economy and politics. One of them, I found very agreeable, was spending more time on receiving quality education to truly and fully equip students before they graduate from university, which means coming into the ‘job market’ will be much later but might promise a more effective craftsmanship given exceptional schooling and ‘training.’
Many good points have been made in this 1995 lecture, perhaps points more than worthy (and necessary) to be re-examined or re-introduced through about most of the world’s education, politics, and economics. I’ve read in a previous review how Saul’s lectures are just as applicable today (and I think evidently beyond Western democracies) as they have been during the time he delivered them and I agree.
October 6, 2023
A series of talks turned into chapters about a society that is blind to what form it takes, under the impression it's a democracy but in fact a corporatist technocracy. Saul goes through how we got here, talks about why many of the solutions we invest our emotional and practical energy into won't cut it, and spends a bit of time at the end putting forward a plan for action. This involves changing our use of language and changing the overall political dynamic (as opposed to incremental political change).
It could very well have been written yesterday -- just update the statistics to be a bit worse, and score more progress for the corporatists' attack on national sovereignty, and there you have it. Saul argues for building systems in a way that acknowledges the citizen as the source of legitimacy in a democracy, which comes with both rights and obligations, and an ever-present discomfort as the citizens constantly combat corporatist forces that seek to erode democracy.
It could very well have been written yesterday -- just update the statistics to be a bit worse, and score more progress for the corporatists' attack on national sovereignty, and there you have it. Saul argues for building systems in a way that acknowledges the citizen as the source of legitimacy in a democracy, which comes with both rights and obligations, and an ever-present discomfort as the citizens constantly combat corporatist forces that seek to erode democracy.
June 1, 2023
It is a bit dated as of now. Though it's relevancy can still be acquired through extrapolating the text to a world thirty or so years in the future.
It talks of ideology held taught, and misinformation, and misappropriation. However what it really boils down to is a book about how lobby groups and political overstretch have shifted the burden of taxes away from corporations and the financial elite onto the middle and lower class. Along with this shift came people thinking of themselves as groups instead of an individual. Why does it matter what you think when everyone else probably thinks another way, or at least your are being told they think a certain way.
It's a decent read, less than 200pages in the copy I had. If you have an afternoon and want a good Canadian read take a look!
It talks of ideology held taught, and misinformation, and misappropriation. However what it really boils down to is a book about how lobby groups and political overstretch have shifted the burden of taxes away from corporations and the financial elite onto the middle and lower class. Along with this shift came people thinking of themselves as groups instead of an individual. Why does it matter what you think when everyone else probably thinks another way, or at least your are being told they think a certain way.
It's a decent read, less than 200pages in the copy I had. If you have an afternoon and want a good Canadian read take a look!
December 21, 2017
Despite the fact that this book was written over 25 years ago, it provides a detailed explanation of how the election of President Trump was simply a natural outcome of the "corporatist" agenda that is eroding our society. John Ralston Saul is excellent author and this book is truly exceptional! While being eminently readable this short volume draws upon history, political theory and philosophy to provide a thorough analysis of the decline of any consideration for the "public good" in modern society.
September 26, 2023
Brilliant. Saul skews the problem of age, the rampant individualism unleashed by the Chicago school, expertly. If he was this angry in the late nineties, he must be apoplectic by now as things have only got worse and worse as corporatism and managerial thinking has completly infected and eroded our democracy. What hope is there? Maybe some is offered in another book, because there's little to be found here.
May 26, 2017
An interesting book written as a critique against free-market capitalism leading to corporatism and conformism. The author would like to see an increase in governments' power, so that personal interest and self serving can be reduced in favor of citizen democracy and the public good.
At points the author's anti-ideological ideology becomes somewhat repetitive.
At points the author's anti-ideological ideology becomes somewhat repetitive.
January 10, 2023
Not too bad! Not sure if it's a recommend as it's a bit dry and overly technical in some areas. I liked his central thesis and lens of being anti-passive and anti-corporatist and I think that part of his book is unique. It's a niche read, but I would recommend something more sysnct if you're interested in this space.
July 8, 2017
Incredibly interesting and relevant to today
January 29, 2021
4.5
I did not necessarily agree with every single argument that JRS made against corporatist ideology, however this is a remarkable little book; 100% worthy of your time!
I did not necessarily agree with every single argument that JRS made against corporatist ideology, however this is a remarkable little book; 100% worthy of your time!
Displaying 1 - 30 of 56 reviews