We Need New Stories: Challenging the Toxic Myths Behind Our Age of Discontent

by Nesrine Malik

'Nesrine Malik writes with urgent eloquence about the world we live in, applying her brilliant mind to some of the most important debates of our age. She's we do need new stories. Most of all though, we need this book' ELIZABETH DAY, author of HOW TO FAIL

'We live in confusing and chaotic times - an age where the values many took for granted are being questioned, where universal rights are being casually denied. WE NEED NEW STORIES is the first book I've read that makes sense of where we are, and of what we will lose if we don't wake up. An urgent, totally essential book' SATHNAM SANGHERA

'An acute and nuanced interrogator of contemporary prejudices, Nesrine Malik writes with immense moral courage and intellectual power' PANKAJ MISHRA

'Stares into the heart of our current seething political volcano and gives it a cool hosing down . . . powerful and persuasive' OBSERVER

***

It is becoming clear that the old frames of reference are not working, that the narratives used for decades to stave off progressive causes are being exposed as falsehoods. Six myths have taken hold, ones which are at odds with our lived experience and in urgent need of revision.

Has freedom of speech become a cover for promoting prejudice? Has the concept of political correctness been weaponised to avoid ceding space to those excluded from power? Does white identity politics pose an urgent danger? These are some of the questions at the centre of Nesrine Malik's radical and compelling analysis that challenges us to find new narrators whose stories can fill the void and unite us behind a shared vision.

Genres: Nonfiction, Politics, Feminism, Essays, History, Race, Social Justice

Paperback

First published May 11, 2021

About the author

Nesrine Malik is a Sudanese-born, London-based columnist and author. She writes for The Guardian and is a panellist on BBC's Dateline London.

Reviews

[Tara Brabazon · Rating 5 out of 5]

Absolutely stunning book. Brilliantly written and carefully considered, there is attention to the macro and the micro, the banality and the horror.

Why does racism exist? Why does sexism exist? Why have colonial histories - so clearly weathered by the weight of injustice - survived and thrived?

Nesrine Malik offers a stunning argument for the consideration readers. She shows why "white identity politics" - yes, she goes there - requires structures of false equivalence, 'free' speech, inverted grievances and the normalization of violence.

Magnificently argued, this is a strong, powerful and convincing analysis. Outstanding. It is a privilege to have lived long enough to read a book as good as this.

[Kimba Tichenor · Rating 4 out of 5]

Nesrine Malik offers a powerful analysis of 5 political myths in an effort to show how history, race, gender, and classical liberal values are being leveraged by various groups to stop "any disruption of a centuries-old hierarchy that is paying dividends for fewer and fewer people." Her point is that until we recognize how these myths underpin current efforts to block democratic progress and social justice, we cannot effectively resist their influence on our society. She opens with the myth of the "reliable narrator." This is a bold move in that she is pointing a critical light on her own profession -- journalism. Specifically, she calls attention to the lack of diversity in newsrooms; most reporters are white males from upper middle-class backgrounds. Their politics tend to be center or right of center. This lack of diversity, she argues, helps to explain why so few anticipated Donald Trump's 2016 electoral victory or the results of the Brexit vote. A white, male-centric newsroom means that many stories go unreported and many sources go untapped because it is beyond their experiential respective and no one in the newsroom is offering an alternative perspective: "In this mediarchy," analogous to patriarchy, "there is a groupthink born of uniformity in pedigree and a proximity to power via shared networks and values, which means that instead of reflecting reality, it distorts it, instead of embracing change, it resists it.” In short, more voices with differing views would do much to correct this problem.

Having established how the media plays a part in perpetuating existing power structures, the author next tackles the myth of political correctness. As the author notes, this particular myth has a long history of being used to prevent change: "The PC myth has a lifecycle that starts with grievance creation, moves on to fabrication, and ends in diversion" by creating an imaginary injustice to distract from the real one. She discusses various conservative "think tanks," such as the Heritage Foundation and the Cato Institute, that have invested large sums to perpetuate this myth. Most notably, she shows how this myth contributed to the widespread belief in the United States that that the Covid-19 virus was a hoax. She highlights how Trump dismissed the seriousness of the virus at the outset and labeled those who voiced concern as being politically correct. Once this narrative gained traction, wearing a mask in public ceased to be a health issue and instead became a badge of political identity. Sadly, believing this myth cost many their lives.

The other myths she tackles are the myth of a freedom of speech crisis, myth of harmful identity politics, and the myth of national exceptionalism. With each of these myths, she offers a detailed and thoughtful analysis of how they have gained credence in our society and the ways in which they serve to buttress inequalities. Although the author's analysis is spot on, my concern is that this book will do little to convince those who do not already agree with the author's assessment. In part, this concern simply reflects the unlikelihood that today's Trump voter would ever pick up such a book. However, the book is also unlikely to convince the non-believer because it does not apply the same level of scrutiny to the sources it cites as it does to those that it criticized. What do I mean by this? I mean that the author provides a detailed history of the various institutes and foundations, such as the Heritage Foundation, that it takes issue with, but does not provide the reader with the same level of information about the sources that it relies on to debunk these myths. For example, she includes statistics from National Bureau of Economic Research and the Center for Democracy and Technology, both private non-profits, without giving the reader any information about why they should trust the data of these two organizations. In other words, the reader is expected simply to accept the "reliability" of the institutes and foundations, which the author quotes. Given the opening chapter on the myth of the reliable narrator, I wanted the author to interrogate her own sources with the same rigor as she did those of her opponents and include that interrogation in her analysis, as bias is not a phenomenon that only occurs on the right side of the political spectrum. And if we inadvertently act like it does, we will only reinforce distrust. So, while I agree with the author's analysis, I am concerned that it will not change minds.

I would like to thank NetGalley, the publisher, and the author for an advance copy of this book in exchange for a fair and honest review.

[Siobhan · Rating 4 out of 5]

We Need New Stories is a book that looks at six myths used across Western culture—particularly the US and the UK—to discredit progressive causes in various ways, and analyses them, how they've come into play, how they work, and what might be done to find new narratives to take hold in place of these. Concepts such as the use of 'freedom of speech' as a tool for furthering prejudice, the danger of white identity politics, and the idealisation of a country's history are some of those focused upon by Malik, who looks deep into some ideas that have become very prevalent, exposing the key proponents of these ideas and the flaws and falsehoods in their arguments.

This is a compelling book that brings together a lot of material, and tries to practically conclude with how these myths can be countered. It is the sort of book that is likely to make people angry at how these myths and frames of reference have become so ingrained in society whilst having flaws and issues that many people have pointed out repeatedly, and unfortunately there isn't a simple answer to any of them, but Malik does focus the end of each chapter with the kind of ideas and stories that might be used to rethink and reframe things. The book doesn't assume too much knowledge and features a number of media figures that people might be vaguely familiar with, but looks in a little more depth at what they've said and how they spread these myths.

We Need New Stories is an analysis of modern cultural myths and a manifesto for arguing against them and finding new narratives that might lessen or stop some of the dangerous consequences of these myths.

[Em Anderson-Wallace · Rating 3 out of 5]

I've been reading We Need New Stories since October.

It's not that this book is boring, it's just that it is seriously intellectually challenging. Each chapter, Nesrine Malik takes a new myth and dissects it, critically examining the doctrines that inform it and the practices that maintain it. For example, one chapter focusses on 'The Myth of Gender Equality' - in it, Malik cites common arguments (think 'men can't do anything without being persecuted these days', 'not all men', 'there's more women in parliament than ever', 'women in the UK have nothing to complain about, look at X') and deconstructs them, offering logical criticisms and dispassionate rebuttal. She's an intellectual powerhouse and I wish she was in my brain when I talk to certain people* about difficult topics.

This book was dense and often difficult to focus on, and I found myself having to read paragraphs upwards of 4 times to grasp what she was saying. Once I worked it out, though, I was rewarded with a number of those delicious 'Yes! Exactly!!' moments that are the crack cocaine of non-fiction. We Need New Stories is one I will likely return to when I get yet another 'isn't that sexist towards men?' message.

*men

[Ceyrone · Rating 4 out of 5]

I really enjoyed reading ‘We Need New Stories’ so well written and thought out, well researched. The way she articulated the words on the page, reflected what I thought and how I feel about certain topics, the way political correctness and free speech is being manipulated from what they original were intended for. Nesrine analyses 5 political myths to show how history, race, gender and classical liberal values are being leveraged by a select group of people to prevent any change from century old hierarchies. The other myths she tackles are the myth of a freedom of speech crisis, myth of harmful identity politics, and the myth of national exceptionalism. With each of these myths, she offers a detailed and thoughtful analysis of how they have gained credence in our society and the ways in which they serve to buttress inequalities. Highly recommend this, this exploration of myths is so well written, giving an in depth look at things we should all be concerned with.

“The harmful identity politics myth creates an 'exception for whiteness, promotes racial entitlement via dog whistling...and grievance flipping, and is sustained by appeals to universalism. Constant denial that race is relevant to how white populations behave politically helps prop up the myth that only other races are motivated by identity. This denial minimizes the menace of white race-based animus: it's just 'white self-interest,' or a number of other euphemisms."

[Jackie · Rating 2 out of 5]

Man, I was so excited when I picked up this book. Its premise is that it takes 5 central myths (the myth of political correctness, the myth of harmful identity politics, the myth of national exceptionalism, etc) and it will deconstruct them, including the most common tools/arguments that their proponents use to continue propagating them.

I'm on board with what Malik is saying here and find many of her key points unassailable—the "political correctness" debate is largely manufactured; when you get down to it, ALL politics are identity politics, and much positive progress has come from identity politics; and our sense of national identity (in the United States) is a deeply flawed and myopic/cherry-picked thing. It just didn't feel like much new was brought to the debate, or that a historical "tail" was even drawn up for most of these arguments. It's a slim book (with most of its citations coming from web articles), and perhaps if Malik had more time she could have given it more heft; then again, as a journalist, maybe her strength is in shorter pieces. Less than I'd hoped for was shared about how to unravel these myths or counteract the tools employed to keep them going.

Great, necessary idea for a book. Was hoping for better content, in the end.

[Laura · Rating 3 out of 5]

DNF @ 37%. I picked up We Need New Stories, British-Sudanese journalist Nesrine Malik’s first non-fiction book, because I like Malik’s Guardian columns and her Twitter discussions. We Need New Stories aims to challenge six modern myths, ranging from the idea that there is a ‘free speech crisis’ to the argument that ‘identity politics’ is the root of political and social divisions. I read about a third of this book, but eventually found myself losing interest. I agreed with everything Malik was saying, but that was part of the problem; I wasn’t sure if this book was bringing anything especially new to the table, given how well-rehearsed these debates have been already. Her writing also doesn’t translate well to long-form, becoming much too wordy, with run-on sentences and some misuse of commas. This needed to be much shorter and snappier.

I received a free proof copy of this book from the publisher for review.

[Giovanna Walker · Rating 4 out of 5]

A thoughtful and well researched novel. Some parts are a little over my head (I have to admit) but it was a good read, not too academic (those novels can be hard for those of us not in that 'world'). I was really interested in reading about her unpacking of the toxic myths, and how interesting and informative. I was really intrigued by how language makes SUCH a difference. Recommended.

[Sean · Rating 3 out of 5]

"Merely saying the left is bossy and controlling isn't enough to convert people to the anti-PC cause. The right needed victims. More specifically, it needed to take victimhood away from those legitimately suffering. From African Americans demanding affirmative action to redress the structural imbalances of slavery, from women who demanded freedom from sexual harassment and workplace discrimination, from ethnic minorities who demanded freedom from racial slurs. There is a line that runs through conservative resistance to change, and it is the appropriate of victimhood from the weak by the powerful. Unable to come up with any reasons for that victimhood that are related to identity--being white, male, heterosexual, or part of a majority ethnic group doesn't throw up much opportunity for identity-based outrage--anti-PC critics chose a different route. Men, white people, and straight people were being victimized because those with less power than them had be OVER-empowered, creating a new system of oppression. All the toxic myths that underpin our age of discontent start out with this premise. It's all 'gone too far.' Feminists, anti-racists, honest appraisers of history, all drunk with power, purging the old order. #MeToo had gone too far before its main villains had even stepped in court. Like the old adage about how quickly a lie travels halfway across the world, with myths, the powerful are already weeping before their victims have got their boots on."

"The question that needs to be asked is why did Trump voters feel like those norms were so oppressive to them? Who decided that those norms were 'restrictive?' And if indeed these norms are oppressive, what is it that lies beneath, and which we must allow to be expressed if we are to prevent this reportedly inevitable backlash?
What lies beneath was hinted at by Donald Trump on the campaign trail when he defended his history of verbally abusing women. 'I think the big problem this country has is being politically correct,' Trump said, to audience applause. 'I've been challenged by so many people, I don't frankly have time for total political correctness. And to be honest with you, this country doesn't have time either.'
Trump was right. The country didn't have 'time' for political correctness. The impatience and frustration in not having time is a reaction to the demands made on people to be decent, to respect their fellow citizens, to put in the the effort and the *time* to learn how to treat others with dignity. It is a rejection of that expectation. A stamping of the foot. Others should remain othered. They should remain in their place and not presume that they have the right to change how Americans talk, think, or behave. There is an implicit anger of insult in not having time for political correctness, perhaps even of humiliation. Those who reject political correctness with such vehemence are reasserting their status in a country where their status has been a given for far too long."

"A world where all opinions and lies are presented to the public as a sort of take-it-or-leave-it buffet is often described as the 'marketplace of ideas,' a rationalization for freedom of expression based on comparing ideas to products in a free market economy. The marketplace of ideas model of free speech holds that what is true factually, and what is good morally, will emerge after a competition of ideas in a free, unmoderated, and transparent public discourse--a healthy debate where the truth will prevail. Bad ideas and ideologies will lose out and wither away when they are vanquished by superior ones. The problem with the marketplace of ideas theory (as with all 'invisible hand' theories) is that it doesn't account for a world in which the market is skewed and not all ideas receive equal representation, because the market has monopolies and cartels" (71).

"The harmful identity politics myth creates an 'exception for whiteness, promotes racial entitlement via dog whistling...and grievance flipping, and is sustained by appeals to universalism. Constant denial that race is relevant to how white populations behave politically helps prop up the myth that only other races are motivated by identity. This denial minimizes the menace of white race-based animus: it's just 'white self-interest,' or a number of other euphemisms."

"The flip side of this coddling of white entitlement is a denigration of other groups' expressions of (real) political grievances and the habit of accusing *them* of racism. In 2016, the Guardian writer Sir Simon Jenkins declared that 'pale, stale males' such as him were the only remaining group that is it 'OK to vilify.' When interviewed about the column, he said that the way he feels now, white, male, and above a certain age is sometimes 'like what it must have been like to be a black person twenty or thirty years ago.' There were no black women (or men, for that matter) with two columns in The Guardian and the Evening Standard, twenty or thirty years ago. In fact, at the time that Sir Simon made his comments, there was not a single black woman columnist writing full-time for any mainstream British newspaper. He added that black women 'slide' into important jobs these days, that he generally feels like he and his cohort are being 'squeezed' out of the commentariat, and that there are things that he used to be invited to that he is no longer invited to. At the time of writing, Jenkins remains a columnist at the Guardian, his tenure still unthreatened by a 'sliding' in of black women.
He ended his column by contradicting all the went before it. 'The stales, like the pale males, will have their revenge. They have the spending power, the pensions, the houses; above all, they vote. Call us hideous and disgusting if you want... and we shall honor your right to offend us. But prick us and we still bleed. We have our pride. We are going to be around for longer and longer--and we are going to cost you dear.'
This switching between pathos and menace, between plaintiveness and threat, between claiming dispossession and then bringing revenge to bear on those you allege are oppressing you with all the might of your vastly superior resources, is the doublethink that lies at the heart of the identity politics myth" (108).

[Holly · Rating 5 out of 5]

not a single wasted sentence in this. nesrine malik is so clever and everyone should read this book.

[Cynthia · Rating 5 out of 5]

At times infuriating, at times inspiring, this book actually "tells it like it is": the history we don't hear in history lessons, the facts that don't care about your supremacist feelings, the truth behind myths that people in power make up as excuses to keep oppressing the powerless. At the end, it clearly gives calls to action for journalists, writers, creators and storytellers in general. We need new stories, our stories, your stories.

[Alexandros Potapidis · Rating 4 out of 5]

Writing in 1981, the then professor of political science at York University in Toronto, Robert W. Cox coined the dichotomy between “problem solving” and “critical” theory. Problem solving theory takes the world as it finds it organised and attempts to deliver workable solutions within the boundaries of the existing relationships and structures of power. Critical theory, on the other hand, puts in question the very foundations of existing structures and attempts to redefine the power relationships of the social world. Even though his distinction referred to international relations theory and how scholars interpret the world, the echo of his dichotomy can have wider applications, especially to commentators and opinion makers of social life, be it journalists, politicians, or decision makers.

In this regard, Nesrine Malik is a genuine representative of a critical theory/approach of how to deliver solutions to a dysfunctional world. In her polemical book, We Need New Stories, she does exactly what the subtitle suggests; she challenges the very toxic myths in our time of dissatisfaction. This discontent comes from the elements of the established power structures of our societies that realise they are losing the grip on power. A world that is not working for most of its people for most of the time is gradually coming to terms with the need to reverse the established dynamics.

Malik’s central argument of the book evolves around the idea that the white, male, patriarchal, conservative, and deeply nationalistic structures of modern societies (in counties so diverse as Sudan and the UK) built they dominant position based on myths. These stories became so deeply embedded in the social fabric that they transcended generations and became to be regarded as natural, even though there is nothing inherent or biological to support them. The author explores these myths in the context of the rise of populism in the Anglo-Saxon world, the election of Donald Trump, and the Brexit vote. She illustrates how the forces that supported these developments create and re-create, through the function of a reliable narrator (whose reliability is a myth by itself), the myths of gender equality, of virtuous origin, and of a society whose free speech and political correctness are in crisis.

Malik’s critical approach can be pinpointed when she unleashes a critique of the work of Steven Pinker and his problem-solving orientation, which evolves around the project of Enlightenment. According to Pinker, humanity as a whole has progressed because it put its faith in the values of reason, rationalism, humanism, and scientific inquiry. Malik, on the other hand, sees progress as a result of “struggle of the weak and disenfranchised throwing themselves into activism and martyrdom against the institutions that work to exclude them” (p. 30).

The author makes an interesting point when talking about the myth that the freedom of speech is in crisis. She makes the distinction between freedom of speech (which has never been more free or unregulated than today) and the right to speak without consequences (such as hate speech). She writes that the purpose of the myth is to allow certain groups to “secure the license to speak with impunity; not freedom of expression, but rather freedom from the consequences of that expression” (p. 98), in order for them to “destigmatise racism and prejudice” (p. 99). So where do we draw the line between freedom of speech and hate speech? Malik asserts that as a society we have managed to regulate and draw a line in many aspects of our every day lives, in legal and customary boundaries. Thus the distinction between freedom of speech and hate speech should be clearly established as a norm.

As a student of international politics, my favourite myth is the one about the virtuous origin and how every nation distorts its (sometimes ugly and brutal) history in order to justify its greatness, offer a sense of societal cohesion, and advocate for positions that aspire to imitate the proud past of its countrymen (what happen to the women?), even by pursuing illogical politics (Brexit). Whether you are Greek, and you believe the national narrative that the greatness of the ancient times is the reason the world is keeping the country subjugated, or English, and you indulge into the narrative of the evil EU that does not allow the country to bring back its former glory in a modern version of an empire, the story runs along similar lines. The media, popular discourse, and school curricula enhance those myths and make them ingrained into the national subconsciousness.

My only disagreement with Nesrine Malik would be about the problem of historical context. She argues that to subscribe to the idea of every era having a uniform and time-specific set of ethics is wrong, selective, and wonders how change did come about if that was the case (p.202). This argument does not take into account the question of change and its subsequent implications in technological and economic spheres. These changes shaped the traditions, customs, and norms of each society. For example, if the food production industry develops an affordable meat-like substitute for our needs of meat consumption, there is every chance that at some point in human history cows, chicken, and pigs will acquire the same status as dogs and cats in terms of the value of their life. What is important changes from one historical context to another and it is usually the brave, disenfranchised, and daring ones who bring this change.

We Need New Stories made me think that it is possible my accomplishment in life were the result of my sex (male) and the colour of my skin (white). Not in a direct and evident way, but embedded in a cultural and social framework that transcends time and space. For example, I might not have been directly hired at my current job because I am white, but would I have been able to attend university, where I improved my writing and social skills to become a successful candidate for this job, had my parents been black or if I was a woman whose conservative parents expected child rearing instead of attending university?

[Sumit · Rating 5 out of 5]

One of the most important books I've read in the last year. A powerful breakdown of right-wing myths like "cancel culture" that seek to turn reality on its head, turning the aggressor into the victim. A key read for anyone who understand this pernicious strategy and how to argue against it.

[Kate · Rating 4 out of 5]

This collection of essays addresses a number of myths that people and media continue to spout, like the war on free speech or the dangers of political correctness. Ms. Malik writes clearly and explains why these myths exist, what the people who profess them gain by keeping them alive, and how to make sense of it.

The essays in this book are of a good length, so they cover the topics well. If you ever just can't put your finger on why something feels untrue, yet people continue to believe it, this book may be just the thing.

My thanks to W.W. Norton for the ARC in exchange for an honest review.

[Stephen Joseph · Rating 4 out of 5]

An excellent, well-articulated, prescient analysis of the myths that undergird both historical and recent harmful movements. Malik is skillful at cutting to the heart of the issue with precision and sensitivity. I will definitely be reading this again, even if just to remind myself of how to make a difference in the small ways that I can.

[Lake Lady · Rating 3 out of 5]

I had hoped there would be more ideas in this book about what the new stories could be and how to get there. Instead I found compelling arguments detailing what is wrong with current cultural myths. A lot of what's wrong and not enough about what could be better. Still worth reading though.

[Madison Gordon · Rating 2 out of 5]

There are two general types of popular political writings: those meant to convert fence-sitters and those meant to further entrench existing supporters. This book, a deconstruction of six oppressive "myths" in modern Western culture, is almost entirely the latter.

The author is a decent emotional writer and does an interesting job connecting and distilling various events into abstract "myths" that culturally reinforce gender, racial, and class hierarchies. These myths, or "toxic delusions", include myths of national exceptionalism, gender equality, and a free speech crisis. The macro setup of the book is clever and well-structured, but there is little here to compel anyone who does not already align themselves with the left.

The book is strongest when it attempts to see outside the conventional right/left binary. One of the strongest sections is a discussion on political correctness and how social media platforms benefit from policies of political impartiality so as to stoke the flames on both sides and drive up user engagement. This leaves minorities particularly vulnerable to hate speech and other attacks.

The weaker sections, which are far more plentiful, fall into contradiction and hinge on pre-loaded wordgames. For example, the chapter on identity politics argues that identity-based political movements are foundational to all political action and divisible into two distinct types: those which are liberatory and anti-oppressive, the others which are reactionary and oppressive. You'll have to trust the author on which sorts of modern identity movements fall into the "good" and "bad" camps. The entire chapter falls apart if you do not agree with where or why the author draws the line.

Beyond the wordgames, the author's main sin is to offer so little credence to her ideological opponents that she often seems unwilling to truly assess their claims. The author will describe her opponent's arguments with an incredulous air and then fail to properly refute them as if they are so plainly wrong they require no real interrogation. This results in very little actionable advice as to how to combat each myth, or how to have constructive conversations with those who disagree.

As the book concluded I realized it is an exercise in the author's own personal myth-making: the myth that the world is easily and definitively divisible into good and evil. While those of us on the side of Justice and Equality wait for the oppressors to catch up, at least we have this book to commiserate with.

[Tracey Sinclair · Rating 5 out of 5]

This has been sitting on my shelves for ages, but I finally picked it up having enjoyed Naomi Klein's Doppelganger and realising this treaded similar ground. Although written pre-pandemic, this feels more salient than ever - and it regularly made me so angry at the world I had to put it down. Malik is particularly good at excoriating the British media and establishment and how the "chumocracy" is in the very real process of sinking the country, and how British myth making led to Brexit and a denial of the harm that is causing. Highly recommended.

[Anum · Rating 3 out of 5]

Nesrine Malik's compilation of essays about common myths in the modern discourse is quite interesting. I found that Nesrine overall did a good job in bringing a journalistic perspective to topics of gender, free speech, political correctness, xenophobia and identity politics. She highlights how we need new narratives in the mainstream to counter the established rhetoric. However, her verbosity and repetitiveness makes reading the book slightly tedious.

[Amalia Sanchez · Rating 4 out of 5]

At times exhausting and, appropriately, distressing, this is a powerful and unflinching review of the destructive forces that reinforce the violent inequalities that we are socialized to accept and even revere in American culture. Really, this should be required reading for anyone who wants to approach current cultural or political discourse with a clear-eyed perspective. Malik can be slightly heavy handed in her delivery at times (using a moral lens when I think the facts could suffice) but her arguments are never wrong. 4.5*

[Tomi · Rating 3 out of 5]

Hyvä perustason selvitys ja kritiikki julkista keskustelua hallitsevista "myyteistä" (sananvapaus on uhattuna, identiteettipolitiikka, historiallinen erityisyys, ja muut valtavirta/laitaoikeiston lempiselitykset), joka tosin menee vähän turhan syvälle angloamerikkalaisen keskustelun yksityiskohtiin. Tämä ei tietysti ole kirjan vika, vaan lukukontekstin. Vähän sellainen kirja, joka tekisi mieli säilyttää lähdeteoksena, josta voisi sitten ammentaa, kun tulee taas joku höpöhöpö "totuus" vastaan. Lopun eteenpäin katsovalta osiolta odotin vähän enemmän.

[Meg · Rating 5 out of 5]

This was my favorite book of 2020. Every chapter made me slow down and think about the world differently. Simply put, Nesrine Malik is a brilliant young thinker. I cannot recommend this book highly enough.

[Sam Hatia · Rating 5 out of 5]

Malik has an astute outlook and style of writing essays which captures her thoughts so perfectly. Much to think about from these essays.

[Megan Doney · Rating 5 out of 5]

A fantastic rhetorically rigorous response to the myths that are destroying us.

[Emily · Rating 4 out of 5]

Malik has a combative journalistic style but it is not specious. She also has the wider international perspective of someone whose education and experience straddles the Middle East, America and the UK. She sets out some of the ‘comfortable’ stories that are strongly promoted by the UK press and the popular alt right – that gender equality is pretty sorted here, that political correctness has gone too far, that those on the left are trying to close down free speech, and that identity politics is damaging.

When I began reading this book, I feared that I was going to be subjected to a rant, but this is a polemic in the true sense, strongly argued with counter information and a wider perspective.

She wants to challenge the narrative that white male privilege is under threat - that feminism has gone too far and that political correctness is preventing us from telling truths. She begins with the wry comment that the same arguments that the political pendulum has swung too far are used in the other societies she has lived in – Sudan and Saudi Arabia for instance. They are used to suppress and to provoke – as with Trump. Transgressing norms – living independently – means you attract violence because that is human nature and inequality is a function of biology. ‘To object to anything from forced marriage in the Omdurman to the ubiquity of sexual harassment in the workplace in the City of London is to be met with this defence.’ And she speaks from experience.

One of the things she is good on, if your perspective is that there is no smoke without fire, and complaints about women and political correctness simply reflect ordinary people’s experience – is how much hidden and not so hidden money goes into promoting these dangerous reactionary myths. Working for The Guardian helps you dig out dirt. She describes the billionaire Koch brothers who fund the ‘libertarian’ Cato Institute, and the Heritage Foundation that gives pseudo academic credentials and funding to commentators.

There’s money in these views – as several journalists turned politicians in the UK can attest. She reminds us of several stories feeding these agendas propagated in the Daily Mail, which were proven false with substantial damages in court, with the outcomes under reported. ‘The problem with the market place of ideas theory (as with all ‘invisible hand’ type theories), is that it does not account for a world where the market is skewed, and where not all ideas receive equal representation, because the market has monopolies and cartels.’

She is a firm believer in countering these myths – ‘by sticking with a forceful presentation of reality and to avoid hesitation when making the case for respect and social cohesion’. ‘Political correctness is the stretching, expansion, and often the growing pains, of a society enlarging to accommodate all its members.’ ‘The threat to social cohesion is not that there is too much political correctness, it is that there is not enough.’

This book was written in 2019, before the 2020 explosion of Black Lives Matter protests – but Malik would regard these as part of the necessary response to those who think we have gone too far.

[Lisa · Rating 2 out of 5]

The premise of the myth that needs to be broken is an intriguing theme. But I had such difficulty with the writing it was frustrating to find the kernels of goodness to refute the myth. They are there. Just difficult to find. Writing is overly academic and circuitous. Too bad.

[Ryan Fohl · Rating 4 out of 5]

It’s incredible that an outsider understands American politics so well. There are some lines and quotes that are so concise and so spot-on, they would make serviceable tattoos. Some other bits were confusing and I had to read them over and over.

On victim blaiming: “the powerful are already weeping before their victims have their boots on.”

“Political Correctness” the smearing and silencing of points of view by labeling them elitist.

“Political correctness is not wrong, it is merely unfashionable” For those who resent having to suppress their offensive thoughts: where would you like your sewage? In the pipes underground or flowing in the streets?

“This is the dirty secret about freedom of speech; rather than being an ideal, it is a litmus test of a society’s prejudices.” And Milo Yiannopoulos’s case proves that.

“If any limits of freedom of speech are simply too dangerous to be accepted, why not call for the tearing down of copyright laws?”

“In the way Britain has been warped by empire, so has America been warped by the Cold War.”

“A system of inequality must create its own illusion of justice, through which it is sustained.”

“Change is not constant, but resistance to it is.”

“Gritting teeth and moving on is not displaying agency.”

“They took one look at the largest global movement for equality in a generation, and the only thing they saw was a threat to “open debate.”

What I learned: A lacuna is a blank space or missing part.
White vulnerability and racial resentment could more accurately be called “racial entitlement.”
Space force was an idea put forward by Republican hawks decades prior to Trump.
The myth of national exceptionalism allows the maintenance of a grievance of humiliation that does not hurt self esteem.

[Terry · Rating 2 out of 5]

Malik is clearly an intelligent person from the far left. She knows how to make strong arguments. The problems with this book, which I read and then reread are these, in my humble opinion:

1) She goes after straw-"people" rather than engaging with the actual opposition to her views. How many times does she reference the Daily Mail as a stand in for those who have different views from her own? As if the Daily Mail represents conservatives? It feels intentional and disingenuous.

2) Many of the items in her book have been disproved by things that have happened since it was published just a short while ago. The clear example of this is referring to the tragic murder of Jo Cox. Well, what about the tragic murder of Conservative MP David Amess? This book is already not aging well already, and soon it may need to be completely revised and updated, though maybe that is her plan, to release a new edition shortly.

Her attempts to play down the culture wars and identity politics increasingly are not supported by the current versions of the polls she cites.

In other words this book really should just be columns in the Guardian, as opposed to a book, since they are of the moment and are not standing up to the reality that she misjudged.

[Rebecca]

Holy crap this book is a MUST-READ. I live for this kind of extended rhetorical analysis, which beautifully bridges “theory” and its very immediate, real-world applications. What stood out to me in particular (and what I’m using to plug the book to my friends & family) is an excellent chapter-long examination of “political correctness” and its history, as well as a much-needed critique of the US Democratic rhetorical strategy (e.g. the 2016 Clinton presidential campaign). While the claims being made in this book are not entirely new (if not as widely circulated as they should be), Malik’s thoroughness in this book-length discussion is absolutely welcome and necessary, as is her precision and clear understanding of the current stakes. Wholeheartedly recommend!

[Chris Edwards · Rating 5 out of 5]

A brilliant and we'll researched book. Each chapter amounted to a cathartic experience reading back what I have often felt but struggled to articulate over the last few years. From political correctness becoming a dirty word to the apparent 'free speech crisis' we're constantly reminded of by white old men in their newspaper columns, Nersine upicks the common arguments made for each myth and makes suggestions for how they can be debunked - very refreshing, when most books like these present a problem and end on 'well, I guess someone will have to sort this out.' Essential reading if we're ever going to get out of the mess that is modern politics.