What do you think?
Rate this book
On Being Unreasonable: Breaking the Rules and Making Things Better
A unified theory of reasonableness – and how to be unreasonable for the right reasons.
Manners, order and respect... these are all ideals we subscribe to. In opposed positions, we ought to be able to 'agree to disagree'. Today's world is built from structures of standards and reason, but it is imperative to ask who constructed these norms, and why. We are more divided than ever before-along lines of race, gender, class, disability-and it's time to question who benefits the most. What if our propensity to measure human behaviour against rules and reason is actually more problematic than it might seem?
Kirsty Sedgman shows how power dynamics and the social biases involved have resulted in a wide acceptance of what people should and shouldn't do, but they create discriminatory realities and amount to a societal façade that is dangerous for genuine social progress. From taking the knee to breastfeeding in public, from neighbourhood vigilantism to the Colston Four--and exploring ideas around ethics, justice, society, and equality along the way--Sedgman explores notions of civility throughout history up to now.
On Being Unreasonable mounts a vital and spirited defence of why and how being unreasonable can help improve the world. It examines and parses the pros and cons of our rules around reason, but leaves us with the rousing What if behaving un reasonably at times might be the best way to bring about meaningful change that is long overdue?
Manners, order and respect... these are all ideals we subscribe to. In opposed positions, we ought to be able to 'agree to disagree'. Today's world is built from structures of standards and reason, but it is imperative to ask who constructed these norms, and why. We are more divided than ever before-along lines of race, gender, class, disability-and it's time to question who benefits the most. What if our propensity to measure human behaviour against rules and reason is actually more problematic than it might seem?
Kirsty Sedgman shows how power dynamics and the social biases involved have resulted in a wide acceptance of what people should and shouldn't do, but they create discriminatory realities and amount to a societal façade that is dangerous for genuine social progress. From taking the knee to breastfeeding in public, from neighbourhood vigilantism to the Colston Four--and exploring ideas around ethics, justice, society, and equality along the way--Sedgman explores notions of civility throughout history up to now.
On Being Unreasonable mounts a vital and spirited defence of why and how being unreasonable can help improve the world. It examines and parses the pros and cons of our rules around reason, but leaves us with the rousing What if behaving un reasonably at times might be the best way to bring about meaningful change that is long overdue?
352 pages, Hardcover
First published August 8, 2023
34 people are currently reading
579 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 18 of 18 reviews
January 15, 2024
Eh, the title made it seem much more interesting than it was. The first part was highly repetitive and the book as a whole was redundant of a LOT of other scholarship, especially books written since 2016. I get that she’s British, but the author seemed to conflate Democrats (the political party) with the Left and Progressivism - they are so far from being the same! Unfortunately for the author, despite any good arguments or points she made, this kind of book is pretty much only read by liberal Democrats for them to feel on the right side of social history and movements. True Leftists already know this shit and conservatives aren’t going to pick up this book. It’s well written and sincere, but not going to reach any sort of meaningful audience.
May 10, 2024
Wie streikt man richtig? Gibt es eine gute Streikkultur? Und kann man auf soziale Umstände aufmerksam machen, ohne nicht betroffene Menschen zu stören? Die Antwort der Autorin lautet nein.
Sie plädiert grundsätzlich für einen „frechen“, „Vorlaute“ Art im Alltag, um Dinge zu hinterfragen. Warum sollten Frauen im Alltag nicht stillen dürfen in der Öffentlichkeit? Warum steht das Wohl der konservativen Männer und Frauen unter dem Wohlbefinden des Kindes?
Sie plädiert grundsätzlich für einen „frechen“, „Vorlaute“ Art im Alltag, um Dinge zu hinterfragen. Warum sollten Frauen im Alltag nicht stillen dürfen in der Öffentlichkeit? Warum steht das Wohl der konservativen Männer und Frauen unter dem Wohlbefinden des Kindes?
August 16, 2024
I completely understand some of the reviews here assessing this as a relatively first-step guide to social restorative justice, and one that overestimates the good motivations and outcomes of leftist politics as opposed to right-leaning politics.
However, I found this to be a really concise, self-encapsulated guide to affirm the reactivity and 'unreasonableness', as Sedgman puts it, many of us experience when doing this work, and something that I can imagine would be a useful motivator and friend to someone just beginning on their civil justice journey, who isn't used to facing the many arguments, insults, and barriers coming from across the political sphere framing them as the problem, rather than fighting to address the problem as one. (See also: The Feminist Killjoy Handbook.)
This is also something I can imagine giving a 'politically neutral' or 'chronically online leftist' friend who isn't sure where to begin feeling less crushed by the polemic and self-defeating nature of our current political discourse---and can imagine it making a difference in their work.
Definitely an intro guide, but not a purposeless one.
However, I found this to be a really concise, self-encapsulated guide to affirm the reactivity and 'unreasonableness', as Sedgman puts it, many of us experience when doing this work, and something that I can imagine would be a useful motivator and friend to someone just beginning on their civil justice journey, who isn't used to facing the many arguments, insults, and barriers coming from across the political sphere framing them as the problem, rather than fighting to address the problem as one. (See also: The Feminist Killjoy Handbook.)
This is also something I can imagine giving a 'politically neutral' or 'chronically online leftist' friend who isn't sure where to begin feeling less crushed by the polemic and self-defeating nature of our current political discourse---and can imagine it making a difference in their work.
Definitely an intro guide, but not a purposeless one.
October 29, 2023
This book is interesting because it's written by someone with a background in audience studies. Theater etiquette presents an interesting test case for public spaces in general. How do we settle on the rules and norms of behavior in public?
After writing a book on audience studies, Sedgman got turned onto the concept of the "reasonable" because of the aggressive backlash she got from some corners of the public. What's interesting is that people with completely incompatible conceptions of proper etiquette would both claim the mantle of the "reasonable". The clearest example is about breastfeeding in public. Parents would say that asking women not to breastfeed in public is an unreasonable request. Men without children would plead with mothers to be reasonable and consider what other people find unpleasant to look at. Clearly, the concept of the "reasonable" can cut both ways. What role does this concept play in our norms for public behavior, and what role should it play?
Regarding the breastfeeding example, there is a more concrete reason why mothers should be allowed to breastfeed in public- they'd be completely excluded from public life otherwise. The men have no such more descriptive justification behind their appeal to the "reasonable". The question is what work this appeal does in the conversation, versus the work that could be done by more descriptive justifications.
So this is not to say that Sedgman wants us to abandon reason. She is the first to admit: the ability to improvise an acceptable way to behave in a novel social situation is an irreducible requirement of our ability to live together at all. We all make choices every day, trying to be "reasonable". And some rules are necessary for some people to be included in public life at all (think about rules to aid people with disabilities). The problem arises when the use of the word becomes unmoored from the actual social good. We should be skeptical, Sedgman thinks, of appeals to common sense. We should interrogate how such norms actually came about, the purpose they are actually serving, and what really justifies them, if anything. Examining an unexamined appeal to common sense often reveals that the driving force is merely the interests of the powerful.
The book is full of interesting examples. Theater etiquette itself (think not clapping in the middle of a performance) was invented out of whole cloth by the Victorians. It served to distinguish the "civilized" behavior of colonizers from the ecstatic participation sometimes found in the performance art of colonized people.
Another strength of the book is that Sedgman takes her idea to its fullest logical conclusion in addressing norms of "civility" in public discourse. Too often we are asked to be "civil" in conversation with people who are arguing for atrocities. What does civility mean here, and what purpose does it serve? We should be skeptical of calls to speak "civilly", and examine the real pros and cons of heeding such calls. We shouldn't let blind adherence to such a vague concept stop us from engaging in forceful discourse about things of moral importance.
The next time someone makes an appeal for a norm on behalf of the "reasonable man", ask them to be more specific about what good that norm does. Don't just let them plant their flag on common sense.
After writing a book on audience studies, Sedgman got turned onto the concept of the "reasonable" because of the aggressive backlash she got from some corners of the public. What's interesting is that people with completely incompatible conceptions of proper etiquette would both claim the mantle of the "reasonable". The clearest example is about breastfeeding in public. Parents would say that asking women not to breastfeed in public is an unreasonable request. Men without children would plead with mothers to be reasonable and consider what other people find unpleasant to look at. Clearly, the concept of the "reasonable" can cut both ways. What role does this concept play in our norms for public behavior, and what role should it play?
It masks persistent contradictions regarding the meaning of a rule, behind a formula which leaves open the possibility of divergent interpretationsEssentially, the plea on behalf of the "reasonable person" acts as a "thought-stopping cliche" a la Cultish: The Language of Fanaticism. Because people completely disagree on what is reasonable, the phrase carries no semantic content except to indicate the preference of the speaker. Yet, it admits of no response- it stakes out of claim on the idea of common sense. How could you disagree with reasonable people?
Regarding the breastfeeding example, there is a more concrete reason why mothers should be allowed to breastfeed in public- they'd be completely excluded from public life otherwise. The men have no such more descriptive justification behind their appeal to the "reasonable". The question is what work this appeal does in the conversation, versus the work that could be done by more descriptive justifications.
So this is not to say that Sedgman wants us to abandon reason. She is the first to admit: the ability to improvise an acceptable way to behave in a novel social situation is an irreducible requirement of our ability to live together at all. We all make choices every day, trying to be "reasonable". And some rules are necessary for some people to be included in public life at all (think about rules to aid people with disabilities). The problem arises when the use of the word becomes unmoored from the actual social good. We should be skeptical, Sedgman thinks, of appeals to common sense. We should interrogate how such norms actually came about, the purpose they are actually serving, and what really justifies them, if anything. Examining an unexamined appeal to common sense often reveals that the driving force is merely the interests of the powerful.
The book is full of interesting examples. Theater etiquette itself (think not clapping in the middle of a performance) was invented out of whole cloth by the Victorians. It served to distinguish the "civilized" behavior of colonizers from the ecstatic participation sometimes found in the performance art of colonized people.
Another strength of the book is that Sedgman takes her idea to its fullest logical conclusion in addressing norms of "civility" in public discourse. Too often we are asked to be "civil" in conversation with people who are arguing for atrocities. What does civility mean here, and what purpose does it serve? We should be skeptical of calls to speak "civilly", and examine the real pros and cons of heeding such calls. We shouldn't let blind adherence to such a vague concept stop us from engaging in forceful discourse about things of moral importance.
The next time someone makes an appeal for a norm on behalf of the "reasonable man", ask them to be more specific about what good that norm does. Don't just let them plant their flag on common sense.
March 29, 2024
I originally rated this book lower, but I quickly realised that I'm not the target audience, and in the right hands it could probably do a lot of good. Basically, give this to your boomer parents or 'centrist' friends as an easy 'first step' towards the left. If you're already on the left and reasonably well read, then it is not the most gripping read. The book recapitulates a lot of social, cultural, and political theory of the last 40+ years in simple terms for a broader audience to argue for the social construction of 'reasonableness', which has its merits, but (at the risk of sounding pretentious!) seemed pretty obvious to me. Lastly, and as another reviewer pointed out, the book places far too much hope in the mainstream Anglophone 'left' (Labour and the Democrats) which these days is laughable, as more radical solutions are needed in this current hellscape.
March 18, 2023
“If the game is rigged maybe it’s time to rewrite the rules”
This book was a fantastic exploration of the history of the “reasonable man” and how ‘unreasonable’ actors throughout history have used social action and protest to make the world a fairer place. It was also hugely cathartic to read as someone often caught in seemingly endless and very frustrating circular debates about what is “reasonable” by friends and family. The book provided a very thorough analysis of the construction of what is “reasonable” and “unreasonable” grounded in cultural studies and many different disciplines. I was really impressed with the scope of this work, and despite how much it covered it was a very fun read! Would heartily recommend!
This book was a fantastic exploration of the history of the “reasonable man” and how ‘unreasonable’ actors throughout history have used social action and protest to make the world a fairer place. It was also hugely cathartic to read as someone often caught in seemingly endless and very frustrating circular debates about what is “reasonable” by friends and family. The book provided a very thorough analysis of the construction of what is “reasonable” and “unreasonable” grounded in cultural studies and many different disciplines. I was really impressed with the scope of this work, and despite how much it covered it was a very fun read! Would heartily recommend!
April 18, 2023
It is wild to have your Shabbat table arguments recapitulated in book form.
Sedgman basically makes the argument for a strong ethical stance and a movement away from reasonable (as determined by whom) as the standard for behavior. Reasonable only works when the world is fair.
It's really good and the narrative voice is absolutely delightful. Especially the way her children are an integral part of the story in a way that women writing not-about-motherhood don't often get to do. But she does and does it well. It did help that it resonated.
I'm not sure that this is a book that will change people's minds; part of what this book analyzes is when rhetoric fails and why. But I found it really valuable to see how she lays out her case and the research behind it.
Sedgman basically makes the argument for a strong ethical stance and a movement away from reasonable (as determined by whom) as the standard for behavior. Reasonable only works when the world is fair.
It's really good and the narrative voice is absolutely delightful. Especially the way her children are an integral part of the story in a way that women writing not-about-motherhood don't often get to do. But she does and does it well. It did help that it resonated.
I'm not sure that this is a book that will change people's minds; part of what this book analyzes is when rhetoric fails and why. But I found it really valuable to see how she lays out her case and the research behind it.
September 9, 2025
A left wing view of benefits of engaging into the so-called "unreasonable" social behaviour. Some points are "reasonably" defended (pun intended), such as the right to stand up and "be unreasonable" in order to make unreasonable things and situations become reasonable again (well... yeah), other points such as the defunding of the policial system just reek of socialism thinking. The author's main point? You just need police because you have property that needs defending!
Too many jabs at Europe and its supposedly bad influence around the globe...oh well.
Heteronormative, cis, white people need not join this book. It already closes the door in on you from the first pages.
Too many jabs at Europe and its supposedly bad influence around the globe...oh well.
Heteronormative, cis, white people need not join this book. It already closes the door in on you from the first pages.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
March 2, 2025
Interesting topics covered - who makes the rules, whom do they benefit, when it is okay to break them.
Initially lots of opinions, but second half is more of a appraisal of relevant works in this area.
Highlights grey areas and how they are navigated by different people, as well as how what is considered reasonable is deeply individual, affected by one's upbringing, community and status in society.
For me too much waffle, opinions that aren't backed up and anecdotes.
Initially lots of opinions, but second half is more of a appraisal of relevant works in this area.
Highlights grey areas and how they are navigated by different people, as well as how what is considered reasonable is deeply individual, affected by one's upbringing, community and status in society.
For me too much waffle, opinions that aren't backed up and anecdotes.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
December 14, 2023
Honestly embarrassing how long it took me to read this (post PhD life). Anyway, great book that breaks down the power dynamics of debate and made me think a lot about how we construct social norms. Particularly loved the section about protest and the right-wing rhetoric of "don't protest like THAT" but can never say exactly HOW people should protest.
November 10, 2023
Absolutely phenomenal.
I learned so much reading this book, and it has really made me think about our culture and how the whole concept of being reasonable is deeply rooted in bias and essentially created as a tool for oppression.
I learned so much reading this book, and it has really made me think about our culture and how the whole concept of being reasonable is deeply rooted in bias and essentially created as a tool for oppression.
January 12, 2025
Fantastic book that's ever more relevant to help understand how in a world of endless communication we are more divided and that actually 'being reasonable' in discussion is a trap and harmful of social justice and progress
June 23, 2023
Funny, passionate and paradigm-shifting - it'll change the way you see the world, and the way you respond to it.
May 26, 2024
It’s not that I don’t agree, I just thought it was badly written… meh.
August 10, 2024
dfr ⭐️ very much a judged the book by its cover. how can you not like the angry bunny on the front? what started off as very strong lost its way halfway through and I didn’t understand the point of the book. I’d very much want to explore these kinds of themes in fiction.
November 24, 2024
I thought this book started out strong with a very interesting introduction, but then it slowly got harder to follow
Read
August 11, 2025didn't finish
May 2, 2025
Some great points have been raised in this book. Good historical context and recent examples that can help to indicate the different understandings of the word reasonable. It would have been interesting to see what can be done to help unify people in their understanding of the word reasonable, from cultural, political and sociological perspectives. Alas this solution is not presented and raises yet more questions about what reasonable actually looks like. Otherwise it is well written with occasional comic relief.
Displaying 1 - 18 of 18 reviews