What do you think?
Rate this book
Thinking in an Emergency
Author of the landmark study The Body in Pain , Elaine Scarry offers a stunning and original analysis of the “claim of emergency.” For sixty years, modern democratic governments have undermined democracy and increased executive power by invoking the idea of emergency. They have bypassed constitutional provisions concerning presidential succession, the declaration of war, the use of torture, civilian surveillance, and the arrangements for nuclear weapons. In the desire for swift national action, we citizens devalue thinking and ignore ways to check government power, plunging our countries into a precarious state between monarchy and democracy. Drawing on the work of philosophers, neuroscientists, and artists, Elaine Scarry proves decisively that thinking and rapid action are compatible. Practices that we dismiss as mere habit and protocol instead represent rigorous, effective modes of thought that we must champion in times of crisis. Scarry’s bold claim on behalf of fundamental democratic principles will enliven and enrich the ongoing debate about leadership.
157 pages, Hardcover
First published February 14, 2011
17 people are currently reading
637 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 - 23 of 23 reviews
November 22, 2024
I read Elaine Scarry's The Body in Pain more or less when it was first published, at a time when I was thinking a lot about El Salvador, Argentina, Augusto Pinochet, death squads, amusing names for methods of torture, and so on. I'd have to re-read it to review it properly, so that's not likely to happen soon, but one of its many benefits was an absolute and permanent inoculation against some received ideas about torture -- that it's a good way to get information; that in an extreme situation it may be justified; that a sufficiently heroic person can hold out against torture. The first is flat wrong, because people will say anything to make the pain stop; moral arguments about the second are moot, because of the first; and the third is just bloody stupid, because although there is a vanishingly tiny population who can hold out against prolonged torture, "vanishingly tiny" is the operative phrase there, and to hold such people up as an ideal for other torture victims is to inflict extra pointless cruelty on them.
Anyway, it seemed likely that Scarry would have something to offer at the present political moment. It’s not news that rehearsal can help prepare one to act courageously in a crisis. Soldiers, firefighters, doctors rehearse. You can prepare and rehearse responses to your co-worker’s racist jokes: “I don’t understand. Can you explain the joke?” might embarrass someone who would otherwise walk away self-satisfied — if, for example, you just stood there gaping like a fish.
Another name for well-rehearsed behavior is “habit,” which is Scarry’s subject in Thinking in an Emergency. She starts by discussing CPR, a counting game that, if you internalize it thoroughly enough, frees up a chunk of your cognitive budget to address other matters — instructing someone to put pressure on a deep laceration, say.
Preparation for emergencies. Scarry discusses agreements made among small communities in Canada, detailed enough that everybody knows who’s supplying the bandages, who’s making the coffee, who’s bringing the twenty-foot ladder.
Switzerland and nuclear attack: Apparently every Swiss household must either have a bomb shelter or contribute to a community shelter. Every Swiss adult has a specific task to carry out in the event of a nuclear attack (and these tasks include ones for preserving cultural artifacts). Scarry contrasts this with the US, which has plans for saving a few government officials, nobody else, and even those plans are half-assed.
How might one’s neighborhood prepare to resist mass arrests of “illegals” and people suspected of being “illegal” by virtue of looking vaguely Central American? Who tells ICE, “They went that-a-way”? Who engages the agents in conversation to delay them? Who [redacted redacted redacted redacted]? And so on. Such thoughts aren’t original to me — someone somewhere is already making plans, I’m sure — but Scarry gave me a framework for thinking about WTAF HOW CAN I INTERFERE WITH THE FASCIST TAKEOVER that I didn’t have before.
I had moments of enormous impatience with Scarry, in particular when she discussed the legal rules that (theoretically) apply when a government considers going to war. She acknowledges — of course she acknowledges! — that they’re often honored more in the breach than in the observance, but, that being the case, it seems more pressing to consider how a nation might be induced to return to thinking in an emergency rather than just letting the executive get away with, well, murder. I’m especially curious about how this might work if the executive was in the habit of murdering his opponents (Putin) or at least harassing, impoverishing, and imprisoning them (you know who).
But maybe it’s not so bad to insist on how things should work.
Minus endnotes, Thinking in an Emergency is only 108 pages long, but Scarry manages to take up many more threads than I’ve talked about here. I need all the help I can get to prepare for what’s coming down the pike at us; I’m grateful to Elaine Scarry for providing so much.
[Oh! Have a hot What to Do in an Emergency tip: Get hold of a Narcan kit and walk yourself through how to use it. I have done the thing, it is SO EASY, and holy cats the ROI on sticking an inhaler up someone's nose is amazing.]
Anyway, it seemed likely that Scarry would have something to offer at the present political moment. It’s not news that rehearsal can help prepare one to act courageously in a crisis. Soldiers, firefighters, doctors rehearse. You can prepare and rehearse responses to your co-worker’s racist jokes: “I don’t understand. Can you explain the joke?” might embarrass someone who would otherwise walk away self-satisfied — if, for example, you just stood there gaping like a fish.
Another name for well-rehearsed behavior is “habit,” which is Scarry’s subject in Thinking in an Emergency. She starts by discussing CPR, a counting game that, if you internalize it thoroughly enough, frees up a chunk of your cognitive budget to address other matters — instructing someone to put pressure on a deep laceration, say.
Preparation for emergencies. Scarry discusses agreements made among small communities in Canada, detailed enough that everybody knows who’s supplying the bandages, who’s making the coffee, who’s bringing the twenty-foot ladder.
Switzerland and nuclear attack: Apparently every Swiss household must either have a bomb shelter or contribute to a community shelter. Every Swiss adult has a specific task to carry out in the event of a nuclear attack (and these tasks include ones for preserving cultural artifacts). Scarry contrasts this with the US, which has plans for saving a few government officials, nobody else, and even those plans are half-assed.
How might one’s neighborhood prepare to resist mass arrests of “illegals” and people suspected of being “illegal” by virtue of looking vaguely Central American? Who tells ICE, “They went that-a-way”? Who engages the agents in conversation to delay them? Who [redacted redacted redacted redacted]? And so on. Such thoughts aren’t original to me — someone somewhere is already making plans, I’m sure — but Scarry gave me a framework for thinking about WTAF HOW CAN I INTERFERE WITH THE FASCIST TAKEOVER that I didn’t have before.
I had moments of enormous impatience with Scarry, in particular when she discussed the legal rules that (theoretically) apply when a government considers going to war. She acknowledges — of course she acknowledges! — that they’re often honored more in the breach than in the observance, but, that being the case, it seems more pressing to consider how a nation might be induced to return to thinking in an emergency rather than just letting the executive get away with, well, murder. I’m especially curious about how this might work if the executive was in the habit of murdering his opponents (Putin) or at least harassing, impoverishing, and imprisoning them (you know who).
But maybe it’s not so bad to insist on how things should work.
Minus endnotes, Thinking in an Emergency is only 108 pages long, but Scarry manages to take up many more threads than I’ve talked about here. I need all the help I can get to prepare for what’s coming down the pike at us; I’m grateful to Elaine Scarry for providing so much.
[Oh! Have a hot What to Do in an Emergency tip: Get hold of a Narcan kit and walk yourself through how to use it. I have done the thing, it is SO EASY, and holy cats the ROI on sticking an inhaler up someone's nose is amazing.]
October 1, 2015
This could have been a really good book. There are aspects of it that are great. The discussion of CPR in Chp. 2 and the analysis of habits in Chp. 3 are quite enlightening and I expect that I will end up citing this book in some of my own work.
However. Every time she talks at any length about nuclear weapons, I had to wince. She writes as if the goal of global zero is obviously desirable to anyone who doesn't love the idea of murdering millions of people and possibly destroying the entire planet. Because of this, she manages to talk at length about nuclear weapons without ever discussing the two primary reasons that most countries retain or pursue nuclear arsenals: deterrence and international influence. Now, I'm not saying that one can't respond to these two rationales and defend global zero as a goal that is both normative and at least technically possible. But the idea that one could make this case without ever mentioning deterrence or international status makes her account of nuclear weapons seem ridiculous to me.
Many credible, serious scholars argue that nuclear weapons are necessary to prevent war, especially war between great powers. This means the case against nuclear weapons is not nearly as obvious as Scarry thinks it is, because the choice is no longer between an option that injures people and one that doesn't injure people. Rather, the question is whether the existence of nuclear weapons are more likely to prevent injury or cause it. There is an argument to be made that miscalculation or even computer glitches make launch inevitable or at least mean the risk of launch is so high as to outweigh the potential benefits of deterrence - but Scarry doesn't even bother to make this argument. She doesn't touch on the nuclear taboo. She doesn't argue that the threat to use nuclear weapons is morally equivalent to their use.
I think Scarry's argument would have been much stronger if she had either (a) written an entire chapter on nuclear weapons that includes a response to the primary counterarguments to her position, or (b) if she had cut out the self-righteous condemnation and limited her discussion of nuclear weapons to the discussion of the bomb shelters and the procedures for deciding whether or not to engage in acts of war.
However. Every time she talks at any length about nuclear weapons, I had to wince. She writes as if the goal of global zero is obviously desirable to anyone who doesn't love the idea of murdering millions of people and possibly destroying the entire planet. Because of this, she manages to talk at length about nuclear weapons without ever discussing the two primary reasons that most countries retain or pursue nuclear arsenals: deterrence and international influence. Now, I'm not saying that one can't respond to these two rationales and defend global zero as a goal that is both normative and at least technically possible. But the idea that one could make this case without ever mentioning deterrence or international status makes her account of nuclear weapons seem ridiculous to me.
Many credible, serious scholars argue that nuclear weapons are necessary to prevent war, especially war between great powers. This means the case against nuclear weapons is not nearly as obvious as Scarry thinks it is, because the choice is no longer between an option that injures people and one that doesn't injure people. Rather, the question is whether the existence of nuclear weapons are more likely to prevent injury or cause it. There is an argument to be made that miscalculation or even computer glitches make launch inevitable or at least mean the risk of launch is so high as to outweigh the potential benefits of deterrence - but Scarry doesn't even bother to make this argument. She doesn't touch on the nuclear taboo. She doesn't argue that the threat to use nuclear weapons is morally equivalent to their use.
I think Scarry's argument would have been much stronger if she had either (a) written an entire chapter on nuclear weapons that includes a response to the primary counterarguments to her position, or (b) if she had cut out the self-righteous condemnation and limited her discussion of nuclear weapons to the discussion of the bomb shelters and the procedures for deciding whether or not to engage in acts of war.
May 14, 2012
A tight and thought provoking treatment of habit and deliberation that takes on nuclear war as monarchic weaponry, the Swiss shelter system, and the Saskatchewan Emergency Planning Act. Scarry takes on the oft cited claim that in the face of an emergency, democracy is a luxury. She makes a strong case for why thoughtful planning, open to the light of public scrutiny and debated over the course of time, is the best way to promote collective safety in response to catastrophic events. More critically, Scarry rejects the premise that constitutional guarantees and procedures should not apply in the case of war - and in particular when it comes to the declaration of war - for isn't the entire point of a democratic apparatus to interrupt the power of generals, commanders and indeed presidents to unilaterally make decisions that impact nation and, in the case of nuclear weaponry, potentially destroy the planet?
December 8, 2020
Scarry makes the really interesting argument that calls to prioritize action over deliberation during emergencies are misguided because of their positing of a shaky dichotomy betweeb thinking and action. Instead she uses habit as a way of bridging this, since "thinking... is profoundly visible in the lineaments of habit" (81). For her, "Habit yokes thought and action together. If no serviceable habit is available, we will use an unservicable one and become either immobilized or incoherent" (80). She explores the importance of planning ahead, continuously, and in great specificity (in Chapter 2) by examining 4 case studies - the propagation of CPR in the US, the Swiss nuclear shelter system, systems for mutual care and relief in various places and times (including Canada, Ethiopia, Qing China, and Japan), and constitutional provisions that require congressional approval for war.
Chapter 3 seemed rather muddled and unnecessary, but ignoring it, we have an tight insightful and original book.
Chapter 3 seemed rather muddled and unnecessary, but ignoring it, we have an tight insightful and original book.
July 23, 2015
This is what Patrick Tissington wrote about Thinking in Emergency by the prominent Harvard scholar Elaine Scarry: "Written with passion from a deeply humanitarian standpoint ... A mind-blowing canter around some difficult topics - conflict, democracy, and nuclear war ... I will give this book the ultimate accolade - I will buy copies as gifts for others.'
I could not agree less with this view. All responsible American citizens should read this scholarly outcry against the abuse of their great constitution and liberties in the post-nuclear age.
I could not agree less with this view. All responsible American citizens should read this scholarly outcry against the abuse of their great constitution and liberties in the post-nuclear age.
December 21, 2013
Read this now. We need to think about our relationships with language and technology ... nature and time in a similar fashion.
With human intelligence. The asset we failed to establish in any meaningful fashion.
We are in the age of permanent emergency. We must now transform our habits and helplessness into intelligent action. This book gives us an incredible wealth of perspectives and metaphors... for any who can read beyond the simple surface... a surface which itself is as provocative as it is empowering. At least, for those who came to be empowered, rather than entertained.
With human intelligence. The asset we failed to establish in any meaningful fashion.
We are in the age of permanent emergency. We must now transform our habits and helplessness into intelligent action. This book gives us an incredible wealth of perspectives and metaphors... for any who can read beyond the simple surface... a surface which itself is as provocative as it is empowering. At least, for those who came to be empowered, rather than entertained.
March 21, 2020
I genuinely enjoyed this book and enjoyed the sociological exploration of the four models she lays out of emergency thinking. However, I felt that overall her arguments were disjointed, and she struggled to make it all come together into one cohesive argument about the U.S.'s constitutional and moral justifications for emergency preparedness...in parts of the book I thought she was trying to argue for a certain level of preparedness (e.g., equality among persons), at others I felt she was more focused on removing nuclear weapons, and in other sections she focused heavily on the ideas of habit vs. deliberate action in emergencies. She tried to tie these sections together, however, I felt that overall the argument was lacking in cohesiveness.
In addition, I believe her writings could have benefitted from more exploration of the habit vs. deliberative action discussion in a scientific lens. As a social psychologist, this is something we talk about a lot (generally as system I vs. system II processes), and there is a plethora of research on the topic. In terms of evidence to back her claims, I believe that utilizing psychological research on these two types of cognitions would greatly strengthen her argument for the strength of habit in emergency situations.
Her book did inspire me to look into the local volunteer corps that are set up in my city, and I signed up for one. I am intrigued by the community model and believe that more should be invested in the local community in regard to solving a lot of these problems.
Overall, a good solid philosophical read, that was highly relevant as my second COVID-19 quarantine book (lol).
Read if you like: philosophy, ethics, sociology, musings on morality in emergency situations.
In addition, I believe her writings could have benefitted from more exploration of the habit vs. deliberative action discussion in a scientific lens. As a social psychologist, this is something we talk about a lot (generally as system I vs. system II processes), and there is a plethora of research on the topic. In terms of evidence to back her claims, I believe that utilizing psychological research on these two types of cognitions would greatly strengthen her argument for the strength of habit in emergency situations.
Her book did inspire me to look into the local volunteer corps that are set up in my city, and I signed up for one. I am intrigued by the community model and believe that more should be invested in the local community in regard to solving a lot of these problems.
Overall, a good solid philosophical read, that was highly relevant as my second COVID-19 quarantine book (lol).
Read if you like: philosophy, ethics, sociology, musings on morality in emergency situations.
December 22, 2021
Recommended by Heather Heying on Darkhorse podcast. The author was/is concerned about nuclear war or at least that's the premise of the book. I think the recommendation was based on the fact that we are living in a government declared emergency and this book may provide some insight into finding our way out. I believe the author is saying that during a perceived emergency we "don't just do something, stand there" and think. Thinking goes out the window when the government, mass media, tech oligarchs and massive corporations see opportunity in an emergency. Again the author is concerned with war while our present time is a "pandemic."
The first rule of emergency thinking is to not get into one. The second rule (kinda like Fight Club) is not to get into a situation where someone is forced to remind you of rule one. A third rule (not like Fight Club) is whatever happens, keep talking. We have violated all the rules in our current emergency.
The author then presents four templates for dealing with emergencies: CPR, mutual aid contracts, the Swiss Shelter system and our very own Constitution. None or the arguments persuade me. There is an underlying idea of decentralization supported by checks and balances.
Lastly, she relies on habits to avoid and remedy emergencies. If we practice long enough and frequently enough, we can follow her three rules. Interesting book for interesting times. I wonder if the author is "vaccinated."
The first rule of emergency thinking is to not get into one. The second rule (kinda like Fight Club) is not to get into a situation where someone is forced to remind you of rule one. A third rule (not like Fight Club) is whatever happens, keep talking. We have violated all the rules in our current emergency.
The author then presents four templates for dealing with emergencies: CPR, mutual aid contracts, the Swiss Shelter system and our very own Constitution. None or the arguments persuade me. There is an underlying idea of decentralization supported by checks and balances.
Lastly, she relies on habits to avoid and remedy emergencies. If we practice long enough and frequently enough, we can follow her three rules. Interesting book for interesting times. I wonder if the author is "vaccinated."
January 14, 2025
I am a list maker and one of the lists I make is books that I want to read. I make the lists but I don't always note why I've added the book to the list. I ordered this from my library thinking that's a book on rhetoric. Well, it's not.
Amnesty International commissioned Elaine Scary and other authors in this series to write short books outlining a ways to approach Peace as a concept. Here Scary begins with the idea of emergency preparation at the community level, providing models for consideration. She then proceeds to ask, who should be kept safe, using the model of Switzerland, where the national goal is that all citizens and visitors inside the country should be kept safe and how that goal is operationalized. From there the logic leads inexorably to the need to bad weapons of mass destruction, especially nuclear weapons.
It's a powerful little book and one which could, and perhaps should, be used as a starting point for community discussion around the USA and the world.
Amnesty International commissioned Elaine Scary and other authors in this series to write short books outlining a ways to approach Peace as a concept. Here Scary begins with the idea of emergency preparation at the community level, providing models for consideration. She then proceeds to ask, who should be kept safe, using the model of Switzerland, where the national goal is that all citizens and visitors inside the country should be kept safe and how that goal is operationalized. From there the logic leads inexorably to the need to bad weapons of mass destruction, especially nuclear weapons.
It's a powerful little book and one which could, and perhaps should, be used as a starting point for community discussion around the USA and the world.
December 8, 2017
Scarry looks very closely at the role of habit in our lives. If nothing else, reading this book made me think of my personal habits and reflect on how I've responded to or engaged with preparedness in case of medical, natural or acts of terror/war. One thing is for sure- I will be getting recertified in CPR and I think a lot more about my role as a citizen to recognize my power in preventing a future on "Monarchic weapons" use and that it isn't too late yet for us to think of ongoing disarmament.
December 30, 2018
Short book on habits of thinking and examples of emergency preparedness and procedures. I found it rich in pragmatist philosophy and humanities insights, if a little preachy at times. Certainly we do have a civic responsibility to think carefully about our collective habits and routines to support democratic action and decision-making. The book's main points are satisfying and well-made.
August 3, 2021
This is an interesting essay about the relationship of habit, thinking, action, with four real-world examples. There are definitely some good ideas in this book.
October 27, 2024
Excellent philosophical treatment of seldomly presented issues. The deeper I got into it the more I appreciated it.
September 3, 2025
Vital in reminding me what is possible.
November 25, 2025
Sadly, even more relevant today than when it was written. A warning we have not heeded.
Read
July 6, 2022"In Thinking in an Emergency, Scarry places deliberation at the core of a democratic response to emergencies including natural disasters and nuclear war. Scarry argues that debate, both real-time and prospective, need not hinder action and can instead secure the resolve and coordination needed for rapid response. She warns against leaders who invoke catastrophes to demand that their populations stop thinking. In this era of calamities, natural and man-made, Scarry’s wisdom is essential: 'Whatever happens, keep talking.'" — Bo Seo
https://www.theatlantic.com/books/arc...
https://www.theatlantic.com/books/arc...
August 3, 2016
This was a reading for my orientation into the Evergreen State College. Scarry is a exceedingly intelligent in person, to a point as coming off a a savant. She both in the book and person was a bit long-winded and was tangential in her thinking.
On the concerns about thermo-nuclear war, She is simply making wide claims that sometimes referenced her past work, requiring the read to refer back to those work to a get a full view of the subject see is addressing. Most concerning though, she uses questionable claims of illegality that simply were not support by both the support in the book and her past work, she simply is not a legal scholar so her claims came off purely as questionable at best. Simply would never suggest this for almost anyone.
On the concerns about thermo-nuclear war, She is simply making wide claims that sometimes referenced her past work, requiring the read to refer back to those work to a get a full view of the subject see is addressing. Most concerning though, she uses questionable claims of illegality that simply were not support by both the support in the book and her past work, she simply is not a legal scholar so her claims came off purely as questionable at best. Simply would never suggest this for almost anyone.
March 9, 2011
A very intriguing look at emergencies and what they require of us. By using examples like CPR training, Swiss fallout shelters, mutual aid societies and the constitution she offers a grave critique about our war-making and the Federal government's way of handling emergencies. Wonderful thinking about the nature of habits and there place in our lives. The book made me run out and get trained in CPR.
June 5, 2012
This book is really excellent no matter what your ideology is! It is short, concise, with excellent footnotes to back up its, at times somewhat controversial, claims and arguments. At times I found myself not fully agreeing with the author, but the facts provided were so convincing that I found myself having to concede to most of the author's logic. I like books that challenge my opinions in an un-obtuse way. This author writes well and makes her point even better.
September 7, 2015
this book is based on perfunctory assumptions about idealized concepts of liberalism and democracy that are naive AT BEST. the author convolutes continental philosophy with having been the original demystifying entity which looked into and beyond cartesian theory and then solely congratulates white society on debunking the brain/body split. not to mention the fact that she believes western political systems are actually consensually contracted and enacted. give me a fucking break.
May 28, 2013
Important points, but the kind of philosophical argument that relies heavily on quoting from others that just isn't what excites me. Still, a good starting point for conversations about what habits are needed so we may respond well and justly, with equity and compassion, during real emergencies and not name events as an emergency in order to manipulate or control.
November 5, 2011
I love Scarry but this felt a bit disjointed. It gathered steam as it went on, and definitely covers some fascinating ground, but felt somewhat finnicky and prim compared to the gorgeous 'On Beauty and Being Just.'
December 8, 2019
Read this a few years ago and continues to be very important to me. Should be on required reading lists for young people/everyone.
Displaying 1 - 23 of 23 reviews