it's been awhile since i last wrote about what i've #read recently. i've read more non-fiction books than i normally do. i never really know how to talk about non-fiction i've read since i don't consider myself an expert on anything, so i don't have the confidence say if a book's contents is true or bullshit or whatever. especially since i like to read stuff i don't know anything about and thus don't have anything to compare it to, i often don't have any deep insight other than "this was really interesting!" but i guess that just because something doesn't move me to write an entire essay in response to it doesn't mean it's not worth sharing with others. i know i've read lots of interesting books and essays just by coming across a mention of them in various blog posts (all the books i'm about to mention are political in nature though so if you don't want to read about that feel free to skip this blog post)
the first book is elite capture by olúfẹ́mi o. táíwò. he states that identity politics has strayed from its roots and has been weaponized to divide groups, even though it was originally envisioned to help build coalitions that could work together to tackle shared issues. he then argues that this didn't occur because of an issue with identity politics itself, but rather because identity politics has suffered from elite capture, or that political and and economic elites have co-opted it to serve their own interests. for awhile now i've been disillusioned with identity politics and standpoint theory in general, since i feel like so many people (especially online) just use such theories as an excuse to dismiss a work for not being "intersectional enough" instead of trying to engage with an idea on its own terms, or bully people who don't post about x issue affecting y group on their social media regardless of their actions irl or their focus on activism in another area; i think it's prevented many so-called leftists from building solidarity and class consciousness. even after reading this book i still feel this way, and i still think it's not just elites but average people who have fractured the left using identity politics. yet i did learn a lot about how elite capture as a process works, and the book did challenge my ideas about how it could still be used for constructive coalition building.
the next book is the righteous mind: why good people are divided by politics and religion by jonathan haidt. he explores how humans evolved our moral intuitions and argues that this intuition comes before our reasoning and justifications for it. he goes on to expound upon his six foundations of morality theory and how they build moral matrices, which in turn works to bind groups together and promote behavior among individuals that benefit group interests, even at the cost of self-interest. i think his theory on how morality works is interesting a definitely aligns with my own experience talking to others about right and wrong and our reactions to ideas that go against our beliefs. i find the final sections where he applies his moral foundations theory to american political analysis a little lackluster though. i guess from the title of the book i thought it was going to be a bigger focus and more in depth than it ended up being, and while i think the earlier sections do a good job at backing up his claims with studies, i think the later sections rely a little too much on constructing narratives to illustrate his point. he also sort of skirts around the issue of how large groups like nations can effectively balance the competing moral matrices of its subgroups when they are often incompatible. i agree with his argument that groups being exclusionary and having different ideals isn't a bad thing, but most of his examples are too small and local to feel compelling. it's like he's afraid of discussing how exactly we're meant to embrace pluralism in the real world when part of another group's ideology oppresses members of our own group. it reminds me of another book i read earlier this year, prey by ayaan hirsi ali, which argues that unchecked immigration from muslim majority countries into the eu has lead to a spike in sexual violence towards women. she explains how islamic culture shapes these men's view on women, and that moving outside of the restrictions of islamic communities can cause some to commit violence against women. she contends that the left's unwillingness to criticize these viewpoints is due to political correctness, that this violence is causing some voters to turn towards the right, and that european nations need to promote more assimilation when accepting refuges in order to protect women's rights. while haidt argues in the righteous mind that liberals tend to care so much about the care/harm and liberty/oppression foundation that it inhibits their ability to understand and accept other moralities, i think that those on the left do accept pluralism in some cases—just not white christian morality—even at the expense of the well-being of members in their own group (in this case, women). i realize that haidt's book is mainly meant to be descriptive of how differing morality systems are formed and their evolutionary benefit instead of prescriptive of what systems are right or not, but to basically end the book with saying "let's all talk to each other in good faith 💖" just felt shallow. it's also painfully obvious to me that this book was published in 2012. i read antisocial by andrew marantz earlier this year as well which discusses the rise of the american alt-right and how social media has made it easier to become radicalized into extremist ideology, and i would love to see how haidt would apply his morality theory to more niche political groups such as the alt-right as it's clear that when he discusses american conservatives he's referring to the traditional christian kind and not necessarily the reactionary libertarian trolls marantz discusses in his book.
the last book i wanted to mention is the creation of patriarchy by gerda lerner. she traces how patriarchy as a way of structuring society developed in western civilization starting from ancient mesopotamia, and argues that while biological differences exist between men and women, gendered relationships are something that evolved over time. honestly it was way more in depth about discussing the archaeological evidence for her theories than i was anticipating, and considering the fact that i almost never read about ancient history and am uneducated on the topics she was writing about it was tough at times for me to digest everything. i can't really speak authoritatively on the accuracy of her arguments since i know fuck all about ancient history, but i think the tone with which she writes is engaging and she writes clearly enough that i could more or less follow her main points even when they were hard for me to believe (her speculation that man learned how to subjugate and enslave other groups by first subjugating women stands out to me as one). the prose also didn't make the book feel as though it were published in 1986, it never seemed dry or overly academic. i generally find history books boring i found myself compelled to keep picking this one up.
