Philip Slater (1927–2013)

As far as I can tell, his contention is that ancient Greek culture, in one way or another, bequeathed to the west, and Americans in particular, a society in which achievement is a direct result of narcissism, based particularly on the mother-son relationship. Maybe, but he dismisses art as a crutch for this narcissistic society: "For art exists, emotionally, to supply what a narcissistic orientation takes away—it provides seasoning for the air-pudding of fantasy with which we feed ourselves. Without it we would experience our starvation, but were we fed, we would not need it. By 'fed' I mean, if it were possible for people to live in the present, experiencing their world as it is." Perhaps if he were to substitute the word "entertainment" for "art"—but even then I have questions.

He's a Luddite; thinks technological change is malevolent, and an optimist, because in 1971 he saw the younger generation as salvation, talking about the split between the old narcissists, "yearning for mastery, lost in competitive dreams of glory, seeking libidinal expression in vicarious violence, and the young who are trying to escape the pattern, who are yearning for a world of cooperation and (sic) brotherhood, of simple sensual pleasure and experiential immediacy." The slogan "Make Love Not War" is the most radical rejection of Western Culture ever made, he says, and decries the narcissistic priority system that places competition before cooperation, mastery before pleasure, conceptualization before sensation." While I certainly agree that competition should be banished in favor of cooperation, the other two parts of that triumvirate are indefensible: pleasure and the pursuit of money especially in the hands of the rich, foist all sorts of evils on the world, and sensation--well, lets just say that the age of free love ended up enforcing the patriarchy. See, e.g., Donald Trump. Why must I view everything through the lens of opposition to this horrible stain on society, this ignorant, dangerous man?… (lisätietoja)

Mr. Slater posits that there are two trends in social organization, so called "controller" culture vs "integrative" culture. One is authoritarian, tho other more egalitarian and open.
This is a reasonable framework to describe social trends however Mr. Slater then goes on to state that there is an inexorable trend towards integrative culture.
To prove his points he uses inept analogies, simple assertions and in one bizarre table of "each thing begets it's opposite" (which he simple asserts is true) he gives a list of things, many of which are not opposites.
He references chaos theory in several areas in ways that indicates no understanding- he is depending on the reader to not actually know what chaos theory says. Pretentious.
This book should have been a pamphlet at most. Seriously needed an editor. There were NO acknowledgements- he should've run this by someone first.
I was amazed at only glowing positive reviews on the internet. It must be s select crowd that reads this drivel.… (lisätietoja)