What I’ve Been Reading

A couple of people have been asking what I’ve been reading recently in my schizophrenic, six-books-at-a-time reading cycle. Well, here ya go:

*Empire by Hardt and Negri – A book that has been at the top of the chic list for some time now, at least in academic and pseudo-intellectual circles. Hardt and Negri provide several exceptional insights, especially in the way they leap frog off the Deleuze-Guattari theses. Much of the book, however, is unbelievably obtuse and that diminishes its ultimate utility. I kept asking myself after several chapters, “Now, how is this concept of 'Empire' remarkably different from Gramscian notions of the capitalist perpetuation of ‘hegemony’?”. In short, I felt that if the authors had toned down the language and avoided the overwhelming reliance on jargon, then the book would have been a much better read. Still, it seems that the book is destined to be discussed, so I suggest checking it out. Oh, and btw, if you want to give the metaphorical finger to the publishing industry, then download the book for free, here (as a PDF file).

*Understanding Power: The Indispensable Chomsky - I recommend this book, wholeheartedly: for those who love Noam, and for those who despise him. The power of this book lies in its ability to explain Chomsky’s perception of the world in very simple terms. So, no need to get lost in the academic footnotes of Fateful Triangle, or the ad nauseum references to Nicaraguan death squads in Manufacturing Consent. The book is also quite fun to read, largely b/c the presentation is so informal, and often tinged with humor. And, finally, the book is probably worth it just for the footnotes, which are longer than the actual book (!). The editors really outdid themselves by hunting down the references that many probably thought were contrived by Chomsky.

*The Palestine-Israeli Conflict by Dan Cohn-Sherbok & Dawoud El-Alami - For those looking for a background on the Israel-Palestine conflict, I recommend this book. For a long time, I’ve been longing for a book that tries to present a balanced portrayal of the conflict. Well, this book does it by enlisting two authors: one from the Israeli "side," the other from the Palestinian. The book is divided into halves, and each author presents their point of view on the history of the conflict, as well as the moral blindspots. The spin is still there, from both sides, but in this format it doesn’t obfuscate as much as illustrate the fundamental issues of disagreement and dispute.

*Hidden Agendas by John Pilger – I got this book in London, largely because it’s difficult to get a hold of in the US. I’m only halfway through it, so can’t comment fully. Much of it is commentary on British politics, which I, unfortunately, don’t know nearly enough about. Think of Pilger as something like a mix between Alex Cockburn and Norman Solomon and that should give you a good idea of the writing style, as well as the political ideology.

*Pedagogy of the Oppressed by Paulo Freire – This is another book I picked up in London at a used bookstore owned by this lil ol' lady who obviously had anarchist leanings. God bless her. Hehe. Anyway, this book is awesome in the way it rips apart the ‘banking concept’ of education, as well as putting ‘dialogical’ teaching methods into some kind of context. Most of the book is theory – meaning it is not grounded in social-scientific ‘evidence’ – but the theory is rooted in (what I perceive to be) relevant anecdotes, and a relentless criticism of class conflict. Published in 1970, this is one of the books which inspired the ‘critical pedagogy’ movement. Freire died in '97, but he’s had a huge impact on Henry Giroux (someone I respect), as well as Peter McLaren. On a related note, I found Ivan Illich’s book Deschooling Society online, here.

*Stolen Valor: How the Vietnam Generation Was Robbed of its Heroes and its History by B.G. Burkett and Glenna Whitley – If you should happen to discuss the Vietnam War with any neo-con, then it is likely this book will get cited, at least once. So, I picked it up at the library and just started. Again, can’t comment too much, but it seems like the anecdotal holes it pokes are given too much weight. The actual findings of the book are quite useful, but they are distorted by the authors' habit of attributing too much significance to them - largely, it seems, to paint the war with the patriotism brush.