Ryan, Debi, and Toren Cragun's Blog

Hinckley, Bryant S. 1958. That ye might have joy. Bookcraft.

Rating:
4

Summary:
Companion volume to “…not by Bread Alone”; pretty much the same thing

The book is made up of about 120 one-page thoughts on subjects ranging from education to success to politics to religion.

Review:
Having read the companion volume not to long ago, I’m going to use many of the same comments for this volume. First, once again the thoughts don’t seem to be in any particular order. Some are inspired by quotes from others or are almost entirely a quote from other authors. And, once again, some of the ‘profound’ thoughts aren’t actually contributed by Mr. Hinckley.

Also, similar to the earlier book, there are a lot of quotes about how superior the United States is to other countries (very ethnocentric); perhaps I should be a bit lenient considering the time period in which these thoughts were written (just after World War II). Nevertheless, he really does seem to have some deep fixation with U.S. superiority. I’m all for thinking the U.S. is a great country, but it is far from superior to other countries in most ways (the exception being militarily, which I’m not sure is something to be proud of).

I was also less forgiving of some of the religion-oriented thoughts this time. For instance, Hinckley writes, “No man will rise high who jeers at sacred things… Wherever or whenever there is a lack of reverence, there is a reversion to the baser instincts of man, which is followed by a loss of self-respect, remorse and disappointment” (p. 40). I laughed out loud when I read this. I guess this could be rephrased, ‘if you aren’t religious or at least don’t think religious things should be respected, you suck.’ Well, I think many religious things are silly (e.g., Why revere the tool used to kill your God? The cross. I’ve never understood this idea, but I don’t claim to know everything.), so I guess I suck. Damn!

There was also the incredibly wrong assertion made about the speed of a fast pitch in baseball, “The batter stands at the plate with the ball speeding toward him at the rate of 150 miles per hour” (p. 89). Once again, some leeway should be given considering they didn’t have radar guns to clock pitches back in the 1950s, but I couldn’t help but wonder who was pitching back then :) Wow, what an arm!

There are at least two more things worth mentioning. First, the author, whether he realizes it or not, is in many ways a Marxist. For instance, this quote appears to be lifted straight out of a Karly Marx essay, “The creative instinct is deep in the human soul and its reward is satisfaction and joy” (p. 30). Of course Marx would have left out the ‘soul’ part, but he definitely saw the creative instinct as being the most important part of being human. There was an additional thought that really resembled Marx’s ideas, “One hundred years ago four out of five persons were self-employed. Today four out of five people work for others. As a result, the significance of the individual is submerged” (p. 104). Once again, I’m not sure the author realized it, but with thoughts like these, he is nothing short of a Marxist. Woohoo! (I’m a Marxist too, so I can cheer.)

Finally, there was one good thought that I found worthy of writing down, “A part of the creed of the Optimist’s Club reads: “To make all of your friends feel that there is something in them”” (p. 43). I don’t claim to fully understand what Hinckley (or the Optimist’s Club) means here, but the way I interpreted it, I thought it was good advice.

Overall, the book is really kind of laborious to read, despite only taking me about 1 hour from start to finish, because there is no logical connection from thought to thought. Also, the overt ethnocentricity started to get on my nerves. I wouldn’t recommend the book for, well, pretty much anyone, except right wing, god-fearing extremists, but they probably wouldn’t even like it because it doesn’t talk about violence enough. Oh well, it’s out of print anyone, so what does it matter.

O’Dea, Thomas F. 1957. The Mormons. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Rating:
10

Summary:
Amazing how much he fits into one book

The book is a sociological analysis of Mormonism, written, obviously, in the 1950s. The book covers the origins of the religion, a brief account of the history of the Mormons, the beliefs, and some of the more unique elements of Mormon life. Each of these components is contextualized to facilitate an understanding of how it came about and what factors led to its development. While the treatment of Mormonism in this book is not exhaustive, it is close; as close as one may have come in the 1950s.

Review:
It’s no wonder this is still considered the definitive sociological analysis of Mormonism nearly 50 years after it was published. Not only does the author illustrate a remarkable familiarity with the religion, which is amazing in its own right considering he was a Catholic who grew up in the eastern U.S., but the author is also remarkably insightful and many of his insights are still accurate, despite the veritable flood of research on the Mormons conducted since this book was published.

It’s possible that one of the reasons this book remains an authoritative source 50 years after its publication is because it takes a naturalistic tone – as opposed to the faith-promoting perspective common among Mormon scholars (though some are better at muting their pro-Mormon perspective than others). For instance, O’Dea presents his analysis with comments like the following, “There is one instance when one suspects that the tension and excitement of the revivalistic present tense [early 1800s] actually got away from the author [Joseph Smith] and that he hurried to regain himself and to keep from exposing himself before his scribe [probably Oliver Cowdery]. When Abinadi is preaching in a prophetic passage, he declares: “And now if Christ had not come into the world, speaking of things to come as though they had already come, there could have been no redemption” (Mosiah 16:6)”(p. 40; see also the quote below from p. 43) The implication, without a forthright admittance, is that Joseph Smith was simply making up The Book of Mormon as he went along (if he were truly translating, he would not have needed to ‘correct’ himself). Few authors have attempted to compend the social scientific research on Mormons into one volume. Of those attempts, this is likely the most naturalistic. This characteristic, in my opinion, also makes this book one of the better attempts.

O’Dea should also be commended for developing a compelling sociological explanation of the origins of Mormonism. O’Dea’s description of the environment of upstate New York and the ‘burned over district’ logically leads to the conclusion that Mormonism resulted not from divine intervention but from the surrounding socio-cultural milieu.

Another important though seldom mentioned idea of O’Dea’s is his discussion of the importance of Mormon temple worship, “It has the effect of increasing the loyalty of the church member by initiating him into secrets and thereby making him a privileged sharer in holy mysteries and by his promising in impressive ceremonial circumstances to be loyal to the church and obedient to its priesthood” (p. 59). While this idea is no doubt worthy of additional research and verification through empirical analysis, having been part of the ‘elite’ membership of the religion and having studied it, I am convinced that Mormon temple worship certainly fulfills this function. It may fill additional organizational roles for the religion, e.g., in-group solidarity, but the additional functions likely derive from the participation in the secret society of the temple and membership among the elite temple goers who are seen as Mormonism’s ‘worthy’.

Having pointed out some of the ways this book excels, let me point out some of the problems. First, there is no substantive discussion of race or sex issues in the Mormon religion. I am speculating here, but I believe his glossing over sex/gender issues in Mormonism likely has something to do with the predominantly conservative worldview at the time (see quote from p. 250). Keep in mind this book was written in the 1950s, at least a decade before the second wave of the women’s movement gathered a lot of steam. It was more common then than it is today to advocate Victorian ideals. O’Dea was likely influenced by the times in which he lived. As a result, he basically concludes that, while Mormon women cannot participate in the actual leadership of the church, they do have lots of stuff to keep them busy. It therefore could be argued that Mormon women are not treated poorly and actually have a degree of equality (the differences in roles and responsibilities aren’t overlooked). Despite the leeway I am willing to give O’Dea on this issue, the missing discussion of gender issues in the Mormon religion is a major short-coming of this book.

But perhaps an even bigger oversight than failing to see gender issues within Mormonism as worthy of discussion is the complete failure to discuss Mormonism’s race issues. Where context could arguably account for the missing discussion of gender roles within Mormonism, O’Dea’s oversight of the looming confrontation of the LDS Church with race issues is surprising given the events taking place while he was writing this book. The 1950s is typically seen as one of if not the the most racially active decades in the twentieth century. That O’Dea failed to mention the Mormon position on race is nothing less than shocking. In discussing the issues facing the Mormon Church, race was by far the biggest one when this book was being written. That should have been followed by gender (as it was, chronologically followed by it in the form of the Equal Rights Amendment confrontation of the late 1970s and early 1980s), and only then should intellectuals have been highlighted as the threat to the religion looming on the horizon they legitimately are. I don’t want to give the impression that O’Dea’s work is somehow flawed or weakened by not including a discussion of race, but it is a significant oversight on his part.

Less an oversight than a topic that could have been covered in greater detail is O’Dea’s point that the primary theme of The Book of Mormon is the apostasy/repentance cycle (p. 28). While I agree that this is the primary theme of the book, what is lacking from O’Dea’s discussion is an exploration of how or whether this has played out in modern Mormonism. It could potentially be argued that this cycle did play out a few times during the early days of the religion, or at least allegations of this cycle occurring were used by Joseph Smith and, arguably, Brigham Young, to control their followers. But since the end of Brigham Young’s tenure as president of the religion, there do not appear to have been any clear instances of such a cycle. O’Dea doesn’t mention the use of this theme by Brigham Young or Joseph Smith, nor does he explain how this them is relevant for the religion of the 1950s. Picking up the idea where O’Dea left off, I believe the theme is now repackaged by the religion at a strictly individual level. No longer does the entire body of the religion pass through these cycles but rather individuals do. As a result, The Book of Mormon’s predominant theme becomes a powerful teaching tool for individual worthiness and to discourage pride and apostasy. Additional study of this topic is likely in order.

There are also a number of issues and topics covered in this book that are either outdated or have had more information brought to bear on them. For instance, O’Dea discusses some of the auxiliaries of the LDS Church and their roles in the religion (see p. 182). While these auxiliaries still exist in a certain form today, the creation of the correlation committee during the 1960s has basically done away with their autonomy. It would now be much more accurate to describe the LDS church as having a centralized authority in virtually all matters, including The Relief Society, Primary, and its various publications. All of these are overseen by the priesthood leadership of the religion, making a discussion of the role of auxiliaries in the religion virtually a moot point.

Another outdated topic covered in great detail by O’Dea is the control of water in the Intermountain West. O’Dea ties the use of irrigation to the Mormon leadership in an insightful way, but the Mormon religion no longer exercises significant control over water rights in Utah. As is likely the case with most parts of the nation that rely on irrigation, water rights are either privately controlled or governmentally managed. In short, while the discussion is an interesting analysis of Mormon fraternity and cooperation, it is no longer relevant to the Mormonism of today.

Another topic briefly discussed by O’Dea is the Pearl of Great Price, which O’Dea notes was alleged to have been translated from ancient Egyptian papyri (see p. 124). Later developments have made his discussion of these books less informative on some levels. The original papyri were discovered during the 1960s and found to contain Egyptian breathing texts, not the book of Abraham as was claimed by Joseph Smith. Ergo, to continue giving credence to the idea that Joseph Smith actually translated a book written by Abraham is to ignore the significant evidence to the contrary. That this phony book has and continues to play a role in defining Mormon theology should not be doubted, but any honest history of Mormonism should note the actual contents of the papyri.

If one were to attempt a comprehensive sociological treatment of Mormonism today, additional topics that should be discussed that either where not issues during O’Dea’s time or were glossed over by O’Dea might include: church and state relations (specifically in Utah), the changing church hierarchy and structure, the global church, church welfare, Mormon women and sexuality, Mormon growth, Mormonism’s retrenchment toward religious fundamentalism, the new Mormon intellectual groups (e.g., Sunstone, Dialogue, The Mormon History Association, etc.), splinter groups, changing Mormon demographics, Mormons and race, Mormons and gender, and the changing conception of the Book of Mormon (i.e., a discussion of the new ‘limited geography theory’ vs. the ‘hemispheric model’).

A few additional points are in order. One important point relevant for today’s revisionist Mormon apologists is to note that O’Dea, in discussing The Book of Mormon and Mormon theology draws the firm conclusion that The Book of Mormon presents and the leadership of the religion espouses the hemispheric model – i.e. the events recounted in The book of Mormon took place in the entire Western Hemisphere, including North, South, and Central America. The following quotes is illustrative of O’Dea’s understanding of this position during the 1950s, “The rebellion of Laman and Lemuel and their people is punished by their being cursed with a dark skin, and from these Lamanites the American Indians are believed to have descended” (p. 22). The hemispheric understanding of The Book of Mormon events was the understanding of the religion and its leaders up until the 1970s, when John Sorenson proposed his limited geography model. There is, of course, ample evidence to illustrate the prevalence of this understanding prior to Sorenson’s revisionism. It would serve Mormon apologists well to admit what they are trying to do, namely, develop a completely new understanding of The Book of Mormon that includes re-writing all historical references to the hemispheric model. Of course, they feel they have to re-write and re-interpret historical references to the hemispheric model because they are striving for a coherent and consistent worldview. Unfortunately, this includes a little ‘lying for the Lord’ to make past prophetic utterances to the contrary work in their favor. O’Dea became aware of and reported the hemispheric model for a reason – because that is what the membership and leadership believed during that time period.

While critical, this review has attempted to point out the insights of O’Dea’s work while simultaneously laying the groundwork for understandings of Mormonism that should be supplemented by reference to the still growing body of social scientific literature on the Mormons. O’Dea’s analysis should serve as a launching point for any serious student of Mormonism. Of course, in the 50 years that have passed since O’Dea wrote this book, a considerable body of literature has made significant headway in addressing many of the lacunae outlined in this review. I highly recommend this book for a number of reasons, but particularly because of O’Dea’s naturalistic tone, critical eye, and, his occasional wit, as is illustrated by this final quote, “As Brigham Young said later in Utah, making use of a hardly appropriate metaphor, “We must gird up our loins and fulfill this, just as we would any other duty [polygamy]” (p. 61).

Coser, Lewis A. 1956. The Functions of Social Conflict. London: Routledge & K. Paul.

Rating:
6

Summary:
Theoretical work focusing on the positive functions of social conflict

The author, Lewis Coser, explains at the beginning of the book that the primary goal of the book is to outline the functions of social conflict (as indicated by the title). But what isn’t immediately apparent is that the author is primarily interested in illustrating how social conflict can have a positive function in social life, a notion that went against the predominant theoretical inclinations of the day (Parsonian Functionalism, which saw conflict as purely disruptive and non-beneficial). In Coser’s words, “Simmel’s essay, to which we now turn, is informed by the central thesis that “conflict is a form of socialization.” This means essentially that, to paraphrase the opening pages of Simmel’s essay, no group can be entirely harmonious, for it would then be devoid of process and structure. Groups require disharmony as well as harmony, dissociation as well as association; and conflicts within them are by no means altogether disruptive factors. Group formation is the result of both types of processes. The belief that one process tears down what the other builds up, so that what finally remains is the result of subtracting the one from the other, is based on a misconception. On the contrary, both “positive” and “negative” factors build group relations. Conflict as well as co-operation has social functions. Far from being necessarily dysfunctional, a certain degree-of conflict is an essential element in group formation and the persistence of group life” (p. 31).

In order to illustrate the positive functions of social conflict, Coser breaks down an essay on social conflict by Georg Simmel into 16 propositions. He then examines those propositions, using primarily logic but also some references to empirical data (the author doesn’t present any novel empirical data to test the propositions), and concludes with revised versions of the propositions (see the propositions below).

Review:
As I understood this book, it serves two purposes. First, it clarifies Simmel’s proposed functions of social conflict, which is useful and informative. Second, it presents a number of empirically testable propositions. Unfortunately, I am not in a position to say whether the propositions have been tested or not, but if they have not, then they should be.

As noted above, the book is almost entirely theoretical and presents no empirical data of its own. Inasmuch as the book is explicit about this, this isn’t a problem. However, most theoretical treatments in sociology have two problems – (1) they are tedious to read as they have a tendency to get bogged down in both tangents and definitions, and (2) they are difficult to understand. This book is a perfect example of both of these problems – it is tedious and difficult to understand, in large part because it stays so long in the realm of the abstract and only occasionally touches foot on the concrete that you have a hard time relating most of what is said to the concrete, which is to say, the empirical and, ultimately, that which matters to most people.

Overall, if you are a social researcher interested in social conflict, this is undoubtedly an important and seminal work that you should read. Additionally, for other social researchers that want a good grounding in social theory, this may be a useful read. If you do not fit into one of the above categories, this is certainly not a book you’ll want to pick up any time soon.

Propositions:
Proposition #1
p. 38 “Conflict serves to establish and maintain the identity and boundary lines of societies and groups.
“Conflict with other groups contributes to the establishment and reaffirmation of the identity of the group and maintains its boundaries against the surrounding social world.
“Patterned enmities and reciprocal antagonisms conserve social divisions and systems of stratification. Such patterned antagonisms prevent the gradual disappearance of boundaries between the subgroups of a social system and they assign position to the various subsystems within a total system.
“In social structures providing a substantial amount of mobility, attraction of the lower strata by the higher, as well as mutual hostility between the strata, is likely to occur. Hostile feelings of the lower strata in this case frequently take the form of ressentiment in which hostility is mingled with attraction. Such structures will tend to provide many occasions for conflict since, as will be discussed later, frequency of occasions for conflict varies positively with the closeness of relations.
“A distinction has to be made between conflict and hostile or antagonistic attitudes. Social conflict always denotes social interaction, whereas attitudes or sentiments are predispositions to engage in action. Such predispositions do not necessarily eventuate in conflict; the degree and kind of legitimation of power and status systems are crucial intervening variables affecting the occurrence of conflict.”

Proposition #2
pp. 47-48 “(I) Conflict is not always dysfunctional for the relationship within which it occurs; often conflict is necessary to maintain such a relationship. Without ways to vent hostility toward each other, and to express dissent, group members might feel completely crushed and might react by withdrawal. By setting free pent-up feelings of hostility, conflicts serve to maintain a relationship.”
“(2) Social systems provide for specific institutions which serve to drain off hostile and aggressive sentiments. These safety-valve institutions help to maintain the system by preventing otherwise probable conflict or by reducing its disruptive effects. They provide substitute objects upon which to displace hostile sentiments, as well as means of abreaction. Through these safety valves, hostility is prevented from turning against its original object. But such displacements also involve costs both for the social system and for the individual: reduced pressure for modifying the system to meet changing conditions, as well as dammed-up tension in the individual, creating potentialities for disruptive explosion.”

Proposition #3
p. 54 “Each social system contains sources of realistic conflict insofar as people raise conflicting claims to scarce status, power and resources, and adhere to conflicting values. The allocation of status, power and resources, though governed by norms and role allocation systems, will continue to be an object of contention to some degree. Realistic conflicts arise when men clash in the pursuit of claims based on frustration of demands and expectancies of gains.”
“Nonrealistic conflicts arise from deprivations and frustrations stemming from the socialization process and from later adult role obligations, or they result, as we have seen in the previous proposition, from a conversion of originally realistic antagonism which was disallowed expression. Whereas the first type of conflict takes place with the frustrating agents themselves in expectation of attaining specific results, the second type consists of a release of tension in aggressive action directed against shifting objects. The first type of conflict is viewed by the participants as a means toward the achievement of realistic ends, a means which might be abandoned if other means appear to be more effective for reaching the same end. The second leaves no such choice, since satisfaction is derived from the aggressive act itself.”

Proposition #4
p. 59 “Aggressive or hostile “impulses” do not suffice to account for social conflict. Hatred, just as love, needs some object. Conflict can occur only in the interaction between subject and object; it always presupposes a relationship.
“Realistic conflict need not be accompanied by hostility and aggressiveness. “Tensions” in the psychological sense are not always associated with conflict behavior. Yet it might be “useful” to hate the opponent. The propagandist expects that such hatred will reinforce the emotional investment in the conflict and hence strengthen the readiness to carry it out to the end.
“Conversely, the main function of the mediator is seen as divesting conflict situations of nonrealistic elements of aggressiveness so as to allow the contender to deal realistically with the divergent claims at issue.”

Proposition #5
p. 64 “Reformulating the present proposition, we may say that antagonism is usually involved as an element in intimate relationships. Converging and diverging motivations may be so commingled in the actual relationship that. they can be separated only for classificatory and analytical purposes, while the relationship actually has a unitary character sui generis.
“Close social relationships, characterized as they are by frequent interaction and involving the total personality of the participants, may be said to include in their motivational structure an essential ambivalence in that they contain both positive and negative cathexes inextricably intertwined.”

Proposition #6
p. 72 “In the last proposition we stated that hostile feelings are likely to arise in close relationships and that if conflicts occur in these relationships, they are likely to be intense. This does not necessarily point to the likelihood of more frequent conflict in closer relationships than in less close ones. We have already encountered situations in which accumulated hostility does not eventuate in conflict behavior. The next proposition will consider this problem further.”

Proposition #7
p. 80 “Conflict may serve to remove dissociating elements in a relationship and to re-establish unity. Insofar as conflict is the resolution of tension between antagonists it has stabilizing functions and becomes an integrating component of the relationship. However, not all conflicts are positively functional for the relationship, but only those which concern goals, values or interests that do not contradict the basic assumptions upon which the relation is founded. Loosely structured groups and open societies, by allowing conflicts, institute safeguards against the type of conflict which would endanger basic consensus and thereby minimize the danger of divergences touching core values. The interdependence of antagonistic groups and the crisscrossing within such societies of conflicts, which serve to “sew the social system together” by canceling each other out, thus prevent disintegration along one primary line of cleavage.”

Proposition #8
p. 85 “The absence of conflict cannot be taken as an index of the strength and stability of a relationship. Stable relationships may be characterized by conflicting behavior. Closeness gives rise to frequent occasions for conflict, but if the participants feel that their relationships are tenuous, they will avoid conflict, fearing that it might endanger the continuance of the relation. When close relationships are characterized by frequent conflicts rather than by the accumulation of hostile and ambivalent feelings, we may be justified, given that such conflicts are not likely to concern basic consensus, in taking these frequent conflicts as an index of the stability of these relationships.
“In secondary relationships, where we are initially justified in expecting relatively less intense conflicts owing to the segmental involvement of the participants, the presence of conflict may be taken as an index of the operation of a balancing mechanism.”
Interesting to see findings on this; seems too micro for sociology.

Proposition #9
p. 95 “Conflict with another group leads to the mobilization of the energies of group members and hence to increased cohesion of the group. Whether increase in centralization accompanies this increase in cohesion depends upon both the character of the conflict and the type of group. Centralization will be more likely to occur in the event of warlike conflict and in differentiated structures requiring marked division of labor.
“Despotism seems to be related to lack of cohesion; it is required for carrying out hostilities where there is insufficient group solidarity to mobilize energies of group members.
“In groups engaged in struggle with an external enemy, the occurrence of both centralization and of despotism depends upon the system of common values and upon the group structure prior to the outbreak of the conflict.
“Social systems lacking social solidarity are likely to disintegrate in the face of outside conflict, although some unity may be despotically enforced.”
Analyze Mormon out-group conflict and its impact on internal cohesion (possible contradiction – death of J.S.) other times, strong cohesion? no polygamy debacle; what about blacks and the priesthood?

Proposition #10
p. 103 “Groups engaged in continued struggle with the outside tend to be intolerant within. They are unlikely to tolerate more than limited departures from the group unity. Such groups tend to assume a sect-like character: they select membership in terms of special characteristics and so tend to be limited in size, and they lay claim to the total personality involvement of their members. Their social cohesion depends upon total sharing of all aspects of group life and is reinforced by the assertion of group unity against the dissenter. The only way they can solve the problem of dissent is through the dissenter’s voluntary or forced withdrawal.
“Groups of the church type, not involved in continuous struggle with the outside, tend to make no special claims on the total involvement of the personality of the membership and, because they set up no rigid criteria for membership, are more likely to be large. Such groups are able to resist outside pressures successfully by exhibiting elasticity of structure and allowing an area of “tolerated conflict” within.”

Proposition #11
p. 110 “Rigidly organized struggle groups may actually search for enemies with the deliberate purpose or the unwitting result of maintaining unity and internal cohesion. Such groups may actually perceive an outside threat although no threat is present. Under conditions yet to be discovered, imaginary threats have the same group-integrating function as real threats.
“The evocation of an outer enemy or the invention of such an enemy strengthens social cohesion that is threatened from within. Similarly, search for or invention of a dissenter within may serve to maintain a structure which is threatened from the outside. Such scapegoating mechanisms will occur particularly in those groups whose structure inhibits realistic conflict within.
“There are shifting gradations between the exaggeration of a real danger, the attraction of a real enemy, and the complete invention of a threatening agent.”

Proposition #12 (no clear reformulation of this proposition by Coser)
p. 112 “With this proposition Simmel distinguishes between two types of conflict: that in which the goal is personal and subjective and that in which the object of contention has an impersonal, objective quality.
“Simmel’s remarks bear upon two distinct consequences of the objectification of conflict: (1) the collective aim, transcending personal interests, will make the struggle more intense; (2) a unifying element exists between the contending parties in their adherence to the common norm of abstention from personal attacks. In other words, the present proposition concerns (1) the effect of objectification upon the intensity of the conflict, and (2) the effect of objectification upon the relation between the antagonists.”

Proposition #13
pp. 118-119 “Conflicts in which the participants feel that they are merely the representatives of collectivities and groups, fighting not for self but only for the ideals of the group they represent, are likely to be more radical and merciless than those that are fought for personal reasons.
“Elimination of the personal element tends to make conflict sharper, in the absence of modifying elements which personal factors would normally introduce. The modern Marxian labor movement exemplifies the radicalizing effects of objectification of conflict. Strict ideological alignments are more likely to occur in rigid than in flexible adjustive structures.
“Objectification of the conflict is likely to be a unifying element for the contending parties when both parties pursue the same purpose: for example, in scientific controversies in which the issue is the establishment of truth.”

Proposition #14
pp. 132-133 “In view of the advantages of unified organization for purposes of winning the conflict, it might be supposed that each party would strongly desire the absence of unity in the opposing party. Yet this is not always true. If a relative balance of forces exists between the two parties, a unified party prefers a unified opponent.
“Labor unions have often preferred to deal with employers’ associations rather than with individual employers. Although strikes might spread further and last longer in such cases, both parties prefer that the form of the conflict be in line with their own structural requirements. Only by dealing with representative organizations of employers can workers feel sure that the result will not be jeopardized by independent operators; and, correlatively, employers will tend to prefer to deal with unified labor organizations, which are able to control “unruly” or autonomous members. In opposing a diffuse crowd of enemies, one may more often gain isolated victories, but then one very rarely arrives at decisive results which fix a more enduring relationship. This explains the apparent paradox that each opponent may see the advantage of his enemy as his own advantage.”

Proposition #15
p. 137 “Conflict consists in a test of power between antagonistic parties. Accommodation between them is possible only if each is aware of the relative strength of both parties. However, paradoxical as it may seem, such knowledge can most frequently be attained only through conflict, since other mechanisms for testing the respective strength of antagonists seem to be unavailable.
“Consequently, struggle may be an important way to avoid conditions of disequilibrium by modifying the basis for power relations.
“Conclusions we reached earlier in these pages we now reach again by an alternative route: conflict, rather than being disruptive and dissociating, may indeed be a means of balancing and hence maintaining a society as a going concern.”

Proposition #16
pp. 148-149 “Struggle may bring together otherwise unrelated persons and groups. Coalitions and temporary associations, rather than more permanent and cohesive groups, will result from conflicts where primarily pragmatic interests of the participants are involved. Such alignments are more likely to occur in flexible structures than in rigid ones, because, in rigid societies, suppressed conflicts, if they break out, tend to assume a more intense and hence more “ideological” character. Coalitions and associations give structure to an individualistic society and prevent it from disintegrating through atomization.
“The unifying character of conflict is seen more dramatically when coalitions and instrumental associations produce agreement out of relationships of competition or hostility. Unification is at a minimum level when coalitions are formed for the purpose of defense. Alliance, then, for each particular group reflects the most minimal expression of the desire for self-preservation.
“The more the unified elements differ in culture and structure, the smaller the number of interests in which they coincide. Just to the extent that unification is not grounded in prior attraction based on common characteristics will the meaning of unification correspondingly confine itself to coalition and the purpose at hand.
“Most coalitions between already existing groups, especially between numerous groups or between those that differ widely from each other, are formed for defensive purposes only, at least in the view of those who enter the alliance. Alliance, even when not formed for the purpose of conflict, may seem to other groups a threatening and unfriendly act. This very perception, however, leads to the creation of new associations and coalitions, thus further stimulating social participation.”
Again, could use Mormons & Fundies (& Catholics).

Hinckley, Bryant Stringham. 1955. Not by bread alone. Bookcraft.

Rating:
4

Summary:
Collection of one page thoughts on life, the universe, and everything.

The format of this book is not conducive to summary, so I will forego doing that. The book is made up of about 120 one page thoughts on subjects ranging from education to success to politics to religion.

Review:
The thoughts don’t seem to be in any particular order. Most of the thoughts are a combination of a quote from a writer or philosopher and Hinckley’s comments on the thought. As a result, most of the ‘profound’ thoughts aren’t actually contributed by Mr. Hinckley.

Along with the format problems are the problems with the actual content. Many of the ‘wisdoms’ are suggestions for success but actually trying to live up to all of the suggestions would result in a nervous breakdown.

There are also a lot of quotes about how superior the United States is to other countries (very ethnocentric) and a lot of the language gives the imagery of conquest and the pursuit of perfection – goals I found more psychologically damaging than spiritually uplifting.

As the advice and thoughts jump from topic to topic, there are some resultant contradictions, but surprisingly not many. It was actually kind of refreshing, however, to hear a Mormon quote someone other than Mormons. Many of the quotes are by non-Mormon writers and philosophers.

Overall, the book seems to be the final thoughts of an aged, mildly educated, and somewhat well-read individual. You get the impression that his children went through all of these thoughts with him as he lay dying in his death bed. I don’t know that I can necessarily recommend something that you should read instead. But, this one probably isn’t worth reading.

Hubbard, L. Ron. 1950. Dianetics: the modern science of mental health. Ron Hubbard. New Era Publications.

Rating:
1

Summary:
A jargon-laden repackaging of Freudian psychoanalysis combined with a non-falsifiable philosophy; and this somehow results in religion? I don’t think so…

The book begins with a number of exalted claims about the efficacy of Dianetic therapy. It then proceeds to lay out the underlying ideology/philosophy of Dianetics, “The goal of life can be considered to be infinite survival. Man, as a life form, can be demonstrated to obey in all his actions and purposes the one command: “Survive!”” (p. 34). The reason this is a philosophy and not a scientific theory or theology (or fact, as Hubbard would claim) is because: (1) it is non-falsifiable, which scientific theories must be; and (2) it does not relate to the supernatural, which theology does. Thus, the underlying idea driving Dianetics is not a scientific theory nor a theology, but a philosophy

Once the underlying philosophy of Dianetics is presented, the author proceeds to outline the concepts of Dianetecs. Basically, the goal of Dianetics is to make people ‘Clears’ (p. 27 ). Clears, according to Hubbard, are, for all intents and purposes, perfect. They have absolute control over their minds; they never get sick; they don’t make mistakes; they have no psychosomatic disorders; and they can recall anything and everything from their memory. But the real kicker is that they no longer have any engrams. Engrams are, according to Hubbard, “…the single and sole source of aberration and psychosomatic illness… In “normal people,” in the neurotic and insane, the removal of these engrams wholly or in part, without other therapy, has uniformly brought about a state greatly superior to the current norm. No need was found for any theory or therapy other than those given in this book for the treatment of all psychic or psychosomatic ills” (p. 102). In other words, in order to become a Clear you must undergo Dianetic therapy (called ‘auditing’) to remove your engrams.

The explanation of the concepts involved in Dianetic therapy takes up the middle portion of the book. The last section of the book explains the process of Dianetic therapy or ‘auditing.’ The book seems designed to serve both as an introduction to Dianetics as a philosophy and therapy but also as a guide book to the individuals that serve as ‘auditors’ (a.k.a. therapists). In the version of the book I have, there is also a brief history of Dianetics, which is inaccurate, along with a glossary of Dianetics terminology, which is unfortunately necessary.

Review:
This is an all around terrible book. It has no redeeming qualities. I am not an advocate of banning books for publication, though this one is certainly a worthy candidate. But because I believe most people can make sound decisions when presented with the evidence, I recommend that all future publications of this book contain a warning label that reads:

Real scientific advancements since the publication of this book have illustrated that L. Ron Hubbard had no idea what he was talking about. There is no sound scientific basis for any of the claims made by L. Ron Hubbard. This book should be read primarily as a historical novelty rather than as a guidebook for mental health. Engage in Dianetic Therapy at your own risk. You have been warned!

So, what is wrong with this book? Where to start…

Science
If someone has to claim he is doing ‘science’ as often as Hubbard does in Dianetics (a book which has not 1 single scientific reference, mind you), you can rest assured it isn’t science. I think my favorite quote comes from p. 78, “These are scientific facts. They compare invariably with observed experience.” Hubbard repeats this claim innumerable times throughout the text (for just a few examples, see pages: 12, 49, 82-83, 154, 190, 194-195, 196). So just what are these ‘scientific facts’ that Hubbard claims? Here’s a good one:

A society which suppresses sex as evil and which is so aberrated that any member of it will attempt an abortion is a society which is dooming itself to ever-rising insanity. For it is a scientific fact that abortion attempts are the most important factor in aberration. The child on whom the abortion is attempted is condemned to live with murderers whom he reactively knows to be murderers through all his weak and helpless youth! (pp. 194-195)

Basically what Hubbard is claiming here is that a fetus that happens to survive an abortion attempt (which is an absurd proposition today considering the methodology used in abortion), will be scarred emotionally and psychologically for the rest of his/her life. Hubbard uses examples of women drinking acids or using copper coat hangers to perform abortions. While I would agree that the use of bizarre, unconventional methods of abortion may result in physiologically damaged children (which may or may not impair them psychologically), current, approved forms of abortion result in no children (that is, really, the point…). As I’ll discuss in more detail below, I think Hubbard’s views on abortion may be the result of a pet-peeve Hubbard dropped into his philosophy because he had a personal experience with it.

Another of Hubbard’s ridiculous ‘scientific’ claims is that Dianetics is the cure-all for pretty much everything, ranging from the common cold to cancer and arthritis,

Arthritis, dermatitis, allergies, asthma, some coronary difficulties, eye trouble, bursitis, ulcers, sinusitis, etc., form a very small section of the psychosomatic catalog. Bizarre aches and pains in various portions of the body are generally psychosomatic. Migraine headaches are psychosomatic and, with the others, are uniformly cured by Dianetic therapy. (And the word cured is used in its fullest sense.) Just how many physical errors are psychosomatic depends upon how many conditions the body can generate out of the factors in the engrams. For example, the common cold has been found to be psychosomatic. Clears do not get colds. (p. 135)

Any even mildly informed individual will recognize these claims for what they are – absolutely false. Each of the above has been shown to be related to very specific things, none of which have to do with psychosomatic problems or engrams (though, admittedly, ulcers can be exacerbated by stress…). Dianetics, pure and simple, is not a science. Without empirical evidence to back up the claims made in this book, this is nothing more than philosophy and quackery. Dianetics is no more a ‘science of the mind’ than my foot is a foundation for astrophysics.

Literary Style and Readability
I found it remarkably ironic that at the beginning of the book Hubbard claimed he was going to use simple language so anyone can understand what he was saying. This book is written in anything but simple language. There are two primary pieces of clutter that makes this book a chore to read. First, he introduces so much jargon (e.g., Clears, aberrees, engrams, auditing, release, basic-basic, etc.) that if someone were to pick up the book and jump to, say, page 450, they would not understand a single paragraph. What’s more, Hubbard uses some of these words in multiple ways (engrams in particular), resulting in obfuscated jargon. This is particularly annoying considering many of the words Hubbard creates for Dianetics are similar, if not identical, to concepts used in classic Freudian analysis (e.g., repression, abnormal, fixated, etc. – more on the similarities between these two approaches below).

The second component of the book that makes it nearly unbearable to read is the incessant ‘word dropping.’ Hubbard loves to make references to things that are wholly irrelevant to what he is discussing (e.g., Torquemada – p. 342, Gaslight – p. 334, jub-jub bird – p. 281). To the educated reader, he reads like a game of scrabble between two pedants. He usually provides explanations or definitions for these useless additions to the text, but it’s more distracting than enlightening. Of course, the reason he does this is obvious – he wants to come across as smart, knowledgeable, and an expert. But to anyone with a college education, you’ll be able to see this for what it really is – a hornswoggler purloining people’s money using chicanery. (Translation: he’s a crook that is using big words to deceive people; see, anyone can do this, but if you are going to claim you are going to use simple language, you should…)

Finally, the sections and chapters do not have summaries. To the individual reading the book out of passing interest and not as though it were scripture, summaries are invaluable as they encapsulate the gist of sections of the book so you don’t have to read everything closely. Why Hubbard chose not to include summaries is beyond me, but it means you have to read the book much closer than you would a book that is well-written.

Dianetic Therapy – Auditing
So, Hubbard’s approach isn’t scientific and reading his book isn’t enjoyable, but is his therapy worth a hill of beans? No. But not for the reasons you might think. What you have to understand about Dianetics is that it is nothing more than repackaged Freudian psychoanalysis with some really bizarre twists. Basically, Hubbard believes things that happened in people’s pasts, primarily their childhoods, are the cause of their psychosomatic and psychological problems in the present. While his claims about colds and arthritis being psychosomatic are obviously ridiculous, there seems to be a great deal of truth to the notion that psychological difficulties can have roots in the past, particularly during childhood (which is the basis for Freudian psychoanalysis). In this sense, Hubbard is just stealing from Freud. Thus, the reason his approach is worthless is because it doesn’t offer anything new that is actually worthwhile. While not everything Freud proposed has been shown to be accurate or beneficial, Freud’s basic ideas have been illustrated to be worthwhile. In short, there is absolutely no need for Hubbard’s Dianetics, especially considering how terribly he convolutes simple psychoanalytic notions.

For instance, Hubbard can’t just steal from Freud… He has to one-up him. While Freud claimed psychological problems can have origins in childhood, Hubbard pushes the roots of problems further back into a person’s history, so far back, in fact, that it almost seems like Hubbard has to be joking. But, alas, I assure you that he is not. Hubbard claims that people can begin developing engrams (psychological problems) as early as conception and believes that people can even remember being sperm or ova. Gotcha Freud! Top that!

In addition to potentially developing engrams as early as conception, Hubbard has some absolutely asinine notions about consciousness. He basically believes that whenever someone is sleeping, hypnotized, or otherwise unconscious, they are remarkably susceptible to developing engrams (children in the womb are also susceptible; see p. 130). His solution is to demand absolute silence in all of these situations, “In passing, it should be mentioned that only absolute silence, utter silence and tomblike silence should attend an operation or injury of any kind” (p. 171).

One example Hubbard gives of the necessity of silence (p. 173) is the idea that if two people get into a fight while a third person is unconscious or semi-conscious (e.g., in the dentist’s chair breathing nitrous oxide), that person will invariably go insane. I was so impressed by Hubbard’s argument here that I reduced it to a formula: Happy A + Sad B = Crazy C. Pythagoras has nothing on Hubbard ;) This is just about the dumbest thing I have ever read.

Returning to the comparison between Freud and Hubbard, Hubbard also talks a lot about sex. He doesn’t develop Oedipus complexes, but he certainly has his fair share of sexual fixations. I would submit that a full-third of the engrams discussed by Hubbard have something to do with sex, forced sex, rape, abortion, or some other violent sexual encounter. While I’m the first to admit that sex (and rape, in particular) can have drastic consequences on the human psyche, I am not a big believer in the idea that most psychological problems boil down to sex. But, once again, I think what we have here is a personal experience of Hubbard’s that is being forced into his philosophical therapy where it doesn’t belong.

But what makes Dianetics so fascinating in the end is the fact that Hubbard claims it is not just a form of therapy, “Dianetics is not psychiatry. It is not psychoanalysis. It is not psychology. It is not personal relations. It is not hypnotism. It is a science of mind and needs about as much licensing and regulation as the application of the science of physics. Those things which are legislated against are a matter of law because they may in some way injure individuals or society” (p. 245). I think I agree with Hubbard here; Dianetics is not therapy. It is quackish ideology laced with superstition and rooted in nonsense.

But Hubbard does make one good point that I think should be the key message derived from this book – those things that are potentially harmful should be regulated. Considering how ridiculous Dianetics is and the fact that Hubbard believes any Joe Schmoe after reading Dianetics should be considered a fully-qualified auditor that can treat psychological disorders, someone should be regulating and licensing these imbeciles! Who knows what damage scientologists are doing to their patients? In fact, I think after I finish this review I’m going to send a copy of it to my local congressional representative and encourage them to look into the regulation of Dianetics therapy ‘cause what they propose to do to people is pretty scary!

Several Miscellaneous Points
First, the book claims, at the end, that ‘50 million copies are in print.’ I’ve always hated claims like this about The Book of Mormon and The Bible. These claims are meaningless when the sponsoring organization (The Mormon Church and innumerable Christian churches) literally print these books and give them away free of charge. Claiming that 50 million copies of Dianetics are in print is meaningless because Scientologists print the copies and give them away. In fact, the copy I read was given to me free. Just because they’ve printed a gazillion copies doesn’t mean the book is worth anything. In fact, the actual price of the paper pulp is worth more than the contents of the book. My suggestion – recycle the book. Reading it certainly isn’t worthwhile.

Second, Hubbard makes an error that has been clearly refuted by Stephen J. Gould in ‘The Mismeasure of Man’: he reifies theoretical constructs. In short, Hubbard comes up with ideas about how the brain works then claims that actual components of the physical brain control the brain in accordance with his constructs. His constructs may be useful for understanding how we think, but they have no basis in the physiology of the human brain. This is just one more example of the ridiculous claims of Hubbard; he really didn’t have a clue, despite his ability to write very big books.

Third, I wonder if anyone has ever studied Hubbard in relation to this book. I’m just speculating here, but I’ll bet he had a rough childhood and this book illustrates how he, personally, dealt with his past in such a way that he actually turned out to be a successful author. But, in addition to this being how he coped with his past, I’m thinking there is more to the therapy. I’d wager that Hubbard was mildly autistic and this was the basis for his fixation on silence. Many autistic individuals are particularly sensitive to certain noises. For most people, when they are unconscious, they are simply that – unaware of the world around them. But for someone that is as fixated on the detriments of noise as is Hubbard, I’m thinking there has to be something else going on. Finally, Hubbard’s views on homosexuality, sex, and abortion seem to indicate that there may also have been something else going on here. Perhaps he just had bad experiences in these areas, but whatever it was, he certainly had some problems along these lines.

Finally, the book is blatantly elitist and prejudicial. Hubbard goes so far as to claim that Clears are “on whom our racial future depends” (p. 196). Additionally, he believes more primitive people (African tribes, specifically, but I wouldn’t be surprised if he included races other than whites) are inherently more psychologically disturbed than are whites (p. 200). So, not only does Hubbard have some very strange notions about humanity in general, but he also believes certain groups of people are better than others.

Conclusion
I apologize for the length of this review, but I think it was necessary. This is, after all, the primary text for an entire religious movement. However, after having read this book, I cannot understand why that is. The primary reason I took the time to read this book was because it is associated with Scientology, which is argued to be a religion. But unless a great deal of theology has been added to the ideas in Dianetics, I fail to see why it should be categorized as a religion. Classic definitions of religion include a notion of the supernatural or some means of relating to it. Other than the occasional off-handed reference to God, Dianetics does not address religion whatsoever. Thus, unless there’s something I’m missing, I don’t think categorizing Scientology as a religion is accurate. It should, instead, be considered an organization for practitioners of Dianetics therapy akin to Alcoholics Anonymous or Sex Addicts Anonymous. As such, it should certainly be regulated. Of course there is the MLM aspect of Scientology, but since I am not particularly familiar with that aspect, I’m not going to comment on it at this point.

Overall, this book is worth only the cost of the paper pulp it is printed on. Your time would be better spent watching television than reading this book (and I don’t think all that highly of just watching television). At best it will confuse you; at worst, it will lead you to contact an auditor, who is, in my estimation, more than likely to really screw you up. I have to admit I liked some of L. Ron Hubbard’s science fiction, but his personal philosophy on life is better left in the past than proselytized as the science of the future.