Assholes: A Theory

Let's recall some titles from stellar philosophers: "A Critique of Pure Reason" -- "Being and Nothingness" -- "Mind and Cosmos" -- "Principia Mathematica." Somehow, "A--holes" just doesn't fit that mold, does it? There's a lack of Horatian decorum here, which is ironic as the author invokes Horace at a few points, most notably in his appended "Letter to an A--Hole." And if the book is a clever Erasmian or Fieldian attempt to make a point through a lack of decorum, well, for me it just falls flat.This book is probably too long, or perhaps too short, to fulfill its intended purpose. Parts of it sparkle, but much of it strikes me as the author's attempt to finish over his own biases with a thin veneer of what passes for propositional discourse. And I tried my best to read generously.At its best, the book develops a solid definition of an A--hole and at least a partial taxonomy of the kinds of them we encounter in the world, and the chapter on coping with A--holes does a good job of going beyond traditional Stoic recipes. To its credit, the author develops his argument from philosophers publishing today (e.g., Nagel), as well as established some classics like Kant and Rawls. The concluding "Letter to an A--hole" is well done (although problematic to his case). That said, the book is rife with blind spots and biases that the author might do well to consider.Starting with the blind spots: James' notion that women are somehow culturally not predisposed to be A--holes strikes me as rooted in politically correct gender-studies ideology rather than actually observation and reflection. I say this based on 18 years of teaching at a women's college and observing how some "mean girls" (certainly a small fraction of women) never change after middle school. His idea that somehow women in this category aren't fully A--holes because they take a moment to listen to the aggrieved party totally misses their point: this is part of the torture from which the A--hole woman derives much pleasure.Second, James has a long chapter on A--hole capitalists and bankers (derived largely from the memoirs of aggrieved parties rather than first-hand research), but no chapter on a--holes in government. In his few mentions of such sorts, he brings fire and brimstone down on Dick Cheney, perhaps with justice (I don't know and have never worked for the man so I can't speak to his personal qualities), but risibly refers to Barack Obama as the "anti-asshole." To be fair, when James was writing this book he was probably doing what the rest of us were, and that is projecting our best hopes and values onto the tabula rasa that Obama was shortly after his election. Subsequent events have proven the president to be quite otherwise (and clearly contrary to the positive portrait James presents); the best evidence is the way he seethed and lashed out when confronted with evidence and cogent arguments that conflicted with his world view, perhaps encompassed in his all too frequent sneering. He's insulated from that now, as he's surrounded himself with sycophants. And to ignore John Kerry as a supreme A--hole? Here's a fellow who has publicly invoked, several times, the "do you know who I am" that James confronts in his "Letter to an A--hole".But that's only the big characters in government. What of the other many A--holes, like prosecutors who refuse to reconsider a conviction even after overwhelming evidence of innocence is presented? What of the purchasing agent who smacks down the lowest bid in favor of a friend or ally? (I live in New Jersey -- it's the way of the world here at county and state level). How about that EPA regulator who said publicly that he likes to go in first and "crucify" a few businesses whether they are guilty or not to set the tone? What of the IRS agents who grind down political organizations out of favor, or police who selectively enforce traffic laws to meet monthly revenue quotas (on the backs of the poor or minorities)? But, as (to his credit) James states, he's a man of the left, so I imagine he hasn't even considered criticizing government.The other real problem of this book is that its remedy seems to be that we should be a more "cooperative" society, like Japan, and the cooperative norm should prevail. Sorry, but no thanks. My time in Japan has convinced me that I'd rather live in a society where a--holes are possible and very real rather than a society where individualism (which need not lead to becoming an a--hole) is smashed through shame. And, as his own "Letter to an A--hole" notes, there are solid arguments grounded in the philosophy of Nietzsche and others that contest the idea of cooperativeness. Indeed, no field of study has done more to break down (the preferred term is "demystify") cooperative culture -- the institutions of religion, the family, and traditional ethics -- than has philosophy. Derrida has committed propositional discourse to the abyss, Foucault has made all morality to be about power, Marx has made it all about economics, and Nietzsche has made it all about -- well, mostly himself. But there's the archetypal a--hole for you.James appeals to John Rawls' "A Theory of Justice," which is probably the best moral foil he can use in this case. As appealing as I find some aspects of Rawls, in the end his idea that we divorce our ideas of "fairness" (or its obverse, a--holeness, okay, not a Rawlsian term) from our experience, aspiration, or station in life is naive.So it was an interesting read -- it made me think about things I hadn't much thought about -- but I found the book wanting.

First, this book is really funny. It's quite a page turner for a philosophy text, even a mass market philosophy text. Of course, the frequent repetition of the word a-hole appeals to those of us with a low sense of humor.Dr. James begins by attempting a definition of the a-hole. He then, amusingly, names a variety of people he considers a-holes in public life. While Dr. James is a self-described liberal, he's pretty even-handed in apportioning a-holiness to the left and right. (He reserves particular distaste for Fox News, which he regards as the "gold standard" of a-holiness; desipte being a conservative myself, I find it very hard to disagree with him). He goes on to offer classifications of various types of a-holes.The later chapters are more philosophical. He inquires, for example, why a-holes tend to be male, and why they tend to be produced more frequently in some cultures rather than others. For example, he considers Italy, Israel, Brazil and the US to be particularly prone to a-hole generation, while regarding Japan as almost incapable of producing a-holes. I'm not sure I agree with him here - I think the interactional style of Israelis (with whom I work pretty extensively) tends to lead others to believe they're a-holes when they're not. And I suspect (although I have little direct experience to validate this hypothesis) that Japanese interactional styles lead Americans to conclude that Japanese are never a-holes when in fact some of them probably are - we likely just don't understand when a Japanese a-hole is being an a-hole to us.The question of whether a-holes are begotten or made is further explored - Dr. James concludes that there is some genetic predisposition to a-holiness but that society plays a critical role in forming a-holes. He also comments on a-holes in positions of power. Discussed but left insufficiently explored, in my view, is whether a-holes naturally ascend to those positions, or whether the positions turn individuals into a-holes. This distinction becomes important for the political turn the book takes in the chapter "a-hole capitalism."Dr. James' thesis is that an a-hole is characterized by feeling entitled to special advantages. In discussing a-hole capitalism, Dr. James turns his sights on those who could be viewed as directly or indirectly exploiting others; those who feel entitled to an ever-greater share of the pie. While not ever quite explicitly saying so, he clearly has the rich in mind, although I don't think he means to imply that being rich necessarily makes one an a-hole. And as I look around myself, I can clearly see that sense of entitlement among some of the powerful.But interestingly enough, I think Dr. James' focus on entitlement strikes at the heart of the current political division in the United States. The left views conservatives as a-holes because conservatives feel entitled to the rewards they have earned through market mechanisms, even if those mechanisms have given them rewards that are disproportionate to any common sense justification. The right views progressives as a-holes because progressives feel entitled to lay claim to things that they have not themselves earned in the market. So in fact, each side views the other as a-holes because each feels the other is laying an unfair, "special" claim to entitlement.Does this suggest a solution? No, not really. These competing views of entitlements are subject to quite a lot of analysis in academia, in the press, and around water coolers. But perhaps a good starting point for discussion would be with the injunction, "Don't be an a-hole."All in all, I found Dr. James' book both amusing and thought-provoking, which is all I could hope for. He brings together some of what I've recently read of Stiglitz on inequality and Tomasi on free market fairness in a way that is arguably more coherent, and certainly funnier, than either of them.

Maybe a dull as its topic.

An interesting piece of whimsy on a subject we all sadly know about. But more serious than it seems. Should be required reading in Business Studies!

Excellent read though

Hilarious

Le livre a survécu aux inondations du Texas, j'espère que les moisissures ne sont pas nocives. Heureusement que le contenu est intact... bon pour le recyclage après lecture !