Butler, Christopher (2003): Postmodernism - A very short introduction

What is it about?

The title of the book is a great summary of the book: the book is a 130-page introduction to postmodernism. The scope of the book is, despite its length, quite broad, covering social sciences, philosophy, literature, music, art etc.

Was it good?

I was left with somewhat mixed feelings after having completed the book. On the one hand, the book is quite encompassing and written in the true spirit of postmodernism; using slightly obscure terminology and with a self-reflexive style. On the other hand, however, all this makes the book - perhaps again in the true spirit of postmodernism - somewhat difficult to read, follow and digest. At least I had to concentrate really hard on many occasions to understand what Butler was saying - and on some occasions I think that I didn't quite succeed.

Thus, in a nutshell, I think that the book is quite good, but curiously enough, I can't say very exactly how.

The main take-away for me?

Quite straightforwardly, the main take-away for me was a reinforced understanding of what postmodernism stands for (even if expressing that unambiguously is quite challenging): reflexivity, denial of unified 'grand projects', underscoring of subjectivity and the socially constructed nature of reality, use of humour, irony and general playfulness in exposing 'serious received truths' etc.

Who should read the book?

If the book was more accessible (i.e. not so postmodern in its own style, I would recommend it more generally because adopting the postmodern mindset enables one to see the world in a welcomingly different light (e.g. by questioning received truths). However, the book is written in such a manner that I would recommend it mainly to such people who already know the basic terminology and underlying ways of thinking - who, then again, may not have a need for a book like this anymore.

The book on Amazon.com: Postmodernism

Deaton, Agnus (2015): The great escape - Health, Wealth, and the Origins of Inequality

What is it about?

The "escape" in the title of the book refers to escape from poverty, or perhaps better, the increase in living standards that the post-industrial countries have experienced during the past hundred years or so, and that the "emerging" economies experience right now.

However, towards the end of the book Deaton turns to discussing about what still holds some countries (and also some fractions of populations within generally wealthy countries) back so that they are not able to "make the escape" despite decades of foreign aid.

Was it good?

The book is good; the historical account on how and why wealth has generally increased in the "West" is quite informative and insightful, and especially the discussion concerning why some "third world" countries have not made it certainly makes one (at least me) think.

In addition, one particular merit of the book is that Deaton, throughout the book, introduces the measures cited (i.e. the measurement methodology) and discusses their strengths and weaknesses, instead of just citing the numbers or other results that the measures have yielded. In this manner, the reader is able to construct a significantly more mindful picture of the topics at hand. For example, according to Deaton, the answer to the question "how many poor people are in X" depends very, very heavily on the measure one uses. Moreover, even if one was to rely on interview methodology (in order to gain contextually relevant subjective assessments on poverty), wether one asks people to recall their consumption 7 or 30 days into the past can significantly tilt the poverty statistics into one way or the other.

The main take-away for me?

In addition to the high importance of methodology, perhaps the biggest insight for me (as a virtual layman in these matters) was that foreign aid so complex a question and that (at least according to Deaton) "mere giving" is in many if not most cases bound to do less good than bad for the recipient country. Thus, the more mindful and nuanced approaches discussed by Deaton (e.g. pay-per-results, subsidies for drug development for which the target clientele is mostly very poor etc.) really led me to see the current discussion about falling short of the 0.7% GDP target for foreign aid in Finland in quite a different light.

Who should read the book?

The book is probably of interest to anyone, as wealth, poverty and inequalities in these - both in global as well as in national scale - are quite universally relevant issues to basically everyone.

The book on Amazon.com: The great escape

Juha Siltala (2016): Työnantajan alaisena ilman työsuhdetta - Uuden talouden keikka- ja silpputyö paluuna entiseen (in Finnish; transl. "Governed by an employer without an employment contract - Gigs and odd jobs in a new economy as a return to the old)

What is it about?

While not a book but a discussion paper or a pamphlet, I find this as a very important and weighty contribution to the ongoing discourse on the development of employment (as a wider societal phenomenon) and, by implication, political-societal conditions.

The basic premise of Siltala is that the current trend as exhibited by Airbnb, Uber and the like are driving towards employment built around gigs and projects, which for the most imply perpetual uncertainty (disallowing one to plan one's life in the long term) and assuming of entrepreneurial risk without express willingness to do so.

While there is a good counter-case to be made based on standard arguments on voluntary market exchange and the market process, Siltala argues that this is not the determining set of arguments, because the current trend leads to the shrinking if not withering away of the middle class, which, in turn, is likely to cause societal unrest.

This is not to say that Siltala is absolutely right and the market purists are absolutely wrong. Instead, I argue that Siltala's pamphlet makes highly relevant arguments worthy of careful consideration.

Was it good?

As might already be evident, I found Siltala's pamphlet extremely good because of the points Siltala puts forth. Moreover, Siltala's writing style is decidedly provocative which makes the text enjoyable to read. Indeed, in Siltala's grip, one is bound to feel a bit uneasy at points, because of the force exerted by the provocation.

The main take-away for me?

I found Siltala's counter-arguments - mainly built around societal order, stability and general happiness, in addition to morality - the most valuable insights to be gathered here, whose main value is their worth in countering the mainstream market-based arguments so easily made to justify the current trend. In Siltala's view, there is nothing inevitable in the current trend.

Moreover, what Siltala is putting forward may signal for a turn in a Kuznets wave (income inequality as a pendulum with a periodicity of a generation or so).

Who should read the book?

If one is at all interested in the present discourse of economic inequality and/or the changing nature of work and employment (as everyone should be), Siltala's pamphlet is compulsory reading. Highly recommended.

The pamphlet on Kalevi Sorsa foundation's website: Työnantajan alaisena ilman työsuhdetta

Grossman, Dave (2009): On Killing - The Psychological Cost of Learning to Kill in War and Society

What is it about?

The basic premise of the book is relatively straightforward: human beings have strong built-in inhibitions towards killing other human beings, and overcoming those (e.g. to increase the firing capability of soldiers) requires either training which makes killing somewhat automatic or a reflex, or increasing distance (physical, psychological etc.) between the killer and the killed.

Grossman draws quite much from Samuel Marshall's research on firing rates (out of 100 soldiers, how many actually fires a weapon) in the World Wars, which quite famously report that e.g. about 75% of U.S. combat soldiers never fired a weapon with an intent to kill an enemy.

Was it good?

The book is good - though there may be a bit room for condensation in the text. Nonetheless, Marshall's firing rate studies, with which the book opens, are quite astounding to one who has not encountered them before, and built a highly convincing case for what Grosmann argues subsequently.

Moreover, Grosmann quite welcomely presents the reader with a variety of implications of his core argument - both in the military context (e.g. increasing firing rates through realistic training regimes and remote-controlled weaponry) and in civilian life (e.g. a case against realistically violent video games).

However, by entering into the realm of popular culture and video games in particular, Grossman appears to leave his area of expertise and comfort. Namely, I presume that most social scientists would find Grossman's analysis of video games (realistically violent video games --> lowered threshold for engaging in violent real-world behaviours --> increased violence in society) somewhat simplistic (though Grossman may get the end points of the causal chain right in the end).

The main take-away for me?

Well, the video game discussion surely got me thinking, on multiple levels (e.g., the effects of video games on people both in general and in the case of violent games in particular; how one could or should study the effect of video games; if and how video games are any different from any other earlier novel cultural form etc.).

However, perhaps the most striking thought was the effect of remote-controlled weaponry on the nature of war. Namely, people are highly unlikely to actually kill a human being if this has to be done with own hands or a hand-held weapon such as a knife or a bayonet. But, when killing is achieved by maneuvering an air drone with a joystick and a video screen from the distance of thousands of kilometers while sitting in an ergonomic chair, killing does not feel like such but rather "just executing a mission". Thus, increased technologization and distance are likely to make wars substantially more brutal (i.e. more casualties) than before.

Who should read the book?

Once again, I think that most people are likely to find the book appealing, as killing is quite a universal human phenomenon. However, those with a sociological or social psychological curiosity probably will enjoy the book the most.

The book on Amazon.com: On killing

Funder, Anna (2011): Stasiland - Stories from Behind the Berlin Wall

What is it about?

The author reports about her encounters with people who lived in East Germany (i.e. GDR; German Democratic Republic) until its collapse in 1989-1990. More importantly, the author "tells the stories" of her informants as shared with her, which provide highly interesting windows into the everyday life in East Germany - in practice a police state.

Was it good?

I struggled a little with getting into the pace and narrative style of the book - the book is presented as case narratives within a larger autobiographical narrative - but after getting used to it, I really enjoyed the book.

Thus, at least for one not terribly familiar with the subject matter, the book offers a selection of quite captivating stories about what it was like to live in a police state "behind" the iron curtain. Moreover, the informants include both ordinary citizens as well as ex-Stasi officials.

The main take-away for me?

While the "this is how it felt living in a police state" narratives are interesting, perhaps the most intriguing aspect of the book was offered by those informants who perceive the "free" societal order as not preferable to the police state. Admittedly, there is a lot of nostalgia and selective forgetting going on there, but some of the aspects raised by the interviewees (e.g. lack of theft and other mundane security threats, affordability of various state-provided services etc.) are abound to make one think about what makes a society a good one. But then, all this and more can be accomplished by John Rawls' "Veil of ignorance".

Who should read the book?

I think that the book is beneficial for the younger generations who have very little if any connection, exposure or recollection about quite different societal orders - especially so that they would exist in the very heart of Europe. While fictional works such as Orwell's 1984 are highly illuminating, true stories have quite a different flavor to them.

The book on Amazon.com: Stasiland

Quartz, Steven - Asp, Anette (2015): Cool - How the Brains Hidden Quest for Cool Drives Our Economy and Shapes Our World

What is it about?

The book basically (though at places somewhat implicitly) says that the "traditional" microeconomic homo economicus is a gross oversimplification of human (economic, consumption) behavior.

Instead, Quartz argues that purchase and consumption choices are inherently social psychological phenomena. In other words, we all, e.g., signal aspired identities and group memberships through our choices of what products (or services) we purchase, adopt, use and discard.

Moreover, Quartz quite sensibly - and with substantial backup from disciplines such as evolutionary biology and psychology and neuroscience - argues that in many cases there is very little we can do about this; such behavior is hard-wired in us through evolution.

Was it good?

The book is good indeed, though in my case Quartz is "preaching to the converted".

Perhaps the most distinguishing feature of the book is its exceptionally broad disciplinary scope, as noted above. This, in a way, is a double-edged sword. On the one hand, drawing support from a broad range of academic research domains certainly adds weight and credibility to the arguments Quartz advances. But on the other hand, such multifaceted discussion may at places come across a little heavy for the reader ("a bit less would have sufficed").

But all in all, the book is - because of this distinguishing feature - a wonderful learning experience.

The main take-away for me?

While I never have denied the invalidity of homo economicus model, the book certainly made me pay a lot closer reflective attention on my own purchase and product use behavior. As a result, I'm certainly more cognisant about "what do I signal" with what I wear and use, though my own perception about this may be quite different from what another person would think.

Who should read the book?

Once again, I believe that most people should read the book. The book is not anti-consumerism by any means, but I sincerely believe that most people could be "better" (also more economical) consumers if they were a bit more reflective about their consuming habits; i.e. why they consume what they consume.

The book on Amazon.com: Cool

Snow, Richard (2014): I Invented the Modern Age - The Rise of Henry Ford

What is it about?

The book basically tells the story of Henry Ford, from his early childhood until his death in 1947.

However, the book is not a basic biography, but focuses on his contribution to the invention of the automobile and, perhaps more importantly, the "modern age", including mass production, standardization, economies of scale and even urban culture.

Was it good?

For me, not having ready any other Ford biography, the book is highly fascinating. The book not only describes how the internal combustion engine automobile and industrialized mass production came to be, but also sheds light on the mindset of Ford and his colleagues who brought all this about (including Ford's contemporary competitors).

In particular, it became very obvious that it did not suffice by any means for Ford to be in teh right place at the right time, but in addition he expended significant effort in inventing some key technical constructions (such as the carburettor), conducting important publicity stunts (e.g. in early car racing) and organizing for efficiency and scale.

Towards the end, it also highlights the mental - and some organizational - inertia towards quite necessary renewal.

The main take-away for me?

Like some other inventor-innovator-related books, the main take-away here for me is that the right idea is just a start: in addition to that there must be a lot of hard work to bring the idea to fruition. Thus, some short journalistic accounts on new innovations or innovators often do not do justice on all the work that takes place "behind the scenes".

Who should read the book?

I think that the book is of quite general interest, and it is certainly written in such a way that basically anyone can enjoy it. However, those interested in cars, (history of) technology and engineering in general probably will enjoy the book the most.

The book on Amazon.com: I invented the modern age