Naomi Klein gets a beating in the academic world
If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my RSS feed or to email alerts. Thanks for visiting!
I raved about Klein’s new book recently on this blog, I haven’t read it yet, but look forward to having a gander, but the academic consensus of economists with blogs seems to not be as positive as myself. Stiglitz is the most positive, the International Political Economy Zone sets up what seem to be strawmen, Rodrik thinks “bad books need to be trashed”, Manne thinks she’s a naive hack, and The Observer sees some value but ultimately sees her as delusional.
Having not read the book I can’t really give a definitive judgement on these pronouncements, but in a lot of these critiques they either misrepresent what her argument appears to be (me judging from her videos and blurbs) or fail to tackle any of her thesis - preferring to emphasise how unacademic her writing was. I didn’t realise Klein was a journalist, this may mean her writing isn’t as rigourous as some other writers, but I think that the message of the dangers of acquiescence after shock is an important one that deserves more attention then it is getting.
If anyone has a copy of the book to lend me, let me know, then I’ll have a more informed say.
Popularity: 3% [?]
4 Comments, Comment or Ping
odawg
I had a quick scan of the Manne review, and he didn’t even read Klein’s book. Surely, to be able to lambast a review, one must know more about the book being review than that you don’t like the author.
Klein wrote a precis of her thesis for the latest Harper’s. Fully worth a read
Oct 23rd, 2007
devonwhittle
Manne’s review is probably the weakest, but you’re right which is why I haven’t said too much personally about the book. hopefully the uni library will get a copy and I can read it here.
Is this the Klein article? I’m downloading it now, hopefully will be able to read it and the book after exams.
Oct 24th, 2007
odawg
Yeah that’s the one. From what I could gather of her broader argument in the Stiglitz article, her Harper’s article is less problematic. At least, she doesn’t attempt to draw any analogies between electroshock treatment, and the intention of the Bush administration to ’shock and awe’ Iraq back to a virgin slate, ripe for the free market.
But what she says about Katrina, as well as the general wholesale privatisation of US Government just seems too consistent with what I’ve read elsewhere to be wrong.
Oct 24th, 2007
devonwhittle
Her analogies between electroshock on people and shocking countries certainly sounds like the weakest part of the whole thing - this comparisons of people to countries is always a bit silly I think, or even household budgets with the national budget (a la Costello).
From her videos on YouTube, I think its very interesting how ready, resourced and planned the conservatives are to implement their strategies after disasters.
Oct 27th, 2007
Reply to “Naomi Klein gets a beating in the academic world”