The Rhetoric of Reaction: Perversity, Futility, Jeopardy

Hirschman is concerned with three types of argument typically deployed by reactionaries, i.e. conservatives vehemently, vocally and automatically opposed to proposed changes in the political, social or economic order. The arguments are: (1) Perversity: "The change will only exacerbate the problem you are trying to solve."(2) Futility: "The change will achieve nothing, because it fails to acknowledge incontrovertible political, social or economic laws." (3) Jeopardy: "The change will threaten or destroy some cherished previous accomplishment, such as freedom or democracy." Hirschman's approach is historical. Drawing examples from three key periods of reactionary thought - the aftermath of the French Revolution, the nineteenth-century push for universal suffrage, and the more recent rejection of the Welfare State - he tracks the development, deployment and intertwining of the arguments. His study raises some unstated questions about the psychology of conservatism, the tendency of the populous to be drawn in by such arguments, and the ease with which they can be deployed in short soundbites making them ideal for a modern mass media. Unfortunately, Hirschman doesn't address these issues, so if you're interested in exploring them you will need to look elsewhere. (Eduardo Giannettiï's rather advanced psycho-philosophical study, "Lies We Tell Ourselves: The Art of Self-Deception", might be a challenging place to start. Giannetti addresses the issue only tangentially, but he does give a full account of the kind of self-delusion that a lot of conservative thinking requires.) While the three arguments Hirschman describes have been used most often by conservatives, he turns in the final chapters to the occasional tendency of "progressives" to deploy similarly intransigent arguments. Such even-handedness is refreshing. This book will be useful to anyone wanting to promote or defend a progressive agenda as it delineates the likely arcs of resistance you will face, and alerts you to the possibility of woolly thinking infecting your own arguments. It's strongly recommended for conservatives, too. You'll learn that the kind of thinking you find "natural" and "morally right" has a long and hysterical history. This book will have both sides of the table thinking - which is always a good thing.

This is one of my favorite books for teaching. Hirschman starts out wondering why those conservatives are so hard to deal with. Notices that no real communication is taking place, just rhetoric, sound bites, as it were.As he follows the mystery of how liberals are ever to get their ideas and the needs of the nation across through the rhetoric of the conservatives, he discovers, much to his own dismay, that the liberals use rhetoric, too. And in much the same way.This book describes three basic patterns of argument in which much is said, but little communicated. It's a great help in guiding students to genuine argument and discourse. Not light reading, but well worth the effort. It's also refreshing to see the reflexive method of recognizing that we do ourselves much of what we accuse others of doing.