A total banger. The first two chapters are a bit basic but then she starts spitting hard facts.
Democracy is dying because we are clinging to a dangerous and outdated myth: talking about politics can change people’s minds. It doesn’t.
This provocative debut from a bold new voice combines a fascinating range of research to show us the psychological and sociological factors that really shape our politics.
Drawing from ancient philosophy to modern neuroscience and social science, Dr Sarah Stein Lubrano reveals the surprising truth about how people think and behave politically. From friendship to community organizing and social infrastructure, she explores the actions that actually do change minds.
In a world where politics keeps getting more irrational, dishonest, violent and chaotic, it’s getting much harder to reach people with words alone. So people who really care about democracy must ask: how can we stop arguing and do the deep work to build stronger foundations for political life, and a better world for us all?
I think a problem with the framing of the author is the idea that politics aren’t discussed. In countries like the US, they are talked about all the time, due to increasing contradictions and rapidly deteriorating conditions, kinda like the fall of the Roman Empire. The US Empire is losing its stranglehold on the world, and internally this is reflected in less and less free plunder, so the Working Class is the one hit the hardest while those at the top try to use the Working Class to shield themselves from the impacts of this.
The issue isn’t that people aren’t talking, the issue is the structure. The US democratic structure isn’t democratic at all, there’s a huge filtering process and media domination before you can even get to where public discourse is centered. All candidates are essentially pre-filtered and pre-selected within an “acceptable range,” which is why government approval rates are lowering over time. The contradictions are sharpening between the working class and the Capitalists.
The solution isn’t just to talk more. Talking more doesn’t move the candidate window to align with the needs of the people, organizing does. The working class historically has always made its major gains through recognizing itself as class and banding together to directly struggle against the system. The Marxists are correct.
Haven’t read the book though, this is just based off the blurb.
the book is saying exactly that the public discourse is irrelevant and doesn’t lead to better policies. It doesn’t even influence politics at all. I’m not sure how you understood the blurb because the book, as the title implies, is very against public discourse as a political tool.
It seems like, from the blurb, she is advocating for how to converse wity others better. Without that context, it seems defanged, but it’s nice to hear that that isn’t the case.
Imagine thinking that democracy has ever existed in the USA. The only thing that changes people’s minds (i.e., teaches people to have empathy for other human beings) is re-education camps.
To be more precise, the USA has democracy for the ruling class which is the capital owning class.
It was never about changing the minds of the people we’re arguing with. It was about providing opposition so the people reading the thread know that opposition exists to that viewpoint, and avoiding echochambers.
All I can find about this book online (which has just released) are the same marketing buzzwords and phrases as OP used and a “detailed review” that throughout can’t spell the author’s surname…
Is this some weird advertising campaign?
Fancy giving us some actual details OP?
I’m just liking the book and I think it’s a very necessary book, so I’m promoting it. I have no business or personal connection to the author, except having offered her a drink after the book presentation in Berlin. That’s it. Also I copy-pasted the blurb from the editor’s website: I thought putting it in quotes would make it obvious I didn’t write that part.
ironically ; this book talks about politics
She explains in a passage the role of books in politics and how they play into the main topic of the book. Also it’s what I asked the author at a meeting after the presentation of the book: “so, after all of this, why writing a book?”. She gave a very compelling answer, but there were private informations so I won’t share it.
cant imagine why anyone would downvote this comment.
i appreciate anyone who puts the thought and effort into writing a book, and the people whom interview them about it.
Perhaps summarize the answer with the personal info removed?
In the book for instance she says how books should be written to increase competence among the people who already agree. I think that since she’s coming from an experience of writing about science (as I also do), she feels very strongly against those liberal science popularizers who think that by providing information, you change minds and educate the “public”. In the book she highlights how a lot of liberals think that reactionaries choose the policies and politicians they do because they are ignorant, and therefore providing more information will solve the issue. She escapes this by clearly targeting the “converted”. At least to some degree. A lot of the book is also addressing the doubts of liberals or far-Left people who are on the verge of abandoning “18th century politics” of public debate and conflict of ideas, hence making the book as something you can give to your peers to give a last push.
Don’t how to change 21st century minds
