Jargon and ambiguity are not honest intellectualism

Okay, I've got an ax to grind about this book and it's going to get annoying for everyone. But first with the good:
The concept of a neoliberal panopticon in which, in contrast with coercive systems as described in 1984, we willingly participate is accurate and also quite obvious. Neoliberalism is better described by the decadence of Brave New World.

This point, which the author makes over and over again is banal at this point especially when you read in this thread often. The author explores Foucault's concept of biopolitics in which governments attempt to control the bodies of its people. The author argues that this has transformed into psychopolitics in which we are ensnared in a prison of our minds more than the body wherein our data is used to predict and mold our behaviors. To this point the author says something like "The smartphone has become the new torture chamber." The utter false equivalency aside from comparing bodily torture to smart phone capital surveillance, I'd like to explore what is is about this book that bothers me so much.

This author obscures much of what he says behind jargon and ambiguity. This is deliberate. Here's what I mean: there are many concepts in this work that are obscure and generalized (like the data sex stuff? or dictatorship of emotions?) unless perhaps you are an initiated into Hegelian school of thought which is the underpinning of this entire book. The problem with the mentality of books like this is that you are either an acolyte or a western propagandist, there is no in between and there is no room for dissent. The author hides much of what he says behind jargon and if you call it out you "just didn't understand the text." I run into this conceit constantly with the ethos of this writer and many like him. There is a certain disingenuity in quoting 1984 as a critique of neoliberalism while completely ignoring the deliberate critique of Stalinism found in 1984. There is selective recall when focusing on the body and mental panopticon of neoliberalism regimes while ignoring the relatively same strategy of communist regimes.

The problem with the mentality of books like this is that you are either an acolyte or a western propagandist, there is no in between and there is no room for dissent. The author hides much of what he says behind jargon and if you call it out you "just didn't understand the text." I run into this conceit constantly with the ethos of this writer and many like him. There is a certain disingenuity in quoting 1984 as a critique of neoliberalism while completely ignoring the deliberate critique of Stalinism found in 1984. There is selective recall when focusing on the body and mental panopticon of neoliberalism regimes while ignoring the relatively same strategy of communist regimes. The apologetics are in the omission.

The problem I find with this is that a lot of the conclusions of this book are pretty obvious to anyone who gives a single critical thought to neoliberalism. Someone with no clue of any of these concepts knows there is something wrong with the system when corporations get bailouts and debt forgiveness and citizens are laden with debt, work paycheck to paycheck, have no family support and live within contaminated environments. You don't need to "engage with dialectics" to understand the glaring flaws of neoliberalism. Marxists do not have a monopoly over capitalist critiques.

Books like this have no solutions, only cynicism and doom scrolling. I've realized l've brought a lot of my own baggage into this review and perhaps that is unfair to this book.
However, I have no doubt with this author that if I were to push back on his ideas or possible hypocrisies l'd be deemed a western propagandist and dismissed with that thought terminating cliché.

You voted on this review!

You reported this review!