Social Sciences Books

this is a smaller version of a bigger set.. these are nice sort of like excerpts from a larger text.. if you're only studying a small section of history and don't need to ever compare before or after they are ok..but you're better off getting the vol. I or II or both depending on what your needs are. most profs are going to want you to compare and contrast what came before and after ... these books have great pics..but get the larger versions.. as these are a lot of little books, and depending on your class you may need to carry 6 little books with you instead of 1 text..

I wasn't expecting to recieve a new book but I am glad I did and didn't go to the expensive bookstore across the street

I highly recommend this series of six books. When I was in college, I bought one of the books because it looked so interesting even though I wasn't taking the course. In the past year, I've ordered the other books in the series. The books are very interesting and informative, with many color pictures of the art and architecture discussed. The books also discuss literature, philosophy, and the history of science. The graphic layout of the books is excellent and there are many reading selections of literature and philosophy. Even though the series concentrates on western humanities, there are also excellent sections on Asian, African, Islamic, and Native American arts.

After using this book (as well as books 2 and 3) as texts for a class, I must say that I found all of them to be overrated and a poor choice of reference. The volumes contain nice photographs but are ineffective as textbooks. For example, as material is introduced a sudden segue to a new subject leaves the reader cold. I would not recommend any of this series to those who need detail. These books support a teaching methodology that relies upon mundane memorization of incidental information rather than comprehensive study.

"The wisdom of the Egyptians was a proverb with the Greeks, who felt themselves children beside this ancient race." Plato, Timaeus, 22B, (Quoted from Will Durant, the Story of civilization:I)



Early Civilizations:
As summarized by Will Durant, the development of agriculture helped people to settle in villages and create communities, where the early civilizations gradually developed. Ancient people developed their specialized trades, arts, and crafts, establishing an economy based on trade, which led to the first civilizations. Since there were but few written records, as in the case of ancient Egypt, archaeologists have patiently recreated the history of the first civilizations by putting together artifacts and studying ruins which have been discovered over time. A cardinal characteristic of civilizations was that each had a leader, ruler, priests, and civil administrators. It has been discovered also that early civilizations were tinted by a class system of rich and poor people. First great civilizations were built around rivers, which were crucial to their development, and became a catalyst for the growth of agricultural civilization.

The Humanistic Tradition:
This colorful work is a thoughtful, methodical topical approach to the first classical civilizations that helps not only humanity students but all seekers of common global experience understand humanity's creative traditions as a continuum in space and time, rather than isolated events by human races or nations. This compelling acclaimed survey offers a global perspective, through a gifted editor of many vivid illustrations, integrating an amazing ocean of literary sources. It explores the sociopolitical, economic, and artistic contexts of human culture, providing an analytical perspective of the global multicultural quest which humanity pursued. Gloria Fiero's popular work offers the reader an opportunity to be introduced to 'The Humanistic Tradition' clearly demonstrating the close relationship between the culture of the past and sophisticated life and rich culture of the present. The book explores the arts and thought of the West in relation to ideas of other world cultures, from the ancient mid-East to the modern far East.

Ancient World's Light:
The above being said, I would like to caution the reader that the colorful author, and creative editor adopts a rather questionably biased theory, lately in great doubt (Ps. see: Barnel's Black Athena,) that Greek philosophy is the foundation of the Humanistic tradition, at least/ even in the West. Late Medieval Alexandria, Egypt was no doubt, the "Mind of Western Tradition". Eugene Holley Jr. expressed it beautifully, "Historians of philosophy have been wont to begin their story with the Greeks. It may be that we are all mistaken; for among the most ancient fragments left to us by the Egyptians are writings that belong under the rubric of moral philosophy. The Egyptians were the light of the ancient world. They produced many early medical instruments, designed the world's first step pyramid, and laid the empirical groundwork for scientific reasoning. Akhenaton, the rebel pharaoh, is cited as "the Father of Monotheism." Asante stresses throughout the book that these developments came from a confluence of African cultures, and not from other parts of the world. "The practice of the African philosophers along the Nile was a practice of maintaining Maat [the principle of truth, order, and justice] in every aspect of life," he writes. "If we could only learn from them the value of harmony, balance, and righteousness, we would be on our way toward a revival of the spirit of human victory."

Sonia's fine Review:
"The Humanistic Tradition is quite simply the finest book of its type. Fiero manages to integrate the political, cultural, and social history of the world into one coherent and fascinating whole. It is a masterpiece of scholarship... balanced, interesting, easy to read, and consummately beautiful." -- Sonia Sorrell, Pepperdine University

My husband and I were opposites and this book helped us to accept and understand each other completely. I am grateful to the person who suggested that I might enjoy reading this book, all the while knowing I would benefit from the knowledge and wisdom for the rest of my life.

Enjoyable to read by yourself, but more fun read with others.

This book helps us to understand ourselves as much as it helps us to be more understanding and tolerant of others. As the title suggests it's all about personalities. This book touches on relationships of all kinds and how the four different aspects of personality relate to one another and how our intrinsic personalities relate to, and affect, others.

Usually we are a mixture of all four personality types, but generally being dominant in one or two. I, myself, am a mixture of Powerful Choleric and Perfect Melancholy. To truly understand what these terms mean one will have to read the book.

And it certainly is worth a read. There are quizzes in the book that can be undertaken by a group of people all at the same time. These quizzes help determine a person's personality type. Once this is figured out, it's then quite fun and enlightening to read through the book and delve into the personalities and how they relate to each other.

It can be quite an eye-opener. You definitely learn more about yourself and others.

How To Keep Your Man: And Keep Him For Good

Real Life Dramas - Volume One

Darren G. Burton

This is a wonderful, fun, fast read book! Understand WHY people are the way they are. What makes them click, why do you butt heads with some people. This book has the answers! You will find that you will learn a lot about yourself too.

Ok, well I suppose that it wasn't truly about staring at your navel, but it wasn't far away from it. The more I read this book and tried to figure out "who I was" the more confused I became. First, I was part of two personalities which, how kind of her, is allowed. But as I read on I saw parts of me in all four personalities, which means I took the test wrong or that I am "masking" a personality. What??? Honestly, I have never found it helpful to look deeper and deeper inside of my person or psyche because I find the same person everytime I look. A wretched sinner in need of a Savior. Psychology has never promised me anything accept the confirmation of how messed up I am without Jesus. The bible says that the heart is desperately wicked, who can know it? Yes, I am wicked and sinful but Jesus, my Savior promises me the hope of real change. Behaviorism gets us nowhere!

Years ago, and a few times since, I took a personality test that was unbelievably accurate at describing me and how I act, react and respond to life situations. For the past ten years, I've been looking for that test and finally found what I was looking for with Florence Littauer's book Personality Plus.

Littauer classifies the four primary personality types: Popular Sanguine, Perfect Melancholy, Powerful Choleric and Peaceful Phlegmatic. Most every person fits into one of these personality categories, while some (like me) are near equal parts of two of the personality types.

Personality Plus starts off with a quick quiz that will allow you to determine your primary personality. Then the book begins to go through each of the personality types, outlining the strengths and weaknesses and the positives and negatives of each.

This isn't just about understanding your own personality but about the personality traits of others. Littauer teaches how to recognize the different personality types in different people and talks about each personality and how they interact with the others. She explains how your personality might be more sensitive to other types when conflict arises.

The book provides a fascinating study of the human personalities and is an essential read for any office environment where there is a collection of different personality types. It's also a great read for parents to better understand their kids, though Littauer does have versions of this book targeted specifically for parents (Personality Plus for Parents: Understanding What Makes Your Child Tick) and couples (Personality Plus for Couples: Understanding Yourself and the One You Love).

The book was highlighted as same as the description. The book was packaged inproperly because the sender put the book in a regular package which was recieved with folded edges while the book was posting.

I purchased this book for my university level cultural geography course and it's very up to date with excellent explanations of the many aspects of cultural geography. I highly recommend this textbook!

Thank you for being so prompt. I am really enjoying the book and class.

The condition was listed as "Very Good" but when received it was marked up with yellow highlighter along with other mark-ups. I feel the condition should have been rated lower. I have to say the book was received in a timely manner.

My main gripe about this book is that it is organized in such a fashion that it makes it difficult to outline. The chapters don't develop in a manner that lends itself easily to straightforward interpretation of main ideas. Instead, the authors rely primarily on providing definitions of terms, and then presenting information that is of secondary consequence.

The book is informative, but not linearly coherent.

To address the issues raised by another reviewer about Islam, after some more scrupulous reading of those sections, I believe the reviewer let his anger get the best of him. For example, on the section dealing with the "Sour Grapes" reaction, he automatically combined the imposition of pork-eating taboos with the "sour grapes" reaction, which the authors clearly didn't do. They develop the idea and geographical importance of pork-eating, and gives the "sour grapes" reaction as a possible explanation to the eschewing of pork--and they offer others as well. The idea was to show that we don't know where it began, from a cultural stance. The author attaches from an early stage that eschewing pork was part of Judaism, a much older tradition than Islam or Christianity, and makes the point that the distribution of the taboo follows in line with areas that pork isn't easy to cultivate, since a nomadic lifestyle is not suitable for pork farming.

Note that this is different than saying "Islamic people made conquered peoples eschew pork because Islamic people were jealous of those who raised pork." This statement is almost nonsensical, but if you were to simplify the claim raised by the other reviewer, this is what you get.

Did later islamic kingdoms impose the non-eating of pork in the regions of Babylon and those cities near rivers? Yes they did. The author was wrong to use the language of "for revenge," as it puts a slightly moral stance on the books position, and does paint Islam in a negative light--which a good textbook shouldn't do.

And in dealing with the oft-violent histories of all three monotheist religions, the authors spent a great deal of time on the christian enslavement and mistreatment of Indians by the sword here in the Americas--showing that Christians did bad things in the name of their faith, just as Muslims did.

As far as religions go however, the treatment of buddhism and hinduism is even more sparse than it is on Islam, though I have yet to read a western-written book that covers eastern traditions in an interesting fashion. Most of them have a sudden style-shift from seeming interested in the subject matter to suddenly seeming more like an encyclopaedic regurgitation of well-known facts.

This book is guilty of this as well. Docked one star for its non-linear style, and one star for its poor treatment of eastern religions.

I am reading this book for my Sociology class and it has completely changed the way I look at society. A must read

This book was required reading for an undergraduate sociology course for Human Relations majors (sociology course for sociology/education/psychology). It was an eye opening experience because the readers/continuous learner is encouraged to step inside the corporate framework that directly affects our ideas and acceptance of an ideology of busines, etc based on the McDonald's corporate culture.

Our class found it powerful reading and most were challenged to think about and ask, "what are we really doing to improve our lives, culture and global community?"

In his book, "The McDonaldization of Society", George Ritzer writes of McDonald's as a catalyst that provoked rapid and significant changes throughout the fast-food industry and in multinational businesses, changes that directly and circuitously affected people and society in positive and negative ways. However, Ritzer contends that McDonaldization has contributed more negatively to society than positively. It is rare that such an erudite study can also be so readable by the public.

Many people can easily recall the long lasting societal effects of such creations as the fax, the World Wide Web and email, the effects of global warming, the passing of NAFTA and so on, but few have considered the influence of a fast-food franchise such as McDonald's. When people think of McDonald's, they envision the fast-food giant of the industry - serving up their famous "Big Mac", fries, and milkshake. Few people can imagine of the impact of McDonald's upon society, but in "The McDonaldization of Society", George Ritzer illustrates these changes in a clear concise examination of this phenomenon.

Ritzer writes of the many industries that have strived to emulate McDonald's success by utilizing their system of operation, companies like Pizza Hut, Dominos, Wendy's, Toys R Us, Eye Masters, USA Today and other newspapers (McPapers) and so on. There are a host of other industries that have fashioned themselves after the McDonald's mold, like McDoctors, Books-on-Tapes, McBanks, ATMs, and so forth. These and many other industries are viewed as direct by-products of McDonaldization. However, Ritzer makes it clear that Ray Kroc (McDonald's CEO) neither created the "McDonald's principles nor the idea of a franchise. Ray Kroc's genius was in the way he combined many of the ideas of bureaucracy, the McDonald brothers, and other franchises into the McDonald's franchise of today.

The central theme in Ritzer's book is the "enabling" and "constraining" affects of McDonaldization and how this phenomenon has changed parts of society both in the United States and abroad - from private and public industries to its citizenry. Ritzer contends that McDonald's success is a direct outcome of their implementation of a kind of bureaucratic system that involves the concepts of "efficiency, quantification, predictability, and control" (rules and regulations). This system, according to Ritzer, results in striking changes throughout society, dehumanization of employees and to a great extent even control over consumers. Ritzer considers these four components to be at the heart of McDonaldization and therefore covers the concepts in separate detailed chapters.

Ritzer views McDonald's as a metaphor for bureaucracy with all the benefits and drawbacks of bureaucracies. Bureaucracies function under the same principles of efficiency, quantification, predictability, and control and in Ritzer's view "[w]e must therefore look at McDonaldization as both "enabling" and "constraining." McDonaldized systems enable people to do things they were unable to do in the past (work faster, efficiently, have more free time, etc.). However, these same systems also keep individuals from doing things that they would otherwise do (be creative, have quality time....). George Ritzer writes that "[t]he success of the McDonald's model suggests that many people have come to prefer a world in which there are few surprises". McDonaldization is a "double-edged" sword working for and against people.

Ritzer is more concerned with the social impact of McDonaldization than he is in documenting the history of McDonald's as the goliath of the fast-food industry. Nevertheless, in presenting his case, against McDonaldization, Ritzer succeeds in debunking many of the misconceptions concerning Ray Kroc and McDonald's. He reminds his reader that Mac and Dick McDonald were the originators of McDonald's. It was the McDonald's brothers - not Ray Kroc ? that created the concept of assembly line procedures, cheap prices, short menus, and the idea of fast food.

The reader will learn that bureaucracies function under the concept of "rationality" and how this concept can be found in virtually all forms of bureaucracies. Ritzer also posits that systems based on rationality invariably result in irrationality (all bureaucracies suffer from the "irrationality of rationality") and he links this concept to McDonaldization. Ritzer conveys his concerns with the role played by bureaucratic systems that affect and/or limit interaction among, individual, how they create a robotic state in workers, how bureaucracies stump creativity, freedom of choice and expression and so on.

As support for his contentions on bureaucracies, Ritzer discusses Max Weber's writings on bureaucracies. McDonald's is amplification and an extension of Max Weber's theory of rationalization. Ritzer makes the connection between efficiency, calculability, predictability, and control to Max Weber's theory of bureaucracy in which bureaucracies function by Weber's concept of formal rationality. According to George Ritzer and Max Weber, economics may be at the forefront of all bureaucracies (rational systems) in one form or another; this is Ritzer's opinion concerning McDonaldization.

"The McDonaldization of Society" envelopes concepts in sociology, psychology, politics, and economics, such as, role playing, rituals, behavior modification, reward and punishment, dehumanization, hierarchies, deviancy, rational irrational systems, formal structures, cost v. profits, quantity v. quality and so forth. At the end of the book, George Ritzer outlines some strategies that people can use to fight, resists and/or limit McDonaldization in their lives ? some ideas are logical and others radical. Ritzer's writing on McDonaldization, its concepts and affects on society makes for surprising and enlightening reading.

I read this book hoping for a fair and balanced critical review of modern business. I found it to be little more than an attempt to justify a position that "all big business is bad". While that may be true, Ritzer spends a decent portion of the book using invalid arguments to support it.

For example, Ritzer claims that McDonalds hires young people "because their minds are more easily controlled than adults" (no mention that they worked cheaper), and was critical that McDonalds did not foster "creativity" on the job. Personally, I don't want teenagers to be creative with my food . . . and it seems it's not a bad idea that they learn a little discipline at work and as they mature and learn to make better decisions they can find jobs to be creative in.

Another criticism Ritzer uses is that universities "control" professors by setting a time schedule for classes - this is obviously not an attempt to control professors; it is instead the only way students can attend more than one class per semester.

Maybe I got turned off in the first chapters with his comparison of McDonalds to Hitler's gas chambers, could he have found something a little less sinister to compare it to?

That said, the argument that society is irreversibly changed because of industrialization . . . for better or for worse is certainly is a valid point . . . I just want to hear it argued with a little more critical review and common sense.

McDonalds's is G. Ritzer's perfect paradigm for explaining the actual structure of our planet. He has built his portrait on Max Weber's rationalization concept. This concept expresses man's search for the optimum means to a given end by rules, regulations and larger social structures. Its driving force is economics (capitalism).
This concept affects virtually all aspects of our society all over the world: work, education, health care, leisure, transport, sports, politics, justice, religion and the family. It shows a planet centered on rational consumerism.
The ingredients of the system are efficiency, calculability, predictability and nonhuman technologies for controlling people. It was greatly helped by technological breakthroughs like automobiles, TV, the computer, internet and lasers (DVD) and by fundamental changes in Western societies (single parent families, working women, higher mobility, increasing disposable income, time savings, mediatization and advertising).

But Max Weber foresaw also the lurking irrationalities, the dehumanization and homogenization, which expressed themselves in environmental and health problems (air pollution), McJobs (disenchantment, false friendliness), traffic jams, bureaucratization.
McDonaldization produces the perfect way of life for people who, as Nietzsche said, use the wrong conjugation: they don't live, they are lived.

For G. Ritzer, McDonaldization is the `grobalization of nothing': a world dominated by the imperialistic ambitions of nations, corporations and organizations, whose main intent is growth of their power, influence and profits. `Nothing' is a social form that is generally centrally conceived, controlled and comparatively devoid of distinctive substantive content.'

The author would like to see a more deMcDonaldizated world (see the many recommendations at the end of the book), but McDonaldization is still on the march, certainly in developing countries.

This book is a crucial, superbly documented, text for all those who want to understand the world we live in.
A must read.

As the mother of five that relied on childcare during the many years of single parenting I think we tend to concentrate too much on the elite and their need for childcare. The notion that this childcare contributes to the foreign exchange is a little off base when in reality it contributes to an underground economy because the salaries are mostly off the books and taxes are not paid in any form. Safety issues also arise when you consider that most of the illegeal aliens caring for our children have never had childhood immunizations, and refuse the TB test. This may sound unimportant and nit picking but the reality is diseases we thought were erradicated like whooping cough can be traced to the unimmunized worker. Leaving your children behind to take care of mine is something we as a nation should give more thought about.

...Nevertheless, this book gives the reader valuable insight into the impact and opinions of women migrant workers in the service trades. All of the anthologized authors write in an accessible style free of academic jargon. I was particularly interested in the articles which did not have an American viewpoint and which presented the views of the women (and occasionally men) involved. For example, in various essays we get to meet Dominican women in the sex trade hoping to form relationships with European men; a college-educated Vietnamese women entering into an arranged marriage with an immigrant man holding an unskilled job in the U.S.; Filipina household workers laughing about the rules proposed by prospective Hong Kong employers; and a Sri Lankan man taking over the traditional woman's role to assist migrant relatives working in Saudi Arabia.

There are some gaps here, such as the lack of first-person narratives and the views of Eastern European women working in Western Europe, but no anthology can be all-inclusive. This book is a good start and will be an intersting learning experience for most readers.

Global Woman: Nannies, Maids, and Sex Workers in the New Economy, edited by Barbara Ehrenreich and Arlie Russell Hochschild, Metropolitan Books, Holt & Co, 2002.

Most of us are well aware of the patterns of illegal immigration which bring numerous undocumented workers to the US and other developed countries from less developed countries. Those who work in agriculture, lawn care, and low paying jobs like janitors are well known. This book takes a detailed look at female migrant workers. These include maids, nannies, nurses, those who care for the young and elderly and extends to those kidnaped or sold into the sex slave trade and those who seek marriageable partners in developed countries to obtain visas. A single mother can earn enough in a developed country as a nurse, a nanny or as a prostitute to leave her children behind in the care of a relative and pay for their education and daycare. This process gives her children access to a better education that can lift them out of poverty.

This book is a collection of essays authored with assistance of researchers from numerous third world countries. The sociological aspect is consistent with Ehrenreich's usual works--always rich with social commentary. This time she functions as editor and provides one chapter from her earlier experience at Merry Maids as told in Nickeled and Dimed. Hochschild is professor of sociology at Berkeley.

The major migratory pathways for women are described generally as from south to north. In the US, African American women accounted for 60% of domestics in the 1940s. They have now been replaced by Latinas mostly from Mexico and Central America. In Europe migrants come from Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union. In the oil rich Mideast, many come from Bangladesh, Indonesia, the Phillippines, and Sri Lanka. In France, they now come from Morocco, Tunisia, and Algeria; in Italy, from Ethiopia, Eritrea, and Cape Verde. Generally, migrants have replaced those who once came from poor rural areas of their own countries.

Several chapters on nannies and their problems are especially informative. The hours are long, overtime is seldom paid, time off it minimal, workers are sometimes farmed out to other families, or required to travel with the family on "holiday." The children often become attached to the nanny as part of the family, but this can result in jealousy on the part of birth mothers. Many nannies leave abruptly after an argument.

Various aspects of the sex trade are explored. In the Dominican Republic, married women may voluntarily go to the larger town of Sosua to work as prostitutes in the sex tourist industry. This good money is used to pay the family bills, but husbands sometimes spend the funds on alcoholism and gambling when the wife is away. Some prostitutes hope for a marriage proposal from German tourists. In Thailand, in the less prosperous mountain districts, daughters once were sold into sex slavery when the economic survival of the family required it. Now, rapid industrialization and rising standard of living have created major growth in sex tourism. Industrial workers have more money to spend on prostitutes. Mountain Thais now are more willing to sell their daughters to fund the purchase of electronics and other consumer goods.

In Viet Nam, the war killed many males and a disproportionate number of males were able to migrate to the US after the war. This has resulted in an over abundance of females. Educated females become un-marriageable. Arranged marriages with US citizens is one solution to this problem.

This book provides perspective on another aspect of the woman's rights movement in developing countries. Apparently several previous books have issued, but this subject has received little attention in the overall scheme of immigration policy. I saw no discussion of how these problems should be addressed. Presumably better laws are needed as well as a willingness to enforce existing laws in the case of the sex slavery and sex tourism. Different solutions seem appropriate in the case of licensed nurses who are aided in getting visas to fill a real shortage. The presence of undocumented migrants working as nannies and domestics is yet another problem. Perhaps different solutions are needed for each group. Mixing all of them in a single volume confuses the issues. The book lacks the impact it could have had.

This book is nicely done and thought provoking, but the absence of proposed solutions is a major omission. A collection of charts provide details of the female migrations. Notes. Bibliography. Index.

In brief essays, the authors present generally unbiased academic discussions of the globalization of female workers. Though hardly a new phenomenon, it has dramatically increased in the last 50 years and is a topic that is deserving of this type of examination. The topics are clearly delineated between domestic workers, cheap labor and the sex trade - however, there are unfortunates whose experiences range from one to the other out of necessity, desperation or coercion. This harsh reality of the vulnerability of these women is discussed with jargon-free, scholarly precision. Excellent for libraries, research and the well-read individual.

I was stationed in Naples from '91-'94. I roamed all over as military police. I saw corners of Naples that many Americans living there never even dream of visiting. My knowledge was based in hear-say though and I have now many years later begun to study the city and the country to better understand what I lived there. This book has been a real eye-opener. I suspect it is slightly sensationalistic but he tackles a topic that few authors want to and his life is on the line for it today. Hopefully more Italians will follow his lead and step up and make their society a better one free of the crime that haunts their land today. This is a long, long way from the other Italian books that I love - the ones by Francis Mayes.

I was shocked to see that I spent much of my free time in the heart of Camorra territory - Casal di Principe. I have friends there and we never spoke about the mafia. I was in that town day and night many, many times.

FWIW I felt safer in Naples at all hours than I have in many American cities and hope to go back someday for another extended visit.

I've read this book to find out more about the reality of Naples and surrounding areas. I found out instead what happens around all of us no matter where we are. The book helped me understand better what organized crime does (besides selling drungs and racketeering). I had NO IDEA.
This is not fiction and it is not narrative. This is information.

In America, we've almost romanticized the gangster lifestyle with depictions like those in the Godfather movies, Goodfellas, and the Sopranos. The diminished public presence of the American mafia has probably allowed us to forget the dark, violent gears that allow these machines to run. In this book, Roberto Saviano vividly describes the workings and rivalries of the Naples area, a place where crime families have nearly crippled the city.

When you begin reading this, it is evident that some of the translation from Italian to English did not come through clearly. Some of Saviano's metaphors and similies come across as downright odd, but blame this on the difference of the languages rather than the author or the translator. The book jumps around to different topics in a seemingly random way. Nonetheless Saviano's writing is clear enough to show just how horrifying and violent these criminal endeavors can be.

Overall, I would definitely recommend this book to anyone with even a passing interest in organized crime nonfiction. We're saturated with fictional stories of the mafia, and it's truly striking to hear these real-life accounts of extreme violence and corruption. An interesting book all around, never feeling tedious despite the oddities of translation.

I picked this up expecting an interesting and in-depth look at the author's infiltration of the Mafia in Sicily. I didn't make it far enough to see if it actually happened. This book failed the 50 page rule, meaning that it didn't get to the point and was not interesting enough to compel me to read past page 50.

A full-throttle look at Cammora crime from the nitty gritty ground level, "Gomorrah" is a look behind the curtain that suffers from an author with too intimate an approach to his subject. For a Neopolitan perhaps the geography, family and clan names, capos and underbosses, murders, victims and characters are a uniting thread; but, to the average American reader I think this translation of Saviano's originial Italian work lacks some critical elements that would help to make this story more than the timeline of crime it ends up being.

There is no real protagonist to unite the series of seemingly only loosely-related vignettes, unless one counts Saviano himself, but his role is more that of tour guide, standard-bearer and narrator.

Mixed in are some really interesting details about Cammora business, the purpose and organization of the system, and the lifestyle both for the connected and unconnected. But, these are sprinkled in among dizzying references to different criminal systems, families, clans and characters. Further complicating matters, the translation (I can't speak for whether it reflects the original work) is stark and breathless. In spite of the occasional turn of phrase, metaphor or analogy, the writing is spare and unadorned.

All in all, a staccato and stilted trip through what remains -- even after reading -- an unfamiliar vantage point on Italy.

As a social worker who deals with the population portrayed in this book day in and day out, I was very interested in reading a book that I hoped would help me understand a phenomenon that has intrigued me since the day I started my job. I was very pleased when I read this book as I thought that it did address its stated purpose in a factual but still thoughtful way. I enjoyed this book because the authors were able to keep away from giving the book a judgmental feel while still not appearing to condone the choices that these women made.
Although the book was a fantastic read, especially for those interested in the subject...beware. That is, the book itself is good but the subject matter is all too real and therefore all too disheartening. I say that because there is nothing in the book that I didn't already have a sneaking suspicion about: the selfishness that exists when so many people in this country, be them male/female, rich/poor, black/white, see no problem with creating and bringing a new life in to this world solely to serve their own unfulfilled needs....be them relational, monetary, social, personal, to get their "act" together, and the like.

The quotation from William Julius Wilson on the cover sounds "over the top," but it is not: "This is the most important study ever written on motherhood and marriage among low-income urban women." Edin and Kefalas set a high standard for ethnographic research. Unlike many other research projects, they did not simply "dip their feet into a flowing river" (with apologies to Heraclitus). They conducted hundreds of interviews among a diverse population over several years. One of them (Edin) actually lived for several years with her family in one of the neighborhoods: went to church there, shopped there, swapped stories about motherhood... i.e., became part of the community (really). The final study is a testament to the authors' tenacity, integrity, and professionalism. It is not difficult to understand why this book won a major award and has been so highly praised.
On a final note, if you are expecting extensive theoretical justification, you may be disappointed. This study is exceptionally well-written and rich in detail, but it is not, and does not pretend to be, "theoretical" -- at least not in the postmodern or critical sense. From my point of view, this is a merit, not a defect. Edin and Kefalas make a parsimonious, but significant claim regarding single urban mothers and support it with seemingly unimpeachable data. For most auditors, that counts as elegance. Elegance is enough.

I very much enjoyed reading 'Promises'. The depth of research is extensive. There is plenty of material here to draw your own conclusions or to append other research. My major criticism is the conflicting stories. I felt like I was reading a book written by ten different authors compiled by style in no particular order. I often felt a little sea sick. There is also a lot of redundancy. Nevertheless, there is a lot of useful original information.

Very interesting from a social perspective. Not alot is written about this subject for the lay person. I found it quite insightful.

This book examines why poor women have children prior to being married. The authors did a years-long, very intense, ethnographic study of dozens of poor women of all races in some of the worst neighbrhorhoods of Philadelphia.

The book is good. It is easy to read, and it maintains a nice balance between academic depth -- the authors are well read in their area, but are low key about it -- and engagement with their subjects. The authors care about these women, and that comes across.

The book has a number of conclusions, which are all, to some degree, unexpected.

First, the authors do not believe that the problem is poverty. Obviously, life for these women is more difficult, because they are poor, but that is not whey they have kids before they marry. After all, we have always had poor people, and, in the not so-distant past, the vast majority married before they had kids. No, the authors conclude, the fundamental reason why the poor have children before marriage is a massive cultural shift. Quite simply, marriage has been re-defined. It used to be that one could not have sex, have kids or be accepted as an adult, without being married. Now, marriage has been disconnected from all of these things. The authors see this shift as not being limited to the poor; indeed, they believe that the poor are simply following the middle class in this regard.

Second, although the authors see the poor as having the same basic values as the middle class, they believe that these values play out differently for the poor. The middle class generally gets married, prior to having children, because middle class women have alot to lose. They have careers. They have futures. Having kids, outside marriage, threatens all of this. Since the paramount goal is individual fulfillment, middle-class women do not threaten all of the good things in their lives by having children without any male support.

The poor, on the other hand, say our authors, basically have nothing in their lives which having children would threaten. They do not have a career. They work at lousy low-wage jobs, to which they can return after having kids, because what difference does it make. The authors portray their women as having so little in their lives that they see no downside to having kids by themselves. On the contrary, the authors report that poor women value children, and see the children as adding a great deal to their lives. Many of the subjects report that their lives were an out of control mess -- drinking, drugging, partying -- until they had kids, which is often reported as turning them around.

Third, this book reports a very bleak landscape between the sexes among the poor. Men are just no damm good, virtually all of the women in this book say. Men will not grow up, do not support their kids, chase other women, are often violently abusive and often wind up in jail. While most women report having a child as turning their lives around, and making them into responsibile adults, most of the men involved can not handle the responsibility and run away. It is deeply depressing to read how bitterly these women distrust the men in their lives. (I found that the account rang true, but, to be fair, the authors only spoke to poor women; they did not speak to poor men, who might give a different version.)

In the end, the book describes this odd paralled universe, in which poor women want children and marriage, but see children as easy to get and marriage as an impossible dream.

Very eye-opening book, and very depressing.

This book is one of the most significant modern restatements of just war thinking and also a passionate defense of the old principle of noncombatant immunity. The author is both thorough and persuasive in his exploration of a very intricate subject, although some times he loses his objectivity, especially when he's treating the Israeli military responses to various challenges from state and non-state actors. Some other times he takes some sharp legalist turns whish are really difficult to follow. Of course there are many points which really impressed me with their clarity, fine logic and moral soundness: "The state that goes to war is, like our own, an enormous state, governed at a great distance from its ordinary citizens by powerful and often arrogant officials. These officials, or at least the leading among them, are chosen through democratic elections, but at the time of the choice very little is known about their programs and commitments. Political participation is occasional, intermittent, limited in its effects, and is mediated by a system for the distribution of news which is partially controlled by those distant officials and which in any case allows for considerable distortion". "Soldiers, it might be said, stand to civilians like a crew of a liner to its passengers". " I have argued that soldiers in combatcannot plead self-preservation when they violate the rules of war. For the dangers of enemy fire are simply the risks of the activity in which they are engaged, and the have no right to reduce those risks at the expense of other people who are not engaged".

In his afterword, Mr Walzer gives a chilling idea of how a population (even an unarmed one) can tear down and defeat an occupying force. "Nonviolence has been practiced (in the face of an invasion) only after violence, or the threat of violence has failed. Then its protagonists aim to deny the victorious army the fruits of its victory through a systematic policy of civilian resistance and noncooperation: they call upon the conquered people to make themselves ungovernable... They treat the aggressor in effect as a domestic tyrant or usurper, and they turn his soldiers into policemen". If you add to this recipe some dozens of IEDs daily, you have the nightmare of Iraq!

It is the best book sold by the Amazon and at a cheaper price

Walzer's historical approach to examining just war theory is, I think, the most useful way to understand morality in war. That is so because empirical facts back up all the philosophical evaluations. Walzer describes experience and draws conclusions here; he is laying a philosophical foundation and implying, if not prescribing, moral norms from which the rules have been extracted. Be forewarned, he does not cut the reader any slack. This book requires some serious attention to the author's train of thought.

Just war theory has two categories: the justice of going to war, and the justice of fighting once in a war. Walzer's discussion usefully and clearly separates the two and examines via historical events what we regard as right and wrong within each sphere. In doing this he has done the modern world a tremendous service. His logical breakdown speaks to thousands of years of tradition about what thinkers have considered right and wrong in war. One of the best outcomes of this landmark work is the complete debunking of the notion that "all is fair in love and war." That is the path of least moral resistance (or as Clausewitz would say, "friction"), yet we all know that soldiers are honored for fighting well and loathed for behaving like armed thugs and murderers. What is amazing from the discusion is the realization that Walzer knows he has to attack that age-old notion, something our collective sense of justice has historically always rejected. Yet it remains a prevailing idea for many. Originally coined by the Romans it seems (Walzer quotes them, "In war the laws are silent"), they themselves were self-consciously contrite over the fates they inflicted on the Greeks and Carthaginians. The book rates five stars for rigorously addressing this issue alone.

Some make the mistake of thinking Walzer is a pacifist--far from it. On the otherside some critics find his argument about "supreme emergency" a moral failure and a cop-out. The case of Nazi Germany is his paradigmatic case of supreme emergency, one where normal rules may be relaxed, if ever so little, because of the especially pernicious nature of state-sponsored genocide. In contrast Walzer does not see Imperial Japan, for instance, as having represented a supreme emergency, and so the atomic bombings and the fire bombings of cities could not be morally justified. Readers may want to compare his view to Paul Fussell's perspective in the essay "Thank God for the Atom Bomb." Walzer's argument here has lent unintended tacit support to many ideas about torturing terrorists at Gitmo and elsewhere. It's pretty obvious Dick Cheney, for instance, thinks the same relaxation of restraints would apply to Islamic terror (but the analogy seems weak). I recommend readers to Tim Challans' book Awakening Warrior for a critique of Walzer's idea of supreme emergency and a very impressive logical attack upon the recent trend toward torturing POW's in prisons outside the USA.

Significantly for current events, readers interested in the distinction between pre-emptive and preventive war will find a well articulated argument in Just and Unjust Wars. The US attack on Iraq was and still is often justified as pre-emptive. That impulse on the part of the neo-conservatives who devised or whipped up the casus belli reflects, I think, a need to cloak a morally questionable war in the robes of legitimacy. There is no way that attack can be justified under the historically accepted norms of "pre-emption." Michael Walzer's well-thought distinction between pre-emption and prevention makes sense even in the milieu of asymmetric warfare against terror and Islamic radicalism, and it clearly shows why the Iraq war was a moral mistake from the start, regardless of its practical success down the road, if we are fortunate enough to see that. The moral precedent of engaging in preventive war will continue to haunt America long into the future. The fact that Iraq was not even on the spectrum where the fine line between pre-emption and prevention exists is a telling aspect of the overall ongoing strategic fiasco. Where one fails to recognize the moral high ground, one is doomed to moral failure. Walzer was vocal about the run-up to war in 2003, and those who read his book would do well to find his comments about the Iraq invasion; they are edifying in terms of understanding the overall argument in this book and, not coincidentally, where we are going in this role as the world's police force.

This is a very legalistic look at history. It helps one understand many of the words used in talking about wars.

At a lecture at West Point United States Military Academy April 6, 2006, Naom Chomsky argued, "Just war theory" literature "deserves special attention but is ultimately not very instructive about just war". "Just war theory" is "declarations of personal preference", which "never tells you anything. It doesn't tell you when it is proper to intervene, what it tells you is 'I think it is proper to intervene'...there is a big gap between assertion and argument, between surmise and evidence." "We learn very little about just war from 'Just war theory'" what we do learn is "mostly about the prevailing moral and intellectual climate in which we live." Walzer's book relies crucially on such premises as "Seems to me entirely justified, or I believe, or no doubt." Chomsky then discusses scientific studies on human behavior which is noticeably absent from Walzer's book.

Walzer uses the term "I think" at least 52 times in the book. "I don't think" 7 times. "I believe" twice, "no doubt" at least 41 times, and "seems to me" 12 times (I write "at least" because the same phrase twice on one page would be counted once.)

Walzer's hypocricy

In a book which suffers from terribly bad organization, on page 62 Walzer finally systematically lays out his arguments, stating that "Once the agressor state has been militarily repulsed, it can also be punished."

On December 29, 2005, in an interview on NPR Morning Edition ('Just and Unjust Wars' Author Critical on Iraq.) Walzer stated that the Iraq war was not a just war:

"If you are going to use military force in someone else's county...There has to be a cause of some urgency, a massacre in progress. A massacre in memory is not a just cause."

Therefore, if you follow Walzer's assertions to its obvious conclusion, the Iraq war was not a just war and therefore "the agressor state", the US, should "be punished."

But Walzer signed and endorsed The Euston Manifesto, which states in part:

"We are also united in the view that, since the day on which this occurred, the proper concern of genuine liberals and members of the Left should have been the battle to put in place in Iraq a democratic political order and to rebuild the country's infrastructure...rather than picking through the rubble of the arguments over intervention."

Therefore in Just and unjust wars, Walzer argues that "agressor states" should be "punished" but yet Walzer signs a document which criticize those who "pick through the rubble of the arguments over intervention."

Although the Iraq War is not covered in this book, Walzer's inconsistent views on the Iraq war should give serious students of International affairs pause before subscribing to his arguments. It is one mans opinion, full of statments such as "Seems to me entirely justified" "I believe" or "no doubt."

Walzer's arguments are unscientific rablings of one intellectual which are "ultimately not very instructive about just war".