Social Sciences Books

In response to the first (and only) review written, I write my own personal review. Manuals are manuals but this theraphy works and works well! I'm a patient and going through these skill classes now. I am telling you, I haven't felt this great in years!!! I've been suffering with PTSD and Depression for almost five years. This theraphy literally has saved my life and given me my life back. Don't kabash this book because it's a boring manual; read it and learn it if you're a worthy mental health professional because this stuff works! P.S. I'm glad my doctor read these manuals and workbooks ;)

I could barely drag myself through this book. I have to say it's the worst written clinical book in my 25 years of reading them. However, I understand that DBT is quite useful and effective, that's why I bought it. Hopefully I can find a better written text on this method of treatment.

Any clinician working in an inpatient, outpatient, residential, or ACT team who sees adults, adolescents or families and who is looking to consider implementing a research-proven treatment that works will find something helpful to guide them in this book. Having worked in DBT since the mid-1990's, I can see how this book would have helped me immensely to look at what to consider when starting or adapting a DBT program. Thanks for a useful guide full of insights from the experts in each of these areas. I knew Linda and Kelly were working on this book for a while and couldn't wait to see what all the experts they were able to bring together could contribute to a compilation like this. They have pulled together the best. Very useful.

I am a clinician with 14 years of experience successfully applying Dialectical Behavior Therapy with many, many clients in a variety of settings. This long-awaited book is very welcome, as it is written by many of the leaders in DBT who have made thoughtful, adherent modifications to standard DBT so that it can be used with a variety of clients and in a variety of clinical settings. Each of the clinicians contributing to this text outlines the specifics of their adaptations, saving the rest of us the trouble of "reinventing the wheel." Thank you so much for compiling such a wealth of information from so many accomplished clinicians! Beverly Long, PsyD, Licensed Psychologist

I found this book to be an intriguing and comprehensive analysis of the lives of the Hijras of India. Nanda through personal interviews and anthropological analysis paints a picture of their lives as both marginal and yet highly spiritual. She describes how in India the hijras play an important role in both the blessings of marriages and childbirth's. It also describes the process of decision making that they go through to become a true spiritual hijra by becoming eunuchs. It is an important study to read because it challenges ideas of sexuality and spirituality. By becoming a eunuch, the Hijras truly become neither man nor woman. With their spiritual connection, they also are able to feel a sense of pride in who they are. Although this does not mean that they are exempt from harassment, it gives them a spiritual capital with which to protect themselves. It is an important book to read as well because it challenges ideas of sexuality and especially homosexuality in the US and other cultures as well.

A classic, absolutely fascinating study of the transvestite eunuch hijras of India. Combining objectivity with sympathy and respect, the writer allows us to glimpse the feelings and aspirations of these people, whose lives encompass joy, sadness, degradation, liberation, hope. The reader comes to know the hijras as real people while gaining an understanding of a very ancient and significant way of life. Nanda's lucid writing and subtle insights are augmented by a marvelous collection of color photographs and vivid case histories, including numerous first person accounts. This book is a model for ethnographic study and will leave an indelible impression on the heart and mind of anyone who reads it.

While reading Nanda's Neither Man Nor Woman, I was struck by the sheer competancy and volume of her research. She truly gives a vivid, accurate picture of hijra life, ritual, and social attitude. The hijras are a group of traveling performers/prostitiutes who participate in ritualized castration. They are often homosexual, transsexual, or impotent men who are endowed by society with religious authority. They worship the Hindu Goddess Bahuchara Mata and participate in theatrical blessings of male children and newly weds. Nanda documents their rituals and beliefs while also defining their function within mainstream Indian society. My only point of criticism with Nanda'e work is her slight failure to fully demystify some of the ambiguities surrounding the hijras. One is never really certain of the actual definition and occupation of the hijras. However, after doing research on the hijras, Nanda's book is truly the most accurate and unbiased research available on hijra life. I would recommend it strongly.

I found this book very interesting and informative. I had read accounts of this type of goddess worship in ancient records (greek and roman)when I was a teenager but there was little cultural context and no rationale concerning the practices of emasculation. This book answered a lot of questions, why the operation, what the benefit to the devotee, who were these worshippers. I enjoyed finelly getting the answers to decades long questions.

This was a very interesting book on a very interesting group of people. Nanda did a superb job of describing the Hijras in the context of Indian society. The personal accounts of individual Hijras added a great perspective. My one problem with this book is that throughout, while striving to show the validity of the concept of more than two genders, Nanda gave the impression that she feels that the Western cultural concept of gender dichotomy is backward and naive. To me, this felt like an attack on Western culture, which I do not look for in supposedly unbiased ethnographies.

Guy Debord's THE SOCIETY OF THE SPECTACLE is one of the most widely quoted and important works of the past fifty years. Society as spectacle has become one of the most frequently used descriptors for modern consumer society and the media that reinforces its basic principles. For instance, in only the past couple of weeks I have encountered frequent mentions of Debord in Telotte's REPLICATIONS: A ROBOTIC HISTORY OF THE SCIENCE FICTION FILM as well as an essay on a number of recent important SF films by Bukatman (contained in Kuhn's first anthology of essays on SF film, ALIEN ZONE) entitled "Who Programs You? The Science Fiction of the Spectacle." One encounters Debord's central image in literary critics like Fredric Jameson and a host of writers on popular culture such as Greil Marcus (especially in his LIPSTICK TRACES: A SECRET HISTORY OF THE TWENTIETH CENTURY).

Marcus's discussion of the Spectacle is at best vague, but I believe that is part of the source of its power. One sees -- to stay on the level of the SF film -- in movies like ROBOCOP the spectacle in full bloom, as the mass media through advertising pushes onto the public utterly irrational products like the 6000 SUX, a large luxury automobile that explicitly celebrates its horrible gas mileage and somehow makes this a reason for desiring it (in the course of the film a gunman holding hostages makes one of his demands a huge car that gets "really sh*tty gas mileage, like the 6000 SUX"). One can associate a wide range of phenomena with the Spectacle, from the endless hawking of products that are supposed to result in "a better you" to political regimes like the Bush administration that used the explicit, bald-faced lie as its primary tool for governing to our endless preoccupation with pseudo-celebrities like Paris Hilton, Britney Spears, and the contestants on AMERICAN IDLE (yeah I know that is spelled wrong). It is a flexible and versatile image that gets at our brute suspicion that our world is increasingly obsessed with what is not important but with what is trivial and unimportant. Debord's insight that the system of the spectacle elevates untruths to the level of uncontested beliefs is constantly on view, such as the absurd contention that the American news media -- one of the most conservative and compliant to the needs of the corporations that own it -- is "liberal." And when entities as the very conservative American news media or politicians like the fiscally conservative Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter are defined as "liberal" it shifts the "center" so far to the right as to make the far, far right seem mainstream. And the few voices that point this out -- such as Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens, who points out that he is, while the most liberal current member of the U. S. Supreme Court, in fact a moderate conservative -- are ignored. The celebrities, the pageant, the epic verbiage, the spectacle obscures history and prevents any other understanding either of history or of what kind of society would actually serve our real needs.

Both the major virtue and a major vice of both THE SOCIETY OF THE SPECTACLE and Debord's COMMENTS are the almost complete lack of structure. The former is written as a series of over 200 "Theses" that ramble over a host of matters. These are loosely arranged in chapters but I emphasize the word "loosely." Many comments are immediately clear and easily understood. Some passages are opaque to anyone who is not intimate with the most obscure debates concerning Marxist and Communist history. Some theses are brilliantly written and cut to the heart of our contemporary society; some theses are so dull and irrelevant that they may be guilty of killing brain cells. To say that THE SOCIETY OF THE SPECTACLE is uneven is an understatement. The upside is that if you don't understand one page, nothing has been said to prevent you from understanding the next; if one page is flat, the next can be thrilling.

COMMENTS ON THE SOCIETY OF THE SPECTACLE is, compared to the earlier work, very easy to read and understand. There is still some vagueness, but there is little that is impenetrable. It does a somewhat better job of connecting up the various bits and parts. He is more explicit here about precisely what his targets are. There might be a small parallel to a passage in Kierkegaard that he quotes at length in THE SOCIETY OF THE SPECTACLE. PHILOSOPHICAL FRAGMENTS (actually "Crumbs" -- it is a Biblical reference to the crumbs that fell from the rich man's table; here Kierkegaard imagines himself as the poor subjective thinker who has to content himself with the crumbs from the table of the great objective philosopher Hegel -- so far no translator has been willing to give the book the less impressive but more accurate title) deals with the problem of Christianity "algebraically" (in the Swenson translation), while the much larger sequel CONCLUDING UNSCIENTIFIC POSTSCRIPT "clothes it in its historical dress." So THE SOCIETY OF THE SPECTACLE is more abstract; the COMMENTS more concrete. He makes several explicit (and scathing) references to Reagan; his allusions in the first book are far more illusive.

Despite Debord's hesitancy to be as clear as he might about his overall argument, his intent is clear: to indict the alliance and collusion between mass media, celebrity culture, market capitalism (and its expression in consumerism -- nicely captures in the title of Lizabeth Cohen's A CONSUMERS' REPUBLIC: THE POLITICS OF MASS CONSUMPTION IN POSTWAR AMERICA), and politics. And by remaining less than utterly specific, he made his work all that much more usable by other thinkers and writers. THE SOCIETY OF THE SPECTACLE remains one of the most important books for anyone interested in modern culture and society with which to be familiar, while the COMMENTS is an important tool in aiding that familiarity.

Read it and find out why...

Debord was a key member of the Situationists, that notable group of Parisien flaneurs (well, drunks, to be frank) who thought that by traversing the patchwork of the city on foot they could bring down the imposter structures of capitalist society from within. Sadly (or happily, depending on your socio-political point of view), they failed. But Debord's legacy remains in this fascinating book, broken down into Tractatus style fragments, a deeply philosophical book that examines the unreal nature of modern capitalism, the value of the commodity, something false, phoney, unreal. What happens, of course, is disillusionment with the commodity itself - Christmas presents received two days ago, at the time of writing, across the world are already discarded in cupboards, their value next to worthless as attentions move on.

Debord draws greatly on dialectics, that Hegelian structure of world history, inverted in a materialist fashion by Marx. Reality has given way to the spectacular - pseudo cities and countryside, not involving anything of reality or substance. People are alienated, wrapped up in a seizure of commodifying themselves to the hilt. And are miserable, of course. How to resolve this? Well, you could start by walking through the streets of your neighbourhood, intent on reclaiming the genuine and unravelling the structures of capitalism from...

I'm not sure if the translation is confusing, or the ideas being presented are confusing, or both. But this philosophical book is a lot of words written without saying much. I'm writing this because I purchased the book after reading the 17 reviewers who rated this book five stars. I was looking forward to an excellent treatise.
But instead I found the ideas confusing and random. It was difficult to
determine exactly was being presented.
I did like the Euclidean/Tractatus numbering system for the propositions.
But the ideas in those propositions weren't clearly written or easily understood by me.
To give you some background on me, I'm no fan of Hegel.
Ernest Becker's works give me a lot of insight, as do Nietzsche's.
I think this book assumes the reader is well-versed in Hegelian thought.
Maybe the reader needs to complete the Phenomenology of Mind before this work is accessible.

I haven't read any of the other translations of this text, however, this one reads quite fluidly.

The scope of the book sets the tone for one's consideration of contemporary events and societal relations. As research for a project on collaboration amongst individuals, the book was helpful in demonstrating that many forces are at work and are behind everything that exists in the world. This relates to collaboration in that each of us in a collaboration brings different histories to the table. The book also helps to illuminate the notion of the impossibility of non-collaboration. Even if the individual is from birth completely independant of others (which of course is quite improbable) their very existance comes into being through the cooperation of at least two separate forces (eg. the parents).

Debord shows us that the (two or more) forces which have led us to this point in history have done so, whether willingly or otherwise, together.

I needed this for my psychology class and the price was fair. I was disappointed though, b/c in the description it said no highlighting and there was moderate highlighting in the book. The main reason I had bought this particular one was b/c the seller had said in the description "no highlighting".

I am teaching a master's-level diversity course this fall, and was looking for material that was a bit more current. I've read about 2/3 of this book and so far am very impressed by the breadth of the issues and the honesty with which they've been addressed. This topic is an uncomfortable one, no matter how delicately it's handled, and I think the best we can hope for is first-person accounts that are honest and though-provoking without alienating the reader. These essays manage to walk that balance, and I've decided to assign the entire book to my class. I don't know yet whether we'll use it in its entirety, but we'll definitely be relying on it as a primary text.

"Scholars" like Rothenberg love to choose subjects like racism, Native American history, and feminism. They do this because these subjects allow them to not only feel "multicultural," but to feel as if they are somehow saying, "I told you so" to American conservatives and any white citizens who might feel that racism is overblown.

The fact is, racism is overblown. Take Hurricane Katrina for instance. African Americans and liberal whites were screaming, "RACISM!!" after the failure of FEMA to respond effectively to the disaster. This argument dies when you look at FEMA's response to Hurricane Andrew in 1992. That hurricane decimated predominantly white neighborhoods in Miami to the point that the chief of Miami disaster relief, Kate Hale, said, "Where the hell's the cavalry?" FEMA did not respond effectively then. In fact, they have never responded effectively to a major disaster. But, I suppose Katrina is different, right? Wrong.

Katrina is only one example in a sea of them. The Paula Rothenbergs of the world like to use South Africa as an example. They claim that country came together for a national dialog and collectively eliminated Apartheid. What they fail to acknowledge is the fact that their "invisible racism" is still alive an well in South Africa and always will be. White South African shop owners still prefer white South African customers. This will never change, no matter how many books like Rothenberg's are published.

There has never been a society without subtle preferences for one's own race and there never will be. As long as people like Paula continue to press white people for ever more "progress" on this "invisible racism," they'll merely push this supposed invisible-racism-free utopia further away.

This book was a pretty good source of article information for a class I took. If you are looking for something that helps open the mind regarding what "white" means in race/status this is the book for you.

This book is highly readable and the analysis is very good. The only reason people would be reacting so negatively is if they have an investment in perpetuating racism. If you do not, then you will appreciate this book and its contribution to helping us understand the dynamics of privilege and how we can unconsciously fuel racism. The first step to changing something is understanding it. Nothing is helped by sticking your head in the sand and denying a problem exists. I encourage everyone who cares about ending the racist (and sexist and classist) power structure in our society to read this book.

This book is ridiculously myopic and ignorant at best, extremely racist at worst.

If you are intelligent enough to realize that word "racism" applies to all races, then you don't need this book. If, however, you think that the only people who are racist are whites, make sure you pick this book up to for your propaganda horse-blinders.

Simply because the book is well written does not make it true. If the author states something as fact, don't buy into it. If the author cites a source, check out the source; it will be, without a doubt, written by someone who shares the exact same mendacious views (Who's parroting now?). Citing a source that is without any genuinely academic purpose does not create a strong foundation for supporting an already weak hypothesis. Even the author, within the first 10 pages, admits that what she is trying to prove is "invisible", and therefore that much more insidious. In other words, the department of "I just pulled these stats, findings, thoughts, citations, and facts out of my rear" is alive and well within this book.

If you read this book with an open-mind, and you haven't already been tainted by one side or the other, you'll see more hypocrisy in this book than a book titled "Why I Love and Practice Democracy" written by Joseph Stalin. Within the first two chapters you'll find yourself wanting to debate the author, calling her out on her BS, and asking her why there aren't inter-connected footnotes that chronicle her contradictions.

If I could give it zero stars, I would. The book does nothing but stoke the coals of racial tensions, persuading those who believe in "The Man" and "The System" to dig in their heels with their misguided and misinformed positions.

It wasn't long ago that I was a very active and outspoken advocate of social change, an activist if you will. I marched on the WTO convention in Seattle and have joined numerous activist groups in protesting the ills of American society, the economy and our awful "President" Bush and his senseless wars on Afghanistan and Iraq. I would like to see a reformed America where people are truly equal. One thing I was fond of taking a stance against was racism, or at least, what I thought was racism.

However, after attending rally after rally and marching alongside everyone from Black Power advocates, La Raza, gay/lesbian/bisexual rights workers, punk rock anarchists and various Maoist and Marxist groups(a philosophy I have since renounced), I slowly began to realize that "racism" when spoken by activists on the Left had a different meaning than what I thought it was. Racim basically equals white people, and white people equals bad.

I cannot march with such hypocrites anymore. I will not stand up for equality when I'm told I should be ashamed for what my ancestors did, nevermind that those accusers know nothing of who my ancestors were and what they experienced. I'm tired of being guilty for being white. When I discussed this with a La Raza member at a recent antiwar demonstration he merely replied "Well, I hate to say it, but you guys kinda deserve it...I mean, you did invent it."

It is this kind of idiocy that permeates the anti-racist movement in America. When they talk of racism, what they really mean is bad bad Whitey, slavery, and "Eurocentrism". But never do you hear about the thousand year old oppression of the Irish by their Anglo Saxon neighbors in England. Rarely will you hear about the discimination faced by Lapps in Finland. And if you mention the Rwandan genocide of the Tutsis people will claim that whites instigated it and turn a blind eye to similarly brutal tribal warfare in other parts of Africa. Mention the vicious attacks upon black Sudanese by Arabs of the north and you'll get confused looks. Mention the name Idi Amin and you'll get people asking "Who?".

Taking a stand against racism means you should take a stand against ALL FORMS OF RACISM! It isn't race exclusive. If African powers colonized America instead of European ones and whites or other ethnic groups were enslaved then the result would be the same! Have whites committed atrocities against peoples of different color? Of course. Have blacks? Oh yes. Have asians? Some of the worst in human history.

The point of my argument is that human beings are human beings, and all are capable of brutality against those they feel are different. This includes the Aztecs and Mayans that Latino activists like La Raza and MeCHA are so fond of admiring, and African civilizations such as Kush and Nubia that Afrocentric intellectuals fawn over. It is just as Nieztche said: The strongest and most succesful of nations are those who are well practiced in cruelty.

If anything, the anti-racist movement in America promotes segregation and isolationism more than it promotes peace and tolerance. Basically, their core belief is that whites are bad, but everyone else is ok. Because of this, I cannot in good conscience support a movement which seeks a racist role-reversal instead of destroying racism in all its forms utterly and completely.

Free your mind

This text provided the most basic background for selecting the sampling technique. This book is an excellent introduction to basic survey research and provided the framework from which to consider this project. As this project goes beyond the scope of this text, it became necessarily to imagine what alternatives existed given the material provided in this text. Some of the options were available in other texts, such as books on SPSS and GIS computer software, as well as some of the information in Ethnography Step by Step, which provided additional information on computer data collection options available to researchers.