Take a photo of a barcode or cover
calarco 's review for:
The True Believer: Thoughts on the Nature of Mass Movements
by Eric Hoffer
Here Eric Hoffer examines the nature of "mass movements," specifically arguing that while all movements are not identical, there are universal elements that extend over phenomena of this nature. While Hoffer does make some interesting points, ultimately "The True Believer" fails to make any truly cohesive arguments.
First off, while the entire work focuses on "mass movements," Hoffer fails to succinctly define what exactly this term means. Hoffer does explain how they are perpetuated; "A movement is pioneered by men of words, materialized by fanatics and consolidated by men of action" (147). He identifies examples of motivations, such as political, national, religious, social, etc. However, he fails to explain what encompasses the parameters of a "mass movement." Must one attain a societal level of influence to be a movement? How many must be involved for a movement to be considered mass? Could a mass movement have either a shared ideology or a common goal, or do one of these motivations suffice?
It is likely Hoffer is purposefully nebulous to better push for mass movements' over-arching universality, but by setting aside the contextual intentionality behind specific movements, his cherry-picked examples fail to support the bold claims of his thesis. The two examples Hoffer most cites are the movements of Fascism and Communism. Common elements he finds between the two are the denunciation of the present for a more idealized future, the desire of individuals to join something larger than themselves that absolves them of their personal failures, the prioritization of faith in the movement over individual people, motivation from hate of the "other," etc. Rather than finding comprehensive truths, I feel Hoffer has pointed out the commonalities of authoritarian regimes, or cults to a lesser extent.
As he does not properly explore how these shared traits could apply to positive mass movements, such as abolition, women's suffrage, or the Civil Rights Movement. In fact, he is quite dismissive of arguments for equality stating, "The passion for equality is partly a passion for anonymity... They want to eliminate free competition and the ruthless testing to which the individual is continually subjected in a free society" (33). This is a patronizing dismissal that could only come from someone who has not had their civil rights infringed upon, or had their children sold away never to be seen again. Just sayin'.
Another problem lies in Hoffer's assessment that conservatism is a belief rooted in maintaining the present. As he argues that mass movements denounce the present, his political spectrum ranges from the conservative preserving the present to the radical seeking change for the future. This does not hold up today, as much of modern conservatism is rooted in nostalgia for the past (i.e., the Tea Party movement, Make America Great Again, etc.), rather than preserving the current status quo. As he posits mass movements to be the antithesis of individualism, this assessment also eerily reflects FBI propaganda denouncing the Civil Rights movement as the gateway to Communism. This is why clearly defining the components of an argument matters. That said, this is not Hoffer's only miss-characterization.
In "Part 2" where Hoffer denotes the demographics of people likely to take part in mass movements, he comes up with some pretty nonsensical categories. These include: "misfits," "the inordinately selfish," "minorities," "the bored," and "sinners." Professionals from the social sciences to the humanities love to categorize people, but rather than helping to bolster his reasoning, these categories are more reflective of Hoffer's personal worldview than anything else.
Lastly, perhaps the worst part of Hoffer's argument, is his insistence that Western culture and religion are civilizing agents juxtaposed to the rest of the primitive world. He claims that "Foreign influence seems to be the prevailing factor in the process of social renascence" (166), which is true in that cultural exchanges can lead to innovative ideas and may impact both parties involved. However, in his examples he prioritizes the achievements and influences of Western ideology.
This arrogance comes to an apex when Hoffer asks, "One wonders whether India's capacity to produce Gandhi or Nehru is due less to rare elements in Indian culture than to the long presence of the British Raj" (166). I find it hard to believe Gandhi was getting inspiration for his non-violent protests from an inherently violent form of British colonialism, over Indian Buddhism. Again, just sayin'.
Overall, I found this work to be more reflective of Hoffer's personal worldview and ego, rather than offering new insights into the nature of "mass movements," whatever those are anyway. This book will leave you with more perplexing questions than thoughtfully fleshed-out answers.
First off, while the entire work focuses on "mass movements," Hoffer fails to succinctly define what exactly this term means. Hoffer does explain how they are perpetuated; "A movement is pioneered by men of words, materialized by fanatics and consolidated by men of action" (147). He identifies examples of motivations, such as political, national, religious, social, etc. However, he fails to explain what encompasses the parameters of a "mass movement." Must one attain a societal level of influence to be a movement? How many must be involved for a movement to be considered mass? Could a mass movement have either a shared ideology or a common goal, or do one of these motivations suffice?
It is likely Hoffer is purposefully nebulous to better push for mass movements' over-arching universality, but by setting aside the contextual intentionality behind specific movements, his cherry-picked examples fail to support the bold claims of his thesis. The two examples Hoffer most cites are the movements of Fascism and Communism. Common elements he finds between the two are the denunciation of the present for a more idealized future, the desire of individuals to join something larger than themselves that absolves them of their personal failures, the prioritization of faith in the movement over individual people, motivation from hate of the "other," etc. Rather than finding comprehensive truths, I feel Hoffer has pointed out the commonalities of authoritarian regimes, or cults to a lesser extent.
As he does not properly explore how these shared traits could apply to positive mass movements, such as abolition, women's suffrage, or the Civil Rights Movement. In fact, he is quite dismissive of arguments for equality stating, "The passion for equality is partly a passion for anonymity... They want to eliminate free competition and the ruthless testing to which the individual is continually subjected in a free society" (33). This is a patronizing dismissal that could only come from someone who has not had their civil rights infringed upon, or had their children sold away never to be seen again. Just sayin'.
Another problem lies in Hoffer's assessment that conservatism is a belief rooted in maintaining the present. As he argues that mass movements denounce the present, his political spectrum ranges from the conservative preserving the present to the radical seeking change for the future. This does not hold up today, as much of modern conservatism is rooted in nostalgia for the past (i.e., the Tea Party movement, Make America Great Again, etc.), rather than preserving the current status quo. As he posits mass movements to be the antithesis of individualism, this assessment also eerily reflects FBI propaganda denouncing the Civil Rights movement as the gateway to Communism. This is why clearly defining the components of an argument matters. That said, this is not Hoffer's only miss-characterization.
In "Part 2" where Hoffer denotes the demographics of people likely to take part in mass movements, he comes up with some pretty nonsensical categories. These include: "misfits," "the inordinately selfish," "minorities," "the bored," and "sinners." Professionals from the social sciences to the humanities love to categorize people, but rather than helping to bolster his reasoning, these categories are more reflective of Hoffer's personal worldview than anything else.
Lastly, perhaps the worst part of Hoffer's argument, is his insistence that Western culture and religion are civilizing agents juxtaposed to the rest of the primitive world. He claims that "Foreign influence seems to be the prevailing factor in the process of social renascence" (166), which is true in that cultural exchanges can lead to innovative ideas and may impact both parties involved. However, in his examples he prioritizes the achievements and influences of Western ideology.
This arrogance comes to an apex when Hoffer asks, "One wonders whether India's capacity to produce Gandhi or Nehru is due less to rare elements in Indian culture than to the long presence of the British Raj" (166). I find it hard to believe Gandhi was getting inspiration for his non-violent protests from an inherently violent form of British colonialism, over Indian Buddhism. Again, just sayin'.
Overall, I found this work to be more reflective of Hoffer's personal worldview and ego, rather than offering new insights into the nature of "mass movements," whatever those are anyway. This book will leave you with more perplexing questions than thoughtfully fleshed-out answers.