Rating: 
Summary: A Fascinating Author; A Little Classic
Review: It is no accomplishment to trash a book. Many, who clearly do not understand what Hoffer is writing about or what he is saying, have criticised him over the forty plus years since first publication of "The True Believer". Hardly any of Hoffer's critics have a single accomplishment that equals "True Believer."
Let me tell you a little about this unique man. Eric Hoffer did not finish elementary school. A rare disease struck him blind. Possessing an insatiable curiosity, Hoffer studied on his own, getting anyone he could corner to read to him. He developed powerful memory skills to compensate for his blindness and limited resources. He wrote his books entirely in his mind while laboring and wrote them out when he was done. He could recite verbatim any page of any of his books. (Bill Moyers had him demonstrate this profound memory skill during a PBS interview.)
A new medical proceedure reclaimed Hoffer's sight when he was about 19. It was too late for schooling. He had to work. Hoffer lived much of his adulthood as a drifting laborer. He worked as a miner, a prospector, a dishwasher, a longshoreman. He never stopped learning. This unusual man, who understood his fellow Longshoreman and respected the common man, was able to engage fellow laborers in deep philosophical discussions. That is something no professor can do with a classroom full of university students. Like a Socrates of the docks, Hoffer learned much from orchastrating discussions with his humble work mates. I suspect he got the idea from the life and work of great thinkers such as Plato and Aristotle, ageless works most professors want students to ignore.
Hoffer was dedicated to a life of learning. A practical, rugged man, Hoffer understood the wisdom of seeking knowledge for the sake of knowledge. He read only the best writing: Plato, Aristotle, Shakespeare, Locke, Mills, books or science. With his contemporary, Mortimer J. Adler, Hoffer detested text books & abridged works of literature.
Everything interested him. Nothing escaped his observant mind. One story should give you the flavor of this career autodidact. Hoffer had a few questions no one could answer to his satisfaction. One invloved 'why does grass grow up, not down or sideways.' He drifted to California, rented a sleeping room near a major library and took a job nearby as a dishwasher. He worked just enough to eat, buy shelter and basic supplies. Hoffer invested the rest of his time Hoffer studying in the huge public library.
Hoffer's first book "True Believer" (1951) was a best seller and it brought him fame. It is a well written, thin book, as are all four of his books. "True Believer" brought Hoffer to the attention of President Eisenhower, and before Hoffer died, another president awarded him a Presidential Medal of Freedom, an honor bestowed on few people.
UCLA was so impressed with Hoffer's independent mind and writings that he was offered a full Professorship in Psychology. Hoffer accepted but resigned a few years later, prefering the streets to the more comfortable campus. In effect, Hoffer said he left so he could think.
"True Believer" has never been out of print. Some publisher, somewhere has always made the book available. Hoffer's other books have been in and out of print several times over the years. Hoffer wrote exceptionally well. He was a prose stylist. Late in life, Bill Moyers asked Hoffer what he wanted to be remembered for. To the interviewer's surprise , Hoffer chuckled & replied: "He could write a good sentence". Hoffer could do more than write powerful sentences. He wrote powerful, thought provoking essays, which is what his thin books amount to, powerfully written essays.
The basic observations of "True Believer" are still compelling. There is a social type who gravitates to extreme ideologies and extreme political movements. the basic personality of fanatics on the extreme left and fanatics on the extreme right are similar, if not the same. It is equally true that it is a tendency of this type to migrate from one extreme to the other.
If you seek insight into what makes the extreme mind tick, you will not find all the answers here but you will leave satisfied that you gained something from reading "The True Believer."
By the way, more than a few people have learned to write well by reading and learning the rhythm of Hoffer's prose, a style based on the American cavalier writing style of simple, straight forward sentences. Hoffer would advise us to: 'begin and end each sentence with a punch. He did exactly that.
Rating: 
Summary: Generally well done (though by its nature imperfect)
Review: A few insights struck me as particularly noteworthy:
1. How aggressive mass movements such as Communism and Islamic radicalism differ from the would-be lunatic movements in American politics today. Hoffer points out that a truly vigorous mass movement requires self-sacrifice - but even the most devoted tree-hugger, Bush-worshipper or anti-abortionist is unlikely to want to be blown up for their cause of choice.
2. Hoffer foreshadows the collapse of Communism, by suggesting that a dictatorship's most dangerous moment is when it relaxes its restraints. Communism survived Stalin, but not Gorbachev. A logical inference: North Korea is probably more stable than China.
3. Hoffer's analysis of the difference between conservatives/liberals and radicals/reactionaries. The conservative and the liberal both revere the present. The conservative "doubts that the present can be bettered" while the liberal "sees the present as the legitimate offspring of the past and as constantly growing and changing toward an improved future." By contrast, the "radical and the reactionary loathe the present [and] see it as an aberration and the deformity." The reactionary differs from the radical by seeking to recreate the past, but even this difference may be illusory because the reactionary's "image of the past is based less on what it actually was than on what he wants the future to be." Today, the American Right seems dominated by the latter rather than the former, seeking to remake government (if not society) by crushing it with debt.
I agree with most of the positive comments. Certainly, Hoffer's generalities are not universally applicable: but Hoffer himself anticipates these problems, stating that the typical 2-star reviewer "is likely to feel that much has been exaggerated and much ignored. But this is not an authoritative textbook. It is a book of thoughts, and it does not shy away from half-truths so long as they seem to hint at a new approach and to formulate new questions."
The 2-star reviewer wrote that totalitarians "subdue and rule through force" rather than through belief. But this analysis begs the question: how do these totalitarians take over in the first place? Usually on the backs of an army of true believers, who then oppress the apolitical masses.
But Hoffer does fail to address the death of mass movements: how did fanatics stop becoming fanatics after (for example) the defeat of Nazis and Japanese ultranationalists in WW 2?
Rating:
Summary: a must read
Review: As for the reviewer who is harshly critical of Hoffer, he obviously didn't read the book or somehow didn't grasp Hoffers assertions. This is a great book that helped me understand the behavior of other people and groups of people. It also helped me understand why the war in Iraq has been tremendously more difficult than anticipated. Our government failed to understand the people and culture of Iraq. This is a book that I will insist my children read when they get old enough. This is probolly one of the 5 best books I have ever read.
Rating:
Summary: This should be on everyone's bookshelf
Review: Eric Hoffer, not a scholar (in the traditional sense), but visionary and a longshoreman who wrote philosophical treatises in his spare time. This book was written in 1951, made famous when cited by Eisenhower during a press conference, and just as relevant today as when it was conceived.
Both straightforward and riveting, The True Believer lays bare the essential and unifying characteristics of all mass movements and their appeal to certain frustrated minds. Hoffer explains the various phases of mass movements, the mindsets of individuals who join them, and how reactions to the movements perpetuate more mass movements.
This should be on everyone's bookshelf (placed in between Machiavelli and the Declaration of Independence).
Rating:
Summary: Learn what lurks beneath the mind of an extremist
Review: First published in 1951, this is one of very few books then that probed into the mind of a true believer whose blind faith and single-minded allegiance had nearly destroyed the world in the last century. 50 years on, some of Hoffer's analyses still ring true for fundamentalists, extremists and even terrorists which we now labeled these true believers. What makes Hoffer's book so remarkable is his ability to filter out the common ingredients that gave rise to mass movements hitherto and traced them to their roots. And he ended up in the psyche of an insecure and frustrated individual. His non-academic background largely contributed the book's originality since he was not strait-jacketed by the dominant thoughts in his times. Though some might feel uncomfortable with his sweeping generalisations without the rigors of scientific analysis, I do not see it as a major defect since the subject matter is unique and difficult to duplicate under control environment. All in all, this is a brilliant and deeply insightful book for anyone who wants to peek into what lurks inside the minds of true believers or anyone who wishes to lead them.
Rating: 
Summary: Wacko Hullaballoo!
Review: The dust jacket for the original 1951 print sells "The True Believer" as insight into Stalin's "'secret weapon,' his ability to generate enthusiasm and self sacrifice in all manner of people." It's a misleading premise. Stalin and many of Hoffler's other examples are less mass movement leaders than totalitarian dictators! They do not sweep unfulfilled people off their feet, but subdue and rule through force. Myriad peoples struggle to get away from the world's "Stalins," not follow them! The Soviet Union and scores of dictatorships have fallen in recent decades because the "leader" exhausted resources trying to *contain* "his people!" In short, there is no differentiation between "mass movement" and reign of terror! Broadly, Hoffer claims there is a mass movement man/personality, afraid of his own freedom - of facing himself. Why then, did vanquished Nazis (the epitome of Hoffler's "true believers") strive desperately to surrender to the U.S. rather than fall into the hands of Soviets (the other epitome)? Hoffler theorizes that "true believers" would rather go from communist to fascist, or vice versa, rather than become a democrat - for the "true believer," any mass movement is preferable to individuality. Then wouldn't Nazis abhor America's individual freedoms and run instead into the bosom of Stalin's "mass movement?" For the best answer to that, ask folks who ran through barbed wire and climbed a Wall to get to the West.
More troubling is Hoffer's consistent allusion that slaves want to be slaves. For example, Hoffer pulls these theories out of his rump: "The absolute equality among the slaves, and the intimate communal life in slave quarters, preclude individual frustration." And, "The segregated Negro in the South is less frustrated than the non-segregated Negro in the North" (#26, 40). Tell it to Rosa Parks! Much of this book is an insult to oppressed people... and to many of America's guiding principles. For most of Hoffer's theories, he cherry picks one example from scores of nations and thousands of years. A gullible reader could think up further examples to support Hoffer's claims. And a mildly discerning reader could come up with a handful of counter examples. In short, Hoffer explains mass movements like Nostradamus explains the future. In fairness, Hoffer is dead on with some points (wink). Like when he says failed or dried up artists "become the most violent extremists in the pursuit of their holy cause" (#37). The example of Hitler "verifies" this theory. And so does my friend Joe. He used to do cartoon sketches of people (giant head, small body). He'd ask what their favorite sport was, and sketch in a tennis racquet or skis, etc. One day he lost his touch -- and he is now the most rabid 49er fan I know! In Hoffler style, here's my rating guide: People who give 5 star reviews are eager to praise something outside themselves. A leader who promises answers easily sways them. For example, Italians who cheered Mussolini were 5 star people. 1 star reviewers show disaffection with the book, reflecting their internal emptiness. They are despondent, ripe to be enthralled by a more charismatic book, and are prime candidates for a cult. For example, people who were bored with The Backstreet Boys were easily swept up by the flashy propaganda of N Sync. 4 star people are sad, pathetic losers. They are perhaps most dangerous to global stability. 3 star reviewers are compromisers, clinging to a middle ground. Afraid to choose, they are desperate for a mass movement to choose for them. 3 star movements include Bolshevism, early Christianity, and Hulkamania. I give 2 stars. And I recommend the writings and life of Orwell (not too much, I mean I don't worship the guy or anything!) for clearer takes on "mass movements" and individuality. Peace out, fellow individuals!
Rating:
Summary: I USED TO BE ONE!
Review: The key to understanding destructive human organizations. The world is built by practical organisations, and it is periodically damaged or destroyed by "mass movements". From religous cults to the the open source movement, all mass movements have a similar structure and dynamic.
Rating:
Summary: Pegs the previous reviewer
Review: The reviewer, with his hip Michael Moore attitude, obviously didn't understand the book. He makes reference to the Nazis wanting to surrender to the Allies rather than the Soviets--um, did Hitler/Goebbels/Himmler surrender to *anyone*? The nonideological soldiers, the middle men, they weren't the "true believers", the members of the mass movement who articulated the vision of the Third Reich, who invested their egos into the identity of National Socialism, went down w/ the ship. The suicide rate amongst Germans at the end of WWII was higher than the suicide rate amongst Jews in the concentration camp. Not everyone living under a tyrannical minority is a member of a mass movement, not everyone is a "true believer". As Hoffer said so himself, "The game of history is usually played by the best and the worst over the heads of the majority in the middle." Yeah, the previous reviewer sure did read this book, didn't he! As for the interchangability between Nazis and Commies--it often happened, however it requires some amount of cognitive dissonance to trigger the change. A traumatic event, or a revelation. We see it often on the scale of American culture--David Horowitz and David Brock, Dennis Miller and Ariana Huffington, for example. Fundamentalist Christians become militant atheists. Militant atheists become fundamentalist Christians. Hoffer's conclusion does not differ much from a LEFT wing psychoanalyst, Erich Fromm, who articulated similair views about tribalism as the result of individual narcissism sublimated into group narcissism. They seem to be working on the same wavelength, at least when it comes to group think, group psychosis. "A man is likely to mind his own business when it was worth minding. When it is not, he takes his mind off of his own meaningless affairs by minding other people's business." "Mass movements can rise and spread without the belief in God, but never without belief in a devil." Gee, what irrational side of the political spectrum does *that* describe? ABB? "Those who find no difficulty in decieving themselves are easily decieved by others." Hoffer is not perfect and he stretches on some points. He also approaches mass movements from an amoral point of view--ie, if there was some group out there that miraculously had the truth w/ a capital T, whether divine or scientific in a Grand Unified Theory way, it would still be just like other mass movements preying on the same psychological weaknesses. This book is about human nature and the tribal instinct, not specific moral values. A masterpiece nonetheless, that dissects much of the current worldwide political climate.
Rating:
Summary: Pegs the previous reviewer
Review: The reviewer, with his hip Michael Moore attitude, obviously didn't understand the book. He makes reference to the Nazis wanting to surrender to the Allies rather than the Soviets--um, did Hitler/Goebbels/Himmler surrender to *anyone*? The nonideological soldiers, the middle men, they weren't the "true believers", the members of the mass movement who articulated the vision of the Third Reich, who invested their egos into the identity of National Socialism, went down w/ the ship. The suicide rate amongst Germans at the end of WWII was higher than the suicide rate amongst Jews in the concentration camp. Not everyone living under a tyrannical minority is a member of a mass movement, not everyone is a "true believer". As Hoffer said so himself, "The game of history is usually played by the best and the worst over the heads of the majority in the middle." Yeah, the previous reviewer sure did read this book, didn't he! As for the interchangability between Nazis and Commies--it often happened, however it requires some amount of cognitive dissonance to trigger the change. A traumatic event, or a revelation. We see it often on the scale of American culture--David Horowitz and David Brock, Dennis Miller and Ariana Huffington, for example. Fundamentalist Christians become militant atheists. Militant atheists become fundamentalist Christians. Hoffer's conclusion does not differ much from a LEFT wing psychoanalyst, Erich Fromm, who articulated similair views about tribalism as the result of individual narcissism sublimated into group narcissism. They seem to be working on the same wavelength, at least when it comes to group think, group psychosis. "A man is likely to mind his own business when it was worth minding. When it is not, he takes his mind off of his own meaningless affairs by minding other people's business." "Mass movements can rise and spread without the belief in God, but never without belief in a devil." Gee, what irrational side of the political spectrum does *that* describe? ABB? "Those who find no difficulty in decieving themselves are easily decieved by others." Hoffer is not perfect and he stretches on some points. He also approaches mass movements from an amoral point of view--ie, if there was some group out there that miraculously had the truth w/ a capital T, whether divine or scientific in a Grand Unified Theory way, it would still be just like other mass movements preying on the same psychological weaknesses. This book is about human nature and the tribal instinct, not specific moral values. A masterpiece nonetheless, that dissects much of the current worldwide political climate.
Rating:
Summary: An important read for 2001
Review: The True Believer is an oldie but goodie. First published in 1951, it should be read today. It is on the psychology of mass movements and how they can transform practical purposes in to holy causes. Half the book is on the mental state of the fanatical true believer. Part 1 is about mass movements and their appeal. Part 2 is about the psychology of the potential convert. This believer will possess a belief in an irresistible power, whether it be Marxism (for Bolsheviks), Blitzkrieg (Nazis), Man's Reason (French Revolution), or Islam. In Part 3, Hoffer focuses on the factors that promote self sacrifice and the unifying effect that common hatred of a tangible enemy, suspicion, imitation, or other agents can have. The book closes with a discussion of good and bad mass movements. Especially interesting to the reader in late 2001 will be the discussion on the fervently enthusiastic adherents who are ready to die for the movement. The author begins with the hypothesis that frustrated people are drawn to mass movements in its revivalistic phase, and it is the frustration of the adherent that can be directed and channeled by the movement. He writes that the adherent will be discontented but not destitute, and believe that through their possession of a potent doctrine or infallible leader, they will possess irresistible power. Many will find mass movements appealing so that they can self-renunciate themselves, or rid themselves of the unwanted self; a lost faith in oneself is substituted for faith in the movement. In Hoffer's discussion of the interchangeability of movements, he goes on to posit that the adherent is ripe for any movement, and can be receptive to another movement (Attention Pakistan... redirection of adherents is possible)
|
