Other than defining "rankism", there is not much else to this book. The author spends most of the book defining and giving examples of rankism. He does not talk much about "overcoming the abuse of rank", as the title suggests he will. He cites a few examples of where some groups are already making progress, but he does not really say what others should do, except maybe "join together". On some occasions, seems to be implying that the world is on its way to eliminating rankism, so we can just sit back and wait for this new utopia to come about.
He also likes to compare rankism to both sexism and racism. He suggests that rankism can be eliminated, just like sexism and racism have been. Huh? There has been progress made against these other "isms", but Fuller really is living in an ivory tower if he thinks they no longer exist.
"Somebodies and Nobodies" does a decent job of pointing out that rankism exists, but does very little to provide answers.
[↑]
Robert fuller introduces us to "rankism" in this thought provoking book. He sees racism and sexism as specific examples of the more general and insidious malady of rank based abuse. Rankism occurs when rank-holders use the power of their positions to secure unwarranted advantages or benefits for themselves. He gives examples including a boss harassing an employee, a customer demeaning a waiter, a coach bullying a player, a doctor disparaging a nurse, a teacher humiliating a student, and a parent belittling a child. Rankism divides us into somebodies and nobodies, and the bad news is that even the sombodies spend much of their time as nobodies. He blames abuse, discrimination, martyrdom, and even terrorism on rankism.
He is careful to draw a distinction between rank, which he sees as essential to efficient organization, and rankism, which is a harmful abuse of rank. He connects his ideas of rankism to power, dignity, recognition, disrespect, martyrdom, democracy, and human rights. He suggests solutions and provides a vision of a dignitarian society, which he sees as preferable to an egalitarian one.
I enjoyed reading this important book and learned a lot from it, however it would benefit from more rigor and less redundancy. He supports his claims with anecdotes and repetition rather than with systematic data and research findings. He fails to provide operational definitions of key concepts such as dignity, and does not carefully illustrate distinctions between concepts such as rank and rank abuse.
[↑]
Robert Fuller clearly put his heart and soul into Somebodies and Nobodies and it was certainly an interesting read. I found some of the repetition a bit tedious so I have to admit to skimming the latter third of the book. There is a lovely bibliography in the back and I will be perusing it for some ideas to add to my wishlist. I am glad I read the book; it verified a lot of the life lessons my grandmother taught me as a child.
[↑]
The underlying premise of this book, that all people deserve to be treated with equal dignity, is an old concept, often embodied in the Golden Rule ("Do unto others as you'd have done unto yourself"). However, the primary point here seems to be that creating a new terminology will enable a more productive discussion of the abuses of rank that rob people of their dignity. Whether such a discussion would inevitably lead to the societal changes suggest here is unclear, but the goals are certainly admirable.
However noble the author's intentions, this book is a bit of a chore to read. The arguments quickly become repetitive, and the text is quite dry. I wasn't full drawn into the book, and frequently found my attention wandering. The most interesting portions of the book are the anecdotes, which serve to illustrate the author's points quite clearly. Aside from these brief highlights, much of the rest of the book is heavy and cumbersome, required a great deal of focus to read.
[↑]
This screed begins by saying we're all equal, which is of course true insofar as our rights our concerened, and then quickly degenerates into a nonsensical and naiive argument for radical egalitarianism- gee, we're all equally valuable, aren't we? It's just not fair that some people get more than others, or are wealthier than others, or are more talented than others...
You can quickly see where this is going.
It's the sort of argument that appeals to both the exceptionally naiive, the economically ignorant, and most of all, to those who feel that life has treated them unfairly. If only other people could be compelled to treat me as I truely deserve to be treated!
Zero stars.
[↑]
Shopping Cart
