Actually, 4.5 out of 5 stars.

You can read my full review of the book at my blog, The Itinerant Librarian. Click on the link:

http://itinerantlibrarian.blogspot.com/2013/09/booknote-on-dissent.html ( )

Dissent into the Hell of language

In the 80s I tore out a two page ad that spoke volumes to me. It simply said “We can take something this complicated” (image of a one line memo: Need to put Tucson on the network.) “…and simplify it” (image of a huge whiteboard with indecipherable nodes, servers, connections, equipment and systems). That is also the story of On Dissent.

I was attracted to On Dissent by its blurb, which listed famous names who contributed to it. Names like Chomsky, Zinn, Nader and Cornel West. These are some of the most dissenting intellects extant, so I had huge expectations. They are in fact there, but their comments are not about the import, impact or fading of dissent in society. Their comments are on how to define dissent. They are quoted not on the status of dissent, but on the scope of the word itself. This is not a book about rights, liberties and dialog. It is a book about legal and philological interpretation. Of one word.

Once you understand that, the book is exhaustively comprehensive and thorough. And though you might disagree with the authors’ broad definition of dissent, encompassing protests and civil disobedience, and to certain extents violence, the analysis is cogent and clear. I have lived my life thinking dissent referred to criticism of and potential alternative approaches to an issue. Lawyers laugh.

In the authors’ terms, the conundrum that came to my mind (not explored in the book) is that of someone who desires euthanasia. It’s illegal. He goes to court, but is denied. To him, the law is an ass. Inspired by Tibetan monks, he self immolates in a public square. Is his suicide dissent? Alternatively, is it an act of extreme violence, civil disobedience, or a criminal act? Is it a protest as loudly as he can make one? Or is he just dealing with his own hopeless, powerless, painful state openly? The authors would say all these alternatives are dissents.

Later, there’s a tortured chapter on whether corporations can dissent. The experts say (a qualified) no , but there is so much evidence to the contrary, I can’t imagine how they can say that. Corporations dissent when profits are put at risk by others. Soft drink makers dissent when New York bans Big Gulps. Cigarette makers dissent – all the time. Insurers loudly withdraw from states when they dissent from regulations. Gun makers dissent at the slightest whiff of regulation. Every time a legal decision goes against them, companies dissent. It’s an everyday thing. I find it difficult to see how it is even debatable.

The epilogue breaks ranks and sings the praises of dissent in America, from Thomas Paine to current Supreme Court decisions. Dissent is absolutely critical to the nation, and is not only not be feared, but to be promulgated, encouraged, required, and treasured.

I like books to be challenging. On Dissent fits right in.

David Wineberg ( )

Ronald Collins and David Skover want to get to the bottom of this thing we call dissent. Every day, thousands of people across the United States are actively showing their displeasure with some act of local or federal government or with a business they think is running counter to their beliefs. They dissent because they need to. On Dissent is a in-depth look at the fundamental basics of dissent, how it’s effective, and how exactly it fits into the social and legal landscape.

The authors’ investigation into the concept of dissent is interesting in that no one has really looked into it before. We have all seen or heard dissenting opinions. From Supreme Court justices to Martin Luther’s famous 95 theses to small bands of picketers, these people are the embodiment of dissent. For starters, Collins and Skover require that dissent be intentional, critical, and public. Without any one of these facets, it is either innocent, innocuous, or unknown. They explore many nuanced situations where one could convey dissent and how those situations stack up against prevailing opinions and legal definitions. At its core, this book is a look at the political process and opposition (on many levels) through the eyes of a lawyer. Each facet of dissent is parsed and dissected until a true meaning appears.

The weird thing about this book is that while the language is decidedly unfun, the subject matter is interesting nonetheless. As a reader, I kept waiting for the next layer of dissent to be explored, and the authors did not disappoint. The methodology employed was vigorous and precise. There were no wasted words, no superfluous digressions, no dead-ends. Even the many quotes from outside thinkers sprinkled in the text helped to build a richer understanding of dissent. If you’re at all interested in the political process and the legacy of dissenters, this book may very well be for you. An illuminating read. ( )