ORIGINAL ZR REVIEW OF BOOK
The Revolt of the Primitive: An Inquiry into the Roots of Political Correctness.  2001, 2003.

Revolt of the Primitive: An Inquiry Into the Roots of Political Correctness. 2001, 2003, by Howard S. Schwartz. Praeger Publishers (May 30, 2001), 256 p.

First Reviewed, Tuesday, November 25, 2003, Tuesday
by Chetly Zarko

In the interests of full disclosure, I have worked with Howard on some issues related to the FOIA of U-Michigan diversity research and our mutual support of the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative.

I recently was sent a review copy of a book by Oakland University professor of organizational behavior, Howard S. Schwartz. Dr. Schwartz was one of the speakers on July 8, 2003, when Ward Connerly kicked off the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative to end race preferences by ballot question.  Schwartz is also known for a book examining narcissistic behavior in organizations using the Challenger explosion and General Motors as cases studies.

The book, available at Amazon, is primarily a Freudian analysis of why men and women buy into the modern day notions of feminism and how maleness is under attack at multiple levels.  Through a multitude of examples, Schwartz argues that the "politically correct" movement and feminism have wrought upon young males a psychological inferiority complex that ultimately takes advantage of an instinct to be subordinate to the primordial mother.  Feminism has elevated the psychological traits of women at the expense of those traits we traditionally see as male.  Feminism's modern gains have been made by portraying the male as inherently violent, warlike, under-sexed, and evil.  And more importantly, Schwartz argues, males are buying into this paradigm, creating higher suicide and mortality rates, and leading to a host of socialization problems.

The implied argument and value system feminism forces upon society and the family is exactly the opposite though of what the research shows is good for children.  Feminism's implication that the male is the source of all problems however, is refuted by the fact that the empirical research has "found that the absence of the father is associated with the problem." If maleness were truly the cause of violence, we would expect to find less violence in single-mother families; an empirical result that would be exactly the opposite of the current science.

I strongly recommend this book and think it makes an important contribution, although it is not for the casual reader and is quite involved in its use of Freudian and other psychoanalytic technique.  At some point, I may post a link to a full-length book review.

It should be noted that although the book doesn't make a commentary on the proper role of feminism, the ZR believes that feminism took its wrong turn after the Suffrage movement and during the Prohibitionist movement of the twenties (women attempting "temperance" of male "badness").  Clearly, the empowering nature of the right to vote was something that men never had a moral right to deny to women, and political and individual equality of the sexes is a right that should and must be guaranteed to all. The ZR believes that balance between the sexes must be attained, and that the positive aspects and beneficial differences in each sex should be highlighted and the weaknesses of each should be discouraged (for example, the ZR has no use for deadbeat dads or wife-beaters, but sees these weaknesses arising from a lack of masculine responsibility and character, not as "part of the nature" of manhood -- for lack of a better way of saying it, "real men," who learn from their positive male role models, have never done these things)

Another book by this author:
Narcisstistic Process and Corporate Decay. 1992, by Howard S. Schwartz. New York University Press (April, 1992), 168 p.

This review received the following feedback on a previous ZR blog called The Czar's Court.

Ari P. () @ 11/25/2003 17:28:
czarko, i suggest you read "iron john" by the renowned american poet, john bly...while he is a space cadet, and his ideas a little flakey, i think you might find some of his ideas about manliness interesting...

man, you REALLY hate it when minority communities empower themselves...your reductionist evaluation of feminism is silly...while some more radical feminists may conform to the 'man haters' image you make all equal gender rights advocates, after a more reasoned understanding of the history of feminism, will you learn that it is not a very radical concept at all... still an ally, ari p.

Chetly Zarko @ 11/26/2003 00:48:
No, I'm all for empowerment Ari. The feminism movement of the 1910s and twenties (not including Prohibitionism, an offshoot of feminism, and Howie and I agree that the beginning of feminism's move to take on for women traits of male "badness") was mostly for positive empowerments (suffrage, empowerment of the vote, a right that men had no moral basis for denying to woman).

I truly believe that all individuals are created equal, with equal rights, but not necessarily equal talents or traits (each individual's talents are different, and males and females have statistical ranges of talents that are quite different).

I'm for a balance of the sexes. I don't know that Howie's book emphasizes that outcome or goal well, which is where I might disagree with him (in his emphasis). But in denying the reality of or positive aspects of maleness in favor of emphasis on the negatives is not an appropriate role for either feminism or masculinism. On the opposite end of the spectrum, I have no sympathy for wife-beaters or deadbeat dads or other destructive male behaviors, and believe the law and society should be structured to disincent them. But these are not "male" behaviors, they are weak behaviors.

ZR Postscript: Second republication, 12/21/2005. Also, in response to Ari's claim that I think that all feminists are "radical feminists" and therefore am being "reductionist." I do not believe all feminists are the same or that even most people identifying themselves as feminists hold the radical viewpoint. Quite the contray, when confronted with common-sense on the issue, most feminists would not espouse radical "man-hating" beliefs, to use Ari's label. Nonetheless, their are many movements that can either be lead by radicals or simply result in radical consequences through the bureaucatization process. That is, the movement adopts radical principles that are not apparent to mainstream followers. For example, Ari Paul himself would engage in the same kind of reductionism against the "radical religious right," when in fact the majority of followers would probably not adopt the extreme views he use to criticize the movement. Both movements are complex movements (and in this case often at odds with each other) that deserve not to be pigeon-holed.