7 ms·

Has anyone read any of his books? What do you think?

peter_retief 3y ago
I am keen to read some.
flipbrad 3y ago
I have read a few, and - at least when I was a more open-minded young adult - thought they were really insightful. I wouldn't say they're 100% on the money, but there are still many moments in life when something I see really resonates with what he wrote. Definitely worth reading and digesting.
ttoinou 3y ago
Read 90% of them yeah. It's amazing. If you like the free software movement, Tools for Conviviality is a must read. But my favorite is Deschooling Society He defines his own terms throughout his bibliography and everything makes so much sense put together (you can apply his logic to the health system, language, knowledge through written books, industrial society, education, gender vs. sex etc.). He didn't tried to make his writing too complex to appear like an advanced intellectual nobody gets, he really tries to make his messages understood, so reading him is also not a pain. Weirdly, only left wing people read him. But he's actually quite libertarian compatible
- bmj 3y ago
  >Weirdly, only left wing people read him. But he's actually quite libertarian compatible. There are quite a few on the Right that read Illich as well. He was, essentially, a communitarian anarchist. Some of his thought is well-received on the Right, particularly his critique of institutionalized education and medicine.
  - ttoinou 3y ago
    Interesting, I've never read about that. Who are those people ? Unless you mean people forming Kibbutz, then yeah
    - quacked 3y ago
      There's a heavily online right-wing presence that admires Ilich; of the people who could be described as "right-wing" I've seen that talk about Ilich, most are either hobby homesteaders or people with advanced CS/engineering degrees that read a lot of "online rationalist" work about a decade ago.
      - markhahn 3y ago
        right-wingers including, it is claimed, Putin.
bmj 3y ago
I've read a handful, and agree that he truly understood the effects of technology and Modernity. It's worth reading the French sociologist/theologian Jacques Ellul, too (they were contemporaries).
- ttoinou 3y ago
  I like Ellul unfortunately he is much more cloudy in his statements and analysis, it takes much more energy to decipher (even in French) and make your own what he's saying. I'd rather recommend reading basics stuff like Guy Debord (Society of Spectacle), André Gorz (Métamorphoses du travail), Schumacher (Small is Beautiful), Kohr (The Breakdown of Nations). A little bit of Bourdieu cannot hurt either
  - nonrandomstring 3y ago
    Mumford and Postman also expand that list. Of Illich I've only fully read "Tools for Conviviality", which I'd say is a manifesto for Humane Technology of a kind.
    - ttoinou 3y ago
      Thank you for the recs ! Would you have one book per author to rec ? And indeed Illich is not anti-tech, he's not a luddite
      - nonrandomstring 3y ago
        For Lewis Mumford [0] maybe "Myth of the Machine" - with his concept of "megatechnics" - is more readable than the earlier "Technics and Civilisation", but his earlier insights seem ever more relevant. For Neil Postman [1] the standard reader is "Technopoly", but for me "Amusing Ourselves to Death" is a real treat. It was literally a description of social media and modern "performance politics" 40 years too early. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lewis_Mumford https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lewis_Mumford [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neil_Postman https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neil_Postman
      - 3y ago
undebuggable 3y ago
Yes, Deschooling Society - iconoclastic and inspiring.
code51 3y ago
I think Deschooling Society is a great read, gets the problem with schools and education right. However it fails to offer a compelling solution. Why? Because it fails to address the complexity of modern day subjects to learn.
spinfz 3y ago
I guess a great starting point would be "Ivan Illich in Conversation" by David Cayley, which is basically an exhaustive interview with Illich that touches on almost every different stage of his ideas.
marttt 3y ago
A great introduction to his lines of thinking was (to me) "Ivan Illich in Conversation" by David Cayley [0]. Essentially a book-length interview. While I find him truly interesting, there is an annoyance: he is strongly critical about "traditional" school system, while holding a PhD himself. I've always found this kind of thing somewhat controversial. I wonder if he did consider dropping out during his studies; and if not, then why. It somewhat feels like first getting the most out of a (by and large still hugely beneficial) system for your own good -- and then stating that actually, this is a remarkably harmful system. (Side note: I read "Deschooling Society" quite a while ago; might not remember the main ideas all that well, so please correct me if this feedback is too harsh, or superficial.) In that light, guys like the Finnish ecophilosopher (and fisherman) Pentti Linkola [1] seem more "true". As in, Linkola was heavily critical towards contemporary schooling, but he also dropped out of university at an early stage of his studies already, and (as much as I understand) lived in a cabin in the forest his entire life. It's a different path than first finishing a PhD and then becoming a notable critic of "the system". I don't think Illich would've had the same analytical capabilities and intellectual horizon if he would not have trained his thinking in a doctorate program. Then again, Pentti Linkola's father was rector of Helsinki University, and also member of the Finnish Academy of Sciences and Letters. So I imagine Pentti the son was steeped in sciences and academic thinking at an early age already. Who knows, maybe that's what made him suspicious in the first place (no illusions?). A biography of Linkola is also published in Finland, but haven't read that one. I will definitely read more of Illich, though. He is really clever and to the point in oh-so-many things. 0: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/253081.Ivan_Illich_in_Conversation https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/253081.Ivan_Illich_in_Co... 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentti_Linkola https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentti_Linkola
- ako 3y ago
  You can disagree with something, but still do it because your environment expects you to do it. He might not have been able to succeed in his goals if he hadn’t gotten a phd, not because of the phd itself, but how companies and people perceive those with phds. It opens doors, that would otherwise remain shut. Similar to how no US president would ever say they don’t believe in god, as that would immediately alienate a large part of the voters. Usually, if you want to win inside a system, it means you have to play by the rules of the system.
di4na 3y ago
I have. And I think it is definitely worth it to read it, because he brings a lot of clarity to a lot of things. Buuuuuut. In the end, I think Illich fail his own test. He claims to analyze systemic impacts, but fail to recognize the systemic impacts of his own solutions. I always use the "speed" example for this. Illich basically advocate for more or less banning the use of any mean of transportation faster than a bicycle. The arguments do make sense actually, in a lot of ways, and it is important to keep these in mind. But he acknowledge that there are real use case for engine driven vehicules and fast speed, for things like medical or emergency needs. Make sense right? So from his pov, noone should have engine car, except for ambulance, medical transportation (like transplant), fire engine, etc. Where it becomes a net good. What he utterly fail to realise is that without the fast transportation and the whole system built to ... actually build and distribute these cars to everyone, then building these emergency vehicules and developing the engineering for them cannot happen. Not only it is cost prohibitive (because of reuse of means of production, mass production impact on cost, etc) but also it is really hard to actually engineer this stuff without a lot of experiments and needs for it, which do not happen if you restrict the use of these stuff to a limited niche. Engineering need practical use of the tool to be able to learn about the use to make it more efficient and better to the point that it benefits everyone. That of course does not negate the point that these technologies do have negative impact on society. But thinking that you can wholly separate the positive from the negative, banning the later but getting the former, is not as simple as calling it out. You need to consider the systemic effects and really think through the long term and systemic impact of your action. Something that Illich seems to only apply to other people actions, but not to his own remedy or analysis.
- palata 3y ago
  > Not only it is cost prohibitive (because of reuse of means of production, mass production impact on cost, etc) but also it is really hard to actually engineer this stuff without a lot of experiments and needs for it, which do not happen if you restrict the use of these stuff to a limited niche. Couldn't one argue that there is not that much engineering needed to keep producing emergency vehicles that we already have? It's not like an ambulance fundamentally changes every year. Would each unit be more expensive without mass production? Most likely, but... it's not like firefighter trucks are mass-produced for people who use them to go to work, and some of them are adapted for firefighters, right? Still it seems like it's not cost-prohibitive. Another example is military equipment, where I believe countries try to produce more locally (for obvious security reasons). Military equipment is typically much more expensive than consumer products, but still... it's there. So it seems like it's not completely impossible, right?
base698 3y ago
One of the notable things from "Deschooling" is his solution. Illich describes was could be thought of as Meetups using the internet. Hobbyist experts with common interests that can serve as teachers and demonstrators of skills. One of the big insights is that today you have teachers who are certified in teaching and experts in a particular thing. The two are very rarely present in the same person. > In deschooled society professionals could no longer claim the trust of their clients on the basis of their curricular pedigree, or ensure their standing by simply referring their clients to other professionals who approved of their schooling. Instead of placing trust in professionals, it should be possible, at any time, for any potential client to consult with other experienced clients of a professional about their satisfaction with him by means of another peer network easily set up by computer, or by a number of other means. Such networks could be seen as public utilities which permitted students to choose their teachers or patients their healers.
- wslh 3y ago
  It seems like he is talking about influencers, where there is a relationship that is based on abstract metrics like number of followers and unclear success. Here I use abstract and metrics together to convey the idea that the metrics does not give a real meaning. Obviously there are many people who perfectly deserves their "followers" but it is gamed by other people removing real meaning.
  - wanderingbit 3y ago
    That’s now how I understood the quote. I thought of it more like if you went to go hire a doctor, then the best people to review that doctor would not be the university that gave the doctor their credential, or even the doctor’s patients; it would be the doctor’s colleagues who understand the doctor’s strengths and weaknesses best because they are the only ones who have the direct relationship as well as technical skills to compare against.
    - eszed 3y ago
      I think that's incorrect. He wants clients to consult other clients, not professional colleagues. I like it in principle, but in practice it's too amenable to gaming (witness every review section and spam-fed product listing in my search results) to actually work at scale.
motohagiography 3y ago
Can recommend this idea of his that is quite relevant today: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radical_monopoly https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radical_monopoly

I am keen to read some.

I have read a few, and - at least when I was a more open-minded young adult - thought they were really insightful. I wouldn't say they're 100% on the money, but there are still many moments in life when something I see really resonates with what he wrote. Definitely worth reading and digesting.

ttoinou 3y ago

Read 90% of them yeah. It's amazing. If you like the free software movement, Tools for Conviviality is a must read. But my favorite is Deschooling Society He defines his own terms throughout his bibliography and everything makes so much sense put together (you can apply his logic to the health system, language, knowledge through written books, industrial society, education, gender vs. sex etc.). He didn't tried to make his writing too complex to appear like an advanced intellectual nobody gets, he really tries to make his messages understood, so reading him is also not a pain. Weirdly, only left wing people read him. But he's actually quite libertarian compatible

bmj 3y ago
>Weirdly, only left wing people read him. But he's actually quite libertarian compatible. There are quite a few on the Right that read Illich as well. He was, essentially, a communitarian anarchist. Some of his thought is well-received on the Right, particularly his critique of institutionalized education and medicine.
- ttoinou 3y ago
  Interesting, I've never read about that. Who are those people ? Unless you mean people forming Kibbutz, then yeah
  - quacked 3y ago
    There's a heavily online right-wing presence that admires Ilich; of the people who could be described as "right-wing" I've seen that talk about Ilich, most are either hobby homesteaders or people with advanced CS/engineering degrees that read a lot of "online rationalist" work about a decade ago.
    - markhahn 3y ago
      right-wingers including, it is claimed, Putin.

bmj 3y ago

I've read a handful, and agree that he truly understood the effects of technology and Modernity. It's worth reading the French sociologist/theologian Jacques Ellul, too (they were contemporaries).

ttoinou 3y ago
I like Ellul unfortunately he is much more cloudy in his statements and analysis, it takes much more energy to decipher (even in French) and make your own what he's saying. I'd rather recommend reading basics stuff like Guy Debord (Society of Spectacle), André Gorz (Métamorphoses du travail), Schumacher (Small is Beautiful), Kohr (The Breakdown of Nations). A little bit of Bourdieu cannot hurt either
- nonrandomstring 3y ago
  Mumford and Postman also expand that list. Of Illich I've only fully read "Tools for Conviviality", which I'd say is a manifesto for Humane Technology of a kind.
  - ttoinou 3y ago
    Thank you for the recs ! Would you have one book per author to rec ? And indeed Illich is not anti-tech, he's not a luddite
    - nonrandomstring 3y ago
      For Lewis Mumford [0] maybe "Myth of the Machine" - with his concept of "megatechnics" - is more readable than the earlier "Technics and Civilisation", but his earlier insights seem ever more relevant. For Neil Postman [1] the standard reader is "Technopoly", but for me "Amusing Ourselves to Death" is a real treat. It was literally a description of social media and modern "performance politics" 40 years too early. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lewis_Mumford https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lewis_Mumford [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neil_Postman https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neil_Postman
    - 3y ago

undebuggable 3y ago

Yes, Deschooling Society - iconoclastic and inspiring.

code51 3y ago

I think Deschooling Society is a great read, gets the problem with schools and education right. However it fails to offer a compelling solution. Why? Because it fails to address the complexity of modern day subjects to learn.

spinfz 3y ago

I guess a great starting point would be "Ivan Illich in Conversation" by David Cayley, which is basically an exhaustive interview with Illich that touches on almost every different stage of his ideas.

marttt 3y ago

A great introduction to his lines of thinking was (to me) "Ivan Illich in Conversation" by David Cayley [0]. Essentially a book-length interview. While I find him truly interesting, there is an annoyance: he is strongly critical about "traditional" school system, while holding a PhD himself. I've always found this kind of thing somewhat controversial. I wonder if he did consider dropping out during his studies; and if not, then why. It somewhat feels like first getting the most out of a (by and large still hugely beneficial) system for your own good -- and then stating that actually, this is a remarkably harmful system. (Side note: I read "Deschooling Society" quite a while ago; might not remember the main ideas all that well, so please correct me if this feedback is too harsh, or superficial.) In that light, guys like the Finnish ecophilosopher (and fisherman) Pentti Linkola [1] seem more "true". As in, Linkola was heavily critical towards contemporary schooling, but he also dropped out of university at an early stage of his studies already, and (as much as I understand) lived in a cabin in the forest his entire life. It's a different path than first finishing a PhD and then becoming a notable critic of "the system". I don't think Illich would've had the same analytical capabilities and intellectual horizon if he would not have trained his thinking in a doctorate program. Then again, Pentti Linkola's father was rector of Helsinki University, and also member of the Finnish Academy of Sciences and Letters. So I imagine Pentti the son was steeped in sciences and academic thinking at an early age already. Who knows, maybe that's what made him suspicious in the first place (no illusions?). A biography of Linkola is also published in Finland, but haven't read that one. I will definitely read more of Illich, though. He is really clever and to the point in oh-so-many things. 0: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/253081.Ivan_Illich_in_Conversation https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/253081.Ivan_Illich_in_Co... 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentti_Linkola https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentti_Linkola

ako 3y ago
You can disagree with something, but still do it because your environment expects you to do it. He might not have been able to succeed in his goals if he hadn’t gotten a phd, not because of the phd itself, but how companies and people perceive those with phds. It opens doors, that would otherwise remain shut. Similar to how no US president would ever say they don’t believe in god, as that would immediately alienate a large part of the voters. Usually, if you want to win inside a system, it means you have to play by the rules of the system.

di4na 3y ago

I have. And I think it is definitely worth it to read it, because he brings a lot of clarity to a lot of things. Buuuuuut. In the end, I think Illich fail his own test. He claims to analyze systemic impacts, but fail to recognize the systemic impacts of his own solutions. I always use the "speed" example for this. Illich basically advocate for more or less banning the use of any mean of transportation faster than a bicycle. The arguments do make sense actually, in a lot of ways, and it is important to keep these in mind. But he acknowledge that there are real use case for engine driven vehicules and fast speed, for things like medical or emergency needs. Make sense right? So from his pov, noone should have engine car, except for ambulance, medical transportation (like transplant), fire engine, etc. Where it becomes a net good. What he utterly fail to realise is that without the fast transportation and the whole system built to ... actually build and distribute these cars to everyone, then building these emergency vehicules and developing the engineering for them cannot happen. Not only it is cost prohibitive (because of reuse of means of production, mass production impact on cost, etc) but also it is really hard to actually engineer this stuff without a lot of experiments and needs for it, which do not happen if you restrict the use of these stuff to a limited niche. Engineering need practical use of the tool to be able to learn about the use to make it more efficient and better to the point that it benefits everyone. That of course does not negate the point that these technologies do have negative impact on society. But thinking that you can wholly separate the positive from the negative, banning the later but getting the former, is not as simple as calling it out. You need to consider the systemic effects and really think through the long term and systemic impact of your action. Something that Illich seems to only apply to other people actions, but not to his own remedy or analysis.

palata 3y ago
> Not only it is cost prohibitive (because of reuse of means of production, mass production impact on cost, etc) but also it is really hard to actually engineer this stuff without a lot of experiments and needs for it, which do not happen if you restrict the use of these stuff to a limited niche. Couldn't one argue that there is not that much engineering needed to keep producing emergency vehicles that we already have? It's not like an ambulance fundamentally changes every year. Would each unit be more expensive without mass production? Most likely, but... it's not like firefighter trucks are mass-produced for people who use them to go to work, and some of them are adapted for firefighters, right? Still it seems like it's not cost-prohibitive. Another example is military equipment, where I believe countries try to produce more locally (for obvious security reasons). Military equipment is typically much more expensive than consumer products, but still... it's there. So it seems like it's not completely impossible, right?

base698 3y ago

One of the notable things from "Deschooling" is his solution. Illich describes was could be thought of as Meetups using the internet. Hobbyist experts with common interests that can serve as teachers and demonstrators of skills. One of the big insights is that today you have teachers who are certified in teaching and experts in a particular thing. The two are very rarely present in the same person. > In deschooled society professionals could no longer claim the trust of their clients on the basis of their curricular pedigree, or ensure their standing by simply referring their clients to other professionals who approved of their schooling. Instead of placing trust in professionals, it should be possible, at any time, for any potential client to consult with other experienced clients of a professional about their satisfaction with him by means of another peer network easily set up by computer, or by a number of other means. Such networks could be seen as public utilities which permitted students to choose their teachers or patients their healers.

wslh 3y ago
It seems like he is talking about influencers, where there is a relationship that is based on abstract metrics like number of followers and unclear success. Here I use abstract and metrics together to convey the idea that the metrics does not give a real meaning. Obviously there are many people who perfectly deserves their "followers" but it is gamed by other people removing real meaning.
- wanderingbit 3y ago
  That’s now how I understood the quote. I thought of it more like if you went to go hire a doctor, then the best people to review that doctor would not be the university that gave the doctor their credential, or even the doctor’s patients; it would be the doctor’s colleagues who understand the doctor’s strengths and weaknesses best because they are the only ones who have the direct relationship as well as technical skills to compare against.
  - eszed 3y ago
    I think that's incorrect. He wants clients to consult other clients, not professional colleagues. I like it in principle, but in practice it's too amenable to gaming (witness every review section and spam-fed product listing in my search results) to actually work at scale.

motohagiography 3y ago

Can recommend this idea of his that is quite relevant today: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radical_monopoly https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radical_monopoly