In this book Lipovetsky makes explicit ideas that one could find in a more timid way in earlier books. The basic idea of his thought is that fragmentation of society does not, in the way it is thought commonly, mean destruction of morals or democracy. On the contrary, democracy is formed by the powers that are able to join fragmentation and continuity. This is what he shows with fashion. Fashion is from where he can understand what is "the essence" (although it isn't an essenciallist thought)of Western Culture. He uses the concept of fashion to synthetize the opposites: fragmentaed indivilualistic society and universal democratic society. As Hegel, he sees the union of both opposites through the whole reconstruction of Fashion. Not science or Reason but fashion is what explains us better what we are and why we are like that.

Unlike the stuffy American academics who turn their nose up at the world of fashion, Lipovetsky realizes the importance of fashion - not just as a result of liberalism and/or capitalism - but as a contributor to these structures. Lipovetsky basically argues that modern fashion contributes to democratization by allowing individuals more choices and also by obscuring social classes (Does Bill Gates dress signify his social or financial superiority in any way?). He also gives a pretty concise and coherent history of fashion which helps us understand where we stand today. On top of all that, it's well written. I don't know whether to thank him or Porter for that. All and all, an outstanding and entertaining rejection of the tedious, reductive Marxist explanations of fashion.

Sennett scrutinizes those problems caused by the inbalance between personal and public life.According to Sennett, the 'public life' which is a significant piece of life besides the family and friendships was once so lively and meant much to individuals.There used to be a 'publicity' that contributed to the individuals' skills of 'play'through emotinal ties with strangers and to the civilization of the individual.Being a 'public man' well expressed in the 18th century European cities has become a gradually weakened phenomenon being replaced with the 'private life'.And has become as significant as the private life allows it to...Sennett asks,"How has the stranger been transformed into a threatening factor? How is it that today, keeping silent and remaining as the audience is the only way of joining the public life? In turn, how do these factors foster personality deficiencies? Solitude that is a result of modernism renders the individual a person captured by the private life.Sennett explains this process through works of Balzac and Diderot, theater, music, architecture,Dreyfus case and Richard Nixon. Richard Sennett is by no means hopeless; he is exploring the possibilites of getting to know 'the other' instead of imagining a 'lost public paradise'.

Beyond Habermas' description of the changes that have taken place in the Western public sphere, with a better emphasis on empirical and historical data, the book gives a detailed account on the rise and fall of our interacting abilities. From the marketplace to the theater, the 19th century (and then the 20th) saw the decline of «play», along with its replacement by vicarious figures, like the «genius», the performing arts «vedettes» and now the politician as someone who feels (and does) what we are not anymore able to feel. Instead of hysteria, the civilizational disease is now narcissism, the unableness to act regardless of one's inner feelings. To be read along with Sennett's other masterpiece, a romance entitled «Palais-Royal».

I can't say enough how much this book has been a source of insight to me. It is a serious work, but it is very well written and quite accessible.

He explores in this book as he does in others, the hidden and emotional sides of social bonds. Our ambivalence about athorinty is the subject of the book. John Locke thought all we had to do was get rid of kings to be free, but Sennet and the rest of us know we are still not free. why?

read this and start to at least ask some of the right questions.

Richard Sennett is an articulate writer whose style reveals a fascinating mind and above all, a keen pair of eyes. In relating our visual organ to the conscience, he implores us to start seeing our lives as wholly related to and organically integrated with, the cities that we live in. In this thoroughly original and important book, Sennett successfully avoids the tendency of many writers on urbanism to proffer 'well meaning' solutions, but instead takes us on a historical and psychological journey. He convinces his readers to focus on impulses and 'spriritual' reasons behind the creation of cities, ranging from the Greek ideals of 'grace' and 'balance' that produced the 'Agora' to the dilemmas of the modern soul that creates walls made of sheer glass. In chapter after chapter of engrossing reading anyone deeply interested in the well-being of urban life will begin to share his insights on urban forms. He articulates his views using descriptions of ordianry people's lives through history. His well researched narrative succeeds in relating their living conditions with their daily activities as being outward expressions of their inner being. Psychological and emotional states which then find direct expressions in the physical forms of the places in which their lives are enacted. For anyone working in architecture or urban planning, this book is a must-read. In the modern age we are conditioned to believing that a city is a product of functional processes. It is this commonly held apathy which is the very root cause of our modern urban alienation. To me, the message of Richard Sennett's book is a revelation. It is a matter of conscience to use our eyes to see the spirit of our own lives embedded in the walls and the streets that our fathers and mothers have made.

For those who are interested and curious about where our modern habits attitudes about our bodies and its interactions in urban space this is the book for you. Easy to read, and informative, yet very poignant and it is a book that is able to be read on many different levels.

Richard Sennett takes us from ancient Athens and its fixation with voice, logos, and democracy. Why sitting in the theatre is weakness and brings man to a passive posture. With pit-stops in Imperial Rome, Venice, Revelutionary Paris, and other cities, Sennett layers his logic and builds from the ground up a forceful argument to the reader. The last stop is modern New York City, a multi-cultural center full of dissonace and passivity. This chapter is especially powerful, because it strikes a chord in our psyche.

Each chapter is a pit-stop in history displaying the condition of the flesh in response to the stone of the city. Sennett's thesis is that the continual acceleration of life due to, in part by forces of capitolism, have made man a passive player in life. He discusses this against the backdrop of christianity and its change and flux due to forces of the state and commerce. A very interseting thesis that forces you to challenge your beliefs in the world, and maybe your own religion. It may irk some that this book has such a Christian-oriented slant, but Sennett comes right out and states why he is doing in in the beginning.

This book deals also with the philosophy of Phenomenology. Other readings by Howard Kunstler, Derrida and Heidigger are also recomended, but not necessary. Overall, a very suberb book.

This superb book puts a human face on those living and working at or near the economic bottom of our society. It describes in detail the emotional and personal ramifications of working in jobs that are looked down upon and stereotyped, as well as how family relationships are complicated by a parent's subordinate position and their desire and sacrifices for a child's success. It is easy-to-read and carries a profound message.

Richard Sennetts book entitled The Corrosion of Character: The Personal Consquences of Work in the New Capitalism is a well written and informative book about the economic changes and conditions going on in America's workplace today. Sennett uses examples in his book about janitors, IBM workers, and Boston bakers as case studies to get some of his points accross. He paints a picture of how each of these professions has changed over the years. These examples are deeply thought out and explained in detail. He even makes the examples so easy to understand that even a young adult can follow along. The only downside to his book is that the author gives no soloutions to the problems inour changing workforce. He just explains why things are the way they are. If you are intrested in learning about the changes in our workforce, this is a book for you.

Richard Sennett takes a very interesting look at the changing workplace and the possible links to its changes. He looks at the effects that the new workplace has taken on people's lives and their families. He gives vivid comparisons between the past generations and how character had its effect in their jobs and how today's jobs have an effect on character. Sennett doesn't just take a 90's perspective, but instead looks into the past at what the motivations and goals of the workers were centuries before. In 1972 Sennett wrote a book, along with Jonathan Cobb, called "The Hidden Injuries of Class". The book is about a man named Enrico who was a janitor. Enrico's job was both routine and not very mentally challenging. The reason that he was content with his job was because he had goals to improve the lives of his children. His vision canceled out most of the mental and physical drain that his job entailed. He also looks back at when most jobs were what he calls "routine" and what people thought of about habitual labor.

Diderot believed that routine labor was good. He thought that the repetitive actions enabled the worker to become an expert and increasingly develop their skills. He explained that in a factory if each worker were to become an expert at their individual task, that the result would be the best possible product produced at the best possible efficiency. Adam Smith had different views. He believed that routine work "deadened the mind." Sennett points out that today the world has followed Smith's ideas. Pride among the workers has dissipated. When a person starts from the bottom and works to the top they appreciate what they have earned and what they have produced. Today the goal is to skip or zoom past the earning stage. Who can get to the top the fastest is the grand prize. Loyalty between the company and the employees isn't visible anymore because many people don't look at what they can offer, but instead at what they want to receive. People's interests are with themselves and sometimes respectively so. Why would someone today have loyalties with a company if they know that they are not valued by that company? The workers know that they are simply a tool that can be replaced with the twist of a wrench. Sennett explains why people don't see the "long-term" and what some of the factors are that have influenced change.

Enrico's son Rico now has most everything that Enrico dreamed for him. He attended college, has a well paying job, and lives comfortably in a New York suburb. Enrico failed to realize that the discipline and experience that he gained, through hard work, was very necessary. By sending Rico to college with Enrico's own money never gave Rico the appreciation of attending the University. Today it is a very common occurrence for parents to pay for their children's tuition. Yet, there is little way around this dilemma. The children need to stay in school to learn so they will be ready for college. To have kids work enough to pay for college is not very realistic. Many people feel that they need to attend college to stay current with the changing times so they can find a good paying job. Technology has had a large part in these changing times. It is the leader while the businesses and companies run, dart, and leap to catch up.

Sennett recognizes that in today's workplace one must be very flexible. Companies need to be light on their feet and able to adapt to quick changes. The world economy and business techniques have changed very similar to how armies have changed. The strongest castle or the longest trench used to be huge advantages. Now all a nation needs is a nuclear weapon and they are a threat. Business is the same way in that the size of the company isn't what makes them strong, but instead the unique ideas and ability to stay afloat with the waves of change. Rico is pawn in this game. He has certain skills but they will only be useful for so long. He had to move four times in fourteen years. He realizes that his skills are only needed for a certain period of time, so he has no loyalty to his job or what he is providing. All of this leaves scars on his personal character. He finds himself feeling dumb when he tries to explain to his children about commitment. His commitment to his family is weak so for him to try and explain about this value doesn't work because it doesn't come from the heart. Commitment isn't part of a fast pace, "short-term" society.

Sennett does a terrific job at showing why people are unhappy with themselves even though they have good paying jobs. He gives evidence that money isn't what makes people happy. Enrico was a very content man for many reasons. He was very organized, he had goals, a family with whom he could spend time with, and a job that wasn't the best but paid enough so that he could support his family. I think that he successfully showed that a person has control over their own character through the decisions that they make. Sometimes people don't see that they have a choice because they are blinded by an outside controlling factor such as greed. By Andy Sweeney and Mike Duvall

Simply a great book. Richard Sennet cuts deep into work culture and ethics, and iluustrates quite elaborately how the modern creed of flexibility is depriving workers from their character. However, the book does not construct any grand theory on the subject, probably intentionally, as Sennett explains in his introduction to the book stating it was meant to be a long essay rather than a short book. In the light of that, the book is certainly insightful and provocative; I was extremely amazed by the accurate description of work life by the author although he belongs to a totally different world, academia.

Despite the radical tone of the book, which automatically puts the reader in self defence on the other side, as you read along you cannot but surrender to its accuracy.It's an easy read, targetting the general worker (probably IT and Media Professionals more than any!) I hope to see more books on the subject soon written in a more scholarly manner.