A.C. Grayling’s Ideas that Matter: The Concepts that Shape the 21^st Century. An Opinionated Guide is a well-written collection of encyclopedia-like entries on topics ranging from “euthanasia,” “fundamentalism,” and “vegetarianism,” to “big bang cosmology,” “cloning,” and “sociobiology.”  In each entry, Grayling defines the concept under discussion in a clear, jargon-free manner, says something about its history and development, and sketches what he thinks to be the contemporary import of the concept.  The ideas included, claims Grayling, have shaped and will continue to shape the 21^st century in terms of the ways people think about themselves, each other, and the world in which they live.  The perceived import of these concepts constitutes one aspect of the “opinionated” nature of this guide, while the choice of ideas for inclusion constitutes the other.

His purpose in writing such a book is two-fold.  First, to better understand important concepts from politics, philosophy, science, and religion, and the ways they influence (or have the potential to influence) contemporary thought and action.  “Ideas are cogs that drive history onward, for good and for ill; understanding influential beliefs, world views, scientific ideas and philosophical theories is a part of the equipment needed by engaged citizens of the world to make better sense of it” (viii).  Grayling presumes that by better understanding these ideas we can steer history, driving it in the right direction.

Grayling’s second objective is closely related to the first: he hopes to bridge the gap that separates the humanities and literary culture from that of the hard and social sciences.  This process is a two-way street.  With increasing specialization of knowledge in the hard sciences people are “less able to participate in informed conversations about the implications, applications, promises, possibilities–and periodic risks–of science” (ibid).  However, scientists would do well to know something about philosophy, politics, and religion so as to better understand the social implications of scientific endeavors.  Ideally Grayling’s book would lead to “a broader view…on both sides of the intellectual divide, of the large ideas that constitute the framework of our thinking” (viii).  Hence, his intended audience is an actively engaged, educated reader interested in learning for the sake of better understanding and cooperating with others.  If this book can be said to suffer from a major shortcoming then this is certainly it. 

The reader to whom Ideas that Matter is likely to appeal probably already knows a fair amount about the concepts discussed therein; one comes into frequent contact with these ideas watching the news, and reading newspapers, new magazines, and other popular works on science (Stephen Hawking and Carl Sagan) and religion (Karen Armstrong).  Although Grayling’s discussions are informative, his cursory treatment makes it so that either the concept is 1. simple enough that no more is said than the intended reader is likely to already know, for example, entries on political concepts, or 2. complex enough that it remains obscure despite explanation and an intended reader would do better to consult another popular work on this topic, for example, entries on scientific ideas.  In both cases the target reader is unlikely to greatly expand his or her knowledge.  Grayling admits as much; his book is but a start (ix).  More problematically, the book’s polemical tone is likely to put off readers with an ideological bent different from that of Grayling’s, socially liberal and atheistic.  This is especially true in his discussions of religious themes.  For example: “that such views [those associated with Christianity] are a calumny on mankind, and that the craven attitude towards the supposed deity is nauseating to a degree, does not need mentioning…” (287).

Like the work of Richard Dawkins, Grayling’s disparagement of religion seems counterproductive.  As Kenneth Miller points out in Finding Darwin’s God, when public intellectuals such as Dawkins characterize the relationship between science and religion in either/or terms, where religion is in competition with science to explain empirical phenomena, they add fuel to an ideological fire that causes many to take a hostile stance towards or abandon scientific knowledge in favor of religious belief.  Grayling recognizes, unsympathetically, that the “sources and justification [of religious belief] lie in emotion and tradition” (317).  Hence, the draw of religion lies not in its capacity to explain empirical phenomena but to “offer the advantages of fellowship and certainty” (316).  If this is true, then it should come as no surprise that religion continues to exert an influence on contemporary civilization.  It is for this reason that “the advance of understanding about our world [has not] consigned the old ways of thinking [one’s responsible for religion] to the history books” (162).  Contra Grayling’s insistence that religion is in competition with science in terms of empirical explanation (316), the contemporary import of religion seems to lie in the promise of fellowship and certainty it offers in an ever-increasingly fragmented and uncertain world.  Although Grayling’s polemical tone certainly has the effect of solidifying the convictions of readers that share his beliefs (“preaching to the choir”), it has the potential to alienate others, turning them away from the kind of enquiry and understanding Grayling seeks to cultivate.

© 2011 Rockwell Clancy

Rockwell Clancy is a PhD student (ABD) in philosophy and literature at PurduenUniversity.  His areas of specialization are 19th and 20th century continentalphilosophy, as well as psychoanalytic thought.