Customer Reviews
10 years out of date - By: Simon Blake, 16 Jun 2007 
The book was probably an interesting read for untravelled Americans. For travelled Europeans it could be entitled 'The Bleedin Obvious'. Also, the author is excessively long winded & repetitive about getting his point across making several analogies along the way of which many are not required. The fact the book was written over 10 years ago really showsin its portrayal of communications & current economies. On the back of the book there is the impression that the book has been written on the back of September 11th, but this is has been engineered into the revised publication. Avoid it unless you have beenin a coma for 10 years, or America.
An illuminating experience! - By: , 01 Mar 1999 
This book is a must for anyone interestedin marketing orin how marketing is used to manipulate the choices we make. I strongly recommend this book to anyone who still believesin the myth that democracies are a natural output of capitalism.
Useful but extremely limited; oversimplifies fundamentalism - By: , 21 Nov 1998 Benjamin Barber's book, although on the surface laudable for its engagement with the complexities of global capitalism ("McWorld") & the search for group identities, fails to provide a truly thorough account of the waysin which "Jihad" & "McWorld" really functionin today's world. The limits of his project are set at the outset through his implicit Humanism, which allows him to universalize the word "Jihad"-a multivalent term arising out of a complex Islamic history-to cover Hindu, American Protestant, Islamic, Buddhist, & every other imaginable fundamentalism. Although Barber at the outset self-consciously attempts to expand the meaning of the (Islamic) term, he contradicts himselfin his discussion of Islamic fundamentalism: "Jihad has been a metaphor for anti-Western anti-universalist struggle throughout this book. The question is whether it is more than just a metaphorin the Muslim culture that produced the term" (207). Isn't Barber forgetting his earlier discussion of the waysin which he is consciously appropriating a word that happens to come from the Muslim world? First, Barber associates the word with parochialism, narrow-mindedness, & violence only to later claim that he meant to use the word metaphoricallyin regards to non-Islamic fundamentalism; as for the Islamic world, Barber implies that "Jihad" is no longer metaphoric. Barber falls into the too-easy trap of Western writers on Islam by implying that parochialism, narrow-mindedness, & violence are inherentin the Islamic world. "Muslim culture" may have produced the word "Jihad" (which, evenin the Muslim context is an often contested term with meanings that drastically differ) but Barber badly appropriates it, only to imply that since Muslim culture produced it, perhaps Islam is the base for parochial narrow-mindednessin the world. By universalizing & misusing the term "Jihad" the book overlooks the specificity of each fundamentalism: "As the Muslim Brotherhood saw in Christianity a crusading corruptor, Know-Nothing American Protestants backin the 1880's sawin Mediterranean Catholic immigrants a grave peril to the American Republic, just as nervous Californians today worry about illegal Latino immigrants . . ." (212). The careless linking of these three disparate "fundamentalisms" (or "Jihad," as Barber would prefer to write) overlook, respectively, issues of decolonization, commerce & immigration, & racism / cultural imperialism. But perhaps the most careless omissionin this book is a lack of engagement with Zionism & the formation of the state of Israel, which inform so much of the global fundamentalist motivation & rhetoric, while at the same time having implications for the nature & scope of "Americanization" & global capital (or, "McWorld"). In fact, Zionism is never mentionedin the text as an example of fundamentalism, & Israel is rarely alluded to. It would seem that any discussion of globalization, the modern nation-state, fundamentalism, & democracy would have to engage with the formation of Israel. In addition it would have to recognize the specificty of fundamentalisms, especially those arisingin ex-colonial countries. Imperialism, colonialism, & decolonization are also issues noticeably absentin "Jihad vs. McWorld," a book which claims to discuss global themes without taking into account the wayin which most of the globe is engagedin various processes of decolonization. The book's argument becomes much easier to make when messy & difficult issues such as decolonization, institutional racism, & the formation of Israel are left unexplored. Furthermore, Barber's implicit (Humanist) trustin an idealist notion of democracy & an unquestioned trustin the nation-state, with its attendant ideological machinery, provides too-easy solutions for the predicaments his book presumes to discuss.
Useful but extremely limited; oversimplifies fundamentalism - By: , 21 Nov 1998 Benjamin Barber's book, although on the surface laudable for its engagement with the complexities of global capitalism ("McWorld") & the search for group identities, fails to provide a truly thorough account of the waysin which "Jihad" & "McWorld" really functionin today's world.
This is important! - By: , 31 Dec 1997 An important book, indeed. Barber reveals much of what is lost on most people with regards to the globalisation phenomonen. Far more realistic than Huntington, & if one also reads Hans-Peter Martin's "Global Trap", the chaos all around us seems a little clearer, if not making complete sense. Writtenin an unpretentious, accessible style, with detailed footnoting & refrences, this book should be compulsaray reading for those who feel a little confused about the way we're all heading.
