Book Review: "Letters to a Young Contrarian" by Christopher Hitchens

Yes, I'm still reading Christopher Hitchens books, I'm actually looking to read at least the vast majority of them. I've probably read more of Hitchens now than I did back in my teens and honestly, I think I understand it more now than I would have done if I had read them all back then. That being said, I wish I would have read this one long before I actually did. With its short length and its readability, it would have been a great place to start. Anyways, let's continue with looking at what Letters to a Young Contrarian contains.

According to Christopher Hitchens, being a contrarian is a duty rather than a right. It is the responsibility of anyone who wants to find the truth to go out of their way to become a contrarian. In a world that teeters on groupthink and cult-like ideologies, it is the job of the contrarian to go out of their way to find out what is right and what is wrong. A true contrarian examines the assumptions of the age and resists popular sentiment when it masks injustice, absurdity, or unreason. This is something that perhaps applies more to our own day than anything else. Especially those who define themselves as being a part of the cult of a certain billionaire that has far too much of a position in government and got upset when his car business went down the pan.

Hitchens asks the young contrarian to seek out debate, not fear it. He warns against the intellectual stagnation that comes from surrounding oneself only with the like-minded. True growth, he insists, comes from crossing swords with worthy opponents, not from mutual affirmation. I think this might be the reason I sometimes watch Matt Walsh - or it could be because I hate to admit it, but I love laughing at him. He is quite literally the dictionary definition of stupidity. The willingness to be this open about opinions and inviting the possibility that someone might change your mind is something I don't see from some people I do watch in earnest. It's definitely a virtue and I think it's something Hitchens was also bloody good at. The man was a proper orator. If you've watched his debates (especially the one where Stephen Fry is on his panel) then you will know what I am talking about.

He critiques religious and dogmatic belief systems as corrosive to freedom and solidarity. Faith, he states, is irrational and encourages obedience whereas solidarity encourages thought, criticism and the ability to hold different opinions. Solidarity tends to be the one, therefore, which requires more courage. But I don't believe that these two are always mutually exclusive. I do think, however, that showing solidarity when you also have faith is something that can be much more courageous and possibly, even life-threatening if you happen to be in the more extreme faith groups. For example: supporting gay marriage when you are a staunch believer of the Christian faith and standing in solidarity with this movement is something which is truly something else entirely. That is very much real courage.

He famously defends the right to offend, particularly when confronting hypocrisy, authoritarianism, or sacred cows. Satire, criticism, and ridicule are not just permissible, they are vital tools in dismantling oppressive ideas. He does not believe in the “right not to be offended,” insisting that moral and intellectual clarity sometimes requires provocation. Politeness and deference can easily become masks for cowardice. This one hurt because I normally say that one of my main philosophies is politeness and respect can be the best tools to be a kind human being. Apparently, I'm wrong. What do you think?

Instead of idolising politicians or pop culture figures, he advises studying the lives of those who have stood up against tyranny, often at great personal cost. He celebrates figures like Václav Havel, Rosa Luxemburg, George Orwell, and Salman Rushdie; people who risked (or lost) their freedom, safety, or reputations to defend truth. To Hitchens, they embody the very spirit of contrarianism and it's all because they saw through the way in which certain people were trying to inject dogma into the narrative. I remember learning about Salman Rushdie in my teens and thinking that this situation could have only existed in the Medieval times. I mean the man literally went into hiding because he wrote a book.

From looking at religious dogma and telling the reader to be aware of an issue on which everyone seems to agree without question, we see Christopher Hitchens give his best advice to the 'young contrarians' of the day. Honestly, he could have done a part two to this and I still would have read it. It's short yes, but that does not make it any less brilliant.