belboid
Exasperated, not angry.
A hobgoblin is haunting this book – the hobgoblin of Dialectical Materialism. It sits and watches over the spring of ideas floated in this tome, while the authors themselves desperately try to ignore it, even when it is obviously what they are talking about. Likewise, dialectics, class struggle, base and superstructure, some of the most important and most common themes in revolutionary movements.
It's a fun and fascinating read, if occasionally infuriating and utter nonsense. What one should expect from such an explicitly anti-marxist tract, I suppose.
Let’s start with the good bits. The general thrust, that human beings have always been capable of making rational choices based upon their own needs and values and that they can fight to implement these systems and overthrow others, is obviously to be welcomed. It is good that it shows that how things are, are not something that has been determined by simple material conditions or by ‘human nature.’ That we have, pretty much, always fought (or at least, debated in favour of) equality and against arbitrary rule is something all socialists and anarchists (or even vapid liberals) must cheer. Likewise, their stress on human creativity and enjoyment of play is great.
The middle sections, on the rise of agriculture, are excellent too. They survey the history well and thoroughly, showing clear moves from basic horticulture to full blown ‘agriculture, usually via a very circuitous route, and, sometimes, back again. I don’t know enough about the topics covered in chapters 8 & 9 to say much about them, they weren’t wholly convincing, but it did develop an interesting and plausible argument. I would be intrigued to read more around those topics (Hopewell, etc).
As I said, it’s insistence upon ‘this is not how things have to be’ is all good, important and to be praised. The fact that they (and now we) can point to lots of examples of tyrannies being removed and more egalitarian societies lasting for generations. But…. There are a lot of buts and it's hard to say where to start.
Let’s go with the beginning. For starters, they simply dismiss the first 160,000 years of human existence, claiming that other writers say that ‘nothing much really happens’ during this time. While they’re right about there being (unsurprisingly) much less archaeological data for this period than for after the ice age, there is still a lot of data, modern techniques for finding out about ancient diets and migrations tell us a lot more than we could have known a few decades ago – and it (pretty much) all supports the claims that they were egalitarian bands who lived in a kind of ‘primitive communism’ that G&W seemingly wish to denigrate and deny. God only knows why. They recognise the use of these research methods for later periods, but just ignore what they say about earlier ones – a habit they seem rather fond of.
As I mentioned on the original thread, the first couple of chapters are mostly pretty good (as far as I am aware), but are nothing like as new and original as G&W imply. In fact they seem to be basing their notion of what is the ‘commonly held view’ to be the one that was prominent in the late nineteenth century, or if we are generous and depending which part of the book we are talking about, the fifties and Gordon Childe. Which is obviously nonsense for anyone who actually reads almost anything about anthropology, everyone has moved in from those simplicities. I’m sure they are still stated in various superficial histories presented to schoolchildren or in crappy books and movies, but for anyone who wants to study these questions, they’re answering questions which were answered decades ago. Which doesn’t matter to one extent, but is definitely bad form and more than a little arrogant. There are also various factual assertions which are just nonsense – eg claiming that we have MayDay because ‘many’ peasant revolts started following the festivities held that day. Except, they didn’t. They don’t offer any evidence, most likely because there isnt any. The peasants’ revolts followed explicit material practises, most commonly attempts to collect taxes and tithes. But that doesn’t fit the narrative. Likewise, there are various other claims that just make you go ‘you what?’ Sacred mountains are no different to motor cars? I don’t think so.
Even the great Kandioronk mustn’t escape scrutiny. A very clever and insightful dude, no doubt. Who was a slave owner. This is mentioned but largely skipped over when recounting his great love of personal liberty and freedom. Which is a a pretty big skip. There are various other ‘slights of thought’ throughout the book. At one point they even argue that a state with a caste system is in many ways egalitarian. A bloody caste system!
The next two chapters really are the biggest load of piffle. Schismogenesis? Lol. A very poor man’s dialectics. They are delving into the kind of fantasies and just so stories they were decrying only moments before. I am sure it was a thing in certain circumstances, particularly the development of cultural practises, but as a general driver of modes of production or violence and autocracy? Deeply unconvincing. To look at one specific example, the Inuit refusing to adopt the Athabascan snowshoe and the latter refusing to adopt the ‘obviously superior’ Inuit kayak. But it didn’t take long to find out that the Inuit did use snowshoes, just not those ones, because of what they were travelling over – over sea ice or tundra with its lack of built-up snow. A clear material difference in circumstances led to the failure to adopt, not some daft ‘ohh, we don’t want to be like them.’ Similarly, the kayak v war canoe – just look at them, they are clearly different beasts for different environments. Add in to that the fact that they completely and utterly ignore the fact that the Kwakiutl held their potlatch feasts only after they had been virtually wiped out by the diseases and guns brought by the colonialists. The potlatch wasn’t some crazy irrational booze up, it was a desperate attempt by a ruined ruling-class to shore up any remnants of power. But that doesn’t fit the narrative, so daft jamboree it must be. We could also ask, why did the Inuit (or was it the Kwakiutl?) decide who to be in opposition to? They met with more than one other chiefdom/tribe/whatever, so why was one more important to oppose than another? If it isn’t for material reasons?
At various points they set out how it is vital not to impose ideas we have developed around evolution upon anthropology, because they are such different things. Now it is absolutely fair enough to do this in at least one respect – evolution does not have to deal with conscious actors like anthro does – but they do it by also managing to present an even older view of evolution than they do of anthropology. It’s all Tree of Life, leading in one direction with us at the end kind of stuff. But that’s a grotesque distortion of what people have said about evolutionary theory for well over fifty years – Graeber’s entire life. There is not a chance in hell that they don’t know about this, that they haven’t read Stephen Jay Gould. If they had, they would actually have to recognise that their theories actually fit (other than the consciousness bit) perfectly well with modern evolutionary theory. Because MET has long since rejected exactly the same kind of teleological arguments that G&W are arguing against. There isn’t a tree of life, evolution wasn’t leading inevitably to mankind, it’s a bush that almost got wiped out by moss and then by a bloody big rock falling on it. What has survived is just what has survived and, hey, aint it lucky for us that big brained mofo’s came along. But there was nothing inevitable about any of that. Which all sounds rather familiar.
There’s no mention of class struggle, it’s all about seemingly nice rational and civilised debates in long rooms. Which all sounds a bit like they’re just reimagining university tutorials or one of the better Occupy meetings. There is barely a mention of any kinds of internal struggle. And the feckers should remember that those crude materialists Marx & Engels didn’t start the first chapter of the Manifesto with ‘the history or all hitherto existing societies is the history of material development and progress’ – no, it’s the history of class struggle. Once again, they deal with the (very well established, even within anthropology) theory by ignoring and distorting it.
And they say nothing, really, about women’s oppression. Sure, it’s mentioned in passing quite often, but there is no attempt at saying how and why patriarchy did come to dominate across the entire globe. There’s just a vague ‘it didn’t have to be this way’ along with a whole load of women as nurturing caregivers (and thinker’s), men as violent hunters (and thinker’s). It’s pretty shallow stuff.
I could go on about how their account of the enlightenment is pretty poor and rather contradictory (somehow Europe had lost its ability to think creatively about freedom, until Kandi came along), but I’ve rambled enough already. It’s a real shame, what could have been really good and useful is undermined by its inconsistencies, over-egging of puddings and far too many omissions of alternative argument. Still, for all that, it is very well worth the read and it’s definitely shitloads better than Harari’s Sapiens.
Tldr – A reet curates egg, some great bits, some laughable bits, brought together by sharp writing and an amusingly irreverent style. Unfortunately, I wouldn’t trust a word of it and would have to go and double check even the most obvious seeming claims.
It's a fun and fascinating read, if occasionally infuriating and utter nonsense. What one should expect from such an explicitly anti-marxist tract, I suppose.
Let’s start with the good bits. The general thrust, that human beings have always been capable of making rational choices based upon their own needs and values and that they can fight to implement these systems and overthrow others, is obviously to be welcomed. It is good that it shows that how things are, are not something that has been determined by simple material conditions or by ‘human nature.’ That we have, pretty much, always fought (or at least, debated in favour of) equality and against arbitrary rule is something all socialists and anarchists (or even vapid liberals) must cheer. Likewise, their stress on human creativity and enjoyment of play is great.
The middle sections, on the rise of agriculture, are excellent too. They survey the history well and thoroughly, showing clear moves from basic horticulture to full blown ‘agriculture, usually via a very circuitous route, and, sometimes, back again. I don’t know enough about the topics covered in chapters 8 & 9 to say much about them, they weren’t wholly convincing, but it did develop an interesting and plausible argument. I would be intrigued to read more around those topics (Hopewell, etc).
As I said, it’s insistence upon ‘this is not how things have to be’ is all good, important and to be praised. The fact that they (and now we) can point to lots of examples of tyrannies being removed and more egalitarian societies lasting for generations. But…. There are a lot of buts and it's hard to say where to start.
Let’s go with the beginning. For starters, they simply dismiss the first 160,000 years of human existence, claiming that other writers say that ‘nothing much really happens’ during this time. While they’re right about there being (unsurprisingly) much less archaeological data for this period than for after the ice age, there is still a lot of data, modern techniques for finding out about ancient diets and migrations tell us a lot more than we could have known a few decades ago – and it (pretty much) all supports the claims that they were egalitarian bands who lived in a kind of ‘primitive communism’ that G&W seemingly wish to denigrate and deny. God only knows why. They recognise the use of these research methods for later periods, but just ignore what they say about earlier ones – a habit they seem rather fond of.
As I mentioned on the original thread, the first couple of chapters are mostly pretty good (as far as I am aware), but are nothing like as new and original as G&W imply. In fact they seem to be basing their notion of what is the ‘commonly held view’ to be the one that was prominent in the late nineteenth century, or if we are generous and depending which part of the book we are talking about, the fifties and Gordon Childe. Which is obviously nonsense for anyone who actually reads almost anything about anthropology, everyone has moved in from those simplicities. I’m sure they are still stated in various superficial histories presented to schoolchildren or in crappy books and movies, but for anyone who wants to study these questions, they’re answering questions which were answered decades ago. Which doesn’t matter to one extent, but is definitely bad form and more than a little arrogant. There are also various factual assertions which are just nonsense – eg claiming that we have MayDay because ‘many’ peasant revolts started following the festivities held that day. Except, they didn’t. They don’t offer any evidence, most likely because there isnt any. The peasants’ revolts followed explicit material practises, most commonly attempts to collect taxes and tithes. But that doesn’t fit the narrative. Likewise, there are various other claims that just make you go ‘you what?’ Sacred mountains are no different to motor cars? I don’t think so.
Even the great Kandioronk mustn’t escape scrutiny. A very clever and insightful dude, no doubt. Who was a slave owner. This is mentioned but largely skipped over when recounting his great love of personal liberty and freedom. Which is a a pretty big skip. There are various other ‘slights of thought’ throughout the book. At one point they even argue that a state with a caste system is in many ways egalitarian. A bloody caste system!
The next two chapters really are the biggest load of piffle. Schismogenesis? Lol. A very poor man’s dialectics. They are delving into the kind of fantasies and just so stories they were decrying only moments before. I am sure it was a thing in certain circumstances, particularly the development of cultural practises, but as a general driver of modes of production or violence and autocracy? Deeply unconvincing. To look at one specific example, the Inuit refusing to adopt the Athabascan snowshoe and the latter refusing to adopt the ‘obviously superior’ Inuit kayak. But it didn’t take long to find out that the Inuit did use snowshoes, just not those ones, because of what they were travelling over – over sea ice or tundra with its lack of built-up snow. A clear material difference in circumstances led to the failure to adopt, not some daft ‘ohh, we don’t want to be like them.’ Similarly, the kayak v war canoe – just look at them, they are clearly different beasts for different environments. Add in to that the fact that they completely and utterly ignore the fact that the Kwakiutl held their potlatch feasts only after they had been virtually wiped out by the diseases and guns brought by the colonialists. The potlatch wasn’t some crazy irrational booze up, it was a desperate attempt by a ruined ruling-class to shore up any remnants of power. But that doesn’t fit the narrative, so daft jamboree it must be. We could also ask, why did the Inuit (or was it the Kwakiutl?) decide who to be in opposition to? They met with more than one other chiefdom/tribe/whatever, so why was one more important to oppose than another? If it isn’t for material reasons?
At various points they set out how it is vital not to impose ideas we have developed around evolution upon anthropology, because they are such different things. Now it is absolutely fair enough to do this in at least one respect – evolution does not have to deal with conscious actors like anthro does – but they do it by also managing to present an even older view of evolution than they do of anthropology. It’s all Tree of Life, leading in one direction with us at the end kind of stuff. But that’s a grotesque distortion of what people have said about evolutionary theory for well over fifty years – Graeber’s entire life. There is not a chance in hell that they don’t know about this, that they haven’t read Stephen Jay Gould. If they had, they would actually have to recognise that their theories actually fit (other than the consciousness bit) perfectly well with modern evolutionary theory. Because MET has long since rejected exactly the same kind of teleological arguments that G&W are arguing against. There isn’t a tree of life, evolution wasn’t leading inevitably to mankind, it’s a bush that almost got wiped out by moss and then by a bloody big rock falling on it. What has survived is just what has survived and, hey, aint it lucky for us that big brained mofo’s came along. But there was nothing inevitable about any of that. Which all sounds rather familiar.
There’s no mention of class struggle, it’s all about seemingly nice rational and civilised debates in long rooms. Which all sounds a bit like they’re just reimagining university tutorials or one of the better Occupy meetings. There is barely a mention of any kinds of internal struggle. And the feckers should remember that those crude materialists Marx & Engels didn’t start the first chapter of the Manifesto with ‘the history or all hitherto existing societies is the history of material development and progress’ – no, it’s the history of class struggle. Once again, they deal with the (very well established, even within anthropology) theory by ignoring and distorting it.
And they say nothing, really, about women’s oppression. Sure, it’s mentioned in passing quite often, but there is no attempt at saying how and why patriarchy did come to dominate across the entire globe. There’s just a vague ‘it didn’t have to be this way’ along with a whole load of women as nurturing caregivers (and thinker’s), men as violent hunters (and thinker’s). It’s pretty shallow stuff.
I could go on about how their account of the enlightenment is pretty poor and rather contradictory (somehow Europe had lost its ability to think creatively about freedom, until Kandi came along), but I’ve rambled enough already. It’s a real shame, what could have been really good and useful is undermined by its inconsistencies, over-egging of puddings and far too many omissions of alternative argument. Still, for all that, it is very well worth the read and it’s definitely shitloads better than Harari’s Sapiens.
Tldr – A reet curates egg, some great bits, some laughable bits, brought together by sharp writing and an amusingly irreverent style. Unfortunately, I wouldn’t trust a word of it and would have to go and double check even the most obvious seeming claims.
