Take a photo of a barcode or cover
hoobabi 's review for:
The Dawn of Everything
by David Wengrow, David Graeber
This may be one of the most important works of social science written in recent years. In an academic environment where “synthesis” is frowned upon as lacking seriousness, especially in the social sciences where we seem to relish in having no answers, the two Davids boldly move forward synthesising decades of research and pointing towards new, more interesting directions.
They initially start by trying to answer a classical social science question: where did inequality start? In the process of trying to answer this, they realise the question is fundamentally wrong. A better question is: given the vast diversity of social systems our ancestors have experimented with, how did we get stuck and was the outcome (nation states) inevitable? Obviously the answer to the latter question is an emphatic ‘No’.
The Davids don’t quite answer how we got stuck. They give us some indication by telling us that it might have to do with the confusion between care and violence typical of Western civilisation based on the Roman paterfamilias. The Americas simply don’t have this confusion because violence was restricted to people outside the community and who could not be integrated. I am not sure I am fully convinced but it is an interesting proposition at least and the above questions will keep social scientists occupied for decades (if they’re smart enough to take them up).
The true value of this book not only lies in the reframing of fundamental social science questions and in the reorientation of the science as a whole, but the complete eradication of some basic myths in our thinking.
1. That complex societies are fundamentally unequal and hierarchical because it’s impossible to organise large swathes of people. A firm nope on this one and it is backed up by evidence
2. That agriculture was a swift and decisive revolution that led (inexorably and inevitably)to nation-states. Again a firm no backed up by evidence
3. That humanity evolves from small equal bands of hunter gatherers to grain states and agriculture based on inequality and complexity. Again they show there is no evidence of this social evolutionary theory
But wait there’s more!
Hands down my favourite insight and one that the Davids sadly do not pursue to its logical end is the American indigenous critique of European thinking and its effect on our concepts of freedom and personal liberty. Could American indigenous peoples have contributed to the European Enlightenment? The possibility of such dislodging of our pathetic Eurocentrism is deeply exciting.
Clearly the indigenous critique was considered dangerous enough to attempt to neutralise and on this the Davids produce what is probably one of my favourite pieces of writing in the social sciences: how European thinkers tried to neutralise the indigenous critique by showing that indigenous Americans were stuck in an old stage of evolution, firmly placing Europeans, with their lack of freedom and obsession with kings, back on top of the evolutionary chain. They cleverly show how this idea stuck to both left and conservative thinkers: the left thinking that agriculture spoilt the state of nature and equality that tribes found themselves in while the conservatives argue they were barbaric and uncivilised and it is only the state that can bring our basest desires to a hold.
Clearly this 500 page opus is only the beginning yet sadly the end for Graeber, who I am sure would have continued to give us much needed insights in these dire times. We will deeply miss him but I hope with this book he has passed the torch to us younger scientists who, according to the Max Planck quote at the end, are the ones responsible for pushing scientific progress.
They initially start by trying to answer a classical social science question: where did inequality start? In the process of trying to answer this, they realise the question is fundamentally wrong. A better question is: given the vast diversity of social systems our ancestors have experimented with, how did we get stuck and was the outcome (nation states) inevitable? Obviously the answer to the latter question is an emphatic ‘No’.
The Davids don’t quite answer how we got stuck. They give us some indication by telling us that it might have to do with the confusion between care and violence typical of Western civilisation based on the Roman paterfamilias. The Americas simply don’t have this confusion because violence was restricted to people outside the community and who could not be integrated. I am not sure I am fully convinced but it is an interesting proposition at least and the above questions will keep social scientists occupied for decades (if they’re smart enough to take them up).
The true value of this book not only lies in the reframing of fundamental social science questions and in the reorientation of the science as a whole, but the complete eradication of some basic myths in our thinking.
1. That complex societies are fundamentally unequal and hierarchical because it’s impossible to organise large swathes of people. A firm nope on this one and it is backed up by evidence
2. That agriculture was a swift and decisive revolution that led (inexorably and inevitably)to nation-states. Again a firm no backed up by evidence
3. That humanity evolves from small equal bands of hunter gatherers to grain states and agriculture based on inequality and complexity. Again they show there is no evidence of this social evolutionary theory
But wait there’s more!
Hands down my favourite insight and one that the Davids sadly do not pursue to its logical end is the American indigenous critique of European thinking and its effect on our concepts of freedom and personal liberty. Could American indigenous peoples have contributed to the European Enlightenment? The possibility of such dislodging of our pathetic Eurocentrism is deeply exciting.
Clearly the indigenous critique was considered dangerous enough to attempt to neutralise and on this the Davids produce what is probably one of my favourite pieces of writing in the social sciences: how European thinkers tried to neutralise the indigenous critique by showing that indigenous Americans were stuck in an old stage of evolution, firmly placing Europeans, with their lack of freedom and obsession with kings, back on top of the evolutionary chain. They cleverly show how this idea stuck to both left and conservative thinkers: the left thinking that agriculture spoilt the state of nature and equality that tribes found themselves in while the conservatives argue they were barbaric and uncivilised and it is only the state that can bring our basest desires to a hold.
Clearly this 500 page opus is only the beginning yet sadly the end for Graeber, who I am sure would have continued to give us much needed insights in these dire times. We will deeply miss him but I hope with this book he has passed the torch to us younger scientists who, according to the Max Planck quote at the end, are the ones responsible for pushing scientific progress.