You need to sign in or sign up before continuing.
Take a photo of a barcode or cover
the_library_of_larry 's review for:
Upheaval: Turning Points for Nations in Crisis
by Jared Diamond
informative
medium-paced
Jared Diamond has become a rather controversial figure in the geopolitics space. The criticisms I've heard of Jared Diamond are somewhat present here in Upheaval. I also see why he is such a well known name. My review is for this particular book. I have not read Diamond's other works and so don't have those to cloud my judgement on this one.
The criticisms of Diamond I've heard before are that his style of geopolitical and historical analysis is quite reductive, and oversimplifies international and national movements, trends, and politics. This then leads to errors in his analyses. With Upheaval, I see some of this at work. Diamond writes this book as if it were a combination of a PhD thesis, a personal journal, and a historical narrative. This is a rather ambitious mission. If his point was to provide a defensible theory on nations in crises, then this book could have benefited from less personal narrative and more quantitative data. But then again, such an academic study would serve better as an actual PhD thesis than a book for the public. Diamond in fact addresses this in Upheaval. The book is based on qualitative, not quantitative, case studies of seven different nations that Diamond has personal experience with.
I do wish there was less time spent on Diamond's personal time spent in each country, I am less interested in his life story than I am in the national stories he covers. I also question the wisdom of comparing nations to individual people and finding similarity in national reactions to crises to personal reactions to crises. In my opinion, too many variables exist that can shape national reactions to crises, while with individual people, psychology is still a rather unstable science that has somewhat recently undergone a replication crisis. I do respect the work trauma therapists and geopolitical scientists do, and perhaps some interesting insights can be gleaned from the connection between human behavior and the behavior of the institutions they build.
But the real reason I was interested in this book was the history. And at this, Diamond is clearly one of the best. His descriptions of national histories at crises points are clear and accurate, at least for the nations I have studied before: Japan, Germany, the US, and Australia. His descriptions of modern crises facing the US and the entire world have only become more prescient. This book was published in 2019. I wonder what his thoughts are watching national reactions to the Covid 19 pandemic and the continuing polarization crisis in the US.
I can't help but feel that my love for the history is the problem. If I'm interested in the history, why don't I just read a history book on Japan, Indonesia, Chile, Germany, Australia, Finland, and the United States? Is it because I like the thesis on how nations handle crises? The guidance that these 7 national histories can provide? Okay, sure, but he bases those crises frameworks on the pyschotherapy work done on individual people. Is it useful? Does it sound good? It does seem at least a little useful, he makes certain compelling connections. At the very least its a fun thought experiment. As to how actually relevant and useful it is in the real world, that could be highly debatable. Diamond strikes me as a more classic academic type that buries himself in research and books and academics, without the strong practical experience that comes from being a decision maker in power. But his history is accurate, so he can't be that wrong.
I have no choice but to say that I thoroughly enjoyed this book, mainly because of the history, and I can conveniently ignore Diamond's personal narrative sections and focus on what I enjoy the most. Thus, the regular criticisms that I hear of Diamond might be somewhat true, but I either did not really see it in this book, or I don't necessarily care because I got what I wanted out of it. It is certainly possible that Diamond learned his lessons from criticisms of his previous works. It's possible my very engagement with the history and not the thesis proves the critics points. I could just read national history books, sure. This does not overshadow the fact that Diamond is an effective and engaging history writer.
This is a pretty high recommend from me for anyone interested in geopolitical analysis, probably for a beginner or intermediately experienced student or someone who has a general interest in global politics and history. You don't have to agree with every bit to enjoy it!
The criticisms of Diamond I've heard before are that his style of geopolitical and historical analysis is quite reductive, and oversimplifies international and national movements, trends, and politics. This then leads to errors in his analyses. With Upheaval, I see some of this at work. Diamond writes this book as if it were a combination of a PhD thesis, a personal journal, and a historical narrative. This is a rather ambitious mission. If his point was to provide a defensible theory on nations in crises, then this book could have benefited from less personal narrative and more quantitative data. But then again, such an academic study would serve better as an actual PhD thesis than a book for the public. Diamond in fact addresses this in Upheaval. The book is based on qualitative, not quantitative, case studies of seven different nations that Diamond has personal experience with.
I do wish there was less time spent on Diamond's personal time spent in each country, I am less interested in his life story than I am in the national stories he covers. I also question the wisdom of comparing nations to individual people and finding similarity in national reactions to crises to personal reactions to crises. In my opinion, too many variables exist that can shape national reactions to crises, while with individual people, psychology is still a rather unstable science that has somewhat recently undergone a replication crisis. I do respect the work trauma therapists and geopolitical scientists do, and perhaps some interesting insights can be gleaned from the connection between human behavior and the behavior of the institutions they build.
But the real reason I was interested in this book was the history. And at this, Diamond is clearly one of the best. His descriptions of national histories at crises points are clear and accurate, at least for the nations I have studied before: Japan, Germany, the US, and Australia. His descriptions of modern crises facing the US and the entire world have only become more prescient. This book was published in 2019. I wonder what his thoughts are watching national reactions to the Covid 19 pandemic and the continuing polarization crisis in the US.
I can't help but feel that my love for the history is the problem. If I'm interested in the history, why don't I just read a history book on Japan, Indonesia, Chile, Germany, Australia, Finland, and the United States? Is it because I like the thesis on how nations handle crises? The guidance that these 7 national histories can provide? Okay, sure, but he bases those crises frameworks on the pyschotherapy work done on individual people. Is it useful? Does it sound good? It does seem at least a little useful, he makes certain compelling connections. At the very least its a fun thought experiment. As to how actually relevant and useful it is in the real world, that could be highly debatable. Diamond strikes me as a more classic academic type that buries himself in research and books and academics, without the strong practical experience that comes from being a decision maker in power. But his history is accurate, so he can't be that wrong.
I have no choice but to say that I thoroughly enjoyed this book, mainly because of the history, and I can conveniently ignore Diamond's personal narrative sections and focus on what I enjoy the most. Thus, the regular criticisms that I hear of Diamond might be somewhat true, but I either did not really see it in this book, or I don't necessarily care because I got what I wanted out of it. It is certainly possible that Diamond learned his lessons from criticisms of his previous works. It's possible my very engagement with the history and not the thesis proves the critics points. I could just read national history books, sure. This does not overshadow the fact that Diamond is an effective and engaging history writer.
This is a pretty high recommend from me for anyone interested in geopolitical analysis, probably for a beginner or intermediately experienced student or someone who has a general interest in global politics and history. You don't have to agree with every bit to enjoy it!