ahmedaminea 's review for:

Fragments of an Anarchist Anthropology by David Graeber

4.0

---

This book reads as a manifesto intended for academic anthropologists—or anyone in academia—who revel in discussing theoretical questions that often spiral into never-ending loops, using such obscure language that few can comprehend, all while asserting that their work is inherently political (a critique that applies to much of postmodern/post-structuralist literature).

David Graeber begins by distinguishing anarchism from marxism. While marxism tends to be a theoretical or analytical discourse about revolutionary strategy, anarchism is instead an ethical discourse about revolutionary practice. As such, the role of intellectuals, particularly anthropologists, is not to form a vanguardist elite to seize power but rather to inform society about diverse possibilities and experiments in creating communities based on consensus and mutual agreement rather than coercion. This process involves a dynamic interplay between ethnographic practices and the pursuit of utopian ideals.

As the title suggests, Graeber highlights fragments of egalitarian societies that have existed—or still exist. Contrary to popular belief, these societies were not egalitarian because they failed to achieve capitalism (insert any simplistic and racist theories of societal evolution) but because they actively worked to eliminate forms of domination. One of the most common examples is the gift economy: most societies historically operated not through barter but through gifts, as profit was viewed as deeply offensive.

Graeber also emphasizes that such examples should not be dismissed as relics of "primitive" societies. While he doesn’t explicitly cite Bruno Latour's: "Nous n'avons jamais été moderne" , he argues that there is no fundamental difference between us and people who lived thousands of years ago. Democratic governance, political entities, kinship systems, and cosmologies have always existed. Human history is filled with social movements and revolutions that extend far beyond the French Revolution or the Industrial Revolution, challenging the eurocentric bias prevalent in much of the humanities.

I firmly believe this is an essential book for any student or researcher, not only in anthropology but across the sciences. It encourages questioning racist/eurocentric ideas ingrained in us throughout academic training and invites us to imagine alternatives to capitalism. It shifts the focus from grand, singular revolutions ("Grand Soir") to practical inquiries about how we might organize society outside such a system.

I’ll end with a quote from the book that encapsulates its core message:
"All forms of systemic violence are assaults on the role of the imagination as a political principle."