Graeber: Ancient History Shows How We Can Create a More Equal World
theanarchistlibrary.org
theanarchistlibrary.org
Actual ancient historians will look at sites, and based on the evidence found, come up with plausible theories to explain what transpired. These theories are based partly on the evidence, and partly on what we know about other events and sites from around the same timeframe.
Graeber, Harrari, and others take these theories, inject their personal biases, and present them as facts. For example:
> What this new evidence shows is that a surprising number of the world’s earliest cities were organized along robustly egalitarian lines. In some regions, we now know, urban populations governed themselves for centuries without any indication of the temples and palaces that would later emerge; in others, temples and palaces never emerged at all, and there is simply no evidence of a class of administrators or any other sort of ruling stratum.
Notice how he took a lack of evidence of temples and palaces, and proceeded to say that the cities were egalitarian. Based on what? What if those societies had temples structured differently than what you would expect, or if their temples were destroyed by outside invaders? And beyond that, there is an implied claim that you either have temples, or you are egalitarian, with no mix in between.
This level of non-scholarship reminds me of the Calvin and Hobbes bit where Calvin claimed that "bats are bugs" and proceeded to write up an entire school essay on the topic.
Scholars will focus on what they find of interest, and are not exempt from having personal ideologies, but I'd argue that the fact that Graeber acknowledges this (at least in more detailed treatments of the subject) makes him more interesting (and dare I say it reliable) than those who pretend or claim to be completely impartial.
On the other hand many of the objections to Graber and Wengrow (and notable others) conclusions have seemed have come from those who have strong personal biases in favour of hierarchy, negative views of human nature, fundamentalist religious beliefs, or positive views of capitalism. So this gives me good reason to be suspicious of their motives or perspective (especially when they don't acknowledge them, or consider their presumption beyond challenge).
No, it is the shift from theory to assumed fact which makes me call it garbage.
If the essay said: "What this new evidence shows is that a surprising number of the world’s earliest cities were likely organized"
Instead of: "What this new evidence shows is that a surprising number of the world’s earliest cities were organized"
I would not have the same objection. The addition of the word "likely" makes a world of difference.
If these more egalitarian societies showed up in the same time as other notable early ancient cities, doesn't that just mean that there wasn't yet a "settled" commonality of society building? In other words, "traditionally" unequal cities were just as experimental as these egalitarian ones.
For better or worse one grew more popular than the other, or had more power available for expansion (centralisation of control under a handful of people or royalty), and thus would grow to dominate their environment and these other kinds of cities.
So yes, these old sites can show us a more equal world, but they also don't exist in a vacuum. They will inevitably have to compete with other urban structures as time goes on. Resources either become scarce and need new sources, or your competition is expansionist. The ones with pointier sticks and faster decision makers would win.
I agree with his premise that we all seem to hold the assumption - and are taught rather intentionally so - that history is a linear march toward progress. Our modern constructs are therefore by definition the best that's existed and certainly better than what came before.
The point I took is that this neat line toward progress is just not the facts; mostly because we really can't know about history to this neat and clean degree. There were other things. Lots of other things going on!
So - the idea that survival of the fittest makes a strong argument to prove our modern constructs more fit - I think Graeber is really just trying to tell us hey we can't really know that, history is extremely lossy, to us. Careful not to throw out our entire civilization's experiments out with the bath water.
One meaning of "Modernism" is the belief that there's a general path history does/should take.
The reviewer writes "That some questions about inequality are obscure or ill-framed does not indicate that inequality of wealth is not a fundamental social problem."
Graeber's point about inequality is that, as a rights concept, it's impossible to define, and also not a good representation of how good communities work.
The reviewer is bending Graeber's words to suit his own points (and publications!). "Inequality of wealth" is a redundant misconception for Graeber, since wealth == inequality.
Yeah, Switzerland or Liechtenstein are so much more socially unequal than a brutal dictatorship like North Korea. Oh wait, actually they aren't. So this "wealth == inequality" thing is just nonsense. It might just be trying to say that everyone starts out "equally" poor by default but that's a trivial observation.
Powerful rulers, sure. With their own palaces, pyramids or whatever. Probably with their stash of gold somewhere. But as extreme as today?
I'd argue no. A tiny, tiny % of the population controlling a ridiculous amount of wealth, is a recent phenomenon for which there is no need, no good reason, and basically everyone is worse off as a result.
That's the weird part, imho. What keeps the remaining 99.999+% of the population from correcting this situation?
This is a misconception. A powerful ruler might make his subjects worse off by plundering their wealth. But many of the billionaires on modern lists of wealthy folks grew their wealth via entrepreneurship that made others vastly better off. This is one of the key differences between the ancient pre-industrial and the modern world. Prior to the industrial age it simply wasn't feasible to create such amounts of wealth on a sustained basis, though a skilled craftsman would've been relatively well off.
And he certainly shows a lot of (to me) convincing evidence that yes, people in the past were more politically conscious (in practice at least) than we give them credit for. I say in practice, because usually we don't know what their deliberations were like.
But the big two question then become:
1. How did we then fall into the trap of "TINO" thinking in the first place? Who stole our belief that things could be different, and how on earth did they manage to pull that heist off? and
2. Why did so many large societies drift into all too similar, dismal ways of organizations? With e.g. autocratic rulers who murder the whole extended families of advisors who fall out of favour?