L'alba di tutto

Wide-ranging on themes of pre-history and archeological evidence for alternative social organization., a rich history of creative perspectives on human relations. Many of the arguments are compelling for non-domination, non-hierarchical societies and rejecting a still-common "myth of progress", "stages of social evolution", or that social inequality is an inevitable or inherent outcome of agriculture or urbanism or social complexity. Instead they find our societal problems in violence, patriarchy, and domination, and point us to look at the margins of history and society for answers.

Upon digging in to most of the areas discussed, looking to cited sources and other current experts in a topic, much of what is presented as novel or based in new evidence gets weaker, unsupported conjecture, or misrepresentation. It took me a while to write this review as it took me a while to become comfortable with this disappointment. There is just too much too broad in an attempt to stretch their exploration of what we don't know into a call for social creativity.

I highly recommend James C Scott's "Against The Grain" as a much briefer and tighter treatise on the strongest element of this story, that the modern archeological evidence argues against state hierarchy and exploitation inevitably arising from agriculture and sedentism.

Dream quests. Empires without war. Women leadership. A city centered around hallucinogenic journeys filled with weird architecture. An enlightenment of democratic settlements blossoming from the ruins of a centralized, aggressive kingdom throughout the current USA. Being able to travel across all of North America and find allied clans who must help you, even though you don't share the same language. People groups taking up farming, and then discarding it. The potential origins of private property. Axes of ideas that lead to entrenched arbitrary power, and the multiplicative danger that comes when multiple axes are involved.

The authors do cherry-pick examples from history to support their thesis that people throughout history lived in a wide variety of political structures, and that history is not stuck in a set evolutionary channel, because, well, that's what actually happened. History is much more complicated than most people think, and this means that the present can be different as well.

I finished the book wanting so much more about how societies can break free from solidified power structures, but that's no criticism of the book. It also has made me much more interested in learning anarchist theory, on various forms of voluntary organization. And, and, I really want to know how an anarchic grouping of people could (could they?) resist a more centralized attacker.

Read this! Your mind will be cracked open, over and over.

How else could we organize ourselves? How did we lose "the ability freely to recreate ourselves by recreating our relations with one another"?

This book gets into the weeds of anthropology and archaeology, but it's "zoom out" moments are really interesting. The Rousseau/Hobbes debate leaves out much and, they argue, makes everything much more boring than in actually is, given the actual data available about previous social arrangements.

How did we get stuck? We have forgotten that social organization have been a matter of play, tinkering, and sometimes is even dependent on things like seasonal changes. It feels like we are in the least playful and least imaginative epoch, succumbing to the ideology of Thatcher's "There is no alternative."

One interesting set of arguments in the book is about scale. Received wisdom says that structures of domination are tied to population scaling up. Larger, more dense populations means complexity, which means hierarchy, and hierarchy becomes "chains of command," and thus the origins of the state. Thus, once populations grow, certain freedoms are left to the side. But the book questions this kind of story by pointing to any number of non-linear movements between systems of social organization that do not follow this pattern. This is the trick of the book - to tell the received story and then show how that story cannot account for a mountain of evidence that contradicts it. For instance, Bureacracy did not emerge in large communities to manage massive amounts of information but insted first emerged in small communities.

I almost wish there was a "pamphlet" version of this argument, one that left much of the anthropological record deep in footnotes (or just referred to this book) and hit all the high notes and "big" arguments.

A tale of two David's: Graeber's final book, co-authored with Wengrow, is an epic volume of archaeology and anthropology that decentres and challenges accepted patterns of western thought that many social scientists present as facts. In particular, the authors take aim at books like Sapiens by showing how they proliferate accepted but unproven myths about human behaviour without following the evidence. As a book of critique and challenge, it is funny, thoughtful, and sharp. Some of the ideas, such as that the European idea of democracy may have originated from colonised Native American cultures, are radical but well argued.

Despite this, there are some flaws. A couple of chapters run far too long with too much repetition, and the scope of societies that are used to construct the arguments is limited. Also, there is a repeated insistence of humanist thought, dismissing animal or nonhuman relationships as unrelated to the story. This seems to reinforce another myth of exceptionalism and also ignores many of the beliefs and philosophies of the same cultures that are held up as examples in the book.

Despite these flaws, the challenges and ideas are well worth reading and considering in a frame of knowledge, and the writing (particularly Graeber's signature biting wit) is excellent.

It feels odd giving anything but an enthusiastic review to a book co-authored by the late, great David Graeber, but I'm afraid this one didn't really work for me. In my (and perhaps the book's?) partial defence, the circumstances weren't ideal. I read it as an ebook (so hard to flip back to check on facts) and, what's more, as a library ebook (so with limited time to finish it). I also haven't really been firing on all cylinders over the break, so maybe that's part of the problem? Anyway, if you take all those mitigating factors away, what I think we're left with is a book that somewhat uncomfortably straddles an attempt to provide a comprehensive, but alternative, 'big history', with an attempt to advance a counter to the default assumption of a teleology of societal evolution, that holds that agriculture is inevitable (and so hunter-gatherers are really just proto-farmers) together with an assumption that the surplus that agriculture provides will inevitably lead to administration, bureaucracy, and loss of freedom. If felt to me that the latter arguments were rather lost in the weight of historical/pre-historical detail, while the former big history was hard to follow as it jumped around trying to justify the argument. It's also, to be frank, a pretty long book, which seems to me to require either stamina (which I seem to be lacking at the moment) or a compelling narrative (which also seemed to be lacking). There was lots of good stuff offering an alternative to Eurocentric views on North American prehistory, and it would probably work pretty well as something to dip into for such insights, but for me, as a straight read-through, I'm afraid it didn't really work.