ŷ������

Graeber’s final and most ambitious (collaborative) gift to us is only the beginning��

Preamble:
...The beginning of a storm of debates. Indeed, this is the 3rd time I've had to update this review due to comradely feedback as I shift my reading context:

1) A momentary rupture of the Status quo:
--I started with a celebratory review to honour Graeber's last major project and to review it from a mainstream (i.e. not politically radical/academically critical) readership context given its NYT best-seller reach.
--Indeed, much of the "debunking" in this book is directly targeting mainstream "public intellectuals", i.e. Harari (Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind), Pinker (The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined), Diamond (Guns, Germs, and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies), Fukuyama, etc. and their mainstream cultural influences (esp. Rousseau's "noble savage" vs. Hobbes' "the war of all against all" requiring a "Leviathan").
...There’s always a certain joy seeing status quo liberals (think: cosmopolitan capitalism) frame Graeber’s social imagination as “d���Բ�����dzܲ��� (most famously for Graeber's Debt: The First 5,000 Years, which coincided with the Occupy Wall Street that Graeber was involved in); suddenly, the inescapable “Capitalist Realism�� overcast disperses and the skies open with possibilities.
...What better time than now to revive social imagination as status quo faith propels us towards ecological crises. 5 stars!
--I was also biased by social media (which amplifies and flattens differences) and assumed this book would be a useful intervention for crude Leftist debates between "anarchists" and "Marxists", where self-professed “anarchist�� Graeber attempts to transcend vulgar caricatures by reframing assumptions shared by both “sides��.

2) ...Now what? (The dialectical dance between materialism and idealism):
--Just as Occupy was an invigorating breath of fresh air before it was suffocated (although it did have lasting influences setting up Bernie Sanders' campaigns, which also were derailed...), what frameworks/tools did this book actually provide to mainstream readers for long-term transformative reconstruction (i.e. not just short-term deconstruction)?
--Here is where critiques started to pile up, crucially by leftist/critical anthropologists, which made me re-evaluate how I read Graeber (I'm specifically singling out Graeber not Wengrow because Graeber sits in the unique position of being a radical activist/academic who cracked into mainstream readership).
--My initial update acknowledged that:
i) My reading context is “historical materialism�� in a broad sense (i.e. analytical lens to start with, rather than rigid conclusions; I've written a checklist here: A People's History of the World: From the Stone Age to the New Millennium), meaning my foundation for analyzing the processes of history/society starts with the material conditions, i.e. the interactions between (1) physical environmental conditions and (2) social relations to fulfill material needs (production/distribution/reproduction, and the corresponding class conflicts/political bargaining power/contradictions). (3) Ideas with more bargaining power eventually get coded into our culture. "Marxist", if you're not using scare-quotes.
...The interactions between these material conditions vs. our cultural ideas (stories we tell to normalize the interactions) make up the dialectical dance between materialism vs. idealism. While there is a "chicken-or-egg" debate between materialist vs. idealist perspectives, I find starting with material conditions provides a sound foundation whereas starting with cultural ideas can leave us untethered to reality. At their best, Graeber/Wengrow acknowledge this:

Perhaps Marx put it best: we make our own history, but not under conditions of our own choosing.

ii) With this materialist foundation in place, I've made the habit of letting Graeber waltz in and flip everything on its head while still (somewhat) respecting the foundations by engaging with its concepts (rather than completely omitting it to create a parallel universe).
...In the context of academia, I like to describe Graeber (and his colleague Michael Hudson) as bulls in a china shop; they are the big-leap "creative destruction" in contrast to the carefully-plodding rigorous side (which I tend to practice if left to my own devices). So, I personally find Graeber's challenges invigorating since I tend to balance it out (i.e. someone needs to pick up the pieces after a Graeber/Hudson rampage).
iii) However, had I read Graeber without a materialist foundation, I would find Graeber's most provocative challenges disorienting. Would mainstream readers be carried away by the excesses of "creative destruction" rhetoric (which became glaring in my second read; I was still holding onto the excuse of marketing for a mass audience...) and miss the moments when Graeber is playing with (rather than rejecting) materialism (if you need a starting point, wherever Graeber mentions Marx)?
--So, I started with the wonderful "Climate & Capitalism" ecosocialist journal edited by Ian Angus and reviewed their historical materialist critique titled , (authored by anthropologists Chris Knight/Nancy Lindisfarne/Jonathan Neale: "Among our heroes are the extensive publications of the readable Christopher Boehm, Frans de Waal, R. Brian Ferguson, Sarah [Blaffer] Hrdy, Martin Jones and Laura Rival."), which I appended to the comment section in this review (comment #35).
--My foremost goal remains to seek synthesis; I want to dispel the sad irony that Graeber’s last project identifies “culture areas��/schismogensis (the creation of one’s own identity through difference from others, see later; we can add “narcissism of small differences�� and capitalist atomization) as a key barrier to system change, yet this book has created quite the uproar amongst the Left in particular.

3) The devil is in the details:
--You can see the direction I am heading. After reading this book twice, I put it and the topic on hiatus despite numerous comrades recommending the "What is Politics?" .
--Coincidentally, I started re-reading Graeber's works in parallel with dense readings in historical materialism (particular the ecological lens as well as value theory/accounting) in hopes of those momentary ruptures of "creative destruction", so I had to re-open this can of worms.
...To me, the most damning critique by "What is Politics?" is the messy interpretations/omissions on the positions of current anthropology made by Graeber/Wengrow, which is catastrophic because (as leftist anthropologists/archaeologists themselves) this should be their expertise and top priority for a book marketed to the public (i.e. to clearly popularize the best of anthropology)!
...I'm left with the sad conclusion that this book:
i) Runs circles around status quo priests (Harari/Pinker/Diamond/Fukuyama; yes, they are very influential in popular culture for convenient propagandistic reasons, but why should we perpetuate the myth that these figures represent the critical research in anthropology/archeology?) until we are all dizzy, and...
ii) Fumbled a great opportunity to popularize (and indeed debate/synthesize) radical/critical anthropology (great, more homework), etc.
...A bitter but important pill to swallow as I re-read the rest of Graeber's works. I've left my review below mostly unedited, as I think it still reflects the gist of Graeber/Wengrow's positions. As critical readers, we are forever tasked with further synthesizing.

Highlights:

--This book is the culmination of a project (apparently Graeber envisioned a trilogy) between anthropologist/activist Graeber and archeologist Wengrow, which started as an investigation on the “origins of inequality��, but ended with the authors attempting a complete reframing that raises new questions ("What is Politics?" praises the foundational, big-picture questions asked) and possibilities (but are they materially sustainable?) (lecture:

Myth #1: Prior to agriculture, humans lived as primitive egalitarian hunter-gatherers:
--This vulgar “stages of development�� assumption (once again, in popular culture, but not in leading anthropology) can be traced to the Enlightenment and the shock of Europe’s (i.e. “an obscure and uninviting backwater full of religious fanatics��) sudden integration into the world economy.
--In typical “Great (Western) Man Theory�� manner, modern liberals like smug muppet Steven Pinker (the Ayn Rand for Bill Gates) portray the Enlightenment in an isolationist manner of inventive European men. Even when these Enlightenment-era Europeans detail encounters with the rest of the world (American indigenous/Chinese/Indian/Persian etc.), this is either omitted or rendered as “mere projection of European fantasies��.
--This erases the dialogue behind the Enlightenment: missionary/travel literature became popular back in Europe for its critique of settlers/Europe and social imagination for alternatives. In particular, the “Indigenous critique�� (ex. Kondiaronk) against European (ex. French) elite private property regime against mutual aide while the masses toiled + accumulation of oppressive power against individual freedoms/consensus-building (participatory democracy) caused Jesuit outrage and stimulated Enlightenment debates.
--A counter to this critique was based on Lockean property rights, where colonialists portrayed the indigenous as "primitive" in a negative sense, esp. not putting labour into the land, thus part of nature with no property claims.
...Graeber/Wengrow contends that Jean-Jacques Rousseau was able to coopt (1) the “Indigenous critique�� and (2) its reactionary backlash to create the “stupid savage�� myth (later abused in “Social Darwinism�� and “scientific racism��; Rousseau's actual theory is the “noble savage��) where primitive peoples were indeed egalitarian but this cannot be an alternative to the trap of private property’s progress. "What is Politics?" critiques that connecting “stupid savage�� to an economist like A.R.J. Turgot is insightful, but it's a stretch to connect it to Rousseau.
...The “stupid savage��/“noble savage�� myth(s) and Thomas Hobbes�� “L�𱹾����ٳ󲹲��� myth (violent primitive anarchy constrained by the benevolent State), the two “sides�� of the modern debate, both assume a “primitive�� stage.
--Since “stages�� and “primitive�� still run deep in mainstream imagination, Graeber/Wengrow presents a dynamic human history of conscious social experimentation, esp. the prominent example of seasonal fluidity between mass collective mobilization (i.e. harvests/festivals... often egalitarian) and nomadic bands (often hierarchical). However, "What is Politics?" highlights the obvious materialist factors of seasonal changes which Graeber/Wengrow obscure.
--Now, as my long preamble has warned, we should not confuse "public intellectuals" like Pinker/Harari with critical researchers in anthropology/archaeology, so in my third reading I'll focus on the debates/omissions of Graeber/Wengrow with the latter regarding "egalitarian hunter-gatherers" (discussed in the "What is Politics?" series):
i) Richard Borshay Lee, 1968 Man the Hunter: The First Intensive Survey of a Single, Crucial Stage of Human Development�� Man’s Once Universal Hunting Way of Life, from the 1966 "Man the Hunter" symposium on hunter-gatherer research/"primitive communism", which Graeber/Wengrow tie to "behavioural ecology". "What is Politics?" highlights how Graeber/Wengrow connecting the "stupid savage" myth to post-1960 anthropology seem to rely solely on Colin Turnbull's 1961 The Forest People.
ii) James Woodburn, 1982 "" article (on "immediate return" hunter-gatherers).
iii) Christopher Boehm, 1999 Hierarchy in the Forest: The Evolution of Egalitarian Behavior (foundational synthesis of "reverse hierarchy")
iv) Chris Knight: 1991 Blood Relations: Menstruation and the Origins of Culture; also see this
v) Sarah Blaffer Hrdy, 1999 Mother Nature: Maternal Instincts and How They Shape the Human Species and 2009 Mothers and Others: The Evolutionary Origins of Mutual Understanding

Myth #2: Surplus from agriculture/technologies traps societies into inequality:
--This technocratic justification for stages is popular amongst mainstream luminaries like chronically-wrong Francis Fukuyama and an-atlas-is-my-bible Jared Diamond; Harari's Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind considers the framing of wheat domesticating humans.
--Graeber/Wengrow review Neolithic cultivation to contrast the biodiversity of Neolithic botanists (and egalitarianism from women’s roles becoming more visible) vs. the “bio-power�� of agricultural food productionism/domestication rule over animals (crucial to our biodiversity crisis; Rob Wallace would love this!)�� flexible/collective flood-retreat farming/“play farming��/“ecology of freedom�� conscious choices and experimentation vs. Enclosures private property/full-time peasant toil/“ecological imperialism�� environmental determinism��
--A finer distinction is considering the rigidity of the “grain states�� concept by fellow anarchist/anthropologist James C. Scott.

Myth #3: Urbanization’s increasing complexity/scale requires hierarchical rule:
--Another technocratic justification for stages... Note: in systems theory, complex systems both in nature and in society do not require top-down organization.
--Graeber/Wengrow review early cities that lacked rulers and had various egalitarian schemes: Ukraine “mega-sites��, Uruk (Mesopotamia), Indus Valley, China’s “Late Neolithic��, Teotihuacan (Mesoamerica), etc. This reminds me of Michael Hudson (who collaborated with Graeber) on ancient Mesopotamian cities; a pity they didn’t co-author a book.

New framework, new questions:
--By debunking the myths underlying the “origins of inequality�� question and revealing the dynamic social possibilities throughout human history, new questions surfaces: “how did we get stuck?�� and can we escape?
...Harari: “There is no way out of the imagined order [...] when we break down our prison walls and run towards freedom we are in fact running into the more spacious exercise yard of a bigger prison.��. Mark Fisher's “Capitalist Realism: Is There No Alternative?�� leaves a similar feeling, quite frankly.

…First, a new framework is considered:
--3 principles of domination (note: not all 3 have to be present; indeed they can be contradicting forces):
1) control force: sovereignty
2) control knowledge: bureaucratic administration (interesting to note the esoteric component of this bureaucratic “knowledge��, which we can connect to today's financial instruments + intellectual property rights regime!)
3) charismatic politics: heroic competition
--3 basic freedoms:
1) leave: “expectations that make freedom of movement possible �� the norms of hospitality and asylum, civility and shelter�� (of course, there are strong materialist factors here as to the physical ability to leave and find new land).
2) disobey
3) shape new social realities/switch between

--“How did we get stuck?��: a compelling first stab: The Roman Law roots of private property (right to use + enjoy products + *most crucially* right to damage/destroy) and its connection to slave law’s objectification (thus a “power�� rather than a “right�� involving mutual obligations negotiated with others)��
...Thus, the logic of war (arbitrary violence/interchangeable enemies) is inserted into the intimacy of domestic care (patriarchal household private property)... The effects on women and exiles regarding the basic freedoms
...The proliferation of “culture areas��/schismogenesis: “the process by which neighbouring groups began defining themselves against each other and, typically, exaggerating their differences. Identity came to be seen as a value in itself, setting in motion processes of cultural schismogenesis.�� (for my 2nd reading, I tried to key in on this as I'm lacking in cultural studies; I need to review more of Graeber unpacking “identity politics�� in politics/culture: ).

--We have a lot to work on and a lot to work with thanks to Graeber (RIP... here's Hudson and Steve Keen remembering Graeber: )