3 ms·

It is extraordinary that Graeber existed, even if for an unfairly short time span. Extraordinary, not because he was genius (though he probably was in some sen

It is extraordinary that Graeber existed, even if for an unfairly short time span. Extraordinary, not because he was genius (though he probably was in some sense) but because there aren't many more like him. He was one of the very few persons that dared to question prevailing narratives about how society and economic structures (in particular) were structured and evolved since prehistoric times and propose plausible alternatives about true underlying social mechanisms and phenomena. Now, all societies fill-in the countless gaps and repaint the past to fit their purposes / justify an existing order. But in our "modern society" that claims to be scientific / fact based the paint job has some flaws so blatant it requires heroic will to pass unnoticed. When I read criticism of his Debt (and I suspect of this last book as well) I sense people have no idea how monumental the task of re-visiting and re-examining how the past evolved into the present without regurgitating banalities and "self-evident" assertions. Implicit in this program is the debunking of the entire field of modern economics and its associated legal/financial structures. If he is guilty of biting more than he could chew is because so many of the rest of us are intellectually and morally (and possibly soon also economically) bankrupt.

NuNotNon 5y ago
> He was one of the very few persons that dared to question prevailing narratives about how society and economic structures (in particular) were structured Give a search for neomarxism and poststructuralism
- streamofdigits 5y ago
  I have to admit that I am a bit allergic (hence may not have paid proper attention) to anything ending in "-ism" :-). btw that includes Graeber's "anarchism". To me it seems far more important at this stage to have a more informed "natural history" of economic / social organization that spans out the "phase space" of possibilities rather than strive already for a coherent framework that puts everything in its "proper place".
jmeister 5y ago
He was also relatively much more open to engaging with his ideological enemies. See his debate with Peter Thiel or his engagement with Nassim Taleb. https://davidgraeber.org/videos/david-graeber-vs-peter-thiel-where-did-the-future-go/ https://davidgraeber.org/videos/david-graeber-vs-peter-thiel... (His relationship with NT going from foe to dear friend is one of the most heart-warming things I've seen on Twitter): https://twitter.com/nntaleb/status/1301570705671237632 https://twitter.com/nntaleb/status/1301570705671237632 In this he was an intellectual in the mould of old-school Brit labor Marxists like Perry Anderson.
q1w2 5y ago
I think his biggest fault was that his passionate political views directed his research. He wanted to demonstrate that the earliest societies could exist without hierarchy in "popular councils and citizen assemblies... and were stable features of government", as he puts it, and when you examine archeological sites with this in mind, it tends to bias your perspective and causes you to pre-select data points that support that narrative. The OP author talks about how Graeber was a genius because he was so well versed in so many diverse subjects and the histories of different cultures, but unfortunately his conclusions are not supported by the experts in those specific cultures' histories. His conclusions about Clovis Points are a great example. He draws a huge number of conclusions from a tiny set of data that most experts don't agree with - conclusions that also support his modern politics. It reminds me of the fanfare around the book "Guns, Germs, and Steel", which was immensely popular because it supported modern progressive politics, and put on numerous best seller lists - but actual historians later showed it not to be supported by the historical record and that its conclusions were drawn from scant and/or misinterpreted evidence. Hard science is boring and tedious. ...and if you're selecting a hundred data points from different areas to construct a narrative that also happens to agree with your activist politics... then it's fair for the community to be skeptical of your methodology and conclusions. ...and that's also why he was dismissed from his roles as professor at two separate institutions.

NuNotNon 5y ago

> He was one of the very few persons that dared to question prevailing narratives about how society and economic structures (in particular) were structured Give a search for neomarxism and poststructuralism

streamofdigits 5y ago
I have to admit that I am a bit allergic (hence may not have paid proper attention) to anything ending in "-ism" :-). btw that includes Graeber's "anarchism". To me it seems far more important at this stage to have a more informed "natural history" of economic / social organization that spans out the "phase space" of possibilities rather than strive already for a coherent framework that puts everything in its "proper place".

jmeister 5y ago

He was also relatively much more open to engaging with his ideological enemies. See his debate with Peter Thiel or his engagement with Nassim Taleb. https://davidgraeber.org/videos/david-graeber-vs-peter-thiel-where-did-the-future-go/ https://davidgraeber.org/videos/david-graeber-vs-peter-thiel... (His relationship with NT going from foe to dear friend is one of the most heart-warming things I've seen on Twitter): https://twitter.com/nntaleb/status/1301570705671237632 https://twitter.com/nntaleb/status/1301570705671237632 In this he was an intellectual in the mould of old-school Brit labor Marxists like Perry Anderson.

q1w2 5y ago

I think his biggest fault was that his passionate political views directed his research. He wanted to demonstrate that the earliest societies could exist without hierarchy in "popular councils and citizen assemblies... and were stable features of government", as he puts it, and when you examine archeological sites with this in mind, it tends to bias your perspective and causes you to pre-select data points that support that narrative. The OP author talks about how Graeber was a genius because he was so well versed in so many diverse subjects and the histories of different cultures, but unfortunately his conclusions are not supported by the experts in those specific cultures' histories. His conclusions about Clovis Points are a great example. He draws a huge number of conclusions from a tiny set of data that most experts don't agree with - conclusions that also support his modern politics. It reminds me of the fanfare around the book "Guns, Germs, and Steel", which was immensely popular because it supported modern progressive politics, and put on numerous best seller lists - but actual historians later showed it not to be supported by the historical record and that its conclusions were drawn from scant and/or misinterpreted evidence. Hard science is boring and tedious. ...and if you're selecting a hundred data points from different areas to construct a narrative that also happens to agree with your activist politics... then it's fair for the community to be skeptical of your methodology and conclusions. ...and that's also why he was dismissed from his roles as professor at two separate institutions.