3 ms·

I don't think anyone would disagree with the thesis that there was a great variety of hunter-gatherer political organisations, that there were up and downs in h

by zby 5y ago

I don't think anyone would disagree with the thesis that there was a great variety of hunter-gatherer political organisations, that there were up and downs in human history or that the development was different at different places. Humans have been hunter-gatherers for a very very long time - there was lots of time and place to develop all kind of arrangements. """ The story is linear (the stages are followed in order, with no going back), uniform (they are followed the same way everywhere), progressive (the stages are “stages” in the first place, leading from lower to higher, more primitive to more sophisticated), deterministic (development is driven by technology, not human choice), and teleological (the process culminates in us). """ This is a straw man.

eevilspock 5y ago
If it is a straw man, it is a straw man that dominates, that has become the default way of seeing history, that the majority of people embrace, including here on HN. See Steven Pinker, Bill Gate's embrace of Pinker, neoliberalism, the fact that both of the dominant American political parties are essentially conservative (one just less so than the other)... Who are the people that criticize Pinker, et al? They are all thinkers the mainstream would consider radicals, Graeber included.
- zby 5y ago
  It is a straw man because nobody believes that: - The story is linear (the stages are followed in order, with no going back) - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Societal_collapse https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Societal_collapse The other parts are not that clear cut - but for most of the list there is no 'mainstream' consensus. For example: progressive (the stages are “stages” in the first place, leading from lower to higher, more primitive to more sophisticated) - everybody believes that at least the past civilizations had some good sides and it is now quite mainstream that hunter-gatherers were egalitarian (see also https://www.discovermagazine.com/planet-earth/the-worst-mistake-in-the-history-of-the-human-race https://www.discovermagazine.com/planet-earth/the-worst-mist...)
  - eevilspock 5y ago
    You keep saying "nobody" and "everybody". I refer you to the words of Inigo Montoya. I also don't think you understand the mainstream. Neoliberalism in America is thoroughly dominant, across liberals and conservatives. Even the "democratic socialist" countries in Europe are still neoliberal and capitalist, just a bit less so than America. The belief that the liberal world order is both better than anything that has come before and is still ascendant is dominant. If anything, you are making the straw man counter argument, with an overly literal interpretation of the article's use of "linear", especially ironic given your use of "nobody" and "everybody". That's all I have to say on this. If I'm wrong, I guess so are the people upvoting me. Best wishes.
q1w2 5y ago
I agree. Almost all historians acknowledge the persistent existence of nomadic and hunter gatherer societies living at the same time as agricultural based societies. The problem with Graeber is that, as a self-described anarchist, he specifically looks for evidence of non-hierarchical hunter gatherer societies in his review of research and draws broad conclusions based on select data points. It's the same danger anyone encounters when they're very passionate politically, and go to great lengths to look for evidence to support their modern politics in the historical record.
- eevilspock 5y ago
  Doesn't the mainstream view do the same? You don't think the status quo has a built-in confirmation bias as well? Why would the mainstream appear passionate when their take is already accepted as "common sense"? Compare Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.

by zby 5y ago

eevilspock 5y ago

If it is a straw man, it is a straw man that dominates, that has become the default way of seeing history, that the majority of people embrace, including here on HN. See Steven Pinker, Bill Gate's embrace of Pinker, neoliberalism, the fact that both of the dominant American political parties are essentially conservative (one just less so than the other)... Who are the people that criticize Pinker, et al? They are all thinkers the mainstream would consider radicals, Graeber included.

zby 5y ago
It is a straw man because nobody believes that: - The story is linear (the stages are followed in order, with no going back) - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Societal_collapse https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Societal_collapse The other parts are not that clear cut - but for most of the list there is no 'mainstream' consensus. For example: progressive (the stages are “stages” in the first place, leading from lower to higher, more primitive to more sophisticated) - everybody believes that at least the past civilizations had some good sides and it is now quite mainstream that hunter-gatherers were egalitarian (see also https://www.discovermagazine.com/planet-earth/the-worst-mistake-in-the-history-of-the-human-race https://www.discovermagazine.com/planet-earth/the-worst-mist...)
- eevilspock 5y ago
  You keep saying "nobody" and "everybody". I refer you to the words of Inigo Montoya. I also don't think you understand the mainstream. Neoliberalism in America is thoroughly dominant, across liberals and conservatives. Even the "democratic socialist" countries in Europe are still neoliberal and capitalist, just a bit less so than America. The belief that the liberal world order is both better than anything that has come before and is still ascendant is dominant. If anything, you are making the straw man counter argument, with an overly literal interpretation of the article's use of "linear", especially ironic given your use of "nobody" and "everybody". That's all I have to say on this. If I'm wrong, I guess so are the people upvoting me. Best wishes.

q1w2 5y ago

I agree. Almost all historians acknowledge the persistent existence of nomadic and hunter gatherer societies living at the same time as agricultural based societies. The problem with Graeber is that, as a self-described anarchist, he specifically looks for evidence of non-hierarchical hunter gatherer societies in his review of research and draws broad conclusions based on select data points. It's the same danger anyone encounters when they're very passionate politically, and go to great lengths to look for evidence to support their modern politics in the historical record.

eevilspock 5y ago
Doesn't the mainstream view do the same? You don't think the status quo has a built-in confirmation bias as well? Why would the mainstream appear passionate when their take is already accepted as "common sense"? Compare Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.