4 ms·

Well yes, Hobbes’ hypothetical very bad society would be very bad. The point is questioning whether we have any evidence to suggest this hypothetical society ha

Well yes, Hobbes’ hypothetical very bad society would be very bad. The point is questioning whether we have any evidence to suggest this hypothetical society has any grounding in reality or, as Graeber suggests, has just been convenient to liberal ideology for a couple centuries and thus accepted as fact.

RapperWhoMadeIt 5y ago
Going even further, Graeber also tries to dismantle the "counter-thesis" to Hobbes', Rousseau's primitive egalitarian harmonic societies. He shows lots of archaeological evidence suggesting that "primitive" pre-historic societies were probably not that simplistic in terms of social relationships, and some were most likely not egalitarian, since, for instance they would present different displays of wealth in how different people were buried. In summary, his new book 'The Dawn of Everything' tries to present evidence in a more scientific way in order to destroy these inaccurate portrayals of primitive societies. I even tried to start a thread and discuss the book in this HN post, feel free to participate. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30002793 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30002793
- hilbert42 5y ago
  "...He [Graeber] shows lots of archaeological evidence suggesting that "primitive" pre-historic societies were probably not that simplistic in terms of social relationships, and some were most likely not egalitarian, since, for instance they would present different displays of wealth in how different people were buried." No doubt that's likely very true (as archeological evidence now suggests it is). However, it seems to me that Rousseau took his more simplistic view as a hypothetical starting point to argue his main one - that of the Social Contract. He probably reached a larger audience with his small book than grinding it fine by including unnecessary details - just guesswork on his part - about archeological prehistory, of which hardly anything was known in the 1760s. As it was, Rousseau was influential as witnessed by events in 1789. Some would even argue that he was too influential.
- ashtonkem 5y ago
  Which isn't really all that surprising. Humanity hasn't changed in a very long time, there's no particular reason to believe that ancient humans would be any less or more flawed than we are today, and certainly not less complex.
  - Natsu 5y ago
    I mean, one can look to our closest animal relative and see that even chimps have had their own little tribal wars, so it probably goes back even further than most people think.
mellavora 5y ago
Hobbes' very bad society wasn't a hypothetical. It was the reality during the English civil wars, i.e. the time when he wrote the book. And existed for some time before that in many other areas. And there was plenty of warfare in North America pre-Columbus. Iroquois had a long reputation as a ferocious warrior culture.
- int_19h 5y ago
  The English Civil Wars were a product of having a centralized government, though.
int_19h 5y ago
The other question is whether the Hobbes' hypothetical, even if real, is the only other option, or merely one of the possibilities. This all ultimately ties into the question of whether the notion of linear progress (i.e. that you can order all the possibilities on some scale from less to more progressive, and that history broadly evolves from the former to the latter) is even applicable to sociopolitical development at all. Until fairly recently, that premise was pretty much taken for granted.

RapperWhoMadeIt 5y ago

Going even further, Graeber also tries to dismantle the "counter-thesis" to Hobbes', Rousseau's primitive egalitarian harmonic societies. He shows lots of archaeological evidence suggesting that "primitive" pre-historic societies were probably not that simplistic in terms of social relationships, and some were most likely not egalitarian, since, for instance they would present different displays of wealth in how different people were buried. In summary, his new book 'The Dawn of Everything' tries to present evidence in a more scientific way in order to destroy these inaccurate portrayals of primitive societies. I even tried to start a thread and discuss the book in this HN post, feel free to participate. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30002793 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30002793

hilbert42 5y ago
"...He [Graeber] shows lots of archaeological evidence suggesting that "primitive" pre-historic societies were probably not that simplistic in terms of social relationships, and some were most likely not egalitarian, since, for instance they would present different displays of wealth in how different people were buried." No doubt that's likely very true (as archeological evidence now suggests it is). However, it seems to me that Rousseau took his more simplistic view as a hypothetical starting point to argue his main one - that of the Social Contract. He probably reached a larger audience with his small book than grinding it fine by including unnecessary details - just guesswork on his part - about archeological prehistory, of which hardly anything was known in the 1760s. As it was, Rousseau was influential as witnessed by events in 1789. Some would even argue that he was too influential.
ashtonkem 5y ago
Which isn't really all that surprising. Humanity hasn't changed in a very long time, there's no particular reason to believe that ancient humans would be any less or more flawed than we are today, and certainly not less complex.
- Natsu 5y ago
  I mean, one can look to our closest animal relative and see that even chimps have had their own little tribal wars, so it probably goes back even further than most people think.

mellavora 5y ago

Hobbes' very bad society wasn't a hypothetical. It was the reality during the English civil wars, i.e. the time when he wrote the book. And existed for some time before that in many other areas. And there was plenty of warfare in North America pre-Columbus. Iroquois had a long reputation as a ferocious warrior culture.

int_19h 5y ago
The English Civil Wars were a product of having a centralized government, though.

int_19h 5y ago

The other question is whether the Hobbes' hypothetical, even if real, is the only other option, or merely one of the possibilities. This all ultimately ties into the question of whether the notion of linear progress (i.e. that you can order all the possibilities on some scale from less to more progressive, and that history broadly evolves from the former to the latter) is even applicable to sociopolitical development at all. Until fairly recently, that premise was pretty much taken for granted.