3 ms·

Going even further, Graeber also tries to dismantle the "counter-thesis" to Hobbes', Rousseau's primitive egalitarian harmonic societies. He shows lots of archa

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.

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.