2 ms·

So the altenrnative is the idea that capitalism and hieararchical societies is an inevitable outcome of civilizzation progressing, and there are no other ways t

So the altenrnative is the idea that capitalism and hieararchical societies is an inevitable outcome of civilizzation progressing, and there are no other ways to arrange societies? While this is still a popular idea in society at large, I don't think this is in fact an idea supported by mainstream archeology/anthropology/history/whatever other fields would comment on this. It's not in fact a big outrageous thing for the authors to be challenging this, it's very normal mainstream scholarly consensus. If anything, I think they are getting too much credit for being responsible for something groundbreaking in that basic challenge. But I agree with your summary of their basic thesis/organizing narrative approach right there. I think it's curious that you first summarized that as an "attack on modern society" though. You feel that to suggest the way society(ies) are organized now was not teleologically foreordained and could have gone other ways -- is to attack modern society? I think almost anyone writing an account meant to be popularly accessible like this one has __some_ narrative agenda, a point of view on the overall big points or organizing principles. To compare to Harari... yeah, it would be hard to argue that he has less of agenda, or sticks more to facts over his preferred narrative or ideology.

goatlover 4y ago
Graeber was an activist and anarchist, so his motivation is definitely to critique modern society with the hope of it eventually being replaced with something more to his liking. My understanding is that modern society in general (not the specifics) is the most likely outcome of human development over time, in that some sort of technologically advanced global civilization with governments, global trade and militaries was probable once modern humans spread out and colonized the planet, providing no extinction event happened before then. It was just a matter of time before population density and technological advances led to civilization as we understand it, whatever detours that may have taken, and however different it might have played out given various historical contingencies. My guess is that if there are any technological alien life out there, it likely follows the same general development, at least up to this point (given we don't know how the future plays out and of course just using our history so far, and also allowing for significantly different biologies or climates and geologies leading to divergent outcomes from ours).
- jrochkind1 4y ago
  > My understanding is that modern society in general (not the specifics) is the most likely outcome of human development over time... It was just a matter of time before population density and technological advances led to civilization as we understand it. I think most contemporary scholars, definitely in anthropology the discipline that Graeber and Wengrow are operating from, would call that "teleological thinking" and warn strongly against it -- the idea that the way things turned out is the only way they could have turned out, that everything was necessarily leading to this. There is actually nothing particularly innovative or unusual about arguing against it, it's quite mainstream to reject that kind of teleological thinking -- if it's a bias or agenda, it's one that is shared by mainstream scholarly disciplines. I understand you disagree, but what you are proposing is not a current mainstream anthropological or social science way of seeing things, and to challenge it is in fact quite mainstream. So again, I think in fact one error is giving Graeber and Wengrow too much credit for being groundbreaking here. They are not being innotivate or unusual in disagreeing with you that "it was just a matter of time" until society wound up as it is -- and scholars don't need to want to make an "attack on modern society" to disagree with you here!
  - mcswell 4y ago
    That sounds to me like "most contemporary scholars" are suffering from a misunderstanding of what "teleological thinking" would be (or else it's setting up a straw man). Teleological thinking would mean that there was a goal--either a goal of human beings, or a goal of God, or a goal of some thinking being(s). It's hard to see how a non-religious person could think of history as having a goal. What those scholars instead seem to be arguing against--assuming I'm understanding your explanation correctly--is that history has directionality, in the same sense that biological evolution has some directionality (thereby creating creatures that are better adapted to their environment, at least until that environment changes). Darwin's idea was to separate the two kinds of directionality, and provide a plausible mechanism for the one. Same in population density and technological advances leading to "civilization" (the point you're responding to). This is not teleology, this is a sense that hill climbing will eventually lead to a certain outcome (and maybe further outcomes in the future that we can't conceive of now). Whether this is true is, of course, a different question. But calling it "teleology" is missing the point.

goatlover 4y ago

Graeber was an activist and anarchist, so his motivation is definitely to critique modern society with the hope of it eventually being replaced with something more to his liking. My understanding is that modern society in general (not the specifics) is the most likely outcome of human development over time, in that some sort of technologically advanced global civilization with governments, global trade and militaries was probable once modern humans spread out and colonized the planet, providing no extinction event happened before then. It was just a matter of time before population density and technological advances led to civilization as we understand it, whatever detours that may have taken, and however different it might have played out given various historical contingencies. My guess is that if there are any technological alien life out there, it likely follows the same general development, at least up to this point (given we don't know how the future plays out and of course just using our history so far, and also allowing for significantly different biologies or climates and geologies leading to divergent outcomes from ours).

jrochkind1 4y ago
> My understanding is that modern society in general (not the specifics) is the most likely outcome of human development over time... It was just a matter of time before population density and technological advances led to civilization as we understand it. I think most contemporary scholars, definitely in anthropology the discipline that Graeber and Wengrow are operating from, would call that "teleological thinking" and warn strongly against it -- the idea that the way things turned out is the only way they could have turned out, that everything was necessarily leading to this. There is actually nothing particularly innovative or unusual about arguing against it, it's quite mainstream to reject that kind of teleological thinking -- if it's a bias or agenda, it's one that is shared by mainstream scholarly disciplines. I understand you disagree, but what you are proposing is not a current mainstream anthropological or social science way of seeing things, and to challenge it is in fact quite mainstream. So again, I think in fact one error is giving Graeber and Wengrow too much credit for being groundbreaking here. They are not being innotivate or unusual in disagreeing with you that "it was just a matter of time" until society wound up as it is -- and scholars don't need to want to make an "attack on modern society" to disagree with you here!
- mcswell 4y ago
  That sounds to me like "most contemporary scholars" are suffering from a misunderstanding of what "teleological thinking" would be (or else it's setting up a straw man). Teleological thinking would mean that there was a goal--either a goal of human beings, or a goal of God, or a goal of some thinking being(s). It's hard to see how a non-religious person could think of history as having a goal. What those scholars instead seem to be arguing against--assuming I'm understanding your explanation correctly--is that history has directionality, in the same sense that biological evolution has some directionality (thereby creating creatures that are better adapted to their environment, at least until that environment changes). Darwin's idea was to separate the two kinds of directionality, and provide a plausible mechanism for the one. Same in population density and technological advances leading to "civilization" (the point you're responding to). This is not teleology, this is a sense that hill climbing will eventually lead to a certain outcome (and maybe further outcomes in the future that we can't conceive of now). Whether this is true is, of course, a different question. But calling it "teleology" is missing the point.