3 ms·

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 m

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
  I'm not claiming there is a goal to history or evolution. I'm talking about emergent systems. Ecologies are an example. So are ant colonies (particularly the super colonies) and human civilizations. Nothing planned them, they just emerge under the right conditions, which humans created by migrating all over the world, developing more sophisticated technologies, and transferring that knowledge to future generations and other connected groups via trade, warfare, etc. > 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. I'm not aware that they disagree with the idea that more complex social structures emerge over time. Of course it doesn't have to happen, say if an extinction event had occurred or a permanent ice age prevented the right conditions from coming about.

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
I'm not claiming there is a goal to history or evolution. I'm talking about emergent systems. Ecologies are an example. So are ant colonies (particularly the super colonies) and human civilizations. Nothing planned them, they just emerge under the right conditions, which humans created by migrating all over the world, developing more sophisticated technologies, and transferring that knowledge to future generations and other connected groups via trade, warfare, etc. > 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. I'm not aware that they disagree with the idea that more complex social structures emerge over time. Of course it doesn't have to happen, say if an extinction event had occurred or a permanent ice age prevented the right conditions from coming about.