3 ms·

I found the conjecture in “The Beginning of Everything” to be so obviously lacking in evidence - like the ideas he was critiquing - that I couldn’t help but thi

I found the conjecture in “The Beginning of Everything” to be so obviously lacking in evidence - like the ideas he was critiquing - that I couldn’t help but think it was intentionally ironic. Much of what Graeber criticized others for, extrapolating physical evidence based on their worldview, is exactly what he did using his own (not as mainstream) worldview. Graeber’s own conjecture further illuminated the breadth of possible interpretations of the evidence, making his own arguments weaker but also, IMO, reducing the believability of competing perspectives as well. I wonder if recognition of this is why Graeber was taking a more stereotypical liberal perspective later in his life. It is unfortunate that he is not around to share more about how his perspective evolved.

drewcoo 3y ago
> I wonder if recognition of this is why Graeber was taking a more stereotypical liberal perspective later in his life His ideas had gained a certain acceptance. That meant is was time to hone, to refine, to heap on the nuance. What better tool to use than his usual foil, status quo liberalism? Seems like a page out of Hegel.
ProjectArcturis 3y ago
I feel that Graeber had made a conscious choice to create a new fable, in a sense. That is, to the extent that most people think about the beginnings of civilization at all, they repeat just-so stories invented during the Enlightenment. Those stories wove themselves into our collective subconscious, and guide our collective decisions today. They help provide limits on what we think it is possible for government to be -- or not to be. Graeber, I think, wanted to change our perceived limits by challenging the old stories and weaving a new one.
- eightysixfour 3y ago
  This is my excuse when others critique the book as well. I don’t know if it is true, but I like it. The contrast of a new story is needed to understand the limitations of the existing one.
  - namaria 3y ago
    Precisely my view. Just showing people that the default story taught in schools and echoed in documentaries and popular non fiction is arbitrary and full of holes is very useful. A lot of political manipulation found in the wild rests on using these archaic narratives. Even the idea that "civilization started in Mesopotamia" seems to be a gross oversimplification that needs to be revised. Too much of Western world politics rests on obsolete Enlightenment narratives and questioning them seems to elicit strong reactions.

drewcoo 3y ago

> I wonder if recognition of this is why Graeber was taking a more stereotypical liberal perspective later in his life His ideas had gained a certain acceptance. That meant is was time to hone, to refine, to heap on the nuance. What better tool to use than his usual foil, status quo liberalism? Seems like a page out of Hegel.

ProjectArcturis 3y ago

I feel that Graeber had made a conscious choice to create a new fable, in a sense. That is, to the extent that most people think about the beginnings of civilization at all, they repeat just-so stories invented during the Enlightenment. Those stories wove themselves into our collective subconscious, and guide our collective decisions today. They help provide limits on what we think it is possible for government to be -- or not to be. Graeber, I think, wanted to change our perceived limits by challenging the old stories and weaving a new one.

eightysixfour 3y ago
This is my excuse when others critique the book as well. I don’t know if it is true, but I like it. The contrast of a new story is needed to understand the limitations of the existing one.
- namaria 3y ago
  Precisely my view. Just showing people that the default story taught in schools and echoed in documentaries and popular non fiction is arbitrary and full of holes is very useful. A lot of political manipulation found in the wild rests on using these archaic narratives. Even the idea that "civilization started in Mesopotamia" seems to be a gross oversimplification that needs to be revised. Too much of Western world politics rests on obsolete Enlightenment narratives and questioning them seems to elicit strong reactions.