The Dawn of Everything

There are several flaws in this book. We already know this. The theory Graeber and Wengrow put forward has been in vogue for nearly half a century. It's not new and it even is cliched. No one really thinks the analytic constructs of the theories of the State correspond to actual historical truth, not even the original theorizers thought like that. Its influence is another thing. Speaking of influence, the authors again try to conjure up a false categorical connection between how a certain concept emerged, and whether this concept is really in the object that those made heavy use of it. This, coupled with a complete overlooking of medieval history and scholastic developments in the field of jurisprudence, led them to devise a totalizing narrative that while reducing the principle underlying the status quo to contingency, and simultaneously totalize the so-called freedom of the native Americans (ironically just like Rousseau, and even more like Tacitus) as if it itself is not contingent. Everyone with a knowledge of the development and evolution of the concept of state will find the narrative given extremely confused and stupid. History is contingent, but nearly everything is historically conditioned, and this contingency is not something that can be gotten rid of instantly and on a whim. There are too many a-historical and pseudo-historical arguments in the guise of history (similar to the current status of historical studies in humanities). In fact Greber and Wengrow go full totalizing mode and blatantly make noramtive value claims when it comes to the views that they themselves deem right, without actually arguing for that, since they'll find that when they really go on and try to do that, they'll be repeating what the thinkers of the 17th and 18th century said. Furthermore, this book, similar to all other popular, propagandizing, rhetoric-driven book, gives a false impression that history is a simple thing which is more about facts rather than interpretations. Everyone with a minimum real education in any of the humanities will be able to see clearly that what are presented here are not and should not be the final words, but this is not and will not be the case for the general public, who are the majority of the readers of the book. I'm not against the "against totalising state" narrative, but I'm against intellectual confusion and rhetoric devoid of any meaningful content. Pointing out that a community is "imaginary" may give those who fall into the rhetoric a false impression that there must be something real that holds a community together, but they won't stop and try to think about what then is this real thing that holds a community together - it must not be blood I guess. Similarly, the book's narrative never venture toward its almost necessary intellectual conclusion, or rather, it tries to give a conclusion that not at all follows from the archaeological studies etc. presented in it as evidences to something that is vague and in itself imaginary.

In diesem Buch wird das bisherige Verständnis der Entwicklung der Menschheit in Frage gestellt. Ausgangspunkt ist die Gegenüberstellung der Thesen von Hobbes (der Mensch ist von Grund auf schlecht und muss gezügelt werden) und Rousseau (der Mensch hat ursprünglich in einem paradiesischen Zustand gelebt, der durch das Aufkommen der Landwirtschaft beendet wurde).

Für die Autoren sind beide Ansichten nicht zielführend, genauso wie die Frage, wann die Ungleichheit zwischen den Menschen entstanden ist.

Einige bisherige Gewissheiten werden hier über den Haufen geworfen, denn der Forschungsstand basierte auf unzureichenden Daten und/oder auf der Voreingenommenheit der Forschenden.

Wir lernen, dass die Menschliche Entwicklung nicht einheitlich und nicht linear verlaufen ist – also von Jäger- und Sammlergemeinschaften über die Erfindung der Landwirtschaft, dann zu Städten und dann zu Staaten – und auch nicht zielgerichtet.

Die These, dass mit größerer Anzahl an zusammenlebenden Menschen und Komplexität auch Herrschaftsstrukturen geschaffen werden mussten, lässt sich nach Ansicht der Autoren auch nicht halten, ebensowenig wie die vorherrschende Meinung „primitiv“ lebende Menschen hätten keine politischen oder sozialen Fragestellungen erörtern und ihr Leben entsprechend bewusst gestalten können.

Es gab immer mal wieder soziale Experiment und Gesellschaften, die nicht in dieses Schema passten und demnach ist unsere heutige Gesellschaftsordnung auch nicht zwingend, sondern sie kann von uns verändert werden (wenn wir dies wollen).

Interessant ist auch der Zusammenhang von indigener Kritik an der (damaligen) westlichen Gesellschaft und der Aufklärung des 17. bzw. 18. Jahrhunderts.

Das Buch ist ein dicker Wälzer und es würde zu weit führen, hier tiefer auf den Inhalt eingehen zu wollen.

Ich habe auf jeden Fall einige neue Erkenntnisse gewonnen und empfehle die Lektüre allen, die sich schon mal die Frage gestellt haben, wieso die Menschheit an dem Punkt ist, wo sie ist und ob es nicht auch anders gehen könnte.

Tragischerweise ist David Graeber nur 3 Wochen nach der Erstveröffentlichung des Buches verstorben.

I usually find Graeber's work a bit annoying as I agree with the conclusions, but I find his arguments for how to get there lacking. I had high hopes for this book as the premise was interesting. Unfortunately, this book was even more frustrating that his others. I enjoyed the critique of eurocentric views on civilization, and I liked that the book argues against a narrative of progress through feudal lords and then capitalism.

However, a main argument in the book is against the idea that large population governance is not inherently oppressive. I wholly reject this idea. The arguments Graeber and Wengrow make are hundreds of pages long and never get beyond "well there is no evidence of a monarchy so they must have had people's assemblies and been democratic." The city, they infer, is therefore a structure we can have without oppressive relations. There is then much advocating for the city as a body politic.

I just don't see this as being likely or even desirable. The culture of the city and the community life that brings are something that I think can be valuable, but I find no need or desire for an overarching body politic for a physical space just because we conceive an arbitrary line around it. I don't care how "democratic" it is. I believe politics, justice, and governance are pluralistic and need to be worked out on a case by case basis, depending on context, and involve those effected.

Can we have a future with technology and high standards of living in such a pluralistic society? I think so, but admittedly it would look nothing like what we have now, and would not look like early agricultural adoption either. We can make the future what we want without trying to erect our pet political strategies onto a group of people living in a single location.

That's what's so frustrating I guess. The book begins to give us the space to dream of a possible future, but then just settles on another system of governance that is appropriated from an incomplete picture of some Indigenous groups and some early Europeans.