• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Discussion on 'The Dawn of Everything'

You might find the writings of J.M. Blaut interesting to pick up some time; a cultural geographer, he wrote a rather withering but detailed polemic duology against ecological determinism in its various forms, a controversial but oft discussed series. Was going to be a trilogy, but he passed on before finishing the third. Apparently challenging Eurocentrism is hard on the organs.
 
The term "ecological determinism" is not familiar to me. Is it related to "environmental determinism"?
 
Tharmas said:
The term "ecological determinism" is not familiar to me. Is it related to "environmental determinism"?
Click to expand...
Yes, also found as "geographical determinism". Essentially, a nest of ideas swirling around the basic notion that a people cannot exceed natural limits placed on them by their ancestral location on the planet. Kenyans must run. Asians must be rich. Europeans must rule. All humans are equal in theory but their cultures are highly dependent on how much sun they get or whether they find shade from it under yew or bamboo. It matters greatly what crops you can grow. How any freshwater ports do you have? Are your mountain ranges mostly longitudinal or latitudinal? Tropical diseases much? That sort of thing.
 
Politesse said:
Tharmas said:
The term "ecological determinism" is not familiar to me. Is it related to "environmental determinism"?
Click to expand...
Yes, also found as "geographical determinism". Essentially, a nest of ideas swirling around the basic notion that a people cannot exceed natural limits placed on them by their ancestral location on the planet. Kenyans must run. Asians must be rich. Europeans must rule. All humans are equal in theory but their cultures are highly dependent on how much sun they get or whether they find shade from it under yew or bamboo. It matters greatly what crops you can grow. How any freshwater ports do you have? Are your mountain ranges mostly longitudinal or latitudinal? Tropical diseases much? That sort of thing.
Click to expand...

Which I think is basically correct, but 'determinism' seems a bit strong. The authors of DoE put it well - we make our history, but can't dictate the conditions in which we do so. Climate / Environment seems to be a primary influence, human decisions secondary.

With a sprinkling of Alan Watts' 'Watercourse Way' - some things turn out the way they do just because.
 
Thanks for the explanations. I'm just finishing up my bedside reading: Not in Our Genes (Lewontin et al), who argue that determinism of almost any sort, whether genetic or environmental, is a political statement. I've found it most interesting reading.
 
Tharmas said:
Thanks for the explanations. I'm just finishing up my bedside reading: Not in Our Genes (Lewontin et al), who argue that determinism of almost any sort, whether genetic or environmental, is a political statement. I've found it most interesting reading.
Click to expand...
Ah, another brilliant mind lost to us quite recently. Though, Richard Lewontin had a long, full life and his passing was not unexpected.
 
Politesse said:
Tharmas said:
Thanks for the explanations. I'm just finishing up my bedside reading: Not in Our Genes (Lewontin et al), who argue that determinism of almost any sort, whether genetic or environmental, is a political statement. I've found it most interesting reading.
Click to expand...
Ah, another brilliant mind lost to us quite recently. Though, Richard Lewontin had a long, full life and his passing was not unexpected.
Click to expand...
Yes, it was reading his obituary that got me interested in reading some of his works.
 
Highly recommend watching some of his old interviews too, he did quite a few for Cal Berkeley's tv station back in the day, easily found on YouTube now. A rare mind to be sure.
 
rousseau said:
A few weeks ago this post suggested starting a thread on this book, which a few members consider groundbreaking. I haven't read it yet but am 37th in line to get one of 12 copies from the library, so may join in soon.

I'm interested in understanding this book, which I haven't seemed to fully get from reviews and synopses. I'll hold off on comment until I've actually taken a look.
Click to expand...
I have started reading it--very interesting. It formulates ideas that I have thinking about for decades, so I may be suffering confirmation bias.
 
I didn't get too much further this week, but I've picked up a few more responses to my critique from the authors. From what I can tell the central thesis is more or less an excuse to tell a more complete story of our history, and humanize non-Europeans. And while explaining some parts of their thesis they seem to build a caricature of the argument they're arguing against, and then explain it more fully as a counter-point.

For example, they make the argument that agriculture is the result of urbanization, and not vice versa, and they stand this point against the false notion that people believe in a simplified model of the agricultural revolution. Some may generalize a bit on the causes of agriculture, but that the agricultural revolution was, in practice, a fairly complicated process isn't much of a controversial point, at least to any serious student of history. When people generalize about it, it's likely more for the sake of brevity than misrepresentation.

So as I continue to go through the title I feel like I'm seeing two separate threads - a fascinating one that presents all kinds of interesting research, and another that draws a narrative through the title to justify the popular non-fiction part. You can't really write a sellable history book with little premise.

The only other thing I'd add at this point, is that because they seem to be stretching at times to evidence their narrative, it's sometimes hard to fully trust other evidence they present throughout the book.
 
rousseau said:
When people generalize about it, it's likely more for the sake of brevity than misrepresentation.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure this applies to the "birth of agriculture" trope, which is still widely disseminated. Even many scholars, if they aren't archaeologists or otherwise keeping up with the literature, often have no idea how our perceptions of agricultural development have changed over the last few decades of research. I meet historians who are more than a little bit patchy on the question of New World agriculture, and spread straight-up misinformation in their introductory courses. It's why most archaeologists I know are excited about this book, which they are hoping will reach a wide enough audience to start eating away at some of those derelict tropes.

I still haven't gotten around to my own read of the Dawn of Everything, though, sorry! It's definitely on my summer reading list, but I've barely had time to breathe since the summer term started, in practice.
 
Politesse said:
rousseau said:
When people generalize about it, it's likely more for the sake of brevity than misrepresentation.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure this applies to the "birth of agriculture" trope, which is still widely disseminated. Even many scholars, if they aren't archaeologists or otherwise keeping up with the literature, often have no idea how our perceptions of agricultural development have changed over the last few decades of research. I meet historians who are more than a little bit patchy on the question of New World agriculture, and spread straight-up misinformation in their introductory courses. It's why most archaeologists I know are excited about this book, which they are hoping will reach a wide enough audience to start eating away at some of those derelict tropes.

I still haven't gotten around to my own read of the Dawn of Everything, though, sorry! It's definitely on my summer reading list, but I've barely had time to breathe since the summer term started, in practice.
Click to expand...

I don't doubt at all that many get it wrong, but I guess to me the nitty gritty details of the agricultural revolution seems to be wading into esoteric territory. For most people with some interest in history, that interest likely begins and ends with 'agriculture became important, and we ended up with modernity'. The title is well worth the read to get a more intimate look at the process, but I think the beauty of the research might be lost on the lay-reader.

On the other hand, disabusing people of the notion that 'civilization' stands in contrast to 'primitive' ways of life is a pretty important point, in my view. People who think rich, Western countries are the center of the world, and everyone else is irrelevant / uncivilized are missing a pretty key point about humanity.
 
I read a few more chapters today, and am looking forward to the next one where the authors deal directly with the state.

I'm still of the opinion that the evidence presented is on point, but the author's interpretation of the evidence seems a little specious at times. I could go into a good bit of detail but to keep it short it seems like they're a little too quick to land on socialistic interpretations of early cities (where evidence is actually somewhat scarce), and equally as quick to damn the state system as some kind of predatory fall from grace, where collectivity doesn't play a significant part (which it actually does).

One common thread throughout the book is also the idea that inequality is somehow only a thing in highly wealthy, stratified communities, which to me is a false premise. I'd instead argue that inequality is intrinsic to any social group of animals, and at a fundamental level plays itself out in access to sexual partners. Obviously as a community grows larger inequality becomes more visible, but I think the authors overstate the degree to which some western states actually are inequal. But to flesh out that point (and the one above about cities) would take an academic treatment which is beyond the scope of their book.

They also commit quite a bit of text to the idea that stratified, authoritarian government isn't a necessary aspect of scaled up communities, which again seems like an important point, but I don't think it really proves what they think it does. The reality is that these were early communities, and while their existence might indicate that the process of urbanization was more complex than many realize, that's not much of a controversial point. Personally, I'm not surprised in the least that cities without a centralized government once existed. That just seems like a logical pre-cursor (not earlier stage) to more centralized organization. That doesn't mean the state system is some kind of end-point, it means it's yet another pre-cursor to some future state of organization.

Possibly as I work towards the end they'll tie all of this together and the overarching point will make a bit more sense, but so far it seems like they're either working with some false premises, or being a touch disingenuous at times. Still a great (and convincing) book, but I'm probably not their target reader.
 
I got through the chapter on the state today (two more to go). In the end I think their conceptualization of the state as an impermanent amalgam of trends with different sources is basically correct. But I also have a few issues with the chapter.

- they focus more or less exclusively on the constraining aspects of the state, and not at all on what it enables. They keep tying the state back to what it takes away (a number of earlier freedoms), but there isn't a single mention of new freedoms that it brings with it. For example, I'm thirty-five and have never felt serious hunger, I have access to clean, running water in my home (and hot water). While the country I live in has access to legitimate use of force, this force also protects me from arbitrary violence from people around me. My newborn child is thoroughly and completely protected from danger under the law. You get the idea.

- and likewise they interpret very specific communities on what they managed to enable without a top down structure, but they don't address any problems that may have been present in these communities, that may have been later solved by the modern state

- they claim a number of times that the source and definition of the state is unknown, and basically unknowable (I'm not entirely sure this is true). But they don't spend much time addressing the actual state system as it exists today (pretty much not at all), or how it might have formed. They spend a few lines more or less vilifying it, then spend the rest of the chapter examining evidence from ancient communities of scale while entirely ignoring the properties and source of modern ones. They also don't really address the point that things are becoming more organized over time, and why that might be.

The over-arching theme that history doesn't progress or evolve in a linear fashion shines through nicely, but some of the above points are pretty obvious and glaring problems. Which, after a while, forces me to start questioning more benign claims they're making. I just don't find myself fully trusting the authors like I have in some other books with less of a profit motive.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom