The Dawn of Everything
The Dawn of Everything
by David Graeber and David Wengrow
A great read, championing a concept that is self-evident to many of us, but requiring further proof for the academic world. The idea is that ‘civilisations’ have come and gone over the last ten thousand years with various levels of hierarchy or egalitarianism involved; that the theory where humankind has progressed (evolved?) from our violent base nature to modern city living led by controlling rulers is flawed. Societies have always existed that are far more egalitarian than the current ones.
For me, this is hardly a controversy. My novel ‘Signs of a River’ was largely about an egalitarian, science-based society existing over 4000 years ago, now known as the Indus Valley Culture. I came across it as a geophysicist when mapping offshore NW India and discovering an ancient large river that was separate from the Indus system and what I thought to be the mystical Saraswati and became intrigued.
The authors of DoE discuss many societies across the globe in both time and space and show that they have a huge variation in their levels of hierarchical rule, with some being more inclusive systems and that history has largely concentrated on the heroes who have sought to control the world. On this, I have to agree. War stories often seem to be heroic events led by charismatic leaders, when in reality for most, they are times of horrendous violence and deprivation.
Freedom is discussed at length with many different sorts of freedom described. One appeared lacking to me and that is the freedom of thought or the freedom to think differently to the group. Organised religion is opposed to this of course and has been a huge contributor to the way that civilisations are managed. The freedom to not follow your parent’s religion is a rare freedom indeed.
That lack of freedom is critical. It is what I think of as the enforcement of groupthink, either in an overt manner or by subtle social pressures and it largely prevents any chance at progress. The changes for humanity at the end of the last Ice Age were profound, including large scale agriculture, development of cities, sanitation, medical facilities, storage, large scale mining and economics. I find it hard to believe that the warmer climate by itself gave rise to all of these as a matter of course.
I suggest a number of other factors came into play, beginning with a rapid expansion of populations. Smaller groups probably do obey something like Dunbar’s number of 150 as a maximum workable size. Groups of that size undoubtedly don’t cater for the mavericks of society. Anyone trying anything different in a small group may succeed for their own lifetime but it is unlikely they would be able to pass on their ideas to like-minded descendants. Larger groups allow for similar mavericks to get together and collate knowledge over time, leading to the advancement of sciences.
But is that enough by itself and what are mavericks anyway? Marcus Chown talks of the Magicians; those who defy popular thought and come up with new ways of seeing things. These are the Einsteins, the Leonardo Da Vincis of the world who have probably existed throughout time but largely ignored until their ideas are accepted by the masses. Seed planting and farming was most likely invented many times by many mavericks.
Most people are poor at mathematics even today. Only a few nerds find maths intriguing and fun and worth pursuing endlessly. I would guess it was similar through human history although there is a chance that this ability has come about through genetic mutations in more recent times. Simon Baron-Cohen suggests that the pattern seekers have always driven human invention; these being autistic thought patterns. Perhaps this was the mystery ingredient that found its time post the Ice Age. Pattern Seekers and Magicians are largely the same being.
Whatever the case may be, mathematics was crucial to the new age. Counting, measuring, weighing, understanding equations, patterns, shapes, astronomy and logical methods were crucial to this age of enlightenment post the recent Ice Age. For this to happen groups of like-minded people needed to create scientific disciplines and document or memorise the results, leading us all to the joys of reading, riting and rithmetic. Groupthink was largely the enemy that needed to be overcome as most people would have thought there was no need to waste energy on farming or building permanent shelters. I can imagine how they thought ‘We didn’t need it in the past so why would we need it now. It is not in our traditions; our way of doing things.’
Societies have always been a battle of political thought, with conservatives and progressives fighting things out on a regular basis. As more goods were produced in early societies, possessions became the norm and accumulating and safeguarding them became an issue. This has led to where we are today with many seeking to own as much as they can and others trying to share out these goods as equitably as possible.
Here I have trouble with the author’s conclusion that we are now unable to envision more equitable societies and are stuck in a hierarchical model. While it is probably true that we are entrenched in a capitalist economic model, many subtle changes can be made to make things more equitable and I think most people are aware of them if possibly hostile to the ideas. Universal health is a model supported by some countries but loathed by others. Taxation models, pension funds, public housing, anti sex discrimination laws are all tools used by various societies with different levels of success.
Will we ever have a truly egalitarian society? Probably not as too many people see that as bringing everyone down to a common, more basic level rather than an advance for all. Whatever the situation there will always be differences of opinion that create huge chasms between people, as we regularly see being played out today.
Have societies evolved? Certainly. Evolution is not some linear one-way street to a better place. It is essentially a random process where the most effective system survives for a period of time, only to be replaced on a regular basis. What replaces it is essentially unknown and probably random, dependent on future events. We can guess at some of them, but that is the realm of science fiction.
by David Graeber and David Wengrow
A great read, championing a concept that is self-evident to many of us, but requiring further proof for the academic world. The idea is that ‘civilisations’ have come and gone over the last ten thousand years with various levels of hierarchy or egalitarianism involved; that the theory where humankind has progressed (evolved?) from our violent base nature to modern city living led by controlling rulers is flawed. Societies have always existed that are far more egalitarian than the current ones.
For me, this is hardly a controversy. My novel ‘Signs of a River’ was largely about an egalitarian, science-based society existing over 4000 years ago, now known as the Indus Valley Culture. I came across it as a geophysicist when mapping offshore NW India and discovering an ancient large river that was separate from the Indus system and what I thought to be the mystical Saraswati and became intrigued.
The authors of DoE discuss many societies across the globe in both time and space and show that they have a huge variation in their levels of hierarchical rule, with some being more inclusive systems and that history has largely concentrated on the heroes who have sought to control the world. On this, I have to agree. War stories often seem to be heroic events led by charismatic leaders, when in reality for most, they are times of horrendous violence and deprivation.
Freedom is discussed at length with many different sorts of freedom described. One appeared lacking to me and that is the freedom of thought or the freedom to think differently to the group. Organised religion is opposed to this of course and has been a huge contributor to the way that civilisations are managed. The freedom to not follow your parent’s religion is a rare freedom indeed.
That lack of freedom is critical. It is what I think of as the enforcement of groupthink, either in an overt manner or by subtle social pressures and it largely prevents any chance at progress. The changes for humanity at the end of the last Ice Age were profound, including large scale agriculture, development of cities, sanitation, medical facilities, storage, large scale mining and economics. I find it hard to believe that the warmer climate by itself gave rise to all of these as a matter of course.
I suggest a number of other factors came into play, beginning with a rapid expansion of populations. Smaller groups probably do obey something like Dunbar’s number of 150 as a maximum workable size. Groups of that size undoubtedly don’t cater for the mavericks of society. Anyone trying anything different in a small group may succeed for their own lifetime but it is unlikely they would be able to pass on their ideas to like-minded descendants. Larger groups allow for similar mavericks to get together and collate knowledge over time, leading to the advancement of sciences.
But is that enough by itself and what are mavericks anyway? Marcus Chown talks of the Magicians; those who defy popular thought and come up with new ways of seeing things. These are the Einsteins, the Leonardo Da Vincis of the world who have probably existed throughout time but largely ignored until their ideas are accepted by the masses. Seed planting and farming was most likely invented many times by many mavericks.
Most people are poor at mathematics even today. Only a few nerds find maths intriguing and fun and worth pursuing endlessly. I would guess it was similar through human history although there is a chance that this ability has come about through genetic mutations in more recent times. Simon Baron-Cohen suggests that the pattern seekers have always driven human invention; these being autistic thought patterns. Perhaps this was the mystery ingredient that found its time post the Ice Age. Pattern Seekers and Magicians are largely the same being.
Whatever the case may be, mathematics was crucial to the new age. Counting, measuring, weighing, understanding equations, patterns, shapes, astronomy and logical methods were crucial to this age of enlightenment post the recent Ice Age. For this to happen groups of like-minded people needed to create scientific disciplines and document or memorise the results, leading us all to the joys of reading, riting and rithmetic. Groupthink was largely the enemy that needed to be overcome as most people would have thought there was no need to waste energy on farming or building permanent shelters. I can imagine how they thought ‘We didn’t need it in the past so why would we need it now. It is not in our traditions; our way of doing things.’
Societies have always been a battle of political thought, with conservatives and progressives fighting things out on a regular basis. As more goods were produced in early societies, possessions became the norm and accumulating and safeguarding them became an issue. This has led to where we are today with many seeking to own as much as they can and others trying to share out these goods as equitably as possible.
Here I have trouble with the author’s conclusion that we are now unable to envision more equitable societies and are stuck in a hierarchical model. While it is probably true that we are entrenched in a capitalist economic model, many subtle changes can be made to make things more equitable and I think most people are aware of them if possibly hostile to the ideas. Universal health is a model supported by some countries but loathed by others. Taxation models, pension funds, public housing, anti sex discrimination laws are all tools used by various societies with different levels of success.
Will we ever have a truly egalitarian society? Probably not as too many people see that as bringing everyone down to a common, more basic level rather than an advance for all. Whatever the situation there will always be differences of opinion that create huge chasms between people, as we regularly see being played out today.
Have societies evolved? Certainly. Evolution is not some linear one-way street to a better place. It is essentially a random process where the most effective system survives for a period of time, only to be replaced on a regular basis. What replaces it is essentially unknown and probably random, dependent on future events. We can guess at some of them, but that is the realm of science fiction.
No comments have been added yet.
