In Search of the Primitive: A Critique of Civilization

by Stanley Diamond

Anthropology is a kind of debate between human possibilities―a dialectical movement between the anthropologist as a modern man and the primitive peoples he studies. In Search of the Primitive is a tough-minded book containing chapters ranging from encounters in the field to essays on the nature of law, schizophrenia and civilization, and the evolution of the work of Claude Lévi-Strauss. Above all it is reflective and self-critical, critical of the discipline of anthropology and of the civilization that produced that discipline. Diamond views the anthropologist who refuses to become a searching critic of his own civilizations as not merely irresponsible, but a tool of Western civilization. He rejects the associations which have been made in the ideology of our civilization, consciously or unconsciously, between Western dominance and progress, imperialism and evolution, evolution and progress.

Genres: Anthropology, Philosophy, Nonfiction, History, Politics

404 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1974

Reviews

[Randall Wallace · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book is most famous for it’s first sentence: “Civilization originates in conquest abroad and repression at home.” Stanley was one of the biggest known civilization critics when Daniel Quinn wrote Ishmael. Egging on Stanley was the fact that many ‘respected” British historians like Hugh Trevor-Roper were writing such damaging nonsense as, “perhaps in the future there will be some African History to teach. But at present there is none. There is only the history of Europeans in Africa. The rest is darkness.” Trevor is saying with a straight face he never heard of the Timbuktu Library, Mansa Musa, or the Great Wall of Benin. How did Cambridge’s favored son ever graduate from that university without an education? The Kano chronicle offers evidence ten centuries old from the Western Sudan.

When Athens was at its height of democracy, it had three slaves to every man. When Greece found a non-violent neighbor like Melos, it attacked, killed the men and put the women and children into slavery. The same Greece of course made Socrates drink Hemlock. In contrast primitive societies rest on a communalistic economic base and are proto-democratic. Private property exists for primitives, but it means stuff that is not essential for survival that can be readily made by anyone. “Accumulation in any quantity” becomes unthinkable unless it is intended for immediate distribution. Leadership is hard to find in the Solomon Island where whoever gets out of the boat first will probably lead the way. The Gikuyu didn’t know serfdom until whites showed up. The Gikuyu have a saying that would be the polar opposite of today’s Republican Party motto: “To live with others is to share and to have mercy for each other. It is witch doctors who live and eat alone.” The Anaguta say, “Demean a man’s character but never the man himself.” Judge a man by what he does. An Anaguta went with Stanley to his first movie, and was appalled humans in the war movie that they watched could do that to each other. A Pomo Indian said, “We had no old people’s homes like you. The old people were important. They were wise. Your old people must be fools.” I love Stanley’s line, “Civilization blames its crimes on its leaders”. Civilization doesn’t blame the process itself; it just blames a “few bad apples”. Primitive people have wider skill sets; for example, in the Dahomean proto-state each man (no matter what their profession) could cut a field, build a wall and roof a house. Marshall Sahlins pointed out that the richer the society, the greater the inequality. “Freedom as a concept does not exist among primitive people because society is not perceived as oppressive.” Slavery was largely pursued where labor was clearly in short supply, like on a plantation.

Christianity did not become ecumenical “until it was transformed into the Roman Church”. “Institutionalized Christianity is therefore an aspect of modern imperialism.” Never has it “launched” a critique of imperialism. “The basic apology for imperialism remains the idea of progress.” Faith in progress is the dominant idea of Western Civilization. If you surrender the notion of progress, you destroy the “rationale” for “entire civilization”. Primitive doesn’t mean stupid, or lesser than civilized; “Primitive” actually comes from the Latin word “primus” for “first”. Les Claypool in “Primus” was the “first” we heard of a Carl Thompson bass or anyone named Jerry actually being a racecar driver.

“The average anthropologist probably investigates no more than two or three different societies in the course of his career.” Socrates said, “it seems that our rulers will have to administer a great quantity of falsehood and deceit for the benefit of the ruled.” Stanley sees Plato as a “totalitarian thinker” and anti-Socrates for presenting a society “with no problems, no conflicts, no tensions, individual or collective.” Stanley muses, isn’t it interesting that not one Native-American tribe even said, “Damn these whites are really on to something, let’s change our ways.” He continues, “In fact, acculturation has always been a matter of conquest.” Damn. Even Yoda would say, “That Stanley a good writer is.”

“The search for the primitive is, then, as old as civilization.” Stanley mentions how Yevgeny Zamyatin’s “We” is more important a novel to him than Huxley’s and Orwell’s (a view shared by Noam Chomsky). Levi-Strauss wrote, “Civilization manufactures monoculture like sugar beets.” Rousseau wrote that “The savage has his life within himself”, while civilized man has it “in the opinion of others.” Beautiful. Heaven and hell are “civilized inventions”, For Stanley, the indigenous didn’t dwell on such abstract polarities. Such thoughts historically led to binary thinking and a wetiko [Taker for Quinn fans] mindset. Near the book’s end, Stanley muses, what today would be had FDR lived and the bombs not dropped. He wonders what if Stalin didn’t take power but instead Plekhanov (one of Lenin’s elders) had. Plekhanov “had been opposed to Bolshevik extremism and rigidity from the beginning.”

I had to finally read this book because after reading and reviewing a full 32 other anti-civ books on Goodreads in the past year, a lot of them centrally mentioned the work of Stanley Diamond and Marshall Sahlins. After finishing Marshall, how could I not also read Stanley? Any hardcore follower of Daniel Quinn and Derrick Jensen will ultimately find their anti-civ inspirations beautifully documented decades (and centuries) before by anthropologists Diamond & Sahlins, and, of course, Rousseau.

[jeremy · Rating 4 out of 5]

diamond was an anthropologist and professor, so much of this book (subtitled "a critique of civilization") was penned rather academically. still, it remains quite thought-provoking, and is the result of years of field studies. it came to be a heavy influence on the writings of derrick jensen.

[Carisa · Rating 4 out of 5]

Very good, be warned it is very text-booky. Talks about the ways in which primitive cultures are in many ways superior to civilized cultures. Most would balk at that. So, if your mind is closed to that notion, don't read the book.

[Corbett · Rating 5 out of 5]

Best first sentence of all time: "Civilization originates in conquest abroad and repression at home." It just gets better from there..

[zogador · Rating 2 out of 5]

Some books are read for the purpose of learning and others for enjoyment. I learned very little from this book and enjoyed very little of it. It's strongest attribute might be the title. Some of the early chapters contain real clarity and a few statements are truly brilliant, enough to be quoted elsewhere. However this is short-lived, and the progression is exceedingly convoluted.

Diamond's analysis and critique of former anthropologists, philosophers, and theologians is not presented in layman's terms or even general simple concepts. The author assumes an extensive backdrop of knowledge as a prerequisite, and writes in the style of doctoral thesis. The odor that emerges from the pages once exposed to air, is vacuous egocentric intellectual masturbation.

There are a few sections of this volume which have real substance and value, specifically his experience living with the indigenous peoples under primal conditions. The majority of the text comprises deep philosophical derivatives based on other literature, which can be summarized as nothing more than a niche moral/philosophical study-exercise.

[Zumzaa]

The essays differ massively in content and quality. The quality is in reality the discrepancy between my interest in the range of content. When Primitive societies are explored and dissected the book is most interesting. When Mr Diamond explores the academic field as an academic I would rather read absolutely anything else. Then his grand theories whilst I am not equipped to deal with is great to see for what it represents. A radical look at society with radical solutions even if vague to be honest.

[Nathan Elberg · Rating 2 out of 5]

Stanley Diamond was a brilliant and original thinker, but not as brilliant as he thought. He preemptively shut down differing opinions, not letting students speak when he knew they would disagree. Some of his conclusions were beyond absurd, driven by his narrow ideology.
I still subscribe to the essential paradigm he presents in the primary essay of the book, but he and his works have to be taken with more than a few grains of salt. I'm glad I have the book, and still get into arguments with people over the concept of "primitive."

[Camille · Rating 3 out of 5]

A rather difficult book to get through, unless you have some background in ANthropology. There were chapters and sections that were rather well written and well thought out. Much better suited for a undergrad or grad student.

[Will Lashley · Rating 3 out of 5]

This is a scholarly text charging an academic discipline with the task of self criticism and soul searching, but it is one of the best and most cogent challenges to the central question of a dialogue that has gripped Western civilization since the Enlightenment: Is our investigation of primitive and folk societies a sincere and actual attempt to understand these societies in their own terms, or simply the displacement of ideas about our own nature onto the "Other".
"The search for the primitive is, then, as old as civilization. It is the search for the utopia of the past, projected into the future, with civilization being the middle term. It is birth, death, and transcendent rebirth, the passion called Christian, the trial of Job, the oedipal transition, the triadic metaphor of human growth, felt also in the vaster pulse of history. And this search for the primitive is inseparable from the vision of civilization."
A very heady and challenging book - but in a schooled language that will not be to everyone's taste.