What do you think?
Rate this book
Possibilities: Essays on Hierarchy, Rebellion, and Desire
“If anthropology consists of making the apparently wild thought of others logically compelling in their own cultural settings and intellectually revealing of the human condition, then David Graeber is the consummate anthropologist. Not only does he accomplish this profound feat, he redoubles it by the critical task—now more urgent than ever—of making the possibilities of other people’s worlds the basis for understanding our own.” —Marshall Sahlins, University of Chicago
“Graeber’s ideas are rich and wide-ranging; he pushes us to expand the boundaries of what we admit to be possible, or even thinkable.”—Steven Shaviro, Wayne State University In this new collection, David Graeber revisits questions raised in his popular book, Fragments of an Anarchist Anthropology . Written in an unpretentious style that uses accessible and entertaining language to convey complex theoretical ideas, these twelve essays cover a lot of ground, including the origins of capitalism, the history of European table manners, love potions in rural Madagascar, and the phenomenology of giant puppets at street protests. But they’re linked by a clear to explore the nature of social power and the forms that resistance to it have taken, or might take in the future. Anarchism is currently undergoing a worldwide revival, in many ways replacing Marxism as the theoretical and moral center of new revolutionary social movements. It has, however, left little mark on the academy. While anarchists and other visionaries have turned to anthropology for ideas and inspiration, anthropologists are reluctant to enter into serious dialogue. David Graeber is not. These essays, spanning almost twenty years, show how scholarly concerns can be of use to radical social movements, and how the perspectives of such movements shed new light on debates within the academy. David Graeber has written for Harper’s Magazine , New Left Review , and numerous scholarly journals. He is the author or editor of four books and currently lives in New York City. In Oakland, California on March 24, 2015 a fire destroyed the AK Press warehouse along with several other businesses. Please consider visiting the AK Press website to learn more about the fundraiser to help them and their neighbors.
“Graeber’s ideas are rich and wide-ranging; he pushes us to expand the boundaries of what we admit to be possible, or even thinkable.”—Steven Shaviro, Wayne State University In this new collection, David Graeber revisits questions raised in his popular book, Fragments of an Anarchist Anthropology . Written in an unpretentious style that uses accessible and entertaining language to convey complex theoretical ideas, these twelve essays cover a lot of ground, including the origins of capitalism, the history of European table manners, love potions in rural Madagascar, and the phenomenology of giant puppets at street protests. But they’re linked by a clear to explore the nature of social power and the forms that resistance to it have taken, or might take in the future. Anarchism is currently undergoing a worldwide revival, in many ways replacing Marxism as the theoretical and moral center of new revolutionary social movements. It has, however, left little mark on the academy. While anarchists and other visionaries have turned to anthropology for ideas and inspiration, anthropologists are reluctant to enter into serious dialogue. David Graeber is not. These essays, spanning almost twenty years, show how scholarly concerns can be of use to radical social movements, and how the perspectives of such movements shed new light on debates within the academy. David Graeber has written for Harper’s Magazine , New Left Review , and numerous scholarly journals. He is the author or editor of four books and currently lives in New York City. In Oakland, California on March 24, 2015 a fire destroyed the AK Press warehouse along with several other businesses. Please consider visiting the AK Press website to learn more about the fundraiser to help them and their neighbors.
400 pages, Paperback
First published September 1, 2007
60 people are currently reading
3064 people want to read
About the author
David Graeber
107 books5,101 followersDavid Rolfe Graeber was an American anthropologist and anarchist.
On June 15, 2007, Graeber accepted the offer of a lectureship in the anthropology department at Goldsmiths College, University of London, where he held the title of Reader in Social Anthropology.
Prior to that position, he was an associate professor of anthropology at Yale University, although Yale controversially declined to rehire him, and his term there ended in June 2007.
Graeber had a history of social and political activism, including his role in protests against the World Economic Forum in New York City (2002) and membership in the labor union Industrial Workers of the World. He was an core participant in the Occupy Movement.
He passed away in 2020, during the Covid-19 pandemic.
On June 15, 2007, Graeber accepted the offer of a lectureship in the anthropology department at Goldsmiths College, University of London, where he held the title of Reader in Social Anthropology.
Prior to that position, he was an associate professor of anthropology at Yale University, although Yale controversially declined to rehire him, and his term there ended in June 2007.
Graeber had a history of social and political activism, including his role in protests against the World Economic Forum in New York City (2002) and membership in the labor union Industrial Workers of the World. He was an core participant in the Occupy Movement.
He passed away in 2020, during the Covid-19 pandemic.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 42 reviews
September 22, 2019
The fact that I had to get ‘Possibilities’ from a university library should perhaps have clued me in that it’s a more academic book than Debt: The First 5,000 Years and The Utopia of Rules: On Technology, Stupidity, and the Secret Joys of Bureaucracy. In fact, it’s a collection of academic papers and other essays written during and after Graeber’s PhD. His writing style is impressively clear and accessible, however the majority of the content is academic in nature. I still found it very rewarding, although some parts were more appealing than others. In several chapters I found embryonic ideas that he developed further in later books, which is always interesting to observe. The book is divided into three parts, the first on aspects of capitalism such as hierarchy, consumption, and commodity fetishism. I found this first section the least compelling, although there is novelty in getting an anthropological perspective on concepts dominated by economics. These initial chapters include concepts that appear in Debt: The First 5,000 Years.
The second section revolves around Graeber’s PhD fieldwork in rural Madagascar from 1989 to 1991 and includes some fascinating reflections on the culture he observed there. Notably, he realised that IMF structural adjustment programmes had downsized the post-colonial public sector to the point that the state effectively did not exist in rural hinterlands. The place Graeber studied, Arivonimamo, had essentially become self-governing and paid only lip service to the notion of central government. Graeber reflects on the definitions of a state and how Arivonimamo lacked a functional police force and enforced the law autonomously. Essays on death, magic, and oppression in the same location follow, giving a thoughtful and nuanced insight into Malagasy life. As an anthropologist rather than a development economist, Graeber isn’t interested in commenting on how the population could become richer and more Western. He instead analyses their daily lives and how pre-colonial traditions evolved during French annexation and subsequent independence. I’m very impressed that Graeber wrote this material as a PhD student, given how involving and considered it is. If that seems like damning with faint praise, I definitely don’t mean it as such!
The third part was written a bit later, as it centres upon the globalisation protest movement that kicked off in Seattle in 1999. Graeber was actively involved in these and his reflections contain an engaging combination of theory and praxis. Although he doesn’t use the term praxis, probably because it’s a bit pretentious. I like it, though, because it’s easier than remembering the difference between practice and practise. Anyway, the essays in this final part are shorter and less academic in content. I found this the most rewarding and thought-provoking section, as it contemplates questions that have recurred with protest movements since: the 99% and latterly Extinction Rebellion. By the time he wrote these pieces, Graeber was referring to himself as an anarchist and his comments on what that means as an academic are enlightening:
Subsequent essays comment on the absence of historically-grounded theory with which to conceptualise globalisation, as the phenomenon is largely associated with notoriously ahistorical free market economics. There are some very intriguing ideas in there, such as:
I also appreciate Graeber’s acknowledgement in this chapter that his theories might be completely wrong, as it’s very difficult to theorise a moment while its still happening. My favourite essay in the book, however, is ‘There Never Was A West: Or, Democracy Emerges From The Spaces In Between’ which deconstructs popular notions of what democracy is and where it emerged from. I found this particularly thought-provoking as I was taught about Athenian Democracy at school. In retrospect, it was rather ironic that a male teacher explained to an all-female class how magnificently democratic Athens was - despite the fact that women, foreigners, and slaves took no part. The essay advances strong arguments as follows:
I very much enjoyed the way that this essay caused me to contemplate previously unexamined understandings, mostly formed by a 16-year-old A-level in Classical Civilisations and an ongoing obsession with the French Revolution. It covers an immense amount of ground: what is culture and how does it differ civilisation? When and how were the concepts considered ‘Western’ chosen? What is ‘the West’? To what extent does literary tradition define these concepts? Is the ‘Western Tradition’ really an Islamic one? Did pirates perfect democracy? How do authoritarian states convince the populace of their unfitness to get involved in governing? How did democracy evolve from a pejorative term to an ideal? Where did capitalism come from? Graeber drops in a great many thought-provoking statements highlighting the hypocrisy inherent in much of what ‘the West’ says about itself, such as: ‘Opposition to European expansion in much of the world, even quite early on, appears to have been carried out in the name of ‘Western values’ that the Europeans in question did not yet even have’. An excellent essay that would definitely repay re-reading. I will think again before lazily generalising about ‘the West’.
The final piece in the book has a much narrower scope: how police reacted to the anti-globalisation protests and, specifically, why they particularly hated the giant puppets that the protestors brought along. This is interesting both as a miniature history of those protests and as a theory of state violence, one that highlights the peculiarities of police tactics. Said tactics still seem to be widely used against protests, except now the surveillance capabilities of the police have been hugely increased by the wide adoption of smart phones. I found this comment striking, as I wonder if it still applies today, when public discourse in America is more fractured, paranoid, and hostile (or so it appears from US political news):
I’m not sure that this is still the case, in an era of fabricated social media 'news'. (Also, The Raid is an excellent martial arts movie with an Indonesian riot cop as the hero.) I definitely think an associated point still applies, though: people find it hard to get upset about property damage to big corporations, as this is such a part of Hollywood movies. One of the reasons I love the Fast & the Furious franchise, despite having written an entire PhD thesis on why car ownership is bad, is the sheer number of cars destroyed in every film. I find that very cathartic. On a separate point, it is indeed notable police don’t obey the ‘rules of war’ during protests (e.g by arresting mediators) as to do so would imply an equivalence that is antithetical to their entire role. Graeber has some very incisive things to say about police in general:
Under the subheading ‘Some Very Tenuous Conclusions’, the essay ends by observing a shift in the 1960s from the cowboy to the police officer as TV avatar of the heroic American man. Indeed, I’d love to read a whole book about the 20th and 21st century's popular obsession with crime-solving in TV show, movies, and books. As I’ve discussed before, I don’t understand the appeal at all and find the idea that any especially intelligent person would automatically direct their attention to solving crime weird and reactionary. I much prefer media that take a more complex and ambivalent approach to crime and law-enforcement. (I think The Wire, Hannibal, and Killing Eve all fall into this category.) Despite being ostensibly unrelated, as an essay collection ‘Possibilities’ makes fascinating juxtapositions and raises many interesting questions. It’s worth seeking out and has influenced my choice of next non-fiction reads: Postwar: A History of Europe Since 1945 and This Is Not A Drill: An Extinction Rebellion Handbook. Graeber is an original and compelling writer, adept at making abstractions accessible and relevant.
The second section revolves around Graeber’s PhD fieldwork in rural Madagascar from 1989 to 1991 and includes some fascinating reflections on the culture he observed there. Notably, he realised that IMF structural adjustment programmes had downsized the post-colonial public sector to the point that the state effectively did not exist in rural hinterlands. The place Graeber studied, Arivonimamo, had essentially become self-governing and paid only lip service to the notion of central government. Graeber reflects on the definitions of a state and how Arivonimamo lacked a functional police force and enforced the law autonomously. Essays on death, magic, and oppression in the same location follow, giving a thoughtful and nuanced insight into Malagasy life. As an anthropologist rather than a development economist, Graeber isn’t interested in commenting on how the population could become richer and more Western. He instead analyses their daily lives and how pre-colonial traditions evolved during French annexation and subsequent independence. I’m very impressed that Graeber wrote this material as a PhD student, given how involving and considered it is. If that seems like damning with faint praise, I definitely don’t mean it as such!
The third part was written a bit later, as it centres upon the globalisation protest movement that kicked off in Seattle in 1999. Graeber was actively involved in these and his reflections contain an engaging combination of theory and praxis. Although he doesn’t use the term praxis, probably because it’s a bit pretentious. I like it, though, because it’s easier than remembering the difference between practice and practise. Anyway, the essays in this final part are shorter and less academic in content. I found this the most rewarding and thought-provoking section, as it contemplates questions that have recurred with protest movements since: the 99% and latterly Extinction Rebellion. By the time he wrote these pieces, Graeber was referring to himself as an anarchist and his comments on what that means as an academic are enlightening:
Where voting encourages one to reduce one’s opponents arguments to a hostile caricature, or whatever it takes to defeat them, a consensus process is built on a principle of compromise and creativity, where one is constantly changing proposals around until one can come up with something everyone can live with. Therefore, the incentive is always to put the best possible construction on others’ arguments.
All this struck a chord with me because it brought home just how much ordinary intellectual practice - the sort of thing I was trained to do at the University of Chicago, for example - really does resemble sectarian modes of debate. One of the things that had most disturbed me about my training there was precisely the way we were encouraged to read other theorists’ arguments: if there were two ways to read a sentence, one of which assumed the author had at least a smidgeon of common sense and the other that he was a complete idiot, the tendency was always to choose the latter. I had sometimes wondered how this could be reconciled with the idea that intellectual practice was, on some ultimate level, a common enterprise in pursuit of truth.
Subsequent essays comment on the absence of historically-grounded theory with which to conceptualise globalisation, as the phenomenon is largely associated with notoriously ahistorical free market economics. There are some very intriguing ideas in there, such as:
This system of border controls, in turn, is hardly dissolving with globalisation.
It has become popular, of course, to talk as if the growth of trade and migration are making national borders increasingly irrelevant. Look at the same situation in terms of the last five hundred years. It’s easy to see that, while world trade has increased somewhat, overall migration rates are nothing like they were one (let alone two or three) hundred years ago, and the only element that’s entirely new here is the presence of borders themselves.
[...]
On the other hand, the decline of the ‘Chinese model’ has allowed phenomena to reemerge that would have looked, just fifty years ago, bizarrely antiquated: e.g. new zones of permanent low-intensity warfare, such as were typical of Renaissance Europe; the rise of mercantile city-states; the reemergence of essentially feudal relations starting in much of the former Communist world; the parcelisation of sovereignty, whereby the elements we have come to think of as naturally combined in the state are instead broken up and distributed to different institutions on totally different geographical scales.
I also appreciate Graeber’s acknowledgement in this chapter that his theories might be completely wrong, as it’s very difficult to theorise a moment while its still happening. My favourite essay in the book, however, is ‘There Never Was A West: Or, Democracy Emerges From The Spaces In Between’ which deconstructs popular notions of what democracy is and where it emerged from. I found this particularly thought-provoking as I was taught about Athenian Democracy at school. In retrospect, it was rather ironic that a male teacher explained to an all-female class how magnificently democratic Athens was - despite the fact that women, foreigners, and slaves took no part. The essay advances strong arguments as follows:
Almost everyone who writes on the subject assumes ‘democracy’ is a ‘Western’ concept that begins its history in ancient Athens. They also assume that what eighteenth and nineteenth century politicians began reviving in Western Europe and North America was essentially the same thing. Democracy is thus seen as something whose natural habitat is Western Europe and its English- or French-speaking settler colonies. Not one of these assumptions is justified. ‘Western civilisation’ is a particularly incoherent concept, but, insofar as it refers to anything, it refers to an intellectual tradition. This intellectual tradition is, overall, just as hostile to anything we would recognise as democracy as those of China, India, or Mesoamerica.
[...] Democratic practices - process if egalitarian decision-making - however, occur pretty much everywhere, and are not peculiar to any one given ‘civilisation’, culture, or tradition.
I very much enjoyed the way that this essay caused me to contemplate previously unexamined understandings, mostly formed by a 16-year-old A-level in Classical Civilisations and an ongoing obsession with the French Revolution. It covers an immense amount of ground: what is culture and how does it differ civilisation? When and how were the concepts considered ‘Western’ chosen? What is ‘the West’? To what extent does literary tradition define these concepts? Is the ‘Western Tradition’ really an Islamic one? Did pirates perfect democracy? How do authoritarian states convince the populace of their unfitness to get involved in governing? How did democracy evolve from a pejorative term to an ideal? Where did capitalism come from? Graeber drops in a great many thought-provoking statements highlighting the hypocrisy inherent in much of what ‘the West’ says about itself, such as: ‘Opposition to European expansion in much of the world, even quite early on, appears to have been carried out in the name of ‘Western values’ that the Europeans in question did not yet even have’. An excellent essay that would definitely repay re-reading. I will think again before lazily generalising about ‘the West’.
The final piece in the book has a much narrower scope: how police reacted to the anti-globalisation protests and, specifically, why they particularly hated the giant puppets that the protestors brought along. This is interesting both as a miniature history of those protests and as a theory of state violence, one that highlights the peculiarities of police tactics. Said tactics still seem to be widely used against protests, except now the surveillance capabilities of the police have been hugely increased by the wide adoption of smart phones. I found this comment striking, as I wonder if it still applies today, when public discourse in America is more fractured, paranoid, and hostile (or so it appears from US political news):
The stickier problem was what to do with the fact that the bulk of the American public refused to see the global justice movement as a threat. [...] There is, I think, a simple explanation. I would propose to call it the Hollywood Movie Principle. Most Americans, in watching a dramatic confrontation on TV, effectively ask themselves: “if this were a hollywood movie, who would be the good guys?” Presented with a contest between what appear to be a collection of idealistic kids who do not actually injure anyone, and a collection of heavily armed riot cops protecting trade bureaucrats and corporate CEOs, the answer is pretty obvious. Individual maverick cops can be movie heroes. Riot cops never are.
I’m not sure that this is still the case, in an era of fabricated social media 'news'. (Also, The Raid is an excellent martial arts movie with an Indonesian riot cop as the hero.) I definitely think an associated point still applies, though: people find it hard to get upset about property damage to big corporations, as this is such a part of Hollywood movies. One of the reasons I love the Fast & the Furious franchise, despite having written an entire PhD thesis on why car ownership is bad, is the sheer number of cars destroyed in every film. I find that very cathartic. On a separate point, it is indeed notable police don’t obey the ‘rules of war’ during protests (e.g by arresting mediators) as to do so would imply an equivalence that is antithetical to their entire role. Graeber has some very incisive things to say about police in general:
A former LAPD officer, writing about the Rodney King case, pointed out that most of the occasions in which a citizen is severely beaten by police, it turns out the victim was actually innocent of any crime. ‘Cops don’t beat up burglars,’ he observed. If you want to cause the police to be violent, the surest way is to challenge their right to define the situation. This is not something a burglar is likely to do. This of course makes perfect sense if we remember that police are, essentially, bureaucrats with guns. Bureaucratic procedures are all about questions of definition. Or, to be more precise, they are about the imposition of a narrow range of pre-established schema to a social reality that is, usually, infinitely more complex. A crowd can either be orderly or disorderly; a citizen can be white, black, Hispanic, or Asian...
Under the subheading ‘Some Very Tenuous Conclusions’, the essay ends by observing a shift in the 1960s from the cowboy to the police officer as TV avatar of the heroic American man. Indeed, I’d love to read a whole book about the 20th and 21st century's popular obsession with crime-solving in TV show, movies, and books. As I’ve discussed before, I don’t understand the appeal at all and find the idea that any especially intelligent person would automatically direct their attention to solving crime weird and reactionary. I much prefer media that take a more complex and ambivalent approach to crime and law-enforcement. (I think The Wire, Hannibal, and Killing Eve all fall into this category.) Despite being ostensibly unrelated, as an essay collection ‘Possibilities’ makes fascinating juxtapositions and raises many interesting questions. It’s worth seeking out and has influenced my choice of next non-fiction reads: Postwar: A History of Europe Since 1945 and This Is Not A Drill: An Extinction Rebellion Handbook. Graeber is an original and compelling writer, adept at making abstractions accessible and relevant.
December 27, 2007
David Graeber is arguably the best anarchist intellectual working in the US as well as a hell of an anthropologist. What is great about this book is that he actually historicizes the anti-globalization movement so that it appears part of the long, broad process of democratic movements everywhere. In what may be the best essay of the book, he joins writers like Silvia Federici in taking apart the notion of "western civilization" and shows how democracy, if defined as people making decisions for themselves, has worked just fine in the past. Graeber argues persuasively that democracy of this stripe has its origins all over the globe, not just in ancient Greece.
Anyone who doubts whether or not truly participatory democracy is possible should read Graeber. Even those of us who agree with much of the anti-globalization movement's values but still harbor doubts about how building consensus might really work will find this book a powerful provocation.
Though I doubt Graeber would call himself a theorist, there are many suggestive passages in this book from which one can start to think about how to bring some real democracy into one's life, family, community, etc. Anyone interested in what anarchist thought has to offer liberal marxist theory ought to start here, but I doubt anyone who reads the book with an open mind will leave it as liberal marxist. It will require, however, actually reading and thinking about the book, not simply looking for little places where you disagree and then blowing them up into huge moral failings. This is a book for people looking for solutions, not for people who just want to criticize.
Anyone who doubts whether or not truly participatory democracy is possible should read Graeber. Even those of us who agree with much of the anti-globalization movement's values but still harbor doubts about how building consensus might really work will find this book a powerful provocation.
Though I doubt Graeber would call himself a theorist, there are many suggestive passages in this book from which one can start to think about how to bring some real democracy into one's life, family, community, etc. Anyone interested in what anarchist thought has to offer liberal marxist theory ought to start here, but I doubt anyone who reads the book with an open mind will leave it as liberal marxist. It will require, however, actually reading and thinking about the book, not simply looking for little places where you disagree and then blowing them up into huge moral failings. This is a book for people looking for solutions, not for people who just want to criticize.
January 29, 2022
Στοχαστές σαν τον Graeber είναι λίγοι σήμερα.
Σάν ανάγνωσμα είναι απαιτητικό, καί έχει αυτό πού θά έλεγε κάποιος "ακαδημαϊκό" ύφος στο μεγαλύτερο κομμάτι τού.
Θέλει υπομονή καί εγώ προσωπικά θά πρότεινα καί τό Google ανοιχτό,αν δεν υπάρχουν γνώσεις ανθρωπολογίας, όπως στην περίπτωση μου.
Παρόλα αυτά άπαξ καί μπεις στο πνεύμα τού βιβλίου αποζημιωνεσαι με τό παραπάνω.
Οι αναλύσεις τού συγγραφέα πάνω σέ έννοιες όπως η "αξία",ο "φετιχισμός τής κατανάλωσης"κτλ αναλύονται ενδελεχώς καί κάθε στο τέλος κάθε κεφαλαίου τό βιβλίο σου δίνει μια αίσθηση φώτισης θρησκευτικού επιπέδου.
Είχα πολύ καιρό νά διαβάσω κείμενα τού Graeber, καί όντας νεώτερος όταν είχα πρωτόδιαβσσει δεν είχα καταλάβει το εύρος της οπτικής τού.
Ήταν ένας μεγαλοφυής παρατηρητής τής ανθρώπινης ύπαρξης καί τά βιβλία τού θά είναι πάντα σπουδαία παρακαταθήκη για όλους μας.
5/5
Σάν ανάγνωσμα είναι απαιτητικό, καί έχει αυτό πού θά έλεγε κάποιος "ακαδημαϊκό" ύφος στο μεγαλύτερο κομμάτι τού.
Θέλει υπομονή καί εγώ προσωπικά θά πρότεινα καί τό Google ανοιχτό,αν δεν υπάρχουν γνώσεις ανθρωπολογίας, όπως στην περίπτωση μου.
Παρόλα αυτά άπαξ καί μπεις στο πνεύμα τού βιβλίου αποζημιωνεσαι με τό παραπάνω.
Οι αναλύσεις τού συγγραφέα πάνω σέ έννοιες όπως η "αξία",ο "φετιχισμός τής κατανάλωσης"κτλ αναλύονται ενδελεχώς καί κάθε στο τέλος κάθε κεφαλαίου τό βιβλίο σου δίνει μια αίσθηση φώτισης θρησκευτικού επιπέδου.
Είχα πολύ καιρό νά διαβάσω κείμενα τού Graeber, καί όντας νεώτερος όταν είχα πρωτόδιαβσσει δεν είχα καταλάβει το εύρος της οπτικής τού.
Ήταν ένας μεγαλοφυής παρατηρητής τής ανθρώπινης ύπαρξης καί τά βιβλία τού θά είναι πάντα σπουδαία παρακαταθήκη για όλους μας.
5/5
December 23, 2021
One of our best humble and creative intellectuals of our time. Rest in peace and power David!
Currently reading
January 21, 2009so far i've learned that i need to define capitalism better and think about how dirty jokes about bodies actually makes us more egalitarian.
May 27, 2016
The first part was great, but I got slowed up in the middle bit about Madagascar. At the end there is some ranting about giant puppets and direct action that I enjoyed. I wish AK press had double checked the bibliographies. I was adding some of the citations to wishlists and the authors' names were spelled wrong in the book. That's a small complaint, I guess.
The book also contains a clue as to why Graeber is so popular. He is one of the few people in the movements he describes who is willing to talk to the mainstream press.
I'm not trying to diss the guy. Just didn't want to give it the full 5 stars is all.
The book also contains a clue as to why Graeber is so popular. He is one of the few people in the movements he describes who is willing to talk to the mainstream press.
I'm not trying to diss the guy. Just didn't want to give it the full 5 stars is all.
November 26, 2023
Graeber has the unique ability to shape our reality: a witch, a magician, the power of the word, Graeber was a genius. In this book he uses his knowledge on Economics, History and Anthropology to rework some concepts that are commonly used, such as salaries, slavery or mode of production, along with fetishism. I loved hearing about carnival, about the protestants, about African tribes, about kings and the sacred and property... really, really good.
December 4, 2025
Finally finished this book (less the middle chapters on Madagascar). Graeber is always interesting, even if I don’t always agree with him. I love his spirit: he embraces a vast expanse of time, space, and culture; but does so not with a voice of classification and mastery, but to unsettle such narratives.
July 3, 2024
Graeber is essential reading. I had read some of these essays before but they were even better now that I'm rereading them. he has such a unique and amazing way of being plain spoken and pointing out the obvious genius of anarchism, even when not setting out to do that. The essay on the shadow/ show government that exists in Madagascar while people and communities actually run life/ society is extremely perceptive. sometimes we all need to be reminded that laws and states are just concepts and we actually govern our lives.
November 5, 2008
What an amazing read. Graeber's writing is accessible and fun to read--unlike a lot of other academic (?) texts I've read in the past. He conveys his ideas eloquently while citing his experiences or his knowledge of theory and social action. An anthropologist by training and an anarchist in thought, Graeber has written some very thoughtful essays in Possibilities. His essays regarding his field work in Madagascar are very interesting but his humor and investigations of the global justice movement are exciting. I would recommend anything Graeber has written. At this point, I intend on reading all of his works. In particular I enjoyed these essays: Provisional Autonomous Zone: Or, The Ghost-State of Madagascar, The Twilight of Vanguardism, and On the Phenomenology of Giant Puppets: Broken Windows, Imaginary Jars of Urine, and the Cosmological Role of the Police on American Culture. I mean, how can you go wrong with titles like those?! Anyway, an amazing read. I highly recommend it.
September 3, 2009
I was told that grad school would require some "rewiring" of my brain, yet in my first semester I found that it was only an extension of writers and ideas that I had been very familiar with in undergrad. That was until I read Graeber's essay on the 1999 Seattle protests ( either the last or next to last in this collection).
Had the bulk of of Graeber's work not been published in the climate of fear post 9-11 I believe he would be in the ranks of other public intellectuals like Chomsky or Zinn and would still be at Yale (if he would have even wanted that). Instead he was forced out and one of the most interesting American theorists finds himself teaching at LSE
Possibilities is a collection essays which makes it easy to pick-up and put-down, but if read front to back (since there is some chronological order) the book unfolds as a U. of Chicago student moves from social articulation to an absolute devotion to praxis and removing himself from the ivory tower
Had the bulk of of Graeber's work not been published in the climate of fear post 9-11 I believe he would be in the ranks of other public intellectuals like Chomsky or Zinn and would still be at Yale (if he would have even wanted that). Instead he was forced out and one of the most interesting American theorists finds himself teaching at LSE
Possibilities is a collection essays which makes it easy to pick-up and put-down, but if read front to back (since there is some chronological order) the book unfolds as a U. of Chicago student moves from social articulation to an absolute devotion to praxis and removing himself from the ivory tower
July 1, 2020
Such a provocative and insightful writer. Muuuuuuuch food for thought.
December 21, 2024
This book is a collection of essays that challenge the way we normally think about concepts like democracy and oppression. There is a very large section in the middle pertaining to the author’s anthropological studies in Madagascar, which for me at times went too much into details/ was too academic.
But I particularly enjoyed the latter parts on democracy, and the entire questioning of what that actually means. As a Greek, I keep hearing about ancient Athens as the place where democracy was “invented” and as the cradle of the so-called Western civilization. But participatory ways of decision-making were, of course, not invented by the Athenians - they constitute a part of how humans have operated across the world in different communities since time immemorial. An example of this is Native American communities, who lived much more freely compared to the European colonizers and sometimes served as an inspiration for the latter. And, certainly, Athenian “democracy” had nothing to do with electing different flavors of political representatives every 4-5 years, whose performance is technically in no way bound by the constraints of the needs or wants of their constituents once in office, and whose power is probably very much tied to how much money they have or who they know. There is a fundamental contradiction in “democratic” states: the state, having a monopoly on the use of violence, must legitimize the use of such violence on a power other than itself, and there is no obvious way for “the people” referred to in legal documents and constitutions to exercise that power.
Graeber’s discussion on the meaning of democracy should serve as an example to be taught in schools. It is too often that people discuss a certain topic, using a word the definition of which they take for granted, while in essence neither party actually has given much thought to what they are actually talking about, and then they end up reproducing platitudes or whatever dominant narrative and wording is trending on X at the time. This is particularly true with loaded terms like democracy, capitalism, communism, etc.
This book was written before Covid, before the war in Ukraine or Gaza. I do not know whether Graeber would have been more or less optimistic if he was alive to observe the world at the time of writing (Dec 2024). But his work is very important as it discusses possible forms of participatory decision-making, consensus-finding, and in general social creativity. Often, such structures are difficult to document because they operate in the real world, and are of very practical character (as opposed to ideas and concepts laid out in texts by old white men and are thus very easy to point to as sources of our great Western tradition, regardless of how much they actually were applied in the real world).
Having those discussions requires not only creativity, but also that one maintains faith in the ability of people to exercise this creativity and come up with alternatives to authoritarian governance. This requires optimism and hope and is something that is sorely needed in a world in which, still, it feels as if there is no alternative.
To quote from the book: "Revolutionary action is not a form of self-sacrifice, a grim dedication to doing whatever it takes to achieve a future world of freedom. It is the defiant insistence on acting as if one is already free".
But I particularly enjoyed the latter parts on democracy, and the entire questioning of what that actually means. As a Greek, I keep hearing about ancient Athens as the place where democracy was “invented” and as the cradle of the so-called Western civilization. But participatory ways of decision-making were, of course, not invented by the Athenians - they constitute a part of how humans have operated across the world in different communities since time immemorial. An example of this is Native American communities, who lived much more freely compared to the European colonizers and sometimes served as an inspiration for the latter. And, certainly, Athenian “democracy” had nothing to do with electing different flavors of political representatives every 4-5 years, whose performance is technically in no way bound by the constraints of the needs or wants of their constituents once in office, and whose power is probably very much tied to how much money they have or who they know. There is a fundamental contradiction in “democratic” states: the state, having a monopoly on the use of violence, must legitimize the use of such violence on a power other than itself, and there is no obvious way for “the people” referred to in legal documents and constitutions to exercise that power.
Graeber’s discussion on the meaning of democracy should serve as an example to be taught in schools. It is too often that people discuss a certain topic, using a word the definition of which they take for granted, while in essence neither party actually has given much thought to what they are actually talking about, and then they end up reproducing platitudes or whatever dominant narrative and wording is trending on X at the time. This is particularly true with loaded terms like democracy, capitalism, communism, etc.
This book was written before Covid, before the war in Ukraine or Gaza. I do not know whether Graeber would have been more or less optimistic if he was alive to observe the world at the time of writing (Dec 2024). But his work is very important as it discusses possible forms of participatory decision-making, consensus-finding, and in general social creativity. Often, such structures are difficult to document because they operate in the real world, and are of very practical character (as opposed to ideas and concepts laid out in texts by old white men and are thus very easy to point to as sources of our great Western tradition, regardless of how much they actually were applied in the real world).
Having those discussions requires not only creativity, but also that one maintains faith in the ability of people to exercise this creativity and come up with alternatives to authoritarian governance. This requires optimism and hope and is something that is sorely needed in a world in which, still, it feels as if there is no alternative.
To quote from the book: "Revolutionary action is not a form of self-sacrifice, a grim dedication to doing whatever it takes to achieve a future world of freedom. It is the defiant insistence on acting as if one is already free".
February 19, 2024
Un livre difficile et essentiel, parfaite démonstration d'anthropologie politique et de ce qu'elle peut nous apporter pour repenser la société.
Comme souvent avec David Graeber, le livre appelle deux ou trois lectures. La postface par Martin Rueff est un outil précieux. La réflexion sur la notion de "système" fournit une clef d'interprétation de l'œuvre gigantesque de D. Graeber (p. 306). Elle aide le lecteur dans son cheminement. En effet, l'approche de Graeber peut paraître paradoxale dans la forme : d'un côté, une attention aux détails et un corpus inépuisable d'observations sur le terrain (ethnographie) ; de l'autre, l'élaboration conceptuelle d'une pensée qui a le cran de se confronter aux plus grandes traditions philosophiques (ici, Marx surtout, Theodor Adorno - d'où le titre - et, en arrière-plan, Rousseau).
Résultats : des notions qui nous paraissent évidentes et que nous ne questionnons pas sont revisitées, refondées, inscrites dans une perspective plus large. Ainsi, l'histoire du capitalisme que l'on nous présente habituellement comme émergeant des Temps modernes et dans la sphère occidentale mérite d'être élargie si nous cherchons à améliorer notre compréhension.
Les notions examinées dans les quatre essais :
• la hiérarchie, située sur une échelle s'étageant entre les "relations de plaisanterie" (expression utilisée par la littérature ethnologique) et les "relations d'évitement" ;
• la consommation, objet d'abord d'un exercice de philologie, puis abordée à travers une anthropologie du désir ;
• le mode de production, notion prise à Marx et amplifiée en considérant la production non seulement des objets, mais aussi des êtres humains et de leurs relations - c'est ce phénomène plus large qu'il convient d'évaluer ;
• le fétichisme dans son lien à la créativité sociale (là aussi, partant de la notion marxiste de fétichisme de la marchandise et la mettant en regard de la littérature anthropologique, la démarche revivifie la notion de contrat social et conduit à approfondir notre compréhension du pouvoir).
Conseil de lecture : si vous êtes pressé, commencez par la postface ! Outre un résumé efficace, elle fournit les clefs de lecture.
De la même façon, je me dis que je n'ai vraiment compris l'intention de "The Dawn of everything" (maître ouvrage co-écrit avec David Wengrow) qu'après avoir lu le petit opuscule - presque un pamphlet - "Pour une anthropologie anarchiste". Cet aller-retour entre l'enquête pointue et la synthèse théorique est rendu nécessaire par la nature "systémique" de la pensée de David Graeber, puisqu'en effet, chaque détail présuppose l'ensemble et l'ensemble intègre tous les détails dans la construction d'une pensée cohérente et ambitieuse.
Comme souvent avec David Graeber, le livre appelle deux ou trois lectures. La postface par Martin Rueff est un outil précieux. La réflexion sur la notion de "système" fournit une clef d'interprétation de l'œuvre gigantesque de D. Graeber (p. 306). Elle aide le lecteur dans son cheminement. En effet, l'approche de Graeber peut paraître paradoxale dans la forme : d'un côté, une attention aux détails et un corpus inépuisable d'observations sur le terrain (ethnographie) ; de l'autre, l'élaboration conceptuelle d'une pensée qui a le cran de se confronter aux plus grandes traditions philosophiques (ici, Marx surtout, Theodor Adorno - d'où le titre - et, en arrière-plan, Rousseau).
Résultats : des notions qui nous paraissent évidentes et que nous ne questionnons pas sont revisitées, refondées, inscrites dans une perspective plus large. Ainsi, l'histoire du capitalisme que l'on nous présente habituellement comme émergeant des Temps modernes et dans la sphère occidentale mérite d'être élargie si nous cherchons à améliorer notre compréhension.
Les notions examinées dans les quatre essais :
• la hiérarchie, située sur une échelle s'étageant entre les "relations de plaisanterie" (expression utilisée par la littérature ethnologique) et les "relations d'évitement" ;
• la consommation, objet d'abord d'un exercice de philologie, puis abordée à travers une anthropologie du désir ;
• le mode de production, notion prise à Marx et amplifiée en considérant la production non seulement des objets, mais aussi des êtres humains et de leurs relations - c'est ce phénomène plus large qu'il convient d'évaluer ;
• le fétichisme dans son lien à la créativité sociale (là aussi, partant de la notion marxiste de fétichisme de la marchandise et la mettant en regard de la littérature anthropologique, la démarche revivifie la notion de contrat social et conduit à approfondir notre compréhension du pouvoir).
Conseil de lecture : si vous êtes pressé, commencez par la postface ! Outre un résumé efficace, elle fournit les clefs de lecture.
De la même façon, je me dis que je n'ai vraiment compris l'intention de "The Dawn of everything" (maître ouvrage co-écrit avec David Wengrow) qu'après avoir lu le petit opuscule - presque un pamphlet - "Pour une anthropologie anarchiste". Cet aller-retour entre l'enquête pointue et la synthèse théorique est rendu nécessaire par la nature "systémique" de la pensée de David Graeber, puisqu'en effet, chaque détail présuppose l'ensemble et l'ensemble intègre tous les détails dans la construction d'une pensée cohérente et ambitieuse.
Read
May 27, 2025No surprise, another banger - Graeber is truly the best at shifting the dominant POV of political conversations by interrogating the implicit foundations we share and the loaded terms we use
Best insights -
Joking tends to be about bodily substances and exchange between bodies (piss, shit, fucking, etc.), thus it implies we are all equal and material beings. Manners, on the other hand, treat others as sacred, immaterial, and separate, and are derived from how one might act deferentially in front of a superior like a king. There is a tension between these two things - we tend not to joke around people we need to have manners with, and vice versa. I.E. joking is for based egalitarian MFs 😈🤧
The term 'consumption' should be updated as we use it to describe things that are actually very creative acts (engaging with a film is a social endeavor between us and an audience, us and a film)
Historically, slavery has been a 'social death', I.E. one is taken from one's homeland and brought to a new place where, sans social ties, they have no power and must work for their captors. This is somewhat similar to wage work in modernity, I.E. labor is done away from one's home in a place where we (at least initially) have no social ties and are treated abstractly (as units of productivity). I wonder what Graeber would have said about the rise of remote work if he were still around today.
Human beings must center the invisible power of their social arrangements into objects which represent the value of our word. Thus marriages and contracts are "fetishes" in much the same way that early anthropologists defined cultures who traded in beads as fetishists.
The concept of "the west" and "western tradition" is utterly incoherent, as many of the forebears we lay claim to (ancient greece) didn't even remotely like democracy, nor does 'the west' actually embody any of the values it claims to, if anything much of the way society operates in the west is derived from islamic political practice more than any greek or roman influences
Best insights -
Joking tends to be about bodily substances and exchange between bodies (piss, shit, fucking, etc.), thus it implies we are all equal and material beings. Manners, on the other hand, treat others as sacred, immaterial, and separate, and are derived from how one might act deferentially in front of a superior like a king. There is a tension between these two things - we tend not to joke around people we need to have manners with, and vice versa. I.E. joking is for based egalitarian MFs 😈🤧
The term 'consumption' should be updated as we use it to describe things that are actually very creative acts (engaging with a film is a social endeavor between us and an audience, us and a film)
Historically, slavery has been a 'social death', I.E. one is taken from one's homeland and brought to a new place where, sans social ties, they have no power and must work for their captors. This is somewhat similar to wage work in modernity, I.E. labor is done away from one's home in a place where we (at least initially) have no social ties and are treated abstractly (as units of productivity). I wonder what Graeber would have said about the rise of remote work if he were still around today.
Human beings must center the invisible power of their social arrangements into objects which represent the value of our word. Thus marriages and contracts are "fetishes" in much the same way that early anthropologists defined cultures who traded in beads as fetishists.
The concept of "the west" and "western tradition" is utterly incoherent, as many of the forebears we lay claim to (ancient greece) didn't even remotely like democracy, nor does 'the west' actually embody any of the values it claims to, if anything much of the way society operates in the west is derived from islamic political practice more than any greek or roman influences
August 30, 2024
Graeber is the kind of intellectual we need more of in our times: honest about his views and able to imagine alternatives to current practices. No wonder that the title of this book is 'Possibilities'. His death is a great loss to the world; may we dare imagine a better world, as he did and fought for.
This book is a bit more difficult from a technical point of view, as it explores at large some anthropological and philosophical questions that are both complex and for which some of us prefer to have some simple and comforting answers, instead of taking the time to examine them (the nature of consumerism; the idea of a 'Western' civilization as opposed to a modern way of organizing society; direct democracy; moral relativism; fetishism and what it can teach us about free markers).
I believe a better start for a person interested in Graeber's work to be his excellent book 'Bullshit Jobs'. As for this collection of essays, my advice is not to be put down by the first one, which is a bit more technical and written when the author was younger, though the argument is still fascinating.
The essays that I liked most are:
-The Very Idea of Consumption: Desire, Phantasms, and the Aesthetics of Destruction from Medieval Times to the Present
-Provisional Autonomous Zone: or, The Ghost-State in Madagascar
-Oppression
-There Never Was a West: or, Democracy Emerges From the Spaces In Between
This book is a bit more difficult from a technical point of view, as it explores at large some anthropological and philosophical questions that are both complex and for which some of us prefer to have some simple and comforting answers, instead of taking the time to examine them (the nature of consumerism; the idea of a 'Western' civilization as opposed to a modern way of organizing society; direct democracy; moral relativism; fetishism and what it can teach us about free markers).
I believe a better start for a person interested in Graeber's work to be his excellent book 'Bullshit Jobs'. As for this collection of essays, my advice is not to be put down by the first one, which is a bit more technical and written when the author was younger, though the argument is still fascinating.
The essays that I liked most are:
-The Very Idea of Consumption: Desire, Phantasms, and the Aesthetics of Destruction from Medieval Times to the Present
-Provisional Autonomous Zone: or, The Ghost-State in Madagascar
-Oppression
-There Never Was a West: or, Democracy Emerges From the Spaces In Between
November 30, 2025
This book is about anthropology mostly and we learn about manners, deference, private property, the idea of consumption, fetishism, the ghost-state in Madageascar where the author did enthnographic study, opression, vanguardism, social theory as science and utopia where we learn about the sad predicaments of postmodernism and gloalisation, and that there never was a west and the fact that democracy emerges from the spaces in between, like pirate ships on the North Atlantic slave trave routes. It is a collection of essays from which I remember how the only thing we can do to fight the system is imagine alternative creative ways of life, and that our own choices in consumption are probablt democracy in action. Also about a bit about Madagascar and the lack of state authority in Imerina region in the 1980s and 1990s.
May 28, 2019
An amazing collection of essays! But it took me several years to completely read through this collection. The ethnographic essays on culture in Madagascar were the most difficult for me to get through, as the points they were making about U.S. society were round-about and comparative (as I suppose they must be?). The essay that struck the deepest chord with me, and the one which I plan to reread multiple times, is "Manners, Deference, and Private Property: Or, Elements for a General Theory of Hirearchy" (pg13). I found this article on the creation of ideas of personal property and physical boundaries has roots in class-conflict and bodily ownership.
Would recommend some essays to others, but not all. I may need to read again to see what new info I pull out.
Would recommend some essays to others, but not all. I may need to read again to see what new info I pull out.
November 13, 2025
I love reading Graeber, so it's hard to give this book less than a 4. He's a great writer. Some might find this book difficult to read (the first 1/3 of the book anyways), because they are his academic essays from his PhD times. They are VERY academic. He even tells later in the book about how sociological academic writing is essentially only written to be read by others in the same field.
The next part of the book is about his anthropological work in Madagascar. Pretty interesting overall. The final part of the book are some essays from his time working with the anti-globalization movement. Very interesting, but I have found his other books much better.
The next part of the book is about his anthropological work in Madagascar. Pretty interesting overall. The final part of the book are some essays from his time working with the anti-globalization movement. Very interesting, but I have found his other books much better.
April 30, 2024
Ελληνικός τίτλος " Στις απαρχές του σύγχρονου αδιεξόδου". Η ελληνική έκδοση περιέχει ένα επιπλέον καταπληκτικό κεφάλαιο "Είναι η αξία που κάνει το σύμπαν να υπάρχει" που έχει δημοσιευτεί στην εθνογραφική επιθεώρηση HAU .
Είναι απόλαυση να διαβάζεις τις ιδέες του David Graeber.
Είναι απόλαυση να διαβάζεις τις ιδέες του David Graeber.
Read
February 2, 2021Couldn't get even 1/4 of the way. The book may be great, but it was not for me.
November 1, 2021
i miss this man
September 6, 2024
Thank you.
May 21, 2012
The section on why there are so few anarchists in academia is particularly brilliant. It makes me rethink the relationship between academia and power (and it caused me to revisit why I myself had such allergic reactions to academia, both at the undergraduate and graduate levels.)
The bigger point of the book is well taken: there are many ways for humans to live, many ways for humans to approach the problems of distribution of decision making and power. Many ways, in fact, for revolution to happen.
I will need to revisit this book many times. Several of the same sources and thinkers I use for my own writing and agenda-- Pierre Clastres, Marshall Sahlins, John Zerzan, to take a few of the most salient-- Graeber references as well, and from a place of far more extensive scholarship, in a way which is more nuanced and critical than my approach. I don't think of myself as romantic or primitivist per se, but my primary base is my personal experiences with wise American Indian spiritual leaders; I do in fact believe that things can be qualitatively 'better' in societies with fundamental structures along those non-coercive lines, who reject many givens of 'civilization', especially when grounded in genuine wisdom traditions with generations or millenia of development.
It seems Graeber, in spite of encyclopedic knowledge and a remarkably unclouded cross-cultural insight, might not be willing to step all the way into seeing things from the persective of a culture that lives on its own terms from its own wisdom tradition. To live, himself, tribally, and speak from that place. That would be my dare to him: can he himself move from being a beyond-identity, cosmopolitan outsider/ critic-- however brilliant-- to become an elder and wise man in his own right?
The bigger point of the book is well taken: there are many ways for humans to live, many ways for humans to approach the problems of distribution of decision making and power. Many ways, in fact, for revolution to happen.
I will need to revisit this book many times. Several of the same sources and thinkers I use for my own writing and agenda-- Pierre Clastres, Marshall Sahlins, John Zerzan, to take a few of the most salient-- Graeber references as well, and from a place of far more extensive scholarship, in a way which is more nuanced and critical than my approach. I don't think of myself as romantic or primitivist per se, but my primary base is my personal experiences with wise American Indian spiritual leaders; I do in fact believe that things can be qualitatively 'better' in societies with fundamental structures along those non-coercive lines, who reject many givens of 'civilization', especially when grounded in genuine wisdom traditions with generations or millenia of development.
It seems Graeber, in spite of encyclopedic knowledge and a remarkably unclouded cross-cultural insight, might not be willing to step all the way into seeing things from the persective of a culture that lives on its own terms from its own wisdom tradition. To live, himself, tribally, and speak from that place. That would be my dare to him: can he himself move from being a beyond-identity, cosmopolitan outsider/ critic-- however brilliant-- to become an elder and wise man in his own right?
Currently reading
December 26, 2008This is Graeber's follow-up to Fragments of An Anarchist Anthropology. It's much larger in scope and size, and it's organized as a collection of long essays, some of which are overly academic, and some of which are much more accessible.
The essays are organized into 3 sections: one about past history and theories about private property, consumption/destruction, capitalism/slavery, and fetishism/creativity. The second section is all about rural Madagascar (since that's where the author spent a few years actually being an anthropologist). And the last section is about direct action/democracy and the current anti-capitalist (or "global justice" or "anti-globalization") movement. The final essay is called "On the Phenomeonology of Giant Puppets: Broken Windows, Imaginary Jars of Urine, and the Cosmological Role of Police in American Culture."
So far, so good. I recommend a reading of his previous book, Fragments... before tackling this one, and then wait a bit for the release of his upcoming book Direct Action: An Ethnography.
The essays are organized into 3 sections: one about past history and theories about private property, consumption/destruction, capitalism/slavery, and fetishism/creativity. The second section is all about rural Madagascar (since that's where the author spent a few years actually being an anthropologist). And the last section is about direct action/democracy and the current anti-capitalist (or "global justice" or "anti-globalization") movement. The final essay is called "On the Phenomeonology of Giant Puppets: Broken Windows, Imaginary Jars of Urine, and the Cosmological Role of Police in American Culture."
So far, so good. I recommend a reading of his previous book, Fragments... before tackling this one, and then wait a bit for the release of his upcoming book Direct Action: An Ethnography.
February 11, 2012
David Graeber is finally getting some well deserved attention with his book Debt and his media-annointed role as the intellectual of the Occupy movement. However, he was been doing amazing anthropological work for quite a while and this book is probably the best overview of some of his areas of interest and the ways in which he is re-working anarchist theory by asking - what does anthropology have to offer anarchism? What are the various complicated and shifting over overlapping and consensual and complicated ways that humans have lived together that could offer us pieces of a future, if we want to build on them? I particularly like his work in this book on the role (or non-role) of the State in Madagascar.
March 30, 2011
One of the most intellectually demanding books I've endeavored. It took me nearly a year to finish. The book is divided into three main parts.
1. The Origins of Our Current Predicament
2. Dilemas of Authority in Rural Madagascar (which was intriguing at first and soon became a chore to read through)
3. Direct Action, Direct Democracy, & Social Theory (hands down the best part of this book)
The first part of this book offered few new insights to me. I did enjoy the analogy of when food first went under lock and key did hierarchy form. I learned a lot from this collection of essays. Such as the misrepresentations of the words Democracy and Anarchy. The burial rites and non-hierarchal structure of Malagasy culture.
1. The Origins of Our Current Predicament
2. Dilemas of Authority in Rural Madagascar (which was intriguing at first and soon became a chore to read through)
3. Direct Action, Direct Democracy, & Social Theory (hands down the best part of this book)
The first part of this book offered few new insights to me. I did enjoy the analogy of when food first went under lock and key did hierarchy form. I learned a lot from this collection of essays. Such as the misrepresentations of the words Democracy and Anarchy. The burial rites and non-hierarchal structure of Malagasy culture.
June 3, 2012
This diverse collection of essays is a nice broad overview of Graeber's work. It covers some great historical analyses and reinterpretations of capitalism and social relations, delves into some of his work in Madagascar, and finishes with some essays on action and repression. Graeber has a knack for throwing out little kernels of thought or idea that contain big explosive possibiities: one of my favorites from an essay in here is "A theory of complex political entities that are not states is almost completely lacking". His essay on fetishes and their function in creating social indebtedness and thus social cohesion prefigures some of what he more recently said to such great effect in "Debt".
January 2, 2023
The essays in the first section ("Some Thoughts on our Current Predicament") and the essay "There Never was a West" in the third section are thoroughly worthwhile and remarkable for their originality of thought. I could sense my political views shifting profoundly as I read them.
The interests in Section II are much narrower and deal with Graeber's field work in Madagascar. There are still some ideological gems interspersed among them, though compared to the other sections this one felt written out of a sense of duty. Of these, "Love Magic and Political Morality in Central Madagascar" had something interesting to say about the relationship between high politics and seemingly unconnected interpersonal relations.
The interests in Section II are much narrower and deal with Graeber's field work in Madagascar. There are still some ideological gems interspersed among them, though compared to the other sections this one felt written out of a sense of duty. Of these, "Love Magic and Political Morality in Central Madagascar" had something interesting to say about the relationship between high politics and seemingly unconnected interpersonal relations.
October 27, 2010
Great collection of essays by expatriated American anarchist anthropologist David Graeber. Although these essays are targeted to an academic audience, and read like academic literature, Graeber asks challenging questions about his subject matter that demand radical answers. Requires a good deal of knowledge of anthropology, sociology, economics, and a smattering of 20th Century continental philosophy to follow, but worth the reading.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 42 reviews