======================================================================
= The_Dawn_of_Everything =
======================================================================
Introduction
======================================================================
'The Dawn of Everything: A New History of Humanity' is a 2021 book by
the anthropologist David Graeber and the archaeologist David Wengrow.
Describing the diversity of early human societies, the book critiques
traditional narratives of history's linear development from
primitivism to civilization. Instead, 'The Dawn of Everything' posits
that humans lived in large, complex, but decentralized polities for
millennia. The book suggests that social emancipation can be found in
a more accurate understanding of human history, based on recent
scientific evidence with the assistance of the field of anthropology
and archaeology.
Graeber and Wengrow finished the book around August 2020. Its American
edition is 704 pages long, including a 63-page bibliography. It was
first published in the United Kingdom on 19 October 2021 by Allen Lane
(an imprint of Penguin Books).
'The Dawn of Everything' received substantial attention in mainstream
and academic publications, becoming an international bestseller, and
was translated into more than thirty languages. It was a finalist for
the Orwell Prize for Political Writing (2022).
Summary
======================================================================
The authors open the book by suggesting that current popular views on
the progress of western civilization, as presented by Francis
Fukuyama, Jared Diamond, Yuval Noah Harari, Charles C. Mann, Steven
Pinker, and Ian Morris, are not supported by anthropological or
archaeological evidence, but owe more to philosophical dogmas
inherited unthinkingly from the Age of Enlightenment. The authors
refute the Hobbesian and Rousseauian view on the origin of the social
contract, stating that there is no single original form of human
society. Moreover, they argue that the transition from foraging to
agriculture was not a civilization trap that laid the ground for
social inequality, and that throughout history, large-scale societies
have often developed in the absence of ruling elites and top-down
systems of management.
Origins of inequality
=======================
Rejecting the "origins of inequality" as a framework for understanding
human history, the authors consider where this question originated,
and suggest it occurred during encounters between European settlers
and the Indigenous populations of North America. They argue that the
latter provided a powerful counter-model to European civilisation and
a sustained critique of its hierarchy, patriarchy, punitive law, and
profit-motivated behaviour, which entered European thinking in the
18th century through travellers' accounts and missionary relations.
This was then imitated by the thinkers of the Enlightenment. They
illustrate this process through the historical example of the Wendat
leader Kondiaronk, and his depiction in the best-selling works of the
Baron Lahontan, who had spent ten years in the colonies of New France.
The authors further argue that the standard narrative of social
evolution, including the framing of history as modes of production and
a progression from hunter-gatherer to farmer to commercial
civilisation, originated partly as a way of silencing this Indigenous
critique, and recasting human freedoms as naïve or primitive features
of social development.
Archaeological and anthropological evidence
=============================================
Subsequent chapters develop these initial claims with archaeological
and anthropological evidence. The authors describe ancient and modern
communities that self-consciously abandoned agricultural living,
employed seasonal political regimes (switching back and forth between
authoritarian and communal systems), and constructed urban
infrastructure with egalitarian social programs.
The authors then present extensive evidence for the diversity and
complexity of political life among non-agricultural societies on
different continents, from Japan to the Americas, including cases of
monumental architecture, slavery, and the self-conscious rejection of
slavery through a process of cultural schismogenesis. They then
examine archaeological evidence for processes that eventually led to
the adoption and spread of agriculture, concluding that there was no
Agricultural Revolution, but a process of slow change, taking
thousands of years to unfold on each of the world's continents, and
sometimes ending in demographic collapse (e.g. in prehistoric Europe).
They conclude that ecological flexibility and sustained biodiversity
were key to the successful establishment and spread of early
agriculture.
The authors then go on to explore the issue of scale in human history,
with archaeological case studies from early China, Mesoamerica, Europe
(Ukraine), the Middle East, South Asia, and Africa (Egypt). They
conclude that contrary to standard accounts, the concentration of
people in urban settlements did not lead mechanistically to the loss
of social freedoms or the rise of ruling elites. While acknowledging
that in some cases, social stratification was a defining feature of
urban life from the beginning, they also document cases of early
cities that present little or no evidence of social hierarchies,
lacking such elements as temples, palaces, central storage facilities,
or written administration, as well as examples of cities like
Teotihuacan, that began as hierarchical settlements, but reversed
course to follow more egalitarian trajectories, providing high quality
housing for the majority of citizens. They also discuss at some length
the case of Tlaxcala as an example of Indigenous urban democracy in
the Americas, before the arrival of Europeans, and the existence of
democratic institutions such as municipal councils and popular
assemblies in ancient Mesopotamia.
Sources of domination
=======================
Synthesizing these findings, the authors move to discovering
underlying factors for the rigid, hierarchical, and highly
bureaucratized political system of contemporary civilization.
Rejecting the category of "the State" as a trans-historical reality,
they instead define three basic sources of domination in human
societies: control over violence (sovereignty), control over
information (bureaucracy), and charismatic competition (politics).
They explore the utility of this new approach by comparing examples of
early centralised societies that elude definition as states, such as
the Olmec and Chavín de Huántar, as well as the Inca, China in the
Shang dynasty, the Maya Civilization, and Ancient Egypt. They argue
that these civilisations were not direct precursors to our modern
states, but operated on very different principles, arguing that modern
states owe more to colonial violence than to social evolution.
Returning to North America, the authors then bring the story of the
Indigenous critique and Kondiaronk full circle, showing how the values
of freedom and democracy encountered by Europeans among the Wendat and
neighbouring peoples had historical roots in the rejection of an
earlier system of hierarchy, with its focus at the urban center of
Cahokia on the Mississippi.
Based on their accumulated discussions, the authors conclude by
proposing a reframing of the central questions of human history.
Instead of the origins of inequality, they suggest that our central
dilemma is the question of how modern societies have lost the
qualities of flexibility and political creativity that were once more
common. They ask how societies have apparently "got stuck" on a single
trajectory of development, and how violence and domination became
normalised within this dominant system. Without offering definitive
answers, the authors end the book by suggesting lines of further
investigation. These focus on the loss of three basic forms of social
freedom, which they argue were once common:
#the freedom to escape one's surroundings and move away,
#the freedom to disobey arbitrary authority, and
#the freedom to reimagine and reconstruct one's society in a different
form.
They emphasize the loss of women's autonomy, and the insertion of
principles of violence into basic notions of social care at the level
of domestic and family relations, as crucial factors in establishing
more rigid political systems.
The book ends by suggesting that narratives of social development in
which western civilization is self-appointed to be the highest point
of achievement to date in a linear progression are largely myths, and
that possibilities for social emancipation can be found in a more
accurate understanding of human history, based on scientific evidence
that has come to light only in the last few decades, with the
assistance of the field of anthropology and archaeology.
Critical reception and sales
==============================
The book was widely praised in various publications and received
substantial attention in mainstream publications. Gideon Lewis-Kraus
said in 'The New Yorker' that the book "aspires to enlarge our
political imagination by revitalizing the possibilities of the distant
past". In 'The Atlantic', William Deresiewicz described the book as
"brilliant" and "inspiring", stating that it "upends bedrock
assumptions about 30,000 years of change." Andrew Anthony in 'The
Observer' said the authors persuasively replace "the idea of humanity
being forced along through evolutionary stages with a picture of
prehistoric communities making their own conscious decisions of how to
live". Bryan Appleyard in his review for 'The Sunday Times' called it
"pacey and potentially revolutionary." The anthropologist Giulio
Ongaro, stated in 'Jacobin' that "Graeber and Wengrow do to human
history what [Galileo and Darwin] did to astronomy and biology
respectively". Reviewing for 'Science', Erle Ellis described 'The Dawn
of Everything' as "a great book that will stimulate discussions,
change minds, and drive new lines of research".
The book entered 'The New York Times' best-seller list at No. 2 for
the week of November 28, 2021, while its German translation entered
Der Spiegel Bestseller list at No.1. It was named a 'Sunday Times',
'Observer' and 'BBC History' Book of the Year. The book was
shortlisted for the Orwell Prize for Political Writing. Historian
David Edgerton, who chaired the judges panel, praised the book, saying
it "genuinely is a new history of humanity" and a "celebration of
human freedom and possibility, based on a reexamination of prehistory,
opening up the past to make new futures possible."
According to 'Book Marks', the book received "positive" reviews based
on 16 critic reviews with 5 being "rave" and 6 being "positive" and 5
being "mixed".
Academic reception
====================
Numerous anthropologists and archaeologists praised the book's
ambition and synthesis of recent archaeological evidence. The book was
praised by professional anthropologists and archaeologists for
challenging traditional narratives of history with depth and rigor. In
'Anthropology Today', social anthropologist Luiz Costa compared its
scope and importance to classic works by Claude Lévi-Strauss. Writing
for the 'New York Journal of Books', anthropologist James H. McDonald
suggested that 'The' 'Dawn of Everything' "may well prove to be the
most important book of the decade, for it explodes deeply held myths
about the inevitability of our social lives dominated by the state".
Anthropologist Matthew Porges, writing in 'The Los Angeles Review of
Books' suggested the book is "provocative, if not necessarily
comprehensive", and that its "great value is that it provides a much
better point of departure for future explorations of what was actually
happening in the past".
Historians offered mixed assessments, criticizing and praising the
book. Historian David Priestland argued that Peter Kropotkin had
already and more powerfully addressed the sorts of questions that a
persuasive case for modern-day anarchism should address, but lauded
the authors' historical "myth-busting" and called it "an exhilarating
read". Historian Walter Scheidel criticized the book for its lack of
"materialist perspectives", but also called it "timely and
stimulating". Historian David A. Bell, responding solely to Graeber
and Wengrow's arguments about the Indigenous origins of Enlightenment
thought and Jean-Jacques Rousseau, accused the authors of coming
"perilously close to scholarly malpractice."
Justin E. H. Smith suggested "Graeber and Wengrow are to be credited
for helping to re-legitimise this necessary component of historical
anthropology, which for better or worse is born out of the history of
the missions and early modern global commerce."
Historian Brad Bolman and archaeologist Hannah Moots praised the book
and drew comparisons with the work of V. Gordon Childe.
Methodology
=============
Several scholars raised concerns about the book's methodology and use
of evidence. In 'Anthropology Today', Arjun Appadurai accused the book
of "swerving to avoid a host of counter-examples and
counter-arguments" while also describing the book's "fable" as
"compelling". David Wengrow responded in the same issue. 'Anthropology
Today' later published a letter from political ecologist Jens Friis
Lund defending Graeber and Wengrow from Appadurai and praised the
book's interdiscplinary engagement.
Gary M. Feinman accused Graeber and Wengrow of using "cherry-picked
and selectively presented examples", while archaeologist Michael E.
Smith criticized the book for "problems of evidence and
argumentation". Anthropologist Richard Handler claimed that the book
cherrypicked from several sources, but stated that it contained
"stories we need and want to hear." Ian Morris echoed these
sentiments, but maintained that the book was "a work of careful
research and tremendous originality."
Philosopher Kwame Anthony Appiah argued that there is a "discordance
between what the book says and what its sources say," while
simultaneously praising the book for its archaeological and
ethnographic minutiae. 'NYRB' subsequently published an extended
exchange between Appiah and Wengrow under the title "The Roots of
Inequality" in which Wengrow expanded on the book's use of
archaeological sources. Appiah concluded that Graeber and Wengrow's
argument against historical determinism was ultimately "immensely
valuable."
Anthropologist James Suzman noted that the book did not engage with
more historical and academic literature on recent African small scale
hunter-gatherers, but maintained praise.
Philosopher Helen De Cruz, wrote that the book offers "a valuable
exercise in philosophical genealogy by digging up the origins of our
political and social dysfunction," but also criticized the book for
neglecting a range of other possible methodologies.
Additional perspectives
=========================
Several other reviews highlighted different aspects of the book's
significance. Kevin Suemnicht in 'Black Perspectives' argued that the
book confirms the "Fanonian positions within the Black Radical
Tradition that this world-system is inherently anti-Black."
Reviewers in the 'Ecologist' praised the book but expressed the view
that the authors "fail to engage with the enormous body of new
scholarship on human evolution".
Anthropologist Durba Chattaraj wrote that reading the book from India
"expands our worlds and allows us to step outside of a particular
postcolonial predicament."
Writing for 'The Hindu', G. Sampath noted that two strands run through
the book: "the consolidation of a corpus of archaeological evidence,
and a history of ideas." Inspired by "the rediscovery of an unknown
past," he asks, "can humanity imagine a future that's more worthy of
itself?"
License
=========
All content on Gopherpedia comes from Wikipedia, and is licensed under CC-BY-SA
License URL:
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/
Original Article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Dawn_of_Everything
