The idea that humans are inherently selfish and work for themselves is one the most stupid fucking myths invented by capitalists, it's not even true in capitalism itself.
For all the individuality and selfishness that capitalism instills us with in order to survive in a cannibalistic system like it, you still see people going above and beyond and helping others with nothing to gain. Simple people risking their lives and swimming to rescue refugees so they won't drown in the sea, people making food and distributing it to the ones who need it, people who risk their lives to fight fires that the capitalist state is unwilling to do so effectively.
We are a species that started out by being communal and evolved that way, the very reason that we became so advanced is that we are so capable of communicating and coming together to achieve common goals. While it doesn't look that way in the capitalist dystopia that we live in, our nature is still inherent to us and it will awaken in full once we get rid of systems that rely on exploitation.
Hmmm is it really THE very reason?
It's certainly a reason, but here's maybe why we shouldn't think it's all there is to the story. Let's take it as a given that we should uncritically accept the traditional conception of our species as the most advanced. Plenty of other creatures' languages and cooperation and writing systems are so robust and yet they don't achieve that same status. And indeed, us reaching this level of advancement happened very quickly. These seem to suggest other events led to this, beyond just what our biology happens to be.
In any case:
we became so advanced...
The traditional ways in which we think of ourselves as having progressed the most involve concepts formed by our contemporary settler-colonial world. So it thinks we should be critical of that as well. What would be so incorrect about using other metrics, like how much we produce according to ability and distribute according to need? Along that axis, we're clearly far less advanced than plenty of other groups. Instead, we consider ourselves as having progressed the most because of technological capabilities, independently of the value of their impact.
It seems plausible that while there are plenty who could have created the technological capabilities to do great atrocities as we have, only we found ourselves in the external, material conditions to develop those capabilities.
The citation is frustratingly misleading in this context.
David Graeber and David Wengrow's book is a very eye opening and worthwhile read. But it is also widely acknowledged by now to be full of sophistry. What they do well is piece together a lot of loose bits of important cultural anthropology out there into one big compilation strewn into a narrative. For anyone interested in cultural anthropology, it's a great way to see everything all at once.
But they do also regularly leave out things in extremely misleading ways, create strawpeople, and act with a kind of penetratingly charismatic confusion.
In this particular context, the citation is egregious because they are attributing a conclusion that was borne out of the blood and sweat of researchers who G&W malign in a really dishonest way. Here's something we've known since the 80s thanks to the work of cultural anthropologists studying the most egalitarian human societies in the world: Human egalitarianism was ubiquitous in early societies. But those cultural anthropologists are precisely the people that G&W have an axe to grind against.
G&W first of all provide gross misrepresentations of how these anthropologists come to their conclusions (or leave it out and act amused and confused at why some particular researcher they cite came to their conclusion). They second of all want to argue that this narrative is actually reactionary in all kinds of ways, and actually reject the ubiquity of egalitarianism in early human societies (and even reject that we can even come to any conclusions about early human societies, opting to start merely forty thousand years ago in the Upper Paleolithic Era, which has all kinds of methodological issues). But in fact, plenty of evidence suggests G&W's narrative ends up being far more reactionary.
And yet here, this article suggests it's G&W we can thank for the conclusion that early human egalitarianism is naturally ubiquitous! How backwards!
It's a worthwhile read, but it does not belong in this article.
They second of all want to argue that this narrative is actually reactionary in all kinds of ways, and actually reject the ubiquity of egalitarianism in early human societies (and even reject that we can even come to any conclusions about early human societies, opting to start merely forty thousand years ago in the Upper Paleolithic Era, which has all kinds of methodological issues). But in fact, plenty of evidence suggests G&W's narrative ends up being far more reactionary.
Hmm, interesting. That's not what I got from a reading. I had the impression they were more arguing that questions about equality are ill posed, that people broadly consider themselves to be different from one another but that the ways in which that manifests does not always (or often) reflect itself in access to materials. Also that inequity being rigid is a modern contrivance and older relations being more fluid.
Do you have any recommended reading (academic preferably) critiquing the book, or that runs counter to their conclusions? I'm confused about the difference in our interpretations and would like to see more of what leads you to yours.
it/its.
Some of your impression is precisely what it's thinking of in its description? So it's a little confused when you list them as differences in our interpretation. Like the way it's seeing it is some of the listed items are just repeating it and then wondering why these two identical things are different? There should be no mystery there!
For example, G&W's claim that we used to play and experiment with hierarchy and now we don't is precisely what it's referring to when it says they reject the ubiquity of egalitarianism. They think there were just all kinds of social experiments, varying by season, by place, and so on (but definitely not by material conditions, nothing changes between seasons after all, apparently).
Other members of your list though are part of the core issue with the book. They have that whole chapter about how their book isn't about the origin of inequality, but this contradicts several points in their book. The fact is, G&W shirk discussion of inequality (and provide a really shitty argument for doing so, but that's not really relevant to why it's a bad citation here), but very obviously do discuss inequality at great length at multiple points.
Anyway, as for a recommendation, try this series:
- 10. David Graeber & David Wengrow’s The “Dawn of Everything”: The Wisdom of Kandiaronk
- 10.1 Graeber & Wengrow’s “The Dawn of Everything”: What is an “Egalitarian” Society?
- 10.2 The Dawn of Everything: How Graeber & Wengrow’s book sets us up for political failure
- 10.3 The Ingredients of Dominance Hierarchy: Graeber & Wengrow’s Dawn of Everything, Chapter 3
- 10.4 What Really Causes Seasonal Social and Political Structures? The Dawn of Everything Chapter 3
Anyway, it doesn't think there's enough evidence to say its interpretation of the book doesn't encompass yours. its point is just that the book is confused and often misleading, though its merits outweigh its demerits.
A question that's been burning for half a week now: Are you the same naeva that was on the VFCJ Discord once upon a time?
Neat! it may be something that ghosted you several years ago due to leaving behind its Discord due to abuse. Was very astounded to see you again in another life.
I figured you were edible when I first saw your name and writing style. Was that guess right?
I bailed on vfcj after a bunch of bullying went down. A small splinter group survives sporadically but as usual life moves on.
Oh its second person pronouns are it/its now.
it had no idea it was so recognizable? What about the name is reminiscent of it?
Oh sorry, I thought you was entirely generic (I am talking to her, she is listening, I asked "what do you want to do for lunch?" type stuff).
It uses pigs/swine/edible and a certain structure? I don't know if I can exactly formalise it, one can't exactly describe what one is doing when recognising a tone of voice or a face.
Identifying traits such as veganism and political alignment narrow possibilities massively. The there are capitalisation patterns, the way it uses questions /shrug.
Machines are really good at tracking internet users via their text doing magical classifier stuff so there's something there. Human brains are really good at picking up on social cues and keeping track of individuals. I probably don't have much insight into the actual process.
Oh right you had by two years ago encountered one of its swine names, okay, yes. it thought you had only known it as edible by that point.
As for you/your, it is generic in the same way they/them is generic, but it/its is what affirms its identity so you/your serves as degendering in the same way that they/them'ing transfems is. And because it's often done punitively for transfems it can be intensely triggering to be you/your'd or they/them'd. In fact, a local Queers for Palestine chapter punitively degendered it and doubled down on it, which split the group into those who supported transmisogyny and those against it, just the other week (obviously with most members supporting transmisogyny). Such things are common enough in its life and often fresh that it's a pretty fresh wound whenever it gets referred to with you/your or they/them, and in general it's found that others who use it/its first and third person are anywhere from ambivalent to preferring second person it/its.
That seems to be a reasonable inference but one rather unfair thing it's noticed with neopronouns is that inferences that we make naturally with traditional pronouns don't really apply to neopronouns. A lot of folks who use fae/faer have noted how people make all kinds of bizarre assumptions about them on the basis of these pronouns, like that they're deceptive. And then, we naturally infer that if someone uses she, they also use her, hers, herself, etc. But a similar kind of extrapolation is someone using certain first and third person pronouns to using a corresponding set of second person pronouns, like if someone refers to faerself as "this fae thinks..." then it seems like a reasonable inference that fae may want "would this fae like to...?"
You may have noticed some of this yourself, but these are some of its own observations of neopronouns and the current state of affairs over the past few years.
