Durante generaciones hemos visto a nuestros antepasados más remotos como seres primitivos, ingenuos y violentos. Se nos ha dicho que solo era posible alcanzar la civilización sacrificando libertades o domesticando nuestros instintos. En este ensayo, los reconocidos antropólogos David Graeber y David Wengrow demuestran que estas concepciones, que surgieron en el siglo xviii, fueron una reacción conservadora de la sociedad europea ante las críticas de los intelectuales indígenas y que no tienen un aval antropológico y arqueológico.
En el rastreo de esta falsa línea de pensamiento, este libro defiende que las comunidades de la prehistoria eran mucho más cambiantes de lo que se ha pensado; un planteamiento que desarticula los relatos fundacionales más arraigados, desde el desarrollo de las ciudades hasta los orígenes del Estado, la desigualdad o la democracia.
El amanecer de todo es una nueva historia de la humanidad, un texto combativo que transforma nuestra comprensión del pasado …
Durante generaciones hemos visto a nuestros antepasados más remotos como seres primitivos, ingenuos y violentos. Se nos ha dicho que solo era posible alcanzar la civilización sacrificando libertades o domesticando nuestros instintos. En este ensayo, los reconocidos antropólogos David Graeber y David Wengrow demuestran que estas concepciones, que surgieron en el siglo xviii, fueron una reacción conservadora de la sociedad europea ante las críticas de los intelectuales indígenas y que no tienen un aval antropológico y arqueológico.
En el rastreo de esta falsa línea de pensamiento, este libro defiende que las comunidades de la prehistoria eran mucho más cambiantes de lo que se ha pensado; un planteamiento que desarticula los relatos fundacionales más arraigados, desde el desarrollo de las ciudades hasta los orígenes del Estado, la desigualdad o la democracia.
El amanecer de todo es una nueva historia de la humanidad, un texto combativo que transforma nuestra comprensión del pasado y abre camino para imaginar nuevas formas de organización social. Una obra monumental que cuestiona las ideas de pensadores como Jared Diamond, Francis Fukuyama y Yuval Noah Harari. Porque la suposición de que las sociedades se vuelven menos igualitarias y libres a medida que se hacen más complejas y «civilizadas» no es más que un mito.
I didn't enjoy reading this book but that's not to say it wasn't a good book, or worthwhile. There were some revelations in there for me to enjoy - and I sure did! I told others about this book while reading it - but they were buried inside of too many words. The appendix consumes 48% of this tome but so much more of the text could have safely been stowed there for the detail-starved reader. I was frequently reminded of "Moby Dick" and found myself wondering whether it would be safe to skip whole chunks. I admit to skimming at times. Could be me, this wasn't a popular book for nothing...but I'm so relieved to be finished.
I usually find Graeber's work a bit annoying as I agree with the conclusions, but I find his arguments for how to get there lacking. I had high hopes for this book as the premise was interesting. Unfortunately, this book was even more frustrating that his others. I enjoyed the critique of eurocentric views on civilization, and I liked that the book argues against a narrative of progress through feudal lords and then capitalism.
However, a main argument in the book is against the idea that large population governance is not inherently oppressive. I wholly reject this idea. The arguments Graeber and Wengrow make are hundreds of pages long and never get beyond "well there is no evidence of a monarchy so they must have had people's assemblies and been democratic." The city, they infer, is therefore a structure we can have without oppressive relations. There is then much advocating …
I usually find Graeber's work a bit annoying as I agree with the conclusions, but I find his arguments for how to get there lacking. I had high hopes for this book as the premise was interesting. Unfortunately, this book was even more frustrating that his others. I enjoyed the critique of eurocentric views on civilization, and I liked that the book argues against a narrative of progress through feudal lords and then capitalism.
However, a main argument in the book is against the idea that large population governance is not inherently oppressive. I wholly reject this idea. The arguments Graeber and Wengrow make are hundreds of pages long and never get beyond "well there is no evidence of a monarchy so they must have had people's assemblies and been democratic." The city, they infer, is therefore a structure we can have without oppressive relations. There is then much advocating for the city as a body politic.
I just don't see this as being likely or even desirable. The culture of the city and the community life that brings are something that I think can be valuable, but I find no need or desire for an overarching body politic for a physical space just because we conceive an arbitrary line around it. I don't care how "democratic" it is. I believe politics, justice, and governance are pluralistic and need to be worked out on a case by case basis, depending on context, and involve those effected.
Can we have a future with technology and high standards of living in such a pluralistic society? I think so, but admittedly it would look nothing like what we have now, and would not look like early agricultural adoption either. We can make the future what we want without trying to erect our pet political strategies onto a group of people living in a single location.
That's what's so frustrating I guess. The book begins to give us the space to dream of a possible future, but then just settles on another system of governance that is appropriated from an incomplete picture of some Indigenous groups and some early Europeans.
