How far have you gotten into it? What's your impression?
I started reading it on the subway (so, 10 minutes at a time). So far it feels overly repetitive. And the evidence feels very cherry-picked -- though I don't have the relevant expertise to know for sure.
It is cherry picked but I think that doesn't affect the value of the book.
Essentially the point of the book is: "it used to be uncontested that all human societies in the past functioned in a particular way and moved through certain phases of evolution but we show that in at least some cases, that was not the case". Since he's only trying to attack the absolute statement that all societies fit a certain pattern, finding even one counter-example (i.e. cherry picking) to a general rule still serves his purpose since he's digging for existence proofs and not establishing a new absolute of his own.
His political purpose (and he's completely open about this) is to show that human societies have already existed that followed all kinds of patterns and that therefore certain things that we consider inevitable and almost like laws of physics about human societies are choices and could be made in a different way.
It's not a meta analysis but rather an attempt to counter widely held but incorrect (in the eyes of the author) assumptions about human societal evolution. Much of the book was "We used to believe this, but now we have evidence that shows that to be at least partially incorrect". Many times he pauses and says "we really don't know but..." and I feel that's honest because much of it is conjecture.
> an attempt to counter widely held but incorrect (in the eyes of the author) assumptions about human societal evolution.
Doesn't the book take decent arguments to deranged conclusions in Graeber's trademark style? From the reviews I've read, the books supposedly argues that egalitarian thought was introduced by Native Americans to Europe and that the Enlightenment was based on these borrowed ideas. And the book supposedly also portrays mammoth houses i.e. hides stretched over mammoth bones and tusks as an example of monumental public works. Is that not the case?
> egalitarian thought was introduced by Native Americans to Europe and that the Enlightenment was based on these borrowed ideas
Not exactly or rather that's not the conclusions I gathered. He points out that Native Americans were fully aware of the European way of life (not innocent & naïve as they were portrayed), and openly mocked it.
>And the book supposedly also portrays mammoth houses i.e. hides stretched over mammoth bones and tusks as an example of monumental public works.
There are actually numerous examples of complex "public" works (irrigation, light farming, monument building) cited to back up the claim that complex societies, or large works of civic architecture were possible without the modern structures of politics, and even royalty.
Much of the book is basically showing how human evolution was not a single inevitable line forward from hunting gathering > farming > complex civilization.
Too much to write here but I enjoyed it (just finished!)
My Kindle says I'm 45% in (including footnotes), but honestly I'm struggling a little bit with said repetitiveness. It's fascinating stuff, but the real exciting insights are far and few in between. I have a limit for how many dates/places and names I can take and I'm almost there.
As far as cherry picking evidence I understand your concern but it didn't bother me as much of it was used to dispel previous conclusions and assumptions based on an even more limited understanding.
A lot of it is like:
"We thought humans went from A, to B to C but really humans went from A, to B back to A and then to D and here are some great examples".
I'll probably pick it back up in 6 months. Happy reading!
I started reading it on the subway (so, 10 minutes at a time). So far it feels overly repetitive. And the evidence feels very cherry-picked -- though I don't have the relevant expertise to know for sure.