The Dawn of Everything, A New History of Humanity

A fascinating by this Book by David Graeber and David Wengrow attempts a progressive explanation of why we have been, and continue to be, ‘stuck’ in a particularly violent and dominate form of social structure. I completely disagree with their premises: that heeding signs, taking warnings, making the right assumptions and acting intelligently will allow for humans to create a social structure that will be somehow ‘better’. Perhaps they are the premise which underly all thinking that progress is possible. Nevertheless, their theory does introduce novel concepts for alternate ways to interpret observations which is necessary for the introduction of new evidence and the possibility of novel hypothesis testing. This is important for the process of societal change, which is never progress - it is only change.

I am somewhat amused by how so many people readily accept that evolution is not based on intelligence or intent, but then they reject that notion when it comes to social institutions, which are said to be the intended creations of intelligent actors. Of course, I take what I understand to be the evolutionist point of view. The question of the origins of human social structure does require discussion, speculation and synthesis. However rational that discussion may be, its result is not an intelligent grasping of reality. Its result becomes the common understanding (the social structure itself) within which individual action becomes possible.

The authors’ theory provides an explanation of how three elementary forms of domination (i.e., control of violence, the control of esoteric knowledge, and prestige theatrics) crystallized into institutional forms (respectively: sovereignty, administration, and competitive politics). They introduce new concepts for discussing the state and understanding pre-historical social structures. But as the authors’ also say, the state “. . . is itself the mask which prevents our seeing political practice as it is.” This revelation (that the emergence of the state is not dependent on political practice) allows us to understand that the subject of our discussion is the mask, the social structure itself, but with these new concepts. New concepts that are precursors to change and necessary for it.

Pre-historical social webs emerged from the people’s mimicry of esteemed individuals, and can be conceptualized as the origins of more elaborate social institutions. New concepts, in the gossip (i.e., in the common understanding) of social groups emerge from the mimicry of popularity (grasped in conversation as evolving concepts of power, knowledge or prestige). These concepts are the type of precursor social capital necessary for the production of finite social institutions. Gossip and mimicry drive this process, not intelligence or intent. Insofar as networks of gossip are limited (physically and conceptually), the manifestations and institutions of power, knowledge and politics remain stable. This explains much of how our pre-history remained static, and it may provide insights into why our current circumstances don’t appear so.

The evolution of human social networks (and social structures) continues from a vast variety of pre-historic social institutions. That social structure can remain static is not so great a mystery to us as is why it changes. The authors’ concept of schismogenesis (‘the creation of division’) is useful for a new understanding of that process of change. This division in the cohesion of a social network, through the introduction of schismogenetic concepts, occurs as a precursor to change.

The authors posit that societies temporarily manifest Violence, Knowledge and Theatrics in static structures so long as conceptualization is limited or dampened by common understanding, or group think. Schismogenesis, the division in common understanding, is the precursor to change. The ideas presented in this book are examples of schismogenesis, just as is social media, to a greater degree, with its introduction of the concepts of alternative power, alternative knowledge and alternative prestige. The schismogenetic concepts being introduced into the conversation effect the social capital from which novel social structures and institutions emerge without intent or intelligence. Organs are evolutionarily integrated into the body, just as social institutions become stable in a society - that is, only insofar as their incorporation into a common understanding facilitates individual success.

These dominating forces of history (violence, knowledge and theatrics) remain with us and our societal environments. As we discuss them, we do ourselves a disservice to understand them as intelligently presented. From these processes institutions emerge, but not from necessity and not from intent. They emerge just as the organ of sight emerged. The benefit of being able to see does not mean the eye evolved for the purpose of sight.

I somewhat astonished by the authors’ turn to myth as the explanation of this process of societal change. Perhaps it fits with their view of themselves, as creators of new possibilities for social realities. Social reality, or common understanding, is not created, but emerges from social networks. Common understanding is most probably not the truth of reality, but it is not necessary nor helpful to present it as myth - our understanding is limited by much more than our imaginations.

Clearly we live in a time of division in common understanding. As individuals come to understand that we don’t have to do what we are told, believe what we are told or stay where we are told, the process will continue. That it could lead to an evolutionary dead-end is not the point. The point is we already live in a social structure where individual action is possible and schismogenesis is upon us. We can only wonder whether our actions, based on the novel concepts, will be beneficial.