Wow. Gorgeously written essay. Long read but very worth it. I haven’t read Harari but of course I know plenty of people who have; his book and name have been floating around everywhere the last few years. I’ve heard a lot of mixed reviews. I’ve read Guns, Germs and Steel, and I listened to a lengthy Great Courses last year on Big History. Fascinating. I also tried to read The Dawn of Everything and hurled it off my balcony after thirty pages; the absurd irrational bias and revisionism was so over the top I just couldn’t do it.
The argument you make is intriguing. I see both sides, I guess. Ultimately it comes down to this: I do think looking at the zoomed-out, broad view of history is helpful and can show us bigger patterns. I do think that major cultural, political and economic forces drive external and internal changes within society over long spans of time. It makes sense to me that there are general movements and shifts. World War I almost guaranteed World War II. The reparations forced upon Germany post WWI created an environment ripe for Hitler (or some other demagogue like him).
But.
You’re also right about destiny or fatalism: None of this was necessarily, inextricably set in stone. Big history is the long, broad, wide view, up from 35,000 feet. It’s the history of nations, global conflict, the rise of modern civilization, the formation of planets, even. These concepts are largely fixed, I feel, pushed around not by individuals (though technically they are made up of individuals) but by groups, factions, movements. When individuals coalesce into large groups they seem to largely lose free will. (Our current political moment seems to back this up.)
But individuals: Yes. Individuals have agency. We have the ability to make choices. Right now it seems the political left is questing this very basic assumption. The idea (especially pertaining to race) seems to be that everyone is existing in a role which is predestined. People can’t change. The world is permanently fixed, like an insect trapped in amber. I reject this notion. Clearly, you do, too.
One last thing. There’s a fantastic Zadie Smith essay called Generation Why? In her collection Feel Free (2018) all about tech and Mark Zuckerberg. I think you’d appreciate it.
Anyway--seriously; thank you for this delicious, intelligent, delightful read.
Thank you Michael! Deeply appreciate the comment and really wonderful to connect. I'm enjoying your writing and look forward to diving more deeply into it. Sorry to hear that the Graeber/Wengrow book isn't cutting it (and very sorry for anybody who happened to be walking under your balcony at the moment you decided the book was unsalvageable). I do love the idea of a more intricate view of 'pre-history.' I respect Graeber very much, liked the 30 pages or so I read in McNally Jackson, but haven't gone beyond that; and do feel a tremendous pity for all the poor bastards I see lugging the book around on the subway.
Individual agency/structural history is a very complicated question. I don't have a clear opinion on it and I'd be really impressed with the two of us if we manage to resolve this in the comments section! It feels like this debate keeps coming up under different names - I think there was a really vituperative back-and-forth about it among historians sometime around the 1960s.
At the moment I think what I'm more interested in as opposed to a discussion of how history actually works is the consensus about how we think history works. It's pretty clear to me that both sides are right in their own way - structural history has its points; the Great Man theory has its points. What's concerning are schools of thought that claim that they have it figured it out and then preach a certain quietism or fatalism to the population at large. Dialectical materialism was a famous instance of this. And Harari's memification (the viral theory of ideas) is sort of seeping into the collective bloodstream in a way that I find alarming.
I'll check out Generation Why! Appreciate the suggestion.
Valid points! I do enjoy your writing, even your response. Stylistically as well as the content :) I agree. So many smart, interesting people on SS! Love it.
What a brilliant essay! I have this audiobook but haven't listened to it yet. Also reading Graeber, so it'll be interesting to compare/contrast the two.
The Harari thing has driven me crazy and nobody seems able to put their finger on what it's all about. Thank you for this!
Thank you Dan! Driving me crazy too. I think the point about memes does help at the least to explain why he's taken such deep root in Silicon Valley.
Hahaha! Resist that man!
Thank you Zoe!
Wow. Gorgeously written essay. Long read but very worth it. I haven’t read Harari but of course I know plenty of people who have; his book and name have been floating around everywhere the last few years. I’ve heard a lot of mixed reviews. I’ve read Guns, Germs and Steel, and I listened to a lengthy Great Courses last year on Big History. Fascinating. I also tried to read The Dawn of Everything and hurled it off my balcony after thirty pages; the absurd irrational bias and revisionism was so over the top I just couldn’t do it.
The argument you make is intriguing. I see both sides, I guess. Ultimately it comes down to this: I do think looking at the zoomed-out, broad view of history is helpful and can show us bigger patterns. I do think that major cultural, political and economic forces drive external and internal changes within society over long spans of time. It makes sense to me that there are general movements and shifts. World War I almost guaranteed World War II. The reparations forced upon Germany post WWI created an environment ripe for Hitler (or some other demagogue like him).
But.
You’re also right about destiny or fatalism: None of this was necessarily, inextricably set in stone. Big history is the long, broad, wide view, up from 35,000 feet. It’s the history of nations, global conflict, the rise of modern civilization, the formation of planets, even. These concepts are largely fixed, I feel, pushed around not by individuals (though technically they are made up of individuals) but by groups, factions, movements. When individuals coalesce into large groups they seem to largely lose free will. (Our current political moment seems to back this up.)
But individuals: Yes. Individuals have agency. We have the ability to make choices. Right now it seems the political left is questing this very basic assumption. The idea (especially pertaining to race) seems to be that everyone is existing in a role which is predestined. People can’t change. The world is permanently fixed, like an insect trapped in amber. I reject this notion. Clearly, you do, too.
One last thing. There’s a fantastic Zadie Smith essay called Generation Why? In her collection Feel Free (2018) all about tech and Mark Zuckerberg. I think you’d appreciate it.
Anyway--seriously; thank you for this delicious, intelligent, delightful read.
Michael Mohr
Thank you Michael! Deeply appreciate the comment and really wonderful to connect. I'm enjoying your writing and look forward to diving more deeply into it. Sorry to hear that the Graeber/Wengrow book isn't cutting it (and very sorry for anybody who happened to be walking under your balcony at the moment you decided the book was unsalvageable). I do love the idea of a more intricate view of 'pre-history.' I respect Graeber very much, liked the 30 pages or so I read in McNally Jackson, but haven't gone beyond that; and do feel a tremendous pity for all the poor bastards I see lugging the book around on the subway.
Individual agency/structural history is a very complicated question. I don't have a clear opinion on it and I'd be really impressed with the two of us if we manage to resolve this in the comments section! It feels like this debate keeps coming up under different names - I think there was a really vituperative back-and-forth about it among historians sometime around the 1960s.
At the moment I think what I'm more interested in as opposed to a discussion of how history actually works is the consensus about how we think history works. It's pretty clear to me that both sides are right in their own way - structural history has its points; the Great Man theory has its points. What's concerning are schools of thought that claim that they have it figured it out and then preach a certain quietism or fatalism to the population at large. Dialectical materialism was a famous instance of this. And Harari's memification (the viral theory of ideas) is sort of seeping into the collective bloodstream in a way that I find alarming.
I'll check out Generation Why! Appreciate the suggestion.
Really look forward to being in touch.
- Sam
Valid points! I do enjoy your writing, even your response. Stylistically as well as the content :) I agree. So many smart, interesting people on SS! Love it.
What a brilliant essay! I have this audiobook but haven't listened to it yet. Also reading Graeber, so it'll be interesting to compare/contrast the two.
Aw! Thank you Stephanie! Yeah, a very interesting comparison. Let me know what you think!