David Graeber und David Wengrow entfalten in ihrer Menschheitsgeschichte, wie sich die Anfänge unserer Zivilisation mit der Zukunft der Menschheit neu denken und verbinden lässt. Über Jahrtausende hinweg, lange vor der Aufklärung, wurde schon jede erdenkliche Form sozialer Organisation erfunden und nach Freiheit, Wissen und Glück gestrebt. Graeber und Wengrow zeigen, wie stark die indigene Perspektive das westliche Denken beeinflusst hat und wie wichtig ihre Rückgewinnung ist. Lebendig und überzeugend ermuntern sie uns, mutiger und entschiedener für eine andere Zukunft der Menschheit einzutreten und sie durch unser Handeln zu verändern.
That took me a long while but damn was it interesting
5 stars
Hoo boi a long read for sure. Maybe we should improve society somewhat... Or at the very least remember that our social structures are not set in stone but things we can decide to change. We may have lost the freedom to move away, to disobey orders along the way, but we should not relinquish the last freedom to imagine and put in place a different social order, and maybe we can get the first two freedoms back along the way
This book suffers from two things in terms of its writing and structure. First, there's Graeber's desire to compress as much information into one space as humanly possible, even to the detriment of his own argument and the discussion he wants to push people to have. The second is that it seems, if I'm reading into both authors' writing styles correctly, Wengrow's desire to flesh out those concepts with more detail to further support them. (I say that because I've checked a few of his articles, and he has a tendency to develop even more focused detail than Graeber.)
I could be wrong about who was doing what, but regardless? The end result is a book that is a slog to get through and frequently leaves me forgetting half of what I've read, going back to skim it and remind myself about what they were discussing, and then trying …
This book suffers from two things in terms of its writing and structure. First, there's Graeber's desire to compress as much information into one space as humanly possible, even to the detriment of his own argument and the discussion he wants to push people to have. The second is that it seems, if I'm reading into both authors' writing styles correctly, Wengrow's desire to flesh out those concepts with more detail to further support them. (I say that because I've checked a few of his articles, and he has a tendency to develop even more focused detail than Graeber.)
I could be wrong about who was doing what, but regardless? The end result is a book that is a slog to get through and frequently leaves me forgetting half of what I've read, going back to skim it and remind myself about what they were discussing, and then trying to figure out what most of it has to do with the point being made. Which, yeah, the topics discussed do relate. But it's such a winding detour through excruciating detail that it makes it hard to focus on the overall picture that they're trying to get us to see.
So much of this would've benefitted from focused case studies rather than intertwining and switching between each of them. It also would've dealt better with more clear (instead of verbose and annoyingly lengthy) section titles that could serve as functional reminders rather than quippy sayings.
Overwhelmingly, I wasn't amused with most of this. Despite the obvious amount of time this had to have taken in order to gather all the resources and research, the writing feels rushed and confused. It doesn't feel nearly as solid as it really could've been.