I really enjoyed reading Guns, Germs, and Steel (incidentally, when I was first reading this book a few years ago, a guy who sat next to me on a plane thought I was an archeologist because of this book. Go figure.). I thought the pacing and writing was spot on, the author didn't dumb down his theory or his presentation for 'lay' people, and I found his argument compelling. I appreciated the fact that he made a point to avoid Eurocentrism as a basis for why civilization evolved as it did, something I've actually had to argue about in conversations with members of my own family. I liked that he took a much more holistic approach to his hypothesis, instead of relying on just one example, or one reason, why the civilizations that came out of the Fertile Crescent evolved as they did. So many times, a theory will be based on such a sweeping generalization that it leaves no room for counter points. It's either tabula rasa or predestination... whereas, as with most things, the reality lies somewhere in the middle.
This brief synopsis from wikipedia said it quite succinctly: "The book's title is a reference to the means by which European nations conquered populations of other areas and maintained their dominance, often despite being vastly out-numbered - superior weapons provided immediate military superiority (guns), European diseases weakened the local populations and thus made it easier to maintain control over them (germs), and centralized governmental systems promoted nationalism and powerful military organizations (steel). Hence the book attempts to explain, mainly by geographical factors, why Europeans had such superior military technology and why diseases to which Europeans were immune devastated conquered populations."
Some have argued that Diamond ignored individual cultures' affects on their own development, making his theory too deterministic, however, I think that ignores the macro view he took. Certainly focusing on Rome's political culture can give insight as to how and why Rome ended up such a dominant civilization in the area (as opposed to the actions of the Germanic tribes of the same era, for example), but ultimately I don't think it's necessary information to have in order to grasp Diamond's fundamental theory. It's less about who specifically made these civilizations great, rather than the resources that allowed those people to use the resources to their advantage.
Collapse, on the other hand, deals with societies on the decline. It's a slower read than Guns, Germs and Steel, but it's still quite enjoyable. Diamond details what he views as the same mistakes that most civilizations make time and again, therefore perpetuating the same cycle over and over. In the prologue, he writes, "I compare many past and present societies that differed with respect to environmental fragility, relations with neighbors, political institutions, and other "input" variables postulated to influence a society's stability. The "output" variables that I examine are collapse or survival, and form of the collapse if collapse does occur. By relating output variables to input variables, I aim to tease out the influence of possible input variables on collapses." Yeah, ok, the rest of the book is not that dry or boring. Really. It's quite fascinating... especially when he walks the reader through numerous examples, such as the case of the Easter Islanders, the Maya, or the Greenland Norse, all vastly different civilizations that still made similar errors that helped lead to their downfall. The book is not a total downer, however, he does list several communities that have recognized their own decline and have acted to slow or stop it, namely, examples of Japan, New Guinea and Tikopia. Diamond ultimately ends the book with a section that tries to impart the lesson that learning about what didn't work for past civilizations can help keep us from making the same mistakes. The question remains, can we be self-aware enough to act on those lessons of the past?
No comments:
Post a Comment