Report this comment

Report this comment

http://geodoctor.wordpress.com/2011/02/21/guns-germs-and-collapse-part-2/

Have to admit, I was ignorant of the whole Nature controversy, but don’t think it makes much difference to the arguments.

Report this comment

Report this comment

I was looking for some criticism on Diamond ‘s book Collapse… and then I found this blog. Hurray!

Did you read the review on Collapse by Richard Smith? You can find it here: http://climateandcapitalism.com/?p=21

There is also a short article on Diamond, concerning his determinism. I don’t know if he really is an ecological determinist, but he resembles one. http://mrzine.monthlyreview.org/2010/hickel010210.html

I’ m consciouss that both articles are written by leftists, but that doesn’t mean it can’t be interesting.

Last but not least, another critical review: http://www.lindenwood.edu/jigs/docs/volume1Issue1/bookReviews/151-153.pdf
I presume the writer is also more left-orientated.

Report this comment

To be honest it might save a bit of bother to say that in the quote Diamond implies he is a subscriber to a unilineal model of societal evolution, and thus is open to the usual critiques of that model.

And to be honest that is the conversation I am much more interested in having. I find the effort to study social and cultural complexity honestly fascinating and completely worthwhile but also generally rife with errors (particularly the failure to differentiate culture and society and what Darwin meant by evolution and what Leslie White meant by evolution).

Diamond seems an affable fellow. He certainly seemed to have a sense of humor when he appeared on The Colbert Report, at least. Apart from what I may think of his chosen theoretical framework I just don’t think he is a very good ethnologist. YMMV.

Report this comment

Of course it would be even better if all were simply to read both books before jumping to conclusions based on selective quotes. Diamond’s chapter 9 (esp. the ‘bottom up, top down’ section) might be relevant to help you decide whether or not he subscribes to a anti-egalitarian, pro-authoritarian philosophy for example.

Report this comment

I haven’t seen any explanation of fascism from you.

I am unclear as to whether you are reading the words I am writing down. As I have already attempted to point out to you, fascism and fascist are two related but distinct terms. And I have in fact given an indication of my operational definition of the former. It shouldn’t take a close reading of this thread to pick up that I indicate my agreement with Rick’s gloss of “a particular kind of economic system of government control of corporations.” In addition, I alluded to Franco’s Spain as an example of fascism in practice.

My operational definition of a fascist is one with an anti-egalitarian, pro-authoritarian ideology who advocates the subordination of individual to group rights while simultaneously maneuvering to increase his/her own individual power. This is, I believe, in line with the portion of the OED’s definition of the term reading “a person having Fascist sympathies or convictions; (loosely) a person of right-wing authoritarian views.” Please note, however, that my original comment did not refer to Dr. Diamond as a fascist but rather asserted that his argument was such.

I retract my assertion that Diamond’s text reading ”[i]t makes no sense to me to redefine as heart-warmingly resilient a society in which everyone ends up dead, or in which most of the population vanishes, or that loses writing, state government and great art for centuries…” is a fascist argument. I reformulate my critique as the following—Diamond’s text reading ”[i]t makes no sense to me to redefine as heart-warmingly resilient a society in which everyone ends up dead, or in which most of the population vanishes, or that loses writing, state government and great art for centuries…” is indicative, via the metrics chosen, of an anti-egalitarian, pro-authoritarian philosophy as well as, via its mildly derisive tone regarding dead and/or disappeared social groupings, of a Nietzschean sensibility.

And no, bell hooks doesn’t really do testable hypotheses. But if you can convince me that Jared Diamond has rendered the question of what defines ‘art’ susceptible to unproblematic statistical testing then I will gladly send all of my John Coltrane records out with the rest of trash for the weekly pickup tomorrow.

Report this comment

Wikipedia: The word fascist is sometimes used to denigrate people, institutions, or groups that would not describe themselves as ideologically fascist, and that may not fall within the formal definition of the word. As a political epithet, the word fascist has been applied mainly to a broad range of people and groups on the extreme right, but also to groups on the far left and at points in between. It has also been applied to people of many religious faiths, particularly fundamentalist groups. The individual, institution, or group(s) called fascist often find the use of the term in this way to be highly offensive and inappropriate.

Report this comment

What part of fascism ≠ fascist did I fail to explain in my earlier post? And doesn’t anyone read bell hooks anymore?

I haven’t seen any explanation of fascism from you. It’s a word everybody seems to use in their own way, so I suggest avoiding the term alltogether unless you define it precisely from the outset.

Never heard of Bell Hooks before. I’m not much into Madonna either; I didn’t know she was considered a social thinker at all, much less a fascist one. But Hooks plays the same game you do by using words like “white supremacist” in that essay. Evidently, as long as she’s a postmodernist and has established who will be heroes and villains in her analysis, she can get away with strong characterisations of individuals who may be unwittingly reproducing subtle elements of the majority culture.

And such strong words and self-righteousness come from a perspective that has grave problems with the rigour and testability of its claims. I usually don’t bother with postmodernism, and nothing in that essay made me change my mind.

Report this comment

You use a non-standard, wide definition of fascism then. Amost like you’re asking to be misunderstood.

What part of fascism ≠ fascist did I fail to explain in my earlier post? And doesn’t anyone read bell hooks anymore?

Report this comment

Report this comment

If it helps supply a frame of reference I also tend to think of Madonna and Bill Clinton as fascists. Seriously.

You use a non-standard, wide definition of fascism then. Amost like you’re asking to be misunderstood. If you had cleared that up earlier I could have spared a couple of posts.

Report this comment

[By the way, how do you make those nice indented quotes?]

Enclose the text you would like indent in the blockquote tag.

Report this comment

But clearly this is a conscious, methodological choice of groups as the level of analysis. In the later chapters of Collapse Diamond switches attention to individuals and politics by discussing the tragedy of the commons, greedy elites, power struggles, clinging to cherished values that have become counterproductive, and ”groupthink” as reasons behind what appears on a higher level as bad collective decisions.

Nowhere in GGS or Collapse do I find any endorsements of totalitarianism or racism. Diamond’s preferred methods of advancing sustainable practices are education, grassroots engagement and government regulation of businesses. You’re going to have a hard time convincing me he is a fascist.

[By the way, how do you make those nice indented quotes?]

Report this comment