Jared Diamond's latest New York Times bestseller (2012) has a beautiful title 'The World until Yesterday' and a not so beautiful subtitle 'What Can We Learn from Traditional Societies?'. My view.
Don't get me wrong, though. I am not discrediting the lessons to be learned from New Guineans or Native Americans or Pacific islanders or the Dinka and the Nuer. I am simply saying while the title 'The World Until Yesterday' invokes imagination like 'two roads diverged in a wood' (Robert Frost) or 'out of lemon flowers loosed on the moonlight' (Pablo Neruda), the subtitle 'What Can We Learn' appeals to reason like many self-help books on the shelf. Obviously, in terms of style, I vote for the former.
Is that perhaps the secret? Mixed yin and yang and a sharp contrast that dangles your judgement? After all an obvious riddle can be tasteless; so, at least make a catchy title. Either way, not much attention has been paid to the main title honestly. Instead, people argue fiercely about its subtitle. The Corry-Mazower Critique climaxes this contention.
In essence, 'The World Until Yesterday' is about traditional societies; it discusses traditional societies' inter- and intra-society diplomacy, conflict resolution mechanisms, child and elderly care strategies, risk management, religion, language and health control, and discusses them based on certain examples (notably the New Guinean traditional societies Diamond knew well of) that do not pretend to cover the diversity. As the author said, this book intends to
"stimulate my eaders to learn about topics and societies that I do not cover, by consulting the many other excellent books available" ('A small book about a big subject', p. 24).
Neither does the author hide his purpose. To know and be facinated by that knowledge is one; to learn from that knowledge and "also decide that some of those traditional features would be desirable and feasible for us to incorporate" ('A small book about a big subject, p. 33) is another. I believe for the author, this 'us' mostly represents the WEIRD lot from "Western, educated, industrialized, rich and democratic societies" ('Why study traditional societies?', pp. 8-9).
Fine, fine, as if I had always been okay with studying traditional societies (or indigenous but not-so-traditional societies like Taiwanese aborigines) for the sake of industrialized societies rather than for the sake of their own. No, I still resent being taken advantage of in any manner, and I still want more voices from within in the spirit of sharing. But even this attitude cannot cancel the value of any study about New Guineans or Native Americans or Pacific islanders or the Dinka and the Nuer by anyone else; nor shall it deny anyone else the right to pursue knowledge. It is just (and at best) a reminder of perspective and responsibility.
So, from here we proceed.
What are the lessons to be learned from traditional societies then? According to one of the author's numerous interviews and book presentations, 'we have much to learn from traditional societies' (The Guardian, 6 min 5 sec, 11 February 2013), some of the lessons include,
*how to bring up children (the New Guinean ways influence the Diamonds);
*how to deal with dangers alertly-New Guinean constructive paranoia (the author takes extra care against sleeping at showers, for example);
*how to resolve disputes-emotional reconciliation and restorative justice (WEIRD individuals and families often suffer from catastrophic consequences after court cases).
Other lessons that got left out of The Guardian interview include,
*how to avoid non-communicable diseases by maintaining healthy diet and exercise habits (the human system has not yet adapted itself to high intakes of salt and sugar; as far as disgestion is concerned, it stays in the traditional past);
*how to raise bilingual or multilingual chidren because learning languages helps them cope with confusing information and avoid Alzheimer's disease ('Speaking In Many Tongues' is very inspiring and my new colleagues should read it).
In spite of all his efforts to reach a middle ground between extremes, the author has not walked unvilified. The harshest criticism is probably Stephen Corry's "Savaging Primitives" (30 January 2013), who considers 'The World Until Yesterday' "completely wrong-both factually and morally-and extremely dangerous", and he hopes not to see this yesterday after all.
What is so dreadful about this particular yesterday?
As Corry from Survival International spells out in his article: traditional societies are not 'living fossils' for WEIRD societies; most of the lessons are hardly novel, let alone how some facts aren't even correct; a questionable call for state intervention since states are exactly what kills rather than saves traditional societies (Corry considers Diamond in favor of pacification of natives by echoing European colonialism and imperial agenda). Jonathan Mazower, Corry's colleague at Survival International, furthers the criticism. He condemns Diamond for claiming traditional societies are more violent than modern societies, which does "tremendous damage to the movement for tribal people's rights", and charges him of dressing up his personal opinions of 'primitive savages' with "a lot of pseudo-scientific language and some unexceptional stuff about what we can learn from them" ('Jared Diamond in row over claim tribal peoples live in 'state of constant war'', The Observer, 3 February 2013).
The Corry-Mazower Critique was implicitly brought up in the author's Guardian interview. As a researcher attempting for a middle ground, he said attacks are simply inevitable. I wonder if it's fair to say in the logics of press popularity, in this case, attacks are also better than going unnoticed at all.
I am grateful for the author's efforts because I do learn as much about certain traditional societies from the case studies as about the WEIRD societies surfaced from the author's cut-in evaluateive statements as well as from the critiques from Corry and Mazower. And I feel inspired to learn more. I concur with Corry and Mazower's misgivings about the book's implications, but also understand how the author is trying to portray traditional societies just as a type of human society that he happens to know better of than most people in the world. I especially understand why he wishes to draw lessons for his native society. In fact, I don't care much if he does or if he ever succeeds at all. I take what I want from reading his book: I separate the book's main title from its subtitle.
Research is anything but a piece of cake. In the studies of human societies, especially, the fine line between knowledge and politics will be tried by perspective. Caution, like honesty, is always the best policy.
Chinese translation: 賈德. 戴蒙《昨日世界：找回文明新命脈》（時報，2014）- Note how the title celebrates the 'living fossil' and 'lesson' theme.
Jared Diamond: The World Until Yesterday at Cambridge Forum
No comments:
Post a Comment