Grand unified books thread

[The Minsky Moment]

Francis Fukuyama's Origins of Political Order

How did you like it?

I think it is well pitched to this audience (languish) -- it covers a very broad sweep of history across time (prehistory to the French Revolution) and space (europe, china, ottomans, etc) and dabbles in evolutionary theory, anthropology, economics.  There is not a lot of modesty here.  He is trying to build a grand unified theory of political development starting with basic structural roots, ultimately biological.  That aspect of it is a bit eyebrow raising, and the early part of the book which deals with prehistory gave the impression of someone making broad generalization in an area where they are out of their depth.  But the book gets some tranction in the comparative history/politics sections which is the meat of it.

Fukuyama's intention is to write a broad theory of political-historical development in the vein of the 19th century classics like Weber, Marx or Macaulay and openly claims that to be so.  But the approach reminded me of an even older tradition - the sociologically-based historical analyses of the pre-modern era, like ibn Khaldun (cited multiple times), Machiavelli or Jean Bodin.  The result is a little jarring in the present age but also refreshing.  As is often the case with FF, how well the argument holds up is almost secondary because it is hard not to admire the ambition and sheer intellectual chutzpah of the effort.  Also as is often the case with FF, while the basic argument can be stated easily and crudely, there is a lot of nuance to it.  For that reason, I would ignore some of the more critical reviews from the press which tend to strawman the argument a bit.

[Syt]

Thanks, it's going onto my to-read-list.

[11B4V]

Going to start reaquiring some series;

Fafhrd and the Gray Mouser -Fritz Leiber
Chronicles of Corum -Michael Moorcock
The Black Company -Glenn Cook
Chronicles of the Deryni -Katherine Kurtz

[11B4V]

Forgot one;

Horseclans- Robert Adams

[Queequeg]

Francis Fukuyama's Origins of Political Order

How did you like it?

I think it is well pitched to this audience (languish) -- it covers a very broad sweep of history across time (prehistory to the French Revolution) and space (europe, china, ottomans, etc) and dabbles in evolutionary theory, anthropology, economics.  There is not a lot of modesty here.  He is trying to build a grand unified theory of political development starting with basic structural roots, ultimately biological.  That aspect of it is a bit eyebrow raising, and the early part of the book which deals with prehistory gave the impression of someone making broad generalization in an area where they are out of their depth.  But the book gets some tranction in the comparative history/politics sections which is the meat of it.

Fukuyama's intention is to write a broad theory of political-historical development in the vein of the 19th century classics like Weber, Marx or Macaulay and openly claims that to be so.  But the approach reminded me of an even older tradition - the sociologically-based historical analyses of the pre-modern era, like ibn Khaldun (cited multiple times), Machiavelli or Jean Bodin.  The result is a little jarring in the present age but also refreshing.  As is often the case with FF, how well the argument holds up is almost secondary because it is hard not to admire the ambition and sheer intellectual chutzpah of the effort.  Also as is often the case with FF, while the basic argument can be stated easily and crudely, there is a lot of nuance to it.  For that reason, I would ignore some of the more critical reviews from the press which tend to strawman the argument a bit.

OH GOD WHERE IS THIS I DON'T EVEN

[Darth Wagtaros]

The Black Company was good until he got into the books of the South.

[Malthus]

, Mr. LeBlanc is only the second author to unequivocally argue that, for most of its existence, homo sapiens has waged almost constant war on its own kind and that primeval society was far more warlike than any of its civilized successors.

(blurb from Timmy's book)

I've actually read two books in the last month that made that argument: Francis Fukuyama's Origins of Political Order, and Nicholas Wade's Before the Dawn.  Both cite LeBlanc and its fair to say he seems to be a (if not the) leading proponent of the thesis, but the claim to radicalism is a bit overheated.

Even Mr. LeBlanc cannot shake himself free of this tradition. He concludes his book with the hope that his study of this topic will, in some unspecified way, contribute to the eventual elimination of warfare. The very work he has produced, however, is an effective antidote to Enlightenment romanticism

WTF??

Yeah, I don't get it either. I'd have thought that the conclusion that more socially primitve societies were more warlike than ours would be a profoundly optomistic one, indicating that warfare isn't the invariable fate of humanity.

[Darth Wagtaros]

Keegan's History of War pointed out that war seems to be an unavoidable part of the human condition.

[Malthus]

Keegan's History of War pointed out that war seems to be an unavoidable part of the human condition.

I do believe that conflict between humans is inevitable, but I do not believe that this conflict will always at some point take the form of physically killing one's enemies. More socially primitive societies, such as hunter-gatherers, may be fairly violent, but pretty well all of that violence (aside from resisting, say, encroachments from more complex societies such as European colonialists) would more properly be described as crime and punishment of crime, not war - murders as crimes of passion, revenge for same, or feuds of the Hatfields-and-McCoys variety. Our own societies are generally less violent in this respect because of the existence of strong social instutions to contain such aggression - to a large degree, we have replaced violence as the ultimate arbiter with law. Conflict still exists of course, but much of it is channeled into legal proceedings.

To a great extent, Western first-world countries have in their relations with each other succeeded in replacing war with institutions for resolving disputes. So it can happen.   

[Admiral Yi]

Just picked up the Franky Fukayam book, Peter Heather's book on Barbarian kingdoms, and a book on Hannibal with the last of my Christmas money. 

[11B4V]

The Black Company was good until he got into the books of the South.

I've only read the first three.

Any opinions on Erickson's Malazan Book series?

[Sheilbh]

 The Eustace Diamonds. Third in Trollope's 'political' Palliser series and the least political. A decent Trollope novel, but it feels like he learned all the wrong lessons from Wilkie Collins.

Lord Bingham's The Rule of Law. A re-read but still brilliant.

Jonathan Fenby's biography of de Gaulle. The only modern-ish English biography I can find and very welcome for it. It also successfully deals with de Gaulle's personal life (the relationship with his second daughter, Anne, is beautifully handled) and his wartime career. I think it fails at post-war de Gaulle and some of the questions he poses in the introduction, such as whether Gaullism is a coherent ideology.

Currently on Phineas Redux, Trollope's fourth Palliser novel and working through Carlyle's history of the French Revolution.

[mongers]

Going to start reaquiring some series;

Fafhrd and the Gray Mouser -Fritz Leiber
Chronicles of Corum -Michael Moorcock
The Black Company -Glenn Cook
Chronicles of the Deryni -Katherine Kurtz

I loved those books, now I shall have to reaquire them as well. 

Maybe read some more Moorcock as he's such an amusing gentleman in person.

[Admiral Yi]

I think it fails at post-war de Gaulle and some of the questions he poses in the introduction, such as whether Gaullism is a coherent ideology.

Let me guess, he says no and you say yes?

[Sheilbh]

I think it fails at post-war de Gaulle and some of the questions he poses in the introduction, such as whether Gaullism is a coherent ideology.

Let me guess, he says no and you say yes?

No, he doesn't answer it.

He demystifies de Gaulle which is impressive and the bits when he admired de Gaulle (the war and Algeria) are handled well. But he never properly handles the Fourth Republic, he never explains why the French supported a Gaullist candidate in so many post de Gaulle elections and most problematically he doesn't explain why such impressive figures as Debre, Pompidou and d'Estaing generally subordinate themselves to him.

And it never really deals with Mendes-France fully and I think he's a key to that point in French history.

It's a great book but far better at WW2 and Algeria (where there's far more research done by other historians such as Horne's Savage War of Peace) than other, important, periods.