‘The World Until Yesterday’ redux. Not so bad really

PHIL FITZPATRICK

WHO SAID ‘NEVER BELIEVE what you read in the newspapers’?  Whoever it was could probably now add ‘never believe what you see on television, hear on the radio or read on the Internet either’.

That sage advice was brought home to me when I finally got round to reading Jared Diamond’s new book, The World Until Yesterday.

Like the several commentators on PNG Attitude, I added my tuppence worth of criticism based on reviews of the book and a few articles on the net questioning his sources.  One of the latter pieces was particularly virulent and I should have picked it up then.

What we commentators blithely did was accept the view that the book was (a) pop-anthropology at its worst and (b) full of inaccuracies about some of the more apparently sordid attributes of past and present customary practises in Papua New Guinea.

The book, in fact, is neither of these things.

What it is is a summary of well-known anthropological and other data sprinkled with a collection of Diamond’s personal anecdotes in a way which contrasts modern western societies with past and present traditional societies in several parts of the world, including Papua New Guinea, in an attempt to extract any useful wisdom and practises.

It is a long and fuzzy book which is poorly referenced and Diamond fails to make any real headway.  If he does it is buried among all the tangents that he embarks on and is not clear at all. 

He also gets bogged down in superfluous detail which eventually buries his central theme that we can learn useful things from hunters and gatherers.  I think that at the end of the book the reader might still be puzzled about this point.

With regard to point (a), it is not pop-anthropology, as I claimed, but merely popular anthropology.  That is, Diamond has taken anthropological research, some of it very old and dated, and stripped it of its academic jargon and obfuscation to render it readable and comprehensible to the ordinary reader.

This in itself is a laudable thing.  Anthropologists, sociologists, historians and the like specialise in taking the obvious and dressing it up in language that sounds profound and new.  On top of that they write mainly for each other, so none of it filters down to us mere mortals.

Diamond has provided a useful service in translating the gibberish into plain speak.  There should be more of it. 

People are obviously interested because the book has been sitting comfortably in the middle of the best seller lists for a couple of weeks now; the paperback is even on Big W’s bookshelves among all the turgid crime and romance novels, including, I notice, a growing block of soft core erotica for women.  It looks quite out of place.

I dabble in anthropology and I must admit that I didn’t learn anything new by reading the book.  I did stumble across some questionable interpretations and generalisations, some of which have been put to bed quite a long time ago.  All in all though, it is all quite innocent.

As for point (b), the so-called sensational and derogatory stuff about Papua New Guinean society is just that; except it’s not Diamond doing the sensationalising but the media.

The stuff about strangling widows among the Kaulong people on New Ireland is there but it is made plain that it was a very old and now obsolete custom. 

Diamond uses it to make the point that customs reach a point where there original practicality becomes lost in time and the continuance makes no sense. 

The fact that a widow insisted on being strangled upon the death of her husband as late as 1957 is used by Diamond to illustrate the longevity but irrelevance of some customs.

Papua New Guinea, in fact, gets a pretty good wrap in the book.  Diamond has obviously caught the bug and is clearly very fond of the place and its people and this is shown repeatedly in the text.

I suppose, to quote another old adage, ‘any publicity is better than no publicity’ so Diamond probably doesn’t really mind the sensationalism because it makes people buy the book. 

Then again, he’s an old bloke and the money might not matter as much as the message.  Either way, it all helps to get it out there.

So if you believe the best seller lists Australians are buying the book and learning something about Papua New Guinea.  That can’t be a bad thing I reckon.

It hasn’t gone on my bookshelves but sits in the cardboard box in the shed that I deliver to the local second-hand bookshop every few months - an interesting read but by no means earth-shattering or eye-opening as the cover blurb claims.

Comments

[Warren Dutton]

I have been a Jared Diamond fan ever since I first read his "Why Sex is Fun".

In his "Guns, Germs and Steel" he acknowledges that his inspiration for it came to him because of a chance meeting with "Yali" (?) while walking across the Sepik Plains, and I believe that the more important of his insights have come to him during his regular visits to PNG since 1964.

Coincidentally I have been living and working with the "hunter/gatherers" of the North Fly continually for the past 50 years.

In this book he has, for me, encapsulated the difficulties faced by the people of a culture that has not needed to change, to any great degree, for the past 3,000 to 10,000, or even 40,000 years, when they are invaded by the Western, money dominated, culture that brings with it the likes of an Ok Tedi Copper Mine, or a PNG LNG Project.

Some of the children of Bolivip Village, whom I first censused in 1964, and who had been fed human flesh by their parents only months before, have had the intellectual capacity to become Ordained Catholic Priests, Bachelors and even Masters at UPNG and other Universities, and a pilot of Dash 8 Aircraft.

Unfortunately it seems that the "culture" of a people is not capable of as rapid adaptation as the more gifted of its individuals, and hence the difficulties now being faced by the Min and Awin people of the North Fly, and of all the other 800 + language groups of PNG.

For me, this latest book of Jared's is compulsory reading for my uninformed Australian relatives, as it should be for all Australians, in particular, who have a responsibility to make informed decisions and commentaries about PNG (and other developing peoples).

It was my father's responsibility to leave his family for four years, during the World War II in order to ensure that we survived the dangers of that war.

If we had have lived in Jared's "yesterday", it could have been his responsibility to strangle his mother in order to ensure our family's survival. Incidentally the "yesterday" of the World War II actually predates the "yesterday" of the mother strangling responsibility.

PNG needs Australia's millions of dollars less than it needs Australia's understanding that a "would be" nation of more than 800 different ancient cultures, should not be expected to leap more than 30 millennia in a mere thirty years, without making the odd mistake.

[Phil Fitzpatrick]

Diamond doesn't actually "advocate the imposition of state governments".

I had a quick flip back through and couldn't find any such claim. The reviewer is either a deliberately misinterpreting what Diamond says or drawing his/her own conclusions.

Diamond simply says that when societies eventually evolve to a size where they form states they need a different style of government.

In a society of 20 people they can simply sit around the fire and decide what to do but in a society of 20 million people that's not possible and you need laws, politicians and public servants in as peaceable environment as possible.

Elsewhere he makes the point that when states occasionally go to war the carnage is incredibly more pronounced than that in the more frequent but low key wars in traditional societies.

He does make the point, however, that fear of war and enemies is an ever present element in traditional societies and inhibits movement and creates suspicion of strangers whereas in state-sized societies this fear is largely absent and people freely interact with strangers.

Re the exaggeration and sensationalism. The blurb on the back of the hardcover says in part "In the nineteenth century Charles Darwin's trilogy - 'On the Origin of Species', 'The Descent of Man', and 'The Expression of the Emotions in Man and Animals' - changed forever our understanding of our nature and our history. A century from now scholars will make a similar assessment of Jared Diamond's trilogy: 'Guns, Germs, and Steel'; 'Collapse'; and now 'The World Until Yesterday', his magnificent concluding opus on not only our nature and our history, but our destiny as a species. Jared Diamond is the Charles Darwin of our generation, and 'The World Until Yesterday' is an epoch-changing work that offers us hope through real-life solutions to our most pressing problems."

Its written by one Michael Shermer, who is the author of a book called 'Why Darwin Matters'.

His endorsement is fantastical rubbish of course. Comparing Diamond to Darwin is one of the wildest stretches of the imagination I've ever heard.

But that's what you have to deal with these days.

Safer to read the book and make up your own mind.

[Peter Kranz]

Trouble is, PR is designed to promote sales, often by exaggerating the most sensational side of a work. Some of us respond to that, which is a natural reaction.

A good case in point is the Surfing film 'Isolated' where the trailer in Blair Witch style breathlessly talks about cannibals stalking the intrepid surfer's every move through the jungle of savages.

It turns out the film is a far cry from this, and actually is a plea for peace and independence in West Papua.

So who's fault is it if we fall for the hype and promotional material?

And there's another side to Diamond's book, written by people who have read it.

"Diamond argues further that tribal societies are considerably more violent than industrialized societies and that ‘most small-scale societies [are] trapped in… warfare’. His conclusions advocate the imposition of state governments, stating that ‘the biggest advantage of state government is the bringing of peace’.

But Corry questions the validity of Diamond’s data and concludes that the idea that tribal societies are more violent than industrialized ones is ‘dangerous nonsense’, and his conclusions akin to colonial ideas of ‘pacifying savages’."

http://www.survivalinternational.org/news/8950

[Phil Fitzpatrick]

Sounds like a plan, Ian.

Could work for other issues that we know little about yet are readily prepared to express an opinion on too.

Then again, politicians in both PNG and Oz seem to get away with it.

Maybe there needs to be a blanket ban on 'executive summaries' as well as readerless reviews.

[Ian Fraser]

So...we resolve never again to "review" a book or other work we have not actually read or seen?

[Peter Kranz]

Here's the link to KJ's comment.

http://www.smh.com.au/entertainment/books/the-world-until-yesterday-20130201-2dpnh.html

[Phil Fitzpatrick]

I think the book is targetted at the general reader, perhaps those with a green bias.

It's hard to tell who would benefit from it because it's so confused and reaches no real conclusions. Obviously Jared Diamond benefits. I suspect that that is one of the main reasons why it was written. The other reason might be a sort of plea on behalf of the remaining traditional cultures in the world.

It is rapturous about the whole isand of New Guinea, more so than the other half dozen places he discusses. He extols the geography on every other page. He constantly refers to 'my New Guinea friends'. PNGs in particular are singled out as intelligent, friendly and generally nice people. He makes the point that they receive a bad press but can't help mentioning the old furphy that Port Moresby is one of the most dangerous cities in the world.

As I point out, it is a book that seems to be getting a wide readership and with its generally positive view of PNG that can't be a bad thing. I can't see any of the target audience racing out to book a holiday there however.

Drusilla's review quite rightly pointed out that the book doesn't say anything new and selectively uses examples to try to prove some pretty dodgy and very sketchy theories. I agree with her. I was hoping to learn something but came away disappointed.

As I said, I consigned it to the dispose-of-box. I wouldn't recommend to anyone who knows PNG well but it might be a nice present for Auntie Flo or that teenage relative at Uni who is going through the mandatory anti-establishment phase.

[Bob Cleland]

I'm inclined to agree with you Phil. As far as I've read, there's interest but nothing eye-opening.

I got a copy from the library and only dawdled through it. When it outstayed its time with me, I returned it, but put my name again on the queue for a second loan so I can finish it.

A friend of mine is one who knows little about PNG, so tends to judge reported comment about and events in PNG from his Australian point of view. He has difficulty appreciating my PNG-informed point of view.

Since reading this Diamond book he says he sees PNG through more informed eyes and I've noticed that that is the case.

So never mind what I think of the book, I applaud Jared Diamond for putting it all together in a way which attracts Australian readers who are learning something about PNG.

[Paul Oates]

I bought the book with an open mind, given that I really appreciated and enjoyed reading his three previous books, 'The Third Chimpanzee', 'Guns Germs and Steel', and 'Collapse'.

I am still trying to wade through this latest book and will probably end up only cherry-picking some chapters.

I agree with Phil (sigh! don't get carried away mate), that almost any interest in PNG is beneficial. The Prof clearly has a soft spot for the place.

On the whole I think Diamond may have gone 'one book too far'.

[Peter Kranz]

Phil - mea culpa. I also panned it on the basis of reviews.

But I repeat the questions - who benefits from this book? And what message does it really give about PNG?
_________

The work also met with a tepid response from prominent novelist and PNGophile Drusilla Modjeska - KJ