Seely, Mark. 2012. Born Expecting the Pleistocene: Psychology and the Problem of Civilization
(OldDog Books).
An epistemic inverted pyramid will be useful to interpret
this review. The earlier parts are the
most important, and the later parts may be cast aside as peanut shells upon
which one might have choked. Born
Expecting the Pleistocene (BEP) will appear cogent and well organized to
people who do not know Mark Seely. To
the rest of us, he is most articulately expressed at semi-regular 11:10 central
time Tuesday lunches, pesticide-ridden lute jam sessions in moderately open (by
melted glacier basin standards) grass fields, radon infused basement strawberry
wine sipping fetes and the occasional sloe gin on the rocks conversation at an
establishment replete with taxidermy, of all things. The jacket illustration of a sculpture by
Bonnie Zimmer photographed by Juan Carlos Rodriguez matches his quotidian
standards of articulation. Unlike Dr.
Seely, and this review in its original left hand smudge cursive, BEP is typeset and bound. Much is lost in translation.
Yet the argument emerges clearly on pages ix, 1 and
2: Those who read bound typeset are
hardwired via millions of years of genetic and environmental experience for
foraging, freedom, physical activity, rich spirituality, small groups of fifty
or fewer, egalitarian relationships, awe of nature and peace. In the past ten thousand years, the accident
of civilization’s complex machinery has torn us away from our pre-pastoral lebenswelt
by removing us from nature, diminishing our relationships and coercing us to
chase artificial goals (BEP, pp. 5, 29).
We may be tempted to think of civilization as progress, but progress has
a goal (BEP, p. 25), unlike civilization.
We may be tempted to think, hey, wait, cavemen had weapons, too, but a
fascinating analysis of the distinction between tools and technology (BEP,
85-ff) reminds us that one person shapes a tool to achieve specific life
necessities while many people shape technologies no one really understands
which exist for no particular reason.
The analysis is as convincing as other important
critiques of civilization, including those by Robert Dahl, Charles Tilly,
Sidney Tarrow, Robert Putnam, Michel Foucault and Antonio Gramsci. Any points of contention with the analysis
are foundational, touching on the most important assumptions in the social
sciences and humanities. I will point
out one such moment on pages 3 and 4.
Seely’s analysis of Enkidu, a character from Gilgamesh is the
subject of literate history’s oldest contentious claim--whose vision arrived
first as to the original form of human organization, and what happened to the
person who first experienced it. The
answers available seem to be available only from the also-rans of human
experience. Sumer’s intelligentsia says
Enkidu was running around with the wild animals and had to be seduced with the
arts of lovemaking to see things the Sumerian way. Hebrews say, no, he was the same as all of us
herders, but his name was Enoch, and one day he just walked away with God. We do not really have a scripted story to
tell us of Enochidu’s wild ass of a man origins, or perhaps the written
accounts from others lost something in the translation.
The final discussion of resistance in BEP is
necessarily vague, though there must be a method for bringing this to more
clarity, hopefully in another typeset, bound artifact. I suggest Seely analyze historical case
studies where resistance has created a probability for progress alongside cases
where resistance has not created a greater probability for progess to better
equip us to create opportunities through others’ creativity and lack
thereof. I will quibble with one issue
that does not detract from Seely’s convincing work, but perhaps will enable
readers to avoid chasing after holy gourds and sandals. The question of the possibility of nonviolent
versus violent means (BEP, p. 178) seems an irrelevant issue, but perhaps some
detailed case studies could allow others to arrive at the same conclusions by
historical analogy. Recommended for
undergraduates (especially my 20 year old son, and also for my 22 year old son
if he would stop surfing awhile and read) and above.
Review by David E. Dixon, May
9, 2012.