If You Like History, You'll Like This Post

Kurt Vonnegut, having only read his book of interviews and essays, has already endeared himself to me through his candor, his bitter realism (as opposed to pessimism), and that dim strain of idealism that bursts through momentarily – generally right before some blackly humorous remark. He doesn’t pretend to know all of the answers, but, much like Camus, he has a passion for humanity and is deeply distressed at where we have taken ourselves. His mixture of humanism, realism, and a spiritual sort of hope allows the reader to immediately form an opinion of not only him, but also of the subject at hand without worrying too drastically about any inherent biases in his perspective.* His responsible atheism / agnosticism / Unitarianism is a refreshing change from folks like Dawkins who seem content on insult over intelligence. As I wind my way through a stack of next-to-reads, I’ll make sure to order Vonnegut’s acclaimed novels so that I have motivation to keep turning pages.

* Two things: in one essay, Vonnegut describes himself as a Unitarian (“Unitarians don’t believe in anything. I’m a Unitarian” was, to paraphrase, the wording he employed) and as an atheist in his wonderful Playboy interview. And, before my beloved or anyone else makes a comment about bias, I’m sure Vonnegut has his. I am just saying he’s good at presenting even the worst offenders honestly, such as when he discusses the rise and fall of Biafra (which, btw, is a simultaneously heart-warming and heart-breaking essay).

* * *

Rediscovering my history roots, I’ve started into Manuel De Landa’s A Thousand Years of Nonlinear History, which is proving to be a fabulous read already. Although I’m not sure why I enjoy these types of grand narratives, they are always fascinating in part to their attempts to synthesize so many diverse disciplines into one cogent story. Yes, this goes against my pomo foundation, but De Landa avoids most Enlightenment-related problems through a series of disclaimers and by utilizing a neo-Deleuzian methodology to escape problems of totality. Some of the pomo-and-science-speak gets cumbersome after awhile, not b/c the terms themselves are necessarily difficult to understand, but b/c the combination of geological and biological metaphors used in conjunction with this terminology – which is often used in pomo way, that is, the words do not retain their ordinary meaning – keeps the reader alert as to context and duplicitous meaning.

I’m only about ¼ of the way into the volume, but his descriptions of meshworks and hierarchies have, thus far, been illuminating. The idea that some cities developing in Europe had nation-state or city-state structures while others, generally coastal cities, allowed for a diffusion of ideas enables De Landa’s historical theories to retain a dynamism that escapes other works in this field. Similarly, his underlying beliefs that “changes” in European society do not necessarily represent progress (think getting better in some capacity) as far as simply change or, to use his terminology, “phase shifts.” To De Landa, phase shifts are random bifurcations when auto-catalysis occurs between two variables.

To understand auto-catalysis, consider the following: in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, as population booms allows cities to blossom in Central Europe and, even more so, along the Mediterranean coast, economics began to develop as well. Initially, currency was utilized by governments (used loosely – could mean lords as well) as a means to enhance tax collection. However, as economies began to grow, the need for a more centralized agency to bring together buyers and sellers emerged. As a result of growing cities, which brought together these buyers and sellers, along with the use of currency, an early version of the modern market economy was born. De Landa would call this auto-catalysis, and he would label currency as an intercalary element necessary to bring the heterogeneous buyers and sellers together.

The results of auto-catalysis are not known in advance, so, according to De Landa, exploring human history as predictable progressions is fallacious. China could have as easy developed a capitalistic (re: market structure), but it did not occur because China’s inputs into the auto-catalytic equation did not produce the system for various reasons (one being that China turned inward during its most prosperous periods, even moving its capital inland, thus exterminating the flow of fresh ideas that came from its former coastal capital). Europe had several similar advantages, including constant interaction between populations, city-states, etc. Energy / dynamism is a central theme in De Landa’s hypothesis, and it is his contention that as more energy created and transmitted throughout an area, whether by population, laws, or institutions, the more dynamic and prosperous the area has a chance to become. Yes, the area is still subject to bifurcations and the random results of auto-catalytic processes, but the potential is there.

Cognizant that De Landa is still performing a type of grand narrative function, I believe the room for dynamic interaction and a relatively innocent version of chaos allows it to avoid many of the trappings of its modernist counterparts, including the Diamond’s Guns, Germs, and Steel, which is a very persuasive book in its own right (but mistakenly minimizes human agency to the point it is relatively non-existent). I agree with De Landa’s (and Diamond’s) assertion that Europeans were not favored a priori over others b/c of racial superiority or other similar reason. Rather, geography, biology, and interaction with other cultures, combined with a healthy dose of luck, played central roles. De Landa asserts that the interaction between these variables was, ultimately, random, though, borrowing from Diamond’s research, the presence of certain variables (for example, domesticable plants and animals) certainly skewed the results at times.

More later.

* * *

My latest reason for not writing new poetry: I need an ink cartridge, and I’m too lazy and/or cheap to get one at the moment. With so many books to read, it’s been a pretty good excuse. But the siren song of a half-dozen unread poetry journals will soon be too much to withstand. I’m not sure if I’m avoiding revisiting Palsy Aria work or if I’m unsure where I wish to go next. Probably some combination of both. I’m horrible with promises I make to myself.

Best to everyone,

-j