Post 3: Geographic Determinism?

"Thus, food production...led as ultimate cause, via chains of causation that differed in detail but that all involved large dense populations and sedentary living, to the proximate agents of conquest: germs, writing, technology, and centralized political organization" (Diamond 1997: 292).

Jared Diamond's work has been criticized for many reasons by a wide variety of scholars and pundits. Although some critics have criticized Diamond's data (or his interpretation of it), many critics are more concerned with the over-generalizing nature of his theories. Diamond makes very big claims about human cultural differences, but in the end he has only one explanation: geography. Although Diamond acknowledges differences in the situations he examines (see quote above), he sometimes seems to skate over them in his quest to make all of the pieces of his grand theory come together without contradiction.

The real question is, does he go to far? Is it safe to say that Yali's people, if they had the environmental and geographic advantage of western Europeans, would have conquered the world? I have no doubt they could have. As I've mentioned before, there are no biological differences in intellectual capacity. But could and would are different.

What is the role of culture in determining whether or not a population conquers the world? I don't mean technology or writing here, I mean much deeper cultural beliefs that often determine how a community interacts with their culturally-different neighbors. And what is the role of individual agency, or individual actions and choice?

And indeed, geographic determinism has other consequences. If Diamond's theories are correct, and geography is the root cause of human inequality, is no one responsible for conquest and violence? The danger, as I see it, is that such a devastating process becomes seen as inevitable. Diamond acknowledges this critique in the introduction, but unfortunately, I am still troubled. In other words, I am not convinced that Yali's people would have acted in the same way as western Europeans. I'm not sure they would have developed the same culture, a culture that valued profit at the expense of certain kinds of human beings.

Of course, this is all conjecture, because I have no way of knowing what kind of culture Yali's people would have developed in vastly different geographic circumstances. But my point here, hopefully, is to get you to think critically about the consequences of Diamond's theories, what they might mean in a different context. This doesn't mean I think Diamond is wrong. It just means that I want all of you to be aware that no theory is perfect, and that theories themselves are refined through this process of criticism as new data and perspectives are brought to light. This is especially true of historical sciences which are trying to explain the cause of contemporary conditions, like human inequality.

At the end of the day, much of Diamond's theory rings true. Environment and geography certainly played a huge role in shaping the development of human societies. You should get this sense from chapters 12-14. Food production, writing, a sedentary lifestyle, centralized political organization -- all of these aspects of human societies are often determined by environmental conditions.

In the next section, we begin reading one of my favorite books: The Worst Hard Time. As you'll see in the next few weeks, although humans are undoubtedly influenced by their environments, we also shape those environments through our actions.