In Jared Diamond’s book Guns, Germs, and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies, a very strong enviromental determinism is proposed. Diamond does a very good job supporting his arguments with detailed and seemingly valid arguments, which makes me wonder: Is there any serious critiques of his book in existance? Surely somebody that opposes the whole enviromental idea has critiques his book?
I put this in great debates initially, and I appologize if it belongs in Cafe Society. I feel that this mirrors the whole Nature vs Nurture debate and feel it would probably end up in this forum anyhow.
What I would like to discuss is if Cultural expecations and restrictions hindered certain societies restrictions more than enviroment itself. China for instance could be a good example of this; they had everything necessary to surpass Europe and though they did for some time, they actually regressed. Could American Indians, for example, have not developed agriculture as a central lifestyle because of cultural expecations rather than enviromental? Did Indians stick to a mostly nomadic lifestyle because their religion, goverment and family structure supported it, and a switch to agriculture would have been too much of a “culture shock”?
I got the impression from the book that culture, too, was strongly environmentally determined. For example, the presence of iron allowed more advanced weapons, which encouraged a warlike culture; the absence of advanced weaponry encouraged more peaceful development strategies.
Well, the American Indians lacked iron and had quite a war-like culture.
Religion plays a strong part of culture, but I don’t recall too much discussed on how enviroment shapes religion. Do all Island type societies worship in similar ways? How valid and scientific are we when considering the various elements of culture and how particular enviromental effects develop distinct cultural idosyncrosies? (sp?)
Ok, this died off. In an attempt to stir some debate, I want to discuss a particular thesis of Diamond’s book. Basically I will just try to rephrase my OP in a more clear manner.
Diamond proposes that Natural enviroment alone explains diffussion of ideas. I say that Natural enviroment plays a big part in the process of diffussion, but does not entirely explain away other elements, not necessarily due to natural restrictions. (He mentions mountain ranges and such to slow the passage of information)
In the Old Southwest, as the cotton production increases, 1830’s and beyond, the southerners developed a cultural value based on the idea of superiority of agrarian ways of life. This kept, almost exclusively, industrialization out of the south. There were no enviromental boundries keeping the diffusion of the idea of mass production and industrialization. There were rivers to build textile mills on, and the south could have had even less of reliance upon the north. The south’s cultural values and beliefs are what caused a slow diffusion of ideas, not natural enviroment.
Now I am not a history major, but surely there are other examples of this. The Indians I suggested in a previous post is a good one I suppose. It is my understanding that only five tribes (Five civilized tribes: Cherokee, Chocktaw, Chickasaw, Siminole and Creek) initially took on some white culture, obtaining slaves, developing a written language and so on. What kept the other hundreds of tribes from doing the same? Surely not enviromental factors alone?
Does Jared Diamond omit these possibilities or is he blind to them? Does cultural elements have an equal or greater effect on diffusion than does natural enviroment?
It really is quite an exceptional book, perhaps even the best non-fiction I have ever read in my life.
However, JD concentrates far more on long-term phenomena and their explanations than the rather short-term issues which the cultural phenomena would perhaps necessarily be. Certainly, when discussing “culture-clashes” such as those between native Americans and Europeans on is talking about decades rather than millennia.
He could, of course, have written an 800 page volume costing upwards of $100 and only found in University libraries which dealt with these specifics. I am glad he omitted such stuff, but IIRC he very definitely gave a strong nod in their direction at almost every turn.
Is there not a point at which he proposes that, had the Chinese explorers not been recalled by the suddenly isolationist Emperor, both Americas might now be full of people of Asian appearance rather than European?
Some disagree, I found this while looking up information on it. I found the original article on EBSCOHost, which is only acessable through a subscription, but here is the abstract:
This paper gives the impression that Jared Diamonds Enviromental Determinism is contended in acedemia, yet I find hardly any information other than this…
