Jared Diamond: Is There Room for Mindfulness in Social Science? ~ Kelsi Coia
Recently, I was lucky enough to attend the Aspen Writer’s Foundation’s Winter Words series lecture featuring Jared Diamond. A dear friend of mine/employer/guardian angel offered me one of her extra tickets because she knows I am a geography super-fan and I have never seen Mr. Diamond speak before. If you didn’t know already, Jared Diamond is an incredibly popular physiologist-turned-ornithologist-turned-geographer who has written three very popular books filled with popularized social science: The Third Chimpanzee; Guns, Germs, and Steel; and Collapse.
I should say outright that I am not a Diamond fan. Ever since I was forced to read Collapse for a freshman intro geography class at the University of Denver (and then forced to watch the PBS rendition of Guns, Germs and Steel), I haven’t been able to think of Diamond without feeling a just a little bit nauseous. There has always been something about him that rubbed me the wrong way. And I couldn’t put my finger on it until last night.
Since the Aspen Writer’s Foundation was expecting such a large crowd of Diamond fanatics (Diamondites? Diamondheads?), the event was moved from the usual location, University of Colorado’s Given Institute, to the very beautiful Aspen Wheeler Opera House. And Diamond packed the house. The pint-sized New Englander-gone-Californian spoke to the audience much like one would expect a UCLA Physiology Geography Professor to do. He paced the stage back and forth, rattling off amusing anecdotes mixed with social theory.
Professor Diamond spoke mostly about his latest book, Collapse, released in 2005. He reviewed various collapsed and successful societies he discusses in his book, as well as what we can learn from them, and why it is important to do so. One contemporary example he gave of societal failure and success was the entire island of Hispaniola, and its two extremely different countries, the Dominican Republic and Haiti. Although they are both located on the same island, and therefore in similar environments, the two countries are vastly different.
The Dominican Republic, he said, is doing pretty well for a Caribbean developing nation, while Haiti (and this is pre-earthquake mind you) is/has been somewhat of a cluster you-know-sited massive deforestation as one example. He asked the audience if they had looked out of their plane windows while flying to St. Maarten or Barth’s (or wherever the riches go these days) and see the literal line dividing Haiti and the Domican Republic. One side has trees and one doesn’t. And in addition to taking care of their environment/trees, the people of the Dominican Republic have experienced economic success because of their exporting of baseball players. Silly Hatians, all you need is some saplings and some Sosas and you will be on the right track to development success.
From deep inside of me, a miniature Joe Wilson stood up and yelled “YOU LIE!” As my wonderful and intelligent (and fellow elephant author/commenter) friend Rachel said, Haiti’s problems might have something to do with all IMF policies toward Haiti that have kept the country economically and socially crippled. Just maybe. Or, most likely, the Haitians just sold their souls to the devil.
Diamond later spoke about the United States’ potential for collapse. He listed environmental destruction, toxic water, and segregation of classes of people. Then he went on a rant about the rise of gated communities in L.A., and how this creates opportunity for collapse. When the elite, the wealthy “decision makers” as he calls them, are separated from the common masses, whom the decisions affect, then chaos may ensue. For almost ten minutes, Diamond carried on about the danger of gated communities’ effect on the whole of society. I couldn’t help but wonder if Professor Diamond saw the irony in speaking to people in one of the most wealthy and isolated communities in the country about the danger of wealthy, isolated (or “gated”) communities.
Was he really that witty?
Then Diamond mentioned that he lives in Beverly Hills, and I realized 1) he is not that witty and 2) he is, in fact, a hypocrite. It’s a little more than ironic that the man preaching to America to become more environmentally-minded, flies around the country (and world) to deliver his message.
For the next half-hour or so, Diamond continued talking but I couldn’t pay attention because I was so frustrated with what he said, and frankly his weirdo New Englander accented voice put me right to sleep. I came to somewhere around the question-and-answer session. Of course someone had to ask whether or not Jared Diamond, in his infinite wisdom, predicted a collapse for the United States anytime soon. We do have a lot of huge issues here that could lead to collapse- environmental destruction (domestically and abroad), toxic water, a few countries who might like to bomb the us to smithereens (just to name my personal favorite opportunities for collapse). Diamond’s response was we just need to get through the next 50 years, and by then we will have failed or solved all the problems that may lead to collapse.
Hear that elephants? By 2060 we’ll either all be dead or living the good life. Awesome.
So what was it that made me realize exactly why I don’t like Jared Diamond? And why did I decide to share with you lovely elephants?
Professor Diamond is known in the academic community as some one who continually misrepresents both historic and contemporary indigenous peoples. Example: Diamond is currently in a $10 million lawsuit with Henep Isum Madingo and Hup Daniel Wemp regarding Diamond’s article Vengeance is Ours: What can Tribal Societies Tell Us about Our Need to get Even?, published in The New Yorker. Diamond allegedly embellished details of the story regarding Mandingo and Wemp, which have since been proven false in an investigation by Rhonda Roland Shearer. Both Diamond and The New Yorker claim that Diamond has done no wrong.
Another example, from his 1999 book, Guns, Germs and Steel, Diamond cites guns, germs and steel as the prime forces with which Cortez conquered the Aztec people with. While those may have been very important and significant factors for Cortez’s “success” (rather genocide) in Mesoamerica, Diamond does not give credit to the tens of thousands of indigenous people that helped Cortez and his men fight the Aztec people.
I had known both of these examples going into the lecture, but I still had hope for Diamond to redeem himself (because lets face it, we all make mistakes). But I was sadly disappointed. Diamond’s blatant belittling of the peoples of the entire island of Hispaniola (whether they are “successful” or not) was his third strike for me.
I want to say that I appreciate Jared Diamond for trying to get people to be more aware of societal/worldly problems, and how to prevent and/or deal with them. We, as both a national community, as well as an international global community, need to take action to deal with the messes we have created, as well as prevent new problems. This isn’t news. But it’s not something to be forgotten either. And we need all the reminding we can get.
As I reflect on my experiences with Diamond, I wonder if it is really Jared Diamond I have issue with, or if it is popularized social science in general. Maybe in the process of “popularizing” work (whether it is social science or otherwise) integrity is lost. Does “popular” mean lack of integrity? As a very passionate aspiring cultural anthropologist and geographer, I truly hope not. I believe that popular (and un-popular… er, uh, academic?) science can and should have integrity. Science should be conducted and produced mindfully. Mindfulness doesn’t end off the yoga mat, and it doesn’t end when you leave your house. It doesn’t end when you go out with your friends (a lesson I am still learning), and it doesn’t end when you go to work.
“Scientific methodology” does not take the place of “mindful” living/acting. In fact, science/scientists (especially social science/scientists) should aspire to be the most mindful it/we could be. We (social scientists) often represent people who are under represented, or not at all. We speak for people who often are not allowed to speak for themselves.**
Maybe this is the reason I don’t like Jared Diamond’s work; it isn’t mindful. Maybe this lack of mindfulness is the reason I wanted to share my experience with you elephants. And maybe I should stop caring so much about one man’s work. But I cannot help but hold the man, who is very much the public face of one of my fields of study, to a higher standard. By representing geography, Jared Diamond is representing me, and my passion. And frankly, he is not doing a good enough job.
**Note: I do NOT intend to victimize people and/or societies, which are subjects of social science. I just use this situation to exemplify the need for mindfulness in social science
Below: Jared Diamond TED Talk
Incorrect source, offensive, or found a typo? Or do you want to write for Elephant?
elephant journal is dedicated to "bringing together those working (and playing) to create enlightened society." We're about anything that helps us to live a good life that's also good for others, and our planet. >>> Founded as a print magazine in 2002, we went national in 2005 and then (because mainstream magazine distribution is wildly inefficient from an eco-responsible point of view) transitioned online in 2009. >>> elephant's been named to 30 top new media lists, and was voted #1 in the US on twitter's Shorty Awards for #green content...two years running. >>> Get involved: > Subscribe to our free Best of the Week e-newsletter. > Follow us on Twitter Fan us on Facebook. > Write: send article or query. > Advertise. > Pay for what you read, help indie journalism survive and thrive. Questions? info elephantjournal com
Hi, Kelsi.
What a great review. I had heard of Diamond's books, but now I feel I have a pretty good feel for what he's about, thanks to your great writing.
I love articles like this where you have a strong point of view, are willing to express it, and have the skill to write about it with great clarity.
Thanks. I'll look forward to seeing comments. I'm going to put this on Twitter and Facebook.
Bob Weisenberg
http://YogaDemystified.com
Hey Bob!!
Thanks so much for your encouragement!
I'm glad some one out there reads what I write (and enjoys it!).
Kelsi
Love the review. Ironic that Jared lives in the top-end gated community of Bel Air. Probably thinks that rolling on down to UCLA is visiting the indigenous people.
Hi, rachel.
Could you please give me some reading material on Jeffery Sachs. I've read his book "The End of Poverty", follow his Earth Institute website, and have heard him interviewed on Charlie Rose. I must confess, I had the impression he was one of the good guys. Sounds like I need an education on the downside of Sachs. Please tell me what to read.
Thanks,
Bob Weisenberg
http://YogaDemystified.com
Naomi Klein talks about Sachs in detail in The Shock Doctrine; she also mentions how he tries at all costs to avoid answering questions about Bolivia, Poland, etc.
Could you give me any other references besides Klein? I'll have to go back and do some homework, but I've read debates about this and I remember distinctly not being at all impressed with Klein and her credibility. I felt about her much the way you describe your feelings about Diamond. But, like I said, I need to go back and do some review before I can say anything more.
Thanks,
Bob Weisenberg
http://YogaDemystified.com
Hi, rachel. I'm not prepared to talk intelligently about Klein vs. Sachs yet. But here is some material to throw into the discussion:
A very favorable article about Sach in which he briefly addresses Poland and Bolivia and Klein: How to Save the World http://bit.ly/aWxcbi
Plus, Sachs has a whole detailed chapter on both Poland and Bolivia in his book The End of Poverty http://bit.ly/tKHvu , in which he talks openly about what worked and what didn't work. So I'm not sure what Klein means when she says he tries to avoid talking about Bolivia and Poland. It's almost like right off the bat it seems like she's telling an untruth.
Finally there are 63 one-star reviews on Amazon for Klein's book, most of which accuse her of exactly what you accuse Diamond of–shoddy science for the purpose of selling lots of books. I guess that's where I got my negative impressions of her. She got hundreds of positive reviews, too, though.
The fact is, I've read Sachs and he's very inspiring and convincing. I haven't read Klein so I'm not qualified to make a judgment about her.
Bob Weisenberg
http://YogaDemystified.com
this was an interesting review… i appreciated for the most part the openness to question one's own personal hang ups, be they annoyances based on accents (which self-admittedly are an honest source of aggravation at at times) or the concern for maintaining integrity in the field of the sciences and academic (or popular) thought. i do believe, like Karl, that to it is difficult to maintain a "mindfulness" when attacking an individual person and not the work or ideas they produce or represent.
i am currently reading the diamond article entitled, "the last americans" (published in harper's june 2003) with my 7th grade world history class. and although i find many of the issues raised in the review and the comments problematic and worth reexamining methodology, i still believe that the central ideas diamond presents in his books and articles are worth diving into.
Thanks for the article. For me it is a little too late. I have already invested time in reading The Third Chimpanzee, Guns, Germs and Steel and Collapse. When I read these books I did do some due diligence to try to find commentary on his work but didn't find much negative criticism other than rantings from religious zealots.
Continued
Even as I was reading his work there were a couple of issues I found uncomfortable. One of them had to do with Diamond's claim that humans are naturally afraid of strangers and in hunting and gathering societies will likely kill them. This may not be exact but it is the gist and I don't have the book right in front of me. It seems to me that claims like this are the kind that get him in trouble. He comes up with an idea and tries to shape his data to fit his idea. The idea may or may not be true. It is not clear to me that there is enough archeological evidence going back ten thousand years that can do a survey of all groups and figure out if this is correct or not. It is more likely to me that when bands of people collide with each other over resources then they kill each other. This has been happening throughout history.
Continued
I also very interested in the circumstance surrounding the disappearance of megafauna. His claim is that we kill things to extinction. After researching several speculations on this occurrence I find this to be one of the least likely. Again, though, I find very little compelling evidence that would qualify one idea to be a "theory". From what I can tell we may never have enough proof to say why they disappeared.
After finding out about the lawsuit I found many, many, many inaccuracies in his work through the voices of experts that suddenly have come out of the closet.
I find that we are all accountable for people like Jared Diamond because I don't believe enough people come forward or have had a compelling enough voice to call him out.
Maybe we are out of the woods due to the age of the internet and people like Rhonda Shearer.
Unfortunately, it is difficult with the internet to filter out the noise.
[...] You might know me from a few articles I’ve written for ele over the past year… like my experience from last year’s Telluride Yoga Fest, or my thoughts on Ski Karma or you might know me from my snarky review of Jared Diamond. [...]
You ought to actually read Guns, Germs and Steel before criticizing the PBS production of it. The whole purpose is to call genocide what it is, as well as giving quite a bit of credit to indigenous guides and traditional cultures in general. The introduction is almost exclusively about why European "success" was a tragedy.
Diamond has plenty of faults…one of them is excessive attention to detail. You might consider re-reading his chapter on Haiti and the Dominican Republic again, where he very much does address IMF policy and how Haiti came to be beholden to it in the first place, whereas the DR was not. You might also check the details of the case against the New Yorker–it's hard to argue with a recorded conversation between the plaintiff and the NYorker fact checker.
You don't have to like the man or his work–he certainly can be both stuffy and arrogant, but do your homework before making accusations. Especially when it relates to someone doing work so closely aligned to the mission of the Elephant Journal.
You happen to be wonderful, to supply a pictorial step-by-step information!
I find Diamond's books to be the worst kind of pop academia: detailed and high-minded enough to persuade but lacking in both rigor and accuracy. In the past such material was limited to long conversations after dinner. Today you write a book and get tenure. Shame!
WOW!
Rhonda thank you so much for sharing/ commenting the details of what is going on. I truly hope Wemp and Mandingo's case is settled quickly and justly. Thank you so much for taking action to hold Diamond responsible for his work. As a budding anthropologist and geographer, I appreciate it very much! I would love to hear how the rest of the trial goes.
Thank you, thank you, thank you!!!
Kelsi