York and Man Cus

7/27/2019 York and Man Cus

1/6

Human Ecology Review, Vol. 14, No. 2, 2007 157 Society for Human Ecology

Diamond in the Rough: Reflections on Guns,

Germs, and Steel

Richard York1

Philip Mancus2

Department of Sociology

University of Oregon

Eugene, OR

Jared Diamonds Guns, Germs, and Steel: The Fates ofHuman Societies (1999 [1997]) (henceforth GGS) may wellbe one of the most important books published in the finaldecade of the last century. Winning numerous book awards,including the Pulitzer Prize, it has been translated into overtwo dozen languages, sold millions of copies worldwide, andhas been the subject of a documentary produced by the Na-tional Geographic Society and broadcast on PBS. The broadappeal ofGGS, as with Diamonds previous book The ThirdChimpanzee (1992) and his more recent book Collapse(2005), can be explained by its powerful and sweeping inves-tigation into environmental history. Undeniably, few otherscholarly works have been as comprehensive in scope and asprominent in public recognition.

Here, for the 10th anniversary of the original publicationofGGS, we review Diamonds work, highlighting its majorstrengths, of which there are many, while also presentingsome of the more compelling critiques of it, of which thereare a few. We hope to spur discussion of what Diamonds ap-proach has to offer human ecology and related environmentalsocial sciences. We believe such a debate is necessary be-cause, despite the international acclaim it has received, GGShas not had a dramatic impact in some of the environmentalsocial sciences, including our own field of environmental so-ciology. This is ironic, since environmental sociology, likeother disciplines close to it, is fundamentally concerned withhow human societies are both affected by and affect their en-vironments (Dunlap and Catton 1979). The same concern isat the core of Diamonds work, and GGSexemplifies how aconsideration of geography, climate, resource base, and nat-ural history can help us to understand the ways in which ma-terial conditions influence and constrain human societies andin turn how human societies affect material conditions. Onthese grounds alone, the arguments advanced in GGSdeservethe focused attention of human ecologists.

The strength of Diamonds perspective lies in the factthat it is grounded in materialism, a philosophical andmethodological orientation common in the natural sciences.In this regard, the fact that Diamond is not a social scientist

played to his advantage. As someone trained in the naturalsciences, he intrinsically recognized the biophysical environ-ment as a key causal force in human history. Although sev-eral 19th century social scientists, Karl Marx notably amongthem, were committed to materialism and recognized that thebiophysical environment was the foundation on which humansocieties developed, the discipline of sociology, as well asmost other social sciences, nevertheless moved away fromthis perspective as the 20th century unfolded (Catton andDunlap 1978; Dunlap and Catton 1979; Foster 2000). Indeed,there is a long-standing tradition in sociology that privilegesideational constructs over material conditions, or that fusesthese two domains in a manner that obscures important dis-tinctions between them in order to avoid explanations that ac-knowledge environmental influences on societies. As a re-sult, the assumption that humans can transcend any and allenvironmental problems through technological and culturaladaptation still lingers in the margins of contemporary socio-logical work, especially that which does not take a material-ist perspective seriously.

A similar bias has led some scholars to prematurelydismiss GGS for what they perceive as vulgar materialism,biological determinism, or environmental reductionism (e.g.,Blaut 1999). In contrast to these objections, we hold that Di-amond builds a strong case for a nuanced, biogeographicalconception of history. Diamond deftly illustrates that suchfactors as climate regime, biodiversity, and subsistence basehave played a non-trivial role in the divergent histories ofthe worlds peoples. While there are some limitations to Di-amonds approach, they do not warrant a rejection of hiswork, but rather provide an opportunity to expand the hu-man ecology project. Thus, we advocate for Diamonds bio-physical approach but at the same time hold that certainqualifications, highlighted below, are necessary in order toadequately engage the social aspects of human-environmentinteractions.

Leading us through 13,000 years of human history, Dia-mond forwards a bold and sweeping theory concerning thefactors that shaped the rise of civilizations. Central to his

Research in Human Ecology


2/6

158 Human Ecology Review, Vol. 14, No. 2, 2007

thesis is the idea that, History followed different courses fordifferent peoples because of differences among peoples en-vironments, not because of biological differences among peo-ples themselves (1999 [1997], 25). Rejecting crude biolog-ical determinism and racist arguments about the differencesacross societies, Diamond skillfully weaves together his vastknowledge of biology, geography, linguistics, anthropology,and several other fields to make his case, placing the bio-physical environment at the center of human history.

A key question underlying GGSis this: Why was it thatpeople from Eurasia expanded across the globe and con-quered the Americas, Africa, and Australia, rather than theother way around? Diamonds answer, in short, is thatEurasian societies enjoyed a number of environmental andgeographic features that gave them unique advantages overthe peoples of other continents. Of particular importancewas the substantial variety of both plants and animals nativeto the Eurasian continent that could be domesticated forhuman use.

Considering that agricultural productivity formed thefoundation on which civilizations developed, because sur-pluses of food allowed for a share of the population to focuson other forms of production, the availability of productive,nutritious plant species that could be readily domesticatedwas crucial for the emergence of technologically complex so-cieties worldwide. Yet, of the 56 known large-seeded grassspecies in the world, all of them prime candidates for staplecrops, 32 are in the Mediterranean region alone, while only11 are found in all of the Americas combined, and still fewerin Sub-Saharan Africa, and Australia. This quirk of biogeog-raphy gave a distinct advantage to the emerging civilizationsof Eurasia, providing them with a greater pool of potentialstaples relative to other continents. Contained within theMediterranean diversity were several especially valuablespecies. The wheat species of the Fertile Crescent were par-ticularly high in protein and easy to domesticate when com-pared to, for example, maize, a staple of American agricul-ture, which is relatively low in protein and also was particu-larly difficult to domesticate.

Eurasia was also home to a large selection of big mam-mals capable of domestication, with 72 species of terrestrialherbivores and omnivores weighing on average over 100pounds, 13 of which were eventually domesticated. In con-trast, the Americas had only 24 species of this type, of whichonly one was domesticated, whereas the Australian continentcontained only one such species, and it was not domesticat-ed. However, it was not only the number of available speciesthat is important, but also the particular character of thosespecies. In an illustrative example of how the particularitiesof local geography and species composition modify history,51 varieties of large mammals were found in Sub-Saharan

Africa, placing it close to its neighboring continent of Eura-sia in total number, but none of these animals were domesti-cated. This fact can be explained, Diamond argues, by the in-nate characteristics of the animals themselves and not the cul-tural characteristics of the societies in question. Zebras, forinstance, have a temperament entirely unlike that of the hors-es domesticated on the Eurasian continent, making them ef-fectively immune to domestication. This and other examplesshow how Eurasias unique species composition surpassedother landmasses in terms of both the quantity and the quali-ty (from the perspective of would-be domesticators) of ani-mals that could potentially be domesticated.

As a result, the emerging societies of the Eurasian con-tinent had a distinct advantage in food production, transport,and warfare. Livestock provided a valuable source of pro-tein, draft animals, particularly in combination with theplow, expanded agricultural production, and other large ani-mals made possible the rapid transport of both humans andgoods. Furthermore, the use of horses changed the face ofwarfare. To a degree that we generally fail to appreciatetoday, cavalry can be devastating on the battlefield. Horsesare one of the reasons the Spanish were victorious againstboth the Aztecs and the Incas, despite being vastly outnum-bered. Thus, the kinds and numbers of domesticated mam-mals available to Eurasian societies provided them with anenduring upper hand over societies in other parts of theworld.

In addition to the important uses of livestock, Diamondnotes how a critical, but often overlooked, factor in theEurasian conquest of the world derived from animal hus-bandry: zoonotic diseases. Living in close proximity to live-stock facilitates the spread of pathogens between animals andhumans. In fact, many of the most devastating communica-ble diseases among humans originated in domesticated ani-mals. Diamond notes that since people in Eurasia livedside-by-side with their animals for millennia, they developedresistance to many of these diseases. In contrast, becausepeople in the Americas and Australia did not have the samevariety of domesticated animals, disease transmission fromanimals to humans was rare and the types of human diseasescommon in Eurasia never developed. Thus, when Europeansarrived in the Americas and Australia, as well as other placeswhere the local people had been isolated from prior contactwith Eurasia, disease transmission almost exclusively went inone direction, wreaking devastation on the indigenous popu-lations. Germs, far more than guns or steel, best explain whymany societies around the world succumbed to European in-vaders.

Another basic geographic advantage of Eurasia is itslarge landmass, which makes possible a large combinedhuman population, all connected to varying degrees through

York and Mancus


3/6

Human Ecology Review, Vol. 14, No. 2, 2007 159

trade and other social interactions. A broad distribution of so-cieties across various terrains increased the potential numberof technological innovations in Eurasia, while also facilitat-ing the subsequent diffusion of technology throughout thelandmass. Diamond points out that several of the key inno-vations of civilization, agriculture and writing in particular,arose independently in surprisingly few locations, originatingin discrete locales and then spreading to other places. Eura-sias large landmass and consequently large human popula-tion made it more likely that such important technologieswould have the chance to spring up in the first place and thenlater to become widespread.

The general East-West axis of the Eurasian continent, ascompared with the North-South orientation of the Americas,provided yet another advantage to its inhabitants. Eurasia hasa large share of its landmass at similar latitude, whereas theAmerican landmass is spread over a wide range of latitudes,from the arctic North, to the southern extremes of modernday Chile. This directly affects the diffusion of crops, sinceclimate and sunlight regime are key factors in determiningwhere plants can grow. In the Americas diffusion of cropsfrom north to south, or vice versa, is limited because theplants would have to grow in dramatically different condi-tions as they change latitude. In contrast, the crops of Eura-sia could more readily spread throughout the landmass be-cause other locations shared the same basic conditions.

Throughout GGS, Diamond makes his case for the envi-ronments influence on human societies, building on his pre-vious work. GGSis the middle book in a series, preceded byThe Third Chimpanzee (1992) (henceforth TTC) and suc-ceeded by Collapse (2005). In all of these three works, Dia-mond exhibits his penchant for biogeography and an inter-disciplinary perspective, drawing on evolutionary biology,linguistics, and anthropology to elucidate human history.TTCconsiders a much longer sweep of time than GGS, start-ing from around six million years ago when our human an-cestors diverged from our closest living relatives, the two ex-tant species of chimpanzees (the common chimpanzee andthe bonobo or pygmy chimpanzee), and tracing the evolutionof our lineage to the present. Diamond compares and con-trasts the biological characteristics of humans and our kin-dred primates in an attempt to understand the factors that ledto the exceptional characteristics of humanity. Toward theend ofTTCDiamond focuses on more recent human history(i.e., the past several thousand years), foreshadowing the is-sues covered in GGS.

After GGS, which focused on the factors that facilitatedthe rise and dominance of Europes civilizations, his thirdbook in the trilogy, Collapse, assesses the reasons why var-ious societies, from the Greenland Norse to the Easter Is-landers, ultimately failed to thrive and why others succeeded.

Collapse further develops his view that the particulars of ge-ography are largely responsible for the fate of human soci-eties, although he does consider some aspects of culture. Forexample, he notes that the Greenland Norse, surprisingly,shunned seafood, which could have helped them survive,even as their other food sources (mainly domestic animals)dwindled, while the Inuit with whom they lived side by sidethrived on the bounty of the ocean. Nonetheless, the deter-mining role of the environment in human history remains hisprimary focus. His argument that environmental degradationcontributed to the collapse of many past societies, much as itthreatens the survival of our global society today, is bothtimely and compelling.

Both Collapse and TTCare well worth reading, and helpflesh out Diamonds perspective, but GGS is the most origi-nal and important of the three books. Taken as a whole, Di-amonds work is powerful and his intellectual vision impres-sive. The originality of many of his insights is striking.However, it is noteworthy that Diamond does not always ac-knowledge the achievements of other scholars who havemade arguments similar to his, while offering valuable in-sights of their own. In this regard, the work of Marvin Har-ris (1979), especially his development of the theory andmethod of cultural materialism, is glaringly absent. Harriswas one of the main exponents of a materialist and environ-mentally focused tradition in anthropology despite, and oftenin the face of, the above noted resistance to biophysical ex-planations characteristic of 20th century social science. Sim-ilarly, Diamond ignores Alfred W. Crosbys (1972, 1986)work, which focused on the fundamental roles biological andecological factors played in human history, particularly intheir connection with European imperialism. There is alsoworthy and well-known work in environmental history suchas that of William Cronon (1983) and related work in theFrench Annales school (e.g., Braudel 1981). Although Dia-mond offers much that is original, and his macro-level vision,particularly the scope of time he considers, well exceeds Har-riss, Braudels, and Cronons, as does his overall develop-ment and integration of ideas surpass Crosby, it wouldnonetheless have been appropriate for Diamond to acknowl-edge the scholarship of other important scholars.

Despite the many strengths of Diamonds work, it is notwithout its limitations. He is often a bit rough in the appli-cation of his perspective, overemphasizing the determiningrole of environmental advantages to the neglect of social andcultural dynamism. For example, many scholars of pre-Columbian America argue that American societies were farmore developed than is widely recognized, and probablymore so than Diamond assumes (Mann 2006). The details ofthe Spanish conquest of both Mexico and Peru suggest thatSpanish victory may not have been entirely inevitable, but

York and Mancus


4/6


rather the outcome of particular circumstances. By missingsuch details Diamond neglects the role of contingency inhuman history. There likely are historical events that couldhave turned out differently than they did, which would haveled to a world substantially different from the one in whichwe live. One is left to wonder if Diamonds theoretical ap-proach has sufficiently addressed the contingencies of histo-ry, as he sometimes seems to suffer from the myopia of thepresent, where it is all too easy to see past events as in-evitably leading to the contemporary world.

Moreover, his arguments toward the end ofGGS, aboutwhy Europe rather than China came to dominate the world,are less convincing than the rest of the book, and here his ne-glect of contingency is especially apparent. After all, beingon the Eurasian continent, China shared many of the basic ge-ographical advantages of Europe, and although Chinese civi-lization did not emerge quite as early as civilizations in theFertile Crescent, it was for long stretches of time the mostadvanced civilization in the world. The internal politics ofChina that led it to turn inward and abandon its naval explo-ration in the 15th century do not seem well explained by ge-ography, but rather are more plausibly explained by the par-ticular social context of the time. The historian and socialcommentator Mike Davis (1997, 68), who is generally sym-pathetic to Diamond, summarizes these concerns well:

If Diamond provides a lucid perspective on whyEurasia and not Africa or America? he offers onlyhis own conceptual confusion on why Spain andnot China? or why England and not Spain? I

am not even sure that the epochal collision at Caja-marca in 1532 between Inca and Hapsburg abso-lutisms was as completely determined as Dia-mond seems to believe. The Incas descendants,after all, are still actively contesting the outcome.

Of course, while the outcome of the confrontation withPizarro may well have gone another way, it still remains thatEuropean diseases had weakened the Incas before that pivotalmoment. Also, Diamond is cautious in his claims about whyChina did not end up conquering the world. Nevertheless, hisperspective could clearly be refined by a consideration of notonly the material necessity that contributed to the formationof certain broad historical patterns, but also the role of his-torical contingency in determining which paths among thosepossible were actually taken.

Diamonds other main weakness is his tendency to viewsocieties as holistic entities. Although he is not an extremefunctionalist, and indeed has some dialectical insights, hegenerally neglects divisions within societies and how thesedivisions have shaped human history, a point that criticalscholars have highlighted (Davis 1997; Laibman 2003). For

example, arguing that increases in population density result-ing from changes in agricultural technology would havebrought more and more people with little or no direct kin-re-lation into contact with one another, Diamond concludes thatthe formation of tributary chiefdoms and state societiesemerged and stabilized largely to fill the need for large-scaleconflict mediation and resource allocation. This emphasis onthe functional totality of a centralized polity neglects the roleof conflict and violence in the formation and maintenanceof state power. Moreover, it misses the structural featuresthat contribute to conflict, advancing an ahistorical view ofhuman social behavior. His position would be strengthenedif he more fully recognized that different types of societieshave different internal dynamics, and that each era has itsown particular processes and contradictions. Exemplifyingsuch an approach, Jason Moore (2000, 2002), working in thehistorical materialist tradition, has shown how feudalist andcapitalist societies have distinct dynamics and how each gen-erates a different type of environmental crisis. In contrast,Diamonds one size fits all approach to understanding so-cieties and their interaction with the natural environment, al-though broadly valid, can fall short of such nuance whencrudely applied to any and all historical eras and types of so-cieties.

Diamonds failure to understand the dynamics of partic-ular social systems is especially apparent in the assumptionsthat underlie his discussion of global capitalism in Collapse.Demonstrating a fundamental naivet about the logic of cap-ital, and taking the fashionable but untenable position thatcorporations can help to solve the environmental problemswe face, he praises Chevron for its operation of the Kutubuoil field in Papua New Guinea, noting that the company min-imized the impact of oil extraction operations on the local en-vironment through careful planning and design. Intending toshow that corporations can behave responsibly in the rightcontext and, thus, can help stem the tide of environmentaldegradation, he nonetheless errs when inferring from this ex-ample that a global economy largely controlled by corpora-tions need not be environmentally unsustainable.

Diamond recognizes, but apparently does not sufficient-ly appreciate the implications of his insight, that Chevrontook steps to improve environmental performance because itwanted to avoid opposition from the local population, whichcould potentially shut down its operations if perturbed.Chevron was also concerned about the bad publicity abroadthat would have resulted if its activities caused notable envi-ronmental damage, anticipating future boycotts and lawsuitsgenerated by a global environmental movement committed toraising public and governmental awareness of the impact ofoil production (Diamond 2005, 451-2). Diamonds example,therefore, is less an illustration of how corporations can be al-

York and Mancus


5/6

Human Ecology Review, Vol. 14, No. 2, 2007 161

lies in the struggle to protect the environment and more a casewhich brings into focus how collective social action and sen-sible government policy can serve as a counterforce to cor-porate excess. In this sense, giving Chevron the primarycredit for improving its environmental performance is akin tocrediting business owners with the improved wages and ben-efits for workers that only came about because of laborunions and government regulation. It is resistance to capital-ism and corporate dominance that has led to occasional im-provements in working conditions and environmental protec-tion, not the innate tendencies of capitalism and corporations,which if left unopposed would likely run roughshod over hu-manity and nature.

Furthermore, referring to any type of oil extraction asenvironmentally responsible is absurd on its face. Reduc-tions in impacts at the point of extraction do not cancel outthe long-range effects of a polluting substance. The combus-tion of fossil fuels, oil chief among them, is the primary forceleading to global climate change, acid rain, and a myriad ofother environmental problems. Any company that pedals aproduct inextricably linked to the most extraordinary envi-ronmental problems of our era can in no meaningful way beconsidered environmentally responsible. The direct environ-mental impacts caused by oil extraction are indeed substan-tial, and taking steps to ameliorate them can hardly be calleda bad thing, but such gains pale in comparison to the poten-tial consequences of global climate change.

In spite of the variety of valid criticisms of Diamondswork, a fair assessment of it affirms that it deserves the at-tention it has received and is worthy of more focused atten-tion in the social sciences. Diamond has forwarded a re-markably insightful perspective on human history and hashad the courage to focus on big and important questions.Such a bold approach cannot help but draw criticism, and thecontroversy surrounding Diamonds work, particularly in ge-ography and the social sciences, is more a sign of its rele-vance and originality than its shortcomings.

It several ways, Diamonds work actualizes the visionlaid out by two key founders of environmental sociology(Catton and Dunlap 1978) for a social science that incorpo-rates the biophysical environment into its analyses. Environ-mental sociologists and other social scientists will be helpedin their efforts to advance Catton and Dunlaps vision if theytake Diamond seriously. Diamonds work opens up the op-portunity for environmental social scientists to analyze thefull sweep of human history, rather than focus almost exclu-sively on the modern environmental crisis. In this, it has thepotential to revitalize human ecology.

Diamond is unquestionably a sophisticated thinker andGGSis a masterwork that will likely be influential for yearsto come. His polymathic intellectual accomplishment cannot

be dismissed lightly. GGS is a goldmine of ideas, thought-provoking throughout, continually pointing to new questionsas it answers old ones. Diamond presents a well integratedperspective of extraordinary scope that few other thinkerscan match. Although he does occasionally over-extend hisarguments, and there are many historical particulars that heglosses over or ignores, it is clear that Diamond has produceda theoretical perspective with extraordinary explanativepower. Engaging Diamonds work can help further a scienceof society in which the natural world is at the center. GGSmay be a diamond in the rough, but it is a diamond nonethe-less.

Endnotes

1. Author to whom correspondence should be directed:

E-mail: [email protected]

2. E-mail: [email protected]

Acknowledgements

We thank the anonymous reviewers for their valuable comments.

References

Blaut, J.M. 1999. Environmentalism and Eurocentrism. Geographical

Review 89, 3, 391-408.

Braudel, F. 1981. The Structure of Everyday Life. New York: Harper and

Row.

Catton, W.R., Jr. and R.E. Dunlap. 1978. Environmental sociology:A new

paradigm. The American Sociologist13, 41-49.Cronon, W. 1983. Changes in the Land: Indians, Colonists, and the Ecol-

ogy of New England. New York: Hill and Wang.

Crosby, A.W. 1972. The Colombian Exchange: Biological and Cultural

Consequences of 1492. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.

Crosby, A.W. 1986. Ecological Imperialism: The Biological Expansion of

Europe, 900-1900. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.

Davis, M. 1997. Biogeography as destiny. Capitalism, Nature, Socialism

8, 2,63-68.

Diamond, J. 2005. Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed.

New York: Viking.

Diamond, J. 1999 [1997]. Guns, Germs, and Steel: The Fates of Human

Societies. New York: Norton.

Diamond, J. 1992. The Third Chimpanzee: The Evolution and Future of

the Human Animal. New York: HarperCollins.

Dunlap, R.E. and W.R. Catton, Jr. 1979. Environmental sociology. Annu-

al Review of Sociology 5, 243-273.

Foster, J.B. 2000. Marxs Ecology . New York: Monthly Review Press.

Harris, M. 1979. Cultural Materialism: The Struggle for a Science of Cul-

ture. New York: Random House.

Laibman, D. 2003. Food, social evolution, and conquest. Science & Soci-

ety 67, 2, 127-135.

Mann, C.C. 2006. 1491: New Revelations of the Americas before Colum-

bus. New York: Knopf.

York and Mancus


6/6


Moore, J.W. 2000. Environmental crises and the metabolic rift in world-

historical perspective. Organization & Environment13, 2, 123-157.

Moore, J.W. 2002. The crisis of feudalism: An environmental history. Or-

ganization & Environment15, 3, 301-322.

York and Mancus

Documents

York and Man Cus