Jared Diamond’s Pulitzer prize-winning book, “Guns, Germs and Steel, the Fates of Human Societies”, makes a crucial contribution to debates on global economic inequalities using historical narratives. The book provides a detailed look at the economic history of different societies, in order to understand the reasons for their progress and innovation. The author claims that geographic opportunities are more important than race, culture and religion in explaining the development of certain civilisations within the “Eurasian continent”. This paper will evaluate the strength Diamond’s thesis by situating it in a multidisciplinary setting, providing an analysis synopsis, and finally focusing on the flaws of his argument.
Jared Diamond combines disciplines such as geography with anthropology, economics with linguistics to address important questions on global inequality. This is clearly outside his field of expertise. He uses arguments about the feasibility of trade of goods, technology, knowledge and diseases to explain unbalanced global economic development. In order to do this, he uses archaeology and language to trace these historical theories. This indicates an interdisciplinary, geographical and economic history, or specifically trade, approach. Diamond may be considered a geographical determinist. This is because he is a generalist. In a world of academics, who spend careers answering obscure or difficult questions, they are more likely to find unquestionable facts. However, these questions don’t elicit as much interest. Diamond makes a bold move and goes against the grain by presenting a broad, sophisticated argument to explain global inequality. The book was written in 1997 and is a well-crafted historical reference that can be viewed from a variety of perspectives.
Professor Diamond wants to debunk rudimentary theories of social and economic development that are based on race or differences in culture. The book is centered around a central issue – how Europeans became the dominant people in the world. He rejects the notion that European dominance in the world was due to superior biological knowledge. Diamond’s generalist thesis is supported by a number of arguments, including bio-geographical influences, food productions, abundance of domesticable species, or lack thereof. In an attempt to explain why the Eurasian continent is a better place to produce food, Diamond’s thesis spans 40,000 years of history. These aspects, which included a wide range of domesticated animals, provided the ideal environment for civilizational growth. He outlines a strong thesis about the causal relationship between the geography or environment and the success of civilizations.
His thesis is based on the fact that inequality began when humans ceased to be hunters and gatherers, but instead became farmers. The more agriculturally advanced societies, and therefore their technological development, were the ones that produced more food. Eurasia was the continent that had the most domesticated animals. This allowed them to develop resistance against diseases. In the wake of agricultural progress, resistance to diseases and domesticating animals, populations flourished.
“Goods that are in excess of a person’s needs should be transferred to a central authority which will then redistribute the goods to those with deficits.”
As they relate to political economics, such arguments focus on redistribution as a prerogative of government and a socialist view of the social agreement. A major reason for the Eurasian continent’s greater exchange rate was its West-East axis. The Eurasian continent was able to produce a wide variety of plants, animals and crops that were able to be traded and domesticated. This phenomenon could not be achieved at the same scale or speed in other continents which were arranged along a North-South axis. This geographical phenomenon made it easier to trade technology, agricultural products, and diseases than if the continents were arranged from north to south. To differentiate between the Asian and European continents, he claims that the geographic setup of Europe influenced the continent to develop more independently. This fear of conquering was coupled with competition, resulting in a rapid development and growth for all European states.
Diamond’s work is full of relevant, well-researched, and insightful insights into trade economics, and political economy in general. It’s a book that’s crammed with details. This can distract readers from his main point. Professor Diamond’s argument is shaped and textured by a model of historical economics dominated geographically. As we’ve already said, one of economics’ most significant insights is the way geographical settings facilitated trade. His argument in favor of relative advantages for goods, services, and knowledge exchange is grounded in Ricardian trading patterns and models. Contrastingly, his argument regarding the inability for civilisations that are scattered along a longitude to trade is a complement. Further, he adds a new economic dimension to the argument by stating that climate has interfered in exchanges as well as prevented economies scales which have enabled technological advances. Professor Diamond has a lot of personal insight from his New Guinea research trip, which helps to focus and sharpen his argument. However, his ambitious project seems to be based on broad brush strokes, rather than a detailed analysis. The fact that Professor Diamond wants to show general paradigms in a more detailed way, and not just with a few examples, is a departure from what academics usually do when trying to explain certain phenomena.
The book is so broad that capitalism only gets a brief mention (p.250) which in turn takes away from the argument because it leaves out important points which are either valid or invalid when dealing with global inequality. His mentions of capitalism are only a part of the inexhaustible list of reasons for why Europe’s technological progress is superior to Asia’s. In addition, while he links unequal economic and social development to a specific moment in history, he doesn’t mention any of the other structural or economic factors, which may have affected or even accelerated Eurasian development. The thesis would be improved if he explored arguments less in depth and covered more ground.
Diamond’s tendency reduces the legitimacy of his work by reducing an important debate that focuses on the historical roots of wealth inequality and reducing it to the concept of geographical connectedness. He states that “technology developed most quickly in regions where there was moderate connectedness – neither too high or too low” (416). However, he fails to acknowledge that the accidents paradigm can’t account for these complex dynamics. This may lead to selection bias. Especially in the thirteenth chapter on technology. It extrapolates from limited evidence and ignores all contrary evidence. It is a compelling argument, but the same could be made to claim that technology may emerge as a result of a lack of agriculture development. This would require more innovative thinking. It is also a mistake to try and explain human growth at the continental, regional, or personal level, without taking into account cultural, political, and religious factors that may have a positive or negative impact on this development.
Jared Diamond’s classic “Guns, Germs and Steel”, is a piece of invaluable information that will help the reader understand how the world dynamic produced inequalities on continents. The book is a compilation of many details, all of which are analyzed in depth. The book serves as a basis for academic interdisciplinarity. It also provides the foundations of anthropological arguments, like those made by Yuval N. Harari. The uniqueness of this book is its ability, through historical and contemporary understandings, to transform world views.
Bibliography
Diamond, Jared M. Guns. Norton published a book in New York in 2005.
