The Portal for Public History. Please read the rules before participating, as we remove all comments which break the rules. Answers must be in-depth and comprehensive, or they will be removed.
How accurate is David Graeber's claim that the Indigenous critique of European society kick started the Enlightenment?
Hello r/AskHistorians,
I recently finished reading David Graeber and David Wengrow's Dawn of Everything. In the book, they make an interesting claim: that the European Enlightenment was, in many ways, started by Native American philosophers criticizing European customs. They bring up the example of Kondiaronk, a Native Chief, who conducted a series of interviews in which he laid out his view on white customs and society. This apparently was widely read in Europe and inspired people like Rousseau. He also brings up several passages written by European missionaries, in which Natives bring up points that seem eerily reminiscent of later Enlightenment thinkers. This is an interesting take on the Enlightenment. How much weight does it hold? Also, could you recommend any further reading on this subject?
Archived post. New comments cannot be posted and votes cannot be cast.
Sort by:
Best
Open comment sort options
Best
Top
New
Controversial
Old
Q&A
Welcome to r/AskHistorians. Please Read Our Rules before you comment in this community. Understand that rule breaking comments get removed.
Please consider Clicking Here for RemindMeBot as it takes time for an answer to be written. Additionally, for weekly content summaries, Click Here to Subscribe to our Weekly Roundup.
We thank you for your interest in this question, and your patience in waiting for an in-depth and comprehensive answer to show up. In addition to RemindMeBot, consider using our Browser Extension, or getting the Weekly Roundup. In the meantime our Twitter, Facebook, and Sunday Digest feature excellent content that has already been written!
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
I have been looking for more resources on Kandiaronk ever since I read it as well and what I've been left to grapple with are the critical reviews of Graber and Wengrow's second chapter, so that is what I'll share here. Said critiques rely heavily on assuming that Lahontan, the author of The Dialogues, the work that entails the conversations between Lahontan and Kandiaronk in which Kandiaronk lays out his criticism of European society, was the creator of the critiques of European society that Graeber and Wengrow ascribe to Kandiaronk. David Bell, an American historian who wrote this critique of the chapter, claims that Lahontan used Kandiaronk as a literary device to carry his own critiques of European society, as many written philosophical works in Europe at the time were written as fictional stories and used a literary tradition Anthony Pagden calls the “savage critic.” Although there are cases of this type of writing being used, it is wildly ahistorical for Bell to assume Lahontan was engaging in this kind of writing. Why would Lahontan, a French soldier with no notoriety as an intellectual in Europe prior to the release of his The Dialogues, intentionally frame his own criticisms of Europe as that of a Native American? Even Bell acknowledges that in Lahontan's work, the fictional character Adairo, who frequently repels Lahontan's articulations of the superiority of Christianity and Europe, was most likely Kandiorank. There is no evidence that supports the idea that Lahontan created a dialogue between him and someone who by even critiques accounts was loosely based on Kandiorank as his own besides thinking since other authors did, we can assume Lahontan did as well. The evidence for Adairo representing Kandiaronk is building, but not concrete either - take the work 'Native American Speakers of the Eastern Woodlands', by Barbara Alice Mann, which Bell even uses himself and attempts to dispute using the following logic- Mann argued that the “flat dismissal” of the Dialogues as an authentic transcript of a Native American voice reflected racism and a “western sneer.” She argues that in fact a “beguiled Lahontan” took elaborate notes as he conversed with Kandiaronk, and then later put them together into the Dialogues. But what is Mann’s principal evidence? In her book, she triumphantly quotes Lahontan himself: “When I was in the village of this [Native] American, I took on the agreeable task of carefully noting all his arguments. No sooner had I returned from my trip to the Canadian lakes than I showed my manuscript to Count Frontenac, who was so pleased to read it that he made the effort to help me put these Dialogues into their present state.” The case seems irrefutable, except for one important point: These words come from the preface to the Dialogues themselves.
So, Bell's critique of Mann's framing of The Dialogues relies upon the same guesswork he criticizes Graber and Wengrow of committing. The evidence suggests The Dialogues are a verbatim account of the debates between Kandiaronk and Lahontan. To act as if a colonial soldier looking to spread Christianity would come up with these critiques himself, after meeting with Kandiaronk, who we know was an incredible orator and brilliant statesman, (for more on him look here) is a line of thought consistent with the Western chauvinism Graeber and Wengrow looked to dispel and it's emergence can be attributed to a reflex reaction from historians who have based their work off a certain story of European enlightenment. What The Dawn of Everything shows us is that the origin of enlightenment ideals are more murky than previously thought, and that we should continue to question the seemingly concrete ways we tell the story of our civilization and how it is set up.
With all due respect, I believe there's quite a bit of misrepresentation in your answer.
For instance, you imply that Lahontan was just a "colonial soldier", omitting the fact that he was, of course, a Baron, born into an aristocratic family, likely educated in the very sources of "Enlightenment" thinking Bell refers to, such as ancient Greek philosophy, the Roman tradition of civic republicanism, and Judaism and Christianity.
I'm not seeing any other evidence you've mustered here aside from "Yes, let's take Lahontan at his word."
Not to mention Bell's piece there engages with the claims in far greater detail than you've implied. For example:
I believe you've skipped over Bell's own references to the many, many alternative sources of such critiques. Similarly,
Your sentences here belie the very "murkiness" that Bell himself discusses:
It is, in fact, Graeber and Wengrow who are doing their best to deemphasize the "murkiness" of the period.
Bell can reliably point to the specific sources of inspiration Lahontan may have drawn upon in his critiques, but we're unable to do so for Kandiaronk; all you've given us is that he's an "incredible orator and brilliant statesman." I think any thorough response needs to dive into contemporary indigenous philosophy. As Bell himself notes:
If Lahontan wrote The Dialogues as is own critique of European society, as an educated Baron why would he mask his potential breakthrough into philosophical history as a tale of an intelligent Native American? Especially when we consider the historical evidence for the meeting between the two - Kandiorank was 100% a real person and he had direct debates with French colonizers, displaying his wit and intelligence to full effect. The veracity of this claim isn't the topic of the thread. The Wendat society Kandiorank was apart of had very different ideas of personal property, wealth, and freedom, not to mention Christianity. For Lahontan to see all this and document it would be natural for him to do precisely because of his status as a Baron and intellectual! I did not omit this fact because it serves my point, I omitted it because it is irrelevant, if not supportive of Graeber's claim. If Lahontan was the original author of the points made by Adairo in the dialogues, we would have to assume that the conversations Kandiorank had with the French were entirely non political and strictly in the realm of... what exactly? What could they have debated? The weather?
I did paraphrase a lot of Bell's critique and certainly did not include all of his arguments, I highly encourage everyone to read it for themselves, I'll link it here again for ease of access.
I do not think that the 'Indigenous critique' had as big of an impact on the enlightenment as other fans of Graeber, and I agree with Bell that the causes of the enlightenment are complex. But we must acknowledge Kandiorank's place in this web of complexity, which Bell neglects to do.
I'd just like to note that as an occasional contributor to this community who isn't an expert or well read on this subject matter, I found the repeated representation of Lahontan as just "a soldier" to be highly misleading. Particularly that he was a soldier who had not published anything of intellectual merit prior to the dialogues.
A cursory glance shows that Louis Armand, Baron de Lahontan, who went to Canada when he was just 17 and remained on the frontier exploring and fighting for nearly twenty years.
That is a massive and in my opinion very important contrast to just "colonial soldier." I know you address the fact you feel it an irrelevance to your argument, however it has the effect of diminishing the intellectual capacity of Lahontan in the mind of a lay person who is imagining a Richard Sharpe type character patrolling the frontier musket in hand as opposed to an educated aristocrat of a social class that often began private tutoring of the classics at age 4. The point on him not publishing anything of note also would appear to be moot given he left Europe aged 17 and so could not have published anything of note, and indeed published his dialogues and other works by the looks of it almost immediately upon settling down back in Europe.
To be clear, I'm not accusing any malicious attempt to mislead nor contesting the rest of your arguments. I am stating factually that this characterization of Lahontan definitely has a misleading effect on someone not already familiar with the individual and I think think as a community we should aspire to be clearer on such issues.
It really does not have any impact on the greater story being told here. I concede it was not an accurate portrayal on my part, and I thank those who corrected me on it, but I hold that Lahontan's status as a baron makes it more likely he recognized the potential Kandiorank thoughts could have on broader European society and pushed him to write the Dialogues with Adairo representing Kandiorank. To assume that his Baron status would make it reasonable for him to make up the entire Dialogues is incredibly ahistorical. I read from David Wengrows response to David Bell -"Bell argues that Adario of the Dialogues is a fiction - an invocation of the "noble Savage", no different, says Bell, from Disney's Pocahontas. This is an extreme position. Even historians of the Enlightenment who are skeptical about the Dialogues do no usually go this far. Take D. A. Harvey, for instance: "The figure Adario is based loosely on an actual Huron (Wendat) leader named Kandiaronk, whom Lahontan met at For Michillimackinac in 1688, and may have encountered again."
Bell addresses some of your points already, so I'll just pull it out for convenience. Yes, I agree with you, people should read the piece in full.
I mean, there's a whole range of options between "providing a foundational philosophical critique which went on to influence the Enlightenment" and "the weather" (such as diplomacy and politics at the time), but to quote from the article:
And as for your first claim:
Bell addresses this as well:
Again, the issue with Bell's view is that he is relying on the fact that other writers have used the "savage critic" device without providing any evidence that would separate Lahontans personal critiques on Europe from the dialogues we know he witnessed with Kandiorank and the French. It is a wild leap of faith to assume Lahontan was the originator of the indigenous critique given the fact that he was exposed to a new kind of human society with wildly different ideas and culture. The conservative approach here would be to claim Lahontan was simply inspired by the indigenous way of life and thought of the back and forth on his own, weaving in ideas that were already being Thorin around in Europe at the time. Even that view has implications on our understanding of the enlightenment.
"I mean, there's a whole range of options between "providing a foundational philosophical critique which went on to influence the Enlightenment" and "the weather" (such as diplomacy and politics at the time)"
To this I ask you, how could the critiques laid out in The Dialogues be described as anything but diplomacy and politics? The themes that Adairo touches on in his critique would find themselves in virtually anything worth debating - especially when he was debating Christians and colonizers! There isn't a lot of wiggle room in the subjects they could have discussed in Lahontan's presence that would not possibly go on to influence his work. And again, influence here would be the conservative take.
You have just argued two sides. You argued that he was a nothing, so why put the words elsewhere. No you argue that he was a baron, so why put the words elsewhere. Again, I have no idea of any of this but your argument in this thread trouble me.
It is entirely possible that Kandiorank was smart, said interesting things, and still isn't the primary source.
Being a soldier, which is what I initially described him as, does not bar someone from also being a baron - and yes that is possible, but incredibly unlikely, see my other comments as to why. Your eagerness to postulate such a claim with no evidence troubles me.
Great response, but there seems to be an issue with your second link when attempting to follow up on the Kondiaronk link therein. Do you have an alternative suggestion for those interested?
It's available here and on the wayback machine.
Here's a few I'm familiar with-
http://www.biographi.ca/en/bio.php?BioId=34996 for a biography entailing his life as a Wendat statesmen
http://www.autodidactproject.org/quote/whitemor.html an excerpt from Lahontan's original work
Mann's book is cited frequently in The Dawn of Everything but I haven't read it and its quite expensive. https://www.worldcat.org/title/native-american-speakers-of-the-eastern-woodlands-selected-speeches-and-critical-analyses/oclc/317404003
Additionally, the bibliography in his Wikipedia page is full of great sources.