Good point, Doug. Graeber has a position that he lives himself. It affects many (so-called) academic disciplines or scholarly domains, but like Chomsky, he’s simply always himself. If economics is the focus, then Debt is a good place to start. If politics is the focus, his direct democracy and Occupy material is the place to go. If the focus is human interaction more generally, then Fragments is the obvious door. If you want to build a larger edifice, then maybe more than one avenue of approach could be helpful.
But I feel this way about a lot of writers and thinkers. I don’t know if I really need to read more Connolly at the moment, though I believe he has a lot to offer. Not having read Bellah, for example, I’m unclear on whether his (and Joas’) edited volume on the Axial Age is the best place to start, or whether we should look at his Religion in Human Evolution would be better. There I rely to a degree on the insight of others here who are more familiar with him. Given the centrality of the notion of the Axial Age to much of what is discussed here, I could understand approaching him from that side of things.
All of us are oversaturated with input, impulses, and interests, so we need to be choosy about what we do when. The Cafés – at least for me thus far – have been opportunities to get a taste of things in order to make subsequent decisions. Davor’s work and the Generations sessions are the best example here: I’m glad for the initial exposure: there was too much I didn’t grok at the first go, the perceived investment of time and energy exceeded what I thought I could invest, so I skimmed through and picked up more understanding in those threads. John and TJ can get more bang for the buck here than I can, so I’m glad there is this alternative path.
In the end, all of us will put that time, energy, and effort into what we believe is going to be most worthwhile for what each of has in their particular focus. There can’t be any more than that … at least not as far as I can see from my own rather restricted perspective. Still, I’m especially grateful for the opportunities to transcend those restrictions that the Cafés have been able to offer.
Having said that, I do have the feeling that all of us – each in their own way – are applying what we’re gleaning (from all our activities here), which means that each one of us is growing (hence, changing) in some way. I believe this is a good thing. One consequence is that the John, Doug, Michael, Geoff, Marco, TJ, or Ed participating in the Café tomorrow (and, again, I won’t be able to make it) is not the same person who participated in any Café that has happened up until now. At some point, those changes are significant enough to trigger or unleash very unexpected effects, but these need not be destructive in any catastrophic sense. Only time will tell, however, what will come of it all.
But without this technology, I wouldn’t be able to complain as much as I do about all the sifting and sorting that I have to accomplish. We must make do even with what we have got.