Rachmones

This is a difficult book for me to review impartially, as the author is a friend and a contributor to this Blog. I don't want to be disagreeable and contrary to Burt. I don't want to be dishonest. So, I won't say a lot about the book. I do think it is worth the 4 star rating.

What this book is about is revealed in Footnote 43:

"Yes, we suffer too in our estrangement from the life of the land, and from the comings and goings of other creatures and living things. All this weighs heavily upon us in the emergence of a phenomenon that we've come more familiarly to speak of as alienation. None counts quite so heavily, however, as the estrangement that we experience from one another in committing ourselves to the contractual arrangements of corporate society. Among all the oddities of our existence, little affects us so profoundly as this strangeness, self-imposed upon the harmony of natural collaboration that we might otherwise be enjoying. So threatened are we by the prospects of unreserved attachment to others and to the life around us, that we devise philosophies of detachment hopefully to dismiss the reality of our psychic impoverishment."

Rachmones, p 108

Alpert's method is explained clearly in Footnote 38,

"Utilizing these passages along with other material in the bible, I've endeavored to reconstruct the emergence of Hebraic cultural identity. In keeping with the account that's delivered in the book of Exodus, it's clearly evident that the impact of Moses on this process was instrumental. In arriving at a reasonable understanding of how the values and practices of a heterogeneous community of rebels and bandits might have evolved into a major cultural identity, I've relied upon two assumptions. Forsaking any efforts rationally to explain the absurd, I've chosen to ignore all biblical references to the miraculous.
...
"Secondly, I assume that central among the achievements of these disaffected runaways, and evidently vitally instrumental, was the contribution of Moses."

Rachmones, pp 106-107

Alpert's methods place him squarely in the Talmudic tradition of scholarship, which starts with a very thorough review of the literature. (The idea is not only to make proper attribution, but also to discover overlooked ideas or implications not followed.) In his focus on alienation, Alpert also wants to find what ends it.

What the book advocates is a history of the hapiru, precursors of Hebrews and Israelis, as isolated rebels. The hapiru are a restless, disorganized people, escapees from ancient Middle Eastern empires. Their society is "collaborative," according to Alpert, meaning something like "classless" in Marxist terms. (The meaning of "collaborative" is explicated in the book.) Alpert believes hapiru society reflects an earlier condition in the "Garden of Eden" that existed near the Black Sea when we humans were hunter-gathers, ca 10-12,000 years ago. Hapiru society is distinguished from "corporate" society, which started ca 5-7,000 years ago in the Middle East. (Ancient empires are early versions of corporate society.)

The key event in hapiru history was the advent of Moses, says Alpert. Thus, the book is about discovering how Moses might have lived, what he said, and how that turned hapiru into Hebrews. Alpert claims to discern Moses' true message in Exodus, which is clouded by later writers as well as the insertion of improbable and miraculous stories into the ancient texts. The underlying message can be teased out of the texts by comparison of the various sources of the Torah (Bible) and other independently derived historical documents.

Alpert's result is a controversial view of history, and an explanation of alienation. For us moderns, especially liberals, the lesser controversy is probably about the source of alienation, which Alpert says lies in society. Alienation is not a built-in feature of the individual, but acquired (learned) as a result of social conditions. This is a classically Marxist doctrine, as well as the view of many non-Marxist dissenters and social critics during the last century. The connection between Moses and alienation is this: if we followed Moses true prescriptions, the ones which allowed Hebrews to be a fulfilled people, we would not be alienated. So, everything comes down to what is the true meaning of Exodus.

Now, I must be disagreeable about Alpert's view of pre-recorded history. It's not clear to me that humans existed in a state of perfection as hunter-gatherers some 10 millennia ago. On the whole, I believe we are a lot better off today than we were then, despite the alienation induced in us by social conditions. (I generally agree with the Marxist view about the causes of alienation.) My love of technology and the easy life makes it much easier for me than Alpert to resist taking down modern civilization in order to remove alienation. I don't think we have to revert to a "state of nature" (or Rousseau's 'noble savage'?) to attain the good life. So, the controversy is: whether alienation is a social problem to be solved, or inherent in developed societies. In Alpert's terms, do modern societies necessarily have the "corporate" outlook and structure which induces alienation? (I say no, but leaves me with the difficult and lengthy task of showing how it could be otherwise.)

I am not quite sure how Alpert's views fit with Marxian notions of "consciousness" being rooted in the means of production, as described in Footnote 5:

"From another point of view, Karl Marx maintained as a general rule that the nature of human consciousness is conditioned by people's relation to the means of production. Agrarian economy, Marx suggested, evoked one system of values and beliefs, the industrial economy quite another. Contrasts in consciousness likewise would be expected between slaves and masters, as also between managers, workers producing hard goods, and those employed in software."

Rachmones, p 97

I take the Marxist statement, more or less as given by Alpert, as a useful heuristic in evaluating relations between the classes and people. That leads me to think the development of different means of production creates different kinds of societies. The invention of agriculture required different sorts of (individual and social) behavior (organization) by its practitioners than that of hunter-gatherers. Similarly, modern industrial and post-modern societies yet again change behavioral and organizational parameters. For example, our society cannot function unless people go to work on some agreed schedule, whereas hunter-gatherers need not observe any such rule. (An unsocialized hunter-gatherer's not working is entirely a personal matter.) What I question is Alpert's implication that organization after the hunter-gatherer stage is necessarily "corporate" in nature.

Alpert's solution to social problems seems to be syndicalist in nature. If society were "collaborative," alienation would disappear. It is not clear to me whether Alpert has any use for the State or business management in the ultimate scheme of things. I think he believes non-alienated labor would be self-organizing, not "corporate," in the absence of oppressive forces. It is clear that he thinks Moses presented a passable solution to the problem of social organization.

Finally, it is very important to read the footnotes of this work carefully. Without them, neither the method nor purpose of the book is easily discernible. I don't know whether to recommend reading the text or the footnotes first. I guess I'm a victim of linear thinking, whereas this book needs holistic absorption. When successful with the reader, Alpert induces a change of consciousness.