In his international bestsellers Guns, Germs and Steel and Collapse, Jared Diamond transformed our understanding of what makes civilizations rise and fall. Now, in his third book in this monumental trilogy, he reveals how successful nations recover from crises while adopting selective changes — a coping mechanism more commonly associated with individuals recovering from personal crises.
“Nations and individuals accept national and individual responsibility to take action to solve the problem, or else deny responsibility by self-pity, blaming others, and assuming the role of victim.”
Jared Diamond’s “Upheaval: Turning Points for Nations in Crisis” is a fascinating, albeit imperfect, exploration of how nations respond to crises. Following the structure that made his “Guns, Germs, and Steel” and “Collapse” so popular, Diamond applies a comparative lens to examine how seven countries—Finland, Japan, Chile, Indonesia, Germany, Australia, and the United States—have navigated existential challenges.
The book’s central premise is that nations can learn from how individuals cope with personal crises. Diamond identifies twelve factors important for individual success in facing challenges, such as acknowledging responsibility, building a fence, seeking help from allies, and realistically assessing one’s situation. He then uses these factors as a framework for analyzing each nation’s specific historical response.
Strengths
- Engaging Narrative: Diamond is a master storyteller, weaving together historical details with compelling narratives. He makes complex geopolitical scenarios accessible to a broad audience.
- Comparative Framework: The comparative approach allows for valuable insights. By juxtaposing the responses of different nations to similar challenges (like dictatorship, economic collapse, or external threat), Diamond highlights both unique national characteristics and universal patterns of crisis management.
- Practical Application: Diamond strives to offer practical lessons from history. The book isn’t just about understanding the past; it’s about informing present-day decision-making and promoting more effective responses to future crises.
- Thought-Provoking: “Upheaval” prompts readers to consider the agency of nations in shaping their own destinies. It challenges deterministic views of history and emphasizes the importance of leadership, national identity, and strategic decision-making.
Weaknesses
- Oversimplification: While the twelve factors are insightful, applying them directly to complex national narratives feels somewhat reductive. Critics argue that Diamond oversimplifies historical events and neglects the nuances of social, political, and economic contexts.
- Selection Bias: The choice of countries feels somewhat arbitrary. While the included nations offer diverse perspectives, it’s fair to question whether the sample is truly representative of the vast range of national experiences with crisis.
- Potential for Analogies to Break Down: The analogy between individual and national crises, though intriguing, can be strained. Nations are vastly more complex than individuals, and the factors contributing to their success or failure are multifaceted and often intertwined.
- Focus on the Past: While the book aims to inform present-day challenges, its primary focus remains on historical case studies. The connection between those historical responses and contemporary crises isn’t always explicitly drawn, leaving it to the reader to extrapolate.
Overall, “Upheaval” is a stimulating and informative read that offers a unique perspective on how nations navigate crises. While the book is not without its flaws, its engaging narrative, thought-provoking framework, and comparative approach make it a valuable contribution to the study of history and geopolitics. It’s particularly recommended for readers interested in understanding the dynamics of national resilience and the lessons that history can offer in a world facing increasing challenges. However, it’s crucial to approach the book critically, recognizing its limitations and acknowledging the complexities of the historical events being analyzed. It’s a good starting point for further exploration, not the definitive answer to understanding national crises.