I feel disappointed, and a little betrayed. Debt was my most important book of the decade; A sequel on bureaucracy could be an equally ground breaking contribution. Unfortunately, this is a wandering and disconnected series of weakly researched essays that, while making a few interesting points, buries them under digressions and inaccuracies.

Graeber start with the experience of having his stroke-ridden mother declared legally incompetent, disabled, and then dead, and the kafka-esque absurdity of the paperwork. This process is no less ritualized than any Malagasy funeral, but yet the Western academic tradition seems entirely incapable of understanding bureaucracy: it is a vacuum of symbols from which meaning cannot be extracted. The most powerful tools of thick description and grounded theory are like Antaeus against Hercules.

Directly, Graeber postulates that violence and administration are too sides of the same coin. That behind ledgers and rulebooks is always a man with a club, and any group of men willing to do violence will have administrative support. Internally, bureaucracy is a way to concentrate power among insiders, and with nod to Feminism and Critical Race Studies, bureaucratic techniques allow those with power to avoid doing any interpretative labor; the work of figuring out what other people desire and accommodating yourself to it. Subordinates spend an immense amount of effort figuring out the minds of their masters, if only to avoid being crushed. Those in power have the luxury of entirely ignoring the whims of those under them.

As a revolutionary project, Graeber seeks to revitalize the Left against the neoliberal combination of bureaucracy and extractive capitalism that he calls the 'worst of all possible ideologies' (think Tony Blair or Hillary Clinton). He gestures toward Imagination (with a capital I) as key, and the alliance between avante-garde artists and the proletariat as the base of the Left, but has little to substantiate this idea, or break free of old circular debates about the nature of sovereign power, or the relationship between play and rationality.

Unable to analyze bureaucracy directly, Graeber has to turn to the cultural encrustations that have grown around it. Some of this stuff is spot on: did you know that James Bond and Sherlock Holmes are mirror inversions of an elemental British bureaucratic hero, why all the bosses in American police procedurals are black, or the occult links between Dungeons & Dragons and the Western magical tradition and idealized Roman Law. But some of the cultural stuff misses, like his read of Star Trek or the Nolan Batman movies, and ultimately Graeber is not a natural media studies type, and this seems digressive from the point of book on bureaucracy.

And when I say 'inaccuracies', I mean that when Graeber makes specific claims about technological history, or human cognition, or the like, the footnotes lead to a justification that everybody knows this, rather than a scholarly source. There was one moment where he talked about the rise in management jargon with a phrase like "if you traced the rise of it in business speak since 1970, you would see..." and I thought "If? Aren't you a professor? Can't you get an RA to run this down in a week?" The whole book is full of moments like that, and their presence makes me less confident of Debt, which is a shame.

Some interesting thoughts, but not nearly enough to save the book. I'd prefer that he baked this one for another couple of years.