Seeing Like a State

How Certain Schemes to Improve the Human Condition Have Failed

The classic opus about how states fuck up. Careening across time and geography, James C. Scott locates any number of massive fuck ups and identifies the common patterns among them; such patterns include an obsession with order and simplicity, a faith in making things legible, and of course the always present hubris. But on another level, the book is also about how planning for living is nearly always a fool’s errand, with responding, improvising, adapting, and experimenting all better methods to follow if you want to keep a people both alive and content. States have somewhat of an interest in the former, and often care very little for the latter; but we care about both. And we could learn a lot from their mistakes.

Related writing

Reading notes

Take small steps

After spending a few hundred pages detailing how states go wrong, James C. Scott turns his gaze around and identifies four alternative patterns that just might make it possible for things to go right:

Take small steps. In an experimental approach to social change, presume that we cannot know the consequences of our interventions in advance. Given this postulate of ignorance, prefer wherever possible to take a small step, stand back, observe, and then plan the next small move. As the biologist J. B. S. Haldane metaphorically described the advantages of smallness: “You can drop a mouse down a thousand-yard mineshaft; and on arriving at the bottom, it gets a slight shock and walks away. A rat is killed, a man broken, a horse splashes.”

Favor reversibility. Prefer interventions that can easily be undone if they turn out to be mistakes. Irreversible interventions have irreversible consequences. Interventions into ecosystems require particular care in this respect, given our great ignorance about how they interact. Aldo Leopold captured the spirit of caution required: “The first rule of intelligent tinkering is to keep all the parts.”

Plan on surprises. Choose plans that allow the largest accommodation to the unforeseen. In agricultural schemes this may mean choosing and preparing land so that it can grow any of several crops. In planning housing, it would mean “designing in” flexibility for accommodating changes in family structures or living styles. In a factory it may mean selecting a location, layout, or piece of machinery that allows for new processes, materials, or product lines down the road.

Plan on human inventiveness. Always plan under the assumption that those who become involved in the project later will have or will develop the experience and insight to improve on the design.

Scott, Seeing Like a State, page 345

What I take from this is really a set of methods for navigating uncertainty—the sheer fact that we cannot know what will happen, what might occur as a result of our actions or designs. This is always the case, of course; but we become more aware of that uncertainty in times of crisis, in times when we expect to be surprised and so are not taken by it but rather braced for its arrival. Which is good counsel for the days ahead.