Graeber probably spends more time analyzing the effects of various philosophical/political/economic systems on individual and social behavior than most people. I'm not familiar enough with the totality of his work to directly address what he does and does not accept about modernism, but from reading 'Debt', he rejects many of the core tenet of modern economics.
Another of his books is titled, 'Toward An Anthropological Theory of Value: The False Coin of Our Own Dreams'. Its summary on Amazon begins: "This innovative book is the first comprehensive synthesis of economic, political, and cultural theories of value. David Graeber reexamines a century of anthropological thought about value and exchange, in large measure to find a way out of quandaries in current social theory, which have become critical at the present moment of ideological collapse in the face of Neoliberalism."
So I rather doubt from the title and the summary that we'd discover that he blithely accepts the core tenets of modernism. It appears to me that he probably would reject quite a bit of the core tenets of modernism and those that he accepts he probably does so understanding their roots and implications. Again, I can't be sure b/c I haven't read it but the guy assumes an outsider, iconoclastic stance in almost everything I have read.
Another of his books is titled, 'Toward An Anthropological Theory of Value: The False Coin of Our Own Dreams'. Its summary on Amazon begins: "This innovative book is the first comprehensive synthesis of economic, political, and cultural theories of value. David Graeber reexamines a century of anthropological thought about value and exchange, in large measure to find a way out of quandaries in current social theory, which have become critical at the present moment of ideological collapse in the face of Neoliberalism."
So I rather doubt from the title and the summary that we'd discover that he blithely accepts the core tenets of modernism. It appears to me that he probably would reject quite a bit of the core tenets of modernism and those that he accepts he probably does so understanding their roots and implications. Again, I can't be sure b/c I haven't read it but the guy assumes an outsider, iconoclastic stance in almost everything I have read.