[WS:] I liked it - it was pretty much consistent with the 'sociological intervention' approach used by Touraine (and also focus group researchers) as well as the "frame alignment" approach to social movement. In a nutshell, you need to engage people in a dialogue to find out what and how they think and even that is not written in stone as what and how they think change depending on the interaction.
As I said before, I enjoyed Graeber's book although the ending was a bit disappointing. This whole "imagination" thing sounded a bit like a left wing version of a "positive thinking" self-help handbook, if not a left wing reincarnation of Ayn Rand (creative individuals good, mediators and bureaucrats bad). Too idealistic and too individualistic to my taste.
My other reservation is Graeber's 'going native' as it is called in anthropological circles, or identifying with the group that he studied. The problem with that, as I see it, is that you lose critical approach to the views espoused by the group you study. As I see it, the acceptance of their position on direct action (creating an "instant" space free of state domination) is contingent on my acceptance of their ideology, but I would reject it if a similar argument for direct action was proposed by, say, an anti-abortion group. In my book, what is good for the goose is good for the gander, so accepting the direct action by anarchists would also require accepting the direct action by anti-abortionists and fellow travelers.
But beside these few reservations, it was a great read - very informative and very thoughtful. I really enjoyed it and I learned quite a bit about anarchists.
Wojtek