(an essay from about eight years ago)
The question of counteracting activist burnout is
always on my mind and I've struggled with it for many
years and assume I'll continue to struggle with it. Here
are a few thoughts about what we can do about it.
If
you view (as I do) activism as organizing outside of the
institutional system of politics, the cards are already
stacked against us, because we are challenging that
system. Therefore there is more resistance within the
system and by other citizens who are socialized to not
see problems.
We sometimes get so focused on the need for political
change that we neglect other important things (both to
social movements and ourselves), such as the social
aspect. Having more potlucks, picnics, bowling and
dancing parties, movie nights, bar-hopping, etc. can help
solidify relationships between activists and help let-off
steam. It's much better to fight for a better future with
friends you like, admire, and respect than with
strangers.
Middle-class privilege (which I grew up with) seems to
suggest to us (especially for those of us who are also White men)
that if we just try hard enough we can accomplish
anything. Thus, we misunderstand the reality that change
is VERY HARD and a lifetime struggle sometimes. If you
talk to African-American organizers they have a very
long-term vision, because they know the going isn't
always easy. Having the patience to do things right and
to realize that the world ain't gonna change just because
we try real hard can help us to pace our expectations.
We go through basic life changes. This is especially
true for college activists, who have the “free time”
(I use this term with much reluctance) to be active, yet
once they graduate, a full-time job and other obligations
gets in the way. For those who get married and/or start
families, obligations and commitments grow even more. We
can try to make our events family/child friendly in order
to encourage participation from those in their 30s and
40s.
Mass media makes every effort it can to denigrate
political activism that doesn't fit with the ideology of
its editors, producers, and owners. Don't believe me?
Read anything by Ben Bagdikian, Norman Solomon, Robert
McChesney, or Noam Chomsky and Ed Herman's “Manufacturing
Consent”. Mass media makes protesters look stupid,
ill-informed, childish, worthless, ineffective, and
counterproductive. Whenever there is a clash between
demonstrators and police, media focuses (90% of the time)
upon that clash instead of the reasons that caused the
protest, and almost always slants the story to provoke
sympathy for the police instead of the demonstrators
(which invariably is almost always backwards). One
possible solution: Become the media!
Sad as it is to admit it, some activists are
megalomaniacs, and, although they feign to be
egalitarian, they are dictators at heart. This is a very
small minority, of course, but these attention-grabbers
ruin it for everyone else. These people have to get put
in check. If that can't be democratic, get lots of people
together to call them on their crap.
This problem is compounded by how some organizations
operate in very undemocratic ways, that are disempowering
to those who wish to be involved. Instead of using
consensus decision making, the group votes between two
marginal options that most members had little role in
formulating or discussing. This reason alone causes many
people to drop out entirely because they don't think
their opinions are valued by the group. If we're
activists who are serious about the causes we struggle
for, we should also be serious about the means we use
towards that struggle. This also means fighting sexual
and racial marginalization in groups. White men (like me)
need to shut the fuck up, and listen to women and people
of color more often....
.... just like I'm going to do now.
Sunday, May 13, 2012
Thursday, May 3, 2012
Electoral Action Ain't Democracy
[Another oldie-but-goody from 2003 that I like to re-read every American election year (or as Chaz Bufe called it, "hell").]
It should be a given that voting isn't the be-all and end-all of democracy. If people think that walking into a little booth once every year (or every four years) and poking a few holes in some pieces of paper is the pinnacle of modern democracy, they are selling themselves-- and the idea of democracy-- short.
There are many avenues for people to act politically, many of which can be conducive to the practice of democracy. People can join block clubs, PTAs (Parent-Teacher Associations), social and economic justice organizations. They can contribute financially to organizations that encourage public participation-- League of Women Voters, NAACP, American Friends Service Committee, United Way, etc.-- or they can volunteer their time toward that end. They can directly lobby politicians, protest against or for policy, do petition campaigns, conduct public referendums, organize town hall meetings, and so on.
But, for most, voting is enough. That's sad, too, because it's just so EASY. Democracy, by it's very nature is very un-easy. It's tough, difficult, grueling, challenging, contentious, conflictory, and very engaging. Anyone who shows you a simple solution to a complex problem like democracy or public governance of a complex society should immediately be distrusted. Whether a society's decision making process is formed through majority rule, proportional representation, utter dictatorship, or consensus, democracy is always a messy affair.
Voting often hinges upon the selection of the better of two evils-- two mediocre (or bad) candidates who are relatively indistinguishable, both rolling in tons of money and dull rhetoric. Traditionally the “good guys”, the Democrats have been aping the Republicans (traditionally the “bad guys”), and have succeeded in proving that they can be just as reactionary and draconian and Right-wing-friendly as the Republicans. They cozy upto corporate power, offer false promises to unions and working people, approve of any “free trade” deal that crosses their desks, fall obediently into line and worship the flag whenever “the President” of the time pushes the country into war.
Helen Keller once mused, “We vote, what does that mean?” In the end, probably not much. Especially on the scale of national elections, there is very little possibility of any person or even bloc influencing a presidential candidate. And, of course, since Presidents are kings that are voted for, it's probably not even desirable to influence them.
On the other hand, though, voting at local elections can really make a differences, especially with citizen-run campaigns to reform corrupt city governments or to throw reactionaries and fat-cats out of office. Also, although I cringe to think of the ramifications: voting is the easiest act of political activity and can in a small way play a role. It also can be an in-road to talking to others about more important matters.
For instance, talking about issues instead of candidates is vital. We have a serious hero worship fetish in this country, and seem to prop all our hopes upon one individual or a small group of individuals. In the process, we forget that we are empowered people! We can make a difference beyond voting for candidates. Speaking about issues is the best way to avoid personality politics. Who gives a shit whose hair is better (or more real) or who can give the best sound bite-- where do they stand on the death penalty? Better yet, where does America really stand on the death penalty? What can citizens do to remove it from the face of society?
Thus, although it's important not to fetishize voting, registering to vote can be important: it places people in jury pools. Presently, pools tend to be composed of middle- and upper-class voters, who tend to be White. Since the vast majority of people arrested for crimes in this country are NOT, it is important that poorer people and people of color are registered so they can truly be “peers” and try those arrested. Otherwise, we'll likely continue in a shameful (and classist and racist) trajectory that will resemble slave lynchings more than criminal trials.
Enfranchising non-Whites and the poor is important. But, it's equally important to re-enfranchise ex-felons who are trying to reintegrate themselves into society. They need a voice, and-- as pitiful a voice as voting offers-- it can be an affirmation for a sizable sector of the country. Also, a large voting block of cons would cause politicians to (hopefully) stop all their “law and order” grandstanding crap.
I believe in a "diversity of tactics" to challenge and change the current political system. That means the whole spectrum of easy/less-meaningful (voting) to the harder/more-meaningful (movement building) are important and should be supported. I'm not goin g to criticize anyone who does either of these things or anything in the middle. It takes all kinds of resistance to bring powerful institutions to their knees and we have to appreciate this reality.
Even though I will continue to vote in elections, I believe the whole thing to be a massive racket of distraction. I see the energy being sapped by the anti-war movement into the campaigns for Democratic “hopefuls” Howard Dean or Dennis Kucinch. Do these individuals really stand a chance of winning? Even if they were to be nominated and win the presidency, they would still face the overpowering institutions of the Pentagon, Defense Department, Armed Forces, defense contractors, and capitalism itself. They'd be lucky if they weren't assassinated within their first month in office. But, a strong anti-war movement could change the tenor of the country, force the power-elite into war-mongering retreat.
The rivers of money that flow, unseen through polling places and the halls of Washington, D.C. lead me to one sure-fire long-term goal. Direct action and non-electoral organizing. I won't discard voting, but I won't trust it as my savior-- because it isn't. Using the tactics of subversion, civil disobedience, intervention, economic action, and insurrection are more useful and fulfilling. So many opportunities to make a difference and become empowered depend on people believing that democracy is a hard game to play... and no one should play it for you. We need to divorce ourselves from the notion of easy, quick-fix solutions and realize that change has to start with ourselves.
It should be a given that voting isn't the be-all and end-all of democracy. If people think that walking into a little booth once every year (or every four years) and poking a few holes in some pieces of paper is the pinnacle of modern democracy, they are selling themselves-- and the idea of democracy-- short.
There are many avenues for people to act politically, many of which can be conducive to the practice of democracy. People can join block clubs, PTAs (Parent-Teacher Associations), social and economic justice organizations. They can contribute financially to organizations that encourage public participation-- League of Women Voters, NAACP, American Friends Service Committee, United Way, etc.-- or they can volunteer their time toward that end. They can directly lobby politicians, protest against or for policy, do petition campaigns, conduct public referendums, organize town hall meetings, and so on.
But, for most, voting is enough. That's sad, too, because it's just so EASY. Democracy, by it's very nature is very un-easy. It's tough, difficult, grueling, challenging, contentious, conflictory, and very engaging. Anyone who shows you a simple solution to a complex problem like democracy or public governance of a complex society should immediately be distrusted. Whether a society's decision making process is formed through majority rule, proportional representation, utter dictatorship, or consensus, democracy is always a messy affair.
Voting often hinges upon the selection of the better of two evils-- two mediocre (or bad) candidates who are relatively indistinguishable, both rolling in tons of money and dull rhetoric. Traditionally the “good guys”, the Democrats have been aping the Republicans (traditionally the “bad guys”), and have succeeded in proving that they can be just as reactionary and draconian and Right-wing-friendly as the Republicans. They cozy upto corporate power, offer false promises to unions and working people, approve of any “free trade” deal that crosses their desks, fall obediently into line and worship the flag whenever “the President” of the time pushes the country into war.
Helen Keller once mused, “We vote, what does that mean?” In the end, probably not much. Especially on the scale of national elections, there is very little possibility of any person or even bloc influencing a presidential candidate. And, of course, since Presidents are kings that are voted for, it's probably not even desirable to influence them.
On the other hand, though, voting at local elections can really make a differences, especially with citizen-run campaigns to reform corrupt city governments or to throw reactionaries and fat-cats out of office. Also, although I cringe to think of the ramifications: voting is the easiest act of political activity and can in a small way play a role. It also can be an in-road to talking to others about more important matters.
For instance, talking about issues instead of candidates is vital. We have a serious hero worship fetish in this country, and seem to prop all our hopes upon one individual or a small group of individuals. In the process, we forget that we are empowered people! We can make a difference beyond voting for candidates. Speaking about issues is the best way to avoid personality politics. Who gives a shit whose hair is better (or more real) or who can give the best sound bite-- where do they stand on the death penalty? Better yet, where does America really stand on the death penalty? What can citizens do to remove it from the face of society?
Thus, although it's important not to fetishize voting, registering to vote can be important: it places people in jury pools. Presently, pools tend to be composed of middle- and upper-class voters, who tend to be White. Since the vast majority of people arrested for crimes in this country are NOT, it is important that poorer people and people of color are registered so they can truly be “peers” and try those arrested. Otherwise, we'll likely continue in a shameful (and classist and racist) trajectory that will resemble slave lynchings more than criminal trials.
Enfranchising non-Whites and the poor is important. But, it's equally important to re-enfranchise ex-felons who are trying to reintegrate themselves into society. They need a voice, and-- as pitiful a voice as voting offers-- it can be an affirmation for a sizable sector of the country. Also, a large voting block of cons would cause politicians to (hopefully) stop all their “law and order” grandstanding crap.
I believe in a "diversity of tactics" to challenge and change the current political system. That means the whole spectrum of easy/less-meaningful (voting) to the harder/more-meaningful (movement building) are important and should be supported. I'm not goin g to criticize anyone who does either of these things or anything in the middle. It takes all kinds of resistance to bring powerful institutions to their knees and we have to appreciate this reality.
Even though I will continue to vote in elections, I believe the whole thing to be a massive racket of distraction. I see the energy being sapped by the anti-war movement into the campaigns for Democratic “hopefuls” Howard Dean or Dennis Kucinch. Do these individuals really stand a chance of winning? Even if they were to be nominated and win the presidency, they would still face the overpowering institutions of the Pentagon, Defense Department, Armed Forces, defense contractors, and capitalism itself. They'd be lucky if they weren't assassinated within their first month in office. But, a strong anti-war movement could change the tenor of the country, force the power-elite into war-mongering retreat.
The rivers of money that flow, unseen through polling places and the halls of Washington, D.C. lead me to one sure-fire long-term goal. Direct action and non-electoral organizing. I won't discard voting, but I won't trust it as my savior-- because it isn't. Using the tactics of subversion, civil disobedience, intervention, economic action, and insurrection are more useful and fulfilling. So many opportunities to make a difference and become empowered depend on people believing that democracy is a hard game to play... and no one should play it for you. We need to divorce ourselves from the notion of easy, quick-fix solutions and realize that change has to start with ourselves.
Sunday, April 29, 2012
Review of Mohammed Bamyeh's "Anarchy as Order"
[My book review of Mohammed Bamyeh's recent Anarchy as Order: The History and Future of Civic Humanity (Rowman & Littlefield), in the online journal from Sociologists Without Borders (SSF), called Societies Without Borders.]
Unlike the many activist and activist-scholar written books about anarchism in recent years, Anarchy as Order is written by a solidly professorial author. Consequently, the book under review here originates from a different source than works like Anarchy Alive! by Uri Gordon or Gramsci is Dead by Richard Day. These latter books are informed by the immediate, highly potent anarchist movements that have proliferated around the world in recent decades, and that have spread multi-faceted views and critiques of the societies in which they are embedded (as well as the globalizing spaces in-between cultural groupings). Still, Anarchy as Order is likely the best and most serious of the non-activist written books on anarchism, perhaps since established works by folks like James Joll or Peter Marshall. Yet, even that sort of praise does not do justice to the fascinating and highly-sociological interpretation Bamyeh gives of anarchism (or, more appropriately, anarchy). Unlike many bookish academics who have a perverse view of anarchism—more informed by the paranoid lies and misconceptions of mass media spokespersons, delusional free-marketeers, and government spies than by anarchists themselves—Bamyeh's account is sympathetic, learned, and true to the intent of classic anarchists like Proudhon, Bakunin, and Kropotkin (and even, later in the book, with a nod to Stirner!).
Reading Anarchy as Order is like digesting a more philosophical and academic version of Colin Ward's modern classic Anarchy in Action, the English-speaking world's best work of anarchist-sociology (the major distinction between Bamyeh and Ward is the latter's emphasis on anarchy as an already-existing tendency in present society: sometimes obscured, but still there). As such, Bamyeh's work is a thoughtful indictment of modern societies—in particular the state (of which he provides a unique, digested analysis of the anarchist critique of the state)—and thus has much in common with an assorted collection of other critical and Marxist sociologists. However, like all anarchist writing, there is a clear, practical Utopian strand that prefigures the future. As with Ward (and most comparable anarchist thinkers, especially Kropotkin), Bamyeh's view of anarchical society is not one devoid of order, but rather a highly just, civil, and organic order. Due to this focus, Bamyeh inadvertently, but instantly, will draw comparison between his argument of a civil society consumed by the state and the Habermasian claim of “the system” colonizing the life-world.
Bamyeh argues—correctly and creatively—that anarchism emphasizes freedom, indeterminate outcomes, and fluid solidarity, and an anarchical society would contain these elements, as opposed to other social qualities many societies are now tainted with (such as hero-worship, obedience, war-making, control, and inequality). Thus, one of Anarchy as Order's clearest successes is framing anarchist ideas as potential (and maybe even latent) conditions in a future society—thus “anarchy”. To rescue the word “anarchy” from the semantic slaughterhouse it has historically been subjected to, Bamyeh instinctively adopts Proudhon's claim that “anarchy is order”, while contemporary society (as dominated by the nation-state, capitalist ravish, and religious oppression) is a society wracked by disorder, chaos. Bamyeh also smartly makes a distinction comparable to that of Alexander Berkman who once wrote that although some people were ready and willing to adopt the philosophy and tenets advocated by anarchism the ideology, few were able to successful practice and live in a world of unimposed and non-hierarchical anarchy (yet, anyway).
Anarchist Studies scholars may be surprised by the credit extended to the “individualist” American faction in the United States (an attribution that seems to include modern Libertarianism, itself highly allergic to anti-capitalist anarchist movements). But, given the sympathies that “individualists” like Benjamin Tucker had for collectivists like Bakunin, it is unclear if such simple distinctions can be drawn. Anarchy as Order's otherwise appropriately culled reading of anarchist philosophy and movement history excels beyond most scholarly works on anarchism, and can be seen to occupy a middle-ground between purely philosophical scholarly works (so abstract in character as they do not even acknowledge the existence of a movement) and the descriptive anarchist movement histories usually authored by activists (for use by their own movements). One weakness of this compromise is that nearly no attention is given to modern anarchist theory and movements, except abstractly. The explosion in new anarchist strains (or ideological subvariants) in recent decades—such as anarcha-feminism, Black anarchism, queer anarchism, post-leftism, especifismo, primitivism, and so on—have (even though sometimes controversially) changed anarchism's focus to a systematic critique of domination. Whereas Bamyeh's work is sympathetic to this contemporary consensus, most of his analysis focuses on the state—and far less so on patriarchy, white supremacy, heterosexism, Western civilization, and so on. In doing so, Anarchy as Order is a solid work on the state/civil society dichotomy, but is less mature in its analysis of other institutions of domination. This is not, I believe, a fatal deficit, since Bamyeh's highly nuanced and provocative analysis of the state furthers anarchist-sociology more than anything in the academic discipline has up to the present moment. Hopefully, future anarchist-sociology works will take up Bamyeh's agenda and extend it with the same seriousness, compassion, and commitment shown in Anarchy as Order.
Readers looking for an empirical analysis from an anarchist perspective (and I was, at times, one of these readers) may feel slightly let down by this very abstract and philosophical work. There is no “research design” to follow, as so far as I can tell, and no dialogue with existing anarchist movements whose actions and ideas could inform Bamyeh's independent analysis. Thus, in contrast to some of the best recent case studies of modern anarchism, like Jeff Shantz's Constructive Anarchy (which follows labor struggles, anarchist tech geeks, anti-poverty and anti-border organizing, political squatters, and alternative educators) based on participant observation (a.k.a. “militant ethnography), Bamyeh seeks to construct a theoretical argument built by his own substantial intellectual force.
Post-colonialist readers (and sociologists who lack the desire to respect the confines of nation-states, such as Sociologists Without Borders) will enjoy Anarchy as Order. The book will be of interest not merely because such an orientation is crucial to modern anarchism, but also due to Bamyeh's vast knowledge of non-Western (particularly Islamic) thought and history, world-systems theory, and radical civil society claims. Still, as alluded to above, these parts of the book tend to avoid both classic anarchism's advocacy for internationalism (“one big union”, cross-national worker solidarity, etc.) as well as modern global justice and anti-border activism.
Ultimately, the principal audiences for Anarchy as Order are sociologists who want to know more about anarchism and anarchists who seek a sociological interpretation of their philosophy. A good example of this is the intriguing discussions of subjects of interest to both sociologists and anarchists, including: trust, alliance, personality, alienation, and the common good. Bamyeh has the ability make the superficially-mundane fascinating and unpredictable. One of the best examples of this talent is Table 6.1, where he contrasts democracy, types of society, and the state, thereby illustrating an anarchist view of potential social forms. The emerging typology here is provocative and intellectually stimulating.
Personally, my own preference for “anarchist-sociology” (at least as an academic project) would be conceived of as a “big tent” under which sympathetic authors can bring together their varied collection of works, based on many theoretical perspectives, strategies, empirical data, methodological approaches, and such. These works could all inform each other, with a cacophony of different voices engaged in a diverse conversation of understanding. If this is a sensible strategy to an incipient anarchist-sociology, then Anarchy as Order is an amazing contribution to that project.
Unlike the many activist and activist-scholar written books about anarchism in recent years, Anarchy as Order is written by a solidly professorial author. Consequently, the book under review here originates from a different source than works like Anarchy Alive! by Uri Gordon or Gramsci is Dead by Richard Day. These latter books are informed by the immediate, highly potent anarchist movements that have proliferated around the world in recent decades, and that have spread multi-faceted views and critiques of the societies in which they are embedded (as well as the globalizing spaces in-between cultural groupings). Still, Anarchy as Order is likely the best and most serious of the non-activist written books on anarchism, perhaps since established works by folks like James Joll or Peter Marshall. Yet, even that sort of praise does not do justice to the fascinating and highly-sociological interpretation Bamyeh gives of anarchism (or, more appropriately, anarchy). Unlike many bookish academics who have a perverse view of anarchism—more informed by the paranoid lies and misconceptions of mass media spokespersons, delusional free-marketeers, and government spies than by anarchists themselves—Bamyeh's account is sympathetic, learned, and true to the intent of classic anarchists like Proudhon, Bakunin, and Kropotkin (and even, later in the book, with a nod to Stirner!).
Reading Anarchy as Order is like digesting a more philosophical and academic version of Colin Ward's modern classic Anarchy in Action, the English-speaking world's best work of anarchist-sociology (the major distinction between Bamyeh and Ward is the latter's emphasis on anarchy as an already-existing tendency in present society: sometimes obscured, but still there). As such, Bamyeh's work is a thoughtful indictment of modern societies—in particular the state (of which he provides a unique, digested analysis of the anarchist critique of the state)—and thus has much in common with an assorted collection of other critical and Marxist sociologists. However, like all anarchist writing, there is a clear, practical Utopian strand that prefigures the future. As with Ward (and most comparable anarchist thinkers, especially Kropotkin), Bamyeh's view of anarchical society is not one devoid of order, but rather a highly just, civil, and organic order. Due to this focus, Bamyeh inadvertently, but instantly, will draw comparison between his argument of a civil society consumed by the state and the Habermasian claim of “the system” colonizing the life-world.
Bamyeh argues—correctly and creatively—that anarchism emphasizes freedom, indeterminate outcomes, and fluid solidarity, and an anarchical society would contain these elements, as opposed to other social qualities many societies are now tainted with (such as hero-worship, obedience, war-making, control, and inequality). Thus, one of Anarchy as Order's clearest successes is framing anarchist ideas as potential (and maybe even latent) conditions in a future society—thus “anarchy”. To rescue the word “anarchy” from the semantic slaughterhouse it has historically been subjected to, Bamyeh instinctively adopts Proudhon's claim that “anarchy is order”, while contemporary society (as dominated by the nation-state, capitalist ravish, and religious oppression) is a society wracked by disorder, chaos. Bamyeh also smartly makes a distinction comparable to that of Alexander Berkman who once wrote that although some people were ready and willing to adopt the philosophy and tenets advocated by anarchism the ideology, few were able to successful practice and live in a world of unimposed and non-hierarchical anarchy (yet, anyway).
Anarchist Studies scholars may be surprised by the credit extended to the “individualist” American faction in the United States (an attribution that seems to include modern Libertarianism, itself highly allergic to anti-capitalist anarchist movements). But, given the sympathies that “individualists” like Benjamin Tucker had for collectivists like Bakunin, it is unclear if such simple distinctions can be drawn. Anarchy as Order's otherwise appropriately culled reading of anarchist philosophy and movement history excels beyond most scholarly works on anarchism, and can be seen to occupy a middle-ground between purely philosophical scholarly works (so abstract in character as they do not even acknowledge the existence of a movement) and the descriptive anarchist movement histories usually authored by activists (for use by their own movements). One weakness of this compromise is that nearly no attention is given to modern anarchist theory and movements, except abstractly. The explosion in new anarchist strains (or ideological subvariants) in recent decades—such as anarcha-feminism, Black anarchism, queer anarchism, post-leftism, especifismo, primitivism, and so on—have (even though sometimes controversially) changed anarchism's focus to a systematic critique of domination. Whereas Bamyeh's work is sympathetic to this contemporary consensus, most of his analysis focuses on the state—and far less so on patriarchy, white supremacy, heterosexism, Western civilization, and so on. In doing so, Anarchy as Order is a solid work on the state/civil society dichotomy, but is less mature in its analysis of other institutions of domination. This is not, I believe, a fatal deficit, since Bamyeh's highly nuanced and provocative analysis of the state furthers anarchist-sociology more than anything in the academic discipline has up to the present moment. Hopefully, future anarchist-sociology works will take up Bamyeh's agenda and extend it with the same seriousness, compassion, and commitment shown in Anarchy as Order.
Readers looking for an empirical analysis from an anarchist perspective (and I was, at times, one of these readers) may feel slightly let down by this very abstract and philosophical work. There is no “research design” to follow, as so far as I can tell, and no dialogue with existing anarchist movements whose actions and ideas could inform Bamyeh's independent analysis. Thus, in contrast to some of the best recent case studies of modern anarchism, like Jeff Shantz's Constructive Anarchy (which follows labor struggles, anarchist tech geeks, anti-poverty and anti-border organizing, political squatters, and alternative educators) based on participant observation (a.k.a. “militant ethnography), Bamyeh seeks to construct a theoretical argument built by his own substantial intellectual force.
Post-colonialist readers (and sociologists who lack the desire to respect the confines of nation-states, such as Sociologists Without Borders) will enjoy Anarchy as Order. The book will be of interest not merely because such an orientation is crucial to modern anarchism, but also due to Bamyeh's vast knowledge of non-Western (particularly Islamic) thought and history, world-systems theory, and radical civil society claims. Still, as alluded to above, these parts of the book tend to avoid both classic anarchism's advocacy for internationalism (“one big union”, cross-national worker solidarity, etc.) as well as modern global justice and anti-border activism.
Ultimately, the principal audiences for Anarchy as Order are sociologists who want to know more about anarchism and anarchists who seek a sociological interpretation of their philosophy. A good example of this is the intriguing discussions of subjects of interest to both sociologists and anarchists, including: trust, alliance, personality, alienation, and the common good. Bamyeh has the ability make the superficially-mundane fascinating and unpredictable. One of the best examples of this talent is Table 6.1, where he contrasts democracy, types of society, and the state, thereby illustrating an anarchist view of potential social forms. The emerging typology here is provocative and intellectually stimulating.
Personally, my own preference for “anarchist-sociology” (at least as an academic project) would be conceived of as a “big tent” under which sympathetic authors can bring together their varied collection of works, based on many theoretical perspectives, strategies, empirical data, methodological approaches, and such. These works could all inform each other, with a cacophony of different voices engaged in a diverse conversation of understanding. If this is a sensible strategy to an incipient anarchist-sociology, then Anarchy as Order is an amazing contribution to that project.
Friday, April 13, 2012
The Democraps
[From February 2004]
I come from a Democrat-voting household. I've got no reason to suspect that either of my parents have ever voted anything other than Democrat. They likely have a few [unfortunate] disagreements in general ideology, such as on the issue of a woman's right to choose, but otherwise are what I'd call strong Democrats.
That said, the Democratic Party is the most worthless excuse for a political organization this country has today. I don't just mean in its lack of a cohesive ideology or vibrant vision; I mean in it's ability to do anything, to stand up to adversity, or to even speak out against the Republicans. Not that I'm all broken up inside because of this -- I'm an anarchist and thus opposed fundamentally to the idea of party politics (at least as its constructed in its current configuration).
Outside of this strong disdain for electoral and party politics, there's still more to criticize. The Democrat Party tends to select the most moderate candidates possible. Sure, their traditional support may be liberal or even Left, but they always pick the most soda pop candidates (would you like Coke or Pepsi?) Thus, the Party was stuck with the horrendously lame Al Gore in the 2000 Presidential election. Can you think of a more boring candidate? Even in this example, however, Gore was more of a conservative than even his moderate (yet Republican-leaning) pal Bill Clinton.
Election in and election out, the Democrats focus on little more than complaining about their Republican counterparts. Sure, there's a lot to complain about, but frankly it's really easy to do so. And many liberal-leaning constituencies of the Democrats take up this Republican-bitch-fest, too. It's like Lorenzo Kom'boa Ervin's criticism of Anti-Racist Action for focusing only on the obvious racists like the Klan or Nazis, when the real problem with racism in this country has other names: the police, the courts, the prison system, the "War on Drugs", capitalism...
Thus, when Democrats open their mouths to make “strong statements”, it's usually against the Republicans (who often act much like the Democrats). Around election time it's the same story. Complain about either the Republican candidates or the incumbent Republicans. Heaven forbid they should actually bring up “daring” issues (outside of the usual “law and order” and tinkering with Medicaid) like universal health care, dismantling America's war machine, stopping the drug war and the prison industry, attacking corporate rule, and so forth. Instead, they are much more content to complain about Republicans and then argue amongst themselves over “safe” issues. How lame!
Even more cowardly is the tendency of the party to rally-round-the-flag during war. Sure, the Democrats may feel confident to challenge the Bush regime for its WMD claims nearly 11 months after invading Iraq, but do they ever bother bringing up the fact that the war was highly illegal, unpopular, unethical, etc.? Or, more fundamentally, did they even open their mouths before the war started to criticize it? Well, some did. But, the war resolutions in Congress couldn't have been won without strong Democrat support. And then as soon as the war started even these Democrats tucked their tails between their legs and mumbled platitudes about “supporting the troops” and the “Commander-in-Chief”. It apparently takes a lot of effort to resist the urge to lick boot leather.
The Democrats are equally shameless in their pursuit of Big Money. Sure, they can't seem to out-raise the Republicans, but it's not for a lack of trying. Enron was paying off lots of Democrats, too. Of course, if they ever pumped their efforts into actually speaking to real people as opposed to stalking every potential millionaire donor, they might actually find their message resonates more. And, they might not be perceived as the utter hypocrites they are. These politicians snap to attention when their corporate overlords come calling. Take a look at how happily the Clinton-Gore machine gave away the National Forests to mining and logging interests.
The sad thing is how uncritically the traditional Democratic Party base continues to support these characters, particularly unions and minorities. These politicians have sold down the river the rights of working people to corporations along with the dream of racial equality and economic justice. Being in neither demographic, I am not in a position to say why this support continues, nor should I say that they are necessarily wrong to do so. But, I fantasize about a day when the people can utilize their collective strength to push this party (kicking and screaming, if need be) out of the right-wing that controls it, back into the Left. Either that or start supporting other alternatives, like the Green Party.
All these criticisms stem from a strong cynicism of electoral and party politics. I'm not one to denigrate someone for wanting to vote, even if for a Democrat candidate, but I believe that true societal transformation -- an r/evolution that can achieve social and economic justice -- must be arrived at through a revitalization of democracy, not electoral/party politics, and definitely not through this whack Democrat Party.
I come from a Democrat-voting household. I've got no reason to suspect that either of my parents have ever voted anything other than Democrat. They likely have a few [unfortunate] disagreements in general ideology, such as on the issue of a woman's right to choose, but otherwise are what I'd call strong Democrats.
That said, the Democratic Party is the most worthless excuse for a political organization this country has today. I don't just mean in its lack of a cohesive ideology or vibrant vision; I mean in it's ability to do anything, to stand up to adversity, or to even speak out against the Republicans. Not that I'm all broken up inside because of this -- I'm an anarchist and thus opposed fundamentally to the idea of party politics (at least as its constructed in its current configuration).
Outside of this strong disdain for electoral and party politics, there's still more to criticize. The Democrat Party tends to select the most moderate candidates possible. Sure, their traditional support may be liberal or even Left, but they always pick the most soda pop candidates (would you like Coke or Pepsi?) Thus, the Party was stuck with the horrendously lame Al Gore in the 2000 Presidential election. Can you think of a more boring candidate? Even in this example, however, Gore was more of a conservative than even his moderate (yet Republican-leaning) pal Bill Clinton.
Election in and election out, the Democrats focus on little more than complaining about their Republican counterparts. Sure, there's a lot to complain about, but frankly it's really easy to do so. And many liberal-leaning constituencies of the Democrats take up this Republican-bitch-fest, too. It's like Lorenzo Kom'boa Ervin's criticism of Anti-Racist Action for focusing only on the obvious racists like the Klan or Nazis, when the real problem with racism in this country has other names: the police, the courts, the prison system, the "War on Drugs", capitalism...
Thus, when Democrats open their mouths to make “strong statements”, it's usually against the Republicans (who often act much like the Democrats). Around election time it's the same story. Complain about either the Republican candidates or the incumbent Republicans. Heaven forbid they should actually bring up “daring” issues (outside of the usual “law and order” and tinkering with Medicaid) like universal health care, dismantling America's war machine, stopping the drug war and the prison industry, attacking corporate rule, and so forth. Instead, they are much more content to complain about Republicans and then argue amongst themselves over “safe” issues. How lame!
Even more cowardly is the tendency of the party to rally-round-the-flag during war. Sure, the Democrats may feel confident to challenge the Bush regime for its WMD claims nearly 11 months after invading Iraq, but do they ever bother bringing up the fact that the war was highly illegal, unpopular, unethical, etc.? Or, more fundamentally, did they even open their mouths before the war started to criticize it? Well, some did. But, the war resolutions in Congress couldn't have been won without strong Democrat support. And then as soon as the war started even these Democrats tucked their tails between their legs and mumbled platitudes about “supporting the troops” and the “Commander-in-Chief”. It apparently takes a lot of effort to resist the urge to lick boot leather.
The Democrats are equally shameless in their pursuit of Big Money. Sure, they can't seem to out-raise the Republicans, but it's not for a lack of trying. Enron was paying off lots of Democrats, too. Of course, if they ever pumped their efforts into actually speaking to real people as opposed to stalking every potential millionaire donor, they might actually find their message resonates more. And, they might not be perceived as the utter hypocrites they are. These politicians snap to attention when their corporate overlords come calling. Take a look at how happily the Clinton-Gore machine gave away the National Forests to mining and logging interests.
The sad thing is how uncritically the traditional Democratic Party base continues to support these characters, particularly unions and minorities. These politicians have sold down the river the rights of working people to corporations along with the dream of racial equality and economic justice. Being in neither demographic, I am not in a position to say why this support continues, nor should I say that they are necessarily wrong to do so. But, I fantasize about a day when the people can utilize their collective strength to push this party (kicking and screaming, if need be) out of the right-wing that controls it, back into the Left. Either that or start supporting other alternatives, like the Green Party.
All these criticisms stem from a strong cynicism of electoral and party politics. I'm not one to denigrate someone for wanting to vote, even if for a Democrat candidate, but I believe that true societal transformation -- an r/evolution that can achieve social and economic justice -- must be arrived at through a revitalization of democracy, not electoral/party politics, and definitely not through this whack Democrat Party.
Tuesday, April 10, 2012
Presidents are Kings are Shit
[Written in early-2003, but just as appropriate in 2012. Appeared once in a friend's 'zine, named Misadventure.]
For a long time I've wondered why the U.S. has presidents. It doesn't seem to make much sense to me. Why? Because I've been under the impression that the U.S. attempts to be a democracy. So what, right? Lots of democracies have presidents or prime ministers. Maybe that's the problem: everyone thinks it's normal that a free, democratic society should be entrusted to one individual.
Well, of course, there's the crap we learn in high school-- there's “checks and balances”!! Isn't it genius?!? Every branch of the government checks everyone else? Perfecto! Well, call me skeptical, but I fail to see how giving one individual 1/3 of the decision making for a country of 285 million people is democratic, let alone fair.
Does the Judicial system really “check” the Executive branch? Does the Legislative branch really bother checking the Executive or the Judicial? When was the last executive nominated Supreme Court justice turned down by Congress? When does the Judicial care at all about the Executive? Even in the days of Richard Nixon, it could barely wrestle public property (Presidential tapes) from Nixon's corrupt fingers.
Isn't a “president” really nothing more than a glorified Monarch? It's a King you vote for. Sure, the president can't just wave his arms and get anything done, but damn close. Why in the world would people be foolish enough to give anybody that much power? Here's someone who is only supposed to make treaties and command the military, but now does pretty much anything, including run roughshod over Congress, the Bill of Rights, and the rest of the world.
If we believe in democracy-- really believe in democracy-- why are we stupid enough to fall for the “Great Man” philosophy? If only we had the right president, then the country would be better! Heck, even leftists think this way: if only we elected Ralph Nader, then everything would be all better! How ridiculous it is to assume that a country as diverse as our's is could ever be properly represented by any person (man or woman, Ralph Nader or not)?
Where are all the political scientists writing about how hierarchical this all is? How in the hell can anyone claim that this is democratic? My understanding of democracy is that the people run society. No, George W. Bush runs society (mainly, of course, because we let him). When was the last time you were consulted about what the U.S. should do regarding Iraq? Do you actually think Bush cares about your opinion? He only cares about what he can get away with!
Perhaps it's a fault of human nature that most humans look for one powerful, charismatic person (usually a White male) to lead them out of darkness. But, I think it's because that's what society tells us to do. That's what the media tells us, our high school “civics” classes tell us, and everyone else tells us.
We spend so much time worshipping the memory of former leaders: JFK, George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, and so on. Well, who worships Genghis Khan, Attila the Hun, King George the First (of Great Britain, not the U.S.)? None, but they too got their people mired into the same wars, poverty, and decadence that the aforementioned presidents did. What's the difference?
During the Roman Empire (a predecessor to the American Empire), there formed a triumvirate of power. Three men would control ultimate power in Rome. Not exactly a great idea (although that's 2 more heads of state than the U.S. has). But, of course, two of them turned on one, until he was gone, then the two remaining turned on each other, consolidating power along the way.
When the U.S. was formed, it was intended as a weak union with local authority taking precedence over federal control. Not a bad idea at all, but then the Articles of Confederation was scrapped in favor of a more centralized constitution, with a stronger President (much more like the King of England that they had fought to escape from). Over time, the President compiled more and more power, establishing executive powers far and wide.
Now, we put so much stock in what the president says. We tremble at every word, watch every action, discuss every policy that trickles out of his administration. His decree becomes the direction of the country. His emotions are channeled through the press and felt by the American people (those who still believe presidents, at least). When the president decides to goto war, the country goose steps behind him-- especially the congress, who is supposed to declare war in the first place. When in the hell was the last time a president asked people at the grassroots level of decision making in this country what they think? When was the last time any of them relinquished their own power to local governments and decision making bodies?
The president isn't my father-- I don't trust his advice. The president isn't my god-- I will never worship him or plead for my life. The president isn't my favorite philosopher-- none of his actions mesh with his words. The president isn't (and never will be) my friend-- how could I be “buddies” with anyone who has so much power over so many?
If we believe in democracy-- and I hope the American people and the world does-- we would radically redistribute power. And not just to a higher number of “elected officials”. Democracy does not necessarily mean voting. Voting is only one mechanism of decision making, it isn't democracy itself. We need councils, boards, collectives, cooperatives, affinity groups, spokescouncils, and more councils. None of this hero-worship bullshit, but actual practiced democracy, where no one is more powerful than anyone else.
A president is a King with a good P.R. agent. Only a fool would vote for a King and think they are free.
For a long time I've wondered why the U.S. has presidents. It doesn't seem to make much sense to me. Why? Because I've been under the impression that the U.S. attempts to be a democracy. So what, right? Lots of democracies have presidents or prime ministers. Maybe that's the problem: everyone thinks it's normal that a free, democratic society should be entrusted to one individual.
Well, of course, there's the crap we learn in high school-- there's “checks and balances”!! Isn't it genius?!? Every branch of the government checks everyone else? Perfecto! Well, call me skeptical, but I fail to see how giving one individual 1/3 of the decision making for a country of 285 million people is democratic, let alone fair.
Does the Judicial system really “check” the Executive branch? Does the Legislative branch really bother checking the Executive or the Judicial? When was the last executive nominated Supreme Court justice turned down by Congress? When does the Judicial care at all about the Executive? Even in the days of Richard Nixon, it could barely wrestle public property (Presidential tapes) from Nixon's corrupt fingers.
Isn't a “president” really nothing more than a glorified Monarch? It's a King you vote for. Sure, the president can't just wave his arms and get anything done, but damn close. Why in the world would people be foolish enough to give anybody that much power? Here's someone who is only supposed to make treaties and command the military, but now does pretty much anything, including run roughshod over Congress, the Bill of Rights, and the rest of the world.
If we believe in democracy-- really believe in democracy-- why are we stupid enough to fall for the “Great Man” philosophy? If only we had the right president, then the country would be better! Heck, even leftists think this way: if only we elected Ralph Nader, then everything would be all better! How ridiculous it is to assume that a country as diverse as our's is could ever be properly represented by any person (man or woman, Ralph Nader or not)?
Where are all the political scientists writing about how hierarchical this all is? How in the hell can anyone claim that this is democratic? My understanding of democracy is that the people run society. No, George W. Bush runs society (mainly, of course, because we let him). When was the last time you were consulted about what the U.S. should do regarding Iraq? Do you actually think Bush cares about your opinion? He only cares about what he can get away with!
Perhaps it's a fault of human nature that most humans look for one powerful, charismatic person (usually a White male) to lead them out of darkness. But, I think it's because that's what society tells us to do. That's what the media tells us, our high school “civics” classes tell us, and everyone else tells us.
We spend so much time worshipping the memory of former leaders: JFK, George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, and so on. Well, who worships Genghis Khan, Attila the Hun, King George the First (of Great Britain, not the U.S.)? None, but they too got their people mired into the same wars, poverty, and decadence that the aforementioned presidents did. What's the difference?
During the Roman Empire (a predecessor to the American Empire), there formed a triumvirate of power. Three men would control ultimate power in Rome. Not exactly a great idea (although that's 2 more heads of state than the U.S. has). But, of course, two of them turned on one, until he was gone, then the two remaining turned on each other, consolidating power along the way.
When the U.S. was formed, it was intended as a weak union with local authority taking precedence over federal control. Not a bad idea at all, but then the Articles of Confederation was scrapped in favor of a more centralized constitution, with a stronger President (much more like the King of England that they had fought to escape from). Over time, the President compiled more and more power, establishing executive powers far and wide.
Now, we put so much stock in what the president says. We tremble at every word, watch every action, discuss every policy that trickles out of his administration. His decree becomes the direction of the country. His emotions are channeled through the press and felt by the American people (those who still believe presidents, at least). When the president decides to goto war, the country goose steps behind him-- especially the congress, who is supposed to declare war in the first place. When in the hell was the last time a president asked people at the grassroots level of decision making in this country what they think? When was the last time any of them relinquished their own power to local governments and decision making bodies?
The president isn't my father-- I don't trust his advice. The president isn't my god-- I will never worship him or plead for my life. The president isn't my favorite philosopher-- none of his actions mesh with his words. The president isn't (and never will be) my friend-- how could I be “buddies” with anyone who has so much power over so many?
If we believe in democracy-- and I hope the American people and the world does-- we would radically redistribute power. And not just to a higher number of “elected officials”. Democracy does not necessarily mean voting. Voting is only one mechanism of decision making, it isn't democracy itself. We need councils, boards, collectives, cooperatives, affinity groups, spokescouncils, and more councils. None of this hero-worship bullshit, but actual practiced democracy, where no one is more powerful than anyone else.
A president is a King with a good P.R. agent. Only a fool would vote for a King and think they are free.
Friday, February 10, 2012
Modern Anarchism and "New Social Movements" Theories
Modern anarchism overlaps with many features of the NSM framework. I have argued—and this paper provides suggestive evidence—that the observations about modern movements made by NSM theories parallel contemporary anarchism and the greater anarchist movement. Still, certain themes relevant to the anarchist movement provide either contradiction or extension to the NSM typology offered by Sutton and Vertigans (2006). I suggest that anarchism differs from standard NSMs in its revolutionary anti-statism, radical practicality, anti-capitalism, and apparent connection to an earlier wave of Nineteenth Century anarchism. The tension between anarchism and NSM theory has important implications that have been unaddressed thus far by scholarly research.
Although NSMs do not aim to seize the power of the state, they also tend to prefer or tolerate co-existence with the state. Anarchists, on the other hand, seek not only to overthrow the state, but to dissolve its centralized power so it may not be utilized by any elite group. Thus, anarchist ambitions are not limited to non-state goals, but rather anti-state goals are pursued via non-state means. Movement strategies and tactics aim to usurp power through direct action that is designed to empower people—not political representatives. The typical approach of NSMs to utilize the state to achieve its goals finds little support with the anarchist movement.
The anarchist movement shares the same symbolic character as its NSM cousins, but does not neglect what it views as the more important goal of providing for people’s everyday needs. This radical practicality is present in all forms of anarchism activity, where symbolic direct actions are not merely symbolic, but also pragmatic, demonstrable, and functional. Whether Food Not Bombs providing food to the hungry, Anti-Racist Action protecting against fascist attacks, Earth First!’s blockading forest clear-cutting, or the black bloc disrupting “business as usual” during large demonstrations, anarchists aim to not only demonstrate, but also to pre-figure a different world. Such practicality is both radical in how it addresses fundamental needs, but also directly targets the perceived source of social problems. Anarchists’ practicality does not merely seek to defend “civil society” from state encroachment, but also from capitalism, patriarchy, White supremacy, and bureaucracy.
Whereas the NSMs apparently transcend the working class and industrial concerns, anarchism has only partially grown in a post-industrial direction. Instead, there is still a sizable participation of self-identified working-class anarchists in the movement, and the movement itself cannot be reduced to either purely working-class or middle-class interests. Instead, capitalism remains a central (although not the only) enemy of anarchism. It has not been dropped as a concern to be reformed or partnered with, as with other NSMs. All anarchist tendencies—and not merely the still-active anarcho-syndicalists and anarcho-communists that have the most obvious ideological oriented in this direction—are by definition anti-capitalist. Class is not a “dead issue”, but remains a major form of inequality and domination in all societies, whether industrializing or “post-industrial”.
Last, many of Sutton and Vertigans characteristics were present in the early iteration of anarchism. Classic-era anarchism also involved radically democratic means, middle-class and even upper-class constituents (although it was dominated by working class members), a denouncement of political ambition within states, and the creation of alternate identities. Anarchists have always been united, not by ethnicity, disability, gender, or values, but rather by common ideology. The rejection of authority (even if sometimes limited in earlier definitions) has been a central factor since the Paris Commune to today’s anarchists. The horizontal and anti-authoritarian organizational forms chosen by anarchists are not recent characteristics, but qualities that pre-date the 1960s New Left. Affinity groups, federations, and cooperatives have been the main form of anarchist organization for over a century. Anti-“Political” politics are not new to anarchists, but rather were founding principles considered necessary for the construction of a new social order.
Thus, NSM theories help to categorize contemporary anarchism, but not perfectly. NSM arguments are somewhat over-extended (particularly in regards to class and capitalism) and the revolutionary quality of anarchist goals is over-looked by NSM theories. Yet, despite these contradictions and tensions, future research on NSM theory and contemporary movements should consider the prominent role that anarchism has begun to play in global movements and how its presence offers particular challenges to the received understanding of movements to date. The critique of the anarchists is radical, as is their solution to social problems. NSM theories have begun to appreciate these noteworthy characteristics, but have yet to consider their depth and their respective consequences. Potentially, with a deeper appreciation of the relationship between anarchism and social movement theory, scholarship may move closer to the development of a unique “anarchist-sociology”, which in turn could provide a new, critical framework for interpreting society and radical social movements.
References
Sutton, P.W. and Vertigans, S. (2006) “Islamic 'New Social Movements'? Radical Islam, Al-Qa'ida and Social Movement Theory”. Mobilization: An International Journal, 11 (1), March: 101-115.
Although NSMs do not aim to seize the power of the state, they also tend to prefer or tolerate co-existence with the state. Anarchists, on the other hand, seek not only to overthrow the state, but to dissolve its centralized power so it may not be utilized by any elite group. Thus, anarchist ambitions are not limited to non-state goals, but rather anti-state goals are pursued via non-state means. Movement strategies and tactics aim to usurp power through direct action that is designed to empower people—not political representatives. The typical approach of NSMs to utilize the state to achieve its goals finds little support with the anarchist movement.
The anarchist movement shares the same symbolic character as its NSM cousins, but does not neglect what it views as the more important goal of providing for people’s everyday needs. This radical practicality is present in all forms of anarchism activity, where symbolic direct actions are not merely symbolic, but also pragmatic, demonstrable, and functional. Whether Food Not Bombs providing food to the hungry, Anti-Racist Action protecting against fascist attacks, Earth First!’s blockading forest clear-cutting, or the black bloc disrupting “business as usual” during large demonstrations, anarchists aim to not only demonstrate, but also to pre-figure a different world. Such practicality is both radical in how it addresses fundamental needs, but also directly targets the perceived source of social problems. Anarchists’ practicality does not merely seek to defend “civil society” from state encroachment, but also from capitalism, patriarchy, White supremacy, and bureaucracy.
Whereas the NSMs apparently transcend the working class and industrial concerns, anarchism has only partially grown in a post-industrial direction. Instead, there is still a sizable participation of self-identified working-class anarchists in the movement, and the movement itself cannot be reduced to either purely working-class or middle-class interests. Instead, capitalism remains a central (although not the only) enemy of anarchism. It has not been dropped as a concern to be reformed or partnered with, as with other NSMs. All anarchist tendencies—and not merely the still-active anarcho-syndicalists and anarcho-communists that have the most obvious ideological oriented in this direction—are by definition anti-capitalist. Class is not a “dead issue”, but remains a major form of inequality and domination in all societies, whether industrializing or “post-industrial”.
Last, many of Sutton and Vertigans characteristics were present in the early iteration of anarchism. Classic-era anarchism also involved radically democratic means, middle-class and even upper-class constituents (although it was dominated by working class members), a denouncement of political ambition within states, and the creation of alternate identities. Anarchists have always been united, not by ethnicity, disability, gender, or values, but rather by common ideology. The rejection of authority (even if sometimes limited in earlier definitions) has been a central factor since the Paris Commune to today’s anarchists. The horizontal and anti-authoritarian organizational forms chosen by anarchists are not recent characteristics, but qualities that pre-date the 1960s New Left. Affinity groups, federations, and cooperatives have been the main form of anarchist organization for over a century. Anti-“Political” politics are not new to anarchists, but rather were founding principles considered necessary for the construction of a new social order.
Thus, NSM theories help to categorize contemporary anarchism, but not perfectly. NSM arguments are somewhat over-extended (particularly in regards to class and capitalism) and the revolutionary quality of anarchist goals is over-looked by NSM theories. Yet, despite these contradictions and tensions, future research on NSM theory and contemporary movements should consider the prominent role that anarchism has begun to play in global movements and how its presence offers particular challenges to the received understanding of movements to date. The critique of the anarchists is radical, as is their solution to social problems. NSM theories have begun to appreciate these noteworthy characteristics, but have yet to consider their depth and their respective consequences. Potentially, with a deeper appreciation of the relationship between anarchism and social movement theory, scholarship may move closer to the development of a unique “anarchist-sociology”, which in turn could provide a new, critical framework for interpreting society and radical social movements.
References
Sutton, P.W. and Vertigans, S. (2006) “Islamic 'New Social Movements'? Radical Islam, Al-Qa'ida and Social Movement Theory”. Mobilization: An International Journal, 11 (1), March: 101-115.
Wednesday, February 1, 2012
Dialectical Challenges to Progress [to Overcoming Inequality and Domination]
[A final section of the chapter on Inequality & Anarchism... looking forward!]
These strategies struggle with a number of dialectical challenges, which are not easily resolved by change agents. First, the strategic issue of reform versus revolution. Should one apply considerable effort in a local matter of social injustice that may have only a limited scope of impact (even if a successful campaign), or channel energy into building for long-term and more radical change? While the latter is ultimately more desirable, to ignore the former conflicts risks the possibility of losing ground in an already imbalanced playing field of injustice, as well as missing the opportunity to engage with folks in day-to-day struggle on big-picture, revolutionary ideas. Put another way, this dialectic involves the contradictions between reactive politics and prefigurative politics. Anarchists warn that people ignore immediate struggles to their own detriment, but also caution against the trappings of reformism and the exhaustion induced by treading water. While always cognizant of the need to stop on-going domination (the so-called “social problems” emphasized by sociologists), anarchist-sociologists argue for the importance of also focusing upon how such forms of domination could be avoided in the future.[1]
A second dialectic challenge is posed by the reactions to past domination and atrocity: consolation versus reconciliation. It is important for dominated peoples to be comfortable in the present, to have apologies for past wrongs, and to have the sympathies of others for their plight. For instance, the consolation extended by the US government for its genocidal actions (which was not put in such strong—or accurate—language, of course) against indigenous peoples is good and meaningful. But is it “enough”? Does it constitute justice? Does it help indigenous peoples in any substantial way? As the saying goes, “talk is cheap”. Sometimes an “apology” is a rather bad outcome, since it gives the illusion that an unjust situation has been rectified; i.e. “What is their problem? We already apologized for all that stuff from the past!”. Barring the outcome of dramatic separation—which is unlikely for most disadvantaged groups, particularly for women from men—dominated peoples should be able to live with or alongside their [hopefully, former] dominators. If the crimes of past atrocity (e.g. slavery, relocation, or forced sterilization) or the hopefully soon-to-be-ended crimes (e.g. class exploitation, sexual violence, or discrimination) can put an end to the disadvantaged position of the dominated, does that truly solve their problems? Domination tends to have a residue, which creates a multi-generational disadvantage that needs to be intervened upon. Consider the example of South Africa's formal efforts in the aftermath of Apartheid: a “truth and reconciliation” committee investigated past crimes and sought ways to bring victim and perpetrator together, not unlike restorative justice aims to do.
Lastly, there is a strategic, dialectical conundrum posed by the complex sources of hierarchy's power. Hierarchies are premised upon legal rules, social tradition, and unreflective practice. Yet, the easiest way to “attack” a hierarchy is on moral grounds: it is unethical, wrong, and unjust. In fact, such a moral argument is often not difficult to make and even get quick agreement from others (even people who may benefit from such hierarchies). The immoral basis of hierarchy is likely the easiest claim to make, and, consequently, the least effective. Surely it is necessary to eliminate support for the values that undergird hierarchy, but this alone does not undue hierarchy's power. Removing the legal structures to hierarchy is a formidable challenge and even more difficult if no ethical claim has been made against these structures. Tradition can be changed, but it takes dedicated efforts to shift cultural priorities and to reconfigure socialization. And, it is very possible—especially in the midst of great bureaucracies—for a scary inertia the take hold and for immoral acts to continue even in the absence of moral argument for them. Although hierarchy is often depicted as a ladder or a pyramid, it is not as easily undone as pushing over a ladder or detonating a pyramid with dynamite (especially via mere moralizing). Hierarchy's complexity aids its staying-power, and provides great challenge to anarchists and others who aim to ultimately up-end it.
Notes
[1] Or, as one activist puts it: “Let's take time to sit-down together with our colored-pens and crayons to draw-out our vision!”.
These strategies struggle with a number of dialectical challenges, which are not easily resolved by change agents. First, the strategic issue of reform versus revolution. Should one apply considerable effort in a local matter of social injustice that may have only a limited scope of impact (even if a successful campaign), or channel energy into building for long-term and more radical change? While the latter is ultimately more desirable, to ignore the former conflicts risks the possibility of losing ground in an already imbalanced playing field of injustice, as well as missing the opportunity to engage with folks in day-to-day struggle on big-picture, revolutionary ideas. Put another way, this dialectic involves the contradictions between reactive politics and prefigurative politics. Anarchists warn that people ignore immediate struggles to their own detriment, but also caution against the trappings of reformism and the exhaustion induced by treading water. While always cognizant of the need to stop on-going domination (the so-called “social problems” emphasized by sociologists), anarchist-sociologists argue for the importance of also focusing upon how such forms of domination could be avoided in the future.[1]
A second dialectic challenge is posed by the reactions to past domination and atrocity: consolation versus reconciliation. It is important for dominated peoples to be comfortable in the present, to have apologies for past wrongs, and to have the sympathies of others for their plight. For instance, the consolation extended by the US government for its genocidal actions (which was not put in such strong—or accurate—language, of course) against indigenous peoples is good and meaningful. But is it “enough”? Does it constitute justice? Does it help indigenous peoples in any substantial way? As the saying goes, “talk is cheap”. Sometimes an “apology” is a rather bad outcome, since it gives the illusion that an unjust situation has been rectified; i.e. “What is their problem? We already apologized for all that stuff from the past!”. Barring the outcome of dramatic separation—which is unlikely for most disadvantaged groups, particularly for women from men—dominated peoples should be able to live with or alongside their [hopefully, former] dominators. If the crimes of past atrocity (e.g. slavery, relocation, or forced sterilization) or the hopefully soon-to-be-ended crimes (e.g. class exploitation, sexual violence, or discrimination) can put an end to the disadvantaged position of the dominated, does that truly solve their problems? Domination tends to have a residue, which creates a multi-generational disadvantage that needs to be intervened upon. Consider the example of South Africa's formal efforts in the aftermath of Apartheid: a “truth and reconciliation” committee investigated past crimes and sought ways to bring victim and perpetrator together, not unlike restorative justice aims to do.
Lastly, there is a strategic, dialectical conundrum posed by the complex sources of hierarchy's power. Hierarchies are premised upon legal rules, social tradition, and unreflective practice. Yet, the easiest way to “attack” a hierarchy is on moral grounds: it is unethical, wrong, and unjust. In fact, such a moral argument is often not difficult to make and even get quick agreement from others (even people who may benefit from such hierarchies). The immoral basis of hierarchy is likely the easiest claim to make, and, consequently, the least effective. Surely it is necessary to eliminate support for the values that undergird hierarchy, but this alone does not undue hierarchy's power. Removing the legal structures to hierarchy is a formidable challenge and even more difficult if no ethical claim has been made against these structures. Tradition can be changed, but it takes dedicated efforts to shift cultural priorities and to reconfigure socialization. And, it is very possible—especially in the midst of great bureaucracies—for a scary inertia the take hold and for immoral acts to continue even in the absence of moral argument for them. Although hierarchy is often depicted as a ladder or a pyramid, it is not as easily undone as pushing over a ladder or detonating a pyramid with dynamite (especially via mere moralizing). Hierarchy's complexity aids its staying-power, and provides great challenge to anarchists and others who aim to ultimately up-end it.
Notes
[1] Or, as one activist puts it: “Let's take time to sit-down together with our colored-pens and crayons to draw-out our vision!”.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)