I anticipate that a common response to advocacy for anarchism is that government is here to stay and thus anarchy is unrealistic. It is probably true that the institution of the state isn't going away any time soon, but that doesn't mean that anarchist philosophy has nothing to offer. In an essay from 1970 titled "Language and Freedom," published in Chomsky On Anarchism
, the brilliant linguist and social critic Noam Chomsky writes that "social action must be animated by a vision of a future society, and by explicit judgments of value concerning the character of this future society." One who finds the vision of an anarchist society attractive can then engage in social action inspired by that vision, and guided by anarchist principles.Chomsky goes on:
A vision of a future social order is in turn based on a concept of human nature. If in fact man is an indefinitely malleable, completely plastic being, with no innate structures of mind and no intrinsic needs of a cultural or social character, then he is a fit subject for the "shaping of behavior" by the state authority, the corporate manager, the technocrat, or the central committee. Those with some confidence in the human species will hope this is no so and will try to determine the intrinsic human characteristics that provide the framework for intellectual development, the growth of moral consciousness, cultural achievement, and participation in a free community.Needless to say I am one of those who hopes man is not a blank slate, and I think scientific inquiry in the nearly 38 years since that essay was originally presented has brightened this hope.
Chomsky concludes:
I like to believe that the intensive study of one aspect of human psychology - human language - may contribute to a humanistic social science that will serve, as well, as an instrument for social action. It must, needless to say, be stressed that social action cannot await a firmly established theory of man and society, nor can the validity of the latter be determined by our hopes and moral judgments. The two - speculation and action - must progress as best they can, looking forward to the day when theoretical inquiry will provide a firm guide to the unending, often grim, but never hopeless struggle for freedom and social justice.Just like I was an atheist before I realized it, I was an anarchist before my recent investigation of the subject, and I think that my personal statement attached to my graduate school applications (I might publish part or all of it in a future post) essentially identified a similar thought progression as a primary reason that I want to study psychology (though probably not language specifically). Understanding the nature of humanity can help create a better social structure, and regular readers certainly know what little regard I have for the current social structure.
6 comments:
Fortunately, there is no "nature of humanity," as there is no one human nature.
Rather, there is a broad spectrum of human behavior, that is influenced, either negatively or positively by the dominant social order. Thus, a competitive, hierarchical society fosters and rewards competitive, hierarchical social relations. Cooperative and egalitarian societies foster and reward cooperative and egalitarian social relations.
If human nature were fixed, there would be no hope of social change.
Thank you for your comment.
Nothing about contending that there is a "nature of humanity" is at odds with that nature being a broad spectrum. Human nature can be "fixed" within a broad spectrum and have flexibility within it.
I agree with your comments about rewards, but I would suggest that cooperative and egalitarian societies create more human happiness. Which kind of world would you rather live in?
I disagree with your concluding remark, because if human nature is indeed "fixed" and the structure of society isn't appropriate for our fixed nature, wouldn't we expect social change?
Really being an anarchist requires all sorts of both philosophical and practical beliefs. The philosophical beliefs can be kind of out there (e.g. total negative liberty aka "if I walk by a baby drowning in a puddle I have no obligation to pick it up") but I think the practical beliefs are the real sticklers because of empirical observations. The breakdown of institutions is strongly associated with increased social chaos and disorder. As Steven Pinker says if you like anarchic or "primitive" or "natural" human societies (or whatever you want to call them), you need to be ready to accept outcomes like 60+% male mortality from inter-male combat. That, and you have to pay the firemen if you want them to put out your housefire, which is also a real boner.
I think it takes time to get there. Dissolving the police department tomorrow isn't the answer. In some cases it might get so backwards as to require increases in government power to achieve certain goals, like protecting civil liberties for example. Realistically speaking, you have to work within the system we have, guided by whatever vision seems right.
Agree with that philosophy, but I don't think I would arrive at an "anarchic" endpoint if I carried it out. The absolute most optimistic scenario I can imagine is some sort of minarchist state that would take care of security and maybe some public goods like money and that's it.
I suspect I might arrive at a similar endpoint, though I also suspect there is way too much about human nature that we just don't really understand well enough to figure that shit out. We'd need to study how people respond to incremental changes along the way to minarchy, and beyond.
I consider anarchy an ideal in a way that you might not be thinking of, which is that I hope people could be right for anarchy, not just anarchy for people. So for exmaple, I hope that given some modern features (education, technology, possibly high-density living, etc) humans could live in the absence of authoritative government without the negative shit we (somewhat reasonably based on hunter-gatherer studies) expect.
Post a Comment