Add new comment

Wow, what a nice surprise, a discussion of the "Constructing Anarchisms" workshop!
I liked the minimalism and direct applicability of Chisel's definition "respecting everyone's agency" and I'm interested in hearing out the fleshed out version of Greg's.
Though I'm not in the mood for contusions (both literally, and in the sense of committing to a rigorous process of "theory" building) I will also put forth my initial notions of anarchy, to see if they change as I follow along both Shawn's updates and your discussions (if you keep doing them).

To me anarchy is the ideal, and anarchism is the historical baggage. As we go along and try to live according to the idea of anarchy (and inevitably falling short of it) we keep adding to the historical baggage of anarchism.

<<My own>> <<anarchy>> is akin to arriving at an understanding of relations (not limited to humans) that is not naive to power, yet is non-conformist to the status-quo expectations of power relations arrangements or dynamics.

A prerequisite is understanding that there is an amoral playing field, meaning that possible courses of actions are not limited by norms or notions of right and wrong. Using this understanding to serve power, other's or your own , is what's commonly associated with what is called "Machiavellianism" and advice you may find in books like "The Prince" and other books in that spirit. Contrary to that, <<my own anarchy>> is using that understanding to go in the opposite direction of power: to forsake, evade, erode, disrupt, impede, obstruct, confound, dilute, displace, attack, sabotage, destroy power, etc.

Politics is power-seeking behavior, anarchism is anarchy-seeking behavior. As I see them these are inclinations, preferences, or obsessions, not ideal utopian states or arrangements. Culturally if the obsessions lean one way or the other, the world will look differently of course.

There is confusion around the terms order and chaos, some associating the first with power and the second with anarchy. Aside for convincing arguments towards that, we can see how both can be instrumental to power. They benefit from gaining a competitive advantage by creating turmoil if the situation is legible enough to them that they know they stand a good chance of getting the upper hand or a least to preserve a manageable arrangement. Similarly, we can see how discord can break up command lines, and how respect of agency and consent can lead to living harmoniously.

Rather than become bogged down, seduced by this false dichotomy of order and chaos, of tackling these complex concepts that are explored in fields of mathematics, physics, chemistry, biology, etc. <<My definition>> will only concern itself with how beings relate to each other.

<<my anarchy>> does not rule over interactions, it's an inclination against power. The world as we know it has governments. In a world without government there might be power-seeking bands, tribes, gangs or individuals. <<My anarchy>> is not naive and does not envision a world free from power and coercion, it merely declares itself against it and seeks to live accordingly. In the same way that most power-seeking bullies are not powerful people, like presidents of nations or trans-national corporations, and that most enthusiastic ideological capitalists are not successful billionaire entrepreneurs, most anarchists are not exemplary demolishers of governments and power structures.

I think similarly to what Chisel mentioned, <<anarchy>> does not solve all problems (or maybe even any problem at all, since what it does in part is problematize power relations, that is, creating a problem where an authoritarian would see a solution) or is relevant to all problems, nor does it concern every single aspect of life, though it's a very wide and complex field to consider.