💾 Archived View for library.inu.red › file › hakim-bey-the-periodic-autonomous-zone.gmi captured on 2023-01-29 at 10:45:09. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content

View Raw

More Information

➡️ Next capture (2024-06-20)

-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Title: The Periodic Autonomous Zone
Author: Hakim Bey
Language: en
Topics: Peter Lamborn Wilson, TAZ
Source: Retrieved on April 23rd, 2009 from http://www.hermetic.com/bey/periodic.html

Hakim Bey

The Periodic Autonomous Zone

I would guess that the old life way of transhumancy always proved both

enjoyable and practical, at least in small scale economies. Twice a year

you get up and move, travel, change your life and even your diet — a

taste of nomadic freedom. But always the same two places. One place is

typically more heimlich than the other — the village, the hearth; while

the other place is typically wilder than the first, and this one might

be called the place of Desire, of Summer. In the tales of Finn Mac Cumal

and his Fenian band we nearly always meet them at this wilder end of the

spectrum, the greenwood, the landscape of the hunt which reaches “back”

in time to a more golden pre-agricultural age, and also “aslant” in time

— to Tir nan Og, the Land of Summer, realm of the Tuatha de Danaan, who

are both the Dead and the Fairies.

We forget that the Fenians spent only half the year free in the forests.

They were like transhumants — they owed the other half of the year to

work (military service) for the King. In this respect they resembled the

Irish peasants, who until recently practiced pastoral transhumancy.

Traces may survive even now. Irish folklore certainly preserves the

image of this Summertime freedom; “Nature” always seems somehow

interlaced and even confused with “Culture” in Irish tradition (as in

the zoomorphic capitals of the Book of Kells), in ways which have often

impressed the foreign observer as uniquely Irish. Elizabethan colonists

compared native Irish with native American Indians: — both were

perceived as “wild” — and both received the same treatment from the

English. Transhumancy gives a people the chance to remain in touch with

Nature in its “merrie” aspect (as Morton of Merrymount would have

phrased it), even if that people’s economic life is virtually defined by

agriculture, peonage, and drudgery. This explains the “radical” aspect

of poaching, from Robin Hood to the Black Laws, and also the universal

human romanticization of hunting. This romanticism begins already even

in hunter/gatherer societies, where the prestige (and fun) of the hunt

provides far less food for the tribe than the (comparative) drudgery of

gathering — and the romanticism continues to this day. I think of my two

late uncles, who cultivated the country romance of the hunt like

characters out of Turgeniev’s Sketchbook. I find it impossible to

despise this romanticism, which appears to me so clearly as the last

remnant of Paleolithic freedom in a world given over to the gridwork of

the plow — and the highway.

In effect Romanticism itself can be said to revolve (if not resolve)

around this tension in the Nature/Culture spectrum. The transhumant must

be a sort of practical romantic, an “ambulatory schizophrenic” who

functions as a personality, “split” between the magnetic poles, and

ambulating back and forth according to the weather.

Winter / Summer

village / mountain or forest

work / play

agriculture / festival

pastoralism/hunt

fireside (axes of “bothy” (the hut of greenery)

narrative the year) adventure

reverie / desire

etc.

When agriculture reproduces itself, through a process of further

rationalization and abstraction, and creates industrial culture, then

the split widens beyond breaching. The transhumants lose the basic

structure of their economy through enclosure of village commons and loss

of “forest rights” or traditional grazing lands. Pure nomads, who

provide (as Ibn Khaldun recognized) a necessary dialectic tension in

traditional (agricultural) societies, become “redundant” in the

Industrial regime — but they do not disappear. The Tinkers and Travelers

still roam around Ireland as in the 18^(th) and 19^(th) centuries (and

perhaps even in prehistory). But the transhumants are simply doomed. The

liminal space they once occupied, in between settlement and nomadry, in

between Culture and Nature, has simply been erased.

The psychic space of transhumancy however cannot be so easily

disappeared. No sooner does it vanish from the map but it re-appears in

Romanticism — in the new-found appreciation for landscape and even

wilderness, in “Nature worship” and Naturphilosophie, in tours of the

Alps, in the Parks movement, in picnics, in nudist camps, in the Summer

cottage, even in the Summer vacation. Nowadays “reformers’ want children

to attend school year round, and they criticize the summer vacation of

two or three months as an inefficient remnant of an agricultural

economy. But from the (romantic) viewpoint of children, summer is sacred

to freedom — a temporary (but periodic) autonomous zone. Children are

diehard transhumants.

To a certain extent — and from a certain point of view — we now inhabit

a “post-industrial” world; and it has been noted that precisely to the

extent that this is so, “nomadism” has reappeared. This has its good

aspects (as in Deluze and Guattari) and its bad aspects — as for

instance in tourism. But what has become of transhumancy in this new

context? What situations might we elucidate by seeking out its traces?

A very clear trace or remnant of psychic transhumancy expressed itself

in the 1920’s — 1950’s in America as the summer camp movement. A great

many of these camps were inspired by various progressive and radical

tendencies — naturism, communism and anarchism, Reicheanism and other

psychological schools, oriental mysticism, spiritualism — a plethora of

“marginal” forces. The utopian rural commune like Brook Farm was diluted

into a low-cost summer vacation for cranks. During the same period

countless thousands of “vacation communities” were created, with cabins

only a bit less primitive than those of the camps. My family owns one in

a decaying lakeside resort-town in Upstate New York, where all the

streets are named after Indians, forests, wild animals. These humble

communities represent the “individualist” or entrepreneurial version of

the summer camp’s communalism; but even now some vestiges of seasonal

communitarian spirit survive in them. As for the camps, eventually the

majority began to cater to children, those natural citizens of summer.

As the price of sheer hedonistic idleness went up and up, soon only the

children of the well-to-do could afford camp — and then not even them.

One by one the camps began to close, a slow decline over the 70’s, 80’s,

and 90’s. Desperate measures are still attempted (“Marxist Computer

Slim-down Camp”; neo-pagan gatherings and holistic seminars, etc.) — but

by now the Summer Camp almost seems like an anachronism.

Now the Summer Camp may be an extremely watered-down version of the

utopia of transhumancy — much less the utopia of utopia! — but I would

argue that it is worth defending, or rather, worth re-organizing. If the

old economics failed to support it, perhaps a new economics can be

envisioned and realized. In fact such a tendency has already appeared.

As old Summer Camps go bankrupt and come on the market, a few are

acquired by groups who try to preserve them as camps (with perhaps some

year-round residents), either as private or semi-private summer

“communes”. Some of these neo-camps will simply serve as vacation

retreats for the groups who acquire them; but others will need extra

funding, and will thus be drawn into experiments in subsistence

gardening, craft work, conference-organizing, cultural events, or some

other semi-public function. In this latter case we can speak of a

neo-transhumancy, since the camp will serve not simply as a space of

“leisure” but also as a space of “work” for the primary participants.

Summer “work” appears to the transhumant as a kind of “play” by

comparison with village labor. Pastoralism leaves time for some arcadian

pleasures unknown to full-time agriculture or industry; and the hunt is

pure sport. (Play is the point of the hunt; “game” is a bonus.) In

somewhat the same way the neo-summer camp will have to “work” to get by,

but its labor will be “self-managed” and “self-owned” to a greater

extent than Winter’s wages, and it will be work of a “festal” nature —

“recreation”, hopefully in the original sense of the word — or even

“creation”. (Artists and craftsfolk make good citizens of Summer.)

If the economy determined the downfall of the old summer camp movement,

the state played a role as well: — regulations, restrictions,

precautions, insurance requirements, codes, etc., helped raise the real

cost of running a camp above the level of feasibility. One might almost

begin to suspect that “the State” somehow felt the camp movement as some

vague sort of threat. For one thing, camps escape the daily gaze of

control, and are removed from the flow of commodities and information.

Then too, camps are suspiciously communal, focuses of possible

resistance to the alienation and atomization of consumerism and “modern

democracy.” Camps have an erotic subversiveness to them, as every

ex-Summer-camper will testify, a wildness and laxness of super-ego, an

air of Misrule, of Midsummer Night’s dreams, skinny-dipping, the crush,

the languor of July. The camp cannot be reconciled to the ideal of the

industrial production of leisure (“holiday package”) and the

reproduction and simulation of summer as a theme park, the vacation

process, the systematic “emptying-out” of all difference, all authentic

desire.

Inasmuch as the State distrusts the camp, the neo-camp will (to that

extent) need to cultivate certain forms of invisibility or social

camouflage. One possible disguise for the neo-camp however would be to

assume the precise guise of an old-fashioned half-bankrupt summer camp.

After all, the Summer camp is not illegal, and if your group can meet

the insurance requirements, why not fit yourselves into an

already-existing archetype? Provided you’re not running a kids’ camp, or

an openly-proclaimed Anarcho-Nudist retreat, you might be able to pass

yourselves off as just another bunch of harmless make-believe Indians

with a month’s vacation to waste.

My defense of the summer (neo-)camp is based on two simple premises: —

one, a month or two of relative freedom is better than absolutely none;

two, it’s affordable. I’m assuming that your group is not made up of

“nomads” or full-time freedom fighters, but of people who need to work

for a living or are stuck in a city or ‘burb most of the year —

potential transhumants. You want something more than a summer vacation —

you want a summer community. Splashing in a humble Adirondack lake is

more pleasureable to you than Disney World — provided you can do it with

the people you like. Sharing the costs makes it possible, but also makes

it an adventure in communicativeness and mutual enhancement. Making the

place pay for itself or even turn a little off-the-books profit would

transform your group into true neo-transhumants, with two economic

focuses in your lives. Even if you seek legal status (as a tax-exempt

educational center religious retreat, or Summer camp) your

proprietorship affords you a certain degree of privacy which — if used

discreetly — can exceed all legal bounds in terms of sex, nudity, drugs,

or pagan excess. As long as you don’t frighten the horses or challenge

local interests, you’re simply another bunch of “Summer people”, and as

such expected to be a bit weird.

Of all the versions of the TAZ imagined so far, this “periodic” or

seasonal zone is most open to criticism as a social palliative or an

“Anarchist Club Med.: It’s saved from mere selfishness however by the

necessary fact of its self-organization. Your group must create the zone

— you can’t buy it pre-packaged from some tourist agency. The summer

camp can’t be the social “Revolution”, true enough. I suppose it could

be called a training-camp for the Uprising, but this sounds too earnest

and pretentious. I would prefer simply to point to the desperation felt

by many for just a taste of autonomy, in the context of a valid

romanticism of Nature. Not everyone can be a neo-nomad — but why not at

least a neo-transhuman? What if the uprising doesn’t come? Are we never

to regain the land of summer even for a month? Never vanish from the

grid even for a moment? The summer camp is not the war, not even a

strategy — but it is a tactic. And unmediated pleasure, after all, is

still its own excuse.