💾 Archived View for library.inu.red › file › spooky-my-union-based-on-nothing.gmi captured on 2023-01-29 at 14:05:29. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
➡️ Next capture (2024-06-20)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Title: My Union Based on Nothing Author: Spooky Date: 2022-02-04 Language: en Topics: egoism, union of egoists Source: Retrieved 02/10/2022 from https://c4ss.org/content/56027
“My affair is neither the divine nor the human;
it is not the good, the true, the just, the free, etc.,
but only my own,
and it is not general, but is unique, as I am unique.
For me, there is nothing greater than me!”
– Max Stirner
The worst thing I could do in a piece about Egoism, in my view, would be
to frame my own position solely through the ideas of a long-dead German
edgelord. If you’re looking for a book report on The Unique and Its
Property, this piece is not that. I’d recommend “Stirner’s Critics” if
you want a brief intro to his Egoism.
Yes, I am literally saying that my “Unions” — friendships, political
alliances, romantic partnerships (or lack thereof), and all free
associations — exist on the basis of “nothing” other than my own will.
Does this mean I have fewer friends or that I’m more distant as a
person? Does my lack of commitment to a cause like “the revolution” or
“full communism” reduce me to nothing but a grifter? As far as I’m
aware, I’m no more of a recluse than anyone else (at time of
publication), and the friendships I have are relatively healthy, I
think. This is because my relationships don’t govern me; no higher bond
ties me to anyone and no shared feature inherently aligns me with any
other individual. Because of this, I see Unions as stable yet chaotic
associations with people I can rely on for material needs, emotional
support, mutual aid, or just good company. My contribution to my Union
comes not from coercion or external pressure, but from my own
appreciation of the people within it and my desire to make them happy,
safe, and free.
Fixed Unions, by which I mean rigid collectives I’m unconsciously
drafted into (e.g. American, White, Woman, Man, etc.) aren’t so much a
Union as they are a denial of my personhood, confinements that assign
certain behaviors and traits to me in an attempt to strip me of my
uniqueness. Whether I share anything with members of a given collective
is completely irrelevant, ultimately achieving nothing towards the end
of describing who I am or how I behave. I might have a lot in common
with other non-binary queer anarchists with moderate household incomes,
but I and this hypothetical individual are still irrefutably unique,
separate entities. If I choose not to associate with a given collective
identity, then the collective is outside of my Union and irrelevant to
me; in rejecting the Fixed Union, it provides me nothing and I give it
nothing in return. Our interests do not intersect, so we do not
associate.
As strange as it may sound, my Union based on “nothing” is infinitely
stronger than Fixed Unions based on “something.” To illustrate what I
mean, let’s examine “the nation,” a perfect example of a Fixed Union.
Its interest is its own preservation at any cost. Within “the nation,”
acting totally for one’s own cause isn’t possible, as it’s always
necessary to consider what “the nation” would suffer under your
autonomy. Violence for yourself — defensive or otherwise — is at best
discouraged if not outright punished, but violence for the sake of the
nation is incentivized (qualified immunity, enlistment benefits,
privileging of fascist street gangs, etc.). In such a Union, there’s no
intersection of egoistic interests or a shared desire to coexist, but
rather an evangelical faith in the Fixed Union’s legitimacy. We ignore
our uniqueness, allowing ourselves to be governed by the Fixed Union as
if it were a real entity with genuine power over its constituents; in
reality, it’s another rigid abstraction that needs to be dismantled from
within.
In a previous article, I wrote that “Queerness is fundamentally a
declaration of uniqueness.” For my purposes here, I want to highlight
the last few points:
“A core foundation of any legitimate individualist perspective is that
every human being is unique to the extent that static labels can never
describe a person to a sufficient extent, hence the opposition to
“collectivist” attempts to put people into boxes that will never fit
them.
Queerness is fundamentally a declaration of uniqueness. Who we’re
attracted to, how we want to present, what we do with our bodies, and
many other aspects of our identities are defined on our own terms,
subject to no one’s input but our own.”
Shortly after this piece went live, I began referring to myself as a
“queer anarchist without adjectives,” not only to indicate my own
relentless queerness, but because the concept of queerness has become
increasingly significant to my perspective. In a general sense, we are
all strange, queer, a diversion from fixed ideas of what a “person” is
supposed to be. The notion of “social order,” therefore, necessarily
requires a suppression of individual uniqueness – “edge cases” that need
to be guided towards the “normal.” Anthropology, psychology, and most
legitimate social science contends, at least to some extent, that the
organization of the world is an act of projection; aside from perhaps
the most liberal essentialists within any field, there is a recognition
that the heuristics and mental shortcuts we use to categorize
individuals are acts of deliberate insistence, necessary dismissals of
outliers for the sake of efficient dialogue rather than discoveries of
objective truth.
Let’s consider individuals who identify with the label “trans lesbians
of color.” Trans lesbians of color aren’t all the same, and within the
trans, lesbian, and POC communities respectively, there is an infinite
degree of deviation and uniqueness that can’t be fully captured by these
terms. People are unique, no matter how many labels they share with one
another, and there’s no experience that can truly, in any meaningful
sense, be completely “shared.” In recognizing this, we can use such
terminology as descriptive rather than prescriptive; it’s possible to
recognize the individuality of people who could be described by certain
terms without reinforcing the image of an ideal “person.” Sticking with
our example, it’s not hard to argue that an individual who identifies as
a trans lesbian of color has likely experienced queerphobia and racism,
but to claim that they necessarily must share certain experiences with
others in order to be “valid” is exclusionary, a rejection of the Unique
in the pursuit of an essence that doesn’t exist.
This, unfortunately, is the direction many self-described allies and
abolitionists take with their analysis. In a hopeless attempt to gain
the support of centrists and authoritarians, the Unique is discarded in
the pursuit of a reformed normalcy. Rather than embrace the total
freedom of individuals to identify with and present as whatever identity
they choose, queerness (in the general sense of nonconformity) is
reduced to an aspect “beyond our control,” dismissing the genocidal
bigotry of the evangelical right not primarily as an infringement of
liberty, but as an ineffective means of enforcing the wrong social
order. To these text-bank liberationists, assimilation into a society of
tolerance, defined by a better status quo, is the best we can
realistically do; any more radical suggestion, in this framework, can
only be the work of malicious infiltrators threatening “the community.”
While a marginal improvement over white supremacist police statism, this
progressive utopia is ultimately a poor substitute for total liberation,
as its premises are still defined by fixed ideas (humanism, rationalism,
social contract theory, etc.). To be blunt, any self-proclaimed
“radicalism” that shudders at the idea of abolishing normalcy itself is
insufficient in the total embrace of queerness and the Unique. So long
as a fixed idea of normal, value-neutral personhood exists, the
experience of deviants will be codified in relation to a nonexistent
personification of a social average, rather than a unique mode of being.
In the process of participating in my Union, am I thereby giving it
power over me? Could I be tricked by malicious actors into thinking
selflessness is in my self-interest? Fixed Unions are also susceptible
to violations of trust, infiltration, and other harmful behaviors to a
much greater extent than my or any other Union. This isn’t necessarily
because my Union and those like it contain better people, but instead
the result of a difference in our affairs – our primary motives as
entities.
My Union’s “affair” is, strictly speaking, nothing. It’s not a real
entity governing over the individuals involved, but a recognition of the
intersection of our self-interests. I never make friends with someone
because we both have a vested interest in “preserving our bond”; my
friendships exist because I and another person want to be around each
other for some reason. If our time spent together becomes emotionally
draining, toxic, or otherwise undesirable, that friendship (i.e. My
Union) dissolves, either passively or spontaneously, permanently or
temporarily. There’s no point at which we both sacrifice our uniqueness
to maintain the Union, since its affair isn’t self-preservation. My
Union’s affair is, as I said earlier, nothing. Its existence is governed
by our shared interest in one another, not the other way around.
To some extent, this runs counter to class theory, particularly its most
essentialist manifestations. As I said earlier, there’s a practical
justification for categorizations such as class analysis as a
descriptive framework, as it enables more directed action against
dominant state capitalist entities. The problem, of course, is when such
systems claim to uncover an essence to one’s identity on the basis of
their relationship to the state, means of production, and existing
institutions. In addition to being a complete lie, this essentialist
approach leads to a philosophical dependence on fixed ideas (the
legitimacy of the state, an inherent need for hierarchy, the unambiguous
benefit of increased scale, “rights” to national self-determination,
etc.) which ultimately prevent many theories from becoming totally
liberatory and, in practice, reduce their efforts to reformist gestures
towards “real change.”
In the pursuit of “legitimacy” in the eyes of a broadly defined public,
we distance ourselves from the Unique in an attempt to build a “mass
movement,” rallying a conscious collective of laborers around the notion
that their action as part of a larger whole is where true power lies.
By uncovering the emptiness of the Union, fixed or otherwise, I don’t
want to gesture towards an arbitrary template for organization in
response to our existing enemies or the material struggles that will
persist in the absence of the state, nor do I necessarily want to
totally dismiss any specific model. In revealing the emptiness of the
Union, we’re able to expand our associations far beyond the boundaries
of class, culture, and fixed identities, unburdened by the lofty
commitments that distract us from our own cause. The “nothing” liberates
us from each other, our ideas, and the compromises we are compelled to
make for the sake of fixed ideas.
My goal here is to suggest that my Union, despite what some may claim,
is not formed on the basis of any greater cause. My Union is an egoistic
one, formed between me and others as a result of mutual, intersecting
interest in one another. I don’t serve the self at the expense of
others, and I don’t serve others at the expense of the self; I and other
unique individuals, together, form a Union through our combined egoistic
affairs. No narrative, metaphysical framework, or determinism can
adequately describe my Union. After all, claiming there is something
where nothing exists requires lying by omission, usually at the expense
of uniqueness.
In our attempts to achieve “universal dignity and autonomy for all,”
it’s absolutely necessary to recognize the unique, the egoistic union,
and the voids therein. The moment we start suggesting rigid, fixed
frameworks under which individuals “should” associate, we cease to be
anarchists.