💾 Archived View for library.inu.red › file › paul-rabin-computers-and-anarchism.gmi captured on 2023-01-29 at 13:29:02. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Title: Computers and Anarchism Author: Paul Rabin Date: 01-16-1999 Language: en Topics: anarchism, technology, computers Source: Retrieved on September 16, 2013 from http://web.archive.org/web/19990116231145/http://web.cs.city.ac.uk/homes/louise/rabin.html Notes: Originally published by Freedom Press (UK)
In this paper I hope to give a brief survey of two aspects of human
culture and the relationships between them and anarchism, the most
positive and forward-looking expression of the human spirit; and
computers, the most powerful and complex technology produced by human
ingenuity.
It may seem strange to consider anarchism and computers together. After
all, hasn’t anarchism always been a marginal and unsuccessful political
movement, while computers have been so central and effective? There is
hardly an area of life which is not being revolutionised by computers.
Besides, anarchism and computers are like opposites-extremes of
disorganisation and organisation. They could hardly be relevant to each
other.
Well, anarchism and computers are opposites in a way, and their
difference does have to do with orgalusation. But it is a difference of
kind rather than of degree. And, as I hope to show, each raises crucial
concerns, both theoretical and practical, for the other. Further, when
considered generally, anarchism and computers are representative of two
major forces in cultural history.
Anarchism is the political expression of anarchy, a cultural force for
the proliferation of human forms of life. Computers are the
technological expression of another cultural force, which I shall call
order, which strives for definition and control. In human history these
forces have both developed, now in harmony, now in opposition.
In psychic life, anarchy is reflected in eros, expansive and joyful;
order in thanatos, static and insecure. In political life, anarchy is
reflected in liberty, order in authority. In economic life, anarchy is
reflected in sharing and giving; order in owning and taking. Seen in
these terms, the mutual, and equal relevance of anarchism and computers
becomes clearer.
Currently, order is ascendant and anarchy is discredited and
discouraged. As an anarchist, I am interested in the nature of, and
requirements for, a world in which anarchy is the reigning spirit. In
Section 2 I shall survey the realm of anarchy, looking at our relations
with other people and with society in general, our relations with things
and with the world in general, and our relations with ourselves. our
sense of identity, our knowledge and activity. In Section 3 I shall
survey the realm of order, and the place of computers within it.
Neither anarchy nor order alone is a possible basis for human culture.
Anarchy without order is limited in its means of existence and its means
of expression. Order without anarchy is sterile and self- destructive.
The current domination of order is both oppressive and dangerous. The
discovery of possible healthy relationships between anarchy and
order-and, more concretely, the delineation of the requirements for the
socially beneficial design and use of computers are among the most
urgent tasks facing us. In Section 4 I shall describe some of the ways
in which the use of computers threatens human freedom. I conclude that
there is no safe way to use computers. The benefits of computers are
always bought at the price of freedom.
My own conception of anarchy is based on several years of reading,
discussion and rumination. It is only one of a wide variety
ofconceptions of anarchy. I have been involved with computers for about
18 years in various capacities. I am fascinated by their suggestiveness
and by their challenge. At the intersection of these two interests, as
well as many others, lies a persistent puzzle: what are the possible
relationsbetween the formal and the informal? The thoughts expressed
here are necessarily incomplete.
Anarchism is the political and intellectual movement in support of
anarchy. Anarchy is based on the desirability and innate possibility of
free, creative, and responsible activity of people, separately and
inassociation. Anarchism is motivated by both the feeling and
theunderstanding that such autonomous activity is necessary for the
growth and development of human intelligence, digmty and happiness
.Anarchism has manifested itself in a variety of organisations and
theories. But anarchy itself is not a specific theory or form of
orgamsation. It is a spirit which can find expression, to a greater or
lesser extent, in theories and organisations. Anarchy is not complete or
consistent or definite.
To analyse anarchy is necessarily to inflict an injury on it. Anarchy
can not be captured in any formulation. Anarchy is metaphysically those
forms of human life which support anarchy and those which are hostile to
it.
Anarchism is optimistic about human nature. Only remove domination, and
humanity will flower in a myriad cultures. People are naturally creative
and cooperative. Of course, this is an ideal. The realisation of any
anarchist society will involve many compromises with order, if only to
provide some security for those who wish a less adventurous life. But in
accepting order, anarchy puts itself in peril of losing its freedom.
To secure anarchy, we must first secure its foundations, the basic
relations which people enter into with others, themselves, and the world
around them. Having set forth the basic relations of anarchy, we must
still devise forms of social organisation based on these relations to
solve all of the practical problems of life. But I am concerned here
with the basic relations because it is on this level that the
fundamental conflict between anarchy and order occurs, and it is on this
level that the social significance of computers must be understood. The
practical problems of social construction will keep for another day.
The basic relations of anarchy all involve people. The qualities of
objectivity and subjectivity are fused in these relations. The following
are sketches from three angles: relations with others, relations with
things, and relations with one’s self. These relations are all connected
Versions of anarchism differ in their conceptions of social relations.
Individualists see society as a constraint of the freedom of
individuals. Free relations are modelled on contracts between autonomous
social atoms, each acting in their own self-interest. As Marx observed,
this model of social relations is based on capitalist ideology, is not
naturalbut highly constructed, and is the opposite of free.
Social, or communist, anarchism understands that human freedom and
development are grounded in a social matrix. The greatest emphasis of
anarchism must be on social relations. In fact, all anarchist relations
have a social dimension. In order for people to be free, the relations
between people must be free. People must interact directly with one
another. People must not dominate one another. Mediation limits
interaction, and hence the relations which are based on interaction.
Mediation alienates people from one another and masks domination.
People can form voluntary associations in order to pursue common
interests. Each person may be involved in any number of clearly or
vaguely defined associations. Association entails responsibility.
Responsibilities are not duties; they are not exacted by the threat of
sanction. Instead, they are based on a shared ethic of respect for one’s
self and for others. Involvement with an association is always voluntary
The degree of lightness with which a person will enter or leave an
association will depend on the responsibilities involved
Some associations will be transient, others long-lasting. Associations
can include or overlap each other in space or time. Society consists of
this organic network of associations. Some associations will be engaged
in production; others in inquiry; still others in free expression.
People will be respected regardless of their associations or
responsibilities. There will be many associations which will include and
support people, regardless of the degree of responsibility which they
can or will assume. In particular, the associations in which people are
born will respect and support them.
Since relations must be direct and non-hierarchical, the size, duration,
and effectiveness of anarchist associations are limited. Even to
approach these limits may require extraordinary stamina in a voluntary
association. To surpass these limits requires that the free and
voluntary nature of the association be compromised in favour of
organisational centralisation and autonomy. This is a dangerous step
since it removes control from the people involved in the organisation
Hierarchy and mediation will be introduced. The organisation will
reproduce itself, extending the domain in which anarchist social
relations are suppressed. Autonomous organisations are in basic conflict
with anarchy. They can, perhaps must be tolerated, but only when kept
within vigilantly observed limits. We must accept limits to
effectiveness.
Anarchist society requires shared ethics, a determination to preserve
freedom, and an understanding of the threats to freedom. People will
share their own visions, and will respect the visions of others. Both
knowledge and practice will be pluralistic. Anarchist community depends
on sharing, on shared worlds.
Anarchism has until recently had little to say about our material
relations. Like many other doctrines it has not questioned the simple
economic categories of production and consumption. Material abundance
would be provided by the bounty of nature augmented by technology. Our
manipulation of things and our understanding of things would also be
objectve, independent of social relationships
This naive picture must be replaced. An attitude of domination towards
nature leads to domination in social relations. Technological choices
necessarily constrain social relations. An objective stance towards
things spills over into alienation between people.
We must accept limits to consumption. We do not have the right to
destroy nature. As we make use of nature, our responsibilities to others
oblige us to renew what we use. We must choose our technologies with
care, making sure that we do not thereby build social rdations which we
do not want. We must not consider things objectively, but in personal,
social, and natural contexts. This implies also seeing ourselves as part
of nature
Private property in its current form will not exist. There will be no
state to protect ‘property rights’. If rights in things are recognised,
they will be based on responsibility and respect.
Anarchist self-relations are reflections of relations with the social
and natural worlds. People will see themselves within social and natural
contexts, and will understand the social and natural relations involved
in their own visions and activities. Yet these relations shall not
deterrnine each person’s visions and activities. Each person shall be
autonomous: free, creative, and responsible.
Just as anarchist reason and practice must be furmly rooted in social
and natural contexts, so therefore the whole person must be similarly
rooted. This implies that the social and natural environments of people
must be relatively stable
Such are the basic relations within the realm of anarchy. The realm of
order is quite different. Where anarchy supports creative power, orders
supports dominating power. Order seeks to fix and to hold. Where anarchy
integrates reason, practical and theoretical, within contexts of social
and natural relations, order seeks to separate reason utterly from these
contexts, to reify reason as a technology of domination over the social
and natural worlds. This separation between reason and reality under the
influence of domination creates a distorting tension, and this tension
is resolved by the formation of two complementary ideologies
-rationalism and instrumentalism. These ideologies buttress and
legitimise reason in its isolated and purified form.
Within the ideology of rationalism, all reality can be completely and
objectively understood by pure reason. Objective understanding is the
exdusive domain of science, whose methods and theories are untainted by
subjectivity. A phenomenon is considered understood when it can be
isolated and controlled
Within the ideology of instrumentalism, this is all turned around the
other way. Instrumentalism is pragmatic. What can be controlled is real.
What is real can be controlled completely. The natural function of
reason is domination. Objectivity is denied.
These ideologies maintain the separability, the authority, and the
effectiveness of reason. Through these ideologies, the realm of order
provides both the means of control and the mystification of control. The
rule of order has been supported therefore precisely by those seeking to
dominate people and things. It has repaid this support handsomely. The
rule of order has also been supported by those who hope to use it as a
shield against domination. This is a tragic mistake.
Of course neither rationalism nor instrumentalism is true. They are two
separate but mutually supporting rationalisations of a singk process:
the subjugation of reason as an instrument of domination Reason becomes
a technology. Just as reason is purified, so also that on which reason
operates must be purified. The object of reason is information. The
unfettered use of instrumental reason requires an arena of pure
information. The more information is separated from its social and
natural contexts, the greater the scope of operation of instrumental
reason.
Computers are mechanical implementations of instrumental reason. They
store, transmit, and manipulate purified information. They are
information filters. As computers invade the world, they create widening
zones of purified information, thus expanding the scope of operation of
all forms of instrumental reason. Within this scope, computers are
powerful devices for control. Instrumentalism enhances the power of
computers by legitimising the purification of information; computers
confirm instrumentalism by demonstrating the effectiveness of
instrumental reason.
Computers are just as deeply implicated in rationalism. Purified reason
cares only about the behaviour of things; computers are ideal
simulators. Since computers are the most effective instrument of
purified reason, they become models for scientific theory and method.
This is a self-reinforcing process. As computers filter information,
they create a reality which they can in fact model and control. Thus,
computers are creatures of the underlying processes of order and of the
ideologies of order.
The forces of anarchy and order are in deep conflict. Anarchy abhors
domination, while order serves domination. The use of computers
manifests this conflict in specific ways as disruptions of anarchist
relations.
If computers mediate relations between people, then these relations
cannot be direct or free. Computer mediation is alienating, reducing
interaction to objective behaviour. Computer mediation restricts the
variety of interaction, and thereby restricts the variety of relations
built on interaction.
Computer-mediated relations with things are also alienated. The thing is
replaced by its image, reduced to behaviour which can be objectively
observed and controlled. The context of things is reduced to the width
of the information channel by which one is connected with them. Within
associations, computers greatly strengthen organisational autonomy.
Autonomous organisations dominate the whole society, by lasting, by
spreading, by reproducing themselves, by introducing hierarchical and
mediated relations between people.
Since each person’s self-image reflects relations with society and
nature, the more people’s relations are mediated by computers and the
more autonomy is in fact surrendered to other people or organizations,
the more those people will define themselves as alienated and passive.
This will in turn corrupt other relations which were originally free.,
The zone of order which each computer defines is real and expansive.
Within this zone, reason and information are alienated and the
ideologies of rationalism and instrumentalism are established,
corrupting everything they touch.
Computers present in tangible form a danger which inheres in all forms
of order: theory. Ianguage, technique, organisation. These do not need
to be completely formalised to take on the character of order. Reason is
always partially formalised, so the dominion of order is always
partially established. Limits are necessary. They must be defined and
enforced. But this is precisely the function of order itself.Order
cannot be trusted as its own controller.
The boundaries of freedom cannot be defined, or it is not freedom. Only
anarchy, the living spirit of freedom, can defend freedom.