💾 Archived View for library.inu.red › file › anonymous-radical-anthropology.gmi captured on 2023-01-29 at 07:31:50. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
➡️ Next capture (2024-06-20)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Title: Radical Anthropology Author: Anonymous Language: en Topics: anthropology, anti-civ Source: Retrieved on 1 January 2010 from www.wildresistance.org/ra.htm
Radical Anthropology was an individual attempt to create a new and
important way of thinking within current anthropology and the radical
milieu. It failed. While the attempt failed, it is important to
recognize that there is a radical anthropology — one that is radical in
theory and praxis. I have put together the following, as an introduction
to radical/anarchist anthropology. It is by no means a static or solid
view, and should be seen as personal ideas that need to be scrutinized
closely. If you are skeptical of any of the statements I made, please
browse this site, especially the writings section, for more information
on this mode of though. Please feel free to email me [at
wildresistance@riseup.net] to discuss these ideas at any time.
Without rule; Against domination; the ultimate liberatory experience.
The study of human beings throughout time and space. The notion that we
are looking at other forms of human societies, and we are seeing other
people as equals, part of one species, and all sharing the Earth.
What is the difference between anarchist and radical anthropology? For
the most part, the two terms can be used synonymously. However,
anarchist anthropology refers more to a specific mode of thinking within
anthropology; radical anthropology refers more to that mode in action —
radical praxis.
Anarchist anthropology posits a new and radical theoretical and
practical framework, however, this does not mean it is a rigid ideology
that certain anthropologists can fit into. Looking at ecology,
subsistence, history, means and modes of production, gender, etc. are
still important to anarchist anthropology, however it also takes this
one step further and looks at power, authority, and domination. It is
not a rigid framework in which data must fit, but rather a mode of
investigation that should create more questions than answers.
Power exists, and it will always exist, whether it be the power of the
despot or self-empowerment. It’s important to look at the distribution
and usurpation of power in society. The consolidation of power is
important to understand overt and covert domination. Those in power
diminish the freedom and autonomy of all other individuals. They will
also keep their power by any means necessary, including violence.
The State is a relatively recent conception. It is consolidated power
that exists in many forms. Its goal is to control its population in
order to replicate itself, and thus recreate power. It is a monopoly of
violence, force, and control, over a certain area. Since its conception,
inequality, slavery, war, poverty, capitalism, and environmental
destruction have ensued. The State, however, did not arise within a
vacuum.
“Civilization begins with conquest abroad and repression at home”
(Stanley Diamond). Civilization marks the period in which a split in
human consciousness occurred, around 10,000 years ago; physically marked
by the creation of agriculture. More specifically, civilization comes
about through domestication — the destruction, manipulation, and control
of a species’ inherent nature. It is the first type of totalitarian
relationship with Earth, and the catalyst for all of the current ills we
see today (including those of the State discussed above). We see that
civilization is one form of social organization, which destroys all
other alternative possibilities. It is a world-wide phenomenon, but not
a cultural universal.
As opposed to civilization, we recognize a period before that
collectively called the “primitive” period — meaning the period in which
the primary human life ways were practiced. This period is characterized
mostly by gatherer-hunters who lived in acephalous societies. They were
egalitarian, peaceful, healthy societies with little to no division of
labor, and a balance with the natural environment which gave back as
much as it took.
Cultural relativism is important only up to a degree. It is important to
respect human diversity in customs, traditions, and other practices, in
that they are understood in the culture’s context. However, cultural
relativism is often taken to its extreme: ethical relativism. Ethical
relativism should not exist. The domination of humans, animals, and the
Earth cannot be looked at relatively. Anything that diminishes human,
animal, and environmental freedom — it’s inherent nature — is a
destructive force in the world that must be destroyed itself.
Civilization, the State, patriarchy, domestication, technology — these
are such destructive forces.
Do we have the right to interfere? Aren’t we just pushing western
beliefs and values on non-western cultures, just as people before us
have? These are important questions to wrestle with. We have no answer,
however, we there are some things to think about.
We are all human beings, connected all to the same planet, and have
always influenced each other throughout time. Shouldn’t we keep this in
mind while we are “destroying” the totality of civilization?
We could argue that there are two cultures, each with its own variation:
the takers (civilization) and the leavers (gatherer-hunters, some
horticulturalists). Since we are part of the taker culture, we do have
the “right” to interfere and seek radical and permanent change. This is
perhaps the best way to look at it.
Do we push anarchy on other societies? Educate them on anarchism? Fuel
armed struggle? Our goal isn’t anarchism, its anarchy, and this must be
done through an organic process. Imposing anarchy is not anarchy — it is
authoritarian and domineering.
We must work with and struggle with indigenous communities that are
being destroyed by civilization’s battles. These battles often have the
objective of forcing corporations off of sacred land, rejecting the
arbitrarily imposed laws and ordinances of the State, and ending
industrial developments which threaten the well-being of humans,
animals, and the Earth.
Action must be taken. Not only action on behalf of the societies we
learn from, but in our own society. We must not let the pillars of
civilization stand and destroy our world. We must be creative in our
actions. As to what to do, that’s up to you.
We recognize that the goal of anthropology is a liberatory one, and so
we will fight for anarchy, not anarchism. The information that
anthropology has gathered on societies around the world is priceless.
From this, we can see ways in which society can and cannot be lived. We
see that the relationships embodied in primitive groups were the most
organic and beneficial relationships, and thus we should include this in
any vision for an alternative society. We are not seeking to go back,
but to use the history of our species to push forward, and soon, in
order for the humans and nature to survive.
However, we are not the elite of social understanding. We do not, nor do
we want to, possess the blueprints for a new society. New ways of living
must be created organically and autonomously. We can only tell ourselves
how to live, and show people how others lived.
Because we are not the elite, we are the antithesis to the ivory tower,
an oppressive institution which seeks to dominate knowledge. The ivory
tower is a symbol and reinforcer of the status quo. It is one means of
control by which civilization facilitates our split in consciousness
between organic (“primitive” lifeways) and inorganic (destructive and
civilized lifeways). It is just one of the institutions we seek to
destroy, whether undermining it from the inside or creating alternatives
on the outside.
Anthropology is the study of humanity. We are students of humans.
Anthropology should not exist to study culture for culture’s sake, but
to study humans to see the ways in which we have lived, do live, and can
live one day. It does not have to be a professional endeavor. It can be
done by anyone, anywhere. Looking at our past, speaking to others from
different cultures, practicing an alternative way of living — its all
anthropology. Because we become the students of humans, that means that
anthropology is inherently trying to teach us something about the way we
are living. Its up to us to listen.
Anthropology’s roots are bloody, smeared with colonialism, racism, war,
and nationalism. It is a product of civilization. All specializations
are. We must recognize and critique this, even as we practice
anthropology. Radical anthropology flips this type of anthropology on
its head. It is a new anthropology which seeks not only to understand
alternative worlds, but to help create one.
Specialization is a sign and symptom of civilization. Its where we cease
to be organic, fully participating humans. Its also where the balance of
power becomes unequal. A specialization such as anthropology usually
denotes a market economy that requires people to take up certain
disciplines in order to earn a living. Thus we have capitalism and the
sale of one’s soul on the invisible market scale.
We must realize that any attempts to establish an organic human society
will most likely mean that anthropology as a field becomes inexistent.
Instead, what is normally seen as anthropology — understanding of the
past, interaction with other cultures — will be melded in with daily
life and be for everyone to pursue.
We are for the destruction of anthropology because that signifies the
creation of a society without specialists: a free, autonomous, organic
society of human beings living in balance with the Earth and all her
creatures.