💾 Archived View for library.inu.red › file › john-zerzan-no-way-out.gmi captured on 2023-01-29 at 11:39:54. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
➡️ Next capture (2024-07-09)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Title: No Way Out? Author: John Zerzan Date: 2003 Language: en Topics: anti-civ, green Source: Retrieved on March 19th, 2009 from http://www.johnzerzan.net/articles/no-way-out.html
Agriculture ended a vast period of human existence largely characterized
by freedom from work, non-exploitation of nature, considerable gender
autonomy and equality, and the absence of organized violence. It takes
more from the earth than it puts back and is the foundation of private
property. Agriculture encloses, controls, exploits, establishes
hierarchy and resentment. Chellis Glendinning (1994) described
agriculture as the “original trauma” that has devastated the human
psyche, social life, and the biosphere.
But agriculture/domestication didn’t suddenly appear out of nowhere,
10,000 years ago. Quite possibly, it was the culmination of a very slow
acceptance of division of labor or specialization that began in earnest
in Upper Paleolithic times, about 40,000 years ago. This process is
behind what Horkheimer and Adorno termed “instrumental reason” in their
Dialectic of Enlightment. Although still touted as the precondition for
“objectivity,” human reason is no longer neutral. It has somehow become
deformed, with devastating impact: our reason imprisons our true
humanity, while destroying the natural world. How else to account for
the fact that human activity has become so inimical to humans, as well
as to all other earthly species? Something had already started to take
us in a negative direction before agriculture, class stratification, the
State, and industrialism institutionalized its wrongness.
This disease of reason, which interprets reality as an amalgamation of
instruments, resources, and means, adds an unprecedented and
uncontrolled measure of domination. As with technology, which is
reason’s incarnation or materiality at any given time, reason’s
“neutrality” was missing from the start. Meanwhile, we are taught to
accept our condition. It’s “human nature” to be “creative,” goes part of
the refrain.
Division of labor gives effective power to some, while narrowing or
reducing the scope of all. This can be seen in the production of art as
well as in technological innovation. The distinctive work of individual
masters is apparent in the earliest cave art, and craft specialization
is an essential aspect of the later development of “complex” (aka
stratified) societies. Specified roles facilitated a qualitative rupture
with long-standing human social patterns, in a remarkably short period
of time. After two or three million years of an egalitarian foraging
(aka hunter-gatherer) mode of existence, in only 10,000 years, the rapid
descent into a civilized lifeway. Since then, an ever-accelerating
course of social and ecological destructiveness in every sphere of life.
It’s also remarkable how complete the experience of civilization was
from its very first stages. K. Aslihan Yener’s Domestication of Metal
(2000) discusses complex industry in civilization’s opening act, the
Early Bronze Age. She charts the organization and management of tin
mining and smelting in Anatolia beginning in 8,000 BC. The
archaeological evidence shows irrefutably that erosion, pollution, and
deforestation were very significant consequences, as the earliest
civilizations laid waste to much of the Middle East.
With civilization, how it is is how it’s always been. Russell Hoban’s
1980 novel, Riddley Walker, provides keen insight into the logic of
civilization. What some call Progress, the narrator identifies as Power:
“It come to me then I know it Power dint go away. It ben and it wer and
it wud be. It wer there and drawing. Power want it you to come to it
with Power. Power wantit what ever cud happen to happen. Power wantit
every thing moving frontways.”
The nature of the civilization project was clear from the beginning. As
the swiftly arriving product of agriculture, the intensification of
domination has been steady and sure. It’s telling that humans’ first
monuments coincide with the first signs of domestication (R. Bradley in
Mither, 1998). The sad linearity of civilization’s destruction of the
natural world has been interrupted only by symptoms of self-destruction
in the social sphere, in the form of wars. And when we recall with B.D.
Smith (1995) that domestication is “the creation of a new form of plant
and animal,” it becomes obvious that genetic engineering and cloning are
anything but strange aberrations from the norm.
The contrast with thousands of generations of forager (hunter-gatherer)
life is staggering. There is no dispute that these ancestors put sharing
at the center of their existence. Throughout the anthropological
literature, sharing and equality are synonymous with the forager social
organization, characterized as bands of fifty or fewer people. In the
absence of mediation or political authority, people enjoyed strong
expressive bonds face-to-face with one another and in intimacy with
nature.
Hewlett and Lamb (2000) explored the levels of trust and compassion in
an Aka band of foragers in central Africa. The physical and emotional
closeness between Aka children and adults, they concluded, is closely
related to their benign orientation to the world. Conversely, Aka people
see their environment as generous and supportive, at least in part,
because of the unrestricted bonds among themselves. Colin Turnbull
observed a very similar reality among the Mbuti in Africa, who addressed
greetings to “Mother Forest, Father Forest.”
Agriculture is the founding model for all the systematic
authoritarianism that followed, certainly including capitalism, and
initiating the subjugation of women. Very early farming settlements
contained “as many as 400 people” (Mithen et al, 2000). We know that
expanding population was not a cause of agriculture but its result; this
suggests a basic dynamic of the population problem. It appears that
societies organized on a truly human scale fell victim to the exigencies
of domestication. It may be that we can only solve the planet’s
overpopulation problem by removing the root cause of basic estrangement
from one another. With the advent of domestication, reproduction was not
only rewarded economically; it also offered a compensation or
consolation for so much that had been eradicated by civilization.
Amid the standardizing, disciplinary effects of today’s systems of
technology and capital, we are subjected to an unprecedented barrage of
images and other representations. Symbols have largely crowded out
everything real and direct, both in the daily round of interpersonal
interactions and in the accelerating extinction of nature. This state of
affairs is generally accepted as inevitable, especially since received
wisdom dictates that symbol-making is the cardinal, defining quality of
a human being. We learn as children that all behavior, and culture
itself, depend on symbol manipulation; this characteristic is what
separates us from mere animals.
But a close look at Homo over our many, many millennia challenges the
inexorability or “naturalness” of the dominance of symbols in our lives
today. New discoveries are making newspaper headlines with increasing
frequency. Archaeologists are finding that more than a million years
ago, humans were as intelligent as ourselves — despite the fact that the
earliest evidence to date of symbolic activity (figurines, cave art,
ritual artifacts, time recordings, etc.) date to only 40,000 years ago
or so. People used fire for cooking 1.9 million years ago; and built and
sailed seagoing vessels at least 800,000 years ago!
These people must have been very intelligent; yet they left no tangible
trace of symbolic thought until relatively recently. Likewise, although
our ancestors of a million years ago had the I.Q. to enslave each other
and destroy the planet, they refrained from doing so, until symbolic
culture got going. Civilization advocates are making a concerted effort
to find evidence of symbol use at a much earlier time, paralleling the
unsuccessful effort in recent decades to locate evidence that would
overturn the new anthropological paradigm of pre-agricultural harmony
and well being. So far, their searches have not borne fruit.
There is an enormous time gap between clear signs of mental capacity and
clear signs of any symbolizing at all. This discrepancy casts serious
doubt on the adequacy of a definition of humans as essentially symbol
makers. The apparent congruence between the beginnings of representation
and the beginnings of what is unhealthy about our species seems even
more important. Basic questions pretty much formulate themselves.
One such question concerns the nature of representation. Foucault argued
that representation always involves a power relation. There may be a
connection between representation and the power imbalance that is
created when division of labor takes over human activity. In a similar
vein, it is difficult to see how large social systems could have come
about in the absence of symbolic culture. At a minimum, they appear to
be inseparable.
Jack Goody (1997) referred to “the continuing pressure to represent.”
Along with an easily identified impulse to communicate, is there not
also something much less positive going on? For all those generations
before civilization, folks did many things with their minds — including
communicating — but they didn’t get symbolic about it. To re-present
reality involves a move to a complete, closed system, of which language
is the most obvious example and perhaps the original instance. Whence
this will to create systems, to name and to count? Why this dimension
that looks suspiciously like instrumental reason, with its essentially
dominating core?
Language is routinely portrayed as a natural and inevitable part of our
evolution. Like division of labor, ritual, domestication, religion?
Complete the progression and we see that the end of the biosphere and
total alienation are likewise “natural” and “inevitable.” Whether or not
there can be a way out of the symbolic order is the pressing question.
“In the beginning was the Word” — the convening of the symbolic domain.
After Eden’s freedom was revoked, Adam named the animals and the names
were the animals. In the same way, Plato held that the word creates the
thing. There is a moment of linguistic agreement, and from then on a
categorized frame is imposed on all phenomena. This pact attempts to
override the “original sin” of language, which is the separation of
speech and world, words and things.
Many languages start out rich in verbs, but are gradually undone by the
more common imperialism of the noun. This parallels the movement to a
steadily more reified world, focusing on objects and goals at the
expense of process. In similar fashion, the vivid naturalism of cave art
gives way to an impoverished, stylized aesthetic. In both cases, the
symbolic deal is sweetened by the promise of an enticing richness, but
in each case the long-term results are deadly. Symbolic modes may begin
with some freshness and vitality, but eventually reveal their actual
poverty, their inner logic.
The innate sensual acuity of human infants steadily atrophies as they
grow and develop in interaction with a symbolic culture that continues
to infiltrate and monopolize most aspects of our lives. A few remnants
of the unmediated, the direct still survive. Lovemaking, close
relationships, immersion in wild nature, and the experience of birth and
death awaken our senses and our intelligence, stimulating an
unaccustomed hunger. We long for something other than the meager,
artificial world of re-presentation, with its second-hand pallor.
Communication remains open to those invigorating flashes that pass,
nonverbally, between people. All the crabbed, crimped, conditioned
channels might be chucked, because we can’t live on what’s available. As
levels of pain, loss, and emptiness rise, the reigning apparatus pumps
out ever more unsatisfying, unsustaining lies.
Referring to telepathy, Sigmund Freud wrote in his New Introductory
Lectures on Psychoanalysis, “One is led to a suspicion that this is the
original, archaic method of communication.” Enculturated down to his
toes, Freud didn’t celebrate this suspicion, and seemed to fear the life
force that accompanied such non-cultural dynamics. Laurens van der Post
(e.g. The Lost World of the Kalahari, 1958) related several firsthand
observations of telepathic communication, over considerable distances,
among the people who used to be called “Bushmen.” M. Pobers and Richard
St. Barbe Baker, also writing in the 1950s, witnessed telepathy by
indigenous people before they were colonized by civilization. I mention
this in passing as one glimpse of the reality of the non-symbolic, a
direct connection that actually existed not long ago, and that could be
revived amid the ruins of representation.
Language and art may have originally appeared and united in ritual, a
cultural innovation intended to bridge a new separation between people
and their world. The term “animism” is often used, dismissively or even
pejoratively, to describe the belief that non-human beings and even
objects are inhabited by “spirits.” Just as the term “anarchism” is a
summary description of anarchy, a pervasive viewpoint or state of being
that rejects hierarchy, “animism” fails to capture the transformative
quality of a shared awareness. In the case of anarchy, there is an
awareness that living in equality with with other humans necessitates
the rejection of all forms of domination, including leadership and
political representation. “Animism” refers to the extension of that
awareness to other life forms and even to “inanimate” dwellers on the
planet such as rocks, clouds, and rivers. The fact that there is no word
related to animism, analogous to anarchy, is an index of how distanced
we are from this awareness, in our present state. Green anarchy
explicitly states that anarchy must embrace the community of living
beings, and in this sense takes a step toward re-awakening this
awareness.
Did humans lose the awareness of belonging to an earthly community of
living beings with the advent of domestication, division of labor, and
agriculture? The construction of monuments and the beginnings of animal
and human sacrifice would tend to support this hypothesis.
Characteristically, the scapegoated victim is held responsible for
communal misfortune and suffering, while the fundamental reasons for the
community’s loss go unrecognized and unmitigated. Ritual involves
“enormous amounts of energy” (Knight in Dunbar, Knight and Power, 1999);
it is usually loud, multimediated, emotional, and redundant, testifying
to the felt depth of the underlying crisis.
The movement from animism to ritual parallels the transformation of
small, face-to-face groups into large, complex societies. Culture takes
over, with specialized professionals in charge of the realm of the
sacred. The longing for that original feeling of communion with other
beings and egalitarian intimacy with one’s fellow humans can never be
appeased by ritual activities developed within a hierarchical social
system. This tendency culminates in the teachings of transcendant
religions, that since the meaning of our lives has nothing to do with
life on earth, we should pin our hopes on a heavenly reward. Conversely,
as with the Aka and Mbuti described above, feelings of oneness with the
earth and all its inhabitants, and a sense of the joy and meaningfulness
of existence, seem to flourish when we humans live in egalitarian,
face-to-face groups.
Returning to language, an agreed-upon banality is that reality is always
inherently disclosed through language — that in fact reality is
decisively mediated by language. Postmodernism ups this ante in two
ways. Because language is basically a self-referential system, PM avers,
language cannot really involve meaning. Further, there is only language
(as there is only civilization); there is no escape from a world defined
by language games (and domestication). But archaeological and
ethnographic evidence shows clearly that human life has existed outside
representation, and nothing definitively precludes humans from living
that way again — however devoutly the postmodernists, in their
accommodation to the system, may pray that this just cannot be.
The ultimate in representation is the current “society of the spectacle”
described so vividly by Guy Debord. We now consume the image of living;
life has passed into the stage of its representation, as spectacle. At
the same time that technology offers virtual reality to the individual,
the ensemble of electronic media creates a virtual community, an
advanced symbolic state of passive consumption and learned helplessness.
But the balance sheet for the ruling order shows a mixed forecast. For
one thing, representation in the political sector is met with skepticism
and apathy similar to that evinced by representation in general. Has
there ever been so much incessant yammer about democracy, and less real
interest in it? To represent or be represented is a degradation, a
reduction, both in the sense of symbolic culture and in terms of power.
Democracy, of course, is a form of rule. Partisans of anarchy should
know this, though leftists have no problem with governance.
Anarcho-syndicalists and other classical anarchists fail to question any
of the more fundamental institutions, such as division of labor,
domestication, domination of nature, Progress, technological society,
etc.
To quote Riddley Walker again, as an antidote: “I cud feal some thing
growing in me it wer like a grean sea surging in me it wer saying, lose
it. Saying, let go. Saying, the onlyes power is no power.” The heart of
anarchy.
Heidegger, in Discourse on Thinking, counseled that an attitude of
“openness to the mystery” promises “a new ground and foundation upon
which we can stand and endure in the world of technology without being
imperiled by it.” An anti-authoritarian orientation does not consist of
this passive attitude, of changing only our consciousness. Instead,
technology and its accomplice, culture, must be met by a resolute
autonomy and refusal that looks at the whole span of human presence and
rejects all dimensions of captivity and destruction.