💾 Archived View for library.inu.red › file › anonymous-destroying-civilization-destroying-nature.gmi captured on 2023-01-29 at 06:45:34. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
➡️ Next capture (2024-06-20)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Title: Destroying Civilization, Destroying Nature Author: Anonymous Language: en Topics: anti-civ, civilization, decivilizing, nature, play Source: Retrieved on May 24, 2014 from https://sites.google.com/site/vagabondtheorist
1
One of the most harmful prevailing prejudices of our times is the belief
in Nature as a unified being separate from, and even opposed to Humanity
(also perceived as a unified being). In the context of this doctrine,
what is specifically Human – what is created by conscious human activity
– is called Artificial as opposed to Natural.
2
The concept of Nature (that is the concept that all beings, things,
relationships and activities not created by human beings constitute a
unified whole that stands in contrast to all the things, beings,
relationships and activities consciously created by human beings) is
itself a product of conscious human activity and, thus, artificial.
3
Etymologically, “nature” simply refers to what is born into something,
what is inherent to it; “artifice” refers to something that is made
through consciously applied skill. Considered in this way, there is no
necessary (“natural” if you will) opposition between “nature” and
“artifice”, since what is consciously and skillfully created can only be
made by natural beings (at least as of now) with an inborn capacity to
learn to act consciously and with skill.
This does not mean that all or even most “artificial” creations are
desirable. Just as there are certain “natural” realities that may cause
us harm, so there are many “artificial” realities that are detrimental
to us. Furthermore, while “natural” harms are usually temporary events
that we can endure and get beyond, artificial creations that cause us
harm are often meant to be permanent and even expansive. Thus, the only
way to put an end to their harmfulness is to dismantle or destroy them.
For example, institutions, large-scale structures and technological
systems are all created through conscious human activity. They form a
network that defines and limits the possibilities of our lives. They
harm us socially and psychologically through these limitations that
cripple imagination and creative capacity. They harm us physically by
causing or enhancing disasters, illness, poverty, pollution, etc.
Getting beyond them requires not endurance, but rather conscious human
activity aimed at destruction…
In addition, there are aspects of the reality in which we live that are
neither “natural” or “artificial”, neither inborn nor consciously
created, I am speaking here of the vast array of historical, social and
cultural contingencies that develop out of the continuous, fluid
interweaving of human relations amongst themselves and with non-human
beings and things. Though they develop from human activity, they are not
conscious creations, but rather reflect the meeting of chance and
necessity in living in the world. For this reason, they often reflect
the absurdity of the attempt to institutionally rationalize the world.
But they also often provide the opportunities for challenging this
institutional rationalization. Thus, in order to attack the civilized
ruling order, we need to see beyond the “natural”-“artificial” dichotomy
and explore this realm of historical, social and cultural contingency in
order to grasp what we can as weapons for our revolt.
4
The conception of Nature as a unified entity is the basis for two
apparently contradictory, but in fact complementary, ideologies that
serve the ruling order by enforcing control over our lives: the moral
ideology that ascribes goodness to the Natural and evil to the Unnatural
and the metaphysical ideology of inherent alienation that sees Nature as
a force hostile to Humanity and its development, a force that must be
conquered and brought under control.
The moral ideology is applied most widely to in the sexual realm, but
has also been used against magical and alchemical experimentation as
well as any activity that is looked upon as a challenge to god’s rule
(hubris). In our times, it is used against a variety of sexual acts as
well as against abortion. Sexual minorities interested in assimilating
often try to prove the naturalness of their sexuality (for example, by
claiming it is genetic) as opposed to the unnaturalness of certain other
forms of sexuality (pedophilia, whose definition has been expanded in
recently years to mean the sexual attraction of an adult for anyone
under the legal age of consent[1], and to a lesser extent bestiality are
the prime contemporary examples of “unnatural” desire). But whether used
against the hubris of alleged sorcerers, alchemists or courageous
infidels, or against specific sexual or reproductive acts, this moral
Nature serves as a tool for keeping passion and desire in check and thus
for keeping us under control.
The ideology that views Nature as a hostile force which Humanity must
conquer in order to meet its needs occurs to some extent within all
civilizations, but only seems to have become the dominant conception
within western civilization in the past five or six hundred years. Its
rise to dominance, in fact corresponds with the rise of capitalism and
the beginnings of industrialism. It was necessary to begin to channel
human creative endeavors into activity that would maximally exploit all
potential economic resources – natural and human – and this ideology
provided a justification for just such an exploitative development. It
makes use of disease, storms, floods, droughts, earthquakes and other
so-called natural difficulties and catastrophes to back up this
perspective and justify the most intrusive and controlling technological
interventions. More than the moral ideology, this perspective is the
modern justification for domination and control.
5
Civilization is a network of institutions that materially and
practically alienate us from our own lives and creativity and, at the
same time, from the myriad of relationships with the infinite variety of
beings and things that make up the world in which we live. This
alienation is what transforms the variety of beings and things into the
unity of Nature. This unity mirrors the imposed unity of civilization.
6
Overcoming alienation could thus be seen as a process of decivilizing.
But what does this mean? It does not mean rewilding, going back to the
primitive, going back to Nature. All these ideas imply a return to a way
of being that is in reality a conceptual model (the Wild, the Primitive,
the Natural) and thus a civilized ideal. Decivilizing is not a return to
anything. The flow of relationships between ever-changing individuals
that is existence outside of the Civilization-Nature dichotomy is never
repeatable. So decivilizing has to be understood and explored without
models, without any concept of a return.
7
A process of decivilizing would instead be a process of destruction and
dismantling. Of material and social institutions and structures, of
course. But also of the ideological structures, the false conceptual
unities (Stirner’s “spooks”) which channel thinking to such an extent
that most of us don’t even notice these chains on our thoughts. The
oneness of Nature, the oneness of Life, the oneness of the Earth are all
civilized ideological constructions that guarantee that we continue to
view our relationship with the rest of the world through the lens of
alienation.
8
In this light, the desire to attack and destroy the institutions,
structures and people that enforce the rule of the civilized regime
becomes meaningful only when we are experimenting with ways of grasping
our lives as our own and encountering other beings as individuals
striving to create their lives – i.e., when we are practically attacking
the ideological structure that channel our thoughts and desires. This
does not mean rejecting all categorization, but rather recognizing its
limits as a specific tool. Categorization can, for example, help us to
distinguish poisonous from edible plants. But it cannot tell us the
reality or even the most significant aspects of another being: their
desires, their aspirations, their dreams…
9
By recognizing and encountering the uniqueness of each being in each
moment, we find the basis for determining how to carry out our desires,
for recognizing where complicity and mutuality are appropriate, where
conflict is inevitable or desirable, where passionate encounter might
flare up and where indifference makes sense. Thus, we are able to focus
on what we need to realize desire, what place other beings and things
and the relationships we build with them have in this creative process.
10
In terms of attacking civilization, this means rejecting any monolithic
conception of it, without losing sight of its nature as an intertwining
network of interdependent institutions and structures. These
institutions and fundamental structures can only exist through the
alienation of individuals from their lives. That alienation is their
basis. This is why we can never make these institutions and basic
structures our own, and there is no use in trying to grasp them as such.
Rather they need to be destroyed, removed from our path.
But the development of civilization has created a great many byproducts
of all sorts: materials, tools, buildings, gathering spaces, ideas,
skills, etc. If we view civilization simplistically, as a solid
monolith, then we can only bemoan our need to continue to use some of
these byproducts as we dream of a distant future when we will live in a
paradise where every trace of this monolith is gone.
If, on the other hand, we can distinguish what is essential to
civilization from its byproducts and encounter the latter immediately in
terms of our needs and desires (i.e., in a decivilized manner), new
possibilities open for exploring how to live on our own terms.
11
This is how outlaws, the so-called “dangerous classes”, tend to
encounter the world. Everything that isn’t nailed down is there for the
taking to create life with. As anarchists who recognize civilization as
the institutionalization of relationships of domination and
exploitation, we would also encounter these byproducts in terms of how
they can be used to attack, destroy and dismantle civilization.
12
But how does the idea of relating to each individual being in its
uniqueness affect the human need to consciously and skillfully create?
If we conceive of the ever-changing myriads of relationships around us
as a monolithic Nature that is basically hostile toward us, the
techniques methods and structures we develop will aim to conquer,
control and dominate this hostile force (perhaps even to destroy it).
If, instead, we see ourselves and all the beings around us as unique
individuals in an ever-changing interaction with each other, we would
still use skill and artifice, but not to conquer a monolith. Instead, we
would use them to weave our way through a wonderful dance of
relationships – destroying the calcifying institutions that block this
dance – in a way that brings the greatest enjoyment to our lives.
13
A practice of this sort requires a vital and active imagination and a
resolute playfulness.
By imagination, I mean the capacity to “see beyond” what is, to see
possibilities that challenge and attack the current reality rather than
extending it. I am not talking here of an adherence to a single utopian
vision – which would tend to create authoritarian monstrosities in
search of adherents to devour – but of a capacity for ongoing utopian
exploration without a destination, without a goal.
Perhaps this is what distinguishes anarchists from other outlaws.
Imagination has moved their conception of the enjoyment of life beyond
mere consumption to playful creation. Certainly, the ways in which
outlaws have often historically consumed – the squandering of all they
gained through their wits and daring in excesses of debauched feasting
and immediate enjoyment of luxuries – runs counter to the capitalist
value of accumulation, but it still equates wealth with things,
reflecting the alienation of current relationships. Active, practical
imagination can show us the real wealth that can spring from free
relationships as creative activity.
By resolute playfulness, I mean the refusal to compromise oneself by
taking on an identity that pins one down, the refusal to take seriously
precisely those things to which this society gives importance, the
insistence upon experimenting with one’s life in each moment without
worrying about a future that does not exist. The world is full of toys,
games and challenges that can heighten the intensity of living. They are
often hidden, buried beneath the institutional seriousness or the
necessities of survival imposed by the ruling order. The insurgent and
outlaw grasping of life involves breaking through these barriers.
14
So, a process of decivilization, of freeing ourselves from the
constraints and obligations imposed by the network of institutions that
we call civilization, is not a return to anything. It does not center
around learning certain skills and techniques or applying certain
utilitarian measures. It is rather a matter of refusing the domination
of the utilitarian, the domination of survival over life, of insisting
upon going out into the world to play on our own terms, taking hold of
what gives us pleasure, and destroying what stands in our way.
[1] It originally meant the sexual attraction of an adult for
prepubescent children.