💾 Archived View for library.inu.red › file › pendleton-vandiver-anarchist-epistemology.gmi captured on 2023-01-29 at 13:30:47. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
➡️ Next capture (2024-06-20)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Title: Anarchist Epistemology Author: Pendleton Vandiver Date: 2001 Language: en Topics: critique, green, John Moore, John Zerzan, philosophy, primitivist Source: Retrieved on July 21, 2009 from http://www.insurgentdesire.org.uk/anarchistepistemology.htm Notes: Published July 22, 2001
Anarchism, as a political philosophy that is roughly 200 years old, is a
product of modern Western society. This makes many of the assumptions
underlying anarchist theory worthy of scrutiny by anyone who considers
it to be her project to undermine, overthrow, or destroy modern Western
society, in other words, anyone who considers herself an anarchist.
Since anarchism is a philosophy that points beyond itself, anarchist
epistemology will always be problematic. This is because the anarchist
goal, as I see it, is not to install a new political system called
anarchism; rather, the goal is to promote anarchy. Anarchism is an
expedient which is employed in promoting anarchy, and as such tends to
recoil upon purists and systematizers who seek to craft an ultimate
anarchist theory.
Classical anarchism is increasingly being called into question because
it accepts too many of the assumptions of the dominant culture from
which it sprang. For this reason, the root of the various problems with
classical anarchism is an epistemological one. Anarchists are becoming
more and more suspicious, if not downright hostile, toward ideas which
seek to eliminate the trappings of political and economic power while
leaving intact the mechanisms of domination which allow this power to
thrive. The industrial system is no longer seen as a benign engine of
progress which needs to be placed in the hands of the workers.
Anarchism, in short, is becoming green, and this simply means that it is
becoming global, it is addressing the totality of life, not just
inhabiting a cordoned-off political sphere, because it cannot afford to
leave oppression any place to hide.
Anarcho-primitivism is an example of this tendency within anarchism. It
is not merely political structures that are called into question by
primitivists, but fundamental forms of human communication and
categories of thought. Primitivism is a radical critique in that it
seeks to identify the roots of oppression. John Zerzan’s writings are
particularly probing in that they explore the supposed origins of
alienation and social stratification in the (usually taken for granted)
categories of time, language, number, art and agriculture.
The primitivist critique is very important, and cannot be ignored by
anyone with a green anarchist orientation. Yet there are vexing
contradictions in much primitivist theory, which seem to result from a
lack of consideration of epistemology. The proponents of this philosophy
purport to call into question civilization in total. A Primitivist
Primer by John Moore calls anarcho-primitivism a shorthand term for a
radical current that critiques the totality of civilization from an
anarchist perspective, yet they mostly place themselves firmly within
Western scientific discourse with their reliance on anthropological
data. If anarcho-primitivism were primarily an immanent critique,
exploring the aims and methods of civilization in order to show that
they are inconsistent with one another, perhaps it could afford to rely
upon a perspective that is supplied to it by Western science. But
anarcho-primitivism is purporting to tell us how to go outside of
civilization, and the outside that is being posited is totally,
qualitatively other. The fact that this other is being defined, from top
to bottom, by the very institutions that are being called into question
scarcely seems to perturb anarcho-primitivist theorists.
The juxtaposition of uncompromising purism and naiveté that is revealed
in much primitivist writing is often jarring, even shocking. A quote
from Zerzan’s Elements of Refusal is emblematic of the unacknowledged
irony that pervades much of the anarcho-primitivist critique:” In fact,
[primitive] life was lived in a continuous present, (12) underlying the
point that historical time is not inherent in reality, but an imposition
on it.” It does not matter what source that little number 12 is asking
us to consider. After informing the reader that this indemonstrable
assertion is a “fact”, Zerzan duly provides a footnote to prove it! That
the assertion may in some sense be true, I do not wish to contest. The
point is that an entirely unscientific, indeed anti-scientific, stance
is being dressed up in academic attire in order to give the entire
proceeding an air of rigor and methodological legitimacy that can only
seem congruous to the superficial reader. The thesis itself, that time
is the primal cause of alienation, is worth considering, and indeed
Zerzan is a wonderful writer who often says important things. Yet
epistemologically, we are getting into hot water when we simultaneously
challenge the very existence of civilization while accepting its
methodology and its conclusions.
Indeed, the entire primitivist project is saddled with the unfortunate
onus of a purist theory that is riddled with impurities it does not even
seek to address. The primitivist tendency to valorize nature over
culture is naive because it forgets that culture necessarily defines
nature. The definition of nature as anything that is not culture is
always going to be useful to power, because it equates nature with
everything that is already subjugated and offers its opponents the
opportunity to identify themselves with the defeated. This is a suckers
game, and provides the necessary conditions within which an unwittingly
loyal opposition can form around the most ostensibly radical critique.
To completely oppose civilization as it defines itself is to grant it
hegemony over everything it claims as its own. If we wish to destroy
civilization, we should also seek to define it on our terms — which an
anarchist epistemology would seek to provide.
Primitivists have hitched their wagon to a star, and it would behoove
them to look at the trajectory of that star if they want to see where
they are headed. Thirty years ago, anthropologists painted a very
different picture of what primitive life was like; thirty years from
now, the picture is also likely to look different. In that case, the
entire social philosophy of anarcho-primitivism will likewise change.
How can a critique which purports to be so radical allow itself to be
compromised by direct intimacy with the very institutions it claims to
oppose? Unless primitivist theory confronts the question of
epistemology, it will not remain a vital force in anarchism.
What would a truly anarchist epistemology look like? I suspect that an
anarchist epistemology would be an epistemology of desire. By this, I do
not mean that we should seek to completely instrumentalize knowledge;
desire always springs from an idea of what is, and I have no use for an
epistemological stance that says, “what I want to be true, is therefore
true.” I simply mean that, as anarchists, we know what we want; this
does not, cannot, depend on scientific fads and societal whims. While it
is certainly possible that our desires themselves are socially
constructed, to invalidate them because of this possibility would
eviscerate the anarchist critique to the point of irrelevance.
Therefore, I submit that there are basic, bedrock truths without which
anarchism would be unrecognizable. These are not necessarily truths
about the world, but they are truths about anarchism.
All anarchists want to live as freely as possible. This is unequivocally
true; to be an anarchist, it is necessary to have this goal. This is a
foundational truth from which any other anarchist theory has to proceed
in order to be an anarchist theory. This is not to say that it is
necessarily true that freedom is the goal of human existence. Rather,
what I think is evident is the more modest claim that there are some
modes of thinking which can properly be labeled anarchist, and some
which cannot be accurately so-called. Anarchist thinking is, by
definition, primarily concerned with the goal of freedom. Of course,
what this means in practice is somewhat ambiguous, but as a general goal
this is an immutable truth about anarchism.
Secondly, to the extent that anarchy is in any sense green, we want to
live in a manner that is sustainable, both ecologically and socially.
Since the institutions and practices that cause massive ecological
destruction have, until now, also been involved in suppressing human
freedom, this second statement should in no way conflict with the first,
although it is not logically inconceivable that a situation would arise
in which it did. If this were to happen, it is entirely possible that an
anarchist would decide to forgo freedom in favor of sustainability, but
in doing so he would not be acting as an anarchist. In other words, even
if someone does not consider anarchism (which, as I noted earlier, is an
expedient) the most appropriate response to a situation, he should
acknowledge that what he is advocating is not anarchy if it does not
create a situation in which we can live as freely as possible.
Although anarchism values freedom over sustainability, it does not see
the two as conflicting with one another. A free life should be a
sustainable life, because people acting as free individuals are not
involved in institutions which are inherently oppressive as well as
destructive.
The implications of this for anarchist epistemology are as follows: no
matter what sources our information comes from, our goals do not emanate
from those sources or from that information. Therefore, anarchy is not
what Western anthropologists tell us it is. For instance, if
anthropologists suddenly decide that foraging bands were extremely
patriarchal after all, anarchists will not revise their vision of
anarchy to include patriarchy. If something like this happens,
anarcho-primitivists will be forced to either drop the anarcho- prefix,
or drop the primitivist-suffix, because patriarchy is incompatible with
anarchy. We know this, because we know what it is that we want. This is
what I mean by an epistemology of desire. Knowledge without meaning is
simply data, and meaning is knowledge informed by desire. This
definition of meaning is crucial, because it is my contention that any
other definition will lead to authoritarian consequences.
We all rely on various sources to give us information about the world.
An anarchist epistemology does not declare scientific sources invalid a
priori. We should be perfectly willing to use this type of information
as a tool. Yet if anarchy is completely identified with a view of an
epoch in human existence that belongs to one historical phase of Western
science, then anarchism has become an integral part, not just of
civilization, but of one particular phase of civilization thirty years.
This is a serious lapse in anarchist thinking, and it is directly
attributable to a lack of concern with epistemology.
It is difficult not to suspect that, if we allow our desires to be
channeled into a prepackaged scientific picture of utopia, we are buying
another commodity being peddled to us by Western civilization. To
completely identify everything we want with one specific
(pre-)historical epoch is to miss the point of anarchy and succumb to
mere nostalgia; worse, nostalgia for a past that is simply an
abstraction. We want to live our own lives as freely and sustainably as
possible, not to accept some social model that has been concocted by
anthropologists. Whatever the specific sources of our information, an
anarchist critique needs to employ an anarchist epistemology in order to
avoid subordinating its agenda to that of Western science, or to any
other institution.
The guidelines for an anarchist epistemology that I have suggested are
very broad, perhaps even vague. I feel that this is necessary because,
although the process of interpreting knowledge is complex, we should
keep a few general principles in mind when doing so. If I were to give a
specific epistemological theory, it would no longer be an anarchist
epistemology. For anarchists, it is above all the desire for freedom
that allows knowledge to be coherent and empowering.