The Emergence of Hierarchy, Domination and Centralization

The EmergenceofHierarchy,Domination,andCentralisation  Reflectionsonthe WorkofMurray Bookchin

JohnRaven

VersionDate: 15 April2009

Abstract

Thisarticle beganasanattemptto create a précisofBookchin’sremarkable book:The  EcologyofFreedom: The Emergence and Dissolution ofHierarchy However,aswork  progressed,thoughtsonwhatwasmissing fromthe bookbecame more insistent.These  graduallybecame more crystallised and elaborated untiltheybecame whatthe authornow  regardsasone ofthe main contributionsofthe article.These reflectionsmaybe captured by  saying that the explanationand elucidationofthe seeminglyinexorable rise – apparently  sincetime immemorial– ofhierarchy,domination,and centralisation(sothoroughly  documented byBookchin)seemed tocallforapplicationofsocio­cyberneticsPerhapsmost  disturbingly,however,the accuraterepresentationofthose socio­cybernetic forcesseemed,  like the growth,development,and functioning ofother autopoietic systemsthatare  characterised as“organic”, torequire representationofthe life­forceitself.

Overview

The authorofthisarticle originallysetout to summarise,or,better,createa précisof,Murray  Bookchin’sremarkable bookTheEcology of Freedom: TheEmergence and Dissolution of  Hierarchywhichwasre­published in2005 (Bookchin,1991/2005)

To summarise that précis.Manyofthe inhabitantsofmodernsocietyare vaguelyaware ofa  seriousparadoxOnthe one hand,theyhave the feeling thattheyare increasinglyfree. They  have endlesschoiceofmaterialgoodsand services,theyare freetoexpresstheirindividuality  (at leastincertainways)… and there ismuchpublic discussionofthe need to accept some  previouslytaboo formsofdiversity.Onthe other hand,theyexperienceemotionsthatwould  seemtobe bestunderstood asreactionsto constraint.Iftheyare “lucky” theyhave a choice betweenjobstheydo not want orwhich forcethemtomove awayfromtheirfamilyand  friendsorspend long hourstravelling.Theyknow that,iftheydo not acceptthese conditions theywillbe subjected to degrading treatmentat the handsofthe “welfare” services(asare  manyoftheirfellows)Inmanyofthese jobs,theyare forced,despite theirbetterjudgment, to contribute tothe unethicaland destructive activitiesofwhichmodern“civilisations” are so  largelycomposed. Manyknow that ifwe are tosurvive asa specieswe have to radically  change the waywelive … butmost are acutelyaware thattheycannot,inreality,optfora  wayoflife theywould choose. Still lessdotheyhave a chanceto contribute inany  meaningfulwayto bringing about the changesthattheycanseeare sonecessaryinsociety.

Bookchin’smainaimisto help usto understand the sourcesofthisparadoxHence the title: The Ecology of Freedom.

The resultsare disconcerting indeed.

Bookchin beginsbyarguing thathumansocietieswere initiallystructuredorganically While  roleswithinthemwere differentiated, coordination betweenthose roleswasachieved through  manynon­hierarchicalfeedback processes– asisthe case withinanyorganism.This arrangementhasgraduallybeenreplaced byhierarchicalorganisationBookchin,like many  ofus,knowsthat hierarchicalsocialorganisationisgrosslyinefficient.However,and here is something mostofusdon’trealise, the creationofhierarchydependsonthe manufacture of endlesssenselesswork.Thissenselesswork is“needed” to makevisible,legitimise,and  compelparticipationin,hierarchy.However it isseriouslydestructive ofhumanhabitat.If ourspeciesand the planetaswe knowitare tosurvive,itisurgenttore­create some formof organic arrangement.

Unfortunately,moving toward more “organic”arrangementsforthe managementofsocietyis going tobe muchmore difficultthanmost ofthose whohave argued forthe demise of centralised,command and controloriented,organisationsand societieshave inthe past  realised.Thisisbecause the transitionfromorganicto hierarchicalsocietieshasproceeded  inexorablysincetime immemorialdespite endlessprotests and,indeed,actual  demonstrationsofthe viabilityofalternatives provided byacute observers ofsocietyand  inventive thinkers.

Bookchinaccountsforeachstep inthisrelentlessprocessintermsof(i)the constellationof factorsthatcame intoplay inthe course ofeachtransitionand (ii)“self­organising”  processes.

Unfortunately,Bookchinfailsto discussthe network ofsocialforcesthat lie behind the “selforganising” processeshe refersto.AsIseeit,thisismore thanunfortunate because halting  the rise and rise ofcentralised, hierarchical,dominance oriented societies– and thusenabling  ourspeciesand the planetaswe knowit to survive – seemsto me to depend preciselyon  understanding,and intervening in,those processes.

And so itbecomesimperative tothink aboutthemmore carefully.

AsIreflected onwhatthismightinvolve, Ifirstnotedthat the termautopoieticwould be  betterthan“self­organising” because it impliesthat wehaveto payseriousattentiontothe  self­producing,self­extending,componentsofthe process

But then,thinking further about the issue, itdawned onme thateventhisformulationis inadequate.The processwe are concerned withhere alsohasa remarkable self­elaborating capacity.Toallintendsand purposesthisdestructive, compelling,shiftfromorganic to  hierarchicalorganisationitself hasfeaturescharacteristic oforganic processes It is continuouslyself­extending and self­elaborating.

Organic processesare,ofcourse,those thatdefine life itself

It isthisorganic – life – processwhichhasovercome entropy– thatistosay,itisthisprocess whichhasovercome the tendency,codified inthe second law ofthermodynamics,for organisationto degenerate into chaos.

According tothe lawsofphysicslife should never have happened.

Butwhat ifthe tendencyto hierarchical,centralised,command­and­controlorganised, societieshasalso,literally,acquired a “life ofitsown”?

Isthisorganic processgoing toovercome the organic processwhichcreated a world­with­life  and inthe end allow the lawsofphysicstotriumph?

So,to conclude,the authorofthisarticle findshimselfarguing that,ifwe are to haltthe  processdriving ourspeciestoward extinction,itwillbe necessarynot merelytomap,and  find waysofintervening in,the networksofinvisible socialforceswhichgovernthe  operationofsociety– that istosayto map the socio­cybernetic forcesatwork –butto  include withinthose mapsrepresentationsofthe life forceitself.

INTRODUCTION

Thisarticle started life asanattemptto write a précisofBookchin’sEcologyofFreedom:  The Emergence and Dissolution ofHierarchy(1991/2005)ina formwhichwould makethe  issuesavailable fordiscussiononwhatwehoped would become an interactive website at  wwweyeonsocietycouk

However,myreflectionsonwhatwassaid insomesectionsofthatbookacquired a life of theirown– becoming ever more elaborateand thereforetaking up more and more spacein  thisarticle.

Inthe end,it hasbecome necessaryto divide the article intotwo Parts.

Part Isummarisesa number oftheoreticalreflectionswhichwere prompted bysome ofthe  materialBookchinpresents.AsIseeit,suchtheoreticalformulationsare crucialto finding  waysofunderstanding and intervening inthe inexorable socialprocessesthatBookchinhas sothoroughlydocumented and showntobe so important fromthe pointofview ofheading  ourspeciestowardextinction.It isthese processeswhich are depriving usof the “freedom”  to act onthe observationsthat so many of ushavemade in the course of ourday­to­day lives Yet,aswecome slowlyto understand them,itemergesthat the actionswe musttakeare not  atallthose which“commonsense”would suggest

Part IIpresentsa précis– oftenin hisownwords–ofmanyofBookchin’smore than  illuminating observationsHere particular attention ispaid to summarising the documentation  he hasprovided forthe terrifying continuity– since time immemorial infact,and despite  endlessprotests–inthe elaborationofthe self­destructive socialarrangementswhichare  currentlysoconspicuouslyheading ourspeciestoward extinctionatanexponentially  increasing rate.

PARTI

Mapping the SocialForcesWhich Lie Behind

ourSeemingly Inexorable Plunge To Extinction

Bookchin’stheisbeginsbyarguing thathumansocietieswere initiallystructuredorganically. Roleswithin themweredifferentiated and complementary,asarethe rolesofthe cells comprising ananimalbody.Coordinationwasachieved throughmanynon­hierarchical  feedback processes– asisalso the case within any organism

Suchanarrangement isanything but“primitive”,and referring to earlysocietiesinthis disparaging way beliesourownpredispositiontothink inwayswhich blind usto the  importanceofcertainaspectsofreality.We failto seewhat itisofvalue inother waysof doing thingsWorse, formanypeople, the verynotionthatorganisationsmightbe arranged  organicallyis,literally,unthinkable.

Incontrast,the typesofsocialorganisationthathave emerged over the millennia are perhaps best characterised ashierarchical.Theyhave centralised, dominance,and command­andcontroloriented structures.

Ashasbeenrepeatedlyobserved throughout history,these societiesare deeplydestructive  bothofthe average qualityoflife ofthose wholive inthem,and,much more importantly, theirhabitats.The destructionofhabitat hasenormousimplicationsfortheirfuture.Thishas never been more serious(normore widelyrecognised) than itistoday

But what ismostdisturbinglydocumented byBookchin isthat the trend fromorganic to  hierarchicalsocietieshaspersisted inexorablydespite the observationsofacute observersof societyand numerousexperimentsdemonstrating the viabilityofalternative waysofdoing  things.(The latterhaveincluded, notonlywithin­organisationaldemonstrations,butalsothe  remarkable Greek enactmentofparticipative democracy *,whichwas,apparently,deliberately  introduced tostemthe rise ofhierarchicalcommand­and­controloriented society.)

It followsthatthe chancesofreversing thistrend – and thusincreasing ourchancesof surviving asa species– are remoteindeed.

Forthisreason,iffornone other,itisvitalto tryto understand the reasonsforthis,apparently  unstoppable,trend.

Bookchin himselfaccountsforeachtransition(eachofwhichitselfoftentookthousandsof years)insocialorganisation intermsof(i)the constellationofhistoricalfactorsthat came  intoplayat the time and (ii)“self­organising” processes.

Hisdetailed accountsofthe constellationsofhistoricalhappeningsand arrangementsthat  evolved inthe course ofeachtransitionare reminiscentofthose ofBraudel(e.g.,1993)

However,one ofthe thingshisaccountfailsto explainiswhy,ateachand everystage(witha  fewexceptionsto whichBookchingoesout ofhiswayto draw attention,butwhichhe might  usefullyhave discussed inmore detail 1)these developmentsled progressivelytothe  emergenceofhierarchy,division,regulation,and command and control.

*Bookchinaccountofthisissummarisedbelow

Hedoes,however,and thisisveryimportant,drawattentionto a seriesofparallelprocesses whichhave contributed to thisevolution.He notes,forexample,that the elaborationofthese  hierarchicalstructuresisheavilydependentonthe manufacture ofendlesssenselesswork * whichcontributeslittle toqualityoflife †butdoeslegitimise, give a meaning to,render  conspicuous,and compelparticipationin,the hierarchicaland destructive activitiesofsociety  and compliancewiththe demandsand “needs” ofdominators

Contrarytothe economystic Marxistposition,the satisfactionofbasic humanneedsand the  enhancementofqualityoflife doesnotrequire ordepend onthisworkStilllessdoesit  depend onthe associated hierarchicaland dominance­oriented arrangements.The typical  economystic explanationisback to front 3The “needs” have beencreated to legitimise the  manufacture ofwork and the socio­technicalorganisationofthatwork legitimisesa social  hierarchywhichsatisfiesthe needsofanelite whilstsubjecting,and compelling the active  participationof,the massesTo decline to contribute to the prescribed (destructive) social  activitiesbecomestantamountto forfeiting anyclaimtoalivelihood.

It followsfromthese observationsthatwhatappeartobe physicaland economic problems (and thusapparentlyto be addressed via the physicaland biologicalsciencesand economics) are,inreality,by­productsofsocialorganisationand thustobe addressed bydeveloping a  betterunderstanding of,and finding waysofharnessing and intervening in,the socialforces whichpersistently induceustocreate more senselessand destructive work.

So,howtounderstand these forces?

Apassing referencetosome poorlyunderstood “self­organising” – oreven “autopoietic”–  processseemsaltogether inadequate.

Justasitisnecessaryforbiologiststo understand the mechanismsand feedback loopsthat  controlthe developmentand functioning oforganisms,soitnecessaryto understand and map  the networks ofsocialforcesand processeswhichcontrolthe operationofsocialsystems.

It isthe jobofsocio­cybernetriciansto map suchnetworksofforces

Cyberneticsisthe studyofthe guidance, control,and feedback processesthatregulate the  behaviourofanimalsand machines….and the designofbetter ones.(One hasto say  “animals” because, otherwise, people think cyberneticsissolelyconcerned withthe designof controlsystemsformachines,quintessentiallymissiles.)Itfollowsthatsocio cybernetics involvesstudying and mapping the invisible social forceswhichcontribute to the  reproductionand,more importantly,continuousdevelopment,orproduction(asdistinctfrom

*Mostwork in modernsocietyissenselessObviousexamplesincludethecadreofofficialsprovidingguidance, and implementingpenalprocesses,supposedlyto“help”(ieforce) peoplefillup formstoobtainjobswhich  donot,and shouldnotexist,transportingmilkforthousandsofmilestocentraliseddistribution centresand  back again,or transportingbottled water backwardsandforwardsacrossEuropeHowever,asshownin  Endnote2,mostwork in modern societyconsistsin themanufacture,marketing,and distribution ofjunk  foods,junk toys,junk defencesystems,junk insurance,junk education,andjunk research.

†AuthorssuchasLane(1991)and Marksetal.(2006)haveclearlydemonstrated thatmuch higher qualityof  lifethan mostofusenjoytodaycan beachieved withmuchlowerlevelsofconsumption.Thisisbecausethe materialisticpossessionsand commercialserviceswework sohard toproduceenhancequalityoflifehardlyat all.Inreality,qualityoflifedependson suchthingsasnetworksoffriendsandsecurityforthefuturewhich  cannotbecommoditised andboughtandsold.SeeRaven(1995) forafuller discussion.

mere reproduction)ofthe autopoietic systemsthatgovernthe operationofsociety and the  designofbetterones.

Unfortunately,designating suchsystemsas“self­organising” oftenseemsto be regarded as sufficient to absolve authorsfromresponsibilityforidentifying the processesatwork.Worse, the termfailsto drawattentiontoimportantfeaturesofthe systemsbeing described.

The term“autopoietic”isbetterbecause it underlinesthe self­producing,self­extending, rather thanmerelyreproducing,characteristicsofthese systems

Buteventhisdesignationisinadequate because the systemshave remarkable self­elaborating characteristics

The mostwidespread examplesofsystemswithself­producing (asdistinctfrom“externally  produced” …asina factory),self­reproducing,and self­elaborating characteristicsare  animalsand plants… actuallyorganic systemsofany form.(Indeed the term“organic”is definedbyreferenceto systemshaving these characteristics.)

Now to the punchline. To allintendsand purposes,the destructive drift from“organic”to  hierarchically­organised socialinstitutionalframeworkshasmany,if not all, of thedefining  featuresofanorganic process

Organic processesare,ofcourse,those thatdefine life itself.

Now,it isthisorganic – life – processwhichhasovercome entropy– thatistosay,itisthis processwhichhasovercome the tendency,codified inthe second lawofthermodynamics,for organisationto degenerate into chaos.

According tothe lawsofphysicslife should never have happened 4,5

Atthispoint Ihad a further disturbing thoughtWhat ifthisorganic process– thisplunge  towarddestructive,centralised, command and controlorganisations– isgoing to overcome  the organic processwhichcreated ourworld­with­life inthe firstplace and thus,inthe end, contribute tothe enactionofthe lawsofphysics

But,toreturntothe maintheme ofthisPart ofourarticle: How arewetomap the sociocybernetic forcesand feedback loopsthat contribute to the autopoietic/organic processes whichhead ustoward dominance,hierarchy,and self­destruction?

Examplesofthe kind ofthing one mighthave inmind canbe found inMorgan(1986),Raven  (1995)and Raven &Navrotsky(2001)orbyactivating the following linksto diagramsinour “eyeonsociety” website:  http://www.eyeonsociety.co.uk/resources/Figure%201%20(formerly%2023.1)%20rev.pdf http://www.eyeonsocietycouk/resources/diagram%2020.6.pdf http://www.eyeonsociety.co.uk/resources/flpadwc.pdf

Unfortunately,besidesthe problemsdiscussed byRaven&Navrotsky,ithassincebecome  more and more apparent(seee.g.Raven2009)that westillhave a long waytogo inbringing  aboutthe kind oftransformationinthe conceptofsocialforcesthatNewtoneffected in  relationtophysicalforce6.Furthermore, ithasalso become apparentthat whatwethought

wasa solutiontothe questionofhow toharnessthe socialforcesdriving downthe qualityof education(Diagram20.5 asa “solution” to the problemposed byDiagram20.4 in myNew Wealth of Nations *)wasnot,inreality,anexample fromthe socio­cybernetic field paralleling  a diagramshowing how toharnessthe forcesacting ona sailing boat inordertodrive the  boatintothe wind instead ofallowing itto crashthe boat againstthe rocks.

And now,itseems,ourtask hasbecome significantlymore complicated because,it appears, weneed to include representationsofthe life forceitself.Thisreallybringsusup againstthe  frontiersofsciencebecause, sofar asIknow,noone hascome anywhere nearunderstanding  theproductive/elaboratingcapacitiesofthe organic.

To conclude thispartofourarticle, then,itseemsto follow fromBookchin’swork(although  itisnotone ofthe thingshe advocates)thatthe task ofhalting ourseeminglyinexorable slide  towardself­destructionasa speciesis,among other things,criticallydependent on  developing anunderstanding ofthe more thanautopoietic processhe documents– and then  finding waysofintervening inthatprocess.Yetthe task ofmapping these forcesturnsout to  be evenmore difficultthanmightotherwise have beenrealised.Unfortunately,unlesswedo  so,there seemstobe everyreasonto believe thatthe seeminglyorganic evolutionof hierarchicalsocietywilldestroylife onthe planet,thusleading tothe entropypredictable  fromphysics.

PARTII

A PrécisofThe Ecology ofFreedom

Bookchin’sownclaimtobe offering usnewwaysofthinking aboutthingswhichwillhelp us to move forward issummed up ina statement thatitgraduallyoccurred to himthatthe  emergenceofhierarchywasmore fundamentalthan“class”,domination more fundamental  than“exploitation”, freedommore fundamentalthanjustice,and thatthe designand creation  ofliberatoryinstitutionsmore importantthanthe abolitionofthe state.

SomeFundamental Reorganisations ofourThoughtways

(i) Ourperception of dominationinnature isa projection ofourpreoccupation with  domination in society.

Bookchinargues,naydemonstrates,that ourperceptionofdominationinnature ...the  dominationofone speciesover another … and ourview ofmankind’srightfuldomination overnature areprojectionsofourownpreoccupationwithdominationwithinourownspecies rather thanthe reverse.

(ii)Ourperception ofpreliterate societiesasprimitive and inneed oforganisation isa  projection of ourconcern with hierarchyand material economics.It behovesusto think of  them as “organic”.

There are manyreasonswhythisshiftinterminologyisimportant.

*Thesetwodiagramscanbeobtained directlybyclickingonthefollowing links: http://www.eyeonsociety.co.uk/resources/Figure%203%20(formerly%20Diagram%2020.5).pdf  http://wwweyeonsocietycouk/resources/Figure%201%20(formerly%2023.1)%20revpdf

First,aswehave seen,the term“organic”impliesunity and,increasingly,unitythrough  differentiation.Thusthe organsofthe bodyare not hierarchicallyorganised.Some are not  more important thanothers.So one hasequalityofunequals.The same wastrue inorganic  societiesFunctionswere differentiated and complementaryAlthoughthe conceptof “equality” did notexist,there was,ineffect,equalityofunequals– and thisfactwas recognised inprescriptionsfor,e.g.,arighttoanirreducible minimumoffood.

Equalityofunequals(equityin diversity)contrastsdramaticallywiththe manufacture of dramatic inequality betweenpeople whoare essentiallyequalsinmodernsocietiesWhile  insisting – legallyand otherwise – that we ignore importantdifferencesbetweenpeople (and  treat themin“the same”way),modernsocietiesfocuson,and amplify,individualdifferences ina single area (e.g.“generalcognitive ability”) and use thistolegitimise unconscionable, hierarchically­organised differencesintreatment.These norm­referenced differencesrender  hierarchyvisible and lead people toscramble toclimbontothe nextrung onthe ladderThe  degrading and de­humanising treatmentsvisiblyheaped onthe “lessable”(withthe ardent  collaborationofthe slightly“more able”)forceeveryone,eventhose whodon’twantto do  so,tocollaborateinthe scramble ….viz. to participate inthe unethicalactivitiesofwhich  workin modern“civilisation” solargelyconsists(seeEndnote2).There isvirtuallynoway  ofgaining recognitionorrewardforother talentsand contributions,stilllessanywayof pursuing anindividuallysatisfying lifestyle without suchsuperhumaneffortasto undermine  the verysatisfactionsone hoped to achieve.

The so­called “educational” systemplaysa vitalrole inthisprocess.Ihave introduced the  words“so­called” and putthe word educational ininverted commassincethe word  “education” comesfromthe Latinroot“educere”, whichmeans“to draw out”… and thus enjoinsteacherstodrawout – viz. identifyand develop –thediversetalentsoftheirpupils. Instead of“drawing out” these diverse talentsofpupils,ourschoolsfirstrender invisible the  huge diversity(inequality)oftalentsavailable,therebyreducing everyone (bynothing less thanlegalmandate) to equalsAnd then,throughhighlycentralised and authoritariansocietal  management arrangements,manufacture, amplify,and imposeinequalityalong linesthat  have little predictive significance exceptforthe allocationofpositionand status

Butthere isanother,and veryimportant,sense inwhichprimordialsocietieswere organic. It  iseasytosaythattheirinhabitantsviewed themselvesasinnature rather thanoveritBut  whatthismeansmostlyeludesreaders.According to Bookchin,the ritualsoforganic  societieswere not,onthe whole, concerned withmanipulating ordominating nature.Rather  theysoughttopromote the fertilityand developmentoffood,animals,and theirhabitatsin  sucha wayasto benefitthe animalsaswellashumanbeings.Inother wordsthe overall  processwas,ineffect,“seen” asa symbiotic activitywhichinvolvedparticipation inthe  overallenvironmentand the cyclesofnature. Throughthese ritualspeoplefacilitated the  workingsofthe cosmic order Butitwasnotaone­wayflow.Nature wasnot“a habitat” – it  wasaparticipantthat advised the communitywith itsomens,secured itwithcamouflage,and  lefttelltale messages.It nourished the communitywitha largesse ofplantsand animals. Nature wasno silentworld.Insucha context,phraseslike “stewardship ofnature”havea  hollow ring – a ring stemming fromthe implicit assumptionthatthe onlymeaningfulwayto  think aboutthingsisintermsofhierarchyand dominance.

The socialistic conceptofcommunalpropertyislikewise imbued withthe notionof hierarchy,rights,and ownership.Itmirrorsthe conceptofprivate propertyIncontrast,the  termusufructrefersto the freedomofindividualsina communitytoappropriate resources

merelybyvirtue ofthe factthat theyare using themSuchresourcesbelong tothe user as long as– butonlyaslong as– theyare using them.There isnoassumed reciprococity, exchange,ormutualaid.Allsuchoptionsassume accountsand balancesheetsthat reflect a  meanspirited proclivityforacquisitioncharacteristic ofmodernsociety acquisitionof goodsthat have beensociallydefined asnecessitiesand luxuriesand competitionforwhich  therebycompelssuchparticipationina competitive, hierarchical,societythatitisimpossible  to think thathumanbeingscould be otherwise motivated.

Labelling organic societiesas“primitive”embodiesthe implicitassumptionthat ourown  socialorganisations– viz. centralised, command and controloriented,societiesthat trap most  people intoa mechanical,dehumanised, wayoflife – are “more advanced”,better,than  theirs

(iii)The way we conceptualise“Nature”.

Allthese tendenciescharacterise ourview of“nature”.We tend tothink ofNature asbeing  hierarchicallyorganised, domination­oriented (ruled bytoothand claw),competitive, and  “stingy” – unwilling to give up itsbounty: Inreality,itisorganised organicallywith  numerousnichesproviding support fora huge diversityofsymbioticallyorganised (mutually  supportive) life forms.Asforbeing stingyand unwilling togive up itsbounty,itiswe who  have created endlesssenseless“needs” … largely,ina kind ofcircular process,to create the  jealousiesand differentialsrequired tosupport the notionofhierarchyand the motivationto  compete and conquer.Thisnot onlycreatesthe illusionofstinginess,it alsolegitimisesthe  need to orchestrate dominance­based arrangementstocreate the wherewithalto satisfythem

(iv)The pervasivenessofhierarchical thinking:thenon­exclusivenessofmindand reason.

Notionsofhierarchypermeate ourthoughtways.Indeed,we see thinking itselfassomehow  inherentinmind asdistinctfromsomething characteristic ofthe whole bodyand the wider  universe thatliesbehind it.Socialdominanceissupportedbynotionsofthe superiorityof intellectualwork over physicalwork.Socialorganisationissupportedbyglorificationof intellectualexperienceover sensuousnessWork at the senselessactivitiesthat dominate  modern“civilisation” isgivenprecedenceover pleasure … indeed the enjoymentofsensuous pleasure isreserved forthose whodonot “have”to work. Faithinauthoritariandictat  pervadesourthinking about morality,ethics,spiritualmatters, the use oflanguage,whatmay  be discussed, how one istoestablish “truth”, and evenhow one isto speak,write, and spell. Ahierarchicalmentalityjustifiestoil,guilt,and sacrifice byinferiorsand the indulgent  gratificationofvirtuallyeverysocialcapriceby “superiors”.Moralcodesare overwhelmingly  justified byreferencetoauthority,whereasethicaldecisionsare ideallyguided byreason

Bookchinarguesthatobjective socialstructure isparalleled bya psychic structurewhich it is as,ormore,difficultto change.

“Inmyview,reasonexistsinnature asthe self­organising attributesofsubstance;itisthe  latentsubjectivityin the inorganic and organic levelsofrealitythatrevealaninherentstriving  forconsciousness.” (Note the attributionofkeyfeaturesofthe organic to supposedly  inorganic.Notehowthe emergenceoflife itselfisto understoodasanemergent,selforganising,organic process… or,rather,howthe observationoforganic self­organising  processesisviewed asthe basisfordistinguishing the organic fromthe inorganic,the alive  fromthe dead … butwithout either thinking about the nature ofthe so­called self­organising

processorcarefullyexamining the reasonsforclassifying thingsasinorganic.Note the  attributionofmind and reason– and therefore life itself– to the inorganic.)

(v) The economystic account of recent history.

The shiftfromthe earliesthorticulturalsocietiesto the culturesofdomination,oppression, and legalised massmurder and genocide thatwe call“civilisation” occurred veryunevenly, and over millennia. Assome “developed”faster,theyimposed theirheavenlyand earthly  institutionsonothersbyforceBut,ingeneral,traditionalformswere assimilated tonew  ends,withold relationshipsbeing used fornew purposes.Inmanycases,earlysocialforms lingered onformillennia.

The mostsignificantchangeswere inmindset.The figuresofmythologyremained,butwere  imbued withnewmeaning.Itwasnot so muchthe socialrole ofwomenthatchanged asthe  viewtheyheld ofthemselves.The socialdivisionoflabouracquired anincreasingly  hierarchicalform.Craftsmencarved out superiorityover cultivator;thinker over worker. Diversitywasrecastinlinearformand validated byallthe resourcesofreligion,morality, and philosophy.

The classical,notjustMarxist,explanationofthis“development” runsasfollows: Command  structureswerenecessarytomanagethe divisionoflabourthatwasrequired to subjugate  nature.The agriculturalsurplusessoachieved sustained urbanised intellectualeliteswhose  task itwastoadminister societyand create the knowledgethatbecame science.An  egalitariandivisionofthe surpluseswould merelyhave resulted inanequalityofpoverty  whichwould have precluded administrative and scientific advance.Toresolve the problemof naturalscarcity,humanbeingshad to become mere technicians.People became instruments ofproduction,justlike the toolsand machinestheycreated.Theybecame subjecttothe same  formsofcoordination,rationalisation,and controlthat societyimposed onnature and  inanimate technicalinstrumentsSelf­repressionand social­repressionformed the  indispensable counterpointto personal­emancipationand social­emancipation.

Logicalthoughthisaccountseems,itbegsdisturbing questions: Were allthese thingsreally  asinevitable astheyappear?Or isthe accountmerelysome kind ofpost­hoc rationalisation,a  networkofmyths(possiblygenerated bythe elite, butcertainlypromoted bythem),to justify  the extantsituation?Isnature reallyasparsimoniousasitismadeto appear?Doeseffective  public administration– societalorganisation– and the developmentofscientific technics reallydepend ona leisured ruling class… orhasthisclasssimplyplundered the fruitsof developing technicsand legitimised itbypromulgating thismythology? *Did the domination  ofnature reallyrequire the dominationofmanbyman,oristhe veryideaofthe need to  dominate nature a projectionofemerging preoccupationwithdominationwithinhuman  society?Did dominationwithinhumansocietyforeclose other possibilities;other waysin  whichhumankind could interactwithnature?

It isquite possible that pervasive materialistic, economystic,preoccupations,combined with  authorities’need formythstolegitimise theirdominating position,makeitimpossible to

*Bookchinneverdiscussestherecursiveprocesswherebysuch legitimising mythsaregenerated thushelping to  promotethedevelopmentconcerned andthen howthedevelopmentleadstothecreation ofmorelegitimising  mythsHowarethesemythsgenerated,selected,andpromoted?Howcanonefacilitatethedevelopmentof  alternativethoughtways?AlthoughBookchin failstodiscussthisprocess,itseemstobesomethingthatitis essentialtounderstand.

formulate,eventhink about orenvisage,other accountsofhistoryIfso,theyalsopreventus seeing the presentdifferentlyand creating alternative scenariosforthe future.Theyprevent  usseeing the need for,and possibilityof,fundamentalchangesinthe waywe live and the  waywethink about relationshipsIfthe wantsand desireswe feelwe need tosatisfywere  created,notbynature butbyhumankind (inorder to legitimise and reinforcea hierarchical  socialstructure characterised bydominance),other possible scenariosforthe future openup.

The Emergence ofDomination andHierarchy

Bookchinarguesthatthe originsofhierarchyand the mythologyneeded to supportitlie,not  inthe economic, butinthe socialrealmDifferentiationofrolesisentirelycompatible with  organic society

Heargues(althoughhe providesnoevidenceto support hisargument)that old agewasthe  sourceofone ofthe problemsthatled to the emergence ofhierarchy.Old ageisa time of dependencyrather thancontribution.How to secure continued welfare?Answer: byforming  a pressure group ofelders and generating a mythologytolegitimise it.Theirneed forsocial  power,and hierarchicalpower at that,isa function oftheirdeclining biologicalpower. Claiming wisdomfacilitated a claimto magicalpower: the powertointervene inextra­human  processesonbehalfofthe tribe and the powertoorchestrate socialritualstothe same end. Thusthe elders/shamenfirstcrystalliseprofessionalpower professionalpower linked to  politicalpower,linked, inturn,to the manipulation offear

“Incipient,potentiallyhierarchical,elites graduallyevolve,eachphaseoftheirevolutionshading  intothesucceedingone,untilthefirstfirmshootsofhierarchyemergeandeventuallymature Theirgrowthis unevenandintermixedTheelders andshamans relyoneachotherandthen  competewitheachotherforsocialprivileges,manyofwhichareattemptstoachievethepersonal  securityconferredbyacertainmeasureofinfluenceBothgroups enterintoalliances withan  emergingwarriorcasteofyoungmen,finallytoformthebeginnings ofaquasi­political  communityandanincipient StateTheirprivileges andpowers onlythenbecomegeneralisedinto  institutions that trytoexercisecommandoversocietyas awhole”

And so onto institutionalised control

Contractualrelations– or,more properly,the “treaties” and “oaths” thatgive specifiable  formstocommunitylife – initiallyserved humanitywellButthe more demanding the  environmentbecame, the more preliterate peopleshad to explicate the waysinwhichthey  were responsible foreachother and how theymustdealwithexogenousfactors– particularly  nearbycommunities– that impinged onthemSexual,kinship,reciprocal,federative, and  civilareasofcommunitylife had to acquire greater structure.The need toformalise and  structurewasreinforced byindividualswhofeltthattheycarried heavier burdensand  responsibilitiesthanthe restofthe community.These individualsincluded the nascent  “oppressed”(oftenwomen)and those we mightregard asthe nascent “privileged”.

The earlypriesthoodemerged froma reworking ofshamanism.Byfreeing itselffromthe  socialvulnerabilitiesofthe shaman,whose bodyconstituted amere vesselforspirits,the  priestlycorporationacquired the role ofa cosmic brokeragefirmbetweenhumanityand its increasinglyanthropomorphic deities– deitiesnolonger tobe confused withthe nature spirits that peopled the environmentoforganic societyTheologybegantogainascendancyover  divination.Seeminglyrationalaccountsofthe origins,workings,and destinyofthe cosmos–  ladenwithanepistemologyofrule –tended toreplace magic. Byemphasizing the “guilt” of

the human“wrongdoer” and the “displeasure”ofthe deities,the priestlycorporationcould  acquire animmunitytofailure thatthe shamanhadalwayslacked.The technicalfailuresof the shaman,whichtypicallyrendered hissocialstatusinsecure,could be reinterpretedbythe  emerging priesthood asevidence ofthe moralfailure ofthe communityitselfDrought, diseases,floods,locustinfestations,and defeatsinwarfare –tocite the Biblicalafflictionsof ancienthumanity– were reinterpreted asthe retributionofwrathfuldeitiesforcommunal  wrong­doing,notmerelyasthe dark workofmalevolentspirits.Technicalfailure,ineffect, wasshifted fromthe priestlycorporationtoa fallenhumanitythathad to atone foritsmoral  frailtiesAnd onlypriestlysupplications,visiblyreinforced bygeneroussacrificesinthe form  ofgoodsand services,could redeemhumanity,temper the punitive actionsofthe deities,and  restore the earlier harmonythatexisted betweenhumanityand itsgodsIntime,sacrificeand  supplicationbecame a constanteffort inwhichneither the communitynoritspriestly  corporationcould relent.Whenthiseffortwasinstitutionalised to the extentthatthe episodic  became chronic, itcreated the earlytheocraciesthat gohand­in­hand withearlycities,whose  fociwere alwaysthe temple, itspriestlyquarters,itsstorehouses,craftshops,and the  dwellingsofitsartisansand bureaucracies.Urbanlife beganwithanaltar,not simplya  marketplace,and probablywithwallsthatwere meanttodifferentiate sacred space fromthe  natural,not simplyasdefensive palisades.

Like the priestlycorporation,the clanwastransformed intoaneconomic corporation. Community,onceconceived asthe vitalactivityofcommunizing,became the sourceof passive communallabour,a mere instrumentofproductionCommunaltraitswere valued  insofar astheylentthemselvestotechnicalcoordination,exploitation,and rationalization– a  veryancientcommentaryonthe exploitative nature ofa communismstructured around  hierarchy.Henceclansociety,far frombeing initiallyeffaced, wasused againstitselfto  produceawealthofmaterialobjects.The priestlycorporation,ineffect,had become a clan  unto itselfthatraised itselfabove allother clans.It had become something quite new: aclass.

Accumulated wealth,now conceived asthe sumofhumanity’smaterialsacrificestothe  deities,wasdivested ofthe demonic traitsthat organic societyhad imputed to treasure.The  wealthytemplesthatemerged inboththe Old World and the New are testimonyto a  sacralisationofaccumulated wealth;later,ofbootyasthe rewardofvalour;and finally, tribute asthe resultofpoliticalsovereignty.Gifts,whichoncesymbolised alliancebetween  people inmutualsupportsystems,were now transformed into tithesand taxesfor supernaturaland politicalsecurity.Thissteadyreworking ofthe communalclansintolabour forces,ofcommunallandsintoproprietarysacerdotalestates,ofconciliatorymythsinto  repressive religiousdramas,ofkinship responsibilitiesintoclassinterests,ofhierarchical  command intoclassexploitation– allwere toappear more like shiftsofemphasisin  traditionalsystemsofrightrather thanmarked ruptureswithhallowed customsLeaving the  catastrophic effectsofinvasionsaside, primordialsocietyseemsto havebeenseduced into  the newsocialdispositionofclasssocietywithoutclearlydeparting fromthe outlinesof organic society

Thathallowed processcalled Reason,ofgeneralizationand classification,appears veryearly  inaninvoluted and contradictoryform: thefictivemanipulationofnature beginswiththereal manipulationofhumanity.Althoughthe shaman’seffortsto give greater coherencetothe  world willbecome socialpower that confersuponhumanitygreater controlover the external  world,the shamanand,more precisely,hissuccessor–the priest – initiallydividesthisworld  to manipulate itIneither case, earlyhunter­gatherers projected the socialstructureofsecular

powerontothe supernaturaljustasother groupsdo:later religionsmerelyreflectthe then  contemporarysocialstructures.

Associetyslowlydeveloped towardhierarchyand thenintoclassstructures,sotoo did the  deities.Ina hierarchicalsocietystillsaturatedwith matricentric traditions,the foremostdeity  isthe Mother Goddess,whopersonifiesfertilityand soil,the cojoined domainsofsexuality  and horticulture. Ina well­entrenched patricentric society– one thatintroducesthe male, his beasts,and the plow into foodcultivation– the Mother Goddessacquiresa male consort,to  whomshe graduallyyieldsher eminence aspatriarchybecomesprevalentThisprocess continued acrossthe threshold of“civilization” into urbansocietiesuntilthe socializationof the deitiesled topoliticaltheogoniesIfa communityconferred inassemblies,sotoodid the  deities;ifthe impactofwar onprimitive urbandemocraciesled to the establishmentofa  supreme ruler,a supreme deityalsotended to emerge.Aslong asthe world wasunder the  swayofshamanistic and,more significantly,priestlymediation,ittended toremain  embedded ina religiousmatrix.Infact,itcanneverfreeitselffromthe mythopoeic and  religiousaslong ashumandominateshuman.Socialdivisionsare obscured bymythand  mythology;eventhe warrior­chieftaintried to validate hissocialstatusbybecoming a priest  ora deity.Authoritariansocialforcesare madetoappear asnaturalforces,like the deities that personifyorseemtomanipulate them

The Emergence ofthe Stateby Forceand theRole of MentalTransformation

The state’scapacitytorule bybrute forcehasalwaysbeenlimited. The mythofa purely  coercive,omnipresent,State isa fictionthathasserved the state machineryalltoo wellIt has done thisbycreating inthe oppressed a sense ofawe and powerlessnesswhichendsinsocial  quietism.Withoutahighdegree ofcooperationfromeventhe mostvictimised classesof society(suchaschattelslavesand serfs)itsauthoritywould eventuallydissipate.

Inseeking anexplanationofhow the State emerged one has,therefore,above all,to explain  how thissubjective, mentalised, view ofthe world graduallyevolved.

Inseeking thisitisimportant to bearinmind thatthere has,inreality,beenan immense  varietyofstate formsthathavebeensubjectto varying amountsofpublic control.These have  included the earlySumerianstate,inwhichthe militaryoverlordswere repeatedlychecked by  popular assemblies;the Aztecstate,whichwasfaced witha tug­of­warbetweenthecapulli and the nobility,the Hebrew monarchies,whichwere repeatedlyunsettled byprophetswho  invoked the democratic customsofthe “Bedouincompact”, and the Athenianstate, institutionallyrootedindirectdemocracy.

How hasitcome about thatthese have beeneliminated and the modernstate,withits pervasive invasionofcommunitylife, itsmassmedia,itshighlysophisticated surveillance systems,and itsauthorityto supervise almosteveryaspectofpersonallife hascome into  being?

To getfromstatelesssocietiesto the modernstatea whole network ofdevelopmentswere  required.Modernstatescould onlyemerge after traditionalsociety’scustomsand sensibilities had beensothoroughlyreworked to accord withdominationthathumanitylostallsense of contactwiththe organic societyfromwhichitoriginated.

One importantcomponentinthistransitionisincreased bureaucratisationBut,asisusualin  socialsystems,there isa recursive cycle wherebybureaucratizationpromotesthe anonymity  and powerofelitesand these promotethe growthofbureaucracy.More thanlikely,bothare  promoted bya network ofsocialforcesthathasyet tobe mapped and madeexplicit

Bureaucratic relationships,unlike those that preceded them,are notoriouslyrigid,sclerotic,  and intentionallydivested ofallpersonality.Theytend to be self­perpetuating and selfexpansive.Asmere instrumentsofrule, bureaucratic structuresare quintessentially  hierarchical;indeed, theyare the politicalexpressionofobjective power,ofpower that  “merely” happensto be executed bypeople who,asbureaucrats,are totallydivested of personalityand uniquenessAccordingly,in manyareasofthe modernworld,suchpeople  have beenturned almostliterally intoa State technology,one inwhicheachbureaucratis interchangeable withanother and,indue course,withmechanicaldevices.

Greek Social Philosophyand Governance

Bookchinclaimsthatthe Greekswere wellaware ofthe dangersofbureaucracyand  specificallysetout toguardagainstit.

Hisaccountofhow theydid thisisilluminating initself,but itisalsovaluable inillustrating, first,abasisfromwhichpublic administrationcould have developed ina verydifferent  directiontothat inwhichithasinfactevolved, second,the immense demandsthatsucha  systemplacesonthe citizen,and,third,the wayinwhichphilosophers,while ostensibly  promoting freedomand participation,end up legitimising hierarchy,centralisation,and  control.

According toBookchin,forsome reasonthatisnot madeexplicit,the Greeks“needed”a  “rational” philosophicalframework tosupport hierarchy(viz.the dominanceofcitizensover  women,freedmen,and slaves)The problemwasthat,while theirgeneralphilosophy  embraced participatorydemocracy,onlya subgroup ofthe population– although, admittedly,a remarkable cross­sectionofthatgroup – wasinvolved.The vastmajority–  whichencompassedallwomen,freedmen,slaves,and the alienresidentsand whoprovided  mostessentialday­to­dayservicesforthe community– had novoice.

It seemsthatPlato and Aristotle offered rather different,but veryinteresting,rationalesfor thisdivision.

Plato attributed differencesinindividualcapacitiesand performancesto menhaving been  bornwithdifferenttypesofsoulThose bornwith “gold” soulswere equipped tobe  philosopher­rulersofthe polis.Those with“silver” soulswere destined tobe itswarriors. Bothneeded to be trained ina rigorousregimenthatfostered athleticismand a communal  sharing ofallpossessionsand meansoflife thatwould lead toafamily­like solidarityThe  remainder ofthe populationhad bronzeorironsouls.Despite thistheycould give birthto  childrenwithgold orsilver soulsAnd viceversa.

ForAristotle, socialorganisationmustbe informedbyethics(which,to Bookchin,means rationalconsiderationofthe long­termconsequencesofactions)and the desire ofrational  mentolead the good life. Leading the good life involvesactive participationincivic affairs. Slaves,women,and barbariansare incapable ofinvolvementingovernance– politics–

because theylack the necessaryintellectualqualitiesBut theybenefitenormouslyfromthe  activitiesofthose whoareable to doso.

ButbothPlato and Aristotle legitimated hierarchyasrationalThishierarchymightbe  democratic butwould oftenbe totalitarian.Philosopher­rulers were freetolie tothe entire  populationinthe interestsofthe commongood

Periklesmadethe link betweengovernance and individualcompetenceand integrityin  Athensremarkablyclear inthe following quotation:

“Wethrowopenourcitytotheworld,andneverbyalienactsexcludeforeigners fromany  opportunityoflearningorobserving,althoughtheeyes ofanenemymayoccasionallyprofit by  ourliberality,trustingless insystemandpolicythantothenativespirit ofourcitizens;whilein  education,whereourrivals fromtheirverycradles byapainfuldisciplineseekaftermanliness,at  Athens weliveexactlyas wepleaseandyet arejustasreadytoencountereverylegitimate danger”

Perikles’confidenceinthe integrityofthe polisisbuiltuponhisexpansive confidenceinthe  integrityofitscitizensHere,the Athenianidealofcitizenship asthe physicalrealityofthe  bodypolitic – indeed,associetyincarnated intoanassembled communityoffreeindividuals whodirectlyformulate and administer policy– findsa consciousexpressionthatitdoesnot  achieve againuntilveryrecent timesTo Perikles,allAtheniansare tobe viewed as competentindividuals,asselvesthatare capable ofself­management,hencetheirrightto  claimunmediated sovereigntyover public affairsThe geniusofAthensliesnotonlyin the  completenessofthe polisbutinthe completenessofitscitizens,forwhile Athensmaybe  “the schoolofHellas” Periklesdoubts“ifthe world canproducea man,whowhere he has onlyhimselfto depend upon,isequalto somanyemergenciesand graced bysohappya  versatility,asthe Athenian.” The Greek conceptofautarkeia,ofindividualself­sufficiency  graced byanall­roundednessofselfhood,formsthe authentic basisofAtheniandemocracy Not surprisingly,thisfamouspassage,whichbeginswitha paeanto the community,Athens, endswithitswarmesttribute to the individual– the Athenian.

According toBookchin,we have veryfew statements,including the declarationsofhuman  rightsproduced bythe great revolutions,thatbearcomparisonwiththatofPeriklesThe great  orationexhibitsa sensitive balance betweencommunityand individual,and anassociationof socialadministrationwithcompetencethatrarelyachievescomparable centralityin later  statementsonfreedomItisnotin“gods” thatthe Athenianpolisplaced its“trust,”butinthe  citizenaryitself.The practiceofa directdemocracywasanaffirmationofcitizenship asa  processofdirectaction.Athenswasinstitutionally organised toconvertitspotentially  monadic citizenryfromfree­floating atomsintoa cohesive bodypolitic. It had regular citizen  assemblies(Ecclesia),a rotating CouncilofFive Hundred (Boule),and a court.Juries replicating the hundredsinthe polisin miniature, were the consciouscreationsofa public  realmthathad largelybeenfostered intuitivelyin tribalsocietiesand were rarelyto rise tothe  levelofrationalpracticeinthe centuriesthat followed.

The entire Atheniansystemwasorganised to obstructpoliticalprofessionalism,topreventthe  emergenceofbureaucracy,and to perpetuate anactive citizenryasa matterofdesignWe  mayrightlyfaultthisdemocracyfordenying power toslaves,women,and residentaliens. Butthese traitswere not unique to Athens;theyexisted throughoutthe Mediterraneanworld  inthe fifthcenturyBCE.WhatwasuniquelyAthenianwere the institutionalformsit  developed forthe participationofa significantproportion(and cross­section)ofits

population– formsthatmore traditional “civilizations” rendered intothe privilegeofonlya  verysmallruling class.

Conflictsover (upward)delegationand deputationofpower,bureaucracy,and the citizen’s claimsto competenceappear throughout history.Recentlytheyemerge inthe formofpopular  demandsformunicipaland neighbourhoodautonomyWhatare essentiallyclaimsto  competence onthe part ofthe public confrontthe mythologiesthatconcealState functions fromsocialfunctions,governancefromadministration,professionalismfromamateurism, institutionalised relationsfromfunctionalones,and the monopolyofviolencefromthe  citizensinarms.Athenianinstitutionswere uniquenotmerelybecause oftheirpractices,but  because theywere the productsofconsciousintentrather thanthe accidentsofpolitical  intuitionorcustomThe verypracticeofthe Atheniansincreating theirdemocratic  institutionswasitselfanend;itwasequivalenttothe polisconceived asa socialprocess.

Averythinline separatesthe practiceofdirectdemocracyfromdirectaction *.The former is institutionalised and self­disciplined;the latterisepisodic and oftenhighlyspontaneous.Yet  a relationship betweenanassembled populace thatformulatespoliciesina face­to­face  manner and suchactionsasstrikes,civildisobedience,and eveninsurrectioncanbe  established around the rightofa people to assume unmediated controlover public life. Representationhasbeenvalidated byanelitistbeliefthatonlyselectindividuals(atbest, selected byvirtue ofexperienceand ability,atworst,bybirth)are qualified to understand  public affairsToday,representationisvalidated byinstrumentalreasons,suchasthe  complexityofmodernsocietyand itsmazeoflogisticalintricacies.

Hellenic democracyacquired a particularlyonerous– actuallyfearsome – reputationasa  “mobocracy”. Thisisperhapsbecause itrevealed thatdirectactioncould be institutionalised  without being bureaucratised. Hence,directactioncould be turned intoapermanentprocess–  a permanentrevolution– not merelya seriesofepisodic acts.Ifitcould be shownthatdirect  actionasa formofself­administrationservesto stabilise society,notreduce itto chaotic  shambles,the State would be placed inthe dock ofhistoryasa forceforviolenceand  domination

Noconceptofpoliticshasbeenthe target ofgreaterderisionand ideologicaldenunciationby  the State,foritimpugnseveryrationale forstatehoodIt substitutesthe idealofpersonal  competencyforelitism,amateurismforprofessionalism,a bodypolitic inthe protoplasmic  sense ofa face­to­face democracyforthe delegationand bureaucratizationofdecisionmaking and itsexecution,the re­empowermentofthe individualand the attempttoachieve  agreementbydialogue and reasonforthe monopolyofpower and violence.Fromthe State’s viewpoint,the public “usurpation” ofsocialaffairsrepresentsthe triumphofchaosover  kosmos.And ifthe legacyofdominationhashad anybroaderpurpose thanthe support of hierarchicaland classinterests,ithasbeenthe attempttoexorcise the beliefinpublic  competence fromsocialdiscourse itselfAlthoughdirectdemocracyhasreceived more gentle

*Themostcommon definitionsofdirectaction areusuallyexemplaryrather thantheoreticalTheyconsistof  citingstrikes,demonstrations,“mobviolence”,sit­insofallkindsandin allplaces,Ghandian civil disobedience,and evenvigilantismIn allsuch cases,ourattentionisdirected toeventsratherthangoalsand  theoreticalgeneralizations.Whatunitesthisbehaviour undertheterm“directaction”istheunmediated  interventionofpeopleintoaffairsthatareusuallyresolved byparliamentarydebatesand legislationPeople takeoverthestreets;Theymayevenoccupytheparliamentarystructuresandrelyontheir ownaction rather  than on politicalsurrogatestoachievecertain ends.

treatmentasanarchaismthatisincompatible withthe needsofa “complex” and  “sophisticated”society,directactionasthe training ground forthe selfhood,selfassertiveness,and sensibilityfordirectdemocracyhasbeenconsistentlydenounced as anarchy,or,equivalently,the degradationofsocial life tochaos

Inthe Hellenic world,Freedomexistedforactivity rather thanasanopportunityto be freed fromactivity.Itwasnotarealmbuta practice– the practiceofbeing freebyparticipating in  free institutions,bydailyrecreating,elaborating,and fostering the activityofbeing free.One  wasnotmerely “free” inthe passive sense offreedomfromconstraint,butinthe active sense  of“freeing,” bothofoneselfand one’sfellow citizens.Fustelde Coulange wroteabout itas follows:

“Weareastonished...at theamount oflabourwhichthis democracyrequiredofmen.It was a verylaborious government.SeehowthelifeofanAthenianis passedOnedayheis calledtothe  assemblyofhis deme,andhas todeliberateonthereligious andpoliticalinterests ofthis little  association.Anotherdayhemustgototheassembly ofhis tribe; areligious festivalis tobe arranged,orexpenses aretobeexamined,ordecrees passed,orchiefs andjudges namedThree times amonth,regularly,hetakes part inthegeneralassemblyofthepeople; andheis not  permittedtobeabsent.Thesessionis longHedoes notgotheresimplytovote; havingarrivedin  themorning,hemustremaintillalatehour,andlistentotheorators.Hecannot voteunless hehas  beenpresent fromtheopeningofthesession,andhas heardallthespeeches.Forhimthis voteis  oneofthemostserious affairs.At onetimepoliticalandmilitarychiefs aretobeelected– that is  tosay,thosetowhomhis interests andhis lifearetobeconfidedforayearAt another,atax is to  beimposed,oralawtobechangedAgain,hehas tovoteonquestions ofwar,knowingwellthat, incaseofwar,hemustgivehis ownbloodorthat ofasonIndividualinterests areinseparably  unitedwiththoseofthestateAmancannot beindifferent orinconsiderateIfheis mistaken,he knows that heshallsoonsufferforit,andthat ineachvotehepledges his fortuneandhis life*”

Diversity,Freedom,and Justice

Muchofthe bookisdevoted to elaborating,and exploring the implicationsof,aninteresting  paradox: The dive toward hierarchy,domination,and centralisationhasbeenaccompanied by  itsopposite – more and more explicit discussionof,and legislationfor,freedomand justice

The conceptoffreedomwasunformulatable inmostpreliterate societiesLacking any  institutionalised structureofdomination,theyhad nowayofdefining a conditionthat was stillintrinsicallypartoftheirsociallives.

Unfortunately,the absenceofanappropriate conceptualframework forthinking aboutissues like freedomand dominationexposed the communitytomanipulation.The elders and  shamans,and later the patriarchs,priestlycorporations,and warriorchieftainswho corroded  organic society,needed onlyto produceshiftsinemphasisfromthe particular to the general–  fromspecific animalstotheirspirits;fromzoomorphicsto anthropomorphic deities;from  usufructtocommunalproperty;fromdemonic treasure to kinglystorehouses;fromgiftsto  commodities;frommere barter to elaborate marketplaces– to gainmore and more control

Ğ

Bookchinadds:“ExperiencehastaughtmetoaddacaveatFusteldeCoulange’saccountoftheAthenian’s lived freedomisnota“burden”thatIwould expectthemodern individualtobear atthispointin history.It could beso,butitisnotHere,Iammerelyprovidinganillustration offreedomasdistinguishedfrom“free time”,“recreation,”andthatemptyword “leisure”Norisit“busyness”or “business”–the“business”of  “occupying”or “entertaining”oneself.Inanycase,I amoffering an exampleoffreedom,notarecipeforit.”

Articulationofthe conceptoffreedomproceeded hand inhand withthe emergenceofthe  conceptofjustice, producing manyparadoxes.

Societalconcernwithjusticeand lawstopromote it wasprompted bythe arrivalofstrangers  (non­kin)intotraditionalsocietiesHowtothink about them?How to dealwiththem? What  kind oftreatmentto accord them?

The problembecame progressivelymore acute withthe developmentofcitylife and trade The strangerswholeveraged the developmentofjudicialarrangementsforasserting their rightsoftenserviced the citywithcraftorcommercialskillsTheywere helped intheir campaignsbythe other oppressed groupswho could hope toescape the whimsiesand insults ofarbitraryrule onlybygetting theirrightsand dutiesinscribed inaninviolable, codified, formThusprogresstoward justicewas,inlarge part,aproductofthe socialand ethnic  outsider.

But,althoughprompted bythe need to dealexplicitlywithdiversity,justicerenders equal–  discounts,ignores,rendersinvisible – endlessfundamentallyimportant considerationsthat  are infactrelevant,suchasdifferencesinfinancial and socialsituationToassume that  everyone is“equal” ispatentlypreposterouswhenitistakento include suchthingsas strength,intellect,training,experience,talent,disposition,and opportunitySuch “equality”  scoffsatrealityand deniesthe commonalityand solidarityofthe communitybysubverting  itsresponsibilitiestocompensatefordifferencesbetweenindividualsinstead of,toemphasise  the pointbyrepetition,treating unequalsequallyThisspeciousconcernwith“equality” thus yieldsa veryrealinequality,inthe end negating equalityonitsownterms.

So,inprogressivelyelaborating codesforequalising unequals,societyrendersa greatdealof diversityundiscussable – and thusrestrictsfreedom– whilst,atthe same time, codifying  rightsto certain freedoms

The subversionoforganic societydrasticallyundermined authentic freedomCompensation  wasrestructuredintorewards,giftswere replaced bycommoditiesCuneiformwriting,the  basisofouralphabetic script,had itsoriginsinthe meticulousrecordsthe temple clerks kept  ofproductsreceived and productsdispersed, inshort,the precise accounting ofgoods, possiblyevenwhenthe land was“communallyowned”and worked.These accounting  recordstherefore prefigure the moralliterature ofa lessgiving and more despotic world in  whichthe equalityofunequalshad givenwaytomere charity.Thereafter “right” wasto  supplantfreedom.Nolonger wasitthe primaryresponsibilityforsocietytocareforits young,elderly,infirm,orunfortunates;theircare became a “private matter” forfamilyand  friends– albeitveryslowlyand throughvarioussubtlyshaded phases.Onthe villagelevel  the old customsstilllingered on,but thisworld wasnot partof“civilization”;merelyan  indispensable butconcealed archaism

Withthe coming ofwarriorsand theirmanorialeconomy,a new socialdispositionarose: the  warriorcodeofmight.But mere coercionalone could nothave created the relativelystable, largelyfeudal,societythatemerged.Rather,itwastheethosofcoercion– the mystification  ofcourage,physicalprowess,and a “healthy” lustforcombatand adventure. It wasnotmight  assuch,butthe beliefinthe status,indeed,themana,that mightconferred onthe individual  that led to anideologyofcoercion,whichboththe victorand hisvictimmutually  acknowledged and celebrated.

AtthispointIwould like, onceagain,todraw attentiontothe factthat whatwe are getting  fromBookchin,fascinating thoughitis,isa descriptionof(some of)the factorsoperative at  eachsuccessive transition inhistoryWhatwe don’tgetisa feelforwhat isleading,or pushing,the processina single direction.Asa resultwe have little guidance asto what to  directourattentiontonow Howtointerveneinthisorganic evolutiontoward ourown  extinction,carrying the planetaswe know itwithus.

The Emergence ofAggressiveIndividualism

There were other supportive developmentsTo the extentthat organic societydeclined,sodid  the intense sense ofcollectivityithad fostered.Anew contexthad to be created forthe  individualthatwould render it functionalinanincreasinglyatomised world – anatomised  world thateventuated inthe random,isolated, sociallystarved monadswhopeople modern  capitalistsociety.The waning ofprimordialsocietyplaced a highpremiumona newtype of individual: Aresourceful,comparativelyself­sufficient,self­reliant,ego thatcould readily  adaptitselfto –ifnot “command” – a societythatwaslosing itshumanscale and developing  more complexpoliticalinstitutionsand commercialties.

Suchindividualshad alwaysexisted onthe marginsofearlycollectives.Tribalsocietymade allowancesforaberrantsexualbehaviour,exotic psychologicaltraits,and personalambition–  allowancesthatfind expressionina highdegree ofsexualfreedom,shamanistic roles,and an  exaltationofcourageand skill.Fromthismarginalarea, societyrecruited itspriestsand  warrior­chieftainsforcommanding positionsinlater,more hierarchical,institutions

Thisdevelopment had bothpersonaland socialcomponents.At the personallevel,the arrival  ofsuchindividualspanic the more composed, tradition­bound,collectivity.The arrivalof individualityisstridentlyannounced bythe warrior,whose “egoboundaries” are established  bytransgressing the boundariesofalltraditionalsocietiesValour,rather thanlineage, marks hismyth­beclouded personaltraits.

Butmercenarywarriorswere onlyone ofthe groupsnow emerging.There were also  merchantswholived bytheirwitsand cunning.Theirself­possessionand libertarianspirit  stand inmarked contrastto the disciplined lifewaysofmanorialsocietyTheyare the  harbingersofthe intenselyindividuated rebelwhoisdestined to “turnthe world upside  down”.Buttheirfortunesdepend upontheirreceptionfromthe,ofteninert,massofpeople. Increasingly,societyneedsautonomousegoswho are freeto undertakethe varied functions ofcitizenship.The developmentofthe individualonthissociallevel,inshort,isnot an  isolated,idiosyncratic personalphenomenon;itisa change inthe temper,outlook,and  destinyofthe millionswhoare topeople civilizationforthe centuriesto come and initiate the  historyofthe modernegouptothe presentdayJustasthe contemporaryproletariatwasfirst  formed bysevering a traditionalpeasantryfroman archaic manorialeconomy,sothe  relativelyfreecitizenofthe classicalcity­state,the medievalcommune, and the modern  nation­state wasinitiallyformed bysevering the young male fromanarchaic bodyofkinship  relationships.

Patriarchy,Justice, and theEmergence of ConditionsFacilitating FurtherCentralised  Control

Like the blood oath,the patriarchalfamilyconstituted ahighlycohesive moralobstacle to  politicalauthority– not because itopposed authorityassuch(aswasthe case withorganic  society)butrather because itformed the nexusforthe authorityofthe father.Ironically, patriarchyrepresented, initskinship claims,the mostwarpedtraitsoforganic societyinan  alreadydistorted and changing socialworldHere,to putitsimply,gerontocracyiswritlarge. It answersnotto the needsofthe organic society’sprinciple ofsharing and solidaritybutto  the needsofthe oldestamong the elders.Nosystemofagehierarchyhasa more overbearing  content,a more repressive mode ofoperation.Inthe earliestformofthe patriarchalfamily, the patriarchwasanswerable tono one forthe rulehe exercised over the membersofhis family.Hewasthe incarnation,perhapsthe historicalsource,ofarbitrarypower,of dominationthatcould be sanctioned bynoprinciple,moralorethical,other thantraditionand  the ideologicaltricksprovided bythe shaman

Justiceslowlytransformed the patriarch’sstatus,first byturning the feared father into the  righteousfather.Patriarchy,ineffect,ceased tobe mere arbitraryauthority.Itbecame  juridicalauthoritythatwasanswerable to certainpreceptsofrightand wrong.Byturning the  crude,warrior,moralityof“mightisright” intothe rule ofequivalence and thelextalionisof equity,justiceproduced the transitionfrommere arbitrarycoercionto a coercionthatmustbe  justified.Coercionnow had to be explained according toconceptsofequityand inequity, rightand wrong.Justice,ineffect,provided the transitionfromarbitrary,and even  supernatural,powerto juridicalpowerFroma tyrant,the patriarchbecame a judge and relied  onguilt,notmerelyfear,toassert hisauthority

Thistransformationofthe patriarch’sstatusoccurred asa resultoftensionsinthe societal  context.The elaborationofhierarchy,the developmentofincipientclasses,and the early  appearanceofthe cityand State combined associalforcesto invade the familyand stakeout  a secular claimonthe role ofthe patriarchinthe socialisationand destinyofthe young. Womenwere largelyexcluded fromthisprocess;theyremained the chattelsofthe male  communityButthe young menwere increasinglycalled upontotakeonsocial  responsibilitiesassoldiers, citizens,bureaucrats,craftsmen,foodcultivators–inshort,ahost  ofdutiesthatcould nolonger be restricted byfamilialforms

Associetyshifted stillfurther fromkinship toterritorialforms,frombroadlyhierarchicalto  specificallyclassand politicalforms,the nature ofpatriarchycontinued to change. Although  patriarchyretained manyofitscoercive and juridicaltraits,itbecame increasinglya mode of rationalauthority.Young menwere granted theirbirthrightascitizens.Invarying degrees, conditionsnow emerged fordevaluing the patriarchalclan familyand foritssubstitutionby  the patricentric nuclearfamily,the realmofa highlyprivatised monogamousrelationship  betweentwoparentsand theiroffspring.Under the aegisofjustice,the Stateacquired  increasing controlover thishighlyinsulated domestic world – initially,bydissolving the  internalforcesthatheld the patriarchalfamilytogether withitsownjuridicalclaims

The dissolutionofthe all­encompassing patriarchal“I” intofairlysovereignindividualswith  “ego­boundaries” oftheirowngained greater impetuswiththe expansionofthe polisintothe  cosmopolis– the expansionofthe small,self­enclosed “city­state”intothe large,open, “world city” ofthe Hellenistic era. Withthe growing role ofthe stranger ascraftsman,trader, and sea­faring merchant,the notionofthe demosunited byblood and ethicaltiesintoa  supreme collective entitygave wayto the claimsofthe individual.Now,not merely  citizenship butthe private interestsofthe wayfaring ego,partlyshaped bythe problemsof economic interest,became the goalsofindividuality.(We cantracethe individual’sfortunes

fromthe kinship group and the enclave ofthe patriarchintothe “citystate,” particularlythe  Athenianpolis,where individualityassumesrichly articulated civic qualitiesand a vibrant  commitmenttopoliticalcompetence.)Fromthe “brother”or“sister” oforganic society,the  individualistransformed into the “citizen” ofpoliticalsociety,notablythe smallcivic  fraternity.

On Science,Reason,and theLocation of Mind

Bookchindrawsattentiontothe corruptionofscience,sinceFrancisBacon’stime,froman  openquestforunderstanding toauthoritarianprescriptionofthe methodologyofreductionist  sciencetocheck insights,and the almosttotalneglectofend­state (teleological)causesinour thinking aboutcausality

However,he notesthat modernexperiencehasthoroughlyundermined scientistic imagesof matterasa merelypassive substrate ofrealityand technicsasstrictly “technical”. The fact  that the naturalworld isorderly(atleastona scale that renders modernscienceand  engineering possible) suggeststhe intellectuallycaptivating possibilitythatthere isa logic – a  rationality– torealitythatmaywellbe indicative ofpropertiestowhich,inthe human  sphere,werefer as“design” and “planning”. These wenormallytaketo be characteristicsof “mind” and “reasoning”.Forsome threecenturiesnow,a scientific visionofrealityhasbeen  solidlystructured around the presuppositionthatwe caninterpret reality’sorderlinessinthe  formofa scientific logic, rigorouslyanswerable to suchrationallydemanding systemsas mathematics.But noassumptionorevensuggestionhasbeenmadethatlogic and reason  inheresinthe world itselfScience,ineffect,hasbeenpermitted to live a lie.It has presupposed, withastonishing success,thatnatureisorderly,and thatthisorderlendsitselfto  rationalinterpretationbythe humanmind,butthat reasonisexclusivelythe subjective  attribute ofthe humanobserver,notofthe phenomena observed.Ultimately,sciencehas lived thislie primarilytoavoid the most unavoidable “pitfall” ofmetaphysics– the  conclusionthatanorderlyworld thatisalsorationalmaybe regarded asimbued with  meaning.

The termmeaning isredolentwithanimismItissuggestive ofpurpose,consciousness, intentionality,subjectivity– inshort,the qualitiesweimpartto humanityasdistinguished  fromnature,not tohumanityasan expression ofa nature whose mind isdeeply rooted in  natural history.The logicalconsequencesofthe verylogic ofscientismthreatento subvert  the distancesciencehascarefullycreated betweenitselfand the wealthofphenomena it  subjectstoitsanalytic strategies.Science, ineffect,hasbecome a temple builtonfoundations derived fromthe ruinsofanimistic and metaphysicalthinking … and without whichitwould  sink intoa morassofinternalcontradictions

Science’sdefenceagainstthiskind ofcritique isthatorder mayimplya rationalarrangement  ofphenomena thatlendsitselfto rationalcomprehension,butthat none ofthisimplies subjectivity– the capacityto comprehend a rationalarrangement.To allappearances,nature  ismute,unthinking,and blind,however orderlyitmaybe.Itisnot self­directive and selfexpressive inthe sense inwhichwe ordinarilythink ofhumanbeingsasbeing.It maybe  sufficientlyorderlyto be thinkable, butitdoesnot think.

Nevertheless,subjectivity,eveninitshumansense,isnot a newlybornresult,aterminally  givenconditionSensitivityand “mind” canbe traced back througha naturalhistoryofits owntoitsmost rudimentaryformsasmere sensitivityin allanimate beingsand the reactivity

ofthe organic world itselfAlthoughthe humanmind maybe the expressionofsubjectivityin  itsmostcomplexand articulate form,ithasbeenincreasinglyapproximated ingraded forms throughout the course oforganic evolutioninorganismsthatwere able to dealonveryactive  termswithhighlydemanding environmentsWhatwe todaycall“mind” inallitshuman  uniqueness,self­possession,and imaginative possibilitiesiscoterminouswitha long  evolutionofmind.Subjectivityhasnotalwaysbeenabsentfromthe courseoforganic and  inorganic developmentuntilthe emergenceofhumanity.Tothe contrary,ithasalwaysbeen  present,invarying degrees,throughoutnaturalhistory,asincreasinglyclose approximations to the humanmind asweknow ittoday

Everylayer inthe humannervoussystem,everyorgan,cell,and evenmineralcomponentof the humanbody“speaks,” asitwere, fromitsgivenleveloforganizationto the external  habitatinorganic evolutionfromwhenceitcame and tothe internalhabitatinto whichit has beenintegrated. The “wisdomofthe body”, like the wisdomofthe mind,speaksina variety  oflanguages.We maynever adequatelydecipher these languages,butwe know theyexistin  the varied pulsationsofourbodies,inthe beatofourhearts,inthe radiantenergyofour musculatures,inthe electricalimpulsesemitted byourbrains,and inthe emotionalresponses generated bycomplexesofnerve and hormonalinteractions.Averitable “music ofthe  spheres” resonateswithineachliving formand betweenitand other living forms We are alsohaunted bythe possibilitythata differentorder ofsubjectivitypermeatesour ownIsitfarfetched to ask whether anorganic subjectivitythatstemsfromthe fullness, complexity,and self­regulating relationshipsofecosystemsexhibitsa “mentality” innature  similar inprinciple to the cerebralsubjectivityofhumanbeings?Whenwe speak ofthe  “wisdomofthe body” – or,forthatmatter,the “fecundityoflife”and the “revenge ofnature” – wespeak a languagethatoftengoesbeyond strictlymetaphoric terms.We enter into a  realmof“knowingness” fromwhichourstrictlycerebralprocesseshave deliberately(?) exiled themselves.Inanycase, to bring together the naturalhistoryofmind withthe history  ofnaturalmind istoraise a hostofquestionsthatcanprobablybe answered onlyby  presuppositionsHere, we stand at a juncture inthelong careerofknowledgeitselfWe may  choose toconfine mentalitystrictlytothe humancerebrum,asa Galileoand Descarteswould  have done,inwhichcase we have committed mentalitycompletelyto the vaultsofourskulls Or wemaychoose to include the naturalhistoryofmind and expand ourvisionofmind to  include nature initswholeness.The lattertradition includesthe era ofphilosophic  speculationfromthe Hellenic tothe earlyRenaissanceButletusnotdeceive ourselvesthat  sciencehaschosenitswayonthe basisofpresuppositionsthatare stronger ormore certain  thanthose ofother waysofknowing.

Bookchinarguesthatweneed to nurtureourcapacitytotune intothese wider aspectsof mind  the deeper processesofthe world;ina word,to fulfilourhumanpotentialHowever  he notesthatthe great bulk ofhumanityisnot evenremotelynearanunderstanding ofits potentialities,muchlessanintuitive grasp ofthe elementsand formsoftheirrealisation Unfortunately,a humanityunfulfilled isnot a humanityatallexceptinthe narrowest  biosocialsense ofthe term.Indeed,inthiscondition,a humanityunfulfilled ismore fearsome  thananyliving being,forithasenoughofthatmentalitycalled “intelligence” toassemble all  the conditionsforthe destructionoflife onthe planet.

Hearguesthat,oncesocietyhascreated conditionsinwhichwe are eachindividuallyfreeto  pursue whatisimportant tous,we candevelop these connectionswithmind/life and thus fulfilourethicalresponsibilityto act ethicallyand intelligently(and thusreasonably)to  promote the long­terminterestsofthe planet.

Inthiscontexthe goesoutofhiswaytocriticise retreatsfromreasonintospiritualityand the  kind of“deep ecology” thatviewsthe humanly­constructed environmentas“unnatural”. In  fact,he argues,itwas,and is,naturalformankind to construct a human­created world.The  questioniswhether weare going to use our(natural)intellectualcapacitiestodesign  managementarrangementsforallnature thatwillpromote the further evolutionoffirst  nature.The need is,notto undermine ournaturalpredispositionto intervene infirstnature, buttoreconsider the endsofintervention.Thishe seesas“the mostimportant ethical  questionofourtimes”. We need toconsider the endsofhumanity’ssocialdevelopment by  applyingmoremind,notless.The need ispreciselynotto retreat intomysticism.Whatwe  need ismore empathy,more aesthetic appreciation,more affinityforfirstnature,and more  morality notmysticstalking ofself­empowerment,spirituality,and soonThose who  promote suchnotions,Bookchinclaims,generallymanageto navigate themselvesawayfrom  the serioussocialissuesthatunderlie the currentecologicalcrisisTheyretreatintopersonal  “self­transcendence” and an“all­loving” pantheism.“Falsehoodsand dogmatic beliefs, however benigntheymayseematfirstglance, imprisonthe mind.” Theypresuppose and  foster a proclivityforfaithwhose arbitrarynature renders theiracolyteseasilymanipulable  byassorted New Age gurus,and theirlike.

The Recent Evolution of Destructive/Exploitative Societal Management Arrangements (With somecommentson theirreversal)

Institutionaltechnicsfirstemerged inthe formofthe priestlycorporationand the slowly  emerging bureaucraciesthatsurrounded itTheywere later developed bymonarchiesand  militaryforces.Religiousand secular bureaucracieswere ever more technicallyauthoritarian. Theymobilised the populationand directed theirenergiestowardauthoritarianends.But, mostimportantly,theyfacilitated the developmentofabelief systemthatvalidated the entire  hierarchicalstructure.

According toBookchin,the mostsignalachievementofthese bureaucracieswasnotthe  coordinationand rationalizationofa newlydeveloped humanmachine to achieve socially  unnecessaryends and,stillless,to enhancepublic welfare through,forexample,the  productionoffood.It wasthe effectivenesswithwhichtheyreduced theirvastarmiesof peasantsand slavestoinanimate objectsThe maineffectofthiswasto validate hierarchy Hierarchiesand ruling classesstakeout theirclaims to sovereigntynot onlybya processof elevationbutalsobya processofdebasement.Thevastarmiesofcorveelabourthatdragged  stone blocksalong the banksofthe Nile tobuild pyramids(i.e. to undertaketasksthatwere  not needed foranyreasonother than inflating the egosand hopefullongevityofrulers)  provide animageofinanimate objectsuponwhomtheirforemenand rulers could exercise  theirsense ofpower

Fromthe New World tothe Old,the stupendouselaborationofcentralised statesand the  proliferationofcourts,nobles,priesthoods,and militaryeliteswassupported bya highly  parasitic institutionaltechnologyofdominationcomposed ofarmies,bureaucrats,tax  farmers,juridicalagenciesand a septic, oftenbrutal,beliefsystembased onsacrifice and  self­abnegationWithout thispoliticaltechnology,the mobilizationoflabour,the collection  ofvastmaterialsurpluses,and the deploymentofasurprisinglysimple “tool­kit” for monumentaltechnicaltasks,would have beeninconceivable.

Bookchin’sbasic claimhere isthat itisthe psychological “needs” ofprogressivelyemerging  powergroups… shamans,priestlycorporations,and “bureaucracy” … that leadsto the  progressive developmentofa socialmachine thatobjectifieslabour.

Here he impliesthat itwasthe former thatproduced the latter.And thatmayindeed have  beenthe case historicallyBut,asexplained earlier,itseemsto me more likelythatbothare  outcomesofa poorlyunderstood autopoietic, even organic,processthat notonlyperpetuates itselfbuteventendstowarditselaboration.Itseemsto me unlikelythatpriestlycorporations set outtoobjectifylabourObjectifying labour,including the bureaucracy inthe term,may  have beena process,discovered serendipitously,which,whenarticulated,enabled themto  solidifytheirpositionBut,bearing inmind the extentofsocialmobility,the amplificationof socialdivisionseemstobe whatmightbe considered some kind ofteleological“aim” ofan  autopoietic,or,probablybetter,organic, system.

Bookchinwrites:

“Beyondtheresponsibilityofmassinghugenumbers ofhumanbeings intoregimentedtasks,this  system(iethenetworkofarmies,bureaucrats,andtaxfarmers) hadthreeessentialgoals:to  intensifythelabourprocess,toabstractit,andtoobjectifyit.Acarefullyplannedeffort was  undertakentopieceworktogethersothat theStatecouldextracteverybit oflabourfromthe  “masses,”reducelabourtoundifferentiatedlabour­time,andtransmutehumanbeings intomere instrumentsofproduction”

Ihavemanydifficultieswiththisstatement: Firstly,Iamnot sure whatthe firsttwoofthe  “essentialgoals” refer to.Does“intensifying the labourprocess” meangenerating more and  more senselesswork forthe idle handsthatthe devilmightotherwise have deployed in  activitiesdesigned tobring about socialchange?Doesitmeandriving out time for socialising,haircuts,thinking,orparticipating inactivitiesdirected toward socialchange?  Second,whatisthe evidencethatthisprocesswascarefullyplanned?Wasthere reallya plan  to reduce labourtoadehumanised condition?Or were these thingssome kind of epiphenomenonemerging fromthe spontaneous,autopoietic,evenorganic,operationof socialprocesses?And,third,whatisthisabout “production”?Productionofwhat?Itseemsto  me thatmuchmore importantthanthe reductionofhumanbeingsto cogsina machine that  produced materialgoodsand delivered crude serviceswasthe inventionofnew goodsand  servicesthatwere to be produced: junk foods,junkprices,junk econometrics,junk “market”  theories,junk marketing,junk security(insurance),junk defence,junk “education”, junk  research.Differentialaccesstothe productsofthiswork itselflegitimised hierarchyand a  scramble to getout ofcog­like rolesStillmore important (sofar asIcansee)wasthe  progressive emergence(invention?)ofinsecurityand anomie. Securitybecame  individualised. The communityasa sourceofsecuritywasdisbanded.One had freneticallyto  attend to networking totryto be sure thatone would have a jobtomorrow.And,inthe  contextofthe so­called emancipationofwomen,personalised careerpathsled tothe break up  ofthe familyasa sourceofsecurity(One mightinclude junk socialprestige inthe listof junk productsproduced.)

Perhapssome ofthissenselesswork wasdeliberatelycreated tofilltime;to stoppeople  thinking;to stopthemengaging incivic activities;to make themsoinsecure thattheynever  dared sayanything criticalofthe socialoperationofthe societyinwhichtheylived  and  there isa great dealofevidencetosupport thispositionfromthe activitiesofthe Thatcher  government.Nevertheless,the discoveryofthe possibilityofusing marketrhetoric to create  (senseless)workseemsto have beenserendipitous.

And there issomething else: manyofthese jobswere notassouldestroying asisoften  claimed.The inventionofnew products(including insuranceand “educational” packages), newservices,newmarketing arrangements,and new organisationalarrangementsoftencalled  forconsiderable ingenuity,creativity,initiative, and socialcontact.Perhapsthe mostcreative  ofthese inventionswasthe inventionofbusyness– senselesswork produced and legitimised  bymythology(e.g.“The efficiencyofthe market” … whenthe marketis,infact,the least  efficientwayofdoing anything,instead creating endlesssenselessworkdemanding frenetic  activityforitsconduct.)

Asto the suggestionofa deliberate proliferationoflawsand the legalsystem,a successionof lawswaspresumablyintroduced,asintoday’sworld,asexpedientmeasurestotackle a series ofimmediate presenting problemAdmittedlymanyofthese so­called “problems” were only  problemsfor,and onlyvisible to,the ruling class.And manyofthe otherswere largely  mythicalproblemssemi­dreamtup bydo­goodersto justifytheirexistence. Indeed,manyof these seemtobe diversionaryinthe sense ofdirecting the generalpopulation’sattention  awayfromthe main problemsfacing societyand almostinvariably involving “solution” via  the introductionofsome draconianauthoritarianlegislation 7 .

Butthe pointisthatvirtuallyallthese lawsseemto have unexpected, counterintuitive,and  evencontradictoryeffects.Well­intentioned publicactionseemsalmostinevitablyto have the  opposite effecttothat intended. Thusthe introductionoflawsto guarantee“rights”to  “strangers” highlighted and legitimised certainaspectsofdiversity butsimultaneously  rendered othersnot onlyinvisible, buteven“deliberately” designated themas“irrelevant” (to  justice)Thusitishard to believe thatthe systemwasinsome sense designed asa whole by  maliciousrulers.Itlooksmuchmore like a successionofexpedientdecisionstakento deal  withemergentproblemsand alarming situations.

Inthe end,to reiteratethe point,itseemsmore appropriate to view the overallprocessas “autopoietic”or“organic”rather thanplanned bysome demonsSocialprocesses,like  biologicalprocesses,are notmerelyself­perpetuating.Beliefsystemsdo not merely have of “self­fulfilling propensities”. Bothare alsoself­elaborating.Theycontainelementswhich  lead to the nextstageintheirevolutionhowever dysfunctionalthismaybe 8Thingsdevelop  further asa resultofa constellationoffactorsthatexist at a particular time. Contrarytothe  currentquest forpre­programming inthe genes,whathappensinorganic developmentis dependentondevelopmentsindistalpartsofthe developing organismand seemstopossess, perhapsdoespossess,teleologicalproperties.Dysfunctionalorganismsare not alwaysde­  selected bynaturalselection.

Insofar as,at anypointintime,the powerfulmakelawsintheirowninterests,the factisthat  those people have beenselected and promoted fortheirrole ina system… inwhichcase  these powerfulpeople cannot meaningfully be saidtobe responsible forthe lawstheyenact

Buteventhese commentsdo notseemto me to reflectthe main problemswithwhat  Bookchinhaswrittenhere.It seemsto me thattwo muchmore basic thingsare missing from  the account.These include a descriptionofthe socio­technicalprocessthatled to these  visible epi­phenomena thatrevealitsexistenceand operation… How and whywasa network  ofessentiallymeaninglesslawsgenerated “inorder”tocreate work forthe “middle classes”  … i.e. to legitimise theircreaming offwealthfromthe restofthe community… whilst  subjecting the restofthe communitytoincreasinglylong and demeaning work againstthe  threat offurther humiliation,degradation,and imprisonment?How and whywere labour

intensive arrangementsdeveloped to provide “security” … pensions,etc…How and why  were endlesssenselessproducts–ininsurance,entertainment,tourism,elitist “art” – invented  and promoted?

How and whywere socialarrangementstotrap more and more people intofrenetic activity  invented?How wasthe notionofdebttransformedintoameansoftrapping people into  demeaning and unethicalactivityagainsttheirwillinvented: debtsforeducation,mortgages, and the purchase offurniture?How wasthe longing toexercise initiative and creativity  harnessed inthe serviceoftorturing Jews,ordesigning attractive and enticing brochures, generating newfashions,selling junk foods,junk toys,junk education,and junk security?  How werethese potentialitiesharnessed to create ever more destructive unthinking  “education”?

Did those “withpower” planallthese things?Itseemsunlikely,especiallygiventhat those  occupying positionsinwhichtheyare said to have “power” are continuallychanging.

ButBookchinisright: No “revolution” intools,machines,orscientific understanding was needed to producethese developments.He claimsthat they“stemmed primarilyfromthe  genesisofaninstitutionaltechnics”. But,again,the kind­ofautopoietic nature ofthisprocess seemsto passunnoticed.Eachphase seemed to evolve witha sense offrightening inevitably  out ofthe lastAllcomponents the bureaucracy,the creationofsenselesswork,the  compelling socialdivision seemto “justgrow”oftheirownaccord –growing inthe sense  inwhichplantsgrow(althoughone hastobe carefulwiththe analogybecause people these  daystend to assume thatthe growthofplantsispre­programmed byinformationcontained in  theirgenes).

But,inreality,how inevitable wasthisprocess?To whatextentwasthere deliberate  interventionfromthose whose interestswere threatened, orcould be advanced,bycertain  developments?How muchofe.g.the destructionofthe SchoolsCouncil’sprojects9 ,was deliberatelyengineered?Butevenifitwas,the questionremainsofwhether those who  orchestrated the destructionhad beensomehow selected and promoted forthe role they  would playina sociologicalsystem

The Emergence ofClassSociety

Whenseeking to account forthe emergenceofclasssociety,itisimportant first tonote that it  isnot a creationofhumanityasa whole. Initsmost ruthlessform,itisthe “achievement” of a numericallysmallproportionof“advanced peoples” – i.e.thosethatlargelyemerged in  Europe.Byfar the great massofhumanbeingswho occupied the planetbefore the Age of Explorationhad developed alternative waysofliving thatdid notrelyona classsociety,let  alone capitalismBynomeansdowe have the right toregard themasarrested societiesthat  awaited the gentle caressof“civilization” and the sculpting ofthe crucifixThattheirsocial  forms,technologies,culturalworks,and valueshave beendegraded tomere “anthropologies”  rather thanhistoriesintheirownrightistestimony toanintellectualatavismthatviews anything butitsownsocialcreationsasmere remainsofits‘prehistory’and the  “archaeology” ofitsownsocialdevelopment.

Whatweso arrogantlycallthe “stagnation” ofmanynon­Europeansocieties(oreventhe  “dark ages” withinEuropeansociety)maywellhave seenthe elaborationand enrichmentof culturaltraitsthat were ethicallyand morallyincompatible withthe predatorydynamism

Europeanssoflippantlyidentifywith “progress” and “history”. Tofaultthese societiesas stagnantforelaborating qualitiesand valuesthat Europeanswere tosacrificeto quantityand  egoistic acquisitiontellsusmore about Europeanconceptionsofhistoryand moralitythan  non­Europeanconceptionsofsociallife.

The Role of SocialPhilosophersin Facilitating the “Development” of ClassSocietyand  Capitalism

Bookchindiscussesthe role ofChristianityand 17 thand 18 thcenturyphilosophersinthe  evolutionofmodernsocietyatsome length,but,althoughhe seestheirwritingsascausal,it  isnot infact clearwhether itwasthe philosophieswhichled tothe socialdevelopmentsor whether the statementsand writingsofthe guruswere somehow selected and reinterpreted  and promoted bythe socialprocessto,ina sense, facilitate and legitimise itself.And whatof the word “legitimise”itself?It impliessome kind ofdeliberate actiononthe partofthose  whobenefited fromthe processto produceanappropriate mythology.Butwasthe  progressive elaborationofsocialdivisionover millennia and itsreinforcementbyan  “educational” systemwhose primaryfunctionisto legitimise a socialdivisionthatcompels somanyagainsttheirwillto participate inthe destructive activitiesofmodernsocietyreally  the inventionofsome elite to legitimise theirappropriationofthe richesofthe community?

Asto 17 thand 18 thcenturyphilosophers,Bookchin asks: Ofwhatdoesthe “commongood”  consistina societywhichcelebratesthe claimsofself­interestand naked egotism,a society  inwhichspiritualidealshave beensurrendered formaterialgain,a societyinwhichprogress meansnothing more thanrighttounlimited acquisition?Bythe end ofthe eighteenthcentury, liberaltheoryhad not onlybeendebased tothe task ofsubserving and justifying political  economy,ithad become merelyanasocialdoctrine ofinterest.That humanbeingsacted in  societyatallcould be explained onlybythe compulsionofneedsand the pursuitofpersonal  gain.Ina mechanicalworld ofmatterand motion,egotism(aswe canseemoststrikinglyin  the worksofBentham)had become forisolated humanmonadswhatgravitationwasfor materialbodies.

Inone ofthe mostinteresting and depressing sectionsofthe book,Bookchinshowshow the  workofa whole seriesofauthorswho set outto advance the idealsoffreedomwas,inthe  end,used toadvancecentralisationand dominance,witheachsuccessive movementaway  fromwhatmostpeople wanted, securing acceptance asa resultofconferring incidental  benefitslike greaterstabilityinfood suppliesora more equalopportunityto compete forthe  spoilsofthe “good life”.

On Requisite Understanding and theBarriersPosed by Current Conceptual Frameworks

We simplydonot now know beyond ourownnarrow sphere ofexperiencehow the most  ordinarythingsweuse are produced.So complete isthe disjunctionbetweenproductionand  consumption,betweenfarmand factory(notto speak ofbetweenfactoryand consumer),that  weare literallythe unknowing clientsofa stupendousindustrialapparatusintowhichwe  have little insightand over whichwehave nocontrol.

Butthisapparatusisitselfthe “client”ofa vastlycomplexnaturalworld,whichitrarely  comprehendsintermsthatare not strictlytechnical.We think ofnature asa nonhuman  industrialapparatusIt “fabricates” products,insome vaguelyunderstood manner,that we  treat asiftheywere industrialphenomenon– withourextensive useofagricultural

chemicals,ourwhaling and fishing marine factories,ourmechanicalslaughtering devices, and ourdenaturing ofentire continentalregionsto mere factorydepartments.We commonly  verbalise thisindustrialconceptionofnature inthelanguageofmechanics,electronics,and  cyberneticsOur descriptionofthe nonhumanornaturalprocessesas“regulated bynegative  feedback” orassystemsinto whichwe“plug” our“inputs” and “outputs” reflectsthe waywe  have “freaked”the naturalworld tomeetthe endsofindustrialdomination

Whatismostimportant aboutourdenaturing ofnaturalphenomena isthatwe are itsprincipal  victims– webecome the “objects” that ourindustrymosteffectivelycontrolsWe are its victimsbecause we are unconsciousofthe way,bothtechnicallyand psychologically,in  whichindustrycontrolsusTechne asmysteryhasreturned again,butnot asa processin  whichthe agriculturistorcraftpersontotallyparticipatesina mysticallyenchanted process We donotparticipate inthe modernindustrialprocessexceptasminutelyspecialised agents. Hence weare unaware ofhow the processoccurs,muchlessable to exercise anydegree of controlover it.When,wesaythatmodernindustryhasbecome toocomplex,we normally  meanthatourknowledge,skills,insights,and traditionsforgrowing orfabricating ourmeans oflife have beenusurped bya stupendous,oftenmeaningless,socialmachinerythatrenders usunable to cope withthe mostelementaryimperativesoflife.Butitisnotthe complexityof machinerythatinhibitsourabilityto dealwiththese imperatives,itisthe new rulesofthe  game wecallan “industrialsociety” that,byrestructuring ourverylives,hasinterposed itself betweenthe powersofhumanrationalityand those ofnature’sfecundityMostwesterners now cannot plantand harvesta gardenorbuild a house.

The Way Forward:Design SpecificationsforaSustainable Society

Bookchin’sdiscussionofthe wayforward ismuch thinner thanone mighthave hoped for, indeed thatone mighthave beenled toexpect onthe basisofwhatwassaid earlier inthe  book.

There is,forexample, virtuallynodiscussionofhow tointervene inthe socio­cybernetic  processeshe hasbeenatpainstodescribe … orevenmuchdiscussionofthe forcesthatare  operativenowand how one mightintervene inorharnessthem

Likewise,while he hintsatsome ofthe featurestobe possessed bythe kind offree, anarchistic,societyhe isobviouslyadvocating,there islittle discussionofhow to getfrom  here tothere.Clearly,he advocatesthe abolitionofprivate propertyand itsreplacementby  usufruct,the encouragementofa vastlywidened conceptofdiversityofthe kind he claimsis characteristic oforganic societies,the replacementofcompetitionbycompensationand  complementarity,acceptanceofthe notionofequityin diversity(the equalityofunequals)in  place ofouremphasisonthe inequalityofequals,the promotionofparticipative democracy, a focusonethicaldecisionsgrounded incontactwithmind and reasoninnature onthe one  hand and rationalconsiderationofthe long­termconsequencesofactionsonthe other, freedomto choose whichofourneedswe are tosatisfy(whichmeanscreating nicheswhere  satisfactionofthose choicesispossible) and freedomtoworkatthingsofone’s choice (such  asthe improvementofthe communitythroughinvolvementinparticipative democracyor research)orto connectwithother humanbeingsand life more generally.

Inconnectionwiththe lasttwo,he notesthat,while we have become thralled tothe notion  that freedomconsistsinhaving a choiceofwhichmaterialneedswewishto satisfy,itcould  and should consistina choiceoflife style, ofliving,working,and socialarrangements..

indeed ofarrangementsforbeing intouchwiththe cosmosBut suchchoicecanonlybecome  meaningfulifthe optionsare articulable and the individualhasthe autonomy,moralinsight, and wisdomtochoose rationally.Further,these wider choicesare,infact,rendered invisible  and therefore un­enactable,bypervasive thoughtways thoughtwaysembedded invirtually  everything inourculture but especiallyamplified and exacerbated bythe massmedia and  advertising.However muchthe consumer isdeluded intothe beliefthathe ischoosing freely, he isunder the swayofcontrived necessity.

Bookchinwrites: “Ifthe objectofcapitalismorsocialism isto increase needs,the objectof anarchismisto increase choice.”

Buthoware allthese developmentsto be broughtabout?Howare we to understand and  intervene inthe sociocybernetic processeswhichlead usalltogo inanother direction?

Bookchinhaslittle tosayonthese matters.Perhapsthisstemsfroma reluctance toengagein  instrumentalreasoning … Onthe other hand,he clearlyand repeatedlyimpliesthatone ofthe  mostimportantthingsforusto doisto applymind … reason… tothe enormousproblems weface asa species.

Asfar asthe scale ofthe managementoperationisconcerned,he isatpainstoemphasise  that,contraryto whatmanyhave argued, ourproblemsdonot stemfromthe scale of technicalmachineryRather,theystemfromthe progressive transformationofsocietyinto a  technicalmachine forproducing,not(unnecessary)technicalgoodsand services,butsocial  division

The functionofmost goodsand servicesisnotto satisfyhumanneedsbut,onthe one hand, to make socialdivisionvisible (and thusfuelcompetition)and,onthe other,to create workto  occupyhandsthatmightotherwise have become involved insocialtransformation.

The questionwehave to face ishow the socialtechnicswe have evolved are going tobe  modified,absorbed into,and used to promote the developmentof,anemancipatorysociety Some ofthe mostdehumanising and centralised socialsystemswere fashioned out ofvery  “small” technologieswhichbureaucracies,monarchies,and militaryforcesdeployed as brutalizing agentstosubdue humankind and,later,to trytosubdue nature itselfWeneed to  focusoncreating liberatoryorlibertarian,asopposed to authoritarian,arrangements.

Aliberatorytechnologypresupposesliberatoryinstitutions;a liberatorysensibilityrequiresa  liberatorysociety.Bythe same token,artistic craftsare difficultto conceive withoutan  artisticallycrafted societyIt makesnosense to speak of“appropriate technologies” without radicallychallenging the politicaltechnologies,the media tools,and the bureaucratic  complexitiesthathave turned these conceptsinto elitist “artforms” 10

The questionswecanreasonablyask,and whichmightguide ouractions,include: How can  wenourishsocialfreedomasa dailyactivity?How canthe designimaginationfoster a  revitalizationofhumanrelationshipsand humanity’srelationship withnature?How canit  help liftthe “muteness” ofnature – a problematicalconceptthatwe,infact,have imposed on  ourselves– byopening ourownearstoitsvoice?How canitadd a sense ofhaunting  symbiosistothe commonproductive activityofhumanand naturalbeings,a sense of participationinthe archetypalanimatenessofnature?

We share a commonorganic ancestrywithallthatlivesonthisplanetIt infiltratesthose  levelsofourbodiesthatsomehow makecontactwiththe existing primordialformsfrom  whichwemay,originally,have derived. Beyond anystructuralconsiderations,we are faced  withthe need to give anecologicalmeaning to these buried sensibilitiesInthe case ofour designstrategies,wemaywellwanttoenhance naturaldiversity,integration,and function,if onlytoreachmore deeplyintoa world thathasbeensystematicallyeducated outofour bodiesand innate experiences.Today,eveninalternate technology,ourdesignimaginationis oftenutilitarian,economistic, and blind to a vastareaofexperiencethatsurroundsus.

It ispossible toinfer thatBookchinmayseethe wayforward asinvolving the use ofthe  freedom(and time) thatcould come fromanethicalchoiceofneedsto be satisfied,the  dissolutionofhierarchy,the contractionofsenselesswork,and securityprovided bythe  guaranteed minimumto connectwiththe wider aspectsofmind,life,and realitymentioned  earlier.Yet thislooksremarkablylike the kind of“spirituality” he critiques

Perhapsbecause ofthis,and perhapsbecause ofhiscritique of“instrumental” reason,he does not discussmanythingswhichImyself­regard ascrucial… and whichseemtome to follow  directlyfromthe issueshe doesdiscuss.

One example isthat,having,onthe one hand apparentlyimplied thatparticipative democracy  iscrucialtomoving forward and,onthe other,saidthathe cannot seehow Hellenistic  “participative democracy” canbe enacted inmodernsociety,one would have expected himto  discussthe organisationalarrangementshe thinksare appropriate.Incontrast,Idevotealmost  a quarter ofmyNewWealth ofNationsbook to developing a framework fornew societal  managementarrangements… for,withoutsome kind ofshared vision– ortheory– ofthese  thingsitseemsto me impossible to move. AsIseeit,itisessentialto clarifythe  organisationalarrangements,jobdescriptions,and staffappraisalsystemsthat are needed …  and to establishthisviewasa clearalternative to “the marketmechanism” towhich,asmost  people currentlysee things,there isnoalternative. Without suchanarticulated visionor theoryitseemstome that,while itisjustaseasyto saythatwe need a “participative  democracy” asto assertthat ourprimaryneed isto get rid ofcapitalism,itisalsojustas unhelpful,even meaninglessNor doeshe sayanything abouthow weare to getfromwhere  weare towhere weneed to getto.

Another isthat,having elaboratedonthe wayinwhichthe absenceofconceptshasprevented  usdiscussing non­materialistic componentsofqualityoflife and multiple dimensionsof diversity,one would have expected himtohave emphasised the need to develop the  necessaryconceptsand appropriate measurementdevices.Connected tothis,one would have  expected himtoadvocate a move awayfromreductionist,single valued,scienceto  comprehensive, ecological,science.

Bookchin likewise saysnothing about the wider socio­cybernetic processthat controlthe  operationofmodernsociety,the loopsthat remainproblematical,and how one might  intervene inand harnessthemHe givesnoindicationofthe almostentirelynon­commonsense conclusionsconcerning the pointsatwhichindividualsmightintervene thatderive from  sucha systemsanalysis.And he nowhere liststhe fundamentalresearchtopicsthat,asIseeit, have to be addressed aspartofanyattempttomove forward.

AsIseeit,essentialresearchtopicsinclude the developmentofindicatorsofcomponentsof qualityoflife so thatthese canbecome discussable;the assemblyofcomprehensive

informationonthe personaland social,short and long term,desired and desirable and  undesired and undesirable, consequencesofpossible actionsso weare actually ina position  totakeethicaldecisions.More generally,it isessentialtobreak withreductionistscience…  and to understand the reasonswhyit isperpetuated– how itfitsintoand facilitatesthe  developmentofthe kind ofsocietywe have. More specifically,we need to understand the  creation,selection,and reciprocating operationofthe great mythsthatfacilitate the continued  un­progressofoursociety.

Tailpiece: SomeDisconnected Snippets (Mostofthe entriesinthissectionhave beenedited and are not directquotations.)

On domination.

One mustbe waryofthinking of“domination” assome kind ofsingle­factorissue amenable  to attack ina linearmanner.Itisbynomeansconfined tomilitarysubjugation,butincludes the dominationofone ethnic groupbyanother,ofthe “masses” bybureaucratswhoprofessto  speak intheirinterests,ofthe countryside bytowns,ofthe bodybymind,ofspiritby  instrumentalrationality,ofnature bysocietyand technology,and ofqualityoflife bynarrow  economic rationality

On the presumed human predisposition to competeforwealth.

We tend toassume thatcompetitionforindividualwealthis“natural” and thatthe  accumulationofindependentwealthistobe prizedBut,historically,thishasbeentrue for onlya veryshortperiod oftime. Eventoday,ittendsto be highlysuspectinpreliterate  societies.

Inmanypreliterate societiesitistakenasevidencethatthe wealthyindividualisa sorcerer  whohasacquired hisrichesbya sinister compactwithdemonic powersWealthsoacquired  is“treasure,” bewitched power concretised, the stufffromwhichmythologyweavesits FaustianlegendsThe very“independence” ofthiswealth– itsfreedomfromdirectsocial  control– impliesa breachwiththe most basic ofallprimordialrules: the mutualobligations imposed byblood ties.

The prevalenceofthe lineage system,asdistinguished from“civilization’s” territorial  system,impliesthat,evenifhierarchyand differentialsinstatusexist,the community  consistsofkin;itswealthmustbe used toreinforce orexpand socialrelations,not weakenor constrictthem.Wealthcanbe acquired onlywithinthe parameters ofthe lineagesystem,and  mustoftenbe givenawayThe richhave obligationsto provide giftswhenrequested and take care ofbride­wealthand other importantfunctionscriticaltothe survivalofthe community.

The pervasivepercolation of notions of “natural scarcity”,“property,” and “rule”into our thinking about away forward.

Notionsof“Naturalscarcity”, “property,” and “rule”are embedded invirtuallyeverycritique  ofclasssociety,exploitation,private property,andthe accumulationofdisproportionate  wealthByveiling the primordialbloodoaththatconstrainsthe developmentofhierarchyand  dominationinto classsociety,economic exploitation,and property,the classcritique merely  replacesthe constraintsofkinship withthe constraintsofeconomicsinstead oftranscending bothbyventuring intoa higher realmoffreedom.It reconstitutesbourgeoisrightbyleaving

propertyunchallenged byusufruct,rule unchallenged bynonhierarchicalrelationships,and  the perceptionofscarcityunchallenged byanawarenessofthe abundancethatcanbe created  byethicallyselecting the needsthatare tobe pursued.The more criticalsubstrate ofusufruct, reciprocity,and the irreducible minimumisconcealed bya lessfundamentalcritique: the  critique ofprivate property,ofinjusticeinthe distributionofthe meansoflife, and ofan  unfairreturnforlabour

On hierarchy,anarchism and chaos.

Anonhierarchicalsocietyneed be nolessrandomthananecosystem.

On the abdication ofpowerto “authority”.

“Todelegate power(upward,whichiscentraltothe operationofstates)istodivest  personalityofitsmostintegraltraits;itdeniesthe verynotionthatthe individualiscompetent to dealnotonlywiththe managementofhisorher personallife butwithitsmostimportant  context: thesocialcontext.”

Somecommon and unhelpfulconfusions.

Usufructhasbeenconfused withpublic property,directdemocracywithrepresentative  democracy,individualcompetencewithpopulistelites,and the irreducible minimumwith  equalopportunitytocompete ina meritocracy

The conceptoffreedomhasbecome inextricablyentangled witheconomic choices,that ofa  liberated life withthe notionofaccessto “scarceresources”, utopia withtechniquesto  produceanabundanceofgoodsand services,and revolutioninthe sense ofcreating  conditionsforthe evolutionofthe free,ethical,citizenable to freelychoose which“needs” to  activate withliberating the proletariat.

On humanity’s placeinevolution.

Whatishumanity’splace innaturalevolution?Instead ofseeing humanityasa cancerwe  have to ask how wecancontribute something special

More on the workingsofprimordial society and the way they arehidden from usby the  modern mindset.

Anthropologiststend todescribe the magicalproceduresoforganic societiesas“primitive  man’s” fictive techniquesfor“coercion,” formaking thingsobeyhiswill.Acloser view,  however,suggeststhatitiswe whoread thiscoercive mentalityintothe primordialworld.By  magicallyimitating nature, itsforces,orthe actionsofanimalsand people,preliterate  communitiesprojecttheirownneedsinto externalnature.It isessentialtoemphasizethat  nature isconceptualised atthe veryoutset asa mutualistic communityPriorto the  manipulative actisthe ceremonioussupplicatoryword,the appealtoarationalbeing for cooperationand understanding.Ritesalwaysprecede actionand signifythatthere mustbe  communicationbetweenequalparticipants,notmere coercion.The consentofananimal,say  a bear,isanessentialpartofthe huntinwhichitwillbe killed. Whenitscarcassisreturned  to the camp,Indianswillputa peace pipe initsmouthand blow downitasa conciliatory  gesture.Later,to be sure,the word wasseparatedfromthe deed and became the authoritarian

Word ofa patriarchaldeityMimesis,inturn,wasreduced to a strategyforproducing social  conformityand homogeneity.

Byabstracting a bear spiritfromindividualbears,bygeneralizing fromthe particular tothe  universal,and further,infusing thisprocessofabstractionwithmagicalcontent,anew  epistemologyforexplaining the externalworld wasdeveloped.Ifthe individualbearis merelyanepiphenomenonofananimalspirit,itisnow possible to objectifynature by  completelysubsuming the particular bythe generaland denying the uniquenessofthe  specific and concrete. The emphasisofthe animistic outlook therebyshifted from  accommodationand communicationto domination and coercion.

Thisshiftwasprobablythe work ofthe shamanwho concomitantlyembodied the role ofthe  protectorofgame – themasteroftheirspirits– and the helper ofthe hunter.The shaman  magicallydelivered the hunted animalintothe handsofthe hunter.Asbothelder and  professionalmagician,he established a new, quasi­hierarchicalboundarythatsubverted the  old animistic outlook.

It isimportantto fullyappreciate the assumptionsand workingsofthispreclass,indeed, preeconomic,period insocialdevelopmentIt isnot onlyimportant,itisalsodifficult –  because the vastideologicalcorpusof“modernity” – capitalism,particularlyin itswestern  form– hassomehow been“designed”to concealitfromusEvensuchnotionsasprimitive  communism,matriarchy,and socialequality,sowidelycelebrated byradicalanthropologists and theorists,playa mystifying role inthe processofconcealment.Lurking within the notion  ofprimitive communismisthe insidiousconceptofa “stingynature”Thisbringswithitthe  notionofa “naturalscarcity” whichisseentodictate communalrelations– asthougha  communalsharing ofthingsisexogenoustohumanityand mustbe imposed bysurvival  needstoovercome the “innate”humanegotismthat “modernity” sooftenidentifieswith  “selfhood”.The notionofPrimitive Communismalsocontainswithinita conceptof property,however “communal” incharacter,thatidentifiesselfhood withownership. Usufruct,asthe transgressionofproprietaryclaimsinanyform,isconcealed bypropertyasa  public institutionIndeed,“communalproperty” isnot so far removed conceptuallyand  institutionallyfrom“public property,” “nationalised property,” or“collectivised property”  that the incubusofproprietorship canbe said tobe removed completelyfromsensibilityand  practicesofa “communist” societyFinally,“matriarchy”, the rule ofsocietybywomen  instead ofmen,merelyaltersthe nature ofrule;itdoesnotlead toitsabolition.“Matriarchy”  merelychangesthe gender ofdominationand therebyperpetuatesdominationassuch.

Notes

1.Hewrites (inaslightlyeditedform)“What is surprisingabout thecourseofsocietaldevelopment  is not theemergenceofdespotisms intheNewandOld Worldalike,but theirabsenceinlarge areas oftheworldIt is testimonytothebenignpowerinherent inorganicsocietythat somany  cultures didnot followtheroutetoStatehood,mobilisedlabour,class distinctions,and  professionalwarfareOnthecontrary,theyoftenretreatedintoremoterareas tosparethemselves  this destiny”

Onecanbut wonderwhetherthedrawingpoweroforganicsocietycouldhavebeensopowerful  aftersomanyother“developments”hadoccurredIt wouldhavebeenmorethanusefultohave hadsomekindofaccount oftheforces that ledthesesocieties topursuesuchadifferent path

2. Mostworkinmodernsocietyis highlyunethicalAsspelt out inRaven(1995)it involves doing  suchthings as:

Contributingtaxes,research,ordirect manufacturingactivitytoawarmachinewhichnot  onlydirectlytakes thelives ofhundreds ofthousands ofpeopleeachyearbutalsoconsumes  and/ordestroys hugequantities ofplanetaryresources inmanufacturingortrainingexercises  orasaresult ofdumping“wasteproducts”arisingfromthemanufactureorusageofnuclear andotherweapons;

Producing,marketing,ordistributingjunkfoods,junktoys,andjunkcarsThemanufacture oftheseunnecessarycommodities consumes enormous quantities ofirreplaceableresources  andgenerates wastewhichcannot beeffectivelydisposedofIt thereforecontributes  enormouslytothedestructionofthesoils,seas andatmosphereDistributingtheminvolves  flyingalmostidenticalgoods inoppositedirections allovertheplanet andcentralised  distributionarrangementswhichdependontrucks,cars,andtheconstructionofhighways  whichalsogenerateenormous pollutionProductionalsoresultsinmassiveexploitationof labourandnot onlyin“thirdworld”but alsoathomeMarketingproduces needs which  cannot besatisfiedandthus leads todebt anddis­satsifactionamonghugesectors ofthe  population;

OfferingjunkeducationandjunkresearchJunkeducationfails todevelop,and,asshownin  this article,renders invisible,mostpeople’s talentstherebydenyingthemanopportunityto  develop andusethemTheneglectedtalentsarethosethat aremostimportant fromthepoint  ofviewofreformingourwayoflifesothat thespecies andtheplanet haveachanceof survivalThesystemalsogenerates feelings ofinadequacyinvastnumbers ofpeopleand  labels themas “unemployable”,suitableonlyfordegradinganddehumanisingtreatment by  theso­called“welfare”services.Junkresearchoccupies thetimeofmillions ofpeople– and  not onlythosedirectlyinvolvedintheresearchorinreviewinggrant applications andthe  resultingpublications,but alsoinbuildingandmaintainingthe“necessary”buildings,printing  presses etc.;

Contributingtoadrugs­basedhealthcaresystemthat destroys allcaringworththenameand  divertsattentionawayfromthesocietalreforms that arereallynecessary;

Contributingtobankingandinsurancesystems whichareorganisedinsuchawayastohave themaximaleffect fromthepoint ofviewofsuckingresources fromthethirdworldand  exploiting– that is,destroyingthelives andlivelihoodsof– billions ofpeopleandalso  reducingvastnumbers ofpeopleinourownsocietytodestitution,deprivedofadequate communalcare;

contributingtoenergy­intensivechemicals­basedagriculturewhoseeffect is todestroythe  soils,theseas,andtheatmosphereas wellas allocatingbillions ofpeopletolives of degradation,humiliationandstarvation.

Inpassing,it is important tonotethat thoseintheWTO andelsewherewhopushthroughsinglefactororientededucationalreforms veryclearlyseetheneedtohaveamythologyandasocial  process whichcompels somanypeopletodosomanythings that theyknowtobewrongand, indeed,not evenintheirownbestinterests becausetheactivities inwhichtheyareengaged  destroytheirownqualityoflife.

3.Incontrasttotheeconomystic account ofhistory(whichargues that thecoordinationof“labour”is  requiredtoproducematerialsurpluses), Bookchinclaims,though,inthis case,hedoes not provide  theevidence,that,historically,theprocess was theotherwayround:That therewas anincreasing  surplus goods andlabourinorganicsocieties,andthat this surplus was usurpedbythepowerful, not toleadmateriallyaffluent lifestyles,but toexert authorityover,andcreateawein,others. Labourtobuildpyramids (andearlierpalaces andmortuaries) was not “needed”inany  materialisticsenseThus it is not truetosaythat theslaves wereexploited fortheobject was  not toconfermaterialbenefit ontheirrulers.Theobjectivewas tocreateconditions inwhich  authoritycouldbeexertedandtoexact obedience

4.Foranexpositionofthis point ofviewseeLovelock (1979)andRobb (1989)

5.Seekingawayofthinkingabout anddescribingthis process brings us upagainstoneofthemost fundamentalproblems ofmodernscienceandphilosophyFor,inreality,theprogressive  emergenceoforganicstructures,and,indeed,theveryconditions that madetheiremergence possible,has todowiththeemergenceanddevelopment oflifeitself(seeRaven,2007)Alsothe

majorproblemfacedbyecologyas ascienceis howtomap andunderstandtheendless feedback  loops that develop betweenorganisms andtheirenvironments particularlybecause,moreoften  thanthemodernmindset wouldliketoadmit,thesedependonsymbioticratherthancompetitive  relationships.(SomeofthesearediscussedbyBookchinhimself.Others willbefoundin  Goldsmith,1992 andWaddington,1969,1975)

6.Newtonfirsthadtoarticulatetheconcept of“force”,showit wasmeasurable,andshowthat the ideawas generalisableacross thewind,thewaves,fallingapples,andtheplanets(Previously, therehadjustbeenthewindandthewaves,thebehaviourofwhichwas thought tobecontrolled  bytheGods.)Thenhehadtoelucidateandmap theforces actingonsailingboats– includingthe  observationthat “toeveryforcethereis anequalandoppositereaction”Fromthat followedthe entirelycounterintuitivenotion(whichflewinthefaceofcommonsense)that theequaland  oppositereactiontotheimpact ofthewindonthesailingboat mustlieit inthesea andthestill moreabsurdnotionthat this couldbeharnessedtodrivetheboatintothewindOnlyafterthat, was it possibletoenvisagethat it wouldbepossibletoharness theoverallnetworkofforces (by  puttingkeels onsailingboats)sothat theresultant ofthenetworkofforces wouldpushtheboatsto  wheretheircaptains wantedtoget toratherthancrashingthemagainsttherocks.

Ţ At arecent meetingit emergedthat companypsychologists involvedintheassessment ofthe  effectsofdrugs wereemployingamethodologythat theyknewwas defectiveQuestionedabout  theethics ofthis practice,theyrespondedthat thecommercialinterests ofthecompanywouldbe threatenediftheyrevealedthis information(andit is,in fact, thecasethat WTO legislationmakes  it illegalforanyonetosayanything,trueorfalse,whichwouldbelikelytodamagethelong­term  commercialinterests ofacompany)But the“solution”profferedat themeetingwas interestingIt  was proposedtopass theinformationontothedrug­trialstandards committee– ie“the authorities”– whowerethenexpectedtofix thesituationThat“solution”,ofcourse,overlooks the  standardproblemwithauthoritariansolutions – themembers of“theauthority” were,ofcourse, drawnfromtheverydrugcompanies that wereperpetuatingtheunethicalpractices.

8.Thegeologicalrecordis repletewithrecords ofspecies whichcontinuedontheirseeminglyselfdetermineddevelopmentalcourseuntiltheycouldnolongerfunctionandthus becameextinct.The dysfunctionalmembers ofthe species werenot deselected by natural selectionleavingthe more  functionaltocarry on Evenmoredifficult toaccount forbynaturalselectionaretheendless  complex symbioticprocesses that existinallareas oflife

9.TheSchoolsCouncilforCurriculum andExaminations inEnglandandWales,whichwas set up in  theearly1960s –andwas largelyteachercontrolled– establishedaseries ofmajorcurriculum  development projects.Virtuallyallofthesedisappearedforreasons knownonlytoafewofthose mostdirectlyinvolved.Iknowat leastpart ofthestoryabout what happenedtoitsIntegrated  ScienceProject,whichwas deliberatelyclosedbecauseit was bothencouragingpupils tothink  about what theyweredoingandensuringthat theycouldget credit forsodoingintheexamination  system.Iamtoldthat similarfates befelltheHumanities Project,“Man,a Courseof Studies”,and  arelatedmathematics project.Theseprocesses wereby nomeans limitedtotheUK. At muchthe  sametime,theUSOfficeofEconomicOpportunity–nottheOfficeofEducation– initiated HeadstartandFollow­Throughwithaviewtoallowing thousands ofsponsors toinitiateprojects basedontheirowntheories about thecauses oftherangeofproblems knowntobeassociatedwith  socialandeconomic disadvantage.Someofthesewereenormouslysuccessfulinproducing  change.This presentedtheevaluators (e.g.StanfordResearchInstitute)withaproblem,with  whichtheyset about tryingtocope.But thenanapparentlyextraordinarythinghappened.Control  oftheprojectswas wrestedfromtheOfficeofEconomicOpportunityandtransferredtotheUS OfficeofEducation.This promptlydirectedtheevaluators topaynoattentiontooutcomes other thanraisingIQ, schoolachievement,andstayingout oftroublewiththepoliceThis hadtheeffect  offorcingmostofthesponsors toabandonmostoftheirobjectives.But what it is mostimportant  tonoteabout theremainingobjectives is that,whilelaudable,theyarenormreferencedand,as  such,logicallyunobtainablebyacross­sectionofpupilsIQsarebydefinitionrelativetothe  scores ofotherchildreninthesameagegroup.Onecannot have“most”children“aboveaverage”. And,asHope(1984)alsodemonstrated,this particularlyapplies to“at risk”pupils.As soonas one moves somepupils out of“remedial”classrooms theirseatsaretakenbyothers.What onesees  veryclearlyhereis therolewhichtheeducationalsystem,quasystem(andnot viathe“hidden

curriculum”)plays incontributingdirectlytothecementationofasocialstructurethat has arange ofknock­oneffectsandthewillingness ofauthoritytointervenein,andeffectivelydestroy,the  educationally­orientedactivities createdbypeoplewith agenuineinterestinchildren,people, education,development,andhumaneideals insocietytoensurethat thesesociologicalfunctions  areperformed

10.The“howtodoit” toolkitsof“alternativetechnology”areparticularlyunsavourybecauseofwhat  theyrevealabout theirinventors andpromoters’ readiness tomake“pragmatic”compromises with  thepoliticaltechnologies ofgovernmentalagencies.Thesekitsrevealthat theirproducers have “bought into” … not merelyaccepted theassumptions ofthesystemabout suchthings as  naturalscarcityandthevalidityofmodern“needs”

References

Bookchin,M.(1991/2005).TheEcology ofFreedom:TheEmergenceand DissolutionofHierarchy Oakland,CA:AK Press.

Braudel,F(1993) A Historyof Civilizations London:PenguinBooks. Goldsmith,E.(1992)TheWay:An Ecological World­View London:Rider Hope,K. (1984) As Others SeeUs:SchoolingandSocial Mobilityin Scotland and theUnited States NewYork:CambridgeUniversityPress.

Lane,RE(1991) TheMarket Experience NewYork: CambridgeUniversityPress. Lovelock,J.E(1979) Gaia, A NewLookat Earth Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress.

Marks,N.,Simms,A,Thompson,S,&Abdallah,S(2006) The(Un)happyPlanet Index:An Index of HumanWell­being andEnvironmentalImpact.London:NewEconomics Foundation Downloadablefromwwwneweconomics.org andwww.happyplanetindex.org  Morgan,G. (1986).Images ofOrganization.BeverlyHills,CA:Sage. Raven,J.(1995).TheNewWealthofNations:ANewEnquiry into theNatureandOrigins of the WealthofNationsand the SocietalLearning ArrangementsNeeded foraSustainableSociety Unionville,NewYork:RoyalFireworks Press www.rfwp.com.Sudbury,Suffolk:Bloomfield  Books. Raven,J.(2007).Someproblems ofindividualemergence.InG. deZeeuw,M.Vahl,& E.Mennuti, (Eds.),Problems of Individual Emergence.SpecialIssueofSystemica:Journalofthe Dutch  Systems Group 14,nos.1­6 (pp.377­396).PublishedbyLincolnResearchCentre,GlobeFarm, Lincoln,LN1 2SQ,UK. SeePDFand diagramat  http://www.eyeonsociety.co.uk/resources/pie2.pdftogether with http://www.eyeonsociety.co.uk/resources/flpadwc.pdf

Raven,J.(2009,forthcoming).Introductorypaper and Main Questions for aworkshop/discussion of How areweto understandandmapthenetworkofsocialforces behindtheautopoietic  processes whichappearto beheading ourspecies towardextinction,carrying theplanetas  weknow itwithus – andhow areweto designamoreeffectivesocio­cyberneticsystemfor societalmanagement?tobeheldat themeetingofResearchCommittee51 (Socio­Cybernetics)  oftheInternationalSociologicalAssociation,Urbino,Italy29 June– 5 July2009.Asummaryof this paperis currentlyavailableathttp://wwweyeonsocietycouk/events/rc51_2009.pdfandit is  hopedthat thefullpaperwillshortlybeavailableontheeyeonsocietywebsite Raven,J.,&Navrotsky,V(2001)Thedevelopment anduseofmaps ofsocio­cyberneticsystems to  improveeducationalandsocialpolicy JournalofMentalChanges,7(1­2),19­60

Robb,FF(1989)Cybernetics andSuperhumanAutopoieticSystems.Systems Practice,21,47­74. Waddington,CH(1969) Towards a TheoreticalBiology(2 vols.)Edinburgh:EdinburghUniversity  Press.

Waddington,CH(1975) TheEvolution of anEvolutionist.Edinburgh:EdinburghUniversityPress.