Anarchism
Indigenous Anarchism
Terese Howard
10/22/09
One of the most common critiques of anarchism is that, as wonderful as it may sound, it is not possible. In this paper I will address that critique through the anthropological studies of Harold Barclay, an anthropologist who has studies and written much about indigenous societies around the world. In People without Government: an Anthology of Anarchism,[1] Barclay discusses nearly a hundred societies, mostly in the past but some more recent, that he understands as anarchies. In summarizing this book I hope to show not just the possibility of anarchy, but the actual functioning existence of anarchy.
Barclay draws a distinction between anarchy as “the condition of society in which there is no ruler” (no government), and anarchism which he deems “the social and political theory, developed in 19th century Europe, which incorporates the idea of anarchy, but does so as part of…a broader, self-conscious theory of values which makes human freedom and individuality paramount” (Barclay, 13).[2] The anarchist movements of today may find themselves in conflict with most examples of indigenous anarchism in the scope of their egalitarian efforts. More often than not these ancient anarchies did not treat woman with equal respect to men. Almost all these societies employ religion and thus the authority of spirits or divinities. In light if some of these differences some modern day anarchist may feel uncomfortable with these anarchies, nonetheless, the absence of any government or state makes it hard to call these societies anything other than anarchies. Barclay points out that “amongst anthropologists there are those so imbued with their own cultural traditions that they will go to any lengths to avoid recognizing these systems for what they are” (11) – anarchies.
In order to understand authority and power in these societies as opposed to the states and governments of today, Barclay discusses three types of social sanctions which hold authority and can be utilized for power. These categories are diffuse, religious, and legal sanctions. Diffuse sanctions can be “gossip, name calling, arguing, fist fighting, killing and ostracism” (22). They are “those which are spontaneously applied by any one or more members of the community” (22). Religious sanctions are supernatural ones such as a curse or a promise of heaven. Legal sanctions involve rules, people with authority, and punishment. Indigenous anarchies have diffuse and religious sanctions but no legal sanctions. In this way there is authorities within these societies but the nature of this authority does not equal that of a government or state.
The absence of a ruler, third party mediation in conflicts, and consensus decision making are all structures of society that are present in all most all indigenous anarchies. Eskimos were a hunter gatherer society that identified by bands of 100 or so people. These bands had no ruler. They did have a figure head that they saw as the first among equals, but this man had no real power or authority to make, laws, punish, declare war, or any such activates that government leaders do. In Aunak society a symbolic king would hold the special spiritual things but that is the extent of his role. The Yurak society similarly were hunters and gatherers and also had no ruler. Yarak’s had “an elaborate set of regulations concerning offenses, but the technique employed to enforce these rules is not one of law enforcement, but rather of mediation” (47). A third party would serve as a go between in times of conflict until the conflict could be resolved. Other examples of mediation are present in agricultural societies where the whole community will meet to mediate between parties. In the Pygmies society punishment for a guilty party was not enacted until consensus had been reached by the whole community. Indigenous Islandic society had voluntary judicial assemblies at which they would make important decisions be consensus.
The conditions of these anarchic societies is obviously very different than those we live in today in most of the world. The most anarchic societies tend to be the hunter-gatherer societies, societies with the smallest population, and with the least amount of specialization or skills. Nonetheless, anarchies still have existed in societies where none of these conditions were the case. The question “is anarchy possible?” should then be changed to “under what conditions is anarchy possible?” because it is clear that anarchy, society without government, is possible sense it has existed for centuries. It is also true that anarchy looked different under different conditions and that it may look different under the conditions of modern society.
Barclay, Harold. People Without Government: an Anthology of Anarchism Redwood Burn Limited: London, 1982.
[1] I recommend this book to anyone interested in possible social structures other than government.
[2] This definition of anarchism could defiantly be taken to task for its focus on individualism but I will not do that at this point – even though it could be relevant to the broader discussion of indigenous anarchism as a collective force.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
You close your blog with a consideration of the conditions of anarchy, suggesting that we shift the question from, "is anarchy possible?" to "under what conditions is anarchy possible?" And as you (and Barclay) note, different elements that often define "government" are present in societies in different ways: management of trade, religion, travel, and so on. Conditions vary in different times and places. What is appropriate for a late-modern or post-modern global society?
Aristotle asked the same kinds of questions in his day. Unlike many other political theorists (including Plato), Aristotle was not looking for the ideal formulation of a state, but also the modes of political organization appropriate to different circumstances, those modes which were common to various groups, and how degrees of approximating the ideal might be embodied (see Politics, book IV). In order to accomplish this Aristotle and his students at the Lyceum cataloged 158 constitutions from different states and compared them (classic Aristotle). In the end of his analysis he presents a brief outline of an ideal government, but his real aim is to give wisdom to governers in different circumstances.
This is the beginning of political SCIENCE. It is not absent from theory (Aristotle is very clear about the aims and ends of government), but it examines, like Barclay and Aristotle, under what conditions this or that aspect of collective organization--at different levels of scale--are best acheived.
1. Your question, “under what conditions is anarchy possible?” is an excellent one.
2. I believe that the quality of any form of government/ authority depends greatly on the character of those in power. Be it the character of everyone, a few, or one. Our little barnyard is an example. Chickens, goats, (and I’m told other animals) all have a power structure, pecking order. In our goats Jessie is the head, then comes Shoni, Alexandria, and finally Macrina. Jessie is not an especially kind queen and I have found her bossy actions set a mean tone for the entire group. I would think this is just normal if I had not seen Martha’s reign as queen of a herd. Martha was an old goat and was clearly the top authority of the barn yard. If she had to she would be aggressive to make a point to a new goat, but this was rare. She ruled with kindness and rarely butted. The tone she set for the herd was gentle and all the goats fell in with this attitude creating a kind and gentle barn yard. I have read of this same phenomenon with horses. Kind and wise authority is of great value.
The way Barclay is defining goverment social structures like "managment of trade, religion, and travel" are not defining marks of government. Government is tied to legal sanctions, which is a woven relationship between laws, representitives of authority, and a monopoly on (legal) violence. The indigonous (and other) societies that Barclay discusses do npt have these governmental structures. The point he makes about different kinds of sanctions is that defuse and religious sanctions do not make up government. Just because you have an individual with a high degree of authority through his/her connection with the spirits, good hunting skills, age, negative use of gossip, or what have you, does not make them a ruler of a government. Authority has natural limits within an individual. It cannot become governmental authority (or ruler) without the power of lagal sacntion (laws, monopoly on violence...). This addresses M.E.'s coment about the character of those in power. Good character in a authority can do much good, but even if the authority is of the best of characters with the best of intentions, in a full scale government that authority is tied to a power (law, monopoly on violence...) that was not derived from her/his goodness and cannot be contained or controled by her/his goodness. The authority (and power) that one goat has over the others is still anarchic because of the lack of suprastructral legal sanctions and such. In that way, the value of a good authority over a bad one has more segnificance for an anachic society then a governmental one because this is what the authority is based off of insted of being besed off of the transferable system of government.
you're gonna get sick of my comments...
i think it's not correct to define anarchy as only the lack of legal documentation of power structures (although i understand that the definition makes anarchy suddenly possible). power needs 2 parties: an exercisor and a granter. and humans regularly (and seemingly necessarily) grant power to others over different aspects of their lives, and reject claims of power over others. what difference does it make if you call it government, church, or the house of the holy purple frog? if they tell me to not eat an apple from this tree and i grant them the power to do that with my compliance, that edict is then law, be it written or not. i see no difference between the three 'sanctions' that are listed in this summary. this is why i believe that governmental systems will always exist in some capacity, but i also believe that i, the individual, have the privilege of granting the power. make your laws, throw me in jail, kill me, whatever. you only have the power over me that i grant you.
You speek of the exercisor and the granter. Yes I do agree the power of governance or law is tied to "the peoples" granting that power through compliance. If no one followed laws or bowed down to kings, these powers would not have the power they do.
At the same time, power does not all come in the same box. You speek of the power of government, church, or the holy purple frog (and we could add your mom, the dish rag, the chicken soup, yourself and so on) - all of these have power but the possibilities of that power differ greatly in each. There is a difference between the power behind your friend's telling you to "go pick up that trash" (whether you obey him or not), and the power behind a police officers telling you to "go pick up that trash". Your friends power to tied to a mutral ralationship, to voice tone, or maybe even to her physical strength to bet you up if you do not. The police officers power to tied to a whole system called government and law. If I do not obey the police officer he is backed by an entire police force, a prison system, a judicial system... The key power of law is that it is tied to these forces. Once something has been voted into law it matters little who is telling you to do it because that command is tied to a whole system of power that goes beyond the power of diffuse of religious sanctions. Compliance (or granting) is still a peice of legal power that does not put it on the same playing feld as other forms of power.
What Barclay is calling government is a system of power that is characterized by these ties between rules (which become laws), force, and recognition of authority. I will agree in, agreement with Barclay, that these combined powers create a socail system that must be distinguished from social systems that did not/does not have these combined powers. Whether you call one government and the other anarchy can be debated (actually I disagree with Barclay's definition of government and actually see anarchy as offten having government - along with some other anarchist), but the point is to distinguish social systems run on central authority combination of law, force, and legitimation from ones run without those systems.
If my existance in these systems grants them power the question may become under what conditions can I escape granting "them" power to kill me, or to let me live off of land and love.
Now we are really beginning to get somewhere, I think. Because in your first blog on the "Definitions of Anarchism" you stated that what all the definitions hold in common is a belief in "the unnecessity of government." Now we are asking the question of what is "government."
Is it government only when there are written laws, rule and compliance, and the legal exercise of violence to maintain order? Most families do not have written laws, but expect rule and compliance, and exercise legitimated understanding of violence to maintain order (you may remember a spanking or two, Terese). The ancient Greeks had an ongoing debate between "rule by law" and "rule by ruler." For many societies (not just indigenous societies) "law" as we think of it, was not in place. There is a serious difference between constitutional monarchy and conqueror imposed despotism. Is it not "government" because the laws are not written, but rather understood as a part of a small, close-knit culture? And what if you have written laws, but the society is in the process of breaking down due to public unrest? Here you have written laws, but no compliance - a state of "anarchy" we might say?
So just what IS government, and thus, what IS anarchy really?
Post a Comment