AaronVansintjan June2011 Simplistically,anarchycanmeantwothings: 1. Absolutechaos.Theassumptionisthatonceyouhavenocentralformof power,nolaw,nostate,societycollapsesintolawlessnessandbarbarity. Violencereigns. 2. Apoliticaltheorynexttocommunism,democracy,ortotalitarianism,where societyhasnorulerorcentralcommand.AsPeterKropotkinstates,No morelaws!Nomorejudges!orasadvertisedbyanarchistsinMontreal,No gods,nomasters;nobosses,noborders! Soherewehavetwosimplepropositions:withoutlawstherewillbeviolenceand withoutlawstherewillbepeace.Inthisessay,Idispelthefirstdefinitionofanarchy andgroundthesecondintocontemporarylife.

fe.Idosobywayofintroducing MarshallSahlinsessay,TheWesternIllusionofHumanNature,pairingitwithJohn GowdysessayinLimitedWants,LimitedMeans,anddiscussingHannahArendts argumentagainstthestate.Finally,IrelateZygmuntBaumansdescriptionof contemporarylife,andhowitisruledbyfearandinsecurity.Ishowhowanarchism, inessence,isfearlessness.Thisrequiresbothtrustinothersandarespectfortheir individuality.Inthisway,itisanethos,awayofmovingabouttheworld.AsBauman shows,fearlessnessandrespectfortheotheraretheonlytoolswehavetoensure peace. Humannatureasweknowit,saysMarshallSahlins,isamyth.Heexplainsthe dominantideainthepoliticaltheoriesoftheminorityworld1:thatthehumanbeing issoavariciousandcontentiousthat,unlessitissomehowgoverned,itwillreduce societytoanarchy.Itseemsthat,withoutsomeformofcontrol,somecentral command,societywilldisruptintochaos,thenaturalstateofhumanbeings.This ideaistobefoundinintellectualworksfromtheGreeks,totheEnlightenment,to thepresent.TheUnitedstates,hesays,wasbuiltonthephilosophyofHobbesand thereligionofCalvin,whichistosay,ontheassumptionthatthenaturalstateof humanityiswarandthehumanmindisnaturallyatoddswiththegood. Thustheminorityworldhaspaintedapictureofhumannatureassomethingthat alwayscomesinthewayofsociety,thejuststate,andcoexistence.Exemplaryof thisistheideaoforiginalsin:thatweareintrinsicallyevilandmustmakeupfor thisthroughsuppressionorrenunciationofthosesins. Society,inturn,originatesinmaterialneed.Necessitybringsushumans together.Weliveamongsteachotherinordertosatisfyouranimalneeds,butthese mustneverthelessberepressedsothatwemayliveamongsteachother. 1InsteadofusingtermsliketheWest,FirstWorld,ordevelopedcountries,thispaperuses minorityworld:anattempttoreversethehierarchiesinmainstreamdiscourse. 1 Anarchyandhumannature

Historyhasbeendefinedasaseriesofnationstates,wheresovereignpowers controlledthemassesthroughdifferentmeans.Thenarrativeofhistory,then, followsanarcfrombarbarity,savagery,andviolencetodominionandcontrol. Historyis,accordingtomainstreamthought,thelongWesternnightmareofnatural anarchytogetherwiththepoliticsofitsresolutionbysovereignauthority. Intheminorityworldtheresanideaofthehumanbeingthatneedscontroland repressiontokeepitsaggressiveurgesinline.Thisis,aswewellknow,thefirst assumptionbehindeconomictheory:thatmarketsaredrivenbyindividual competition,andthatmanagementofmarketforcesrequiresmerelythechanneling ofthesecompetitiveurgesandallocatingscarceresourcesaccordingtothisdemand. Similarly,itisknownthatthestateexistsasacenterofpowertokeepallindividual actorsinline.Societyis,then,merelyanaggregationofselfishindividualsthatact fortheirownbenefit.Weliveamongsteachothermostlytoachievehigher individualpleasures.But,asSahlinsshows,thisnotionisnotpresentinallsocieties. Sahlinsproposeskinshipasapossiblealternative.HequotesAristotleindefining kinshipasamutualrelationshipofbeing;kinspeoplearemembersofoneanother. Thisnotionisechoedinmanyethnographicreports.NativeAmericantribesbelieve inatranspersonalself.TheMaoriliveinauniverseentirelycomposedofpersons ineffect,theuniverseisonebigkindred.Aperson,tocommunitiesinthe CarolineIslands,isalocusofsharedsocialrelationsorsharedbiographies.As Sahlinssays,
Theselfinthesesocietiesisnotsynonymouswiththebounded,unitary,and autonomousindividualasweknowhimhiminparticularrather,theindividualperson isthelocusofmultipleotherselveswithwhomheorsheisjoinedinmutualrelationsof being[thisis]theparticipationofcertainothersinonesownbeing.

Inthesesocieties,peoplearentviewedasautonomous,actingonlyontheirown behalf,andlivingamongstotherssolelyforthepurposeofaggregatingpersonal benefits.Hereanindividualisseenasacollectionofrelations,apersonactsasa nodeinanetwork.Inthesesocieties,actingforindividualselfinterestscarcely applies:

Naturalselfinterest?Forthegreaterpartofhumanity,selfinterestasweknowitis unnaturalinthenormativesense:itisconsideredmadness,witchcraftorsomesuch groundsforostracism,executionoratleasttherapyitfollowsthatthenativeWestern conceptofmansselfregardinganimalnatureisanillusionofworldanthropological proportions.

Bycontrastingtheminorityworldsperceptionofhumannaturetothatof numerousothercultures,Sahlinsaimstoshow,notnecessarilythattheotheris moretrue,butthattheideaofhumannatureasaggressiveandtobecontrolled (muzzled)bystatepowerisnotfinal:thereareotherpossibilities.2 2Therealizationofotherpossibilities,theunderstandingthatonesownideaisnotfinaland

objective,oftenallowsustobringusbeyondtheprejudicesweliveby.Theprojectisto show that things are not as obvious as we might believe ... [and] to render the too-easy gestures difficult

Inaddition,studiesofcontemporaryhuntergatherersocietiesconfirmthatthere isnonecessaryrelationbetweendependenceonhuntingandviolenceamong people.Inotherwords,theideathatwithoutthepropertechnologyand infrastructurewewouldbesavages,ismerelyequippingthehunterwithbourgeois impulsesandPaleolithictools.Theideathatweneedastronglegislative infrastructuretokeeppeopleundercontrolisdisproved,saysSahlins,bythe peacefulnessofcontemporaryhuntingsocietiesnotundersurveillancebyanystate. Here,theexceptiondisprovestherule. TheWesternillusion,then,isthatwemusthaveasovereignpowertocontrol themasses,thatwithoutthatpower,therewillbeanarchy.Fromevidenceofother societies,sovereignpowerisnotnecessarytokeeppeoplecivil.Thesesocieties arentafunctionofmutualcompetitioneither.Onthecontrary,societyiskept togetherbecauseofsharedrelationshipsandnonatomizableselves.The subsequentideathatweneedadominantpowertokeepusundercontrollestwe turnintosavagesisdisprovenbysocietiesthatgetalongfinewithouttheconcept thathumanbeingsareintrinsicallyviolent. ThisargumentisstrengthenedbytheworkofJohnGowdy.Inoneanthologyhe edited,LimitedWants,UnlimitedMeans,Gowdyexamineswhathuntergatherer societiesmeanforourconceptionofhumannatureandformodernpolitical thought. Researchintothelivesofpastandpresenthuntergathererpeoplesshowsthat huntergatherers,peoplewholivedwithalmostnomaterialpossessionsfor hundredsofthousandsofyears,enjoyedlivesinmanywaysricherandmore rewardingthanours.Thisisbecausethesesocietieshadplentyofleisuretime (theyworkedamaximumofsixhoursaday),nofixedcapital(nobelongings, everythingisshared),andnoseparationofworkandsociallife.Inthisway,the huntergathererrepresentstheuneconomicman: 1. Theydontlinkindividualwellbeingtoindividualproduction. 2. Theydontliveinascarceworld. 3. Selfishnessandacquisitivenessarentnaturaltraits. Inthesesocieties,therearelimitedwantsandunlimitedmeans,meaning,they arentlimitedbysupplybutlimittheirdemand.Huntergatherersocieties,then,are notselfish,butatthesametimeliveequallyamongsteachother:theyare aggressivelyegalitarian.Sharingandmutualityarestressedbutthisdoesntcome withlongtermcommitments:nooneisdependentonanother. Inshort,huntergatherersocietiesfurthershowthathumansarentintrinsically aggressiveandselfish.Itisoftenassumedthathumanityisfacedwithaneither/or question:eitherwehaveinfrastructure,laws,andpolice,orwehavechaos,violence, andinequality.Butfromtheexampleofhuntergatherersocieties,social relationshipsareenoughtocontrolaggressionandinequality.
(Foucault 1982).

Thenotionthathumanbeingslivetogethermerelyfromnecessityis,accordingto HannahArendt,mostlyarecentmyth.InTheHumanCondition,sheshowsthatthe FrenchRevolutionsignifiedamomentwhenpoliticscouldhaveturnedtoopen discussionconcernedwithfreedomandtheabilityforeachtoliveastheywished. Instead,thestatebecameameanstocontrolnecessity.Throughnormalizingand equalizingtechnologiessuchasstatistics,officials,administrators,andpolice assimilatedethnicities,normalizedpractices,andbroughtmatterssuchasthe freedomtolive,eat,andhaverelationsdowntostatedecisions.Inthissense, politicsbecameaninstitutionthatnormalizedbiographiesanddeterminedbiology. InTheOriginsofTotalitarianism,Arendtshowsthatitwaspreciselythesepractices thatresultedintheSecondWorldWar.NationalSocialismdidntinventracism,it merelyusedthetoolsalreadypresentandusedbyEnglandandFrancetofurther assimilateandnormalizethepopulation. ThekingmighthavebeendecapitatedaftertheFrenchRevolution,butthe politicalsubjectwasstilldeterminedbysovereignpowers.Arendtthusfinds societyhugelyproblematic:itisatoolbywhichtruthwasnormalized,discourse wasessentialized,racewasassimilatedorliquidated,andlifewasobjectified.The stateonlyrecognizesthosesubjectswithspecificbackgrounds,specificbiographies, andallowsforthetreatmentofveryspecificnecessities.Bydescribingthesetools, Arendtshowsthatsocietyisaconstructanditisthestatesfunctiontoenforceit. Theideathatastateisneededtokeeppeopleincontrolandtochannelthe necessityoflivingtogetherandtheneedtocontrolsocietyisaselffulfilling prophecy:onlyinimplementingthesetoolsdidthestatecreatenecessityand society.InthewakeoftheSecondWorldWar,biologicalcontrolofthepopulation wasunethical.Thestate,asaninstitutionthatcontrolslifebiologically,wasitself putintoquestionbyArendt. NowadaysthisstoryasArendttellsitseemsunnecessary,exaggerated.Ofcourse thestatenormalizes,butthisdoesntalwaysleadtototalitarianism.Thestateand goodgovernance,afterall,hasbeenveryeffectiveindistributingwealthwithinits borders,allowingforscientificandtechnologicalprogressand,ageneralincreasein thewelfareofhumanbeings.Wetendtoarguethatbureaucraticdemocracyis betterthancivilwaroradictatorship.Scandinaviancountries,whichfeature extensivestateregulation,aredoingexceptionallywell.Itcanbesaidthatthesocial andbiologicalstatehasbeenasuccessstory,judgingfromtheimprovementsthat theworldhasseeninthepasthalfcentury. ButwhatArendtpointsoutisntthatallstatecontrolleadstofascism,butthat theideathatthestateoughttocontrolthelivesofitscitizensonlycameaboutquite recently,andthatthesemethodsofcontrolhaveoftenbeenattheexpenseofcertain individualswithbiographiesthatdontfitintothestatesideaofhumannature: minoritiesandthestateless.BetweenthetwoWorldWarsthiswasalltooclear,but itisalsoveryobviousnow:immigrantsandminoritiesareatafargreatereconomic andsocialdisadvantageinallcountries,andmillionsofrefugees,whomArendtcalls thestateless,stilllivebehindbarbedwire.ToArendt,minoritiesandthestateless arethemostsymptomaticgroupincontemporarypolitics.Theysignifythatthe ideaofacitizenisinherentlyexclusionary,andhumanbeingsthatdontfitinto citizenshiparemostoftenexcludedfromtheirrights. 4

Acknowledgingthisallowsustoseetheproblemsthatcomealongwith statehood:itisbyitsverydefinitionracistinexcludingothersfrommembership.3 Furthermore,itsracismissymptomaticofagreaterworry:thatitdefineswhatitis tobeahumanbeing,decidesthathumansneedtobecontrolledinordertolive amongsteachother,andderidesallthosewhodonotliveunderastateassavages withlessrights.AndaswasrevealedbytheworkofSahlinsandGowdy,noneofthis istrue.Humannaturehasmanypossibilities,itcantbeobjectivelydefinedbyan institutionorbymembershiptothatinstitution.Humanbeings,asweknow,donot needastatetoloveamongsteachotherpeacefully.Andthosewhodonotlive accordingtothestatearentsavages;inmanywayshuntergatherersocietiesare nowknowntohavebeenquiteaffluent. AndofcourseArendt,writinginthefiftiesandsixties,wasntawareofthe changesthatwouldtakeplaceinthedecadestocome. Today,saysZygmuntBaumaninLiquidTimes,wearepartofasocietyimpotent, asneverbefore,todecideitsowncoursewithanydegreeofcertainty,andtoprotect thechosenitineraryonceithasbeenselected.Liberalism,wherethestates functionistofacilitateenterprisesandmarketforcestoactaseasilyaspossible essentiallyloweringthecenterofgravityofthestateandmakingitafacilitator ratherthanadecisionmakerisinfullswing.Asmoreandmorestateorgansare dropping,inprocessesnowtermedsubsidiesorcontracts,thesocialstatehas becomeaplaythingofinternationalmarketforces. Withthedeclineofstatecontrol,governmentinitiatedsafetynets,andunions, wearenowexpectedtobefreechoosersandtobearinfulltheconsequencesof ourchoices.Asindividuals,weareforcedtobiographicalsolutionstosystemic contradictionandindividualsalvationfromsharedtroubles.Thebiographical solutionsareapparentbythemeaninglessnationalisticorethnicstorieswecreate forothersandourselvesandthenenforcethroughlaws,policy,orpublicity.4 Notonlythat,wearenomoregovernedbythestate,butbyfear.Whereasthe Fordistfactorywasorganizedasapanopticon5,asinamobileandflexibleeconomy, weliveinconstantfearoflosingourjobstosomeoneelse.Weareourown panopticon,andfearoflossofsecuritypushesustocompete.Whereasturnofthe centurysocietywasidentifiablebyinstitutionalcontrol,wecanbeidentifiedby consumercompetition.AsBaumanobservesinCommunity,insteadofmarching columns,swarms. BaumanregardsSUVsinAmerica,gatedcommunitiesinBrazil,loiterfreepublic spaceinmajorcities,andguardedapartmentbuildingsasindicatorsforacultureof fearandinsecurity.Advertisementspreyonwhatifscenariosandhowtheir
3Hereracistmaybetoostrongaword.Buttomyknowledgethereisnowordthatmeans

discriminationtowardssomeonewhodoesntsharethesamebiography. 4Thewayinwhich,forexample,Quebechascreateditsownfrancophoneimage,Canadauses hockeyasameanstoconstructnationalidentity,orIsraelhasexcavatedarcheologicalsitesinorder toproveitshistoricalpositiontoitsowncitizens. 5Thepanopticonisadesign,originallyconceivedbyJeremyBenthamforprisons,whichgivesthe impressionthatsubjectsareundersurveillanceatalltimes,evenifitisntknownwhethertheyare undersurveillanceornot.Thusrebelliousimpulsesaresuppressedthroughfear.

productcanprotectyoufromtheworst.Politicianspromiseprotectioniftheyare keptinpower,andincitemakebelieffearsaboutthedangerofothercountriesor religiousgroups.AsBaumanstates,Inanagewhenallthegrandideashavelost credibility,fearofaphantomenemyisallthepoliticianshavelefttomaintaintheir power.Fearoflosingyourjob,fearofapublicenemy,fearofdisease,fearof economiccrashes:theseallkeepusincheckandencouragethemachinetokeep going. Thisfear,perpetuatedbypolitics,unstableandcompetitivelivelihoods,and segregatedcities,meansmoreandmorethattherichareabletoputthemselves behindwallsandthepoorestareputbehindthem.ForthisreasonBauman contraststhecosmopolitanelite,whochoosetoliveingatedcommunitiesandhotels thatlookexactlythesameallaroundtheworld,andthecaseofrefugees,millionsof whomhavebeenputunderthecareofinternationalprogramsdesignedtokeep themalive,safe,andbehindfences.Refugeesplaytheoppositeroleofthe cosmopolitanelite:theydontchoosetobebehindwalls,theyareputtherebyforce, theydontchoosetobenationless,theyaretornawayfromtheirownland. Refugees,saysBaumaninLiquidTimes,aretheveryembodimentofhuman waste,withnousefulfunctiontoplayinthelandoftheirarrivalandtemporary stay,andwithneitheranintentionnorarealisticprospectthattheywillbe assimilatedandincorporatedintothenewsocialbody.Asaresult,societyis chokingonitsownwasteproductsitcanneitherassimilate,annihilate,or detoxify.WhileinArendtstimethestatelesswereasymptomofsocialracismatthe handsofnationalism,nowtheyarealsosymptomaticofaglobalizedbuthugely stratifiedworld. Fearwhichdrivespeopletoelectwarmongers,buyinsurance,installCCTV cameras,excludeminorities,andbuildwallsisbuiltonsecurity.Itseemsthat,for allitsriches,securityissomethingthatthecorporate,globalized,andindividualized worldhasbeenunabletoprovide.Thustheantidotetofearandsegregation,says BaumaninCommunity,isafeelingofsecurity.Thismakessense:ifwefeelsafe,then wewontbeafraidoflosingwhatwevegot.Securityis,then,thenecessary conditionofaglobalcommunity.Thisisacommunityinwhichfearoftheother doesnotplayarole. Inaworldwherenooneissecureintheirlivelihoodandeveryoneiscompetitive, afundamentalnecessityisconcernandcareforeachother.Ifanotherfalls,onemust trytohelpthemgetup.Similarly,ifanotherlosestheirjobortheirbusinessshuts down,theremustbeasocialsafetynettocatchthemandhelpthemgetbackon theirfeet.Thus,securityandnoncompetitivenessrequiresconcern,responsibility, andmutualcare. Insum,whatBaumancallsforisessentiallyfearlessness.Fearlessnessentails respect,care,mutuality,andasenseofsecurity.This,inturn,providesthe opportunityoflivingamongsteachothersafelyandequally.Andthisisabsolutely necessaryinaworldofwallsandfences. Anarchyscentraltenet,thatlawsandhierarchyareunnecessary,isntfaroff fromsuchfearlessness.Laws,itissaid,aremeanttoprovidesecurity,withoutwhich noonecouldbeheldaccountable.Thedesiretodoawaywithalllawsdoesnt 6

implicatethewishfortotalchaos.Itactuallyimpliesthebeliefthateveryonewould beabletocoexistwithoutlaws.Toholdthisbelief,anarchistsmustbevery trustworthy. Inadditionanarchismdoesnttoplayintotheracismandsegregationthat nationhoodconnotes.Inthissense,italsoprovidesawaytodealwiththeissueof humannature.Humannaturehasbeenseenmostlyinnegativelightbytheminority world:itisnecessarytosuppressitinorderforpeopletocoexist,andthisisdone throughstatecontrol,laws,andpolicy.Sonotonlydoesanarchismnotlayanyclaim towhathumannatureis,itimpliesthatcoexistencedoesnotrequirethe segregationofpeoplesintodifferentstatehoods.Toanarchists,yourbackground doesnotdeterminewhatrightsyouhaveorwhatgeographicallocationyoumustbe beholdento. Withthebeliefthatlawsandhierarchiesareunnecessary,then,come fearlessness,equality,mutualcare,noncompetition,andthereforeasenseof security.AndasBaumansays,theseattitudesarealltoonecessary.Anarchism,then, impliesnotonlyanidealistpoliticaltheory,butalsoanethic.Thisethicistrustin theother. Anarchismdeservesacloserlooksimplybecauseitprovidesattitudesthat,as Baumanshows,arelackinginmodernlife.Itrefusesracismandanegative conceptionofthehumanbeingasdrivenbycompetition.Anarchism,initsvery basic,strippeddownform,presentsuswithamuchneededethos.6

6InthispaperImerelyapplaudthesentimentbutnottheconclusionsofanarchy. Theconclusions,thatthereshouldbenolawsandnostateinfrastucture,isa discussionbestlefttoanotherday. 7

WorkCited Arendt, Hannah. The Human Condition. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press, 1958. Arendt, Hannah. The Origins of Totalitarianism. USA: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 1994. Bauman, Zygmunt. Community. Seeking Safety in an Insecure World. Cambridge: Polity, 2001. Bauman, Zygmunt. Liquid Times: Living in an Age of Uncertainty. Cambridge: Polity, 2006. Foucault, Michel. "Is it really important to think? An interview translated by Thomas Keenan. Philosophy Social Criticism 9: 30-40, 1982. Limited Wants, Unlimited Means: A Reader on Hunter-Gatherer Economics and the Environment. Edited by John Gowdy. Island Press, 1997. Sahlins, Marshall. The Western Illusion of Human Nature. Chicago: Prickly Paradigm Press, 2008.