Dr. Spock means Johnny Rotton?

November 17, 2002 12:11 AM

AnarchistParenting.com As any parent knows, kids are heavily into anarchy. It seems that some parents are, too. Personally, I like to keep my anarchy where it belongs: fairytales (which are also the only places it works.)
posted by agentfresh (38 comments total)

Man, I can't tell you the number of times I thought this as a kid. Now if they could only find a cartoonist who was funny and could draw...

I like this, agentfresh.
posted by hippugeek at 1:59 AM on November 17, 2002

It is a pitty that you think living together 'in mutual respect and harmony with the environment' can only occur in fairytales. Surely, this is the logical goal of human kind - to develop a society which is stable? We have done so in the past, have we not? A balance needs to be found.
Thanks for these links, Taking Children Seriously is an important step towards a fair society, IMHO. Of the 193 UN members 191 have ratified the UN Convention on Rights of the Child. The US and Somalia are the abstainers.
posted by asok at 5:16 AM on November 17, 2002

It is a pity that you think living together 'in mutual respect and harmony with the environment' can only occur in fairytales.

It's a pity, but it's also an accurate statement.

Surely, this is the logical goal of human kind - to develop a society which is stable?

You're absolutely right. That's why anarchy is always abandoned for more feasible forms of government.
posted by oissubke at 7:08 AM on November 17, 2002

oissubke: At the risk of being rude, do you have any idea what 'anarchy' means, in a socio-political context?
posted by Jairus at 7:50 AM on November 17, 2002

Jairus: thank-you.

It's a pity, but it's also an accurate statement.
Why is this an accurate statement? What is it about anarchy/communism/other-govt-you-don't-like that makes it such that it can't work? Why are you so sure? Or are you just being a supercool jaded pessimist?
posted by Fabulon7 at 8:00 AM on November 17, 2002

I think "jaded pessimist" is about right (and also a working definition of "political conservative"). I agree with asok (if I'm reading him correctly) that anarchy (in the sense of a society that depends on mutual respect rather than institutionalized violence) is something to strive for, and I regret the ease with which so many intelligent people say "Can't happen -- just accept the mess we've got."
posted by languagehat at 8:53 AM on November 17, 2002

If you want to see a real example of an anarchic system, look to the Earth on the state level: there are a large number of diverse groups (hundreds of states), and none of them have any legal authority over any other parties (each has sovereignty)- thus it is an anarchic system. And how well do things like decision making work out in this anarchy? I would say not as well as any other form of government.
posted by crazy finger at 8:54 AM on November 17, 2002

crazy finger: That's not anarchy. Not when so few countries have so much economic leverage over so many others.

Anarchism isn't about legal authority. It's about the idea that no one (and no state) has the right to exploit or to oppress another person (or another state).

If you can look at the earth on a state level, and not see exploitation and oppression, I envy your ignorance.
posted by Jairus at 9:09 AM on November 17, 2002

There are functional, positive, anarchic societies -- NOT governments -- operating both within the United States and globally today. They exist, and they manage quite well, thank you.

I don't really care for their reliance on Reich in developing a theory of anarchic child raising. But much of this is spot on:

"If a child is taught that certain things are sinful, his love of life must be changed to hate. When children are free, they never think of another child as being a sinner." [Neill, Op. Cit., p. 245]
posted by RJ Reynolds at 9:41 AM on November 17, 2002

"guys, i dropped the lentils on the floor again, you'll just have to eat them there"
posted by manero at 9:52 AM on November 17, 2002

There are functional, positive, anarchic societies -- NOT governments -- operating both within the United States and globally today. They exist, and they manage quite well, thank you.

Could you provide some examples? (Not a snark--I'm genuinely curious.)
posted by thomas j wise at 10:08 AM on November 17, 2002

Speaking of fairytales, this story has always sort of intrigued and disturbed me.
posted by wobh at 11:12 AM on November 17, 2002

Next time you are seated at a table next to a shrieking child, enjoy the anarchy.
posted by konolia at 1:29 PM on November 17, 2002

It is a pitty that you think living together 'in mutual respect and harmony with the environment' can only occur in fairytales. Surely, this is the logical goal of human kind - to develop a society which is stable? We have done so in the past, have we not? A balance needs to be found.


Very noble and desirable, but I the reasons these things work in fairytales is that fairytales aren't chained to the limits of the human heart like society is.

I don't believe humans could ever build such a society...unless they are redesigned on a fundamental level. I look for this to happen one day, but men won't do it.
posted by agentfresh at 1:44 PM on November 17, 2002

The Amish.
posted by Recockulous at 2:05 PM on November 17, 2002

I think the problem (as the article Recockulous linked sort of hints at, but never explicitly says) is that the anarchist model offered by groups such as the Amish only functions within very limited communities, and requires absolute conformity to local tradition in order to continue functioning. It's a way of life that doesn't really survive contact with the outside world, as the article somewhat half-heartedly acknowledges (the factory & conversion issues). And it's certainly a way of life that wouldn't survive any kind of individualist ethos, libertarian or otherwise.
posted by thomas j wise at 2:30 PM on November 17, 2002

The Amish?

They posses the same hearts you and I do: less than perfect.
posted by agentfresh at 5:57 PM on November 17, 2002

I'm not so sure that the Amish anarchist model "only functions within very limited communities" - what would make an entire nation of Amish communities dysfunctional, exactly? From what the article says, Amish communities are small because of theology, not necessity. And does a government not demand absolute conformity to its laws and regulations? Anarchism and Amish traditionalism are not necessarily inseparable.

Small communities are always easier to manage, but I have yet to understand why anarchist societies cannot scale, if a few simple values are near-universally shared. Sure, there may be some transgressions here or there, but this happens now as well.

So about the actual post: how feasible (or not) is anarchist parenting in practice? Are there degrees of anarchism in this regard (e.g. making rules, but not using force or the threat of force to secure cooperation)? Spanking - cool or not cool? Any parents care to comment?
posted by skoosh at 6:24 PM on November 17, 2002

This thread is a cutely constructed potshot. “Check this thing out — it sucks.” Que sera.

skoosh, I’m neither a parent nor an anarchist of note, but a lot of the ideals “mainstream” (for lack of a better word) parents would like to instill in their children are similiar to those of anarchist parents. For one, yes spanking is losing out to generally, to “time outs” and such. This isn’t due to some anarchist groundswell against phsyical coercion, but rather to the work of child psychologists and social workers who’ve studied the negative effects of beating children.

Which goes to show the best anarchy is practiced when the practitioneers don't know it’s anarchy. But I digress.

On the subject of the thread in general: Anarchy really has nothing to do with utopia. Anarchists abhor illusory heirarchies. To that end, they would prefer to live a life free of the oppression of the state — an idea America’s forefathers fought a war over. In this vein, the forefathers tried to make a legal system in which the people’s desires held sway over the government’s. As we’ve seen of the history of the US, government oppression is a key component of governmental survival. A government cannot operate without terrorizing it’s people in some way. So the theory of a limited government has been discredited by the very cradle of the idea. Every government, given enough time, will eventually outgrow the limits bestowed upon it by the most well-intentioned of intellectuals.

“I don't believe humans could ever build [utopia] ... unless they are redesigned on a fundamental level.”

Is this some hint at extropianism or DNA hacking? Your aversion to fairytales isn’t as sophisticated as you imply.
posted by raaka at 7:25 PM on November 17, 2002

Small communities are always easier to manage, but I have yet to understand why anarchist societies cannot scale, if a few simple values are near-universally shared.

But the Amish demand pretty much total conformity to the limits set out by each individual community--it isn't a question of "a few simple values." And to maintain its viability and those values, the community has to be both exclusionist and isolationist, as the essay itself makes quite clear. (While there is no violence here, there certainly is at least one principle of coercion: stay Amish or leave.) How are you going to make this work in, say, even a small multi-faith and/or multi-ethnic city? On what "values" is everyone going to agree, beyond the very basic level of "stealing is bad, murder is not so hot either"? We already agree on those things--er, besides the crooks, of course. I don't see any problem with assembling a small anarchist community of like-minded people, but big communities (let alone countries) with multiple and conflicting constituencies would seem rather more problematic. (I somehow can't see anti-altruism Objectivists being willing to follow the Amish route.)
posted by thomas j wise at 8:05 PM on November 17, 2002

Raaka said: Is this some hint at extropianism or DNA hacking? Your aversion to fairytales isn’t as sophisticated as you imply.

Actually, I'm even less sophisticated than you think: I'm a Christian.
When I say it won't be done by men, I mean that I believe this can only be done by God.
*dons flame-resistant jumpsuit.*
I would like to thank you for teaching me a new word: extropainism. Interesting, but about as useful in my mind as anarchy or DNA hacking.
posted by agentfresh at 8:20 PM on November 17, 2002

> Actually, I'm even less sophisticated than you think: I'm a Christian.

In that case, agentfresh, what did you think of the story I linked to above.

One interpretation is as a cautionary tale. Times were tough, it didn't seem like the system was working. So the Children of Israel petitioned for a system like the ones they saw working around them. You can't really blame them for feeling this way; corruption and mismanagement are highly demoralizing. But the warning about what kind of political system they would be getting makes it clear that this is no solution to their problems. In fact it seems clear from the warning that this would institutionalize the corruption and mismanagement they're objecting too. But when a free people insist on giving up their freedom, what can you say?

I have heard people say this kind of thing. I've heard people argue that a temporary dictatorship is just the solution to some political/social problem that's bugging them. I haven't heard it often, but I've heard it enough that it's stuck in my mind and when I came across that chapter for the first time I instantly recognized the mindset and I remembered that I've never known the right thing to say in response either. I'm just thankful that that feeling doesn't seem to be popular enough cause a real shake-up here in the US (I can see this sentiment causing a great deal of damage in other parts of the world though).

As the talk on this thread goes on it does seem that the most efficient solution for these kinds of things is to seek out a "higher law"--some set of basic principles that everyone can agree to. Both God and the Devil seem to be in the details though.

(And thank you for a new word: "extropainism". How long I have wanted for a word to describe the feeling of reading too much Greg Egan.)
posted by wobh at 10:18 PM on November 17, 2002

Gee.

You know, the U.S. housed a number of perfectly smooth-running anarchist colonies for thousands of years before the fucking white man came and KILLED THEM ALL.

Sorry. You may now return to your previously cynical pessimist worldview.
posted by kaibutsu at 2:56 AM on November 18, 2002

Kaibatsu wrote: "You know, the U.S. housed a number of perfectly smooth-running anarchist colonies for thousands of years before the fucking white man came and KILLED THEM ALL."

Not to sound like a knee-jerk conservative reactionary, but some native american tribes were capable of some pretty nasty stuff.
posted by mecran01 at 4:05 AM on November 18, 2002

Indeed, I was right then. Some fairytales are silly and must be outed as such. Other fairytales, such as wizards and virgin mothers, are worthy.

“Interesting, but about as useful in my mind ...”

We’ve shown your mind to be a rather confused place. Pledging unquestioning allegiance to an unknowable and vague authority is about as far away as one can get from the belief that each individual is the best judge of his affairs. You believe an external authority to be the ultimate arbiter of not only the question of life’s purpose, but the only possible definer of how to live one’s life. That’s fine if you want to believe it. I only point it out as a possible reason why you want to dismiss anarchy instead of engage it.

(I certainly didn’t mean to create any converts to extropianism! An academic who studied it described it to me as the “ultimate geek fantasy”. That sounds about right.)
posted by raaka at 4:31 AM on November 18, 2002

wobh retorted: In that case, agentfresh, what did you think of the story I linked to above.

I think it shows the flawed human heart. The Israelites were called by God to be different. He made them dress funny, abstain from certain foods and do all sorts of "odd" stuff to set them apart from their neighbors.
Basically, they had about the best from of government you could have down here, a true Theocracy (with a real "Theo" doing doing the "cracy") but they wanted to keep up with the Jones.
They asked for a a king like the other nations had...and they got one: prideful, corrupt, oppressive and disobedient to God.
Of course, I'm unsophisticated enough to believe that this was an actual event, so what do I know?
posted by agentfresh at 5:10 AM on November 18, 2002

Thus spake Raaka: You believe an external authority to be the ultimate arbiter of not only the question of life’s purpose, but the only possible definer of how to live one’s life. That’s fine if you want to believe it. I only point it out as a possible reason why you want to dismiss anarchy instead of engage it.

That's part of it. I do believe in an Ultimate Authority.
Another part of it is the depths of the human heart, which I can see charted across history.
And another is physics...power vacuums and such.
I don't think anyone in their heart of hearts would argue that a truly free and equal society would be the way to go...having said that, why can't we do it? Why do we betray that idea in little ways every day in our own lives with greed, selfishness, hatred and fear?
Utopia has to start with the individual, and I don't see that we're up to it in our current state.
posted by agentfresh at 5:19 AM on November 18, 2002

We'd better not let the ghost of George Bernard Shaw know that we're having this conversation...

PRAED [Again beaming.] Thank you, my d e a r Miss Warren: thank you. Dear me! I'm glad your mother hasnt spoilt you!
VIVIE How?
PRAED Well, in making you too conventional. You know, my dear Miss Warren, I am a born anarchist. I hate authority. It spoils the relations between parent and child: even between mother and daughter. Now I was always afraid that your mother would strain her authority to make you very conventional. It's such a relief to find that she hasnt.
VIVIE Oh! have I been behaving unconventionally?
PRAED Oh no; oh dear no. At least not conventionally unconventionally, you understand...

Mrs. Warren's Profession, Act I

(Missing apostrophes and odd spacings are Shaw's, not mine.)
posted by thomas j wise at 6:10 AM on November 18, 2002

mecran01 said: "some native american tribes were capable of some pretty nasty stuff."

True, but there are plenty of examples of tribes that didn't start scalping until Europeans had been pushing them for a long, long time. The Arawaks, the tribe Columbus first met, offered him any number of gifts and niceties, only to be slaughtered and enslaved. Same goes for most of the North American tribes. Sure, there was a bit of human sacrifice, especially in the more imperialistic big South American tribes, but nothing even approaching the evils that typify our supposedly civilized Western culture. (institutionalized genocide? war for economics? fark that noise.)

My point is that the good anarchist societies we see in the history books are based on a very small tribal unit, horribly inefficient and easily crushed from to our military-industrialized outlook. But just because the big guns tend to roll over the anarchists doesn't mean that a good anarchy is impossible. Most of the evils of our big-gun society stem from the possibility of anonymity. Who instigated the "Indian Removal?" When did displacement become genocide? Who made the decisions? Hundreds of people, involved in a massive, semi-anonymous corporate entity called the United States.

Can we go back? Maybe take the technology, the things we've learned, and go back to a better kind of government? Not really, not all of us. There are too many of us, and, anyway, the guys with the big guns and news agencies wouldn't let us. We're too corrupted by our anonymity and our smallness and the words of the arseholes with the money and the guns.

So no, we can't outright make a new, working, anarchist society. But we can learn from them, and incorporate the better ways into our tainted way of life, and hope that, in time, things will be better.
posted by kaibutsu at 6:16 AM on November 18, 2002

Wait, were Native American societies truly anarchist? "In harmony with nature" one might concede, but were their systems of government really anarchistic? (no hierarchy? No castes?)
As a completely separate question, is it also true that the Native Americans never made war upon one another?
posted by Charmian at 10:47 AM on November 18, 2002

do you have any idea what 'anarchy' means?

Wait a minute, do you? Anarchy So I'd like anyone to come up with ANY examples of working societies devoid of principles, purpose or standards. The Amish? The Amish live by MANY set rules, principals and standards, break the rules and you're out. Native Americans? Each may have had a distinctive set of rules yet rules existed, even in the simpler hunter/gatherer societies (thus they are called societies). Besides that, what part of "harmony with nature" includes the driving of species to extinction, running herds of buffalo off cliffs for a few sides of meat or setting fire to vast wilderness to drive animals towards waiting hunters. I don't read anything in that definition that has anything to do with respecting human rights or dignity or living in harmony with nature. Maybe someone can explain how being devoid of principal is supposed to equate to those things?

I'm sorry if I sound like I'm not getting the point here, the only social anarchists that I have been in contact with are the ones that occasionally show me respect and dignity by destroying large portions of my city's public spaces, causing me to have to be subjected to large tax hikes to pay for clean up and repair. I'm also just generally confused by how communal living arrangements can be equated to anarchism by definition? Is it possible that anarchy is a misnomer?
posted by Pollomacho at 1:08 PM on November 18, 2002

Pollomacho: The only thing anarchists agree on (more or less) is refusing to accept hierarchies based on institutionalized violence as a structural principle. Everything else is up for grabs. There are violent anarchists and nonviolent anarchists, socialist anarchists and individualist anarchists, you name it. It's a common misconception that structured cooperation is incompatible with anarchy; the whole point of anarchism is that people can cooperate without the threat of violence. If the only sanction for breaking the rules is "you're out," that's perfectly fine: accepting the rules is part of choosing to be part of the community. Killing buffalo is neither here nor there. And yes, the pointlessly violent activities of a bunch of young idiots are giving anarchism a bad name, just as they did for leftism 30+ years ago. Young males are often dickheads.
posted by languagehat at 2:04 PM on November 18, 2002

But wait, I'm still confused, the definition of anarchy is being DEVOID of principals, purpose or standards, how can you have any principals, purpose and/or standards and still call it anarchy?!? I am so totally lost here? If you have rules of any kind, then its not anarchy, its some kind of other ___archy, just like believing in a god means you automatically aren't an atheist. You may be a-political, you may be against imposing rules on others, but if you have an organization based on those principals or ANY principals, then you are violating the clear and concise definition of anarchy, right? I'm so confused. Amish people have very concise rules and being shunned from your community is used as punishment, how is that not following principals, purpose nor standards to punish someone for not following the rules? The Amish also have leaders and impose their will on their children through trips to the wood shed, is that anarchy? Doesn't sound like it to me. Then again I'm the confused one here.
posted by Pollomacho at 2:29 PM on November 18, 2002

Pollomacho: Yes, I'm afraid you're confused. Listen up: the definition of anarchy has nothing to do with "being devoid of principles." OK? Nothing, zippo, zilch. Now reread my previous comment with that in mind. It's about not having a government (by definition, based on institutionalized violence: join the army/pay taxes/obey laws or we'll lock you up/kill you). If you can rid yourself of that strange definition you've somehow acquired, you'll be a lot less confused. You might even start to think anarchy is a pretty good idea...
posted by languagehat at 4:07 PM on November 18, 2002

The strange definition is the one found in the dictionary! What I'm confused about is where you got YOUR definition and what you think that definition is? Having social-anarchy would be equivalent to religious atheism. Sure having more respect for others or some form of more egalitarian system would be great, but that's NOT anarchy, that's just that, a more egalitarian system! Maybe a communistic system (communism has such a bad connotation in our society) maybe a commun-archy or socio-archy is what you are talking about, but not anarchy, a lawless condition where no rules apply.

Even with the merits of those type systems there are many problems when they are transferred to a larger scale. Jarred Diamond in Guns, Germs and Steel (yes I know, not some kind of Bible here, but a reference at least), lists at least four major reasons why he believes people move towards massive nation states and away from communal bands when societies grow into large dense populations, first conflict between unrelated strangers, second the impossibility of communal decision, third transfer and redistribution of goods and last population density in relation to resources.
posted by Pollomacho at 11:29 AM on November 19, 2002

Oh, and I'm not doubting that I wouldn't agree with the vast majority of what you are referring to as anarchy, I'm just still in confusion as to why you term it as such.
posted by Pollomacho at 11:31 AM on November 19, 2002

Duh - um, I think I mean that I would most likely agree with you on most stuff, somehow you might be able to decrypt that last little turd of a post!
posted by Pollomacho at 12:14 PM on November 19, 2002

Pollomacho, the definition you're clinging to is #3, a result of years of misunderstanding of who anarchists are and what they believe. Yes, some people use the word that way, but no actual anarchist would, so it's not helpful in dealing with the subject. As an actual anarchist who's read a great deal on the subject, I'm a pretty good source on how anarchists use it, which is (using your link) "1. Absence of any form of political authority." That's what I was paraphrasing above as "refusing to accept hierarchies based on institutionalized violence as a structural principle" and, more directly, "not having a government." Use whichever phrasing makes most sense to you, but that's what it's about. Sorry if I was unclear.
posted by languagehat at 12:26 PM on November 19, 2002