From: Richard Singer <ricinger-AT-inch.com> Subject: Re: [postanarchism] Re: disassociation and postanarchism Date: Thu, 6 Nov 2003 00:50:45 -0500 JessEcoh-AT-cs.com [SMTP:JessEcoh-AT-cs.com] wrote: >one last thought: proudhon's "principle of federation," the decentralism that is so essential to all subsequent anarchist thought and practice, is an attempt to preclude (or at least avoid) the formation of those oppressive, difference-negating unities (what emma goldman called "compact majorities") by deciding _in advance_ that as much decision-making as possible will be reserved for the smallest demographic units. it is based on the assumption that agreement among all is most difficult, agreement among many less so, agreement among a few the least so -- not on any optimistic supposition that free people all automatically, naturally agree. in short, it builds a kind of "dissociation" right into the very form of "association," and vice versa.< I'm all for smaller decentralized groups. And I'm all for the idea that people don't have to associate with any particular groups. What bothers me is the idea that groups can dissociate themselves from people -- i.e., kick them out -- without having to feel as though they should follow any basic democratic principles, such as giving people a fair hearing about whatever problem they think is reason to kick such people out. So, the affinity group becomes a little tyranny, and you can have lots and lots of these little clique dictatorships popping up. I think that one person rejecting a group is different from a group kicking out one of its members since the collective is at least supposedly more powerful than the individual and is the main means through which the individual can more effectively work toward social change (as opposed to trying to do things all by him/herself). Anyway, Jesse, I think you were on the right track when you talked about some kind of anarchist constitution; such a document or guiding set of principles should deal in part with how groups treat their members. I hope I don't seem to be singing the same chorus over and over again :), but I'm just trying different ways to get my point across. One last note on this... I myself have grown less enthusastic about the idea of affinity groups. The problem is, I'm cyncial enough that I don't think people can trust affinity as a reliable way of workng toward somethng, especially in the long term. Affinity changes and shifts, and affinity is not always as promising as it seems to be at first. (Additionally, there is this problem -- which I obviously can't stress enough -- about the clique.) Maybe it's better for people to drop this word "affinity" so that they can focus on the idea that they're gathered together for a practical purpose and because of shared goals, ideals, etc., and they don't have to feel obligated to like each other. Richard
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005