Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2004 13:22:57 -0400 (EDT) From: "Shawn P. Wilbur" <swilbur-AT-wcnet.org> Subject: Re: [postanarchism] re: Resist social cleansing! OK. Onward, i suppose. I just want to raise a few issues that may pose significant challenges for the whole "social cleansing" argument. The first is a sort of general observation, based on some time spent with the Oxford English Dictionary. Reference materials are never decisive in these sorts of debates, but the OED can give a wealth of information on word usage, particularly when the word is something like "social." It strikes me, though this is something that would have to be confirmed, that Andrew objects to "the social" in general - at least in some sense. When i laid out sort of a minimal acknowledgement of human beings' always already "social" condition - there are more than one of us, and it has consequences - he dismissed that as "still lead[ing] back to endorsing some aspects of the social/anti-social abstract machine." Part of the assumption seems to be that *any* sort of acknowledgment of a "social" sphere leads to the "in group/out group" distinctions that he accuses me of wanting to establish. What i *do* want to establish is recognition of voluntary association as a properly anarchist principle - which involves, it seems to me, a recognition that not everyone will be a part of every association. The "right" to voluntary dis-association is more controversial in anarchist circles, but i think most folks would agree that we're not struggling for a world in which the *only* form of collective we will recognize is *everyone.* Anyway, Andrew is proposing that there is *an* abstract machine that opposes pretty much everything we might call "social," plus a lot of things we might designate more specifically (community, for example), to an "anti-social" which threatens it. But the threat also seems to be specifically a threat to the "status quo" or the normalized elements of society. As Andrew has presented this abstract machine, it appears that as soon as "the social" appears, then the nonconformist "anti-social" appears as its always already excluded part. Meanwhile, back at the OED... It's strange, reading through the various uses of "social" and the long lists of historical references. "Anti-social" is very clearly defined as relating to opposition to the status quo, but "social" itself implies no great investment in or defense of conformity to the status quo. It's pretty striking, really. The "social" of "anti-social" seems to have a different meaning than pretty much *all* of the many "socials" defined in the OED. And a quick survey of some other sources confirms that general pattern. I am not arguing that there is *not* an abstract machine that opposes the social and anti-social. There are obvious, specific examples, like the ASB statutes in the UK, where such a machine is at work. On the other hand, i'm very suspicious of the demonization of "the social." Initially, my thought was that there were *multiple* machines at work, with rather different workings - and this may still, of course, be the case. But what stands out after looking over the history of usages is that the particular machine we see at work behind ASBOs and the like actually works by positing an "anti-social" for which the opposite pole is not "the social" in general, but some specific society - defined now specifically in terms of stable structures and values that must be defended. *BUT* the actual acts categorized by the machine are pretty obviously not the sorts of things that somehow directly threaten "the fabric of society." The ASB statutes are indeed vague, but there seem to be a couple of classes of acts covered: mostly nuisance behavior and illicit commercial behavior (drug dealing, prostitution). We're really back to something that both Andrew and i have already acknowledged, which is that the attack on the "anti-social" in these cases isn't really what it advertises itself as. But the fact that the "social" which is invoked is already at best a very, very special case may raise some questions about the sort of general endorsement of "the anti-social" that Andrew is proposing. Just a few more thoughts, on the specific points... On Thu, 23 Sep 2004, Shawn P. Wilbur wrote: > In any event, if i am understanding your argument - based on the manifesto > and our recent exchanges - then: > > 1) There is an "abstract machine" (or commonly deployed set of categories) > which assigns acts and actors to the categories "social" and > "anti-social." One or many machines? > 2) The workings of this "machine" are characteristic enough so that they > can be recognized, even if those specific terms are disavowed. *Is it the case that *any* sort of limitation, however apparently self-imposed, in fact depends on an authoritarian logic of ins and outs? If so, what are the practical consequences for anarchists? *Is* community - particularly a given community - equivalent to "the social" in any of its forms. Certainly, a community is a social assemblage of some sort, but is that sufficient reason to move on to the sweeping sort of claims Andrew wants to make? In the case of the EZLN drug prohibition, does it matter that we're talking about separation from "the dominant society," about "new communities," where the conditions of membership have included the drug prohibition more or less from their beginnings? > 3) This dichotomy is a major, even primary, mechanism of social control. Once we start to look closely, and ask the "one or many machines" question, is this clearly the case? There are instances where the issue really does seem to be "anti-social behavior," such as the attempts to ban smoking in public that are some popular in the US now. They are portrayed as public health issues, but there are lots of reasons to suspect that health concerns are *not* the driving force (similar threats ignored, inconclusive health data, measures not commensurate with the alleged level of threat, etc.) In some ways, i'm sympathetic to the notion that some kind of impulse towards "social cleansing" - a general unwillingness to deal with the neighbors' peculiarities and "bad habits" - is, in fact, on the rise. But the mechanisms look very different to me. There is some baby going on in the bathwater, it seems to me. My primary concern is with oversimplification. I was rereading an early message in this thread where Andrew suggested that either the EZLN opposed drugs as anti-social, or they opposed them as capitalistic. He suggested that it wasn't the latter because they didn't ban other potential cash crops. Now, i would say there was some important differences between commerce - of the kind, for instance, that brings Chiapas coffee beans to US markets via operations like The Human Bean Company - and what we oppose in capitalism. But even if that point isn't granted, it seems to me that opposition to drugs by can also involved health issues, issues of domestic violence, issues of alertness and security in a zone of conflict, and, of course, the issue of being identified as drug trafficers or growers in the midst of an increasingly militarized "war on drugs." > 4) Neither "side" of the dichotomy has a fixed content - which is at once > a "strength" of the mechanism, in the sense that it is hard to challenge, > and one of the reasons the dichotomy should be overcome. > > 5) The dichotomy can be overcome by a strategic championing of the > "anti-social" pole, and this overcoming serves radical ends. I'm not certain that championing the "weak" side ever overcomes a binary. The trick seems to be showing that the poles have something other than a binary relation. > 6) The slogan "Victory to the Anti-Social!" is a radical slogan despite > the fact that it does not actually endorse any particular "anti-social" > acts. "Victory" which does not mean "victory," etc, just makes for a slogan that is easily misunderstood. And slogans are at least supposed to be clear... -shawn
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005