File spoon-archives/postanarchism.archive/postanarchism_2004/postanarchism.0409, message 67


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lists of historical references.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



   

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005