I am trying to write a simple faq about anarchism. One of the question is “Why do anarchist want to abolish hierarchies?”. This question sounds so obvious to me I cannot write something convincing enough. …
My answer to the concept of “justifiable hierarchies”
I have been thinking about this a lot in other area than politics but I am unconvinced that the hierarchies vs non-hierarchies worldview is a productive lens through which to view the problems anarchism attempts to address.
Do anarchists actually define precisely what a hierarchy is? Further, is the difference between coexisting hierarchies (multiple hierarchies with the same elements existing simultaneously) and “monotheistic” hierarchies that attempt to rationalize all transactions between their elements within their framework?
My understanding (a very incomplete one, please feel free to educate and link to relevant stuff for me!) is that anarchism is supposed to function like murmurations of starlings where coordination between many individual elements arises spontaneously without any centralized directive. It seems confusing to me though to use the “hierarchy vs non-hierarchy” lens since there are many hypothetical and real human systems that might appear to be organized through top-down directives but actually arise in a fashion similar to murmurations of starlings (and vice versa, one example being people trying to fight against colonization without decolonizing their minds).
I feel like anarchism has more to do with the ongoing voluntary consent given by individuals to the systems they participate in than the actual details of those systems. Idk, I just feel like talking about “hierarchies vs non-hierarchies” leads people to imagine anarchism wants starlings to fly around chaotically and not form murmurations, not look at the starling in a murmuration and ask “is this individual consenting to this movement?” and then look at the larger murmuration and ask “is this movement a confluence of desires or a network of control?”.
Do anarchists actually define precisely what a hierarchy is?
I’m unaware of a formal definition, but most (all?) of anarchist literature touches on the different aspects of hierarchy and domination.
coexisting hierarchies
Some people call that kyriarchy, but yes intersectional analysis is definitely part of modern understanding of anarchism. It can be traced back to the 19th century with a lot of female anarchists denouncing their male anarchist comrades fighting bosses in the streets, yet behaving like bosses themselves at home (see Emma Goldman, Lucia Sanchez…)
anarchism is supposed to function
Anarchism is not a program and does not have a preset way to function. Anarchism is constant criticism/sabotage of all forms of domination.
appear to be organized through top-down directives but actually arise in a fashion similar to murmurations of starlings
Delegation of power is not understood to be a problem anarchists, as long as this relationship is based on trust and can be undone at any time. Of course more knowledgeable/active people in a certain set of circumstances may be more central to achieving specific goals.
For example, a group of people renovating a house may choose to trust their carpenter friend to coordinate/lead renovation works because they have more experience in this field. This does not mean blind trust and absolute authority of the carpenter over the others. If the carpenter behaves in irresponsible/unrecommendable manner, people may choose to ignore their advice or even exclude them from the group.
On a larger scale, the same kind of principles apply. A whole branch of anarchism, anarcho-syndicalism relies on a society-wide delegation of trust to specific unions. Who better to know how to organize the bakeries around town than the bakers’ union? Likewise for the rails union, the telephone union, the peasants union… This was the organizing principle of the spanish revolution (1936) in which millions of anarchists took part.
the ongoing voluntary consent given by individuals
Precisely. “Consensus” (no opposition) is an established anarchist organizing principle. Consent-based organizing (active, explicit consent) is a more modern and foolproof take on that.
I have been thinking about this a lot in other area than politics but I am unconvinced that the hierarchies vs non-hierarchies worldview is a productive lens through which to view the problems anarchism attempts to address.
Do anarchists actually define precisely what a hierarchy is? Further, is the difference between coexisting hierarchies (multiple hierarchies with the same elements existing simultaneously) and “monotheistic” hierarchies that attempt to rationalize all transactions between their elements within their framework?
My understanding (a very incomplete one, please feel free to educate and link to relevant stuff for me!) is that anarchism is supposed to function like murmurations of starlings where coordination between many individual elements arises spontaneously without any centralized directive. It seems confusing to me though to use the “hierarchy vs non-hierarchy” lens since there are many hypothetical and real human systems that might appear to be organized through top-down directives but actually arise in a fashion similar to murmurations of starlings (and vice versa, one example being people trying to fight against colonization without decolonizing their minds).
I feel like anarchism has more to do with the ongoing voluntary consent given by individuals to the systems they participate in than the actual details of those systems. Idk, I just feel like talking about “hierarchies vs non-hierarchies” leads people to imagine anarchism wants starlings to fly around chaotically and not form murmurations, not look at the starling in a murmuration and ask “is this individual consenting to this movement?” and then look at the larger murmuration and ask “is this movement a confluence of desires or a network of control?”.
I’m unaware of a formal definition, but most (all?) of anarchist literature touches on the different aspects of hierarchy and domination.
Some people call that kyriarchy, but yes intersectional analysis is definitely part of modern understanding of anarchism. It can be traced back to the 19th century with a lot of female anarchists denouncing their male anarchist comrades fighting bosses in the streets, yet behaving like bosses themselves at home (see Emma Goldman, Lucia Sanchez…)
Anarchism is not a program and does not have a preset way to function. Anarchism is constant criticism/sabotage of all forms of domination.
Delegation of power is not understood to be a problem anarchists, as long as this relationship is based on trust and can be undone at any time. Of course more knowledgeable/active people in a certain set of circumstances may be more central to achieving specific goals.
For example, a group of people renovating a house may choose to trust their carpenter friend to coordinate/lead renovation works because they have more experience in this field. This does not mean blind trust and absolute authority of the carpenter over the others. If the carpenter behaves in irresponsible/unrecommendable manner, people may choose to ignore their advice or even exclude them from the group.
On a larger scale, the same kind of principles apply. A whole branch of anarchism, anarcho-syndicalism relies on a society-wide delegation of trust to specific unions. Who better to know how to organize the bakeries around town than the bakers’ union? Likewise for the rails union, the telephone union, the peasants union… This was the organizing principle of the spanish revolution (1936) in which millions of anarchists took part.
Precisely. “Consensus” (no opposition) is an established anarchist organizing principle. Consent-based organizing (active, explicit consent) is a more modern and foolproof take on that.