Modern society has a predilection for centralization–the consolidation of resources. This has clear roots in Enlightenment thinking: use natural science to discover and build on the best ways to do things, and ultimately strive toward perfection. This crippling singularity does not reflect the complexity of the human experience.
There is no best form of government. There is no best economic system. No best form of entertainment, no best cuisine. No best art. No best sex. There is no best religion. There is no best transportation structure. There is no best anything, because assessments of worth are informed by community values.
The discursive nature of value is more apparent in local settings. As a community becomes larger, its constituents become more diverse, and its values become less concrete. Authorities appear legitimate only through appeals to abstract symbols which become disconnected from any real meaning.
Larger communities place their trust in institutions–organizations and practices that are presumed to be legitimate simply because they exist, because they have survived in the present environment. Power becomes legitimate de facto, because it is presumed that illegitimate power would have been overthrown long ago. Institutions are self-legitimating.
And so societies move toward unicity of structure informed by unicity of values. But the latter unicity is not real, it is only perceived, a mirage created by language that does not reflect the actual state of things. It is unstable, and eventually breaks down.
Localism refers to the decentralization of resources which enables self-determined communities. This is essential to Abandonism, which posits we must create superior local structures amidst the behemoth of the modern state, dismantling it only indirectly. By reappropriating local resources, we can create sustainable community structures informed by and accountable to concrete values.
The autonomy afforded by such structures will redefine freedom and equality.
July 16th, 2008 at 5:20 pm
I dunno man, have you ever had the chicken salad at those Cafe Bacis in the Loop? I’d have to say that that is the best chicken salad.
July 16th, 2008 at 5:26 pm
Shadows of possibility…
July 16th, 2008 at 8:48 pm
I think the idea that the logical end of Enlightenment thinking is complete cultural homogeneity is completely misunderstanding ‘Enlightenment thinking’; it is precisely ‘Enlightenment thinking’ that allows you to make the critiques you do. The idea that the search for perfection might end, and that ’scientific process’ might support such an end is ludicrous. But that’s nit-picking.
So, to the topic at hand:
“Authorities appear legitimate only through appeals to abstract symbols which become disconnected from any real meaning.” Much like this sentence.
I dunno, man, I’ve always found that wearing a gun on your hip in public without fear of reproach is a pretty concrete symbol of authority . . . and I know that’s not what you’re talking about, but what specifically ARE you talking about? What do YOU take as a concrete symbol of authority? I mean, if you have a problem with abstractions, then let’s get rid of abstractions — but that brings up another problem: anything bigger than the microcosm of the self is, as it must be, abstract to a very large extent. I mean, if we want to remove abstractions from our lives, then about the only thing I can be reasonably sure of is that I exist and that I seem to have a body. Also I seem to hear and see a lot of things, although I’m only reasonably sure that what I think I’m hearing and seeing is external and not internal.
Fact is, the way you define yourself outside of that sphere and what ‘authority’ you see as legitimate is entirely up to you, and entirely abstract, up to the point where you find yourself tortured or shot. THAT is some authority I find legitimate. The degree of abstraction does not bother me: I find no meaningful difference between calling myself an American and calling myself a student, or a male, or a Minnesotan, or what-have-you; unless something touches and affects my physical self, it’s all only a potentiality.
I understand that most people do not realize that authority can be changed, and the fact that the United States government is the only government we’ve got in no way means it is the ‘best’, or even that there can be a ‘best’. The idea that centralizing authority should not exist on that level, though, is shortsighted; without a system of authority at the level of the United States government, there would be a power vacuum which would be filled by some other system. Because we have the infrastructure — internet, mail, phone systems, satellite communication, interstate freeways, HAM radio — to operate on a ‘national’ (and even ‘global’, now) level, there will always be a system of authority that operates on that level. The government is a specter that lives in the freeways, in satellites, in the mail, and if you kill it there are other ghosts, and most of them are worse.
I agree with you completely that many people have lost sight of the importance of local-level abstractions, but if you think you can do away with the larger abstractions, then you must also be interested in destroying the infrastructure which makes their existence necessary. I don’t understand how Abandonism will do anything but help to create another disenfranchised group of counter-culture intellectuals who will have little to no effect on the leviathan of the Culture Industry.
I’m playing devil’s advocate, though; I mean, I love the idea of Abandonism, if it were to work. It’d be a wabi-sabi playground. I would just like to see a realistic approach to getting there.
July 17th, 2008 at 12:20 am
I don’t think we disagree much, so let me offer some clarifications.
When I speak of legitimacy I refer to value-congruence between an organization and its constituency. But there are two sides to this–values and practices–and they are mediated by discourse. Current studies on the sociology of rational organization show a prominent disconnect between an organization’s espoused values and actual practices. Long story short: organizations lie to us, and we believe them, so they can get away with stuff. Discourse is the middle-ground which allows this to happen, and the vehicle is the appeal to an abstract symbol. This process is only possible because society is so massive and fragmented.
Now, you said something very important: “if you think you can do away with the larger abstractions, then you must also be interested in destroying the infrastructure which makes their existence necessary.”
I think the dominant social structures are largely self-destructive. I don’t want to spend a lot of time discussing this right now, but from previous writing and your own observations I’m sure you have a good concept of what I mean.
So the goal of Abandonism is not to destroy the infrastructure, but, rather, to prepare for the infrastructure’s probable self-destruction by anticipating what needs will be left unmet, and creating new substructures to meet those needs locally. And if the superstructure does not destroy itself, the substructures will eventually come into conflict with it. But they will only get to that point if people are turning to them as a better way to meet their needs. And if that happens, we will deal with it when it happens. That’s the thing about Abandonism: it’s both immediately useful, because it can increase autonomy and quality of life, and has the potential to be viable as a long-term route to sustainable social change.
I believe it can do both, but am willing to consider that it may only do the former. But if that’s the case, we can ride it as far as it will take us… and then abandon Abandonism for something that can take us further.
July 17th, 2008 at 1:09 am
I suppose I have a little more faith in the ability of the existing power structure to protect its existence than it seems you do, which, understandably, makes me wary of the whole “wait for it to fall down” school of thought. Not, mind, that the idea doesn’t make me excited, I’m just very skeptical: in the long view of history, it seems that the tendency for people to create centralized power which uses, to a large extent, self-legitimation to keep things static. Although that doesn’t mean it is impossible for them to change, it does suggest that that type of structure has a specific tenacity — it is a nominally stable system.
That Abandonism has the potential to be immediately useful makes it very attractive. It worries me, though, that it’s just a new version of anarcho-punk-ism or commune-ism, or whichever other idealistic social structure you care to mention; it’s not the kind of life-philosophy that sounds good to large enough groups of people that it’s viable as a replacement for the Frankenstein’s monster that is American Culture. Maybe that shouldn’t matter, maybe preparation should be done for one’s own sake. I dunno. It’s hot, my brain is getting scrambled.
I still think the People In Charge are smarter than a lot of people seem to think, and if things should end and end badly for us all, I have the sneaky suspicion that They will manage to come out on top and we will come out, somehow, still on the bottom.
July 17th, 2008 at 10:40 am
I was discussing the importance of locality and communalism with some friends last night. For such an apathetic generation, I think we have a “higher understanding” of the importance of community (probably because of social networking) yet we don’t seem to be doing anything to support that “understanding” outside of our computers. Now, after reading your post, I wonder if our “higher understanding” of said things is really just horseshit. Apathy is apathy, regardless of understanding. And I think that that apathy will end up with Them on top.
July 17th, 2008 at 11:04 am
Easiest way to lose is to do nothing at all.
July 17th, 2008 at 2:49 pm
Andrew, I tend to agree with you, but feel we must start somewhere.
So I want to start with immediately available remedies that circumvent Their structures of power and oppression.
Circumvention is a renegotiation of power. Will it sap energy from them and give it to us? Or will we just be building on latent possibilities? If it’s the latter, will this put us into direct conflict with the powers that be?
I don’t know these answers to these things yet. Once I get my ass out to Oakland and get involved, I’ll have a better idea of what Abandonism is–but right now I have a good idea where it starts, which is disaffection, and imagining how things could be better.
I appreciate the hell out of your criticism; honestly, if the two of us can more or less agree on a political philosophy, it’s got to be a pretty good one given our history, faculties and dispositions. So please continue to challenge me in a constructive manner, and I will keep upgrading this political theory I am attempting to mold (and eventually there will be a nice, neat manifesto).
July 18th, 2008 at 10:41 pm
if I’m coming off as something other than constructive, it’s unintentional : /
disculpe
anyway, what I’d be most interested in seeing is a description of what kind of specific changes you’d like to see happen: do you see projects that result pretty much directly from large-scale, centralized organizations as bad things? I’m thinking of freeways, railroads, multi-state electrical grids, the dollar, armies, etc.
I mean, things that exist on that scale are simply not sustainable through local organization, they really require national oversight to maintain. So how does decentralization affect everyday life? Can I still send mail to Orlando and be fairly certain that it’ll arrive in the same state I sent it in (sealed and readable)? Can I still hop on a train to Philadelphia, or Denver, or San Diego, and arrive at my destination without crossing nine different borders, getting visitor’s visas, and making sure I’m following all local laws? What happens to telecommunications?
. . . or is Abandonism less about physical localization of resources and more about localization of social awareness? Eating locally or becoming politically active locally is a great way to support decentralization of political and economic power in this country, but such a way of living is hardly outside of the system; it is more of a redistribution of focus within that system.
Questions, questions, questions.
July 21st, 2008 at 1:32 pm
Oh no, I meant that you are being constructive, and I appreciate it.
I am about to make a post which should address some of these questions, let’s continue the discussion there.
July 21st, 2008 at 1:36 pm
Awesome, sounds good.