I want to continue to expound Abandonist political theory as introduced in this post. In particular I want to develop my statement that the abandonist renegotiates power through circumvention, not through competition.

Reformists cooperate. Revolutionaries compete. Abandonists circumvent.

But cooperate with what? Compete with what? Circumvent what?

The answer is institution–and this is tricky to define, but I would offer this: an institution is an organization or social practice that is taken as legitimate a priori, that is, independent of experience and observation. Legitimacy is conferred by a constituency when a congruence of values is perceived. Because we tend to believe our social structures reflect our values, the success of an institution is taken for evidence of its legitimacy–it is good simply because it exists.

Institutions are oppressive because they are legitimized by their form, and not by content–by existing inside of a superstructure taken for granted as good, rather than by actually doing good. This is backwards. This is what the abandonist seeks to circumvent, and does so by turning to the vernacular.

I offer an extended definition of the vernacular which is my own expansion of a concept introduced to me by Professor Robert Glenn Howard.

Vernacular simply means native. It’s most common usage is in reference to native languages contrasted with a state language. Another common usage is vernacular architecture, which refers to methods of construction that utilize local resources to meet local needs. I suggest expanding on this concept of vernacular to include any instance where local resources are utilized to meet local needs.

We can then conceive of the vernacular as an entire category of activity–and it is through exploring the vernacular that the abandonist circumvents institution. The vernacular is not inherently good, but it can increase autonomy and sustainability–and since institutions frequently threaten both, the dichotomy becomes apparent.

Some examples of vernacular versus institutional will illustrate the point:

• Community gardens versus chain grocery stores
• Independent study groups versus bureaucratic school systems
• Private contracts versus marriage
• Community sanctions versus prisons
• Local music versus superstardom
• Skill sharing versus contracted labor
• Neotribalism versus daycare
• Hunting versus factory farming

The argument is not that the vernacular should immediately replace the institutional, but that it should be explored for its potential to meet our needs better than institutions do. The two can certainly enjoy a limited coexistence, but insofar as the vernacular is better for communities, its implementation will involve a renegotiation of power that weakens institutions.

That is destruction through creation.