"The normal interactions of a human being in a social system to which he or she belongs are confirmatory of it and of his or her membership in it, and contribute to the production of members that confirm it. Social systems are constitutively conservative systems; due to this, human social systems can only change if their members have experiences that trigger in them changes in bodyhood that result in them no longer participating in its constitutive network of conversations. For this to happen in any particular human social system, its members must have experiences outside the network of conversations that constitute it". (Maturana, 1988, 69-70).

We are born into a society or collective assemblage in which change occurs through acts which are not confirmatory of it. Dissensus generates change, not consensuality. Social creativity is necessarily antisocial.

If the above are true than it seems to me that the antisocial, people like myself, are going to have to be united in efforts to produce change.

Anyone argue we don't need a major change? Want to let this farce play itself out---compare cleaning up dalas fortworth by dumping it with mozambique where people salvaged all they could. Ah but life is sweet in the heart of the Beast.

-- Anonymous, April 04, 2000

Answers

Hi Dave,

Y'know, a similar thought was presented on one of the "survival" boards. How to get enough "like-minded" people together to make a difference, or even how to muster a million man militia.

The points which defeat the projects are the same. You cannot raise a million man militia because you cannot get a million heads-of- households (just 1% of the population!) to commit to that course of action being right for them, and right for their families (as if they really cared for their families, just rationalizing their cowardice), because they love their meager security and pseudo-prosperity more than they love freedom (just as Ben Franklin warned).

It was also pointed out a person need not go to war to live free; both Montana (pop 900K) and Wyoming (pop 490K) are nice enough places to live and work. Just collect 900K like-minded people who will commit to relocating to Montana, and the group is guaranteed control of the state legislature, and can make laws that fit them, and repeal those that don't. If that's too difficult, just recruit 490K committed people and live in Wyoming instead.

You can't do it. It'll never happen like that. Billy Bob Six-pack is afraid he'll lose his seniority at Wal-Mart, his kids will have their school life disrupted, his wife won't have a job when they get there - hail, it's COLD up there in them there maountains!

So, due to personal inertia, and the lack of adequate communications instruments, I just can't see anarchist uniting any time soon. (Somebody tell me I'm wrong....please???)

-- Anonymous, April 05, 2000

Prefer to be a maverick, rather than an anarchist. It's all in a definition. Silicon Valley's full of 'em, and they've impacted global change with the PC and internet industries.

It's all the the marketing... and people's perceived need. Course, if the price of gasoline doubles from it's all-time high's, people will perceive need to "shift" to something better soon enough. That's the opportunity window for the alternative mavericks.

;-D

Working within... differently... sometimes "works."

Diane

-- Anonymous, April 05, 2000

In the hero myth-archetype (see Campbell's "The Hero with a Thousand Faces") the plot begins by the protagonist having to leave the normal milieu because of something that they perceive as needing addressing. Adventures occur, a "gift" is found/achieved, and the gift is brought back to the milieu to remedy the need or lack. The further part of the adventure is having the gift adopted...

So - the "gift" is necessarily anti-social in that it is bringing into the social group something that is missing or lacking.

It strikes me that this is an individualistic sort of maneuver. Should you organize a group of likeminded persons and attempt to change the social structure from a group - then you are into "normal" political processes of us vs. them, "interest" groups, and the like. As soon as you had a merry band of anarchists (not withstanding the lack of social cohesivity that such a group would entail) you become another social "party". And you have to dance to the tunes that are on the dance-card.

If the "gift" you're bringing resonates to a need within the other, then they end up responding from themselves. If you don't excite such a resonance, then your gift doesn't speak to them.

There is that line that change is easy, but wanting to change is the necessary ingredient to allow the process to occur. Some see it coming early, for others it isn't until crisis is upon them. Which seems to me to be part of the deeper truth behind "Necessity is the mother of invention".

So - is a mini-crisis needed to initiate action prior to hitting a great crisis? Our Northern Cod stocks up here off the east coast are down to less than 1% of historic levels. The plan is to scapegoat the seals...

-- Anonymous, April 06, 2000

Tom,

I'm quite convinced that most people only appear to learn through pain and struggle. Doesn't HAVE to be that way, but it appears to be the prevailing experience forcing "change" in stuck routines. So, yes, I'd say a mini-crisis (even the bigger kinds) are needed often to catalyze or motivate actions, which are often reactions. Of course, no one ever said the resulting choices would be wise ones. ;-(

Groups and individuals all admire the mythic heros, which is why the legends stay alive over millenia. The "heros" can provide the role models so often lacking in our scattered lives. Other than being hero's in their own minds, few "step-up-to-the-plate" when called upon to impact global change. If they do, often they want some friends along to share the experience. ;-D

Whatever works. It's an adventure in co-creation.

Diane

-- Anonymous, April 06, 2000

So what is the difference between a maverick and an anarchist?

I've always known mavericks as being those horses who won't run with the herd (read too many Western's in my youth?), so I figured that when applied to the social domain it meant either an anti-social type or in a complimentary sense someone who thinks out of the box (social/cultural box).

Whereas anarchists strike me as having serious doubts about the humane functioning of large social groupings, and I gather "large" is any number past the point where social interpersonal relations give way to class and hierarchical relations. You know - the size where you need institutions to manage...

Strikes me that they're not mutually exclusive.

However - maverick is definitely American lingo - so what connotations adhere? Why is one preferable?

Curious,

-- Anonymous, April 06, 2000

Anarchy: Political disorder and violence; lawlessness Anarchist: A person who promotes anarchy, as by flouting or ignoring rules. Maverick: A person who takes an independent stand, refuses to conform.

I perceive some difference. I do not aspire to the label anarchist but am quite happy to be called a maverick. Anarchists, I think, could unite since they could have a common goal. They would have to be in the minority or at least perceive themselves as being in the minority. The common goal would be to gain some personal advantage over the peaceful, law abiding majority whom they would expect not to be able to function well in an unstable society. If the anarchists suspected that they themselves were in the majority then there would be no advantage in creating a lawless society. Everyone would be as ruthless as they and the danger would outway the possible advantage. Mavericks, loners, contrarians... they would have a hard time uniting since by their very definition, they are not group oriented.

The idea of a mass of like-minded people moving to a low population state and taking over by voting in their own laws and lawmakers is an interesting idea. I've wondered along the same lines about political parties. If all of the Republicans joined the Democratic Party and voted out the party faithful and voted down the liberal platform, could that be a way to defeat them?

Thom H.

-- Anonymous, April 06, 2000

Whew!! I had no idea the word was so loaded.

All the stuff I had read said things like: "...a political philosophy which holds, in the words of the American anarchist Josiah Warren (1798-1884), an early follower of Robert Owen, that "every man should be his own government, his own law, his own church"." (this was from Pears Cyclopaedia 92nd Ed - a one volume desk reference)

To me this seem to allude to the sovereignity of the individual. This wouldn't inherently lead to lawlessness or violence any more than sovereign nations have to. It seemed more to imply that a person was recognized as an end-in-themselves as opposed to a cell in some larger corpus. Which always strikes me as one of the defining differences of the United States (at least when looking at the world from Canada).

So where does the connection with lawlessness and violence come from? Maybe from the Russian influence (Bakunin and Kropotkin) that thought assassination was a good means to overthrowing government?

-- Anonymous, April 07, 2000

Man Thom, talk about slandering us anarchists!

My definitions:

anarchy--absence of government, a utopian society made up of individuals who enjoy complete freedom.

anarchism---a political theory holding all forms of governmental authority; to be unnecessary and undesirable and advocating a society based on voluntary cooperation and free association of persons and groups.

anarchist---one who rebels against any authority, established order, or ruling power.

I'll not deny the conotation of violence that it has come to have but would suggest that in part that is a ploy of the established order to discredit and forestall exploration of the premise.

It also seems to flow from frustration on the part of anarchists and possibly because they are working from different reality constructs.

When I understood El Kadafi's thinking, his behavior was less irrational then our media would have us believe. Viewed from a Libian perspective it made/makes sense, sort of.

-- Anonymous, April 07, 2000

Well, I'll blame it on Webster's New World (Order?) Dictionary, Second College Edition. I was just trying to understand the words and grabbed the nearest reference book. I'll be glad to agree to the less violent view of anarchy if you wish to propose your definition as the base line from which we are working. David knows that I have presented myself on other lists as a Libertarian. I find, though, that I can't compartmentalize myself so strictly. On any given day, at any given moment, I can rationalize a wide variety of leanings. As an adult capable of taking care of myself, I lean toward the "anarchy" side of things - - anything goes, free speech, etc. As a parent trying to raise 2 daughters, I have an entirely different perspective - - keep the trash talk and violence off the radio and TV. As the victim of a rather thorough burglary, I have even different views - - a policeman on every corner, road blocks, ID checks, anything to catch the bastards and/or stop them from doing it again. As a biologist and nature lover, I want to stop people from destroying the land, damming the rivers, cutting the old growth trees - - can I justify that invasion of other's property rights? Which way is right? Which way is better? Can any of them logically be combined? Cognitive dissonance reigns supreme in my brain.

Ok, I smell rubber burning. Have to stop thinking for a while. Thom H.

-- Anonymous, April 07, 2000