Encircled By Paradox

There is a vast paradox that I find myself living in. On the one hand I identify with many things. On the other hand, I identify with nothing. I simultaneously see myself as a part of many things, while at the same time I also see myself as apart from everything. This applies to many things in my life, and it has been going on for a while.

To give some examples here, let’s start off by dropping the A-bomb: “anarchist”. On the one hand, I very much identify with that word, the philosophy and history that is behind it and the social scene of people and projects that surrounds it. On the other hand, much of the philosophy, history, people and projects that are generally considered to be “anarchist” I find to be boring at best, and appalling at worst.

On the one hand there is Alexander Berkman’s “Anarchism is the most beautiful idea that humanity has ever had.” And on the other hand there is Eugene Gendlin’s sentiment “When I think of an ‘anarchist’ I think of a ‘violent asshole.’” This label is one that I would both go to my grave defending as well as one that I would take great offense in if someone were to associate me with it.

The other A-bomb that is usually associated with the first, the “Nagasaki” to the anarchist “Hiroshima”, is the term and concept of “activist”. On the one hand, I love activists and activism. I like the fact that people give a damn about the world and what is going on in it. I like the fact that people are actually paying attention to what is actually taking place, that they want to change things, and that they are not willing to let injustices and atrocities continue happening. The “activist” mindset, to me, means not being content to just living in a small little bubble and pretending that everything outside of that bubble is either not happening or is not important.

On the flip side, I hate “activists”. There is a kind of self-righteousness, arrogance, and the habitual riding of high-horses that I find to be quite nauseating and is associated with the whole “activist” thing. Not everything that one thinks about, talks about, or works on is really all that god-damned important in the greater scheme of things. “Activists”, for all their great proclamations of taking a bigger perspective on the world, actually lack a lot of perspective on life. Activism is prone to falling into the same kind of narrow tunnel-vision focus that “normal” non-politicized people fall into, except instead of obsessing about one’s own life, family, job or how one’s favorite professional sports team is doing, one is instead obsessing about various activisty and organizery things. It all gets tiresome either way.

Going from ‘A’ to ‘B’ now, there is “Buddhism”, a label that I use and that I think of when I refer to “a bigger perspective on life”. I love this word, it is the latest addition to the pantheon of labels that I associate myself with, and I intend on learning and studying more about the various concepts associated with this term as time goes by.

And at the same time, I am not at all a ‘Buddhist”. For one, I have no “Sangha”, no group of Buddhists that I feel that I belong to, practice or study with. For another, that term has associated with it a kind of nitty-gritty sectarianism that I personally do not subscribe to. I am not a this-kind of Buddhist or a that-kind of Buddhist, there is no particular tradition that I am coming from or defending, and I have no teacher that I can point to as my one big Teacher. I am kind of a ‘Buddhist’, and I am kind of free-floating thinker, which makes me wonder, am I really a Buddhist?

Going from ‘B’ to ‘C’, while maintaining somewhat of a ‘spiritual’ vibe, there is the ‘Camphill’ movement. I spent about two and a half years living and working in a Camphill community, I have visited other Camphill communities a bunch of times, and I’ve studied some of the underlying philosophy behind Camphill as well. When all is said and done, I really dig it - I like the Camphill village model, I like the approach of “Social Therapy” towards supporting “those in need of special care”, and I excited about the potential of developing these things further towards addressing the various needs of people in the world today.

On the other hand, I have seen, heard and experienced enough things in the world of Camphill to have completely discredited the whole thing. I do not believe in the philosophy of Rudolf Steiner, I am not particularly excited by the fact that most people get involved with Camphill through Americorps, and the general trajectory of depersonalization towards greater professionalism leads me to think that “Social Therapy” is just a nice label to use for PR purposes and that has no real meaning beyond that any more.

Sticking with ‘C’, lets go to “communism” now. I love communism. There, I said it. I like the idea of completely doing away with capitalism, private property, markets and money. I like organized intentional sharing. I like the idea of people living and working in “communes” and I like the idea of all of humanity living and working in a larger world-system that is based on these principles.

On the other hand, “communism” is a term that is often associated with Marxism (that I find mildly interesting), class-struggle stuff (that I find boring), and Leninism (that I find appalling). Why would I associate myself with a word like that, something that has such strong connotations as it does?

How about “egoism” then? With “communism” being such a collective and social thing, “egoism” is a philosophy that emphasizes the individual, personal freedom and self-empowerment. Egoism, as articulated by Max Stirner, is one of the most exciting and liberatory philosophies that I have ever come across, and I am glad that it has never gone away after all these years.

However, there is also the fact that none of this is real. We all live in and are dependent upon a web of social relationships, our desires are socially constructed, our whole fabric of who we are and what we are about is so contingent upon and connected to outside influences that the whole foundation that egoism rests upon, “the authentic self”, evaporates into nothingness.

Then there is “Nonviolence”. I like Nonviolence, I think that it suits me very well. The idea of people doing things together peacefully just seems wonderful to me. However, anything beyond that which is associated with this word seems to be horribly tarred and tainted. “Nonviolence” usually implies a kind of religious dogmatism, passive-aggressive manipulation, and/or Liberal statism that is blind to the various kinds of systemic violence that surround us all. No thank you.

How about adding on “Communication” to the “Nonviolent” piece? Again, a whole world of messiness then enters the picture. There is the commodified buying and selling of “NVC” goods and services, there are professional “trainers” promoting their spectacular careers, there are people talking like robots in the desperate hopes of resolving their complicated life conflicts, and there are a whole lot of middle-aged middle-class white women with Liberal politics.

Nonviolent Communication itself is an outgrowth of the “Person-Centered Approach”, which itself was started by the famous humanistic psychologist Carl Rogers. Much of what is wonderful and helpful about NVC in fact came out of the “Person-Centered” movement that preceded it. Rogers himself was a cool guy, and an inspirational charismatic leader as well. Like most groups and movements that are centered around a charismatic leader this scene has lost much of its coherency and momentum after Rogers died. The “Person-Centered Approach”, as it stands now, is mainly a bunch of aging clinical psychologists and academics who talk a lot about how cool things used to be. This is not exactly my scene.

In recent years, one scene that I have spent a lot of time in is the “Vipassana Meditation” scene, which is based on the teachings of S.N. Goenka, who is himself following a particular tradition of Theravada Buddhism. This all has been very helpful for me, the practice has definitely benefitted me, and working at these Vipassana Meditation places can, I believe, approach the kind of “Social Therapy” environment that the Camphill movement talks about. At the same time, there are a lot of rules, regulations, and constraints surrounding this tradition, so much so that I see it as only addressing one component of “freedom”, namely the deeply internal realm. Although important, much more exists besides this.

And that is just it - so much more exists! I am left trying to find a label, a term, a word, a concept, a tradition or a social scene that encapsulates all of what I am wanting, longing for and trying to express, and nothing is working. Or, they all work, to an extent, and then they cease working. I am wanting to find something to identify with and belong to, whole-heartedly, and none of these things apply. And that is the problem, for me, that I am facing: what do I identify with and belong to?

For a long time I have had the internal mentality of being a zealot, a propagandizer and a recruiter for a cause. This has served me for a very long time, it has kept me afloat during hard times and has propelled me forward to do amazing things. Now I do not have this way of being to move me forward any longer, for the thing that I am associated with, identified with and a part of is no longer as solidly in place as it once was. Or, I am no longer relating to it in the same way.

What I am looking for now is what kind of relationship I am wanting with these things that I mentioned here, as well as with people and life in general (after all, everything that I mentioned here ultimately is about relating with people and life in some way). I know that I do want to promote, support and encourage something, or a set of somethings, in the world. I want to be a positive and constructive influence on the world. And I want to do so in a way that is in integrity with my values and my heart, as much as I can. So, perhaps this means something else. A different word, a different set of words, or a series of words. Or perhaps it requires an integration of all of these different things, such that they are no longer “different” as much as they all flow together - one leads to another leads to another leads to another.

Perhaps these words, labels and terms that I have used and spelled out here so far in fact are some things that have been getting in my way, and in the ways of others as well. What I have identified are some very particular practices, bodies of thought, histories, traditions and social scenes that surround them. These are all useful, to an extent, but some very distinct walls encircle them all as well. My problem is perhaps these walls. Perhaps a series of underground tunnels is needed. And perhaps building this network of tunnels is my calling.

Views from 'The Match!'

I have been reading some old issues of The Match! lately, which is a long-running "Ethical Anarchist" publication that is produced and written mainly by one guy, Fred Woodworth. I have been enjoying this writing a great deal, and I would like for more people to be exposed to it. Of course we do not 100% agree on everything, but that is not the point. I view his writing and work as being important, and I would like to support it.

Given that Fred Woodworth is notorious for not using a computer, and is openly critical of all digital technology in general, there is not that much of his writing available for people online. With that in mind, I am including a piece that he wrote below, which is an introduction to Anarchism as he sees it. Enjoy!

-------------------------

Our View of Political Reality

It’s not a form of statism. Anarchists don’t want to impose their value-system on anyone else. It’s not terrorism - the cop who wears the gun to scare you into obeying him - is the terrorist. Governments threaten to punish any man or woman who defies state power, and therefore the state really amounts to an institution of terror. Anarchism never relies on fear to accomplish anything because a person who is afraid is not free.

Here’s what Anarchists believe:

I.

Government is an unnecessary evil. Human beings, when accustomed to taking responsibility for their own behavior, can cooperate on a basis of mutual trust and helpfulness.

No true reform is possible that leaves government intact. Appeals to a government for a redress of grievances, even when acted upon, only increase the supposed legitimacy of the government’s acts, and add therefore to its amassed power.

Government will be abolished when its subjects cease to grant it legitimacy. Government cannot exist without the tacit consent of the populace. This consent is maintained by keeping people in ignorance of their real power. Voting is not an expression of power, but an admission of powerlessness, since it cannot do otherwise than reaffirm the government’s supposed legitimacy.

Every person must have the right to make all decisions about his or her own life. All moralistic meddling in the private affairs of freely-acting persons is unjustified. Behavior which does not affect uninvolved persons is nobody’s business but the participants’.

We are not bound by constitutions or agreements made by our ancestors. Any constitution, contract or agreement that purports to bind unborn generations - or in fact anyone other than the actual parties to it - is a despicable falsehood and a presumptuous fraud. We are free agents liable only for such as we ourselves undertake.

II.

All governments survive on theft and extortion, called taxation.

All governments force their decrees on the people and command obedience under threat of punishment.

If human beings are fundamentally good, no government is necessary; if they are fundamentally bad, any government, being composed of human beings, would be bad also.

The principal outrages of history have been committed by governments, while every advancement of thought, every betterment in the human condition, has come about through the practices of voluntary cooperation and individual initiative.

The principle of government, which is force, is opposed to the free exercise of our ability to think, act and cooperate.

Whenever government is established, it causes more harm than it forestalls. Under the guise of protecting populaces from crime and violence, governments not only do not eradicate random, individual crime, but they institutionalize such varieties as censorship and war.

All governments enlarge upon and extend their powers; under government, the rights of the individual constantly diminish.

Anarchism is in favor of a free society organized along lines of cooperation and mutual aid.

Public Affairs

A few months back I wrote up a proposal on this blog about how a new nation-wide anarchist organization could be created that is based on organizing various big public gatherings of anarchist-identified people using an event-structuring format called “open space technology”. Looking at what has occurred at various big public events for the U.S. anarchist milieu since I last wrote that piece, I have changed my mind about that proposal. I now think that the U.S. anarchist milieu in general currently does not have the maturity and self-responsibility necessary to be able to successfully pull off something like that.

To be more specific, this year, so far, there was the San Francisco Anarchist Bookfair which took place with a lot of controversy surrounding it before-hand, and then at the event itself there was an altercation between one of the event organizers and some other people which resulted in the organizers calling the police.

With the New York City Anarchist Bookfair there was a lot of controversy surrounding it before, during and after the event itself, and after the event was over there was a statement publicly released where someone threatened to shut down the bookfair next year.

With the Anarchist Convergence in Olympia, Washington somebody attending the event had their camera equipment destroyed, that person then called the police, and that event was then subsequently shut down.

And most recently, there was the Law and Disorder Conference in Portland, Oregon, where one group tabling there had some of their literature destroyed and one of the tablers was physically assaulted.

All of these different incidents at big public anarchist events that I mentioned lead me to a conclusion – the anarchist milieu as it exists today is just too immature to be able to have big public events that are meaningful and productive. The basic mutual respect and tolerance that is necessary to be able to successfully pull something like that off is just not there. With things being the way they are now, continuing to organize these kinds of big public events is just providing people a public forum to “act out” their own unexamined personal neuroses and dysfunctional relationships, and essentially it is “enabling” unhealthy patterns to repeat themselves. Maybe this will all change sometime in the future, when the current crop of young anarchists “grows up”, or when most of them eventually burns out and gives up on the anarchy thing, and are then replaced with the next generation of anarchists.

As it stands now, though, the unfortunate general trend within anarchist circles is for one to mock, yell at, threaten, and ultimately use physical force against those whom one disagrees with. All meaningful dialogue between people is gone as soon as people start breaking things, using physical violence or calling the police on each-other. One of the basic claims of anarchism is that human beings can live together in healthy harmonious communities without the presence of a state or other authorities. The kind of behavior that is popular now in anarchist circles works directly against this claim. One does not build solidarity by intimidating those whom one wants solidarity with. And likewise, one does not build trust and cultivate the desire for mutual aid by habitually insulting and threatening people in various ways.

All of these big controversies that surround these big public events involve people who believe that they are in the right and that they have been wronged. They are each fighting valiantly for the side of good against that which is bad. Each person involved would gladly give reasons and justifications for the things that they do and the positions that they take. And all of this eventually finds its way to the internet where everything is then publicly shat upon. I believe that everybody starts out with good intentions but that the ways that these situations have generally been dealt with are ultimately unhealthy, unproductive and not sustainable for the people involved in the long run.

What I think needs to happen instead of big public anarchist events are smaller more focused anarchist events whose participants are there by invitation only. Looking at the various big public anarchist events that I mentioned earlier, one commonality that they all share is that each of them had an incident where some person, or group of people, was present at the event where others thought they should not be there. If the event was by invitation-only, where the only people present are those whom were specifically chosen to be there to begin with, these incidents would not have happened. One could say that the anarchist milieu already has the fault of being an insular and cliquish scene, but perhaps it would be best to say that for right now that is the best that we are capable of achieving.

One rationale that is given for having these big public anarchist events is that they serve as a means to introduce the general public to anarchism and other related ideas. If this is the point, then I don’t think that they serve that function very well either, for these events are often an eclectic mix of all kinds of different people, groups, and messages all spewing out their opinions to whomever cares to listen. For the person who is totally new to anarchism, going to an anarchist public event would be giving them a grab-bag of various different fringe radical whatever. No clear and coherent general overview of anarchist ideas is being presented. If one really wants to effectively introduce the general public to anarchism, a totally different approach needs to be thought out and implemented.

If some people want to continue on organizing different big public anarchist events, that is their choice. I won’t try to stop them - although others might, on the pretext of one big controversy and set of principles or another. However, as I think about all of this, another thought occurs to me...

Perhaps my reaction to all of these things is more based on old pre-existing personality types and how they interact with other personality types. For example, when I was a child going to school, I used to totally hate the whole set-up. For one, there was the very existence of school, which is itself an authoritarian institution. But then, in the rare moments when there was no teacher or other adult authority figures in the class-room, the other kids went nuts, screaming, running around, throwing things, jumping up on tables. At those times, I was relieved that there was no teacher or adult authority figure present, but I also hated how the other kids were behaving. I wanted to be off quietly doing my own thing, ideally with other kids who were similarly quiet and respectful. At around the age of 16, I learned something – I can drop out, and avoid the whole thing altogether. Let the kids do their own foolishness if they want to, I’m going somewhere else.

Can happen, Will happen, Stuff happens

I have been in an awkward position lately regarding the whole “anarchist” thing. Here in Minneapolis there has been a big controversy involving a group that I have volunteered with and people that I know (on all sides of the issue) that has gotten so incredibly nasty that I have started feeling embarrassed to be associated with any of this. And more than anything I feel just plain heart-broken that all of this is happening. Also, in places much farther away from here other self-proclaimed “anarchists” are doing other things that I have similar thoughts/feelings about, though since they are so much more distant from me these are not quite as intense as the local Twin Cities stuff. No matter how you cut it, though, it is all just pain, exhaustion, embarrassment and overwhelming defeat all around.

And yet, despite all of this stuff, I am still whole-heartedly into the whole anarchism thing. My reasoning is this – people who consider themselves to be “anarchists” are not necessarily the same people who actually make real-life "anarchy" happen. The people who publicly adorn themselves with that particular fringe-label are the folks who (hopefully) subscribe to particular political & social analyses, values, principles and other theoretical interpretations. The actual making-anarchy-happen part is another thing altogether, requiring an entirely different set of skills. Some of the people whom I’ve met in my life who I would say are very successful at living anarchically in their own lives and relationships are also often folks who have never even heard of “anarchism” and who would run away as fast they can if somebody wanted to try to instruct them on the theory about it.

The same goes with social and political change. In my life-time perhaps two of the people to who were most effective at enacting change in the world at large (although not necessarily the kind of change that I am wanting) have been folks like Mark Zuckerberg and Mohamed Bouazizi - not the scores of people out there who proudly proclaim themselves to be “revolutionaries”, “activists”, “organizers”, and “social change agents”. In this current era that we live in, mass social and political change seems to come about more from somebody happening to do something at the right place and the right time that sparks something within people that already exists within them but has been laying dormant waiting to come out. This is the same rationale behind anarchists and other self-proclaimed “revolutionaries” who endorse things like riots and armed struggle, but the difference is that I don’t think that those kinds of things are actually successful at achieving the kind of society that “anarchism” is supposedly all about.

I once asked a guy who was an anarchist for many years why he still stuck with it all. Throughout his “anarchist career” he had seen so many different failures, dysfunctional dynamics and sheer nonsense over the years being carried out by people within the “anarchist” scene, and yet he's still there. His response to me was “well, what is the alternative to being an anarchist? To become a jerk who starts bossing people around and making threats?”

It is exactly this – anarchism is a way to look at the world that takes away the masks and the lies of the things that we call “government”, “capitalism”, and “authority” in general. Seeing the truth of these things does not suddenly make one into an angel in one’s own behavior. An evil is still an evil even if one has failed at achieving the good. I am not about to start believing in something that I know is wrong, harmful, and is in fact destroying so much of life on this planet just because the alternative has not come about.

What it comes down to is that I believe that an anarchist society, and an anarchist social revolution that achieves such a society, is possible, not probable. That is the difference. “Can happen” and “will happen” are two separate things. I believe that in all likelihood various authoritarian regimes, alienated social relationships leading to social fragmentation and ecological devastation are the future for humanity. And, at the same time, I do believe that “another world is possible”.

I am reminded of a quote by Carl Rogers – “When I look at the world I'm pessimistic, but when I look at people I am optimistic.” I believe that within each human being are great vast capacities for love, creativity, sharing, courage, cooperation and expression. The thing is that this is all safely locked away in people, made out of reach by fear, by anger, by old habits and sheer laziness. Continuing on with the same-old, same-old does nothing to unlock oneself nor does it contribute anything towards getting rid of the chains that the world at large has around us all.

The value that I find in anarchism is that of being an ethical framework that guides both how one sees the world and how one chooses to act within that world. The world is as it is, here and now, regardless of what labels are ostensibly placed upon that world or society. The people within any given society are behaving in certain ways and engaging in particular social dynamics, and the benefit of having an anarchist lens to view it with is that it enables one to more clearly determine how one wants to respond and act in relation to what is going on. In other words, one can see more clearly what one is contributing to, what one is not contributing to, how much, and in what ways. Certain dynamics, certain relationships, can be more liberatory, dare I say more “anarchist.” And these particular kinds of dynamics and relationships can build on each other to ultimately have an anarchist society, a new anarchist world.

Not that this will happen. But it can.

Some things never change

In 1999 I was a student at a two-year Community College, mainly because I did not know what else to do with my life. I was an angry, alienated, young anarchist guy, and I had to do a required Public Speaking class in order to get my degree. I ended up dropping out of that class twice because I hated it so much. By the third time that I took that class I decided to adopt a "fuck it" attitude and to just go ahead and give a public speech about something that I actually cared about - namely, anarchy.

I delivered that speech, with great enthusiasm and passion, and my audience was stunned. I was known (or not) as a quiet, friendless, shy and nerdy guy, and here I was standing in front of the whole class vehemently denouncing Civilization as such. People did not know what to make of it.

It just so happened that the timing of things was such that I delivered my speech just days after the Columbine High School massacre shocked the nation. I recall that after I delivered that speech and class was over, myself and a bunch of other students were walking to the parking lot to leave the school. One of the other students who was present was saying to her friend, "Oh my god, this kid is going to be just like those Columbine kids! Did you hear him?!" Her friend then noticed that I was walking within earshot of them and nudged her to draw her attention to that fact. The one speaking then turned and noticed that I was right there and shrieked.

With this as context for the whole thing, I now present to you the original speech that I delivered. I still do like what I said in it and I would make just small changes to it if I were to deliver it now. I can only hope that the other students who were present in the audience then ended up becoming life-long anti-civilization anarchists.

-----------------------------------------------

Society is bullshit. With each and every day, with each and every minute the absurdity of it all increases.

It becomes more obvious that the way we operate now, the way we LIVE is a sheer mockery of all life.

With each moment that passes, more species of life become extinct, more pollution is released into the world, and more wild-life is being permanently destroyed.

With each moment the planet's very eco-system is being torn apart and it's effects become more obvious all over the world.

With each moment that passes economic stratification increases, the rich get richer and the poor get poorer all over the world.

With each moment more and more people are imprisoned, fined, taxed, executed, spied upon, bombed and murdered by government in various ways, eventually leading to the united states having the largest prison population in the world, and growing.

With each moment we become more detached from nature.

Concrete surroundings, air-conditioned rooms, automobiles and artificial lights become the norm while true nature becomes something that is seen in the back-ground of commercials that we watch on TV after work.

With each moment we loose touch with our spirituality.

Spirituality becomes institutionalized into religion and mass-marketed back to us, while cold notions of scientific reason and progress are used as an artificial replacement.

With each moment we become more UNHEALTHY!

We are over-worked and over-stressed with very little time left for sleep, rest and relaxation.

More junk-food is invented and marketed to us while the "healthy" food becomes filled with artificial chemicals.

Sports become "spectator" sports and concern for healthy living becomes a mere "health fad" or "health craze".

With each moment our creativity and imagination are destroyed.

Pressure to obey orders, follow the rules, blend into the crowds, and bend to the whims of the bosses and the Markets leaves no room for us to follow our own natural curiosity, interests and desires.

With each moment we all become BRAIN-WASHED, lied to, tricked and deluded in various ways.

Advertising, propaganda and the conformist mind-set are inescapable in our society, anywhere you look you find some product being pushed, some government lies being given, some ideology being crammed down our throats.

With each moment that passes we are all being MURDERED!

Unhealthy life-styles pushed on us by an over-worked, ignorant, stressed-out, fast-food consumer culture has lead to massive amounts of death caused by auto-mobiles, unhealthy diets, various forms of legal and illegal drugs, and cancers from man-made causes.

With each moment we loose our enthusiasm for LIFE!

We become used to the routines of mind-less repetitive and monotonous jobs, standardized indoctrination at schools, bureaucratic nonsense and red-tape, and bland "entertainment" that is marketed to as broad an audience as possible, that we forget and neglect the wide range of possibilities and potential that exists out there for us!

With each moment that passes we become more ALIENATED from each other!

Our society pushes us to view one another impersonally, as mere OBJECTS - objects in business, objects to be governed and controlled, objects in relation to the divine.

We no longer see one another as real human beings, we see each other according to a LABEL - you are an employee, customer, a "bad guy or a good guy", tax-payer, sex-object, criminal, parent, believer, student, you are not longer a human being.

With each moment that passes we become more alienated from OURSELVES, we let conformity to society determine who we are and obedience to authority determine what we do.

True self-reflection and self-responsibility is replaced by the opinions of others and mass-media and the dictates of the Rat Race.

With each moment hope is destroyed and replaced with defeatist ideas about "human nature" and "inevitability".

With hope gone, suicide increases drastically, among the young and old alike.

If we continue down this path, all life will die, it is as simple as that.

If we continue, we will become mere soul-less objects working blindly for our mutual destruction.

Authority is the cause of all of this, the moment we allow ourselves be controlled, we doom ourselves.

The moment we view our fellow human beings as mere objects to BE controlled, we doom ourselves.

A complete world-wide revolution is needed, but this can not be accomplished through politics, political parties, violence or ideologies.

The revolution begins with YOU, not anything above you.

Destroy everything that has been programmed into you, a life-time of school, mass-media, bosses and following orders has left us totally detached from reality.

Destroy authority, destroy society - Let us discover life for OURSELVES!

Anarchist Controversies

Controversies have been a part of the anarchist scene for a long time now. I recall being a brand-new, freshly-minted, teenage anarchist in the ‘90’s, looking around to see what anarchist projects existed out there. I came across the Love & Rage Anarchist Federation, I was intrigued by what I saw in a newspaper that they produced so I looked into what they were up to currently. What I came across was a huge passionate controversy going on full-force, people publicly flipping out, angry accusations being traded around, the whole works. “Well, I didn’t really want to join them anyway”, I thought to myself, and I didn’t look into them again.

Anarchists have a history with this kind of thing, going right back to the beginning. One could say that the very thing that first differentiated anarchism from Marxism, ideologies aside, was a big dramatic public controversy. Two charismatic alpha-males, named Mikhail Bakunin and Karl Marx, had it in for each-other, people took sides, and eventually Bakunin and his people got kicked out of the group. “Fine, we’ll create our own damn organization!”, Bakunin and his people said, and the rest is history.

As the years have gone by I have seen many countless different controversies come and go within the anarchist scene. I have actively participated in some, I have silently observed others, and I have seen friends of mine get burned-out by them and then leave the scene altogether as a result. I myself once took a couple years break from the anarchist scene after one such controversy - the whole experience was just so very disheartening and emotionally draining for me that I wanted nothing to do with anarchists anymore. Time and again I have heard people say things along the lines of “with comrades like this, who needs government agents?”

What has kept me with the anarchist scene all these years was not the people, but the idea and ideals behind it all. If I was to be into anarchism because of anarchists, I would have left the whole thing long ago. Say what you will about anarchists in general, it’s the whole big controversy thing that comes up again and again from time to time that is something that I believe really self-sabotages the whole “movement”. It is almost as if there exists within anarchists some kind of inherent genetic programming that periodically gets activated, to help to thin the ranks, to keep the whole scene from getting too big or too vibrant.

Right now a big controversy is taking place in Minneapolis, among the anarchist scene, and it looks like the San Francisco Bay Area recently had one as well. I am not really all that concerned by any of these controversies – they come and they go, and people come and go, and projects come and go as well, I understand all of that. What concerns me is that the whole thing is so damn repetitive, all the recurring patterns and predictable behaviors, it’s redundant. And worst of all the social atmosphere within the anarchist scene in general does not seem to demonstrate that people have learned anything from all of these countless controversies. All this blood, sweat and tears, to no avail.

One of the things that I believe is underlying this whole phenomena is that anarchists in general are a very ideal-based, principle-minded people. Such-and-such a position is defended, on principle, and that very same stance is also attacked by others who see it as violating some other principle. Compromise can be seen as violating principles and so can talking to “other side” or having them be a part of one’s group. The underlying assumption seems to be that by taking a firm, consistent, unyielding and principled stance, step by step, step by step, every step of the way, eventually the beautiful new world that one is yearning for will come to be. Given that the very nature of an anarchist vision is so very radical, fundamentally different from and at odds with the world that we all inhabit today, I can see why one would take this kind of strong principled approach.

At the same time, the people behind and surrounding the principles are not seen. In other words, real-life human beings both cause and are affected by these principles, and this results in real feelings and real lives being impacted. Principles are important, I would say vital, in that they can serve as guiding forces in an often-times savage and confusing world. And I want to ask – how are these principle-based actions affecting the real-life people in front of you?

What I am proposing here is not the abandonment of one’s principles, but the addition of new principles to one’s repertoire. In particular, there is empathy. By seeing the world through the other person’s eyes, by walking in their shoes, a whole world opens up. In the heat of the moment, flared tempers, passionate calls to action, the world narrows down, and people are not seen. Empathy, then, is intentionally taking the time to see things from the other perspective.

Another principle is that of assuming good intentions. I am struck by how people, again and again, go from seeing someone as being a comrade, someone with shared values who’ve they’ve known for x amount of time to then seeing that same person as… being a total scoundrel, with nothing but a desire to cause harm, and that they have never been up to any good. Remembering someone’s basic humanity means keeping in mind that we are not surrounded by demonic beings, but real-life human beings with values and needs similar to our own.

A final principle here is that of talking with each-other. This ought to be a no-brainer, but I see it pop up again and again that in a controversy people actually talking with each-other, face to face talking that is, quickly goes out the window. In place of face to face conversations are face to face shouting matches and face to face hand gestures. But more likely than that, even, is not being in the same room at all, but instead talking only with people whom one already agrees with, or communicating over the internet, which in itself usually has a very distancing kind of effect. Just getting together, in person, and talking – no special kind of talking, no fancy mediation set-up of some sort – just talking. This in itself often has a very positive effect, and it is also one of the first things to go when things get rough. This does not have to be the case.

But as far as talking goes, there is a kind of talking that I generally find to be very unhelpful, and that is arguing and debating. I remember once being at the (in)famous anarchist study group of Berkeley, California, and somebody posed a question to the group: “Has anybody here ever been convinced of something through an argument or a debate?” Everybody responded “no”. That incident really struck me, because with all of the time and energy that goes into arguing and debating, it all really does not change people – except to make them either want to start throwing punches or to walk out the door. This is not the kind of “talking” that I would like to see more of.

The kind of talking that I find to be really helpful is where people are being really real with each-other, where they are being open and they do not have their defenses up, and where people are really listening to what everybody has to say. When one speaks one does so to really express where one is at personally and where one is coming from, not speaking to try to prove to others how “right” one is. And when one listens one does so with the intent of really trying to understand the other person, what it all means to them, not “listening” so that one can find fault with something they said so that one can then trash them for it later. This is a whole different quality of dialogue that I am talking about here.

There is a lot that I can say about this kind of conversation, I can go into a whole rant about Nonviolent Communication and shit, but now is not the time for that. The point that I am wanting to make is that different kinds of approaches to big controversies can be taken. There are alternatives out there and they can be implemented. It is simply a matter of making a conscious decision to want to respond to these things in a different way and then making the effort to follow through with that. It is not necessarily easy, but it can be done. And it is worth the effort too, for the sake of more solidarity, more community, and all that good stuff.

I would like to conclude this by offering my services to anarchists anywhere who would like some more support in implementing the kind of things that I am talking about here. I am not saying that I am a bad-ass mediator that can solve everyone’s problems, or that I can say a few magic words and everyone will start loving each other again. But I can offer empathic listening and some coaching that can be supportive in difficult situations. And when times are tough, everyone can use some more empathy and support.

Reflections from a Ten-year Giraffe Freak

Around this time ten years ago I first fell in love with Nonviolent Communication (“NVC”). This love-affair has gone through all kinds of different twists and turns, ups and downs, but in some form it still continues on to this day. Myself, my life, who I am, has been so thoroughly affected by my involvement with NVC, that I can scarcely imagine who I would be now if I hadn’t gotten into the whole thing.

There is no one to blame

One of the most profound changes in my life that I attribute to NVC is the perspective that there are no bad people, there is no one to blame, and that moralistic judgments of any kind are ultimately not a helpful thing to do. When I first started studying NVC I was just emerging from a prolonged bitter judgment-fest that had gone on for over a year straight, and by the time that I came to NVC I was in a place where I felt like I had been dumped onto the side of the highway, through my own actions, as a result of my having burnt so many bridges with different people. Studying NVC then was in actuality a process of rigorously applying the lens of human needs to everything and everyone. If all actions, all feelings and all words are used as attempts to meet some fundamental human needs that we all share, then what could these needs be? So applying that lens of “fundamental human needs” to situation after situation, needs guess after needs guess, was a big part of my “learning NVC”.

In many regards, I look at who I was before I got into NVC and who I was the years following it, and it all just simply *feels* different from each-other. The difference is this: blaming people. Yes, I have and still do blame and judge people after having discovered NVC. Knowing NVC does not change that stuff. What has changed is that there is an underlying understanding that judging is not really a way that I want to go about doing things, and that another way is possible. With the whole lens of “needs” available to me, I can intentionally change around my inner state from one of judgment to one that approaches something resembling more compassion. Focusing on story-lines like “So-and-so did X, Y, and Z, therefore that person must be an A, B, and C” in my experience usually does not lead to more compassion. However, story-lines like “So-and-so could have done X, because they were feeling Y, and were possibly needing Z” in my experience often does help the whole compassion thing come out.

Being Present

In a way, the whole no-judging thing is just a starting-point, because what is really helpful, what people are really calling for, interpersonally-wise, is presence. People generally want other people to be there, for them, listening, paying attention to them. People usually aren’t after just having somebody’s physical body there while the other person’s mind is spacing-out thinking about someone something somewhere else. People want other people, right there, making space for them, alert to them. What one says while paying attention usually does not matter, but the paying attention part does.

So part of the whole deal, as I see it - going through the whole self-inquiry process, looking at the fundamental needs at play, transforming judgments and the like - is all a matter of “clearing a space”, internally-speaking, to make it possible to then be able to be really present for other people. You can’t really be present to another person if you are judging them – you are in your thoughts then (judgmental thoughts) and not really with the other person at the moment.

Authenticity and Congruence

One of the things that I really attribute to NVC in my life, ironically enough, is a way to access personal authenticity. That is, being real, and showing up that way with others. As a result of NVC, I later discovered the work of Carl Rogers, which introduced another concept that relates to this whole thing, called “congruence”. Congruence is where one is consciously aware of what one is thinking/feeling/experiencing in the present moment and articulating it. This is what NVC does, or rather, can help people to do. For me, it has helped when I first do “self-empathy”, that is, checking in with myself, seeing what I am personally feeling and needing in the moment. Once I am clear what that is, then expressing it. That’s “congruence”, NVC-style.

It does not always work out this way, of course, even after ten years of NVC I still all too often clam-up, disconnect, mentally flee or chicken out. But because I know NVC, the tools are there, and if I remember that and choose to do so, I can be really authentic if I wanted to. This has been very helpful for me. I have had a number of different situations over the years that I believe have been greatly aided in by my “cutting through the bullshit” and talking directly and personally about what is going on. I have found, in a number of different occasions, that people often feel a great relief and a sense of freedom by seeing that it is possible and “permissible” to be honest, authentic and real in a social environment.

Empathic Understanding

One of the great things about NVC, something that I have been totally gung-ho about over the years, is empathy. That is, people actively listening to other people with the explicit intent of trying to understand the other person’s experience from that person’s point-of-view. No analysis, no diagnosis, no advice-giving or telling other people what’s up. Just listening to them and trying to understand what things are like *for them*.

The ways and means that this is done through NVC is again through using the lens of fundamental human needs. That is, assuming that everything that people do, say, think or feel is motivated by some fundamental human needs that are at play, and guessing at and eventually finding what the motivating needs *are* in a given situation. This can help to facilitate more depth and clarity of understanding. Also, needs are relatable, you have them, I have them, we all have them, so looking at another person’s experience through the lens of fundamental human needs can help aid in one putting oneself in another person’s shoes.

At the best of times, empathically listening and empathically understanding another person can be a very similar experience to that of the heart-felt authenticity, or congruence, that I mentioned earlier. In other words, when one is speaking as deeply, personally, and honestly as one can, it is all very much like that of inviting and sensitively exploring together with another person their inner experience. Both personal authenticity, as well as empathic listening, are forms of intimacy and vulnerability between people. A big part of doing NVC, then, is that of consciously choosing to do that. This then leads me to…

Taking Emotional Risks

We all live in a mean, cold, cruel, fucked-up world. People everywhere are disregarding others, exploiting others, and hurting each-other in all kinds of different ways. Practicing NVC, then, is a pretty counter-intuitive thing to do, given how things are. Doing the whole NVC thing then involves basically opening up, being honest, authentic, personal, as well as being caring, empathic, and trying to understand people no matter who they are, what their beliefs are, and no matter what they have said or done. When one puts oneself out there in this way the risk is that other people may not notice, care or in any way receive what one is offering.

But it is all worth it. The reason why I think this is that when it all “works”, that is when other people do notice, acknowledge and respond to one’s authenticity, empathy and caring, wonderful things can happen. In relationships, people can melt, people can open up, heart-felt interpersonal connection can happen. And it is this, this connection between people, that is basically the whole point behind “doing NVC”. When this connection is established, the foundation then exists for resolving conflicts, creating action-plans and for giving and receiving in ways that everyone feels good about. Practicing NVC involves taking risks, and one can and probably will fall on one’s face at times when doing it. But the potential for real person-to-person contact and care is all the reason I need to continue to do it.

Taking Personal Responsibility

If there is one thing that I have learned through all of my years of practicing NVC, it is that it is all about the practitioner taking personal responsibility. Very often, I have seen people view NVC as being like a series of magic words or incantations that the practitioner is supposed to give, that if only certain things are recited in conversations then the conflicts would be resolved, other people would do what you want them to do, and everybody will then suddenly love each-other.

Or, another way that I have seen other people relate to NVC (and that I have sometimes fallen prey to viewing it myself), is that if one has made the choice to study and practice NVC, and then one approaches other people and tries to “use NVC” with them, that the other person whom one is talking with has then also, unconsciously and inexplicitly, made the agreement to also be using and practicing NVC as well. So then if one goes through the whole process of being vulnerable, authentic, empathic, what-have-you, and the other person responds with judgment, argument and general closed-heartedness, then that other person is simply not holding up their end of the bargain!

The way that I have come to view NVC now is this – NVC is a personal practice, and it involves you, the practitioner, taking responsibility. Other people will say and do whatever the hell it is that they say and do, but you, the practitioner, have a series of choices in front of you as to how you would like to respond, and the options exist before you to go for more of a heart-connection, or not. If you feel that you have made a commitment to living in alignment with these values, the “NVC values” of compassion and partnership, then it is up to you to follow up with practicing these things.

Partnership Not Demands

Even though I view NVC as being a kind of personal practice that one chooses to do, the whole world-view that NVC points to is actually quite different. This world-view, rather than being based on individuals and their own choices, is instead based on community, mutuality and interdependence. This view is such that although each person is responsible for their own feelings, needs and choices made because of that, everybody’s actions still do affect everybody else, and that everyone’s needs are still in some form met in cooperation with other people. With this being the case, if one then goes around pissing people off, screwing people over, jerking people around and beating people into the ground, one is not making for a good social environment for your needs, or anyone else’s needs, being met in the future. Resentments come up, rebellion can happen, fights can break out. Or, sometime in the future when you most need help, you can quite simply be ignored and left out in the cold.

This is why, from an NVC perspective, “looking out for #1” is replaced with “caring for everyone’s needs equally”. In other words, if you look out for the well-being of those around you, as well as yourself, then other people are likely to be pleased and step up to do the same. Caring invites more caring. This all involves having open acknowledgement, consideration, and dialogue when necessary about how all of our actions effect one-another. The goal with all of this is to create a kind of social environment where these values are more the norm, and where everybody operates under an assumption that we are all in this together.

Learning and Practicing

This then brings me to the topic of “learning NVC”, which supports the actual practice of NVC, which is the means through which all of these different wonderful things that I have been talking about here can happen. This is an interesting subject here, because “Learning NVC”, as it is usually presented and talked about in the world – I hate it. What I mean is, I have a strong dislike for scripted dialogues, workshop exercises, sub-cultural jargon and one-size-fits-all formulas. I also have a strong distaste for professionalizing and commodifying things like learning, personal development and heart-felt connection. I simply loose a sense of connection with people when those things come up, and I have a desire to go elsewhere. All of the different things that I cherish and love about NVC are not things that I usually find in formal NVC learning environments.

With this all being the case, even though I love NVC and have found it to be enormously beneficial in my life, I am reluctant to want to recommend to other people that they pursue official NVC training or literature. Often-times, the only NVC stuff that I feel comfortable offering to people who are new and interested in learning more are things that come either from myself or a small number of trusted “NVC” friends that I have. I quite simply do not trust the standard, “normal” way that NVC is offered out there. I fully expect social distancing, disconnection and inauthenticity to come about through the usual means that NVC is presented to new-comers. I feel quite sad and disappointed to say these things, because I would like to say that I feel like real buddies and comrades with all of the different NVC trainers/facilitators out there, but that is simply not the case

And, at the same time, I do believe that it is possible for me to eventually get to that place. Through using the different NVC principles and practices, the same stuff that I have been talking about earlier in this piece, I totally believe that real heart-felt connection and understanding can happen between me and all of the different “normal” NVC trainers out there. The one additional requirement for that to happen, though, is something that I have not mentioned here so far. It is that of explicitly setting aside particular time and space to have such dialogues take place. This may seem like stating the obvious, but it is actually quite a big thing. In a world of “busyness”, overwhelm and great stress are the norm, setting aside time and space in one’s life to have intentional dialogues with people can be a big thing to take on. But it is a necessity, I believe, for all important dialogues and for all of the relationships that one values. Perhaps this task is a part of the repertoire of things for the next ten years of NVC to focus on.