Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

Majrelende wrote

Anarchy is a culture

This has odd implications. Since culture requires socialisation, this would imply that many forms of life, especially non-animal life, would be inherently non-anarchical-- for example, because there are no mature nightshade plants in spring to socialise a young plant (and they likely would not be socialised even if there were) that would mean that the black nightshade has no culture and therefore is not in anarchy, or in archy. I highly doubt in this case that there is a master nightshade or nightshade social classes or any sort of hierarchy-- therefore, it might be said that a nightshade's life is anarchic-- anarchy, therefore, must be beyond just culture.

6

onymous wrote

Indeed. Maybe it's even against culture? Hmmm

3

polpotisevil2 OP wrote

I don't see a need to or the benefit of extending the concept of anarchy to apply to non-human beings. What does it matter to me if the nightshade is living in anarchy? It provides nothing to further anarchy by explaining that a nightshade's life is anarchic. Humans aren't nightshades.

Would you say that an individual has no culture? I would say even if an individual is alone, they have a culture of their own, as in values they have, what they enjoy, etc. In that sense I don't think culture requires socialization, albeit it almost always has it.

1

onymous wrote

I don't see a need to or the benefit of extending the concept of anarchy to apply to non-human beings. What does it matter to me if the nightshade is living in anarchy? It provides nothing to further anarchy by explaining that a nightshade's life is anarchic. Humans aren't nightshades.

Isn't that...sort of...blatant human supremacy?

3

polpotisevil2 OP wrote

Isn't that...sort of...a blatant misreading?

1

onymous wrote

The existence of factory farms (or farms at all, arguably) proves that the all-consuming domination of at least a-human animals by at least humans exists, so claiming the concept of "anarchy" doesn't apply to their lives at best abandons them to be imprisoned forever, at worst naturalizes their imprisonment. And that's just one facet of it -- any life one claims "anarchy" doesn't apply to is one that can experience fierce authoritarianism bereft of solidarity from others.

2

polpotisevil2 OP wrote

Perhaps I should have said "anarchism" instead of anarchy from the get go, because I agree with what you said. I was simply off-put, apparently because of a failure of myself to communicate properly, by a statement that because a nightshade is living in "anarchy", "anarchy" cannot be a culture. Anarchism is human made. Anarchism is a human culture, that cannot be put onto animals/plants as if they are anarchists, it simply affects our attitude towards non human beings.

Farming is authority, a hierarchy, and in my opinion at least, anarchism is against it. Anarchism is a human culture though.

2

onymous wrote

sorry for the late response.

Oh, okay! That makes sense actually. Out of curiosity (if you're still invested in this thread!) would you not see any value then in extending the term "anarchist" (either as an adjective or a noun) to any context outside of anarchism as a culture/ideology? Or would that just muddle the anarch-ic with all the baggage of anarch-ism?

2