[If you're expecting anything remotely out of the mundane, this isn't the post you're looking for]
So a word that's been floating around these days, especially among those of a more alternate anarchist persuasion(distinct from mature theories like Syndicalism and Anarcho-Communism) who're trying to completely obliterate all forms of social hierarchies is something called 'kyriarchy'. Given my unfamiliarity with the term, I resorted to wikipedia and this is what came up:
So what does a post-kyriarchal society look like? One apparently devoid of any form of social hierarchy.
Assume such a commune exists i.e. a society without any hierarchies whatsoever.
Since, most anarchists on the left advocate a form of 'gift economy', I'll deal with that. [There's also a proposal for participatory economics, which has its problems, but I'm yet to come across a single anarchist in Calcutta who advocates it]
The idea in such a system, is that you take what you need and give what you want. Now, any rational individual can see how this is bound to go wrong, but such a mentality and definition of rationality is apparently kyriarchal. Moving on...
In our idealized post-kyriarchal society, we have a gift economy and everyone is free to do what they wish etc.
Assuming the commune is sustainable, it stands to reason that there is someone who can practice medicine.
Suppose the commune is hit by an epidemic which only the doctor can cure and he has a limited supply of medicine, when he is taken ill. He can always make more medicine, but he has to get well. Along with the doctor, the commune farmer population(numbering 10) and the entire population of scholars of English literature(numbering 10) have been taken ill too(total population of the village being 50), there is only enough medicine for 11 individuals, and the rest will risk death.
Whether the commune decides democratically or not, they need to make choices concerning how the medicine will be distributed and there will be some preferred while others are not. For instance, the doctor consuming the medicine is something that is necessary to the commune's survival given only he has the necessary skills to save the village. Secondly, the agricultural skills of the farmers is essential to the food security of the village and thirdly, the scholars of literature are needed to boost the intellect of the commune with their knowledge of Derrida and deconstruction. How the commune decides to distribute the medicine reflects its value system(democratically decided, of course).
For instance, it may choose to only save the farmers and doctor, prioritising the survival of the community to 'aantlamo' capability, it may do the exact opposite too, demonstrating that it prioritises aantlamo over food and sustenance. It might decide to save some farmers and some scholars. Each choice here reflects a different value judgement and prioritisation and preference of certain occupations and characteristics over others, i.e. it creates a hierarchy.
If like most people, you decided to save the doctor and a majority of farmers and maybe one or two scholars(or none at all), you might have acted in the interest of saving as many people as possible in the commune, but you still hierarchised certain professions over others, in this case, farming over scholasticism, and the doctor over all(because otherwise, the commune might have been wiped out).
In any subsequent event of resource crunch, certain occupations or groups of people etc. will be chosen over others for allocation and certain occupations will be intrinsically be considered more necessary than others. This is a problem that is common to any society; capitalist, communist, anarchist, tribal or otherwise and a hierarchy of choices will have to be established and some kind of 'discrimination' will continue to exist.
Which is the basis of rational choices and the need for economic planning in general. The economic system is created by the need for resource allocation and is not merely something that can be derided as a 'capitalist conspiracy'(how you choose this allocation or what specific system you use however, can vary upon the value system). In the real world, resources and capabilities are not infinite. And while this restating a truism, it is a truism that is often forgotten by idealogues. Hence this waste of 45 minutes in explaining something that should really be obvious.
There are other issues with gift economies, that are addressed by central planning, free markets, mixed markets and syndicalism that need to be pointed out as well, for instance, what directs production? Even in the cases where gift economies seem to work, the open software movement for instance, it is directed by external market forces(in this case, the production and demand for IT resources).
P.S.- I have really no idea what people exactly mean by kyriarchy and how exactly the idealogues tie it to anarchis,, and I accept this is naive, but there is a growing number of people who deride the subject of economics and rational choice theory as being entirely 'false' or a 'conspiracy', and advocate 'alternate thought', when orthodox thought comes out of very practical needs.
P.P.S.- There are things like racism, sexism and heteronormativity that can be done away with, i.e. if you define kyriarchy intrinsically. Functionally, absolutely not.
P.P.P.S.- Yes, I am a bourgeois liberal and I will not check my privilege on the justification of rational choice theory. Arigatou gozaimasu.
So a word that's been floating around these days, especially among those of a more alternate anarchist persuasion(distinct from mature theories like Syndicalism and Anarcho-Communism) who're trying to completely obliterate all forms of social hierarchies is something called 'kyriarchy'. Given my unfamiliarity with the term, I resorted to wikipedia and this is what came up:
"Kyriarchy is a social system or set of connecting social systems built around domination, oppression, and submission. The word is a neologism coined by Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza in 1992 to describe her theory of interconnected, interacting, and self-extending systems of domination and submission, in which a single individual might be oppressed in some relationships and privileged in others. It is an intersectional extension of the idea of patriarchy beyond gender. Kyriarchy encompasses sexism, racism, homophobia, classism, economic injustice, colonialism, ethnocentrism, militarism, and other forms of dominating hierarchies in which the subordination of one person or group to another is internalized and institutionalized."So while wikipedia may be misleading at times, it is usually quite accurate and so the following discussion is based on that.
So what does a post-kyriarchal society look like? One apparently devoid of any form of social hierarchy.
Assume such a commune exists i.e. a society without any hierarchies whatsoever.
Since, most anarchists on the left advocate a form of 'gift economy', I'll deal with that. [There's also a proposal for participatory economics, which has its problems, but I'm yet to come across a single anarchist in Calcutta who advocates it]
The idea in such a system, is that you take what you need and give what you want. Now, any rational individual can see how this is bound to go wrong, but such a mentality and definition of rationality is apparently kyriarchal. Moving on...
In our idealized post-kyriarchal society, we have a gift economy and everyone is free to do what they wish etc.
Assuming the commune is sustainable, it stands to reason that there is someone who can practice medicine.
Suppose the commune is hit by an epidemic which only the doctor can cure and he has a limited supply of medicine, when he is taken ill. He can always make more medicine, but he has to get well. Along with the doctor, the commune farmer population(numbering 10) and the entire population of scholars of English literature(numbering 10) have been taken ill too(total population of the village being 50), there is only enough medicine for 11 individuals, and the rest will risk death.
Whether the commune decides democratically or not, they need to make choices concerning how the medicine will be distributed and there will be some preferred while others are not. For instance, the doctor consuming the medicine is something that is necessary to the commune's survival given only he has the necessary skills to save the village. Secondly, the agricultural skills of the farmers is essential to the food security of the village and thirdly, the scholars of literature are needed to boost the intellect of the commune with their knowledge of Derrida and deconstruction. How the commune decides to distribute the medicine reflects its value system(democratically decided, of course).
For instance, it may choose to only save the farmers and doctor, prioritising the survival of the community to 'aantlamo' capability, it may do the exact opposite too, demonstrating that it prioritises aantlamo over food and sustenance. It might decide to save some farmers and some scholars. Each choice here reflects a different value judgement and prioritisation and preference of certain occupations and characteristics over others, i.e. it creates a hierarchy.
If like most people, you decided to save the doctor and a majority of farmers and maybe one or two scholars(or none at all), you might have acted in the interest of saving as many people as possible in the commune, but you still hierarchised certain professions over others, in this case, farming over scholasticism, and the doctor over all(because otherwise, the commune might have been wiped out).
In any subsequent event of resource crunch, certain occupations or groups of people etc. will be chosen over others for allocation and certain occupations will be intrinsically be considered more necessary than others. This is a problem that is common to any society; capitalist, communist, anarchist, tribal or otherwise and a hierarchy of choices will have to be established and some kind of 'discrimination' will continue to exist.
Which is the basis of rational choices and the need for economic planning in general. The economic system is created by the need for resource allocation and is not merely something that can be derided as a 'capitalist conspiracy'(how you choose this allocation or what specific system you use however, can vary upon the value system). In the real world, resources and capabilities are not infinite. And while this restating a truism, it is a truism that is often forgotten by idealogues. Hence this waste of 45 minutes in explaining something that should really be obvious.
There are other issues with gift economies, that are addressed by central planning, free markets, mixed markets and syndicalism that need to be pointed out as well, for instance, what directs production? Even in the cases where gift economies seem to work, the open software movement for instance, it is directed by external market forces(in this case, the production and demand for IT resources).
P.S.- I have really no idea what people exactly mean by kyriarchy and how exactly the idealogues tie it to anarchis,, and I accept this is naive, but there is a growing number of people who deride the subject of economics and rational choice theory as being entirely 'false' or a 'conspiracy', and advocate 'alternate thought', when orthodox thought comes out of very practical needs.
P.P.S.- There are things like racism, sexism and heteronormativity that can be done away with, i.e. if you define kyriarchy intrinsically. Functionally, absolutely not.
P.P.P.S.- Yes, I am a bourgeois liberal and I will not check my privilege on the justification of rational choice theory. Arigatou gozaimasu.
No comments:
Post a Comment