Why I Favor Anarchy for Social Direction

"If you get three anarchists together you'll have five definitions of anarchy." Anon

The old saying rings true because defining the term defines an entire philosophy, personal and societal.

An excellent site on anarchy in the UK states that it "means simply no government." Of course being an anarchist I have to disagree -- that's what we do with each other. Volumes of barely-coherent text continues to flow out of this past time.

I see "archy" as dominance or ruling, rather than government, so I define an-archy as no rulers, no hierarchy. Anarchist governments could exist: everyone would be equally responsible. No one would enforce rules agreed upon by consensus. Yes, rules could exist, though "agreements" is a more accurate term. We would agree to drive, bike, and walk to the right so we don't run into each other, for example.

Collectively, we're a long way from being responsible enough for an anarchistic society, so I focus on personal anarchy. I subvert the hierarchy I'm placed within -- both up and down.

Most of us have more control over our personal lives than we acknowledge or accept. Relegating authority to authority can be comfortable and convenient, but it's also irresponsible and immature. Taking responsibility for ourselves and our actions removes justification for someone else to control us. This applies from childhood through the rest of our lives. Parents, bosses, law enforcement and so on often abuse their petty power over us, naturally, but when we're acting responsibly and maintaining ourselves, their rationale for doing so is diminished.

School system hierarchy is well-defined, but in my experience, very few supervisors go out of their way to assert their authority. They're so busy they only do it when situations force them to do so. The unfortunate exceptions create a miserable feeling among teachers and staff, who aim for transfers if possible. I simply stop accepting positions at that school.

The other half of personal anarchy involves the authority over others we are given by authority. Jesus is quoted as giving Pontius Pilot a stinging reminder that he wouldn't have any authority if it weren't given to him. Using the authority given to us by authority gives authority more authority, so I avoid it.

As a substitute teacher, one might assume that being in control of the class is job number one. It's not. Getting the class in control of themselves lays the foundation for a positively productive time.

Chemicals in our brain make us feel good when we're in control and not so good when we're not in control. Placing students in the subservient position retards their mental abilities. Most are more easily controlled as well, so for teachers it's tempting -- maybe irresistible on a subconscious level. For "old school" teachers it's a conscious activity, learned from their teachers.

Respecting students as equals enhances their ability to learn. A few are unaccustomed to behaving responsibly on their own, and my first intervention, depending on the level of irresponsibility, is a subtle reminder. Next, an agreement concerning the value of behaving responsibly might be required. Ultimately, the choice to stay or leave is the student's, though I have to be the one coordinating the choices.

When everyone is behaving responsibly in a classroom for which I'm the teacher of record, anarchy rules.

Beyond personal anarchy

I'm an evolutionary anarchist: I think society should evolve into anarchy. Revolutionary anarchists, on the other hand, prefer to promote anarchy now, and society will have to adjust. This difference in orientation seems to be divided by age.

At peace rallies in Portland, a contingent of anarchists dressed in black and known as the Black Block, makes a stunning appearance when followed by a line of bicycle cops wearing black and yellow.

They often break away from the "sheeple" and the "peace fascists" who keep participants from breaking windows or provoking fights with police or the opposing bystanders. After all, how can we mindlessly follow the route laid out by the authorities when we oppose that authority? There's some validity to this objection.

When the authorities set up "free speech zones" away from what the free speech is addressing, and then surround them with chainlink fencing, going along to get along undermines everyone's freedom. Corralling people in this manner crosses the line from maintaining an orderly expression to suppressing expression. If one doesn't get into the free speech pen, another pen awaits. Suppression quickly becomes oppression.

Choosing the manner of resistance to fascistic practices is a personal matter.

Perhaps the number one objection to anarchy is that it doesn't work. The implication is that our hierarchical system does work. Seems to me it barely holds together and must rely on brute force to work: we obey laws and pay taxes at gunpoint.

For example: responses to hurricane Katrina provide a harsh lesson on the difference between anarchy and hierarchy. Help came immediately from people working without the authority to do so. When the federal and state authorities finally arrived, their actions prevented rescue efforts, abused victims, and in the end billions of dollars of relief money was looted by private contractors.

Personal accounts from survivors make it clear that anarchy worked well: volunteers from around the country rushed in and saved lives without a chain of command coordinating the efforts. Grass roots groups like the Common Ground Collective formed to meet the needs of victims, and continue to do so in 2007. Relief workers with FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency) were most effective when they ignored orders from above and joined volunteers.

Praise for authoritarian relief efforts only comes from those in authority: they did a "heckava job." Survivors of the storm, particularly poor and marginalized folks, seem to agree with that summation.

Most of us are so accustomed to functioning in a hierarchy that we barely question it. Observing what works and what doesn't work in our communities reveals the truth. A teacher asked rhetorically, "Why don't they just get out of our way and let us teach?" "They" being those removed from the reality of classrooms who mandate policies and curricula.

What about your own situation? Are your efforts helped or hampered by those who make decisions about what you are supposed to do each day? Where do the most ridiculous requirements and procedures come from?

Communication, consensus, and coordination facilitate group efforts without hierarchy.