Hot on the heels of my last two bits of anarchy-theme graffiti, I discovered this plastered to the side of a parking meter. Apparently Seattle University has some sort of artsy anarchist movement.
This is cute, though the sentiment is naive and ultimately untenable.
“This is cute, though the sentiment is naive and ultimately untenable. ”
according to whom?
According to me!
Care to debate?
not really, but i would say that everyone is living in a certain naivete or mythos that enables them to function in a world that is inherently broken. not sure why the only aspects of anarchism people choose to focus on are the “naive” aspects, as they are often also the greatest skeptics.
Hrm. I would venture that saying the world is inherently broken is bordering on hyperbole. I will grant you that Western Civilization is inherently flawed, but the world at large isn’t broken – just in disrepair. It wasn’t destined for that state from the outset, we coaxed it to infirmary by simply being human.
That said, I concede your point. We all cower behind some manner of naivety, be it religion, hope or philosophy (or chemical dependence), that bolsters us and enables us to greet each new day with some semblance of resolve. I will admit, however, that I get a little lost at the jump from the classical definition of anarchy to some definition that supports the image depicted above.
from wikipedia:
Anarchy (from Greek: ἀναρχίᾱ anarchíā, “without ruler”) may refer to any of several political states, and has been variously defined by sources. Most often, the term “anarchy” describes the simple absence of publicly recognized government or enforced political authority.[1][2] When used in this sense, anarchy may[3] or may not[4] imply political disorder or lawlessness within a society. In another sense, anarchy may not refer to a complete lack of authority or political organization, but instead refer to a social state characterized by absolute direct democracy[5] or libertarianism.[4]
not so different from the poster.
How so?
Besides the fact that anarchy is not a “revolutionary idea” that supports some nonsense feel-good notion that you utterly control your own destiny, the definition you’ve posited actually contradicts itself. This leads me to wonder if even Wikipedia, omniscient though it may seem, knows what the Hell it’s on about.
Here’s how I interpret the poster: “You decide what your life will be, because no one else knows you better than you.” Which is great. I sincerely wish that were true. Unfortunately it fails to take into consideration a great deal of mitigating circumstances – the least of which being Western Civilization (see above). More to the point, it lacks the subtle grace of social contract or even the simple appreciation of repercussion. I might decide what my life will be, and I may even be so cognizant as to make attempts to mitigate the repercussions of my actions, but I can never completely control how my behavior affects those around me or how those effects may, in turn, mold the world into which I’m attempting to beat my preconceived notion of myself.
This is where I say the argument is naive and ultimately untenable. It fails to take into consideration the reactions of its surroundings. In an ideal, autonomous society of like-minded individuals, it may work. Just like socialism may work under ideal conditions. But, throwing a monkey wrench into the tired, clanking, rundown machinations of our current society, for some self-serving notion such as this, is counterproductive and assinine – according to this old and jaded man.
My opinion is what it is, so your mileage may vary.