On the one hand, I'm an anarchist - I hate the state.
On the other hand, US history has some pertinent things to say about the value of the state - women's rights, abolition, civil rights, etc. etc. would not have happened without the power of the state behind it. Without the state, the tyranny of the majority reigns.
So, state power has its benefits.
But I also believe it is inherently bad. The state mainly exists to perpetuate itself and its power - those who defend the power of the state tend to be the beneficiaries of the state.
I'm reading James Scott's The Art of Not Being Governed, subtitled: An Anarchist History of Upland Southeast Asia. I've loved Scott ever since I was introduced to his work in graduate school. He uses his deep anthropological research and political/historic analysis to comment on broader issues like power-relationships within communities, the arts of resistance, and in this case, how people avoid state power.
His historical analysis, in this case, describes the way states are formed by incorporating people from the surrounding land (ie - it's not so much inspiration as oppression that makes state formation possible). The people who support the state are the people who live the good life on the backs of, usually, slaves.
I keep thinking about our modern era - are there spaces to escape the power of the state? What about squatter communities? Is my unwillingness to drop off the radar of the state really fear of living a free life?
Also, I definitely benefit from the state (I'm a teacher, after all). Does my position as a teacher in an urban school make me complicit in the control the state seeks to assert over my students? After all, the vast majority will be incorporated into state systems of work and control in one manner or another - in low-wage jobs that make money for their corporate owners, or in prison. The few I've inspired may, if the opportunities present themselves, find themselves beneficiaries of the same system that will oppress the rest.
No comments:
Post a Comment