-Anarchism is the stuff of Sacco and Vanzetti, the Braintree Mass. duo falsely tried and executed by electric chair in the 1920s.-
It is a remote and detached ideology; divorced from hope for change it provides an unclear path for change in our society, our consumerism, our architecture, our political structures. In positing a more "honest" view of the superstructure of human society, anarchism and anarchists target the very persons whom they seek to help realize a better future. Anarchism degrades man's current state as an attempt to return him to his natural state, a state perhaps far removed from the Hobbesian nature of the life of man as "short, brutish, nasty..." An anarchist refers to a "capitalist pig" or "corporate stooge", as though debasing his fellow man positions the anarchist as a moral superior. To get someone to change to your way of thinking, you don't first charge the conversation with insults, satisfying as it may be.
When personal anarchism is oriented towards mobilizing the masses; in protest against governance, in barn-storming McDonald's restaurants, in assassinating public figures, in resisting contemporary models of the "good life", anarchism renders itself useless. Sheer and uncompromising opposition to what is will be met with a counteracting force of either criminalizing suppression or complete apathy (sprinkled with revulsion). Taking to the streets without petitioning is cheap and temporary publicity. Sticking anti-authoritarian necks out at WTO summits changes nothing. Martyrdom in this "cause" falls on largely unsympathetic ears. It is not like the cause of Civil Rights, with direct and easily identifiable results, specific laws to be changed, specific persons to whom one may point and say, "that person and her family, or you, or I, will be more free if I seek to make it that way." Anarchism has the vainglorious mission to liberate us all, even those who do not seek liberation. It is largely a self-serving ideology, which is not necessarily a bad thing, but has the pretense of working towards the greater good.
Resisting and fighting the public will result in the criminalization of anarchists, who have long suffered the fate of Sacco and Vanzetti, immortalized by few, ignored by most, and misunderstood, perhaps, by all.
-After tapping out this post this morning, I came across the story of the McLibel case in England a few years back, involving two "anarchists", Helen Steel and Dave Morris, being sued by McDonald's for libel. The pair had been spreading anti-McDonald's leaflets around London. The ensuing trial, though not favorable in verdict for the two, resulted in a public relations fiasco for Mickey D's. I'm actually really impressed.
Although this post has little to do with architecture, as is the stated intent of Front Porches, it brings up some of my fundamental questions surrounding the ideas of "anarchitecture". I think I'm also in some way giving body to my reactions from a very recent trip to New Orleans.
It is a remote and detached ideology; divorced from hope for change it provides an unclear path for change in our society, our consumerism, our architecture, our political structures. In positing a more "honest" view of the superstructure of human society, anarchism and anarchists target the very persons whom they seek to help realize a better future. Anarchism degrades man's current state as an attempt to return him to his natural state, a state perhaps far removed from the Hobbesian nature of the life of man as "short, brutish, nasty..." An anarchist refers to a "capitalist pig" or "corporate stooge", as though debasing his fellow man positions the anarchist as a moral superior. To get someone to change to your way of thinking, you don't first charge the conversation with insults, satisfying as it may be.
When personal anarchism is oriented towards mobilizing the masses; in protest against governance, in barn-storming McDonald's restaurants, in assassinating public figures, in resisting contemporary models of the "good life", anarchism renders itself useless. Sheer and uncompromising opposition to what is will be met with a counteracting force of either criminalizing suppression or complete apathy (sprinkled with revulsion). Taking to the streets without petitioning is cheap and temporary publicity. Sticking anti-authoritarian necks out at WTO summits changes nothing. Martyrdom in this "cause" falls on largely unsympathetic ears. It is not like the cause of Civil Rights, with direct and easily identifiable results, specific laws to be changed, specific persons to whom one may point and say, "that person and her family, or you, or I, will be more free if I seek to make it that way." Anarchism has the vainglorious mission to liberate us all, even those who do not seek liberation. It is largely a self-serving ideology, which is not necessarily a bad thing, but has the pretense of working towards the greater good.
Resisting and fighting the public will result in the criminalization of anarchists, who have long suffered the fate of Sacco and Vanzetti, immortalized by few, ignored by most, and misunderstood, perhaps, by all.
-After tapping out this post this morning, I came across the story of the McLibel case in England a few years back, involving two "anarchists", Helen Steel and Dave Morris, being sued by McDonald's for libel. The pair had been spreading anti-McDonald's leaflets around London. The ensuing trial, though not favorable in verdict for the two, resulted in a public relations fiasco for Mickey D's. I'm actually really impressed.
Although this post has little to do with architecture, as is the stated intent of Front Porches, it brings up some of my fundamental questions surrounding the ideas of "anarchitecture". I think I'm also in some way giving body to my reactions from a very recent trip to New Orleans.
