|
|
Post by wombat on Apr 7, 2015 10:37:26 GMT -5
What are some good sources on patriarchy from an anti-civ perspective which might detail the connection of patriarchy to the division of labor? I ask because I'm working on a hypothesis that patriarchal relations, like technology, is not neutral. Many may say "of course!" But this would mean that most social relations we make exist outside the family embody patriarchal relations.
How do women inside forager bands make alliances with others outside their band? Do they typically involve more members of the family in forging their alliances? Less?
In how anarchists approach personal living, it is typically written or spoken of as an individual operation, or something that happens among friends of the individual, but the permanent group typically doesn't hold the same interests as the anarchist individual. I have read exceptions and seen exceptions to this. People that bring their kids and their significant others to meetings, skillshares, conferences...but to me, this isn't spoken of in a way that makes these relations both seen as desirable and to hold potential for creating permanent multi-generational radical social cohesion.
In other words, it becomes obvious that the family that showed up to the meeting is the only family in a meeting of individuals who separate their interests from their families. Where religions get it right is involving everyone while philosophy and activism are typically unfolded as something done as individuals abstract from family relations. This isn't to say we should be like religions, but it is to say, in my hypothesis, that anarchist withdraw into normal life will continue unless the anarchist starts to see value in involving their permanent group.
I was curious also if others had similar or contrary thoughts and if you could give some detail, I'd love to read them. |
|
|
|
Post by KT on Apr 7, 2015 13:22:15 GMT -5
I feel like you're lost somewhere between anarchist schtick and dogma. This is apparently what it's like if you're trying to reconcile or interact with people who are attempting to reconcile egoist/individualist ideas. The problem you're looking to identify seems to be in where does the "I" begin and "us" end, which does relate to domestication. This is a historical event carried out through an ongoing and necessary process (for the civilizers) whereby the individual is created and maintained. It's like weeding a garden, but constantly.
I know there's a good answer to your question, but really I'm lost in your terminology/framework.
The whole emphasis on the family is some Engels baggage that still holds on. So you're struggling with stuff that pretty much has no impact on my world, but the essential difference here is ridding all of that individualist debris.
|
|
|
|
Post by wombat on Apr 7, 2015 15:10:40 GMT -5
I disagree, however, I'd love either a further exploration into your views and where you see these tendencies. If you see something you'd like further explanation to confirm your feelings, feel free to ask away and I'll attempt to give an answer. I'd much rather explore what I brought up, even if it must be reframed in a way you or others understand to explain. I just don't see schtick or dogma, especially when I'm exploring and experimenting, which entails breaking with dogma, though schtick, meh, that is an insulting way to frame an exploration. I don't see this reconciling with egoists or individualists nor their ideas. I'm not looking to identify an I/we dichotomy, though this is an interesting way to look at it. Patriarchy is a historical event, yes, it is intertwined with agriculture and division of labor. This is my exploration, as I feel there is something to these many group separations and their relationship with our permanent groups.
Engels offered a sketch on this, but he isn't the only one and definitely isn't the reason I'm looking into families. Please stop imposing these views on me. I do not care for it. |
|
|
|
Post by KT on Apr 7, 2015 19:34:20 GMT -5
Looking back I guess I can see why you took my response personally, but that definitely wasn't my intent. More of the universal anarchist "we" and not a jab at you.
I think you're touching on something that is really interesting to me and something I've worked on at length, but I'm not entirely sure I'm understanding your initial post/framework enough to respond at length.
|
|
|
|
Post by wombat on Apr 8, 2015 1:42:58 GMT -5
Yeah, I'm needing to work on this more. I suppose I should list a bunch of questions to show what I'm aiming towards.
These questions are to no one in particular, just ones I'm asking myself:
What is patriarchy? How does patriarchy tie to agriculture? Evidence points to patriarchy starting with the rise of agriculture and that forager life did not embody patriarchal relations as we understand them. Is there strong enough evidence to say patriarchies are tied to civilization or is it like white supremacy, something that can be overturned within civilization?
On forager families, bands and other permanent groups, it is suggested by Seaweed in "Land and Freedom" that the story of such groups are stories of people who are fully part of their habitat, acting perhaps as both apex predator and keystone species. In his suggestions, he pointed out a reason for martial traditions. This is perhaps where I started considering that rather than develop specialized dojos of people, why not look into the permanent groups themselves? These people could learn fighting skills as part of their everyday life, a form of play to be shared among mothers, sisters, brothers and fathers, as well as uncles, aunts, nieces and nephews, including even adopted family or band members who hold no family relations nor are wed through sexual relations to the family. The defense of the habitat being something that all do, not out of ideological, ethical or moral reasons necessarily, but rather because the habitat is life.
Going further, the groups outside the family or band, if they were formed within present patriarchal society, how deeply do they hold the values of patriarchy? We see industrialism and mass society as projecting undesirable social relations. We also see religion as doing the same. These relations, like technology, are not neutral. Should we perhaps consider looking into the permanent group and how alliances are formed without patriarchy within pre-historic and historic forager groups? Do they suggest specialized bands, like the tribal war band? However, I've heard that tribes are more a gatherer-hunter defensive response to agricultural society aggression. This would seem to suggest that either tribes can be helpful as a resistance model or that it is tainted with patriarchy, making war bands part of the problem rather than solution. Or something else? I feel resistance to civilization may have to make some provisional compromises with patriarchy just as resistance practices also have to make similar compromises with technology, mass society, production and so on.
Then there is the street gang phenomenon. On one edge, they are horrible social units. But on another, at least when looking at youth gangs, they are defensive groups which naturally appear where the family has failed to answer the needs of the young. In other words, the gang could be seen as an embryo new family. Reflected on tribal behavior and the formation of war bands, the street gang holds similarities, but very often, the war band is more tightly tied to the tribe while the street gang is more tied to the neighborhood. I don't know how closely these relations can be compared, but my experience with street gangs is more as defensive groups, like war bands. Drug gangs and organized crime deeply conflict with my experience, moving from a defensive group to parasitic. I wasn't sure if this was important to this analysis, but it is part of what I'm trying to process.
I might be stretching a bit with some of these assertions or how I frame these questions, but I do feel something is here that plays into how we rewild, how we approach our habitats and how we resist civilization. I'm hoping that I or others can find sourcing or the language to expand this into something more...or it is revealed to be a bullshit tangent...a mental exercise, but ultimately a dead end. But I hope there is something more.
|
|
|
|
Post by wombat on Apr 9, 2015 11:17:11 GMT -5
I should point out that I'm more looking at the family, band and other permanent group relations within patriarchy. Gender is important, but I feel that framing the battle against patriarchy as merely one of gender to be more limited. Instead I'm looking at the social structure of patriarchy. This includes gender relations, but also relations of children and grandchildren, how we form alliances and/or temporary groups with other groups, how wanderers and refugees are handled.
I realized this wasn't coming through in my explanations.
|
|
|
|
Post by wombat on Apr 9, 2015 11:58:58 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by KT on Apr 12, 2015 9:51:12 GMT -5
I think I must have fallen asleep thinking about replying to this, because I thought I wrote a big follow up days ago and alas, I did not. I'll try to get back to this soon.
|
|
