|
|
Why are anarchists against authority and hierarchy? B.1
Why are anarchists against authority and hierarchy? First, it is necessary to
indicate what kind of authority anarchism challenges. As Erich Fromm points out
in To Have or To Be, "authority" is "a broad term with two entirely different
meanings: it can be either 'rational' or 'irrational' authority. Rational
authority is based on competence, and it helps the person who leans on it to
grow. Irrational authority is based on power and serves to exploit the person
subjected to it." [pp. 44-45] The same point was made by Bakunin 100 years
earlier (see God and the State, for example) when he indicated the difference
between authority and influence. This crucial point is expressed in the
difference between having authority and being an authority. Being an authority
just means that a given person is generally recognised as competent for a given
task, based on his or her individual skills and knowledge. Put differently, it
is socially acknowledged expertise. In contrast, having authority is a social
relationship based on status and power derived from a hierarchical position, not
on individual ability. Obviously this does not mean that competence is not an
element for obtaining a hierarchical position; it just means that the real or
alleged initial competence is transferred to the title or position of the
authority and so becomes independent of individuals, i.e. institutionalised.
This difference is important because the way people behave is more a product of
the institutions in which we are raised than of any inherent nature. In other
words, social relationships shape the individuals involved. This means that the
various groups individuals create have traits, behaviours and outcomes that
cannot be understood by reducing them to the individuals within them. That is,
groups consist not only of individuals, but also relationships between
individuals and these relationships will effect those subject to them. For
example, obviously "the exercise of power by some disempowers others" and so
through a "combination of physical intimidation, economic domination and
dependency, and psychological limitations, social institutions and practices
affect the way everyone sees the world and her or his place in it." [Martha A.
Ackelsberg, Free Women of Spain, p. 20] Authoritarian social relationships means
dividing society into (the few) order givers and (the many) order takers,
impoverishing the individuals involved (mentally, emotionally and physically)
and society as a whole. Human relationships, in all parts of life, are stamped
by authority, not liberty. And as freedom can only be created by freedom,
authoritarian social relationships (and the obedience they require) do not and
cannot educate a person in freedom - only participation (self-management) in all
areas of life can do that. Of course, it will be pointed out that in any
collective undertaking there is a need for co-operation and co-ordination and
this need to "subordinate" the individual to group activities is a form of
authority. Yes, but there are two different ways of co-ordinating individual
activity within groups - either by authoritarian means or by libertarian means.
Proudhon, in relation to workplaces, makes the difference clear: "either the
workman. . . will be simply the employee of the proprietor-capitalist-promoter;
or he will participate. . . [and] have a voice in the council, in a word he will
become an associate. "In the first case the workman is subordinated, exploited:
his permanent condition is one of obedience. . . In the second case he resumes
his dignity as a man and citizen. . . he forms part of the producing
organisation, of which he was before but the slave; as, in the town, he forms
part of the sovereign power, of which he was before but the subject . . . we
need not hesitate, for we have no choice. . . it is necessary to form an
ASSOCIATION among workers . . . because without that, they would remain related
as subordinates and superiors, and there would ensue two . . . castes of masters
and wage-workers, which is repugnant to a free and democratic society."
[Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, General Idea of the Revolution, pp. 215-216] In other
words, associations can be based upon a form of rational authority, based upon
natural influence and so reflect freedom, the ability of individuals to think,
act and feel and manage their own time and activity. Otherwise, we include
elements of slavery into our relationships with others, elements that poison the
wh | | |
