An aggregator for the entire Anarchy planet

Leadership is a concept that anarchists shy away from, and rightly so. Most phenomena that fall under the term run counter to our principles. From the Left, no less than from the Right, leaders (usually self-appointed) have risen up to mold their groups to conform to their own agendas. History is replete with examples of individuals stifled and crushed in the name of the Leader.

Yet, I hesitate to totally discard the concept of leadership. I have witnessed social phenomena in the anti-authoritarian milieu that could be described by that word. I refer here not to the official and unofficial heads of various anarchist sects. Rather, I mean that certain individuals manifest a non-coercive influence upon others, a capacity to inspire their fellow anarchists to achieve. In a milieu based more on small, independent groups than large organizations this looks like individuals and small groups taking the initiative to build up various projects. They may then encourage others to help them in their projects, or inspire them to start up projects of their own devising.

This style of “leadership” (if we wish to use the term) is based on informal and spontaneous social relations, not predetermined social roles. Colin Ward in his Anarchism as a Theory of Organization quotes John Comerford’s description of this process happening in an experimental health facility:

Because they [leaders] were not consciously appointed, neither (when they had fulfilled their purpose) were they consciously overthrown. [...] They followed his [sic] guidance just as long as his guidance was helpful and what they wanted. They melted away from him without regrets when some widening of experience beckoned them on to some fresh adventure, which would in turn throw up its spontaneous leader, or when their self-confidence was such that any form of constrained leadership would have been a restraint to them. A society, therefore, if left to itself in suitable circumstances to express itself spontaneously works out its own salvation and achieves a harmony of action which superimposed leadership cannot emulate.

Authoritarian leadership is not restrained just to official positions of power. As both Cathy Levine and Jason McQuinn have asserted in responding to Jo Freeman’s The Tyranny of Structurelessness, oppressive social behavior can occur in both informal and formal groups. The difference is that in formal organizations the power dynamics favor entrenched leadership. Self-appointed leaders can crop up in informal groups, but in these cases there is no structural obligation to let them remain in leadership positions. In either case, the social dynamics of any group should be critically attended to.

As Chris Crass notes, denying the presence of informal leaders can actually play into inequitable power relations. His experience was situated in the particulars of a group lead by white, middle class males that denied their own actual, though informal, leadership to the detriment of group cohesion. I once belonged to a consensus-based group spearheaded by mostly white, middle-class females. Due to our unwillingness to acknowledge our leadership roles, we unwittingly allowed a dissident male parliamentarian to sabotage our consensus process, which contributed to the dissolution of our group.

Building up non-authoritarian leadership practices seems like a Sisyphean task. In actuality, as the example cited by Ward seems to suggest, the natural inclination against authority, even among those unaware of anarchist theory, can provide the impetus.

Well, my time as a member of the extremely exclusive Deep Green Resistance web community has come to an end. I’ve been officially banned from their forum. It was a fun run while it lasted. I gleaned a lot of interesting information from being one of the chosen few. I  knew for awhile this would probably happen. Inevitably anyone that dares to question the dear leaders of DGR is excluded from their conversation. Part of what motivated me to write my previous blog entry (which was picked up by Infoshop.org, and then noticed by the DGR, which lead to the ban) was the banning of a rather polite critic of Derrick a few days prior:

feel free to correct me if i’m wrong, but the way this FEELS to me is similar to a “my way or the highway” attitude. as if now that this book is written we can either sign on, or be the enemy, as if there is no other option. join our army, or get the fuck out of the way. end of story. I believe that there should be room for discussion here, room for critique. and i see a difference between attacks and critique. i am trying to raise concerns i have with one little aspect of this program. i am not attacking anyone, and will continue to refuse to be held responsible for assholish comments made on the internet by other people who call themselves anarchists.

gpinnick, i appreciate your efforts, but i don’t see the difference between the verbal attacks you oppose, and those you put out. the wording of your essay makes me feel like you’re lumping all anarchists into one homogenous group (as if we never have debates between “red” or “green” anarchists), and that i am somehow responsible for those people’s words. i’m not. i am responsible for what i have written here, but people keep talking about things i haven’t said instead of what i have said. instead of asking me to clarify my position, i’ve been told to go fuck myself. for 5 years i’ve used this forum, and one thing that has kept me here is the respect i saw for healthy communication. now i feel that i have gotten mostly words put in my mouth and kneejerk reactions to things people find objectionable, without addressing WHAT I’M SAYING. i feel like people aren’t differentiating between attack and critique. and i’ll say that any group or movement that is immune to critique is a very dangerous one.

The above user is far from the first to be excluded from DGR for trying to have an honest discussion (tho they did made the poor choice of indirectly comparing Derrick to George Bush). When “Authority and Civilization” was first linked on the forum i came out of lurkerdom and asked for dialogue. I was quickly met with positive responses:

user 1: I actually appreciate your critique, because it is respectful and honest, which is nice to see for a change. It would be nice to see all anarchists addressing it in the manner you have. And since your critique is offsite I can’t see why you would possibly be banned for writing it.

user 2: Enkidu, you wrote a wonderful intelligent article, the best I’ve seen so far about anarchism and DGR.  Thank you for writing it.  I do think some interesting discussions may come of it, looking forward to reading more.

And then Lierre Keith logged in and commented:

Calling Derrick a “careerist” and using phrases like “cult of personality”? That’s respectful?

And calling me a “cop caller” because I called the police after being assaulted?

I’ve already responded to the bit about careerism, and i don’t have anything new to say about it now. The ethical pitfalls of going to the cops, especially the particular event in question, has been discussed more thoroughly by others than i could do justice. But, really, i can think of a lot more disrespectful things to call someone who called the cops (to an anarchist space/event, no less). Not to mention that DGR is explicitly anti-police in theory. As for the cult of personality… this is a topic i will certainly return to, but for now i will just offer this quote from Wikipedia:

A cult of personality arises when an individual uses mass media, propaganda, or other methods, to create an idealized and heroic public image, often through unquestioning flattery and praise.

[...] While the cult of personality generally applies to the enhancement and promotion of a political or religious doctrine, it stands to reason that it is also asserted in everyday situations where popularity is used to advocate conformity to philosophies and lifestyles, even products and attitudes by way of peer pressure and herd mentality.

The only additional comments i saw before my ban were backpedaling on the initial positive comments to me. About that critique of authority…

Now that i am officially out of their loop, i feel free to make a thorough critique of the “ideological” aspects of DGR at some point in the future. The kid gloves are coming off. I strive to remain as respectful as possible without compromising critical inquiry. I stick by my words thus far, i regret nothing. I harbor no ill will toward the DGR movement (even Lierre, if she works on her shit), and i do want to see them succeed. I still hope that rank-and-file deep green resistors will be interested in discussing the merits and pitfalls of their movement with me. I intend on having a conversation, whether or not the dear leaders allow it. It is one of the most important conversations that can happen.

See you in the trenches!

Addendum: It is part of the official rules of the forum not to reproduce a user’s comments without their consent. As I was removed from the forum without my consent i consider my initial agreement void. I was hesitant at first to make this information public, for fear of appearing spiteful, (I don’t actually care that much that i was kicked out of the club) but several friends convinced me that it would be best to make this series of events public. Really, if this is what the internet version of DGR is like, i shudder to think what the real life movement could come to look like.

Within the greater anti-civilization milieu, two major factions have been vocally distinguishing their approaches from one another: the anarcho-primitivists and the Deep Green Resistance movement. Occasionally this effort towards differentiation has been based on honest disagreement about theory and practice. More commonly, it has been a tit-for-tat based mostly on personality conflict. During the brief period of its existence the Internet has often proved to be a safe haven for mean-spirited personal attacks. Insofar as concerns are raised about the actions of certain public persons in a critical spirit, they can contribute to a critical discourse. This is my intention, not to sling mud simply for cursory amusement.

Anarchists have voiced a number of legitimate criticisms of the Deep Green Resistance crowd. Among these are the cult of personality and careerist methods of Derrick Jensen and the anti-trans prejudice and cop-calling of Lierre Keith. Other potentially problematic aspects of Deep Green Resistance are not necessarily so obvious and are in need of careful critical inspection. For their part the DGR have called into question several aspects of anarchist thought and practice. But how salient are these criticisms? Are they based in honest disagreements on theoretical and tactical differences?

One of the main theoretical points of contention is authority. John Zerzan and Kevin Tucker have accused DGR of having authoritarian aspects. While the quotes they draw from can certainly be interpreted as authoritarian, notably Lierre’s injunction for anti-civ folks to “think like field generals”. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jMRXT4Rg1p0), it makes for spare evidence of authoritarianism. For my part as skeptical, anti-civilization anarchist i will not come to a conclusion about DGR as a whole until i have seen what they have to say in their tome of a manualfesto. Nonetheless the topic of authority is of utmost urgency to discuss.

To at least get a point of reference we must ask ourselves what is meant by “authority”. Mikhail Bakunin described authority as “the eminently theological, metaphysical and political idea that the masses, always [...] must submit at all times to the benevolent yoke of a wisdom and a justice [...] imposed on them from above.” (http://theanarchistlibrary.org/HTML/Michail_Bakunin__Marxism__Freedom_and_the_State.html#toc5) In this conception authority is a way of thinking that leads to hierarchy and oppression. Bakunin seems to imply that authority is derived from religious institutions. And “hierarchy” is etymologically derived from ancient Christian social structure (literally “rule by priests”). Hierarchy and authority are much more ancient, however. While complex hierarchy is only conceivable in a civilized context, there are plenty of examples of oppression and authoritarian behaviour in non-civilized societies. Bakunin differentiated between the non-coercive “natural influence” individuals can have on one another, versus the authoritarian “artificial, privileged, lawful, and official influence” (http://theanarchistlibrary.org/HTML/Michail_Bakunin__Writings.html#toc2). This is a key distinction underlying anarchist theory of authority.

Derrick Jensen began to distinguish his differences with anarchism on the question of authority:

“indigenous peoples have an entirely different relationship with authority. It doesn’t mean that there is no authority. It’s different because there aren’t what we consider bosses. I don’t want to speak for all indigenous peoples, because there are as many kinds of authority relationships as there are indigenous peoples. Some of which are pretty nasty.”

Here, Derrick seems to be attempting the same distinction between legitimate and illegitimate influence as already attempted by Bakunin and other anarchists. In this quotation there is no clear difference between his position and that of anarchists, but later in the same interview Derrick states,

“I got in a big disagreement with some young anarchists not very long ago, who said they couldn’t see the need for a larger, more hierarchical organization system than the leaderless cell. I disagreed. Part of the problem with our notion of authority in this culture is the assumption that all authority is oppressive. That’s a toxic mimic of real authority. You can have authority and leadership that are fluid and based on effectiveness. You can do small-scale actions with leaderless cells, but you can’t do a large-scale one. You can’t do actions spread out all over the country and the world with leaderless cells. You have to have people who are making decisions like those.” (http://theanarchistlibrary.org/HTML/Various_Authors__The_A_Word.html#toc37)

Here we begin to see some clear disagreement between anarchism and Deep Green Resistance, tho Derrick seems still to be using the term “authority” to refer, in some instances, to “natural influence”. The more salient point is the advocacy of hierarchy and centralized power. Anti-authoritarian analysis contends that hierarchies can never be trusted, and the history of resistance movements tends to justify this analysis. As Alfredo Bonanno succinctly put it, “The superior aims of the revolution no longer exist when it is betrayed by the authoritarians.” (http://theanarchistlibrary.org/HTML/Alfredo_M._Bonanno__Revolution__Violence__Anti-authoritarianism___A_few_notes.html#toc5)

It may be the case that for some people anti-authoritarianism is a dogma (as some DGR folks contend: http://fightciv.wordpress.com/2011/06/07/a-critique-of-anarchism-and-its-effectiveness-as-a-strategy-to-bring-down-oppressive-power-systems/), but for many – probably most – anarchists the rejection of authority (or “unnatural influence”) is based on the lessons that history has taught us the hard way. Authority always acts against the liberatory impulses of humanity.

I get the impression that the folks in the DGR movement are sincere about wanting to end the destruction of human and non-human life caused by civilization. It disheartening that they are so quick to dismiss anarchist theory and practice as ineffective. Is a resistance movement effective when it reproduces the same fucked up social relations that it (allegedly) seeks to abolish? Admittedly much of the anarchist movement remains mired in authoritarianism. No anarchist could honestly deny the significant disjunction that remains between theory and practice. DGR seems unwilling to even contend with the critique of authoritarianism.

The major difference i see is that whereas anarchists do not shy away critiquing their own movement, and even listening to criticism from outside their movement, thus far the leadership of DGR, Derrick Jensen especially, have been loathe to listen to anyone that raises concerns about DGR. Critics are consistently shut out of the conversation. Probably any concerns i raise will be ignored by the DGR leadership, but hopefully the rank-and-file of the movement will remain open to the words of those in other resistance movements. Otherwise DGR risks becoming just another insular ideology, maladapted to the constantly shifting terrain of struggle. The same also applies to anarchists that seek to prematurely dismiss DGR.