So I took some time to read this text called, "Fragments of an Anarchist Anthropology" by David Graeber and even spent went to a couple meetings with an anarchist reading group/new organization where we had some discussions about the text. Funny thing was is that I was the only individual there that studies anthropology. Not that we should be vanguardist of the theories and practices of anthropology and unwilling to share them with any school of thought who would appreciate to integrate those things in their own theory and practice, but it sure would be nice to get a few more anthropologists involved outside the realm of academia. This is not to infringe on everyones ability/basic human right to choose, and to choose what sort of an outlet anthropology will be in their life.
Hopefully as anthropology starts and is realizing that it must integrate with other practices/studies in order to survive as a relevant force in our world so do other organizations and practices realize that vanguardism and elitism should be diminished from humanity in order to make necessary paradigm shifts in theory and human rights. I suppose it would be very very wonderful to completely eliminate the facade of dualism and observe, appreciate, and embrace the integration of theories and practices coming from many different outlets.
What I'm trying to say is, give this abstract theory a chance or at least a read. It will even clear up for most people the true theory/practice of anarchism (direct democracy, consensus, mutuality, elimination of hierarchy, etc.). If you don't agree with it then take away the good theory you have learned and integrate it into your personal repertoire. After all, that's what we do everyday isn't it?
Read:
Fragments of an Anarchist Anthropology by David Graeber
Have further questions or discussion? Contact me at erikwritesagain@gmail.com or visit:
1 comment:
Eric-Great post. David Graeber is certainly an engaging anthropologist. Though I have to say that Graeber's use of vanguardism is a bit puzzling, it seems to have no connection to the actual etymology of the word and its associated history of vanguard revolutionary parties. A vanguard party, as it was conceived by Lenin, is a part that places itself (intellectually and strategically) in the middle of a movement in order to influence the direction of the movement. That doesn't stymie debate, it only influences it in the direction that you want to go. That motive, in of itself, shouldn't be considered bad it you are principled in your convictions. It isn't delegitimizing, its acting according to your convictions. All movements experience this phenomena. Because of its decenteralized and varied manifestations Anarchism may appear to be resistant to vanguardism but its not. If it wast then you wouldn't have the hegemonic influence of the social ecologists, anarcho-syndicalists, and anarcho-communists, when considered against all of the many factions of radical libertarianism. Furthermore, movements are sectarian in nature. Just go to any gathering of more than 50 anarchists and you'll see what I mean, there is little coherence and there is constant jockeying for position.
Graeber may wish that anarchism and anthropology were more accepted by academia, something that I have a great deal of sympathy for, but I think that people should be able to hold to their opinions that some theories are just plain wrong and should be treated as thus (anthropology's history is full of these skeleton's in the closet). These theories were themselves the victims of vanguardist schools of thought in anthropology. Racial superiority-killed by Boas and his students, primitive mentality-killed by Levi-Strauss and the structuralists, etc. Boas and Levi-Strauss eventually fell victim to other vanguardist movements and it will forever be so. I don't necessarily fall into a progressivist camp but I do think that there has been, and will probably continue to be, some fine tuning of the perspectives seen through the anthropological lens. Vanguardist theories arise because theoretical innovations don't pop up in a vacuum. Graeber is making his argument within a narrow anthropological and anarchist tradition to which many of his argument's assumptions rest. In his article, "the twilight of vanguardism," he criticizes those who, in favor of their own pet "ism" disregard all other "isms" as false. First, he is setting up a straw man argument, because that is certainty not the case for most of academic anthropology, and second, he falls under the same category. On several occasions Graeber pokes fun at Levy-Buhl, and alternatively (in his intro to Possibilities, seems to worship Bourdieu). Tisk, tisk.
That said, I think Graeber is brilliant when he is talking less about the state of anthropology and more about how everyday political movements, struggles, and ideologies of value, individuality, and practice. Although I have a bone or two to pick with Graeber (and probably anarchism) I would definitely consider him one of the most engaging anthropologist around today. Nearly ever work rotates between erudite expositions on abstract theories to common sense explorations of everyday life. I love how versatile his writing is, his conviction to his conscious, and his challenges to hegemonic institutions and traditions. If you particularly like the political work of Graeber you should check these out:
http://balkansnet.org/zcl/puppets.pdf
and
http://wwww.lse.ac.uk/collections/LSEPublicLecturesAndEvents/pdf/20060525-Graeber.pdf
Thanks again for the post. Great stuff.
Post a Comment