The Face of Anarchy
by Steve ThomasI have been thinking about how to describe a tribal society; what it actually looks like. Jason did a very fine job of this in his most recent article. I’m offering these thoughts as a compliment to that piece.
The key point, I think, is that the pattern of organization that we’ve identified as tribal; or as rhizome; or as anarchy (I’ll now use those terms interchangeably) is the mode of behavior which comes most naturally to the human species. Hierarchy is psychologically difficult to bear, and humans only enter into it under force—the locking up of the food supply. Rhizome anarchy is in fact the natural way humans organize themselves to live their lives and provide themselves with the things they need—and you’ll find that even in contemporary society, those resources which are not “under lock and key� are all acquired tribally.
Perhaps I can use my own life to demonstrate.
Some startling facts about me: Like all humans, I require some degree of social interaction. That is to say, one of the basic resources I must provide myself with is human companionship. This is a resource which is not controlled hierarchically. My methods of procuring it can only be called “tribal.” The same is true for you, I imagine. Now let’s go on a tour of my “social life,” and see what we might discover.
At any given time I may choose to insert myself into any one of a number of different groups scattered about Pittsburgh. For instance, I may pedal my bicycle to Squirrel Hill and visit Malkor and his group at their house, Xeno and his group at their house, Ungulate and his group at their house; or Jason and Giuli in their apartment. (Yes, I’m making up names. Their real names are pretty boring. Except for “Jason” and “Giuli.” Those are fun and dynamic.) I may walk down the street to Old Man Winter’s apartment, or I may bike out to the ironically-named neighborhood of Friendship to where Shexta and Candelmar and still more people live. Of course not one of these groups are rigid; one is quite likely to find Xeno over at Malkor’s; Candelmar at my own apartment, etc.
All of these groups are connected to one another through shared members and mutual acquaintances. No group could be said to have political or economic power over another. Problems with hierarchy and domination do arise from time to time, especially in those groups which are male-dominated—but one always has the option to find a different group to pass the time with. Within the whole system there are some people whose group-alignment is very fluid, and some whose group-alignment is very fixed. Most are in the middle, and (again) all have the option of shifting groups available to them. Individual groups range from about 2-7 people and composition is fluid. At certain regular intervals disparate individuals and groups converge for somewhat large (7-15 people) or very large (16-50 people) gatherings.
Well, now you know the details of my social life. What’s the point? That I’m awesome and have a lot of friends. But other than that, if you look closely at the group I’ve described (which is not set up very differently from other social groups, as far as I can tell—except for those dependant upon the shared-workplace or the shared-suburb; i.e., upon hierarchy) you can see that it operates on the basic principles of tribalism. The structure is basically that of the hunter-gatherer band, or the loose network of rhizome, including the fluidity of the individual microbands; the lack of a fixed power structure; and the fission-fusion, congregation-dispersal pattern of group interaction. The economic interaction, too, is tribal: people voluntarily band together to provide one another with a basic human need (in this case, companionship) The only difference is that the traditional band provided the hunter-gatherer with ALL of her/his needs, whereas the vast majority of our needs—particularly the most important, i.e., physical ones—must be provided by hierarchy. (And in fact, being the only source for one’s physical needs is the single key to the preservation of hierarchy.)
Let’s examine this a bit. (Am I actually right?) Let’s take away all the people in the Pittsburgh region except for my friends and the groups of friends they connect to. Eventually we’ll have to truncate this. Let’s stop at the people I know or who know one of the people I know. We’re at several hundred people now, I think. Now let’s skip forward a thousand years: all the buildings and streets and so forth are gone. We have several hundred people scattered across perhaps 50 square miles of forested mountains and rivers. I still spend my time wandering from group to group, but now:
1. Instead of houses and apartments, I arrive upon my friends in camps or villages or bivouacs. Perhaps one particularly industrious group prefers to build semi-permanent longhouses for the winter (which is one of the reasons they stick together as a group). Another is camped in pretty rudimentary (but easy-to-build) lean-tos. Still another is making temporary camp in an Earthship some forward-thinking individual thought to build upon this ground in ages past.
2. Instead of arriving and simply hanging out, perhaps drinking a beer or workshopping fiction or painting or getting stoned, I might do other fun things like foraging, fishing, or working in a garden. We might sit around and get stoned, too, or paint or tell grand stories or maybe play a primitive version of Dungeons and Dragons (dice made of bone, not plastic and with elements of religion and magic involved. God I’m a nerd). This kind of life doesn’t take THAT much work. Probably no TV though.
3. As in contemporary life people generally spend their time in small groups of 2-7, but, again, periodically converge for somewhat large (8-15 people) gatherings or very large (16-50) festivals. In the present day, economic exchange, rearrangement of micro-group structures, and exchange of mates occur at these events. In our post-civilization world it is the same, except that:
a. Instead of the hosts and some of the visitors providing attendees with things like beer, burgers, or potato chips, the attendees all provide one another with more useful things like meat, hides, knives or arrows, preserved fruits or grains, etc.
b. Instead of individuals finding new groups to “hang out� with, they find new groups to forage, hunt, fish, garden, and hang out with. (Even today people at parties make business deals, find leads on employment, and otherwise find economically-advantageous contacts).
c. Individual groups are a tiny bit more permanent owing only to the increased difficulty of transportation and communications. The gatherings also probably lasts longer than a single evening (anywhere from several days to several months) and may involve intensive economic activity instead of/in addition to party-type and exchange activity. For example, the various groups in an area may converge in the fall to harvest a garden-system communally planted in the spring; or may gather along a river when fish are known to be plentiful.
d. The gathering is still a perfect time to find/exchange mates. Possibly fewer intoxicants are involved. Possibly not.
Of course, I’m not coming up with new ideas here. This is how hunter-gatherer societies really do work. And it’s how most of us already live every second of the day we are given the choice.
So let’s back up a bit. Instead of a thousand years from now, let’s talk about 50 years from now. Or hell, five years from now. Some of the groups I interact with are already practicing some form of tribalism. For instance, Sunday’s “social event� included a (tragically failed) foraging expedition to the park by Jason, Giuli and Mike; followed by the 4 of us gathering to work on this website. (And to play Risk, which Jason won by cheating.) To pick another example, before a small party at my home on Thursday a friend and I acquired some new clothing on a dumpster-foraging expedition.
Now, let’s step ahead a few years and assume everyone has been “turned on� to tribalism to some extent (and there hasn’t been a truly catastrophic collapse event). The loose network of my acquaintances has redefined itself as a loose network of tribes. I have to imagine my hours among my friends will still include such things as drinking beers and reading poetry (i.e., fun). But now they might also include much more tribal economic activity (i.e., other kinds of fun). More collective writing. More foraging, both of the industrial and ecological infrastructures. What else? Maybe gardening, maybe writing, maybe sowing patchwork clothing. Maybe fishing or hunting. It depends on the individuals involved, and how they want to spend their lives. Maybe editing or toilet cleaning or office work. Maybe the creation of Greywater catchment systems. Maybe the usual parties might now include such things as collective planting, or harvesting, or raising someone’s Earthship or straw bale home.
The point is, the world we want isn’t a world we have to build from scratch. I’ve just described a working tribal society built upon the framework of the world that most of us already live in, because we choose to live in it, because it’s the way things work for people. What the New Tribal Revolution reallyamounts to is getting out of the relationships that we don’t like, that were created for us—i.e., wherein we serve someone else—and expanding the function of the relationships that we do like, that we created ourselves. It is the expansion of anarchy–that is, the set of relationships we all choose without even thinking about it–to provide us with EVERYTHING we need, with the whole of Maslow’s hierarchy, instead of just the top couple of levels. So that we can always live the way we want to live, instead of just on the weekends. So that we never have to waste our lives serving anyone else.
Now doesn’t that sound like fun?
Surprised no one has commented on this article yet. It was an excellent read. I especially liked the insight that we naturally gravitate toward tribal/rhizome relationships when we have the choice to.
I have so many memories of not wanting to go home from camps and other gatherings of people, because at home and at school there was little opportunity for unrestricted interaction with friends. So the answer to your question is YES! It does sound like fun!
Thanks for writing.
Devin
Comment by Anonymous — 13 September 2005 @ 12:12 AM
Yes! YES! Chance based role-playing will endure! Forever, even unto the end of humanity itself!
Now, roll them bones!
… whoops. Okay, roll for Dodge.
Umm, whoops. Critical hit. The grizzly bear mauls your hunter. Sorry.
Wanna roll up a new hunter?
Comment by Chuck — 13 September 2005 @ 7:02 AM
Foragers have a lot of liesure time. What do they spend that time doing? Primarily, gambling and telling stories. Is not the RPG the perfect combination of gambling and storytelling? Does that not make RPG’s the tribal pasttime par excellence? Truly, it is the Noble Art.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 13 September 2005 @ 11:09 AM
Jason, this is the bridge of all bridges.
I had a wonderful vision a few hours ago of training young children how to hunt (before they’re physically strong enough to actually do it) by role-playing.
Comment by Chuck — 13 September 2005 @ 12:29 PM
:::glares::: Yes. Yes, he did. GERMANIA SHALL BE MINE, DAMMIT!!!
Comment by Giulianna Lamanna — 13 September 2005 @ 12:45 PM
It’s a great article, Steve. Also, I find it amusing that the one D&D comment inspired the most responses.
It had never really occurred to me how RPGs are an ideal game in that respect. You need no advanced technology, no industry. All you need are simple dice and imagination. I wonder how old they really are. It would be interesting to investigate.
Comment by Jay — 13 September 2005 @ 12:49 PM
a good DM can bridge the natural to the supernatural, blur the line between imagination and reality, and push the limits of human conciousness… just as a shaman does
Comment by felix — 13 September 2005 @ 8:47 PM
I was just telling Giuli that this evening! She’s still not sold….
Comment by Jason Godesky — 13 September 2005 @ 8:59 PM
Not sold on roleplaying or shamanism? The power of a shaman maybe? Is it magic she has a problem with?
Comment by Ben — 13 September 2005 @ 10:52 PM
It’s the roleplaying she doesn’t get. Shamanism … well, she can speak for herself.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 13 September 2005 @ 11:23 PM
Jay is Xeno.
Thanks for your supportive words, everyone. Felix, that’s a great way of putting it. I totally agree.
Also, Giuli cheats at Risk too.
Comment by Steve Thomas — 13 September 2005 @ 11:56 PM
You go to hell! You go to hell and you die!
Comment by Giulianna Lamanna — 14 September 2005 @ 1:44 AM
Steve, such bitterness … can’t you just accept that I’m the better general? Must you continue to confuse “cheats at” with “is much better than me at”?
Comment by Jason Godesky — 14 September 2005 @ 9:26 AM
Doesn’t one usually die and then go to hell?
Comment by Ben — 14 September 2005 @ 9:37 AM
I see you’ve played knifey-spoony before.
Comment by Giulianna Lamanna — 14 September 2005 @ 9:58 AM
God, I’ve spent the last 15 years of my life being a GM, being the proverbial bass player for the only form of interactive art in existence, and never once did I ever make the shaman/GM connection. Metaphor extended into a shared (and projected) reality, and the GM makes modifications, guides the others through it. The GM has walked these paths before, you see, initiated as he was by another GM, far in the past. He can walk in these realms of created reality, pulling back the veils for those exploring the world…
Whoa. Shaman in training.
Comment by Chuck — 14 September 2005 @ 4:37 PM
Steve
Are you not describing a loose tribal network all under the taken-for-granted hierarchical umbrella of a society that provides the wherewithall for groups of people. A society the provides water, power, garbage removal, police and firepeople, etc. That is pretty much what we have now!
You seem to be arguing for approaching the rural communes that were common in the 1960s and 70s, except within a city and with all the amenities of the city. But those amenities all result from our giving up power in those fields do they not? I freely allow the mayor of my city and governor of my state ability to setup and regulate power, fire, police, garbage, etc. so I have more free time to devote to friends and “leisure” activities. So I have my degree of tribalism within the current hierarchical state. How is what you want different?
Gary
Comment by Gary Ewell — 5 May 2006 @ 5:33 PM
Paging Jason,
This is driving me nuts. I’m trying to remember if it was you, or Jeff Vail, who talked about how one way for communities to regain some degree of autonomy is by having their own power generating sources. This occurred sometime last fall, IIRC. Now at first blush this sounds more like Vailian thing, but then again you write extensively about how everything in civilization hinges on energy.
Was that you? If it was, do you recall where you might have sdaid it?
Comment by Peter — 5 May 2006 @ 6:00 PM
Gary, you read Steve’s essay differently than I do. I see it as describing steps we can take on our way out of civilization. It recognizes that we are indeed currently enmeshed in civilization and may not be able to get ourselves out completely, but here are some steps we can take in that direction. It appears that you see the essay as describing a tribal network within civilization that is the endpoint. In my view the endpoint he is talking about is the completely non-civilized tribal situation he describes in the middle of the essay.
Comment by ChandraShakti — 7 May 2006 @ 9:51 AM
I can’t speak for Steve, but what I want is independence. Humans are naturally tribal. We “revert” to tribalism whenever we can no longer afford the “luxury” of dehumanizing hierarchy. We need a certain amount of tribalism even then, but it must always be dependent on hierarchy–after all, who would submit to it if they didn’t require it for survival?
But of course, that’s not necessary. Tribes were able to exist for a million years without that. It’s a popular myth that we can’t handle ourselves without someone telling us what to do–popular, but a myth nonetheless. For a million years, tribes organized all those amenities without needing to sacrifice any of their liberty. We’ve given up our liberty, in order to have certain amenities. The kicker is, we already had all those amenities before we gave up our liberty–our liberty was never necessary–so what did we really sacrifice it for?
While I’ve written a great deal about that topic, too, I think you’re referring to Jeff Vail’s “Energy, Society & Hierarchy.”
Comment by Jason Godesky — 8 May 2006 @ 10:59 AM
Thanks, Jason. I’m digging into the community energy farm concept.
Comment by Peter — 8 May 2006 @ 11:58 AM