Rule Theory

I'm a big Aldous Huxley fan. This started about the time I read Brave New World (Junior Year of high school) and has continued onward from then. This is primarily because one of the central philosophical principles of my later life occurred to me while reading BNW.

This principle is as follows: It is through the rules a person adheres to that that person makes progress in life.

It might seem strange to you for someone who's a self-described anarchist to espouse the primacy of "rules." I'd point out that this springs from a misunderstanding of "Anarchism," but I'll play along, and explain that the problem might lie in your understanding of rules.

Rules are not simply boundaries and limitations; they are guides for systems to form. This is the principle of Emergence. Look at Chess--it is only through the presence of the dozen or so rules that govern the game that the millions of different arrangements for the pieces are possible.

The rules you choose to live by are what enable you to accomplish anything. If you accept traffic laws, probability dictates that you are much more likely to be able to make it from point A to point B. If you don't accept them, then chances are your movement will be impeded, either by solid objects in your path or the enforcers of those same laws.

By the same token, however, a rule has no existence if it is not accepted by anyone. This is related to an idea originating from Walter J. Ong, the most intellectually famous graduate of my college--words have no existence outside of the minds of people, the markings on the screen before you are not words, but the seeds of words that only blossom into existence when you take the time to read them.

The same goes for rules; if a rule is not enforced by one person upon another (even if the enforcer and the enforcee are the same person) then it has no existence--it is not ontologically valid. Only scientific laws can have any validity outside of their meaning for human beings, and that presupposes that they're right.

So, if we accept that rules are only meaningful insofar as they're enforced, what does that mean?

I'm not entirely certain, personally. I'm beginning to suspect that it means that ethical choices might also be aesthetic choices. But this leads me to ground that someone I respect has already covered, so I will let his words speak instead:

The nameless of which we are all part does dream form and the highest attribute
any form may possess is beauty, the nameless then is an artist. Therefore, the problem is not one of good or evil, but one of aesthetics. You may ask then “How am I to know that which is beautiful and that which is ugly, and be moved to act thereby?”

--Lord of Light, Roger Zelazny

Of course, I don't mean "aesthetics" or "beauty" in a shallow sense--I am, first and foremost, insterested in the aesthetics of a good story. The rules you choose to live by are what defines who you are--it needn't be a conscious choice, but the things you will do and the things you will not do are (equally) your own, personal rules. They are the boundaries of the story you wish to tell and be the central character of.

Beyond that, it means that all "Laws" are subjective. They're rules we all agreed on, and continue to agree upon. If a law were to suddenly not be enforced, then it would cease to be meaningful--it is only through the consent of the governed and the governing that they exist. But because we enforce these rules on ourselves by choosing not to do certain things, that makes "the governed" the more important of the two parties involved in the process.

This is the root of my anarchism--people will break laws they do not agree with, and they will live by rules that are not enforced by an outside force. Therefore, theoretically speaking, laws are less important than the rules that people accept without coercion. If we could teach people to internalize the rules necessary for society to emerge from a mass of people, why have laws?

Of course, I admit that this is theory, and as unlikely as a mole of one element spontaneously turning into a mole of another. But the possibility is there.

Tribal Theory

In his essay, The Temporary Autonomous Zone, anarchist thinker Hakim Bey noted suggested that the fundamental unit of human society is not, and should not be considered to be, the nuclear family. Instead, he stated that the earlier model of the "Band" or "Tribe" is a more natural way of arranging things.

Personally, I think that Hakim Bey had a number of very good, well-thought out ideas. However, associating with him and his ideas comes with a certain amount of moral baggage with which I am not entirely comfortable. There are a number of inconsistencies in his thought which can easily be picked out, leaving something behind which can still be usable, despite the author's status as a nut-bar.

This idea of the importance of the "Tribe" in human culture shows up elsewhere. Kurt Vonnegut, Jr.'s idea of the Karass and Granfalloon in the fictitious religion of Bokononism are a good example, as is the Japanese word "Nakama" (often translated as "friends" or "comrades," though this is a best-fit translation, and it is still not quite accurate.)

In my opinion, the Tribe is an ancillary social structure, not replacing but including the family. Your "social circle," your "clique," your "friends and family" form your tribe. It isn't an artificial thing, but an emergent group identity that comes out of your associations. Take, for example, the Beats--Kerouac, Cassady, Ginsberg, and co.--they associated with one another because they were friends, but developed a new group identity and common purpose over the course of their travels and writing.

Another, more modern example (and one only really understandable to some people in the Kansas City Metropolitan Area) would be KCDIY--a group of like-minded people in the Kansas City area--and this comraderie extends to the families of those involved. I'm certain that everyone has observed something of the sort.

Please note, however, that I'm not referring to corporations or businesses. Though a Tribe can form from people who work together, they are not a priori a Tribe. The reason I would give for this is that a Tribe is an emergent thing that comes out of a group of people; an identity that contains other identities; a shared loyalty to the same unspoken thing.

It is also my opinion that a consciousness of the "tribe" to which you belong is growing ever more important in the modern era. Look at Modernist Poetry and the works of the Lost Generation (examples given) for an analogy. As the world grows (metaphorically) smaller, each of us is forced to realize that we are but one among many, a truth that brings about a sort of nihilating alienation.

My belief is that a tribe can be a bastion for individual identity, taking refuge from the mechanistic forces at work in our society that work to erode us and put us in cubicles.