very useful Andy!<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, May 30, 2011 at 2:21 PM, Andy Robinson <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:ldxar1@gmail.com">ldxar1@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">
Hiya,<br>
<br>
Oh, wonderful... another Hobbesian critique of autonomy... just what<br>
the world needs :-(<br>
<br>
The theoretical error here is confusing the idea of self-organising<br>
networks with the much more widespread, older, and more insidious idea<br>
of a natural order. The ideas are similar in that they both posit a<br>
certain form of organisation which, if realised and then left to its<br>
own devices, will be stable. Where they differ, is that the old idea<br>
of natural order implies some kind of equilibrium model. In fact if<br>
we want to trace this idea we have to go at least as far back as<br>
Aristotle, who also believed that everything in the world has a<br>
'natural' function and if everything fulfilled its function, the world<br>
would be a harmonious order.<br>
<br>
Of course this view is very helpful for the process known as<br>
'naturalisation' in discourse analysis: taking a contingent social<br>
fact and insulating it from critique by declaring it to be 'natural'<br>
(gender relations, heteronormativity, racial hierarchies, poverty,<br>
class differences and so on). The trick is that the 'natural'<br>
situation still has to be actively socially constructed, and relies on<br>
hierarchy and violence to keep it in place. This is what's going on<br>
in the South African case discussed.<br>
<br>
Hence the criticism is conflating self-organising networks with the<br>
equilibrium model of natural order, and the use of naturalisation in<br>
discourse. A self-organising network is neither of these things for<br>
two reasons: 1) by definition it does not require a hierarchy to keep<br>
it in place, 2) it is a complex system and not a fixed order, ranking<br>
or equilibrium. (That's not to say that complexity theory doesn't<br>
have its own skeletons in the closet - TBH I was expecting at least<br>
some reference to the sins of cybernetics here - Curtis isn't doing<br>
his research as well as he might).<br>
<br>
The 'Green movement = Romanticism' or 'Green movement = conservative<br>
views of natural order' trick has been pulled many times before.<br>
There was a certain love of the countryside and concern for<br>
conservation in pro-peasant Romanticism and rural aristocratic<br>
conservatism, but it's not much like Green thought, because the vision<br>
of nature is radically different, so too is the politics, and anyway,<br>
the main concern is with the virtues of peasants or aristocrats -<br>
conservation is almost an afterthought, keeping the rural folk in<br>
their 'natural environment'. It's possible to write a history of<br>
ecological concern in that direction, but it's also possible to write<br>
one which goes through Morris, Kropotkin and other figures of the left<br>
(even Marx talks about alienation from nature).<br>
<br>
Note also that if we're playing reductio ad hitlerum (South Africa<br>
count as Nazi?), this author's stance can just as easily be debunked<br>
the same way, i.e. people who believe nature is a Hobbesian chaos<br>
quite often end up as control-freak eugenicists and ecocidal maniacs<br>
(Herbert Spencer comes to mind); people who believe social movements<br>
need strong organisation and leadership are repeating what the<br>
Stalinists did in Russia, and are going to shoot us like partridges or<br>
betray us like in Spain; the view of power as definitive in social<br>
life is shared with Carl Schmitt, who of course is a Nazi, etc etc.<br>
Seriously, an authoritarian Hobbesian does not want to start that<br>
particular game, particularly when arguing with anarchists (who are<br>
measurably the furthest possible one can be from Nazis on political<br>
compass - guaranteeing that whoever is using the argument is closer).<br>
<br>
The part of the article on Biosphere is a grotesque misreading... all<br>
that it shows is that scientists don't (yet) know enough about how the<br>
elements in an ecosystem interrelate to be able to build an ecosystem<br>
at this level of complexity. Maybe this is a case for further<br>
scientific research, maybe it's a case for trusting local knowledge<br>
over modern science when dealing with complex local systems. I'd add<br>
that scientists *have* created homeostatic ecosystems in jars<br>
involving only a handful of species (I've seen one on display in a<br>
science centre). Here we are:<br>
<a href="http://www.mlms.logan.k12.ut.us/science/BioJar.html" target="_blank">http://www.mlms.logan.k12.ut.us/science/BioJar.html</a> Hence very bad<br>
attempt to discredit a concept.<br>
<br>
Old leftists are very twitchy about the newest wave of social<br>
movements - if not downright hostile, and it's always attached to this<br>
same kind of suspicion that 1) they don't realise the need for<br>
discipline/authority/strong organisations and 2) they're really<br>
Thatcherites in disguise, too caught-up in self-expression to do<br>
'serious' politics'. It's really the same as the objections of old<br>
rightists, which far more explicitly whine about lost authority and<br>
the breakdown of values and how 'selfish' people are and 'in my day<br>
they'd all have been hung from the railings by their gonads'. The<br>
leftist version is an echo of the same discourse, with the same<br>
objections to contemporary society and its social movements. I think<br>
it's partly a psychological problem and partly a generational problem.<br>
In fact there was a characteristic of the old pre-60s 'consensus'<br>
which has broken down, a kind of unquestioning acceptance of authority<br>
and discipline, and to someone who still believes in this lost world<br>
of proto-fascism which was shattered by the 60s rebellions, the New<br>
Left and New Right look strangely similar. Hence the tropes we see<br>
here: new social movements = irresponsible individualism and refusal<br>
of normativity, autonomy = managerialism, social movements need<br>
discipline to be effective (instrumentalism vs expressionism), and a<br>
world without a strong boss to tell everyone what to do isn't going to<br>
work because the world just doesn't work that way goddamnit it'd be<br>
anarchy.<br>
<br>
It's a product of a desire for a strong 'trunk' and arborescent<br>
structures which is either a psychological disposition (think either<br>
'Authoritarian Personality' and 'Fear of Freedom', or else maybe<br>
certain Myers-Briggs types), or a learnt cultural disposition which<br>
these people are having trouble unlearning (this is what they were<br>
socialised into, they were 'good subjects' then, and they hate the<br>
fact that they're not 'good subjects' any more, even though they've<br>
always just about played by the rules they were socialised into, that<br>
for them are 'just the way it is'). I've seen it a thousand times, it<br>
comes up whenever networked protest groups or direct action or the<br>
Black Bloc or subcultural deviance or any freedom vs collectivism<br>
dispute comes up, and it's almost identical in structure every single<br>
time. It's not a good idea to take it too seriously, because these<br>
types seem pre-programmed to be unreflexive about the origins of their<br>
own assumptions, and therefore are unable to justify their selection<br>
of this particular set of assumptions - it isn't a conscious choice,<br>
it's a reflex.<br>
<br>
The real struggle now is not within the old industrial economy (old<br>
right vs old left) but within the new<br>
creative/informational/precarious economy (new right / new Third Way<br>
vs new left / newest social movements), and the way these kinds who<br>
want to go back to the old industrial economy relate to this struggle<br>
is invariably reactionary: their 'need' for greater order is met by<br>
the right-wing side of the current struggle, and they're therefore<br>
drawn into it on the 'wrong' side, even if precariously so.<br>
<br>
bw<br>
<font color="#888888">Andy<br>
</font><div><div></div><div class="h5"><br>
<br>
<br>
On Mon, May 30, 2011 at 6:40 AM, Michel Bauwens <<a href="mailto:michelsub2004@gmail.com">michelsub2004@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
> Sam,<br>
><br>
> I hope you survived the tornado?<br>
><br>
> I hope some of our participants can react to this very interesting challenge<br>
> from Adam Curtis in the Guardian,<br>
><br>
> Michel<br>
><br>
> On Sun, May 29, 2011 at 9:50 PM, Kevin Flanagan <<a href="mailto:kev.flanagan@gmail.com">kev.flanagan@gmail.com</a>><br>
> wrote:<br>
>><br>
>> How the 'ecosystem' myth has been used for sinister means - Adam<br>
>> Curtis - Guardian<br>
>><br>
>> When, in the 1920s, a botanist and a field marshal dreamed up rival<br>
>> theories of nature and society, no one could have guessed their ideas<br>
>> would influence the worldview of 70s hippies and 21st-century protest<br>
>> movements. But their faith in self-regulating systems has a sinister<br>
>> history<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/may/29/adam-curtis-ecosystems-tansley-smuts" target="_blank">http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/may/29/adam-curtis-ecosystems-tansley-smuts</a><br>
>><br>
>> Episode 1 of his current documentary is up on youtube<br>
>><br>
>> <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xX5jImWRREc" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xX5jImWRREc</a><br>
>><br>
>> _______________________________________________<br>
>> P2P Foundation - Mailing list<br>
>> <a href="http://www.p2pfoundation.net" target="_blank">http://www.p2pfoundation.net</a><br>
>> <a href="https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation" target="_blank">https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation</a><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> --<br>
> P2P Foundation: <a href="http://p2pfoundation.net" target="_blank">http://p2pfoundation.net</a> - <a href="http://blog.p2pfoundation.net" target="_blank">http://blog.p2pfoundation.net</a><br>
><br>
> Connect: <a href="http://p2pfoundation.ning.com" target="_blank">http://p2pfoundation.ning.com</a>; Discuss:<br>
> <a href="http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation" target="_blank">http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation</a><br>
><br>
> Updates: <a href="http://del.icio.us/mbauwens" target="_blank">http://del.icio.us/mbauwens</a>; <a href="http://friendfeed.com/mbauwens" target="_blank">http://friendfeed.com/mbauwens</a>;<br>
> <a href="http://twitter.com/mbauwens" target="_blank">http://twitter.com/mbauwens</a>; <a href="http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens" target="_blank">http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens</a><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><br>-- <br>P2P Foundation: <a href="http://p2pfoundation.net" target="_blank">http://p2pfoundation.net</a> - <a href="http://blog.p2pfoundation.net" target="_blank">http://blog.p2pfoundation.net</a> <br>
<br>Connect: <a href="http://p2pfoundation.ning.com" target="_blank">http://p2pfoundation.ning.com</a>; Discuss: <a href="http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation" target="_blank">http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation</a><br>
<br>Updates: <a href="http://del.icio.us/mbauwens" target="_blank">http://del.icio.us/mbauwens</a>; <a href="http://friendfeed.com/mbauwens" target="_blank">http://friendfeed.com/mbauwens</a>; <a href="http://twitter.com/mbauwens" target="_blank">http://twitter.com/mbauwens</a>; <a href="http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens" target="_blank">http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens</a><br>
<br><br><br><br><br>