Many years ago, I was intending to attend a organizing community member's free class on anarchism. James C Scott's Seeing like a State was one of the first reading assignments. Unfortunately, as was the case of many commitments back when I balanced a life with too many responsibilities, I missed the class and the book remained on my to-read list. When I encountered James C Scott's, Two Cheers for Anarchism, it seemed like a good time to remedy the fact that I'd never read any of his work. I cannot comment on whether or not this book is a repetition of his previous works, as another reviewer mentioned. What I am able to say is that this brief volume has a decent group of ideas that can help introduce the reader to anarchist thought in a simple enough way that it can accommodate a larger audience.
This book does have an academic bent to it, but is not excessively jargony. I wouldn't necessarily call these six pieces "easy" depending on one's reference point, but they are readable. I like how Scott used analogies and creative explanations to make his points. There are some historical references that I got a little overwhelmed by at times essentially because I have a terrible memory and I was rusty on some of the details. Someone who is completely unfamiliar with some of the histories discussed in this book might need to look something up on occasion. But overall I think the average reader would be able to parse the point of these discussions with or without perfect historical knowledge.
Scott offers a frame of reference that shows how anarchist ideas and practices have existed in many places and populations before and after the coining of the term. The central practices and belief systems of anarchism can be found anywhere collective liberation and mutual aid are taking place. Collective action was/is often unintended and selfish- meaning it is not always designed from the start as a wider liberatory framework, but people working together end up creating that in the process.
One element of the text is the idea of seeing things through anarchist glasses. Scott discusses that doing so still results in a wide variation of assessments. However, he is not claiming that anarchist glasses are rose colored. There is complexity to resistance that adds many wild cards to the possible outcomes. There is a discussion about how to use the state in an emancipatory role even while being anti-state. I would see this more as an accident or exception to the rule, such as his example of officers protecting Black schoolchildren during the dismantling of segregation. Yet, I get the point. This leads to a discussion in the other direction. Scott discusses the reality that disruption of the state and authoritarianism is necessary, though it can sometimes result in an authoritarian response. The latter does not take away the importance and inevitability of the former as a step toward liberation.
I really liked Scott's idea of "anarchist calisthenics," which is a fun term for basically the practice of consistently questioning authority and rule breaking- especially rules that do harm or that are simply stupid. It takes practice to go against the normative human tendency towards conformity or fear of punishment to realize how easy and effective going against the grain can often be. True order in the anarchist sense relies on breaking rules and collectively organizing for effectiveness. He uses the example of speed limits (which due to widespread disobedience have changed in strictness over time) and factory workers resisting en masse (leading to better conditions being the only possible outcome if the factory were to continue.)
Scott also discussed how (authoritarian) democracies are sometimes created with the intention to institutionalize resistance, but instead are parasitic, using the desire for liberation against the people. He makes an ecosystem analogy wherein a forest is disturbed to focus on propagating a single tree species to increase timber productivity. It works at first, but under the surface, the ecosystem is collapsing. Water and usable soil are running out, biodiversity is disintegrating, and once it becomes clear to everyone, if it does at all, the damage has been done. The imbalance is systemic.
These are all things I was generally aware of, but I liked some of the framings that conveyed messages in ways I think can reach larger audiences. One newish thing to me from this book was not a new idea in general in anarchism. Yet, it was new in it's framing for me. Scott discusses how important participation in collective democracy is a crucial learning process for all community members. In state based ideology, we're supposed to lift up the most experienced/qualified to make various decisions. (I must mention though that this is often untrue in practice and is exceptionally laughable currently to anyone paying attention to USA politics, but I digress.) However, designing things hierarchically like this robs the public of collective growth that comes from making decisions together and teaching each other in the process. It creates a dynamic where people, especially those with no experience, see only one route forward- one in which they have no power or responsibility.
It all reminds me of a discussion with someone years ago where we were lamenting the length of a particular organizing meeting. She said, "Anarchy is beautiful. Anarchy takes forever." I do think that this book needed a little bit more about what more intentional anarchism is as far as next steps go after you examine the sort of accidental bits of anarchism discussed throughout this text. However, I think this book offers something to both those new to ideas of anarchism and to more seasoned readers (even if we would have liked a neater iteration of the circle A.)
This was also posted to my goodreads and storygraph.
Was James C. Scott an anarchist?
ReplyDeletehttps://anarchistnews.org/content/was-james-c-scott-anarchist
Perhaps I need to be more clear but I didn't see him identifying as an anarchist in the book, just writing about anarchist ideas. I took the "two cheers" thing to maybe mean he's cool with anarchism and takes what he needs from it, but maybe isn't an anarchist himself? This is the only book of his I've read. Perhaps it's a bit like "A participatory economy" where it's a good exercise in thinking about daily life but not fully in the anarchist realm.
DeleteI don't know enough about his farm in the last link of your article to say if it's worse than any other white non indigenous person owning land/property. Isn't that all stolen land? My apartment is on stolen land. I don't think that or behavior from 50 years ago necessarily means someone can't practice anarchism.