?

Log in

anarkospiritual

Intro

« previous entry | next entry »
Nov. 10th, 2006 | 03:35 pm
posted by: xfotisx in anarkospiritual

Hi everyone, great community! I personally don't have a 'curriculum vitae' in anarchism or anything like that... I understand anarcho-spirituality as the state when one forgets about names, culture, color, race, ideals..Then what's left is something that doesn't know about 'good' or 'bad', Proudhon, Bakunin or Tolstoy and his 'christian anarchism'.

If I had to place myself somewhere, I'd say it's more of a green anarchism, social ecology stand. I think there is a lot of un-learning to do before we can qualify ourselves as spiritual beings.Thanks for reading and looking forward to some interesting conversations. Keep the community active!

Link | Leave a comment | Share

Comments {21}

algizshield

(no subject)

from: algizshield
date: Nov. 11th, 2006 01:32 am (UTC)
Link

Does the quality of something being "illusory" also make it inherently negative? Part of what many of these social constructs which you see as inhibiting can DO for us, is give structure to our experiences. The institutionalized racism we see in our world is not the direct result of "race". Institutionalized sexism is not the result of "gender". Also, race and gender are not at all "like" class, because class refers to an actual, static and demonstrable economic role in society, and is not something thought to be "inherent", or biological.

I would further content whether race and gender are EXCLUSIVELY social constructs, but it would be disingenuous for me to say I know. Rather, I suspect. The debate on these subjects is inconclusive.

Reply | Thread

algizshield

(no subject)

from: algizshield
date: Nov. 11th, 2006 01:33 am (UTC)
Link

This is actually meant to be a reply to the comment directly above.

Reply | Parent | Thread

za

(no subject)

from: super_weasel
date: Nov. 12th, 2006 08:04 pm (UTC)
Link

Part of what many of these social constructs which you see as inhibiting can DO for us, is give structure to our experiences.

I think there's a lot to this.

It reminds me of something Foucault I believe said about the construct "homosexual," which has only existed in the modern sense for about 100 years – it may be in some sense an artificial construction, but it does facilitate people coming together as a group and fighting for their rights. (Whereas this is harder if instead of "gays" we have scattered individuals who happen to have attractions for people of the same gender).

Reply | Parent | Thread

hédonisme libertaire

(no subject)

from: mmoneurere
date: Nov. 12th, 2006 09:58 pm (UTC)
Link

Does the quality of something being "illusory" also make it inherently negative?

It's not that anything illusory is inherently negative -- hell, I'm pretty fond of theatre, which is all about illusion, apparent or not -- but it changes the way we might deal with things which are negative. If race exists only in perceptions of and ideology regarding what are marked as collections of individual traits, and if gender is the naturalization of social constructions of agency and reproduction (along with over-generalizations from averages, in most modern cases), then our approach to the dismantling of the negative aspects of race and gender (and not all models of gender are necessarily negative; gender rigidity and subordination, along with race subordination, really only emerge with early state societies) will be different than if we see them as inherent or necessary (or natural).

I'd go so far as to say this is true for class, also -- yes, individual access to the means of action and self-determination varies, but the means of enforcing this differentiation (class) is a social practice rather than anything inherent to an individual of any given class. While there will be shared intra-class experiences, I don't see how there can be any essential content to membership in a given class (or race, or gender, or nationality) in any way beyond recognition of these shared experiences.

Reply | Parent | Thread