Fragments of an Anarchist Anthropology

As it says, fragmentary and therefore not as challenging as Graeber’s other, longer work. He defends anarchism as an aspiration against empiricist challenges, arguing that skeptics demand evidence of a contradiction in terms—an anarchist state—being successful somewhere. “[W]hat we’re really being asked for is an example of a modern nation-state with the government somehow plucked away: a situation in which the government of Canada, to take a random example, has been overthrown, or for some reason abolished itself, and no new one has taken its place but instead all former Canadian citizens begin to organize themselves into libertarian collectives. Obviously this would never be allowed to happen. In the past, whenever it even show more looked like it might—here, the Paris commune and Spanish civil war are excellent examples—the politicians running pretty much every state in the vicinity have been willing to put their differences on hold until those trying to bring such a situation about had been rounded up and shot.” Instead, anarchist organizations wouldn’t look like states—they’d be overlapping groups, projects, etc. at different scales. Most successful popular resistance, he suggests, doesn’t involve challenging power head on (“this usually leads to being slaughtered, or if not, turning into some—often even uglier—variant of the very thing one first challenged”) but running away. Capitalists don’t really want mobile labor, which is why they keep reinventing slavery, “guest workers,” border control, etc. because if workers were actually free to leave work whenever they wanted the system would collapse.

I also really liked his observations about anarchists embracing pleasure as resistance, living as if one is already free. “The history of capitalism moves from attacks on collective, festive consumption to the promulgation of highly personal, private, even furtive forms.” But we have to be wary because “if one wishes to inspire ethnic hatred, the easiest way to do so is to concentrate on the bizarre, perverse ways in which the other group is assumed to pursue pleasure.” show less

At the start of the book, Graeber discusses the differences between anarchism and Marxism as liberatory philosophies, a worthy and interesting topic. He is insightful, bringing to light the tendency of Marxists to name their sects after the people who wrote them (amusingly the list evolves from state leaders to academics), and the tendency to name anarchist sects by the manner in which the sect organizes. Then he spends a good deal of the book defining sets of theories, papers, and books that he would like to see written. Well, ya, I'd like to see those too. wtf?

The third part of the book, concentrating on the debunking of the Orientalist myth of the Western world vs. barbarians who don't know any better. Rather than dictate what shoud show more be done as a Marxist might, Graeber analyzes, in a brilliant way, what humans already do, and highlights their anarchist tendencies by reframing them as such. He then points out that the anarchist inspired new-internationalist "anti-globalization" movement is drawing upon these traditions of "true" democracy.

Finally, he makes a good argument that anthropologists are very qualified (as people who have studied a diverse range of ways of living that even the most well educated philosophy academic could barely imagine) to make radical assertions and participate in the creation of a world that allows many worlds. He makes the point that in anthropology one uses a vocabulary taken from all parts of the globe: mana, taboo, totem. Philosophy, political science, economics, tend only to use the vocabulary that stems from the Western experience: Greek, Latin, or German.

Graeber is refreshing and thoughtful. His words are encouraging and affirming. What a shame that he won't be around in the states for a while. I truly enjoyed reading this book, even online, where I normally can't get through more than three pages without being distracted by the other treats of the internet.

available online here (PDF):
http://www.prickly-paradigm.com/paradigm14.pdf show less

One of the most inspiring anthropologists makes a case for what anthropology and anarchism could learn for each other. Not only that but this book is also a small pladoyer for what role anthropologists should play in this current world and where the discipline could be helpful. A great read, easy to understand language and I'd say a must-read for everyone in anthropology.

this book posits theories about shaping civilization. specifically, it argues for the use of anthropology rather than sociology or psychology as the base trope for the best kind of society-building. further, that anarchist ideas might best create a foundation for human society rather than political-governmental ones. it’s a heavy duty scholarly book, NOT light reading but very interesting and informative if you can make your way through its highly innovative concepts. i do wish i could have listened to it rather than read it though.

I realize I am an anarchist at heart after reading this account. Graeber gives a grounding approach towards a sidelined topic. I will be researching the subject because of Graeber’s sincere searching.

Very interesting book about anarchism as a basis from which to approach possible different ways of setting up society.

From the final points of Zapatista’s actions to promulgate the rearing of ‘anarchistic narrative,’ to several successful anarchistic ‘states’ viz. obororo, wintu .. etc. there is a proliferation of both successful and long standing ‘states’ that have held a priori, sequential existences as in the theorization of the emergence of ‘republic-like nation states’ like USA or the establishment of ‘democracy’ found in the collective world. David Gaeber is astute and erudite in his castings of narrative that build and tether succinctly historionics of the semblance of world timelines of governing bodies. In no way opaque but as an anthropologist, shears fabulous mythos put in place by ignorance.