- I was hoping to find you here.
- I have my rituals.
- That's what I wanted to talk about. I looked for that book....
- Graeber's Debt?
- Yes. And I found online two more books he wrote, Towards An Anthropology Of Value, and Fragments of An Anarchist Anthropology. I read them.
- And?
- We've been talking for a long time. I consider myself your student.
- In what?
- Philosophy.
- Then I'll have to be Socrates and issue the disclaimer I never had any students.
- Because no one ever paid you.
- Because the real education is done by the rewards and punishments of the society at large.
- Education by ritual, ideas that we adopt without being aware of it. And talking philosophically is the opposite, helping each other stay awake while we get our ideas together.
- Yes.
- So Graeber wrote these two books before he wrote Debt. Anthropology collects information about societies other than our own, which we can use to question our own. But anthropology has been inflected by post-modernism, which he says is of the same form as unregulated capitalism. For the professors, good is what power says is good. For the capitalist, the value of a person or thing is the price the market determines. As long as anthropology is reflecting our prejudices it is useless. So he sets out to look for value.
- Does he find it?
- He's all mixed up.
- How?
- The "no truth" of post modernism, and market power of unregulated capitalism are modern versions of the sophists of the ancient Greeks. You've said that yourself. Plato's Dialogs are filled with responses to sophism, but Graeber doesn't have any idea of this.
- And if he did?
- He'd see, for one, that looking for values in anarchism he is making a mistake.
- Because values are created by ritual.
- Yes! And beautiful things and knowledge and great performances are not. They are created in the way we are talking here, helping each other stay awake.
- And a "value" is a rule enforced by rewards and punishments. That's the problem with the first book. What about the second? If we were anarchists holding a meeting trying to reach consensus, what would be different?
- Graeber says rules keep the violent away, no one tries to convert the other, only to build something new out of all the different views everyone can agree to, a community act of creation.
- And you think that sounds more like ritual than philosophy?
- Do you know what I thought, reading these books?
- What?
- Plato built his totalitarian state in The Republic in response to the sophists of his time. Every type of human character is supposed to benefit from the organization of all types, and if people understood they'd agree to participate. Everyone has to stay in type, however, and everyone clearly is going to be made miserable because of it.
- Anarchists allow themselves to change types at will.
- But still each consensus, each "Republic" created by collective decision making, will be an organization of types. It will be a creation of ignorance, of ritual not philosophy.
- Treating each other as components in a group creative process is not the same a helping each other find the truth. Why not?
- Because individual components in a creative process do not know or understand, so do not love each other. They offer each other their ideas, their "values", not themselves.
- If they love anything, they love the product they collectively produce.
- Yes. And that they can't account for. Though made openly in the collective operation, the result is alien to each individual, accepted as good, but not known to be good, as the result of a dialog, the product of continuous set of individual agreements, is known to be good.
- Anarchist consensus is a ritual.
- Yes!
- But only if we look at it as anthropologists do. If we don't look for value in a society, we won't look for value in the anarchist decision making process, which is a practical thing that works to limit the damage people do to each when they get together.
* * *
- Why do people, even anarchists, look for value in society when they don't have to?
- If values are the product of ritual, valuing value also is the product of ritual. Rituals can be repressive, or they can be safeguards against repression. Both can create stable societies, and both can remove individual understanding and judgment from our actions. Ideally we do things in our lives with others for the sake of making our lives with others good. We discover ways of seeing and doing things that the others we do them with would agree with us are good. When we can only do what we are told, along with others doing what they are told, the actions themselves take on the function of community making we no longer have the ability or responsibility to take on. The actions that are "valuable" express a power of agreement. Marx called objects created by people who had no responsibility for their action "fetishes", and that is exactly right: objects take on the life-like ability to communicate that has been taken away from individuals. Values are ideas become fetishes.
* * *
- Anarchism is a fetish for Anarchists?
- It can be.
- When is it and when not?
- It's not when people form their voluntary associations in their private lives, which include lives of work. It is, when assembling in the public consensus making meetings. Do you know how American Indians are said to have apologized to animals before they killed them?
- I've heard. Are you saying it isn't true?
- I thought it would be a good idea for our anarchists, when they get together to reach consensus, to make a ritual of apologizing to each other for treating each other as fetishes, as mere tokens of communication.
- I don't think they'd like the idea.
- Because the only time anarchists can sure they're not acting like anarchists is when getting together to make their decisions?
- Don't you think it's a problem?
- Not really. Can I tell you a story?
- Sure.
- On second thought, some other time. When we're not making fetishes of each other, when we actually understand each other and are living, speaking, doing things with each other, why do we do it?
- Why do we live with each other?
- Yes. We're not fetishes: we have the ability to act, don't have to agree with each other to acquire the magical ability of action second hand.
- We act because we want to.
- Because we like each other?
- Yes.
- Why do we like each other?
- Does there have to be a reason? We are drawn to each other.
- Like we are drawn to fetishes?
- I see. So we enter the marketplace of our anarchist consensus making meeting, ready to relate to each other, fetish to fetish, mere communicators of agreement, as we accept that we are drawn to each other physically, before we can even begin to think about how best to manage in our lives together, before we understand being drawn to live together?
- Yes.
- That's a lot of yeses you've been giving me. How do I know whether you're treating me like a fetish or someone you live with?
- Don't ask me.
