Is there such a thing as Anarcho-elitism?

Today I got to wondering, and this is truly a pondering thought process, opinion based on a meandering mind-set, if anarchists and others of an anti-state mind frame can eradicate elitism and hierarchy? I have been exposed to what seems like a slight elitism in the movement, as it were. A so-called "I'm more anarchist or anti-state than you" type of behavior.

Human kind, it would seem has a natural tendency to separate itself into groups, hierarchies, and roles depending on the social structure and cultural influences surrounding it. Individuals with strong personalities (such as someone like myself) have an inherent habit of being louder, pushier, or more authoritative or at least perceived to be that way. Thus, the idea of total equality and collaborative efforts are pushed aside for a very Darwin-istic type of culture. Or are they?

Of course, it should be noted that individual people have individual contributions to any group that can and usually is unique to them and whatever special "gift" they've got. Many tribal societies have sustained themselves for long periods of time through out history for this very reason. Everyone has a role, everyone has a contribution and that helps make the tribe a strong one.

One key difference I see from modern day group or collaborative efforts and historical tribes is that historical tribes often, I dare say almost always made it a point to include every individual and different contribution as equally important to the tribe. Sometimes, in modern day groups, some contributions are seen as "less than" even in groups that try to maintain an equality style tribal cooperative effort.

Have we become so ingrained with modern day elitism that we can no longer separate this flaw from ourselves and our groups? Has the idea of equality transferred from the importance of a contribution for survival to equal meaning conformity?

Just take a look at social struggles in say, the role of a man and woman in marriage and family (family being the tribe). Women say they are not equal in their roles if they don't hold down a job. Many men say the same thing [about women]. Are they not equally important to the survival of their [nuclear] tribe, regardless of the particular role they play?

Can a collaborative group set aside differences, and realize that while some may be better suited for action and activism, others may be able to help out in ways such a literature, organizing, or outreaching? And that all of those are important to for the success of the group?

I think that if we, in general, redefine what it means to be equal we can do just that. And it won't take years upon years for it to happen.

1 comment:

Ned Swing said...

Sure, anybody can be elitist. Politicos in particular, no matter the shade. Its a dangerous pitfall.

Nice blog you got here.

- Ned Swing