Anarchism as Political Caring
Callie Williamson
PHI 2560 Political Philosophy
12/8/2022
An Ideal and Challenge for Anarchism
The philosophical study of anarchism is one with a rich theoretical history and a slimmer practical one. Practical instances of anarchist societies are very few, though practical instances of implementing anarchist ideals are more common. One challenge facing anarchist theory is the question of how to ensure that the society is actually better, rather than just replacing systems of state-backed oppression with other forms of economic and social injustice. In order to make a case for a practical implementation of anarchism, or what an anarchist society would actually look like, we must discuss not only our individualist ideals, but also how our interpersonal relationships must be structured to support ourselves and each other in place of a state. Additionally, we must answer for those people who may not be interested in taking on greater interpersonal responsibility in the maintenance of society. If we are to be concerned with equality, then we must be particularly concerned with how we responsibly and authentically care for each other’s access to equality.
Equality is not anarchism’s primary concern, but it is an anarchist ideal. “Anarchism stands for a social order based on the free grouping of individuals for the purpose of producing real social wealth; an order that will guarantee to every human being free access to the earth and full enjoyment of the necessities of life, according to individual desires, tastes, and inclinations” (Goldman, 7). Anarchism’s primary concern is freedom, thus equal access to freedom. To clarify, not everyone will have equal things, but everyone will be equal with regard to the ability to obtain necessities as well as meet their desires.
The main method of reaching this goal of a free social order is through the dissolution of the state. Without the state, there will be no mechanisms to hinder this freedom. “Every man will stand on an equal footing with his brother in the race of life, and neither chains of economic thralldom nor menial drags of superstition shall handicap the one to the advantage of the other” (Parsons, 4). Parsons claims that man-made principles and systems of oppression are the causes of inequality. Without the state, that would not be the case. “Vested rights, privileges, charters, title deeds, upheld by all the paraphernalia of government—the visible symbol of power—such as prison, scaffold and armies, will have no existence. There can be no privileges bought or sold, and the transaction kept sacred at the point of the bayonet.” Rights and privileges, while no longer protected by the government, will not be infringed upon either. Theoretically, if nothing is in place to stop people from being equal, then they will be. However, this seemingly magical, “everything-will-fall-into-place” solution borders on the impractical.
Anarchists and anarchist theory, like other political alternatives to the state, has often come under criticism for abstraction and impracticality. There lacks a concrete model of an anarchist society. Concreteness may come in the form of a solution to the problem, rather than the dissolution of the problem. A concrete step away from the state entails not only a step away from the political, but a shift in effort and focus towards the social realm as a method of society’s maintenance outside of the state.
The Caring Ethic
While the state operates primarily in the political realm, its effects on the social world are undeniably important. Even if, like many anarchists suggest, the state is removed or erased, its effects on social relations would not just disappear. The social systems of oppression may have been created and enforced by the state, but as time has gone on, they have become more self-sustaining than reliant on the state. Yes, they enforce one another, but it would be overly optimistic to imagine that the dissolution of the state would dissolve social systems of oppression on its own, without any intervention or structured approach to undoing those systems and building up a social system of freedom and individuality. And, contrary to the implications of individual wants and needs, disengaging from one another is not a way to ensure that everyone has equal access to the acquisition of those wants and needs. It only ensures that you can focus on your own desires, regardless of your ability to obtain them. Most anarchists will be quick to point out that they are not so selfish as that. Interdependence and independence are not mutually exclusive. Caring about each other’s wants and needs, and especially caring for each other, might ensure that an anarchist society stays together.
Yet again, we meet the problem of abstraction. To say that we must “care” about each other seems abstract. To add some concreteness to a model of caring, a caring ethic should be incorporated into the conversation. Nel Noddings outlined a model of care with two players involved – the one-caring and the cared-for. There is an ethic for each party to uphold. For the one-caring to be authentic, they must be concerned with what actually matters to the cared-for. Assumptions and self-serving behavior, or what contemporary activists might call “virtue signaling,” is not caring behavior. This means that caring is about listening and taking action depending on the needs of the cared-for and the ability of the one-caring. The one-caring does not have an ethical obligation to meet every single need, as this would be impossible, but they do have an ethical obligation to at least care and acknowledge that the cared-for has wants and needs. The one-caring must care about the cared-for as much, or perhaps even more, than they actually take care of the cared-for.
A caring relationship is reciprocal. Noddings writes, “Clearly, the cared-for depends upon the one-caring. But the one-caring is also oddly dependent upon the cared-for. If the demands of the cared-for become too great or if they are delivered ungraciously, the one-caring may become resentful and, pushed hard enough, may withdraw her caring.” (Noddings, 48).
Just as the one-caring has an ethical obligation to authentically listen to and care about the cared-for’s needs, the cared-for has an ethical obligation to receive the one-caring graciously. If the cared-for does not receive the one-caring, it may be a sign that she has not truly received him – that is, the one-caring has not listened to or felt with the cared-for and is not providing adequate support for his needs and wants. It is just as likely that the cared-for, from a place of ignorance, selfishness, or otherwise refusing behavior, is stopping the caring relationship from being completed, which will eventually cause the one-caring to recede. An authentic and complete caring relationship has a one-caring and a cared-for who have received and felt with each other for the betterment of both. And, in a caring society, each is the one-caring and the cared-for in various relationships in their life, both within their homes and families and in their communities.
The Caring Anarchist
Anarchists claim that the unification and balance of the individual and social will bring about a better society. “The individual and society have waged a relentless and bloody battle for ages, each striving for supremacy, because each was blind to the value and importance of the other. The individual and social instincts,--the one a most potent factor for individual endeavor, for growth, aspiration, self-realization; the other an equally potent factor for mutual helpfulness and social well-being” (Goldman, 3).To check in on an anarchist society and further it progress,, you would have to first care what it is that people want and need, then care to check if they are getting it, and last to take on a one-caring role to make sure they can get it. Others will do this for you.
Lucy Parsons makes an early case for caring as a means to success in an anarchist society. “We know that after all, as we grow more enlightened under this larger liberty, we will grow to care less and less for that exact distribution of material wealth, which, in our greed-nurtured senses, seems now so impossible to think upon carelessly. The man and woman of loftier intellects, in the present, think not so much of the riches to be gained by their efforts as of the good they can do for their fellow creatures.” If we take on a one-caring role, make sure that the people around us have access to food, water, housing, access to leisure and the things they desire, and when we can be cared-for by accepting and receiving others’ care, we can build a more complete and interconnected society. When our cares are turned towards each other, instead of being dictated by the cares of the state, we can achieve equality.
A Practical Model
Stating that we need to care for each other is all well and good, and perhaps even obvious, but what would a caring anarchist society actually look like? Is this possible on a large scale? Consider, first, the smallest society: a family. Traditionally, we may think of a husband and wife as one-caring for their children, the cared-fors. Additionally, the husband and wife may be ones-caring and cared-fors for each other. As the children get older, they may also become ones-caring and cared-fors for each other, and as the entire family ages, a child may be the one-caring for their cared-for parents. There may be grandparents, family friends/found family, pets, plants, or other participants in the family, each with a role or set of roles as one-caring or cared-for. Next, consider a neighborhood attempting to follow a caring model of community. They may have a community garden where everyone has an opportunity to be one-caring for the land and for each other. If a family does not participate in raising the garden, for any reason, but accepts care graciously and receives the ones-caring authentically, then that family is still a part of the caring community. If they show entitlement or reject the community, then the ones-caring may recede or have a conversation about their own needs for reciprocality in the relationship, or another family may step in to investigate and ensure the family’s needs for privacy and autonomy are being respected.
Extend that neighborhood into a town. There are now too many people for each individual to authentically care for, but there may not be too many people to care about. You can still want to give thought and attention to everyone, and you can still be concerned if someone’s needs are not getting met. Each family is involved with other families, and each neighborhood is involved with other neighborhoods, and these interests and involvements overlap until all the ground is covered. The community, groups of communities, may need to have check-ins or other ways to determine whether or not all people are being cared-for and all people have the opportunity to be ones-caring. These overlaps and check-ins, especially with technology today having the capability to connect many people from different areas, feels scalable.
Any large-scale attempt at society will face troubles of differing ideologies, and especially without the power of the state maintaining wide-reaching swathes of society, a caring model may not be scalable to the size of the state. However, there seems to be no infallible reason why many communities across the size of a state could not turn themselves into caring communities, opening up possibilities for intercommunity caring.
Critique and Response
Any anarchist idea that makes the case for interdependence must answer the question of dependence on each other vs. dependence on the state. Is increased interdependence just a replacement for our personal weakness and dependence on the state? The state forces dependence through systems of power, but also accepts subservience we have grown accustomed to offering. “We have to answer not merely that they are weak because of the vast central agglomerations of power in the modern, military-industrial state, but that they are weak because they have surrendered their power to the state” (Ward, 23). In a caring anarchist society, could you be surrendering your power to others?
The expectation that every member of the society upholds his or her end of a reciprocal caring relationship allows fears of vulnerability and for critiques of dependence. It may feel like an echo of the state’s power over social relationships. Living dependent on others feels risky, as if our access to needs and desires is threatened by the whims and actions of others. It feels contrary to anarchist ideology to place ourselves in this position of personal vulnerability. How would a care ethic answer this? What stops a person from suddenly giving up their responsibility in maintaining a caring relationship and consequently harming those who rely on them? What moral principle stops them from giving up their social obligations?
In a caring society, no such moral principle exists. This question is an abstract, a broad hypothetical. A caring anarchist must ask the question, “Why?” Why is this person rejecting responsibility? Whose cared-for are they? Noddings writes, “We want to know more, I think, in order to form a picture more nearly resembling real moral situations. Ideally, we need to talk to the participants, to see their eyes and facial expressions, to receive what they are feeling. Moral decisions are, after all, made in real situations” (Noddings, 2-3). If a person rejects the responsibility of feeling, we must ask them why and investigate this real situation. If the person is not receiving and appreciating their one-caring, then perhaps the one-caring should take a step back and allow this person to come into appreciation on their own time. If they are not performing their duties as the one-caring, we should ask why, and help and support them as needed so that they may once again be the one-caring. If they really, truly, do not care, then we must honor that individual desire and care enough about them to help them reach it. That may mean taking on their cared-fors, or helping their one-caring step away. No moral principle obligates them to care. Instead, a culture of care and interdependency makes it desirable to care, especially when they are adequately cared-for.
Others have pointed out a potential flaw in the equality of a caring relationship – that of a power dynamic. The state holds power over the people, and this is something that anarchists deplore. In a caring relationship, “we must bear in mind the burden that dependency places on others: care-receivers are highly vulnerable…the care-worker in charge of dependency must have the necessary power and authority to accomplish his or her work responsibly” (Brugère, 57). This inherent imbalance of power can lead to abuses of power, especially in cases of such extreme vulnerability (e.g. very young children, severely disabled people) that the cared-for cannot reciprocate, even in gratitude. Brugère answers this challenge of caring with more caring, writing, “The idea is to consider a principle for help or care meant for those who, as they take care of others, cannot care for themselves. The form of reciprocity is indirect: just as children need care to grow, our society must provide adequate conditions for others to benefit from the care and attention necessary to support their lives” (Brugère, 58). As before, nobody can be solely one-caring. If one parent is assumed to be primarily responsible for childcare or household management (often called the default parent), the other parent may be expected to support and take care of the other parent in the place of the child, who is not able to receive their parent as one-caring and complete the caring relationship. In similar ways, community ones-caring cannot be solely in this role. A caring society must have interpersonal checks and balances so that everyone, including people who are mostly cared-for or mostly one-caring, is supported and checked-in with to ensure balanced relationships.
Conclusions
Political theories like anarchism are often criticized for idealism and impracticality on a large scale. It may appear that incorporating care ethics into anarchism rebuts neither critique. A caring society would rely on most people agreeing to be caring, the way a state-led society relies on most people following the law, but without any coercion or power to enforce caring the way the state can enforce laws. Coercion and power are not necessarily immoral in a caring society, but more information is always needed, which means that coercion and power cannot control a wide amount of society at once. It would require more community connection and agreement. In this way, it seems both idealistic and unscalable. However, if it starts small, and expands from family to neighborhood to community, there may well be significant enough overlap to make an effective, large-scale, caring anarchist society. Here, all communities, all neighborhoods, all families, and all individuals will be equal in care for access to their needs and desires.
Bibliography
Brugère, F. (2019). Care ethics: The introduction of care as political category. Peeters.
Franks, B., & Wilson, M. (2014). Anarchism and moral philosophy. Palgrave Macmillan.
Goldman, E. (1910). Anarchism: What it Really Stands For. In Anarchism and other essays (pp. 1–9). essay, Mother Earth.
Noddings, N. (1984). Caring, a feminine approach to Ethics & Moral Education. University of California Press.
Parsons, L. (1905). The principles of anarchism. The Anarchist Library. Retrieved December 4, 2022, from https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/lucy-e-parsons-the-principles-of-anarchism
Ward, C. (2018). Anarchy and the State. In Anarchy in action (pp. 21–30). essay, PM Press.
Comments