On Being / Not Being An Anarchist
                                 A 'Fuzzy', Socio-Biological Perspective
				       By
           			         Michael Ricciardi	 
	I do not call myself an anarchist, although I possess certain anarchic traits/behaviors. I view myself as a human being that, despite the collective forces and conformist pressures surrounding me, tries to remain "true to myself". That is, to express my feelings, thoughts, and beliefs despite the possibility of rejection, persecution, or perhaps mere ridicule. Because of this, the expression of my true self sometimes is interpreted as individualism. On some occasions, my self-expression is singular enough, and contrary enough, to be viewed as anarchism. 
Still, there are ideas, situations, and practices which I conform to and which I know to be social/authoritarian attempts to control me, as well as all the other 'selves' out there. The social entity--what we refer to as society--has its own being and nature, with basic needs/demands from its constituent entities, i.e., its people. The purposes of a society often seem beyond the comprehension of the people who constitute it. People--and the higher primates in general--have been grouping themselves together and controlling group behavior [via controlling individual behavior] since primate species have existed on this planet. It was/is a simple matter of collective [genetic] survival. Human, tribal nature has selected, predominantly, in favor of group-cooperation, conformity [via cultural structures], and the repression of individual, aberrant behaviors [there are exceptions to this, which I will mention later]. The evidence for this is over-whelming.
As you may have observed, I am making a socio-biological argument here. However, I make no claim to the absolute validity of scientific premises. My assertion here is equally my chief criticism of anarchistic writing/media. It is the same criticism I have of feminist literature which places virtually all emphasis/responsibility on culture, while giving little, if any, adequate consideration to biological realities. The argument for biological advantage--the posited, driving force at work in all cultural constructs--is not a refutation of cultural change arguments. Rather, it is the framework within which all cultural theories must be tested, and also, a means to illuminate the questions and problems surrounding 'cultural evolution'. 
To be sure, some have used the socio-biological model to justify everything from the class system and racism to male-on-female rape. But we live in a fledgling democracy; a society of laws. We, as a society, uphold principles of equality and justice for all. Thus do we seek to restrain excess wealth and power [through taxation] as well as excess sexual aggression [through prosecution of sexual crime].  Thus is the possibility of 'universal' biological advantage conferred to all members of a society--though it is seldom an easily made conference. Indeed, the reasons for this difficulty are probably biological [or genetic] as well. 
In this context, simple anatomic and taxonomic comparison of humans and the 'higher apes' is enough to warrant some exploration into this sphere of thinking. Natural selection, conservation of adaptation/instinctual behaviors, and in-group/inclusive fitness are functional features of all primate societies. Sexual dimorphism [physical differences in male/female physiology] is virtually universal in the natural realm. Such naturally selected features of our animal species place constraints on how we behave, as well as the cultures we create--intentionally/consciously or not. But I do believe that such constraints [such as social dominance and gender] are not absolutely defined for us. I believe that we can, and must, test these constraints and limits, as we must strive to perfect our natures--and our societies. This is where the arguments for cultural change come in. Still, the point is simply that we need to look at/accept certain biological imperatives as the fundamental underpinnings of our group behaviors and social structures. These are what we need to comprehend--and possibly compensate for--in our proscriptions for social behaviors. I will return to this point later on.
	Contemporary studies of primate societies [including humans] have observed another nearly universal feature of our genetic family: the subordination to authority. Call it what you will--"Primate Pecking Order", Alpha Male/Dominance Hierarchy, etc.--it appears as though there exists a fundamental need to submit to authority. Such a need exists because it works. That is, it ensures better odds of genetic fitness and survival for the collective. Submission to the authoritarian, survival-based demands of the group is deeply engrained in our brains--perhaps even in our genes. And there is good reason for this. Correct submission to social/cultural authority [obeying mores, laws, customs, etc.] confers biological advantage onto those individuals who do so. Not to do so, is to risk rejection by the group, and possibly forsake its protections. Yes, we have come a long way since such basic tribal realities were the norm, but we forget how historically recent is the idea of individual freedom. We are carrying around some sixty million years of primate evolution in our brains and genes. Conformity to the dominant group culture/structure will always be the pervasive, underlying reality of our lives. 
We can easily see the manifestations of this in our human societies. And true, sometimes it has taken horrific, unjust, and bigoted turns, but in general, few members of society would doubt or question the fundamental requirement of a successful society: obeisance to authority. This translates as the government. The difference, in a democratic society, is that we say that our government is "of the people, by the people, for the people." The will that individual persons submit to is the 'will of the people'. The problem is that this "will" always takes the form of an acting agency, i.e., "government". Strong arguments can be made that assert a class power structure behind the facade of representational government. Here, it is asserted, power is distributed in such a way that the dominant culture/class remains in power--through its dominant presence within the government. The socio-biological term is "in-group selection".
As they evolve, of course, societies create internal structures to enforce their authority. I do not deny that the threat/fear of violence tends to make people want to submit to authority. Yet note how often intelligent people rationalize the use of violence to curtail social "chaos". Threats to the social order, real or imagined, are considered the greatest threats, and are the basic rationale for repression and resistance to change. The needs of the whole are a priori and paramount. 
	But I am not a pure scientific determinist any more than I am a pure anarchist. Ironically, science can be an effective tool for self-empowerment and the undermining of those authoritarian constructions of culture which we oppose--religion, government, corporations--yet ultimately through asserting a far more basic, 'bio-authoritarian' reality. We are slaves, not to the state, but to our natures.
	These arguments are not difficult to grasp once a person familiarizes himself with a couple of basic scientific concepts. But perhaps this is why such arguments are seldom seen in the propaganda--most people are not scientifically literate. Understanding science, and its technical language and concepts, requires true intellectual effort; it takes time. Most of us would rather not expend the energy/effort to expand our understanding of nature. It is not much different from the anarchist's complaint that most people just want to be sheep and get along and not question/make trouble. 
These arguments are no doubt unappealing to anarchists, as they would be to anyone who genuinely desires to change society for the better [if only we could agree on what "better" means]. It was a sobering day when the pieces of the intellectual puzzle of human nature began falling into place. It was not much different from the day when I experienced the disintegration of my belief in a personal/intentional deity and a purposeful/meaningful design. At first, my newfound understanding of the principles of socio-biology opened my eyes so much it hurt to look. But I could not deny it. If a concept [or system of concepts] explains virtually all phenomena within a given frame of concern/awareness, chances are you're on to something profound. 
Despite the above-stated arguments concerning the acceptance of basic, socio-biological imperatives, I believe quite emphatically in the necessity of "shaking things up" on a periodic or sporadic basis. As someone who possesses artistic traits as well as anarchic ones, I do not view chaos as necessarily "bad". Complexity, instability, and disorder are neither "good" nor "bad". They are merely fundamental features of being-in-this-world. Growth, change, and evolution are impossible without them. 
In the domain of human culture, this role of "mover and shaker" typically falls to artists, poets, thinkers, and political "radicals" or revolutionaries. Such people remind us, through their actions and creations, that culture is an on-going endeavor; a continuous process of unfolding, like creation itself. 
The archeological record reveals many past societies and cultures which took "wrong turns" or reached evolutionary "dead ends". Such evidence is a reminder of the dangers in a society being too rigid in its form, too inflexible in its ways. So too, we learn of strange ideas, practices, or behaviors that at first were greeted with suspicion and/or hostility, but that later prove to be advantageous ['out group selection']. Society is far from perfect, since it is comprised of people whose thinking is far from perfect. Often, it becomes necessary for society to change its thinking--about itself and the world beyond itself--in order to maintain its chances for long-term survival. Such change does not come easily. Typically, the state tends to punish/persecute such revolutionaries, at worst, or ignore/trivialize them, at best. 
Whenever real social change occurs, it is often because of one individual, or small number of individuals, who have challenged entrenched thinking and dared to offer the "radical" viewpoint, the alien conception, or the greater paradigm [Democracy is the most significant example of this change in social thinking]. Then again, much social change comes slowly; through an accumulation of efforts/works which one day reach a 'break barrier', and then finally the walls come tumbling down. 
It is my belief that any system [or mind, for that matter] that would evolve and endure, must be a flexible, robust one. Successful adaptation to the unpredictable fluxes of our environments [inner and outer] demands a "re-creative" predisposition, a "poised" state of being.  To this end, the constraints on individual expression must be challenged fairly often. Any modern society that would survive and progress must view itself, consciously, as an experiment, and the individuals and sub-cultures comprising it as the experimenters. The citizens of such a society must possess the means of self-expression and empowerment, so that such experiments may be made. The truly enlightened society--the one I believe to be most adaptive--recognizes that just as much as excess individual freedom must be constrained, so its own excess authority and control over its citizenry must be likewise constrained. A dynamic interplay is required always. A truly "great" society must understand that a dose of chaos can be good for us. This is the imperative of the artist and the anarchist. 
But here is the crux of it. Such individuals who would test the limits of religious/state/corporate authoritarianism, or who would seek to constrain it pro-actively, must be brutally honest with themselves in regards to personal will and motivation. Integrity of self is crucial. Can you state with integrity and certainty that you are free from all corruption? Can you say that you have never caught yourself advocating or considering a fascist notion? Can you say that you have never desired strongly that someone or some group submit to your authoritarian self-will? [Perhaps because you "knew" they were acting in ignorance?] Are you free of all self-interest, ignorance, and greed? For there is nothing in government, or the corporation, that is not also found within the self. It varies only in scope of influence and magnitude. 
Further, the Preamble to the Constitution commences with "We the people…" and its expressed purpose is: "…in order to form a more perfect union…", that is, a collective which is a unity. To recapitulate: the needs of the collective are a priori. Yet, the founding citizens make it clear that the formation of a more perfect union requires [among other things] promoting "the general welfare" and securing "the blessings of liberty." From the start, the interests of the collective are paired with the interests of individuals. [The old "the needs of the many verses the needs of the one, or few" dialectic] It has never been an easy pairing, nor can it be. This is the dynamic interplay of which I spoke. 
So then, we who would challenge the limits of liberty, must remain true to our roles--and it is a role, or function, which we play here. Our being-in-this-world is relational. This state of being is expressed through our need for 'relatedness' [to others] and the establishment of myriad social groups. If we espouse anarchy solely for the sake of anarchy--as a mere reaction to all authority--then we are ignorant of our being, and the society of related selves by which we define it.
Ultimately, it is the self and its awareness that is the source of this complex human condition. So then, if we must play the anarchist, let us play anarchist to the self.

Michael A. Ricciardi