> Interesting points, but I don't think the FAQ says that. All
> hierarchical institutions "embody the principle of authority," it
> claims. That doesn't mean hierarchy = authority, but there's a close
> relation.
There are some difference between authority and hiearchy. Anarchists have written and talked about this. There are "natural" forms of hierarchy.
I would point out that perhaps a different word is needed. People say that bee colonies operate as a hierarchy, but the Anarchist Taoist in me would point out that the "queen" of the colony doesn't actually tell workers to do anything, nor does she have special privileges. The queen and workers have different roles, both of which are crucial the the health and survival of the species.
Laying eggs all day is not my idea of opulent privilege.
> An example I have in mind is the child/parent relationship. Obviously
> a big issue, which no doubt concerns many anarchists. But my
> understanding is there's a legitimate hierarchy involved. That is, up
> to a certain age, children actually want certain limits imposed on
> them as part of their introduction to this strange world. Or they'll
> be unhappier as adults.
There is hiearchy involved, but also some natural imbalances of power. Most of this parent-child hierarchy has to do with cultural mores. Some cultures are more controlling of their children than others. Even in U.S. society, there are a range of child-rearing practices.
> Now, I think parents should be mindful of their overwhelming power
> relative to the child, and anarchist ideas can obviously apply. (And I
> should make clear I'm not a parent.) But that's different from
> opposing hierarchy. Maybe more like being an enlightened manager, I
> suspect... [1]
Then there is the anarchist take on "natural" leadership, that is leadership without authority. I could be described at the leader of our infoshop. I don't tell anybody what to do, but people look to me for direction, because I've been with the project for a long time and I have experience running bookstores and infoshops.
> Or take the notion that this FAQ is read-only, rather than a wiki.
> There's a barrier between the roles of FAQ author and reader. This may
> have an impact in our discussion here, as the temptation is to defend
> vs. attack it, instead of discussing how we might just clarify the
> page. This temptation is often the case when there's some Important
> Text out there.
>
> Disclaimer: I realize that a) wikis probably weren't common or even
> existing when this FAQ was made, b) maybe I'm just being one of those
> contrarians you always see on the net, c) someone can build their own
> FAQ, and d) maybe I'm stretching anarchism beyond its limited domain.
The FAQ was originally written by a snall group of people. Over the years it has been more the authorship of one person, who has been very open to feedback.
Given my experience with Wikipedia, I'm skeptical that a Wiki could lead to a useful, readable FAQ like the current Anarchist FAQ. A wiki would only work if you had a group of people with a commitment to work together despite their differences in opinion.
Chuck0
-------------------------- Bread and Roses Web Design serving small businesses, non-profits, artists and activists http://www.breadandrosesweb.com/