I am slowly working my way through Section A of An Anarchist FAQ (it's over 190 pages). One of the points that I've found that resonates with me strongly is an opposition to hierarchy. This concept represents one of my central critiques of religion -- the pervasive top-down structure. As the text from the anarchy link above indicates, all forms of government and the vast majority of socioeconomic institutions in our society are hierarchic.
Much can be found in the thought of Lao Tzu that matches up with this viewpoint. He emphasizes that we each lose a large measure of our essential nature when we allow external forces to dictate our thought and behavior. (When we start exploring the Chuang Tzu, this point will be driven home tenfold.) So, I can certainly understand why some people will point to Lao Tzu as an early exponent of anarchy.
However, before we get too far ahead of ourselves, there is another undercurrent which flows through most of Lao Tzu's perspective. While he does extol some aspects of anarchy, he concurrently views some form of government as necessary since a great deal of his political focus centers around kings and sages.
In the works we have reviewed thus far, I can remember no verse or passage which even hints at doing away we countries or governmental entities. Like many contemporary sociopolitical reformers, it appears to me that Lao Tzu is more interested in perfecting governmental models through adherence to the Way as opposed to abolishing them outright.
So, at this early juncture in my exploration, I would not submit that Lao Tzu is an example of an early anarchist. While some elements of this sociopolitical theory are prevalent in the writings and/or words ascribed to him, I would not say this is the predominant feature.
What do you think?
Much can be found in the thought of Lao Tzu that matches up with this viewpoint. He emphasizes that we each lose a large measure of our essential nature when we allow external forces to dictate our thought and behavior. (When we start exploring the Chuang Tzu, this point will be driven home tenfold.) So, I can certainly understand why some people will point to Lao Tzu as an early exponent of anarchy.
However, before we get too far ahead of ourselves, there is another undercurrent which flows through most of Lao Tzu's perspective. While he does extol some aspects of anarchy, he concurrently views some form of government as necessary since a great deal of his political focus centers around kings and sages.
In the works we have reviewed thus far, I can remember no verse or passage which even hints at doing away we countries or governmental entities. Like many contemporary sociopolitical reformers, it appears to me that Lao Tzu is more interested in perfecting governmental models through adherence to the Way as opposed to abolishing them outright.
So, at this early juncture in my exploration, I would not submit that Lao Tzu is an example of an early anarchist. While some elements of this sociopolitical theory are prevalent in the writings and/or words ascribed to him, I would not say this is the predominant feature.
What do you think?
i also think that lao tzu expresses some anarchic ideals but doesn't express specific political changes. i think that, like me, he would be happy with any virtuous non-invasive government.
ReplyDeleteperhaps he thinks that government and religion are necessary evils?
When people act in line with the Tao good government comes of itself.
ReplyDeleteNature governs herself perfectly well by following Tao.
It is this insistence of man to formulate and structure that lines his ideas up for in formation for their own destruction.
I think the question to ask is not 'what would Lao Tzu say about this contemporary issue?', but 'how does his wisdom help *my* perspective?'
ReplyDeleteWhat I mean is, Lao Tzu (mythical or historical) was not an anarchist simply because that school of thought did not exist in ancient China! But it may be that his writing finds sympathy with anarchist philosophy nonetheless.
Every age asks different questions and finds different solutions.
My opinion is that our natural state is anarchist. We evolved living the life of hunter gatherers in small bands where everyone knew everyone else. There was no need for hierarchy and domination.
ReplyDeleteAgriculture requires hierarchy and domination due to both the division of labour and the large populations.
Lao Tzu only knew of an agricultural life way and I believe this is why he refers to government in a seemingly necessary way.
Thee is a large difference between the classical anarchism (of the anarchist FAQ) and the more recent green anarchism (often termed primitivism).
Personally I'll accept a green anarchist label in theory and try to apply it as much as possible to my life but I don't for a moment think that we will return to it on a a large scale.
I think it is important to separate anarchist critiques of the current order from anarchist ideology. The primitivist critique of civilisation is spot on my opinion but it's adoption as an ideology to impose upon the world is misguided.
Good points from each of you. Gives me more food for thought!
ReplyDelete