Personally, I can't describe myself as an anarchist, much as I tend to generate anarchy. I do think hierarchy is very important - the natural hierarchies of competence and ability, specifically. There need to be rules, and rulers can't be above them - chieftains and kings must be bound by conventions and constitutions. But at the same time, coordination for collective action generally requires someone to be in charge, to delegate, to assign tasks. This isn't just ideology, but experience - I've been in organizations operating according to consensus-based decision-making, and it was impossible to get anything done because no one ever agrees; and of course, when everything is voluntary, the classic collective action problem, 'someone else will do it', is perennial.
Yet at the same time, it is absolutely crucial that those who achieve or are granted higher positions act from a place of reciprocal responsibility towards those in subordinate positions. I believe the problem now is that too often those in power are parasitic. There's no sense of noblesse oblige, and philanthropy is too often philanthropathy (stolen from Tessa Fights Robots). Further, subordinates must be able to withdraw their fealty when these responsibilities go unmet.
Finally, thank you for bringing our essays to Charles Eisenstein's attention. I've been reading him for years, and have an immense amount of respect for him. He's had a huge impact on how I see the world.
Thanks for the links! I have sat in many men's circles the last 15 years. A great many men are hungry for an ongoing conversation on what it means to be a man, and for the fellowship with other men doing good work in the world. Thank you for helping with that conversation.
I am really pleased to see these ideas get concept handles and start to become a real part of the conversation. Our modern ethics discussions have been flattened down from discussions of how to be better versions of ourselves to a dull list of rules that must be followed to be an acceptable mediocrity, I think due to a distaste for gradations in virtue. Heavens forfend some people be deemed better at some virtue than another, or even someone to be looked up to! That might make someone sad, and more importantly would upset the dominance hierarchy! *gasp*
Your contributions are great, and I am waiting for your distaff band's tonic femininity work to share with my little ones some day.
Thank you Tereza for writing this up. You are bringing in some very good (and suprising) angles. I think we all agree that this PTB-induced meddling with the sexes and their relationship must absolutely be worked through if we are to have any hope for the future, and that mere reactions are not enough and merely entrap us in that unholy dialectic that can only generate spiritual mayhem.
Tonic Masculinity: a wonder concept momentarily conceived by a Wonder Woman, brought to birth through the competent labour of Wonder Men with initiative. Excellent^2 🤩
Now in human commons, to be further nurtured by the whole village. For a 1G version, it's both enticingly raw and impressively well-cooked, and it gets only better from here 🤸 In many a direction, on many a dimension. Onward & upward!
PS I’d much fancy to see @Theophilus ‘things work best when there’s a place for everyone and everyone stays in their place’ Chilton welcomed into the exquisite fold. Along with Charles E of course 😊
Tonic masculinity is my new favorite phrase! I hope to join the contingent of folks who use this tool to turn our world upside-down. When I do I’ll make sure to give you (and probably this post!) a shoutout.
I write on gender, sex, and family as part of exploring how anarchy can unfold here and now. Love the vibe of your newsletter, and the breadth of your engagement. I’m just starting on Substack, but it’s never too early to put down seeds and make some connections!
Lovely piece!
Personally, I can't describe myself as an anarchist, much as I tend to generate anarchy. I do think hierarchy is very important - the natural hierarchies of competence and ability, specifically. There need to be rules, and rulers can't be above them - chieftains and kings must be bound by conventions and constitutions. But at the same time, coordination for collective action generally requires someone to be in charge, to delegate, to assign tasks. This isn't just ideology, but experience - I've been in organizations operating according to consensus-based decision-making, and it was impossible to get anything done because no one ever agrees; and of course, when everything is voluntary, the classic collective action problem, 'someone else will do it', is perennial.
Yet at the same time, it is absolutely crucial that those who achieve or are granted higher positions act from a place of reciprocal responsibility towards those in subordinate positions. I believe the problem now is that too often those in power are parasitic. There's no sense of noblesse oblige, and philanthropy is too often philanthropathy (stolen from Tessa Fights Robots). Further, subordinates must be able to withdraw their fealty when these responsibilities go unmet.
Finally, thank you for bringing our essays to Charles Eisenstein's attention. I've been reading him for years, and have an immense amount of respect for him. He's had a huge impact on how I see the world.
Looking forward to all the future directions this will go! And the many tonic generations to come.
" you can’t see the other hand, which has a little plastic murder knife in it."
Occam Razors!
Thanks for the links! I have sat in many men's circles the last 15 years. A great many men are hungry for an ongoing conversation on what it means to be a man, and for the fellowship with other men doing good work in the world. Thank you for helping with that conversation.
The proud Idea Momma :D
I am really pleased to see these ideas get concept handles and start to become a real part of the conversation. Our modern ethics discussions have been flattened down from discussions of how to be better versions of ourselves to a dull list of rules that must be followed to be an acceptable mediocrity, I think due to a distaste for gradations in virtue. Heavens forfend some people be deemed better at some virtue than another, or even someone to be looked up to! That might make someone sad, and more importantly would upset the dominance hierarchy! *gasp*
Your contributions are great, and I am waiting for your distaff band's tonic femininity work to share with my little ones some day.
Thank you Tereza for writing this up. You are bringing in some very good (and suprising) angles. I think we all agree that this PTB-induced meddling with the sexes and their relationship must absolutely be worked through if we are to have any hope for the future, and that mere reactions are not enough and merely entrap us in that unholy dialectic that can only generate spiritual mayhem.
Tonic Masculinity: a wonder concept momentarily conceived by a Wonder Woman, brought to birth through the competent labour of Wonder Men with initiative. Excellent^2 🤩
Now in human commons, to be further nurtured by the whole village. For a 1G version, it's both enticingly raw and impressively well-cooked, and it gets only better from here 🤸 In many a direction, on many a dimension. Onward & upward!
PS I’d much fancy to see @Theophilus ‘things work best when there’s a place for everyone and everyone stays in their place’ Chilton welcomed into the exquisite fold. Along with Charles E of course 😊
Fascinating topic! I'm going to try to use " metanoia" in casual conversation at least once this week! :)
Tonic masculinity is my new favorite phrase! I hope to join the contingent of folks who use this tool to turn our world upside-down. When I do I’ll make sure to give you (and probably this post!) a shoutout.
I write on gender, sex, and family as part of exploring how anarchy can unfold here and now. Love the vibe of your newsletter, and the breadth of your engagement. I’m just starting on Substack, but it’s never too early to put down seeds and make some connections!