Who put the ‘ism’ in Anarch’ism’?
It seems high time to review some very simple basics of ‘organizing’ in regard to what has become referred to as ‘Anarchism’, this word being understood very differently by different people, including different people who consider themselves to be ‘anarchists’.
(1.) The suffix ‘ism’ is borrowed from Greek where it is used to form ‘action nouns’ from ‘verbs’ [from ‘organizing’ as an activity to ‘organization’ as a ‘system-in-itself’ that sources the ‘organizing’].
(2.) The shift from ‘organizing’ to ‘organization’ is found in the shift from ‘organ’ to ‘organism’. That is, an ‘organ’ fulfills some need in the suprasystem it is included in while an ‘organism’ is a local ‘system-in-itself’ whose behaviour derives from its internal organs and their processes.
(3.) In general systems theory, all ‘local systems’ are included in a suprasystem and are sustained by the 'pull' of a niche need [relational-spatial opening] within the suprasystem which the system is fulfilling. E.g. the organ/organizing we call ‘university’ emerged and is sustained by the opening of a social relational need within the suprasystem of community. Analytical inquiry, or ‘in-and-back-out-again inquiry’ is insufficient for delivering an understanding of the suprasystem-system combination [analyzing the university as an organism/thing-in-itself, its component departments/faculties, facilities and processes is inherently insufficient]. As Ackoff et al observe, analytical inquiry must be grounded in ‘synthetical ‘out-and-back-in-again’ inquiry’ that explores how the ‘system’ is being continually shaped outside-inwardly by the opening of a continually transforming relational need within the suprasystem.
(4.) Inquiry must start with the question; Is the ‘organizing’ of the ‘organ’ type which is outside-inwardly orchestrated/shaped in serving some relational need in the larger suprasystem it is included in, or is the ‘organizing’ a local thing-in-itself ‘organization’ or ‘organism’ with its own locally originating, internal ‘organs’ and ‘processes’ driven and directed development and behaviour ? [N.B. general systems theory says that the latter ‘complete-in-themselves systems do not exist in physical reality].
(5.) Linguistic idealization allows the ‘speaker’ to ‘affix an ‘ism’’ on an action [e.g. ‘anarch’ing’] to, notionally, convert it to a noun [e.g. ‘anarch’ism’]. That is, linguistic idealization allows one to notionally convert an ‘organ’ [‘an organizing orchestrated/shaped by its relational 'socket/niche' in the suprasystem it is included in'] into an ‘organism’ [‘organization-in-itself’ that has its own internally jumpstarting, inside-outward intention-directed behaviour].
(6.) In physical reality [according to Mach, Poincaré, Bohm, Schrödinger], there are no ‘local systems in themselves’; i.e. there are no ‘organizaTIONS’ and no ‘organISMs’, there are only ‘organizINGs’ and ‘orgANs’; i.e. physical reality is constituted by a continually transforming relational spatial-Plenum, so that the ‘organizings’ within it are outside-inwardly orchestrated/shaped in their emergent development and behaviour [an ‘ecosystemic topology’ as characterizes ALL ‘organizings’ in non-euclidian relational space].
(7.) Science, which as Mach and Poincaré point out is a language game [linguistic idealizing schema] designed to maximize the ARTICULATING of observations/experiences with the least commitment of thought [science is an ‘economy of thought'], employs the tactic of converting ‘organizings’ to notional ‘organizations’, and thus ‘organs’ to notional ‘organisms’.
(8.) It is ‘stupidity’ and ‘nonsense’ [Nietzsche, Poincaré] to say that ‘lightning flashes’ [Nietzsche} or that ‘the earth rotates’ [Poincare]. That is, they are saying that it is ‘stupidity’ and ‘nonsense’ to use our language games to ‘split out’ a dynamic feature within the continually transforming relational spatial-Plenum and synthetically impute ‘subjecthood’ to it, so that the ‘word-label’ we give it serves as the notional local author of its own behaviour’. Thus, the word ‘lightning’ is imputed to be the author of the ‘flashing’ [‘lightning flashes’] and the word ‘earth’ is imputed to be the author of the ‘rotating’ [‘the earth rotates’]. Of course, this bears no resemblance to physical reality; e.g. the ‘rotating’ belongs to the relational dynamics of the suprasystem the earth is included in, it is not 'the earth' that is 'doing the deed'.
(9.) Western civilization has come to confuse the linguistic idealization-based synthetic reality of ‘what things-in-themselves do’ for ‘physical reality’, thanks to the power of ‘words’; i.e. thanks to the power of linguistic idealization that converts ‘things-that-we-consider-in-themselves’ to ‘things-in-themselves’. This is where ‘authoritarianism’ comes from; i.e. from confusing ‘stupidity’ and ‘nonsense’ for ‘reality’ so as to create [psychologically] notional local 'organizations-in-themselves' driven and directed from notional internal powers of absolute jumpstarting authorship.
Conclusion: ‘Anarch’ing’ is a form of ‘organizing’ that does not require a local source of authorship of the ‘organizing’. ‘Anarch’ING’ is NOT ‘an organizaTION’. In our Western language game-playing [linguistic idealization], we CAN IF WE WISH [psychologically speaking] convert ‘organizing’ to ‘organizaTION’ by adding the suffix ‘ism’. What this does, in our mental modeling, is to infuse a local ‘subject’ [local jumpstarting authorship power] that serves to explain the action [the ‘anarch’ing’ or 'organizing' that does not depend on some local-author], in terms of local inside-outward sourced ‘organizing’ [organizing that is, in physical reality, dependent on outside-inward orchestrating/shaping influence from the suprasystem it is included in]. Instead of the ‘organizing’ being born and sustained by needs in the suprasystem it is included in, the adding of the ‘ism’ suffix notionally converts it into a self-standing ‘organizaTION whose behaviour is notionally fully and solely inside-outwardly driven and directed. The 'organizaTION' becomes, as Nietzsche observes, a notional ‘intention-driven doer-of-deeds’ [the ‘stupidity’ and 'nonsense' is to confuse such linguistic idealization for physical reality].
The natural condition of the ‘organizing’ we refer to as 'a human’, is as an ‘outside-inward orchestrated/shaped emergent/sustained participating feature within the continually transforming relational spatial-Plenum. The human 'organizing' is not, in physical reality, as is convenient to newtonian science's economy of thought, a ‘local development and behaviour self-jumpstarting ‘system-in-itself’ aka ‘organISM’ that cavorts with other material objects/systems-in-themselves in an absolute space and absolute time ‘operating theatre’.
What ‘Anarch’ing’ is grappling with is a Western civilization that has institutionalized self-deceiving ‘stupidity’ and ‘nonsense’, re-rendering dynamics in the linguistically idealized terms of ‘what things-in-themselves do’ [what ‘organisms’ or ‘organizations’ do]. This forces the ‘believers’ in this local thing-in-itself-‘organization’ to invent their own ‘intention’ expressed in the usual terms of ‘mission, vision, plans, goals and objectives’.
For ‘Anarch’ing’ to embrace the ‘ism’ suffix and become ‘Anarch’ism’ is to do likewise [i.e. to institutionalize stupidity and nonsense, the confusing of linguistic idealization for physical reality].