Add new comment

See, "expert" is a bit of a weasel-word:
1. an expert is someone who has legitimate knowledge or skill in something (objectively or from my point of view)
2. an expert is someone who is socially defined in dominant discourse (by the state, law, majority, elite...) as having legitimate knowledge or the right/privilege to exercise a skill.

As long as someone's a conformist, and trusts "society" to recognise objective knowledge or skill, or their own view of knowledge or skill is the same as "society's", then the two definitions mean the same. The moment they're separated, there's people who are both 1 and 2, people who are 1 and not 2, people who are 2 and not 1. Which of the three groups should be called "experts"?

Because it's a definitional question, it's not really soluble (the word in everyday use is used in both senses). But it's pretty clear how most anarchists relate to the two groups. OK, so let's call the first group "artisans" and the second group "mandarins". I suspect we can all agree that being a mandarin is a social role, that mandarins have power/authority in the same way as bosses, and that anarchism is against mandarins. With a few exceptions (the stronger versions of primitivism), we can also say that anarchists don't object to artisans, that being an artisan is a good thing or at least is compatible with anarchism, that people should listen to artisans and give some weight to what they advise, that an artisan does not necessarily have power/authority to command others, and that doing what an artisan advises because they know their shit isn't itself submission to authority. I think Bakunin is saying "respect and learn from artisans, but don't let them become mandarins". The problem is that artisans are sometimes also mandarins. So the question in the TOTW is about whether anarchists can obey artisans on artisanal grounds if they're also mandarins, and obeying them reinforces their social command power. It's also about whether we trust mandarins to be artisans in the first place, and whether the public health experts pushing for lockdowns/distancing are actually artisans as well as mandarins, or just mandarins. If we decide they're both, then we're caught in a dilemma because we both want to respect their knowledge as artisans and the power it gives (to save lives), and to undermine their power as mandarins. I don't think an anarchist can ever support mandatory lockdowns, but it makes some sense to support/practice voluntary distancing if one trusts the "experts" to be artisans as well as mandarins.

We could also get into Foucauldian power/knowledge and Deleuze's book on Foucault - I don't think Foucault sees all power as authority/domination (power of some over others), he sees it more like (say) electrical power (power is a productive force), as well as domination there is also cooperative power, resistant power, and power to act, and there are corresponding knowledges. Local knowledge of where to find herbs or the power to share pleasure in sex are cooperative power. Knowing how to fuck shit up and not get caught, is resistant power. Knowing how to repair or grow something, is power to act. All of these powers can be held by artisans and shown, taught, explained to others; all of them make an anarchist "more powerful". They only become sources of domination when they're too concentrated or too unequally distributed, or if there's gatekeeping. Hence why we need plenty of skillsharing and to make sure everyone has at least some power.