Post-Civ! A brief philosophical and political introduction to the concept of post-civilization is an interesting read. Post-civilized thought is based on three simple premises:
1 – This civilization is, from its foundation, unsustainable. It probably cannot be salvaged, and, what’s more, it would be undesirable to do so.
2 – It is neither possible, nor desirable, to return to a pre-civilized state of being.
3 – It is therefore desirable to imagine and enact a post-civilized culture.
I certainly don't agree with the whole thing but I do like its spirit: "We are for an ecologically-focused green anarchism and we are for mutual aid, free association, and self-determination."
Download it here (small PDF file), or try Post-Civ!, a deeper exploration for more detail.
2 comments:
Basically they're saying that the end of modern 'North' 'Western' civilization (e.g. nation-state bureaucracies) would be the end of civilization in general, right?
I think that message is like saying that the end of capitalism would be the end of economics --
or like saying that the end of the state would be the end of politics.
People often approach the prevailing form of something as the only form:
- all "politics" is government-centred politics (or depoliticization)
- "the economy" is capitalism
- "the media" is mainstream media
etc
Likewise, "civilization" is a form of civilization that was led from Europe before the U.S. took the lead. (Europe may be moving back to the fore now though.)
Of course, there actually have been different civilizations, and there still can be different civilizations. (In an academic context I could refer to Harold Innis -- if only in a footnote -- to back up such a claim, but I think that the point is obvious enough.)
A message about the end of 'civilization' is somewhat of a condemnation of technology in general, literacy in general, democracy in general, etc -- even if the people behind the anti-'civilization' language don't intend to imply such messages. I think that much is obvious. The word "civilization" happens to have certain connotations that can't just be immediately swept aside through individual or group will.
(By the way - I don't see those remarks as criticisms of you or your post; I'm just typing out some thoughts that have been in my mind in a more foggy or disjointed form.)
I actually agree with you, and what bothered me most was the unproblematic nomenclature: civilization/primitive
However, they weren't knocking literacy, technology etc. but mainly the western model of "civilization". Here they are actually arguing against the so-called primitivists, a branch of green anarchism which does aim to go back to a "pre-civilized" hunter-gatherer lifestyle.
I definitely disagree on some things. For instance, I quite like cities and believe that properly organized cities can be very sustainable.
Post a Comment