PHL323H1 Lecture Notes - Lecture 9: Nonviolence, Jo Freeman, Direct Democracy
Final
Weighted towards end of course
•
Double the length of the midterm
•
Quarter of the final is a long essay question
•
Post-Revolution Society
But what would society look like after this revolution?
You can not plan it (Benjamin) but still speculate about what it would
look like
○
Does this mean it should be anarchistic?
○
Freeman: completely unstructured post-revolutionary society won't
respect our ethical goals
○
Arendt’s arguments try to show that a structured post- revolution
society can respect Benjamin’s demand that the post- revolutionary
social order not be planned in advance
○
•
Jo Freeman: The Tyranny of Structurelessness
Doesn’t talk about society as a monolithic whole, but we will•
Many feminist groups in the 60s had structureless group organisation
To escape the over-structured outside world
○
•
She says structurelessness is damaging
The goals aren't as good as they get more specific
○
Precise tasks are best done by allocating them to the most able
○
This doesn’t happen if there's no structure
○
•
Formal vs. informal structure
Tasks and information accessible to all members vs.
○
Things are not publicly laid down in any way
○
•
Structureless groups are really informally structured
You can only not have a structure if you have no contact with each
other, at which point it's not a group at all
○
[At this point you can push back with the metaphysics of group
membership]
○
•
Elites = small group of people who have power over a larger group, and often
without their knowledge or consent
They're just a group of friends tbh
○
•
If there is an explicit communications network, the elites have two channels
of communications
In unstructured groups, only friends can communicate with each other
○
Only between people with common interests and attitudes
○
•
If there is more than one informal network, they may compete for power, or,
if there is a formal communications network, they may or may not be an elite
Depends on membership and nature of formal structure
○
The only way to prevent the formation of an elite is through a formal
communications network
○
•
Elites are more likely to control the task selection process
They are likely to collude
○
You are likely to agree with your friends
○
Decisions are made behind closed doors
○
Formal communications networks are an antidote for this
○
•
Elites are more likely to occupy leadership positions
Even informally
○
•
You can be an elite if you share personalities and backgrounds with an elite
and devote time to the group
It takes time to make friends
○
•
Main issue: people are listened to because they are liked, not because they
are saying something worthwhile
Perpetuating power imbalances
○
•
If she is correct, post-revolution society needs some kind of formal structure•
Hannah Arendt: The revolutionary tradition and its lost treasure
Aims for revolutions were to establish a new and enduring form of govt.
This doesn’t respect the concerns of the revolution
○
•
There should be a revolution every twenty years
A revised constitution, not a violent upheaval
○
Inalienable right to revolution for each generation
○
•
Or a ward system - political engagement at local levels
Primary engagement with citizen's immediate community
○
Idea is something like direct democracy
○
Every participates - nation as a federation of little republics
○
Ongoing political engagement - politics becomes a part of your
everyday life
○
Antidote for public and private corruption
○
Non-violence
○
Genuinely new form of govt., not a slight reform
Embodies revolutionary spirit
§
○
•
How workable is this model?
What if the ward is entirely comprised of morons?
It's not about making the best decision, it's about making your
own decision
§
○
But wards don't exist in isolation, they affect each other
Could they have representatives for inter-ward conflicts
§
There could be a hierarchy of power
§
○
We have quasi-ward systems
School boards
§
Neighbourhood associations
§
Unions
All union members welcome to vote□
§
The Paris Commune (1871)
§
The Russian Soviets (1905, 1917)
Sprung up organically after violent uprisings□
§
Regular emergence of ward systems after violence
People just band together to make necessary decisions□
Comes down to our ability to organise ourselves under dire
circumstances
□
§
○
But the ward systems didn't persist
Arendt says that they were denounced by outsiders
§
○
•
Marx and Lenin namely
Marx discovered in 1871 that the ward system contradicted his
'dictatorship of the proletariat' theory
○
And they were too mired in their centralisation assumption theories to
appreciate the benefits of the ward system
○
Lenin witnessed the revolutions and thought (like Marx) that ward
systems were at best transitory + didn’t think Russia would follow Paris
so closely
Played an active role in the demise of the Soviets (elected bodies)
§
Rebellion against Bolsheviks in Kronstadt - L crushed them
§
○
They were 'professional revolutionaries'
Someone who spends their time in study, thought, theory and
debate of revolutionary action
§
Almost always non-proletariat
§
They do not start revolutions, they just influence them after they
have already started
§
There is no political parties in the ward system - no socialist party
§
So Lenin would have been out of a job
§
○
•
Lecture 9
Wednesday, March 15, 2017
3:14 PM
Final
Weighted towards end of course•
Double the length of the midterm•
Quarter of the final is a long essay question•
Post-Revolution Society
But what would society look like after this revolution?
You can not plan it (Benjamin) but still speculate about what it would
look like
○
Does this mean it should be anarchistic?
○
Freeman: completely unstructured post-revolutionary society won't
respect our ethical goals
○
Arendt’s arguments try to show that a structured post- revolution
society can respect Benjamin’s demand that the post- revolutionary
social order not be planned in advance
○
•
Jo Freeman: The Tyranny of Structurelessness
Doesn’t talk about society as a monolithic whole, but we will
•
Many feminist groups in the 60s had structureless group organisation
To escape the over-structured outside world
○
•
She says structurelessness is damaging
The goals aren't as good as they get more specific
○
Precise tasks are best done by allocating them to the most able
○
This doesn’t happen if there's no structure
○
•
Formal vs. informal structure
Tasks and information accessible to all members vs.
○
Things are not publicly laid down in any way
○
•
Structureless groups are really informally structured
You can only not have a structure if you have no contact with each
other, at which point it's not a group at all
○
[At this point you can push back with the metaphysics of group
membership]
○
•
Elites = small group of people who have power over a larger group, and often
without their knowledge or consent
They're just a group of friends tbh
○
•
If there is an explicit communications network, the elites have two channels
of communications
In unstructured groups, only friends can communicate with each other
○
Only between people with common interests and attitudes
○
•
If there is more than one informal network, they may compete for power, or,
if there is a formal communications network, they may or may not be an elite
Depends on membership and nature of formal structure
○
The only way to prevent the formation of an elite is through a formal
communications network
○
•
Elites are more likely to control the task selection process
They are likely to collude
○
You are likely to agree with your friends
○
Decisions are made behind closed doors
○
Formal communications networks are an antidote for this
○
•
Elites are more likely to occupy leadership positions
Even informally
○
•
You can be an elite if you share personalities and backgrounds with an elite
and devote time to the group
It takes time to make friends
○
•
Main issue: people are listened to because they are liked, not because they
are saying something worthwhile
Perpetuating power imbalances
○
•
If she is correct, post-revolution society needs some kind of formal structure•
Hannah Arendt: The revolutionary tradition and its lost treasure
Aims for revolutions were to establish a new and enduring form of govt.
This doesn’t respect the concerns of the revolution
○
•
There should be a revolution every twenty years
A revised constitution, not a violent upheaval
○
Inalienable right to revolution for each generation
○
•
Or a ward system - political engagement at local levels
Primary engagement with citizen's immediate community
○
Idea is something like direct democracy
○
Every participates - nation as a federation of little republics
○
Ongoing political engagement - politics becomes a part of your
everyday life
○
Antidote for public and private corruption
○
Non-violence
○
Genuinely new form of govt., not a slight reform
Embodies revolutionary spirit
§
○
•
How workable is this model?
What if the ward is entirely comprised of morons?
It's not about making the best decision, it's about making your
own decision
§
○
But wards don't exist in isolation, they affect each other
Could they have representatives for inter-ward conflicts
§
There could be a hierarchy of power
§
○
We have quasi-ward systems
School boards
§
Neighbourhood associations
§
Unions
All union members welcome to vote□
§
The Paris Commune (1871)
§
The Russian Soviets (1905, 1917)
Sprung up organically after violent uprisings□
§
Regular emergence of ward systems after violence
People just band together to make necessary decisions□
Comes down to our ability to organise ourselves under dire
circumstances
□
§
○
But the ward systems didn't persist
Arendt says that they were denounced by outsiders
§
○
•
Marx and Lenin namely
Marx discovered in 1871 that the ward system contradicted his
'dictatorship of the proletariat' theory
○
And they were too mired in their centralisation assumption theories to
appreciate the benefits of the ward system
○
Lenin witnessed the revolutions and thought (like Marx) that ward
systems were at best transitory + didn’t think Russia would follow Paris
so closely
Played an active role in the demise of the Soviets (elected bodies)
§
Rebellion against Bolsheviks in Kronstadt - L crushed them
§
○
They were 'professional revolutionaries'
Someone who spends their time in study, thought, theory and
debate of revolutionary action
§
Almost always non-proletariat
§
They do not start revolutions, they just influence them after they
have already started
§
There is no political parties in the ward system - no socialist party
§
So Lenin would have been out of a job
§
○
•
Lecture 9
Wednesday, March 15, 2017 3:14 PM
Document Summary
Quarter of the final is a long essay question. You can not plan it (benjamin) but still speculate about what it would look like. Freeman: completely unstructured post-revolutionary society won"t respect our ethical goals. Arendt"s arguments try to show that a structured post- revolution society can respect benjamin"s demand that the post- revolutionary social order not be planned in advance. Doesn"t talk about society as a monolithic whole, but we will. Many feminist groups in the 60s had structureless group organisation. The goals aren"t as good as they get more specific. Precise tasks are best done by allocating them to the most able. Tasks and information accessible to all members vs. Things are not publicly laid down in any way. You can only not have a structure if you have no contact with each other, at which point it"s not a group at all. [at this point you can push back with the metaphysics of group membership]
