Anarcho-primitivism is an anarchist critique of the origins and progress of Civilization. Primitivists argue that the shift from Hunter-gatherer to agricultural subsistence gave rise to Social stratification, Coercion, and Alienation. They advocate a return to non-"civilized" ways of life through deindustrialisation, abolition of Division of labour or specialization, and abandonment of Technology. There are however numerous other non-anarchist forms of primitivism, and not all primitivists point to the same phenomenon as the source of modern, civilized problems. Some, like Theodore Kaczynski, see only the Industrial Revolution as the problem, others point to various developments in history such as monotheism, writing, patriarchy, the use of metal tools, etc.
Many traditional anarchists reject such critique of civilization while some endorse it but do not consider themselves primitivists (eg. Wolfi Landstreicher). Anarcho-primitivists are often distinguished by their focus on the praxis of achieving a Feral state through "rewilding". They may also promote a return to full naturism, as in clothing optional.
John Moore writes that anarcho-primitivism seeks:
Primitivists hold that as a result of agriculture, societies became increasingly beholden to technological processes and abstract power structures arising from the Division of labour and hierarchism. Primitivists disagree over what degree of Horticulture might be present in an anarchist society, with some arguing that Permaculture could have a role but others advocating a strictly Hunter-gatherer subsistence.
Despite its rejection of Scientism, primitivism has drawn heavily on Cultural anthropology and Archaeology. Within the last half-century, societies once viewed as barbaric have been largely reevaluated by academics, many of whom now hold that early humans lived in relative peace and prosperity. For instance Frank Hole, an early-agriculture specialist, and Kent Flannery, a specialist in Mesoamerican civilization, have noted that, "No group on earth has more leisure time than hunters and gatherers, who spend it primarily on games, conversation and relaxing."(Kirkpatrick Sale, "Dwellers in the Land: The Bioregional Vision")
Scholars such as Karl Polanyi and Marshall Sahlins characterized primitive societies as gift economies with "goods valued for their utility or beauty rather than cost; commodities exchanged more on the basis of need than of exchange value; distribution to the society at large without regard to labor that members have invested; labor performed without the idea of a wage in return or individual benefit, indeed largely without the notion of 'work' at all." .
Others scholars and thinkers such as Paul Shepard, influenced by anthropologist Claude Levi-Strauss, have written of the "evolutionary principle" which roughly states that a species removed from its natural habitat and behaviors will become pathological. Shepard has written at length on ways it which the disruption of man's natural "ontogeny" which developed through thousands of years of evolution in a foraging mode of existence has been disrupted to due a sedentary lifestyle caused by agriculture, .
[image]
Primitivists describe the rise of civilization as the shift over the past 10,000 years from an existence within and deeply connected to the web of life, to one separated from and in control of the rest of life. They argue that prior to civilization there generally existed ample leisure time, considerable Gender autonomy and equality, a non-destructive approach to the natural world, the absence of organized Violence, no mediating or formal institutions, and strong Health and robusticity. Primitivists state that civilization inaugurated warfare, the subjugation of women, Population growth, drudge work, concepts of property, entrenched hierarchies, and virtually every known disease. They claim that civilization begins with and relies on an enforced renunciation of instinctual freedom and that it is impossible to Reform away such a renunciation.
Primitivists argue that symbolic culture filters our entire perception through formal and informal symbols. It’s beyond just giving things names, but having an entire relationship to the world that comes through the lens of representation. It is debatable as to whether humans are “hard-wired” for symbolic thought or if it developed as a cultural change or adaptation, but, say primitivists, the symbolic mode of expression and understanding is limited and its over-dependence leads to objectification, alienation, and a tunnelvision of perception. Many primitivists promote and practice getting in touch with and rekindling dormant or underutilized methods of interaction and cognition, such as touch, smell, and telepathy, as well as experimenting with and developing unique and personal modes of comprehension and expression.
Primitivists also describe it as the process by which previously nomadic human populations shift towards sedentary or settled existence through Agriculture and Animal husbandry. They claim that this kind of domestication demands a totalitarian relationship with both the land and the plants and animals being domesticated. They say that whereas in a state of wildness, all life shares and competes for resources, domesticaton destroys this balance. The domesticated landscape (e.g. pastoral lands/agricultural fields, and to a lesser degree - Horticulture and Gardening) is seen to necessitate the end of open sharing of the resources that formerly existed; where once “this was everyones’s,” it is now “mine.” Primitivists argue that this notion of ownership laid the foundation for social Hierarchy as property and power emerged.
To primitivists domestication not only changes the ecology from a free to a totalitarian order, it enslaves the species that are domesticated.
Patriarchy, to a primitivist, demands the subjugation of the feminine and the usurpation of Nature, propelling us toward total annihilation. They argue further that it defines power, control and dominion over wildness, freedom and life. They say that patriarchal conditioning dictates all of our interactions: with ourselves, our sexuality, our relationships to each other, and our relationship to nature. They claim it severely limits the spectrum of possible experience.
Modern science is understood as attempting to see the world as a collection of separate objects to be observed and understood. In order to accomplish this task the scientist must distance themselves emotionally and physically, to have a one-way channel of information moving from the observed thing to the self, which is defined as not a part of that thing.
Primitivists argue that this is a mechanistic view tantamount to being the dominant religion of our time. As science seeks to deal only with the Quantitative, primitivists suggest that it does not admit values or emotions. While science claims that only things that are reproducible, predictable and the same for all observers are real and important, primitivists say that reality itself is not reproducible, predictable or the same for all observers.
Science is seen by primitivists as only partially considering reality, a criticism made against modern science by many, that of its putative reductionism. Observability, objectifiability, quantifiability, predictability, controllability and uniformity are said to be the methods and goals of science. This, say primitivists, leads to the world view that everything should be objectified, quantified, controlled and in uniform with everything and everyone else. Primitivists also see science as promoting the idea that anomalous experience, anomalous ideas and anomalous people should be cast off or destroyed like imperfectly shaped machine components.
Technology is held to be distinct from simple tools in many regards. A simple tool is considered a temporary usage of an element within our immediate surroundings used for a specific task. Tools are not viewed to involve complex systems which alienate the user from the act. Primitivists claim that implicit in technology is this separation, creating an unhealthy and mediated experience which leads to various forms of authority. Domination is said to increase every time a new “time-saving” technology is created, as primitivists claim it necessitates the construction of more technology to support, fuel, maintain and repair the original technology. It is argued by primitivists that this leads very rapidly to the establishment of a complex technological system that seems to have an existence independent of the humans who created it. Primitivists believe that this system methodically destroys, eliminates, or subordinates the natural world, constructing a world fit only for machines.
The primitivist argument against industrialism is such: In order to maintain an industrial society, one must set out to conquer and colonize lands in order to acquire (generally) non-renewable resources to fuel and grease the machines. This colonialism is rationalized by Racism, Sexism, and cultural chauvinism. In the process of acquiring these resources, people must be forced off their land. And in order to make people work in the factories that produce the machines, they must be enslaved, made dependent, and otherwise subjected to the destructive, toxic, degrading industrial system.
Primitivists hold that Industrialism cannot exist without massive Centralization and specialization. Furthermore, they hold that industrialism demands that resources be shipped from all over the globe in order to perpetuate its existence, and this globalism, they say, undermines local autonomy and self-sufficiency.
Finally primitivists contend that it is a mechanistic worldview that is behind industrialism and that this same world-view has justified slavery, exterminations and the subjugation of women.
They want a completely different frame of reference. They want a world where each group is autonomous and decides on its own terms how to live, with all interactions based on affinity, free and open, and non-coercive. They want a life which they live, not one which is run.
According to primitivists mass society brutally collides not only with autonomy and the individual, but also with the earth. They see it as simply not Sustainable (in terms of the resource extraction, transportation, and communication systems necessary for any global economic system) to continue on with, or to provide alternative plans for a mass society.
Rather than the familar organizational model primitivists advocate for the use of informal, affinity-based associations that they claim tend to minimize alienation from decisions and processes, and reduce mediation between our desires and our actions.
Reform, on the other hand, is seen as entailing any activity or strategy aimed at adjusting, altering, or selectively maintaining elements of the current system, typically utilizing the methods or apparatus of that system. The goals and methods of revolution, it is argued, cannot be dictated by, nor performed within, the context of the system. For anarchists, revolution and reform invoke incompatible methods and aims, and despite certain approaches, do not exist on a continuum.
For primitivists, revolutionary activity questions, challenges, and works to dismantle the entire set-up or paradigm of civilization. Revolution is not seen as a far-off or distant singular event which we build towards or prepare people for, but instead, a life-way or practice of approaching situations.
Primitivists owe much to the Situationists, and their critique of the alienating commodity society. Deep ecology informs the primitivist perspective with an understanding that the well-being and flourishing of all life is linked to the awareness of the inherent worth and intrinsic value of the non-human world independent of use value. Primitivists see deep ecology’s appreciation for the richness and diversity of life contribute to the realization that the present human interference with the non-human world is coercive and excessive.
Bioregionalists bring the perspective of living within one’s bioregion, and being intimately connected to the land, water, climate, plants, animals, and general patterns of their bioregion. Ecofeminists have contributed to the comprehension of the roots, dynamics, manifestations, and reality of patriarchy, and its effect on the earth, women in particular, and humanity in general. Recently, the separation of humans from the earth (civilization) has probably been articulated most clearly and intensely by eco-feminists.
Primitivists have been profoundly influenced by the various Indigenous cultures and earth-based peoples throughout history and those who still currently exist. While primitivists attempt to learn and incorporate Sustainable techniques for survival and healthier ways of interacting with life, they see it as important not to flatten or generalize native peoples and their cultures, and to repsect and attempt to understand their diversity without co-opting cultural identities and characteristics. Primitivists also feel that it is important to understand that all humans have come from earth-based peoples forcibly removed from our connections with the earth, and therefore have a place within anti-colonial struggles.
They are also inspired by the Feral, those who have escaped domestication and have re-integrated with the wild. And, of course, the wild beings which make up the Earth. It is important to remember that, while many anarcho-primitivists draw influence from similar sources, anarcho-primitivism is something very personal to each who identify or connect with these ideas and actions.
Rewilding is described as having an emotional component, which involves healing ourselves and each other from what are perceived as the 10,000 year-old wounds, learning how to live together in non-hierarchical and non-oppressive communities, and deconstructing the domesticating mindset in our social patterns. To the primitivist “rewilding includes prioritizing direct experience and passion over mediation and Alienation, re-thinking every dynamic and aspect of reality, connecting with our feral fury to defend our lives and to fight for a liberated existence, developing more trust in our intuition and being more connected to our instincts, and regaining the balance that has been virtually destroyed after thousands of years of patriarchal control and domestication. Rewilding is the process of becoming uncivilized.” (from the "What Is Green Anarchy" primer) .
During the 1990s the UK magazine Green Anarchist aligned itself with primitivism, although there are many green anarchists who are not primitivists.
Anti-civilization anarchists also organize groups in Spain, Israel, Turkey, and India.
Anarco-Primitivism is associated with and has influenced the radical tendencies within Neo-Tribalism.
Other research also indicates that primitive societies like the !Kung were not as affluent as previously thought. The !Kung instead had a life expectancy of thirty years, high Infant mortality, a workweek at least equal to that of today, and periodic Starvation with marked decrease in Body weight. Primitivists respond that the figure of a higher number of hours of work is an extension of the original definition used for "work" (such as including household chores, which are not counted in figures of civilized workdays) and will often respond that most of the !Kung's and other primitive people's "work" consists of what most civilized people do for recreation such as hunting, fishing, gardening, sewing, weaving, etc. /Anarchist_Archives/bookchin/whither.html].
Other critics believe that solving social problems, e.g. Oppression, Torture, War, or Disease would be more difficult without books, medical instruments (a form of technology), and the social structures of Civilization. Of course, the primitivist response is that it is civilization itself that causes these social problems.
Another major line of criticism stems from the fact that very few (if any) primitivist philosphers choose to live in primitive societies themselves, and often make use of many of the same forms of technology that they believe should be abandoned. Indeed, many primitivists live in quasi-collectivist communities within developed nations, which, in turn, greatly benefit from the healthcare and technological infrastructure of the surrounding "civilization."
Some posit that it would be implausible or even impossible for a world population of over 6 billion to adapt to social organizations limited to bands of 30-40 people. Even after a massive Nuclear holocaust it is hard for many to imagine that Civilization would not quickly reorganise, though this theory tends to ignore evidence that there are not enough available resources left on the planet to fuel another Industrial Revolution were this one to collapse (although post war salvage could mitigate this somewhat). This criticism against primitivism suggests that primitivism could only be attained temporarily, and under scenarios which most people would consider to be nightmarish dystopias. Primitivists counter this objection by saying that of course 6 billion people could not live in hunter and gatherer bands. They argue that the human population of the Earth will have to one day be much smaller than it is now because the current population levels and growth pattern are not sustainable.
Because some primitivists have extended their critique of symbolic culture to language itself, Georgetown University professor Mark Lance describes primitivism as "literally insane, for proper communication is necessary to create within the box a means to destroy the box." While primitivists recognise the importance of communication in order to destroy civilization, they see some forms as inherently alienating. The critique of language is often misconstrued however, as being a call for the abandonment of it, rather than an examination of how the use of language may engender domination and alienation.
Some notable critics of primitivism include Michael Albert, Brian Sheppard, and, especially, Murray Bookchin, as seen in his polemical work entitled "Social Anarchism or Lifestyle Anarchism," as well as the conflict between his more traditionally socialist "Social Ecology" and the more radical "Deep Ecology" of many primitivists. Sheppard asserts that anarcho-primitivism is not a form of anarchism at all. In Anarchism Vs. Primitivism he says: "In recent decades, groups of quasi-religious mystics have begun equating the primitivism they advocate (rejection of science, rationality, and technology often lumped together under a blanket term "technology") with anarchism. In reality, the two have nothing to do with each other."