Sociology of the Anarchists - Gozips.uakron.edu - The University of ...

they could get it for free? Of course, if everyone thought and acted so, the public good
would not be paid for (and not just talking in economic terms), and no one would be able
to enjoy it. Thus, how do social and political movements start and gain power when
people can enjoy the gains of these movements without even participating in them? Olson
says that “selective incentives” are what keep people involved: the addition and
subtraction of public goods. For example, why do people contribute money to public
radio or television, while they could still listen and watch them without contributing? (Put
aside, temporarily, the fact that these services are paid for substantially through public tax
dollars already...) Because they are offered incentives for doing so, like t-shirts, CDs,
coffee mugs, and so forth. The anarchist reaction to “selective incentives” might be that,
yes, everyone needs to feel that they are personally getting something out of contributing
to such things (like NPR or PBS), but that they do not (or rather should not) need to be
based in the form of some material commodity.
Olson writes (quoted in Collins, p. 169), “the larger the group, the farther it will fall short
of providing an optimal amount of a collective good”. Anarchists, of course, agree and
feel that society itself (not only activist organizations) must be scaled down to a smaller,
personal level. He also refers to a latent group which is a very large organization.
Anarchists see latent groups as the overly large liberal organizations, such as the Sierra
Club, National Organization of Women, and such—that have decent values, but are so
top-heavy that individual participation in them is almost meaningless.
The anarchist understanding of why people contribute to movements, especially things
like the anarchist movement is better explained by James Coleman.
Coleman, in explaining his “second order free rider problem”, thought that zeal was a
primary motivator for those who are passionate and willing to pay any cost. This
conception points towards the acts of suicide bombers, Navy SEALS, and radical
activists. Why would they be willing to pay such high costs for a public good? Including
Navy SEALS in this example along with radical activists shows the difference in their
power position targets: SEALS either participate because a) they truly believe that
military violence is necessary to protect American freedom or b) they are mislead in the
real purpose they play in geopolitics. Thus, are SEALS really expanding the public good
by their actions, or are they involved in war crimes? SEALS are usually involved in
reducing the power of the already powerless. Activists, on the other hand, also feel they
expand the public good, although they usually target the powerful (and try to reduce their
power). Thus, both SEALS and activists both try to reduce others' power, but in opposite
ways, for divergent reasons.
It is, in essence, altruistic behavior versus free riders, for those who enjoy public goods.
Anarchists, of course, believe that all have a right to public goods, but that they ought to
be involved in securing and supporting those goods, and that the goods should be
rewarded distributed to those who need them most. (??) The emergence of norms is
where the zeal comes from, Coleman says.
Norms are 1) purposefully generated and individuals see themselves as benefiting from
the existence and observation of them, 2) enforced by sanctions (rewards for obeying,
[ Williams 27 ] [ this is a draft. do not cite. ]