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

punishments for violating), and 3) norms are internalized, and thus people sanction
themselves. In terms of anarchism, these three points are relevant to the ideas of order and
law. Since anarchists believe there can be order (even rules) without authority figures (or
rulers), the idea of norms is very important. The first point, seems relevant to the example
offered by Fox (quoted in Barr 2002) about obeying traffic signals; not because its the
law, but because its a good idea—everyone benefits from observing them. Fox explains:
Anarchy isn’t a rebellion against all norms... I obey traffic
lights, but I don’t obey them because it’s the law. I obey
them because it’s a good thing to do. (p. ?)
The second point implies some kind of authority figure or body that sanctions others for
their behavior. Anarchists would likely suggest that communities sanction individuals for
behaviors, or, as in the third point, that they sanction themselves. Thus, one does not
drive through red lights in traffic because they know the dangerous consequences to the
safety of themselves and others (3), not because the police are going to arrest them for it
(2).
Norms are still tenuous things. Many people disagree in society on what are problems and
what to do about them. Anarchists feel that emphasizing the first and third points above
would advance the idea of a norm, more than the second point, which seems to point
towards an authority figure or a law. [Explain this more... think about more...] Thus
people give up autonomy for these norms, in exchange for fairness, safety, and in
exchange for partial control over the rights of other people's behavior. Anarchists, and
other left/liberal folk would call this “the common good”.
Coleman further states that there are two ways to guarantee that norms are followed: 1)
“leadership” that makes them/encourages them to follow it. Hire police, regulators, or
other organizations to monitor and enforce the norms. But, in addition to being costly,
anarchists feel that this infringes upon individual liberty. 2) Establish of social structures
and closed social networks that allow for the internalization of norms by involved parties.
Anarchists would like this attitude much more, because it seems to allow for localized
norms—what is good for one local community might not be for another. But Coleman
points to another problem, that the tighter a social network, the more internalization and
incremental sanctioning. Studies show that homogeneous social networks are more likely
to vote and that closed networks encourage zealotry. Conversely, heterogeneous social
networks are less likely to vote and the less closed networks encourage free riding. For
anarchists, this paradox exists: how to encourage a diversity of opinions and backgrounds
and still encourage people to be active? Also, closed anarchist scenes also seem to foster
zealotry, as does the anarchist movement itself—indicated by many suggestions to wholly
reject reform or liberalism, and to “not compromise!”—which would indicate that “the
movement” is still rather insular.
Good examples of “anarchist” zealotry can be found, in this author's opinion, in the acts
of the Animal Liberation Front (ALF) and Earth Liberation Front (ELF), and for the call
by some anarchists to engage in armed resistance domestically (in an already
marginalized movement). It would seem plausible that if anarchists read less Bakunin and
[ Williams 28 ] [ this is a draft. do not cite. ]