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

domestic workers. Of course, anarchists would like to see all these “normal” dynamics
done away with, but they understand that they are not mere accidents and that they
continue to exist because many people/institutions either directly benefit from them or
have no desire to expend the effort to end them.
Durkheim's Elementary Forms of Religious Life (year?) offers anarchists insight into the
reverence held for objects endowed with special meaning—for example flags, corporate
logos (and the windows they appear upon), swastikas, etc.—and signify some sort of
solidarity. Thus, anarchists ought to view these things as poor conclusions made by
otherwise needing people. He sees two kinds of forces in society, the profane and the
sacred. Inanimate (or profane) objects such as flags can be transformed from pieces of
cloth to sacred objects and become part of the collective conscience. Durkheim thinks
these symbols are necessary to retain society (by reminding individuals of the group).
Often, they become more than mere representations of the collective conscience and
become a part of it. That is why there is such strong reaction towards burning the flag or
ripping up a Bible; it is as if someone were burning America or ripping up Christianity
itself!
Anarchists also might see the similarities in the microcosm of the movement, such as that
placed upon symbols such as the “circle-A” or the black flag. Of course, this is a
generalization—and slight over-exaggeration—but a similar profane-to-sacred
transformation even occurs in anarchist circles. An additional interpretation of this may
be seen by action by the black bloc to smash corporate windows in order to destroy the
illusion of power/ubiquitousness these symbols exert. A symbolic action against a
symbolic object.
The process of giving up individualism for group solidarity should inform anarchists to
the functioning of ultra-nationalism, religious fundamentalism, and corporatism. People
often feel obligations to the whole, and thus sanction themselves. They give in, respect
society, and gain a sort of moral/mental energy. According to Durkheim, this
internalization allows people to “become” Americans or whatever. In fact, this can be
extended to nearly any sector, demographic, and organization where people identify
with/as something and thus must “give up” their individuality. Anarchists recognize while
there is nothing inherently bad in giving up some individualism for the collective, that it
should not be done naively or uncritically. Further, to identify too strongly with a group
often leads to future rejection of immoral behavior by the group.
Marcel Mauss and Henry Hubert wrote of the idea of “mana”, which is a spiritual force
that people all possess. They thought that individuals will sometimes expropriate
collective sentiments for personal gain. Even though is often considered in a religious
context, it can also be applied economically or politically. For instance, a politician can
exchange their extreme patriotism (and ability to sway politics) for votes or campaign
contributions, just like a televangelist exchanges their extreme religiousness (and ability
to pray well) for money. Collins (1994, p?) notes that this is similar to Weber's notion of
charisma. Is this where “leadership” comes from? And if so, what does this imply for
anarchist organizations which claim (sometimes incorrectly) to not have leaders—or at
least bosses?
[ Williams 31 ] [ this is a draft. do not cite. ]