CONTENTS - ouroboros ponderosa

J'c lI, rVI :\ Nll ( ·c IN II I'l l rH J ' I I r-.II HI.', C l/ J\I t' l 1',,:\1
FleJllI'llf,\' Ir U''l;I,\'/l1 Ihell, was St lIlH'lhilll II('W; /.CJZ;(II lI:ul Plilled 0111
all the slops and followcu his lhcorelical assulllptions 10 Iheir logical
conclusion. In the process he introduced three innovat ions that nnw fOrlll
the foundation of much of the theoretical discussion in Nonh America"
anarchist circl s. 1) Zerzan developed a method of dialectical critique
which IS both Immanent and extraneous to the phenomena that he is
examining. One of the sequelae of the application of this method has
been th reinvigoration of the project of philosophical anthropology. 2)
EaR rlses the issue of criteria as regards insurrectionary SUbjects.
Zerzan s theSIS that those who have the most to lose invariably make the
deepest and most . radical insurrectionary breaks with the past, while
empmeally sound, jetlisons two centuries of bad social philosophy, and
3) Zerzan argues consistently throughout the volume that violence (riot,
msurreclion) has been (or could be) an effective and vital force for social
change, in direct contradistinction to Leftist ideology whose general
stance on the Issue has been a puritanical prohibition, justified by either
morailsm or cowardice (your choice).
In a letter I received recently, a correspondent dcscribed the critical
method employed by Zcrzan as an example of immanent critique. This
statement, while minimally accurate, misses the mark as to where Zerzan
h s taken the method. Horkheimer in The Eclipse of Reason-immanent
cnlique confronts, "the existent, in its historical context with the claim
of its conceptual principles, in order to realize the relatinship between
the two and thus transcend them." Conceptually almost intuitive and not
'
a particularly new nor sophisticated critical strategy, it has
been
employed by theorists as disparate as Marx and Voltaire. The first
generation of critical theorists merely refined the technique and provided
It With a philosophical and historical foundation. There are limitations to
imanent critique, however, and part of Zerzan ' s innovative manipula­
ll n of the technique stems directly from these parameters. Immanent
critique, as the name implies, situates itself firmly on the terrain of the
system it seeks to examine. It is maintained by partisans of immanent
cnllque that this is the method's greatest strength. It may also be its
greatest flaw. For while holding a system to its own claims produces (or
should produce) a relatively high standard of consistency and rigor, it
lso forces the theorist to avoid any criteria arising either from the sub­
jectIve or external sources, put succinctly; in judging what is (the
dommant society) one IS restncted from using what is not (utopia).
Another flaw cntained within immanent critique is its reliance upon
the conceptual claims of the system as criteria. During the period in time
that the f, rst generation of critical theorists werc writing such a meeha-
.
' I I w,·11 In the eurrcnt era and as a result of thc Iesscned
IlIS!TI Wt H I\ !'t , ;111( ....
. . "
cpectati( OIlS associated with the pronoun ements of both neo-conserva­
tives and nco-liberals, the claims of capital have decreased to almost
nothing. Where before the critical theorist
, ,d myrIad, sweeplll
.
statements from the "best of all possible worlds, chicken m every pot,
grab bag to minor, work-a-day promises and statements made by bosses,
politicians, and captains of industry to utIhze as cntena With which to
judge the behavior of the ancien regIme. Today, ee cost of hvmg m­
creases are threatened in collective bargammg negotlatlOns and corporate
downsizing has brought back the good old days of early cap,tailsm
including classic nineteenth century workplace phenocna such as
.
immediate dismissal and the ten-hour workday. Th,s Ideological
retrenchment has been global in scope; no one speaks anymore of the
developing countries, or uses thc argument that La Antigua, Guatemala
or Kinshasa will one day be indistinguishable from Hoboken. The global
contraction of capital has meant a concomitant contractIOn 10 Its
conceptual terrain, which in turn produces a decreased . ablilly to abstract
criteria and utilize them in the impkmentatlOn of an Immanent enhcal
method.
Zerzan's response to this weakening of the critique has been to
unilaterally expand the method to include empirical data, . Istoncal and
anthropological, to strengthen his hybrid of in:'manent whquc. HIS ex­
pansion has also occasionally included ubJe hve matenal, WhiCh, whlk
architectonically indefensible, has been jushfled ill the past by a number
of other thinkers. Marcusc, in Eros and Civilizalion, not only augments
the concept of reason by placing phantasy firmly within its bounds, he
also makes of phantasy a motive conceptual and psychologIcal apparatus
which, for lack of a better name, may best be descnbed as the Will to
utopia." In spite of the problems, incoherence and confUSIon associated
with Eros and Civiliultion, the philosophical construct used III definmg
phantasy seems accurate and though with less intelligent r carC! 1
theorists therc remains a great possibility of mischlcl and fooilshness, It
provides the serious critical theorist with . a powerful to.ol.
Inclusion of anthropological and hlstoncal empmcal data Isn t
particularly earth-shattering, however, . what Zerzan doe WIth these
referenccs is to use the material as a cntena With which to judge capital
and the contemporary state of the human species. Zerzan has been
greatly assisted in this project by devel ? pments in nthropology datmg
[rom the mid-1960s. Developments in thIS area have lllcluded diSCUSSions
as disparate as the diet of the !Kung branch of the San III the Kalahan
to the taxonomic differentiation between Homo sapIens and Homo
. ,