CONTENTS - ouroboros ponderosa

I'( )HM ANI ) ('()Nrl-NT IN 1, ' 1 I t\-IJ-N I", III II I [1'-. ,'\1
cn;cus, "Vh rc all or Ihis acadelllic work has led is a C( IllIpkll' I'capprili,..;
al at pre-agncultund human socir..:ty; from tbe classic I lohhr.;sian view 01
pre-historieal life as being "nasty, brutish and short," to an understanding
of pre-agncultural
humanity as living an existence of singular grace,
.
harmoy, sohdanty and health. The impact that these anthropological
dIscussIons have had on critical theory are, and will continue to he,
staggen g. In the idealist tradition the concept of an original separation
(humamty from nature, individual from society, subject from object) has
always formed the foundation of its critical etiology, now anthropology
has produced empmcally grounded speculation of the existence of just
such an event. Anthropology has also provided critical theorists with a
ghmpse of human life and society in that "Golden Age," the Ur-phe­
n ? men . a of the specIes. Zerzan was the first critical theorist to put these
pIeces Into place and he did so in general categorical discussions as well
as using the "Golden Age" to establish a set of criteria with hich to
judge the historical de elopmentof current social and cultural phenome­
na. It IS thIS foundation whIch grounds his discussions of language,
number, tIme, art and agriculture; which in turn has allowed Zerzan the
freedom . to tand outside the system under examination without losing
elther
hIS cntIcal stanc e or effective criteria, ultimately enhancing the
.
.
ablhty to level a WItherIng assault on the dominant society.
One of the fascinating, and on first glance seemingly tangential,
sequelae of Zerzan's use of empirical anthropology has been to revivify
the project of philosophical anthropology developed by Max Scheler a
phenomenologist associated with political Catholicism, during the fist
two decades of the twentieth century. For Scheler the goal of the work
was to illustrate, in precise detail, how, "all the specific achievements and
works of man-language, conscience, tools, weapons, ideas of right and
wrg, the state, leadership, the reprcsentational function of art, myths,
rehglon, SCIence, hIStOry, and social life-arise from the basic structures
of human existence" (Man's Place in Nature, 1928). Of course, the
completJon of ueh a task is impossible primarily because the project
assumes a statIc human nature divorced from historical and social
CIrcumstance. For critical theory, however, if the project and problem
statement could be appropriately re-formed there may be much to be
learned fmm such an investigation. Horkheimer thought so too, and in
an essay titled "Remarks on Philosophical Anthropology," he frames the
pf(Ject thus, "The project of modern philosophical anthropology consists
In hndrng a norm that will pmvide meaning to an individual's life in the
world as it currently exists." Or to be even more clear, insight into
human nature should, at a minimum, inform those who criticize the pres-
1':1 I ·.MI·NTS (11, h!I:H JSAI
elll ill hopes ur realizing a 4uantitativc hreak wjt it. Zerzan's theoreti
:oddrcss this in a negative, critical manner. R turmng to the athropologl­