o_195qg5dto17o4rbc85q1ge61i84a.pdf

70
anarchism: a beginner’s guide
men full of respect and love for the liberty of others’. On advice, the
general rule was that:
In the matter of boots I refer to the authority of the bootmakers;
concerning houses, canals, or railroads I consult that of the architect
or engineer. For such or such special knowledge I apply to such or
such a savant. But I allow neither the bootmaker nor the architect
nor the savant to impose his authority upon me. I accept them freely
and with all the respect merited by their intelligence, their character,
their knowledge, reserving always my incontestable right of criticism
and censure. 56
Bakunin was aware that legitimate authority could always
degenerate into an illegitimate form. He was particularly critical of
the authoritative rulings of scientists and although he celebrated the
application of scientific knowledge to alleviate suffering and
improve the condition of human life, he so feared the possibility that
scientists might abuse their capacity to advise, that he declared
himself to be in revolt against the ‘government of science’.
The second distinction, between natural and artificial forms of
authority, is perhaps the most important, for it establishes the basis
on which anarchists ground compliance to voluntary agreements.
The distinctive feature of natural authority is that it is deemed to be
internal or to issue from below rather than from the command of an
external body. Anarchists have described this kind of authority in
different ways. To the disgust of anarcha-feminists Proudhon
contrasted the legitimacy of patriarchal authority in the family
with the illegitimate political authority in the state. Bakunin
distinguished ‘the divine, theological, metaphysical, political, and
judicial authorities, established by the Church, and by the State’
from the ‘natural and rational’, ‘wholly human’ authority of the
‘collective and public spirit of a society founded on the mutual
respect of its members’. This authority sprang from the ‘natural and
inevitable’ sense of solidarity that held society together. It commanded
respect and ensured compliance with social rules. Yet it could not
enslave since it was not imposed ‘from without’. Herbert Read
distinguished between ‘a discipline imposed on life, and the law
which is inherent to life’. Drawing on his wartime experiences, he
exemplified the first in ‘mechanical routine of the barrack square’
and associated the second with the ‘tyranny’ of the ‘law of nature’. 57
Similar distinctions can be found in new anarchist schools of
thought. Admittedly, primitivists tend to be more concerned to