|
|
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| − | In [[anarchism|anarchist]] [[discourse]], a '''group-entity''' is usually distinguished from an individual [[hominid]], or animal groups from a single living being of any sexual species. All group-entities are assumed to have certain characteristics in common, most of them sociopathic or destructive to the interests of individuals.
| + | #REDIRECT [[eng:group entity]] |
| − | | + | |
| − | Groups are seen often as akin to asexual beings, reproducing by copying (e.g. [[cloning]]) rather than sharing, and uninterested in interaction other than consumption (often consuming each other in misnamed 'mergers'). Group relations are described as limited to 'eat-or-be-eaten', in contrast to individuals who (do also eat but) can engage in more complex types of interaction with the more complex cognition that sexual reproduction and social living require.
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | Stricter anarchists generally deny the assertion that [[private corporation]]s, for instance, are fundamentally different from [[trade union]]s or [[political party|political parties]] or [[religious institution]]s or even [[non-governmental organization]]s. All such entities are seen as self-interested and interested only in their own propagation - their relation to individuals is predatory, parasitic, and only rarely symbiotic. Even if those individuals perceive those groups as serving their own interests, the anarchist argues, they are actually accepting a proxy for those interests.
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | In particular the distinction is important for sexual interests, which are the most obvious interests that group-entities cannot have, having no sexual feelings, and able to deal in sex only as a commodity not as a direct organismic interest, e.g. a [[dating game show]] which is motivated to indulge sexual interest but only to sell [[advertising]], thus distorting the mating process to serve commerce. A response to this argument is that groups also do not feel hunger, but can act as a means for individuals to satisfy their hunger - this being the main motive for the corporation and collective economic effort, back to earliest systems of [[irrigation]].
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | [[Bob Black]] argued that it was not feelings or intentions or urges but the actual model of collaboration that distincted the group-entity. The sexual individual animal can conceive (pun intended) of seduction, dance, flirtation, and other means of cooperation that do not involve one entity consuming and destroying the identity of the other. Group-entities have no such skills nor capacities - they interact with each other in a way remniscent of [[predator-prey relations]], where the predator will consume and destroy the identity of the prey, which no longer reproduces but contributes to the predator's energy. [[Corporate merger]]s, for instance, are often presented as relationships of equals cooperating, but in fact usually one executive group or the other will be drastically reduced, the [[organizational structure]] and [[ethics]] of one of the two being obliterated. Corporations do not get each other pregnant, nor do they nurture child corporations - [[joint venture]]s being a notable exception.
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | Some anarchists employ arguments remniscent of [[sociobiology]] and relate the behavior of other animals to those of humans - including that of animal groups. They may rely on observations from [[ecology]] and [[biology]]. For example, in a [[fish school]], the fish have certain habits that make the school a cohesive group-entity, and which they perceive protect them from predators. But it may also be true that the school itself acts to attract predators, prevent creative or evasive actions, and acts with some [[collective intelligence]] to cut out its weaker members - none of which necessarily benefits the individual fish obeying 'school rules'. Much of anarchist discourse consists of comparing human behavior to that of other pack or social animals, and focuses on the 'collective stupidity' such habits imply - also known in [[psychology]] as [[groupthink]]. [[John Zerzan]] considers even ideas of "number" to reflect such a groupthink.
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | Some argue that humans are the stupidest of [[hominid]]s when massed socially, no better than domestic animals bred for slavery, and have thus lost much of their capacity to solve ecological or social problems with any creativity. [[War]], [[fundamentalist religion]] and [[pathological consumption]] are often seen as mere symptoms of this. These phenomena are sometimes presented as arguments against [[civilization]] itself as a process. The theory of [[eco-anarchism]] focuses on reducing reliance on group-entities specifically to reactivate creativity, and strengthen inter-generational ties as an alternative to same-generation peer-groups (seen as prone to [[peer pressure]]) or 'school'. [[Daniel Quinn]]'s book ''[[Ishmael (novel)|Ishmael]]'' presents a positive vision of [[tribalism]] and [[hominid personhood]] (the book being structured as a conversation between man and ape) is an influential work of this sort.
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | An interesting question is whether a [[family]] which exists primarily or only to provide economic, infrastructural, instructional and emotional support to specific individuals who are related, is a group-entity distinct from feelings or methods of individual sexual animals. Families unlike the more economic or political entities focused on the outside world, do seem sometimes to merge or alter themselves so as to relate effectively in ways analogous to individuals' - indeed, a traditional family is formed by exactly such a 'dance' between two such individuals. Positive notions of [[tribalism|tribe]] would seem to flow from [[kin]] or [[clan]] relationships, as studied in [[cultural anthropology]] and seemingly universal in not only [[human]] but also [[Great Ape]] societies.
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | [[Lewis Thomas]] noted in [[Lives of a Cell]], [[1975]], that people deprived of traditional life-ways could often behave in ways remniscent of the sociopathic and predatory ways that [[nation-state]]s interact, e.g. in [[zero-sum game]]s. The [[Iks]], a people he used as example, were not longer able to hunt and pursue their forest lifestyle, and when forced to become farmers were reduced to playing cruel practical jokes on each other, revelling in each others' errors and misfortunes, and squabbling in ways that reminded Thomas of the [[United Nations]], i.e. not very united at all, and not reflective of a real 'society'.
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | Accordingly, [[nationalism]] and the interaction between nation-states (or the [[political party|political factions or parties]] that control them might be the most appropriate or least controversial application of the theory of group-entities. Its application below that level, even to [[bioregional democracy]], is questionable to the degree that the group or the entity does have some biological identity, e.g. an [[ecoregion]], a [[species]], a [[food chain]], the [[carbon cycle]] of the [[celestial body's atmosphere|atmosphere]], the [[water cycle]] of a [[watershed]]. Such bases for organization would seem, like that of the kin, clan, or family, to align biological and group interests, and therefore overcome the objections that group and individual entities have nothing in common.
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | See also: [[no confusion with group entity]], [[green anarchism]], [[civics]], [[hive mind]]
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | == References ==
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | Adapted from Wikipedia article, "Group entity" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_entity under the GNU Free Documentation License.
| + | |
