Ravenscroft
Banned
This stuff has been on my mind for some time. Clearly, I'm failing to comprehend.
Far as I can determine, the term Relationship Anarchy has been around since like 2010. Every time I see someone claiming to the term, though, it seems like they're talking about yet something else.
Before proceeding, I will admit that I am leery of Proper Nouns, as they so often indicate a dogmatic belief, replete with errors. While I call myself libertarian & socialist, I do not agree with many people who claim to be Libertarian or Socialist.
IME, making it a Proper Name means that thinking has stopped, replaced entirely by proscriptions -- what I call a NO orientation, where you're told at every turn what you aren't allowed to do, think, feel, discuss, ponder, read, etc.
Trying to graft anarchism to a NO orientation seems impossible, requiring either that (like many dogmas) a great amount of hypocrisy be brought in, or that the actual "anarchy" content be greatly diluted.
So while it makes sense to me for someone to follow some form of relational anarchism, to me it seems that it's better off avoiding dogmatism, & a beginning would be to cease capitalizing.
I keep wanting to write relational anarchism rather than relationship anarchy. Wouldn't that be a better term? How many people who apply the RA term to themselves have ever considered the clear difference between anarchy & anarchism?
I doubt that RA is "a movement," as often claimed. Mostly, fans of RA seem to speak almost entirely amongst themselves & within safe, welcoming groups. I looked up Social movement. Charles Tilly says that a movement is "a series of contentious performances, displays and campaigns by which ordinary people make collective claims on others" as "a major vehicle for ordinary people's participation in public politics."
Per Tilly's description of the three major elements in any given social movement, I can't see where RA has presented itself as "a sustained, organized public effort making collective claims of target authorities" or presented any "processions, vigils, rallies, demonstrations, petition drives, statements to and in public media, and pamphleteering" or "participants' concerted public representation of worthiness, unity, numbers, and commitments on the part of themselves and/or their constituencies."
Sidney Tarrow says social movements present "collective challenges by people with common purposes and solidarity in sustained interactions with elites, opponents and authorities."
I'm not seeing much of that from RA.
Far as I can determine, the term Relationship Anarchy has been around since like 2010. Every time I see someone claiming to the term, though, it seems like they're talking about yet something else.
Before proceeding, I will admit that I am leery of Proper Nouns, as they so often indicate a dogmatic belief, replete with errors. While I call myself libertarian & socialist, I do not agree with many people who claim to be Libertarian or Socialist.
IME, making it a Proper Name means that thinking has stopped, replaced entirely by proscriptions -- what I call a NO orientation, where you're told at every turn what you aren't allowed to do, think, feel, discuss, ponder, read, etc.
Trying to graft anarchism to a NO orientation seems impossible, requiring either that (like many dogmas) a great amount of hypocrisy be brought in, or that the actual "anarchy" content be greatly diluted.
So while it makes sense to me for someone to follow some form of relational anarchism, to me it seems that it's better off avoiding dogmatism, & a beginning would be to cease capitalizing.
I keep wanting to write relational anarchism rather than relationship anarchy. Wouldn't that be a better term? How many people who apply the RA term to themselves have ever considered the clear difference between anarchy & anarchism?
I doubt that RA is "a movement," as often claimed. Mostly, fans of RA seem to speak almost entirely amongst themselves & within safe, welcoming groups. I looked up Social movement. Charles Tilly says that a movement is "a series of contentious performances, displays and campaigns by which ordinary people make collective claims on others" as "a major vehicle for ordinary people's participation in public politics."
Per Tilly's description of the three major elements in any given social movement, I can't see where RA has presented itself as "a sustained, organized public effort making collective claims of target authorities" or presented any "processions, vigils, rallies, demonstrations, petition drives, statements to and in public media, and pamphleteering" or "participants' concerted public representation of worthiness, unity, numbers, and commitments on the part of themselves and/or their constituencies."
Sidney Tarrow says social movements present "collective challenges by people with common purposes and solidarity in sustained interactions with elites, opponents and authorities."
I'm not seeing much of that from RA.