clastres! and maybe anthropology for a couple weeks. we will decide. for this week we have have a chapter from archeology of violence, and one from society against the state.
other authors who were floated for future readings were graeber (sigh) and james c scott.
the stanford experiment is a notorious example of how prone people are to losing their shit when put in positions of power/lack-of-power.
Jack’s choice for the reading is here.
It’s Philip Zimbardo’s account of the experiment, who was the lead in the experiment. He’s caught a lot of criticism for both the experiment and his presentation of it… so it should be a good starting point for discussion.
Jack proposes the following questions:
What’s more surprising, how guards abused their power or how prisoners complied?
Is your life more like that of a prisoner, or a guard?
Do liberals, conservatives, socialists, etc. see themselves as prisoners or guards?
ps: the piece i mentioned about artificial intelligence and corporations is here.
an essay by timothy morton from the book object-oriented feminism.
Timothy Morton, philosopher of Object Oriented Ontology, claims it is relevant to anarchists. He is the author of Dark Ecology: For a Logic of Future Coexistence; Ecology Without Nature: Rethinking Environmental Aesthetics; Humankind: Solidarity with Nonhuman People; Hyperobjects: Philosophy and Ecology after the End of the World; The Ecological Thought; Realist Magic: Objects, Ontology, Causality, etc. He contributed to Nothing: Three Inquiries in Buddhism.
two pieces from dark mountain #2
consensus and other realities
coming to our animal senses (talk with david abram)
for a more up-to-date and fast paced peek at adam curtis’s thinking (also to laugh at the interaction between curtis and brand, which just get better up to the end), here is a podcast episode. take notes, as we will have nothing to refer to otherwise!
we’ll be watching an episode of an adam curtis documentary (probably one of the episodes from century of the self). he’s done a ton of series, and i encourage folks to watch many. they’re pretty dense, and funny (brit humor), and not anarchist at all, but provocative for us. Even if we’ve already figured some of his points out, his spin is interesting.
(some of his series: century of the self, power of nightmares, the trap, all watched over by machines of loving grace, bitter lake, and hypernormalisation. most are available on youtube.)
daniel doesn’t think we’ll like this, so we must read and enjoy tearing it to pieces? or… not?
not sure if it is supposed to be the first article or the second, but neither is very long. and both are good.