Mitchell, Brian Patrick. 2007. Eight Ways to Run the Country: A New and Revealing Look at Left and Right. Westport, Connecticut: Praeger Publishers.
9 - For present purposes, we'll define arche as the concept of rank and archy as a ranking order. We'll define kratos as the use of force, especially the state's use of force. Arche is essentially voluntary, based as it is on each person's recognition and acceptance of rank; kratos is essentially involuntary, being in essence what others will do to us by force regardless of our regard for them.
Arche is essentially personal in that it concerns our regard for others. Do we look to other persons for our lead in life and believe ourselves to be responsible for leading others? Or do we see ourselves as morally autonomous and neither subject to nor responsible for other persons?
Kratos is essentially political in that it concerns the use of force--actual physical force. Governments are all about the use of force. Everything they do is backed by force. [...]
Thus instead of might and right, we have two rights: the right to pull rank and the right to use force. Some of us believe in both, some of us believe in neither, and some of us believe in one but not the other. For example, people who accept "democratic authority" but reject "hierarchical authority" don't much dislike using force to get people to go along with the group, but they very much dislike recognizing a ranking order that expects them to humble themselves before someone else. Others have no problem with patriarchy, but don't believe in the government's right to coerce at all.
As it happens, this distinction of arche and kratos is not always evident. In the ancient world in particular, they often went hand in hand. Rank entailed the right to use force. The social order was coercive at all levels. There were therefore no social leaders to be distinguished from political leaders and no organized society independent of the state. Limits on kratos therefore necessarily entailed a limited denial of arche. Greek democracy and the Roman Republic were both such limited denials--they would have no kings--but both kept the archy of masters over slaves, men over women, elders over youngsters, citizens over foreigners, and patrons over clients.
10 - [...]
It is possible for kratos to exist without arche. A mob unorganized and leaderless can exert great force for brief moments. A small group, gang, or clique can be kept together by peer pressure and even coercion without a recognized leader. But group action over time and against resistance requires organization and direction and thus some acceptance of arche.
It is more common for arche to exist without kratos. All that is required is willing submission to a leader. All voluntary organizations are akratic by definition. Families and clans, held together by respect and affection, are akratic, though small children may need a little kratos now and then. Commercial corporations also are akratic: if you don't do as you are told, they stop giving you things to do and paying you for it.
[...]
11 - [...] some people today are still passionately opposed to arche, while others reject all use of kratos. The former we rightly call anarchists, the latter we should call akratists.
Anarchists are power egalitarians, rejecting all relationships based on dominance and submission, in which one person lords it over another, superior over subordinate, master over servant. They regard all relationships of unequal power as inherently unjust and would decide all common matters by consensus.
Akratists, on the other hand, are opposed in principle to coercion in human relations and would instead have everything managed by contract. They are not bothered by the master/servant relationship as long as it is based on a freely made contract. They even reject a state's claim to sovereignty over people and property, absent a contact with all involved parties, a contract that any party can opt out of if need be.
9 - For present purposes, we'll define arche as the concept of rank and archy as a ranking order. We'll define kratos as the use of force, especially the state's use of force. Arche is essentially voluntary, based as it is on each person's recognition and acceptance of rank; kratos is essentially involuntary, being in essence what others will do to us by force regardless of our regard for them.
Arche is essentially personal in that it concerns our regard for others. Do we look to other persons for our lead in life and believe ourselves to be responsible for leading others? Or do we see ourselves as morally autonomous and neither subject to nor responsible for other persons?
Kratos is essentially political in that it concerns the use of force--actual physical force. Governments are all about the use of force. Everything they do is backed by force. [...]
Thus instead of might and right, we have two rights: the right to pull rank and the right to use force. Some of us believe in both, some of us believe in neither, and some of us believe in one but not the other. For example, people who accept "democratic authority" but reject "hierarchical authority" don't much dislike using force to get people to go along with the group, but they very much dislike recognizing a ranking order that expects them to humble themselves before someone else. Others have no problem with patriarchy, but don't believe in the government's right to coerce at all.
As it happens, this distinction of arche and kratos is not always evident. In the ancient world in particular, they often went hand in hand. Rank entailed the right to use force. The social order was coercive at all levels. There were therefore no social leaders to be distinguished from political leaders and no organized society independent of the state. Limits on kratos therefore necessarily entailed a limited denial of arche. Greek democracy and the Roman Republic were both such limited denials--they would have no kings--but both kept the archy of masters over slaves, men over women, elders over youngsters, citizens over foreigners, and patrons over clients.
10 - [...]
It is possible for kratos to exist without arche. A mob unorganized and leaderless can exert great force for brief moments. A small group, gang, or clique can be kept together by peer pressure and even coercion without a recognized leader. But group action over time and against resistance requires organization and direction and thus some acceptance of arche.
It is more common for arche to exist without kratos. All that is required is willing submission to a leader. All voluntary organizations are akratic by definition. Families and clans, held together by respect and affection, are akratic, though small children may need a little kratos now and then. Commercial corporations also are akratic: if you don't do as you are told, they stop giving you things to do and paying you for it.
[...]
11 - [...] some people today are still passionately opposed to arche, while others reject all use of kratos. The former we rightly call anarchists, the latter we should call akratists.
Anarchists are power egalitarians, rejecting all relationships based on dominance and submission, in which one person lords it over another, superior over subordinate, master over servant. They regard all relationships of unequal power as inherently unjust and would decide all common matters by consensus.
Akratists, on the other hand, are opposed in principle to coercion in human relations and would instead have everything managed by contract. They are not bothered by the master/servant relationship as long as it is based on a freely made contract. They even reject a state's claim to sovereignty over people and property, absent a contact with all involved parties, a contract that any party can opt out of if need be.
posted by jlhart7 at 11:28 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home