Difference between revisions of "no confusion with group entity"

Latest revision as of 08:45, 29 August 2005

The anarchist principle of no confusion with group entity is, simply put, that no human body or collection of living things of any kind, can be in any way confused with the interests of ideals of a group entity. There is nothing in common between the objectives or structures of groups, even the groups that co-operate and participate in Anarchopedia:itself, and the survival and propagation and emotional interests of bodies.

It was probably first stated in this exact form by Bob Black, who emphasized the difference between eat-or-be-eaten group relationships and co-operative relationships that were possible between beings that were similar.

However, this is part of a general embodiment trend in modern philosophy: It's a central issue in philosophy of body, philosophy of action, eco-anarchism, animal rights, and hominid personhood. It relies on empathic integrity: having high empathy for things like oneself, and low or no empathy for things that are simply abstractions or ideology.

One application of this principle is the rejection of animal experiments and vivisection as being for the public good: the abstract "advance of science" or "improving of medicine" or "helping the economy" are all rejected as valid moral reasonings because economies, sciences, medicines, are only assumed to relieve suffering, but bodies do most definitely suffer in the processes involved.

Most critiques of mass movements and cults and military training focus on the confusion with the group entity that is deliberately created by the group's conditioning of the individual to identify overly with groups.

A trivial example is outing: someone believes that a group has "rights" or "needs" to continue some behaviour, and, without identifying the impact of that behaviour on bodies, leaps instantly to risking the bodies of others in order to propagate that behaviour. This seems to be a particular problem of the vile mailing list. Strong objections to alleged Wikimedia corruption of that and other kinds have been one impetus to developing some strong policy to ensure we don't require response to hearsay, or otherwise credit statements from nowhere or no-one about bodies.

The due process principle of no self-incrimination is likewise based on similar logic: to take one person, isolated from their peers and support, facing authority, and demand of them that they either incriminate someone else or themselves, is to place the interests of the group entity doing the interrogation (its need to save time, to appear competent, etc.) above those of the bodies affected by decision. Such methods as torture for instance might advance the group-entity's interests by speeding resolution of cases, or generating fear of its power. But there should be no confusion with group entity interests, by those who might be next in line:

No cooperation with authority can be tolerated in such instances, and no outing of others can be permitted if it simply puts them next in line.

See also: avoid building metaphor