Unpleasantness

Anarchy is a political system in the same sense that atheism is a religion. Which is to say not the slightest bit. Anarchy is the absence of politics. Anarchy is a state of mind. It is the absolute belief in the right of self-ownership and the total rejection of any philosophy which violates this right. Which means we will never see an anarchic society. Because even anarchists I have much respect for profess support for things which are diametrically opposed to the principle of self-ownership.

Self-ownership means that nobody else has the right to control you. So long as your behavior does not impinge on their property rights people must leave you alone. This is the core belief of anarchy. There is no way around it. If you seek to control the behavior of another human being you cannot lay claim to the title of anarchist.

Yet there are anarchists who believe in control. To be fair, they do not believe in control in the sense the state believes in control. But it amounts to the same thing. They believe there is a certain way people should act and that people who act differently should be shunned or otherwise coerced into behaving appropriately. They call this “etiquette”.

The good folks at Merriam-Webster define etiquette thusly, “the conduct or procedure required by good breeding or prescribed by authority to be observed in social or official life.” I am especially intrigued by, “prescribed by authority”. Exactly how does this fit into the anarchist philosophy?

Etiquette is democracy at its most insidious. It is an unwritten set of arbitrary rules that seem to come from nowhere. They aren't written to protect property rights or general safety. They are simply rules to govern trivial behaviors.

During a recent debate on the subject, I was informed that a person's etiquette showed their willingness to comply with the rules of polite society. If I was willing to comply with arbitrary rules I wouldn't be an anarchist in the first place. Etiquette is obedience for the sake of obedience. Again, how does that fit into the philosophy of anarchy?

In this same debate the argument was made that etiquette was a good way to judge an individual's character. It was stated that a person's manners indicated whether they were trustworthy, a decent person to deal with. This is demonstrably false. First of all, conmen are notoriously well-mannered. They realize you can gather more flies with honey than with vinegar. And there are a great many people who deliberately put on a show of being polite and decent while secretly being complete assholes. Politicians spring to mind. Manners tell you nothing about the actual character of a person.

Here is a prime example of the meaninglessness of etiquette, the classic thumbs-up gesture. In the English-speaking world this is universally taken to indicate approval. We use it to say “nice job” or “way to go”. It's a friendly gesture. It may not be formal, but it is unquestionably considered polite.

But in the Arabic world a raised thumb is taboo. It is the equivalent of the American extended middle finger. So if you were to visit one of these places and innocently give somebody a thumbs-up for some reason they would be greatly insulted and would consider you a rude individual.

The gesture itself did not change. The intent behind it, the character of the person giving the gesture, did not change. But it created two completely opposite results. The difference had nothing to do with the gesture or the person giving it and everything to do with the etiquette of the recipient. This is the fundamental problem with etiquette. It means you must always follow the rules of those you are dealing with. Your rules, your etiquette, are irrelevant. You are being judged on how well you conform to their rules. This is not an anarchic ideal.

Etiquette is a social contract. This, again, is a concept abhorrent to anarchists. There is no rational way to justify the concept within an anarchic framework. If you believe it is righteous to require people to follow an arbitrary set of rules then you have no basis to argue against statism. If you truly believe in the right of self-ownership then you have no rational basis for demanding people behave in a certain way.

The point I want to make with this note is that anarchy is a mindset. It is the belief that people have the right to live their lives as they see fit. Pure, unadulterated anarchy would not be anbody's idea of utopia. Anarchy means there will be sodomy in the parks. Anarchy means people will be doing drugs while waiting for the bus. Anarchy means there will be scores of things going on which you may not personally approve of. And anarchy means you will be powerless to stop it.

Etiquette is the complete opposite of anarchy. Etiquette is the idea that certain behaviors are wrong and that somebody has the right to determine which behaviors these are and to then enforce a ban on them. The church's stance against homosexuality, for example. You may accuse me of exaggerating, but the logic is identical. The church thinks homosexuality is a sin and seeks to eliminate it by “converting” gays to “normal”. Similarly, mannerphiles see farting at the dinner table as a sin and seek to eliminate it by “educating” people on “proper” behavior. Just like the church, proponents of etiquette presume to have a monopoly on what is righteous. And they will gladly punish those who stray from the path.

I said at the start that we will never have an anarchic society. I stand by that claim. As long as people hold the mindset that it is acceptable to control the behavior of others we will never be free of tyranny. Ms. Manners and her rules of etiquette may not be as homicidal as the Khmer Rouge. But the attitude is precisely the same; “I know what's right. Do as I say and we'll get along just fine.” We can never have a free society as long as people think that way.