Exh cvl ovcb

 For the 

Civilized to 

Leave 

Civilization 

From Flag

textsBLOODLUST: A feminist journal against civilization

Some thoughts 

on choice, 

coercion, and ne¬ 

gotiation 

In line at a grocery store, a friend and I begin talking about camping gear: sleeping bags, tents, 

warm clothes, and knives. This friend was in the midst of preparations for departing an intensely 

urbanized area in search of deeper connections with wild geographies, and I was helping this de¬ 

parture. As our conversation progressed, we inevitably mentioned the term “anarcho-primitivism” 

out loud. The customer in front of us (surely eavesdropping) suddenly interrupted us to ask, “What’s 

primitivism?” As my friend began to provide some basics of an anarcho-primitivist perspective (the 

critique of domestication, mass society, etc), the customer sarcastically broke in: “Oh, so that’s why 

you’re buying your camping gear from REI?” Before my friend or I could respond, the person moved 

away from us to the next available cashier. 

The reasoning on this person’s part probably went something like this: if someone buys warm 

clothes from the capitalist marketplace and shops at grocery stores, they don’t have a valid stand¬ 

point from which to critique this society. They are thus hypocrites. This argument has been raised in 

a number of ways. For instance, an article about dumpster diving published last year in the New York 

Times noted the following about freegans: “Not buying any new manufactured products while living 

in the United States is, of course, basically impossible... These contradictions and others have led 

some people to suggest that freegans are hypocritical, making use of the capitalist system even as 

they rail against it.” (“Not buying it,” Steven Kurutz, June 21st 2007). The assumptions are as follows: 

1) it’s impossible to live without “manufactured products” (which we could read in a larger sense as 

“civilization”) and 2) anyone who attempts to doso while also simultaneously relying on manufactured 

products is thus a hypocrite. An unstated conclusion is perhaps 3) People cannot break their reliance 

on the United States economy. 

An anti-civilization critique necessitates at least two basic conclusions: 1) bring down civiliza¬ 

tion (dismantle and/or destroy the physical and psychological infrastructure that blocks wild nature 

from thriving); 2) for those of us within its grasp, live beyond, or perhaps selfishly, leave it. Some may 

consider these conclusions in an ordinal manner: i.e. first bring civilization down and then live be¬ 

yond it (or vice versa). Others may consider these conclusions concurrently: simultaneously attack 

infrastructure and learn to live beyond it. I do not wish to argue for one option over another. However, 

I would like to focus on the second conclusion because most of us reading these words are likely 

caught within civilization’s grip. And what remains irrefutable is that to escape, we must learn a set of 

skills we have lived without for large portions of our lives. Many of us are choosing sooner rather than 

later to learn these skills, and it is the complicated dimensions of this choice that I would like to reflect 

upon. 

Consider these following generalizations about subsistence or nature-based peoples (bands, 

tribes, or communities): The skills required for basic survival are integrated into the practices of daily 

life. From day one, children might be taught to light fires, to forage, hunt or grow food, to heal them¬ 

selves, and keep themselves warm and sheltered. Socially, they are immersed within an environment 

that promotes healthy relationships with both the humyn and other-than-humyn world. Such a world 

is not ‘perfect’ or all benevolent. Yet cooperation with one another takes on a greater importance, 

because it is more directly connected for a humyn’s ability to survive and thrive in the world. By the 

time such children reach adulthood, they have at their disposal a considerable skill set that has been 

practiced from the earliest periods of their lives. 

Conversely, for those who inhabit civilized societies, the most basic survival skills are nowhere 

to be found in the midst of our everyday lives. While childhood is a phase of life in which we are nec¬ 

essarily dependent upon our parental figures, within civilization we never move beyond these depen¬ 

dencies, even as we “grow up.” We quickly move from the mother’s breast to the bottle to the grocery 

store. We learn that to survive we must work. We learn that our bodily health is best maintained by 

placing it in the hands of experts who offer us a cavalcade of pills for our problems. We learn that fire 

comes from matches and our clothing from corporations; that protection comes from the state. We 

also learn and often internalize social hierarchies: age, race, gender, class, and ability. And finally, this 

insidious, infantilizing social process comes to feel ‘natural,’ supported by an ideological knowledge 

that ridicules any alternative as backward or naive. While those with enough social mobility can main¬ 

tain illusions of “independence” in the midst of civilized life, this is highly contingent upon an abstract 

set of variables that have minimal connection to the natural world. 

Decade upon decade, some may unreflectively walk through this social environment in a 

malaise, never comprehending the (anti)relationships involved in maintaining such a fragile reality. 

Others, however, make a different choice: to begin to make a qualitative break from civilization by any 

means possible. 

While we may conceptualize this break from civilization, the practice itself is far more process- 

oriented. This choice to leave is most immediately conditioned by the necessities of our biological ex¬ 

istence: food, shelter, water, clothing, health, etc. Without experience with these skills, we are unable 

to break our dependencies on civilization. It is also equally important to consider the social repercus¬ 

sions of leaving. The recent film “Into The Wild” portrayed such a dilemma. The climax showed the 

main character’s revelation that “Happiness is best shared.” This catalyzed his (unsuccessful) attempt 

to leave the wilds of Alaska and return to civilization to heal the wounds between him and his fam¬ 

ily. However, for most of us, the reverse is likely true: Moments of shared happiness and a deep fear 

of loneliness and isolation from intimate relationships are undoubtedly reasons we choose to remain 

within the confines of civilization. 

When critics of anarcho-primitivism suggest we are “hypocrites,” they often make the hidden 

assumption that we are all autonomous individuals situated within a society that places no constraints 

on our ability to survive. The insinuation is that we can ‘love it or leave it’ and simply walk away. This 

is simply not the case. First, this ignores the fact that civilized institutions and the individuals who run 

them have been actively destroying alternative lifeways for thousands of years. Second, and related, 

if our choices are to work or die, many understandably choose the former. If our choices are to pay 

the rent or be homeless, many understandably choose the former. Wavering between two awful op¬ 

tions is not unfettered choice. Rather, this choice is always mired in points of coercion. And the point 

between choice and coercion implies ‘negotiation.’ 

Negotiation implies the anarchist principles of choice, autonomy, and personal responsibility 

while simultaneously acknowledging the coercive barriers that condition our lives. It is only through 

vigilantly scrutinizing and sensitizing ourselves to these barriers that we can move from experiencing 

ourselves as passive victims of civilization’s processes to active participants in negotiation for our exit. 

Two definitions of the term “negotiation” can be directly applied to our struggle within civilization: “To 

find a way through, round, or over (an obstacle, a difficult path, etc.”); “To succeed in dealing with in 

the way desired; to manage or bring about successfully” (Oxford English Dictionary). We are finding 

our way through and out of the coercive barriers of civilization that impel us to stay; we (albeit with 

great difficulty) are successfully grappling exit that we desire

rivilege 

Importantly, not all coercive obstacles are similar. They may be literal barriers — in the sense 

of the four walls of a prisoners’ cell — or based upon the degrees of social stratification each person 

experiences. These factors include one’s class/economic status, “race,” or gender, sexual identity, 

geographical location, and physical ability (which is certainly a most under discussed topic within the 

primitive skills community). These coercive barriers necessitate a more nuanced discussion regarding 

privilege. 

Writers from both the Left and anarchist/radical press alike have consistently avoided these 

discussions. Instead, they usually gravitate into three general areas. First, someone may judge a cer¬ 

tain attitude or viewpoint as “privileged,” when other factors may also provide more exact, complex, or 

constructive explanations. For instance, “race” mediates interactions between humans within civilized 

societies, but is not always the primary point of mediation in every form of human interaction. To label 

someone an “anti-Semite” or “anti-queer” due to basic misunderstandings between people (say, being 

a lousy housemate or asshole) does not promote an atmosphere of accountability. Instead, it either 

freezes potentially culpable individuals in a place of inaction or promotes motivation via a politics of 

guilt. This can leave such individuals confused about how to take appropriate responsibility for their 

role in a given conflict. 

A second and related approach to privilege is especially endemic within the Left. Diverse num¬ 

bers of individuals are clustered into social groupings such as “Black,” “woman” “White,” etc. Their 

experiences and viewpoints are then homogenized to point that a given individual from either within 

or outside that social grouping will speak and theorize for “them.” For example, in a discussion I had 

about racial politics in the U.S., a White person once told me, “It’s time for us to listen to them” (imply¬ 

ing Black people). I answered: Which ‘them’? Condoleeza Rice? Barack Obama? Do these people 

speak for the Black ‘community’ or experience? This Leftist move of essentializing an entire group of 

people into a ‘them’ is a directly authoritarian move. Just because one identifies (or is socially viewed) 

as female, queer, disabled, black, or anarchist does not make one’s viewpoint inherently similar or 

even worth listening to, or acting upon. Nor does it mean that one person ever speaks for an entire 

group or community. Not to mention, this move obviates the question of what connects these social 

groups besides shared victimhood, which does not necessarily equate to shared struggle. 

A third and distinct approach has been common within some anarchist circles: Any mention 

of privilege is quickly dismissed by someone as ‘identity politics,’ with a simplistic reasoning that 

amounts to ‘identity politics = authoritarian.’ Discussions of race, class, gender, ability, etc, are quickly 

dismissed as being subservient to the larger (and ‘more important’) oppression of ‘civilization.’ During 

the 2007 BASTARD conference, Lawrence Jarach scoffed at the mention of racism or sexism within 

anarchist milieus, answering “What is this, choose your favorite oppression?” This move is a common 

theme throughout the early history of the New Left, and it is unfortunate to see anarchists repeat¬ 

ing the same mistakes cloaked in a different language. While anarcho-primitivists agree that there 

are universal characteristics of civilization (domestication, mass society, division of labor, et al) that 

describe and explain a broad number of social oppressions, how individuals experience these coer¬ 

cive elements is highly diverse. Nevertheless, the social fact of being a woman, black, looking queer, 

disabled, etc, has real, material repercussions that cannot be ignored by anti-civilization anarchists. 

The effect of each of the above approaches is largely impractical. They offer little insight about 

the specifics of coercion, or how it affects us in a differential manner, conditioning our lives and avail¬ 

able options to leave civilization. The discourse of privilege could instead function as a lens with 

which we expose these facts. One person’s choice to leave might involve reading a few pages of a 

plant-identification guide at night between a full time job and intense familial commitments. Another’s 

might look like attending primitive skills events and leveraging every possible chance to inhabit wild 

spaces. Another’s might look like writing books and treatises that catalyze further ‘momentum’ against 

civilization. 

Such discussions could promote an atmosphere of affinity and resistance between persons 

in the fight to both bring down and leave civilization. They could move us away from conceptualizing 

ourselves as always-passive victims at the hands of civilization and toward a perspective that shows 

us actively negotiating this mess, always maintaining some degree of responsibility and choice. This 

could ultimately allow us to have greater sensitivity to the social reality each of us experience. Such 

steps may be labeled ‘small,’ but small steps do not necessarily equate to a reformist approach. 

Our sisterhood is a vast and powerful ocean, a deep well of true meaning sustaining consistent 

and conflicting emotions and giving life value, while the constant flow of the tides caress the 

sides of impassive rock and create the contours of interaction that touch every layer of society. 

We are free! Free of your necrophilic hatred of life. Free of your all-in-my-head self doubt. End¬ 

less is our journey through trackless void, shapeless is our movement, assuming any and all 

forms, elemental is our force gaining wisdom in the face of desolation, and joyful is the sound of 

Medusa’s laughter ringing in our ears. Although we have been exploited as passive pawns in 

the mad dash to domination, not even the heaviest most painful nor the most subtle and gilded 

manacles will keep us imprisoned in the home or racked with guilt over self realization and self 

control, neither can we be constrained beneath a glass ceiling in the rat race of your job world. 

Patriarchy ends here. Wisdom is attained in the face of utter destruction. And the joyful sound of 

Medusa’s laughter rings in our ears. 

-THOU