69
As I make these two arguments, I will also develop two opposing logics of power. By
power, I mean the ability to define values, structure situations, influence the actions of others,
and create the outcomes one prefers. I thus mean to use the word power broadly, as the capacity
to shape the world.
In this sense, I view power as a fact of human existence and an essential
component of all societies. It is neither inherently good, nor bad. That said, different
organizations or logics of power can most certainly be good or bad from the anti-authoritarian
perspective. The first logic I to call
centripetal power
. According to the Merriam Webster
dictionary, centripetal means “moving toward a center” or “acting in a direction toward a
center.” Centripetal power then is a form or logic that tends toward the centralization of power.
An act of power that results in a center developing greater power would
be an instance of
centripetal power. It is the logic of centralization, monopolization and unification. Hobbes’
Leviathan
is perhaps the central work in political theory that articulates and defends centripetal
power. Thus, in section I, I briefly elucidate the Hobbes’ defense of an absolute state – a
“LEVIATHAN…
Mortal God
…[or] SOVEREIGN,” in Hobbes’ (1994, XVII 13) words – as the
prototypical example of centripetal logic. While the language of Leviathan and sovereignty has
clearly fallen out of favor today among republican and liberal theorists alike, I will seek to show
in section II, that his centripetal thinking and the argument for sovereignty that follows from it, is
generally assumed by and central to republican and liberal theory.
In section III, I argue that
republicanism and liberalism seek to constrain and limit the Leviathan through enshrined rights
and the rule of law and that, as desirable as these innovations are, they do not fundamentally
undercut sovereignty or solve the problems that sovereignty raises for freedom.
The second logic I would like to present is
centrifugal power
. According to the Merriam
Webster dictionary, centrifugal means “moving away from the center” or “acting in a direction
70
away from the center.” An act of power in which the center is deprived of power and/or that
results in power being spread away from the center would be an instance of centrifugal power. It
is a logic of decentralization, dispersion and multiplicity.
To my mind, insights from anarchist
anthropology are most helpful in elaborating this idea. In section IV, I argue that there is an
alternative to sovereignty and, in fact, there is a long history of people choosing to avoid state
incorporation. In section V, I argue that not only have such communities evaded and resisted
state incursions, but that the politics – the organization of power within the community itself – is
designed precisely to prevent a state from arising from within. In short, I show that there is such
a thing as a non-state society and explain, briefly how such societies function.
In section VI, I
show that the logic of violence and war in primitive societies functions in precisely the opposite
way as violence and war in statist societies. While states depend on a monopolization of
legitimate violence and use war as a means to foster centralization, primitive societies depend on
the dispersal of the capacity for violence and use war as a means to decentralize their populations
and their power. Throughout the chapter, I characterize this distinction between
centrifugal
non-
statist power and
centripetal
statist power as a conflict between the “Indian,” on the one hand,
and the “Leviathan,” on the other.
9
A final note: Whereas the concept of self-sovereignty came under attack
in the preceding
chapter, here I turn my attention to the concept of state sovereignty. Of course, these two notions
of sovereignty are connected and, moreover, the connection between the two reinforces why self-
sovereignty is not a viable basis for individual freedom. As James Martel (2007, 104) explains:
9
Though I use terms such as “Indian,” “primitive” and “savage” to characterize the politics, or logic of power, that
permeates non-state societies, I use these non-politically correct (and, frankly, inaccurate) terms in intentionally as a
way of mocking the normal assumption that such societies are backward (politically, economically, and culturally)
and that we have nothing to learn from them. On the contrary, I aim to suggest that our contemporary understanding
of power has much to learn from these “primitive” societies. Finally, while the term “non-state society” glosses over
a vast diversity that exists between these societies, I simply aim to articulate an archetype that can stand in useful
contrast to statist societies (which also, of course, exhibit huge differences).
71
[F]or Arendt, Hobbes is one of the principal authors of modern notions of
sovereignty, which for Arendt is characterized by the equivalency of freedom
with free will – or
liberum arbitrium
(roughly the idea that ‘I can
decide what I
want…without reference to anything or anyone else’). Such a conceit becomes a
basis for government (and since, we can’t all do this, obviously, it becomes the
means for some few to foist their whims on the rest of us).
Self-sovereignty leads to state sovereignty, the result of which is, paradoxically, the repression of
self-sovereignty for all but the few who rule. Though I will argue in
this chapter from a
perspective quite distinct from Arendt’s, I hope to arrive at broadly similar conclusion: that “[i]f
men (
sic
) wish to be free, it is precisely sovereignty [we] must renounce” (Arendt 2000, 455).
Beyond that, if a politics of freedom and non-sovereignty is our goal, it is precisely centrifugal
power we must claim. As such, by the end of this chapter I hope to have presented an initial
account of centrifugal power. In subsequent chapters I will more fully discuss the implications
of this concept for anti-authoritarian democracy, with a specific focus on how the practices of
direct action and networked organization are attempts to mobilize centrifugal power in (and
make it relevant to) the world today.
Do'stlaringiz bilan baham: 
