Order does not equal Hierarchy
Even in anarchy, some order and organization must prevail, because same as order doesn’t equal hierarchy, anarchy does not equal chaos.
These are the categories in which Immanuel Kant classified societal ways of order:
A Law And Freedom without Violence (Anarchy)
B Law And Violence without Freedom (Despotism)
C Violence without Freedom And Law (Barbarism)
D Violence with Freedom And Law (Republic)
If new ways of Democracy are to be developed, they ought to be discussed, and actions must be prioritized. This discussion at the current moment, has the advantage and disadvantage that can take place anywhere, between anyone of us.
The main objective should be opening our minds, not in a psychodelic way, but in an imaginative way. Let’s suppose we are slaves in the XVIII Century in the United States of America (yes, the land of the free….!!). Could we conceive another status than the current one? What would have happened if by that time, slaves would have had the option to get in contact between all (or at least great part) of them?
Today, what should not happen is that there wouldn’t be any discussion of any kind, and that we kept on maintaining the status-quo.
How does this relate to recent spontaneous movements of anger (15-M in Spain, Arab spring, Syntagma square)?
Little, very little, for although they could be at the beginning of a new era in democracies around the world, so far they are just mere expression of people being fed up, but any strategy is long ahead from these actions. The question is then: are there any chances to build up strategies collectively? Is that feasible?
I don’t really know the answer, but that is, in my opinion the only way to achieve a different approach than the historic and already known one: from the base of society (meaning by “base” all of its citizens, not in social, political or economical terms of a pyramid).
If debate and assemblies are to take place, even then, they should be either organized, or absolutely spontaneous. In this case, a “happy medium” would end up to be a “hybrid medium”.
As I could see, – and as everyone interested could have read – during the 15-M demonstrations in Madrid, any of these happened and what actually took place, was a kind of same existing Democracy at a smaller scale, where a bunch of issues where stated in a platform, and some “organizers” were trying to conduct debates. It seems now, the movement lost its momentum and cannot find the steps to achieve its objectives.
Avant-garde movements in Architecture and Arts in general, are very used to deal with the “unknown” which is not completely unknown. Although in most of cases, the final result is not clear from the start, architects and artists do know what the drivers and forces of their work are, so the emphasis is placed more in the means than in the ends. The ends will be unveiled along the process and will be a consequence, not the cause.
We should apply these approaches to our own society. If it works in Art, why wouldn’t it work for the social body? Why cannot we revert all these centuries of obedience, and leave a new horizontal structure appear? Of course, there are interests for this not to happen, but it’s not because of being impossible to achieve.
We must therefore differentiate between Society as a totality and any other social partial organization. Ways to implement norms, strategies and aims are completely different in a supposed Democracy (where the majority (and not “all” the people), decides who, what for and how, will run the matters of a country, state or city), than in a company, where decision making (exception made of truly horizontal organizations) is developed by a hierarchical structure.
In Spain there’s a saying: “En Castilla, nadie es más que nadie” (In Castilla, nobody is more than anybody). However, this expression is nowadays considerably far from reality. Even in Castilla.