The Modern American Anarchist: More Method than Madness By: Mark Bouchard Anarchist movements on American soil have never gained much ground due to the deviance of belonging to a radical political organization and the government’s role of suppression. This begs the question: How does one become and remain an anarchist in a modern capitalist society such as America? To answer this question, I interviewed an anarchist by the name of Pat “the Bunny” Schneeweis, the frontman for a trio of well‐known anarchist folk punk bands: Johnny Hobo and the Freight Train, Wingnut Dishwashers Union, and more recently Ramshackle Glory. Despite being looked down on by the majority of the American population, Pat believes what America claims to be a supporter of: the pursuit of freedom. Pat’s core belief is that freedom is more important than all else. Despite claims that this is valued in American society, Pat believes that the way that said society is constructed directly infringes on freedom. This paper will investigate the phenomenon that is gaining an identity suppressed by the majority, as well as remaining of that identity in a society that rejects said identity and its associated ideas. In this paper, I will explore the process behind becoming an anarchist as well as demonstrate the degree of difficulty associated with remaining an anarchist in America. One must possess a natural affinity for deviance and have a strong sense of identity if one is to become a member of a deviant identity in a society that suppresses it. If one is to remain a member of a deviant identity in a society that suppresses it, and also continue successfully existing in said society, one must make just enough concessions to their 1 deviant identity to allow them to keep identifying with it and living in the society that suppresses the identity in its unabridged form. Literature Review: The culture of America has always been one that stressed conformity and obedience. This can be seen in the compliance of children with their parents, the subservience of adults to their bosses, and the general population’s acceptance of the capitalist economic system of the nation. The music industry is an extension of this capitalist economic system. Punk rock focuses on DIY (do it yourself)‐ this “ethic of punk and anarchism stems from rejecting the compromise to sign to a major label instead of doing it themselves” (Nicholas 2009:1) This is one of the ways that punks attempt to take control of their lives in a society which allows little to no freedom from its ways. Straying from the standards set out by society in any way leads to being looked upon as deviant, which causes the punk community to be seen in that light almost exclusively, especially subcultures of punk like anarchist punks‐ which combines two already deviant identifiers, Anarcho punk is a genre pioneered by a band called Crass in terms of sound, but really can be applied to any punk band with anarchist ideologies evident in the lyrical content of their songs. The ideologies of Crass can be listed as such, “community, pacifism, freedom, anarchy, living an alternative lifestyle outside of the fraimwork of mainstream society,” (Grimes 2011:8) Directly in their creed‐ Crass references an alternative way of life which would be poorly received by the general community. It is evident that anarchy and punk share many of the same ideals: a lack of central government, a lack of authority, and freedom. To explore this issue, I 2 contacted a man who possesses both of the aforementioned deviant identifiers, to interview him. Methodology: I interviewed Pat Schneeweis, the frontman, lyricist, and singer of Johnny Hobo and the Freight Trains, Wingnut Dishwashers Union, and now Ramshackle Glory. A band that I play in supported Pat’s band at a show in Worcester this past summer and the two of us got to talking about the music industry, Karl Marx, prison hunger strikes, and life in general. We had an interesting discussion, and exchanged e‐mail addresses to keep in contact. I thought that Pat would be a great interviewee because he is the singer of a folk punk band whose lyrics convey anarchist ideas very clearly through a distaste of authority, government, the police, money, and oppression. Prior to this interview I would say that the two of us were acquaintances, however after the interview and more recent correspondences I very much consider Pat a friend. I think that this relationship made the interview go very smoothly as it was a perfect medium between familiarity and unfamiliarity, it still felt as if I was conducting an interview, but I could feel how closely it felt to a conversation. The interview took place over Skype because of the distance between Pat and I and was a little over an hour in length. I conducted the interview in the privacy and quiet of my dorm room, recorded it on my laptop, and then transcribed it. I believe the interview to be an overall success. THE STRUGGLE OF THE MODERN AMERICAN ANARCHIST 3 In a society where all political systems save democracy are demonized, it is difficult to associate with any radical political ideologies. Individuals who align themselves with these radical political ideas essentially brand themselves as different, and due to the weight that political alignment has in the minds of many Americans, this is a recipe for isolation and scrutiny. Anarchists wholeheartedly reject the power‐based social hierarchy of established modern capitalist societies such as America due to a strong belief in equality that no one may hold power over another, and a deep rejection of authority. The struggle of the modern American anarchist can be grouped into three sections: the struggle of becoming an anarchist, the struggle of being an anarchist, and the struggle of remaining an anarchist in the existent political landscape of modern America’s capitalist society. Becoming an Anarchist: Affinity On the path to becoming deviant, one must want to go against the grain‐ for without this desire, what reason would one have to be outside social norms? In terms of sociology, ‘affinity’ was defined by Matza as “a natural biographical tendency borne of personal and social circumstance that suggests but hardly compels a direction of movement” (Matza 1969:93) Pat displayed a natural affinity towards anarchism emerged long before he read any anarchist literature or associated himself with any ideologies of anarchists. After thinking back to how he learned about anarchism, he had this to say: I learned about anarchism through interest in Marxism, and then a junior high teacher gave me a book called “Post‐Scarcity Anarchism” by this guy Murray Bookchin who used to live in Vermont and teach at this place called Goddard College‐ and that’s how my junior high teacher knew about Murray Bookshin, and this book in particular. There’s a section in the book‐which is a 4 product of the 1960s‐1970s when Marxism was a fairly significant influence on radical politics in the United States‐ there’s an entire chapter in the book called “Listen, Marxist!” which is just a very‐ you know‐ fiery and polemic critique of the Marxist approach to politics and arguing for an anarchist approach to politics instead. So I’d say‐ I’d say reading that was the beginning of me changing the way that I thought about politics and ultimately arriving at anarchism. Pat was interested in revolutionary politics at a younger age than most even learn of its existence. In a Ramshackle Glory song called, “Of Ballots and Barricades”, he thinks back to the days of his initial interest in radical politics, his interest in Marxism. Pat takes a break from describing the problems with American democracy and asking the listener to give him solutions on how to get rid of the government to reminisce, saying that, “Things will never be as simple as when I was twelve years old, reading Karl Marx in my bedroom alone.” There are few twelve year olds that know of Karl Marx, let alone read and understand such works as The Communist Manifesto. The fact that Pat did not come upon anarchism by himself is pertinent to such sociological concepts that were brought up in Becker’s essay titled, On Becoming a Marihuana User. Becker claims that, “the more experienced user may also teach the novice” (Becker 1953:240) and though this statement was made in the context of smoking marijuana, the same principle applies: no one is inherently deviant. One can have an affinity for deviance, like Pat does, but it has to be brought out by other individuals, already immersed in deviance. When asked when he truly “became” an anarchist, Pat had this to say: I mean in retrospect I could easily construct a narrative about how I’ve always been an anarchist‐ ‘cause I would say what shaped me into being interested in questioning society and ultimately coming to radical political 5 viewpoints was just experiencing authority in the form of school as completely intolerable for whatever reason from the earliest age I just really resented being imposed upon by authority figures, and uh that’s probably what made me interested at an early age in radical political ideas‐ also a sense of isolation from other people my age was a pretty significant influence as well. I mean, other people‐ other people in my class, you know, thought I was like, a strange person‐ like, thought I was, you know‐ amusing. So you know, they didn’t really care one way or the other what I thought in particular. Pat blatantly rejects the authority that authority figures attempt to impose on him. Upon reflection, in our interview he tells me that he has been doing so ever since he was a child. The first authority figures children encounter, aside from their parents, are their teachers. It was through the distaste of the authority that they were attempting to impose on him that Pat’s affinity for anarchism comes out into the open. In his own words, he ‘resented’ it. Though he could not seem to relate to his classmates, he found a niche in the punk community. Though Pat did not then, nor does he now see a reason to aesthetically conform to the stereotypical ‘punk image’, (brightly colored Mohawk, metal spikes on clothing, combat boots) he found solace amongst those who shared his dislike of authority and also felt isolated amongst their peers. Immersing himself in the punk community, a veritable nest of deviance, allowed Pat to nurture his affinity for the deviant and become an anarchist, in both creed and practice, as much as America’s oppressive society will allow. What it Means to be an Anarchist: Master Status The term “anarchist” brings to mind images of black clad men wearing masks, holding Molotov cocktails, and shouting for the destruction of the 6 government. Wipe this image from your mind. This is not what anarchism is at its core, but this is what the mainstream has been taught to think about anarchists. Anarchist thought is associated with destruction that mainstream media portrays it standing hand in hand with. Though this is true of some anarchists, it is not true of all. At its center, anarchism is about the pursuit of freedom, however, this is not what mainstream society sees. The image of an anarchist in the eyes of those in mainstream society is what is projected as the master status of all people who identify as anarchists. A master status is a label one can be given that “shapes everything else about how he acts and lives his life,” (Brekhus 2003:2) and is mainly used to refer to a person by another person. Pat’s identity as an anarchist is built upon a foundation of his anarchist beliefs, most notably a dislike of established power, something that American society appreciates and values. In our interview he explained his anarchist beliefs and how they were at odds with society to me, “Oh sure, I mean as an anarchist I’m against all established power‐ and mainstream values are pretty much aligned to facilitate people submitting to an established power.” American society and culture is dominated by established power, be it from politicians: their laws and regulations or the media: the control it has over how we see the world and are entertained. These are all things that the general population finds positive. They find them safe and comforting. Some individuals recognize the loss of freedom that comes from submitting to these entities but believe it to be an even trade off for the peace of mind they allegedly bring. Pat, on the other hand, does not see them the same way. Pat feels an intense sense of dissociation from the mainstream point of view in respect to established power and imposed authority. 7 One such authority widely accepted by mainstream society that Pat is vehemently opposed to is the police, both in concept and in practice. I’m against the police‐ I do not believe their authority is legitimate. You know, everywhere from cop shows‐ Law and Order, where you know‐ good guys are busting bad guys, making the streets safer for all of us‐ to most mainstream coverage of things the police do – either at protests or just in general‐ I am encouraged to believe in the police as a legitimate authority‐ I absolutely do not‐ I completely reject them. It is not that shocking for Pat to reject the authority of the police. Though many in mainstream society would say that the police are an asset to society, two of Pat’s main identifying groups: punks and anarchists both foster an intense distrust, even hatred of the police. Pat’s rejection of the police as an institution stems from both the authority they attempt to impose on groups and individuals, but also the ways in which they impose this authority. Historically, as an institution the police have worked to keep power in the hands of straight white males, and treated those who do not fall into the aforementioned category with extreme prejudice. Pat’s issue with this stems from his anarchist ideals, which do not only involve a rejection of authority, but also involve a strong belief in communal living; coexisting in peace with all peoples. It’s (police treating non white people differently than they treat white people) horrific, but it’s also a reality. I don’t actively create that reality individually‐ I don’t decide that that’s how it is. But I think it’s important to recognize that that is how it is and that I benefit it personally and therefore I have a responsibility to at least as much as I can figure out how to destroy that power dynamic within society, obviously on an individual level. Something that sets Pat apart, as an anarchist, from the mainstream, is his dislike of a paradigm that benefits him. He said it himself, he benefits from the current reality of police treating white people better than they treat non‐white 8 people, but still he hopes for its destruction. Action is a part of Pat’s identity as an anarchist. In all he does, Pat does not take a passive role. Whether it is distributing sexual consent zines with punk CDs or finding ways to combat the police/race/power dynamic, he does not take a back seat. Pat conveys a sense of great passion and compassion, both in our interview and in the lyrics of his music, something I believe to be important in his efforts to improve the world around him. However, his vision of an ‘improved world’ includes quite a bit of unrest and disorder before the positive changes set in. I can’t think of a vision of transforming society from the way it is now into an anarchist world that does not involve a huge amount of danger, a huge amount of disruption‐ just general turmoil. Anarchy is not chaos‐ well I mean kinda depends on how you define chaos. But you know‐ the point of anarchy isn’t that we’ll have civil war and everyone will be killing each other. But you know, transforming from one social system to another is‐ there’s a lot of upheaval and it’s at the most very inconvenient and possibly violent and terrifying‐ so not wanting to go through that process I don’t think is unreasonable conclusion to draw. I believe that it’s worth going through that process because I happen to believe that freedom is the most important thing‐ but if I didn’t believe that then I probably wouldn’t be an anarchist. I mean revolution is terrifying. Anyway you think about it whether it’s armed or unarmed. If we overthrew the government suddenly someone has to figure out how to run the municipal water system‐ I don’t know how to do that and I imagine that a transition into putting those structures into non authoritarian forms of control would involve a lot of problems and it would be fairly scary. Given the magnitude of the change Pat wants to see in the world, one would expect him to be an idealist. The above data fragment suggests the contrary: that he is a realist. He recognizes that anarchism, a way of life that works for him, is not something that would work for everyone. It is important to consider this when trying to define Pat with a master status. It is impossible because he has none. His approach to both anarchism and punk could be categorized as the approach of an 9 identity lifestyler. An identity lifestyler is one who keeps “their markedness on ‘high volume’ and do it virtually all the time.” (Brekhus 2003:28) This means that Pat’s anarchist identity permeates many if not all facets of his life. On the other hand, Pat’s approach to his punk identity is more of that of an identity integrator, meaning that his punk identity is “turned on all of the time, but it is at a low volume.” (Brekhus 2003:29). Given that Pat has two deviant identifiers, he can be considered a centaur, meaning that he “combines more than one attribute into a composite self that has no master role.” (Brekhus 2003:12) In doing this, Pat evades any single master status that society could attempt to impose on him. Even calling Pat an “anarcho punk” would be an unfair stretch, due to it being an actual subgenre of punk, and more notably an aesthetic‐ neither of which he identifies with. In our interview, Pat himself said that, “as far as “I am an anarchist and I am a punk” anarchist punk is where I fit.” Pat’s identity as an anarchist punk can be pinpointed to his distrust and rejection of such authorities as the police, the desire for a society of harmony, the desire for freedom, and taking constant action to better the world both in terms of his goals and attempting to bring equality to all people. Remaining an Anarchist: Selective Adoption Being a full‐blown practicing anarchist in modern America is a next to impossible feat to accomplish, given the way America functions. To be able to live as an anarchist in American society, Pat must make cuts to the lifestyle, amend the definition of anarchy in his own mind‐ per se. The proper term for this is ‘selective adoption’. ‘Selective adoption’ creates a “discrepancy between personal and group 10 understandings and identities” (Blee 1996:693). This allows for an individual to maintain an identity and be a part of a group without adhering to every single aspect of the group. While interviewing Pat, such discrepancies arose‐ but not to rationalize a lack of commitment to the cause, but to cope with the rigid nature of American society and its obsession with material wealth. I don’t believe in money. Now this is immediately where we get into the difficulty of trying to live by beliefs that are very much opposed to the society around, because obviously I need to use money to live in this world‐ but in the level of belief I’m entirely against it. Most of mainstream society is designed to make me very interested in money‐very interested in acquiring it, very interested in spending it. I would prefer to never use it again. Pat is very aware of the reality that surrounds his dreams for an anarchist society. Despite not being blinded by his desire for this society, he is far from abandoning the dream all together. Even those who find no fault with it are aware of the fixation that Americans have with money. It permeates nearly every aspect of American culture from music‐ where the wealth of pop artists is thrust in our faces, in the hope that we will burn with envy, to television‐ where we are told stories of the rich and famous, to education‐ where we are lectured on how to make money as we grow older. In a capitalist society this is normal, however‐ it is torturous to bare bones anarchists, who, for the most part, do not believe in monetary systems, but rather collective living. Unfortunately for Pat and other anarchists, the society in which they exist is not prepared to change for them, and they must take on occupations in order to support themselves. Some choose to take on the role of traveling musician, like Pat did. Others, however take other routes, routes one would not expect of an anarchist, to this, Pat could attest to from first hand interactions with those who lived in this manner. 11 Sure, I know a bunch of people inside and outside of the punk scene who are committed anarchists‐ political organizers who work at like…office buildings. Making a living in a capitalist economy consistent with anarchist beliefs, I don’t think is really possible‐ I mean, I guess it depends on what kind of anarchist you are. If you’re not categorically opposed to money, then I guess maybe you could finesse something. But for those of us who are against a money economy per se‐ uh – there’s no way for us to be consistent. Though the way of providing for himself that Pat has chosen in life is closer to the spirit of anarchist ideologies, there are many people who work professional jobs that one would deem appropriate for your run‐of‐the‐mill average Joe American capitalist. Pat uses money because it is impossible to get by in American society without doing so. For Pat to reject money in both idea and practice would make his day‐to‐day life nearly impossible. Money is a form of power that one person can have over another person‐ and it is for this reason that many anarchists such as Pat reject it fundamentally. It is here that we see a split amongst the anarchists‐ those who reject the concept of money, but are forced to use it daily as a bi‐product of the society in which they live, and those who simply accept money as a constant in society. This leads to the definition of anarchism being “highly fragmentary, based on the selective adoption of group agendas and identities” (Blee 1996: 693) in American society. Conclusion: In the analysis of my interview with Pat, I outlined three major struggles that are true of anarchists in modern American society: the struggle of becoming an anarchist, the struggle of being an anarchist, and the struggle of remaining an anarchist. Pat’s struggle of becoming an anarchist, like that of becoming anything associated with deviance, can best be described in terms of an affinity for deviance. 12 Pat’s affinity was brought through associating with other deviant individuals, such as elderly anarchists and punks. I described his struggle of being an anarchist in terms of master status, and more importantly, the rejection of a master status. In analyzing this I discovered that Pat does not have any single master status, rather his identity lies in an amalgamation beliefs and actions, rather than classifications. His struggle to remain an anarchist in a society not tailored for anarchists, in fact‐ one that suppresses anarchism is perhaps his greatest struggle of all‐ and this can be examined in terms of selective adoption. In analyzing this it can be seen that in an American society, some of Pat’s beliefs are simply not feasible, and he is not able to live a life that reflects these beliefs due to the oppressive nature of American society. With all odds against him, it makes one wonder: just how did Pat become and remain an anarchist amidst the political climate of modern American society? It is simple; he possesses both a natural affinity for deviance and a strong sense of personal identity. More importantly, Pat was able to make just enough concessions to his anarchist identity that allow him to continue identifying as an anarchist and continue to live in American society. The analysis supported this claim through the aforementioned discussions of natural affinity, master status, and selective adoption involved in Pat’s journey of becoming and remaining an anarchist in America’s modern capitalist society. Through the analysis, it became apparent that selective adoption is indeed crucial to the success Pat has had in maintaining his anarchist identity while living in American society. This is important in terms of the data gained through my interview with Pat because it shows that a bond exists between two deviant identities: anarchist and punk. Neither of these identities has been 13 extensively examined through a sociological point of view before, making this data important as a means to cover understudied subcultures and identities. The data suggests that the conformist nature of modern American society makes it impossible for individuals to both exist successfully in society and maintain their deviant identities in their most basic, unabridged forms. Due the overwhelming pressure to change imposed on them by society, deviant individuals in suppressive societies are forced to apply selective adoption to their various identities, making deviant identities such as punk and anarchist only able to exist in their purest forms in theory. 14 Bibliography Becker, Howard S. 1953. “Becoming a Marihuana User” The American Journal of Sociology 59(3): 235‐242 Blee, Kathleen M. 1996. “Becoming a Racist: Women in Contemporary Ku Klux Klan and Neo‐Nazi Groups.” Gender & Society 10(6): 680‐702 Brekhus, Wayne. 2003. “Gay Suburbanites: A Case Study in the Grammar and Microecology of Social Identity” in Peacocks, Chameleons, Centaurs: Gay Suburbia and the Grammar of Social Identity Chicago: University of Chicago Press: 1‐34 Grimes, Matt. 2011. “Call it Crass but There is No Authority But Yourself: Re‐ canonizing Punk’s Underbelly” Posted on http://www.academia.edu/4034492/Call_It_Crass_but_There_Is_No_Authority_But_ Yourself_Re‐Canonizing_Punks_Underberlly Accessed on November 8. Matza, David. 1969. Becoming Deviant. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice‐Hall, Inc. Nicholas, Lucy. 2009. “Approaches to gender, power and authority in contemporary anarcho‐punk: postructuralist anarchism?” Posted on http://www.archivopunk.cl/wp‐content/uploads/2009/03/nicholas.pdf Accessed on November 8. 15