“Be polite; write diplomatically; even in a declaration of war one observes the rules of politeness.”
– Otto von Bismarck
“‘Curvy’ is just a polite way of saying ‘fat’.”
– Hannah Simone
“The sea speaks a language polite people never repeat. It is a colossal scavenger slang and has no respect.”
– Carl Sandberg
The quotes above are but a few of the hundreds (yes, seriously) I read, pondered over, and considered using for this essay. I chose these because they perfectly illustrate civilized people’s attitudes toward their own communication. Growing up in and being force-fed the culture of civilization, we are taught to be polite, to be civil, to be courteous. And we are told that if we aren’t these things, then we’re rude, vulgar, savage, barbaric. While these terms (and attitudes) are prevalent in the dominant culture, I also witness them among radicals, who throw these words around like they have no meaning or power. So what does it mean to be polite, to be civil? And what does it mean to be rude, vulgar? And what implications does being polite have in terms of framing our individual and collective realities, mediating our interactions with others, inhibiting our desires, and moderating our behaviors? It is my purpose herein to touch on all these points.
From the moment we’re born into this catastrophe of a society, we are assailed with a virulent barrage of learned behaviors of politeness and civility. These behaviors cripple our animal selves, suffocate our desires and emotions. We’re taught to chew with our mouths shut, never speak until spoken to, defer to the authority of adults and the state, never, ever burp or fart in public (or at all, really), to keep our opinions and honest observations to ourselves, never to swear or curse, to control and quiet strong emotions, to keep our hands and mouths and bodies as clean as possible.
I’ve heard it said (and witnessed the truth of it first hand) that “wisdom often comes from the mouths of babes”. When children express their honest feelings and astute critical observations, it proves how stifling and silencing politeness can be. Such children are simply too young to have been fully poisoned by polite behavioral conditioning, and as such, it’s no surprise that their honesty and bluntness is shocking to civilized adults who are never true to their thoughts and feelings and who routinely hold their tongues.
Merriam-Webster defines polite as “having or showing good manners or respect for other people”; I think this is a load of horseshit. I also think it’s indicative of Merriam-Webster’s latent civilo-centricity that the second definition of polite is “of, relating to, or having the characteristics of advanced culture”. So, according to these stuffy lexicographers, who are no doubt representative of “polite” society as a whole, politeness involves being respectful toward others while upholding the virtues of civilization, most developed of all social forms! This is the mythologized Platonic ideal of politeness, that of valiantly holding open doors, never interrupting others, withholding all strong feelings and opinions, and keeping the unwashed hordes of savagery and our dark animalistic past at bay.
This idealized conception of politeness (let’s call it capital P Politeness) is a powerful driving force that allows civilization to continue, and it’s a myth that is force-fed to and eagerly consumed by the mass of civilized people. This delusion – that we’re all so fucking respectful and considerate and refined – is what allows people to have placid conversations about politics over coffee, while ignoring the violence and slavery that coffee necessitates. It’s what allows neighbors who despise each other to smile, wave, and exchange faux-friendly palaver one minute, then shit-talk and denigrate each other behind closed doors the next. Politeness is what allows Westerners to put on their smiling masks and pretend open-mindedness and Gandhian pacifism, while some poor grunt in fatigues unloads a clip of 5.56 millimeter rounds or drone bombs a village to secure the resources necessary to fuel “advanced” Western society. It allows young white radicals to wag their tattooed fingers and shake their dreadlocked heads at the lamentable forward march of urban gentrification, while they do nothing to stop their own role as colonizers on the front lines. It’s what allows us to say “it’s really good, I love it” when we don’t like a friend’s art or music, what makes us say “I’m okay” when someone asks if we’re okay because we’re obviously and visibly not okay.
Politeness, civility, urbanity: a vast collection of lies and omissions we tell ourselves and each other to get through the day. How often do we lie to our friends to spare their feelings? How often do we lie to “loved ones” or ourselves to keep intimate relationships going, or to soften or avoid painful conversations? How often do we lie to ourselves about what we truly desire, or what we truly do not desire? How often do we feign respect toward another person when we actually despise them? How many people in “advanced” urban society allow another to go ahead of them in line, all the while thinking about how they hate the other for their race, class, or because the other is female? How many interactions between civilized males and females are sham kindness and mock respect concealing intentions of rape and violence? Better yet, how often, as radicals, do we engage in polite discourse about politics and ethics with our opponents, keeping conversation “civil” just because it’s the expected paradigm for dialogue? How often do we quash the urge to scream “fuck you” at others, at society itself?
I’m especially guilty of certain forms of politeness myself. More specifically, I’m very easily accosted by what I call “time burglars”, people on the street and in public who burglarize my time with entreaties for money, for donations to blah blah blah charitable organization, to save the whales by signing a petition, etc. I’d like to think this is because I’m an open and sociable person, enthusiastic about human communication; this is the polite lie I’ve told myself for years. But the truth is that I’ve had politeness so exhaustively beaten into me that I feel “rude” and churlish if I ignore people on the streets.
Recognizing this in myself, seeing the poison of politeness for what it is, I have recently put a great deal of effort into being honest and direct with people who request my time and attention in public. And in so doing, I had an experience a few months ago that encouraged me that I’m doing the right thing by proving all my suspicions and critiques of politeness correct. I was on my way to go shopping (and shoplifting, truth be told) at a prominent and very bourgeois grocery store in the East Bay. Outside said store there are ALWAYS young white liberals canvassing for a motley smorgasbord of feel-good-change-the-world-with-money causes. In the past, it’s been very difficult for me to avoid getting sucked into conversation with these people. But on this auspicious afternoon, I was in a piss-poor mood, not wanting to be time burgled, and trying to implement honesty and destroy politeness in my interactions with others.
As I walked up to the store, a young person approached me and said “Hey, how’re you guys doing today?” – I was with my partner – “Can I have a moment of your time?”. In no mood for liberal reformist crap, I responded “No. Please don’t talk to me right now.” She was aghast, looked like I had just punched her in the stomach, managed to mutter an “Oooooookay”, and then turned to the next group approaching her. This time, as she began her speech, I overheard her quip “Are you guys gonna be mean to me too, or can I talk to you for a moment?”
I almost laughed aloud at how offended she had been by my honesty. This is precisely what I mean by asserting that civility is a vast body of lies, a set of behaviors that encourages dishonesty and the betrayal of one’s desires and feelings. If I had been polite, I would have suppressed my desires and feelings at the moment, and I would’ve listened to her reformist drivel, then I would have politely replied that “I’m sorry, I don’t have any money” or “I’m sorry, I’m not a registered voter in California” or some other such hogwash. Instead of being polite, I was honest and direct, like every animal creature in the natural world EVER, and she was horrified and deeply offended. How DARE I have the audacity to express that I don’t want to have a conversation?! So fucking rude.
On my way out of the store, I attempted to approach her to explain that it was nothing personal and that I simply didn’t want to talk, but she made a grotesque and flamboyantly amusing attempt to avoid eye contact. I laughed it off and felt sorry for her emotional and animal immaturity, but I then realized her refusal to engage is another manifestation of politeness. That is, the avoidance of conflict.
I spoke on this extensively in my essay Civilization and Its Stultifying Consequences, in which I focused especially on how the exportation of conflict (i.e. the police, the military, the government, relationship counselors, etc.) breeds a society of emotional cripples who are incapable of dealing with their own interpersonal issues. I’ve encountered this too many times in my adult life to mention, and won’t recount personal experiences here. However, based on the experience I described above and the many others I’ve had, I think it’s a fair extrapolation to say that the avoidance of conflict is also due in large part to the influence of civility and politeness.
Another facet of politeness that really irks me is polite language, more specifically politically correct language and political correctness itself. For upwards of a decade now, it has pained me to observe the encroachment of PC language and culture into many of Turtle Island’s radical scenes. At present, it seems that PC police are everywhere, and that what people say, the symbolic language they use, has come to be regarded as vastly more important than how a person acts and what they do.
As a preface to delving deeper into this, let me say that my problem with PC language (nor, indeed, my problem with politeness) is not the idea of being respectful toward others. I think acting and speaking respectfully toward others is an admirable and worthwhile pursuit, one I try (often unsuccessfully) to incorporate into my being.
No, the major issue I take with PC language is the same issue I take with civility and politeness on the whole. Both politeness and PC language foster the artificial facade of respect, while at the same time demanding a self-righteous dedication to a Platonic ideal RATHER than giving a shit about how one’s actions impact others (i.e. actual respect).
Both civility and PC language are reified, concretized systems of dogma that demand total obedience. For example, I once used the word “gay” in a joking fashion, immediately after which a PC punk person present in the social group tore at my throat with a torrent of insults and assumptions – “That’s so fucked up! Fuck you, you straight cis-male!”, etc. etc. When this person finished their spumescent tirade, while they wiped the froth from their righteous lips, I calmly responded that I am neither cis NOR am I straight. Upon my own use of PC language and identity politics, they promptly apologized and shamed themselves for “making assumptions about your identity”.
This interaction troubled me deeply. I admit it, I use the word gay in joking and casual ways. I also sometimes engage romantically/sexually with other people with penises, which is actually pretty gay. And I feel totally fine about my jocular and whimsical use of this word. I also care deeply about how my use of said word might impact others around me, and am willing to check my behavior and engage in real (not buzz word) dialogue in the event that use of said word actually harms someone I care about. This is actual respect.
But the other person involved in this interaction (a hetero-cis-woman, by her own identity) was not queer, was not speaking up for a quiet queer in the group I had inadvertently marginalized. Instead, she was adhering to her PC linguistic moral code, which I had violated with my sinful joke. Everybody else present, including other queer folks, found my offhanded joke amusing, but this person took it upon herself to shame and belittle me on account of her injured dogma. She basically ended up telling me that even as a queer male it’s never okay to use the word “gay” in a joking fashion because it’s just “wrong”. This is when I stopped giving any fucks about her opinion, and was a major turning point in the way I think about language and politeness.
Had I hurt anyone with my evil word? No. Was anyone present offended and asking me to be personally responsible for how I had affected them? No. This was simply a case of PC politeness and linguistic policing patrolling a social scene for uncouth perps.
And this is what really irritates me about both PC language and politeness in general. They’re both sets of behavior that we’re supposed to follow blindly, unthinkingly, and with zealous devotion. As long as we cling to these sacred paths of “respect”, we can otherwise trample everyone around us into the dirt and treat them like unwanted turds stuck to the soles of our shoes. Those who refuse to conform to these moral codes are to be crucified, cast out, and shunned as filthy animals.
Another, perhaps very picky, aspect of language and its connection to politeness that bothers me is that radicals rarely look into the origins and real meaning of the words they use. As a radical etymology nerd and a person who loves deconstructing language, this really bothers me. While they vehemently decry the use of words like “gay” and “retarded”, the same PC police will insist on acting “courteously”, engaging in “civil” discourse. I hear these words coming from even the most critical and deconstruction-happy radical folks I know, and it disturbs me that these etymologically fucked-up words continue to frame our collective and individual worldviews.
To be “courteous” or practice “courtesy” find their origins in courtly behavior, specifically the curtsy, a submissive bending of the knee to monarchs and other authority figures. “Civil” derives from the Latin civis meaning a townsperson and civitas meaning citizenship, thus to be civil is to act like an urban civilized person. To be polite is to be politus, polished or burnished as in metal. And to be urbane, in the sense of refined and elegant, worldly, ultimately derives from the Latin urbanus, meaning of or belonging to a city.
On the contrary, the words in English used to describe those who act in unpleasant ways are equally telling. A savage is one from the wilderness, an undomesticated forest dweller (sauvage in French, from the Latin silvaticus, “forest dweller” and silva, “forest”). Rude traces its roots to the Latin rudus, which means unworked, rough stone. Vulgarity comes from the Latin vulgus and vulgaris, meaning the common rabble, lowborn peasantry, and the behavior of such people. And barbaric behavior means that behavior of an ignorant, incomprehensible foreigner, usually belonging to a tribe.
So with but a cursory glance at many of the words used in civilization to describe respectful and disrespectful (or desirable and undesirable) behavior, we see quite a schism. All those words used to describe respectful and desirable behavior pertain to urbanity, cities, hierarchy and authority, and metalworking. Those words used to denote disrespectful and undesirable behavior pertain to the wilderness, forests, rural life, lower classes and servility, and tribal groups.
It’s clear to see, from an etymological vista, the biases and ingrained propaganda in this set of words.
Fortunately, the word respect has an admirable etymology, and passes the test of radical word scrutiny. Etymologically, respect ultimately means to regard or to behold with vision, to see, and that’s really what we ought to be aiming for in our interpersonal interactions. Allowing the rules and dogma of politeness and PC language to direct our behavior leads, at best, to the illusory pretense of respect. Actually regarding others, truly seeing them and regarding how our actions impact them, this is real respect.
With that being said, in tandem with my earlier thoughts regarding how politeness is a stifling form of restraint and oppression, I say fuck being polite! Fuck civility. Fuck courtesy. Fuck civil discourse, and fuck polite language.
We are animals, only most of us have forgotten how to be true to our animal selves, how to act like it. Let us burp and fart, piss and shit everywhere and talk about it openly, let us eat with our mouths open. Let us stink, and let us be filthy, let us sprout hair in all the forbidden places. Let us bathe and wash when we desire it, not when the rules of society dictate that we must. Let us be true to our desires, and speak and pursue them passionately; let us denounce those things we don’t desire, and passionately avoid them. Let us speak how we will and not from a place of fear, and when our words hurt or offend others, let us be directly responsible and emotionally available to them if they’re people we care about. Let us be honest with ourselves and honest with each other, even when it’s inconvenient and potentially hurtful. Let us realize that the world is an uncomfortable place, that we can’t please everyone, that conflict and disagreement are okay. Let us not fear conflict, but approach it and deal with it directly and with confidence. Let us not be afraid of being told “no”, and let’s not be afraid to say no to others. Let us experience and express all of our strong emotions, and not strangle our feeling selves. Let us shout out what we love and what we hate. Let us dance in the rain, sully our skin with the composting loam of the world’s dank dark places, run naked and unashamed in sun-bleached deserts, and make passionate animal love anywhere and anywhen we please.
Let us abolish the dogmatic codes of behavioral and verbal policing that regulate our actions and interactions, and instead, let us regulate our own actions from a position of mutual regard, of respect.
In short: fuck being polite, be the animal you were born to be.
Hey there, everyone. Just wanted to post a quick link here to my other website, Yggdrasil Distro, whereupon I publish zines and other political literature in addition to a TON of nerdly goodness (i.e.: my roleplaying game, collectible card games I’ve made, like, 7 campaign settings I’ve written, and other gaming stuff). Check it out!
Also, because I don’t feel like writing anything new this week, following below is the entirety of one of my zines from Yggdrasil Distro. It’s entitled In Defense of Conan the Barbarian: The Anarchism, Feminism, and Primitivism of Robert E. Howard, and it’s pretty self-explanatory. Conan, as a pop-culture icon, is oft portrayed as a hyper-masculine dude-bro and a moron, misconceptions about barbarians and primitive peoples that are popular with civilized writers (read: propagandists). But the original Conan, the barbarian adventurer of Howard’s brilliant Hyborian mythology, was none of these things. The following zine/essay discusses these points in depth, revealing that Conan (and therefore Howard) was and is, in fact, extremely politically and socially radical. Enjoy!
“CONAN THE BARBARIAN. Conan the Cimmerian. Conan, King of Aquilonia. Call him what you will, most everyone in contemporary Western society is familiar with this pulp icon to some extent. Sadly, when most people think of Conan the Barbarian, they instantly conjure up the loin-clothed image of Arnold Schwarzenegger, all manner of indecipherable, polysyllabic grunting issuing forth from his grinning maw. The Conan movies of the 80s did a great deal to tarnish the character so masterfully created by Robert Ervin Howard in the 30s; worse, they all but abolished the intellectual, ethical, and political content of the original Conan stories in the minds of the public at large.
As with so many past literary creations of great genius, Hollywood ruined Conan the Barbarian.
One need not look far to find this attitude of Conan-as-Moron. Let us look to José Villarrubia’s editorial in Volume 7 of Dark Horse’s ongoing Conan comic series for just such an example:
“I have often wondered…”What is the appeal of Conan the Barbarian?” How does such a primary character from such humble origins- one without the depth and subtleties of most memorable characters from world literature, from Don Quixote to Blanche DuBois- manage to survive and thrive after several decades…? …Why do we still care for a character that epitomizes testosterone-fueled escapist fantasies? A character that is violent, fairly unsophisticated, and narrow in scope?”
Speaking from my heart as a long time nerd, avid gamer and roleplayer, arm-chair intellectual, and- of course- as an anarcho-primitivist, this is tragic. Despite the popular insistence to the contrary, Howard’s cornucopia of original Conan stories is replete with social, economic, political, and ethical intimations, conjectures, and outright expositions.
I appreciate Mr. Villarrubia’s contributions to Dark Horse’s mindblowingly awesome Conan comics, but I can’t help but think he’s never read the original Howard stories. If he had, he would surely know that Conan is far from “unsophisticated, and narrow in scope”, that Howard’s legendary savage absolutely has “depths and subtleties”, though they are understandably difficult for civilized people to perceive. Perhaps this is why Villarrubia’s opinion is shared by so many.
Why this conception of Conan is prevalent is not important; dispelling and dismantling it, is.
It is the purpose of this zine to reveal and elaborate on Robert E. Howard’s underlying anarchism and primitivism, and his latent feminism. I seek to accomplish this by visiting with several of Howard’s characters, most notably: Conan the Cimmerian as he appears in the original tales, Valeria of the Red Brotherhood, Bêlit the Pirate Queen of the Black Coast, Olivia of Ophir, and the character Agnes de Chastillon from Howard’s story Sword Woman.
Hopefully, by illuminating Howard’s most famous characters (and some of his most important, less famous ones), this essay will encourage a better understanding of the true Conan, and the genius and deep analysis of the man behind the myth.
What Is Meant By Anarchism In This Essay
IN ORDER TO DETAIL HOWARD’S obvious anarchism by examining his most famous barbarian, we must first understand what is meant by “anarchism”. There are thousands of excellent sources describing anarchism, including books, essays, interwebs pages and articles, and even movies. Therefore, the description of anarchism provided below is topical and is meant to be encompassing:
Anarchism (n.): The philosophy and/or socio-political system of organization without leaders. From the Greek an-, meaning without, and archos, meaning leaders.
This is anarchism at its core, without labels, without strictly defined schools of thought. Within the context of this essay, anarchism is the idea of people organizing and governing themselves and their social units without hierarchical leadership. This can be extended into a more modern interpretation of anarchism, which is the idea of organizing society without any hierarchy based on sex/gender, race, class, ethnic background, sexual orientation, etc. Anarchism is also frequently used to be synonymous with “anti-authoritarianism” and- outside the United States- “libertarianism”.
Just so we’re clear at this point: anarchism does not mean chaos, nihilism, or violence for the sake of violence! Despite what the opponents of anarchism might say, anarchists do not struggle for any of these ideals (well, okay, maybe chaos). No, indeed, these ideals belong to the dominant culture and to its adherents themselves!
Now that we have a loose, general description of what anarchist philosophy teaches, let us delve into Howard’s perspective on the matter by examining his immortal Cimmerian.
Robert E. Howard, Conan, & Anarchism
CONAN IS A SOLID PILLAR of anti-authoritarianism and anarchism. This fact is made evident by Conan’s very beginnings.
Conan’s origins lie in the darkly-wooded, somber hills of Cimmeria, a craggy land inspired by one of Howard’s treks to the hill country of his own native Texas. In the darksome hills of his birth, we find Conan’s people, the Cimmerians, the brood of the Grim Grey God, Crom. Howard’s Cimmerians are modeled after the iron-age Celts, themselves a hardy people birthed of a somber and unforgiving land.
As Conan travels far from his homeland, he frequently makes comparisons between his people and the society and customs of his youth and the civilized societies, peoples, and customs of his later careers. Through these comparisons we learn that Cimmeria is a land of clans, which are essentially autonomous, leaderless, egalitarian bands of kinfolk who share resources, labor, and hardship alike. There is little hunger in Cimmeria (unless all mouths go unfed), no rape to speak of, relatively equal division of labor between the biological sexes, and an attitude of mutual aid and mutual defense.
We shall visit examples of Cimmeria’s nature in the chapter concerning Primitivism. Suffice to say for now, anti-authoritarian sentiment and egalitarian lifeways are integral to Conan’s being- he comes from a people who value freedom, autonomy, equality, and community.
We see these foundations and principles brought to light as soon as Conan leaves his homeland. Inspired by his grandfather’s tales of travel and adventure, Conan sets off to find adventure of his own, shortly to find himself in Zamora, an eastern nation of spider-haunted towers, deadly assassins, and myriad thieves. While in Arenjun, the fabled Zamorian city of thieves, Conan himself learns the ins and outs of skullduggery from the denizens of The Maul, Arenjun’s un-policed hive of scum and villainy.
Some time later, Conan travels to Nemedia, one of the foremost empires of the age. In the Nemedian city of Numalia, while plying his thieving skills on an opulent, unbelievably rich patrician, Conan gets caught in the act. Confronted by the city watch and a high Inquisitor, we see the anarchism and anti-authoritarianism of Robert E. Howard through the words of Conan the Thief. The entire scene is also a poignant display of Howard’s attitude toward cops and other authoritarian enforcers of civilized slavery.
When Conan resists police interrogation, Dionus, the prefect of Numalian police says to him:
“Oh, an insolent fellow!… An independent cur! One of these citizens with rights, eh? I’ll soon knock [a confession] out of him!”
Then, when Dionus is hushed by the Inquisitor, he protests:
“Why go through all this trouble of questions and speculations?… It’s much easier to beat a confession out of a suspect. Here’s our man, no doubt about it. Let’s take him to the Court of Justice – I’ll get a statement out of him if I have to smash his bones to pulp.”
When another of the guards is introduced a short time later, Howard reveals more of his attitude toward authority figures:
“You’re Posthumo… You gouged out a girl’s eye in the Court of Justice because she wouldn’t give you information incriminating her lover,”
Conan replies to this harassment in typical fashion:
“Save your bullying for the fools who fear you.. I’m no city-bred Nemedian to cringe before your hired dogs. I’ve killed better men than you for less than this.”
“Back, if you value your dog-lives!… Because you dare torture shopkeepers and strip and beat harlots to make them talk, don’t think you can lay your fat paws on a hillman! I’ll take some of you to hell with me!”
Here we see a total and not impotent dismissal of authority figures and of authority itself. Conan clearly has no love of or fear for the violent brutes who enforce civilized laws and oppress the poor and downtrodden.
Howard repeats this theme throughout Conan’s travels, notably in a scene that occurs early in Queen of the Black Coast. Having rushed toward a departing ship, and having leapt onto its deck, Conan is confronted by the ship’s master, Tito the Merchant, who inquires just what the hell he thinks he’s doing. Conan explains:
“Well, last night in a tavern, a captain of the king’s guard offered violence to the sweetheart of a young soldier, who naturally ran him through. But it seems there is some cursed law against killing guardsmen, and the boy and his girl fled away. It was bruited about that I was seen with them, and so today I was haled into court, and a judge asked me where he had gone. I replied that since he was a friend of mine, I could not betray him. Then the court waxed wrath, and the judge talked a great deal about my duty to the state, and society, and other things I did not understand, and bade me tell where my friend had flown. By this time I was becoming wrathful myself, for I had explained my position.
But I choked my ire and held my peace, and the judge squalled that I had shown contempt for the court, and that I should be hurled into a dungeon to rot until I betrayed my friend. So then, seeing they were all mad, I drew my sword and cleft the judge’s skull; then I cut my way out of the court, and seeing the high constable’s stallion tied near by, I rode for the wharfs, where I thought to find a ship bound for foreign parts.”
“Well,” said Tito hardily, “the courts have fleeced me too often in suits with rich merchants for me to owe them any love…”
This is such a beautiful passage. Howard reveals the oppressiveness and tyranny of courts, and takes a subtle swipe at laws that make the killing of cops more severe than the killing of others. He also uses the barbarian’s ignorance of civilized ways- for Conan is new to civilization at this point- to illustrate the ridiculous fallacy of such nationalistic and patriotic notions as “duty to the state” and “loyalty to society”. Better yet, Howard shows us a side of Conan’s personality that is oft ignored: he attempts to reason and communicate his way out of this situation, NON-VIOLENTLY! Only when Conan realizes (like all anarchists and anti-civ dissidents must) that the judge, guards, and civilized people are all totally insane, he then uses violence to escape their injustice.
In order to see how Conan’s attitudes toward law, order, and criminal justice mirror Robert Howard’s own ideas about law-enforcement and authority, let us look at a letter he wrote to author H.P. Lovecraft in August of 1932:
“I note that some indignation is being expressed over the country in regard to the detestable police practice of grilling prisoners. It’s about time. I think police harshness is mainly because the people have become too cowed by the heel of the law, that they do not resent or resist any kind of atrocity inflicted on them by men wearing tin badges.”
Then, when Lovecraft responded negatively, Howard sent him another missive in October of the same year:
“If people seem bitter against the enforcers of the law, it is but necessary to remember that perhaps they have some slight reason. When I resent things as I’ve mentioned, I don’t consider myself a criminal. It isn’t law enforcement I resent, but the vandals that parade under the cloak of law. Condoning everything a man does, simply because he happens to wear brass buttons, is something I have no patience for.”
In these correspondences, we learn that Howard despises law-enforcers, and the corruption that power and hierarchy bring. He does not despise or speak against an orderly society, or the making of and enforcing of laws by The People in their communities. Howard envisions functional, healthy communities in which the members of those groups make and enforce their laws collectively, without the coercion and violence and oppression inherent in policing. These ideas are integral to anarchist philosophy.
It is not only police and the enforcers of law that Howard expresses hatred for, but also for those who make laws, and others who benefit from the power of stratified societies. In Rogues in the House– by far one of the most politically-driven Conan yarns- we witness Conan dismissing and invalidating monarchy, priesthood, and organized religion as a whole.
While in a small city-state between Corinthia and Zamora, Conan is imprisoned for the just and well-deserved murder of the priest of Anu, a priest who had Conan’s Gunderman ally hanged. While imprisoned, Conan is visited by the city’s prince, Murilo. The prince seeks the death of his father’s (the king’s) advisor, the Red Priest Nabonidus, who actually rules the city. When Murilo approaches Conan and offers him release in exchange for the murder of Nabonidus, Howard writes:
“The Cimmerian showed no sign of surprise or perturbation. He had none of the fear or reverence for authority that civilization instills in men. King or beggar, it was all one to him.”
Here again we see Howard/Conan’s dismissal of the idea of authority. More importantly, we also see a complete egalitarian leveling of Hyborian society in one compact sentence: “King or beggar, it was all one to him.” In addition to once again shirking authoritarianism, Howard proclaims in his eloquently simple way that all human beings are on equal footing, that social hierarchies are utter nonsense, that no person has the right to hold a position of power over any other.
Howard expands upon this when Murilo, accompanied by Conan, later confronts Nabonidus. Murilo says:
“You exploit a whole kingdom for your personal greed, and under the guise of disinterested statesmanship, you swindle the king, beggar the rich, oppress the poor, and sacrifice the whole future of a nation for your ruthless ambition. You are no more than a fat hog with his snout in the trough. You are a greater thief than I. [Conan] is the most honest man of the three of us, because he steals and murders openly.”
This diatribe is particularly telling, because herein we see one member of the social elite- a Prince- railing against and villifying another- a Priest. This is a polemic statement against not only monarchies and other hierarchical forms of leadership, but also against organized religion and priesthood. Howard lays it out clearly: he’s against the rich and powerful and the social divisions that create them, and he’s also completely opposed to the specialized caste of mind-control agents who maintain the oppression of the less privileged members of society.
As the story progresses, we learn that Thak, Nabonidus’s man-ape pet gone berserk, has taken control of the priest’s deathtrap of a house. With mutual interest in self-preservation and survival in mind, Murilo offers Nabonidus a bargain to spare his life and ally with him politically if Nabonidus will help Murilo and Conan escape the house alive. Nabonidus agrees, at which time Conan snarkily remarks:
“When did a priest keep an oath?”
Yet again, in his sleekly terse way, Howard manages to undermine and discount organized religion and priests in a single sentence. These dismissals of organized thought control and hierarchic leadership are also integral elements of contemporary anarchist thought.
In Beyond the Black River, arguably one of Howard’s most masterful Conan tales, Conan befriends an Aquilonian forest-runner and frontiersman named Balthus. Early in the story, Balthus is totally loyal to Aquilonia, the most powerful empire of the Hyborian Age, and his heart and mind are fully devoted to the idea and practice of colonization and conquest of the Picts. Throughout the story, Conan shares stories and life lessons with Balthus, helping him to gain perspective and wisdom, and slowly turning him away from his statist, racist, colonialist, and civilized leanings. As the story progresses, Howard uses the dialogue between the heroic barbarian and Balthus the woodsman to reveal more of his own political ideals.
When discussing the current political situation early in the tale, Conan chides Balthus:
“This colonization business is mad, anyway… If the Aquilonians would cut up some of the big estates of their barons… they wouldn’t have to cross the border and take the land of the Picts away from them.”
In a mere two sentences, Howard decries colonialism and colonization, and he also reveals to the reader his opinions regarding class struggle and economic inequality. If only the Aquilonians would voluntarily restructure their classist, elitist society, and redistribute their wealth, colonization (i.e.: the violent conquest of land and resources) would be unnecessary!!!
Obviously, since the Picts of Hyboria are partially based on Native American peoples, Howard is also expressing here a commiseration with the plight of the indigenous here in North America and abroad, an opinion he also put forth in multiple correspondences with others.
After chiding Balthus and the Aquilonian Empire for their colonizing efforts, Conan goes on to tell Balthus of Venarium. Venarium was Aquilonia’s single attempt to colonize Cimmeria, the hill country of Conan’s birth. As a teenager, Conan helped to rally the people of Cimmeria against the Aquilonians, an effort that ultimately culminated in the Siege of Venarium. The Aquilonian fort was sacked, pillaged, and utterly razed in a swarm of savage fury. The Cimmerian argues that such is the fate of all civilizations and their colonies, all the while deriding the privileged and powerful who lead such efforts:
“Soft-bellied fools sitting on velvet cushions with naked girls offering them iced wine on their knees – I know the breed. They can’t see any farther than their palace wall. Diplomacy – hell! They’d fight Picts with theories of territorial expansion. Valannus [an Aquilonian commander] and men like him have to obey the orders of a set of damned fools. They’ll never grab any more Pictish land, any more than they’ll ever rebuild Venarium. The time may come when they’ll see the barbarians swarming over the walls of Eastern cities!”
Howard expands on anti-imperialist themes in one of Conan’s later adventures, Red Nails. Toward the beginning of the tale, Conan and Valeria of the Red Brotherhood- an amazingly deft pirate woman- are trapped atop a small plateau, while a dinosaur-dragon beast harangues them from below. Reaching down to the trees whose branches barely reach the summit, Conan collects a number of smaller branches, places a short sword in their midst as a stabbing implement, and begins lashing them together with vines to fashion a makeshift spear. On hearing her express her confusion, Conan explains to Valeria:
“…There’s strength in union. That’s what the Aquilonian renegades used to tell us Cimmerians when they came into the hills to raise an army to invade their own country.”
The first few words of this bold statement invoke the workers’ ballads of the IWW and other unions- “There is power in a union!”- and are quite clearly a Howardian doff of the cap to the workers’ struggles of the early 20th century in America and abroad. By utilizing “Aquilonian renegades” as a facsimile for unionizers and labor organizers, Howard tells the reader again that he supports the working class. Also telling is his support for those who ally themselves with the indigenous, fighting empire from within.
Given the insight provided by Beyond the Black River, we see that Howard’s philosophy of resistance is encompassing and multifaceted: he supports indigenous resistance to imperialism, struggles for workers’ rights and labor initiatives, and the resistance to empire and conquest from the empire’s own subjects.
To summarize and tie together the ideas in this chapter, let us peruse one of Conan’s more memorable and powerful lines from Hour of the Dragon:
“Is it not better to die honorably than to live in infamy? Is death worse than oppression, slavery, and ultimate destruction?”
It’s difficult to imagine a more inspiring anarchic slogan than this gem.
PRIMITIVISM, ANTI-CIVILIZATION CRITIQUE
What Is Meant By Primitivism & Civilization In This Essay
PRIMITIVISM IS ULTIMATELY A CRITIQUE of civilization, and of the lifeways, economics, politics, attitudes, and behaviors that derive from it and support it. Therefore, in order to understand primitivism, we must likewise have an understanding of “civilization”. Within the context of this work, civilization can be understood as follows:
Civilization (n.): A social structure and lifeway characterized by cities/urban settlements, ecocidal landbase destruction, and the reliance on year-round, intensive agriculture to produce one or a few crops that support constant growth and extreme specialization among the populace. Here, agriculture means a way of growing a small number of crops in intensely destructive ways, depleting nitrogen in the soil and ultimately annihilating the complex and biodiverse relationships of plants, animals, microbes, fungi, etc., that are native to the affected landbase.
There are also a number of ideals and practices endemic to Civilization that primitivism opposes: slavery, genocide, organized and oppressive religion, large-scale trade and commerce, patriarchy, rigid gender roles and the oppression of women, and so on.
Primitivism, therefore, is the opposition to this idea of Civilization and all it entails and encompasses. It argues instead for a return to primitive or ancestral lifeways (e.g.: egalitarian, small scale communities, abolition of gender and gender roles, ecologically sustainable “primitive skills”, etc.). Anarcho-primitivism is a specific theory and school of thought that incorporates the anti-civilized critique with the basic foundational premises of anarchism- non-hierarchical communities, consensus-based decision making, anti-authoritarianism and anti-statist politics, etc.
Robert E. Howard, Conan, & Primitivism
ROBERT HOWARD’S CONAN TALES ARE fecund meadows of primitivist sentiment. The Primitivist arguments and discussions in these stories are amazingly abundant, far more so than the anarchist politics that we have just explored. Conan, like Howard, is unabashedly anti-civilized.
We can see this fact plainly enough in Conan’s origins and in his title: he’s a Barbarian, after all! He comes from a hunter-gatherer society in which there are few gender distinctions, and in which labor and resources are equally shared. His people are warlike, but only when they are invaded by their more warlike Imperial neighbors, the Aquilonians, or their agriculturalist northern neighbors, the Nordheimr.
Conan’s hunter-gatherer foundations, and his association between agriculture and pastoralism and urban Civilization, surface in Red Nails. Conan and Valeria of the Red Brotherhood have come upon an ancient city, Xuchotl. Beholding the size and splendor of Xuchotl, Conan wonders aloud:
“No cattle, no plowed fields… How do these people live?”
Then later, after scrutinizing the other side of the city, he remarks:
“No cattle have trampled the plain on this side of the city… No plowshare has touched the earth for years, maybe centuries. But look: once this plain was cultivated.”
In these passages, Howard demonstrates a solid primitivist base, in that he recognizes the relationship between- indeed the necessity of- agriculture and/or pastoralism to civilization. Without these exploitative and destructive forms of food production, urban civilization would be untenable. Further, without these forms of exploitation and destruction, the other ideological and infrastructural bases that underlie civilization would be impossible.
Howard elaborates on these ideas in other Conan stories. In The Slithering Shadow, Conan points out how the dominator mindset of agriculture/pastoralism manifests itself in the economies and economic beliefs of civilized peoples:
“In my country, no starving man is denied food, but you civilized people must have your recompense – if you are like all I ever met.”
Among the Cimmerian people (hunter-gatherers) food is shared; among civilized agriculturalists, pastoralists and capitalists, food costs money, and the poor go hungry. Classism and poverty = economic inequality = an exploitative, dominating base of food production. Howard hints at this point again with the following passage from Pool of the Black One:
“Himself as cleanly elemental as a timber wolf, he was yet not ignorant of the perverse secrets of rotting civilizations.”
Conan is a wolf, a wild pack hunter and scavenger, who understands full-well the underpinnings of cities and the filth and madness they breed.
Howard further explores the dominator mentality and how it drives civiilzed societies and peoples in Iron Shadows in the Moon. In this story, a young woman named Olivia has fled her captor and enslaver, the cruel Shah Amurath. Olivia was sold by her own father to a nomadic chieftain who then gifted her (still as an object and a slave) to the Shah Amurath to secure trade privileges. When discussing her plight as a captive slave and an object of civilized men’s patriarchal tyranny, Olivia says to Conan:
“Aye, civilized men sell their children as slaves to savages, sometimes. They call your race barbarian, Conan of Cimmeria.”
And Conan growls in return:
“We do not sell our children…”
Thus, Howard establishes slavery as a solid institution underlying and supporting civilization. To Conan, as a barbarian with a deeply-embedded and oft-expressed code of honor, and as an individual member of a roughly egalitarian community, slavery and other civilized constructs are utterly unfathomable. In Queen of the Black Coast, Conan says:
“By Crom, though I’ve spent considerable time among you civilized peoples, your ways are still beyond my comprehension.”
And later, in The God in the Bowl, when Conan is given ultimatums and commands by Dionus, Posthumo, and the Inquisitor’s other police forces, Howard writes:
“The Cimmerian hesitated. He was not afraid, but slightly bewildered, as a barbarian always is when confronted by the evidence of civilized networks and systems, the workings of which are so baffling and mysterious to him.”
It is simply impossible for Conan (read: Howard) to understand civilized methods and lifeways, because they are based on principles that are unthinkably perverse, twisted, violent, and insane to the anti-civilized mind. Slavery, colonization (as we saw earlier), courts and judges, law-enforcement, the oppression and exploitation of those on the lower rungs of the hierarchy, and the oppression and abuse of women (as we shall visit in the coming chapter)- all these concepts and practices are awful and unacceptable to Conan and to Howard himself.
Howard was also fond of describing the great cruelty and malevolence of civilized peoples, traits that sit well with a way of life based upon continual conquest, destruction, violence, and abuse. A Witch Shall Be Born yields one of the more disturbing scenes in Conan’s career, in which he is crucified by a hawk-faced general named Constantius. Later, after escaping his impending death and letting the drive for revenge fester within him, Conan returns and crucifies Constantius right back! As Constantius hangs on the cross, Conan lectures him:
“You are more fit to inflict torture than to endure it… I hung there on a cross as you are hanging, and I lived, thanks to circumstances and a stamina peculiar to barbarians. But you civilized men are soft; your lives are not nailed to your spines as are ours. Your fortitude consists mainly in inflicting torment, not in enduring it.”
Howard further paints a picture of civilized cruelty in Hour of the Dragon, wherein Zelata, a witch and wisewoman, councils Conan:
“I have found the brooding silence of the glens more pleasing than the babble of city streets… The children of the wild are kinder than the children of men.”
Zelata is one of Howard’s most fascinating characters. The previous conversation takes place after she saves Conan from certain death. She does this by speaking directly with a wolf and a hawk in inhuman tongues, convincing them to intercede in the conflict that imperils Conan’s life. Here is a woman of the wild, one who speaks with non-human animals, one who has a direct, tangible, healthy relationship with her landbase. Her is a woman who shirks the lives and ways of city-dwellers, who recognizes the glory of wild nature, and a woman who traffics in the arcane, energetic lifeforce magic belying the fabric of reality.
Zelata is an excellent example of Howard’s tacit primitivism. Moreover, her ability to converse with non-human animals is but one example of a recurrent theme in Howard’s works, namely his abolition of the civilized notion that humans are not animals, and that human life is better and more valuable than animal life. Let’s review some examples.
In Queen of the Black Coast, Bêlit the Pirate Queen says to Conan:
“You are no soft Hyborian! …You are fierce and hard as a gray wolf. Those eyes were never dimmed by city lights; those thews never softened by life amid marble walls.”
In Beyond the Black River, Howard says:
“He moved with the dangerous ease of a panther; he was too fiercely supple to be a product of civilization…”
And later in Beyond the Black River, when comparing the half-wild, half-civilized forest-runners with Conan natural barbarism, Howard tells us:
“They were wild men, of a sort, yet there was still a wide gulf between them and the Cimmerian. They were the sons of civilization, reverted to a semi-barbarism. He was a barbarian of a thousand generations of barbarians. They had acquired stealth and craft, but he had been born to these things. He excelled them even in lithe economy of motion. They were wolves, but he was a tiger.”
Howard’s other references to Conan as animal are too numerous to reproduce here, most notably his constant and perpetual reference to Conan as a wolf.
To drive home the point that Howard truly believed in the human as an animal, and wasn’t simply being creative in his similes and metaphors, one need only to read Rogues in the House. In this story, as mentioned previously, the Red Priest Nabonidus has kept a man-ape pet called Thak for many years. Thak has escaped, and has demonstrated his great intelligence, wisdom, and ability to deceive throughout the story. When he an Conan finally engage in their epic fight to the death, Conan prevails, but only just. Recalling the earlier themes of the story, and cementing his own barbaric philosophy in stone, Conan postulates:
“I have slain a man tonight, not a beast.”
In this simple sentence, Howard ties together all his past references to human beings as wolves, tigers, panthers, and others into a coherent statement of values: the Human Being is an Animal, and animal life is equal to human life.
Howard delves further into this concept and truly concretizes it as a philosophical tenet in Red Nails. As Conan prepares himself to kill the dinosaur-dragon-thing that waits below to eat himself and Valeria, Howard takes the opportunity to expound his idea of human as animal:
“To the barbarian, no such gulf existed between himself… and the animals, as existed in the conception of Valeria [a civilized Aquilonian]. The monster below them, to Conan, was merely a form of life differing from himself mainly in physical shape. He attributed to it characteristics similar to his own, and saw in its wrath a counterpart of his rages, in its roars and bellowings merely reptilian equivalents to the curses he had bestowed upon it. Feeling a kinship with all wild things, even dragons, it was impossible for him to experience the sick horror which assailed Valeria at the sight of the brute’s ferocity.”
There can be no doubt after reading this passage that Howard believed in the wildness and animal-ness of humanity, and thus the kinship with humanity shared by all wild animals. Howard’s notion- that humans are animals, and that the human animal fits into an ecological niche like all other animals- is critically important to primitivist philosophy.
I’d like to examine one final passage that relates to this topic and leads into another. In Beyond the Black River, Conan and his civilized companion Balthus are discussing rumors surrounding a powerful Pictish sorcerer called Zogar Sag. Conan says:
“Civilized men laugh… but not one can tell me how Zogar Sag can call pythons and tigers and leopards out of the wilderness and make them do his bidding. They would say it is a lie, if they dared. That’s the way with civilized men. When they can’t explain something by their half-baked science, they refuse to believe it.”
In this glorious dialogue, Howard once again confronts the reader with evidence of human relationships with non-human animals, and with the landbase at large. Better yet, Howard also deals a blow to civilized science and those who practice it, suggesting that they simply use their “rational” arts to justify that which they wish to believe in and to eradicate and eliminate all that which they don’t. The critique of civilized pseudo-science and pseudo-reason is another vital cornerstone of primitivist thought.
Much of the remainder of Howard’s primitivism via Conan manifests itself in the form of descriptions of the barbarian, and comparisons between him and his civilized foes. Let’s visit a handful of these and discuss them afterward.
In The Slithering Shadow, Howard writes of Conan:
“A barbarian of barbarians, the vitality and endurance of the wild were his, granting him survival where civilized men would have perished.”
In Beyond the Black River:
“No civilized hand ever forged that head-piece [Conan’s horned helm]. Nor was the face below it that of a civilized man: dark, scarred, with smoldering blue eyes, it was a face untamed as the primordial forest which formed its background.”
In Shadows in Zamboula, Howard tells us of Conan’s reflexes and instincts:
“He did not awake as civilized men do, drowsy and drugged and stupid. He awoke instantly, with a clear mind, recognizing the sound that had interrupted his sleep.”
And later in that story, we learn of Conan’s Herculean strength (and of the weakness and physical poverty of civilized peoples) when he confronts Baal-Pteor, the Strangler:
“You fool!… Did you deem yourself strong, because you were able to twist the heads off civilized folk, poor weaklings with muscles like rotten string? Hell! Break the neck of a wild Cimmerian bull before you call yourself strong. I did that, before I was a full-grown man…”
And we learn of Conan’s inexhaustible patience when he and Valeria are ensnared by the dinosaur-dragon-thing in Red Nails:
“Conan spoke imperturbably. He was a barbarian, and the terrible patience of the wilderness and its children was as much a part of him as his lusts and rages. He could endure a situation like this with a coolness impossible to a civilized person.”
Because Howard so frequently describes Conan’s traits in order to contrast them with the attributes of civilized folk, we can infer his general attitude toward such people. To Howard, the civilized person is slow, dull-witted, cowed and beaten into submission, fearful of authority, weak, impatient and impetuous, poorly constituted, cowardly, completely out of touch with the wilderness, dishonorable, likely to betray others, disloyal… The list stretches on, but the point remains. Howard’s descriptions of Conan give us a firm understanding that he loathed the civilized and civilization, and found civilized peoples and societies to be wholly inferior to “primitive” peoples and lifeways.
He expressed this attitude readily enough in some of his correspondences with others. For example, he describes how he found inspiration for his fictional characters in the motley array of swindlers, con-men, drunkards, working men and women, prostitutes, town bosses, corporate thugs, and other figures endemic to his small Texas boom-town. He further added that witnessing the abuses, cons, and violence of these real-world characters sparked his critique of industrial civilization. We can see from the previous examples how Howard’s critique and understanding of civilization grew stronger and more diverse with the writing of his Conan stories.
Finally, as if the above information were not enough to shed light on Howard’s primitivism, I’d like to visit an oft-quoted passage from Beyond the Black River:
“Barbarism is the natural state of mankind… Civilization is unnatural. It is a whim of circumstance. And barbarism must always ultimately triumph.”
That pretty much says it all, doesn’t it?
FEMINISM, ANTI-PATRIARCHY CRITIQUE
What Is Meant By Feminism & Patriarchy In This Essay
AS WITH ANARCHISM AND PRIMITIVISM, Howard also showcased feminist leanings and ideals in his Conan works, and in other stories. This is shocking to most people, especially because of the worldwide influence of the Schwarzenegger films of the 80s. As I said earlier, it is due to these films that Conan is commonly thought of as a meat-headed simpleton, for all intents and purposes a jock with a broadsword. The Conan of the films embodies sexism, the dominant culture’s concept of masculinity, and patriarchy. This is a grandiose tragedy, considering that Howard himself professed feminist ideals and used his writing, if only subtly, to advance feminism.
So, to enter into a discussion of Robert Howard and feminism in his works, we must first establish a working description of what Feminism is.
Feminism (n.): The liberatory critique of Patriarchy, and all of the harmful sexist trappings and conventions that derive from it and support its continuation.
Patriarchy is a word most folks have never heard. In essence, it means the physical and psychological/emotional domination of women by men. It also means rigidly-enforced binary gender roles, clearly established ideals of masculinity and femininity, unique codes of behavior for men and women, rigid sexual norms and homophobia, hatred of transfolks (i.e.: transphobia) and of men and women who don’t obey gender roles, violence toward anyone who deviates from patriarchal norms, and on and on.
Thus, in the following section, I will attempt to innumerate examples in Howard’s work of Feminist- thus, Anti-Patriarchal- ideals and actions.
Feminism & Anti-Patriarchy in the Works of Robert E. Howard
FIRST, A DISCLAIMER, THEN ONTO the examples. For folks who don’t know: Robert E. Howard was alive and producing his literary works in the 1920s and 30s. Thus, when I discuss Feminism in the following examples, the reader must remember to take these passages in their proper context. Certainly, bell hooks would shudder and cringe at the violence and dominant concept of masculinity that Howard’s strong female characters embody. However, given the extreme patriarchy of Hyboria, and the extreme historical patriarchy of the real-world of Howard’s historical fiction, there is little niche for bold, brave women except the path of the reaver. As I said, take it with a grain of salt.
In his personal correspondences with friends and fellow authors, Howard expressed his respect and admiration for women, and defended the accomplishments and capabilities of women to those who demeaned them. He also used his fiction as a podium for presenting his feminist ideals, and it is the purpose of this chapter to furnish examples of Howard’s feminist fiction. I intend to accomplish this by looking at the following characters: Valeria of the Red Brotherhood, fellow female pirate Bêlit, Olivia of Ophir, and Dark Agnes de Chastillon- the Sword Woman. We shall also examine Conan’s interactions with the character Livia in the story The Vale of Lost Women.
To begin revealing Howard’s feminism, let’s look at a poignant line from the Conan tale The People of the Black Circle. In describing the magically-induced, trance-like hallucination that the Devi Yasmina- a strong, intelligent, respectable female character in her own right- experiences at the hands of a cruel male wizard, Howard writes:
“She suffered all the woes and wrongs and brutalities that man has inflicted on woman throughout the eons.”
In the context of the story, this line- this woman’s experience- is presented as a very undesirable, negative, horrible perspective. In other words, Howard writes this line in commiseration with Yasmina, indeed, in commiseration with women’s oppression and suffering, and as an ally to their suffrage.
In the story Queen of the Black Coast, Conan’s adventures bring him into the clutches of Bêlit, a Shemitish female pirate whose exploits of conquest and pillage haunt Hyborian sailors. When Bêlit sets upon Conan and his crew of sailors, she and her corsairs slay all but Conan, and Bêlit offers him the chance to join her crew. He, of course, obliges, and they make a mighty effort of pludering the crap out of the western coasts of Kush, Shem, and Stygia. Eventually, Conan and Bêlit begin to love one another deeply, and as their adventures progress, so to does their relationship. Bêlit is one of Howard’s strongest, most intelligent, most tactically gifted female characters, and inspecting her attitudes and actions reveals Howard’s own attitudes concerning women.
As a pirate-queen, reaver, and warrior woman, Bêlit walks the path of constant danger, constant exposure to the threat of injury and death. As such, she is utterly fearless. Two examples:
“”I was never afraid. I have looked into the naked fangs of Death too often. Conan, do you fear the gods?”
“We fear nothing: Conan, let us go and sack that city!”
Bêlit’s fearlessness is not her only strong trait, nor the only expression of Howard’s feminism in Queen of the Black Coast. Bêlit says at some point in the story that not even death can separate her and Conan, that death is powerless to destroy the superbly powerful love she feels for him. Soon thereafter, at the hands of some characteristic Howardian demon-beastie-thing, Bêlit meets her end as Conan loots and pillages. Upon returning to find her dead, Conan is then attacked by the same ghastly Things that killed his beloved Bêlit. Conan is actually defeated by said demon thing, and just as he is about perish, the ghost of Bêlit appears.
Again, Bêlit’s specter expresses her great love for Conan. Bolstered and emboldened by the deep emotional bond he shares with his departed lover, Conan finds the strength to push forward and defeat his enemy.
So, ultimately, the strong male-bodied warrior, survivor of countless battles and violent conflicts, is powerless and defeated until he is strengthened, enriched, and saved by the magical power of a woman’s love. Bêlit’s Love triumphs, even in death. The strength of a woman’s emotions toward her lover and life-companion are stronger than the man himself. This is undeniably a tacit statement of feminist values.
After Conan and Bêlit’s interactions, we see ever more tangible and straightforward manifestations of Howard’s feminism in The Vale of Lost Women. For the record, before expounding on the feminism in this story, I want to point out that it is by far one of the most racist of Howard’s works. I in no way intend to deny or defend the racism that pervades Howard’s works. His racism is detestable and inexcusable, but it is not the subject of this essay. That said, let’s review the plot of The Vale of Lost Women.
Conan has come to a village of the Bakalah tribe, whose chief is called Bahjujh. Conan himself comes forward as the chieftain of the Bamulas, and comes to the village in order to negotiate a peace between the two rival peoples. Bahjujh has enslaved a young Ophirian woman named Livia, whom he intends to force to be his bride and his sexual slave. Upon seeing Conan enter the village, Livia beckons to Conan, pleading with him to free her. In so doing, she promises Conan whatever he wants. In Conan’s response the reader finds the first solid example of feminism in this story:
“How can you stand there like a dumb brute?… Are you but a beast like these others? Ah, Mitra, once I thought there was honor in men. Now I know each has his price. You – what do you know of honor – or of mercy and decency? You are a barbarian like these others… I will give you a price!… Am I not fair?… Am I not a worthy reward for blood-letting? Is not a fair-skinned virgin a price worth slaying for?”
Kill… Bahjujh. Let me see his cursed head roll in the bloody dust! Kill him! Kill him!… Then take me and do as you wish with me. I will be your slave.”…
“You said I was a barbarian… and that is true, Crom be thanked. If you had had men of the outlands guarding you instead of soft-gutted civilized weaklings, you would not be a slave… this night. I am Conan, a Cimmerian, and I live by the sword’s edge… and though your kind call me a robber, I never forced a woman against her consent.” [emphasis added]
Here, Howard is telling us that objectifying women as sexual commodities to be traded and bargained for is completely unethical and unacceptable. He also tells us that Conan, a male barbarian warrior, finds the idea of rape and unconsensual sexual activity to be repellant. Conan the symbol of masculine strength desires healthy relationships with women; Conan the symbol of masculine strength values Consent!
Eventually, Conan acquiesces to Livia’s wishes and engineers a plot to rescue her. A bloodbath ensues, excessively gory and violent even for ol’ Two-gun Bob (as H.P. Lovecraft called Howard). After Conan slays Bahjujh and his tribesfolk, Livia flees in terror from Conan, thinking that he intends to capitalize on the bargain she proposed and rape her. Conan catches her up some time later, saves her from some eldritch weirdness, and they converse at the end of the story. Conan explains to her that his intentions were purely honorable, that he saved her simply because she was an individual in need and in bondage, that he has no desire to hold her to her proposal:
“It was a foul bargain I made. I do not regret [killing] Bajujh, but you are no wench to be bought and sold. The ways of men vary in different lands, but a man need not be a swine, wherever he is. After I thought awhile, I saw that to hold you to your bargain would be the same as if I had forced you. Besides, you are not tough enough for this land. You are a child of cities and books and civilized ways – which isn’t your fault, but you’d die quickly following the life I thrive on. A dead woman would be no good to me. I will take you to the Stygian borders. The Stygians will send you home to Ophir.”
Howard states clearly that men should not be swine (read: violent patriarchs). He also repudiates sexual coercion and psychological/emotional abuse, by having Conan wax poetic on the topic of making sexual bargains in exchange for his services. These ideals help to form the fabric of contemporary feminism.
It occurred to me while thinking about this story that some dissenters will argue against the feminism in the story because Livia is a profoundly weak and incapable female character. On thinking about it, I realized several fallacies in this train of thought. First, interspersed throughout Howard’s stories are a smattering of weak characters- men and women, people of all classes and economic backgrounds, etc. The same is true of strong, heroic characters. Because Howard’s weak and strong characters alike come from a diverse set of backgrounds, it is in no way telling or politically significant that Livia happens to be a weak woman.
Furthermore, I realized Howard’s reasoning for using Livia as a character. Conan justifies this when he explains Livia’s civilized origins and upbringing. It is not because she is a woman that Livia is a weak person, but because she is born and bred of the civilized world.
Neither of these points is particularly necessary to calcify the passages and arguments presented above. I have included them mostly in the interest of defending Howard’s usage Livia (i.e.: a weaker woman character) as a plot device. Anyway, let’s move on.
The final Conan story relevant to the current topic is Iron Shadows in the Moon, which, viewed in the right light, is an inspiring tale of a woman’s journey from weakness and incapability to courage, self-confidence, and emotional and physical strength.
In Iron Shadows, we see from the onset the confrontation and annihilation of patriarchal values and behaviors. In the beginning of this tale, Conan exacts a terrible and brutal vengeance upon the Shah Amurath, a political tyrant who has slain Conan’s band of outlaw kozaki. When he finally regains his composure following the slaughter, Conan becomes aware of a woman who was present to witness the scene. They decide to travel together to escape the Shah’s remaining forces, though the woman, who is terrified of the blood-splattered barbarian, is reluctant.
We learn through their shared dialogue that this woman is Olivia, a former princess of Koth. Olivia’s father, the King of Koth, sold her to a chieftain of the nomadic zuagir Shemites when she refused an arranged marriage to a prince of Koth. This chieftain gifted Olivia, as a slave, to the Shah Amurath in exchange for trade privileges.
She continues her tale, telling Conan of the unspeakable abuses she suffered at the hands of the cruel Hyrkanian, Amurath.
As they travel together, Olivia’s former fears regarding Conan as a bloodthirsty savage and as a patriarch soften and begin to dissolve. Helping her to scale a treacherous cliff, Conan lends Olivia a hand. Howard writes:
“She no longer found his touch repugnant.”
Olivia is a survivor of numerous traumas, including sexual abuse, and is understandably easily triggered by the touch of men. However, as Conan proves himself an ally and a friend, as well as a man who respects women as individuals and people, Olivia begins to grow comfortable with his touch, at least when it comes in the form of a helping hand.
The two companions trek onward, and as they bed down one evening, Olivia mulls over her past experiences of abuse, and her present experiences with Conan:
“From her bed of leaves she watched the immobile figure, indistinct in the soft darkness. How strange, to move in fellowship with a barbarian, to be cared for and protected by one of a race, tales of which frightened her as a child! He came of a people bloody, grim, and ferocious. His kinship to the wild was apparent in his every action; it burned in his smouldering eyes. Yet he had not harmed her, and her worst oppressor had been a man of the world called civilized.”
She further contemplates this association between civilization and patriarchal violence and abuse the following day:
“[She had] a revulsion toward her own kind. Her father, and Shah Amurath, they were civilized men. And from them she had had only suffering. She had never encountered any civilized men who treated her with kindness unless there was an ulterior motive behind his actions. Conan had shielded her, protected her, and- so far- demanded nothing in return.”
These two paragraphs serve to highlight the intricate bond between civilization and patriarchy. The connection between these two forces of destruction, violence, and abuse is an integral part of anarcho-primitivist thinking.
Olivia relies heavily on Conan’s strength and ability for protection early in Iron Shadows. However, half way through the tale, Conan is captured by the pirates of the Red Brotherhood whose captain he has just slain. Loyal to her comrade and ally, Olivia knows she must sneak into the pirate encampment to free Conan. With unparalleled stealth, Olivia sneaks among the drunken and sleeping mob, and cuts Conan’s bonds. Here, as in Queen of the Black Coast, we witness a helpless Conan being saved by a woman’s strength.
After she severs the ropes binding him, Olivia says to Conan:
“”I am not afraid – now [that I have freed you].”
And Conan offers an encouraging retort:
“You were not afraid when you came to free me, either.'”
The pair of comrades find their way onto the pirate galley, and subsequently convince the crew that Conan, having slain their previous leader, is their rightful captain. He allows the pirates aboard, and sets them to their tasks. As they rush to their work, the story concludes with the following conversation between Conan and Olivia:
“And what of me, sir?” she asked. “What would you?” he countered… “To go with you, wherever your path may lie!” “To sail a road of blood and slaughter?… This keel will stain the blue waves crimson wherever it plows.” Aye, to sail with you on blue seas or red… You are a barbarian, and I am an outcast, denied by my people. We are both pariahs, wanderers of the earth. Oh, take me with you!”
With a gusty laugh he lifted her to his fierce lips. “… Cast off there, dogs! We’ll scorch King Yildiz’s pantaloons yet, by Crom!”
Olivia asks what next? And Conan, with his characteristic respect for women, asks Olivia what she herself desires. Then we see Olivia, now fully confident and self-assured, embrace and adopt the life of the pirate. Finally, Howard masterfully ends this chapter in Conan’s life with a promise to harass and plunder the King of Turan himself. Thus, the tale of a woman’s journey into strength and self-confidence with an anti-authoritarian statement of purpose.
We find such a glorious interweaving of feminism and anti-authoritarian/anarchist sentiment one of Howard’s most spectacular and memorable non-Conan stories, entitled Sword Woman. This yarn is set in 16th century France, and concerns Agnes de Chastillon, a woman from a bourgeois family of former nobility.
As the tale opens, Agnes’s father- a vicious patriarch who physically and emotionally abuses Agnes- has promised her hand in marriage to a man she does not love. On her wedding day, her sister finds Agnes, and, upon seeing her great suffering and torment, councils her to commit suicide rather than suffer a “woman’s life”. She slips Agnes a dagger, that she might be able to achieve this submissive task.
Instead, as Agnes grips the hilt, she feels utterly empowered, as is she’s shaking hands with an old friend. When her abusive father and the intended bridegroom come to force her into the ceremony, she leaps at her would-be rapist and stabs him in the heart. She then flees, goes on a series of adventures, etc.
The tale of Dark Agnes, the Sword Woman, would most likely be seen by modern feminists as an affirmation of patriarchal values. That is, Agnes adopts the role of violent patriarchy- learning the trade of mercenary and sellsword, then working for various nobles, monarchs, nation-states, etc.- rather than suffer the abuses of menfolk. However, given Howard’s time and place, and granted that Agnes had little to no chance of non-violently dissuading her arranged husband/would-be rapist, her actions and attitudes are liberatory. As a character, she is also obviously indicative of Howard’s feminist leanings.
IT SHOULD BE CLEAR TO the reader at this point that Howard’s Conan tales abound with politics and social critique. Indeed, it should also be clear that Howard used these stories (and Conan, as a character) as a platform for advancing his political beliefs, namely: Anarchism, Feminism, and especially Anti-Civilization/Primitivism. With this knowledge in mind, I feel I can adequately answer the skeptical questions posed by José Villarrubia’s in the beginning of this essay:
“I have often wondered…”What is the appeal of Conan the Barbarian?” How does such a primary character from such humble origins- one without the depth and subtleties of most memorable characters from world literature, from Don Quixote to Blanche DuBois- manage to survive and thrive after several decades…? …Why do we still care for a character that epitomizes testosterone-fueled escapist fantasies? A character that is violent, fairly unsophisticated, and narrow in scope?”
The appeal of Conan the Barbarian, in my opinion, is just those qualities that Villarrubia denies Conan: his depth, his subtleties, his sophistication, and his broad scope. Conan mocks civilization, seeks consent in his relationships, respects women, and detests authority, yet he lives in a world of authoritarian, patriarchal, abusive civilization.
How is this a lack of depth, sophistication, or scope? Conan is a character completely opposed to the dominant cultural paradigm of his world, just as Howard himself was. And only by possessing a complex, rational, and critical analysis of the Hyborian World (modern industrial civilization, patriarchy) can Conan (Howard) hold such views. This is obviously the mark of depth, sophistication, and scope.
This is the appeal of Conan the Barbarian. Deep, critical analysis emblazoned upon a bad-ass, low-fantasy world of sword-and-sorcery.”
A vast and beautiful body of work concerning patriarchy and its insidious and traumatic effects on women already exists. In my experience, however, literature concerning how patriarchy infiltrates and destroys male interactions and the psychological and emotional health of males is somewhat rare. bell hooks discusses the subject in several of her works, and calls for more literature directly focused on patriarchal enculturation and how it distorts and harms male people.
In my interactions with other males recently, I’ve noticed extreme and regular behavioral trends, and I’ve devoted a lot of mental energy to processing these behaviors. It is my intention herein to discuss the effects of patriarchy on males in the interest of 1. eliminating patriarchy as a global force; 2. eradicating patriarchy within my own heart, mind, and interpersonal interactions; 3. to continue moving toward healthy and loving relationships with my friends, lovers, and partners; and 4. to help other males do all of the above.
To be clear about my intentions, this piece is NOT meant to play oppression Olympics or detract from the myriad ways in which patriarchy harms and destroys women. This is not some veiled men’s rights bullshit. Rather, it is meant to be another weapon in this war against dichotomous gender roles, male domination, and the oppression of all human animals by patriarchy. Also, for the duration of this piece, I’ll be using the terms “male” and “man/men” as synonyms; so too with “female” and “woman/women”. Let me clarify now, to dispel any gender-policing trolls who might read this, that I’m talking purely about biological sex herein. None of the terms I’m using refer to people who identify with or are identified as a particular gender.
That being said…..
Patriarchy assaults me every minute of every day. Every interaction I have with another human being is informed by patriarchy, girded by patriarchy, and underscored by patriarchy. It poisons every aspect of my social life, every facet of my internal dialogue, taints my sexuality, and undermines my self-confidence, self-respect, and self-care. Patriarchy’s toxicity is ubiquitous and hegemonic – it poisons my entire life and every other human life.
Every time I interact with another male, patriarchy dictates and defines the limits of our interactions. Every time I subtly or not-so-subtly tear down, criticize, or ridicule another male to boost myself up in social scenes, patriarchy destroys me, destroys my victim, and perpetuates itself. Every time I’m the victim of forced male competition and verbal violence, patriarchy takes the day.
Patriarchy severs any hope I have of having tender, loving relationships with other men. Even now, when I’ve gotten to the point where I’m comfortable with affection in my non-sexual relationships with other males, few of the other men in my life are in a similar place. I’m surrounded by machismo, chest-pounding, brusqueness, and an overall lack of emotional expression. Competition and one-upsmanship beat down intimacy, affection, and love. And, at times, I’m just as guilty of being a bro and allowing the artificial construct of masculinity to prescribe my actions.
Likewise, patriarchy has invaded and will invade the sexual interactions I share with other men. It constantly reminds all queer men that the only point of having an intimate relationship with another man is to fuck, and that the only way to love and to be loved is to fuck. And patriarchy certainly never lets us forget that all sex must be hierarchic and built upon power dynamics. There’s no place for emotional connection or love in sex; sex is only fun if someone’s dominating or being dominated, if there’s an authority figure and someone submitting to it. And perhaps worst of all, patriarchy forces the notion down my throat that this is the only real sex, and that it’s liberatory.
Patriarchy has attempted to teach me a number of pervasive, harmful narratives about relationships with women. These are the myths and stories collectively known as rape culture and porn culture, the stories that inform male sexuality within patriarchal society. These myths teach men that women should only be interacted with if they’re relatives or if they’re the object of sexual lust. And in these sexual relationships that patriarchy insists are the only permissible male-female interactions, abuse and violence are the norm.. Men are taught that love means physically and emotionally hurting the women in their lives, that sex is about dominating women and getting off, usually on them. And this culture of violence and abuse is everywhere, on the internet, television, movies, magazines, music, and manifest in the hetero-normative couples I see abusing each other every day. Every moment of my life, this swill bombards my senses in a non-stop barrage of pornographic ultra-violence. It makes me sick, and it makes me sad. It is exhausting to fight against it, and still see women and girls so viciously abused and killed. And this rape culture and porn culture conquers the hearts and minds of my male friends, making otherwise decent human animals into gross facsimiles of idealized masculinity.
Patriarchy has taught me (and every other male) that to be charismatic, to be heard, is to talk louder than everyone else. It means interrupting others, cutting others short, and talking over them. Patriarchal communication means listening to respond and to refute and to invalidate, not listening to hear and to truly feel what others are saying. Patriarchy tells me that I should be a leader, should tell others (namely women and less “virile” men) what to do (or not do) and how to do it. This heinous form of communication is the death of cooperation and consensus, of respect and empathy. And every fucking external force that tries to hammer its influence into me reinforces this patriarchal rubbish.
Patriarchy reminds me every day that I, as a person whose body has a penis, am entitled to anything and everything I want. My desires are the most important thing in the world, and are certainly more valid than the desires of females and weaker or less skilled men. I really struggle with this one, with entitlement. Even when my actions seem innocuous and unlikely to hurt others, I still sometimes take what is not mine and afterwards wonder why. Patriarchal socialization, and my failure to fully confront it, is the answer.
Furthermore, and related to the previous two points, patriarchy has tried to teach me (and all other males) that the only acceptable emotion to communicate is anger. Patriarchy insists that as a male I am entitled to rage at others, to intimidate and coerce others to fulfill my desires with anger, threatening behavior, and violence. This society’s brutal acculturation stifles, silences, and eliminates male emotional expression. Sadness, empathy, love, and the expression of pain are all seen as weakness, as “feminine”, unfit for the male creature. Likewise, vulnerability and emotional honesty, expressing one’s feelings and desires openly, these are also viewed as unacceptable by the forces of patriarchy, and are therefore punished accordingly.
Patriarchy tried to instill in me as a child that the only pursuits worth doing for a male are those involving competition and hierarchy. Sports as a kid, academia in my formative years up through college, and of course the working world in adulthood. The majority of the skills I value in adulthood I learned in spite of patriarchy, and most of them are considered “feminine”. I’ve given a lot of emotional energy in coming to terms with the fact that I prefer these things to traditionally “masculine” behaviors, and in reconciling these behaviors with my more “masculine” ones. I love sewing, cooking, and cleaning, keeping house, making my own clothes, weaving, and emotionally nurturing others. How many other males feel similarly I cannot say, but I’m sure patriarchal upbringing has stymied and inhibited these behaviors in many men.
It’s taken me the better part of 30 years to undo these bits of conditioning, to be honest and open and real about my emotions, to shut up and learn to listen, and to communicate in healthier ways, to embrace all my interests and skills and to reject the bullshit notions of masculinity and femininity. And now, when I feel I’ve worked toward becoming a whole animal, when I’m finally capable of real emotional connection with others and with the world, even now I’m assaulted by patriarchy every minute of every day. Other males shame me, many of the women in my life are themselves too poisoned by patriarchy to know how to handle an open and honest male, and every single snippet and blurb of civilized media screams in my face that men should not act as I do. One the rare occasion I develop a connection with another male, I find that they are often too constrained by patriarchy for real emotional bonding. Our relationships are relegated to drinking together, playing games, talking about politics and ethics (including passionate conversations about feminism), but rarely, oh so rarely, is there any kind of physical and/or emotional intimacy beyond simple hugging.
This is by no means a complete list of the ways in which patriarchy distorts and destroys male children and men, just some thoughts and experiences I’ve had lately. In working toward abolishing civilization, we must also root out all of its loathsome creations and institutions. Patriarchy and the cultures of rape, abuse, violence, and extreme oppression that come with it must likewise be destroyed. And part of fighting to destroy these fucked up institutions means looking within ourselves, watching and learning from our interpersonal interactions, questioning our behaviors and their motivations, and learning to be honest with ourselves about where we’re at in this war against patriarchy.
I’ve come a long way, and I know I’ve got a long way yet. This war we’re fighting must be won, for our own health, the health of our interactions and our communities, and for the health of the planet itself. I’m exhausted and beaten down by patriarchy (and by the deeper problem of civilized society underlying it), and still I fight. Here’s hoping that all the other radical men in the world get passionate and serious about this problem.
This is one part among many of the work of dismantling civilization. If we’re going to tear down this Leviathan, we must avoid the pitfall of propagating its institutions and methods of control. We must actively un-civilize our hearts and minds, or we’ll forever be restrained in our attempts to create healthy communities.
Let’s recognize all the ways patriarchy has wounded and broken us, heal the wounds, strive to become healthy animals. Let’s be honest with ourselves about our behaviors, and honest with others about theirs. Let’s not call each other out and in so doing replicate the dominant culture’s justice system, but instead call each other in, realize that being real about our patriarchal behaviors and exterminating them is in our collective self-interest. Let’s be stoked about the work we’re doing. Let’s build an alternative culture wherein males are encouraged to express their emotions, wherein men talk with each other openly and honestly, give each other loving and meaningful affection, and wherein men aren’t afraid to be vulnerable with other men and with the women in their lives. And obviously, let’s stop all this feel-good liberal babble about “allyship” and actually fight the fucking war against these poisonous forces. Let’s be real about this, let’s fight, and, crazy though it might seem, let’s actually strive to win!
Toward a Stronger Primitivism: Logical & Linguistic Failures in the Primitivist Critique and the Effort to Remedy Them
Before I jump into this piece, I want to establish concretely, for the sake of those who don’t know me or my work, that I am an ardent primitivist. I’m not some disgruntled outsider, some snarky critic bent on discrediting or dismissing the primitivist critique. I despise the hydra called Civilization, and while I stab at the heart of the Beast, so too do I seek to hack off each of its insidious heads: Patriarchy, Capitalism, Statism, Institutionalized Hierarchy, Mediation, Ecocide, and so on.
The anthropology underlying primitivism is solid, and the majority of arguments within the primitivist critique are coherent and hard to dispute. Even so, within the contemporary anti-civ milieu, there remain some glaring errors, oversights, and sketchy logic. The purpose of this piece is to address these mistakes and move toward remedying them. I offer these criticisms and suggestions as a means of honing the primitivist edge that it might better cut through the lies, delusions, and bullshit of civilization. I offer this piece as a gift and a labor of love, NOT as an attack against any person or their work, nor as an indictment against anarcho-primitivism itself. With that in mind, let’s continue.
The first topic I’d like to discuss, and one that irks me to no end, is the near-ubiquitous presence of the naturalistic fallacy in just about all the anti-civ literature I’ve read and many of the in-person dialogues I’ve had with other primitivists. The naturalistic fallacy, for folks who don’t know, is this line of reasoning: ”nature” is good, therefore that which is “natural” is good; anything that is against nature or is “unnatural” is bad. Almost every essay, book, blog post, lecture, podcast (ad nauseam) I’ve read or heard from an AP perspective suffers from this fallacy.
So much of the language we primitivists use – and I’m even guilty of this myself, when I slip up from time to time – further embeds this fallacy in our hearts, minds, and arguments. Just take a brief look at some of the words anti-civ arguments employ on the regs: we’ve already visited “Nature” and “natural”, but there’s also “wild”, “wilderness” and “wildness”, “rewilding”, “feral”, and a score of other nebulous words that fall into the naturalistic fallacy.
Worse yet, in my opinion, is the tacit underlying moral dualism in this fallacy that so regularly rears its head in political discussions. That is, even in trying to “re-wild” and un-domesticate themselves, primitivists still subscribe to the good-vs-evil, right-and-wrong morality that is a cornerstone of Civilized religion and jurisprudence. Civilization is EVIL and we anarcho-primitivists are the warriors of all that is righteous and good!
Now, I’m not making some nihilist argument here that all morality and/or ethics are undesirable. I’m simply saying that to fall into the cesspool of moral dualism, of good-vs-evil thinking, is to remain dichotomous, to remain mired in Civilized patterns of thinking, and, ultimately, to remain alienated from our desires via moral justification for our philosophy and actions.
Rather than hold fast to dichotomous, alienating morality, I maintain that we should argue against Civilization and all its horrors from our own experiences, desires, thoughts, and feelings. I don’t need “Nature” and what is “natural” to justify the slurry of raw horror, compassion, and rage I feel when I witness a clear cut. Nor do I need to look at “wild” human communities and their relationships to validate the visceral disgust I experience when I witness the misogyny toward and oppression of women on a daily basis.
It is enough for me, and should be enough for others, that we desire a healthy, functioning biosphere, that we want to nurture maximum biodiversity, that I love trees and non-human animals and value their lives. It should be sufficient that I respect female people and want a world in which they are not battered, raped, and killed for their sex, that I value their animal existence, and that I desire healthy interactions and communities in which women are equally valued. I cherish the Oak Savannahs of Northern California, and devoted years of my life to developing a relationship with the rainforests, valleys, and mountains of Cascadia; I love these landbases, want them to thrive, and would kill to defend them because we mutually enrich one another. I don’t need to vindicate these relationships by arguing that ecocide is “unnatural” and therefore “bad”.
To be clear, in pushing for an embrace of individual and collective desires rather than referral to fallacious moral dichotomies, I’m definitely NOT arguing against coherent language. Quite the opposite, really. In addition to re-framing AP arguments in terms of desires and relationships, I also think there are improvements to be made in regards to the actual words we utilize.
For example, when we say we want to protect the “wilderness” or return to a “wild” or “feral” way of life, what do these terms actually mean? In practice, the term “wilderness” is turbid and abstract. So too is the word “Nature”. These words describe lofty concepts, complex symbols that are deeply anchored in the Civilized psyche. How about “technology”? What symbols and imagery does that word evoke in your mind? Again, a relatively meaningless and highly symbolic word, but a word upon which many primitivists and their arguments rely.
Just so, I feel it’s crucial to rethink and re-imagine these terms such that we strengthen and reinforce the primitivist position. Let us not appeal to “nature”, that tired and dried out husk of abstraction. Instead, let us speak of the biosphere, of the intricate interconnectedness, the web of relationships that is all life – this is a concrete, physical, and tangible thing, to which we belong and of which we are a part. Let us not argue that ecocide and urbanization are “bad” because they are “unnatural”. Let us rather exult in our love of healthy, functioning landbases and egalitarian communities, and of our desire to see what we love thrive!
TOKENIZING & FETISHIZING GATHERER-HUNTERS
I witness this obnoxious tendency all the time, and the dishonesty and subtle racism embedded in this practice annoy me to no end. Usually this comes in the form of sweeping generalizations. “Native Americans were blah blah blah,” “all hunter-gatherers lived in egalitarian bands”, “no division of labor and very little sexism exist in hunter-gatherer cultures”, etc. Even among those primitivists I meet who don’t generalize, and who use particular cultures and peoples as examples in their arguments, there is a tendency to fetishize gatherer-hunters, to portray them as virtuous, as immaculate, as “good”.
This is simply dishonest, and it is untrue. Few generalizations can be made about pre-contact “Native Americans”, as there were thousands of distinct peoples, languages, cultures, customs, traditions, stories, technologies, and lifeways. Some indigenous Americans were indeed primarily hunter-gatherers, some pastoralists, some agriculturalists, some a mix of all of these. Some groups were matrilineal, and some patrilineal. Some peaceful, and some warlike. Some, like the Coast Salish and Haida peoples of Cascadia, were downright civilized – they were stationary, domesticated dogs, engaged in protracted and brutal warfare, had slaves, had centralized, hierarchic leadership, and so on.
Likewise, even among those peoples who primitivists love to reference, there’s sometimes “trouble in paradise”. The Hadza, for example, who are and have been hunter-gatherers in Tanzania since the dawn of humanity, are a favorite idol of many contemporary primitivists. They are roughly egalitarian, subsist on gathering and hunting, and live in an ecologically responsible and respectful way, much as they have forever. And yet, as Frank Marlowe describes in The Hadza: Hunter-Gatherers of Tanzania, these primal peoples practice female genital mutilation in the form of clitorectomy. This is not only a grave manifestation of misogyny and patriarchy among an otherwise “ideal” hunter-gatherer people, but it also represents a significant form of specialization in a society that is broadly anarchic and egalitarian.
These very brief and wholly incomplete examples concerning indigenous Turtle Islanders and the Hadza people serve to demonstrate the folly in tokenizing, fetishizing, and making generalizations about gatherer-hunters. In my experience, this happens quite regularly among anarcho-primitivists. I would like it to be my future experience that it stops happening, and that those with a critique of civilization speak honestly and factually about such peoples.
In fact, I’d really rather primmies speak from their own experiences and desires rather than allude to hunter-gatherers at all. Whatever the Hadza do, however various indigenous Turtle Island groups lived, whatever the behaviors of the !Kung happen to be, ultimately these things are useful to consider but are irrelevant. I want to live as a hunter-gatherer, I want to abolish the civilized death machine, I want a vibrant and fecund biosphere. That’s valid, and it’s enough. I don’t need the Hadza or Pirahã to corroborate my desires.
THE SEARCH FOR EUROPEAN INDIGENEITY & IDOLIZING IRON AGE CULTURES
In recent years, as green anarchism and anarcho-primitivism have gained acceptance in radical undercurrents, I have noticed an increasingly popular and bothersome trend. As a growing number of anarchists adopt the critique of civilization, so too do they begin to look to the past for guidance and methodologies for decolonizing and rewilding (i.e.: un-domestication). This, in itself, is a praiseworthy pursuit.
However, the destination at which many anarchists arrive on this ideological journey is, unfortunately, still civilization. I’m talking about the Iron Age. The Celts. The Vikings. The Gauls, Goths, Vandals, and other Iron Age “barbarians”. European paganism, witchcraft, Scandinavian runes, and proto-Germanic polytheism. You name the Iron Age European culture, and I’ll wager there’s some well-intentioned but ignorant primitivist who’s trying to resurrect and relive it.
To a certain extent this is understandable. The hunter-gatherer peoples and cultures of Europe are eradicated – their languages are destroyed, they kept no records, and they’ve all been conquered or enslaved or raped out of existence by civilized shitbags. With little to no information remaining regarding European hunter-gatherers, and an overwhelming abundance of information about the Iron Age, it is unsurprising that many primitivists end their historical search a tad shy of the Stone Age.
Don’t get me wrong: I love viking metal and folk metal just as much as the next person. I just don’t think that’s the trajectory or end point of primitivism. I don’t want to be a Celt, I spit on my Viking heritage, I don’t want to practice European agriculture or pastoralism or insane religions full of dude-bro gods who rape and pillage. And I sure as hell don’t want to be a part of a culture that routinely and as an integral means of its existence raids, pilfers from, conquers, and rapes its neighbors. Fuck that. Fuck the Iron Age, and fuck replicating it!
For those well-intentioned and historically ignorant primitivists I mentioned (and I know there are many, because I’ve had this conversation a thousand times), please!, if you want to discover more about your European heritage, don’t stop at the Iron Age! Look into the Paleo peoples of Europa. Watch Ray Mears’ fantastic Bushcraft series, the first episode of which is entitled Aboriginal Britain. Read Tacitus’s ancient and propagandistic accounts of the Sami people of Northern Europe in his Germania. Hell, read about the Sami today, and about their forced transition between hunting-gathering and reindeer pastoralism; read about how said transition and their forced Christianization has caused the cancerous blight of patriarchy and sexist abuse to spring up in their society. There’s so much to be gleaned, so much that affirms the primitivist stance in that people’s ancient and recent history. Study the Ahrensburg culture of Paleolithic Scandinavia, the Aurignacian, then Solutrean, then later Magdalenian cultures that spanned much of mainland Europe and southwest Asia.
To be fair here, I’m not suggesting that there’s nothing to be garnished from Iron Age European cultures. As far as symbols go, I think the Germanic runic futhark (alphabet) and its associated symbolism is intriguing, fun, and cool. I think Celtic metalworking and knotwork is beautiful. I like re-purposing civilized detritus to cobble together piecemeal post-apocalyptic renditions of Iron Age armors. I like swords and scalemail, longships and fire arrows. I LOVE mead, wine, and beer! And I especially like historical accounts of “barbarians” resisting and defeating the forces of empire. Vercingetorix, the Gallic warrior-king, and Boudica, the Celtic warrior-queen who avenged the rape of her two daughters, both led their people into fierce open rebellion against Rome. I hella respect that and it inspires me, even if these were bloodthirsty, land-destroying, slave-taking civilized grain-munchers.
That’s about it for now. I have other criticisms I’d like to level at contemporary anarcho-primitivism at some point, but these are the most bothersome among them. In the hopes that this piece doesn’t spark some factious flame-war on the internet or drive ideological wedges between myself and others, I want to stress again that this is meant to be constructive criticism. Some of it is even a reminder to myself to avoid certain pitfalls of logic and discourse.
So yeah, don’t take this personally, take it proactively. With love and rage, let’s tear this monolithic shitheap down!
In a recent post on his blog Uncivilized Animals, the author, Ian, quotes from John Zerzan’s piece in the current Fifth Estate. He writes:
“There is an understandable, if misplaced, desire that civilization will cooperate with us and deconstruct itself. This mind set seems especially prevalent among those who shy away from resistance, from doing the work of opposing civilization.” [emphasis added]
Like Ian, I too was struck when I first read this phrase. So many times in countless discussions and debates, I’ve heard people agree with the primitivist stance against civilization, but resign themselves to inaction and despair. Yes, civilization sucks and all that, but what can be done? What can WE do?! Even among those close friends and allies whose vitriolic hatred of civilization rivals my own, this resignation is often deeply rooted.
This isn’t a new question, nor a particularly difficult task to analyze. And yet, as the anti-Civilized critique grows broader, fuller, and stronger with every passing day, the question remains unacknowledged and unaddressed. If we, as primitivists, accept that Civilization and its toxic lifeway are destroying the biosphere and immiserating all life, if we accept that Civilization and its systems of oppression are the greatest obstacle to self-actualization, autonomy, and healthy community, is this not, then, the most important question ever asked?
I hold that it is.
What does it mean to oppose Civilization? How can we set about dismantling and destroying Civilization?
This essay is concerned with these questions, with beginning to address them and to initiate dialogue about them. I by no means think that I have all the knowledge, all the answers, or that my path is singular or the “correct” way. However, being true to my animal self, I do feel that I’ve made significant inroads in answering this question and in radically transforming myself toward healthy animal being and away from the shackles of civilized life. Just so, by sharing my thoughts, feelings, and experiences regarding this question, I hope to inspire others to tackle this most daunting and pivotal of questions.
In order to properly answer this question, we must first look at Civilization itself, at its structures and methods of domination, hierarchy, and control, at its myths and narratives. The second part of this essay will do just that. Then, in each of the subsequent parts, we’ll take the information discussed in Part 2 – the structures and methods of Civilized power, i.e., the shit that makes Civ function- and explore how best to oppose, destroy, and supplant those structures.