This page provides a glossary of terms beginning ‘D’. Each term usually provides links to other relevant materials on the FRAW site, and/or to Wikipedia and other on-line sources.
It’s impossible to summarize such a broad philosophy in a paragraph, but… ‘Deep ecology’ challenges anthropocentrism, arguing that the roots of the ecological crisis stem from humanity’s mental separation from their ecological origins, and that we cannot address this human-made crisis without redressing that artificial separation of people and natural systems. ‘Green’ or environmental groups seek to reduce or ameliorate the impacts of the modern global economy through technological means, usually without challenging any of the core values of liberal economics. ‘Deep Ecology’ turns that on its head: It challenges anthropocentrism, instead arguing that the basis of the ecological crisis stems from humanity’s inability to perceive the damage done to the Earth’s biosphere because of our failure to understand our essential relationship to natural systems. Though this idea has arisen at many times, with its roots in Ancient Greece, the modern Deep Ecology movement has it origins in the 1970s with the work of Arne Naess, Bill Devall, and George Sessions. Though many in the Green movement pay lip-service to such ideas, rarely do they confront the disconnect between ecological reality and the increasing impacts of the human system – and why abandoning the core economic and philosophical values of the modern technological economy is the only way to address human unsustainability. Deep ecological thinking takes many forms, from the spiritual, to academic disciplines examining our impacts upon nature, to practical activities such as bushcraft – and is closely related to anarcho-primitivist principles.
‘Degrowth’ is an idea proposed by various academics over the last two decades as an alternative means of dealing with both the failure of the Western neoliberal economic model, and the global ecological crisis. Degrowth argues that the ignored externalities of the modern economy – such as urban decay, pollution, meaningless consumption, and the various facets of the ecological crisis – stem from the obsession of Western states with economic growth, and in particular its failure to internalize the ‘economic value’ of the damage which the pursuit of growth creates. From this basis Degrowth argues that a planned contraction of the global human system, reducing the stark global and national inequalities of material wealth, delivering sufficiency for all in order to tackle both social and environmental ills, can provide a long-term basis for the continued operation of human society; and that in fact, without such urgent changes, the growth-oriented model of Western economics will collapse with even more catastrophic results for all. Except on the fringes of politics, Degrowth is never/rarely discussed by the mainstream of politics and the political commentariat. However, Degrowth research is demonstrating more-and-more that it’s empirical criticism of the human economy is analytically correct, and therefore that the collapse of the human economy is imminent without a radical change in policy.
Literally, ‘the rule of the people’. There is no one form of democracy, or of voting: In less developed states certain forms are defined by historic traditional rights; some developed states, such as Switzerland, have a higher level of ‘direct democracy’ (where people directly participate in decision-making) than economically similar states; and while most states exercise some form of representation formalized by law, in most cases the delegates have little or no accountability for their actions once they are elected. Though the argument is made that democracy is imperfect but ‘is better than the alternatives’, this is not a valid argument since it precludes any options which challenges the power of the groups who dominate the state today, yet which might arguably be better for the ‘average’ person if such options were enacted.
It’s impossible to summarize such a complex topic in a paragraph, but… In the Nineteenth Century, anarchist’s pursuit of ‘propaganda of the deed’ (basically, violent destruction and killing) allowed ruling elites to denounce ‘anarchism’ as dangerous terrorism – much as, in complete contrast, peaceful non-violent protest is labelled as ‘terrorism’ by elites today. However, ‘direct action’ is not ‘protest’, it is not lobbying or asking for change, it seeks to create the desired outcome through the actions carried out. As outlined as length in David Graeber’s book, ‘Direct action – An Ethnography’ (2009): “If... townsfolk dig a new well, in defiance of the law, then that would be direct action. But if [they] blockade the mayor's house until he changed his policy, that would certainly not be.” Direct action seeks change through creating and securing our needs in person, not via representative agencies. In other words, direct action seeks to prefiguratively create parallel structures to the dominant state/social structures, operated directly by those involved, seeking to create the patterns of living they desire to exist under rather than those which have historically been imposed.
Before ‘DIY’ was commodified as a cheaper form of conspicuous consumption, it represented one of the core values of anarchism: That the individual should have the power to freely create the means of their subsistence and lifestyle, free of external control. DIY is a key value within punk-influenced movements, where self-creation is not merely about subsistence, it is a means to free self-expression and practical creativity. Collectively, through the sharing of our information and designs this process builds to create a ‘free culture’ – where our potential for creativity is not artificially restricted by our economic status. Most importantly, within a free culture which seeks to systematically overthrow the current dominant system, we ‘Do-It-Ourselves’ in order to create the skills and tools required to work outside the legal or economic constraints which states have historically imposed upon their citizens – supplanting their economic order with our own.
A ‘double bind’ is an existential or logical trap where whatever action is taken results in a worse set of outcomes – and there is no option of retreat. The term has its basis in legal procedures which prevent opting-out or resigning from the consequences of action, forcing the parties to see-through the agreement. In the modern-day sense the economic social contract of Western society represents a ‘double bind’ as there is no option of getting-out of that process, and if you are in the section of society which does not reap the benefits of this system then you are condemned never to be able to improve upon that outcome. The social and political milieu Neoliberalism has created does not permit alternative visions to co-exist, and structural change – even the discussion of it – is not permitted, and is often violently repressed whenever it arises.
‘Dysorganization’ is a principle created by the Free Range Network to state that “we have no interest in creating an organized structure for our work”. When groups create a central bureaucratic organization, running that structure requires time and resources – and over time it is often a source of strife or disagreement which burns even more time and resources. By creating an organization based upon free-association, where people are free to contribute what they feel they can, when they can, without any compulsion to contribute to any imposed schedule, everyone involved can participate more efficiently because they do not have the burden of that administrative overhead. This approach is ancient, being based within the principles of primitive anarchism, and represents a more natural method of organizing without the modern tendency to enforce centralization in action and decision-making.