Was James C. Scott an Anarchist?

Video in which I explain that James C. Scott was not an anarchist by quoting him saying that he was not an anarchist.

Source: James C. Scott, Two Cheers for Anarchism: Six Easy Pieces on Autonomy, Dignity, and Meaningful Work and Play (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2012), xii, xvi.

Follow me on social media:

Buy my book Means and Ends: The Revolutionary Practice of Anarchism in Europe and the United States:

Check out my other videos:

[thequeeragender]

I realized that Scott wasnt an anarchist when, in Seeing Like A State, he spent the whole book showing how the state is controlling, exploitative and destroys diversity by design but then in the conclusion said that we needed to elect better people at the head of states... i was like dude did you even read your own book??

[Andrewism]

Haven't been able to read all his work, but I remember saying in a video that he wasn't an anarchist based on his work and his explicit statement in Seeing Like A State, and someone in the comments told me otherwise. I figured he might've changed self-identification later on in some work I hadn't read. Thanks for clearing this up!

[claudiaborges]

That quote really clears it up. “Abolition is not an option […] the challenge is to tame it. That challenge may well be beyond our reach”

[ianmccready]

Yeah James C. Scott always came off as a more minarcho-socialist than a full fledged anarchist. Though I have heard that the essentially flip-flopped over the years between identifying as an anarchist or not. Regardless, you are right in that many of his works are worth reading. "The Art of Not Being Governed" is good, but I especially love "Seeing Like a State" it really helps put into perspective why states keep failing to better the human conditions thanks to their desire for control and domination.

[Swan-may]

Another W for actual anarchist glasses wearers, thanks for the clarification maam

[Edmonddantes]

Excellent timing as I’m halfway through “Against the grain”

[alix]

2:40

It's funny that you say that cause I literally got a paperbacked copy of this book a few hours ago (so basically at the same time you published your video).

[dark-hoodiedexilesorcerer]

I've read "The Art of Not Being Governed, " "Seeing Like a State, " and "Against the Grain." I also read "Two Cheers for Anarchism, " and while I disagree with Scott's attitudes toward the state and Leviathan, I don't remember finding it a particularly worse book than the others - I found it thought-provoking and helpful in seeing some stuff from a different perspective, just like his other works. Granted, though, it has been ten years since I read it.

[Goofy]

Great vid, again, keep up the good work! ❤

[eylon]

I like hia book 'against the grain', it brouhht my interest in social science back

[alix]

He literally says so in the Introduction to his boo, "Seeing like a State" pages like 20
If people read introduction we wouldn't be here

(I got the book in French so pardon my non accurate transcription cause i'm retranslating)

"[...]those whou would read my ideas like an anarchist manifesto against the State. [...] The State is in my eyes an institution [...] that renders possible both the guarantee of our liberty and freedom that their repressions."


He is a very interesting ethnologist, anthropologist, sociologist and politologist but not every interesting researcher that has fine idea about the State has to be an anarchist.

[pranavnambiar]

Hi
can you make a video about anarchist movement in India

[DMOpethian]

What a way to find out he died... I enjoyed his books Seeing Like a State, Against the Grain and Moral Economy of the Peasant. I believe you're technically correct in stating he is not an anarchist since, as you quoted, he refused the position. But this feels like it is missing some context, which is weird because the context is right there: "Lacking a comprehensive anarchist worldview... and in any case wary of nomothetic ways of seeing..." Scott seemed not to want to generalise too hastily and was (in my view, correctly) aiming for scientific investigation of human political and social organisation and behaviour. If humans display much more variety than anarchist tendencies, then one cannot view things only through that lens (taking an `anarchist squint' is a methodological commitment) since this will block your understanding of people and societies which are not anarchist. One may even be or become skeptical of the possibility to achieve the pure vision, given the continuously competing tendencies in human behaviour.

At least in online spaces that I see, many leftist and anarchists simply refuse to deal with any challenges to their viewpoint, and seem to be committed to their favourite flag, rather than coming to anarchism as a reasoned position. Absolute statements like `all authority is bad' or `total freedom' are common, but tend to lead to immediate contradictions. People who refuse to make such absolute statements are then condemned on the basis of impurity. Maybe it's different in real life.

Instead of such absolute statements, the best we have are numerous examples, with varying degrees of evidence and understanding, and various perspectives with which to view them. There are many examples of the state working to benefit people, and many examples of non-state societies with horrendous practices (even if one is more interesting in understanding why such practices exist/persist; I'm just reading Blood Revenge by Boehm, to give an example). Several other authors have been similarly careful, such as Le Guin in The Dispossessed - An Ambiguous Utopia, or Graeber who (if I recall correctly) occasionally opined that we don't know if anarchism will work, but we have to try. I would like to note again, as you did, that Scott indeed focused on really existing non-state societies and furthermore he did not romanticise them. I think that's especially valuable for anyone who thinks of themselves as a committed anarchist.

Or maybe this is all beside the point...

(I think this is only the second time I've had the courage to comment, and it turned out sounding critical again. I'm sorry, I really love your videos, and get excited when I get the notification. I really look forward to your upcoming books!)

[TrevKen]

He sounds like more of a "philosophical anarchist", like me. We see the anarchist spirit as being a necessary force to taming the state, and holding it to account. Because even in your theoretical end-goal, you'd always need people to hold power to account. So we see it as an eternal philosophy, rather than a specific end-goal.

[alliecat]

Maybe his politics might have developed further in a more anarchist direction had he lived longer. The seeds were clearly there, I like to think they would have. In any case, may his memory be a blessing :(

[meuxtag]

In Against the Grain, I thought he argued that the first States emerged partly as protection rackets. It seemed to me that in this book he showed how the State is not inevitable. Maybe his position changed over time?

[blackspring]

Okay alright yes I get it. But his researches and writings have done more in our time to advance the understanding of State societies and their ills than reading 10 books by Kropotkin could ever do.

[hassankhan-jgdx]

Definitely not, but I do think his work has some value to people interested in Anthropology.

[Void..]

We need your brain dismantling this most recent Timbah On Toast video on Russell Brand's "anarchism". Neither of em understand anarchism at all, yet they both pretend to.

Hope all is well! 🏴

[douglasfleming]

Like your stuff, Zoe.

What do you think? I used to always call myself a Marxist until it became exhausting to always clarify what i meant to my audiences. I often ran afoul of various dogmatic purists who tried to impose their own definitions.

I suppose it is somewhat useful to demarcate oneself in a way that makes (some) people pay attention. But, on the other hand, some of those I would like to reach turn off when I use the term. I dont want to simply preach to the converted. I tend to now claim to be a socialist, although that is also unsatisfying.

You obviously have a firm definition of anarchism (and who am I to quibble about that?)

As for Scott: what he means by the state is pretty vague. We have his own word for the fact that he wasn't an anarchist.

But I fear that in our current age we seemed forced to always categorize people and ideas.

Any way, I am rambling.

My respect.