The war machine is the motor of the social machine; the primitive social being relies entirely on war, primitive society cannot survive without war. The more war there is, the less unification there is, and the best enemy of the State is war. Primitive society is society against the State in that it is society-for-war.--from The Archeology of ViolenceAnthropologist and ethnographer Pierre Clastres was a major influence on Gilles Deleuze and Felix Guattari's Anti-Oedipus, and his writings formed an essential chapter in the discipline of political anthropology. The posthumous publication in French of Archeology of Violence in 1980 gathered together Clastres's final groundbreaking essays and the opening chapters of the book he had begun before his death in 1977 at the age of 43. Elaborating upon the conclusions of such earlier works as Society Against the State, in these essays Clastres critiques his former mentor, Claude Levi-Strauss, and devastatingly rejects the orthodoxy of Marxist anthropology and other Western interpretive models of "primitive societies." Discarding the traditional anthropological understanding of war among South American Indians as arising from a scarcity of resources, Clastres instead identifies violence among these peoples as a deliberate means to territorial segmentation and the avoidance of a State formation. In their refusal to separate the political from the social, and in their careful control of their tribal chiefs--who are rendered weak so as to remain dependent on the communities they represent--the "savages" Clastres presents prove to be shrewd political minds who resist in advance any attempt at "globalization."The essays in this, Clastres's final book, cover subjects ranging from ethnocide and shamanism to "primitive" power and economy, and are as vibrant and engaging as they were thirty years ago. This new edition--which includes an introduction by Eduardo Viverios de Castro--holds even more relevance for readers in today's an era of malaise and globalization.
2 有用 Platzanweiser 2022-05-22 07:53:22
德喀斯特罗的序言自然能说明许多问题,他对学术政治正确所怀有的怨恨,以及他对“比较心智”的依恋自然导向了他对克拉斯特尔这样一个尚能用野蛮人凝视和野蛮人浪漫幻想来相对化欧洲性的实例的缅怀和惋惜,但这里恰恰说明了克拉斯特尔或者说德勒兹加塔里与德喀斯特罗(注意他的贵族姓氏)之间的根本的差距:前者所关注的根本来说是社会的和政治/非政治的条件,而后者仅仅以某种宇宙论为沾沾自喜,作为一个历史终结后哀嚎着西方的忏... 德喀斯特罗的序言自然能说明许多问题,他对学术政治正确所怀有的怨恨,以及他对“比较心智”的依恋自然导向了他对克拉斯特尔这样一个尚能用野蛮人凝视和野蛮人浪漫幻想来相对化欧洲性的实例的缅怀和惋惜,但这里恰恰说明了克拉斯特尔或者说德勒兹加塔里与德喀斯特罗(注意他的贵族姓氏)之间的根本的差距:前者所关注的根本来说是社会的和政治/非政治的条件,而后者仅仅以某种宇宙论为沾沾自喜,作为一个历史终结后哀嚎着西方的忏悔的学术门阀的自我鞭笞而展现。这恐怕也是后者和斯特劳斯的差距的所在。恐怕这里回到p社所刊载的托斯卡诺的译文再合适不过——无论是野蛮人作为乌托邦,作为启示,还是作为揭示我们自身的相对性的他者,他们都完全不妨碍近代的精神的展开,而不如说这种他者-知识的态度,本身就是近代的精神张力的必要结果 (展开)
0 有用 萨朗波 2011-12-06 00:46:17
the savage society: making war against the state. Not anarchist but ANARCHONTIC!