Notes From an Anarchist

Symposium

Anarchism Symposium Committee Campus Box 134 Lewis and Clark College Portland, Oregon 97219

- The First International Symposium on Anarchism was held the week of February 17-24, 1980 at Lewis and Clark College, Portland, Oregon. During that week, at one time or another, every word in the title was challenged by one person or another. I felt the most telling criticism was delivered by two comrades from Mexico, concerning the use of the word symposium. They said it promised wine, but had delivered only words. nfeoertdunately mutual aid societies sprang up very quickly to meet this

At any rate I think it is fair to say that this was the first international symposium on anarchism ever that has been supported so heavily and so openly by the State (in all its guises, federal, regional, local, foreign) and by established institutions. The remarkable list of sponsors, which included among others The. National Foundation on the Arts and Humanities, Clackmas County CETA, Oregon Arts Commission, Northwest Latin American Council for the Arts and Humanities, the French and German embassies, and, of course, Lewis and Clark College, must appear to some old anarchist comrades a sardonic exercise in surrealistic fantasy, but I assure them it was so, though why it was so, I have no idea. -

Not only that, but, after accepting aid from its nominal foes, every word—well almost every word—of the Symposium was fearlessly recorded, video-taped, and filmed by somebody or other. The government, if it did not make its own recordings, may buy quite easily a tape of any session—as you may gentle reader—at a reasonable price from the Symposium Committee. Some 75-80 hours of talk. Openess — or was it noise?—with a vengeance. The conspiratorial anarchist did not seem to be in evidence at Portland.

Why did such a symposium take place in the beautiful, but seemingly incongruous city of Portland? It was undoubtedly because the first spark of inspiration was struck by Pietro Ferrua, who teaches at Lewis and Clark. The actual Symposium Committee, who organized/improvised the event (one may choose according to ideological conviction or interpretation of reality), consisted of a mixture of students, symposium staff, faculty (Lewis and Clark), and community (Portland), most of whom, I was told, were not avowed anarchists, though clearly either sympathetic to or interested in anarchism.

The desirability of putting together a symposium on anarchism in a manner consistent with anarchist principles was, I think, generally accepted in theory by the Committee, though when the Symposium began, the rather recalcitrant nature of some anarchists made them point out perhaps too rudely the shortcomings of the Committee's practice.

It did not seem appropriate, whatever aid they might have given, to have flags representing the city, state and federal governments behind the podium during the first day of the Symposium, but this was quickly and discreetly rectified by the use of a convenient curtain. (Though I did not hear any critical comments about flags when, toward the end of the week, the red and black banner was raised several times behind the podium.) And it was certainly indelicate to hold the session on anarchism and feminism in an auditorium which had the names of fifty "great" founders of Western Civilization in large letters on opposite walls—all of them men! —a fact which was quickly noted by the women present. But I think it is fair to note that in these and in other matters where differences and problems developed, the Committee always attempted to deal with them quickly and with great good will, all the more remarkable for the great pressure it was continually under.

The scheduling of the Symposium was clearly overfull; scheduled events ran usually from nine in the morning to ten at night, leaving too little time for socializing, discussion, affinity groups, etc., except at the expense of missing sessions. This overfull schedule in the opinion of some led to a certain lack of "spontaneity," some over-control from the podium and frequently in the beginning, domination of the discussion by the panelists, but by the end of the week freer and of ten more fruitful discussions arose from more open procedures.

The contents of the various sessions encompassed theory and practice, contemporary and historical approaches, ideas and art-forms in a fascinating, if not always comprehensible, manner.

The largest audience, an enthusiastic full house of some 4-500, attended a round table on anarchism and literature, undoubtedly attracted by the first lady of science fiction, Ursula Le Guin. She appeared together with playwright Barbara Garson and poet Barbara Drake. Though in my eyes the content of the discussion was rather insubstantial, the readings from their works were quite enjoyable. It was a candidate for the most popular session of the Symposium, and it attracted the most general, least "political" audience of the week.

The next most heavily attended session was the round table on anarchism and feminism. The panelists gave very short and succinct statements of several minutes, all supporting the idea of anarcha-feminism, except for Marianne Enckell, who suggested the phrase may have created more barriers instead of removing them. Stephen Schecter, the only man on the panel, was attempting to rebut Marianne, but was suddenly silenced when it was pointed out to him by a woman that he had spoken longer than all of the female panelists combined. From that somewhat impolite beginning the session then proceeded to become one of the most wide ranging of all sessions and perhaps the first to have the genuine and full participation of all the audience.

The rest of the sessions had generally much smaller audiences, ranging from 20-30 to several hundred, most of whom were people who had come from outside of Portland to specifically attend the conference. I think that outside of some fearful few Portlanders, who were concerned that the Symposium may have been sponsoring seminars in bomb-making, most of the city and the Lewis and Clark campus took the presence of the Symposium and of some 80-100 anarchists within their midst with a great and calm indifference.

There were of course the controversial sessions. To say the least! Perhaps the most passion was released during Arthur Mendel's presentation, a psycho-sexual investigation of Bakunin called "Bakunin's Politics:

The Role of Violence and Leninist Organization", when Mendel made some extremely provocative suggestions; e.g., that Leninist vanguardism should be considered more properly descended from Bakunin rather than from Marx (was it more than coincidence that Portland had a shop called Marx Hearing Aids with the motto "Let us help your hearing"?), that Bakunin's calls to revolutionary violence were related more to his sexual impotence than to his political philosophy or analysis. Sam Dolgoff (ed. of Bakunin on Anarchy) hurrumpfed, "It's nonsense," more than once during Mendel's talk, while Arthur Lehning, perhaps the authority on Bakunin, tried to inform Mendel that Bakunin had fathered a child in Siberia. Though Mendel read very extensive selections from the letters of Bakunin to justify his ideas, instructive according to Mendel because of their pre-Freudian innocence in imagery, he was always saying, rather defensively I thought, that he had much more proof in his 700 page manuscript. Since the discussion generated more heat than light, we shall have to wait for the book and see for ourselves.

The session which prompted the most violent response in what was otherwise quite a peaceful week was the one in which the paper of C.R. Kordig, "Future Generations: Some Libertarian Arguments Concerning the Right to Life" was given. In his attempt to present his anti-abortion view, Kordig began by having a bent wire clotheshanger thrown at him (which he in turn threw back), he was continually interrupted, and finally, after he had finished, was told to sit down and let the audience talk; a procedure that would have been welcomed in several sessions, but that was applied, as far as I know, only in this session during the entire week. Kordig's paper was a poor one, poorly reasoned and poorly delivered by the nervous Kordig, but he seems to have had the audience he deserved.

"Anarchism and Religion—Are They Compatible?", a session which I did not attend, also, I understand, generated much heated argument.

Now I have nothing against a certain high spirits, and particularly during symposia, but surely when there are people who do not know each other well and who disagree, it is more appropriate to listen attentively. .. at least for a little while. It might be noted that the behavior of some anarchists in this respect was not especially praiseworthy. Like many other groups which have had controversial arguments presented to them, anarchists yelled, interrupted, and demonstrated without listening. Though on these occasions there were some who insisted upon the rights of anyone to be heard, they usually had little effect. At times decent behavior seemed as distant as utopia. Without doubt another demonstration that the revolution within will be the hardest to achieve.

More quiet and sober values were also represented in Portland: many well-researched and stimulating papers were given and considered, too many to list and discuss—alas! quiet and sober values usually get short shrift—but I advise interested people that it is well worth their effort to write to the Symposium for their 22 page program of topics and speakers.

The attempt to integrate art, film, theatre, music, dance, and poetry into the program was successful on the whole, both instructive and enter

Here the film program, which had "Anarchists in Film" as its theme, should be singled out for special notice. With the help of a useful pamphlet prepared by Pietro Ferrua, the program presented films daily, a mix of old and new, documentaries and dramatizations, that developed lively discussions, particularly. "Rebellion in Patagonia" and "La Cecilia", the first concerning issues involved in direct action and revolution, the second issues involved in setting up a community based-upon anarchist principles. The Pacific Street Film Collective also presented the premiere of their film, "The Free Voice of Labor—The Jewish Anarchists", which was one of the most warmly received presentations of the entire SympoSiUM.

And finally the Symposium was quite successful as an occasion to personally exchange ideas and feelings, to begin friendships, and pace! our Mexican friends to drink more than enough wine. (Here in order to give a sense of the geographical scope of the participants at the Symposium I might mention that Latin America, Canada, Western Europe, and the U.S.—mainly the East Coast meeting the West Coast; the Midwest and South did not seem to be on hand in Portland—were the regions that I saw represented.)

Unhappily, a final session evaluating the Symposium and considering the questions that it-raised both of content and procedure, which could have been useful if done when impressions were still fresh, (shouldn't an anarchist symposium value the spontaneous as well as the considered?) was not scheduled and, though some suggested it, not arranged. I would imagine this was largely because of lack of time to do so.

Some questions—and this is just a preliminary and very personal list-- that might have been discussed are:

How should topics and speakers be chosen for an anarchist conference? (How were they chosen for Portland?)

How should discussions be held, moderated or not? Both?

What is the proper proportion between free and unscheduled time?

Should some of the topics and events have been chosen for the Portland Symposium? (Was ending the Symposium with a Catholic Anarchist Eucharist too ecumenical a concept? an eclecticism too uncritical?)

Was the Portland Symposium too uncritical of anarchism?

As a member of the Symposium Committee said in his closing remarks, words which I felt many were in agreement with, "If there was any message from the past week, it was that a beginning has been made."

It seems to me that putting together an anarchist symposium is a modest but useful way in which the anarchist idea can address itself to contemporary reality. Portland was at least a good beginning, something we should thank the Symposium for, and it now remains for others, if they so wish, to carry on the work they have begun.

—r d.

Seriousness is

the only refuge

of the shallow.

Wilde