TAZ and Hakim Bey's Curious Approach

I just finished reading Hakim Bey’s book Temporary Autonomous Zone. Needless to say, it was kind of creepy. I can appreciate Bey’s socially-indifferent hedonism, especially since even he recognizes it isn’t a practical approach but a spiritual mindset (yes, he’s a mystic, which is a bit strange) but he just has to blather on about his attraction to little boys. Perhaps he is a NAMBLA spokesman in all of his books, as his Pirate Utopias (written under his real name, Peter L Wilson), which is overall a great history, is also rife with his little boy fetish. I try hard not to let his advocation of pederasty detract from his better points, but…ew.

But seriously, he does have some very good points. His idea of the TAZ is a reasonable proposal to not try to smash the state all at once, but to tear holes in the spectacle here, there, anywhere and anywhen, as long as the autonomy achieved exists in the present. We shouldn’t wait around for a totalistic revolution. As I understand it, he sees it as wise to avoid spectacular confrontation and instead to quietly engage in radical organizing behind the scenes. Here is a good quote (ignore the postmodern jargon about the “Simulated” state. Baudrillard is a step backwards from Debord):

[The destruction] of the Simulated State will be “spectacular,” but in most cases the best and most radical tactic will be to refuse to engage in spectacular violence, to withdraw from the area of simulation, to disappear. (102)

Also, as I briefly mentioned above, Bey is concerned with the immediate fulfillment of desires. He is realistic and does not reject all mediation, but he is transfixed with immediatism. His critique of anarchism in his essay Post-Anarchism Anarchy reflects this belief. I think some of his points here are worthwhile:

Between tragic Past & impossible Future, anarchism seems to lack a Present—as if afraid to ask itself, here & now, WHAT ARE MY TRUE DESIRES?—& what can I DO before it’s too late?…Yes, imagine yourself confronted by a sorcerer who stares you down balefully & demands, “What is your True Desire?” Do you hem & haw, stammer, take refuge in ideological platitudes? Do you possess both Imagination and Will, can you both dream & dare—or are you the dupe of an impotent fantasy? (61)

His essay on linguistics is an interesting read as well. He argues against both Chomskyan linguistics and anti-linguistics (Zerzan, Rimbaud, etc.) He agrees more with Zerzan’s approach, but like Chomsky wishes to “save” language. His argument is that language should be saved as a completely chaotic element of the human spirit: in language, anything goes. The problem is, the whole essay illustrates a complete disconnect. Zerzan employs a highly abstract philosophical argument against representation and mediation. Chomsky takes a scientific approach to prove that language tools are inherent in the human mind. Bey tries to pit these two tendencies against each other, and comes in with an abstract argument near the same level as Zerzan but still fundamentally different. He does not understand that they all have different approaches (philosophy, science, mysticism.) There is no real disagreement here: both Zerzan and Chomsky would reply to the other “so what?” The disconnect here illuminates Bey’s writing style and thought process: chaotic. While he has many good points scattered throughout this book, it has more literary merit than practical value. (After all, look at the quotes on the back of it: Burroughs, Ginsberg, etc.)

The last thing I wish to comment on is Bey’s obsession with “CHAOS.” Instead of tearing down all of the typical myths of anarchy, he wishes to reinforce them with an emphatic so what! and consistently associates chaos with anarchy. In order to understand such an irrational approach, one must understand that Hakim Bey is an irrational fellow. Again, his argument for chaos is a spiritual one, a sort of praise for the movement of the free spirit; it isn’t grounded in reality. Only, sometimes he could be a little clearer about this. But I have to conclude that this doesn’t matter as long as it is understood that TAZ has more literary merit than practical value. Essentially, TAZ is an enjoyable read written for anarchists to re-inspire themselves and re-learn to actually question everything.