Ableist Primmies Want To Take My Wheelchair!
The Anti-Civ Model of Disability
Anti-civilization thought has been the target of countless accusations since it began to take form as we know in the 1970s. Whether those be accusations of being transphobic, ecofascist, genocidal, and a whole host of other claims. One set that stick out prominently and with (due to a lack of comprehensive theory on the topic) arguably more surface-level validity than the rest are that of ableism.
Ableist claims are perpetually thrown towards those who seek the destruction of this world due to unfounded claims of bioessentialism and Darwinism being perpetuated by the suggestions of the school of thought. And the inherent lack of any literature regarding a positive notion of this certainly does not help the case of the anti-civ milieu.
Most literature pertaining to the relation between anti- civilization anarchy and an analysis of disability is brought forth from a defensive position. The most commonly cited piece Civilization Will Stunt Your Growth is a laundry list of accurate defenses of anti-civ against accusations of ableism. But like most literature surrounding this relation, it is negative in character. Negative in this context meaning taking something rather than adding, which of course is not the sign of invalidity.
The piece is exemplary. It is a piece written from the foxhole but this does not mean it lacks value to discussions on this topic. It is so exemplary in fact that I would like to expound upon it further for my own thesis.
This essay will posit that the anti-civ model of disability is the social model of disability taken beyond its limits and it will offer some thoughts propelling towards a positive approach to health and disability.
What is disability in the first place anyways? Is it something that exists on its own or is it defined externally?
Historically, there are plenty of approaches to this but none are satisfactory for those that seek total liberation.
The medical model of disability and of health is of course not for instance. It is Xtian and moralist in nature, and treats disability as a static state of being that requires medical intervention in all cases. This is the basis for sham fields like dentistry and psychiatry. These fields are either created entirely to sell the medicine for the problems manifest by them, or exist entirely to treat “problems” that affect labor compatibility.
The medical model is entirely based upon the congruency and subservience of individuals to the demands of the concrete world, the world of the civitas. It convinces individuals that medicine as it is known is the savior of our health, and without it the world would be disease-ridden.
Evolutionarily consistent responses to the environment are labeled “maladaptive,” and the medical model wishes to keep the world in a dark cave to its cycle of ailment. Of course when you benefit from solving problems you create, why would you want the cycle to end? Some have challenged this and put forward their own approaches to disability.
The social model of disability, introduced to discourse in the mid 20th-century, is a framework for understanding disability which posits that disability arises from societal oppression and therefore society must eliminate this in order to eliminate disability. It provides something more substantial, but not particularly useful. It would be inaccurate to call it revolutionary, it is far more informed by progressive reform. It suggests that society can be reformed to center disability and remove its negatives.
The social model of course is very techno-optimist and in some cases is even transhumanist. And as some have identified, this notion of techno-optimism cannot eradicate disability but will rather move the bar. From Civilization Will Stunt Your Growth:
“The destination of the runaway train is transhumanism. Eventually to be embodied, to be corporeal, and to be mortal will be viewed as disability. Ultimately, it may be argued that escaping our bodies altogether is necessary to overcome ableism. The only truly able- bodied will paradoxically be those who have escaped their bodies. To be an animal is to be disabled.”
And obviously with this notion in mind, there are questions upon questions and it does not provide an adequate answer to this problem. What of the mad and the insane? What of toxic smog that will disable many and growing marine dead zones? No, you cannot erase disability this way. So long as a fetish towards extractive production and technological prowess continues, disability will never cease to exist. It will merely reproduce itself in a new form.
Keeping this in mind, anti-civilization thought provides a perspective on disability that not even the social model can achieve. Of course the social model in theory provides a good foundation for such a task, but it takes a leap that is revolutionary in character. It shatters the firmament of what we once thought was possible with disability liberation.
If the social model merely suggests society change itself to allow the disabled to live, then the anti-civ model of disability calls for the demolition of society itself for society is the disabling agent. There is no amount of change to be made within civilized society that can truly eradicate disability, and the “solutions” civ offers for the disabled will only lead to substitution and continued toil. The only solution is to annihilate civilized society itself so that the liberation of the disabled might be realized.
While it is certainly true that disability is often caused or worsened directly by civilized life, this does not mean ailment, illness, disease will cease to exist. If a positive suggestion is not brought forth to compliment negative notions of an anti-civ analysis of disability, then in practice it is surely doomed to repeat the same mistakes.
That is all that can be offered though, there is no one-size- fits-all solution to this issue. Of course with an anti-civ model of disability, what defines disability, health, ailment, etc. is entirely subjective. But there are plenty of perspectives that share this view which can be studied.
One could look towards the imagined world of bolo’bolo and its portrayal of bete. Bete is the idea of healthcare in the world of the bolos, and it is entirely a matter of subjectivity to each bolo what is and is not an illness or disease.
Bolo’bolo:
“Maybe there will “crazy”—bolos, diabetes—bolos, epileptic— bolos, bleeder-bolos, etc. Maybe not. Whereas bolos can be largely self-sufficient in basic medical assistance, they need more sophisticated institutions for special cases. In emergencies, heavy accidents, for complicated diseases and for the prevention of epidemics there will be a graded medical system that contains also the most advanced medical techniques. On the level of cities (vudo) or regions (sumi) the ibus will have access to advanced medical treatment. The overall expenditures for medical care will nevertheless be much lower than today. In the rare cases of emergencies, ambulances, helicopters and planes will be faster than under the present system, and there’s no reason why they shouldn’t be used. There are good chances that the ibus will be in better health than we are today. But there won’t be an official medical definition of health, and longevity won’t be a general value. (Today, longevity is simply an official value because it means fitness for labor and long use by the work machine.) There are tribes where life is relatively short but very interesting in other aspects, and other cultures where long lives are important cultural values. There are simply different conceptions of life, different calculations between adventure and length. Some are more interested in risk, others in tranquility. There can be bolos for each.”
Indeed, health has always been a subjective concept within this world terrorized by the civitas. A fine example of this is how schizophrenia is influenced by perception. In urban areas (and in particular the United States as a whole really), schizophrenia often has an expression that is harmful to the possessor because of the negative denotation. It certainly does not help that the United States and the Western world are hellholes of concrete, cameras, and automotive cacophony. This is a prime environment for the emergence of targeted individuals, the gangstalked, and otherwise paranoid folks who (rightly so) have thoughts of very powerful people and systems being objects in a spiritual war against them. (Perhaps they know more than many want to realize.)
But this is not the inherent expression of schizophrenia, schizophrenia is merely a neurotype that is neutral in nature; its expression is nigh-entirely dependent on the environment which the schizophrenic is surrounded by. Perhaps there could be those societies that see schizophrenia differently. Some could see it as a gift, or some could see it as something that merely exists and the schizophrenic will surely have a different experience.
But what of those ailments that the expression of cannot be altered? What of those ailments that will render one disabled truly?
This is a question commonly asked, and no one not even myself is confident to answer this question. But I might push something of a start towards a more comprehensive positive idea.
Kevin Carson (who is not an anti-civ anarchist by any means) offers an unlikely suggestion in his book on small- scale manufacturing The Homebrew Industrial Revolution. His ideas of localized manufacturing as an alternative to mass industry provide a mode to the production of medicinal supplies that does not involve the extractivist infrastructure we’ve seen develop exponentially over the last 500 years. Although the ideas can certainly be taken in a techno-fetishist way, this is not necessarily the case.
Obviously, this world produces a lot of trash that will be around for a long time. At the same time, trash can be treasure if one knows how to transmute it into such.
The book is far too long for a quotation that fully captures its utility to answering these questions, but the ideas presented combined with a mode of production based off upcycling the detritus of civilization presented by some anti-civ writers like Margaret Killjoy and Wolfi Landstreicher is a positive notion of an approach to medicine in the world after worth further investigation.
As of now, this mode of production and distribution is but a pipedream but if we do not dream of pipes in the world to come then what makes us think we can take this shit out?
Perhaps only herbal medicine will be necessary? Perhaps we could all be primal pharmacologists in the world against specialization and cook something wild with our knowledge? As stated earlier in this piece, trash and treasure are false dichotomies. One can make very unexpected concoctions will a little bit of know-how. And certainly, herbal medicine and DIY pharmacology can co-exist no?
Those familiar with Greek myth will know the legend of Asclepius, the patron of medicine which the doctors of today have appropriated. Asclepius, who wished to teach all humans how to treat ailments was cast down by the tyrant Zeus. The physicians, the specialists, they are all are part of Zeus. And we, with our awesome capacity to manifest what has been told is impossible, will join him among the stars.
People are already making estrogen in their bedrooms, psychedelics in their kitchens. Western science has realized things about the qualities of plant life folk medicine has known for thousands of years. In a world where your health is defined by your people and you alone, in a world where no law stops you from gaining knowledge, who knows what’s possible!