[this was originally posted on pillowfort - go check it out there!]
more things that the crisses take a surprising stance on:
Trust us: these people have been there almost all your life. They didn’t just show up.
i think i can say with some certainty that we weren't born plural. predisposed to it? yeah, probably. but i have pretty good date ranges for when everybody who's ever been part of the house showed up, and a pretty good sense that they weren't here before those dates, and that i didn't show any 'signs' before that.
i can't really point to any examples of why, but this feels like a potentially dangerous thing to insist is the case to readers who believe otherwise. in any case, hell of a generalization to make.
[this was originally posted on pillowfort - go check it out there!]
i finally bought the crisses' united front series, because i've referenced the free version on the website so much that i felt like i owed it to 'em, and i was curious what was expanded upon. i pushed through the assumptions of traumagenesis in the intro because that's what you do when you're plural and you know what resources are like, but then i got to this part almost immediately after:
Internal anarchy is not terribly different from external anarchy. It involves a break-down of culture, control, communication and resource distribution. Use the following list to see how many “Anarchy Factors” you are experiencing as a group.
:^)
i don't think the crisses would be anti-actual-anarchy, considering they're so psych-critical, it's just ironic. because a lot of the stuff they write on building internal community runs very similar to the kind of community building talked about by, you know, anarchists.
...is there a niche out there for empowered multiplicity stuff drawing from an explicitly anarchist perspective?
edit: ah okay never mind, it continues :^) again in ways that make me think they've just been told by Society what anarchy 'really' means but. more quotes under the cut
These statements were compiled by looking at what defines ananarchy in Human Space (the external world) — how societies degrade and fall apart, and the signs that things are getting worse, that there will be either a revolution or rebellion. We just changed the wordings of relationships, or what the resources are based onbeing a plural rather than a governemnt or organization. These issues exist in every layer of society. And there’s an implied choice. Either the current decaying disorder is overthrown through a more violent method, or an alternative contingent rises in power through popular support and steps into power in a more peaceful way, basically a peaceful coup. [...] We want everyone to be on board and take the peaceful route.
now, i agree with taking the peaceful route when it comes to building internal community in plural systems. but that seems like, maybe, a poorly concieved analogy.
also, the most analogous situation is the one i haven't seen them touch on much at all - that of the host holding onto the power and dehumanizing / denying the personhood of their headmates. and that's a thing that happens like, a lot. food for thought.
makes me think that some plural anarchist voices are even more necessary, honestly.
When my Google+ profile was unsuspended and I was finally able to start exploring the new communities feature there I was pleasantly surprised to find someone making this new resource available for multiples.
1. For all intents and purposes, this body is participated in by a group. This group has an organized means of operation and will continue in whichever way is best for the group. This is to be measured by emotional, mental, and physical health of all members incorporated in said group.
2. We agree that our ongoing intent is to function at or beyond the level of any other average individual in the society around us, being aware of our own needs and requirements and taking our own action to fulfill them without requiring external government. As long as we follow this agreement, we can be counted upon to be aware of our own state of beings and to be interested in our interactions with society. Until we prove ourselves to be incapable of maintaining our basic physical needs, we are to assumed to be as capable as any other physical body out there.
3. If we cannot restrain an individual's behavior, we must still bear the results of said behavior and address it if it has been decided to be a problem. We agree that the group will take the consequences of the group. It is up to the group to govern and accept the consequences of the group's behavior though there may be individual action that was not representative of the whole.
4. As long as we perform at a functional level, it is our right to decide when and where we require external assistance. We agree that it is the responsibility of the group to remain functional. If, at any time, the group is not on a balanced keel, it is up to us to take action to repair this.
5. We agree that the group is expected to have the necessary checks and balances to maintain a level of functionality and well-being. We are expected to know when and how to manage the needs and desires of the group's members. We do not need to seek treatment for the existence of those we may not like, but we agree to do so if their actions cannot be maintained and watched over by the group.
6. As long as this agreement is carried by this group, we will hold not only those of us we know of to it, but also those we do not. All members of this group can and will be held to this declaration's intent if they are to interact with matters externally and of the whole. If at any time, we undergo a dramatic enough shift to warrant a redecision of keeping to this agreement, it is our duty to declare that the affirmation is no longer applicable and to reestimate said agreement and restate if necessary. If enough of the group does not agree to the standard, it must be canceled.
7. As long as we participate in the external world, we will remember to respect other people for how they present themselves to us, regardless of if they are singlet or plural to whichever degree. We will not measure ourselves against other people in terms of rankings of superiority therein. We will measure them upon the grounds of how they interact with us and should be able to expect the same courtesy from them.
8. Until that time, we declare that we can be counted on to operate with the goal of being a functional member of society in mind and should be given the proper status therein, unrestricted by the nature of our essential state. Those who interact with us can expect that we operate with these standards in play and will willingly repair problems if they arise. We will take our consequences for the group and will behave accordingly.
