Edward Abbey: Mystical
Anarchist
Jonathan Lee
Edward Abbey was a mystic, a worshipper of nature, considering
himself “not an atheist, but an earthiest.” He was also a lifelong anarchist,
decrying all those who vie to enslave humanity and nature, inspiring a
multitude of activists with his writings.
In his youth, Abbey was fascinated by the writings of Taoist philosopher
Chuang Tzu. In his journals he wrote of one parable in particular,
regarding a man who claimed to know how to manage horses.
“…horses have hooves to carry them over frost and snow, and hair
to protect them from the wind and cold. They eat grass, drink water,
and show their spirit by flinging up their heels as they gallop over the
plains.
Such is the real nature
of horses. Then one day a man appeared who convinced the local
people that he truly understood the management of horses better than they
did. So they stepped aside as he branded the horses, pared their
hooves, slipped halters on them, tied them up, hobbled their legs, and locked
them in stables. Before long, three of the horses
died. But that failed to deter the man, who told onlookers once
again that he understood the management of horses better than they.
(Bishop 24)
This parable appealed to Abbey due to the fact that it
simultaneously decries the oppression of humanity and the mistreatment of
nature. To Abbey, the man represents authority, while the horses
represent both mankind and the natural world. In Desert
Solitaire, Abbey writes, “…wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity
of the human spirit, and as vital to our lives as water and good
bread. A civilization which destroys what little remains of the
wild, the spare, the original, is cutting itself off from its origins and
betraying the principle of civilization itself” (169). To Abbey,
spirituality demands anarchism, as industry and progress (both consequences of
the state and the concentration of power) inevitably defile and destroy nature,
thereby crippling the human spirit.
Edward Abbey was a fervent anarchist. This fact is
brushed upon briefly in Desert Solitaire, but is quite obvious
after an examination of Abbey’s life and writings. Within Desert
Solitaire, Abbey quotes the revolutionary anarchist Mikhail Bakunin,
“there are times when creation can be achieved only through
destruction. The urge to destroy is then a creative urge” (Abbey
162). Later, Abbey commends the Mormons for how they have organized
their society in a communal and egalitarian fashion. Outside
of Desert Solitaire, Abbey’s journal entries are rife with
anarchistic sentiments. In an entry dated December 1951, Abbey
proclaims in his journal that his “favorite melodramatic theme [is] the harried
anarchist, a wounded wolf, struggling toward the green hills, or the
black-white alpine mountains, or the purple-golden desert range and
liberty. Will he make it? Or will the FBI shoot him down
on the very threshold of wilderness and freedom?” (Confessions of a
Barbarian 10)
In his college years, Abbey frequently had run-ins with
authority. In 1947, upon Abbey’s posting
of a notice on a college bulletin board at IUP urging students to destroy their
draft cards, the FBI opened a file, keeping tabs on him throughout the rest of
his life. (Federal Bureau of
Investigation) Later, at the University
of New Mexico, Abbey was an editor of the student newspaper The Thunderbird, publishing an article
on anarchism, the cover displaying the quote “Man will never be free until the
last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest.” For this, the newspaper removed him from his
position and confiscated all circulated copies of the issue (Cahalan). In order to earn a master’s degree in
philosophy, Abbey wrote his dissertation, entitled “Anarchism and the Morality
of Violence” (Bishop 79). Violence was a topic of great interest to
Abbey, and this interest had great impact on his writing of The Monkey Wrench Gang.
Writing amidst the pressures of the Cold War, Abbey criticized
both the capitalism of the west and the Soviet-style Marxism of the east,
drawing influences from the ideas of Erich Fromm and Mikhail Bakunin
(Anarchism: The Morality of Violence).
Abbey considered himself “an opponent of government and bureaucracy,”
opposing his father’s advocacy for a “socialist state control of the means of
production” as an “answer to poverty and oppression” (Cahalan). Abbey detested government in all its forms,
as “socialism, communism, and democratic capitalism were all guilty of the same
failing: accommodating themselves to and actively encouraging growth of the
nation-state” (Bishop 102).
Upon reading Desert Solitaire, one finds that
Abbey’s notion of traditional religion is rather contemptuous. When
speaking on death, Abbey refers to the “insolent interference of leech and
priest.” (213) Towards the
end of the book, in “Episodes and Visions,” Abbey ridicules the practices of a
number of the world’s major religions, lambasting baptism, the Virgin Mary, the
Abrahamic creation myth, as well as the Hindu doctrines regarding “nasal
emunction” (236). However, Abbey does not spare atheism, ridiculing the
“small-town atheist…with his Little Blue Books and sneering jokes against ancient
and venerable institutions” (236). These critiques that Abbey makes leave very
little room for Abbey’s own beliefs, significantly narrowing down the list of
possible candidates. What is certain, however, is that in spite of
the numerous biblical allusions included within the book, Abbey is convinced of
an alternative belief system.
The most obvious clue as to what spiritual beliefs Abbey holds
is the constant reference to God, the gods, and spirits of the
desert. His religious sentiments are aptly expressed in “Down the
River,” where he writes, “…when I write of paradise I mean Paradise, not
the banal Heaven of the saints. When I write ‘paradise’ I mean not
only apple trees and golden women but also scorpions and tarantulas and flies,
rattlesnakes and Gila monsters, sandstorms, volcanoes and earthquakes, bacteria
and bear, cactus, yucca, bladderweed, ocotillo and mesquite, flash floods and
quicksand, and yes –disease and death and the rotting of flesh” (167). In fact,
this is why Abbey compulsively ascribes humanly characteristics to everything
he encounters, for which he admonishes himself constantly. In his
final personification, Abbey writes in “Bedrock and Paradox,” “I am almost
prepared to believe that this sweet virginal primitive land will be grateful
for my departure and the absence of the tourists, will breathe metaphorically a
collective sigh of relief—like a whisper of wind— when we are all and finally
gone and the place and its creations can return to their ancient procedures
unobserved and undisturbed by the busy, anxious, brooding consciousness of man”
(267). Abbey reveres all things in the
natural world as being holier than any relic, with each component housing a
portion of God, and it must be respected as such. Such are the sentiments
of a true animist, one who believes that all things have a spiritual existence
of their own. Further corroborating
Abbey’s animism, he writes in “Polemic: Industrial Tourism and the National
Parks,” “An increasingly pagan and hedonistic people (thank God!), we are
learning finally that the forests and mountains and desert canyons are holier
than our churches” (52). Earlier in the
book, Abbey is captivated by the petroglyphs left on the rocks and canyons by
the Anasazi, depicting “gods from the underworld,” and the like. (101) “Beware,
traveler. You are approaching the land of the horned gods.” It’s
hard not to think that, in a sense, Abbey believes in such deities himself.
Abbey’s anarchism is deeply intertwined with his
spirituality. According to the Oxford Dictionary, mysticism is
defined as the “belief that union with or absorption into the Deity or the
absolute, or with spiritual apprehension of knowledge inaccessible to the
intellect, may be attained through contemplation and self-surrender.” By
this definition, Abbey is undoubtedly a mystic. Every chapter is
rife with references to the “spiritual appeal” (240) of the desert, and the
spirits and gods who inhabit it. It seems, in fact, that the primary
reason he took the position of park ranger is on account of his
mysticism. In “The First Morning,” Abbey claims that he has come to
Arches because he wants “To meet God or Medusa face to face, even if it means
risking everything human in myself,” and that he “dream[s] of a hard and brutal
mysticism in which the naked self merges with a non human world…” Abbey’s life
and writings demonstrate that he was an animist with an anarchistic
vision. His work suggests that the institution of a sort of
collective anarchism would align perfectly with nature, and that this harmony
demands the smashing of unnatural forces that mutilate human freedom and
Abbey’s revered natural world.
Such a conflation of mysticism and anarchism is not without
precedent. In the aftermath of the
Bolshevik revolution in Russia, a new ideology emerged. Mystical Anarchism, primarily accredited to
Professor Apollon Andreevich Karelin, provided the Russian intelligentsia with
a solution to a number of problems. It
provided leftists with an alternative to a “dictatorship of the Bolshevik type”
via decentralization and the promotion of personal liberties. “Additionally, it provided a way to combat
the “spiritual retardedness,” of the time.
This was an era in which “vulgar scientism” reigned supreme, and
mysticism was a hard sell (Nalimov).
However, Gnostic Christianity, an Abrahamic belief-system with an
increased focus on personal belief and spiritual awareness, was experiencing a
revival in the 1920s. The “spirited
retardedness” of the Russian intelligentsia was responsible for an aggressive
intolerance, and many were not open to new and foreign ideas (Nalimov). The people were divided, with leftists
finding themselves in sectarian camps.
The fusion of mysticism and anarchism provided an opportunity to promote
greater unity among the left on a higher and intuitive level. Abbey diverges from this tradition of
Mystical Anarchism in that his version of religion is far less formal and
organized, and is more focused on nature.
Abbey’s anarchism is a product of his spirituality, not the other way
around. Still, he finds himself in the
same tradition.
In 1975, Abbey published The
Monkey Wrench Gang, an adventure novel centered around four environmental
fanatics dedicated to combating the destruction of their beloved American
Southwest. Armed with pliers, wrenches,
gasoline, and caltrops, the gang goes about committing crimes ranging from the
immolation of billboards to the destruction of bridges. The novel paved the way for radical
environmentalism, and four years after its publication, Earth First!, an environmental advocacy group, was established. Earth First!’s members were dedicated to
liberating the environment by any means necessary, unfurling a massive tarp
over the Glen Canyon dam displaying a crack in the cement in 1985, “cutting power
lines ski tows,” slashing barbed wire on cattle ranches, and destroying
bulldozer crankcases with sand and Karo syrup.
After Abbey’s death, several of its members were imprisoned. The influence that Abbey had was wielded
deliberately. He claimed of The Monkey Wrench Gang, “I hoped it
would stir people into actions to do things I am too cowardly to do myself”
(Bishop 14). Despite his cowardice,
Abbey ultimately succeeded.
Abbey’s endorsement of radical environmentalism cements the fact
Abbey’s passionate mysticism towards nature is not merely compatible with anarchism, but that it necessitates it. Jack Mormon
Seldom Seen Smith of the Monkey Wrench
Gang, whist kneeling atop the Glen Canyon Dam, prays, “Dear old God, you
know and I know what it was like here, before them bastards from Washington
moved in and ruined it all… How about a little old pre-cision-type earthquake right under this dam?” (33) His prayer
is cut short by a park ranger. Abbey,
like Smith, holds this sentiment very dear: nature is holy, and the state, due
to its ever-increasing fervor for expansion, never fails to destroy it. This can be seen in the highways, the uranium
mining, the dams, every aspect of the industrial tourism and development that
Abbey so abhorred.
Some might say that this abhorrence is directed at capitalism,
as it is the automotive industry and big corporations who are largely
responsible for the development, that government itself is deformed and
crooked, but still salvageable, necessary even.
But as Desert Solitaire was
written during the Cold War, it was the U.S. government and the Atomic Energy
Commission that was subsidizing uranium prospects. The dam-builders, the U.S. Bureau of
Reclamation, are also responsible for the destruction. As for the National Parks, the National Park
Service yields to the automotive industry, which carries out its wishes through
the Department of Public Roads. The fact
is that capitalism is not the only
culprit; Abbey holds all government
responsible. All government fails to see that growth and progress destroy what
is most valuable.
Abbey has called on us to take a stand against the systems of
control, which ravage our world, and which cripple our spirituality, the very
essence of our humanity. Like the horses
of Chuang Tzu, we have been branded, our legs hobbled, locked up like
slaves. When will we be liberated and
live according to our true nature, “showing our spirit by flinging up our heels
as we gallop over the plains”? Shall we
take action? Shall we dismantle their
apparatus, tear down their billboards, and blow up their bridges, dams, and
highways that mar the countryside? Shall
we find ourselves in some enraged and unorganized fashion, as George Hayduke of
The Monkey Wrench Gang suggests, “in
twos and threes, fighting back”? Shall
we fight against our government who seeks to extend its control across this
land like a cancer? Shall we defend our
mother earth who gave us everything against those greedy and shortsighted
enough to destroy her? We shall take up
that calling. Because, as Abbey
expresses with his poem “What Zapata Said,”
“The land,
like the sun,
like the air we breathe,
belongs to everyone—
and to no one.” (Earth
Apples 67)
I didn't provide any evidence to really back the counterargument, just kind of addressing a hypothetical question. Does it work? What could I do to improve it?
ReplyDeleteI feel like the Russia paragraph is a little weak, and I'm still researching more. Do you have any suggestions?
Is the ending too melodramatic? And does the poem fit with the feel of the essay?
I'm midway through the 9th page, but feel like I've pretty much exhausted my content. Is there anything I'm overlooking?