Personal happiness and the anarch

"It is no coincidence that precisely when things started going downhill with the gods, politics gained its bliss-making character. There would be no reason for objecting to this, since the gods, too were not exactly fair. But at least people saw temples instead of termite architecture. Bliss is drawing closer; it is no longer in the afterlife, it will come, though not momentarily, sooner or later in the here and now - in time.

The anarch thinks more primitively; he refuses to give up any of his happiness. "Make thyself happy" is his basic law. It is his response to the "Know thyself" at the temple of Apollo in Delphi. These two maxims complement each other; we must know our happiness and our measure.” Eumeswil, page 192.

COMMENTARY

In this next quote, Jünger discusses one of the anarch’s primary goals in life, personal happiness. He begins with an observation that illustrates where, in contrast to the anarch, most people look for happiness. When religions still breathed real life, when gods were still credible, man looked for his final happiness through their means and methods. As belief in the gods declined, so man began to look for happiness in the here and now, through the non-transcendent means of politics. Politics, with the aid of technological progress, began promising personal happiness in the material here and now. (Although Jünger does not say it here, physical comfort and security, those highest values of the Last Man, are part of this material happiness.) In a similar manner to his ineradicable illusion that social progress is about to outlaw war forever, so, despite continous disappointments, is man reassured and continues to believe that his personal happiness is also around the next corner. Politics thus capitalizes on one of man’s chronic and universal ailments, the all-pervasive disease of “tomorrow”.

But on this point, we should not conclude that the anarch is necessarily on the side of the gods, for as Jünger says, they, or at least their cultic representatives in the world religions, also promised man happiness in a future here-after, while treating him unfairly in the present. The anarch is not per force on anyone’s side, but decides for himself when and to whom he gives his allegiance. “No god above me”, as Manuel states elsewhere in Eumeswil.

(Touching on the anarch’s relationship to art, Jünger comments here that at least the gods brought more attractive forms along with them, temples instead termites mounds. But this is apparently a secondary consideration and is not pursued here.)

The anarch, in contrast, keeps thing simple – he looks to no external providers or guarantors of happiness but makes himself responsible for his happiness. He is thus untouched by the promises and failures of religions and political regimes; he neither hopes in nor is disappointed by what worldly powers or gods offer him. “Make thyself happy” is his fundamental law, and, by knowing himself, understanding his measure as Jünger puts it, he knows how to make himself happy.

Again, the self-reliance of the anarch stands out clearly. He does not look outside himself to religions, regimes, or insurance companies for his happiness and security but finds them within or creates them for himself without.

Personal happiness and the anarch

The anarch: own ideas vs popular ideas

Martin Venator, or Manuel, the protagonist and exemplary anarch of Ernst Jünger’s novel Eumeswil often compares his own attitude and conduct with that of his father and brother. Both relatives are historians like Martin, but neither are anarchs. In the following passage, Jünger contrasts Martin’s attitude to public and personal opinion with his father’s, in order to illustrate the intellectual independence of the anarch.

“I can count my dear old dad among the eunuchs, the speechifiers. It is impossible for us to have a conversation about facts without his puffing it up with social and economic platitudes and spicing it up with moralisms he derives from them. Saying what everyone else says is a delight for him. He comes out with things like, ‘ I am simply expressing the public opinion.’ And he actually plumes himself on such things. A journalist, even though he disagrees with the current editorials. ‘ He is controversial’ – for him, as for all eunuchs, that is a put-down. The exact opposite of an anarch; God bless him – but why is he a historian?” (Eumeswil, page 246)

COMMENTARY
As opposed to a “speechifier” like Martin’s father, an anarch does not judge himself morally in relation to society, in relation to what “they” think and say. An anarch stands on his own two feet practically, intellectually and, as far as possible, spiritually. He creates and lives by his own understanding of the world, which may or may not coincide with public or popular opinion. Unlike spiritually and intellectually impotent eunuchs like his father and brother, it is perfectly irrelevent to anarchs like Martin whether his views are controversial or unpopular – except in as much as their public expression may jeopardize his physical safety or interfere with personal goals, in which case he may need to disguise them or express them selectively. Above all, he is concerned that his views are truly his own, even if this means he stands alone and unknown in this position. As quoted earlier, the anarch can live alone, as opposed to the anarchist who needs society - and of course the normal citizen who has no independent own-view and thus automatically shares the common view. Being popular is of no concern, being true to himself is everything to the anarch.

Although he is not opposed in principle to popular views, his own independently and organically evolved world view will often be in opposition to them, partly by the simple logic that what is popular reflects the lowest common denominator, and partly by the fact that any truly individual understanding of the world will naturally have its own unique life and form and thus at least partially be in opposition to other views, especially popular ones. Indeed, when the anarch perceives that one of his own ideas closely mirrors a popular perception, he will doubt the authenticity of his own view, will suspect that it may derive from foreign contamination of his being, and he will thus subject it to a rigorous examination.

As far as possible, the anarch deals in facts, he attempts to live in a real and not an imagined world, however unanimously believed those common illusions may be. Although for reasons of personal security and intellectual growth he attempts to understand and stay abreast of the particular world view by which his society lives, he does not believe in that view and, practically speaking, goes along with it only as far is that essentially foreign line of behaviour benefits him.

The anarch: own ideas vs popular ideas

The anarch's relationship to society and authority

Here is a particularly rich quotation from Ernst Jünger´s novel “Eumeswil”, in which he further explains the anarch’s role within society, his relationship to other individuals, to personal freedom, and to authority and external causes.

“I tend to distinguish between other people’s opinions of me and my own self-assessment. Others determine my social status, which I take seriously, albeit within certain limits. Nor am I dissatisfied with it. In this respect, I differ from most Eumeswilers, who are dissatisfied with their positions or their standings.

I could just as easily say that I neither am satisfied with my position nor take it seriously. That would obtain for the overall situation of the city, the absence of any center, which puts every office under obligation and gives meaning to every action. Here, neither oath nor sacrifice counts any longer.

Nevertheless, when anything is possible, one can also take any liberty. I am an anarch – not because I despise authority, but because I need it. Likewise, I am not a nonbeliever, but a man who demands something worth believing in. On this point, I am like a bride in her chamber: she listens for the softest step.” (Eumeswil , page 97)

COMMENTARY

In the first sentence of this quotation, we see that the anarch makes a conscious distinction between other’s judgements about him and his own judgements on himself. Note that he does not altogether reject others’ opinions of him, but relegates them to their correct place, as useful measures of how society views him. As an anarch, it is important to remain integrated into society and to keep his essential outsider status a secret; hence he needs to know what society thinks of him, where it currently slots him into its ranks. This can have practical implications for his security or the success of his own private projects – if he perceives that society is becoming aware of his outsider status and may begin imposing limits or paying dangerous attention to him, perhaps he will have to adjust the external impressions he is making, alter the role he is playing to some degree. As a last resort, he may have to abandon society and become a forest-fleer. (But this is a weaker metaphysical position, one ideally avoided but not outright rejected by the anarch. If the reader is interested, this figure is extensively and explicitly developed in an earlier Jünger book, “Der Waldgänger“ or “Forest Fleer”.)

Since the anarch views his role in society as something which does not touch his essence but which is a personally useful function, he is unlike the average citizen who judges his self-worth on the basis of his social position. He cannot be satisfied with the position, in the sense of it fulfilling him, of providing for all his needs. And he does not take it seriously, since it is unessential, a role in the Shakespearean sense of “all the world’s a stage and all the people players”.

Moreover, in the post-historic, post-nihilistic State of Eumeswil, social positions have only relative value and no absolute value, as may have been true, or imagined to be true, in earlier societies. Every position is as good as any other, there is no higher central position such as a king or the church, around which, or below which all other social positions are arranged. One no longer sacrifices oneself for or swears an absolute allegiance to State or king. In this sense, the state of society in Eumeswil is actually advantageous to the anarch, for it has become easier not to believe in ephemeral external causes, such as political changes.

On the other hand, in a world where anything is possible, there is also the possibility to act in full liberty, assuming that the individual is internally free. Unlike the anarchist, the anarch is already conscious of this freedom and does not need to fight with authorities to regain something he already knows he possesses. On the contrary, as an anarch, he requires authority. Firstly, in the higher sense, of himself over himself, of his higher self over the state of nature, of anarchic wilderness within himself, which is to say, he needs self-mastery and self-regulation. And secondly, in a social sense, he requires the external regulatory forces of worldly authorities, forces which give the world some consistency and structure, within whose predictability and around whose obstacles and difficulties a free man can chart and navigate a personally meaningful and enriching course. In a state of pure anarchy, this would be more difficult and probably less rewarding.

As Jünger says explicitly at the end of the quotation, the anarch is not a nonbeliever per se, not a nihilist, but rather someone who understands the value of his own freedom and thus demands something worth the sacrifice of any of that supreme capital of his.

The anarch's relationship to society and authority

Anarch vs anarchist (II)

Last posting we began an exposition of Ernst Jünger´s figure of the Anarch quoting some of his own examples of what is anarchic and what is not. The quote ended by introducing the anarchist as someone who is not anarchic, as opposed to the free human being who is anarchic. Now we continue with two quotes which provide an explicit comparison and contrast of anarch and anarchist as conceived by Jünger. The monarch and the historian are also brought into the comparison for illustrative reasons.

“If I were an anarchist and nothing further, they would have easily exposed me. They are particularly geared towards detecting anyone who tries to approach the powerful with mischievous intent, ‘with a dagger in his cloak.’ The anarch can lead a lonesome existence; the anarchist is sociable and must get together with peers.” (Eumeswil, pp 41-42)

“ The positive counterpart of the anarchist is the anarch. The latter is not the adversary of the monarch, but his antipode, untouched by him though also dangerous. He is not the opponent of the monarch, but his pendant.

After all, the monarch wants to rule many, nay, all people; the anarch, only himself. This gives him an attitude both objective and skeptical towards the powers that be; he has their figures go past him – and he is untouched, no doubt, yet inwardly not unmoved, not without historical passion. Every born historian is more or less an anarch; if he has greatness, then on this basis he rises without partisanship to the judge’s bench.

This concerns my profession, which I take seriously. I am also the night steward at the Casbah; now, I am not saying that I take this job less seriously. Here I am directly involved in the events, I deal with the living. My anarchic principle is not detrimental to my work. Rather it substantiates it as something I have in common with everyone else, except that I am more conscious of this. I serve the Condor, who is a tyrant – that is his function, just as mine is to be his steward; both of us can retreat to substance: to human nature in its nameless condition.” Eumeswil, page 43.

COMMENTARY

Right away in these early quotes from Eumeswil, Jünger establishes the anarch as not merely different from the anarchist, but something more than him, as a higher and more positive figure than the anarchist.

The anarchist is more conspicuous in society than the anarch, since his malicious intentions give him away to the rulers, whose future status is threatened by him and who therefore take special precautions to catch him. The anarch, who need not be part of any group and who can further his cause alone, remains inconspicuous in society.

The anarch is not in opposition to the monarch or any other ruler, he is rather the individual complement to them, their antipode. As Jünger implies, monarch and anarch are interested in a similar goal, to rule, but on different levels, in different spheres. Hence, unless the monarch directly threatens the freedom of the anarch, the two can live together peacefully, as long as each keeps to his own domain. But since the monarch could interfere with the anarch’s freedom, he must also stay abreast of the objective reality of his position in order to fight for his freedom, if the need arises. He must also maintain his real and his emotional distance - to fall victim to absolute belief in mere political rotation would restrict his freedom – and freedom is his highest ideal. Hence, the anarch could be, but is not necessarily dangerous to the powers that be.

The anarch’s interest in and ability to follow the game from an objective, practical point-of-view also makes him a natural historian. Or, as Jünger says, every born historian is more or less an anarch. The anarch maintains his free status within the society, while he observes the changing of its figures and configurations.

In fact, the anarch maintains a fully normal position in society, he is employed and takes his job seriously, though definitely as a means and not an end. This normal functioning within society is something he shares with his fellow human beings, as he also does an inner anarchic core, as Jünger explained in the last posting. Within we are anarchs and, at least potentially, we are free there, but to survive and to profit spiritually from our existence, we must live in the world of men, in society, and this predicament is something we all have in common. The anarch’s position in society, his profession, is merely a function he has temporarily assumed. The function might be a night steward or a tyrant . These are superficial, incidental and not essential, and they can be abandoned if necessary. The only difference is that the anarch is more conscious of his inner anarchic freedom and the unessential nature of his social functions.

In contrast to the anarch, the anarchist is the natural and sworn opponent of society, in particular of the monarch, who he wants to destroy. The anarchist cannot be objective like the anarch, since his relationship with the monarch is not practical but emotional, in a negative sense. He is unaware of his already existing inner anarchic nature and so takes society, and his function in it, as absolutes. He sees that society restricts his freedom and he thus sets out to destroy it, without realizing the futility of this task, and without realizing that he himself needs society for his spiritual growth. If he were aware of his potential inner freedom, he would have an alternative to this destructive and useless path. But this is to step ahead of ourselves - we’ll wait until Jünger explains this himself in Eumeswil.

Anarch vs anarchist (II)