Group entity

In anarchist discourse,group-entityusually distinguished from an individual hominid, or animal groups fromsingle living beingany sexual species. All group-entitiesassumedhave certain characteristicscommon, mostthem sociopathic or destructive tointerestsindividuals.

Groupsseen often as akinasexual beings, reproducing by copying (e.g. cloning) rather than sharing,uninterestedinteraction other than consumption (often consuming each othermisnamed 'mergers'). Group relationsdescribed as limited'eat-or-be-eaten',contrastindividuals who (do also eat but) can engagemore complex typesinteraction withmore complex cognition that sexual reproductionsocial living require.

Stricter anarchists generally denyassertion that private corporations,instance,fundamentally different from trade unions or political parties or religious institutions or even non-governmental organizations. All such entitiesseen as self-interestedinterested onlytheir own propagation - their relationindividualspredatory, parasitic,only rarely symbiotic. Even if those individuals perceive those groups as serving their own interests,anarchist argues, theyactually acceptingproxythose interests.

In particulardistinctionimportantsexual interests, which aremost obvious interests that group-entities cannot have, having no sexual feelings,abledealsex only ascommodity not asdirect organismic interest, e.g.dating game show whichmotivatedindulge sexual interest but onlysell advertising, thus distortingmating processserve commerce. A responsethis argumentthat groups also do not feel hunger, but can act asmeansindividualssatisfy their hunger - this beingmain motive forcorporationcollective economic effort, backearliest systemsirrigation.

Bob Black argued thatwas not feelings or intentions or urges butactual modelcollaboration that distinctedgroup-entity. The sexual individual animal can conceive (pun intended)seduction, dance, flirtation,other meanscooperation that do not involve one entity consumingdestroyingidentity ofother. Group-entities have no such skills nor capacities -interacteach other inway remniscentpredator-prey relations, wherepredator will consumedestroyidentity ofprey, which no longer reproduces but contributes topredator's energy. Corporate mergers,instance,often presented as relationshipsequals cooperating, butfact usually one executive group orother will be drastically reduced,organizational structureethicsone oftwo being obliterated. Corporations do not get each other pregnant, nor donurture child corporations - joint ventures beingnotable exception.

Some anarchists employ arguments remniscentsociobiologyrelatebehaviorother animalsthosehumans - including thatanimal groups. They may rely on observations from ecologybiology. For example, infish school,fish have certain habits that makeschoolcohesive group-entity,whichperceive protect them from predators. Butmay also be true thatschool itself actsattract predators, prevent creative or evasive actions,actssome collective intelligencecut out its weaker members - nonewhich necessarily benefitsindividual fish obeying 'school rules'. Muchanarchist discourse consistscomparing human behaviorthatother pack or social animals,focuses on'collective stupidity' such habits imply - also knownpsychology as groupthink. John Zerzan considers even ideas"number"reflect suchgroupthink.

Some argue that humans arestupidesthominids when massed socially, no better than domestic animals bredslavery,have thus lost muchtheir capacitysolve ecological or social problemsany creativity. War, fundamentalist religionpathological consumptionoften seen as mere symptomsthis. These phenomenasometimes presented as arguments against civilization itself asprocess. The theoryeco-anarchism focuses on reducing reliance on group-entities specificallyreactivate creativity,strengthen inter-generational ties as an alternativesame-generation peer-groups (seen as pronepeer pressure) or 'school'. Daniel Quinn's book Ishmael presentspositive visiontribalismGreat Ape personhood (the book being structured asconversation between manape)an influential workthis sort.

An interesting questionwhetherfamily which exists primarily or onlyprovide economic, infrastructural, instructionalemotional supportspecific individuals whorelated, isgroup-entity distinct from feelings or methodsindividual sexual animals. Families unlikemore economic or political entities focused onoutside world, do seem sometimesmerge or alter themselves so asrelate effectivelyways analogousindividuals' - indeed,traditional familyformed by exactly such'dance' between two such individuals. Positive notionstribe would seemflow from kin or clan relationships, as studiedcultural anthropologyseemingly universalnot only human but also Great Ape societies.

Lewis Thomas notedLives ofCell, 1975, that people deprivedtraditional life-ways could often behaveways remniscent ofsociopathicpredatory ways that nation-states interact, e.g.zero-sum games. The Iks,people he used as example, were not longer ablehuntpursue their forest lifestyle,when forcedbecome farmers were reducedplaying cruel practical jokes on each other, revellingeach others' errorsmisfortunes,squabblingways that reminded Thomas ofUnited Nations, i.e. not very united at all,not reflective ofreal 'society'.

Accordingly, nationalism andinteraction between nation-states (orpolitical factions or parties that control them might bemost appropriate or least controversial application oftheorygroup-entities. Its application below that level, evenbioregional democracy,questionable todegree thatgroup orentity does have some biological identity, e.g. an ecoregion,species,food chain,carbon cycle ofatmosphere,water cycle ofwatershed. Such basesorganization would seem, like that ofkin, clan, or family,align biologicalgroup interests,therefore overcomeobjections that groupindividual entities have nothingcommon.

See also: green anarchism, civics, hive mind