A Motion to Resurrect an Ancient Word and Approach to Our “Community”

I recently let slip that my view of the pro-freedom community as “family” had started to change. I hesitate to say more at this point, because my thinking is still in process, but other conversations here have started to weave a tapestry into which I feel somewhat comfortable with thinking out loud. And I’ve no doubt that sharing my half-spun, somewhat woolly threads will allow further exploration, to all our benefit.

Before we slip into the garden glade, I want to make it clear that this line of thinking was not my original idea: a cherished friend dropped the idea-seed into my mind, and it’s been working in there ever since. It’s my understanding that my friend prefers a measure of anonymity, so I shan’t be pointing to direct sources of this individual’s ... besides, the seed came in private conversation. Anyway, my mystery friend deserves all the credit for the idea, and I will take all the responsibility for my usual bumbling, rambling presentation of it.

Kent is right when he points out that in one important respect, the pro-freedom family is an improvement upon kin family—the relationships are formed and maintained voluntarily. But therein also lies the weakness that we seem to stumble over, again and again: because they’re voluntary, it seems many of us treat them as shallower or weaker ties, in a sense. Many of us are not only willing, but we have severed relationships with others in the pro-freedom community over issues that, in the larger context, seem relatively unimportant. The issues range from forum or blog spats to activism differences (e.g., voting) to philosophical and/or definitional differences (e.g. Objectivist-style excommunications, “intellectual” property, tax avoidance), but the pattern seems steady: we too often treat these relationships as young teens do their first few attempts at romance ... full of heady enthusiasm at first, only to come across any stumbling block and call it quits, instead of trying to work through it. Some repeat the cycle with the same few, while others “lather, rinse, repeat” with new people for the most part. It appears that these relationships have an aura of disposability about them, just as Americans more easily claim friendship and (perhaps therefore) grieve less when the friendship ends.

But relationships among freedom-seeking individuals are rare, in part because we are relatively rare, and thus the easy-in, easy-out mentality is troubling. I don’t think it would serve us well to try to create and maintain family bonds where none exist—but there is a useful model out there: tribes. Yeah, I know: that was a fashionable meme not so long ago, and because of that, it may seem “been there, done that” today. But its roots are deeper, much deeper, in our ancestry and even in our minds’ workings. And entwined with those roots is the concept I wish to resurrect: frith.

Rabbity novels aside, frith is a seldom-used word these days—an archaic word, on which today’s dictionaries say little. My friend pointed to two excellent resources on the subject: On the Meaning of Frith and The Meaning of Frith; in my further researches I found not much else. From the first link (odd spacing cleaned up, emphasis mine):

The idea of frith is very closely tied to kinship -- blood kinship in particular -- and then to kinship by marriage, adoption and fostering. The words frith and sib were often used interchangeably to describe the state of being of people involved in a kindred relationship, and we can easily see the connection in the modern use of the term sibling to indicate a brother or sister. The term frith did not merely indicate the material fact of blood relationship. Rather, it described the essence of the relationship itself: the joys, responsibilities, interdependence, burdens, and benefits that characterized it.

The word frith is related to the words for friend and free. Frith was to our forebears the “power that makes them ‘friends’ towards one another, and free men towards the rest of the world.” (Groenbech, Vol. I, p. 32) In their minds, “freedom” did not mean freedom from responsibility toward others. Freedom meant being strong enough to face the evils the world threw at one and being able to overcome or survive them, and for this one depended on one’s kindred. Surrounded by a numerous kindred cognizant of the requirements of frith, the Germanic man or woman was well-armored against all the misfortunes the world could cast, whether poverty, threats of violence, legal troubles, or any other difficulties. Not woven into a web of frith, a lonely wretch had nothing either material or spiritual upon which to rest his or her life and welfare. This also was the bitter lot of thralls.

The term frith captured a huge proportion of everything good that could exist in life, and all of these grew out of the roots of the kindred itself ....

One can read again and again in the Icelandic Sagas of a worthless, trouble-making person whose actions bring disgrace and disaster on the whole kindred, but who, nevertheless, is supported, helped and defended by other members of the kindred committed to the thew of frith no matter what the consequences. Groenbech notes the “absolute character of frith, its freedom from all reservation.” (Vol. I, p. 36) This absolute, uncompromising character of kindred-oriented frith actually contributed significantly to the pursuit of feuds and strife within the larger community, at the same time that it reduced strife within the kindred, inside the pale of frith. Frith was nothing if not partisan: focused on security and stability of the kindred, it had no application to those individuals and groups who lay outside the boundaries when it came to a conflict of interest between the two. Nor could any notion of absolute, unbiased justice make a dent in it: defending one’s kindred was always right, no matter how wrong their actions were. Frith was the paramount thew, taking precedence over all others.

That second paragraph really resonates with me on many levels. Most notably, it strikes me that for all our gathering places online, many freedom-loving individuals may nonetheless feel more like the “lonely wretch” than the well-armed Germanic person. And the last identifies at least part of the challenge in building upon it again, I think—too often the other freedom-lover, when a difference arises, can end up being considered more harshly than all but the most fervent statist or believing bureaucrat. Instead of acknowledging the natural, individual differences between ourselves and at the very least tolerating them, we too often drive a wedge into the crack and then pound on it. Or, taking a slightly different perspective, and with Jorge’s “us versus them” observation in mind, one might wish to ponder Rand’s “Galt’s Gulch” as a stylized (or perhaps not) version of a frithstead. (My friend identified this interpretation of the Gulch.)

The second article linked above expands upon the concept slightly differently (bold emphasis mine):

Deriving from PIE [Proto-Indo-Euroepean] *priyas, frith's original meaning was probably that of "the peace enjoyed while among one's own (that is, one's family or tribe)," this naturally led to secondary meanings of "security" and "refuge"--if a person cannot be safe among "one's own," then where can he be safe? Frith as the peace and security guaranteed by membership in a community can be seen in its meaning as "the restoration of rights to an outlaw." Among the ancient Germanic peoples an outlaw was someone who, having committed a crime, was declared as being outside the law, or no longer a part of society. As such he had no rights as an individual whatsoever, and outlaws could even be killed without fear of prosecution for murder. In restoring an outlaw his rights, he was then made a member of society once again; hence, he could once again partake of the frith.

The essay continues to explore issues of the law as it relates to frith, including an excellent, brief example from American culture; it is well worth reading in its entirety. I want to focus on the point highlighted above for now. Setting aside for the moment how each of us might define “our own”, the question I have is how can we feel safe amongst them when too often we focus on differences rather than commonalities; when we choose to see division rather than agreement; when we focus on –isms rather than the individual; or when we take an exploration of ideas and turn it into a personal critique or confrontation?

Let me be as clear as I can with only words: in wanting to focus on the positive, I am not trying to ignore the negative. In trying to say “yes” to love, I am not advocating becoming the sweetness and light that easily becomes prey. I am not naïvely saying that we can all get together, sing Kumbaya—or today’s secular equivalent, Boom De Ya Da [YouTube link], and all will be well. But it seems to me that we, like so much of the world, have for far too long been focused on the negative; we try to block or stifle our emotions rather than acknowledge and explore them, try to understand and improve ourselves based on the very important information they offer us. Thus it is that, where NonEntity found something positive in Friedman’s post on gratitude, I came away from it feeling sad, and somewhat deflated. I know enough of Friedman (he spoke at the Freedom Summit the same year I did) not to expect the kind of emotive wanderings I indulge in, but still, to thin gratitude down into one variable among others in an economic calculus is to strip its warmth, to ignore how it humanizes us—sometimes even when we resist it. To me it is as frost on an apple blossom.

No enduring community can be built upon fear, or suspicion, or ill will. It is only through sharing—a positive act—that communities can form. For lovers of liberty, especially in the USSA, some form of frith must take root if we are to hold our own against what seems to be coming. To my mind at present, agorism is not possible without some measure of frith. Absent bonds of kin and freedom, it is time to turn to those of kith. The author of the second article on frith, Eric Wodening, has also written The Importance of Community in Human Happiness, which speaks to this as well as to possible objections some might raise to the idea of returning to these ancient concepts for insight and inspiration.

In truth, we’ve seen some of this happening already: the Free State Project is one project that spawned western variants, including Free State Wyoming. Others are creating smaller, more private gulches. And while it’s true that geography does still constrain our actions and interactions on some levels, it is equally true that can be overcome in many cases. And in many ways. We have but to try more approaches to find more success.

It has been far too easy for too many of us to subdivide the small “us” that is, while also complaining about the “them” that is largely a fiction. We complain that we can’t change the world, so we don’t try. We may not be able to change The World, but we can certainly change our own World. Each of us has our own phenomenological world that’s filled with our history and hopes, our experiences and consequences and plans and dreams, our successes and failures. For many of us, that world is filled with a focus on Them. Why not try focusing on Us, and building frith bonds as part of a strategy to make Your World one in which you actually enjoy living?