do need to assert theirtotalizing views on resistance and identity however partial, problematic, andeven authoritarian these might be to other standpoints and realities. In order to defend what matters to people,many groups and communities have constructed metanarratives on the way. In this essay, for example, I give myselfthis permission by allowing it to say more than it should say for the sake ofdifference and cultural understanding. However, who first thought that cultural differences and theirencounters really need to always be gentle? Colonization for example certainly has been thought as gentle before,during, and after it happened and continued by other means in many cases.[60]Zerzanattacks Michel Foucault, as many contemporary scientists have done, for notproviding a macropolitical analysis or the correct path to resistance. In a somewhat anarchistic manner, Foucaultopenly rejected such paths, which would have been easy and yet utterlyproblematic. He respected the readersability to read and make his own path through the power relations he came toanalyze. But Foucault cannot be blamedfor the reification of micropolitics and the decentered subject that ishappening within postanarchism and postmodern thought. In another essay, I wrote:Thatpower is not formed by a simple opposition between rulers and ruled, that itrelates to other forms of sociability, and that it is always already historicaland therefore non-subjective in the sense of a subject as origin, are allcontributions made by Foucault to broader definitions of power. Postanarchist authors have regarded thesedefinitions as truly anarchist, as ifanarchism had been waiting for its own revelation in history of its true self.[61] Foucaultwas mostly preoccupied in destabilizing particular power relations, not inproviding a framework on which to criticize all power relations of allinstitutions. He was geared, in greatpart, to understand how specific forms of subjectivity are formed within powerrelations and truth discourses. To be socialized into any act or form ofsubjectivity is the greatest nightmare for Zerzan. The external world determining the internal:that is his greatest fear, although he can do nothing about it, for theexternal and the internal are not without relations. On the other hand, many primitivists tend torecognize that domination does not amount to a center. They may be just showing they too contradictthemselves, like everyone else. Or theymay be recognizing the limits of discourse, their own included, in explainingfreedom. In this regard, Feral Faun[62]writes that there is no single center that can be overthrown, in consonancewith a Foucauldian view of domination and power relations, Themost funny aspect of Zerzans view of power, is that he fails to perceive, inpart because of his fixed definition of organization (as domination), thatprimitivism, in order to cause a revolution, needs more organization (ascoherence in objectives and achievements) than has ever been thought byradicals, with the exception maybe of those that propose total collectivesuicide. This organization by Zerzansprimitivism is more radical than a normal collective organization in the sensethat it is self-organization, springing from individuals. However, for this reason it is dependent on aspontaneity never seen in the world, through which the whole world would bechanged. Faun,[63]in accordance with this view, says: In a very general way, we know what wewant. We want to live