What do you think?
Rate this book
Immediatism
An irresistible tome from the insurrectionist theoretician, Hakim Bey. His incendiary words are beautifully illustrated by the renowned collage artist Freddie Baer. The result is a delightful compilation by two talented artists. A must read for those who have followed their work for years. In this collection of essays, Bey expounds upon his ideas concerning radical social reorganization and the liberation of desire. Immediatism is another lyrical romp through intellectual corridors of spirituality and politics originally set forth in his groundbreaking book, TAZ . A stunning achievement from this prodigious author and scholar.
"A Blake Angel on Acid."—Robert Anton Wilson
"Fascinating..."—William S. Burroughs
"Exquisite..."—Allen Ginsberg
"A Blake Angel on Acid."—Robert Anton Wilson
"Fascinating..."—William S. Burroughs
"Exquisite..."—Allen Ginsberg
60 pages, Paperback
First published October 1, 1994
8 people are currently reading
387 people want to read
About the author
Hakim Bey
62 books158 followersHakim Bey is a pseudonym of Peter Lamborn Wilson. Hakim Bey is an American political writer, essayist, and poet, known for first proposing the concept of the Temporary Autonomous Zone (TAZ), based, in part, on a historical review of pirate utopias. He is an anarchist associated with the post-left anarchy tendency and individualist anarchism.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 21 of 21 reviews
February 3, 2021
Hmm, not sure if I'm into Hakim Bey as much as I used to be.
He reads like an anarchist boomer suggesting potlucks and crochet parties as an alternative to television and virtual reality. Like, if you're going to create a hierarchy of most to least alienated technics and technologies, then you should probably do a phenomenological or political economy analysis, instead of saying read Foucault and Baudrillard.
It's been a common theme, across history, that the newest technologies are seen as more alienating than the previous ones; but every technology has a different quality of alienation and pleasure, than the prior. In other words, they structure our identities, bodies and communities differently. Technologies cannot be compared like quantities of exchange value — that's capitalist and cop mentality.
I used to hang out with an eco-feminist and she would associate anything she deemed technology as masculine and alienating and tech-shame me, even though I'm non-binary (this was about ASMR of all things, lol). She also drove everywhere in her car. I'm sick of primitive authoritarians masquerading as free spirits, yea?
It's still a beautifully written piece and I appreciate Hakim Bey's taoist anarchism, but also, he needs to realise the tao is in everything, and check his reactionary techphobia. Everything is tech, bro, and you can be immediate in your experience of mediation. It's how films, games and books move us.
I am still partial to his idea of not engaging with the mainstream, because the mainstream sustains itself on resistance. All forms of attention centred there is attention that could be directed elsewhere. Creating a temporary autonomous zone has merits.
Xenofeminism is a good response to Hakim Bey's primitivism.
He reads like an anarchist boomer suggesting potlucks and crochet parties as an alternative to television and virtual reality. Like, if you're going to create a hierarchy of most to least alienated technics and technologies, then you should probably do a phenomenological or political economy analysis, instead of saying read Foucault and Baudrillard.
It's been a common theme, across history, that the newest technologies are seen as more alienating than the previous ones; but every technology has a different quality of alienation and pleasure, than the prior. In other words, they structure our identities, bodies and communities differently. Technologies cannot be compared like quantities of exchange value — that's capitalist and cop mentality.
I used to hang out with an eco-feminist and she would associate anything she deemed technology as masculine and alienating and tech-shame me, even though I'm non-binary (this was about ASMR of all things, lol). She also drove everywhere in her car. I'm sick of primitive authoritarians masquerading as free spirits, yea?
It's still a beautifully written piece and I appreciate Hakim Bey's taoist anarchism, but also, he needs to realise the tao is in everything, and check his reactionary techphobia. Everything is tech, bro, and you can be immediate in your experience of mediation. It's how films, games and books move us.
I am still partial to his idea of not engaging with the mainstream, because the mainstream sustains itself on resistance. All forms of attention centred there is attention that could be directed elsewhere. Creating a temporary autonomous zone has merits.
Xenofeminism is a good response to Hakim Bey's primitivism.
December 8, 2008
Smash the TV, drown the cell-phone, garrotte the DJ and go make your own goddamned fun/ life/ utopia. Now! Quit reading this.
September 24, 2014
So glad to finally find this. Great for secret society starters. beautiful ideas for establishing dissent in the era of networked interconnected (though definitely a historicised document). yes its poetic essays. yes we can have our cake and eat it. I'd been reading all this smug 'we own the world' talk from social media entrepreneur s in Andrew Keen's excellent digital vertigo, and I thought I'd find some early internet utopianism. what i actually found was ideas about reshaping groups societies in the networked age. Really great. not just for free partiers, professional anarchists or internauts.
December 6, 2012
Wilson is a man of ideas but this book is theoretically thin and ultimately defeatist. He states that there is no such thing as art for arts sake, the maxim of course implying a political meaning but what politics are we discussing, is there a univocal dimension of art as understood and appropriated in a specific context or discourse? I would argue that art is often without interpretation and is constructed for such a purpose. The symbolism inherent in pop art is the symbol of no meaning, it lacks a substance because its frame is the prop which is being deterritorialized, the image is undone and the politics are reconfigured and contextualized often in radical or critical ways. The mode of production and consumption of art is not an end all in determining its radical potential either. It assumes and uses a really outdated assumption of a mimetic conceptualization of art, reality is mimicked in the art itself, which is basically part of Wilson's fear in being commodified. His solution is not serious or interesting, The clandestine consumer still consumes a reified product which is usually a symbol, simulation or picture, not mimesis of course and the meaning is contingent on the person who created the work and the person who is viewing it. Thus Wilson relies on a very one dimensional assumption of meaning. To valorize is to be radical in my opinion whereas for Wilson to be radical is to engage in secrecy and not give any value to anything. Hence the quote:
"We offer the chance for art which is immediately present by virtue of the fact that it can exist only in our presence"
If its not secrecy, its an assimilation of art into a collective shaman like cultural norm whereby art is innocuous and present basically in non presence. He cites the Bali culture and others who do not have words for art and it is understood that everyone is an artist and that imagination is merely a normal tool. Thus there is no commodity. However this assumes a collective one dimensional meaning as stated and assumes that meaning can be possessed, whereas its actually enacted. This is why meaning is inextricably linked with power. This is why in my opinion to give meaning is to give power; Something Wilson doesn't seem to appreciate or give much time to here. This is the key problem Sontag tackles in her work "Against Interpretation". Wilson in his project should seek to emphasize the differences and potential of his thesis alongside the current.
His discussion of Chinese Tongs is fascinating and his discussion is always wonderfully insightful and creatively put. His use of Charybdis and Scylla in narratives about the state are just fantastic creative writing. This book however attempts to be radical by cutting off and to be reductionist, to refuse to participate and refuse to engage. It is solipsism covered up by anarchist theory. Tongs as societies do not provide potential for future organization or even organization in the present and merely provide a way of counteracting the current heterogeneous culture which already exists. Should the Quiddity of Will Self by Sam Mills be read as an anarchist allusion or fable to this notion of tonga in secret cult like societies doing illegal things? Shouldn't we instead try to push for community rights which act as a synecdochal representation of a larger collective whereby people are free and decide collectively decisions based on democratic principles?
The idea of a temporary autonomous zone alongside spaces of resistance, the scream et al merely act as a way of providing short term, ephemeral solutions to problems which need to change instead of being bandaged up. 'The Totality' is not truly a totality when considering the fact that I can desist from many of the examples mentioned such as MTV, PBS and watching advertisements. I can engage in counter culture adjamming practices, I can engage in freeganism which disavows the consumerist praxis etc. These appear to be autonomous projects which allow us to act as a rhizome, to no longer ascribe to the tree like linearity of societal impulse. There is no totality for if there was, spaces of resistance wouldn't exist. The Dominant culture (instead of 'Totality') can re-appropriate and banalize reactionary narratives as the Situationsts showed (he uses there term actually in 'recuperation') but to assume this renders the narrative banal itself as a narrative is to engage in defeatism. The revolutionary praxis of revolutionary praxis is still alive and well despite the endless codification and reductionist mockery within the mainstream hegemonic press.
Furthermore, the art within the book is totally out of place and seems to merely act as filler, despite its 'nicety'. It also is ostensibly a pamphlet that could act as a way of educating, a method of pedagogy even for academics in showing how to organize. This however is destroyed by the repeated assertions that his movement cannot be used, it has no consensus, it does not represent 'everyday life'. Instead of presenting a Lefebvre style rumination of existence, it is inaugurated as 'chaos'. Part of his argument also centers on the disavow of any organization whatsoever, in critiquing anarchists who hold that anarchism is a structured society. Why is this lamentable and why resort to edifying the stereotype of your own position merely to make a reactionary point which is not even made? He seems totally unaware that his methodology may ultimately be appropriated as a totality, which is why he must distrust organization for otherwise his thesis could be shown as elitist. How are societies of seven billion people to co-exist in a non-linear world constructed by nothing in particular except the immediacy of their own environment without exterior links and networks of resistance. He does not disavow technology in quite the same way as Zerzan does, but this does not mean that techne would feature much if at all.
"We offer the chance for art which is immediately present by virtue of the fact that it can exist only in our presence"
If its not secrecy, its an assimilation of art into a collective shaman like cultural norm whereby art is innocuous and present basically in non presence. He cites the Bali culture and others who do not have words for art and it is understood that everyone is an artist and that imagination is merely a normal tool. Thus there is no commodity. However this assumes a collective one dimensional meaning as stated and assumes that meaning can be possessed, whereas its actually enacted. This is why meaning is inextricably linked with power. This is why in my opinion to give meaning is to give power; Something Wilson doesn't seem to appreciate or give much time to here. This is the key problem Sontag tackles in her work "Against Interpretation". Wilson in his project should seek to emphasize the differences and potential of his thesis alongside the current.
His discussion of Chinese Tongs is fascinating and his discussion is always wonderfully insightful and creatively put. His use of Charybdis and Scylla in narratives about the state are just fantastic creative writing. This book however attempts to be radical by cutting off and to be reductionist, to refuse to participate and refuse to engage. It is solipsism covered up by anarchist theory. Tongs as societies do not provide potential for future organization or even organization in the present and merely provide a way of counteracting the current heterogeneous culture which already exists. Should the Quiddity of Will Self by Sam Mills be read as an anarchist allusion or fable to this notion of tonga in secret cult like societies doing illegal things? Shouldn't we instead try to push for community rights which act as a synecdochal representation of a larger collective whereby people are free and decide collectively decisions based on democratic principles?
The idea of a temporary autonomous zone alongside spaces of resistance, the scream et al merely act as a way of providing short term, ephemeral solutions to problems which need to change instead of being bandaged up. 'The Totality' is not truly a totality when considering the fact that I can desist from many of the examples mentioned such as MTV, PBS and watching advertisements. I can engage in counter culture adjamming practices, I can engage in freeganism which disavows the consumerist praxis etc. These appear to be autonomous projects which allow us to act as a rhizome, to no longer ascribe to the tree like linearity of societal impulse. There is no totality for if there was, spaces of resistance wouldn't exist. The Dominant culture (instead of 'Totality') can re-appropriate and banalize reactionary narratives as the Situationsts showed (he uses there term actually in 'recuperation') but to assume this renders the narrative banal itself as a narrative is to engage in defeatism. The revolutionary praxis of revolutionary praxis is still alive and well despite the endless codification and reductionist mockery within the mainstream hegemonic press.
Furthermore, the art within the book is totally out of place and seems to merely act as filler, despite its 'nicety'. It also is ostensibly a pamphlet that could act as a way of educating, a method of pedagogy even for academics in showing how to organize. This however is destroyed by the repeated assertions that his movement cannot be used, it has no consensus, it does not represent 'everyday life'. Instead of presenting a Lefebvre style rumination of existence, it is inaugurated as 'chaos'. Part of his argument also centers on the disavow of any organization whatsoever, in critiquing anarchists who hold that anarchism is a structured society. Why is this lamentable and why resort to edifying the stereotype of your own position merely to make a reactionary point which is not even made? He seems totally unaware that his methodology may ultimately be appropriated as a totality, which is why he must distrust organization for otherwise his thesis could be shown as elitist. How are societies of seven billion people to co-exist in a non-linear world constructed by nothing in particular except the immediacy of their own environment without exterior links and networks of resistance. He does not disavow technology in quite the same way as Zerzan does, but this does not mean that techne would feature much if at all.
November 18, 2022
An amusing series of essays in which the author argues that the tyrannies of capitalism can be confounded through homemade arts and crafts exchanges, stitch'n'bitch sessions, and pot luck dinners.
Just don't ruin the revolution with raisins in the potato salad.
Just don't ruin the revolution with raisins in the potato salad.
August 12, 2025
right now!
January 5, 2024
This book is worthy of being read multiple times and of being discussed at length.
December 30, 2025
I also hate… media… (¬_¬ ) I'd also like to have experiences that are…un-mediated… (←_←) I am sympathetic to Hakim Bey but I would never say I practice “immediatism.” I find some comfort reading an author who's disgusted with the current world and wants to build a new one. There's a lot of crap about “art” and “creativity” that only exists to make losers feel better about being losers. There's a lot of opposition that gets swallowed up by “the machine.” He has some quality elaboration on the deadlock of progressive media in his time. The punchline is that his strategy for shrugging off this whole fucked up system and birthing the new world is having, like, arts-and-crafts dinner parties. Really it's having a *decentralized network* of *secret societies* hosting arts and crafts dinner parties. After this network exists then… something happens… and capitalism is overthrown. I'm not representing his ideas generously, but it's hard to ignore that his long-term strategy seems… lacking. As a strategy for creating some refreshing get-togethers I appreciate it. I read it as a call to imagine what kinds of things a group of people can do that don't serve profit or vanity. This thin booklet is just about the right length for the quality it gave. How I wish I could have heard his “radio sermonettes” live instead of reading them silently on my own. The graphics by Freddie Baer are beautiful. I wonder what it was like to live in the 90s ヾ(⌐■_■)ノ♪
March 22, 2023
Mixed feelings on this one.
I think there are some core solid ideas presented here with that core idea of how certain things in our society take time away from us being human but too often it can feel like he can just go on basic rants about Art or TV, and while I get the points expressed, it can ultimately take away from the important points he wants to make.
Still an interesting read for anyone like me that didn’t even know Immediatism was a thing before seeing this book. Just wish things were more consistent throughout the book.
I think there are some core solid ideas presented here with that core idea of how certain things in our society take time away from us being human but too often it can feel like he can just go on basic rants about Art or TV, and while I get the points expressed, it can ultimately take away from the important points he wants to make.
Still an interesting read for anyone like me that didn’t even know Immediatism was a thing before seeing this book. Just wish things were more consistent throughout the book.
May 9, 2021
"Ontological Anarchy in a Nutshell" is a really great piece. The rest aren't very good, but I appreciate the many philosophy references. Rare to see anarchists citing Bachelard, for example.
December 21, 2024
"Se hará necesario dejar esta ciudad que inmóvil flota en el aire sobre el borde de un crepúsculo estéril, como Hamelyn después de que todos los ni��os fueron apartados de ella. Quizá existan otras ciudades, ocupando el mismo tiempo y espacio, pero... diferentes. Y quizá existan junglas donde la mera iluminación esté oculta por la sombra de la luz negra de los jaguares. No tengo ni idea -y estoy aterrado"
Read
August 9, 2012very interesting little book of essays about art anarchy community secrecy media...some really beautiful visual art in here too by a guy named freddie baer...i say read it if it finds you. it's that kind of book
January 20, 2008
I know I read this because it's sitting on my night-table, and I remember liking it, but I have no idea what it was about other than aesthetic theory.
March 9, 2008
get over yr alienation from yr own body and touch yr Self.
influences: Nietzsche; Artaud; shamanism; Hassan I Sabbah and heretical Islamicists
influences: Nietzsche; Artaud; shamanism; Hassan I Sabbah and heretical Islamicists
September 3, 2015
highly recommended, if you can handle heady essays
July 8, 2008
Hakim Bey gives practical ideas for how to begin things 'now', and stop beating around the bush, while linking actions directly to consciousness in the process.
September 6, 2011
an important piece in the debate concerning call to action(s) to relieve ourselves of mediated culture.
October 8, 2012
I can't say I fully followed all of it, but what I did get was fantastically inspiring--an intellectual and ideological jump-start.
February 16, 2013
Boring and reductive.
Read
December 3, 2024essays, some fun some less. the limited nature of the book's project is relatable, but im not sure i buy the technophobia wholesale anymore.
Displaying 1 - 21 of 21 reviews