💾 Archived View for library.inu.red › file › alex-gorrion-anonymous.gmi captured on 2023-01-29 at 07:02:54. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
➡️ Next capture (2024-07-09)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Title: Anonymous: That Most Prolific of Anarchist Writers Author: Alex Gorrion Date: 2011 Language: en Topics: Anonymous, anonymity, anarchist writers, literature, The Anvil Review Source: Retrieved on October 18, 2022 from [[https://theanvilreview.org/print/anonymous_that_most_prolific_of_anarchist_writers/]] Notes: Originally published in The Anvil Review.
Without a doubt, Anonymous has written more than any other anarchist
over the last 150 years. Sometimes she uses a pseudonym and sometimes
she simply leaves the byline blank; we know it’s her. But because of the
perplexing diversity of pieces she has authored, it becomes impossible
to offer a coherent critique of this important writer’s canon. Instead,
perhaps a look at her canonality will be of use.
While I don’t wish to discount her significance, after all I share much
in common with her, I feel compelled to publicize her stylistic
dishonesties. What are her signature styles?
Security: Anonymous is said to be untraceable, a bit like JD Salinger.
Modesty: Anonymous rejects any personality cult and focuses all
attention on the ideas and not the messenger.
Sameness: Anonymous is the Everyman, the black mask. She could be any
one of us.
Theft: Anonymous opposes intellectual property. She plagiarizes and
shares freely.
Unfortunately, Anonymous is not as secure as she clearly likes to
believe; she leaves her fingerprints all over nearly everything she
writes. Just as Canada’s Direct Action were tracked down on the basis of
language used in their communiqués, just as The Coming Insurrection was
traced to the Tarnac 9, Anonymous’s potent name does not protect her
from State surveillance. Authors who use characteristic language,
authors who communicate in any way with the publisher, can be connected
to their work. They are only hiding themselves from the public.
On those few occasions Anonymous takes all the necessary precautions,
above and beyond what she signs to the byline, she is truly untraceable.
But the rest of the time what she actually accomplishes is to create a
false image of security. Those who don’t fit this image, who write under
their own names, are painted as unsafe and unhip. In fact, the strategy
of hiding in plain sight deserves to be considered on its merits and
accepted as a legitimate choice. This strategy entails, rather than
hiding from State surveillance, being so public that the State would be
afraid to target you, because the repression, which is meant to isolate,
would instead create even more links of solidarity. But in the meantime,
Anonymous is so cool, in her shroud of secrecy, that anyone opting for a
different strategy to avoid repression just seems like a sell-out.
This coolness reveals Anonymous’s lack of modesty. While on many
occasions, she does effectively stay out of the spotlight, just as often
her invisibility makes her even more an object of attention. Take the
Invisible Committee, as an example. In my opinion, they’ve written some
intelligent things, but many of their adepts don’t even seem to notice.
They’re too busy grooving on how damn stylish those rogues are. Or, we
could compare someone like Derrick Jensen with a faceless group like
CrimethInc. Sure, there are plenty of people who go gaga for Jensen, but
he could never acquire the brand status of CrimethInc, cause he’s just
one dude, but CrimethInc, by depersonalizing themselves, have become a
phenomenon. And then there’s the Zapatistas. Their idea of wearing a
mask in order to become visible is admirable, but a side effect of the
inherent sexiness of masks has been the creation of the
antiglobalization movement’s greatest superstar (yes, even greater than
Bono) in the person of el Subcomandante.
Named anarchist writers are more likely to be careerists, but Anonymous
and her ilk are by no means immune to fame. A mask, in this case, is
much like a gun. You can use it when the situation calls for it, or you
can pose with it. The mask in itself is no guarantee to modesty.
When Anonymous writes without a persona, leaving the byline blank rather
than signing multiple pieces with the same pseudonym, she does indeed
accomplish the sameness she strives for, and this can be empowering
because it erodes the idea the separation between professional anarchist
writers and rank and file anarchists. However, I would attach the caveat
that there is something to gain from the consistency lent by a persona,
whether it’s a pseudonym or not. Not only is it personally satisfying to
see a specific writer develop over time, or to see how someone’s works
communicate with one another—to see patterns in a coherent body of
works, but it can be politically useful to trace how people influence
one another and develop over time.
Finally, there is the matter of theft, which I wholly support. But I
want to drop a little word that will make our more illegalist brethren
shudder: accountability. While it is true that ideas are collectively
created, the individuals who do the actual creating should not disappear
within this collectivity. If we renounce the separation between beliefs
and actions, we acknowledge that people bear responsibility for the
arguments they send out into the world—both the good ones and the bad
ones. It’s less a question of taking credit, and turning this credit
into some kind of ideological capital, and more a question of providing
a sort of traceability to ideas: allowing a reader to reference the
influential writings where a theme was elaborated in more depth, or in
another historical and cultural context. There’s also the issue of
taking responsibility for what you write so you can face the
consequences if your research is sloppy or if you’re making unfair
criticisms and false assertions.
I don’t wish to establish a new norm, or to discourage the intentional
mixing of ideas with total disregard for their origins, just to suggest
that Anonymous’s much lauded style has disadvantages as well as
advantages.
I sincerely hope Anonymous keeps her pen in motion, scribbling her
sometimes brilliant, sometimes half-baked thoughts across the pages of
our times. But even such a multifaceted writer as this one cannot
express all the thoughts and necessities of anarchy. My favorite
writings have always been her communiqués, writ large with shattered
glass and hasty spraypaint. But Howard Zinn and Emma Goldman are pretty
good reads too. We could use more of all of them.