đŸ Archived View for library.inu.red âș file âș dennis-fox-anarchism-and-psychology.gmi captured on 2023-01-29 at 09:02:22. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
âĄïž Next capture (2024-07-09)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Title: Anarchism and Psychology Author: Dennis Fox Date: 2011 Language: en Topics: academy, prefigurative politics, psychology, social control, subjectivity Source: Retrieved on March 9, 2011 from http://www.dennisfox.net/papers/anarchism_and_psychology.html Notes: Paper presented at conference of North American Anarchist Studies Network Toronto, Ontario January 16, 2011 DRAFT of article in press, Theory in Action
Many anarchists are suspicious of âpsychologizingâ and make little
reference to psychology as a discipline beyond dismissing its
individualist focus. Yet psychological assumptions about power,
hierarchy, cooperation, and similar dynamics underlie critiques of
statism and capitalism and shape prefigurative efforts to transform
society so that human beings can more easily achieve both autonomy and
mutuality. At the same time, personal and interpersonal turmoil
frequently hinder those efforts. The challenge is to determine which
aspects of psychological research and psychotherapy, especially critical
psychology and extensions of humanistic psychology and radical
psychoanalysis, might help anarchists grapple simultaneously with both
the personal and the political.
Referring to the merging within each of us of internal and external
forces, Gustav Landauer wrote that âThe State is a condition, a certain
relationship between human beings, a mode of human behavior; we destroy
it by contracting other relationships, by behaving differentlyâ
(Landauer, 1910, cited in Buber, 1958, p. 46). Like all worldviews,
anarchism incorporates assumptions about human nature and human society
that explain how we act and how we think we should act. This âeveryday
psychologyâ (Jones & Elcock, 2001) helps us understand our own and
othersâ behavior and shapes our sense of what kind of society is
desirable and possible. Becoming part of anarchist political culture
(Gordon, 2005) often means replacing old assumptions with newer ones.
Yet despite the significance of psychological assumptions about
reciprocal links between the personal and the political, it remains
unclear to what extent any of psychologyâs various guises â academic
discipline, therapeutic profession, psychoanalytical understanding, or
force of popular culture â can help advance liberation and community.
Anarchism and psychology each contains an array of tendencies with
little consensus about definition, origin, methods, scope, or goals.
Anarchists â not only anarchist academics â debate just what anarchism
is, how and when it started, what it seeks, how to do it right, and â
especially academics â whether post-anarchism replaces the older kind.
Psychology has comparable questions: Is its proper focus mind or
behavior? Is it, or should it be, a science, and if so what kind? Does
it seek general laws of behavior or better understanding of individuals
in context? These parallel debates have implications for advancing
anarchism and for determining whose interests psychology might serve.
Anarchismâs critique inevitably delves into psychological terrain.
Anarchists generally advocate values such as cooperation and mutual aid,
self-management and participation, spontaneity and liberation. A
non-hierarchical society, we believe, would help people meet shifting
and sometimes-conflicting needs for autonomy and mutuality without
hurting others in the process (Fox, 1985, 1993a). We know that elite
control depends not just on suppressing radical movements but also on
misdirecting us along careerist, consumerist, nationalist, and other
ideologically convenient paths that sacrifice either autonomy or
mutuality, and often both. This misdirection operates largely through
dominant institutions â education, religion, media, law, psychotherapy â
that internalize and disseminate particular views of human nature and
society.
To be clear: I am not saying these topics are only psychological, or
that what psychologists have to say is more useful than what others say.
Because the interplay between individual and community is âthe central
tension in perhaps all social theoryâ (Amster, 2009, p. 290), the most
productive approaches are interdisciplinary.
I also know that too much psychologizing deflects attention from
political work. The latest trend â âpositive psychologyâ â is mostly one
more enticement to change our thinking rather than our world
(Ehrenreich, 2009). I agree with Zerzan (1994), who noted that âIn the
Psychological Society, social conflicts of all kinds are automatically
shifted to the level of psychic problems, in order that they can be
charged to individuals as private mattersâ (p. 5). And with Sakolsky
(2011):
[T]he human impulse toward mutual aid is further suffocated by those in
the debraining industry who professionally proselytize on behalf of an
apolitical positivist psychology. The latterâs emphasis on blaming
ourselves for our own alienation and oppression is then reinforced by
our everyday relationships of mutual acquiescence in which we are
constantly encouraged to âbe realistic,â get with the program, stop
whining, pop an anti-depressant if necessary, and, for god sake, appear
upbeat. (p. 10)
Furthermore, Iâm not ignoring psychologistsâ roles as enforcers of
conventional Western middle-class values and agents of state and
corporate power. Itâs a sordid history, from intelligence and
personality testing that categorizes people for bureaucratic social
control, to pacifying prisoners, workers, mental patients, students, and
women, to psychological manipulation ranging from spreading distorted
models of normality to advertising corporate products to interrogating
prisoners at Guantanamo Bay (Herman, 1995; Tyson, Jones, & Elcock, in
press). Psychotherapists routinely use medicalized diagnoses created by
psychiatrists, demanded by insurance companies, and sometimes designed
explicitly for social control. âOppositional Defiant Disorder,â for
example, stems from the diagnosis of âanarchiaâ that Benjamin Rush, the
âfather of American psychiatryâ and a signer of the Declaration of
Independence, applied to resistors to federal authority whose âexcess of
the passion for libertyâ constituted âa form of insanityâ (Levine,
2008).
Despite a sprinkling of anarchist psychologists (e.g., Chomsky, 2005;
Cromby, 2008; Ehrlich, 1996; Fox, 1985, 1993a; Goodman, 1966/1979;
Sarason, 1976; Ward, 2002), the discipline remains a mixed bag. So maybe
itâs not surprising that anarchists so infrequently refer to it even
when they use psychological concepts and talk about human nature. Few of
the 28 chapters in Contemporary Anarchist Studies (Amster et al., 2009),
for example, mention psychology, which does not appear in the index;
none of the 34 authors is identified as a psychologist. An Anarchist
Studies Network reading list notes âpsychology potentially has a great
deal to offer anarchism (and vice versa!)â but lists much more work on
psychoanalysis than psychology, much of it old and not in English (
anarchist-studies-network.org.uk
). Iâve found references to only one book with both anarchism and
psychology in the title (Hamon, 1894). With sporadic exceptions,
including recent connections to ecopsychology (Heckert, 2010; Rhodes,
2008), thereâs been little systematic treatment of potential links.
As already noted, on the other hand, anarchists regularly make
psychological arguments, often paralleling those of Marxists and
Situationists (Debord, 1967; Vaneigem, 1967). That was true for
Kropotkin, Emma Goldman, and other classical anarchists and itâs true
today. For Landauer, âPeople do not live in the state. The state lives
in the peopleâ (cited in Sakolsky, 2011, p. 1). For Goldman, âThe
problem that confronts us today, and which the nearest future is to
solve, is how to be oneâs self and yet in oneness with others, to deeply
feel with all human beings and still retain oneâs characteristic
qualitiesâ (cited in Shukaitis, 2008, p. 12). Emphasizing âthe personal
and psychological dimensions of life,â early women anarchists insisted
that âchanges in personal aspects of life, such as families, children,
sex should be viewed as political activityâ (Leeder, 1996, p. 143). A
century later, Milstein (2009) says anarchism â âthe only political
tradition that has consistently grappled with the tension between the
individual and societyâ (p. 92) â aims âto transform society in order to
also transform ourselvesâ (p. 12). For Salmon (2010), âIt is easy to
talk about challenging the system and forget about challenging ourselves
at the same time. It is not about putting one above the other, but
realizing that both have to go hand in hand to be truly revolutionaryâ
(p. 13). Gordon (2005) too insists that the transformation begins now:
Anarchism is unique among political movements in emphasizing the need to
realize its desired social relations within the structures and practices
of the revolutionary movement itself. As such, prefigurative politics
can be seen as a form of âconstructiveâ direct action, whereby
anarchists who propose social relations bereft of hierarchy and
domination undertake their construction by themselves. (p. 4)
Thereâs a problem, though. Although we want to live by anarchist values
today, none of us grew up learning how to do that. Barclay (1982) wrote
that âindividual members [of anarchist intentional communities] ... have
been reared in the cultural traditions and values of th[e] state and
have only the greatest difficulty divesting themselves of their
deleterious effectsâ (p. 103). The âtension in anarchist theory between
the political and the personalâ (DeLeon & Love, 2009, p. 162) means
âitâs going to be an ongoing struggle to find the balanceâ (Milstein,
2009, p. 15).
[M]ost recent pieces that confront issues of power in the movement focus
on the way in which patterns of domination in society are imprinted on
interactions within it â uncovering dynamics of racist, sexist, ageist
or homophobic behavior, and asking why it is that positions of
leadership in activist circles tend to be populated by men more often
than women, whites more often than non-whites, and able persons more
often than disabled ones. (Gordon, 2008, p. 52)
Confronting these difficulties, sometimes we falter. In the face of so
much that needs doing, sometimes we settle for just getting by, staying
functional enough for the work of the moment rather than developing
personal, interpersonal, and collective skills an anarchist society
might someday provide more naturally. We know that focusing on ourselves
â our own relationships, needs, feelings, desires, troubles large and
small â can become preoccupying, isolating, narcissistic. We resist
individual solutions. Yet if we did understand our needs and wants
better â where they come from, why we have them, how to satisfy them,
how we might change them â and if we did learn to interact more
effectively, then our living situations might be more satisfying, our
relationships more fulfilling, our work lives more bearable, and our
community and political projects more successful. Anarchists have a good
sense, I think, of what life would be like free of competitiveness,
possessiveness, jealousy, and domination, opening ourselves to
liberation, spontaneity, and joy. But deciding to be different doesnât
make us different. Ridding ourselves of a lifetime of bad habits,
deformed needs, and twisted emotions is not so easy.
It would be useful if the field of psychology was an ally rather than
foe, even though anarchism may still have more to offer psychology than
the other way around. Yet a growing number of critical psychologists
(Fox, Prilleltensky, & Austin, 2009) are as ready as Sakolsky (2011) and
Zerzan (1994) to blast psychologyâs ideological role while also
exploring research, teaching, and therapy alternatives. Critical
psychology is more marginal than its counterparts in other fields and
likely to remain so (Parker, 2007), its adherents more often Marxist or
even liberal than anarchist (Fox, in press), but it remains the most
likely disciplinary space to advance the three anarchist projects
described by Gordon (2009): âdelegitimation, direct action (both
destructive and creative), and networkingâ (p. 253). In the next section
I describe three areas with mixed implications for advancing anarchism:
clinical psychology as therapeutic profession, social psychology as
knowledge-producing technology, and the progeny of humanistic psychology
and radical psychoanalysis.
Mainstream psychologists sometimes grapple with useful concepts despite
so often missing the point. The tension between individuality and
mutuality is particularly relevant. The assumed dualistic split between
self and other is standard fare, with terms such as agency/communion,
independence/interdependence, autonomy/psychological sense of community.
Personality theorists consider how circumstances â family, friends,
school, etc. â affect growth from self-focused infant to socialized
adult, and sometimes how different societies produce the personalities
they need. Social psychologists make a mantra of the interaction between
âthe personâ (e.g., personality, emotion, beliefs) and âthe settingâ
(the presence of others, configuration of a room, perceived norms),
although mainstream views of setting typically exclude society, culture,
and history (Tolman, 1994).
These tensions and interactions are central to anarchist thought, which
recognizes the inseparability of, and reciprocity between, personal and
societal change as well as the difficulty of attempting both
simultaneously. Anarchists âacknowledge this self-society juggling act
as part of the human conditionâ (Milstein, 2009, p. 14). âLifestyle
decisions such as squatting or open relationships of intimacy have
pushed anarchists to recognize the potential that radical lifestyle
actions can have in freeing our minds from oppressive social normsâ
(DeLeon & Love, 2009, p. 161). Because â[t]he task for anarchists is not
to introduce a new society but to realize an alternative society as much
as possible in the present tenseâ (Gordon, 2005, p. 12), all domains
invite struggle.
[T]he personal is political, but it is also economic, as well as social
and cultural. Struggles around issues of care and housework, of the
tasks of the everyday, are not just individual concerns unrelated to
broader political and economic questions â they are the quotidian
manifestations of these larger processes. Recognition of their
connections, as well as the connections against questionable power
dynamics in the home, school, office, hospital, and all spaces of social
life, is an important step. (Shukaitis, 2008, p. 5)
Salmon (2010) argued that, âIf our personal relationships are being used
to keep us in conformity with the current system, then to challenge the
basis of our relationships is part of tackling the political dead end
that the mainstream continually tries to force us downâ (p. 13). Gordon
(2010) made a similar point:
This is sometimes called âprefigurative politics.â So it makes sense for
anarchists who have a critique of human-nonhuman relations and of the
exploitation of animals to try and live in a way that seeks to undo that
exploitation, e.g., by avoiding animal products (as well as campaigning
and taking direct action against labs, slaughterhouses, battery farms,
etc.). Similarly, anarchists who have a critique of monogamy, for
example from a feminist point of view, would look at ways to live
differently in the present by practicing polyamory. (Gordon, 2010)
Or, as the Situationist Raoul Vaneigem (1967) wrote, âPeople who talk
about revolution and class struggle without referring explicitly to
everyday life, without understanding what is subversive about love and
what is positive in the refusal of constraints, such people have corpses
in their mouths.â
When most people think about psychology they have in mind the therapy
profession: clinical psychologists but also psychiatrists, social
workers, and counselors who help resolve âmental healthâ difficulties.
They may assume that psychology is based on Sigmund Freud or that
psychology and psychoanalysis are pretty much the same thing rather than
âtwo disciplines with an obvious boundary disputeâ (Tyson et al., in
press, pp. 184â185). Most clinical psychology students do learn various
ways to understand mental health and illness â very loaded terms â as
well as therapy techniques based on competing schools of thought. Only
some of what psychotherapists do resembles the advice offered in
self-help pop psychology books that purport to teach us how to fix
ourselves.
Critical psychologists have objected to psychotherapyâs most common
approach: helping us adapt to an unsatisfying world by internalizing
problems and solutions rather than recognizing their societal nature.
Psychologyâs claim to be a science separate from philosophy accompanied
19^(th) century Social Darwinism, which imagined and demanded a
competitive, striving human nature for a dog-eat-dog capitalist world.
It assumed rather than challenged hierarchy, patriarchy, and race
privilege. Twentieth century psychologists who eventually became
therapists encouraged people to fix themselves rather than challenge
bosses, political elites, or dominant institutions more broadly. And
still, today, mainstream therapy helps us function, boosting our
confidence and self-esteem and maintaining our relationships so that we
can get through school, get to work on time, keep at it one day after
the next, mastering stress reduction techniques and ignoring any inkling
that something outside ourselves might be at fault even when millions of
us have identical âindividual problems.â These culturally disseminated
clichés have become part of our everyday psychology, seemingly obvious
and natural and right (Fox et al., 2009).
These generalizations have important exceptions. Feminist, Marxist,
anarchist, and other critical and radical therapists â psychologists,
psychiatrists, and psychoanalysts such as Alfred Adler and Erich Fromm â
have explored the links among our emotional states, habitual behaviors,
and the society around us, tracing common difficulties to culturally
determined conditions. Radicals have more often explored psychoanalysis
which, â[i]n part due to the continued awareness that minds are products
of social and cultural environments, ... always had more of a potential
for cultural critique than psychology, especially those aspects of
psychology that relied on technological control rather than conceptual
understandingâ (Tyson et al., in press, p. 178).
Especially influential among radicals was Wilhelm Reich (1942), whose
exploration of the connection between sexual repression and fascism
stimulated variants of analysis and therapy following Marxist, feminist,
and other critical traditions (Sloan, 1996; Tolman, 1994), including
anarchism (Comfort, 1950; Perez, 1990). Reich followed Otto Gross, an
early Freudian who broke away to develop an anarchist psychoanalysis
taking into account
[s]uch problems as anti-authoritarian, repression-free upbringing, the
emancipation from patriarchal, hierarchical structures in the context of
family, marriage, career, etc., the emancipation of women in particular,
the rights of the individual to decide freely about his/her life,
especially in reference to drugs and euthanasia, and finally questions
about the freedom of the individual in relationship to social norms and
traditions. (International Otto Gross Society, 2009)
Gross believed that â[w]hoever wants to change the structures of power
(and production) in a repressive society, has to start by changing these
structures in himself [sic] and to eradicate the âauthority that has
infiltrated oneâs own inner beingââ (Sombart, 1991, cited in Heuer).
Similarly, the psychiatrist Roberto Freireâs 1970s somatherapy, based in
large part on Reich, took an anarchist approach in trying âto understand
the socio-political behavior of individuals starting from what happens
in their daily livesâ (âSomatherapy,â 2010). Also taking into account
societal context, from a more existentialist direction, was anarchist
Paul Goodmanâs contribution to gestalt therapy (Perls, Hefferline, &
Goodman, 1951).
Mainstream psychotherapy continues to reinforce an asocial, apolitical
adjustment-seeking individualism. When psychologists work in prisons,
mental hospitals, schools, factories, militaries, and other institutions
that confine people and shape behavior, their work crosses from
neutrality to social control. The âanti-psychiatryâ movement gains more
attention, but psychologists too work in mental hospitals. At the same
time, critical and radical psychologists have contributed to efforts
critical of mainstream psychiatry and psychotherapy (P. Brown, 1973;
Ingleby, 1980; Williams & Arrigo, 2005).
Social psychology exemplifies the disciplineâs preferred image as
science rather than therapy profession. Social psychologists sometimes
do research that therapists can use, but mostly they range more widely,
looking for universal principles of behavior assumed to be independent
of time and place. Why do we help someone? When are we more or less
likely to follow orders, cooperate or compete, love or hate? Even: How
can we persuade people to recycle? Social psychologists typically use
experimental methods to study behaviors that we ordinarily explain to
ourselves using our internalized everyday psychology; they claim such
research is necessary because our âeveryday psychology is often
inaccurateâ (Jones & Elcock, 2001, p. 183) and only science can reveal
the truth.
As an undergraduate I responded to social psychologyâs liberal reform
agenda with naive optimism and personal curiosity. But later I returned
to graduate school steeped in Israelâs utopian-socialist kibbutz system
(Horrox, 2009), the 1970s anti-nuclear power movement (Epstein, 1993),
and books from Kropotkin (1902) to Bookchin (1971, 1980, 1982). I
realized then that social psychological research â on power, hierarchy,
and authority, decision making and cooperation, relationships and
community â demonstrated the benefits of âcommunal individualityâ
(Ritter, 1980) in a âfree society of free individualsâ (Milstein, 2009,
p. 12). Others too noticed; for example, political psychologist Dana
Ward, curator of the Anarchist Archives, has explored authoritarianism,
group dynamics, and the development of political concepts (âPolitical
Psychology and Anarchism,â 2009; see also Hamilton, 2008, on intrinsic
motivation; Fox, 1985). But the field never embraced anarchismâs social
psychological vision of maximizing autonomy and community.
There was a time when some imagined more. At the dawn of modern
psychology, Augustin Hamon (1894) advanced a social psychology that
emphasized systematic, empirical research and situated the
âproblematiqueâ of social psychology at the interface of the individual
and societal levels of analysis.... They linked a strong commitment to
social movements expressing anarchist-communist ideas with a critical
reevaluation of concepts in the social sciences, criminology, etc.; that
is to say, Hamon conceived of the social sciences, sui generis, as
critical sciences. (Apfelbaum & Lubek, 1983, p. 32; see also Lubek &
Apfelbaum, 1982)
In 1967, Abraham Maslow, one of a handful of theorists looking to
anarchism as something of a model (Fox, 1985), taught a course called
Utopian Social Psychology. It addressed âthe empirical and realistic
questions: How good a society does human nature permit? How good a human
nature does society permit? What is possible and feasible? What is not?â
(Maslow, 1971, p. 212). But today social psychology is hardly utopian or
even very social, focusing instead on what we think about behavior,
âparadoxically ... seek[ing] to explain behavior in terms of individual
rather than social and cultural factorsâ (Jones & Elcock, 2001, p. 187).
Thereâs not much talk of experimenting with community.
In my own work in a subfield called âpsychology and law,â an anarchist
stance helps dissect the legal systemâs justifications for its own
legitimacy, which essentially assume that human nature is so bad only
the law lets us survive (Fox, 1993a, 1993b, 1999). Anarchists donât all
agree about human nature â some think itâs pretty good, others good or
bad depending on circumstances, some donât seem to care â but generally
we donât think that legislators, judges, and cops are the reason most
people under ordinary circumstances are reasonably decent. Moreover,
unlike Marxists who tend to think lawâs utility depends on who controls
it, anarchists generally dismiss the rule of law no matter whoâs in
charge and object to legal reasoningâs purpose: judging human
interaction by generalized abstract principles independent of
circumstances facing actual people.
Politics
Aware that therapy, navel-gazing, and self-help books (Justman, 2005;
Zerzan, 1994) donât lead to social change, anarchists are generally
suspicious of psychotherapyâs core as well as of humanistic approaches
from Western psychology, Eastern philosophy, and New Age mysticism that
spawned the human potential movement where much of the work on self and
relationships occurs today. Although some forms of humanistic and even
New Age thought claim compatibility with social change movements
(McLaughlin & Davidson, 2010; Rosenberg, 2004; Satin, 1979), too many
participants insist the only way to change the world is to work only on
themselves. Capitalists, of course, happily sell us whatever we need to
meditate and communicate, practice yoga and Tantra, discover our
authentic selves, and wander down our spiritual path of the moment,
positive, happy, self-absorbed, and non-threatening. Understandably,
thus, anarchists often reject these individualistic solutions and focus
instead on more systemic approaches.
Recently Iâve begun exploring groups that go in the other direction:
prioritizing personal growth and interpersonal dynamics necessary for
creating community. This personally rewarding âparticipant observation,â
as social psychologists might call it, has challenged my own
assumptions, stereotypes, and habits and tested my ability to be patient
with new language, styles, and ways of looking at myself and the world.
Although the groups Iâve come across do not define themselves as
anarchist, and thus attract people with various political and apolitical
identities, their purposes and methods overlap significantly with
anarchist values. Aiming to shake us out of complacency toward new
habits, goals, motivations, and emotions, they mirror anarchist calls to
re-think things weâve always taken for granted about human nature and
hierarchy, capitalism and materialism, monogamy and sexuality. The goal,
at least for some, is not just to focus inward but to create communities
less repressive and oppressive, more egalitarian, satisfying, and just.
Efforts that seem potentially useful stress mutual support, study, and
exploration rather than individual psychotherapy, self-help, or a guruâs
prescription for inner bliss. Network for a New Culture (
), for example, uses an eclectic, non-dogmatic approach incorporating
elements of humanistic psychology, cognitive and gestalt therapy, and
Reichian/Jungian analysis as well as varied communication and
community-building methods. Exploring links between beliefs and
emotions, body and unconscious, self and culture, NFNC creates settings
that challenge widespread emotional, behavioral, and sexual assumptions.
Some of this exploration follows approaches developed in more explicitly
radical intentional communities in Germany (ZEGG,
) and Portugal (Tamera,
). Similarly, some psychologists using anarchist frameworks (McWilliams,
1985; Rhodes, 2008) incorporate insights from ecopsychology and
ecofeminism as well as from Zen, Taoism and other psychologies
challenging Western notions of consciousness and reality, self and other
(Ornstein, 1972; Rosenberg, 2004). It may be impossible âto re-create
personality and thus transform lifeâ or âto create your own realityâ
(Zerzan, 1994, p. 12), but it is possible to learn skills and create
communities that help us act and feel closer to what we imagine is
possible.
Gordon (2010) cautions, in a somewhat-related context, that âthese
practices and lifestyles are in danger of congealing into a
self-referential subculture that detracts from other areas of activity
(e.g., direct action, propaganda, solidarity work),â but he adds âthere
is no reason why they should have to come at the expense of these.â
Marshall Rosenberg (2004), an early proponent of radical therapy whose
Nonviolent Communication method is used in interpersonal and political
conflicts, talks of spirituality but acknowledges that
spirituality can be reactionary if we get people to just be so calm and
accepting and loving that they tolerate the dangerous structures. The
spirituality that we need to develop for social change is one that
mobilizes us for social change. It doesnât just enable us to sit there
and enjoy the world no matter what. It creates a quality of energy that
mobilizes us into action. (pp. 5â6)
I have not yet explored spiritual groups, but itâs worth noting that
some anarchists consider non-institutionalized religion compatible with
anarchism (e.g., A. Brown, 2007). Kemmerer (2009) points out that
âinstitutionalized religion in every nation tends to support the status
quo, but many religious teachings ... support anarchyâ (p. 210). Lamborn
Wilson (2010) agrees; referring to âvarious sorts of spiritual
anarchism,â he
propos[es] that fascist and fundamentalist cults are not to be confused
with the non-authoritarian spiritual tendencies represented by
neo-shamanism, psychedelic or âentheogenicâ spirituality, the American
âreligion of Natureâ according to anarchists like Thoreau, sharing many
concerns and mythemes with Green Anarchy and Primitivism, tribalism,
ecological resistance, Native American attitudes toward Nature ... even
with Rainbow and Burning Man festivalism.... (p. 14)
Lamborn Wilson adds a useful reminder: â[A]ny liberatory belief system,
even the most libertarian (or libertine), can be flipped 180 degrees
into a rigid dogma.... Conversely, even within the most religious of
religions the natural human desire for freedom can carve out secret
spaces of resistanceâ (p. 15).
Milstein (2009) maintains that anarchismâs âdynamismâ stems from the
notion that âhumans arenât just fixed beings but are always becoming.
Seeing all life as able to evolve highlights the idea that people and
society can change. That people and the world can become more than they
are, better than they areâ (p. 59). The relevant question here is
whether psychology, in any of its therapeutic, research, or alternative
guises, can contribute to an anarchist culture in which participants
live more fulfilling lives while working more effectively toward a world
that provides better lives for everyone.
Cromby (2008) noted that, unlike Marxist psychologies (Seve, Holzkamp,
Vygotsky), there is no influential anarchist psychology. Imagining such
a project, S. Brown (2008) emphasized that though it may seem âsimply
not the business of psychology to extend itself beyond the study of the
person ... the model of the person adopted at any given time is always
framed in relation to a contrasting notion of the collectiveâ (p. 1). An
anarchist psychology âwill not emerge from a different model of the
person but rather from a simultaneous rethinking of person and
collective togetherâ (p. 2). âIndeed the very thought of creating such a
disciplinary division seems inimical to anarchism. But what we might say
is that psychology in an anarchist register must take âlifeâ as its
object rather than âsubjectivityâ or âthe individualââ (S. Brown, 2008,
p. 10).
Whether anarchists outside academe will find poststructuralist and
postmodern approaches (Kuhn, 2009; Purchase, 2011) more useful than
older forms remains to be seen. Critical psychologist Tod Sloan,
attempting to direct radical therapists and counselors toward
community-building group work, says
the point isnât to take humanistic individualist psychotherapy and apply
it to heal anarchists ... It is to rescue the truths that are buried in
that subjective moment of the dialectic ... and see what is going on
there in the psyche as always implicating the social order,
internalization of oppression, suppression of the body, etc. Otherwise,
we just move to working on ourselves and forget that the state and
capitalism and patriarchy etc. are the fundamental issues. And this is
where critical psych needs to do its work. (Sloan, personal
communication, January 5, 2011)
The risk in using any form of psychology is being diverted from the
world outside ourselves. Despite that risk, I believe the exploration is
worth it. Many of us would be more effective anarchists as well as more
fulfilled human beings if we could counter our culturally determined
everyday psychology. As Shukaitis (2008) noted, âThe social relations we
create every day prefigure the world to come, not just in a metaphorical
sense, but also quite literally: they truly are the emergence of that
other world embodied in the constant motion and interaction of bodies.â
(p. 3). Thereâs much we can learn. We may want a revolution, but as Emma
says we want to dance, too.
Paying more attention to the personal and interpersonal also means
responding to those who experience mental or emotional distress. We know
that they â perhaps we â often struggle in psychiatric systems that are
overworked, bureaucratized, medicalized, disinterested, and often
inadequate at best. Yet this struggle also takes place with friends and
comrades. Dorter (2007) pointed out that although psychiatric survivor
movements âask fundamental questions of what it means to be mad in an
insane world,... questions of mental health and mad liberation ...
figure little into the work that anarchists collectively focus on, or in
the ways we structure ourselves or organizeâ (p. 8). Introducing
anarchist accounts of mental distress, Asher (2008) hoped
to spark more discussions about mental illness within our political
communities and friendship circles, [so] that we can begin to offer each
other and ourselves the support we need. We need to realize when people
are drifting away because they arenât able to cope, and we need to be
doing all we can to give them all they require. In our supposedly
radical communities, mental illness is deeply stigmatized, and even at
times ridiculed. It shouldnât be up to those of us in our deepest
depressive states or our most manic episodes to call people out on this
shit, but so often, if we donât do it, nobody else will. (p. 3)
Finally, resistance to anarchism often stems from accepting culturally
dominant explanations of human behavior and sometimes from individual
satisfaction at successfully navigating societal barriers. Believing
that society needs strong leaders, strong laws, and strong cops because
human beings are too flawed to survive without them reflects a
particular understanding of motivation. A careful reading of mainstream
psychology can help counter some of these arguments. The development of
a more critical alternative psychology at the interface of individual
and community could help us re-imagine what we are capable of creating
together.
Amster, R. (2009). Anarchy, utopia, and the state of things to come. In
R. Amster, A. Deleon, L. Fernandez, A. J. Nocella, & D. Shannon (Eds.),
Contemporary Anarchist Studies: An Introductory Anthology of Anarchy in
the Academy. New York: Routledge.
Amster, R., Deleon, A., Fernandez, L., Nocella, A. J., & Shannon, D.
(Eds.). (2009). Contemporary Anarchist Studies: An Introductory
Anthology of Anarchy in the Academy. New York: Routledge.
Apfelbaum, E., & Lubek, I. (1983). Le point de vue critique des ecrits
psycho-sociologiques (1889â1905) de Augustin Hamon. In S. Bem, H.
Rappard, & W. van Hoorn (Eds.), Studies in the History of Psychology and
the Social Sciences. Leiden: Psychologisch Instituut van de
Rijksuniversiteit Leiden.
Asher. (2008). Introduction. In Our Dark Passenger: Anarchists Talk
About Mental Illness and Community Support. Christchurch, New Zealand:
Katipo Books.
Barclay, H. B. (1982). People Without Government: An Anthropology of
Anarchism. London: Kahn.
Bookchin, M. (1971). Post-scarcity Anarchism. Palo Alto, CA: Ramparts.
Bookchin, M. (1980). Toward an Ecological Society. Montreal: Black Rose
Books.
Bookchin, M. (1982). The Ecology of Freedom: The Emergence and
Dissolution of Hierarchy. Palo Alto, CA: Cheshire Books.
Brown, A. (Moderator) (2007, November). Anarchism, Religion, and
Spirituality. Panel presented at Renewing the Anarchist Tradition
conference, Montpelier, VT.
Brown, P. (Ed.). (1973). Radical Psychology. New York: Harper.
Brown, S. D. (2008). The thought of immanence and the possibility of an
anarchist psychology. In Possibilities for An Anarchist Psychology,
panel at First Anarchist Studies Network Conference, Loughborough, UK.
Buber, M. (1949/1958). Paths in Utopia. Boston: Beacon Press.
Chomsky, N. (2005). Chomsky on Anarchism. Barry Pateman (Ed.). Oakland,
CA: AK Press.
Comfort, A. (1950). Authority and Delinquency in the Modern State.
London: Routledge. Retrieved from
Cromby, J. (2008). Political psychologies and possibilities. In
Possibilities for An Anarchist Psychology, panel at First Anarchist
Studies Network Conference, Loughborough, UK.
www.anarchist-studies-network.org.uk
Debord, G. (1967). The Society of the Spectacle. Paris: Editions
Buchet-Chastel. 1977 translation by Black & Red. Retrieved December 31,
2010, from
DeLeon, A., & Love, K. (2009). Anarchist theory as radical critique:
Challenging hierarchies and domination in the social and âhardâ
sciences. In R. Amster, A. Deleon, L. Fernandez, A. J. Nocella, & D.
Shannon (Eds.), Contemporary Anarchist Studies: An Introductory
Anthology of Anarchy in the Academy. New York: Routledge.
Dorter, A. (2007, November). Mental health and mutual aid in anarchist
milieus. Paper presented at Renewing the Anarchist Tradition conference,
Montpelier, VT.
Ehrenreich, B. (2009). Bright-sided: How the Relentless Promotion of
Positive Thinking Has Undermined America. New York: Metropolitan.
Ehrlich, H. J. (Ed). (1996). Reinventing Anarchy, Again. San Francisco,
CA: AK Press.
Epstein, B. (1993). Political Protest and Cultural Revolution:
Nonviolent Direct Action in the 1970s and 1980s. Berkeley, CA:
University of California Press.
Fox, D. R. (1985). Psychology, ideology, utopia, and the commons.
American Psychologist, 40, 48â58.
Fox, D. R. (1993a). The autonomy-community balance and the equity-law
distinction: Anarchyâs task for psychological jurisprudence. Behavioral
Sciences and the Law, 11, 97â109.
Fox, D. R. (1993b). Psychological jurisprudence and radical social
change. American Psychologist, 48, 234â241.
Fox, D. R. (1999). Psycholegal scholarshipâs contribution to false
consciousness about injustice. Law and Human Behavior, 23, 9â30.
Fox, D. (in press). Critical and radical psychology. In D. J. Christie
(Ed.), Encyclopedia of Peace Psychology. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell.
Fox, D., Prilleltensky, I., & Austin, S. (2009). Critical Psychology: An
Introduction (2^(nd) ed.). London: Sage Publications.
Goodman, P. (1979). Reflections on the anarchist principle. In T. Stoehr
(Ed.), Drawing the line: The political essays of Paul Goodman (pp.
176â177). New York: Dutton. (Original work published 1966)
Gordon, U. (2005). Liberation now: Present-tense dimensions of
contemporary anarchism. Paper presented at Graduate Student Conference
âThinking the Present: The Beginnings and Ends of Political Theory,â
University of California, Berkeley.
Gordon, U. (2008). Anarchy Alive! Anti-Authoritarian Politics from
Practice to Theory. London: Pluto Press.
Gordon, U. (2009). Dark tidings: Anarchist politics in the age of
collapse. In R. Amster, A. Deleon, L. Fernandez, A. J. Nocella, & D.
Shannon (Eds.), Contemporary Anarchist Studies: An Introductory
Anthology of Anarchy in the Academy. New York: Routledge.
Gordon, U. (2010, May 27). Lifestyles. Message posted to Anarchist
Academics listserv.
Hamilton, A. (2008). Anarchism and the Psychology of Motivation.
Retrieved December 24, 2010, from
Hamon, A. F. (1973). Anarchist Peril: The Psychology of the Anarchist.
Trans. Jean-Paul Cortane. Vancouver: Pulp Press.
Heckert, J. (2010). Anarchist roots & routes. European Journal of
Ecopsychology, 1.
Herman, E. (1995). The Romance of American Psychology: Political Culture
in the Age of Experts. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Heuer, G. (n.d.). Otto Gross, 1877â1920: Biographical Survey. Retrieved
December 24, 2010, from
Horrox, J. (2009). A Living Revolution: Anarchism in the Kibbutz
Movement. Oakland, CA: AK Press.
Ingleby, D. (Ed.). (1980). Critical Psychiatry: The Politics of Mental
Health. New York: Pantheon.
International Otto Gross Society (2009). Who Was Otto Gross? Retrieved
December 24, 2010 from
Jones, D., & Elcock, J. (2001). History and Theories of Psychology: A
Critical Perspective. London: Hodder Arnold.
Justman, S. (2005). Foolâs Paradise: The Unreal World of Pop Psychology.
Chicago: Ivan R. Dee.
Kemmerer, L. (2009). Anarchy: Foundations in faith. In R. Amster, A.
Deleon, L. Fernandez, A. J. Nocella, & D. Shannon (Eds.), Contemporary
Anarchist Studies: An Introductory Anthology of Anarchy in the Academy.
New York: Routledge.
Kropotkin, P. (1902/1955). Mutual Aid: A Factor of Evolution. Boston:
Extending Horizons.
Kuhn, G. (2009). Anarchism, postmodernity, and poststructuralism. In R.
Amster, A. Deleon, L. Fernandez, A. J. Nocella, & D. Shannon (Eds.),
Contemporary Anarchist Studies: An Introductory Anthology of Anarchy in
the Academy. New York: Routledge.
Leeder, E. (1996). (1996). Let our mothers show the way. In H. J.
Ehrlich (Ed.), Reinventing Anarchy, Again. San Francisco, CA: AK Press.
Levine, B. E. (2008). How teenage rebellion has become a mental illness.
Alternet. Retrieved January 3, 2011, from
Lubek, I., & Apfelbaum, E. (1982). Early Social Psychological Writings
of the âAnarchistâ Augustin Hamon. Unpublished manuscript, University of
Guelph, Ontario.
Maslow, A. H. (1971). The Farther Reaches of Human Nature. New York:
Penguin.
McLaughlin, C., & Davidson, G. (2010). The Practical Visionary: A New
World Guide to Spiritual Growth and Social Change. Unity Village, MO:
Unity House.
McWilliams, S. A. (1985). On becoming a personal anarchist. In F.
Fransella & L. Thomas (Eds.) Experimenting with Personal Construct
Psychology. London: Routledge.
Milstein, C. (2009). Anarchism and Its Aspirations. Oakland, CA: AK
Press.
Ornstein, R. E. (1972). The Psychology of Consciousness. San Francisco:
W. H. Freeman.
Parker, I. (2007). Revolution in Psychology: Alienation to Emancipation.
London: Pluto Press.
Perez, R. (1990). On An(archy) and Schizoanalysis. Brooklyn, NY:
Autonomedia.
Perls, F., Hefferline, R., & Goodman, P. (1951) Gestalt Therapy:
Excitement and Growth in the Human Personality. New York, NY: Julian.
Political Psychology and Anarchism. (2009). Online Notice of Workshops
in Political Theory. Retrieved December 24, 2010, from
Purchase, G. (2011). Three post anarchist anthologies. Rebel Worker,
29(4). Retrieved January 4, 2011, from
Reich, W. (1942/1970). The Mass Psychology of Fascism. New York: Farrar,
Straus & Giroux.
Rhodes, D. (2008). An Anarchist Psychotherapy: Ecopsychology and a
Pedagogy of Life. Unpublished dissertation, University of North Carolina
at Greensboro. (
).
Ritter, A. (1980). Anarchism: A Theoretical Analysis. Cambridge,
England: Cambridge University Press.
Rosenberg, M. B. (2004). The Heart of Social Change: How to Make a
Difference in Your World. Encinitas, CA: Puddledancer Press.
Sakolsky, R. (2011). Mutual Acquiescence. Paper presented at conference
of the North American Anarchist Studies Network, Toronto.
Salmon. (2010). Green anarchism and polyamory. Dysphoria, 1, 6â19.
Sarason, S. B. (1976). Community psychology and the anarchist insight.
American Journal of Community Psychology, 4, 243â261.
Satin, M. (1979). New Age Politics: Healing Self and Society. New York:
Dell.
Shukaitis, S. (2008). Questions for aeffective resistance. In
Possibilities for An Anarchist Psychology, panel at First Anarchist
Studies Network Conference, Loughborough, UK.
Sloan, T. (1996). Damaged Life: The Crisis of the Modern Psyche. New
York: Routledge.
Somatherapy. (2010). In Wikipedia. Retrieved December 24, 2010, from
Tolman, C. W. (1994). Psychology, Society, and Subjectivity: An
Introduction to German Critical Psychology. London: Routledge.
Tyson, P. J., Jones, D., & Elcock, J. (in press). Psychology in Social
Context: Issues and Debates. West Sussex, UK: Blackwell.
Vaneigem. R. (1967). The Revolution of Everyday Life. Translated by John
Fullerton &
Paul Sieveking, Red & Black. Retrieved December 31, 2010, from
Ward, D. (2002). Political psychology: Origins and development. In K.
Monroe (Ed.), What is Political Psychology? London: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Williams, C. R., & Arrigo, B. A. (2005). Theory, Justice, and Social
Change: Theoretical Integrations and Critical Applications. New York:
Springer.
Wilson, P. L. (2010, Summer). âAnarchist religionâ? Fifth Estate, 45
(2), 13â15.
Zerzan, J. (1994). The mass psychology of misery. In Future Primitive
and Other Essays. Brooklyn, NY: Autonomedia. Retrieved December 29,
2010, from