💾 Archived View for library.inu.red › file › joshua-finnell-post-anarchism-a-reader.gmi captured on 2023-01-29 at 11:15:53. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
➡️ Next capture (2024-07-09)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Title: Post-Anarchism: A Reader Author: Joshua Finnell Date: Spring 2012 Language: en Topics: book review, post-anarchism Source: Journal for the Study of Radicalism 6:1, p. 112–114
New York: Pluto Press, 2011; 269 pages, ISBN 978-0-7453-3086-0.
Whether one views post-anarchism as a broadening of classical anarchist
thought or a pragmatically impotent ideology immersed in the academic
vagaries of French intellectuals, the multifaceted approach to
resistance espoused in this movement has madean impact in the field of
radical thought. In this collection of essays, Rousselle and Evren
provide an invitation to explore the current debates raging within this
field of post-anarchism. The selections in this reader are not presented
canonically, but as a contextual overview of this developing current of
theory.
Evren, in the introduction, positions post-anarchism in the third period
of anarchism since the nineteenth century, closely aligned with the
antiglobalization movements. Theoretical shifts in the history of
anarchism, then, culminate around three historical events: the First
International in 1856, the May 1968 protests, and the World Trade
Organization protests in 1999. However, understanding the history of
anarchist theory as a linear narrative of historical events belies the
complexity of anarchist literature. At the same time, ignoring the
historical period within which anarchist streams of thought developed is
equally problematic. Herein lies the crux of the matter, according to
Evren, instead of critically reappraising a broad spectrum of classical
anarchist thinkers from a post-structuralist perspective, many
post-anarchist writers portray the classical anarchist tradition as
chained to a modernist perspective devoid of imagination. The four
sections of this reader speak to this conundrum.
The first section of the book presents some of the major figures in the
field of post-anarchism: Saul Newman, Todd May, and Hakim Bey. Newman,
by dismissing classical anarchism as narrowly focused on two constructed
subjects (class and state), argues that post-structuralist political
theory is best espoused through a post-anarchism lens of collective,
localized forms of resistance with a radicalized subjectivity. May
echoes this sentiment by arguing that post-structuralist theory, in its
emphasis on self-determination over political representation, is more
anarchist than traditional anarchist theory. Bey underscores this point
by pointing out the lack of diversity in traditional anarchist movements
today. Succinctly, as a theory based in the rejection of representation
or fixed human nature, post-structuralism lacks a political import.
In the second section, various authors dissect the multitude approach of
post-anarchism in terms of practice. If post-anarchism broadens the
concept of power beyond class and state to include gender, race,
sexuality, and ethnicity, then a new understanding of power is
necessary. Anton Fernandez de Rota, in his essay, explores the cyborg as
a representation of these excess identities, immersed in a web of power.
Tadzio Mueller, argues quite persuasively that our collective identity
puts us all in positions of oppressed and oppressor. As a corollary,
power is not an element to overcome, but a pervasive web to untangle.
Mueller recommends post-anarchists activists to participate in a diverse
array of counter-hegemony tactics. Both Richard J. F. Day and Jason
Adams criticize nonhegemonic practices as recreating the very structure
they aim to dissolve: namely, by universalizing single identities
(gender or race) as the primary form of oppression over all others. Day
argues that many new social movements become hegemonic in their critique
of alternative movements. Using the antiglobalization movement as an
example, Day calls for all movements to search for relations of
equivalence and create “constellations of opposition.”
Having established post-anarchism theoretically and practically, the
third portion of the reader opens up broader critiques of post-anarchist
thought. Sandra Jeppesen attacks the prominent thinkers of
post-anarchist thought as largely white, male, Eurocentric writers.
Allan Antliff argues directly against May’s contention that classical
anarchism lacks a theory of power and fails to accomplish its own
agenda. Repositioning post-anarchist thought within the larger field of
anarchism, Benjamin Franks praises post-anarchist thought for
illuminating the dogma and essentialism found in classical anarchist
thinkers, but criticizes post-anarchists for ignoring the equal
importance of class while championing individual agendas.
The final section of this book is somewhat of an outlier to the rest of
the text, with the exception of Hilton Bertlan’s essay critically
reappraising Emma Goldman through a post-structuralist lens. In her
analysis of Goldman scholarship, Bertlan illuminates the breadth of
Goldman’s thought beyond a singular political focus on the feminine.
This is the exact project Evren calls for in the introduction. The rest
of the essays are varied, and are included in an attempt to show the
theoretical dexterity of post-anarchist thought in the field of cultural
studies. Though Lewis Call’s essay detailing the post-anarchist
attributes of Buffy the Vampire Slayer is entertaining, several of the
essays should have been integrated into other sections of the book.
Nathan Jun’s excellent essay rediscovering post-anarchist elements
within the classical anarchist canon, illuminating the need to continue
producing alternative modes of thought and resistance, would have been
better situated in the second section of the reader.
Inevitably, certain readers will quibble with the exclusion of any
number of post-anarchist thinkers and activists. However, the collection
successfully achieves the goal of providing an entry point to the
discussion, not providing a scholastic lineage. Whereas comparable
anthologies on the subject (Erika Biddle, Stevphen Shukaitis, David
Graeber, eds., Constituent Imagination: Militant Investigations,
Collective Theorization [Edinburgh, UK: AK Press, 2007]; Randall Amster,
Abraham DeLeon, Luis Fernandez, Anthony J. Nocella, II, Deric Shannon,
eds., Contemporary Anarchist Studies: An Introductory Anthology of
Anarchy in the Academy [London, UK: Routledge, 2009]) are pitched to an
academic audience, the selections in this compilation are both
accessible and digestible. Rouselle and Evren offer a provocative
glimpse of post-anarchist thought through the views of its proponents
and critics.