Anarchism and Political Theory: Contemporary Problems – Uri Gordon PDF
Preview Anarchism and Political Theory: Contemporary Problems – Uri Gordon
Anarchism and Political Theory ContemporaryProblems Uri Gordon 2007 Contents Abstract . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Introduction 7 ContemporaryAnarchism:Afirstlook . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 TwoAgendas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 BetweenPhilosophyandParticipatoryResearch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 PartI.ExplainingAnarchism 25 Chapter1:WhatMovestheMovement? 26 AnarchismasaPoliticalCulture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 TheA-word . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 FromNetworkstoPoliticalCulture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 Formsoforganisation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 Campaigninganddirectactionrepertoires . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 Discursiveaspects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 Broaderculturalattributes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 TheRoleofIdentity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 Old-schoolandNew-school . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 Chapter2:ThreadsofResistance 45 TracingtheGenealogyofContemporaryAnarchism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 DefeatandStagnation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 AnHaphazardRebirth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 AnInternationalMovement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 Chapter3:WhatAnarchistsWant 55 TheLogicofAnti-AuthoritarianPoliticalLanguage. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 StruggleAgainstDomination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 Prefigurativepolitics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58 Open—EndedPolitics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65 2 PartII:AnarchistAnxieties 71 Chapter4:PowerandEquality 72 LeadershipandPowerinAnarchistOrganising,PartOne . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72 “Butwedon’thaveleaders…” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73 FromLeadershiptoPower . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76 Power-overasDomination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77 Power-toandPowerasInfluence. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81 Power-withorpower-among . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84 Equalityand“ActivistResources” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84 Chapter5:Power,InvisibilityandSolidarity 91 LeadershipandPowerinAnarchistOrganising,PartTwo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91 Decentralisation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92 BetweenEnforcementandCoercion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93 AnarchismandDemocracy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95 TheTyrannyofStructurelessnessReconsidered . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97 Accountability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101 TheForumandtheCampfire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103 PowerandSolidarity. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106 Chapter6:Beyond“DiversityofTactics” 111 Re-assessingtheAnarchistDebateonViolence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111 ContextualisingthePresentDebate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111 MessyDefinitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117 LimitstoJustification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124 Empowerment,RevengeandArmedStruggle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128 Chapter7:LudditesandHackers 133 DefiningaBroad-BasedAnarchistPoliticsofTechnology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133 AnarchistsandTechnology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134 DominationandtheTechnologicalComplex . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136 AnarchistConcerns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140 TheCaseofNanotechnology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145 ActualisingtheCritique . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147 Luddism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 148 Hacking,CrackingandE-Piracy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149 RevivingCreativity,Lo-Tech . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153 Chapter8:UnholyLand 156 Anarchism,NationalismandIsraeli-PalestinianPeace . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 156 AnarchismandNationalism. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 156 “Supporting”Statehood? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 160 ThreeThreadsofIntervention . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 162 LinkingIssues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163 3 Non-violentDirectAction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 164 GrassrootsPeace-making . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 168 Conclusion 172 References 175 4 Formyparents,ShifraandZe’evandinmemoryofYosefGordon(1920–2005) Abstract This thesis explores contemporary anarchism, in its re-emergence as a social movement and political theory over the past decade. The methodology used combines participatory research andphilosophicalargumentation. Thefirstpart,“ExplainingAnarchism”,arguesthatitshouldbeaddressedprimarilyasapolit- icalculture,withdistinctformsoforganisation,campaigninganddirectactionrepertoires,and politicaldiscourseandideology.Largelydiscontinuouswiththehistoricalworkers’andpeasants’ anarchist movement, contemporary anarchism has come together in the intersection of radical direct-action movements in the North since the 1960s: feminism, ecology and resistance to nu- clear energy and weapons, war and neoliberal globalisation. Anarchist ideological discourse is analysedwithattentiontokeyconceptssuchas“domination”and“prefigurativepolitics”,with attentiontotheavowedlyopen-ended,experimentalnatureoftheanarchistproject. Thesecondpart,“AnarchistAnxieties”,isasetoftheoreticalinterventionsinfourmajortop- icsofcontroversyinanarchism.Leadershipinanarchistpoliticsisaddressedthroughsustained attentiontotheconceptofpower,proposinganagendaforequalisingaccesstoinfluenceamong activists, and an “ethic of solidarity” around the wielding of non-coercive power. Violence is approached through a recipient-based definition of the concept, exploring the limits of any at- tempttojustifyviolenceandofferingobservationsonviolentempowerment,revengeandarmed struggle.Technologyissubjecttoastronganarchistcritique,whichstressesitsinherentlysocial nature, leading to the exploration of Luddism, the disillusioned use of ICTs, and the promotion oflo-tech,sustainablehuman-natureinterfacesasstrategicaldirectionsforananarchistpolitics of technology. Finally, questions of nationalism are approached through the lens of the Israeli- Palestinianconflict,addressinganarchistdilemmasaroundstatehood,andexploringapproaches to “national conflicts” that link multiple forms of oppression and that employ a direct action approachtopeacemaking. Acknowledgements Myfirstandforemostdebtistomysupervisor,MichaelFreeden,withoutwhosesupportand guidance this thesis would have never been possible. In his patient yet uncompromising way, Michael has provided a great deal of perspective, insight and criticism which were invaluable throughoutmywork. David Miller and Elizabeth Frazer read drafts of four of the chapters in this dissertation and offeredimportantsuggestions.KatherineMorris,mycollegeadvisor,wasalsoofgreathelpand supportduringthedifficultandanxiousprocessofwriting. Somanyindividualcomradesandcolleagueshavecontributedtothisthesiswithoutreading mywrittenworkthatIcouldnevermentionsomewithoutdoinginjusticetoothers.Ifyou,reader, have ever exchanged ideas with me in conversation, then something of the following pages is yours,asismyheartfeltthanks. During research for this thesis I have enjoyed the hospitality of several infospaces and col- lective houses, whose living example of “anarchy in action” will always be remembered: Can 5 Masdeu (Barcelona), Centre Autonome (Lausanne), Cecco Rivolta (Firenze), CIA (Amsterdam), Equinox(Manchester)Eurodusnie(Leiden),FortePrenestino(Roma),LesNaus(Barcelona),Les Tanneries (Dijon), Le Tour (Geneve), Ragman’s Lane (Wye Valley) Salon Mazal (Tel Aviv) and Talamh(Lanarkshire). Finally,myparents,Ze’evandShifra,mysisters,NoaandIf’at,andmypartner,LucyMichaels, havebeenthereformethroughout,tooffertheirunconditionalsupport.ItistothemthatIam ultimatelyindebted. 6 Introduction Stirling, Scotland — July 6 2005 — 4AM. From the temporary “Hori-Zone” eco-village, where anti-G8 activists have been camping for the past week, a mass exodus is in progress. In small groups,thousandsofpeopletrekthroughfieldsandhills,makingtheirwaytotheM9motorway. Itisstilldarkwhenscoresofmeninblackriotgearemergeoutofpolicevanstosurroundtheeco- village,butmostofitsinhabitantshavealreadymadeittothetarmac—nowdraggingbranches and bricks onto the road or staging mass sitdowns. The intention: to block delegates, staff and workers from arriving at the prestigious Gleneagles hotel, the G8 summit venue. Meanwhile, emerging from within the camp, a remaining five hundred protesters begin pushing their way throughonepolicelineafteranother,ontheirwaytothemotorway.Someusea“batteringram” madeoflargeinflatedtyre-liners.Othersconvincelinesofriotpolicetoretreatbypeltingstones at their large transparent plastic shields. As reinforcements rush to the scene, the celebratory defacement of corporate retail outlets quickly ends in favour of a rush to the motorway. Then news arrives that the railway approach to Gleneagles has been disabled — the tracks raised off thegroundwithacompressor,tyressetaflameaswarning. Meanwhile on the M9, police remove one group of protesters from the motorway, only to have another group blockade it a few hundred metres down. At that point, all access roads to Gleneagles from the north and southeast are simultaneously blockaded by six affinity groups, targetingthemostobviouspressure-pointsfortransport.ThereisnoexitfromPerthorCrieff,and AmericanandJapanesedelegatesareforcedtoturnbackatKinkellBridgeandYettso’Muckhart. Small groups of people, who have been lying low near their targets overnight, now lie on the tarmaclinkedthroughmetalarm-tubes,orattachedtoanobstructingvehicle.Tacticsdeveloped through two decades of anti-roads protests and resistance to forest clearing are now creating long queues of vehicles around Scotland delaying the start of the meeting of the leaders of the sevenmostindustrialisednationsoftheworldandRussia. Aleafletdistributedearlierthatweekatthe“MakePovertyHistory”marchinEdinburgh,its textreproducedhere,explainstheblockaders’motivations: MakeHistory:ShutDowntheG8 The G8 have shown time and time again that they are unable to do anything but furtherthedestructionofthisworldweallshare.CanwereallybelievethattheG8 will“MakePovertyHistory”whentheironlyresponseistocontinuetheircolonial pillageofAfricathroughcorporateprivatisation?Canweexpectthemtotacklecli- mate change when whether or not it is a serious problem is up for debate, as their ownleakeddocumentsshow?Marchingisonlythefirststep. Moreisneededasmarchesareoftenignored:thinkbacktothemegamarchesagainst theIraqwar.TheG8needtobegivenamessagetheycan’tignore.Theycan’tignore usblockingtheroadstotheirgolfcourse,disruptingtheirmeetingandsayingwith ourbodieswhatwebelievein—abetterworld.However,wedon’tneedtoaskthe 7 G8tocreateabetterworld.Wecanstartrightnow,forexample,withthousandsof peopleconvergingtogethertodemonstratepracticalsolutionstoglobalproblemsin aneco-villageofftheroadtoGleneagles—basedonco-operationandrespectforthe planet. Startingtodaywecantakeresponsibilityforouractionsandtheworldwewillinherit tomorrow.Wecanallmakehistory. TheG8blockadesrepresentonlythemostovertmanifestationofamuchwiderphenomenon. Thelastdecade,thisthesisargues,hasseenthefull-blownresurrectionofanarchism,asarecog- nisable social movement in its own right, with a scale, unity and diversity unseen since the 1930s. Contemporary anarchist politics represents an intriguing site of praxis and articulation. Anarchistsarecomingtodefinedistinctculturalcodesofpoliticalinteractionandexpression,in thebroaderpolitybutnolesssointheirownorganisingandhumanrelations.Thesiteinwhich thesecodesarereproduced,exchangedandundergomutationandcriticalreflectionisthelocus ofanarchismasamovement—acontextinwhichmanyveryactivepoliticalsubjectscansaythe word “we” and understand roughly the same thing — a collective identity constructed around an affirmedcommonpathofthinkinganddoing.Anarchistsarealsopossessedofarapidlyevolving conceptual ensemble for explaining their politics to themselves and to others, one which is nu- ancedand,initsownway,coherent—whileleavingagreatdealofroomfordisagreementand indiscipline. Nonetheless, contemporary anarchism has received very scant academic attention —ahandfulofpapers,oneortwoanthologies,andseveralrecent,unpublisheddoctoraldisserta- tions.Thisestablishesthespaceforabroad,exploratorystudyofcontemporaryanarchism—as amovement,culture,ideologyandtheory—elementswhichareinseparable. This introduction begins by briefly spelling out some of the baseline understandings about contemporaryanarchismsuggestedinthethesis,allofwhichwillbeelaboratedandsupportedin thecomingchapters.Thediscussionofmethodologicalissuesistheninitiated,bypresentingthe relationship between the tworesearch agendas informing the present study — an investigation ofanarchismasamovement(withitspoliticalculture,historyandideology)andinterventionsin anarchistpoliticaltheory.Third,Ielaboratethemethodologicalapproachbymakingthecasefor anintegrationofengaged,participatoryresearchmethodswithpoliticaltheory.Ifinallyreview the concrete research stages undertaken, and discuss the issues of reliability, engagement and scholarlydistanceraisedbyactivistscholarship. Contemporary Anarchism: A first look Thecontemporaryanarchistmovementis“new”inthekeysensethatitdoesnotformaconti- nuitywiththeworkers’andpeasants’anarchistmovementofthenineteenthandearlytwentieth centuries — which met its demise under European Bolshevism and Fascism and the American RedScare.Rather,itrepresentstherevivalofanarchistpoliticsoverthepastdecadeintheinter- section of several other movements, including radical ecology, feminism, black and indigenous liberation,anti-nuclearmovementsand,mostrecently,resistancetoneoliberalcapitalismandthe “globalpermanentwar”.Becauseofitshybridgenealogy,anarchismintheageofglobalisationis averyfluidanddiversemovement,evolvinginarapidly-shiftinglandscapeofsocialcontention. The architecture of today’s anarchist movement can be described as a decentralised network of communication, coordination and mutual support among autonomous nodes of social strug- 8 gle. Lacking any one centre or permanent channels of interaction, this architecture has been likenedtothatofa“rhizome”—thestemless,bulbousroot-massofplantslikepotatoorbamboo — a structure based on principles of connection, heterogeneity, multiplicity and non-linearity (Cleaver 1998, Sheller 2000, Adams 2002a, Chesters 2003, Jeppesen 2004a. The metaphor is bor- rowedfromthediscussionofknowledgeinDeleuzeandGuattari1987:7–13). What animates these rhizomatic networks, and infuses them with content, is anarchism as a political culture, a shared orientation towards ways of “doing politics” that is manifest in com- monformsoforganisation(anti-authoritarian,non-hierarchical,consensus-based);inacommon repertoire of political expression (direct action, constructing alternatives, community outreach, confrontation); in a common discourse (keywords, narratives, arguments and myths); and in morebroadly“cultural”sharedfeatures(dress,music,diet). Implicitinalltheculturalcodespropellinganarchistactivityarethemoreabstract“political” statementsofanarchism.Thesearealsoframedexplicitlyinrepresentativeartefactsofthemove- ment’s political language, such as the “hallmarks” or “principles of unity” that activist groups employ, which form the basis for an ideological analysis of anarchism. These statements gener- allyemphasisetwothemes.First,arejectionof“allformsofdomination”,aphraseencapsulating themanifoldsocialinstitutionsanddynamics–mostaspectsofmodernsociety,infact–which anarchists seek to uncover, challenge, erode, perhaps overthrow. It is this generalisation of the target of revolutionary struggle from “state and capital” to “domination” that most distinctly drawscontemporaryanarchismapartfromitsearliergenerations.Second,wefindreferencesto anethosof“prefigurativepolitics”wherebyliberatoryaspirationsaretobeactivated“inwardly” inthemovement’severydaypraxis.Reflectingthedo-it-yourselfapproachanimatinganarchists’ action repertoires, the ethos of prefigurative politics thus combines both dual power strategies (buildinggrassrootsalternativesthatareto“hollowout”capitalism),andthestressonrealising libertarianandegalitariansocialrelationswithinthefoldofthemovementitself. Whatanarchistideologicalexpressionoverwhelminglylacks,ontheotherhand,aredetailed prognosticstatementsonadesiredfuturesociety.Thisdoesnotmeanthatanarchismismerely destructive, but that its constructive aspects are expected to be articulated in the present-tense experimentation of prefigurative politics – not as an apriori position. This lends anarchism a stronglyopen-endeddimension,wherebyiteschewsanynotionofa“post-revolutionaryresting point”.Instead,anarchistshavecometotransposetheirnotionofsocialrevolutiontothepresent- tense. Non-hierarchical, anarchic modes of interaction are no longer seen as features on which to model a future society, but rather as an ever-present potential of social interaction here and now–a“revolutionineverydaylife”(Vaneigem2001/1967). Whiletheforegoingpointsrepresentthebroadconsensusatthebackofanarchistorganising, themovementhasalsobeenthesiteofagreatdealofintrospectivedebates,dilemmasandcon- troversies. The most prominent and recalcitrant among these are discussions around “internal hierarchies” or “leadership” in the movement; debates on the definition, justification and effec- tivenessofviolence;onanarchistpositionsaroundtechnologyandmodernity;andanemerging set of dilemmas around international solidarity and support for the “national liberation” strug- glesofpeoplesinthemajorityworld.Whereastheinvestigationofanarchistpoliticalcultureand itsideationalcomponentsisaninterpretativetaskofclarification,thedebatesandcontroversies justmentionedcallforamoreinterventionistapproach,locatedintheenterpriseofdeveloping anarchistpoliticaltheory. 9 Two Agendas Thepresentthesis,then,ismotivatedbytwolinkedresearchagendas: 1. Thestudyofaparticularpoliticalculture 2. Interventionsinaparticulargenreofpoliticaltheory Thesetaketurnsinthefrontseatineachpartofthethesis.Beyondthepossibilitiesandchal- lenges of each separate agenda, it is argued that that the two are not only complementary but inseparable.Letmefirstsaysomethingabouteach. The first agenda is inquisitive and exploratory, and involves making sense of contemporary anarchismasapoliticalphenomenon.Suchanenterpriseessentiallysetsouttoprovideananal- ysisoftheanarchistmovementinitsvariousaspects,suggestingatheoreticalworkingenviron- mentinwhichintelligentconnectionscanbemadeamongitsmanydifferentmanifestations.Key tasksinthisrespectarea)enrichingouranalysisofthemovement’snetworkarchitecture,ofthe networks’constituentnodes,andoftheculturallogicsthatanimatethem;b)suggestingarecon- structionofthemovement’srecentgenealogyandsourcesofinfluence,aswellasitsrelationship with the “historical” anarchist movement; and c) making sense of the way in which anarchists makesenseofthemselves:mappingtheideologicalworldwhichanarchistscreateandreproduce, andtheepistemologiesthattheygenerateinthecourseofpoliticalengagement.Thesetopicsare examined,inturn,inthefirstthreechaptersofthethesis. The second agenda involves a more sustained concern with the topics of anarchist debate and controversy mentioned above. In addressing these, the first task is one of disentangling – differentiatingbetweendifferentaspectsofadiscussion,identifyingpatternswherebyspeakers tendtoargueatcross-purposes,pointingtoconfusedusesofthesameconceptindifferentsenses, andputtingthefingeronquestionswhicharethemostrelevantandmeaningfully-debatableones. Fromthisfollowsthesecondtask,whichistosuggestdirectionsforthereconstructionofcertain debates,formulatesubstantiveargumentsofmyown,andaskwhetherandhowtheconclusions canbeseentofilterbackintoanarchism’sculturalcodes.Thefivechaptersinthesecondpartof thethesisarestructuredaroundtheseefforts,onethemeatatime. Presented in this way, there are two directions in which the relationship among these two agendascanbeseentoproceed.Oneistoviewthesecondagendaasapossibleextensionofthe first one. The interest in anarchism remains driven by exploratory curiosity, but is allowed to spilloverintotherealmofconceptualargumentation.Theanarchistmovement,onthisreading, is to be recognised as one of the many grassroots settings in which political thinking – indeed, politicaltheorising–takesplace.Asaresult,anarchistdebatesandcontroversiesonaparticular themeareapproachedwithattentiontotheconceptualtensionsandreconfigurationsthatthey express,inordertounlockimportantprocessesofpoliticalthinkingastheyunfoldinthehyper- modernpublicsphere.Havingestablishedanunderstandingoftheculturallogicsatworkwithin thecontemporaryanarchistmovement,wemayfurtherundertakeanexerciseinpoliticaldebate fromananarchistperspectiveinordertofollowhowactivists’ideasareexpressed,transmitted andreformulatedthroughcontinuousprocessofdiscursiveexchange. More broadly, the political culture / political theory nexus suggested here can be seen as a sample of a more broadly proposed corrective to much of the accepted methodological corpus ofacademicpoliticaltheory.Suchaperspectivesuggeststhatpoliticalreasoningmusttakeinto 10
Description:The list of books you might like
