Post-anarchism
Post-anarchism or postanarchism is an anarchist philosophy that employs post-structuralist and postmodernist approaches (the term post-structuralist anarchism is used as well, so as not to suggest having moved beyond anarchism). Post-anarchism is not a single coherent theory, but rather refers to the combined works of any number of post-modernists and post-structuralists such as Michel Foucault, Gilles Deleuze, Jacques Lacan, Jacques Derrida, Jean Baudrillard; postmodern feminists such as Judith Butler; and alongside those of classical anarchist and libertarian philosophers such as Zhuang Zhou, Emma Goldman, Max Stirner, and Friedrich Nietzsche. Thus, the terminology can vary widely in both approach and outcome.
Approaches
The term “post-anarchism” was coined by philosopher of post-left anarchy Hakim Bey in his 1987 essay “Post-Anarchism Anarchy”. Bey argued that anarchism had become insular and sectarian, confusing the various anarchist schools of thought for the real experience of lived anarchy. In 1994, academic philosopher Todd May initiated what he called “poststructuralist anarchism”, arguing for a theory grounded in the post-structuralist understanding of power, particularly through the work of Michel Foucault and Emma Goldman, while taking the anarchist approach to Ethics.
The “Lacanian anarchism” proposed by Saul Newman utilizes the works of Jacques Lacan and Max Stirner more prominently. Newman criticizes classical anarchists, such as Michael Bakunin and Peter Kropotkin, for assuming an objective “human nature” and a natural order; he argues that from this approach, humans progress and are well-off by nature, with only the Establishment as a limitation that forces behavior otherwise. For Newman, this is a Manichaen worldview, which depicts the reversal of Thomas Hobbes’ Leviathan, in which the “good” state is subjugated by the “evil” people.
Lewis Call has attempted to develop post-anarchist theory through the work of Friedrich Nietzsche, rejecting the Cartesian concept of the “subject.” From here, a radical form of anarchism is made possible: the anarchism of becoming. This anarchism does not have an eventual goal, nor does it flow into “being”; it is not a final state of development, nor a static form of society, but rather becomes permanent, as a means without end. Italian autonomist Giorgio Agamben has also written about this idea. In this respect it is similar to the “complex systems” view of emerging society known as panarchy. Call critiques liberal notions of language, consciousness, and rationality from an anarchist perspective, arguing that they are inherent in economic and political power within the capitalist state organization.
Theory
Within postanarchism, the human and world view of classical anarchism is considered obsolete. The understanding of domination has changed and expanded. Since the founding of classical anarchism, the reality of the state and capitalism has changed, in order to analyze it in the sense of anarchism, it is necessary to use the postmodernist and post-structuralist toolbox. Deleuze, Derrida, Judith Butler, Lacan, Lyotard, Michel Foucault, and others are not anarchists, yet their theoretical work is of great importance in updating anarchism.
In Postanarchism, some approaches to poststructuralism are adopted: the decentering of the subject and its discursive production, the denaturalization of body and sexuality, the rejection of the repression hypothesis, the deconstruction of the binary order of Western thought systems, especially nature and culture, female and male, public and private, spirit and matter and the deconstruction of the category “gender” through feminist post-structuralism. Likewise, Foucault’s genealogy of power flows into postanarchism, here is the powerproductive and there is “no out of power”. Only when she freezes, she becomes sovereign.
Within Postanarchism, Todd May stands for a “poststructuralist anarchism” based on the poststructuralist views of power and rule in Foucault. He also refers to Lyotard.
Saul Newman refers except to Foucault on Deleuze, Lacan and Derrida. He criticizes the classical anarchists, such as Mikhail A. Bakunin or Pyotr A. Kropotkin, as they “essentialistically” refer to a good human nature. The state as its spoiler must be abolished. For Newman, this is a Manichaean worldview, which is merely the reversal of Thomas Hobbes ‘s Leviathanrepresents where the “good” state submits the “evil” human nature. These ideas of power and rule Newman holds after the investigations of Foucault u. a. no longer durable. However, he refers not only to the poststructuralist thinkers, but also, surprisingly, to Max Stirner, who worked 150 years before them and was not appreciated by Bakunin, Kropotkin and most anarchists. He refers to him as a “proto-poststructuralist”, even using Foucault et al. pointed out and, in contrast to these, have found a starting point for current ideological criticism today.
Lewis Call sees anarchist politics in the work of Friedrich Nietzsche. He refers to the criticism of the Cartesian concept of the subject. In Nietzsche we find an anarchy of the subject that enables a radical form of anarchy: the anarchy of becoming. The emergence of anarchy has no goal state, does not end in a ” being.” Anarchy is not a final state of development, not a static form of society, but a permanent becoming.
The Post-anarchism is based on the rather disparate contributions of poststructuralist like Gilles Deleuze and Michel Foucault, the postféministes as Judith Butler and post-Marxists like Ernesto Laclau, Jean Baudrillard and Mouffe, the “classical” anarchists like Emma Goldman and Max Stirner and of psychoanalysis. He also tries to reread authors such as Proudhon, Bakunin and Kropotkin, without drawing the same conclusions as classical anarchists.
The post prefix signals a break with the classical conceptions of anarchism. Postanarchists consider that the state and capitalism are no longer the same enemies as before, and therefore new approaches must be discovered and used to combat them. To do this, postanarchism tries to integrate elements of the thought of Michel Foucault, Gilles Deleuze, Jacques Derrida, Jacques Lacan, and Jean-François Lyotard. Certainly, these thinkers were not anarchists, but the concepts they developed are relevant to reflect on some of the central issues of post -archism, such as:
The liberation of the subject by the deconstruction of the discourse.
The denaturation of the body and sexuality.
The rejection of the “repression of hypotheses”.
The genealogy of Foucault.
The deconstruction of the binary order of Western thought.
deconstruction of statutes based on gender difference.
Demands of Postanarchism
Within the anarchist debates of German-speaking countries, the term does not play a significant role. The discussions, which elsewhere are summarized under Postanarchismus, take place in the general anarchistic discourse.
The author Oskar Lubin writes: “Classical anarchism is not a thing of the past, but in the face of theoretical developments and changed circumstances of some revisions”. (In Grassroots Revolution No. 318, 2001).
Classical anarchism, such as PJ Proudhon, M. Bakunin, P. Kropotkin, Gustav Landauer, John Henry Mackay, and Erich Muhsam, had to take into account the prevailing political oppression and exploitation practices that changed in the 21st century to have. The power and power relations in the second half of the 19th century and the beginning of the 20th century were organized differently. Postanarchism attempts to confront traditional or classical anarchism with the now expanded theories and insights of social movements with the idea that anarchy (Lack of power) on the conditions of today’s capitalism, the changed conditions of production and the political conditions in the western industrialized countries, for example, democracy (popular rule), sets. Thus, anarchism should be designed accordingly in a different way. It would be necessary to reconsider the anarchism in theory and practice and to make a revision.
“Where anarchism orientates itself on the Enlightenment and focuses on its subject, then it must – measured by its own claim to a rule-free world! – be renewed, revised, revised. On the second level arises the need to reconsider anarchism, from the changed social conditions: from lost struggles and changed production and reproduction regimes. ”
The various discussions and theories on this topic, as the anarchism in the 21st Century should be redesigned, are not yet clearly crystallized and the debates will probably continue on this by the representatives of post-anarchism.
Post-anarchism and space
Postanarchist theory has many implications for social and political space and, seeing as space is always political, seriously considers the question of space for radical politics and movements today. Much postanarchist theory is centered around an extensive critique of hegemony and the neoliberal societies of control. The logic of hegemony contains all conceptions of freedom and justice narrowly within the confines of the state, creating a “political climate in which radical notions of justice are seen as a threat to the very existence of” society, perpetuating the liberal ideological myth that “unity requires homogeneity”. Postanarchism “conceives of a political space which is indeterminate, contingent and heterogeneous – a space whose lines and contours are undecidable and therefore contestable”. Saul Newman defines this postanarchist conception of political space as “a space of becoming”. If we see current conceptions and arrangements of space as frameworks for “dominant political and economic interests,” postanarchist theory explores the “ways in which this hegemonic space is challenged, contested and reconfigured, as well as the fantasies and desires invested in political spaces and looks to the occupation of space as a means to “prefigure and create autonomous alternatives”.
Newman sees postanarchist political space as “based around the project of autonomy”. In keeping with a postanarchist affinity with contingency, Newman theorizes autonomy as “an ongoing project of political spatialization, rather than a fully achieved form of social organization”. These autonomous political spaces can be considered insurrectional as they “defy the idea of a plan imposed upon society by institutions”, engendering forms of organization that emerge “spontaneously, and which people determine freely for themselves”. These insurrectional spaces work to foster alternative ways of being while continually undermining the logic of hegemony as they work non- rather than counter-hegemonically, exposing the cracks within the “dominant social, political, and economic order”. A distinctly postanarchist conception of politics can be “understood in terms of an ongoing project of autonomy and a pluralization of insurrectional spaces and desires”, exemplifying “prefigurative practices, which seek to realize alternatives to capitalism and statism within the current order”. Newman sees this “re-situation of the political dimension away from the hegemony of the state […] as central to postanarchism”.
In his book, Gramsci is Dead, Richard Day examines many such insurrectional spaces and non-hegemonic movements and practices. The TAZ concept is one such example and the utilization of such a tactic is seen regularly throughout contemporary society. Critical of the fleeting and potentially over-individualistic nature of the TAZ, Day posits the Semi-Permanent Autonomous Zone, the SPAZ, as a potential mode of organization that is “neither utterly fleeting nor totally enslaving”, “breaking out of the temporary/permanent dichotomy”. Day theorizes the SPAZ as “a form that allows the construction of non-hegemonic alternatives to the neoliberal order here and now, with an eye to surviving the dangers of capture, exploitation and division inevitably arising from within and being imposed from without”. The SPAZ embraces a postanarchist spirit of contingency and indeterminancy, fostering relationships and links of solidarity based on voluntary association without falling into the trap of hegemony by refusing the aspiration of total permanence.
Gustav Landauer’s concept of structural renewal features prominently in much postanarchist theory and practice, influencing concepts such as Day’s idea of the SPAZ, as well as the deeply ethical aspects of postanarchist theory and practice. Structural renewal advocates for the creation of new institutions “alongside, rather than inside, existing modes of social organization,” involving “a complementary pairing of disengagement and reconstruction”. Structural renewal aims to reduce the efficacy and reach of hegemonic institutions “by withdrawing energy from them and rendering them redundant,” appearing “simultaneously as a negative force working against the colonization of everyday life by the state and corporations, and as a positive force acting to reverse this process via mutual aid”.
Most important for contemporary postanarchism is Landauer’s analysis of the state as a “certain relation between people: a mode of behaviour and interaction”. Following this logic, the state can be “transcended only through a certain spiritual transformation of relationships,” without such a transformation “the state will be simply reinvented in a different form during the revolution”. Postanarchism consistently takes up this notion, seeing the political as intimately tied up with the social and guided by a deeply ethical framework geared towards transforming social space. According to Landauer’s analysis, although it is possible to “rid ourselves of particular states, we can never rid ourselves of the state form it is always already with us, and so must be consistently and carefully warded off”. Postanarchism recognizes that “states require subjects who desire not only to repress others, but also desire their own repression,” and that, consequently, “warding off the state […] means primarily enabling and empowering individuals and communities”. Postanarchism takes up the problem of voluntary servitude in order to figure out “how to get more people in more places to overcome not only their desire to dominate others, but their own desire to be dominated as well”. This involves an “unbinding of the self from his or her own attachment to power” and the creation of spaces and subjectivities “which rely upon an amoral, postmodern ethics of shared commitments based on affinities rather than duties based on hegemonic imperatives”.
Day identifies the “interlocking ethico-political commitments of groundless solidarity and infinite responsibility” as central to postanarchist ethics. He defines groundless solidarity as “seeing one’s own privilege and oppression in the context of other privileges and oppressions, as so interlinked that no particular form of inequality […] can be postulated as the central axis of struggle,” while infinite responsibility “means always being open to the challenge of another Other, always being ready to hear a voice that points out how one is not adequately in solidarity, despite one’s best efforts”. He identifies these commitments as central in guiding affinity-based relationships, rejecting a hegemonic conception of community in order to embrace “the coming communities, in the plural”. Postanarchism conceives of ethics as “open to a certain spontaneous and free self-determination by individuals, rather than imposed upon them from above through abstract moral codes and strictures”, conceiving of freedom as an “ongoing ethical practice, in which one’s relationship with oneself and others is subject to a continual ethical interrogation”. The intensely ethical dimension of postanarchism allows for the conception of a “system of networks and popular bases, organized along rhizomatic lines […] and populated by subjects who neither ask for gifts from the state […] nor seek state power for themselves,” conceiving of movements that “take up ethico-political positions while refusing to try to coercively generalize these positions by making foundational claims”, empowering subjects that are capable of thriving outside of existing paradigms and contributing to real and lasting social and political change.
Postanarchism is intensely critical of current forms of representative democracy, “favouring people’s self-organization” and seeking to “open the political space to alternative and more democratic modes of democracy”, understanding democracy not “primarily as a mechanism for expressing a unified popular will, but rather as a way of pluralizing this will – opening up within it different and even dissenting spaces and perspectives”. This notion of democracy beyond the state is in keeping with postanarchist ethics and commitments, “imposing a certain ethical responsibility upon people themselves to resolve, through ongoing practices of negotiation, tensions that may arise”. Saul Newman emphasizes democracy’s own “perfectibility,” the fact that democracy “always points to a horizon beyond, to the future,” that it is “always ‘to come’”. He states that, “we should never be satisfied with existing forms taken by democracy and should always be working towards a greater democratization in the here and now; towards an ongoing articulation of democracy’s im/possible promise of perfect liberty with perfect equality”. This is a “politics of anti-politics […] outside, and ultimately transcendent of, the state and all hierarchical structures of power and authority,” requiring the continual “development of alternative libertarian and egalitarian structures and practices, coupled with a constant awareness of the authoritarian potential that lies in any structure”.
Criticism
One of the main problems associated with the post-archastic approach is the reductionist approach to classical anarchism, which often boils down to the works of its individual representatives (Godwin, Bakunin, Kropotkin). Postanarchism does not take into account the “second wave” of anarchism or its modern form. Thus, postanarchists perceive the classical theory of anarchism as a homogeneous phenomenon, not taking into account the existing conflict within the theory and its wide variety.
Source from Wikipedia