Anarchists also offer a positive theory of human flourishing, based upon an ideal of equality, community, and non-coercive consensus building.
Anarchism has inspired practical efforts at establishing utopian communities, radical and revolutionary political agendas, and various forms of direct action. While philosophical anarchism describes a skeptical theory of political legitimation, anarchism is also a concept that has been employed in philosophical and literary theory to describe a sort of anti-foundationalism. Philosophical anarchism can mean either a theory of political life that is skeptical of attempts to justify state authority or a philosophical theory that is skeptical of the attempt to assert firm foundations for knowledge.
There are various forms of anarchism. Uniting this variety is the general critique of centralized, hierarchical power and authority. Given that authority, centralization, and hierarchy show up in various ways and in different discourses, institutions, and practices, it is not surprising that the anarchist critique has been applied in diverse ways. Anarchism is primarily understood as a skeptical theory of political legitimation. Anarchy is thus rule by no one or non-rule. Political anarchists focus their critique on state power, viewing centralized, monopolistic coercive power as illegitimate.
Bakunin provides a paradigm historical example, saying:. If there is a State, there must be domination of one class by another and, as a result, slavery; the State without slavery is unthinkable—and this is why we are the enemies of the State. Bakunin [ ]. Such sweeping generalizations are difficult to support. Thus anarchism as political philosophy faces the challenge of specificity. States have been organized in various ways.
Political power is not monolithic. Sovereignty is a complicated matter that includes divisions and distributions of power see Fiala Bakunin was responding primarily to a Marxist and Hegelian view of the state, offering his critique from within the global socialist movement; Casey is writing in the Twenty-First Century in the era of liberalism and globalization, offering his critique from within the movement of contemporary libertarianism.
Some anarchists engage in broad generalizations, aiming for a total critique of political power. Others will present a localized critique of a given political entity. An ongoing challenge for those who would seek to understand anarchism is to realize how historically and ideologically diverse approaches fit under the general anarchist umbrella.
We look at political anarchism in detail below. The anarchist critique has been extended toward the rejection of non-political centralization and authority. Bakunin extended his critique to include religion, arguing against both God and the State. There are, however, religious versions of anarchism, which critique political authority from a standpoint that takes religion seriously.
Rapp has shown how anarchism can be found in Taoism. We consider anarchism in connection with Gandhi below. But we focus here on Christian anarchism. Christian anarchist theology views the kingdom of God as lying beyond any human principle of structure or order.
Christian anarchists offer an anti-clerical critique of ecclesiastical and political power. Tolstoy provides an influential example. Tolstoy claims that Christians have a duty not to obey political power and to refuse to swear allegiance to political authority see Tolstoy Tolstoy was also a pacifist. Christian anarcho-pacifism views the state as immoral and unsupportable because of its connection with military power see Christoyannopoulos But there are also non-pacifist Christian anarchists.
Berdyaev, for example, builds upon Tolstoy and in his own interpretation of Christian theology. Christian anarchists have gone so far as to found separatist communities where they live apart from the structures of the state. These transcendentalists had an influence on Tolstoy see Perry []. In more recent years, Christian anarchism has been defended by Jacques Ellul who links Christian anarchism to a broad social critique.
When asked whether a Christian anarchist should vote, Ellul says no. Anarchist rejection of authority has application in epistemology and in philosophical and literary theory. One significant usage of the term shows up in American pragmatism.
James had anarchist sympathies, connected to a general critique of systematic philosophy see Fiala b. Anarchism thus shows up as a general critique of prevailing methods. Feyerabend explains:. Science is an essentially anarchic enterprise: theoretical anarchism is more humanitarian and more likely to encourage progress than its law-and-order alternatives. Feyerabend [ 9]. His point is that science ought not be constrained by hierarchically imposed principles and strict rule following.
Post-structuralism and trends in post-modernism and Continental philosophy can also be anarchistic see May Traditional anarchists were primarily interested in sustained and focused political activism that led toward the abolition of the state.
The difference between free-flowing post-anarchism and traditional anarchism can be seen in the realm of morality. Anarchism has traditionally been critical of centralized moral authority—but this critique was often based upon fundamental principles and traditional values, such as autonomy or liberty. But post-structuralism—along with critiques articulated by some feminists, critical race theorists, and critics of Eurocentrism—calls these values and principles into question.
The broad critical framework provided by the anarchist critique of authority provides a useful theory or methodology for social critique. In more recent iterations, anarchism has been used to critique gender hierarchies, racial hierarchies, and the like—also including a critique of human domination over nature.
Thus anarchism also includes, to name a few varieties: anarcha-feminism or feminist anarchism see Kornegger , queer anarchism or anarchist queer theory see Daring et al.
In the anarcho-vegan literature we find the following description of a broad and inclusive anarchism:. Anarchism is a socio-political theory which opposes all systems of domination and oppression such as racism, ableism, sexism, anti-LGBTTQIA, ageism, sizeism, government, competition, capitalism, colonialism, imperialism and punitive justice, and promotes direct democracy, collaboration, interdependence, mutual aid, diversity, peace, transformative justice and equity.
Nocella et al. A thorough-going anarchism would thus offer a critique of anything and everything that smacks of hierarchy, domination, centralization, and unjustified authority. In extreme forms this becomes anarcho-primitivism or anti-civilizational anarchism see Zerzan , ; Jensen Alternative anarchist societies have existed in religious communes in post-Reformation Europe and in the early United States, in Nineteenth Century American utopian communities, the hippy communes of the Twentieth Century, anarchist squats, temporary autonomous zones see Bey , and occasional gatherings of like-minded people.
Given this sort of antinomianism and non-conformism it is easy to see that anarchism also often includes a radical critique of traditional ethical norms and principles. Thus radical ethical anarchism can be contrasted with what we might call bourgeois anarchism with radical anarchism seeking to disrupt traditional social norms and bourgeois anarchism seeking freedom from the state that does not seek such disruption.
In more recent explorations and applications of anarchist thought, the anarchist critique has been related and connected to a variety of emerging theoretical issues and applied concerns. Hilary Lazar for example, explores how anarchism connects to intersectionality and issues related to multiculturalism. And Sky Croeser explores how anarchism is connected to the emerging technologies including the Internet. And there are anarchist elements in the development of shared technological and information, as for example in the development of cryptocurrencies, which create economies that outside of traditional state-based economic systems.
As mentioned above, among the varieties of applied anarchism we find anarchism associated with various liberation movements and critiques of white supremacy, Eurocentrism, and colonialism. One focal point here is a claim about anarchist characteristics thought to be found in the social structures of indigenous peoples.
The Inca and the Aztec empires were obviously not utopian anarchist collectives. Nonetheless, scholars of indigeneity affirm the anarchist critique of dominant hegemonies as part of the effort of liberation that would allow indigenous people a degree of self-determination see Johnson and Ferguson Black and indigenous anarchisms provide a radical critique, which holds that the global history of genocide, slavery, colonization, and exploitation rest upon the assumption of white supremacy.
White supremacy is thus understood, from this point of view, as a presupposition of statism, centralization, hierarchy, and authority. Anderson and Samudzi write,. While bound to the laws of the land, Black America can be understood as an extra-state entity because of Black exclusion from the liberal social contract.
Due to this extra-state location, Blackness is, in so many ways, anarchistic. Anderson and Samudzi no page numbers. This implies that the experience of Black people unfolds in a social and political world that its defined by its exclusion from power. A similar implication holds for indigenous people, who have been subjugated and dominated by colonial power. Liberation movements thus spring from a social experience that is in a sense anarchic i.
It is not surprising, then, that some liberatory activists espouse and affirm anarchism. He explains that Black anarchism is different from what he describes as the more authoritarian hierarchy of the Black Panther party. He also argues against the authoritarian structure of religiously oriented Black liberation movements, such as that led by Martin Luther King, Jr. A significant issue in Black and indigenous anarchisms is the effort to decolonize anarchism itself.
Many of the key figures in the anarchist tradition are white, male, and European. The concerns of anarchists such as Kropotkin or Bakunin may be different from the concerns of African Americans or from the concerns of indigenous people in Latin America or elsewhere around the globe.
One solution to this problem is to retrieve forgotten voices from within the tradition. In this regard, we might consider Lucy Parsons also known as Lucy Gonzalez , a former slave who espoused anarchism. Parsons explained that she affirmed anarchism because the political status quo produced nothing but misery and starvation for the masses of humanity.
To resolve this an anarchist revolution was needed. Parsons said,. Most anarchists believe the coming change can only come through a revolution, because the possessing class will not allow a peaceful change to take place; still we are willing to work for peace at any price, except at the price of liberty. Parsons []. Anarchism in political philosophy maintains that there is no legitimate political or governmental authority. In political philosophy anarchy is an important topic for consideration—even for those who are not anarchists—as the a-political background condition against which various forms of political organization are arrayed, compared, and justified.
Anarchy is often viewed by non-anarchists as the unhappy or unstable condition in which there is no legitimate authority. Anarchism as a philosophical idea is not necessarily connected to practical activism.
There are political anarchists who take action in order to destroy what they see as illegitimate states. The popular imagination often views anarchists as bomb-throwing nihilists. But philosophical anarchism is a theoretical standpoint. In order to decide who and whether one should act upon anarchist insight, we require a further theory of political action, obligation, and obedience grounded in further ethical reflection.
Some anarchists remain obedient to ruling authorities; others revolt or resist in various ways. The question of action depends upon a theory of what sort of political obligation follows from our philosophical, moral, political, religious, and aesthetic commitments.
There is a long history of political anarchism. In the ancient world, anarchism of a sort can be found in the ideas of the Epicureans and Cynics. Kropotkin makes this point in his encyclopedia article.
Although they did not employ the term anarchism, the Epicureans and Cynics avoided political activity, advising retreat from political life in pursuit of tranquility ataraxia and self-control autarkeai. The Cynics are also known for advocating cosmopolitanism: living without allegiance to any particular state or legal system, while associating with human beings based upon moral principle outside of traditional state structures. Diogenes the Cynic had little respect for political or religious authority.
This meant not only devaluing or destroying monetary currency but also a general rejection of the norms of civilized society see Marshall Diogenes often mocked political authorities and failed to offer signs of respect.
While Diogenes actively disrespected established norms, Epicurus counseled retreat. He advised living unnoticed and avoiding political life under the phrase me politeuesthai —which can be understood as an anti-political admonition.
The assumption that anarchy would be unhappy or unstable leads to justifications of political power. Anarchists respond by claiming that the state tends to produce its own sort of unhappiness: as oppressive, violent, corrupt, and inimical to liberty.
Discussions about the social contract thus revolve around the question of whether the state is better than anarchy—or whether states and state-like entities naturally and inevitably emerge from out of the original condition of anarchy.
While Nozick and other political philosophers take anarchy seriously as a starting point, anarchists will argue that invisible hand arguments of this sort ignore the historical actuality of states, which develop out of a long history of domination, inequality, and oppression. But anarchists will argue that the idea of the original position does not necessarily lead to the justification of the state—especially given background knowledge about the tendency of states to be oppressive.
Crispin Sartwell concludes:. Even accepting more or less all of the assumptions Rawls packs into the original position, it is not clear that the contractors would not choose anarchy. Sartwell An important historical touchstone is William Godwin. Unlike Locke and Hobbes who turned to the social contract to lead us out of the anarchic state of nature, Godwin argued that the resulting governmental power was not necessarily better than anarchy.
Locke, of course, allows for revolution when the state becomes despotic. Godwin builds upon that insight. He claimed,. It is earnestly to be desired that each man should be wise enough to govern himself, without the intervention of any compulsory restraint; and, since government, even in its best state, is an evil, the object principally to be aimed at is that we should have as little of it as the general peace of human society will permit.
Godwin bk III, chap. VII, p. Like Rousseau, who praised the noble savage, who was free from social chains until forced into society, Godwin imagined original anarchy developing into the political state, which tended on his view to become despotic. Anarchism is often taken to mean that individuals ought to be left alone without any unifying principle or governing power. But non-rule may also occur when there is unanimity or consensus—and hence no need for external authority or a governing structure of command and obedience.
The ideas of unanimity and consensus are associated with the positive conception of anarchism as a voluntary association of autonomous human beings, which promotes communal values. One version of the anarchist ideal imagines the devolution of centralized political authority, leaving us with communes whose organizational structure is open-ended and consensual. Given this emphasis on communal organization it is not surprising that political anarchism has a close historical association with communism, despite the connection mentioned above with free market capitalism.
Authors such as Bakunin, Kropotkin, and Goldman developed their anarchism as a response to Marx and Marxism. Proudhon thought that private property created despotism. He argued that liberty required anarchy, concluding,. The government of man by man under whatever name it be disguised is oppression. Society finds its highest perfection in the union of order with anarchy.
Proudhon [ ]. Anarchists often make categorical claims to the effect that no state is legitimate or that there can no such thing as a justifiable political state. As an absolute or a priori claim, anarchism holds that all states always and everywhere are illegitimate and unjust.
This sort of claim rests upon an account of the justification of authority that is usually grounded in some form of deontological moral claim about the importance of individual liberty and a logical claim about the nature of state authority. One typical and well-known example of this argument is found in the work of Robert Paul Wolff. Wolff indicates that legitimate authority rests upon a claim about the right to command obedience Wolff Correlative to this is a duty to obey: one has a duty to obey legitimate authority.
As Wolff explains, by appealing to ideas found in Kant and Rousseau, the duty to obey is linked to notions about autonomy, responsibility, and rationality. But for Wolff and other anarchists, the problem is that the state does not have legitimate authority. The categorical nature of this claim indicates a version of absolute anarchism.
Wolff concludes:. If all men have a continuing obligation to achieve the highest degree of autonomy possible, then there would appear to be no state whose subjects have a moral obligation to obey its commands.
Hence, the concept of a de jure legitimate state would appear to be vacuous, and philosophical anarchism would seem to be the only reasonable political belief for an enlightened man. Wolff This claim is stated in absolute and a priori fashion, a point made by Reiman in his critique of Wolff Reiman Wolff does not deny, by the way, that there are de facto legitimate states: governments often do have the approval and support of the people they govern.
But this approval and support is merely conventional and not grounded in a moral duty; and approval and support are manufactured and manipulated by the coercive power and propaganda and ideology of the state. But Kant is no anarchist: he defended the idea of enlightened republican government in which autonomy would be preserved. Rousseau may be closer to espousing anarchism in some of his remarks—although these are far from systematic see McLaughlin But despite his strong defense of individual rights, the stringent way he describes voluntary consent, and his advocacy of revolution, Locke believes that states can be defended based upon the social contract theory.
Leaving the canonical authors of Western political philosophy aside, the most likely place to find deontological and a priori anarchism is among the Christian anarchists.
Of course, most Christians are not anarchists. But those Christians who espouse anarchism usually do so with the absolute, deontological, and a priori claims of the sort made by Tolstoy, Berdyaev, and Ellul—as noted above. A less stringent form of anarchism will argue that states could be justified in theory—even though, in practice, no state or very few states are actually legitimate.
Contingent anarchism will hold that states in the present configuration of things fail to live up to the standards of their own justification. This is an a posteriori argument see Simmons based both in a theoretical account of the justification of the state for example, the social contract theory of liberal-democratic theory and in an empirical account of how and why concrete states fail to be justified based upon this theory.
The author of the present article has offered a version of this argument based upon the social contract theory, holding that the liberal-democratic social contract theory provides the best theory of the justification of the state, while arguing that very few states actually live up to the promise of the social contract theory Fiala a.
One version of the contingent anarchist argument focuses on the question of the burden of proof for accounts that would justify political authority. This approach has been articulated by Noam Chomsky, who explains:. Sometimes the burden can be met. Chomsky Chomsky accepts legitimate authority based in ordinary experience: for example, when a grandfather prevents a child from darting out into the street. But state authority is a much more complicated affair.
Political relationships are attenuated; there is the likelihood of corruption and self-interest infecting political reality; there are levels and degrees of mediation, which alienate us from the source of political authority; and the rational autonomy of adults is important and fundamental.
By focusing on the burden of proof, Chomsky acknowledges that there may be ways to meet the burden of proof for the justification of the state. But he points out that there is a prima facie argument against the state—which is based in a complex historical and empirical account of the role of power, economics, and historical inertia in creating political institutions.
He explains:. Such institutions face a heavy burden of proof: it must be shown that under existing conditions, perhaps because of some overriding consideration of deprivation or threat, some form of authority, hierarchy, and domination is justified, despite the prima facie case against it—a burden that can rarely be met.
Chomsky does not deny that the burden of proof could be met. Rather, his point is that there is a prima facie case against the state, since the burden of proof for the justification of the state is rarely met.
Contingent anarchism is based in consequentialist reasoning, focused on details of historical actuality. Consequentialist anarchism will appeal to utilitarian considerations, arguing that states generally fail to deliver in terms of promoting the happiness of the greater number of people—and more strongly that state power tends to produce unhappiness.
The actuality of inequality, classism, elitism, racism, sexism, and other forms of oppression can be used to support an anarchist argument, holding that even though a few people benefit from state power, a larger majority suffers under it.
As we shall see in the next section, individualist anarchists are primarily concerned with the tendency of utilitarian politics to sacrifice the rights of individuals in the name of the greater good.
Godwin articulated a form of anarchism that is connected to a utilitarian concern. He writes:. Above all we should not forget, that government is an evil, an usurpation upon the private judgment and individual conscience of mankind; and that, however we may be obliged to admit it as a necessary evil for the present. Godwin bk V, ch. The goal of political development should be in a direction that goes beyond the state and toward the development of individual reason and morality.
The point here is that our judgments about the justification of the state are contingent: they depend upon present circumstances and our current form of development. And while states may be necessary features of the current human world, as human beings develop further, it is possible that the state might outlive its usefulness. We should note that utilitarian arguments are often used to support state structures in the name of the greater good. Utilitarian anarchists will argue that states fail to do this.
But utilitarian conclusions are not usually based upon a fundamental appeal to moral principles such as liberty or the rights of the individual.
Bentham More principled deontological anarchism will maintain that states violate fundamental rights and so are not justified. Rather, the complaint for a utilitarian anarchist is that state structures tend to produce disadvantages for the greater number of people.
For the utilitarian, this all depends upon the circumstances and conditions. Ben-Dor calls this anarchism because it rejects any a priori notion of state justification.
In other words, the utilitarian anarchist does not presume that states are justifiable; rather a utilitarian anarchist will hold that the burden of proof rests upon the defender of states to show that state authority is justifiable on utilitarian grounds, by bringing in historical and empirical data about human nature, human flourishing, and successful social organization. Forms of anarchism also differ in terms of the content of the theory, the focal point of the anarchist critique, and the imagined practical impact of anarchism.
Socialist forms of anarchism include communist anarchism associated with Kropotkin and communitarian anarchism see Clark The socialist approach focuses on the development of social and communal groups, which are supposed to thrive outside of hierarchical and centralized political structures.
Individualist forms of anarchism include some forms of libertarianism or anarcho-capitalism as well as egoistically oriented antinomianism and non-conformism. He argued that there was no duty to obey the state and the law because the law and the state impair self-development and self-will. The state seeks to tame our desires and along with the church it undermines self-enjoyment and the development of unique individuality.
Stirner is even critical of social organizations and political parties. Individualist anarchism has often been attributed to a variety of thinkers including Josiah Warren, Benjamin Tucker, and Thoreau.
Individualist anarchism also seems to have something in common with egoism of the sort associated with Ayn Rand. Libertarians are still individualists, who emphasize the importance of individual liberty, even though they disagree with full-blown anarchists about the degree to which state power can be justified. Some individualist anarchists appear to focus on negative liberty, i.
But anarchism has also been concerned with community and the social good. In this sense, anarchists are focused on something like positive liberty and concerned with creating and sustaining the social conditions necessary for actualizing human flourishing. In this regard, anarchists have also offered theories of institutional rules and social structures that are non-authoritarian. This may sound paradoxical i.
According to Prichard rather than focusing on state-authority, anarchist institutions will be be open-ended processes that are complex and non-linear Prichard We see then, that individualist anarchism that focuses only on negative liberty is often rejected by anarchists who are interested in reconceiving community and restructuring society along more egalitarian lines.
Bookchin and other critics of lifestyle individualism will argue that mere non-conformism does very little to change the status quo and overturn structures of domination and authority. Nor does non-conformism and lifestyle anarchism work to create and sustain systems that affirm liberty and equality. But defenders of lifestyle non-conformism will argue that there is value in opting out of cultural norms and demonstrating contempt for conformity through individual lifestyle choices.
A more robust form of individualist anarchism will focus on key values such as autonomy and self-determination, asserting the primacy of the individual over and against social groups as a matter of rights.
Individualist anarchists can admit that collective action is important and that voluntary cooperation among individuals can result in beneficial and autonomy preserving community. Remaining disputes will consider whether what results from individual cooperation is a form of capitalism or a form of social sharing or communism.
Libertarian anarchists or anarcho-capitalists will defend free market ideas based upon individual choices in trading and producing goods for market. On the other hand, socialist or communistically oriented anarchism will focus more on a sharing economy. This could be a large form of mutualism or something local and concrete like the sharing of family life or the traditional potlatch. But these ideas remain anarchist to the extent that they want to avoid centralized control and the development of hierarchical structures of domination.
Unlike state-centered communism of the sort developed by Marxists, anarchist communism advocates decentralization. In The Conquest of Bread Kropotkin criticizes monopolistic centralization that prevents people from gaining access to socially generated wealth. Anarchy leads to communism, and communism to anarchy, both alike being expressions of the predominant tendency in modern societies, the pursuit of equality. Kropotkin [ 31]. Kropotkin argues that the communal impulse already exists and that the advances in social wealth made possible by the development of individualistic capitalism make it likely that we will develop in the direction of communal sharing.
He argues that the tendency of history is away from centralized power and toward equality and liberty—and toward the abolition of the state. Libertarianism and anarcho-capitalism also think that the free market will work to adequately maximize human well-being and help individuals to realize their own autonomy. But for the socialist and communist anarchists, the question of individual self-realization is less important than the idea of social development. Socialist and communally focused forms of anarchism emphasize the importance of social groups.
For example, families can be viewed as anarchic structures of social cooperation and solidarity. A social anarchist would be critical of hierarchical and domineering forms of family organization for example, patriarchal family structure.
But social anarchists will emphasize the point that human identity and flourishing occur within extended social structures—so long as it remains a free and self-determining community.
The tension between individualist and socialist anarchism comes to a head when considering the question of the degree to which an individual ought to be subordinated to the community.
It is also dangerous because it can lead to permanent anarchy, thus civil disobedience while requiring great sacrifice and patience respects the natural rights of individuals over their destruction.
For these reasons, hyper-moralized cries from alleged social reformers to overturn the bourgeoisie are suspect. Second, practitioners of civil disobedience are exercising enormous self-restraint to provide the space for stakeholders sitting on the sidelines to decide whether they will join in solidarity.
Growing consensus is necessary to render an unjust law moot. History is replete with governments claiming classes of people as threats to its survival and legislating morality to condemn or disenfranchise the other.
Often, this force is applied arbitrarily, or even worse than arbitrarily because it is political. Ultimately, these heroes only had their internal convictions of injustice when the inherent righteousness and force of governments militate against them. In the face of injustice, all people have the right and moral obligation to peacefully disobey unjust laws.
When depends on whether the level of immorality, oppression, and violence is untenable. He works for a law firm in New York City. Facebook Twitter Email. History shows when civil disobedience takes place, revolutions occur Opinion In the face of injustice, all people have the right and moral obligation to peacefully disobey unjust laws. Dean Balaes Guest Columnist. Show Caption.
Hide Caption.
0コメント