Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • MORLAND Human Nature Anarchism OCR

    Uploaded by

    fantasma
    23 views114 pages
    MORLAND Human Nature Anarchism OCR

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    MORLAND Human Nature Anarchism OCR

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    23 views114 pages

    MORLAND Human Nature Anarchism OCR

    Uploaded by

    fantasma
    MORLAND Human Nature Anarchism OCR

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    of 114
    Demanding the Impossible? Human Nature and Politics in Nineteenth-Century Social Anarchism David Morland 15 - CASSELL London and Washington 1 BGR Hoo oe [eer ete pn i den reap raglan Tenens eine merce Ser ete cr te ea Seeidiara seme Ube coin een oe pier pecorino Gb cen et DS con i cine ae Sit Gro ep et oe eee ae eine (cpl mcuscaene ater caters Lae See ia ceerar et ce es Gea cat lemmtngeaco sexe CNS So eee, Sipe soce arts a eciEen Sanne oe eet print eomeanriseenor ter vay ie) bepetrat eet lire Seubert Seige ane Son I EI esi a CS aS feelers ener oepeue rey pene aebanrtise preuieeienpeons ceredyaetmiroyenewry see eyes Quis nine ceeecememat pore gree enna an ser iiropi Sees Reiser Rahreerprroieersrscriineariomnney coi Poet ee ne ee ee De Museen au Berlin Proutsicher Kulturhsite Netioalgalerie © Bildarchiv ne ce teal rae Ul reserved, No part of his publication may be produced or nay oy any men cone ce mache ing hococopyng recording or an information storage orev Pitbton plorpocieion twang rom he pbc loging in-Publestion Data ‘Ncatalgue record for his book avaiable from the British Library. Library of Congress Cataloging in-Publicaton Data Merlend, David Demanding the impossible: human nature ad pois in ninetenth-century Socal anarchstuDavid Movland Tle bibliographical eferences and index ISBN 0-304-33685-8. — ISBN 0-304-33687-4 6h.) 4, Anarchism, 2, Social pochology. 3. Keopotki, Fete Alekeevich az, 1842-1921. 4, Proudhon, Py, Pee Joseph), 1805-1865, 5. Bakinin, ‘Mikal Aleksandrovich 1818-1876 Tite 19X833.M647 1997 320.57 09034421 71672 ar. ISBN 0 304 33685 8 (hardback) (0 304 336874 (paperback) Designed and ypeset by Ben Cracknell tadioe sed and bound Great Bean by Bis ed Glo an ngs Ln Contents Preface Acknowledgements Introduction Anarchiem and Human Nature “The Argument of this Book ‘The Organization ofthis Book Anarchism and Human Nature Defining Anarchy: Some Conceptual and Methodological Difficulties Perceptions of Anarchism Haman Nature and Anarchism Proudhon: The Polities of Federalism ‘The Parameters of Human Nature ‘The Dichotomy of Human Nature ‘The State and the Suffocation of Liberty ‘The Politics of Federalism Bakunin: Authoritarian Anarchism Bakunin on Human Nature and Preedom Human Nature and Revolutionary Politics Bakuni’s Political Theory Authoritarian Federalism Keopotkin: Mutual Aid and Anarchy ‘The Methodology of Mutual Aid Mutual Aid and the Steugale for Existence Mutual Aid and Sociability Mutual Aid and Morality ‘Kropotkin’s Philosophy of History Kropotkin's Revolutionary Methodology Kropotkin's Anarchist Vision 102 ns 126 29 134 138 141 149 153 cof Anarchy ‘of Kropotkin's Anarchism with Ideology sms Fundamental Inconsistency lon Human Nature \ Utopia Too Far? 7. Epilogue To Abandon Human Nature? Future Modes of Thinking, Index 163 166 181 181 184 189 17 203 203 206 208 Preface Traditionally, anarchists are seen to possess an optimistic conception ‘of human nature an optimism essential to the succes of their vision ‘ofa stateless society. By illustrating that social anarchism employs a ‘conception of human natue that assumes the existence of both egoism land sociability, this book endeavours both to correct common ‘misapprehensions about its conception of human nature and to reveal the true nature ofthe relationship between that conception of human ature and social anarchism’ ideal of a future society. “The concept of human nature is eitial to arguments about what is wrong with society and how those wrongs should be put eight. It isa descriprive and evaluative formula thac justifies socal change, of ‘the maintenance ofthe status quo if deemed appropriate. Consequenty, any ideology isthe more convincing if ts conception of human nature is commensurate with its political prescriptions. a conception of human nature has elements within it that jeopardize the success ofits recommendations for change, then the persuasive capacity of is host ideology i seriously undermined “This isthe case with social anarchism. This work will demonstrate ‘that the socal anarchists’ conception of human natures fundamentally incompatible with their self incurred obligation of establishing a future stateless society Given ths discrepancy the feasibly of thie preferred society looks increasingly improbable on two counts. Firs, there is lite in their conception of human nature that merits profound faith inthe eventual alization of an anarchist society. And secondly, even if hae socery came about the assumptions of imperfection and egos inherent in their conception of human nature render the maintenance ‘of oder, without recourse to something kn oa state, unsustainable, ‘The ask of evealing this discrepancy is one that [approached with Some ambivalence Ihave deep sympathies for much of wiat anarchism has to offer, ut am conscious of the need to understand one’s own. weaknesses in an essentially normative set of considerations, which 's the batle of ideologies. Recognition of an ideology’s weak spots helps fortify it forthe inevitable criticism that will come its way. This ‘much anarchist ofall hss should acknowledge. For that Tam grateful to some of my fellow sympathizers who have rolerated my scepicsm and explicit criticism of anarchism, Perhaps that isthe ultimate testament the value that anarchists place on freedom. Acknowledgements ‘This book isthe end result of my doctoral esearch, which [undertook asa part-time student at the University of York. Whilst the work has undergone a series of changes since then its basic argument remains the same. Because of that | am indebted to my supervisor, Peter Nicholson, for his perspicuous comments and analysis and for correcting the numerous erors of style, interpretation and factual accuracy that permeated earlier drafts Similarly, lowe a debt of agrastude to John Crump, whose asistance in helping me come to terms with the overall project was invaluable, I should lke to thank my former colleagues at the University of Sunderland, Peter Hayes, Mike Jones and Peter Rowell for theit comments on this work. 1am also deeply indebted to my former colleague at the University of Northumbria, John Armitage, for his thoughtful and teling advice on a number of sections. L shoul also like to thank Steve Millet and Jon Purkis for the benefit of theie proofreading and analytical skills when asked o read various chapters, For easing the financial difficulties ofthis research as a parttime student I owe many thanks to my parents. And finally, but most of all,I should like to thank my partner, Liane Brierley, for helping me edit much of what Ihave written, and for her understanding and forbearance which enabled me to complete ths project when I should have been devoting far more attention to my parental responsibilities, Introduction Political ideologies are complex and compelling phenomena. They have, in ecent years, been subject to a resurgence of interest and analysis, particularly but not exclusively within academia. eis in the ‘nature of political ideologies thae they may ees in slumber fr lengchy periods of time before erupting onto the politcal stage, disgorging fundamental changes in Social and political institutions whilst simultaneously triggering an intospective analysis of their concepts and values. Ths book is about one ideology in paticulas anarchism; fan ideology that is becoming increasingly important asa source of inspiration 0 those who feel thar the democratic practices of contemporary society have little if anything, to commend them, Disenchanted with paskamentary politics many people like those who protest against new road-building, ae now employing tactics, such 4 direct action, that have long been at the heart of the anarchist ‘activist creed, and are incoxporating some of anarchism’s most basic principles when moulding their own ideological clay. Despite the renewed interest in anarchist ideas and arguments, there is ile point in simply resurrect the works of long-dead theorists and teatng themas revolutionary gospels that encapsulate permanent truths. Whilst much of whar past anarchist thinkers said is still Seminally important and relevant, the errors and inconsistencies in these works cannot be ignored. Part of the problem is that some of these faults remain undetected, or are dismissed as insignificant. Ie is my intention t illustrate what consider tobe the most fundamental inconsistency in anarchist ideology, a theoretical dsparicy that has to be addressed if anarchists are to produce a coherent argument that ‘an form the bass of their attempts not only to persuade the people ‘har theieeause is just and eight bur thar i i feasible aso. ‘Anarchism and Human Nature As James Jol has remarked, there are atleast thre different ways of looking at anarchism." Anarchism may be seen as apolitical ideology ~a collection of ideas about social organization and social change. ‘Alternatively, it may be regarded at a politcal movement that ‘endeavours to transform a politial revolution into a social revolution that is consistent in both means and ends. Further stil, anarchism ‘may be perceived as a temperament that inspires and engages in revolution as an actin itself. Although this work covers all three perspectives, t deals principally withthe first. In particular, itis Cofiéerned with the relationship berween human nature and politics in anarchist ideology. ‘Asan ideology anarchism should be understood as a collection of, ‘concepts, principles and assumptions that go together to form a workd view. But this is a partial or biased vantage point. As Robert Eccleshall observes, ideologies provide the linguistic and conceptual material through which people clarify and justify their actions as they pursue divergent interests’ Political ideologies afford an interpretation of the past and the present and offer a set of political recommendations for a future society. Meologies are therefore in the business of interpreting history and of winning converts to their cause. And, inertably, political ideologies, inelading anarchism, are concerned ‘with defining conceptions of human nature and establishing courses fof action in light of thei sults. ‘There are, ofcourse, many definitions of anarchism. Most ofthese correspond to divergent sheories of economic organization, such a8 ‘mutualism, collectivism and communism. Mutualism is most closely associated with Pierre Joseph Proudhon. Essentially, mutualism is premised on individuals entering into self-assumed obligations with fone another expressed through the notion ofa free contract. The individual, who is the basic unit of Proudhon’s programme, retains ‘possession of the instruments of about. Proudhon operates labour theory of value, and goods are exchanged accordingly either directly for other products of the same value or for labour notes which ace issued by a People's Bank. Michael Bakunin coined the teem collectivism. Whereas Proudhon envisaged individuals or groups of individuals as the building blocks of economic organization, Bakunin regarded associations of producers a the primary economic organs, Here, private property i restricted to individval labour, and Bakinin assumes that associations of workers control the land and the means ‘of production, which are held in common. The other distinguishing feature of collectivism is its labour proviso. Under collectivism the principle of distributive justice i as follows: From each according to thie ability, to each according to their deeds. Communis-anacchiso achieved is intellectual culmination in the works of Peter Kropotki. ‘Communism assumes che common ownership not only ofthe means of production but ofthe products of labour too. Therefore, tis the ‘commune rather than associations of workers which forms the basic ‘unit of society; and the principle of distributive justice here consists ofthe more familia adage: From each accoeding to their ability, to each according to their neds. For the purposes of ths analysis al ofthe above categories and ‘eorsts are incorporated under the label of social anarchism, whi constituces the investigative remit of this work, Defining socal anarchism isnot easy Perhaps iti best summarized asa broad belief in a society underpinned by a spirc of solidarity, a society perceived as an organic whole within which individual freedom is mediated through some notion of comminal individuality. The contrast starkly ‘with individualist anarchism, which is lrgely the product of American writers lke Josiah Warren, Lysander Spoones, Benjamin Tucker and “Murray Rothbard. Individualist anarchism is the stream of anarchist thought that approximates most closely to classical liberalism. iis best conceived as a theory of an atomistic society of sovereign individuals whose relationships with one another are framed within the context of the economic market. Individual sovereignty is ‘considered inviolable, and all functions now carried out bythe state ‘would be brokered through the marker. ‘The term anarchism may be defined in a number of ways, but the ‘concept of human natue is subject to interminable dispute. Indeed, itis what political philosophers refer to as an esentally contested ‘concept that is, there is no universal agreement about the mesning ‘of human nature. Broadly speaking, the controversy cenzes on whether human nature should be thought of as someting innate tothe entire species of Homo Sapiens or whether it ought to be viewed ae a reflection of particular environmental ciccumstances. Human natute, itis argued, ether is universal and something that is inherent im all ‘of us, ois socially constructed within a given human and social ‘environment. However, this division is seldom maintained witha ‘thoroughness. Political ideologies, including socal anarchism, often rely on a conception of human nature that draws on both dimensions ofthis argument. Besides the debate over what constitutes human nature, a debate ‘o which there may be no saisfsctory resolution, conceptions of human "ature may be subjected to various forms of analysis. Graeme Duncan has outlined three different kinds of approach. The fire involves the collation of evidence, sociological ot historical, for example, to challenge the feasibility ofthe argument under examination. A second approach concerns itself withthe consequences that arise from 4 Conception of human nature, thereby offering judgment omits practical fr tangible outcome, The third method of inspection concentrates on Whether the conception of human nature is consistent with the Fevnainder ofthe ideology or wider political theory. ‘The Argument ofthis Book “The argument ofthis book is an analytical exercise constrained within the parameters ofthe thied approach adumbrated above Iris definitely ot an attempt to elaborae a definition of human nature itself. Given the essential contestabilty ofthe concept of human natuee, such an ‘exercise is probably futile. Rather iis an analysis ofthe conception fof human nature employed by anarchist writers in their broader political ideology, and of whether theie notion of human natu is Commensurate with the other elements of the ideology when all are taken together. ‘The book endeavours to uncover some ofthe strengths together with one of, if not the, major weakness of ths often misunderstood ‘ology. To that end this work embarks on an analytical investigation ‘ofthe conception of human nature thats integral to anarchist ideology. By ‘anarchist ideology I refer, here and throughout the remainder of the book, tothe ideology of social anarchism. Accordingly this work does not attempt to examine the writings and philosophy of ‘individualist anarchism, Rather, t concentrates on the writings oft three giants of nineteenth-century European social anarchist Proudhon, Bakunin and Kropotkin, and attempts to ceveal what it about their conception of human nature chat unites them, and, mor importantly, why ie that thir ideological narrative ultimately fail Herbert Read, the influential art extic and anarchist, once argued tha the ‘ask ofthe anarchist philosopher is not to prove the imminenc fof Golden Age, but co justify the value of believing in its possibility’ “To accomplish that task the social anarchists ofthe ninetenth cent have to conceive of human nature in such a way that will not onl explain why anarchy is desirable, bur how iti possible. In of ‘words, their conception of human natuce has to be strong enough bear the weigh imposed by thee goal of afurue stateless society. It is precisely a this juncture that anarchism is most frequentl miscepresented. To ilustrate this T should like to present the read with two recent examples, although other instances of sul misapprehension permeate past academic writings, such as thote of David Apter and Andrew Gamble My fist contemporary example is located in a work by lan Adams. In his book Political Ideology Today, Adams argues that anarchism rests ‘upon certain basic ssumptions about human nature and its relation to society’, one of which is: “Humanity is esrentially good, but is corrupted by tovernment.* This may be true of Jean-Jacques Rousseau, but it i= nether an accurate nora comprehensive assessment ofthe ole played by the concept of human nature in anarchist ideology. similar error ‘of perception emerges in another recent work on ideologies by Andrew Heywood. In his Political Ideologies: An Introduction, Heywood ‘contends thatthe core of anarchism is founded on ‘an unashamed ttopianism, a belief inthe natural goodness, or at least potential goodness, of humankind. Social order arises naturally and Spoatancously ie doesnot require the machinery of “law and order”. ‘This is why anachist conclusions have been reached by politcal thinkers who possess an esenially optimistic view of human nature.” Tes the design ofthis work to furnish an alternative and more accurate perspective concerning anarchists and their conception of human nature. Anarchism is not inspired by “an unashamed Utopianism’, atleast not inthe manner that Heywood believes, nor isi the ideological outcome of those working with ‘an essentially ‘optimistic view of human nature’. Tobe fair to Heywood, he docs go ‘on to say that ‘anarchists have seldom asserted that people are “naturally good”... (more willingly they see human nature as ‘plastic. fashioned by environmental factors rather than any innate “poodness® or “badness” But even inthis qualified interpretation, Heywood is only parly right. Whilst anarchists certainly rely on “environmental factors’ to establish the groundwork for their belief that human nature is eapable of providing a stcong enough basis for anarchy to become reals alternative t state led exploitation and domination, this i only one element in the anarchists’ ideological conception of human nature. Parallel to the contextual or environmental element theresa given or inherent constituent that is incontrovertbly characterized a5 “badness. Socability and egoism 8 opposite sides ofthe same coin. Heywood and others, among them ‘Adams and Gamble, ace simply mistaken in asserting that anarchists ae the proprietors ofan essentially optimistic view of human nature. le would be more accurate to suggest that socal anarchists erect their "eological narrative upon a double-barrelled conception of human ature, Human nature, forthe social anarchists, is composed of both sociability an egoism (which corespond rather loosely to what Haywood and eters tem “goodness and ‘badness All three Tlchiss under examination inthis work acknowledge that they Etoploys notion of human nature hat follows this ase paradigm Dilferig as they doin ber pats of ther idcologcl argument, Prandin, Bakunin and Keoporkin defintely share a substan Ihesure of common round wen mapping ot ther concen of ae "This not to suggest hat each anarchists conception of human atures ena inal spect Thee vaisonson he common theme and hese wl econ apparent ati salys unfolds That thse dtntions ct spy eect fa that 0 pal ely fanclaim tobe ent coherent. Some ideologies may be more Consistent than others but all ae sujet tension, nor Haan ontaisiongocavone by difering meer of the elope anon procrdng in oppo direconso one another Anarchism ‘Sno acto oth Ufortonaty,commenators ke Heywood Simply ignore the suscep of deloges to coherence. Charges tf romantica are lelledapanst anarchism jst as fequenty 2 those of umpaniam’ What mare timporme, perepion of ttopianam and omanticam sro ead ton eroncou suman that anarchists adopt an optimistic postion when expounding a oncepon of human natee. [intend to demonstrate that such Sums are missed weve ts crcl ctr ber that ‘aly ppest to be dwn into sich concuron forthe sake of roving the comtistency orice of thei om agaren, whi. Simultoncosly imposing upon the theorist or dology a degree of Era ee ere tmay be atbting ox Sorting a coherent argument that does wo Stand upto serious invention: A more detaled exploration ofthe. Conception of human sare employed by the oil anarchists vee fron cutoe The pet hat tome icepeees seo mis th {cdg vison ofthe good lif anarchists have advanced & tres of poponlsthat sr tinged wth us of eat and prea fueled by wha iy at times, a pascalrly honest if ot bral Prati accout ofthe asker ie of human stare. Prec caus ofthis veal, soil anachem can afford ro be nthe ‘xen oman ot oop ieee eer eter ace teed anarchism elaborating Doth» revoionry methodology on Portrevlatonsry soci, remain tue tothe teachings of thei conception of human nature? When examining this question it will become apparent that a concept of human nature ie an integral part ‘of any ideology and, as such, is partly responsible for staking out the ‘boundaries ofthe possibilities that avail themscvesto politcal theory Social anarchism, as found inthe writings of Proudhon, Bakunin an Kropotkin, embraces a vision of the good life despite is protestations tothe contrary. But in any ideology the prospect of an ideal society ‘demands corroboration or justification from the other elements of that ideology. The concept of human natute often fulfils this role, for human nature is fequentl utilized a a sanction to praise or condemn social visions. Ifthe social anarchists propagate a vision ofa future society that exceeds the capabilities oftheir conception of human ‘ature then their ideological narrative can only be judged as utopian and incoherent. “The major argument of tis tex is that anarchism, because ofits conception of human nature, cannot escape that judgment, Despite ‘ts vision ofa harmonious, non-herachical egalitarian and just society, ‘ts emphasis on egoism as an undeniable and lasting component within ‘human nature eendees its strugaleto release tel from the grip ofthe state fate. That is, because socal anarchism embodies a conception fof human natuce that comprises both sociability and egos, in which both ae enduring element, tis exceedingly dificult i nor impossible to rescue the ideology without performing some form of radical surgery. In other words, the anarchist conception of human nature results in a political theory tat fails co mee its self-ncurred obligation ofa satlesssocery. Consequently, anarchists? demande for a stateless future exceed what their conception of human nature will permit, thereby jeopardizing the validity ofthe label of anarchism if not the status ofthe ideology itsel. ‘The Organization ofthis Book Assessment of any political ideology will always be open to accusations of subjectvism, and this work is no exception. Eventhough the focus of concern here is social anarchism, some readers may dispute the seletion of anarchists placed under study. Why, i might be asked i= "here no consideration of William Godwin, commonly regarded as one of anarchism’s most thoughtful proponents? Thete are, to my mind, two reasons for his absence, Fist, Godwin is most properly a Philosophial anarchist." For that reason alone Godwin does not really belong under the category of social anarchism. Hei, however, xc rom onsen nanos cone Wil eam he Se acaTnhde tne tbe of nal nc “conceptions of human nature and politics in. sue writings in ue Set res Tht sche may beset pe ‘Sone ofomr As Mania commence Pall js 79 nay en bed eee ce eden, (Una Hyman, Landon, 1984p. 23. 3, G Duncan, Policl Theory and Hioran Nature’. Fore and S Sih el), Politi and Honan Nature Pees, London, 1985) Notes 1. Jl AnarcimA Livng radon’ a David E Apes and ames Jol Amari Today, {Mactala, London, 1971p. 213, 2, REclhall, Geoghegan ef, Palit elope An 4, Hi Rens Anarchy and Order, (Faber Faber, Loo, 1958) pls 5 Ss for example DE. Ape The (id Anteiem andthe New: Soe Comment Ape and Jl tp cpp Vand 3. Andsew Cambie enti whe pcs the arc’ conception of aan ture SeehitArIbdcton Moder Seca ond Polis Thi, Macilen, London, 1981 pp 108-10 6, Adame, Poll dso Today, (lancer Unies Pre Manchest 1993) p. 172, 7.-A Heron, Pola dole An iraducon,(Macmlan, tendon, 1992) p. 198 In soir vein Adis, op cit 9p 1745, pus tha archi nce = tremendous cf faith adi 8 Heywood op ct, pp. 205-6 9. Sex for xampl, Ne, ‘vero (Ber, Lone 198) pp 175-6 Mart Miler comends Becomes food mie Spite somewhat oman clr asd on he Falfimene of ce See MA Mile, Seed Wings on Aachim ad Revluton PA open BAT Pre Boon, 1970). 5 10. Arve Miler bsg loops sch ike Indl orci nach eee lacks Yoh ae al sss ote ee Consequectany tangle seater fervaal hag, esi ‘ride away sponding sity Serb Milocop P16. A comengorary scour Philosophical schon 6 RE Inge aromante hankering afer Welln Def of Anarchion, thevalus oscil solr whch (Harpe Treo, New York, re lneconiale with he 1976) onerpraey world 11 See MLA. Mile opt p2 eI Anarchism and Human Nature All politcal ideologies ae protean in nature. Ofall the major ideologies of the western world none are without discord or disunity, either in terms of theory or practice. Consequently, the task of discussing ideologies is, a8 Bhikhu Parekh highlights, ‘an exceedingly hazardous enterpise. ideologies often harbour a number of divergent facets or Strands under their architectural umbrella. Each strand may adopt radically opposed views on certain issues, Such divisions do not only fmbrace tactics but stem from the most basic assumptions chat Constitute the very foundation of an ideology. One such example is the transformation of liberalism ar the close of the nineteenth century [Acthe heart of liberalism is the concept of liberty. Yer it was precisely a dispute over what liberty meant that, for some commentators like Tesiah Berlin, the liberal philosopher, distinguishes the old liberalism from the new! More recently, the British Conservative Party as been ‘engaged in an introspective analysis over its approach to European integration, with questions of sovereignty and national identity foremost in the minds of many Eurosceptics. Occasionally, i is not the ends which are in dispute but the means. Differences of opinion ‘on how to achieve socialism have resulted in multifarious tats and 8 multiplicity of partes. Iris hardly surprising, then, thatthe message of ideologies is distorted and abused by their political rivals Pethaps, though, there is a more serious problem when discussing ldeologis thas les todo with making political capital at the expense ‘of one rivals and rather more to do witha lack of comprehension in the frst place. If we are honest enough, we all employ ideological labels weongly sometimes. This may be born out of passion rather ‘than rational analysis. Many a time was Margaret Thatcher, the former leader of the British Conservative Parry, accused of fascism, both by ‘those who knew what the term meant and by those who undoubtedly did not. Aernatively, and moce importantly as far as this analysis is ‘encerned, people talk, often with a self-assumed authority, about 'Weologies of which they know litle if anything. Ths is usually the ‘tuff of tapeaom arguments, but is evident in academic debate to. ‘The danger that should be avoided here is one of filing in the blanks inappropriate, ola deloges are complex phenome. Unde rret how tee vanous cos-errnts and molple assumptions fe toputer should ot be underestimated fe Bhoves ws therfore, to tke care when completing the ological crossword resenting rough sketch ofan cology swell witha the copabites of mary tur presenting an acute teprretatin of an eolgy is amore trcky mate isthe sk of thi chap to outline the dicate that cts when conrontng nar and to provide ome poss state insolation, them Defining Anarchy: Some Conceptual and Methodological Difficulties AAs Lisa Newton notes, almost ‘every point of view other than sup ‘of the existing nation-state can be found somewhere within [th anarchist tradtion,}" Anarchism is not a particularly consistent ideology. Moreover, given the sheer diversity if not disparateness o the opinions within anatchism, one has to question whether anarchist is an ideology at all The risk of establishing a set of definii parameters within which one can assign a collection of theorist tha {do not belong together is avery real one. Traditionally, the unifyn theme of anarchism is taken to bea ceection and erticim of all stat Authority and of the power and coercion that combine to make u the machinery of government’* But even this i contested by som For instance in his essay ‘What is Anarchism” John P. Clark ass ‘that there i no one central defining characteristic that distinguish anarchism fom other socal thearies’ Such ajugment may be dep subjective, but may also be indicative ofthe fac chat ideologies a seldom coherent constructs. Ideologies in general are distilled fom number of sources, each caring its own distinctive flavour tha esl ina melding ofthe fine withthe coarse, che banal with the astut Indeed i should be obvious to anyone with more than a passing incr in the stay of ideologies that no one ideology is a mutually exclusiy body of political ideas. deologies readily shate ideas and argument because, as Andrew Vincent notes, there is an ‘overlapping ‘declogical continuuims'* This cros-feriization of ideological arguments and assumptios leads us into an even deeper and more elusive problem. tis ada thats inherent in ll writings on ideology, and i elf manufact For when consciously endeavouring to provide a definitive a dlsinerested account o¢ judgment ofa particular ideology itis dif not to submit one's own ideological perspective as an account of | facts or truth. The ques for a now-ideological account of an ideology may never be fully eealizable. One can only attempt o be as impatial ts possible, Firstly, though, for an analysis of anarchism to proceed it nas frst be defined. One ofthe most usual procedures for advancing ’ definition of anarchism i to commence the discussion by way of an ‘exymological investigation ofthe word itself. That ithe way adopted by the Italian anarchist Erico Malatesta, and iti also the strategy adhered t0 by more contemporary authors. One of the most recent ‘examples is Alan Carter's ‘Some Notes on “Anarchism”. As Carter ‘explains, the word ‘anarchy’ is derived from the Greek and means literally without government. Moreover anarchy is a stateless society, leis a society where one group does not have power over another group (with possible exceptions, such ae childeen or mental defectives)” Besides the etymological perspective there is also a historical eference ro take into account. During the formative years ofthe Athenian democracy there were nine magistrates called archons, ‘After Solon, the Athenian statesman, instituted constitutional reforms party strife erupted which eventually resulted in yranny. Lite is actually known about the strife, but as Bury porte se known that ‘t‘took the form ofa strugsle forthe archonship, and two years are noted in which, in consequence of this stuggle, no archons were elected, hence called years of anarchy’. Historically speaking, then, anarchy describes not an absence of government, but an absence specifically of one type of public official (One ofthe frst things to note is that because anarchy designates a society without government, in an etymological sens, this does not translate into a society in chaos. Ax Carter insists and rightly 50, without rule does not mean without rules or without stuctute. The format ofthis seucture, however, is unparalleled in its importance ro the well-being of anarchy. For the structure 'both should be ‘empowering to those within it and should not lad to a centralisation of power or decision-making’. When spelt ou, this argument entails. that anarchists ‘prefer a system where there is no centralized andlor Authoritarian government, where no one bas a monopoly of Force, Where no group exercises power over another group, and where decision-making is as widely dispersed as possible.” Despite these hoble sentiments, anarchism struggles to sustain its cherished Principles. Because ofits assumption ofan innate egos in human ature none ofthe social anarchists under examination here can claim 10 have entirely eradicated all forms or mechanisms of government. Indcatvely, there is ttle evidence to suggest chat anarchists have “That is, power is made available to those who, by virtue of theit position, are able ‘to bring about outcomes relatively favourable to ‘themselves and unfavourable ro the others’, by deciding on one course ‘of ation on the presupposition that others wil also choose that course of ation when presented with the alternatives." Iti not without 3m, then, that Taylor can pronounce that the classical like Proudhon, Bakunin and Kropotkin were unable to elaborate models of politcal and social orgeniation that would not, ‘nd could not, entail the complete disappearance or equality of power, ‘or coercion, or authority" Iti inthis spri that Harold Barclay ‘writs that anarebists donot ‘deny power; onthe contrary, in anarchist theory this sa central issue for all human societies and the limiting ‘of power isa constant concern." If anarchy is not about the elimination ofall forms of powes, authority and coercion, the question of definition remains unanswered, (f course, it could be maintained that an anarchist society is nevertheless a stateless society, despite the fact that powes, authority and coercion are resident features ofthat society. Even if legislative, judicial and governmental configurations constitute a part ofthat ‘soviet this does not necessarily equate that society with a state, Like ‘0 many other concepts within politics, the sate is defined asa matter ‘of degree rather than kind. Ie is where « particular level in the evelopment of political societies is reached; stage at which one can

    You might also like