From Bakunin to Lacan: Anti-Authoritarianism and the Dislocation of Power

Abstract

This is an intriguing and ambitious addition to the now growing literature attempting to recuperate, or at least reappraise, the legacy of anarchism for the development of an anti-authoritarian, post-Marxian, yet still radical politics. Like Todd May, whose The Political Philosophy of Poststructuralist Anarchism this work inevitably resembles, Newman's aim is to test the credentials of anarchism as standard bearer for the mantle of 'most credible alternative to otherwise exhausted totalizing doctrines'. This is to be achieved through subjecting it to the poststructuralist test of validity, that is whether anarchism can avoid the 'essentialist', 'humanist', 'post-enlightenment authoritarianism' that poststructuralists hold to be at the core of 'modernist' forms of theorizing. Part of what makes this work interesting is that the critical gaze is at the same time reversed so that the claim of poststructuralists to be offering the ingredients for a genuinely libertarian and liberating form of critique matching anarchist aspirations, if not their theoretical approach, is also the focus for the volume. Thus the first half of the text concerns the classical anarchist legacy, the dispute with Marxism and the importance of Stirner as a critic of authority. The second half examines the work of some of the more significant poststructuralist thinkers, including Foucault, Deleuze and Guattari, and Derrida, subjecting them in turn to the anarchist 'test' for relevance in elaborating strategies of resistance to the status quo. What becomes clear over the course of the book is the nature of the synthesis Newman is aiming for, that is one between left libertarian ideals albeit in the hands of anarchists articulated on modernist terms, and a radical 'postfoundational' method which has (qua 'postmodernism' F poststructuralism's bastard child) long been charged with political ineffectuality. This is, it is clear, an immensely difficult trick to pull off. Newman is nonetheless very compelling at least as concerns why it is an operation worth embarking on. As he argues, it is undoubtedly the case that a great deal for what passes as 'critical theory' is offered in the form of poststructuralist critique. It is also the case that whilst classical anarchists can sound very libertarian, all too often their suggestions as to how freedom and equality are to be reconciled have a worryingly authoritarian ring to them. What needs to be established is how such an

Housing as an Exception, Eviction as Everyday Life

“…V těchto přístupech jde o specifický přístup k času: vždy nastává něco dalšího odlišného, co vychází z virtuálního potenciálu aktuální přítomnosti, a to vytváří i nutnost akceptovat nastávání ve své etice (Deleuze, 1994;Deleuze a Guattari, 2010;May, 1994May, , 1995Newman, 2001Newman, , 2005. Nastávání evikce může být totiž vysoce rhizomatický i vysoce diferencující proces (Wilhelm-Solomon, 2016).…”

What Is the Future for Post-Structuralist Anarchism?

“…While post-structuralist anarchism was not the only new approach to anarchism at that time, academic discussions and commentaries cemented it as the most prominent and most controversial of these new anarchisms [1] (p. 4). 4 Accounts of post-structuralist anarchism typically begin with Todd May and his 1994 publication, The Political Philosophy of Poststructuralist Anarchism. 5 May's was the first booklength exploration of a possible interaction between post-structuralism and anarchism; 6 this was followed in 2001 by Saul Newman's From Bakunin to Lacan: Anti-Authoritarianism and the Dislocation of Power and then in 2002 by Lewis Call's Postmodern Anarchism.…”

“…The most important quality of post-structuralist anarchism has been its renunciation of essentialism and of any meta-narratives that rely on it. Essentialism is defined by Newman as "the idea that beneath surface differences, there lies one true identity or character" [4] (p. 13). Newman, May, and Call find the idea of an essence to be theoretically suspect and politically harmful.…”

“…Once one has established an unques-tionable essence for humankind, one has the ability, oneself, to decide what is appropriate or not for human beings. Newman writes, "Not only does essentialist thinking limit the individual to certain prescribed norms of morality and behavior, it also excludes identities and modes of behavior which do not conform to these norms" [4] (p. 3). He continues, "The logic of essentialism produces an oppositional thinking, from which binary hierarchies are constructed: normal/abnormal, sane/insane, hetero-homosexual, etc."…”

“…He continues, "The logic of essentialism produces an oppositional thinking, from which binary hierarchies are constructed: normal/abnormal, sane/insane, hetero-homosexual, etc." [4]. At its worst, this sort of thinking can debase actual living individuals before mere abstractions that they are meant to live up to [4] (p. 58).…”