Definitions of Anarchism: defining and refining

Anarchism
Definitions of Anarchism
Terese Howard
8/23/09

"What is to be the form of government in the future? I hear some of my young readers reply: ‘Why, how can you ask such a question? You are a republican!’ ‘A republican! Yes; but that word specifies nothing. Res publica; that is, the public thing… ‘Well! You are a democrat?’ – ‘No.’ – ‘What! You would have a monarchy?’ – ‘God forbid!’ – ‘You are an aristocrat?’ – ‘Not at all.’ – ‘You want a mixed government?’ – ‘Still less.’ – ‘What are you, then?’ – ‘I am an anarchist.’" (Pierre-Joseph Proudohn, What is Property?, in Ruth Kinna, Anarchism: a beginners guide, 7)

Let me begin by making the intentions of this paper clear. This paper is not concerned with explaining what anarchism believes. It is not covering what anarchist do. It will not cover all of the various forms of anarchism. It is not intended to make an argument regarding the validity or value of anarchism. Instead, the purpose of this paper is to work towards a better understanding of anarchism by wrestling with the wide variety of definitions of anarchism. Whether this ends in a definition or not is up to the reader. Asking the question “how can we define anarchism?” will inevitably move through the question “what is anarchism?” and hence, this latter question can be included. However, the focus is on defining anarchism, not determining its ontological manifestation.
Definitions of anarchism differ more than probable any other political theory (if we can even call it a political theory, as will be addressed latter). They range from clear cut formulas to completely refusing to be defined at all. They range from the most positive hope to the most dreaded fear. Here are a couple of example definitions.

“Anarchism: a doctrine urging the abolition of government or governmental restraint as the indispensable condition for full social and political liberty.” http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Anarchism

“Anarchism: The philosophy of a new social order based on liberty unrestricted by man-made law; the theory that all forms of government rest on violence, and are therefore wrong and harmful, as well as unnecessary” (Emma Goldman, What is Anarchism Really About, 32).

As can be observed in these examples, the form in which anarchism is defined differ (ie. doctrine versus philosophy) as well as the layout (ie. what against first versus for what for first) and many other futures. Nonetheless, these definitions do hold some aspects in common, one being the unnecessity of government. The word “anarchy,” from which “anarchism” is derived, comes from the Greek word anarkos, meaning “without government,” or “the government of no one.” This theme has remained central to definitions of anarchism since.

Anarchism is not only defined as a viable political option, however. Prior to the adaptation of the word by Pierre-Joseph Proudhon in the middle of the nineteenth century, “anarchy” was mostly used to mean “the breakdown of order” or “violent disorder.” Although the use of the original Greek term is sometimes argued to be “far from implying social ruin, …[but] suggested progress and harmonious co-operation” (Ruth Kinna, Anarchism: a beginners guide, 8), the meaning that monopolized the word by the medieval period was the negative social disorder. Proudhon picked up on the “association between anarchy and the idea of popular revolution” (Kinna, 7) and begin to identify himself as an anarchist and to articulate anarchism as social order instead of social disorder. Because the word has been and continues to be used as both social disorder and social order, the word posses the challenge of being understood properly in accordance to which way it is being used. Donald Rooum points out, “A person who hears government by marauding gangs described as “anarchy” on the television news, and then hears an anarchist advocating “anarchy” is liable to conclude that anarchists want government by marauding gangs” (Donald Rooum, What is Anarchism?, 3). Whether these two meanings ultimately refer to disagreements about the validity or value of anarchism, or rather to completely different phenomenons altogether is a larger question then can be address at this point. Nonetheless, it should be noted that definitions of anarchism as social order are the ones that apply to anarchism as a political theory. Anarchism as disorder is generally used as an adjective (anarchy) and does not refer to a whole system of belief. Accordingly, I will focus the rest of this paper on defining the use of anarchism as social order.

As was mentioned earlier, the forms in which anarchism is defined differ a great deal. That is to say, sometimes anarchism is defined as a theory, a philosophy, a doctrine, an anti-doctrine, a politics, an anti-politics, a system, an anti-system, a life style, a culture, an action, and more. Let us consider a few of these more carefully.
Anarchism is most often treated in dictionaries, encyclopedias, and political science texts as a political theory, philosophy, or doctrine. Wikipedia defines anarchism as follows:
"Anarchism is a political philosophy encompassing theories and attitudes which consider the state, as compulsory government, to be unnecessary, harmful, and/or undesirable, and favors the absence of the state (anarchy.)"[ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism
Defining anarchism as a political philosophy treats common political beliefs as the key to defining anarchism. The theory of anarchism, not the actions of anarchist, is the defining core of anarchism. In this understanding, anarchism can be, and is, defined by the list of key beliefs that are a part of the theory. This list is not necessarily assumed to encompasses the beliefs of all anarchist, but it is assumed to represent the most fundamental beliefs of almost all anarchists. This sort if definition serves as a stable hook that can be used to determine if something is anarchist or not.
Some scholars of anarchism argue that it is a culture or life style not a theory. Uri Gordon suggests that, “we can indeed coherently speak about an ‘anarchist movement’ plain and simple – as long as we look at it through the lens of political culture, with all the richness and flexibility that implies” (Uri Gordon, Anarchy Alive!, 13-14). He continues to say, “The prism of political culture gives us a useful way to talk about anarchism that does not imply theoretical unity, ideological conformity or linear movement structures” (Gordon, 14). Many contemporary anarchist can be seen as a part of a sub-culture (or counter culture) that often shares more similarity in diet, mode of transportation, community projects, sometimes even dress and music, than in their beliefs. The influences of 60’s culture – hippy, punk, beat – on this culture is clear. Understanding anarchism as a culture gives it room to include a range of political beliefs. It also does not necessarily exclude those who are not a part of that culture from being anarchist – holding an anarchist political theory. It just puts the authority of the theory as secondary to the culture, a culture within a particular political context, which has shaped those theories. It also allows theories to differ as they do while maintaining the common cultural political phenomenon that exist today (and in differing way throughout the past) throughout the world.

While the length of this paper does not permit for a full fledged treatment of the various forms/schools of anarchism, it is significant enough for the definitions of anarchism that a brief note must at least be made. Ruth Kinna makes a fare, though far from complete, list of schools anarchism.
"Anarchists have appended a dizzying array of prefixes and suffixes to ‘anarchism’ to describe their particular beliefs. Anarchism has been packaged in anarcho-syndicalist, anarcha-feminist, eco-anarchist and anarcho-communist, Christian, social, anarcho-capitalist, reformist and primitivist varieties"(Kinna, 15).
The varieties of definitions of anarchism pose attempts to be fare to the variety of schools of anarchism. Any anarchist who tries to define anarchism is faced with the conflict of desiring to represent their form to anarchism while at the same time being fare to the countless other forms out there. In reading an introduction to anarchism written by an individualist anarchist the definition may refer to the widening of the choices of individuals (Rooum, 1), whereas a definition written by an anarcho-communist may refer to the primacy of communes (Bakunin, 208) or consensus. Inevitably some anarchist is going to have problems with any definition.

The question ensuing from these difficulties becomes whether or not anarchism can or should be defined at all. A couple of issues in particular rise this question. One issue is the presence of such a high level of diversity of approaches to anarchism leading to the seeming impossibility of anarchists agreeing on one definition. Bob Black articulates this struggle well saying, “To call yourself an anarchist is to invite identification with an unpredictable array of associations, an ensemble which is unlikely to mean the same thing to any two people, including any two anarchists” (Bob Black, The Sphincter of Anarchism, 31).
Another problem one runs into when attempting definitions of anarchism is the involvement of non-anarchist in anarchism. Especially when looking at anarchism as a cultural phenomenon, or a movement the question arises whether it is fare to call it anarchist if many of its participants do not identify as anarchist. Gordon states, “There is something risky about using the words ‘anarchist’ and ‘anarchism’ to talk about a group of people many of whom do not normally call themselves anarchist, and sometimes actively shun the label” (Gordon, 12). If anarchist culture gets its association with anarchism not from a common definition or theory but from the actions of its members, what can it say about anarchism if many of those members do not call themselves anarchist? Can the movement still be called anarchist because of the high degree of self identified anarchist involved and the family resemblance of anarchist theories? Or should the title be dropped because it presumes beliefs that some of the folks do not hold? These questions are not only important for defining anarchism, they are important for peace and solidarity within these movements.

Of those who approach these issues by resisting any attempt to define anarchism, there are two approaches which I will discuss here.
What I will call the apophatic (knowledge through negation) approach defines anarchism by what it is not, instead of what it is. This stance is exemplified (though not actually taken) by prominent anarchist such as Pierre-Joseph Proudhon and Alexander Berkmen. In Berkmen’s ABC’s of Anarchism he begins by stating,
"I must tell you first of all what anarchism is not.
It is not bombs, disorder, or chaos.
It is not robbery and murder.
It is not a war of each against all.
It is not a return to barbarianism or to the wild state of man.
Anarchism is the very opposite of all that."
Another way that anarchism is defined by its opposites, or what it is not, is in the slew of “anti” prefixes which often replace the use of the word anarchism. Anti-authoritarian, anti-statist, anti-government, anti-capitalist, all these and more are often used as a sort of substitute for overtly identifying something as anarchist.
The second, and last approach that I will cover, is what may be called the critical or deconstructive approach. This approach is not only a response to the problems of definition discussed above (diversity and non-anarchists in anarchism), but furthermore, it responds to a possible downfall in defining anarchism based on the theories of anarchism itself. The question raised is whether it is antithetical to anarchism to define it. A definition serves as an authority on the meaning of the word. It stands for what anarchism really is, it is the generalized expression of the diverse manifestations. But who writes this definition and what gives them the authority to define the nature of anarchism? If an anarchist does not agree with the definition given, should they not be free to dismiss this definition and put forth their own? It may be argued that a fundamental feature of anarchism is that it encourages continual disruption of any authority that is acting outside the bounds of consent. Daniel Guerin suggests that “Anarchism can be described first and foremost as a visceral revolt” (Guerin, Anarchism, 13). Anarchism is not a political theory or movement of followers. As an authority, a definition of anarchism is no more immune to rebellion against it, criticism, or dismantling of its power than a king is of this responses. Today some anarchists have come under the influence of post-structralist philosophy, which is also influencing this understanding (the relationship of these is significant but cannot be covered here for lack of space). Gordon addresses the intrinsically anarchist continual critique. He states, “the inherently diverse and voluntary nature of the anarchist project leaves it necessarily open to change and challenge from within” (Gordon, 46). If anarchism, as a project, will never be done, completed, exist without the need for change, than neither can a definition of anarchism be done. By its very nature of defining anarchism, a definition of anarchism as anarchist will not be definitive. In this way, nothing can be definitive about anarchism – not even the fact that nothing can be definitive about anarchism.

The difficulties one is faced with in attempting to define anarchism are significant for the outcome of the definition, as well as the anarchist movement itself, and the meaning of anarchism within today’s society. Anarchism’s wide variety of definitions may not only reflect its wide variety of understandings and forms, but possibly, the very rebellious nature of anarchism itself. In any case, all definitions given to anarchism are open game for destruction and re-writing alike. Maybe Alfredo Bonanno is on to something when he defines anarchism as “a stake we must play day after day” (Bonanno, The Anarchist Tension, 11).







BIBLIOGRAPHY

Bakunin, Mikhail, in No Gods No Masters, AK press: California, 2005.

Berkmen’s ABC’s of Anarchism, in Ruth Kinna, Anarchism: a beginner’s guide, Oneworld: Oxford, 2005.

Black, Bob, The Sphincter of Anarchism, in Uri Gordon, Anarchy Alive!, Pluto Press: London, 2008.

Bonanno, The Anarchist Tension, in Uri Gordon, Anarchy Alive!, Pluto Press: London, 2008.

Kinna, Ruth, Anarchism: a beginners guide, Oneworld: Oxford, 2005.

Goldman, Emma, What is Anarchism Really About, in Anarchism and other essays, Voasha Pubilshing, 2008.

Gordon, Uri, Anarchy Alive!, Pluto Press: London, 2008.

Guerin, Daniel, Anarchism, Monthly Review Press: New York, 1970.

Rooum, Donald, What is Anarchism?, Freedom Press: London, 1992.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Anarchism