The Political Philosophy of Poststructuralist Anarchism summary paper

Anarchism
The Political Philosophy of Poststructuralist Anarchism summary paper
Terese Howard
11/15/09

Todd May’s book The Political Philosophy of Poststructuralist Anarchism exemplifies the common and influential relationship between anarchism and poststructralism. The relationship going from anarchism to poststructuralism is manifest in countless common critiques and focuses – of hierarchies, large scale politics, representation – within both. The relationship going from poststructrualism to anarchism is manifest in shifting anarchism view of human nature and power. It has even created a whole new prefix for a branch anarchism – “post-anarchist,” of which Todd May himself identifies.

Poststructuralist political philosophy, like anarchism, critiques both Marxism and capitalism, and does so with much common reasoning. Poststructuralists, along with anarchist, take Marxism to task for its hierarchical structure and theory. In theory this is exemplified by what Todd May calls “strategic political theory.” Strategic political theory, which Marx employed, draws a distinction between an “is-pole” and an “ought-pole” and takes on the project of strategizing how to cause a shift from the is to the ought. Strategic political theory is distinguished from tactical political theory in that “strategic political philosophy involves a unitary analysis that aims toward a single goal” (10). Tactical theory, which is employed by poststructuralists, on the other hand, “performs its analysis within a milieu characterized not only by the tension between what is and what ought to be, but also between irreducible but mutually intersecting practices of power” (11). Lenin’s treatment of capitalism as the one evil and one enemy, lead to his denial of any tactic other than the revolutionary over throw of capitalism. In this way, Marxism was caught in the dilemma of being for the workers (or proletariat) but having to tell the workers what they want. Both anarchism and poststructuralism see this distancing of the struggle from those affected by it (in this case the works) as a fundamental failure of Marxism. Behind this critique is the common anarchist and poststructuralist belief in local participation – or autonomy and irreplacibility.

Anarchism critique of Marxist “top down” imposition of equality in favor of a “bottom up” structure to revolution and society, is a method of seeking autonomy.[1] The people affected by choices or structures should be the ones with the power to make the choices and create the structures. Both the capitalist boss structure and the communist state structure leave no room for autonomy because the decisions move in a top down fashion. Poststructuralist thought also resists these forms of hierarchy – as well as hierarchies of truth, origin, metaphysics and more – in favor of what May calls “micropolitics.” The genealogical approach, as influenced by Nietzsche and found in various manifestations in Foucault, Deleuze, and others, “yield a politics that is more local and diffuse than the large-scale politics that is better suited to grand narratives” (94). There is no true origin to serve as the source of political truth. Political struggles are imbedded in particular contexts and no universal theory is going to solve all the problems. In this way, both anarchism and poststructuralism call for a politics of micro people groups over that of macro governments.

Furthermore, and along these same lines, anarchists and poststructuralists are anti-representation. For anarchists, political representation is a denial of the political power and existence of every person. The idea of political representation is that someone else is more fit to have political power – someone who can stand in for me. Through this practice anarchists argue that political power is turned into the work of a few instead of the work of all as it should be. Foucault and Deleuze refer to this as the “indignity of speaking for others” (97). Poststructuralist philosophy holds high regard for the irreplacibilty of the individual. Each person is a particular phenomenon that cannot be represented by any other. May explains that, “the antirepresentational character of poststructuralist micropolitics occurs along two registers, one epistemic and the other political” (97). The impossibility of representation in knowledge serves both on its own terms and serves to influence the critique of political representation.

Two points of contention with 19cen (and even much current) traditional anarchism are worth noting between poststructuralisism and anarchism. Much of anarchist theory has been based on what May calls the twin assumptions of power as suppressive and humanist naturalism (human nature) (65). The idea that humans have an essential nature that is apt for functioning as an anarchist society, and is distorted by the suppression of the state government waiting to be freed to function in its pure state, underlies a great deal of anarchist theory. Poststructuralism, however, does not believe in human nature as an original and foundational essence of human kind. There is no human nature at all, only existence or phenomenon, human existence precedes any nature. In recent years however, some anarchists have been influenced by this notion within poststructuralism and have begun to articulate anarchist theories that do not depend on a human nature. The common anarchist treatment of power as purely suppressive – a negative force hindering and blocking people from action – differs tremendously from poststructuralist notions of power as a multiple and both suppressive and productive force. For Foucault power is everywhere, both for good and for bad. This multiplicity and productivity of power has increasingly become a part of anarchist thought in the past generation, as is seen in Uri Gordon’s, a contemporary anarchist, book Anarchy Alive!. Many anarchist today see power as both a force to be fought and a force to seek and use.

May, Todd. The Political Philosophy of Poststructuralist Anarchism Pennsylvania State University Press: University Park, 1994.

[1] Though poststructuralists break down the top-bottom framework and replace it with a multiplicity of powers as will be addressed latter.