![]() Most academics seem to have only the vaguest idea what anarchism is even about or dismiss it with the crudest stereotypes. Yet all this has found almost no reflection in the academy. Most, admittedly, fall shy of actually using the word “anarchist.” But as Barbara Epstein has recently pointed out anarchism has by now largely taken the place Marxism had in the social movements of the ‘60s: even those who do not consider themselves anarchists feel they have to define themselves in relation to it, and draw on its ideas. Revolutionaries in Mexico, Argentina, India, and elsewhere have increasingly abandoned even talking about seizing power, and begun to formulate radically different ideas of what a revolution would even mean. Anarchist or anarchist-inspired movements are growing everywhere traditional anarchist principles-autonomy, voluntary association, self-organization, mutual aid, direct democracy-have gone from the basis for organizing within the globalization movement, to playing the same role in radical movements of all kinds everywhere. It’s a pertinent question because, as a political philosophy, anarchism is veritably exploding right now. Why are there so few anarchists in the academy? Since there are very good reasons why an anarchist anthropology really ought to exist, we might start by asking why one doesn’t-or, for that matter, why an anarchist sociology doesn’t exist, or an anarchist economics, anarchist literary theory, or anarchist political science. What follows are a series of thoughts, sketches of potential theories, and tiny manifestos-all meant to offer a glimpse at the outline of a body of radical theory that does not actually exist, though it might possibly exist at some point in the future. Jonothon Feldman ( Indigenous Planning Times)
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |