Wednesday, May 6, 2009

Postanarchism is not what you think: The role of postanarchist theory after the backlash

Postanarchism, according to Rousselle, “has never received the amount of attention or sympathy that it deserved from the radical community at large” (infoshop, 2007). He continues, “Part of the reluctance, I suspect, results from the empty spaces occupying the bookshelves of universities, alternative bookstores and radical lending libraries across the world today” (ibid.). However, the reception of postanarchist theory, I would suggest, is hindered less by the problems associated with its propaganda than with a fundamental misunderstanding, on the part of its critics (in particular: Antliff, 2007; Cohn & Wilbur, 2003; Cohn, 2002; Day, 2005; Franks, 2007; Sasha K, 2004; Zabalaza, 2003) of what the postanarchists’ claims have been. This tension has hindered further dialogue and clarification on the key issues raised in the postanarchist writings and has erected a barrier which can only be dislodged through a careful and attentive investigation into the way in which the debate has played out on both sides of the fence. Judgement must be reserved on the basis of whether the resulting demarcations are worth retaining or abandoning.

1 comment:

  1. well, post anarchism is too much of an academic thing. but anyway it shares some similar points with things that are more practice drive such as "postleft" anarchy and insurrectionalism. within anarcho syndicalism and plataformist currents it will not be that much liked for some reasons but these people will have to accept that it is an important theoretical development of recent anarchism. but as i said. more practice driven people who don align or that even criticize very much things like anarcho syndicalism and plataformism i think mostly are drawn towards things like hakim bey, and insurrectionalism and a lot of them to anarcho-primitivism.