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.