Introduction: “Anarchy, Power, and Poststructuralism” by Allan Antliff
“Anarchy, Power, and Poststructuralism” by Allan Antliff first appeared in SubStance (Vol. 36, No. 2, Issue 113: The Future of Anarchism, 2007), published by the University of Wisconsin Press. This seminal work explores the intersections between classical anarchist thought and poststructuralist philosophy, particularly critiquing Todd May’s concept of “post-anarchism.” Antliff delves into the historical and philosophical roots of anarchism, revisiting key figures like Emma Goldman, Peter Kropotkin, and Michael Bakunin to challenge the poststructuralist framing of classical anarchism as naive or overly humanist. Instead, he argues that classical anarchism’s understanding of power as a socially embedded and generative force is both sophisticated and actionable. The essay underscores the importance of integrating anarchist principles with critiques of domination, offering a compelling counter-narrative to the claims of poststructuralist theorists like May. Antliff’s analysis enriches literary theory by bridging political philosophy and anarchist praxis, advocating for a nuanced reevaluation of power dynamics in both historical and contemporary contexts. This work remains vital for scholars exploring the evolution of anarchism and its implications for socio-political critique.
Summary of “Anarchy, Power, and Poststructuralism” by Allan Antliff
- Poststructuralist Anarchism and Its Critique of Oppression
Allan Antliff explores Todd May’s foundational work on poststructuralist anarchism, which critiques oppression as a dispersed social phenomenon rather than a centralized structure. May contrasts anarchism’s nuanced understanding of domination with Marxism, arguing that Marxism’s reliance on hierarchical power limits its potential for addressing societal inequalities (Antliff, 2007, p. 49). - Limitations of Classical Anarchism According to Poststructuralism
May contends that classical anarchism, rooted in a “humanist” conception of inherent goodness, lacks a constructive theory of power. He suggests poststructuralist anarchism transcends this limitation by recognizing power as both productive and tactical (p. 62). - Revisiting Classical Anarchism’s Conception of Power
Antliff refutes May’s claims, demonstrating that classical anarchists like Emma Goldman, Peter Kropotkin, and Michael Bakunin viewed power as generative and integrated into social and moral liberation. Kropotkin, for instance, argued for a morality based on the unceasing critique of social norms, framing power as essential to achieving individual and collective liberation (p. 113). - Anarchism’s Situated Politics and Social Critique
Goldman emphasized anarchism’s focus on dismantling oppressive structures, including religion, capitalism, and government, to create a society based on voluntary cooperation and individual differentiation (p. 62). This political framework rejects static moral absolutes and encourages the proliferation of diverse social identities and values. - The Creative and Destructive Dynamics of Power
Bakunin famously described power as inherently creative and destructive, a duality vital for individual freedom and collective equality. He argued that liberty thrives in mutual recognition and the socialization of property, contrasting sharply with the hierarchical models of Marxism (p. 267). - Poststructuralist Oversight of Anarchist Theoretical Depth
Antliff criticizes poststructuralist anarchists like Saul Newman for misrepresenting classical anarchism as disconnected from societal power dynamics. He attributes this oversight to a genealogy of thought influenced by structuralism and Marxism, which underestimated the anarchist critique of hierarchical power (p. 120). - Historical Evidence of Anarchism’s Practical Application
Antliff highlights the Moscow Federation of Anarchist Groups during the Russian Revolution as an example of anarchism in practice. Guided by Stirner’s egoist philosophy, the Federation implemented horizontal power structures and voluntary associations, countering the centralized authority of the Communist regime (p. 179). - Stirner’s Egoism and Its Revolutionary Implications
Max Stirner’s concept of egoism, emphasizing individual self-determination and rejection of abstract principles, deeply influenced anarchist thought. Stirner’s critique of state authority and hierarchical morality informed the Federation’s insurgent practices and its commitment to perpetual resistance (p. 453). - Anarchism’s Alternative Theorization of Power and Freedom
Antliff concludes that classical anarchism offers a robust framework for understanding power as socially situated and intrinsically linked to liberation. Unlike poststructuralist critiques, anarchist theory integrates materialist, individualist, and social dimensions of freedom, providing a historical basis for its claims (p. 490).
Theoretical Terms/Concepts in “Anarchy, Power, and Poststructuralism” by Allan Antliff
| Theoretical Term/Concept | Definition/Explanation | Source/Reference in Text |
| Poststructuralist Anarchism | A theoretical approach combining anarchist political philosophy with poststructuralist critiques of power and domination. | Explored in Todd May’s work and critiqued by Antliff (Antliff, 2007, pp. 49-62). |
| Power as Generative | The idea that power is not solely oppressive but can be a source of creativity, self-expression, and social liberation. | Emphasized by classical anarchists like Kropotkin and Bakunin (Antliff, 2007, pp. 113, 267). |
| Critique of Representation | The rejection of hierarchical and representational forms of politics that distance leaders from the people they represent. | Central to classical anarchism’s anti-authoritarian ethos (Antliff, 2007, p. 50). |
| Humanism in Classical Anarchism | A contested concept; May criticizes classical anarchism as reliant on the notion of inherent human goodness. | Critiqued by May; refuted through Goldman’s and Kropotkin’s situated politics (Antliff, 2007, pp. 62, 113). |
| Egoism | Stirner’s philosophy advocating individual self-determination and rejection of external authorities and absolute truths. | Detailed in Stirner’s The Ego and Its Own and its influence on the Moscow Federation (Antliff, 2007, p. 453). |
| Morality as Social Construct | The view that moral norms are not absolute but arise from social and historical contexts, subject to continual critique. | Kropotkin’s and Stirner’s anarchist morality theories (Antliff, 2007, pp. 113, 108). |
| Insurrection vs. Revolution | Stirner’s distinction: revolutions change who holds power, while insurrections reject domination altogether. | Discussed in Stirner’s critique of hierarchical power (Antliff, 2007, p. 453). |
| Horizontal Power Structures | Organizational models that distribute power equally among participants rather than centralizing it. | Practiced by the Moscow Federation during the Russian Revolution (Antliff, 2007, p. 179). |
| Anarchist Subjectivity | The anarchist idea of individuality as a process of self-liberation intertwined with collective freedom. | Explored in Bakunin’s and Goldman’s works (Antliff, 2007, pp. 267, 62). |
| Poststructuralist Critique of Humanism | The rejection of the Enlightenment subject as autonomous and self-contained, influential in poststructuralism. | Rooted in the structuralist critique and adopted by figures like Saul Newman (Antliff, 2007, p. 120). |
Contribution of “Anarchy, Power, and Poststructuralism” by Allan Antliff to Literary Theory/Theories
1. Critique of Representational Politics in Narrative Theory
- Antliff critiques hierarchical representational structures, which aligns with poststructuralist critiques of representation in literature.
- This view informs how power relations in literary narratives can be deconstructed to reveal domination and exclusion mechanisms (Antliff, 2007, p. 50).
2. Power as a Generative Force in Postmodern Narratives
- By reframing power as generative rather than solely oppressive, the work contributes to theories that view narrative structure and language as dynamic and evolving.
- This insight supports literary theories that examine texts as sites of creativity and self-expression, reflecting pluralistic social dynamics (Antliff, 2007, p. 113).
3. Posthumanist Ethics and Decentered Subjectivity in Texts
- Antliff challenges May’s poststructuralist framing of classical anarchism as humanist, offering an alternative view of subjectivity that is decentered and pluralistic.
- This resonates with posthumanist literary theory, which critiques the unified, autonomous subject and explores fragmented identities in texts (Antliff, 2007, p. 62).
4. The Anarchist Lens on Ideological Critique in Texts
- The article’s discussion of morality as a social construct aligns with ideological critique in literary theory, especially Marxist and poststructuralist approaches.
- Anarchist readings of texts can focus on challenging dominant norms and uncovering alternative visions of societal organization (Antliff, 2007, pp. 108, 113).
5. The Narrative of Insurrection in Revolutionary Literature
- The distinction between revolution and insurrection sheds light on how literature portrays acts of resistance and transformation.
- This can guide analysis of revolutionary narratives that emphasize grassroots, decentralized struggles over top-down power shifts (Antliff, 2007, p. 453).
6. Interplay of Power, Morality, and Freedom in Literary Characters
- Antliff’s interpretation of Kropotkin’s and Stirner’s theories suggests new ways to explore characters who navigate power dynamics and moral ambiguities.
- This contributes to ethical literary criticism, particularly in works that address liberation and domination (Antliff, 2007, pp. 108, 453).
7. Influence of Nietzschean Philosophy on Anarchist Narratives
- The linkage between Nietzschean philosophy and anarchist morality highlights overlaps with literary theories influenced by Nietzsche, such as deconstruction and existentialism.
- This underscores how texts engage with themes of power, individual agency, and the rejection of absolutes (Antliff, 2007, p. 109).
8. Horizontal Power and Decentralized Structures in Literary Forms
- The discussion of anarchist organizational models inspires literary analyses of non-hierarchical structures in narrative forms, such as fragmented or polyphonic storytelling.
- This aligns with Bakhtin’s theories of dialogism and heteroglossia (Antliff, 2007, p. 179).
9. Theoretical Grounding for Libertarian Critiques in Literature
- Antliff’s reassertion of classical anarchism as a viable framework for critique can underpin libertarian perspectives in analyzing texts that resist authoritarianism and celebrate autonomy.
- This is particularly relevant to dystopian and utopian literary traditions (Antliff, 2007, pp. 267, 490).
Examples of Critiques Through “Anarchy, Power, and Poststructuralism” by Allan Antliff
| Literary Work | Critique Through Anarchy, Power, and Poststructuralism | Key References from Antliff |
| George Orwell’s 1984 | – Analyze the hierarchical and oppressive power structures in the Party as examples of representational politics that anarchism seeks to dismantle. – Explore Winston’s resistance as an insurrectional act rejecting centralized power. | Critique of representational politics (Antliff, 2007, p. 50). Insurrection vs. revolution (p. 453). |
| Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World | – Critique the morality of the World State as a constructed system of domination, echoing Kropotkin’s emphasis on challenging societal norms. – Examine the characters’ struggles for individuality within a collectivist, oppressive system. | Morality as a social construct (Antliff, 2007, p. 113). Generative power of individuality (p. 108). |
| Toni Morrison’s Beloved | – Explore Sethe’s reclaiming of her narrative as an act of anarchist self-determination, challenging societal oppressions like racism and slavery. – Examine the fragmented storytelling as reflective of horizontal power structures. | Decentralized structures and horizontal power (Antliff, 2007, p. 179). Generative force of power (p. 113). |
| Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein | – Critique Victor’s attempt to impose absolute knowledge and control over life as a violation of Stirner’s rejection of abstract truths. – Analyze the creature’s struggle for self-identity and liberation as anarchist resistance. | Stirner’s egoism and critique of absolute truths (Antliff, 2007, pp. 453, 490). Individual liberation (p. 62). |
Criticism Against “Anarchy, Power, and Poststructuralism” by Allan Antliff
1. Overreliance on Classical Anarchist Texts
- Antliff’s heavy reliance on classical anarchists like Kropotkin and Stirner may limit engagement with more contemporary anarchist perspectives that address modern political contexts.
- This approach might appear nostalgic, overlooking advancements in post-anarchist scholarship.
2. Limited Engagement with Poststructuralist Nuances
- The critique of Todd May and other poststructuralist theorists could be seen as reductive, simplifying their arguments to set up a binary opposition with classical anarchism.
- Antliff does not fully engage with the depth and potential adaptability of poststructuralist anarchism.
3. Neglect of Intersectionality in Power Analysis
- The essay does not address how anarchist theories interact with intersectional frameworks that explore power along axes of race, gender, and class.
- This omission may weaken the applicability of the theories to broader contemporary social justice movements.
4. Underdeveloped Literary Application
- Although Antliff’s work touches on narrative and representation, it does not explicitly connect these insights to literary theory or specific literary works.
- This leaves the theoretical discussion abstract, without demonstrating its practical value in analyzing texts.
5. Lack of Empirical Examples Beyond Historical Anarchism
- The reliance on historical examples, such as the Russian anarchist movement, might make the critique feel dated and less relevant to modern anarchist practices and cultural phenomena.
6. Simplification of Marxism in Contrast to Anarchism
- Antliff’s critique of Marxism may oversimplify its nuanced approaches to power and class, presenting it as monolithic and overly hierarchical.
- This risks alienating readers who see value in integrating Marxist and anarchist perspectives.
7. Insufficient Exploration of Post-Anarchism’s Contributions
- The dismissal of post-anarchism as lacking depth might ignore its valuable contributions, such as the integration of Foucauldian critiques of power and Deleuzian multiplicities.
- This limits the scope of the article’s critical engagement.
8. Potential Overemphasis on Philosophical Rigidity
- The focus on defending classical anarchism’s philosophical rigor could alienate readers looking for practical solutions to contemporary political challenges.
9. Ambiguity in Practical Application of Power Theory
- While the essay effectively critiques hierarchical power, it does not provide clear pathways for implementing anarchist theories of power in modern political, cultural, or literary contexts.
Representative Quotations from “Anarchy, Power, and Poststructuralism” by Allan Antliff with Explanation
| Quotation | Explanation |
| “Anarchism interrogated relations of domination with the goal of destroying all representational forms of power.” (p. 50) | This emphasizes anarchism’s opposition to hierarchical and representational politics, a concept central to its critique of systems of power. |
| “The anarchist project, he argued, is based on a fallacious ‘humanist’ notion that ‘the human essence is a good essence, which relations of power suppress and deny.'” (p. 62) | This critiques classical anarchism’s perceived reliance on a humanist framework, suggesting a theoretical limitation that poststructuralist anarchism seeks to overcome. |
| “Goldman critiques religion for oppressing us psychologically, capitalist economics for endangering our corporal well-being, and government for shutting down our freedoms.” (p. 62) | This encapsulates anarchism’s multifaceted critique of domination, offering a foundation for understanding liberation across psychological, physical, and social dimensions. |
| “Kropotkin’s subject, who exercises power by shaping her own values to accord with a ‘superabundance’ of life, is antithetical to May’s claim regarding ‘classic’ anarchism.” (p. 108) | This disputes the portrayal of classical anarchism as lacking a nuanced conception of power, highlighting Kropotkin’s generative view of individual agency. |
| “The destructive urge is also a creative urge.” (p. 267) | Bakunin’s famous declaration underlines anarchism’s paradoxical approach to power, where dismantling oppressive systems is inherently tied to creating new, freer social orders. |
| “Morality entailed the unceasing interrogation of existing social norms, in recognition that morals are social constructs, and there are no absolutes guiding ethical behavior.” (p. 113) | This reflects the anarchist rejection of absolute truths, aligning with poststructuralist critiques of fixed morality in favor of fluid, contextual ethics. |
| “The insurgent strives to be constitutionless.” (p. 453) | Stirner’s notion of insurrection challenges traditional revolutionary goals, promoting perpetual resistance and individual sovereignty over abstract systems of power. |
| “The poststructuralist anarchist would shed the husk of humanism, the better to exercise power ‘tactically’ within an ethical practice guided by Habermas’s universalist theory of communicative action.” (p. 146) | This outlines poststructuralist anarchism’s evolution, focusing on tactical engagement with power and ethical dialogue rather than overarching ideological frameworks. |
| “Freedom without socialism is privilege and injustice, and socialism without freedom is slavery and brutality.” (p. 269) | Bakunin’s synthesis of freedom and socialism critiques both unbridled individualism and state-centric socialism, providing a balanced framework for anarchist theory. |
| “If labor becomes free, the state is lost.” (p. 152) | Stirner’s argument links liberation of labor to the dissolution of the state, connecting anarchist critiques of capitalism with anti-statist principles. |
Suggested Readings: “Anarchy, Power, and Poststructuralism” by Allan Antliff
- Antliff, Allan. “Anarchy, Power, and Poststructuralism.” SubStance, vol. 36, no. 2, 2007, pp. 56–66. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/25195125. Accessed 24 Dec. 2024.
- WILLIAMS, LEONARD. “Hakim Bey and Ontological Anarchism.” Journal for the Study of Radicalism, vol. 4, no. 2, 2010, pp. 109–37. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/41887660. Accessed 24 Dec. 2024.
- Feiten, Elmo. “Would the Real Max Stirner Please Stand Up?” Blasting the Canon, edited by Ruth Kinna and Süreyyya Evren, Punctum Books, 2013, pp. 117–37. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/jj.2354036.9. Accessed 24 Dec. 2024.
- David Struthers. “‘The Boss Has No Color Line’: Race, Solidarity, and a Culture of Affinity in Los Angeles and the Borderlands, 1907–1915.” Journal for the Study of Radicalism, vol. 7, no. 2, 2013, pp. 61–92. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.14321/jstudradi.7.2.0061. Accessed 24 Dec. 2024.