Sociology of the Anarchists - Gozips.uakron.edu - The University of ...
Sociology of the Anarchists - Gozips.uakron.edu - The University of ...
Sociology of the Anarchists - Gozips.uakron.edu - The University of ...
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
<strong>Sociology</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Anarchists</strong><br />
Analysis <strong>of</strong> an Ignored and Misunderstood Movement<br />
[or]<br />
A Sociological Primer on Anarchism<br />
Dana Williams<br />
Anti-Copyright 1<br />
2003-2004 2<br />
<strong>The</strong> <strong>University</strong> <strong>of</strong> Akron<br />
Department <strong>of</strong> <strong>Sociology</strong><br />
Akron, Ohio<br />
(written in OpenOffice, an open-source word processor 3 )<br />
1 Anti-Copyright indicates that this piece may be copied at will for whatever purpose, including without<br />
credit (if need be). “Copyleft” is ano<strong>the</strong>r variation which allows for <strong>the</strong> free duplication <strong>of</strong> a piece<br />
granted that it is not modified in anyway, that credit is given, and is not sold. <strong>The</strong>se echo strong<br />
anarchist values. See Winstaley 2003 for more on <strong>the</strong>se ideas.<br />
2 Document created on August 9 th , 2003.<br />
3 “Open source”, <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> “copyleft” tradition, is a recently-coined term applied to a long-standing,<br />
cooperative tradition amongst computer scientists and programmers with a distinctly anarchist spin.<br />
“Free s<strong>of</strong>tware” is usually collectively designed and <strong>the</strong> source code (<strong>the</strong> nuts and bolts <strong>of</strong> s<strong>of</strong>tware)<br />
made publicly accessible/modifiable to anyone. This leads to constructive criticism <strong>of</strong> bugs and overall<br />
improvement <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> s<strong>of</strong>tware's functionality by a s<strong>of</strong>tware community. For more information on <strong>the</strong> free<br />
s<strong>of</strong>tware movement, please visit gnu.org. Also see Truscello 2003.<br />
[ Williams 1 ] [ this is a draft. do not cite. ]
Table <strong>of</strong> Contents<br />
TABLES OF DISCONTENT<br />
Reason and free inquiry are <strong>the</strong> only<br />
effectual agents against error.<br />
- Thomas Jefferson<br />
TABLES OF DISCONTENT.............................................................................................. 2<br />
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS................................................................................................... 4<br />
A NOTE ON SCHOLARSHIP............................................................................................ 5<br />
INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................7<br />
RESEARCH ISSUES.......................................................................................................... 9<br />
Research <strong>of</strong> Anarchist Problems............................................................................9<br />
SOCIOLOGICAL THEORY............................................................................................. 10<br />
<strong>The</strong> Study <strong>of</strong> Anarchism Within <strong>the</strong> Academy....................................................10<br />
Conflict................................................................................................................ 13<br />
Utilitarian/Rational.............................................................................................. 23<br />
Functionalism/Durkheimian................................................................................ 28<br />
Symbolic/Micro-Interaction.................................................................................31<br />
Contemporary Anarchist <strong>Sociology</strong>.....................................................................33<br />
VALUES............................................................................................................................35<br />
ACADEMIA'S ANARCHISTIC “WANNABES”............................................................ 39<br />
SOCIAL MOVEMENTS...................................................................................................41<br />
Critiques <strong>of</strong> Social Movement <strong>The</strong>orists............................................................. 41<br />
Social Movement <strong>The</strong>ory.....................................................................................47<br />
North American Anarchist Movement and Weber's Three Types <strong>of</strong> Authority.. 51<br />
Near-Modern North American Anarchist Movement History.............................53<br />
Religion and Spirituality......................................................................................55<br />
Labor Movement and New Social Movements................................................... 56<br />
Geographical........................................................................................................58<br />
INEQUALITY................................................................................................................... 62<br />
ORGANIZATION............................................................................................................. 64<br />
Anarchistic Organizational Forms....................................................................... 65<br />
Anarchistic <strong>The</strong>ories <strong>of</strong> Organization..................................................................70<br />
Anarchistic North American Organizations.........................................................72<br />
INDYMEDIA.....................................................................................................................81<br />
VIOLENCE........................................................................................................................87<br />
TEACHING....................................................................................................................... 94<br />
REFERENCES................................................................................................................ 104<br />
APPENDIX: ADDITIONAL ESSAYS ON ANARCHISM............................................127<br />
APPENDIX: GLOSSARY...............................................................................................128<br />
APPENDIX: MODELS OF ANARCHISM.................................................................... 131<br />
INDEX............................................................................................................................. 135<br />
[ Williams 2 ] [ this is a draft. do not cite. ]
Index <strong>of</strong> Tables<br />
Table 1. Social Movement <strong>The</strong>ories 51<br />
Table 2. Geographical Distribution <strong>of</strong> Union Membership in Infoshop Survey<br />
57<br />
Table 3. Correlation Between “Green” and “Red” Anarchist Ideology Within U.S.<br />
Geographical Regions 59<br />
Table 4. Green or Red North American Anarchist Journals and Presses 59<br />
Table 5. Organizational Forms 65<br />
Table 6. “Power fists” in <strong>the</strong> logos <strong>of</strong> anarchist and anarchistic organizations<br />
72<br />
Table 7. Radical Social Movement Organizations (RSMOs) 73<br />
Table 8. Summary <strong>of</strong> Anarchist organizations 74<br />
Table 9. Top 6 U.S. states or Canadian provinces with Critical Mass Rides 77<br />
Table 10. Top 9 States with Food Not Bombs collectives 79<br />
Table 11. Anarchistic Values <strong>of</strong> Local IMCs and Global IMC Network 82<br />
Table 12. Global Independent Media Centers per Region 84<br />
[ Williams 3 ] [ this is a draft. do not cite. ]
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS<br />
How can a rational be ennobled<br />
by anything that is not obtained by<br />
its own exertions?<br />
- Mary Wollstonecraft<br />
<strong>The</strong>ory from Rudy Fenwick, encouragement from Kathy Feltey, example from Noam<br />
Chomsky, reference help from <strong>the</strong> U. <strong>of</strong> Akron library, solidarity from activists<br />
everywhere, thoughtfulness from Greg Coleridge, passion from Emma Goldman,<br />
support/tolerance/love from Angela Kline (and countless o<strong>the</strong>rs), data from Chuck<br />
Munson.<br />
Thanks to <strong>the</strong> <strong>University</strong> <strong>of</strong> Akron Department <strong>of</strong> <strong>Sociology</strong> for permitting me <strong>the</strong> luxury<br />
to pursue my seditious interests and beliefs.<br />
Distraction and inspiration from <strong>the</strong> Akron Anti-Authoritarian Reading Group, Akron<br />
Food Not Bombs, <strong>the</strong> Nor<strong>the</strong>ast Ohio American Friends Service Committee, <strong>the</strong><br />
Cleveland Independent Media Center, Critical Mass Akron, Students Taking Action for a<br />
New Democracy, and all affinity groups. Kudos to all o<strong>the</strong>r anarchists who have inspired,<br />
advised, and participated in my research.<br />
I would be remiss to mention <strong>the</strong> importance <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Internet in this research, particularly<br />
<strong>the</strong> archives <strong>of</strong> Indymedia, A-Infos (<strong>the</strong> Anarchist Newswire Service), Infoshop.org, <strong>the</strong><br />
Anarchy FAQ, <strong>the</strong> Anarchy Archives (at Pitzer U.), and <strong>the</strong> Anarchist Yellow Pages.<br />
Music by Antibalas Afrobeat Orchestra, Susana Baca, <strong>the</strong> Blackheart Procession, Boss<br />
Hog, Drive Like Jehu, Enon, and Godspeed You! Black Emperor.<br />
[ Williams 4 ] [ this is a draft. do not cite. ]
A NOTE ON SCHOLARSHIP<br />
Revolutions are brought about<br />
by those who think as people<br />
<strong>of</strong> action and act as people <strong>of</strong> thought.<br />
- Emma Goldman<br />
This paper is not written for journal submission, nor for mandatory assignment (and as <strong>of</strong><br />
present, not for dissertation fodder—although that may change), but ra<strong>the</strong>r for a decidedly<br />
political purpose. Fur<strong>the</strong>r, this paper has a two-fold objective. One, to interject a<br />
consciousness and analysis <strong>of</strong> present-day anarchist movement into sociological thought.<br />
Two, to aid <strong>the</strong> anarchist movement in providing an academic context to its activism. It is<br />
this author's opinion that so-called “disinterested scholarship” is one <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> most<br />
disposable commodities around, a practice that feeds <strong>the</strong> Spectacle without a desire to<br />
engage it. “<strong>The</strong> Spectacle” is an idea coined by <strong>the</strong> Situationist <strong>the</strong>orist Guy Debord:<br />
In societies where modern conditions <strong>of</strong> production prevail,<br />
all <strong>of</strong> life presents itself as an immense accumulation <strong>of</strong><br />
spectacles. Everything that was directly lived has moved<br />
away into a representation.... <strong>The</strong> spectacle is not a<br />
collection <strong>of</strong> images, but a social relation among people,<br />
mediated by images. <strong>The</strong> spectacle cannot be understood as<br />
an abuse <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> world <strong>of</strong> vision, as a product <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
techniques <strong>of</strong> mass dissemination <strong>of</strong> images. It is, ra<strong>the</strong>r, a<br />
Weltanschauung which has become actual, materially<br />
translated. It is a world vision which has become<br />
objectified. (Debord year, p. x)<br />
Honest and inspired scholarship is <strong>the</strong> desired approach <strong>of</strong> this author, and every attempt<br />
to make <strong>the</strong> subject matter relevant to reality—and not <strong>the</strong> dusty shelves <strong>of</strong> library<br />
archives—has been made. As such, it should be stated from <strong>the</strong> outset that I am a strong<br />
sympathizer with anarchism in many <strong>of</strong> its formations, yet this “allegiance” has not<br />
discolored my objectivity.<br />
Herein anarchism is dealt with in its vast diversity and is channeled through my own<br />
personal interpretations and understandings. As a result, <strong>the</strong> anarchism presented herein is<br />
a blend <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> various trends I admire most. But, I have attempted to fairly include aspects<br />
that I strongly disagree with.<br />
Presently, this piece is a mind-numbing collection <strong>of</strong> insights, musings, history,<br />
impressions, personal <strong>the</strong>ories, etc. that are not properly formatted for ei<strong>the</strong>r academic or<br />
public consumption. Thus, if you are reading this, you will likely notice a disjointed flow<br />
to <strong>the</strong> subject matter. This not only unintentional, but utterly predictable considering how<br />
this is being patched toge<strong>the</strong>r from a broad and intimidating skeleton. I will [hopefully]<br />
have <strong>the</strong> humility and compassion to cut enthusiastically when <strong>the</strong> time arrives.<br />
[ Williams 5 ] [ this is a draft. do not cite. ]
Whenever possible, fur<strong>the</strong>r information is given to aid <strong>the</strong> reader in exploring foreign<br />
concepts within anarchist thought and movement. Footnotes and references are as<br />
complete as possible—yet due to <strong>the</strong> less-than-mainstream nature <strong>of</strong> anarchism, some <strong>of</strong><br />
<strong>the</strong>se materials are not as accessible as would be desired. If fur<strong>the</strong>r assistance is required<br />
in obtaining <strong>the</strong>se resources, please contact <strong>the</strong> author. I apologize for <strong>the</strong> nauseating<br />
over-use <strong>of</strong> footnotes. This will hopefully be remedied in <strong>the</strong> future.<br />
I feel somewhat unoriginal writing about anarchism, especially in a sociological context.<br />
It seems to me that <strong>the</strong>se two frameworks/world-views are highly compatible and that this<br />
has been hinted at for quite a long time without being said forthrightly. Also, many<br />
people have written about anarchism – favorably and very unfavorably – for many years<br />
within many disciplines (although not sociology, in my humble opinion), and as such I<br />
am not uncovering anything radically new. All <strong>the</strong> same, I think <strong>the</strong> link needs to be<br />
formalized and thrust out for all to see. That is what I attempt in <strong>the</strong> pages to follow.<br />
In <strong>the</strong> following literature reviews, I try to stay away from “radical” journals, especially<br />
<strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>rwise very useful Anarchist Studies and Social Anarchism (and even <strong>the</strong> more or<br />
less recognized Peace Review). <strong>The</strong>y are obvious examples <strong>of</strong> scholarly anarchist<br />
literature, frequently presented in a sociological context. However, using <strong>the</strong>m to<br />
construct a literature review on anarchism would be as creative as analyzing sports via<br />
Sports Illustrated.<br />
Think about it. Or don't. No one is going to force you, ya know?<br />
Thanks for understanding,<br />
Dana<br />
[Include a Ursula K. LeGuin quote from "<strong>The</strong> Dispossessed" for section header<br />
quotes]<br />
[ Williams 6 ] [ this is a draft. do not cite. ]
INTRODUCTION<br />
We make <strong>the</strong> world significant by<br />
<strong>the</strong> courage <strong>of</strong> our questions and<br />
<strong>the</strong> depths <strong>of</strong> our answers.<br />
- Carl Sagan<br />
<strong>The</strong>re are more than a few ways to slice anarchism. <strong>The</strong>re is no right way to do it, ei<strong>the</strong>r. I<br />
try to present in <strong>the</strong> pages that follow a few different approaches to slice anarchism in a<br />
sociological fashion. To do so involves a number <strong>of</strong> contrasting views.<br />
One approach is to deal with anarchism as a philosophy or anarchists as people – or<br />
ra<strong>the</strong>r, to study <strong>the</strong> <strong>the</strong>ory as opposed to <strong>the</strong> practice. A second approach is to analyze<br />
explicitly (and intentionally) anarchist organizations and organizations that behave<br />
“anarchistically”, but do not describe or intend <strong>the</strong>mselves as such. A third and final way<br />
is to explore anarchism via qualitative, quantitative, case studies, historical, and anecdotal<br />
studies and analysis.<br />
I have opted to try all <strong>the</strong> above.<br />
Anarchism has a long history, some argue a history that dates back to <strong>the</strong> inceptions <strong>of</strong><br />
humanity, o<strong>the</strong>rs at least since <strong>the</strong> mid-18 th Century. Regardless <strong>of</strong> how one dates<br />
anarchist history, it clearly has a wide, varied, and confusing history. It is an ideal, a<br />
philosophy, a utopia, a stepping-stone, a yard-stick, and a lifestyle. It is also known to<br />
much <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> world as an unmentionable word, a social disease, a state <strong>of</strong> societal decay,<br />
and a violent and chaotic thing. Anarchism has many champions and many enemies,<br />
ranging from assembly line workers, indigenous guerrillas, high school teachers, college<br />
students, artists and musicians, community organizers, and transients to heads-<strong>of</strong>-state,<br />
business press editors, police chiefs, and word-smiths everywhere who equate it with<br />
disorder.<br />
A library could be filled with all <strong>the</strong> world's anarchist literature, yet unless <strong>the</strong> average<br />
person were searching for it, such literature might never be encountered in life.<br />
<strong>Anarchists</strong> surely live in every city throughout <strong>the</strong> world, but most people never know <strong>of</strong><br />
<strong>the</strong>ir existence (or as with homosexual people, one never knows if <strong>the</strong>ir next door<br />
neighbor or co-workers might be one). An anarchist utopia is “no where”, but elements<br />
and tendencies <strong>of</strong> an anarchist society exist all around us. Indeed, many anarchists argue<br />
that anarchism is in all <strong>of</strong> us, it just takes a bully to bring it out <strong>of</strong> us and provoke us to<br />
resist.<br />
Academically, <strong>the</strong> concepts and values <strong>of</strong> anarchism have been studied since <strong>the</strong> founding<br />
<strong>of</strong> sociology. <strong>The</strong>y exist in Weber's <strong>the</strong>ories <strong>of</strong> authority, Marx's notion <strong>of</strong> class and<br />
imperialism, <strong>the</strong> symbolic interactionist <strong>the</strong>ory <strong>of</strong> spontaneous order, feminist analysis <strong>of</strong><br />
gender and sexuality, Durkheim's organic and mechanical solidarity, and within <strong>the</strong><br />
<strong>the</strong>ories <strong>of</strong> organizations and democracy. Every now and again, sociologists have written<br />
about anarchism; sometimes accurately, o<strong>the</strong>r times not. But, more <strong>of</strong>ten <strong>the</strong>y have<br />
[ Williams 7 ] [ this is a draft. do not cite. ]
indirectly wrote about <strong>the</strong> values it shares or <strong>the</strong> tools it uses to analyze society or bring<br />
about change. It is not surprising that <strong>the</strong> best anarchist writing has taken place welloutside<br />
<strong>the</strong> university, within <strong>the</strong> ranks <strong>of</strong> activists and practitioners.<br />
About me<br />
I should remark somewhere – and here is as good a place as any – that my own anarchism<br />
has grown over time to be influenced from many sources. I am not sure when I realized<br />
that I was an anarchist, but it was probably somewhere around 21 or 22, when my view <strong>of</strong><br />
communism/socialism was so tainted by <strong>the</strong> deplorable actions <strong>of</strong> Bolsheviks, Maoists,<br />
Stalinists, and <strong>the</strong>ir correspondingly drone political parties, that I realized that <strong>the</strong><br />
communism/socialism I had always believed in was really one grounded in anarchism—a<br />
complete rejection <strong>of</strong> a centralized, authoritarian power structure. I have always believed<br />
in democracy and self-determination too much for <strong>the</strong> aforementioned<br />
communist/socialist slime that has destroyed <strong>the</strong> Left's reputation.<br />
I have been greatly influenced by anarchist writers and activists, by feminists, by liberals<br />
and conservatives (who push not enough or in <strong>the</strong> wrong direction). And I have always<br />
been conscious on some level my own rejection <strong>of</strong> authority. It is refreshing to recall all<br />
<strong>the</strong> authority figures who have gotten so under my skin in just minor ways that <strong>the</strong>y<br />
provoked my usually calm self (or my sharp tongue) into action—from my first grade<br />
teacher to school bouncers to local thugs to cops on <strong>the</strong> beat. Thus, I have always had a<br />
strong feeling <strong>of</strong> dislike for being ordered around by individuals or “<strong>the</strong> system”.<br />
I am appalled at <strong>the</strong> micro- and macro-level violence that plays out around me, whe<strong>the</strong>r<br />
through bullies or abusive spouses, or through <strong>the</strong> military or corporations. My own few<br />
and minor acts <strong>of</strong> oppressive and violent behavior have personally repulsed me so much<br />
that I shiver at <strong>the</strong>ir memory, although it is nothing comparable to what is done by <strong>the</strong><br />
state, capitalism, and patriarchy, day-in and day-out.<br />
In o<strong>the</strong>r respects, I have tried to shrug <strong>of</strong>f all <strong>the</strong> privileges I have been given in my life,<br />
<strong>the</strong> privilege <strong>of</strong> White, straight male privilege. <strong>The</strong> privilege that one enjoys when<br />
coming from a middle-class, college-<strong>edu</strong>cated family. And <strong>the</strong> privilege that stems from<br />
living in <strong>the</strong> modern-day Roman Empire, where daily “struggle” is nothing like <strong>the</strong><br />
struggle in a dictatorship propped up by <strong>the</strong> US government. All <strong>the</strong>se privileges could<br />
allow me to live a successful life as a government technocrat or mid-level corporate<br />
manager. In that respect, my belief in anarchism (as a tool and a better world) is perverse<br />
to many, given my privileged disposition. A raving, dirty anarchist with dreadlocks is far<br />
easier for <strong>the</strong> media and elite to marginalize. For that very reason, I have decided to use<br />
my privilege against <strong>the</strong> system, to exploit cracks in <strong>the</strong> facade <strong>of</strong> elites, and to organize<br />
with those who are under <strong>the</strong> system's boot.<br />
Some days, I hope (naïvely perhaps) that my altruism will not lead to a bigger ego or bank<br />
account, but a r/evolution that a Columbus, Ohio anarchist refers to as his “retirement<br />
plan”.<br />
[ Williams 8 ] [ this is a draft. do not cite. ]
RESEARCH ISSUES<br />
<strong>The</strong> power to think<br />
and <strong>the</strong> desire to rebel.<br />
- Mikhail Bakunin<br />
Problems with studying anarchists<br />
● Small in number—super-minority <strong>of</strong> population<br />
● Secretive / paranoid (trust issues)<br />
● Decentralized—tough to locate/detect<br />
● Radical—lacking access to mainstream communication channels<br />
● Resistance to self-identifying<br />
● Marginalized politically—polls re: politics/parties leave <strong>the</strong>m out<br />
Problems with studying anarchism<br />
● Confusion / mis-information about definition<br />
● Competition with o<strong>the</strong>rs (ultra-right) over “ownership” <strong>of</strong> term<br />
● Fear re: “radical” things<br />
Alternative sources <strong>of</strong> information<br />
● Freedom <strong>of</strong> Information Act (FOIA)<br />
● Labadie Special Collections Library at U. Michigan (Ann Arbor)<br />
● AK Press<br />
Research <strong>of</strong> Anarchist Problems<br />
One way to study anarchism and anarchists from a sociological vantage point is via<br />
<strong>the</strong>ory (as done in <strong>the</strong> Sociological <strong>The</strong>ory chapter). A second vantage point is to identify<br />
and analyze <strong>the</strong> problems within anarchism in a sociological perspective. What follows is<br />
a short list <strong>of</strong> “problems” faced by <strong>the</strong> North American anarchist movement.<br />
Anarchist movement problems<br />
● burnout / “stickiness”<br />
● green vs. red debate (see “Geographical” section in Organizations chapter)<br />
● police surveillance and security culture<br />
● creation <strong>of</strong> “dual power” institutions<br />
● becoming more working class-focused<br />
● question <strong>of</strong> organizational scope: affinity groups to continental federations<br />
[ Williams 9 ] [ this is a draft. do not cite. ]
SOCIOLOGICAL THEORY<br />
Are you ready for <strong>the</strong> real revolution,<br />
which is <strong>the</strong> evolution <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> mind?<br />
- Public Enemy<br />
<strong>The</strong> Study <strong>of</strong> Anarchism Within <strong>the</strong> Academy<br />
It would be relatively accurate to say that sociology has steered clear <strong>of</strong> present-day<br />
anarchism. 4 As Gordon Marshall plainly puts it, “Sociologists have largely ignored or<br />
been critical <strong>of</strong> anarchist philosophy, yet it harbours a whole tradition <strong>of</strong> social<br />
organization, and a systematic <strong>the</strong>ory <strong>of</strong> how societies work” (Marshall 1998, p. 20).<br />
Marshall's entry in his “Dictionary <strong>of</strong> <strong>Sociology</strong>” fares better than <strong>the</strong> account in<br />
Johnson's (2000) dictionary. Marshall at least attempts to recount a few <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> main<br />
anarchist <strong>the</strong>orists and activists (Godwin, Proudhon, Bakunin, Kropotkin), but fails as<br />
most do to realize that major expansions <strong>of</strong> thought to encompass o<strong>the</strong>r considerations.<br />
Marshall's oversights may not be deliberate, since <strong>the</strong> dictionary's parameters do not<br />
include entries <strong>of</strong> contemporary <strong>the</strong>orists. Thus, it follows <strong>the</strong> usual description <strong>of</strong><br />
anarchism—in a purely historical context. To his credit, however, Marshall does mention<br />
Bookchin's social ecology. Johnson's text does not mention a single anarchist.<br />
Creagh (2001) notes <strong>the</strong> distance between anarchism and academics:<br />
Universities have consistently overlooked anarchism.<br />
Despite some remarkable but scattered studies in various<br />
fields, academics have never tried to form a school <strong>of</strong><br />
thought based on anarchist paradigms... Most research on<br />
anarchism – and <strong>the</strong> best – is done outside academia. (p. 19)<br />
This may seem curious or surprising to some, but remember that <strong>the</strong> academy is a very<br />
hierarchical system with built in mechanisms that make change and adaptation to <strong>the</strong> rest<br />
<strong>of</strong> society a slow process. Built in socialization <strong>of</strong> academics—to aspire to tenure and<br />
higher rank, and to avoid conflict with ideological opponents—brings about a culture in<br />
which so-called “deviant” ideas are scorned, particularly any semblance <strong>of</strong> favor or<br />
advocacy <strong>of</strong> such ideas.<br />
Although some scholars do discuss anarchism, <strong>the</strong>ir representation <strong>of</strong>ten appears to be<br />
pre-figuratively biased. Also, scholarship has yet to really tackle <strong>the</strong> most recent<br />
incarnation <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> anarchist movement, now more than a decade in <strong>the</strong> making. A gap <strong>of</strong><br />
quantitative research has particularly been evident.<br />
4 For a comprehensive, multi-faceted look at what anarchism is please see <strong>the</strong> appendix. <strong>The</strong>re <strong>the</strong> reader<br />
will find a number <strong>of</strong> explanations/definitions that approach <strong>the</strong> question “what is anarchism?” from a<br />
variety <strong>of</strong> useful vantage points.<br />
[ Williams 10 ] [ this is a draft. do not cite. ]
<strong>The</strong> increased focus upon anarchism may be attributed to, in part, <strong>the</strong> recent boom,<br />
especially in <strong>the</strong> West, to punk music subculture 5 and <strong>the</strong> proliferation <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Internet.<br />
Politically, recent anarchist organizing internationally may be explained by <strong>the</strong> decline<br />
and subsequent failure <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> authoritarian socialist states <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> USSR and Eastern<br />
Europe. Since <strong>the</strong>y represent a failed attempt to oppose capitalism, anarchism has once<br />
again risen to fill <strong>the</strong> void on <strong>the</strong> radical, anti-capitalist Left.<br />
Although frequently overlooked in <strong>the</strong> academy, anarchism has been <strong>of</strong> sharp focus by <strong>the</strong><br />
western media for a number <strong>of</strong> years now (again). Since <strong>the</strong> late 1990s, and especially<br />
after <strong>the</strong> anti-WTO meetings in Seattle, anarchists have been a fashionable target for<br />
media speculation and exaggeration. Reporters and popular writers have mused about<br />
anarchism, usually looking for a sensationalist hook for a story. <strong>The</strong> New York Times<br />
referred to anarchism—perhaps with dismay—as “<strong>the</strong> creed that won't stay dead” (Kahn<br />
2000). Newsweek showed its surprise: “<strong>Anarchists</strong>... where did <strong>the</strong>y come from?”<br />
(12/13/99, p. 4) Of course, most <strong>of</strong> this news coverage treats anarchism as merely ano<strong>the</strong>r<br />
spectacle in our crazy society, and usually divorces anarchists from <strong>the</strong>ir politics. Also<br />
curious is <strong>the</strong> frequent usage <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> phrase “self-styled” to describe anarchists, as if socalled<br />
anarchists are just “pretending” to be anarchists—sort <strong>of</strong> how maybe Democrats<br />
pretend to be Democrats or how baseball players are just pretending to be baseball<br />
players. Funny how we never hear <strong>of</strong> “self-styled Democrats” or “self-styled baseball<br />
players”!! [Do a Lexis-Nexis search on this phrase to show if it is being used more<br />
<strong>of</strong>ten now.] This is apparently ano<strong>the</strong>r attempt to convince <strong>the</strong> public that anarchists are<br />
merely confused and ill-informed trouble-makers.<br />
Anarchism fits into sociological <strong>the</strong>ory in <strong>the</strong> following two ways: 1) it <strong>of</strong>fers a critique<br />
<strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> problems in contemporary society and 2) it <strong>of</strong>fers a vision <strong>of</strong> a better society and<br />
ideas on how to move towards it. Thus, anarchism is nei<strong>the</strong>r only an “anti” movement<br />
against society, nor is it an arrogantly Utopian fantasy disconnected from reality. Ra<strong>the</strong>r,<br />
it <strong>of</strong>fers both critique and proposal on society and its issues. <strong>Sociology</strong> (particularly an<br />
activist sociology) would benefit, I think, from considering <strong>the</strong>se two perspectives.<br />
Anarchist scholarship in <strong>the</strong> social sciences is typically conducted in non-sociology fields,<br />
such as History or Political Science. In <strong>the</strong>se disciplines, <strong>the</strong> emphasis is on <strong>the</strong> past<br />
movements and figures <strong>of</strong> anarchism or <strong>the</strong> actions <strong>of</strong> non-state political actors (or worse,<br />
<strong>the</strong> process <strong>of</strong> political chaos). 6 It also has relevancy within economics as a nonmarket/capitalist<br />
version <strong>of</strong> goods/exchange. Anthropologically, it is akin to sociobiology<br />
and <strong>the</strong> development <strong>of</strong> human societies in a pre-state period.<br />
After a strenuous overview <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> various traditions within sociology, one is almost<br />
drawn to a post-modernist analysis <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> inter-plays with anarchism. All four <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
traditions studied below (conflict, utilitarian, functionalism, and symbolic interaction)<br />
5 For an article critical <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> union between anarchism and punk, see Nomous (2001?); and a view that<br />
praises <strong>the</strong> connection (O'Hara 1999). Anarcho-punk bands include: Against Me!, Aus-Rotten,<br />
Chumbawumba, Citizen Fish, Conflict, Crass, <strong>The</strong> Ex, Nausea, No Use for a Name, Oi Polloi, Poison<br />
Girls, Propagandhi, Reagan Youth, <strong>The</strong> Refused, <strong>The</strong> Subhumans, etc. (Source:<br />
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-punk )<br />
6 Please see <strong>the</strong> chapter Academia's Anarchistic “Wannabes” for more about how Political Science<br />
[predictably] gets it wrong 99 percent <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> time.<br />
[ Williams 11 ] [ this is a draft. do not cite. ]
have many points <strong>of</strong> contact, and no one <strong>the</strong>ory can even begin to address anarchism as it<br />
is understood and practiced today in North America. Whe<strong>the</strong>r in <strong>the</strong> general thinkers <strong>of</strong><br />
<strong>the</strong> traditions or in <strong>the</strong> details ascertained from <strong>the</strong>ir conclusions, anarchism remains<br />
elusive to all four traditions. However, as a broad discipline, sociology's various<br />
traditions can toge<strong>the</strong>r be used to understand anarchism. This is entirely logical, since<br />
sociology studies society, a thing that anarchists are intent on critiquing and influencing.<br />
Burawoy (1979), in his neo-Marxist text “Manufacturing Consent”, writes:<br />
<strong>The</strong> political implications <strong>of</strong> sociology stem from <strong>the</strong><br />
adoption <strong>of</strong> a particular philosophy <strong>of</strong> history in which <strong>the</strong><br />
future is <strong>the</strong> perfection <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> present, and <strong>the</strong> present is <strong>the</strong><br />
inevitable culmination <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> past. From this all else<br />
follows. By taking <strong>the</strong> particular experiences <strong>of</strong> capitalist<br />
society and shaping <strong>the</strong>m into universal experiences,<br />
sociology becomes incapable <strong>of</strong> conceiving <strong>of</strong> a<br />
fundamentally different type <strong>of</strong> society in <strong>the</strong> future; history<br />
is endowed with a teleology whose realization is <strong>the</strong><br />
present. <strong>The</strong> sociological imagination is riveted in <strong>the</strong><br />
present. What exists in natural, inevitable, and unavoidable.<br />
(p. 13, my emphasis)<br />
In contrast to such a self-replicating society and sociology, I wish to shave <strong>of</strong>f and<br />
emphasize interesting parallels from sociology's periphery to suggest and build a case that<br />
– as <strong>the</strong> World Social Forum proclaims – ano<strong>the</strong>r world is possible.<br />
[From Sociological <strong>The</strong>ory: (Fenwick Soc 560/U. Of Akron; 8/28/03 thru 12/2/03)]<br />
Using <strong>the</strong> “models <strong>of</strong> society” <strong>the</strong>ory, we see two primary models, <strong>the</strong> conflict model and<br />
<strong>the</strong> order model. Marx and Weber can be considered founders <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> conflict model<br />
which sees society as a collection <strong>of</strong> individuals and groups with conflicting interests,<br />
changing throughout time. Durkheim was a founder <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> order model which views<br />
society as primarily stable, with multiple interests that are working for <strong>the</strong> good <strong>of</strong> all<br />
society. In <strong>the</strong> model <strong>the</strong>ory, anarchists would fall neatly into <strong>the</strong> conflict model, seeing<br />
perhaps more conflict than Marx and Weber did at <strong>the</strong> time (which present-day Marxists<br />
largely acknowledge), such as racial, gender, sexual, and class oppression as integral parts<br />
<strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> prevailing order. However, anarchists are not only critics <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> present system,<br />
<strong>the</strong>y are (like Marxists) also envisioners <strong>of</strong> a new system, an organic system that would<br />
have order, but <strong>of</strong> a non-hierarchical nature (far different from <strong>the</strong> average order-model<br />
adherent).<br />
Sociologists wholly fall into <strong>the</strong> Enlightenment-era camps <strong>of</strong> Liberal or Radical, terms<br />
that Collins (1994, 38-39) distinguishes from present-day labels by “Big L Liberals” or<br />
“Little L liberals” and “Big C Conservatives” or “Little C conservatives” (which in<br />
sociology only someone like Thomas Carlisle might be considered a Conservative).<br />
According to <strong>the</strong>se value assumptions, anarchists may be located in <strong>the</strong> Radical (critical)<br />
[ Williams 12 ] [ this is a draft. do not cite. ]
camps <strong>of</strong> both <strong>the</strong> conflict and order models. Marx falls best in <strong>the</strong> Radical conflict model<br />
camp, Weber in <strong>the</strong> Liberal (non-conflict) conflict model, and Durkheim, Mead, and<br />
o<strong>the</strong>rs in <strong>the</strong> Liberal order model. Marx's view <strong>of</strong> communism was somewhat in <strong>the</strong> same<br />
camp as <strong>the</strong> anarchists in that he envisioned a future order that was Radical, but he was<br />
primarily a critic nor a visionary. Additionally, Marxists continued Marx and Engels'<br />
initial ideas in a direction that was less Radical and more Liberal by employing elitist<br />
“revolutionary” vanguards, <strong>the</strong> deceptive “dictatorship <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> proletariat” concept, and<br />
more individualistic (and thus Liberal).<br />
<strong>Anarchists</strong> are Radical critics <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> existent order, but envisioners <strong>of</strong> a better, more<br />
liberatory order. Although claiming anarchists believe in “order” may conflict (no pun<br />
intended) with many people's views <strong>of</strong> anarchism, it is, in fact, a widely accepted reality<br />
in anarchist literature—<strong>the</strong>y believe in order, but an order that is liberatory and nonoppressive/non-authoritarian.<br />
7 <strong>Anarchists</strong> may be studied in <strong>the</strong> order camp in smaller<br />
capacities than <strong>the</strong> rest <strong>of</strong> society, which likely suits many anarchists fine. Small-scale,<br />
local programs <strong>of</strong> mutual aid and solidarity are <strong>of</strong>ten integrated into communities as “dual<br />
power” projects (see Social Movement section for more on dual power). Thus, unlike<br />
most Marxist activists who have pre-planned <strong>the</strong> perfect society, anarchists work towards<br />
it, sometimes in small steps, thus allowing sociologists to study <strong>the</strong>se steps within <strong>the</strong><br />
order model. 8<br />
[Restivo (1993); Jaworski (1993); Welsh (1997): general academic/sociology <strong>the</strong>ory]<br />
Marx<br />
Conflict<br />
A major difference between Marxist and anarchist thought and research is very basic, yet<br />
very relevant to academics. Most Marxist thought currently takes place in universities,<br />
while most anarchist though takes place outside <strong>of</strong> universities—in zines, on <strong>the</strong> Internet,<br />
in meetings, and in <strong>the</strong> streets. This is perhaps <strong>the</strong> major reason why <strong>the</strong>re is such a deficit<br />
<strong>of</strong> “academic” anarchist thinking—practitioners are doing it as opposed to intellectuals.<br />
In essence, <strong>the</strong> practicing anarchists are <strong>the</strong> “academics” <strong>of</strong> anarchism. And, due to <strong>the</strong><br />
tendency for direct action and anti-authoritarianism (such as in regards to <strong>the</strong><br />
authoritarianism <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> academy), this trend is unlikely to reverse.<br />
According to Collins (1994, pre p. 80), Marx was not so much a sociologist as he was an<br />
economist, while his comrade Engels was <strong>the</strong> greater sociologist. <strong>The</strong>re were definite<br />
schisms between Marx and <strong>the</strong> anarchists, who also came into influence at <strong>the</strong> same time<br />
as Marx. Proudhon and Bakunin were two pivotal anarchist <strong>the</strong>orists and activists who<br />
came into contact with Marx during his lifetime. In both cases <strong>the</strong>re was a mixture <strong>of</strong><br />
7 This distinction is fur<strong>the</strong>r brought out in what I call <strong>the</strong> “Etymology Model” <strong>of</strong> anarchism (see<br />
Appendix).<br />
8 For a nice summary <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> disagreements anarchists have and had with Marx and Marxism, please see<br />
<strong>the</strong> excellent “Anarchy FAQ” (Frequently Asked Questions) at http://www.anarchistfaq.org, specifically<br />
Section H and Appendix: Anarchism and Marxism (in v9.8).<br />
[ Williams 13 ] [ this is a draft. do not cite. ]
friendship and later animosity. In Bakunin's case, it could be termed as a personal<br />
animosity between <strong>the</strong> two, with Marx expelling Bakunin from <strong>the</strong> International<br />
Workingman's Association (aka “<strong>The</strong> First International”). 9 <strong>The</strong>se schisms and<br />
differences aside, <strong>the</strong>re are many overlaps in Marx's sociology and that <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> anarchists.<br />
Fur<strong>the</strong>r, many anarchists would likely agree with Marx's (and Marxists') general<br />
conception <strong>of</strong> a conflict model; <strong>the</strong>y would sharply differ in <strong>the</strong> <strong>the</strong>oretically and practical<br />
transition to a just and liberatory order model.<br />
As a primarily a<strong>the</strong>istic political philosophy 10 , anarchists likewise rejected <strong>the</strong> Hegelian<br />
idealism which proposed a spiritual, quasi-religious explanation to society. Present-day<br />
anarchists would also largely agree with Marx's dialectical materialism, ins<strong>of</strong>ar as his<br />
critique rests on <strong>the</strong> economical creation <strong>of</strong> class. <strong>Anarchists</strong>, however, view economic<br />
class as only one <strong>of</strong> a number <strong>of</strong> oppressive relationships within society. Also to be<br />
considered, anarchists submit, are patriarchy, White supremacy, homophobia, and general<br />
authoritarianism. Chomsky and o<strong>the</strong>rs would likely partially agree with <strong>the</strong> Marxian<br />
claim <strong>of</strong> economic determinism as a primary factor in a material society, but broaden it to<br />
include o<strong>the</strong>r forms <strong>of</strong> production (social, cultural, political production). <strong>The</strong> existence <strong>of</strong><br />
unequal and oppressive gender relations had little to do with bourgeoisie or proletariat<br />
interests, but more to do <strong>the</strong> influence <strong>of</strong> patriarchy. Similarly, <strong>the</strong> way in which <strong>the</strong><br />
Western Hemisphere was cleared <strong>of</strong> its indigenous population and how Africans were<br />
stolen from <strong>the</strong>ir homelands to become slaves in <strong>the</strong> “new world” does not say much<br />
about <strong>the</strong> transition <strong>of</strong> feudalism to capitalism, but ra<strong>the</strong>r shows how racist Europeans<br />
were in <strong>the</strong>ir quest to justify <strong>the</strong> repression or “barbarous” peoples due to <strong>the</strong>ir<br />
“scientifically-proven” sub-humanity. Finally, subsequent Marxist thinkers placed <strong>the</strong><br />
role <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> State as <strong>the</strong> primary organ <strong>of</strong> political power to seize in order to evolve<br />
capitalism into socialism (and <strong>the</strong>n communism). This naïve application <strong>of</strong> political<br />
dictatorship would rear its ugly head in numerous countries, and prove <strong>the</strong> Marxist strain<br />
known as Bolshevism as a sham to <strong>the</strong> ideas <strong>of</strong> socialism. Leninist and Stalinist Soviet<br />
Union, Castroist Cuba, and Maoist China stand as incredible examples <strong>of</strong> this insult. See<br />
Fernandez (2001) for more on Castro's oppression in Cuba.<br />
Mbah (1997) notes similar things in Marx's “undeveloped” stage <strong>of</strong> economic<br />
development in a study <strong>of</strong> African tribes. He does not provide much in <strong>the</strong> way <strong>of</strong><br />
research, but his claims support Marx's general <strong>the</strong>sis, although Mbah's portrayal <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>se<br />
societies is a more explicitly anarcho-communist society than <strong>the</strong> one Marx paints. (Marx<br />
did view <strong>the</strong> State as “wi<strong>the</strong>ring away” after communist revolution, something that<br />
definitely did not happen after <strong>the</strong> Bolshevik revolution <strong>of</strong> 1917 in Russia. Even though<br />
his process was mis-ordered in respect to anarchists and <strong>the</strong> fact that he incorrectly<br />
predicted <strong>the</strong> future, his end-value was <strong>the</strong> same as <strong>the</strong> anarchists. This, <strong>of</strong> course, is large<br />
sector <strong>of</strong> disagreement within <strong>the</strong> socialists camps between Marxists and anarchists—do<br />
<strong>the</strong> means justify <strong>the</strong> ends? <strong>The</strong> anarchists would claim <strong>the</strong> means determine <strong>the</strong> ends.<br />
9 Bakunin wasn't <strong>the</strong> only anarchist who came into conflict with Marx. <strong>The</strong> philosopher Joseph Pierre<br />
Proudhon (<strong>the</strong> first person to call <strong>the</strong>mselves an anarchist) butted heads with Uncle Karl as well. CITE<br />
10 Leo Tolstoy is an anarchist <strong>of</strong> major exception as a Christian, although one excommunicated from <strong>the</strong><br />
Church for refusing to respect Church hierarchy (“Christianity in its true meaning destroys <strong>the</strong> state”)<br />
However, some disagree with <strong>the</strong> characterization <strong>of</strong> Tolstoy as an anarchist comparable to o<strong>the</strong>rs <strong>of</strong> his<br />
era (Goehlert 1981). Also, <strong>the</strong> contemporary Catholic Worker movement is a vital example <strong>of</strong> religious<br />
anarchism (Boehrer 2003).<br />
[ Williams 14 ] [ this is a draft. do not cite. ]
See <strong>the</strong> Models appendix for more on means and ends.)<br />
Still, anarchists differed (and differ) much more within <strong>the</strong> “order model” <strong>of</strong> sociology<br />
with Marx, than within <strong>the</strong> “conflict model”. That is to say, that <strong>the</strong>y agree with a great<br />
deal <strong>of</strong> Marx's analysis (conflict), but just not his solution (order). Or, it could be said,<br />
<strong>the</strong>y agree with much <strong>of</strong> his sociology, but not his ideology. Much <strong>of</strong> Marxist thinking is,<br />
however, added on to Marx's writing long after he died. Thus, Marxian thinking more<br />
closely represents what Marx actually did say, as opposed to what his followers<br />
interpolated.<br />
Revolutionary anarchists would agree with Marx in <strong>the</strong> dialectic; overthrowing capitalism<br />
to transition to <strong>the</strong> next epoch: socialism/communism. Some anarchists do not think that<br />
it has to take such a route, but ra<strong>the</strong>r could include an evolutionary change. This is<br />
sometimes called a “r/evolutionary” attitude. 11<br />
<strong>The</strong> Marxian notion <strong>of</strong> property seems ra<strong>the</strong>r influenced by anarchists, specifically<br />
Proudhon, who famously observed that property is <strong>the</strong>ft. 12 Property is not just a thing,<br />
Marx said, but a relationship, and anarchists would agree (and maybe add that property is<br />
also a weapon). When some have property, it means o<strong>the</strong>rs cannot have it, thus <strong>the</strong>re is a<br />
deficit <strong>of</strong> equality and power. <strong>Anarchists</strong> fur<strong>the</strong>r agree with <strong>the</strong> assertion that <strong>the</strong> state<br />
acts to protect economic power by way <strong>of</strong> property laws.<br />
Marx's notion <strong>of</strong> alienation is shared by anarchists: <strong>the</strong> division <strong>of</strong> labor and distancing <strong>of</strong><br />
workers from <strong>the</strong>ir own productive capacity and means can even be seen today. Workers<br />
in firms (blue or white collar) do not own what <strong>the</strong>y produce, but ra<strong>the</strong>r must sell <strong>the</strong>ir<br />
labor in <strong>the</strong> market as a commodity. <strong>Anarchists</strong> (and many Marxists) call this, none to<br />
complimentary, wage slavery. <strong>Anarchists</strong> believe in self-determination, and <strong>the</strong> workermanagement<br />
relationship is in direct conflict with this value. Incidentally, Marx was an<br />
astute anti-feminist and ra<strong>the</strong>r sexist: “[Marx] ran an authoritarian, Victorian home,<br />
regarded his wife as little more than housekeeper and mo<strong>the</strong>r <strong>of</strong> his children, and referred<br />
to her ... as merely a harried, 'silly' creature” (Collins 1994, p. 119, note 2).<br />
Once getting beyond Marx's class simplification <strong>of</strong> only bourgeoisie and proletariat, we<br />
see he also used many o<strong>the</strong>r classes, including petite bourgeoisie, managers, and lumpen<br />
proletariat. All <strong>the</strong> same, much <strong>of</strong> Marx's <strong>the</strong>ory rest upon only <strong>the</strong> first two classes. In<br />
fact, Marx claimed that <strong>the</strong> advance <strong>of</strong> capitalism would di<strong>the</strong>r out <strong>the</strong>se middle and<br />
lower classes, pulling some into <strong>the</strong> bourgeoisie and pushing most into <strong>the</strong> proletariat.<br />
Many bourgeoisie would be kicked out <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>the</strong>ir high class during economic swings<br />
(caused by crises <strong>of</strong> overproduction), as well. With <strong>the</strong> introduction <strong>of</strong> Weber into<br />
sociology, <strong>the</strong> understanding <strong>of</strong> societal divisions becomes richer.<br />
Weber<br />
Marx, <strong>of</strong>ten referred to as a single-cause <strong>the</strong>orist, had his ideas built upon by Weber, who<br />
11 Graham Purchase, an Australian academic, takes this approach, specifically as he combines anarchism<br />
with an ecological understanding.<br />
12 See Proudhon ?.<br />
[ Williams 15 ] [ this is a draft. do not cite. ]
perceived multi-dimensional causes—something anarchists agree with. Although<br />
economic power is important to consider, so is political power. <strong>Anarchists</strong> would point to<br />
<strong>the</strong> USSR as a perfect illustration <strong>of</strong> this: political power created economic power.<br />
Weber broadens his view <strong>of</strong> inequality to three dimensions: class, status groups, and<br />
[political] parties. Anarchist thinking is shared in all three <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>se. It should be noted,<br />
however, that while discussing Weber's positive intersections with anarchism that he was<br />
not, by any means, an anarchist, or even a socialist. According to Collins (1994, p. 82):<br />
“he truly did believe that capitalism was a superior social system”. That aside, Weber's<br />
contributions to conflict <strong>the</strong>ory are still important to <strong>the</strong> anarchist critique.<br />
Class is a group <strong>of</strong> people with <strong>the</strong> same life chances (<strong>edu</strong>cation, health care, protection,<br />
etc.), and <strong>the</strong> better one's income, <strong>the</strong> better one's life chances, and thus <strong>the</strong> higher one's<br />
class. <strong>Anarchists</strong> view this as <strong>the</strong> operating component in capitalism, or as Chaz Bufe<br />
sarcastically puts it: a “self-made man” is “a businessman with a fortune <strong>of</strong> $10 million<br />
who began life under <strong>the</strong> handicap <strong>of</strong> inheriting a mere $1 million” (Bierce & Bufe 1995,<br />
p. 123).<br />
Status groups are based upon cultural interests, consumption patterns, values, similar<br />
styles <strong>of</strong> dress, ethnicity, religion, and so forth. A number <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>se categories lend<br />
<strong>the</strong>mselves to current anarchist <strong>the</strong>ory, particularly ethnic and religious differences, such<br />
as <strong>the</strong>y play out in racism and xenophobia. <strong>The</strong> selective interaction amongst only one's<br />
own status group when compounded with <strong>the</strong> fact that some status groups have more<br />
prestige than o<strong>the</strong>rs, creates a society <strong>of</strong> apar<strong>the</strong>id or caste. Anarchist writers such as<br />
Crass (2001) note that White privilege in America can create a reality where a wealthy<br />
Black's status group is below a poor White's.<br />
Finally, parties are groups organized on behalf <strong>of</strong> class or status groups. This can be taken<br />
to mean “political parties” or a generic “party”/organization. A colleague <strong>of</strong> Weber,<br />
Robert Michels, wrote that even within parties, power is not always evenly distributed,<br />
thus leading to inequality. <strong>Anarchists</strong> confirm this, insisting on <strong>the</strong> creation <strong>of</strong><br />
organizations without hierarchy, while much <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Left operates within organizations<br />
that have hierarchical leadership structures. Fur<strong>the</strong>r, most anarchists reject outright<br />
electoral politics (if not on principle, at least as <strong>the</strong> only answer to political change), and<br />
thus do not form political parties in <strong>the</strong> modern sense <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> term, that interact with <strong>the</strong><br />
political system in <strong>the</strong> hopes <strong>of</strong> electing candidates to <strong>the</strong> existing State.<br />
Weber sees three kinds <strong>of</strong> authority (something that anarchists take very seriously):<br />
traditional, charismatic, and legal-rational. 13 Traditional authority is <strong>the</strong> stuff <strong>of</strong><br />
monarchies, priesthoods, and so forth, which places this “somewhat” at odds with<br />
anarchism, especially in regards to how <strong>the</strong>se authorities are <strong>of</strong>ten inherited, derived from<br />
“divine” right, or are closed.<br />
Charismatic authority is based upon <strong>the</strong> perceived extraordinary characteristics <strong>of</strong> an<br />
individual, for better or for worse. <strong>Anarchists</strong> have a similar uneasy relationship to this<br />
13 For more on Weber's three authority types applied to <strong>the</strong> anarchist movement, please see <strong>the</strong> Social<br />
Movement chapter.<br />
[ Williams 16 ] [ this is a draft. do not cite. ]
type <strong>of</strong> authority (particularly when it is practiced as an authority); <strong>the</strong> concept <strong>of</strong><br />
leadership has been challenging for contemporary North American anarchists, many <strong>of</strong><br />
whom assert “we have no leaders”; o<strong>the</strong>rs, like Jo Freeman 14 , who say this is little but a<br />
way to avoid accountability, and in <strong>the</strong> chaos allow an informal hierarchy to form. Thus,<br />
some anarchists say that leaders <strong>the</strong>mselves are not <strong>the</strong> problem, but <strong>the</strong> centralized <strong>of</strong><br />
leadership is. <strong>The</strong>refore group-centered leadership is more desirable. 15 Weber notes, and<br />
anarchists would probably agree, that charisma can be revolutionary, but leaders are<br />
mortal. <strong>The</strong> untimely deaths <strong>of</strong> Ghandi and King led to a leadership vacuum in <strong>the</strong> Indian<br />
and Afro-American liberation movements, vacuums that anarchists might ascribe to<br />
individual-centered leadership and not group-centered leadership.<br />
Ironically, in a review <strong>of</strong> Weber's <strong>the</strong>ory <strong>of</strong> authority, Blau (1963) states:<br />
<strong>The</strong>re is also an anarchistic streak in charismatic<br />
movements, a disdain for routine tasks and problems <strong>of</strong><br />
organization or administration, since <strong>the</strong> leader's inspiration<br />
and <strong>the</strong> sacred mission must not be pr<strong>of</strong>aned by mundane<br />
considerations. (Blau 1963, p. 308)<br />
Although Blau may be incidentally correct that <strong>the</strong>re is a “disdain for routine tasks” in<br />
some interpretations <strong>of</strong> anarchism, <strong>the</strong> whole premise is faulty. Using anarchism (which<br />
he does not do, explicitly) to describe charismatic authority (or even vice-versa) is ra<strong>the</strong>r<br />
contradictory, since anarchism refutes <strong>the</strong> charisma <strong>of</strong> individual leaders and does not,<br />
per se, reject organization. Indeed, two <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> most well-known North American anarchist<br />
<strong>the</strong>orists, Noam Chomsky and John Zerzan, wholly reject <strong>the</strong> suggestion that <strong>the</strong>y are<br />
charismatic leaders or idols <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> anarchist movement. 16<br />
Finally, legal-rational authority is <strong>the</strong> embodiment <strong>of</strong> authority in predictable standards.<br />
Authority derives from <strong>the</strong> position <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> individual, not <strong>the</strong> individual itself<br />
—“President” Bush is not powerful because he is George Bush, but because he is<br />
[conventionally, at least, not by merit <strong>of</strong> actually winning <strong>the</strong> 2000 election] President <strong>of</strong><br />
<strong>the</strong> United States. Thus, in <strong>the</strong>ory, those in power are under <strong>the</strong> auspice <strong>of</strong> laws and rules,<br />
unlike charismatic or traditional authority where leaders are not beholden to anything<br />
except <strong>the</strong>mselves or traditional institutions (which <strong>the</strong>y can interpret). Charismatic<br />
authority can become institutionalized (especially after <strong>the</strong> passing <strong>of</strong> a leader—such as<br />
Jesus Christ) into a legal-rational form. <strong>Anarchists</strong> are also at odds with this brand <strong>of</strong><br />
authority, since it lends itself to slow change, monolithic behavior, a lack <strong>of</strong> local<br />
autonomy, and a strong tendency towards bureaucratization (which anarchists view as a<br />
main, anti-social component in present-day capitalist states). As Blau (1963) notes:<br />
Democracy is subsumed under <strong>the</strong> legal order, although<br />
Weber makes it clear that a legal order is not necessarily<br />
democratic. On <strong>the</strong> contrary, <strong>the</strong> prototype <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> legal order<br />
is autocratic bureaucracy. (Blau 1963, p. 314)<br />
14 Freeman c.1970.<br />
15 Crass (2001) writes favorably <strong>of</strong> SNCC's Ella Baker in this regard.<br />
16 Yet, as with charismatic leaders, Chomsky and Zerzan still do get devoted followers.<br />
[ Williams 17 ] [ this is a draft. do not cite. ]
Weber's conception <strong>of</strong> authority fits within his three primary modes <strong>of</strong> conflict:<br />
traditional authority within status groups, charismatic authority within class, and legalrational<br />
authority within party organizations. Weber apparently had a s<strong>of</strong>t spot for<br />
charismatic authority, and thought that legal-rational authority was a move into “an iron<br />
cage”. He said that if a society went socialist it would be very bureaucratic by taking over<br />
many businesses and nationalizing <strong>the</strong>m. Although he never said this was bound to<br />
happen, it is an impressive insight into <strong>the</strong> Marxist-Leninist “revolutions” <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> 20 th<br />
century.<br />
It would be safe to say that anarchists would likely reject all three <strong>of</strong> Weber's conceptions<br />
<strong>of</strong> authority, in favor <strong>of</strong> a fourth variety, which might be termed “respectful selfauthority”.<br />
Ra<strong>the</strong>r than placing authority in institutions or a small number <strong>of</strong> individuals,<br />
anarchists think that people should have a strong sense <strong>of</strong> self-determination. Or, as some<br />
anarchists have stated: <strong>the</strong>re is no authority but yourself. Yet, one's freedom ought to<br />
extend only as far as to not intrude upon <strong>the</strong> freedom <strong>of</strong> ano<strong>the</strong>r. Thus, individuals should<br />
have a say in decisions to <strong>the</strong> extent that <strong>the</strong>re are affected by <strong>the</strong>m. 17<br />
Weber's <strong>the</strong>ory on <strong>the</strong> state is especially lucid for anarchists. He defined (1922/1968) <strong>the</strong><br />
state as an organization “claiming a monopoly over <strong>the</strong> legitimate use <strong>of</strong> violence upon a<br />
given territory” (Collins 1988, p. 131). Thus, <strong>the</strong> three essential elements <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> state are<br />
(a) violence, (b) legitimacy, and (c) territory. States aspire to control <strong>the</strong> violence within<br />
<strong>the</strong>ir area. As such, <strong>the</strong>y maintain militaries, police forces, prisons, and law-making<br />
ability to control those living in <strong>the</strong> state by violence. O<strong>the</strong>r sources <strong>of</strong> non-state violence<br />
are marginalized and usually fought by <strong>the</strong> state because <strong>the</strong>y challenge <strong>the</strong> its monopoly.<br />
<strong>The</strong> state is also “legitimate” in its use <strong>of</strong> violence. When <strong>the</strong> state and its violence are<br />
perceived as “legitimate”, citizens will <strong>of</strong>ten accept this violence and are more likely to<br />
obey <strong>the</strong> state's orders. In a sense, <strong>the</strong> more legitimate a state is, <strong>the</strong> less raw violence is<br />
necessary, although it still maintains <strong>the</strong> monopoly on violence (CITE HERMAN &<br />
CHOMSKY, “MANUF. CONSENT”). Finally, a state exists within a certain territory–<br />
once that territory is slowly ceded or lost, <strong>the</strong> state loses its power and authority inside it.<br />
<strong>The</strong> state apparatus has <strong>the</strong> ultimate authority within its territory, but loses that authority<br />
outside its boundaries. Only <strong>the</strong> most powerful states can exert authority into o<strong>the</strong>r states<br />
– as <strong>the</strong> US commonly does – which shows <strong>the</strong> weakness <strong>of</strong> those states infringed upon<br />
relative to <strong>the</strong> powerful states. It is unclear how economic violence (structural<br />
adjustment, corporate globalization, embargoes, etc.) play into this <strong>the</strong>ory, since <strong>the</strong>y are<br />
non-military (even though <strong>of</strong>ten backed by military threat). See Collins' (1988) summary<br />
<strong>of</strong> Weber's <strong>the</strong>ory <strong>of</strong> politics and <strong>the</strong> state, pp. 131-135.<br />
O<strong>the</strong>r conflict<br />
Modern conflict <strong>the</strong>orists, writing most intensely during <strong>the</strong> middle part <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> 20 th<br />
century, recognized that social structures are coercive, focused on <strong>the</strong> primacy <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
economy in class struggle, and that <strong>the</strong>re was a relative autonomy <strong>of</strong> political authority<br />
from economic interests. Contemporary North American anarchists might likely agree<br />
17 For a few basic definitions <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>se concepts, see <strong>the</strong> Appendix's “Power model”, “Individual/Collective<br />
model”, and “Decision-Making model”.<br />
[ Williams 18 ] [ this is a draft. do not cite. ]
with much <strong>of</strong> this thinking, particularly that conventional social structures are coercive.<br />
Out <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> consensus that <strong>the</strong>re are things such as racism and sexism in society, this is<br />
logical. However, <strong>the</strong>re has been acknowledgment from some sectors <strong>of</strong> anarchism that<br />
say that <strong>the</strong>se cultural oppressions have somehow usurped class oppression, to <strong>the</strong> point<br />
that it is easier to gain support over issues <strong>of</strong> racial and gender discrimination than it is<br />
for issues <strong>of</strong> class oppression... a sentiment that would seem apparent in contemporary<br />
conflict <strong>the</strong>ory. Lastly, anarchists agree that political and economic authorities are usually<br />
different people and organizations, but would disagree that <strong>the</strong>y do not have a symbiotic<br />
relationship most <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> time. <strong>The</strong> capitalist State functions in-tandem fashion with many<br />
forms <strong>of</strong> authority; whe<strong>the</strong>r <strong>the</strong>y are truly independent (and at what level) is questionable.<br />
<strong>The</strong> classic study <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> American elite, done by C. Wright Mills in <strong>The</strong> Power Elite<br />
(1956) showed <strong>the</strong> “cohesive interpersonal network composed <strong>of</strong> top leaders in business,<br />
<strong>the</strong> federal executive branch <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> government, and <strong>the</strong> military, who successfully<br />
controlled key national decisions” (Moore, et al. 2002, p. 726). In Moore's recent study, it<br />
was discovered that <strong>the</strong>re was also a sizable connection with major nonpr<strong>of</strong>it<br />
organizations to this elite network.<br />
Dahrendorf argued in Class and Class Conflict in Modern Societies (1959) that Marx's<br />
assumption <strong>of</strong> class deriving from property was only partially correct. He states that<br />
authority actually supersedes property in power—an incredibly anarchist idea. Of course,<br />
economic power can be derived from property, but that property is attained and retained<br />
through <strong>the</strong> authority <strong>of</strong> economic laws and <strong>the</strong> State. Authority indicates control more<br />
surely than property does. Dahrendorf's definition <strong>of</strong> authority (<strong>the</strong> probability that a<br />
command will be obeyed) hinges upon <strong>the</strong> legitimacy given to <strong>the</strong> authority. From an<br />
anarchist standpoint, even though power may still exist, <strong>the</strong> authority <strong>of</strong><br />
someone/organization can be simply revoked by refusing to respect its position <strong>of</strong><br />
legitimacy. Thus, <strong>the</strong>y/it can still force someone's actions, but <strong>the</strong> command itself is not<br />
being respected (<strong>the</strong>refore authority is lost).<br />
Thus in modern society, most conflict plays itself out in organizations, primarily<br />
bureaucracies (intensely hierarchical organizations where orders flow from those above to<br />
those below). In any given conflict, <strong>the</strong>re are order-givers and order-takers (in this sense<br />
Dahrendorf is r<strong>edu</strong>cing class struggle to a binary conception, like Marx). 18 <strong>The</strong>se two<br />
groups have latent interests that become manifest, i.e. class consciousness. Unlike Marx,<br />
Dahrendorf did not believe that manifest interests was inevitable, and that certain things<br />
could enhance or impede <strong>the</strong> process <strong>of</strong> interest group formation (groups that act upon<br />
<strong>the</strong>ir interests in a class-conscious manner). <strong>Anarchists</strong> have historically approached <strong>the</strong><br />
question <strong>of</strong> “manifestation” differently than Marxists. Lenin specifically advocated a<br />
vanguard that would lead <strong>the</strong> people into revolution, while anarchists claim that only <strong>the</strong><br />
people can lead <strong>the</strong>mselves in to revolution. Any o<strong>the</strong>r process would be a subversion <strong>of</strong><br />
goals and needs by anarchist “leaders”, divorced from <strong>the</strong> people/workers/proletariat<br />
<strong>the</strong>mselves.<br />
18 Semantically, <strong>the</strong> word “order” is here more synonymous with “command” ra<strong>the</strong>r than with<br />
“organization”. <strong>Anarchists</strong> are frequently libeled as being pro-disorder. <strong>The</strong>y are, in fact, usually<br />
opposed to disorder and are pro-order, just not a hierarchical form <strong>of</strong> social organization.<br />
[ Williams 19 ] [ this is a draft. do not cite. ]
Lenski wrote “Power and Privilege” (BOOK or ARTICLE?) in 1966, stating that <strong>the</strong><br />
technological history <strong>of</strong> humanity can be viewed through <strong>the</strong> opposites <strong>of</strong> subsistence and<br />
surplus. As a new technology comes along to a stable, subsistence economy/society, it<br />
allows for greater surplus. Subsistence is based upon altruism (Kropotkin might have<br />
called it “mutual aid”), while surplus is based upon power—who controls <strong>the</strong> surplus.<br />
Lenski argues that as surplus increases, so does inequality. <strong>The</strong> ecology movement, and<br />
especially <strong>the</strong> anarchist influenced wings (such as deep ecology, social ecology, even<br />
primitivism) have advocated a more sustainable society, in balance with <strong>the</strong> natural world<br />
(upon which surplus is extracted), and <strong>the</strong> r<strong>edu</strong>ction <strong>of</strong> surplus for this very reason. Some<br />
“anarchists”, such as “Miss Ann Thrope”, asserted in an early issue <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Earth First!<br />
Journal (May 1, 1987) that things like <strong>the</strong> AIDS virus would in fact be good for <strong>the</strong> earth,<br />
because it would wipe out large numbers <strong>of</strong> humans, thus lessening humankind's<br />
ecological imprint upon <strong>the</strong> planet. Bufe (year?) in “Listen Anarchist!” attacks this<br />
notion, just as Bookchin does with his <strong>the</strong>ory <strong>of</strong> social ecology (which says nei<strong>the</strong>r<br />
humans nor <strong>the</strong> earth need be sacrificed to preserve <strong>the</strong> planet, and that hierarchy is<br />
actually at <strong>the</strong> root <strong>of</strong> both natural and human exploitation).<br />
Lenski sees a decrease in relative inequality since industrialization—which anarchists<br />
would likely argue is true in a certain sense. More people do own property than during<br />
feudalism and standards <strong>of</strong> living are higher (at least in <strong>the</strong> West). One view anarchists<br />
have is that this represents <strong>the</strong> continual throwing-<strong>of</strong>f <strong>of</strong> oppressions (feudalism, slavery,<br />
etc.) and that hopefully society is being compelled towards a great equilibrium. 19 O<strong>the</strong>r<br />
views may agree with Lenski's explanation <strong>of</strong> this phenomenon as resulting from <strong>the</strong><br />
democratic revolutions, technological advances that aid in sharing, technological<br />
specialization forcing greater wealth sharing, and <strong>the</strong> exploitation <strong>of</strong> non-industrial<br />
society. Obviously, this “r<strong>edu</strong>ction” in inequality in <strong>the</strong> West is a mixed-bag. Regardless,<br />
anarchist still criticize <strong>the</strong> gaps within <strong>the</strong> privileged countries and <strong>the</strong> gaps between<br />
privileged and non-privileged nations as scandalous and view State-capitalism as <strong>the</strong><br />
primary economic engine <strong>of</strong> maintaining this relationship.<br />
Wallerstein proposes a <strong>the</strong>ory <strong>of</strong> capitalism in his series <strong>The</strong> Modern World System<br />
(1975). He takes a more Marxist (and more geographical) approach to explaining why<br />
certain countries were able to amass power over o<strong>the</strong>rs. Core countries are <strong>the</strong><br />
economically dominant ones (which geographically-speaking are not really <strong>the</strong> center <strong>of</strong><br />
anything, but ra<strong>the</strong>r at <strong>the</strong> periphery <strong>of</strong> o<strong>the</strong>rs). Periphery countries are those who are<br />
exploited by <strong>the</strong> core countries. <strong>The</strong> periphery finds itself <strong>of</strong>ten in <strong>the</strong> midst <strong>of</strong><br />
geographically hostile locations, such as <strong>the</strong> Middle East. Inner-European countries did<br />
not excel as much in industrial capitalism (initially, at least) as much as England or <strong>the</strong><br />
US did, because <strong>the</strong>y have many shared borders and hostile neighbors (especially each<br />
o<strong>the</strong>r). <strong>The</strong> conflict between core and periphery countries is essentially as class conflict <strong>of</strong><br />
countries—something that anarchists would whole-heartedly agree with. <strong>The</strong> core<br />
countries today could be viewed as <strong>the</strong> G8 states, while <strong>the</strong> periphery would include<br />
much <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> underdeveloped or developing world, i.e. a neo-colonialist relationship.<br />
Modern anarchists have clearly understood this, as evidenced by <strong>the</strong> large number <strong>of</strong><br />
those who work on anti-corporate globalization efforts against international economic<br />
institutions, such as <strong>the</strong> World Trade Organization (WTO), World Bank, and <strong>the</strong><br />
19 See <strong>the</strong> Appendix's “Historical Tendency” model.<br />
[ Williams 20 ] [ this is a draft. do not cite. ]
International Monetary Fund (IMF). 20<br />
Critical <strong>the</strong>ory says that conflict is not in <strong>the</strong> realm <strong>of</strong> resources, but in <strong>the</strong> realm <strong>of</strong><br />
culture and ideas. Anarchism appears to be somewhat sympa<strong>the</strong>tic to this view, too, since<br />
<strong>the</strong> quest to overcome oppressive ideologies (and replace <strong>the</strong>m with freedom) is a battle<br />
<strong>of</strong> ideas, i.e. is socialism more just than capitalism, can egalitarian families be constructed<br />
minus patriarchy, etc.? <strong>The</strong> “oppression” <strong>of</strong> rationalization kills our creativity, says<br />
critical <strong>the</strong>ory, and anarchist would likely say similar things (<strong>the</strong> Machiavellian quest for<br />
economic efficiency is detrimental to creative and liberating social relations).<br />
Georg Simmel's conflict <strong>the</strong>ory <strong>of</strong> sociation does not address inequality, but abstract<br />
forms. He says society is patterned interactions, in which humans interact with each o<strong>the</strong>r<br />
in patterns that exist on <strong>the</strong> level <strong>of</strong> individuals or nations. Simmel focused on <strong>the</strong><br />
patterns <strong>of</strong> interactions not <strong>the</strong> content itself. This can be applied to network <strong>the</strong>ory<br />
(where parties interact with each o<strong>the</strong>r in huge spiderwebs <strong>of</strong> connections). <strong>The</strong>re is a<br />
distinction between strong and weak ties. A close tie is an intimate or family connection,<br />
while weak ties are acquaintance connections. This difference would be useful for<br />
anarchists (and o<strong>the</strong>r leftists) to understand why <strong>the</strong> same people get recycled through<br />
<strong>the</strong>ir movements (via only strong connections). Weak connections (ties to outside groups)<br />
gives access to more information and thus more possibility for movement building—a<br />
fancy way <strong>of</strong> repeating <strong>the</strong> old adage: “don't preach to <strong>the</strong> choir”. Thus, each sociation has<br />
both positive and negative aspects: fighting and arguing over something (such as political<br />
views or values) is negative, but <strong>the</strong> fact that it is important enough to fight over is<br />
positive (according to Simmel's thinking).<br />
Simmel also distinguishes between conflict and competition: conflict requires <strong>the</strong> defeat<br />
<strong>of</strong> an opponent to achieve a goal, while competition is parallel efforts by opponents to<br />
achieve <strong>the</strong> same goal, but <strong>the</strong> defeat <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> opponent does not mean you are successful in<br />
completing your goal. This is a useful lens for <strong>the</strong> direct action movement to consider:<br />
does locking down a street for an hour or two accomplish a goal, even though <strong>the</strong><br />
opponent (police, <strong>the</strong> city, conference delegates, “<strong>the</strong> system”) is temporarily beat?<br />
According to Simmel, such things are not true conflict, but ra<strong>the</strong>r competition (in this<br />
example, competition for control over city streets or access, but not conflict that<br />
challenges/changes existing power relations). Perhaps a corollary to this <strong>the</strong>ory might be<br />
to say that competition can be channeled into conflict (via social revolution)?<br />
Concepts <strong>of</strong> conflict resolution can be derived from Simmel. First, inter-group conflict<br />
between group members can lead to factions, something all anarchists know about due to<br />
<strong>the</strong> strong feelings many anarchists have about things. In recent years, <strong>the</strong>re has been<br />
much contention within anarchist organizations about issues <strong>of</strong> racism, sexism,<br />
homophobia, etc. <strong>The</strong> “APOC” (anarchist people <strong>of</strong> color) movement has been very<br />
encouraging in one <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>se respects—collectives and conferences are occurring in many<br />
parts <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> US now.<br />
External threats, in <strong>the</strong> form <strong>of</strong> common enemies can unify factions and r<strong>edu</strong>ce internal<br />
20 Including o<strong>the</strong>r neo-colonist organizations and schemes: TABD, APEC, WEF, NAFTA, FTAA, MAI,<br />
and o<strong>the</strong>r alphabet soup acronyms.<br />
[ Williams 21 ] [ this is a draft. do not cite. ]
conflicts. This can be seen by anarchists and radical organizing against recent institutions<br />
where people converge to take direct action in spokes-councils and black blocs—even<br />
Marxists organizations take part and ignore <strong>the</strong>ir disagreements for <strong>the</strong> purpose <strong>of</strong><br />
confronting <strong>the</strong>ir common foe.<br />
Ano<strong>the</strong>r concept <strong>of</strong> conflict resolution says that highly centralized and highly<br />
decentralized organizations are <strong>the</strong> most successful in conflicts. Nothing illustrates this<br />
more clearly than how highly centralized and hierarchical organizations such as police<br />
forces are sometimes comparably matched with incredibly decentralized formations <strong>of</strong><br />
anarchist protesters. As Naomi Klein states that <strong>the</strong> anti-globalization movement is “a<br />
movement whose greatest tactical strength so far has been its similarity to a swarm <strong>of</strong><br />
mosquitoes” (Klein 2000b). Centralized groups are successful because <strong>the</strong>y can mobilize<br />
rapidly and efficiently. Decentralized groups are successful because <strong>the</strong>y must be fought<br />
one-at-a-time. Simmel (?) believes, however, <strong>the</strong> tendency is towards centralization, thus<br />
indicating to anarchists that <strong>the</strong>y must work hard to keep autonomy <strong>of</strong> organizations and<br />
keep power decentralized.<br />
Finally, conflict resolution <strong>the</strong>ory regarding multiple group affiliations shows how<br />
conflict can decrease with overlapping affiliations. To continue to example <strong>of</strong> street<br />
conflict, when anarchists and police both shop at <strong>the</strong> same grocery store, visit <strong>the</strong> same<br />
museums, belong to <strong>the</strong> same block club, take <strong>the</strong>ir kids to <strong>the</strong> same parks, etc., <strong>the</strong><br />
potential for conflict in o<strong>the</strong>r situations (direct actions) is r<strong>edu</strong>ced. More complex<br />
societies have more organizations and thus more overlap like this, thus r<strong>edu</strong>cing <strong>the</strong><br />
intensity <strong>of</strong> societal conflict. This perhaps is evidence <strong>of</strong> lessened racial and labor conflict<br />
in recent years (more integrated neighborhoods and more blurring <strong>of</strong> class distinctions).<br />
Collins (1994), however, is highly critical <strong>of</strong> Simmel's “conflict <strong>the</strong>ory”, which posits a<br />
ra<strong>the</strong>r individualistic and bourgeoisie version <strong>of</strong> that <strong>the</strong>ory. All <strong>the</strong> same, an interesting<br />
analysis that intersects with anarchism can be found in Simmel's “Essays in <strong>Sociology</strong>,<br />
Philosophy and Aes<strong>the</strong>tics” (1965). In a chapter called “<strong>The</strong> Sociological Error <strong>of</strong><br />
Socialism and Anarchism” he states that <strong>the</strong>se philosophies' quest for freedom are<br />
doomed because <strong>the</strong>y “always bring about domination because large groups must always<br />
be hierarchical” (discussed in Collins 1994, pp. 113-115). Interestingly, many anarchists<br />
also claim that broad, monolithic political movements and institutions are crushing <strong>of</strong><br />
human freedom (i.e. Bolshevism, Maoism, bureaucracy), and thus advocate a localization<br />
<strong>of</strong> decision-making and a federalization for larger-scale organization. Whe<strong>the</strong>r or not<br />
Simmel understands this reality <strong>of</strong> anarchist organization is questionable. 21<br />
Collins cites <strong>the</strong> similarities <strong>of</strong> Simmel's views to his contemporary Friedrich Nietzsche,<br />
who was, incidentally, popular reading amongst some anarchists <strong>of</strong> his time. 22 This point<br />
illustrates <strong>the</strong> importance that anarchist place not only upon socialism, but also individual<br />
freedom. <strong>The</strong> criticism lobbied by Simmel against anarchism—that it must be done in<br />
large groups—is inaccurate, but his general point is important in reference to democracy.<br />
<strong>Anarchists</strong> believe that democracy is best (and most easily) done in smaller groups, where<br />
21 For what it's worth, my guess is “no”.<br />
22 <strong>The</strong> Russian-American anarchist Emma Goldman wrote positively <strong>of</strong> Nietzsche's writing in her<br />
autobiography Living My Life (pp?). Yet, some also opposed Nietzsche—see Kinna (1995) regarding<br />
Kropotkin's opposition.<br />
[ Williams 22 ] [ this is a draft. do not cite. ]
a non-coercive consensus can actually emerge. This practice is well illustrated by <strong>the</strong><br />
affinity groups <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Spanish anarchists during <strong>the</strong> Spanish Civil War, whose federation<br />
in <strong>the</strong> CNT and FAI 23 was a powerful and flexible method for organizing during that<br />
social revolution. <strong>The</strong> most colorful recent exploration <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>se concepts can be found in<br />
Anarchy in <strong>the</strong> Age <strong>of</strong> Dinosaurs by <strong>the</strong> Curious George Brigade (2003). 24<br />
Utilitarian/Rational<br />
John Locke, <strong>the</strong> godfa<strong>the</strong>r <strong>of</strong> utilitarianism, believed in <strong>the</strong> expansion <strong>of</strong> individual rights<br />
and <strong>the</strong> idea <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> social contract. In society, each person has contractual rights and<br />
obligations to each o<strong>the</strong>r. While anarchists would agree with <strong>the</strong> general sentiment <strong>of</strong><br />
Locke's beliefs, <strong>the</strong>y would reject <strong>the</strong> notion that such rights and obligations would have<br />
to be codified in a “contract” or in <strong>the</strong> laws <strong>of</strong> a government. As Utah Phillips stated: “<strong>the</strong><br />
state can't give you free speech, and <strong>the</strong> state can't take it away; you're born with it, like<br />
you eyes and ears (exact quote?)” (DiFranco & Phillips 1996, “Anarchy”). Although<br />
Locke stated that <strong>the</strong> state should not rule, but govern, <strong>the</strong> distinction is a marginal one<br />
for anarchists.<br />
Jeremy Bentham argued against <strong>the</strong> penal system and debtor prisons—a sentiment that<br />
anarchists have always aligned <strong>the</strong>mselves with. Many “golden era” anarchists/radicals<br />
tended to spend long years in prison (like Bakunin and Berkman) for <strong>the</strong>ir political<br />
beliefs, writings, and activities. 25<br />
However, general utilitarian thinking asserts that pursuit <strong>of</strong> individual interests lead to a<br />
better society. Although anarchists believe strongly in personal freedom, <strong>the</strong>y would<br />
wholly reject <strong>the</strong> idea that simply pursuing individual interests (as if in a vacuum) would<br />
lead to a better society. In fact, most would argue that <strong>the</strong> self-centered drive <strong>of</strong><br />
capitalism has lead to <strong>the</strong> depersonalization and alienation <strong>of</strong> humans from each o<strong>the</strong>r. As<br />
xxxBakunin?xxx stated, “all anarchists are socialists, but not all socialists are<br />
anarchists”, <strong>the</strong>re is a general understanding that humans are social creatures and <strong>the</strong>y<br />
need each o<strong>the</strong>r both for <strong>the</strong> continuation and protection <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> species, but also for<br />
emotional and psychological reasons. 26<br />
That is not to say that anarchists would disagree with that being <strong>the</strong> effective way that<br />
modern capitalism operates (or wishes people to act). <strong>Anarchists</strong> have repeatedly<br />
remarked upon <strong>the</strong> push <strong>of</strong> capitalism to demand intense consumers, hand-over-fist<br />
barterers, and strong self-salesperson-ship. This push for ever increased efficiency is a<br />
numbing one. (In fact, Sheppard (2003a) argues that ra<strong>the</strong>r than being efficient,<br />
capitalism is actually incredibly inefficient!) <strong>The</strong> r<strong>edu</strong>ction <strong>of</strong> personal interactions (be<br />
23 Find more about affinity groups, <strong>the</strong> CNT-FAI, and <strong>the</strong> Spanish Civil War in <strong>the</strong> chapter entitled<br />
“Organization”.<br />
24 This book is published under <strong>the</strong> auspice <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> well-known (or perhaps notorious) moniker<br />
“CrimethInc.”, whose inclinations have consistently been towards a more self-empowerment anarchism,<br />
than a social movement anarchism.<br />
25 See Berkman 1999 and <strong>the</strong> Anarchist Black Cross ?? for more information about anti-prison beliefs <strong>of</strong><br />
anarchists.<br />
26 See Kropotkin's Mutual Aid and Glassman's excellent article (2000) on Kropotkin's sociobiology.<br />
[ Williams 23 ] [ this is a draft. do not cite. ]
<strong>the</strong>y economic <strong>of</strong> not) to cost-benefit arithmetic is not only an inaccurate <strong>of</strong> typical<br />
human behavior, but <strong>of</strong>fensive to anarchists. Emma Goldman proclaimed: “I believe in<br />
freedom, <strong>the</strong> right to self-expression; everyone's right to beautiful, radiant things”. Her<br />
remark eloquently located <strong>the</strong> anarchist priority in life: an inspired and creative existence<br />
—not a cutthroat one. Put perhaps ano<strong>the</strong>r way, anarchists have historically tended to be<br />
dreamers more <strong>of</strong>ten than accountants.<br />
<strong>Anarchists</strong> would, however, agree with <strong>the</strong> critique <strong>of</strong>fered by March & Simon (1957)<br />
when <strong>the</strong>y said that people do not attempt to maximize utility, but to satisfy it. Thus,<br />
rational choice <strong>the</strong>ory gave birth to “bounded rationality”. <strong>Anarchists</strong> understand this to<br />
mean that <strong>the</strong> poor do not usually ei<strong>the</strong>r rise-up or pull <strong>the</strong>mselves from poverty into<br />
suites because <strong>the</strong>y are simply trying to survive. It is next to impossible to expect a<br />
homeless person—or someone one paycheck away from <strong>the</strong> streets—to spend <strong>the</strong>ir time<br />
attempting to maximize <strong>the</strong>ir utility (if that were even possible with incomplete<br />
knowledge <strong>of</strong> all <strong>the</strong>ir options). Thus, people try to get by, and even to numb <strong>the</strong>mselves<br />
after long days <strong>of</strong> work with pleasant distractions like sports, drugs, TV, sex, and such.<br />
This approach could be viewed as a “minimization” instead <strong>of</strong> a “maximization”. <strong>The</strong><br />
closer one gets to <strong>the</strong> top, <strong>the</strong> more crucial it is to maximize one's utility, but <strong>the</strong> fur<strong>the</strong>r<br />
to <strong>the</strong> bottom <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> class pyramid, <strong>the</strong> more likely it is for to feel continually defeated.<br />
Again, March & Simon's idea that knowledge is limited extends to <strong>the</strong> realm <strong>of</strong><br />
organizations. Since no one person can conceivably have all relevant knowledge for all<br />
situations, all <strong>the</strong> time, organizations allow for a distribution <strong>of</strong> responsibilities and skills.<br />
Formal organizations, especially corporations, delegate roles and employees, thus<br />
overcoming <strong>the</strong> limitations <strong>of</strong> knowledge. Thus, Oliver E. Williamson argues,<br />
corporations and government replace <strong>the</strong> idea <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> truly free market approach (that<br />
everyone competing equally produces <strong>the</strong> best overall results) by this specialization.<br />
<strong>Anarchists</strong> would counter that this intense specialization (whe<strong>the</strong>r on a factory floor or in<br />
a white-collar cubicle) tends to bore <strong>the</strong> shit out <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> worker, thus r<strong>edu</strong>cing <strong>the</strong>ir joy in<br />
doing rewarding and creative work. Even though <strong>the</strong> values <strong>of</strong> corporations and<br />
government ought to be avoided by anarchists (specialization ad naseum,<br />
bureaucratization, large hierarchies), <strong>the</strong> initial assumptions should be taken to heart—<br />
<strong>the</strong>y are institutions founded on <strong>the</strong> premise that completely free market/utilitarian people<br />
cannot make <strong>the</strong> best choices all <strong>the</strong> time, thus <strong>the</strong>y unite under organizations for <strong>the</strong>ir<br />
(economic and political) benefit, respectively. <strong>Anarchists</strong> <strong>of</strong>ten take <strong>the</strong> same approach—<br />
with organization nearly anything can be accomplished. Also, <strong>the</strong> presence <strong>of</strong> o<strong>the</strong>rs<br />
(especially in non-hierarchical settings) inspires great confidence and strength. 27<br />
Exchange <strong>the</strong>ory, developed by George Homans in <strong>the</strong> 1950s, looked at how individuals<br />
interacted with each o<strong>the</strong>r. “Homans Law” asserts that <strong>the</strong> more that people interact, <strong>the</strong><br />
more <strong>the</strong>y will like each o<strong>the</strong>r. And <strong>the</strong> more <strong>the</strong>y like each o<strong>the</strong>r, <strong>the</strong> more <strong>the</strong>y will<br />
interact. This is mainly true, Homans said, in <strong>the</strong> case <strong>of</strong> equals interacting. This is a way<br />
<strong>of</strong> understanding how those <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> same class tend to interact with each o<strong>the</strong>r. Also,<br />
deliberate anarchists would say that organizers should attempt to break into this cycle by<br />
beginning to interact with those <strong>the</strong>y might not o<strong>the</strong>rwise; in doing so <strong>the</strong>y will help to<br />
27 <strong>The</strong> Industrial Workers <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> World, an anarcho-syndicalist union (“One Big Union” was <strong>the</strong>ir slogan)<br />
lived and brea<strong>the</strong>d <strong>the</strong> notion <strong>of</strong> organized solidarity and strength.<br />
[ Williams 24 ] [ this is a draft. do not cite. ]
develop more empathy for <strong>the</strong>m (and vice-versa). Building movements <strong>of</strong> resistance and<br />
building tolerance seems to be vital in this regards. Fur<strong>the</strong>r, efforts at multi-cultural<br />
<strong>edu</strong>cation and unity indicate <strong>the</strong> value that solidarity can play in minority group<br />
protection. Take, for instance, <strong>the</strong> threats that people <strong>of</strong> Muslim or Arab descent faced in<br />
<strong>the</strong> US following <strong>the</strong> attacks on September 11, 2001. Years <strong>of</strong> multi-culturalism helped<br />
non-Muslims and non-Arabs to realize that those facing attacks in <strong>the</strong> US were <strong>the</strong>ir<br />
bro<strong>the</strong>rs and sisters, and <strong>the</strong>y should stand with <strong>the</strong>m against racist and xenophobic<br />
behaviors. Thus, <strong>the</strong> country saw wide-spread solidarity with Muslims and Arabs,<br />
including anarchists standing guard outside <strong>of</strong> Mosques and neighbor visiting neighbor<br />
telling <strong>the</strong>m to come to <strong>the</strong>m if <strong>the</strong>y felt unsafe. Yet Hartung (1983) states that:<br />
Homan's human exchange <strong>the</strong>ory, <strong>of</strong>fer[s] barely concealed<br />
rationales for <strong>the</strong> continuation <strong>of</strong> things-as-<strong>the</strong>y-are in an<br />
exercise <strong>of</strong> politicalization by omission... [T]he competition<br />
<strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> marketplace, and <strong>the</strong> notion <strong>of</strong> pr<strong>of</strong>it maximization,<br />
lie at <strong>the</strong> base <strong>of</strong> human relations according to Homans...<br />
social order is contingent upon ei<strong>the</strong>r <strong>the</strong> distribution <strong>of</strong><br />
goods and services based on a paucity <strong>of</strong> talented and<br />
trained individuals hierarchically channeled; or upon a tacit<br />
social contract between “buyer” and “seller”. (Hartung<br />
1983, pp. 85 & 87)<br />
Thus, although at a basic level <strong>the</strong> ideas <strong>of</strong> solidarity seem to flow from Homans—people<br />
interacting increasingly in a pleasurable and positive way—anarchists would argue that<br />
<strong>the</strong> commodification <strong>of</strong> humans deeply insults <strong>the</strong> needs and vision <strong>of</strong> a free people.<br />
Peter Blau developed exchange <strong>the</strong>ory to explain society in general. He said that social<br />
structure is based upon exchange and had three components: 1) behavior is determined by<br />
expected reward, 2) norm <strong>of</strong> reciprocity, and 3) <strong>the</strong> norm <strong>of</strong> fair exchange. <strong>The</strong> third point<br />
has been an interesting one to anarchists recently, whe<strong>the</strong>r in terms <strong>of</strong> supporting<br />
campaigns <strong>of</strong> “fair exchange” goods and services, or in <strong>the</strong> <strong>the</strong>ory <strong>of</strong> “participatory<br />
economics” (aka “ParEcon”) developed by Michael Albert and Robin Hahnel. Albert<br />
writes (2000) that a fair remuneration (in a workplace, at least) should be based upon<br />
effort and sacrifice <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> worker.<br />
But, why don't <strong>the</strong> poor rebel? Marx thought it was because <strong>the</strong> methods <strong>of</strong> repression<br />
were arrayed against <strong>the</strong>m (anarchists would agree with this thought). Yet, Brian<br />
DellaFare wrote in “<strong>The</strong> Meek Shall Not Inherit <strong>the</strong> Earth” (BOOK or ARTICLE?)<br />
(1980) that socialization processes devalued <strong>the</strong> work <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> working class, thus<br />
convincing <strong>the</strong>m that <strong>the</strong>y earned what <strong>the</strong>y deserved. He saw evidence <strong>of</strong> this<br />
socialization in schools, in families, and in workplaces. Lower-class schools tend to be<br />
more oriented towards discipline and place less emphasis on creative thinking and<br />
exploration. Working class families tend to be more patriarchal and order giving and<br />
taking oriented, where as middle and upper class families deviate from patriarchy in many<br />
respects. Finally, at workplaces, <strong>the</strong>re are always people giving orders to <strong>the</strong> workers,<br />
while <strong>the</strong> managerial class is giving <strong>the</strong> orders (thus finding a more fulfilling existence).<br />
Thus, if people who receive <strong>the</strong> fewest rewards for <strong>the</strong>ir efforts believe <strong>the</strong>y deserve it,<br />
[ Williams 25 ] [ this is a draft. do not cite. ]
<strong>the</strong>y will not rebel. This is a fiercely anarchist argument—<strong>the</strong> state, patriarchy, and<br />
capitalism working to diminish <strong>the</strong> desire for freedom in people. <strong>The</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r side <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
coin suggests that <strong>the</strong> more say <strong>the</strong> one has in <strong>the</strong>ir life, <strong>the</strong> happier, more fulfilled, and<br />
more empowered <strong>the</strong>y will become... an anarchist existence truly! Thus, anarchists once<br />
again accept multiple reasons as <strong>the</strong> explanation for <strong>the</strong> lack <strong>of</strong> open rebellion in <strong>the</strong> US –<br />
both subtle propaganda/socialization and less-than-subtle repression.<br />
Anarcha-feminists would argue that many feminists are already anarchists (<strong>the</strong>y tend to<br />
resist authority and seek collective liberation). According to Farrow (2002): “Feminism<br />
practices what anarchism preaches. One might go as far as to claim feminists are <strong>the</strong> only<br />
existing protest groups that can honestly be called practicing <strong>Anarchists</strong>” (p. 15). Thus,<br />
<strong>the</strong> ideas <strong>of</strong>fered by Joan Huber about gender stratification come as no surprise. Huber<br />
saw that some societies had more equal rewards between genders than o<strong>the</strong>rs. In fact, <strong>the</strong><br />
most equal societies were those in which <strong>the</strong>re was <strong>the</strong> least restriction on women<br />
working outside <strong>the</strong>ir homes (and away from child rearing). <strong>The</strong> ability <strong>of</strong> women to be<br />
autonomous in <strong>the</strong>ir actions was key to <strong>the</strong>ir equality in rewards, compared to men. Huber<br />
does not seem to always state this, in particular in observing <strong>the</strong> growing equality in <strong>the</strong><br />
late industrial period and seeing various technological enhancements (she borrowed from<br />
Lenski) as <strong>the</strong> facilitators <strong>of</strong> this equality as opposed to increased political equality or <strong>the</strong><br />
feminist movement. (BUT, I COULD BE WRONG)<br />
If conflict <strong>the</strong>ory points towards <strong>the</strong> collective side <strong>of</strong> anarchism—arguing for class<br />
war/struggle, solidarity, collective resistance, communism—<strong>the</strong>n utilitarianism, in<br />
perhaps less <strong>of</strong> a strong way, points towards <strong>the</strong> individual side <strong>of</strong> anarchism. This<br />
includes <strong>the</strong> need for self-determination, <strong>the</strong> free will <strong>of</strong> individuals, and personal<br />
freedoms. Yet, <strong>the</strong> coldness <strong>of</strong> utilitarianism is usually predicated on <strong>the</strong> notion <strong>of</strong> an<br />
economic exchange, devoid <strong>of</strong> deeper concerns. Not to say that all things being<br />
exchanged are economic in nature, but that <strong>the</strong> exchange is conducted as if it were in a<br />
market place.<br />
However, it needs to be restated that anarchists do not share <strong>the</strong> assumption <strong>of</strong> utilitarian<br />
thinking that says that individuals in pursuit <strong>of</strong> personal interests and utility will create a<br />
better society. <strong>The</strong>y do however accept (in part) <strong>the</strong> classic Liberal desire to expand<br />
individual liberties (but place that expansion within <strong>the</strong> confines <strong>of</strong> collective unity and<br />
freedom). 28 How humans choose to act collectively is based on <strong>the</strong> idea <strong>of</strong> voluntary<br />
association, not coercion.<br />
Given that individuals are self-interested, how do <strong>the</strong>y behave socially/collectively?<br />
According to utilitarian thinking, <strong>the</strong>y act only ins<strong>of</strong>ar as <strong>the</strong>ir interests lead <strong>the</strong>m to. Why<br />
do [some] people give up some <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>ir autonomy and sovereignty? <strong>The</strong> answer <strong>of</strong>fered is<br />
usually that this allows people some control over o<strong>the</strong>rs' autonomy.<br />
Mancur Olson points to <strong>the</strong> “free rider problem” as a case where some enjoy public goods<br />
with no personal cost. <strong>The</strong> paradox is why would people contribute to a public cost when<br />
28 See <strong>the</strong> Appendix's “Individual/Collective” model for more on this premise.<br />
[ Williams 26 ] [ this is a draft. do not cite. ]
<strong>the</strong>y could get it for free? Of course, if everyone thought and acted so, <strong>the</strong> public good<br />
would not be paid for (and not just talking in economic terms), and no one would be able<br />
to enjoy it. Thus, how do social and political movements start and gain power when<br />
people can enjoy <strong>the</strong> gains <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>se movements without even participating in <strong>the</strong>m? Olson<br />
says that “selective incentives” are what keep people involved: <strong>the</strong> addition and<br />
subtraction <strong>of</strong> public goods. For example, why do people contribute money to public<br />
radio or television, while <strong>the</strong>y could still listen and watch <strong>the</strong>m without contributing? (Put<br />
aside, temporarily, <strong>the</strong> fact that <strong>the</strong>se services are paid for substantially through public tax<br />
dollars already...) Because <strong>the</strong>y are <strong>of</strong>fered incentives for doing so, like t-shirts, CDs,<br />
c<strong>of</strong>fee mugs, and so forth. <strong>The</strong> anarchist reaction to “selective incentives” might be that,<br />
yes, everyone needs to feel that <strong>the</strong>y are personally getting something out <strong>of</strong> contributing<br />
to such things (like NPR or PBS), but that <strong>the</strong>y do not (or ra<strong>the</strong>r should not) need to be<br />
based in <strong>the</strong> form <strong>of</strong> some material commodity.<br />
Olson writes (quoted in Collins, p. 169), “<strong>the</strong> larger <strong>the</strong> group, <strong>the</strong> far<strong>the</strong>r it will fall short<br />
<strong>of</strong> providing an optimal amount <strong>of</strong> a collective good”. <strong>Anarchists</strong>, <strong>of</strong> course, agree and<br />
feel that society itself (not only activist organizations) must be scaled down to a smaller,<br />
personal level. He also refers to a latent group which is a very large organization.<br />
<strong>Anarchists</strong> see latent groups as <strong>the</strong> overly large liberal organizations, such as <strong>the</strong> Sierra<br />
Club, National Organization <strong>of</strong> Women, and such—that have decent values, but are so<br />
top-heavy that individual participation in <strong>the</strong>m is almost meaningless.<br />
<strong>The</strong> anarchist understanding <strong>of</strong> why people contribute to movements, especially things<br />
like <strong>the</strong> anarchist movement is better explained by James Coleman.<br />
Coleman, in explaining his “second order free rider problem”, thought that zeal was a<br />
primary motivator for those who are passionate and willing to pay any cost. This<br />
conception points towards <strong>the</strong> acts <strong>of</strong> suicide bombers, Navy SEALS, and radical<br />
activists. Why would <strong>the</strong>y be willing to pay such high costs for a public good? Including<br />
Navy SEALS in this example along with radical activists shows <strong>the</strong> difference in <strong>the</strong>ir<br />
power position targets: SEALS ei<strong>the</strong>r participate because a) <strong>the</strong>y truly believe that<br />
military violence is necessary to protect American freedom or b) <strong>the</strong>y are mislead in <strong>the</strong><br />
real purpose <strong>the</strong>y play in geopolitics. Thus, are SEALS really expanding <strong>the</strong> public good<br />
by <strong>the</strong>ir actions, or are <strong>the</strong>y involved in war crimes? SEALS are usually involved in<br />
r<strong>edu</strong>cing <strong>the</strong> power <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> already powerless. Activists, on <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r hand, also feel <strong>the</strong>y<br />
expand <strong>the</strong> public good, although <strong>the</strong>y usually target <strong>the</strong> powerful (and try to r<strong>edu</strong>ce <strong>the</strong>ir<br />
power). Thus, both SEALS and activists both try to r<strong>edu</strong>ce o<strong>the</strong>rs' power, but in opposite<br />
ways, for divergent reasons.<br />
It is, in essence, altruistic behavior versus free riders, for those who enjoy public goods.<br />
<strong>Anarchists</strong>, <strong>of</strong> course, believe that all have a right to public goods, but that <strong>the</strong>y ought to<br />
be involved in securing and supporting those goods, and that <strong>the</strong> goods should be<br />
rewarded distributed to those who need <strong>the</strong>m most. (??) <strong>The</strong> emergence <strong>of</strong> norms is<br />
where <strong>the</strong> zeal comes from, Coleman says.<br />
Norms are 1) purposefully generated and individuals see <strong>the</strong>mselves as benefiting from<br />
<strong>the</strong> existence and observation <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>m, 2) enforced by sanctions (rewards for obeying,<br />
[ Williams 27 ] [ this is a draft. do not cite. ]
punishments for violating), and 3) norms are internalized, and thus people sanction<br />
<strong>the</strong>mselves. In terms <strong>of</strong> anarchism, <strong>the</strong>se three points are relevant to <strong>the</strong> ideas <strong>of</strong> order and<br />
law. Since anarchists believe <strong>the</strong>re can be order (even rules) without authority figures (or<br />
rulers), <strong>the</strong> idea <strong>of</strong> norms is very important. <strong>The</strong> first point, seems relevant to <strong>the</strong> example<br />
<strong>of</strong>fered by Fox (quoted in Barr 2002) about obeying traffic signals; not because its <strong>the</strong><br />
law, but because its a good idea—everyone benefits from observing <strong>the</strong>m. Fox explains:<br />
Anarchy isn’t a rebellion against all norms... I obey traffic<br />
lights, but I don’t obey <strong>the</strong>m because it’s <strong>the</strong> law. I obey<br />
<strong>the</strong>m because it’s a good thing to do. (p. ?)<br />
<strong>The</strong> second point implies some kind <strong>of</strong> authority figure or body that sanctions o<strong>the</strong>rs for<br />
<strong>the</strong>ir behavior. <strong>Anarchists</strong> would likely suggest that communities sanction individuals for<br />
behaviors, or, as in <strong>the</strong> third point, that <strong>the</strong>y sanction <strong>the</strong>mselves. Thus, one does not<br />
drive through red lights in traffic because <strong>the</strong>y know <strong>the</strong> dangerous consequences to <strong>the</strong><br />
safety <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>mselves and o<strong>the</strong>rs (3), not because <strong>the</strong> police are going to arrest <strong>the</strong>m for it<br />
(2).<br />
Norms are still tenuous things. Many people disagree in society on what are problems and<br />
what to do about <strong>the</strong>m. <strong>Anarchists</strong> feel that emphasizing <strong>the</strong> first and third points above<br />
would advance <strong>the</strong> idea <strong>of</strong> a norm, more than <strong>the</strong> second point, which seems to point<br />
towards an authority figure or a law. [Explain this more... think about more...] Thus<br />
people give up autonomy for <strong>the</strong>se norms, in exchange for fairness, safety, and in<br />
exchange for partial control over <strong>the</strong> rights <strong>of</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r people's behavior. <strong>Anarchists</strong>, and<br />
o<strong>the</strong>r left/liberal folk would call this “<strong>the</strong> common good”.<br />
Coleman fur<strong>the</strong>r states that <strong>the</strong>re are two ways to guarantee that norms are followed: 1)<br />
“leadership” that makes <strong>the</strong>m/encourages <strong>the</strong>m to follow it. Hire police, regulators, or<br />
o<strong>the</strong>r organizations to monitor and enforce <strong>the</strong> norms. But, in addition to being costly,<br />
anarchists feel that this infringes upon individual liberty. 2) Establish <strong>of</strong> social structures<br />
and closed social networks that allow for <strong>the</strong> internalization <strong>of</strong> norms by involved parties.<br />
<strong>Anarchists</strong> would like this attitude much more, because it seems to allow for localized<br />
norms—what is good for one local community might not be for ano<strong>the</strong>r. But Coleman<br />
points to ano<strong>the</strong>r problem, that <strong>the</strong> tighter a social network, <strong>the</strong> more internalization and<br />
incremental sanctioning. Studies show that homogeneous social networks are more likely<br />
to vote and that closed networks encourage zealotry. Conversely, heterogeneous social<br />
networks are less likely to vote and <strong>the</strong> less closed networks encourage free riding. For<br />
anarchists, this paradox exists: how to encourage a diversity <strong>of</strong> opinions and backgrounds<br />
and still encourage people to be active? Also, closed anarchist scenes also seem to foster<br />
zealotry, as does <strong>the</strong> anarchist movement itself—indicated by many suggestions to wholly<br />
reject reform or liberalism, and to “not compromise!”—which would indicate that “<strong>the</strong><br />
movement” is still ra<strong>the</strong>r insular.<br />
Good examples <strong>of</strong> “anarchist” zealotry can be found, in this author's opinion, in <strong>the</strong> acts<br />
<strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Animal Liberation Front (ALF) and Earth Liberation Front (ELF), and for <strong>the</strong> call<br />
by some anarchists to engage in armed resistance domestically (in an already<br />
marginalized movement). It would seem plausible that if anarchists read less Bakunin and<br />
[ Williams 28 ] [ this is a draft. do not cite. ]
CrimethInc 29 , and interacted more with <strong>the</strong> general population, <strong>the</strong>y would find that <strong>the</strong>y<br />
need to make anarchism a mainstream idea/tendency, not a separatist one. For fur<strong>the</strong>r<br />
examples <strong>of</strong> “no compromise” with Earth First! see Lange (1990).<br />
Functionalism/Durkheimian<br />
<strong>The</strong> notion <strong>of</strong> a collective conscience is central to Emile Durkheim's writing, a form <strong>of</strong><br />
“pre-contracted solidarity”. Durkheim uses, for instance, <strong>the</strong> work <strong>of</strong> Rousseau and his<br />
idea <strong>of</strong> a “general will” to understand solidarity and non-economic interests. Rousseau<br />
believed that society could be advanced by people talking out <strong>the</strong>ir differences, finding<br />
common ground, and thus uniting. Although this is considered a bit naïve by anarchists—<br />
those in power are not willing to discuss lessening <strong>the</strong>ir powers unless <strong>the</strong>y are somehow<br />
endowed with altruism or are up against a wall—it still has relevance to <strong>the</strong> general<br />
optimism <strong>of</strong> anarchists that humans can generally be trusted to understand <strong>the</strong> problems<br />
<strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> world given <strong>the</strong> proper information to do so. Flowing from Rousseau's general will<br />
would be <strong>the</strong> idea and method <strong>of</strong> “consensus decision making”, which most anarchist<br />
affinity groups and collectives operate on. Consensus can be seen as <strong>the</strong> syn<strong>the</strong>sis <strong>of</strong> both<br />
self-determination and solidarity, since once a general will (a common goal or politic) is<br />
accepted by a group <strong>of</strong> people, a non-hierarchical way is considered best to overcome<br />
differences in solving problems.<br />
Ano<strong>the</strong>r sizable French influence upon Durkheim was Montesquieu, who emphasized <strong>the</strong><br />
inter-connectedness <strong>of</strong> all social phenomena: social, economic, religious, political, etc.<br />
This view is very compatible with anarchism, which also sees all sectors <strong>of</strong> modern<br />
society as interlocking institutions which ei<strong>the</strong>r reinforce each o<strong>the</strong>r or can be modified to<br />
work against each o<strong>the</strong>r. For instance, anarchist believe <strong>the</strong> equalization <strong>of</strong> economic<br />
standing will bring greater political equality. <strong>The</strong> more fair our political institutions deal<br />
with <strong>the</strong> issues <strong>of</strong> race, gender, and sexuality <strong>the</strong> more fairly cultural and social<br />
institutions will reflect. And so on. (An artistic rendition <strong>of</strong> this idea can be seen in <strong>the</strong><br />
poster created by <strong>the</strong> Federation <strong>of</strong> Revolutionary Anarchist Collectives (FRAC-GL)<br />
which shows a brick being thrown into a system <strong>of</strong> gears bearing <strong>the</strong> following labels:<br />
war, capitalism, fascism, white supremacy, government, patriarchy, and homophobia.<br />
[Insert graphic <strong>of</strong> this poster as a “figure”?] )<br />
Herbert Spencer's monograph “<strong>The</strong> Social Organism” contrasted human societies with<br />
living organisms (<strong>the</strong> “organic analogy”) and greatly influenced Durkheim. <strong>The</strong><br />
similarities to Kropotkin's “Mutual Aid” study should not be lost: Kropotkin<br />
demonstrated how mutual aid tendency ran through animal species and through various<br />
stages <strong>of</strong> human societies. Durkheim differs with Spencer in that he rejects <strong>the</strong> idea <strong>of</strong><br />
“contractual solidarity”. <strong>Anarchists</strong> also echo this sentiment, saying that <strong>the</strong>re is a deeper<br />
basis <strong>of</strong> society than a “market system”, one based upon morality. Durkheim says precontractual<br />
solidarity comes from trust. Even where <strong>the</strong>re is no immediate trust between<br />
people (people who do not even know each o<strong>the</strong>r), anarchists suggest that <strong>the</strong>re can be<br />
and <strong>of</strong>ten cases is a good will between people.<br />
29 For a critical review <strong>of</strong> CrimethInc (2000), see Ryan (2004).<br />
[ Williams 29 ] [ this is a draft. do not cite. ]
Durkheim's notion <strong>of</strong> social facts (social structure), particularly in his Suicide study,<br />
indicates what is essentially an anarchist tension—while group cohesion is a strong<br />
indicator <strong>of</strong> avoiding suicide in <strong>the</strong> West, too much cohesion also indicates suicide (as in<br />
Japan). This can be interpreted as saying that too much or too little group cohesion is<br />
(generally) bad. <strong>Anarchists</strong> agree with this, and emphasize both <strong>the</strong> values <strong>of</strong> individual<br />
and collective cohesion, particularly in <strong>the</strong> form <strong>of</strong> voluntary association and federation.<br />
Extending Durkheim's terminology, this would be <strong>the</strong> common ground between egoistic<br />
and altruistic suicide.<br />
<strong>The</strong> “collective conscience” is <strong>the</strong> glue that holds toge<strong>the</strong>r society, according to<br />
Durkheim. <strong>The</strong> basis <strong>of</strong> social solidarity is moral in nature. Since solidarity is a key value<br />
to anarchists (see <strong>the</strong> Appendix's “Values” model), <strong>the</strong>re is much to say about this in<br />
anarchist context. <strong>The</strong> differences between “mechanical solidarity” and “organic<br />
solidarity” can be dealt with in an anarchist fashion—when society becomes more<br />
complex and moves towards a point where <strong>the</strong>re is widespread individualism, diversity,<br />
and such, solidarity becomes less about <strong>the</strong> mechanically replicated type <strong>of</strong> solidarity<br />
<strong>of</strong>fered to those <strong>of</strong> like-mind and kin, but more <strong>of</strong> a diverse kind <strong>of</strong> solidarity that<br />
respects those with differences. To an anarchist, solidarity is <strong>of</strong>fered not just to those like<br />
oneself, but specifically to those who are unlike oneself, but facing oppression and<br />
authority. <strong>The</strong> diversity <strong>of</strong> modern society (and <strong>the</strong> lack <strong>of</strong> individual or collective<br />
conformity) mandates this type <strong>of</strong> solidarity, and is why anarchists have long held that a<br />
diverse, modern society is more compatible to anarchism than a primitive one (although<br />
one might think <strong>the</strong> opposite).<br />
Durkheim rejected <strong>the</strong> utilitarian assertion that solidarity was merely contractual and<br />
rational. He thought that solidarity was, in fact, pre-contractual and that trust was <strong>the</strong><br />
basis for solidarity. Any anarchist would tell you <strong>the</strong> same thing—trust <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> common<br />
person is a defining characteristic <strong>of</strong> an anarchist. While Marxism has frequently argued<br />
that people must be lead to a revolution, anarchists think that common people have <strong>the</strong><br />
ability to do it <strong>the</strong>mselves, and trust in <strong>the</strong>ir abilities to do so. With <strong>the</strong> exception <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
powerful elite, anarchists trust most <strong>of</strong> society to do what is right (in Durkheim's moral<br />
definition: non-economic self-interest) and help o<strong>the</strong>rs. When variations (deviance, such<br />
as violent crime) occurs, anarchists still understand <strong>the</strong> ability <strong>of</strong> people to rise above<br />
<strong>the</strong>se things—specifically through struggling against <strong>the</strong> dynamics that foster such<br />
problems (patriarchy, racism, homophobia, violence, injustice, intolerance, and so forth).<br />
Functionalism asserts (and an anarchist would agree) that individuals, organizations, and<br />
institutions serve a functional purpose for that society. Thus crime, is normal, although<br />
not desirable by most. Fur<strong>the</strong>r things such as war, poverty, racism, sexism are also serve<br />
particular functions, although not desirable by most. <strong>Anarchists</strong> argue that war enriches<br />
weapons manufacturers, allows corporations access to resources and materials from<br />
places conquered (or occupied), and serves right-wing ideologues to justify <strong>the</strong>ir “might<br />
is right” philosophies. Poverty serves capitalism, by allowing owners cheap labor to pull<br />
from, to create <strong>the</strong> highest pr<strong>of</strong>its. Racism functions for <strong>the</strong> benefit <strong>of</strong> creating tensions<br />
amongst economic and social classes, by creating media images <strong>of</strong> criminals, and by<br />
providing cheap labor. Sexism exists to fulfill <strong>the</strong> need <strong>of</strong> patriarchal family dominance,<br />
easy male access to women as sexual objects, and to serve as capitalism's unpaid<br />
[ Williams 30 ] [ this is a draft. do not cite. ]
domestic workers. Of course, anarchists would like to see all <strong>the</strong>se “normal” dynamics<br />
done away with, but <strong>the</strong>y understand that <strong>the</strong>y are not mere accidents and that <strong>the</strong>y<br />
continue to exist because many people/institutions ei<strong>the</strong>r directly benefit from <strong>the</strong>m or<br />
have no desire to expend <strong>the</strong> effort to end <strong>the</strong>m.<br />
Durkheim's Elementary Forms <strong>of</strong> Religious Life (year?) <strong>of</strong>fers anarchists insight into <strong>the</strong><br />
reverence held for objects endowed with special meaning—for example flags, corporate<br />
logos (and <strong>the</strong> windows <strong>the</strong>y appear upon), swastikas, etc.—and signify some sort <strong>of</strong><br />
solidarity. Thus, anarchists ought to view <strong>the</strong>se things as poor conclusions made by<br />
o<strong>the</strong>rwise needing people. He sees two kinds <strong>of</strong> forces in society, <strong>the</strong> pr<strong>of</strong>ane and <strong>the</strong><br />
sacred. Inanimate (or pr<strong>of</strong>ane) objects such as flags can be transformed from pieces <strong>of</strong><br />
cloth to sacred objects and become part <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> collective conscience. Durkheim thinks<br />
<strong>the</strong>se symbols are necessary to retain society (by reminding individuals <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> group).<br />
Often, <strong>the</strong>y become more than mere representations <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> collective conscience and<br />
become a part <strong>of</strong> it. That is why <strong>the</strong>re is such strong reaction towards burning <strong>the</strong> flag or<br />
ripping up a Bible; it is as if someone were burning America or ripping up Christianity<br />
itself!<br />
<strong>Anarchists</strong> also might see <strong>the</strong> similarities in <strong>the</strong> microcosm <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> movement, such as that<br />
placed upon symbols such as <strong>the</strong> “circle-A” or <strong>the</strong> black flag. Of course, this is a<br />
generalization—and slight over-exaggeration—but a similar pr<strong>of</strong>ane-to-sacred<br />
transformation even occurs in anarchist circles. An additional interpretation <strong>of</strong> this may<br />
be seen by action by <strong>the</strong> black bloc to smash corporate windows in order to destroy <strong>the</strong><br />
illusion <strong>of</strong> power/ubiquitousness <strong>the</strong>se symbols exert. A symbolic action against a<br />
symbolic object.<br />
<strong>The</strong> process <strong>of</strong> giving up individualism for group solidarity should inform anarchists to<br />
<strong>the</strong> functioning <strong>of</strong> ultra-nationalism, religious fundamentalism, and corporatism. People<br />
<strong>of</strong>ten feel obligations to <strong>the</strong> whole, and thus sanction <strong>the</strong>mselves. <strong>The</strong>y give in, respect<br />
society, and gain a sort <strong>of</strong> moral/mental energy. According to Durkheim, this<br />
internalization allows people to “become” Americans or whatever. In fact, this can be<br />
extended to nearly any sector, demographic, and organization where people identify<br />
with/as something and thus must “give up” <strong>the</strong>ir individuality. <strong>Anarchists</strong> recognize while<br />
<strong>the</strong>re is nothing inherently bad in giving up some individualism for <strong>the</strong> collective, that it<br />
should not be done naively or uncritically. Fur<strong>the</strong>r, to identify too strongly with a group<br />
<strong>of</strong>ten leads to future rejection <strong>of</strong> immoral behavior by <strong>the</strong> group.<br />
Marcel Mauss and Henry Hubert wrote <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> idea <strong>of</strong> “mana”, which is a spiritual force<br />
that people all possess. <strong>The</strong>y thought that individuals will sometimes expropriate<br />
collective sentiments for personal gain. Even though is <strong>of</strong>ten considered in a religious<br />
context, it can also be applied economically or politically. For instance, a politician can<br />
exchange <strong>the</strong>ir extreme patriotism (and ability to sway politics) for votes or campaign<br />
contributions, just like a televangelist exchanges <strong>the</strong>ir extreme religiousness (and ability<br />
to pray well) for money. Collins (1994, p?) notes that this is similar to Weber's notion <strong>of</strong><br />
charisma. Is this where “leadership” comes from? And if so, what does this imply for<br />
anarchist organizations which claim (sometimes incorrectly) to not have leaders—or at<br />
least bosses?<br />
[ Williams 31 ] [ this is a draft. do not cite. ]
Symbolic/Micro-Interaction<br />
[Write a lot more here about this tradition... why does Marshall view this to be <strong>the</strong><br />
natural basis for anarchist <strong>the</strong>ory?]<br />
<strong>Sociology</strong> is largely compatible with anarchist vision, since it harbors “a view <strong>of</strong> society<br />
as spontaneous order” (Marshall 1998, p. 20), drawing from <strong>the</strong> symbolic interactionist<br />
tradition. According to Jones (1994):<br />
Collaborative or consensus decision making is based on a<br />
<strong>the</strong>ory, generally derived from <strong>the</strong> symbolic interaction<br />
school <strong>of</strong> sociology, that says <strong>the</strong> social order is a<br />
negotiated matter, continually subject to negotiation. (p.<br />
162)<br />
Symbolic interaction provides a beautiful justification for socialism (and, I would argue,<br />
anarchism): Mead claimed that humans talk in symbols, with shared meanings. This<br />
social interaction creates meaning for human lives. In essence, humans are social<br />
creatures, and could have no basis for “self” outside <strong>of</strong> a social community. Thus, brash<br />
individualists are incorrect, according to Mead and <strong>the</strong> micro-interactionists, because <strong>the</strong>y<br />
do not acknowledge that humans need social interaction in order to function at all. Cooley<br />
argued that thinking is barely more than an inner-conversation with our “self”. He also<br />
said that people cannot see <strong>the</strong>mselves without <strong>the</strong> mirror or o<strong>the</strong>rs to reflect back<br />
meaning to <strong>the</strong>m. Mead diversified Cooley's views and “looking glass self <strong>the</strong>ory”, but<br />
agreed that humans are social creatures and that without society, <strong>the</strong>y would not even<br />
have <strong>the</strong> ability to utilize abstract thinking – a heralded human trait.<br />
Mead makes <strong>the</strong> argument that <strong>the</strong>re are three components to <strong>the</strong> “self”: multiple “me's”,<br />
<strong>the</strong> “I”, and <strong>the</strong> “generalized o<strong>the</strong>r”. <strong>The</strong> generalized o<strong>the</strong>r is <strong>the</strong> general norms and<br />
attitudes <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> whole community, and it allows us to interact with that community. He<br />
uses <strong>the</strong> example <strong>of</strong> property, saying that people's general relationship to property is <strong>the</strong><br />
same and commonly held, and thus is respected. By such logic, if people's attitudes were<br />
generally different towards property, <strong>the</strong> “self” would approach it with different attitudes,<br />
perhaps <strong>the</strong> attitudes that Proudhon held when he posited that property was “<strong>the</strong>ft”. Even<br />
in Mead's example, distinctions can be made. Most people hold up <strong>the</strong> sanctity <strong>of</strong><br />
personal property, but have more ambivalent attitudes towards public property (for better<br />
or worse). Thus, it is possible, as <strong>the</strong> black bloc likely would argue, to change people's<br />
general attitudes towards property in order to shift <strong>the</strong>m from symbolizing sacred items to<br />
tools <strong>of</strong> empowerment or oppression. 30<br />
Howard Becker from <strong>the</strong> Chicago School <strong>of</strong> Symbolic Interaction viewed <strong>the</strong> <strong>the</strong>ory in<br />
terms <strong>of</strong> jazz music – <strong>the</strong>re is a lot <strong>of</strong> improvisation, while you play <strong>of</strong>f <strong>of</strong> o<strong>the</strong>rs. Each<br />
musician still finds <strong>the</strong>ir way through each piece <strong>of</strong> music within <strong>the</strong> general framework<br />
30 See <strong>the</strong> section on Violence for a similar discussion about property (and its destruction) from <strong>the</strong> Acme<br />
Collective's 1999 communique.<br />
[ Williams 32 ] [ this is a draft. do not cite. ]
<strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> song, however. It is a sort <strong>of</strong> “organized chaos”. <strong>Anarchists</strong>, although <strong>of</strong>ten<br />
decrying <strong>the</strong> carelessness usage <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> word “chaos”, would agree with this description <strong>of</strong><br />
a favorable approach to society. <strong>Anarchists</strong> (usually) hold relatively compatible morals<br />
and values, and respect (through solidarity, mutual aid, and voluntary association) <strong>the</strong><br />
rights <strong>of</strong> o<strong>the</strong>rs to individually and collectively pursue <strong>the</strong>se ends in <strong>the</strong>ir own fashion.<br />
Recently, this has been termed in activists circles as a “diversity <strong>of</strong> tactics”. <strong>The</strong> end goal<br />
is what is important as long as <strong>the</strong> means to get <strong>the</strong>re are moral and just – and <strong>the</strong> ability<br />
to find one's own way to that better society is more conducive to human freedom and<br />
creativity than a master plan decided on high. 31<br />
Ward (1996) writes that<br />
[a]n important component <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> anarchist approach to<br />
organisation is what we might call <strong>the</strong> <strong>the</strong>ory <strong>of</strong><br />
spontaneous order: <strong>the</strong> <strong>the</strong>ory that, given a common need, a<br />
collection <strong>of</strong> people will, by trial and error, by<br />
improvisation and experiment, evolve order <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> situation<br />
– this order being more durable and more closely related to<br />
<strong>the</strong>ir needs than any kind <strong>of</strong> externally imposed authority<br />
could provide. (p. 31)<br />
Contemporary Anarchist <strong>Sociology</strong><br />
Many, many activists are actively developing <strong>the</strong>ory <strong>of</strong> organizations, social inequity, and<br />
tactics. Topics such as consensus decision making, direct action, globalization, solidarity,<br />
and [non-]violence are being developed by a legion <strong>of</strong> writers, advocates, and<br />
practitioners.<br />
<strong>The</strong> following author-activists are perhaps <strong>the</strong> most influential North American anarchist<strong>the</strong>orists<br />
(as one might guess <strong>the</strong>y <strong>of</strong>ten vehemently disagree with each o<strong>the</strong>r). <strong>The</strong>y are<br />
listed here as examples <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> directions that modern anarchist thought has gone.<br />
Albert's participatory economics (2000): this New Left veteran has been active in<br />
numerous successful cooperative projects, such as <strong>the</strong> South End Press collective and Z-<br />
Magazine. His economic writings (along with Robin Hanhel) on <strong>the</strong> subject <strong>of</strong><br />
“participatory economics” have been taken up by a number <strong>of</strong> anarchist collectives and<br />
cooperatives for <strong>the</strong>ir financial and governing model. Albert asserts that economics (as<br />
with culture and politics) should be value-driven. Thus, an anarchist economics would<br />
value diversity, equity, self-management, and solidarity. It would be an economy on<br />
“remunerating people according to effort and sacrifice, council democracy, what we call<br />
balanced job complexes, and allocation via participatory planning” (2000, p. 2).<br />
Bey's temporary autonomous zone (1991):<br />
31 For more on “diversity <strong>of</strong> tactics” and its utilization in <strong>the</strong> Nor<strong>the</strong>ast Ohio anti-war movement, please<br />
see Williams (2004a).<br />
[ Williams 33 ] [ this is a draft. do not cite. ]
Bookchin's social ecology (199x):<br />
Chomsky's anarcho-syndicalism (1970): sometimes identified as a “fellow-traveler” <strong>of</strong><br />
anarchism, since he does advocate engagement with <strong>the</strong> State, Chomsky's influence upon<br />
linguists and American foreign policy cannot be understated. It is difficult to hypo<strong>the</strong>size<br />
which domain he has had <strong>the</strong> greatest impact upon, or which legacy will be <strong>the</strong> longest<br />
lasting. Born into a lively Jewish anarchist culture, Chomsky briefly participated in <strong>the</strong><br />
Kibbutzim experiment in Israel. In his classic “For Reasons <strong>of</strong> State”, Chomsky wrote <strong>the</strong><br />
modern historical account <strong>of</strong> anarchism in his essay “Notes on Anarchism”. A 1970<br />
speech on “Government in <strong>the</strong> Future”, Chomsky also aligned himself with <strong>the</strong> anarchosyndicalist,<br />
council communist, and left-Marxist tradition. Due to his vast writings on <strong>the</strong><br />
aggressions <strong>of</strong> US empire, Chomsky has been able to attract considerable attention to his<br />
premise that those who are concerned with creating a better future, should commit<br />
<strong>the</strong>mselves to searching on forms <strong>of</strong> domination, challenge <strong>the</strong>m, and work to dismantle<br />
those without legitimacy (which he claims most domination lacks).<br />
Zerzan's primitivism (19xx):<br />
[ Williams 34 ] [ this is a draft. do not cite. ]
VALUES<br />
Which side are you on?<br />
- Atari Teenage Riot<br />
What does sociology say about anarchist values? Sociologists have said quite a bit more<br />
about anarchist values than anarchism itself. This shows how sociology <strong>of</strong>ten considers<br />
<strong>the</strong> concepts <strong>of</strong> anarchism without referring to anarchism directly. This is likely due to <strong>the</strong><br />
perception that sociology should be concerned with understanding society, not changing<br />
society. <strong>The</strong> inability <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>edu</strong>cated sociologists to see that analysis creates a mandate<br />
for action, illustrates <strong>the</strong> morally vacuousness <strong>of</strong> sectors within <strong>the</strong> discipline.<br />
Below are a number <strong>of</strong> key anarchist values (as noted in <strong>the</strong> Appendix): antiauthoritarianism,<br />
direct action, liberty, mutual aid, self-determination, solidarity, and<br />
voluntary association. Each value is discussed, in turn, via its general sociological<br />
understanding.<br />
Anti-authoritarianism (hierarchy-less, egalitarianism)<br />
authority: Haskell, T. (1984); Weber, M. (1946); Willner, A.R. (1984)<br />
hierarchy: Becker, H.S. (1967); Schryer 2001; Blaug (2000)<br />
Authority: If authority is <strong>the</strong> absence <strong>of</strong> coercion and if <strong>the</strong> presence <strong>of</strong> authority mean<br />
that subordinate people accept that authority, what does that imply for antiauthoritarians?<br />
Clearly, anti-authoritarians do not accept <strong>the</strong> willing self-subjugation to<br />
authority figures, and <strong>the</strong>refore leave <strong>the</strong>mselves open to o<strong>the</strong>r forms <strong>of</strong> coercion.<br />
If oppressive power can be embodied in both authority and coercion, anarchists reject<br />
both means <strong>of</strong> oppression, claiming nei<strong>the</strong>r are legitimate, since <strong>the</strong>re is no such thing as<br />
legitimate authority.<br />
Please see <strong>the</strong> section entitled Social Movements for an application <strong>of</strong> Weber's three<br />
types <strong>of</strong> authority applied to <strong>the</strong> anarchist movement.<br />
Direct action (civil-disobedience)<br />
direct action: Polletta (2001)<br />
Liberty (freedom, autonomy)<br />
autonomy: Kohn, M.L. & Slomczynski, K.M. (1990); Bates (1972); Katsiaficas (2001)<br />
Mutual aid (cooperation) (mutualism?)<br />
mutual aid: Glassman (2000); Kinna (1995); Dugger (1984)<br />
Kinna (1995) argues that Kropotkin's mutual aid <strong>the</strong>ory was in some ways a political<br />
[ Williams 35 ] [ this is a draft. do not cite. ]
esponse to <strong>the</strong> rise <strong>of</strong> social democracy and individualism (such as Nietzscheanism). <strong>The</strong><br />
<strong>the</strong>ory “was to serve both as a means <strong>of</strong> understanding <strong>the</strong> natural world and as <strong>the</strong><br />
foundation <strong>of</strong> real knowledge... an instrument <strong>of</strong> human <strong>edu</strong>cation and liberation, '<strong>the</strong><br />
supreme authority' and <strong>the</strong> 'expression and <strong>the</strong> revelation' <strong>of</strong> truth” (Kinna 1995, p. 270).<br />
<strong>The</strong> <strong>the</strong>ory was in some ways a response to Huxley's interpretation <strong>of</strong> Darwinism,<br />
specifically, he “accused Huxley <strong>of</strong> wrongly characterizing <strong>the</strong> natural world as one <strong>of</strong><br />
unremitting violence” (Kinna 1995, p. 275). Fur<strong>the</strong>r, he saw two varieties <strong>of</strong> mutual aid:<br />
biological and ethical. “Biologically, mutual aid was an instinctual sense <strong>of</strong> co-operation.<br />
Ethical mutual aid... was created by <strong>the</strong> habits which result from biological practice”<br />
(Kinna 1995, p. 277). Kropotkin charged <strong>the</strong> centralized state with inhibiting <strong>the</strong> fur<strong>the</strong>r<br />
expression <strong>of</strong> mutual aid.<br />
Glassman's (2000) modern survey <strong>of</strong> socio-biologist (and anarchist) Peter Kropotkin's<br />
“mutual aid” <strong>the</strong>ory looks favorably upon it as an alternative base for <strong>the</strong> study <strong>of</strong> human<br />
development and activity. He states, “mutual aid <strong>the</strong>ory could have an impact on <strong>the</strong> way<br />
<strong>the</strong> field approaches emotional development, language development, and cognitive<br />
development.” He sees “<strong>the</strong> idea that humans are social creatures first, and that<br />
individuality emerges from sociability” as one that could open up important areas <strong>of</strong><br />
research and potential re-interpretations <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>ory (Glassman 2000, p. 410).<br />
Self-determination (consensus [cohesion], direct democracy [participatory democracy],<br />
self-management)<br />
democracy: Bottomore, T.B. (1993); Bollen, K. & Jackman, R.W. (1985); Held, D.<br />
(1987); Dahl, R.A. (1956); Mills, C.W. (1956); Lively, J. (1975); Duncan, G. (1983);<br />
Martin (1990)<br />
consensus: Parsons (1951); Jones (1994); Polletta (2001); Davis, et al. (1988);<br />
Mansbridge (2003).<br />
self-management: George (1997)<br />
participatory democracy: Pateman (1970); Milstein (2000)<br />
In George (1997), <strong>the</strong> political economy <strong>of</strong> various left ideologies is analyzed in respect<br />
to worker self-determination. George favorably positions anarchism as an ideology<br />
compatible to self-determination (whereas he says Marxism “argues that market selfmanagement<br />
is an unstable type <strong>of</strong> economic system which must eventually transmute<br />
into ei<strong>the</strong>r capitalism or socialism”, George 1997, p. 61), especially for <strong>the</strong> anarchocommunists<br />
and <strong>the</strong> experiments <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Mondragón collectives in <strong>the</strong> Basque region <strong>of</strong><br />
Spain. He also gives right-wing “anarchism” (i.e. free-market capitalism) an especially<br />
dour evaluation, observing that “radical individualists ... generally attribute any apparent<br />
failings <strong>of</strong> capitalism to meddlesome interference by <strong>the</strong> State, and are not concerned by<br />
<strong>the</strong> seemingly authoritarian character <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> capitalist firm” (George 1997, p. 56).<br />
Martin (1990) details <strong>the</strong> obvious problems with elections <strong>of</strong> representatives: voting does<br />
not work, voting disempowers <strong>the</strong> grassroots, and voting reinforces state power. He also<br />
takes stabs at o<strong>the</strong>r alternatives to elections, which he views as more favorable, but not<br />
without problems, including referendums, consensus, small sizes, and delegates and<br />
federations. He focuses on a <strong>the</strong>ory called “demarchy” where individuals are selected at<br />
random to serve in decision-making bodies, with limited function and domain. <strong>The</strong>se<br />
[ Williams 36 ] [ this is a draft. do not cite. ]
members are rotated overtime to discourage <strong>the</strong> creation <strong>of</strong> “experts” and a consolidation<br />
<strong>of</strong> power. <strong>The</strong>re is no ability to bid for favor since <strong>the</strong>re are no election campaigns or no<br />
ability to influence a “vote” that occurs at random.<br />
In Pateman's (1970) classic study <strong>of</strong> participatory democracy, she defines classical <strong>the</strong>ory<br />
<strong>of</strong> “democracy” by way <strong>of</strong> Dahl: “democracy as polyarchy—<strong>the</strong> rule <strong>of</strong> multiple<br />
minorities... Dahl puts forward an argument about <strong>the</strong> possible dangers inherent in an<br />
increase in participation on <strong>the</strong> part <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> ordinary man” (pp. 8 & 10). This view is<br />
clearly a non-radical vision, although a common one, where those who “understand”<br />
democracy practice it and <strong>the</strong> masses only validate it. She goes on to summarize <strong>the</strong><br />
classical <strong>the</strong>ory and its emphasis voting as <strong>the</strong> main method <strong>of</strong> participation, for <strong>the</strong><br />
primary purpose <strong>of</strong> selecting leaders who carryout <strong>the</strong> process <strong>of</strong> democracy itself.<br />
This “classical” view is anti<strong>the</strong>tical to <strong>the</strong> direct democracy Milstein (2000) and<br />
anarchists hearken for.<br />
[D]irectly democratic institutions open a public space in<br />
which everyone, if <strong>the</strong>y so choose, can come toge<strong>the</strong>r in a<br />
deliberative and decision-making body; a space where<br />
everyone has <strong>the</strong> opportunity to persuade and be persuaded;<br />
a space where no discussion or decision is ever hidden, and<br />
where it can always be returned for scrutiny, accountability,<br />
or rethinking. (p. ?)<br />
Not surprisingly <strong>the</strong> word “vote” appears no where in Milstein's article, nor does she<br />
favorably refer to <strong>the</strong> empowerment <strong>of</strong> “leaders” on behalf <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> people's interests. For<br />
her, direct democracy is a democracy <strong>the</strong> elevates <strong>the</strong> rhetoric <strong>of</strong> “democracy” far and<br />
beyond notions <strong>of</strong> elections and voting, to a place where individual people are<br />
empowered to set <strong>the</strong> terms for <strong>the</strong> debate regarding decisions, not merely picking prepackaged<br />
options at <strong>the</strong> end <strong>of</strong> that process.<br />
Manbridge (2003) documents <strong>the</strong> various meanings <strong>of</strong> “consensus” in an activist context.<br />
She lists <strong>the</strong> conditions under which <strong>the</strong> benefits are high and <strong>the</strong> costs are low to use<br />
consensus. She also lists <strong>the</strong> following advantages to using consensus: 1) promoting<br />
unity, 2) increasing commitment, 3) guaranteeing a form <strong>of</strong> individual liberty, 4)<br />
encouraging listening, 5) teaching transferable skills. She also says that <strong>the</strong> use <strong>of</strong><br />
consensus is not “prefigurative”, which echoes <strong>the</strong> debates within anarchists circles about<br />
<strong>the</strong> usage and application <strong>of</strong> consensus-techniques. Consensus is distinguished from<br />
equality, participatory decentralization, and inclusion—although <strong>the</strong>y <strong>of</strong>ten overlap with<br />
<strong>the</strong> use <strong>of</strong> consensus. Finally, she explores <strong>the</strong> many ways that consensus is utilized in<br />
social movements (many <strong>of</strong> which anarchists have used): “unanimous consensus”,<br />
“Quaker consensus”, “modified consensus”, “consensus through sidepayments”, etc.<br />
Solidarity (cohesion, decentralization)<br />
cohesion: Durkheim, E. (1893/1933); Parsons, T. (1951); Tonnies, F. (1887/1963)<br />
decentralization: Winthrop (year?); Foldvary (2001)<br />
[ Williams 37 ] [ this is a draft. do not cite. ]
Durkheim argued that human groupings are held toge<strong>the</strong>r via solidarity. This functionalist<br />
view—that society functions are an organic organism and <strong>the</strong> anti<strong>the</strong>sis to <strong>the</strong> conflict<br />
viewpoint—uses solidarity to explain why society does not merely collapse into<br />
struggling individual interests. [altruistic, anomie, and egoistic suicide] <strong>The</strong> anarchist<br />
view <strong>of</strong> solidarity is a bit different.<br />
Voluntary Association (spontaneous order?)<br />
voluntary association: Harrison (1960)<br />
spontaneous order: Jacobs (2000); Davis (year?)<br />
<strong>The</strong>re is, <strong>of</strong> course, incredible overlap with <strong>the</strong>se ideas: direct action is an assertion <strong>of</strong><br />
self-determination, which stems from liberty. Egalitarianism requires mutual aid.<br />
Autonomy and anti-authoritarianism also requires solidarity with o<strong>the</strong>rs. So forth, blah<br />
blah blah. Voluntary association is <strong>the</strong> arrangement <strong>of</strong> and consensus is <strong>the</strong><br />
process/language <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> syn<strong>the</strong>sis <strong>of</strong> (or compromise between) self-determination and<br />
solidarity. Solidarity is more political or personal, compared to <strong>the</strong> more substantive and<br />
physical mutual aid.<br />
According to Milstein (?), however, direct democracy and direct action are not<br />
necessarily <strong>the</strong> same thing—“<strong>the</strong>re's something authoritarian about a small group <strong>of</strong><br />
people shutting down a city street” (get exact quote—in Reclaim <strong>the</strong> Cities). Likewise,<br />
liberty only extends so far until it also becomes authoritarian when wielded by stronger<br />
folk. [o<strong>the</strong>r contradictions here?]<br />
[Would diagrams/figures be useful here? I think so!]<br />
[ Williams 38 ] [ this is a draft. do not cite. ]
ACADEMIA'S ANARCHISTIC “WANNABES”<br />
So many rules and so much opinion<br />
So much bullshit but we won't give in<br />
- Le Tigre<br />
Perhaps due to <strong>the</strong> academy's resistance to <strong>the</strong> liberatory notions <strong>of</strong> true anarchism—and<br />
<strong>the</strong> fact that as “academics” <strong>the</strong>y might lose <strong>the</strong>ir treasured roles as intellectual guardians<br />
and vanguards if <strong>the</strong> rabble learned that knowledge did not have to matriculate from<br />
universities—scholars have repeatedly misconstrued <strong>the</strong> basic principles <strong>of</strong> anarchism<br />
and humorously applied <strong>the</strong>m to bizarre and contradictory fields <strong>of</strong> study. Do a simple<br />
database abstract search or literature review, and you will find more examples <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>se<br />
“wannabes” than examples <strong>of</strong> actual social movement, left-wing anarchism. What follows<br />
is an attempt to explore, explain, and challenge <strong>the</strong>se wannabes.<br />
“Philosophical anarchism” This <strong>the</strong>ory is most commonly found in philosophy and <strong>the</strong><br />
“humanities”. Sometimes, this is seen as an attempt to say <strong>the</strong>re are “no rules” or that<br />
every idea is merely flailing away at every o<strong>the</strong>r idea. (look at more in-depthly) To be<br />
fair, this <strong>the</strong>ory is <strong>the</strong> most analogous <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> wannabes.<br />
International state anarchism holds that states operate “anarchistically” on <strong>the</strong> global<br />
level, since <strong>the</strong>re is no world government. Of course, this belies <strong>the</strong> fact that nearly all <strong>of</strong><br />
<strong>the</strong>se individual units are <strong>the</strong>mselves states and governments. This <strong>the</strong>ory is most<br />
commonly found in political science. Many a political scientists view “anarchism” as a<br />
stateless form <strong>of</strong> international government, as opposed to a natural order <strong>of</strong> human<br />
beings. As such, <strong>the</strong>y discuss how nation-states can interact with each o<strong>the</strong>r, minus <strong>the</strong><br />
coercion <strong>of</strong> a over-arching government. To anarchists, this defies belief, since it is clearly<br />
<strong>the</strong> most powerful states that can exert <strong>the</strong>mselves upon less powerful states. But, it is<br />
overlooked that anarchists do not view a dog-eat-dog world where <strong>the</strong> more powerful<br />
crush <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>rs, but ra<strong>the</strong>r a society in which <strong>the</strong> powerful actually restrict <strong>the</strong>ir<br />
dominance to <strong>the</strong> aid <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> less powerful, working toge<strong>the</strong>r not against each o<strong>the</strong>r.<br />
“Anarcho-capitalism” is not only found in academics, but in outside world, too, as illinformed<br />
people use it to explain philosophies that are tantamount to anti-government,<br />
pro-capitalism sentiments—essentially ultra-free-marketism. <strong>The</strong> US's “Libertarian<br />
Party” espouses this line <strong>of</strong> thinking ra<strong>the</strong>r well. <strong>The</strong> Libertarian Party is a source <strong>of</strong><br />
frustration to some anarchists, since <strong>the</strong> word “libertarian” used to a synonym for a leftwing<br />
anarchist, before its recent abduction. Of course, as a “party” it is particularly<br />
repugnant to anarchists.<br />
This is also perceived as <strong>the</strong> “right-wing” <strong>of</strong> anarchism. This <strong>the</strong>ory is most commonly<br />
found in economics. Economists refers to <strong>the</strong> “anarchy” <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> pure marketplace, where<br />
<strong>the</strong>re is no governmental control; yet, “anarcho-capitalists” do not seem incredibly<br />
[ Williams 39 ] [ this is a draft. do not cite. ]
concerned with o<strong>the</strong>r forms <strong>of</strong> hierarchy and authority, such as found in <strong>the</strong> modern<br />
corporation or o<strong>the</strong>r financial/economic institutions.<br />
Of course, <strong>the</strong>re are also all <strong>the</strong> scholars who merely get anarchism wrong. <strong>The</strong>y see a<br />
philosophy based upon chaos, violence, bombs, assassination, naiveté, and foolishness.<br />
Many view it as all action and no <strong>the</strong>ory, just something that people irrationally do<br />
without thinking about beforehand. This is tied to my earlier argument that anarchists are<br />
first and foremost activists, and operate on both a deep sense <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>ory and practicality.<br />
Thus, it is only common sense that anarchism's <strong>the</strong>ory is most commonly written by<br />
activists and is not found in <strong>the</strong> academy. It is frequently anarchism's fellow-traveler in<br />
revolution, Marxism, that distorts <strong>the</strong> most, asserting that anarchism is a disorganized<br />
revolution, impossible to obtain, irrational, ill-informed, lacking in <strong>the</strong>ory, too<br />
spontaneous, and very uncontrollable. <strong>The</strong>y are correct at least in <strong>the</strong> latter case.<br />
[ Williams 40 ] [ this is a draft. do not cite. ]
SOCIAL MOVEMENTS<br />
When spiders unite,<br />
<strong>the</strong>y can tie down a lion.<br />
- African proverb<br />
A core component <strong>of</strong> sociology is how and why people work toge<strong>the</strong>r in groups and<br />
organizations, specifically within social movements. If collective behavior is viewed as<br />
<strong>the</strong> random and unintentional result <strong>of</strong> people interacting toge<strong>the</strong>r, social movements are<br />
<strong>the</strong> result <strong>of</strong> deliberate and intentional interactions. Even though anarchism has long been<br />
identified as a movement (although to some a dead one), it is rarely written about as such.<br />
Jeff Shantz (2003) writes:<br />
Conventional analyses <strong>of</strong> social movements continue to<br />
overlook <strong>the</strong> emergence <strong>of</strong> unconventional manifestations<br />
<strong>of</strong> resistance... Analyses have been constrained by a ra<strong>the</strong>r<br />
myopic preoccupation ei<strong>the</strong>r with organizational structures<br />
and resources which allow for access to <strong>the</strong> state or with<br />
civil actions (including civil disobedience) by which<br />
activists might register dissent or popularize claims... Left<br />
out <strong>of</strong> conventional <strong>the</strong>orizing are movements which want<br />
no part <strong>of</strong> world order, new or o<strong>the</strong>rwise, which <strong>the</strong>y view<br />
as authoritarian, hierarchical, and inevitably genocidal (or<br />
“eco-cidal”). (p. 90)<br />
Anarchism has been given a decent treatment in <strong>the</strong> field <strong>of</strong> history. But, to leave<br />
anarchism within <strong>the</strong> academy's History Departments misleads one to think that<br />
anarchism is merely a historical relic. In doing so, <strong>the</strong> vast leaps in <strong>the</strong>ory and practice<br />
that have been made by successive waves <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> anarchist movement are overlooked.<br />
I think <strong>the</strong> most appropriate and useful (although perhaps not as entertaining) way in<br />
which to study anarchism is via sociology's sub-discipline <strong>of</strong> “social movement” <strong>the</strong>ory.<br />
Some <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> more well-known texts on social movements have commented on anarchism.<br />
Critiques <strong>of</strong> Social Movement <strong>The</strong>orists<br />
[List texts here. <strong>The</strong>n respond to <strong>the</strong>ir handling <strong>of</strong> anarchism.]<br />
“Frontiers in Social Movement <strong>The</strong>ory”, ed. By Aldon D. Morris & Carol McClurg<br />
Mueller. No index mention.<br />
“Power in Movement: Social Movements and Contentious Politics”, Sidney Tarrow. Five<br />
total pages <strong>of</strong> reference in index. Tarrow closes one small section “<strong>The</strong> Anarchist<br />
[ Williams 41 ] [ this is a draft. do not cite. ]
Countermodel” by stating: “Where <strong>the</strong> hierarchy <strong>of</strong> social democracy turned movements<br />
into parties, <strong>the</strong> anarchists' obsession with action and <strong>the</strong>ir allergy to organization<br />
transformed <strong>the</strong>m into a sect” (Tarrow 1998, p. 127). Tarrow curiously does not apply a<br />
date to <strong>the</strong> “sect” transformation. In fact, anarchist organization was incredibly active up<br />
until <strong>the</strong> First World War in <strong>the</strong> US. And it was not an allergy to organization (quite <strong>the</strong><br />
opposite—anarchists remain some <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> most organized activists) that r<strong>edu</strong>ced <strong>the</strong>ir<br />
influence as much as it was <strong>the</strong> Palmer Raids and similar crackdown by <strong>the</strong> American<br />
establishment (<strong>the</strong> first “red scare”) that targeted anarchists, unionists, and immigrants<br />
(who were <strong>of</strong>ten all three). 32 Also <strong>the</strong> ascendancy <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Soviet Union as a revolutionary<br />
anti-capitalist success story helped pushed anarchism as an ideology fur<strong>the</strong>r to <strong>the</strong><br />
margins as <strong>the</strong> radical Left lined up to support <strong>the</strong> “Communist” and Bolshevik label.<br />
Even setting aside Tarrow's criticism and an overall fair treatment <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> roots <strong>of</strong><br />
anarchism, he fails to notice contemporary anarchist (or anarchistic) influences or<br />
movements, in <strong>the</strong> US or o<strong>the</strong>rwise. Perhaps future editions <strong>of</strong> this text will bear out <strong>the</strong><br />
impact <strong>of</strong> “Seattle” and <strong>the</strong> rise in anti-capitalist activism—which is especially high in<br />
Europe and South America at present. [Reference for this height?]<br />
“Political Protest and Cultural Revolution”, Barbara Epstein. By far <strong>the</strong> best analysis <strong>of</strong><br />
anarchist politics. ... She focuses heavily upon anarchist-influenced and anarcha-feminism<br />
politics in her various chapters. 33 She works toge<strong>the</strong>r many <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> more advanced peace<br />
movements with anarchism. Most directly, <strong>the</strong>re is a strong overlap with <strong>the</strong> predilection<br />
towards nonviolent direct action, affinity groups, and consensus decision making. 34 A key<br />
example for Epstein is <strong>the</strong> Clamshell Alliance, which she points to a strong anarchafeminist<br />
influence. Incidentally, Epstein's conclusions are reinforced by an earlier survey<br />
by Katz and List (1981) which found that half <strong>of</strong> all participants at <strong>the</strong> 1978 Seabrook<br />
action identified as feminists and nearly a quarter as anarchists (more than <strong>the</strong> 18 percent<br />
who identified as Marxists). In fact, anarchist identity out-paced both Democrat and<br />
Republican Party affiliation combined! Forty-two percent also identified as socialist, with<br />
sympathies likely conducive to radical feminism and anarchism. (p. 61)<br />
“From Mobilization to Revolution”, Charles Tilly. Index references to anarchists,<br />
anarcho-communists, and anarcho-syndicalism.<br />
Tilly's index entry for anarchists is embarrassingly and unfortunately brief: “desertion<br />
may, <strong>of</strong> course, consist <strong>of</strong> individual acceptance <strong>of</strong> exclusive alternative claims to control<br />
<strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> government. It may also take <strong>the</strong> form <strong>of</strong> rejecting all claims, in good anarchist<br />
fashion” (Tilly 1978, p. 214, emphasis in <strong>the</strong> original). By not expounding on <strong>the</strong> role <strong>of</strong><br />
anarchism in <strong>the</strong> decision to reject all governmental control, Tilly seemingly dodges <strong>the</strong><br />
issue <strong>of</strong> where revolutionary power comes from or “must” come from (or goes). He<br />
rhetorically associates “Anarcho-Communists” with “<strong>the</strong> National Urban League, <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
United Sons <strong>of</strong> Vulcan” in mentioning William Gamson's list <strong>of</strong> “challenging groups”.<br />
32 List nice references for <strong>the</strong> Palmer Raids. (... and maybe Ward Churchill's comments from Disc 2<br />
<strong>of</strong> “In a Pig's Eye”) For instance, <strong>the</strong> world-famous anarchists Sacco and Vanzetti were (were <strong>the</strong>y?)<br />
victims <strong>of</strong> hysteria provoked by <strong>the</strong> Palmer Raids.<br />
33 Relevant chapters in Epstein's text include “<strong>The</strong> Clamshell Alliance: Consensus and Utopian<br />
Democracy”, “<strong>The</strong> Abalone Alliance: Anarcha-Feminism and <strong>the</strong> Politics <strong>of</strong> Prefigurative Revolution”,<br />
and “<strong>The</strong> Livermore Action Group: Direct Action and <strong>the</strong> Arms Race”.<br />
34 Epstein later wrote (2001) about <strong>the</strong> link between anarchism and <strong>the</strong> “anti-globalization” movement in<br />
<strong>the</strong> US.<br />
[ Williams 42 ] [ this is a draft. do not cite. ]
Missing, again, is any discussion <strong>of</strong> how vastly different <strong>the</strong> vision <strong>of</strong> “challenge” is<br />
between anarcho-communists and <strong>the</strong> “National Urban League”.<br />
Only Tilly's mention <strong>of</strong> anarcho-syndicalism shows a breath <strong>of</strong> potential for greater<br />
discussion, suggesting that <strong>the</strong> French strikes in <strong>the</strong> 1890s on May Day (International<br />
Worker's Day) 35 contained revolutionary potential that was missing from o<strong>the</strong>r strikes <strong>of</strong><br />
<strong>the</strong> decade (and had been grower tame leading up to <strong>the</strong> decade). His [brief] account <strong>of</strong><br />
<strong>the</strong>se strikes is commendable, but he leaves <strong>the</strong> impression that this period was <strong>the</strong><br />
“heyday <strong>of</strong> anarcho-syndicalism”, a patently absurd proposition (Tilly 1978, p. 161).<br />
Syndicalism increased in popularity in many countries well in to <strong>the</strong> 20 th century, clearly<br />
peaking during its successful employment in <strong>the</strong> revolutionary situation <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Spanish<br />
Civil War in <strong>the</strong> late 1930s by <strong>the</strong> Confederación Nacional del Trabajo. <strong>The</strong> same was<br />
roughly true for France, <strong>the</strong> case that Tilly is citing. Rudolph Rocker, author <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
definitive text on anarcho-syndicalism, explained that revolutionary syndicalism was<br />
found in “<strong>the</strong> federations in <strong>the</strong> different countries <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> revived International<br />
Workingmen's Association” and that “in <strong>the</strong> years from 1900 to 1910 [revolutionary<br />
syndicalism] experienced a marked upswing, particularly in France” (Rocker 1938/1990,<br />
p. 49). Tilly failed to notice this in perhaps <strong>the</strong> best and most influential English-language<br />
exponent's text on anarcho-syndicalism. Clark (1930) also sees active French syndicalism<br />
during <strong>the</strong> late-1920s. For Tilly to not know this (or mention it) is astonishing – but<br />
equally unsurprising.<br />
“Comparative Perspectives on Social Movements”, ed. Doug McAdam, John D.<br />
McCarthy, Mayer N. Zald. Attempt to combine <strong>the</strong> social movement <strong>the</strong>ories <strong>of</strong> political<br />
opportunities, mobilizing structures, and cultural framings. <strong>The</strong>y advocate comparing and<br />
contrasting all three major approaches to best understand social movements. (See <strong>the</strong>ir<br />
introductory chapter for a good syn<strong>the</strong>sis and comparison.)<br />
Critiques/analysis <strong>of</strong> anarchist academic articles:<br />
● Graeber<br />
● Amster<br />
● Shantz<br />
Criteria used to analyze:<br />
● Problem(s) identified<br />
● Shortcomings<br />
● Overlaps with sociological <strong>the</strong>ory<br />
● Needs for data and/or future research<br />
[Go thru <strong>the</strong> chapter titles/glossaries/index-entries-w/lotsa-mentions for Morris &<br />
McClurg (1992), Tarrow (1998), and Tilly (1978) to get main ideas, concepts,<br />
keywords, etc. Study <strong>the</strong>se, find good sociology-dictionary/glossary definitions <strong>of</strong><br />
35 Lots <strong>of</strong> great writings exist on <strong>the</strong> anarchistic origins <strong>of</strong> “May Day”, especially on <strong>the</strong> Internet.<br />
l.gaylord@m.cc.utah.<strong>edu</strong>, “May Day - <strong>the</strong> Real Labor Day”,<br />
http://flag.blackened.net/daver/anarchism/mayday.html and Linebaugh 2004.<br />
[ Williams 43 ] [ this is a draft. do not cite. ]
<strong>the</strong>m, apply to anarchism in <strong>the</strong> Social Movements section. Read, also, a good<br />
primer on main social movements and SMO concepts. Is <strong>the</strong>re a good intro text on<br />
<strong>the</strong>se? Does UA <strong>of</strong>fer a class on this, ever? How about KSU?]<br />
● resource mobilization<br />
● collective action<br />
● frames<br />
● collective identity<br />
● collective action frames<br />
● communities <strong>of</strong> challengers<br />
● conflict movements<br />
● cycles <strong>of</strong> protest<br />
● malintegration <strong>the</strong>ory<br />
● master frames<br />
● mobilization<br />
● mobilizing technologies<br />
● social movement organizations<br />
● connective structures<br />
● contention<br />
● networks<br />
● opportunities<br />
● organization<br />
● association<br />
From “Methods <strong>of</strong> Social Movement Research”: “Original chapters cover <strong>the</strong> range <strong>of</strong><br />
techniques: surveys, formal models, discourse analysis, in-depth interviews, participant<br />
observation, case studies, network analysis, historical methods, protest event analysis,<br />
macro-organizational analysis, and comparative politics. Each chapter includes a<br />
methodological discussion, examples <strong>of</strong> studies employing <strong>the</strong> method, an examination <strong>of</strong><br />
its strengths and weaknesses, and practical guidelines for its application.”<br />
Can <strong>the</strong> “anarchist movement” be considered a movement as such? According to <strong>the</strong><br />
prevailing definitions <strong>of</strong> social movement <strong>the</strong>ory, do anarchist qualify?<br />
[List various prominent definitions <strong>of</strong> “movements”]<br />
Outside <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> “anarchist movement”, <strong>the</strong>re are many anarchists who are not active in an<br />
explicitly anarchist activities. This, <strong>of</strong> course, illustrates <strong>the</strong> fact that <strong>the</strong>re can be two<br />
kinds <strong>of</strong> organizations that anarchists participate in: explicitly anarchist organizations and<br />
non-anarchist organizations. <strong>The</strong> question may be asked: Are anarchists not involved in<br />
explicitly anarchist organizations part <strong>of</strong> an anarchist movement?<br />
I would assert “yes”, and for <strong>the</strong> following reason. (Forgive me as I take a moment to<br />
build my argument.) Since anarchism is perhaps one <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> most flexible terms existing in<br />
political discourse—including its usage by anarchists <strong>the</strong>mselves—an amorphous<br />
movement is formed that seems to violate conventional definitions <strong>of</strong> movements. As<br />
[ Williams 44 ] [ this is a draft. do not cite. ]
Chomsky quotes Octave Mirbeau: “anarchism has a broad back, like paper it endures<br />
anything” (Chomsky, date, p). This flexibility, bleeds into action. Thus, active anarchists<br />
can be a part <strong>of</strong> an anarchist “movement” without actual participation in anarchist<br />
organizations. By applying <strong>the</strong>ir anarchist convictions, <strong>the</strong>y are essentially being active<br />
participants in a movement that seeks <strong>the</strong> dispersion <strong>of</strong> liberation and freedom. This is<br />
especially true when viewing anarchism from <strong>the</strong> “yardstick model” (see Appendix). <strong>The</strong><br />
yardstick model frames anarchism as a reference point to be applied to all situations and<br />
conditions, not as a pre-determined holy writ.<br />
Inside anarchist circles, however, <strong>the</strong>re is disagreement amongst <strong>the</strong>mselves whe<strong>the</strong>r or<br />
not <strong>the</strong>y are a “movement”. [List examples and references] Thus, most contention<br />
around <strong>the</strong> “movement” issue revolves around <strong>the</strong> raw number <strong>of</strong> anarchists, <strong>the</strong> idea <strong>of</strong><br />
“critical mass”, and <strong>the</strong> effectiveness <strong>of</strong> anarchist tactics and campaigns. <strong>The</strong> reader is left<br />
to make up <strong>the</strong>ir own mind on <strong>the</strong>se questions.<br />
Reflect on Vasi, et al. (2003) re: <strong>the</strong> “mobilizer's dilemma”<br />
Present academics—particularly historians—will occasionally study anarchists, yet <strong>the</strong><br />
vast majority are long dead and gone. <strong>The</strong>y study Peter Kropotkin not Noam Chomsky 36 ,<br />
Emma Goldman not Starhawk, Joseph Labadie not Murray Bookchin, or Alexander<br />
Berkman not Jaggi Singh. <strong>Anarchists</strong> scholars primarily outside <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> academy are <strong>the</strong><br />
only ones who make a studious effort to better understand <strong>the</strong> roots <strong>of</strong> what historian<br />
Howard Zinn (1997) calls “surely one <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> most important political philosophies <strong>of</strong><br />
modern times” (p. 644). George Woodcock was one <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>se scholars. Since Woodcock's<br />
death in 1995, <strong>the</strong> academic mantle <strong>of</strong> Anglo-anarchist historical studies has been handed<br />
<strong>of</strong>f to Paul Avrich. But what <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> non-historical realm <strong>of</strong> anarchist study?<br />
What follows is an attempt to integrate North American anarchism as a social movement<br />
into <strong>the</strong> existing framework <strong>of</strong> sociology research and <strong>the</strong>ory. <strong>The</strong> North American strain<br />
differs from o<strong>the</strong>rs around <strong>the</strong> world. Still, <strong>the</strong>re are many incredible examples <strong>of</strong> non-<br />
North American/Western European anarchism, including Fernandez (2001), Mbah and<br />
Igariwey (1997), and Adams (year?). Klein (2000a) observes that <strong>the</strong> majority <strong>of</strong> young<br />
Czech and Eastern European activists battling global capitalism, are disgusted with both<br />
state “socialism” and Western capitalism, thus compelling <strong>the</strong>m to identify as anarchists.<br />
Even though deceased anarchists and past anarchist organizations will be used as<br />
examples, primary focus will rest upon <strong>the</strong> present-day anarchist movement essentially<br />
invisible to contemporary sociologists.<br />
Using David Aberle's 1966 pivotal classification <strong>of</strong> social movements, anarchism falls<br />
clearly in <strong>the</strong> “transformative movement” category. <strong>The</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r three categories social<br />
movements according to Aberle are reformative, redemptive, and alternative. Aberle<br />
1966. (or “resistance/regressive movements”? -- in Kendall 1999) Tilly describes<br />
36 Noam Chomsky refers to Peter Kropotkin as <strong>the</strong> (unrecognized) founder <strong>of</strong> “sociobiology”. Chomsky,<br />
himself probably <strong>the</strong> most influential living anarchist, has heralded Kropotkin's notion <strong>of</strong> “mutual aid”.<br />
[ Williams 45 ] [ this is a draft. do not cite. ]
transformative movements as ones that seek far-reaching change, including revolution.<br />
[More about Aberle and transformative movements!]<br />
Using <strong>the</strong> criteria devised by Charles Tilly's “From Mobilization to Revolution”, <strong>the</strong><br />
anarchist movement has responded in varied ways to organization, mobilization, common<br />
interests, and opportunity (Tilly 1978, drawn from Giddens & Duneier 2000). Tilly used<br />
Lenin and <strong>the</strong> Russian Revolution as his example, which, unfortunately, ignores (at least<br />
on face), <strong>the</strong> large impact that anarchist principles had in fueling that revolution, not to<br />
mention <strong>the</strong> shameful crackdown on anarchists that followed or <strong>the</strong> liberatory institutions<br />
<strong>the</strong> Bolsheviks destroyed, such as <strong>the</strong> worker councils. 37<br />
Since an anarchist revolution has not explicitly taken place in America, Tilly's <strong>the</strong>ory<br />
applied to anarchism is speculative, but still informative. <strong>Anarchists</strong> are obsessive<br />
organization creators—it is <strong>of</strong>ten remarked that anarchists are some <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> best organized<br />
activists on <strong>the</strong> political left. Even though anarchism has a strong pro-organization thrust,<br />
some self-identified left-anarchists are decidedly anti-organizational. Often<br />
“organization” is referred to in terms <strong>of</strong> a large, monolithic organization, complete with<br />
bureaucracy. Many <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>se individuals fall into <strong>the</strong> somewhat controversial “wing” <strong>of</strong><br />
anarchists <strong>the</strong>ory called “primitivism”. Also some identify as “anti-organizationalist”,<br />
meaning that <strong>the</strong>y do not believe in excessive, non-democratic, and organization for <strong>the</strong><br />
sake <strong>of</strong> itself. Still, whe<strong>the</strong>r in collectives, affinity groups, spokes-councils, networks, or<br />
federations, anarchists use non-hierarchical organizations as <strong>the</strong> basis for <strong>the</strong>ir varied<br />
political action.<br />
Various “spontaneous formation <strong>of</strong> crowds” also exist in an anarchist context, in <strong>the</strong> form<br />
<strong>of</strong> “black blocs”, “smart mobs”, and feeder marches—although <strong>the</strong>se are somewhat preorganized<br />
configurations. 38 Feeder marches were used in many American cities during <strong>the</strong><br />
recent war on Iraq (2002-2003), where anarchists wanted to lend <strong>the</strong>ir own politics to<br />
anti-war events organized by more liberal groups. Thus, instead <strong>of</strong> disrupting those events<br />
and marches, anarchists and o<strong>the</strong>r anti-imperialists organized marches that started earlier<br />
in different places and met up with <strong>the</strong> larger, more mainstream march. 39<br />
<strong>Anarchists</strong> <strong>of</strong>ten speak <strong>of</strong> spontaneous self-organization <strong>of</strong> people because <strong>the</strong>y do not<br />
see <strong>the</strong> need for certain people to organize o<strong>the</strong>rs for <strong>the</strong>m. 40 More on anarchist<br />
organization in <strong>the</strong> Organization section.<br />
Anarchist mobilization (Tilly's second component) has had varied success at acquiring<br />
sufficient resources that can make collective action possible. Some American<br />
communities have better networks (or “scenes”) in place that allow for a relatively quick<br />
mobilization <strong>of</strong> resources (people, money, political lobby, infrastructure) than do o<strong>the</strong>rs.<br />
Places such as <strong>the</strong> Bay Area (CA), Portland and Eugene (OR), Boston (MA), Washington<br />
DC, and o<strong>the</strong>rs have established “infoshops” that are catalysts for mobilization and<br />
37 Resources on <strong>the</strong> Bolshevik persecution <strong>of</strong> anarchists are large in number. See Rudolph Rocker, Emma<br />
Goldman, anything about <strong>the</strong> Kronstadt sailors, Nestor Makhno, and so forth.<br />
38 See Infoshop.org for more information about smartmobs (http://www.infoshop.org/smartmobs.html) and<br />
black blocs (http://www.infoshop.org/blackbloc.html).<br />
39 See Williams (2004a) for more on feeder marches.<br />
40 See Ward (1996), pp. 31-39, chapter “<strong>The</strong> <strong>The</strong>ory <strong>of</strong> Spontaneous Order”.<br />
[ Williams 46 ] [ this is a draft. do not cite. ]
information exchange. <strong>The</strong> Independent Media Center (“Indymedia”) movement is<br />
ano<strong>the</strong>r mechanism by which anarchists have used for mobilization. 41 Tilly references <strong>the</strong><br />
acquisition <strong>of</strong> weapons for <strong>the</strong> purpose <strong>of</strong> violent overthrow; to this point North<br />
American anarchists have not made explicit (and perhaps never have) moves towards<br />
amassing armaments. 42 <strong>The</strong> Anarchist Black Cross (ABC) is an example <strong>of</strong> a group that<br />
believe in armed self-defense and could better fall under Tilly's point than most o<strong>the</strong>r<br />
American anarchist organizations could.<br />
Common interest is perhaps <strong>the</strong> best thing that has propelled anarchist organizing thus<br />
far. <strong>The</strong>re are two ways in which anarchists (and all o<strong>the</strong>r individuals <strong>of</strong> various political<br />
philosophies): a) explicitly anarchist organizations or b) non-anarchist organizations.<br />
Obviously explicitly anarchists organizations are less-relevant to Tilly's third component.<br />
Non-anarchist organizations on <strong>the</strong> left, however, frequently have anarchists involved.<br />
From <strong>the</strong> anti-corporate globalization movement to environmentalism/eco-defense,<br />
multicultural movements, GLBT movement, and feminism, active, embedded anarchists<br />
can be found. Even in what some consider to be “reform” organizations, one can find<br />
active anarchist participation, such as in union organizing, living wage campaigns, antipolice<br />
brutality organizations, campaign finance reform initiatives, and so on. Albert<br />
(2001) explores <strong>the</strong> differences between what he calls non-reformist reforms and<br />
reformism:<br />
What's needed instead isn't to have no reforms, which<br />
would simply capitulate <strong>the</strong> playing field to elites, but to<br />
fight for reforms that are non-reformist, that is, to fight for<br />
reforms that we conceive, seek, and implement in ways<br />
leading activists to seek still more gains in a trajectory <strong>of</strong><br />
change leading ultimately to new institutions. (para.)<br />
When participating in non-anarchist organizations, anarchists will try to interject antiauthoritarian<br />
viewpoints and actions into both <strong>the</strong> internal structure <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> organization<br />
and to <strong>the</strong> external operation and goals <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> organization. This influence can be most<br />
vividly seen in <strong>the</strong> direct action movement (which is not explicitly anarchist, but heavily<br />
anarchist influenced). It utilizes many anarchists techniques: affinity groups, consensus<br />
decision-making, and (<strong>of</strong> course) direct action. <strong>The</strong>se components can also be seen in<br />
o<strong>the</strong>r progressive/left/radical organizations.<br />
Tilly's final component, opportunity, is very difficult to comment on; <strong>the</strong>re has been no<br />
anarchist revolution to occur in <strong>the</strong> United States (and few o<strong>the</strong>r countries—<strong>the</strong> most<br />
commonly <strong>of</strong>fered examples <strong>of</strong> anarchist revolution are 1930s Spain and present-day<br />
Chiapas, Mexico). Anarchist “evolution” has taken place in various ways. In considering<br />
such evolution, one must view social change as deeply integrated into <strong>the</strong> ideals <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
Enlightenment, and very close to left-libertarianism (or anarchism). 43<br />
41 For more information on <strong>the</strong> anarchist tendencies <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> IMC movement (incidentally heavily-populated<br />
by anarchists), please see <strong>the</strong> chapter entitled “Indymedia”.<br />
42 Which is not to say that all anarchists are opposed to <strong>the</strong> use <strong>of</strong> “violence”. Please see <strong>the</strong> chapter<br />
“Violence” for a deeper discussion.<br />
43 For detailed description <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> links between anarchism, classical Liberalism, and <strong>the</strong> Enlightenment, see<br />
Noam Chomsky's seminal essay (1970) “Notes on Anarchism”.<br />
[ Williams 47 ] [ this is a draft. do not cite. ]
Social Movement <strong>The</strong>ory<br />
In <strong>the</strong> entry-level sociology textbook “Introduction to <strong>Sociology</strong>”, <strong>the</strong> authors note four<br />
major <strong>the</strong>ories <strong>of</strong> revolution and social movements: economic deprivation, resource<br />
mobilization, structural strain, and fields <strong>of</strong> action (Giddens & Duneier 2000). 44 Each<br />
<strong>the</strong>ory is now applied to anarchism.<br />
1. Economic deprivation is based upon unresolvable societal tensions called<br />
contradictions. <strong>The</strong>se contradictions stem from imbalanced economic structures, social<br />
relationships, and political system, and lead to clashes between classes. Marx saw <strong>the</strong><br />
creation (intentional or not) <strong>of</strong> contradictions which would challenge <strong>the</strong> existing<br />
industrial capitalist system as <strong>the</strong> way to move towards socialism. According to Marx<br />
contradictions would invariably lead to revolution, but many anarchists know that things<br />
are not always as simple—why do those who are incredibly deprived economically not<br />
rebel? Things are usually more complex, and <strong>of</strong> course, involve many o<strong>the</strong>r forms <strong>of</strong><br />
deprivation and contradiction will not always lead to greater clash between classes. James<br />
Davies critiques Marx's arguments by saying that people usually rebel when <strong>the</strong>re is an<br />
improvement in people's living conditions—quite <strong>the</strong> opposite <strong>of</strong> Marx—and <strong>the</strong>ir<br />
expectations thus increase. <strong>Anarchists</strong> would criticize this view as well since many who<br />
experience increasing standards <strong>of</strong> living can <strong>of</strong>ten become comfortable with <strong>the</strong> ways in<br />
which such gains are obtained—usually through reform measures or economic surplus—<br />
and are probably less likely to challenge <strong>the</strong> entire system. <strong>The</strong> strains <strong>of</strong> evolutionary<br />
anarchism are probably more likely to appreciate Davies' viewpoint than revolutionary<br />
anarchism is.<br />
2. Resource mobilization is <strong>the</strong> means to collective action which, according to Tilly is<br />
undertaken to contest or overthrow an existing social order (or for anarchists, <strong>the</strong> social,<br />
political, and economic status quo). Tilly also refers to “multiple sovereignty”, in which<br />
government lacks complete control over area it is “supposed to” administer. A good<br />
example <strong>of</strong> this is <strong>the</strong> Zapatista uprising in Chiapas, Mexico. <strong>The</strong> term “multiple<br />
sovereignty” is not different from o<strong>the</strong>r terms that activists use, except that it seems to be<br />
very geographically based. In similar spirit, <strong>the</strong> American Civil Rights movement referred<br />
to “counter-institutions” that fulfilled existing needs without <strong>the</strong> entrenched White power<br />
structure. Anarchist literature refers to this in a revolutionary context as “dual power”,<br />
where counter institutions can be organized that have <strong>the</strong> strength to withstand <strong>the</strong> State<br />
and literally compete with existing hierarchical institutions, with replacement being <strong>the</strong><br />
end-goal (and thus r/evolution). 45<br />
3. Structural strain<br />
Neil Smelser's (1963) work — called “structural strain” by Giddens & Duneier and<br />
“value-added <strong>the</strong>ory” by Kendall, respectively — is worthy <strong>of</strong> a deeper analysis. Its six<br />
44 <strong>The</strong> four <strong>the</strong>ories are detailed in pp. 514-519 and summarized on p. 517.<br />
45 For more on dual power, see <strong>the</strong> essays “Dual Power In <strong>the</strong> Selva Lacandon”, “Demise <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Beehive<br />
Collective”, and “Struggle on Three Fronts” in San Filippo 2003. Also, see Mumm (1998) for a<br />
wonderful vision for anarchist dual power strategy.<br />
[ Williams 48 ] [ this is a draft. do not cite. ]
components <strong>of</strong> social movements include structural conduciveness, structural strain,<br />
generalized beliefs, precipitating factors, leadership/regular communication, and <strong>the</strong><br />
operation <strong>of</strong> social control.<br />
1. Structural cohesiveness. North America is incredibly free compared to <strong>the</strong> rest <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
world. That said, (mostly White) anarchists are beginning to understand that<br />
radicalism is different for people <strong>of</strong> color and acknowledge that <strong>the</strong> freedoms for<br />
certain people in society differ from <strong>the</strong>ir own. Fur<strong>the</strong>r, society, although ra<strong>the</strong>r free, is<br />
not necessarily conducive to fostering conditions <strong>of</strong> resistance—<strong>the</strong> entertainment<br />
industry plays a role in pacification as does working through <strong>the</strong> “democratic” process<br />
<strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> government. People are disconnected in <strong>the</strong> midst <strong>of</strong> bureaucracy. Action is<br />
predicated on awareness <strong>of</strong> problems that <strong>the</strong> mainstream media is unwilling to<br />
critically discuss. While action is frequently open to North Americans, <strong>the</strong> tendency <strong>of</strong><br />
<strong>the</strong>ir concerns – especially when radical – to get distorted by this media, limit its<br />
ability to foster movement. Yet, according to Smelser, movements can be mobilized<br />
when particular classes, persons, or agencies can be singled out (i.e. <strong>the</strong> rich, George<br />
W. Bush, or <strong>the</strong> FCC/EPA/FEC/IRS/FDA/DoD/etc.), when <strong>the</strong> channels for<br />
expressing discontent fail—as <strong>the</strong>y <strong>of</strong>ten do in bureaucracies, and when people have a<br />
chance to communicate with each o<strong>the</strong>r – something that is facilitated by direct action<br />
and organization.<br />
2. Structural strain. Tensions that create conflicting interests in society, in <strong>the</strong> form <strong>of</strong><br />
uncertainties, anxieties, ambiguities, or direct clashes. This can be seen in <strong>the</strong> form <strong>of</strong><br />
economic recessions, lay<strong>of</strong>fs, political scandals, diminishing social services,<br />
gentrification, and such. <strong>Anarchists</strong> view <strong>the</strong>se tensions as subtle, slow-motion class<br />
warfare.<br />
3. Generalized belief. Anti-war and anti-government organizing (sometimes brought<br />
about by <strong>the</strong> deployment <strong>of</strong> soldiers), union-organizing efforts, anti-police brutality<br />
efforts, and <strong>the</strong> like, derive <strong>the</strong>mselves from <strong>the</strong> introduction <strong>of</strong> a general antiauthoritarian<br />
ideology which says that subjugation is wrong and unjust. This ideology<br />
addresses structural strains that people are feeling individually or collectively. Many<br />
North American anarchists are introduced to general beliefs <strong>of</strong> anti-authoritarianism<br />
via culture, such as in punk rock, hip-hop, or electronica music scenes. <strong>The</strong>se scenes—<br />
especially punk rock in <strong>the</strong> case <strong>of</strong> North America—can foster sentiments <strong>of</strong> rebellion,<br />
and channel <strong>the</strong>m through a belief system and tactical approach (D.I.Y. in <strong>the</strong> case <strong>of</strong><br />
punk. D.I.Y. stands for “do it yourself”. It came to be used by punk enthusiasts who<br />
found <strong>the</strong>mselves shut out <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> traditional music world/industry, and had to resort to<br />
self-recording, releasing, distribution, promoting, and touring. It is logical that D.I.Y.<br />
practitioners would appreciate anarchism, since <strong>the</strong>y share <strong>the</strong> values <strong>of</strong> selfdetermination<br />
and mutual aid in common.)<br />
4. Precipitating factors. Poverty and injustice are <strong>of</strong>ten <strong>the</strong> cause <strong>of</strong> urban insurrections<br />
(commonly called “riots”), as are <strong>the</strong>y <strong>the</strong> cause for most left organizing, including<br />
anarchist organizing. Many anarchists believe in spontaneous revolt, whe<strong>the</strong>r marches<br />
that take to <strong>the</strong> streets, wildcat strikes, or general defiance – and <strong>the</strong>y would claim that<br />
<strong>the</strong>y precipitate not just from poverty and injustice, but also from <strong>the</strong> human desire to<br />
resist and seek positive change. It can also arise from natural disasters or technological<br />
failures, and <strong>the</strong> uncertainty that follows in its wake—which allows for <strong>the</strong> potential<br />
practice and display <strong>of</strong> mutual aid and solidarity.<br />
[ Williams 49 ] [ this is a draft. do not cite. ]
5. Leadership/regular communication. Of course, <strong>the</strong> issue <strong>of</strong> “leadership” is very dicey<br />
for anarchists, which perhaps might indicate why <strong>the</strong> anarchist movement itself is<br />
ra<strong>the</strong>r dicey. All anarchists clearly reject anyone “being in-charge”, but are less<br />
confident in understanding leadership. Crass (2001), for instance, asserts that<br />
leadership itself is not a problem to anarchist organizing, but instilling power within<br />
leaders. Ra<strong>the</strong>r, he sees everyone becoming leaders in <strong>the</strong> movement, being able to<br />
each articulate a vision and strategy for moving forward. Some anarchists, however, do<br />
not envision organizations, let alone leaders, and feel that people will somehow sort<br />
through <strong>the</strong>ir needs and desires – a ra<strong>the</strong>r individualistic approach. <strong>The</strong>re is a wide,<br />
vast swath <strong>of</strong> those who fall between <strong>the</strong>se two viewpoints. “Regular communication”,<br />
however, is far different a notion—<strong>the</strong> anarchist press is very diverse and encourages<br />
great dissension (some might even say too much) amongst various journals and zines,<br />
and in its letters sections. Websites, especially <strong>the</strong> Infoshop.org Newswire and <strong>the</strong><br />
Indymedia network act as a conduit for information exchange and debate, as well as<br />
announcements. (See <strong>the</strong> section “Indymedia” for more on this subject.) Owens and<br />
Palmer (2003) refer to Infoshop.org as a “gateway” website: “<strong>the</strong> Infoshop is not an<br />
isolated site. It also acts as a gateway into <strong>the</strong> larger anarchist community online,<br />
sending a high number <strong>of</strong> links back to o<strong>the</strong>r anarchist sites.” (p. 354)<br />
6. Operation <strong>of</strong> social control. Actually not a component <strong>of</strong> a movement itself, <strong>the</strong><br />
operation <strong>of</strong> social control is how <strong>the</strong> existing power structure responds to movement.<br />
In <strong>the</strong> case <strong>of</strong> non-threatening movements, social control is barely non-existent—it is<br />
easy to ignore. Once becoming contentious, however, power will assert itself. It does<br />
so, according to an anarchist understand, by way <strong>of</strong> marginalization, increased<br />
surveillance, repression, accommodation and co-optation. Depending on how elites<br />
respond, many anarchists believe that fissures should be provoked within elite circles.<br />
<strong>The</strong> potential <strong>of</strong> a movement is thus dependent upon <strong>the</strong> response <strong>of</strong> those in power.<br />
4. Fields <strong>of</strong> action<br />
Alan Touraine's analysis <strong>of</strong> social movements included four main ideas, <strong>the</strong> final one<br />
being fields <strong>of</strong> actions. But, <strong>the</strong> first part was historicity, or <strong>the</strong> reason why <strong>the</strong>re are so<br />
many movements in <strong>the</strong> modern era. <strong>Anarchists</strong> might suggest that <strong>the</strong> interconnectedness<br />
<strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> world and <strong>the</strong> exchanged knowledge amongst people has increased <strong>the</strong> longing for<br />
greater freedom (Touraine says that individuals and groups know that activism can be<br />
used to achieve goals and reshape society in modern times).<br />
Secondly, movements have rational objectives and are not mere irrational reactions to<br />
social division. <strong>Anarchists</strong> would generally agree with this, but clarify that rebellion<br />
frequently occurs without methodical vision or objective, but that <strong>the</strong> insurrection can be<br />
turned to a strategic revolutionary movement. For <strong>the</strong> anarchist movement in particular,<br />
<strong>the</strong>re is a lot <strong>of</strong> objective and strategy thinking going on.<br />
Third, <strong>the</strong> process <strong>of</strong> interaction shapes social movements, by defining what it is for and<br />
what it is against. <strong>Anarchists</strong> have <strong>of</strong>ten been accused <strong>of</strong> merely being against things (or<br />
“everything”), and not actually for anything. As absurd as this is (anarchists have a very<br />
clear vision <strong>of</strong> things <strong>the</strong>y are for) it is a real mis-perception and something anarchists<br />
need to work to overcome. <strong>Anarchists</strong> are torn over which (positive or negative) views to<br />
emphasis in <strong>the</strong>ir political work – many stick predominantly to oppositional activities and<br />
[ Williams 50 ] [ this is a draft. do not cite. ]
actions (opposing police brutality, war, corporate globalization), while o<strong>the</strong>rs work<br />
almost exclusively on positive, community-building projects, such as free food<br />
distribution, squatting, community gardens, and free schools.<br />
Lastly, Touraine saw “fields <strong>of</strong> actions” as <strong>the</strong> connections between a social movement<br />
and <strong>the</strong> forces aligned against it. <strong>The</strong> anarchist movement's field <strong>of</strong> action has barely<br />
changed since its origins: its relationship with authority figures and authoritarian<br />
institutions has always been one <strong>of</strong> mutual hostility. Certain “compromises” (if <strong>the</strong>y can<br />
be called that) have been conceded at various points: “reforms” that do not truly<br />
relinquish freedom from constraints <strong>of</strong> authoritarian power, but small victories all <strong>the</strong><br />
same. A classic example <strong>of</strong> this is <strong>the</strong> struggle for <strong>the</strong> eight hour day. In recent years it<br />
can be seen as <strong>the</strong> constraints placed upon nuclear power and weapon production in <strong>the</strong><br />
US (short-lived as it may be). Accordingly, Touraine says that where <strong>the</strong>re continue to be<br />
sources <strong>of</strong> conflict, social movements tend to reemerge – nothing could be truer in <strong>the</strong><br />
reemergence <strong>of</strong> anarchism and deeper-rooted social movements in North America in<br />
recent years.<br />
<strong>The</strong>ory<br />
Table 1. Social Movement <strong>The</strong>ories<br />
Resource<br />
Mobilization<br />
<strong>The</strong>orists Tilly, McCarthy,<br />
Zald<br />
Political<br />
Opportunities<br />
Tilly, McAdam,<br />
Tarrow<br />
New Social<br />
Movements<br />
Touraine Snow<br />
Focus <strong>of</strong> study Left-wing<br />
movements 46 since<br />
<strong>the</strong> 1960s<br />
Relevance to<br />
anarchism<br />
@ is somewhat a<br />
NSM<br />
Framing<br />
Processes<br />
Two <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> most visible anti-war groups since <strong>the</strong> declaration <strong>of</strong> Bush Jr.'s “War <strong>of</strong><br />
Terrorism” have been Act Now to Stop War and End Racism (ANSWER) and Not In Our<br />
Name (NION). Both groups are derived from <strong>the</strong> arcane left—ANSWER from <strong>the</strong> World<br />
Workers Party and NION from <strong>the</strong> Revolutionary Communist Party. <strong>The</strong> non-sectarian<br />
left—by far <strong>the</strong> largest portion <strong>of</strong> activists—has struggled to ignite similar enthusiasm,<br />
and as a result, many have flocked to ANSWER and NION for political action.<br />
ANSWER organizes large anti-war demonstrations, usually in DC and San Francisco.<br />
NION organizes o<strong>the</strong>r more local actions, and has been very busy in Cleveland.<br />
46 Pichardo (1997) is critical <strong>of</strong> NSM for only considering <strong>the</strong> left, and not including right-wing<br />
movements.<br />
[ Williams 51 ] [ this is a draft. do not cite. ]
North American Anarchist Movement and Weber's Three Types <strong>of</strong><br />
Authority 47<br />
Max Weber wrote during a high point for anarchism, in both <strong>the</strong> US and Europe.<br />
Although he surely would have known about it – <strong>the</strong> press ran well-funded propaganda<br />
campaigns against it for decades (Hong 1992) – he doesn’t seem to have taken it into<br />
account in his scheme. Had he, it might have caused him to create ano<strong>the</strong>r category <strong>of</strong><br />
authority.<br />
<strong>The</strong> anarchist reaction to various kinds <strong>of</strong> authority is fundamental. Simply, anarchism<br />
opposes any authority that is placed above <strong>the</strong> individual and collective interest. More<br />
specifically, anarchism rejects <strong>the</strong> authority <strong>of</strong> any idea or institution that supports itself<br />
merely on <strong>the</strong> merit <strong>of</strong> being “tradition”. As such, anarchists were early critics <strong>of</strong><br />
industrial capitalism and advocates <strong>of</strong> women’s rights (including suffrage). Anarchism<br />
likewise rejects charismatic leadership as <strong>the</strong> kind that frequently leads to despotism or<br />
reformism (various “socialist” and liberal leaders are usually <strong>the</strong> primary examples<br />
<strong>of</strong>fered). However, anarchism has an ambiguous understanding <strong>of</strong> “leadership” itself. For<br />
instance, Crass (2001) points towards leaders who work to create “group-centered<br />
leadership” (as SNCC's Ella Baker did), as opposed to “individual-centered leadership”,<br />
thus circumventing <strong>the</strong> potential <strong>of</strong> manipulation and power-grab <strong>of</strong> individuals and thus<br />
diffusing power. Finally, anarchists reject legal-rational authority since its power is<br />
lodged within <strong>the</strong> confines <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> State, which is bureaucratic (as Weber pointed out) and<br />
hierarchical. Anarchism claims that laws are made and enforced to protect <strong>the</strong> few and <strong>the</strong><br />
expense <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> many. Like Marx, <strong>the</strong>y view <strong>the</strong> legal and political system as a tool <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
bourgeoisie class.<br />
By mere definition, <strong>the</strong> North American anarchist movement itself adheres to none <strong>of</strong><br />
Weber’s authority types. At its core, anarchism is explicitly anti-authoritarian. According<br />
to George, “<strong>The</strong> fundamental principle <strong>of</strong> Anarchism is <strong>the</strong> rejection <strong>of</strong> authority, with <strong>the</strong><br />
possible exception <strong>of</strong> ‘natural authority’” (George 1997, p. 55). Or, as <strong>the</strong> anarcho-punk<br />
band Crass put it: “<strong>the</strong>re is no authority but yourself” – a sentiment that obviously<br />
contradicts authority, which must be over o<strong>the</strong>rs.<br />
Although anarchism itself does not possess any <strong>of</strong> Weber’s three authority types, it is not<br />
immune from norms. In fact, Spencer seems to suggest that norms are ra<strong>the</strong>r compatible<br />
to anarchism, albeit informal norms: “Norms are rules <strong>of</strong> conduct towards which actors<br />
orient <strong>the</strong>ir behaviour” (Spencer 1970, p. 124). As such, <strong>the</strong>re are many unwritten rules or<br />
norms that anarchists follow, norms which do closely sync with Weber’s authority types.<br />
“Traditionally-legitimated norms” – rules with historic legitimacy and precedent – are<br />
found in anarchist predilection for specific types <strong>of</strong> organizing, such as <strong>the</strong> use <strong>of</strong> affinity<br />
groups, a practice common since its popularized usage in <strong>the</strong> Spanish Civil War <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
1930s. Customs, such as <strong>the</strong> use <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> “circle-A” symbol as an identifier, and parlance<br />
(terms like “liberatory”, “direct action”, and “mutual aid” in particular), have been used<br />
for a long period in anarchist culture.<br />
47 This section was originally submitted as part <strong>of</strong> a paper for a course entitled “Sociological <strong>The</strong>ory” at<br />
<strong>the</strong> <strong>University</strong> <strong>of</strong> Akron, Fall 2003.<br />
[ Williams 52 ] [ this is a draft. do not cite. ]
Individual anarchists also have quite a swaying power, an influence that approaches<br />
charismatic authority, but still falls short – partially due to a general repulsion <strong>of</strong><br />
leadership and partially due to a rejection by <strong>the</strong>se individuals <strong>of</strong> being used as idols.<br />
Noam Chomsky is a very influential individual to many activists on <strong>the</strong> political Left,<br />
Murray Bookchin is a political force in <strong>the</strong> New England states with his <strong>the</strong>ories <strong>of</strong> social<br />
ecology and libertarian municipalism, and John Zerzan is greatly admired in <strong>the</strong> Pacific-<br />
Northwest for his writings about primitivism. Thus, it is an anarchist “norm” to read <strong>the</strong>se<br />
charismatic writers, but not necessarily to be compelled to agree with all <strong>the</strong>y write or<br />
advocate. 48<br />
<strong>The</strong> only sense in which Weberian authority might intersect with anarchism is with legalrational.<br />
Although anarchists oppose <strong>the</strong> hierarchically-ordered modern state, <strong>the</strong>y do<br />
practice a form <strong>of</strong> legal-rational authority within small organizations. In collectives, for<br />
instance, <strong>the</strong>re are <strong>of</strong>ten rules or guidelines that must be followed, or else sanctions are<br />
lobbied. This is a voluntary reverence to authority, though, since any member <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
collective can leave at any point. Also, it differs from most o<strong>the</strong>r forms <strong>of</strong> legal-rational<br />
authority in that individuals make a conscious effort to accept <strong>the</strong>se rules, or even are<br />
involved in <strong>the</strong> rule formation <strong>the</strong>mselves.<br />
Even though it seems plausible to place some anarchist organizational structures within<br />
<strong>the</strong> legal-rational framework, Weber’s work suggests o<strong>the</strong>rwise. He writes that although<br />
“legal rule” can be found in voluntary associations (such as anarchist collectives), it needs<br />
“an extensive and hierarchically organized staff <strong>of</strong> functionaries” (Weber 1958, p. 2).<br />
Since <strong>the</strong>re is no hierarchy present in a collective, nor permanent functionaries, Weber’s<br />
own criteria discounts this possibility.<br />
Yet, as Spencer points out, <strong>the</strong>re is a difference between Weber’s legal-rational authority<br />
and an under-discussed fourth type, value-rational authority. <strong>The</strong> latter is “subordination<br />
to a principle” (Spencer 1970, n. 2). In this respect, anarchist frequently submit to valuerational<br />
authority, such as in consensus decision-making processes; decisions are made<br />
through a formalized process and assisted by one <strong>of</strong> more facilitators who are empowered<br />
to help <strong>the</strong> group reach a shared decision, but also enforce <strong>the</strong> rules <strong>of</strong> consensus. Thus,<br />
anarchists submit to <strong>the</strong> authority <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> values <strong>of</strong> consensus and direct democracy, but<br />
not necessarily <strong>the</strong> legality <strong>of</strong> it.<br />
Near-Modern North American Anarchist Movement History<br />
Apter's (1970) account is typical <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> general confusion <strong>of</strong> 1960s youth counter-culture<br />
movement with anarchism. <strong>The</strong> term “anarchism”, clearly, has been used inaccurately by<br />
opponents and those supposedly in favor <strong>of</strong> “anarchism”. He conflates anarchism with a<br />
type <strong>of</strong> self-destructive, psychologically-ridden ideology, practiced by <strong>the</strong> non-<strong>the</strong>oretical,<br />
and generally foolhardy. He makes connections with this counter-culture and past<br />
48 Yet, it is still <strong>the</strong> case that anarchists, especially American anarchists (and feminists), incorporate <strong>the</strong><br />
name and likeness <strong>of</strong> “Emma” (as in Emma Goldman) into <strong>the</strong>ir projects, infoshops, punk bands, tshirts,<br />
speeches, propaganda, artwork, etc.<br />
[ Williams 53 ] [ this is a draft. do not cite. ]
anarchist movement, but this extends little beyond curiosity. It is very likely that<br />
“anarchists” <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> 1960s counter-culture were less well-versed in anarchist <strong>the</strong>ory and<br />
that it was drenched in general rebelliousness than a desire to a create a new world, but<br />
this still does not qualify those people as anarchists. <strong>The</strong>re is some truth to <strong>the</strong>se<br />
criticisms, that <strong>the</strong> youth counter-culture was reactive and making up its rebelliousness<br />
tactics and philosophy as it went along. But, concurrently, <strong>the</strong>re was also radical<br />
scholarship and historical research occurring that uncovered anarchist <strong>the</strong>ory <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> past,<br />
and attempted to apply it today. But, to judge all rebellion as naïve and ill-informed<br />
seems a ra<strong>the</strong>r pompous endeavor.<br />
Although generally dismissive, Apter does occasionally hit on some good observations:<br />
How can one explain this continuous preference by<br />
anarchists for spontaneous association? Behind <strong>the</strong><br />
appearance <strong>of</strong> anti-intellectualism <strong>the</strong>re lies a presumptive<br />
belief in an ultimate rationality as <strong>the</strong> common and unifying<br />
property <strong>of</strong> all men if unfettered by an inappropriate system,<br />
a rationality which, moreover, will temper relationships <strong>of</strong><br />
people whose lives are based upon intimate and localized<br />
associations. (p. 402)<br />
However, only paragraphs later he is denouncing any connections with socialism and<br />
organization—while at o<strong>the</strong>r moments seems to think that <strong>the</strong> only organizations worth<br />
considering are parties. <strong>The</strong> reader gets <strong>the</strong> feeling that Apter has forgotten his topic<br />
temporarily. Indeed, this seems a lackluster critique to be found in a journal entitled<br />
Government and Opposition.<br />
Brienes (1982) notes anarchists that contributed to <strong>the</strong> New Left, who derived from <strong>the</strong><br />
“old left”, only in a chronological sense. Fur<strong>the</strong>r, Brienes differentiates between <strong>the</strong>se<br />
activists and <strong>the</strong> “old left”, which was composed <strong>of</strong> decomposing communist/socialist<br />
political parties at <strong>the</strong> time.<br />
[S]uch radical pacifists as A.J. Muste and David Dellinger,<br />
<strong>the</strong> Catholic Worker movement or anarchists such as Paul<br />
Goodman or Murray Bookchin were politically not old<br />
leftists. <strong>The</strong>ir ethically oriented criticism <strong>of</strong> capitalism,<br />
emphasis on <strong>the</strong> activism <strong>of</strong> moral witness and distrust <strong>of</strong><br />
hierarchical organizations distinguished <strong>the</strong>m from <strong>the</strong> old<br />
left parties and organizations proper. <strong>The</strong>ir impact on <strong>the</strong><br />
new left may not have been extensive; never<strong>the</strong>less, <strong>the</strong><br />
pacifists and anarchists are among <strong>the</strong> new left's real<br />
forerunners. (Brienes 1982, pp. 13-14)<br />
<strong>Anarchists</strong> have been keen lately to creating what Bey (1991) referred to as “temporary<br />
autonomous zones” called infoshops, which provide <strong>the</strong> movement with a space to hold<br />
[ Williams 54 ] [ this is a draft. do not cite. ]
meetings and congregate, as well as to sell radical literature and propagate <strong>the</strong> cause. 49<br />
TAZs are also sometimes simply called “autonomous zones” or “a-zones”.<br />
Feminism:<br />
Dark Star Collective (2002), Beallor (?), CRIFA (1983), MASS (n.d.), Epstein (1991)<br />
In Welsh's (1997) review <strong>of</strong> two books by Alberto Melucci, he ascertains Melucci's<br />
thought that “new social movements have to transform <strong>the</strong>mselves into durable<br />
organisations in order to achieve this remain problematic in terms <strong>of</strong> anarchist and<br />
libertarian approaches... SMOs [social movement organizations] reproduce hierarchies<br />
and bureaucratic structures which are anti<strong>the</strong>tical to grassroots movements” (Welsh 1997,<br />
p. 167). [O<strong>the</strong>r Welsh comments could go in “Micro-interaction” subsection....?!?!]<br />
Religion and Spirituality<br />
Although many anarchists are ei<strong>the</strong>r agnostic or a<strong>the</strong>ist 50 , a good number openly identify<br />
with some form <strong>of</strong> organized religion or unorganized spirituality. Also, <strong>the</strong>re are a<br />
number <strong>of</strong> religions/philosophies that have been argued to be anarchistic in nature, or at<br />
least compatible with anarchism.<br />
Taoism has been referenced (TAO n.d.) as having an anarchistic bent and understanding<br />
<strong>of</strong> human nature. According to TAO, Taoist philosophy argues that<br />
Left to <strong>the</strong>mselves [humans] live in natural harmony and<br />
spontaneous order. But when <strong>the</strong>y are coerced and ruled,<br />
<strong>the</strong>ir natures become vicious. It follows that princes and<br />
rulers should not coerce <strong>the</strong>ir people into obeying artificial<br />
laws, but should leave <strong>the</strong>m to follow <strong>the</strong>ir natural<br />
dispositions. To attempt to govern people with manmade<br />
laws and regulations is absurd and impossible: 'as well try<br />
to wade through <strong>the</strong> sea, to hew a passage through a river,<br />
or make a mosquito fly away with a mountain!'... Human<br />
beings are ultimately individuals but <strong>the</strong>y are also social<br />
beings, part <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> whole. Anticipating <strong>the</strong> findings <strong>of</strong><br />
modern ecology, <strong>the</strong> Taoists believed that <strong>the</strong> more<br />
individuality and diversity <strong>the</strong>re is, <strong>the</strong> greater <strong>the</strong> overall<br />
harmony. <strong>The</strong> spontaneous order <strong>of</strong> society does not<br />
exclude conflict but involves a dynamic interplay <strong>of</strong><br />
opposite forces. (p.?)<br />
49 See Bey 1991, pp 95-141 for more on TAZs. For more on infoshops see Atton (2003) and O'Connor<br />
(1999). For an anarchist critique <strong>of</strong> problems with infoshops, see Sigal (2003).<br />
50 See a classical declaration <strong>of</strong> a<strong>the</strong>ism by Bakunin (1916/1970). According to <strong>the</strong> 2002 Infoshop.org user<br />
survey 65 percent considered <strong>the</strong>mselves not religious–including agnostic and a<strong>the</strong>ist (Williams 2004b).<br />
[ Williams 55 ] [ this is a draft. do not cite. ]
[Snyder 1961 on Buddhism and anarchism]<br />
Still, Bufe (1995) fiendishly defines “Buddhism” as:<br />
A philosophy which promotes compassion, respect for life,<br />
logic, and reason, and hence in no way, but for its<br />
unfortunate embrace <strong>of</strong> self-denial, deserves to be libeled as<br />
a “religion”. (p. 49)<br />
Dewey (2004) points to Unitarian Universalism (UU) for its embrace <strong>of</strong> humanity and<br />
anarchist sympathies. 51 <strong>The</strong> Catholic Worker are likely <strong>the</strong> most open anarchists, many <strong>of</strong><br />
whom are prominent anarchists, such as Dorothy Day and Ammon Hennacy. 52<br />
Foster (1987 and 1997) suggests that Amish-Anabaptists embody many anarchist<br />
tendencies. In his 1987 article, he contrasts <strong>the</strong> Amish with Taoism, stating that both have<br />
key values synonymous with anarchism, practice direct democracy and civil<br />
disobedience, use “appropriate technology”, rebelled against <strong>the</strong>ir oppressive<br />
contemporaries, and rejected “civilization”. <strong>The</strong> philosophies <strong>of</strong> Lao Tse and <strong>the</strong> Amish<br />
are akin to what Foster calls “eco-anarchism”, or similar to what activists today might call<br />
“green anarchism” or “primitivism”. He states that <strong>the</strong> Amish value:<br />
Separation from – and non-conformity to – <strong>the</strong> secular<br />
world, in language, dress, <strong>the</strong> use <strong>of</strong> modern technologies,<br />
consumption patterns, types <strong>of</strong> residence... Value-oriented<br />
rationality, or rationality in <strong>the</strong> service <strong>of</strong> family,<br />
community and religious ideals... A preference for smallscale<br />
communities, farms and business enterprises... A<br />
reverential attitude toward nature and a respect for <strong>the</strong><br />
benefits <strong>of</strong> manual labour... Voluntary simplicity...<br />
Christian pacifism, as embodied in <strong>the</strong> Sermon on <strong>the</strong><br />
Mount... Adult baptism... <strong>The</strong> supremacy <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> sacred<br />
community over <strong>the</strong> rights <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> individual... Humility.<br />
(Foster 1987, pp. 10-11)<br />
It would appear that <strong>the</strong> Amish practice <strong>the</strong>ir philosophy far better than green anarchists<br />
and primitivists, and are less ideological about it. <strong>The</strong>y also seem to delve into less<br />
hypocrisy in action than current primitivists, which stems from <strong>the</strong> White middle-class.<br />
51 As a complete aside, <strong>the</strong> Kent, Ohio UU congregation was open-minded and trusting enough to, at <strong>the</strong><br />
last minute, host an anarchist conference on May 3, 2003 after <strong>the</strong> site reservation at Kent State<br />
<strong>University</strong> was pulled on conference organizers by a paranoid and ultra-nationalist (i.e. “patriotic”)<br />
university administration.<br />
52 Again, see Boehrer (2000 and 2003) for more on <strong>the</strong> Catholic Worker movement. Also DiFranco and<br />
Phillips (1996) relate a story about Hennacy in <strong>the</strong> song “Anarchy”.<br />
[ Williams 56 ] [ this is a draft. do not cite. ]
Labor Movement and New Social Movements 53<br />
North American anarchist organizations—groups that espouse an anarchist philosophy—<br />
may arguably be best understood by Fitzgerald and Rodgers’ (2000) model <strong>of</strong> radical<br />
social movement organizations (RSMOs), which differ from moderate social movement<br />
organizations in terms <strong>of</strong> organizational structure, ideology, tactics, communication, and<br />
assessment <strong>of</strong> success. RSMOs are thus nonhierarchical, participatory, egalitarian, and<br />
radical, emphasize structural change, use nonviolent action and innovative tactics, are<br />
ignored and misrepresented by <strong>the</strong> mainstream media, utilize alternative media, use<br />
limited resources, and are subject to intense opposition and surveillance. This model<br />
modifies <strong>the</strong> framework set by resource mobilization <strong>the</strong>ory (McCarthy and Zald 1977)<br />
by arguing that bureaucratization and institutionalization <strong>of</strong> social movements is not<br />
always necessary or inevitable.<br />
However, for this study, I will use <strong>the</strong> more widely-known new social movements (NSM)<br />
<strong>the</strong>ory, since it <strong>of</strong>fers <strong>the</strong> best vantage point to challenge <strong>the</strong> <strong>of</strong>t-claimed notion that <strong>the</strong><br />
anarchist movement is <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> middle-class or that it is not active in class-related issues. It<br />
also speaks more directly to <strong>the</strong> individual characteristics <strong>of</strong> movement participants ra<strong>the</strong>r<br />
than <strong>the</strong> organizational structures <strong>the</strong>y utilize.<br />
NSM <strong>the</strong>ory asserts that in this era <strong>of</strong> post-industrialism, modern social movements differ<br />
from earlier movements, and focus upon less-class-oriented issues such as racial equality,<br />
feminism, peace, <strong>the</strong> environment, and localist issues. In North America, non-classoriented<br />
franchise anarchistic organizations that fall into <strong>the</strong>se categories include ACT-<br />
UP, Anti-Racist Action, Animal Liberation Front, Critical Mass, Earth First!, Earth<br />
Liberation Front, Food Not Bombs, and Reclaim <strong>the</strong> Streets. As such, Cohen (1985)<br />
argues that “Unlike <strong>the</strong> Old Left, actors involved in contemporary movements do not<br />
view <strong>the</strong>mselves in terms <strong>of</strong> a socioeconomic class” (p. 667).<br />
Offe (1985) states that NSMs differ from traditional social movements by focusing on<br />
values <strong>of</strong> autonomy and identity, organizing with decentralization, self-government, and<br />
self-help in mind, and tend to be ad hoc, egalitarian, and non-hierarchical—incidentally<br />
strong anarchist values. Because problems related to authority and domination may be<br />
found within multiple domains, anarchists are unique in <strong>the</strong>ir relation to NSMs. <strong>The</strong>re is<br />
considerable cross-movement participation within all <strong>the</strong> aforementioned movements by<br />
anarchists and <strong>the</strong>ir organizations (Epstein 1991, Graeber 2002, Shantz 2003).<br />
Sheppard (2002) claims, albeit without quantitative analysis, that anarchists are less likely<br />
to organize and belong to unions than in <strong>the</strong> past, and that <strong>the</strong>y instead choose to find<br />
o<strong>the</strong>r work if <strong>the</strong>ir current job is disagreeable. Sheppard hypo<strong>the</strong>sizes this is because <strong>of</strong><br />
<strong>the</strong> aforementioned class collusion <strong>of</strong> modern unions, macho stereotypes <strong>of</strong> unions, and<br />
<strong>the</strong> punk subculture <strong>of</strong> rejection that contemporary anarchism draws heavily from. He<br />
opines that, “Young anarchists <strong>of</strong>ten correctly see <strong>the</strong> organized labor movement as not<br />
radical at all, but as a backwards force embodying <strong>the</strong> worst kinds <strong>of</strong> provincialism and<br />
political maneuvering” (para. 6). His generalizations appear to support classifying<br />
53 This section is partially composed <strong>of</strong> relevant portions <strong>of</strong> a literature review from a graduate course<br />
entitled <strong>Sociology</strong> 753: Secondary Data Analysis, at <strong>the</strong> <strong>University</strong> <strong>of</strong> Akron, Summer 2004.<br />
[ Williams 57 ] [ this is a draft. do not cite. ]
anarchism within <strong>the</strong> NSM framework. Cohen (1985) supports this: “Instead <strong>of</strong> forming<br />
unions or political parties… [NSMs] focus on grass-roots politics and create horizontal,<br />
directly democratic associations that are loosely federated on national levels” (p. 667).<br />
Yet, Bagguley (1992) is critical <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> NSM <strong>the</strong>ory, because <strong>the</strong> above movements and<br />
organizational traits existed before <strong>the</strong> 1960s and post-industrialism, thus making a clear<br />
delineation difficult. Pichardo (1997) also criticizes NSM for a number <strong>of</strong> reasons. He<br />
points out that NSM <strong>the</strong>ory focuses solely on left-wing movements, to <strong>the</strong> neglect <strong>of</strong><br />
right-wing and reactionary movements. NSM ideas lack solid empirical evidence and as<br />
such tend to be more <strong>the</strong>oretical. Finally, Pichardo claims that NSM <strong>the</strong>ory is less a brand<br />
new <strong>the</strong>ory than just an addition to social movement <strong>the</strong>ory.<br />
Table 2. Geographical Distribution <strong>of</strong> Union Membership in Infoshop Survey<br />
Total Valid<br />
Union Membership<br />
Place Population Population # %<br />
North America 769 745 127 17.05<br />
Canada 94 92 20 21.74<br />
United States 673 651 107 16.44<br />
Non-North America 142 137 41 29.93<br />
Europe 88 85 30 35.29<br />
O<strong>the</strong>r 54 52 11 21.15<br />
All 911 891 170 19.08<br />
Source: Infoshop.org, author's analysis. Note: Twenty-nine respondents who answered a location did not<br />
answer <strong>the</strong> union question (31 total), thus <strong>the</strong> above figures may not add up properly.<br />
Geographical<br />
<strong>The</strong> 2002 Infoshop survey shows interesting relationships between geographic region and<br />
ideology. Although long suspected by activists, <strong>the</strong> survey provides <strong>the</strong> first true<br />
quantitative evidence supporting this. US respondents are grouped by state into four<br />
different geographic regions, including Nor<strong>the</strong>ast, North Central, South, and West. 54<br />
<strong>The</strong> significant correlations between region and ideology are found between <strong>the</strong> two<br />
coasts. Nor<strong>the</strong>astern US anarchists are positively correlated with an economically-focused<br />
ideology (those who identify as anarcho-syndicalists or anarcho-communists) called “red<br />
54 This geographical delineation follows that <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> CHRR (n.d.). Although <strong>the</strong> four regions contain<br />
varying numbers <strong>of</strong> states, <strong>the</strong> total respondents for each are relatively equivalent in <strong>the</strong> Infoshop survey.<br />
<strong>The</strong> groupings are as follows. Nor<strong>the</strong>ast: CT, ME, MA, NH, NJ, NY, PA, RI, and VT. North Central:<br />
IL, IN, IA, KS, MI, MN, MO, NE, ND, OH, SD, and WI. South: AL, AR, DE, DC, FL, GA, KY, LA,<br />
MD, MS, NC, OK, SC, TN, TX, VA, and WV. West: AK, AZ, CA CO, HI, ID, MT, NV, NM, OR, UT,<br />
WA, and WY.<br />
[ Williams 58 ] [ this is a draft. do not cite. ]
anarchism”. Western US anarchists are positively correlated with an environmentallyfocused<br />
ideology (those who identify as eco-anarchists, primitivists, and o<strong>the</strong>r ec<strong>of</strong>riendly<br />
ideologies 55 ) called “green anarchism”. Also significant is <strong>the</strong> negative<br />
relationship between Nor<strong>the</strong>asterners and an environmental ideology, meaning that those<br />
in <strong>the</strong> US Nor<strong>the</strong>ast tend to not have an environmental ideology. Westerners have a<br />
negative correlation to an economical ideology, but <strong>the</strong> relationship is not statistically<br />
significant.<br />
This evidence supports <strong>the</strong> <strong>the</strong>ory <strong>of</strong> a red-green split in <strong>the</strong> US anarchist movement.<br />
“Red” anarchists are those who traditionally focus on issues <strong>of</strong> economy and class, while<br />
“green” anarchists traditionally focus upon environmental issues. Symbolically, <strong>the</strong>se<br />
various anarchists strains are displayed by varying anarchist flags: “reds” have a flag that<br />
is diagonally split between <strong>the</strong> colors black and red, while “greens” have a similar flag<br />
albeit with black and green. See Table ZZ for more detail.<br />
Table 3. Correlation Between “Green” and “Red” Anarchist Ideology Within U.S.<br />
Geographical Regions<br />
Region Green Red<br />
Nor<strong>the</strong>ast -0.11 ** 0.13 ***<br />
North Central -0.01 -0.01<br />
South -0.05 -0.06<br />
West 0.17 *** -0.06<br />
Source: Infoshop.org, author's analysis. Note: ** p < .01; *** p < .001<br />
Nei<strong>the</strong>r <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r two geographic regions, North Central or South, have significant<br />
relationships to ei<strong>the</strong>r specific ideological strain. This suggests that <strong>the</strong>re is no clear<br />
tendency within <strong>the</strong>se areas. In fact, more respondents in <strong>the</strong>se states identified simply as<br />
anarchists.<br />
It should be noted that this does not suggest Westerners do not deal with issues <strong>of</strong> class—<br />
indeed <strong>the</strong> IWW remains active along <strong>the</strong> West Coast, especially in Oregon. Also, it<br />
should be understood that Nor<strong>the</strong>asterners do not necessarily neglect issues <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
environment, seen by <strong>the</strong> many Earth First! collectives throughout <strong>the</strong> region. 56 <strong>The</strong><br />
ideologies chosen by Infoshop respondents merely represent a primary focus, as only one<br />
answer was accepted by <strong>the</strong> survey. Far more respondents chose a generic ideology, such<br />
as “anarchist”, “anarchist without ideology”, or “anti-authoritarian”.<br />
Outside <strong>of</strong> anarchistic organizations, <strong>the</strong> coasts also dominate in ei<strong>the</strong>r strain <strong>of</strong> social<br />
movement industry (SMI????) (McCarthy and Zald 1977). Print magazines, journals, and<br />
publishing groups are a good measure <strong>of</strong> SMIs. <strong>The</strong>re is no cross-over between <strong>the</strong> coasts<br />
55 Also included, but far fewer in number, are animal liberationists, deep ecologists, greens, and social<br />
ecologists.<br />
56 EF! Journal notes seven collectives in <strong>the</strong> Nor<strong>the</strong>ast (as <strong>of</strong> late 2001). Granted, this is far fewer than <strong>the</strong><br />
West.<br />
[ Williams 59 ] [ this is a draft. do not cite. ]
in this respect; <strong>the</strong> Nor<strong>the</strong>ast does not publish a green publication and <strong>the</strong> West does not<br />
publish a red publication. <strong>The</strong>se SMIs are listed in Table XX. <strong>The</strong>re may be lesser-known<br />
periodicals that violate this norm, but <strong>the</strong>y are unknown to this author.<br />
Table 4. Green or Red North American Anarchist Journals and Presses<br />
Name City Region Ideology<br />
Anarcho-Syndicalist Review Philadelphia, PA Nor<strong>the</strong>ast Red<br />
Earth First! Journal Tucson, AZ West Green<br />
Feral Press Tucson, AZ West Green<br />
Fifth Estate Ferndale, MI North Central Green<br />
Green Anarchy Eugene, OR West Green<br />
Industrial Worker Philadelphia, PA Nor<strong>the</strong>ast Red<br />
Nor<strong>the</strong>astern Anarchist Boston, MA Nor<strong>the</strong>ast Red<br />
Source: Various, AYP<br />
Diffusion <strong>of</strong> political pieing as a tactic<br />
● via newspapers and communiques (a-infos.ca, IMCs, BBB cookbook, etc.)<br />
● a la McAdam (1983)<br />
QUALITATIVE<br />
● Interviews <strong>of</strong> local-area anarchists<br />
● Research local-area anarchist history (esp. McKinley assassination-era, IWW/Rubber<br />
Workers [11 Feb 1913])<br />
QUANTITATIVE<br />
● Infoshop.org survey (2002)<br />
● http://www.infoshop.org/survey2002.php<br />
● http://www.infoshop.org/inews/stories.php?story=02/01/28/4091974<br />
● http://www.infoshop.org/inews/stories.php?story=02/08/15/9841940<br />
● Anarchy magazine survey<br />
● http://www.anarchymag.org/53/anarchy_survey.html<br />
● Survey anarchists to rate “models” with a 1-5 rating: does this model help to explain<br />
anarchism? (very poor, poor, neutral, good, very good)<br />
● How many (and where) are anarchist email listservs? What local<br />
groups/networks/topics do <strong>the</strong>y serve?<br />
GEOGRAPHICAL<br />
● Map <strong>of</strong> FNB (and CM, ARA, EF!, ABC, IWW, etc.) chapters throughout US/Canada<br />
[ Williams 60 ] [ this is a draft. do not cite. ]
● Map successive additions <strong>of</strong> IMCs, internationally (chronologically?)<br />
● Nor<strong>the</strong>ast Ohio/Akron anarchism, historically-speaking<br />
“1913 -- IWW (Industrial Workers <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> World) leads rubber strike in Akron, Ohio. <strong>The</strong><br />
Akron Rubber Workers will do it again in 1936-37, at <strong>the</strong> General Tire Company <strong>of</strong><br />
Akron, scene <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> first sitdown strike in rubber. <strong>The</strong> first major strike, in 1913,<br />
represented an end <strong>of</strong> innocence. <strong>The</strong> action, which included workers from all <strong>of</strong> Akron's<br />
rubber shops, began after <strong>the</strong> introduction <strong>of</strong> machinery that made tires easier to build and<br />
resulted in lower piece rates for <strong>the</strong> workers. <strong>The</strong> strike was loosely directed by <strong>the</strong><br />
Industrial Workers <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> World, a radical group nicknamed <strong>the</strong> "Wobblies." It lasted<br />
more than five weeks. <strong>The</strong> workers made no gains -- <strong>the</strong>y didn't even manage to shut<br />
down <strong>the</strong> rubber shops. <strong>The</strong> strike served chiefly to disillusion company executives.<br />
(http://www.infoshop.org/texts/iww.html)”<br />
[Isaac 2002 – IWW and Akron strike]<br />
[ Williams 61 ] [ this is a draft. do not cite. ]
INEQUALITY<br />
Until now all human history has been only<br />
a perpetual and bloody immolation <strong>of</strong> millions<br />
<strong>of</strong> poor human beings in honor <strong>of</strong> some pitiless<br />
abstraction—God, country, power <strong>of</strong> State, national<br />
honor, historical rights, judicial rights...<br />
- Mikhail Bakunin<br />
A key – some might say fundamental – concept in sociology is that <strong>of</strong> inequality. A keen<br />
reader might say that inequality is simply <strong>the</strong> presence <strong>of</strong> difference and<br />
disproportionality when <strong>the</strong>re should be similarity, be it in terms <strong>of</strong> social, economic, or<br />
political disproportionality. Yet, <strong>the</strong> sociological definition is <strong>of</strong>ten more economical, and<br />
thus <strong>of</strong>ten misses <strong>the</strong> many ways in which inequality occurs. As with your average person<br />
on <strong>the</strong> street, <strong>the</strong> anarchist views inequality as a system <strong>of</strong> interlocking oppressions, <strong>the</strong><br />
are incredibly diverse, varied, and sometimes contradictory, but always anti<strong>the</strong>tical to<br />
human freedom. Thus, <strong>the</strong> vision <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> anarchist is one <strong>of</strong> actively seeking out inequality,<br />
and challenging <strong>the</strong> structures and institutions that facilitate it.<br />
● <strong>The</strong> social reproduction <strong>of</strong> inequality (Giddens, p. 379)<br />
● Cultural capital (Giddens, p. 379)<br />
● Stratification systems: slavery, caste, estates, class (Giddens pp.146-148)<br />
● Class: income, wealth, <strong>edu</strong>cation, occupation (Giddens, pp. 149-154)<br />
● Gender and stratification<br />
● Social mobility (Giddens, pp. 159-164) – vertical (upward/downward),<br />
intragenerational, intergenerational, exchange, and structural mobility<br />
● Marx: means <strong>of</strong> production and <strong>the</strong> analysis <strong>of</strong> class<br />
● Weber: class and status<br />
● Davis and Moore: <strong>the</strong> functions <strong>of</strong> stratification<br />
● Erik Olin Wright: contradictory class locations<br />
● Frank Parkin and social closure<br />
Davis and Moore (1945, quoted in Kendall 1999) have argued that inequality is not only<br />
inevitable, but is also necessary for society. This is a misrepresentation, according to<br />
anarchists. Inequality may be necessary for a capitalist society, but is not inevitable or<br />
necessary for every society. Inequity is only essential if one likes power differentials in<br />
society. Inequality is necessary only if <strong>the</strong> existing system is to remain intact. Inequality is<br />
“mandatory” for a society with strongly hierarchical relationships (such as capitalist<br />
economies), but is not necessary in a non- (or less-) hierarchical society is possible.<br />
[get a good “inequality” <strong>the</strong>ory/text book and review, list, explore <strong>the</strong> various topics<br />
and keywords thru <strong>the</strong> @ lens]<br />
[ Williams 62 ] [ this is a draft. do not cite. ]
A 2002 user survey <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> popular website Infoshop.org showed that at least XX percent<br />
were White males. 57 This confirms <strong>the</strong> frequently <strong>of</strong>fered media critique that <strong>the</strong> North<br />
American anarchist movement is predominantly a White one (and highly male). Thus,<br />
inequalities exist within <strong>the</strong> anarchist movement, as with <strong>the</strong> rest <strong>of</strong> society. Efforts have<br />
been made to deal with this, to varying degrees <strong>of</strong> success.... Anti-Racist Action, Men<br />
Against Sexism, Anarchist People <strong>of</strong> Color (APOC) conferences and collectives, Race<br />
Traitor zine, and o<strong>the</strong>rs.<br />
57 That number may be considerably higher since XX percent and XX percent did not answer <strong>the</strong> gender or<br />
race questions, respectively. For more on analysis on this survey, see Williams 2004b (forthcoming).<br />
[ Williams 63 ] [ this is a draft. do not cite. ]
ORGANIZATION<br />
If you want to build a free society,<br />
<strong>the</strong> parts are all at hand.<br />
- Colin Ward<br />
Ano<strong>the</strong>r key sociological concept is organization. Thought by most to be oxymoronic,<br />
anarchists are in reality some <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> most highly organized individuals on <strong>the</strong> Left (a label<br />
some <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>m resent, incidentally). <strong>Anarchists</strong>, <strong>the</strong>refore, believe in order and<br />
organization, just not <strong>of</strong> a hierarchical or authoritarian kind. Although this is proorganization<br />
attitude is not 100 percent a part <strong>of</strong> anarchist philosophy, it has enjoyed<br />
overwhelming support in most anarchist circles. “Green anarchists” or <strong>the</strong> controversial<br />
“primitivist” factions <strong>of</strong> anarchism do not always paint a flattering portrait <strong>of</strong><br />
organization, and some writers, such as Zerzan (cite?) are openly hostile to all<br />
organization, seeing it as a keystone <strong>of</strong> civilization (also an enemy). 58 Such modern<br />
“anarchists” would be <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> few considered “pro-chaos”.<br />
<strong>Anarchists</strong> who totally reject any organization are in <strong>the</strong> minority. According to Graeber<br />
(2002):<br />
in North America especially, this is a movement about<br />
reinventing democracy. It is not opposed to organization. It<br />
is about creating new forms <strong>of</strong> organization. It is not<br />
lacking in ideology. Those new forms <strong>of</strong> organization are<br />
its ideology. It is about creating and enacting horizontal<br />
networks instead <strong>of</strong> top-down structures like states, parties<br />
or corporations; networks based on principles <strong>of</strong><br />
decentralized, non-hierarchical consensus democracy.<br />
Ultimately, it aspires to be much more than that, because<br />
ultimately it aspires to reinvent daily life as whole. (p. 70,<br />
emphasis in original)<br />
<strong>The</strong> anarchist approach to political organization was set-in stone when Bakunin and his<br />
followers were ejected from <strong>the</strong> First International by Marx. This schism helped to clarify<br />
<strong>the</strong> many differences in tactics and philosophy between <strong>the</strong> State socialists and antiauthoritarian<br />
socialists. From Bakunin's “secret societies” to <strong>the</strong> groupos affinidad <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
CNT-FAI, or from <strong>the</strong> Industrial Workers <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> World (IWW) to <strong>the</strong> Direct Action<br />
Network (DAN) 59 , anarchists have organized <strong>the</strong>mselves in non-hierarchical ways for<br />
over a century.<br />
However, anarchists differ from most leftists and socialists in that <strong>the</strong>y do not form<br />
political parties (at least in an electoral sense). Some anarchists do vote, but <strong>the</strong>y all<br />
recognize <strong>the</strong> severe limitations <strong>of</strong> electoral politics, and consequently form non-electoral<br />
58 See Sheppard (2003b), which contrasts primitivism with anarchism.<br />
59 See Polletta (2001) for a look into <strong>the</strong> NYC-DAN.<br />
[ Williams 64 ] [ this is a draft. do not cite. ]
organizations. This differs from recent leftist efforts to create “third parties” in <strong>the</strong> US,<br />
such as <strong>the</strong> Green Party, <strong>the</strong> New Party, and <strong>the</strong> (non-candidate) Labor Party, or in <strong>the</strong><br />
case <strong>of</strong> socialist-communist-alphabet-soup political parties—Communist Party USA,<br />
Socialists Workers Party, Revolutionary Communist Party, Socialist Labor Party, World<br />
Workers Party, Socialist Party, ad naseum.<br />
Anarchistic Organizational Forms<br />
Some anarchist methods and organizational formations follow. <strong>The</strong>y are subsequently<br />
followed by a sociological critique <strong>of</strong> organization <strong>the</strong>ory. It should be noted that nonanarchists<br />
<strong>of</strong>ten use <strong>the</strong>se organization forms, too. Thus, <strong>the</strong>y are anarchistic forms as<br />
opposed to anarchist forms <strong>of</strong> organization. <strong>The</strong>se organizations are listed below in Table<br />
XXX.<br />
Type Scale/Scope Decision<br />
making<br />
Table 5. Organizational Forms<br />
In/<br />
Out<br />
Composition Type Pri./<br />
Sec.<br />
Function<br />
Affinity group Multi-use C in Individuals normative P latent<br />
Bloc protest in Individuals/affinity<br />
groups<br />
coercive manifest<br />
Cluster C Affinity groups utilitarian dysfuncti<br />
on<br />
Coalition Broad/diverse DD/C in Organizations/individu<br />
als<br />
... ...<br />
Collective DD/C in Individuals P<br />
Cooperative Producer/cons<br />
umer<br />
Council<br />
in Individuals (producers<br />
or consumers)<br />
Federation DD/C in Organizations<br />
Network DD/C<br />
Spokescouncil C in Affinity groups/clusters ~S<br />
Union/Syndicate Producer DD in Individuals (workers)<br />
Source: Author's analysis.<br />
Notes: DD=direct democracy/C=consensus; P=Primary org/S=Secondary org<br />
Affinity groups (similar to “cells” 60 ) were devised during <strong>the</strong> Spanish Civil War, from<br />
1936-1937, first used by <strong>the</strong> Confederación Nacional del Trabajo (CNT) and Federación<br />
Anarquista Ibérica (FAI), <strong>the</strong> two main organizations that facilitated a short-lived<br />
anarchist society in Catalonia. Respectively, <strong>the</strong>y were an anarcho-syndicalist union and<br />
an anarchist federation that did <strong>the</strong> main self-defense <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> revolution against Franco and<br />
<strong>the</strong> fascists, and later <strong>the</strong> Stalinist-aligned Communists.<br />
60 An attempt to differentiate between a “cell” and an “affinity group” can be found in <strong>the</strong> Curious George<br />
Brigade's (2003) chapter “Clique, Cell, or Affinity Group?”, pp 50-51.<br />
[ Williams 65 ] [ this is a draft. do not cite. ]<br />
P
Collectives are similar to affinity groups, but are in a number <strong>of</strong> ways intended to be more<br />
permanent organizations. <strong>The</strong>y frequently focus on longer-term campaigns as opposed to<br />
being active in terms <strong>of</strong> a protest. This distinction should not be over-emphasized,<br />
however. Often affinity groups and collectives do <strong>the</strong> same exact things.<br />
Clusters are groupings <strong>of</strong> multiple affinity groups that have things in common, such as<br />
similar interests, geographical similarities, or similar purposes in direct actions—such as<br />
shutting down certain city intersections.<br />
Spokescouncils are composed <strong>of</strong> representatives (called “spokes”/people) from affinity<br />
groups and clusters involved in a direct action event. <strong>The</strong> direct action could be taking<br />
place as part <strong>of</strong> an ongoing campaign or as part <strong>of</strong> a convergence <strong>of</strong> activists for a<br />
collective purpose in a certain location. <strong>The</strong>se quasi-permanent councils have been<br />
popularized after <strong>the</strong>ir use by DAN in <strong>the</strong> anti-WTO demonstrations in 1999. 61 Attempts<br />
to form a continental DAN have not thus far been successful.<br />
Networks seek to link toge<strong>the</strong>r o<strong>the</strong>r organizations who have common goals, beliefs, or<br />
interests. Networks are usually not intended as permanent organizations that are given<br />
decision making power, but <strong>the</strong>y sometimes take it on regardless. <strong>The</strong>y <strong>of</strong>ten are formed<br />
to address a specific campaign or approach to politics, to bring toge<strong>the</strong>r somewhat likeminded<br />
groups to collaborate more directly with each o<strong>the</strong>r. In <strong>the</strong>ory, networks do not<br />
even need to exist in name, but as <strong>the</strong> informal relationships between organizations; even<br />
so <strong>the</strong>y are <strong>of</strong>ten given names in order to aid in <strong>the</strong> internal understanding <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>se<br />
relationships. Routledge (2001) says that networks are:<br />
greatly facilitated by <strong>the</strong> internet, enable fluid and open<br />
relationships that are more flexible that traditional<br />
hierarchies. Participation in networks has become an<br />
essential component <strong>of</strong> collect identities for activists<br />
involved, networking forming part <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>ir common<br />
repertoire. (p. 28)<br />
Federations are similar to networks, but differ in that <strong>the</strong>y are usually composed <strong>of</strong><br />
anarchist collectives only (and not different left-leaning or liberals organizations) and that<br />
<strong>the</strong>y will intentionally label <strong>the</strong>ir federation with each o<strong>the</strong>r as such with a name. 62<br />
Examples <strong>of</strong> North American anarchist federations are <strong>the</strong> North Eastern Federation <strong>of</strong><br />
Anarcho-Communists (NEFAC), Federation <strong>of</strong> Revolutionary Anarchist Collectives<br />
(FRAC), Anarchist Black Cross Federation (ABCF), <strong>the</strong> [late] Love & Rage<br />
Revolutionary Anarchist Federation, and <strong>the</strong> Sou<strong>the</strong>rn California Anarchist Federation.<br />
<strong>The</strong> word “federal” <strong>of</strong>ten makes people think <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> “Federal government”; this<br />
assumption has overtime blurred what federations really are—similar organizations<br />
united on <strong>the</strong>ir own terms. <strong>The</strong> states in <strong>the</strong> US are federated with each o<strong>the</strong>r (under <strong>the</strong><br />
61 I have also personally seen <strong>the</strong> spokes model used spontaneously in street protests at <strong>the</strong> anti-FTAA<br />
demonstrations in Miami, Florida during November 2003.<br />
62 See Ward's (1973) chapter entitled “Topless Federations” for more on <strong>the</strong> general concept <strong>of</strong> federations<br />
on a societal level.<br />
[ Williams 66 ] [ this is a draft. do not cite. ]
auspice <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> United States government). However, <strong>the</strong> “Federal government” has<br />
become a power unto itself, and autonomy <strong>of</strong> individual states can be over-ridden by<br />
hierarchical decisions nationally. [insert Watt's (2001) description <strong>of</strong> governmental<br />
federations here—try to adapt it to non-governmental forms] It is interesting to note<br />
that most anarchists (or, to my knowledge, social movement sociologists) have not<br />
explored this misuse <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> words “federation”/”federal” and how <strong>the</strong> Articles <strong>of</strong><br />
Confederation set-up a relatively anarchist political order (in structure, not necessarily in<br />
policy, internal composition, or morality), which was ruined/gutted by <strong>the</strong> centralization<br />
<strong>of</strong> power by <strong>the</strong> subsequent Constitution. <strong>The</strong> anarcho-syndicalist Paul Goodman seems<br />
virtually alone in pointing out this fact. Weltman (2000) cites Goodman's argument that<br />
“<strong>the</strong> American colonies originated as anarcho-syndicalist communities” and that “<strong>the</strong><br />
colonies used government to limit <strong>the</strong> power <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> individual and used participatory<br />
town meetings to limit <strong>the</strong> power <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> government” (p. ??) [Also check Deleon 1973]<br />
Black blocs are usually considered to be a tactic, not an organization. But, some<br />
sociologist might still consider it to be an organization, just not a permanent-standing one<br />
–it is similar to <strong>the</strong> popular fad <strong>of</strong> a “flash mob”. Thus, <strong>the</strong>re is no “black bloc” to join or<br />
be a part <strong>of</strong>. Nor does any one person speak for <strong>the</strong> bloc. It just exists as a street<br />
demonstration phenomenon. Various local organizations will <strong>of</strong>ten make “a call” for a<br />
black bloc when a demonstration is happening in <strong>the</strong>ir community, intending that an<br />
internal unit <strong>of</strong> a march be composed <strong>of</strong> anarchists or anti-authoritarian activists. Black<br />
blocs are usually employed for some <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> following reasons: to radicalize a liberal<br />
march, allow for internal anonymity in order to deter police provocation or “picking-<strong>of</strong>f”,<br />
to discourage internal authority figures and manipulation, and so forth. <strong>The</strong>re are also<br />
downsides to <strong>the</strong> tactic: unaccountability <strong>of</strong> “manarchists” 63 , marginalization by o<strong>the</strong>r<br />
activists and <strong>the</strong> press, and escalated danger from police engagement. 64 Indeed, anarchists<br />
are not above self-criticism: Severino (2003) asserts “We are indeed opposed to <strong>the</strong><br />
fetishization <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> black bloc, which leads, among o<strong>the</strong>r things, to <strong>the</strong> phenomenon <strong>of</strong><br />
black bloc spectators as well as 'black bloc as fashion'” (Severino 2003, PAGE?). Even<br />
though <strong>the</strong>re is no “leadership” with a black bloc, it is usually understood that affinity<br />
groups are <strong>the</strong> organizational actors within, as affinity groups have discussed amongst<br />
<strong>the</strong>mselves <strong>the</strong>ir general strategies and tactics prior to joining <strong>the</strong> bloc. During <strong>the</strong> bloc,<br />
communication occurs with o<strong>the</strong>rs, but key decisions are made frequently amongst<br />
affinity group members.<br />
<strong>Anarchists</strong> have also responded in recent years to protest situations by <strong>the</strong> formation <strong>of</strong><br />
autonomous collectives <strong>of</strong> protest-oriented organizations, such as medics, legal observers,<br />
“radical cheerleaders”, who serve a specific purpose at an action (first aid, documentation<br />
<strong>of</strong> police abuses, and encouragement respectively). Such groups are spurred by <strong>the</strong> values<br />
<strong>of</strong> mutual aid and by <strong>the</strong> desire to assist in <strong>the</strong>ir own, unique ways to an action. This<br />
diffusion has benefited by <strong>the</strong> exchange <strong>of</strong> tactics and skills via <strong>the</strong> Internet, and by<br />
roaming “trainers” who help local groups form.<br />
Collective action <strong>the</strong>ory suggests that <strong>the</strong> divisions between ga<strong>the</strong>rings, demonstrations,<br />
and riots are easily blurred and can quickly transition from one category to ano<strong>the</strong>r.<br />
63 For more on <strong>the</strong> “manarchists”, please see <strong>the</strong> Rock Bloc Collective 2001.<br />
64 For more on black bloc tactics and assumptions about <strong>the</strong>m, please see <strong>the</strong> section entitled “Violence”.<br />
[ Williams 67 ] [ this is a draft. do not cite. ]
McPhail and Wohlstein (1982) give an overview <strong>of</strong> this, and note that:<br />
during ga<strong>the</strong>rings, demonstrations, and riots most<br />
individuals assemble and remain with friends, family, or<br />
acquaintances. Those social units constitute sources <strong>of</strong><br />
instructions and sanctions for <strong>the</strong> individual's behavior... [F]<br />
orms <strong>of</strong> collective behavior are repeatedly observed across a<br />
variety <strong>of</strong> ga<strong>the</strong>rings, demonstrations, and some riots—e.g.<br />
milling, collective focus, queueing, collective locomotion,<br />
and collective vocalization and applause. (pp. 594-595)<br />
Organizational <strong>the</strong>ories (for anarchist organizations)--maybe make into a table??<br />
[Mention Paris (2003) re: black bloc's relevance to “resistance”]<br />
Emma Goldman's “Syndicalism”.<br />
For a more in-depth look at (European) historic anarchist organization (proplatformist?),<br />
please see Skirda (2002).<br />
From Ch5 “Interactions, Groups, and Organizations” <strong>of</strong> Curry, Jiobu, & Schwirian<br />
(2005) (pp. 124-152):<br />
Types <strong>of</strong> interaction: exchange, cooperation, competition, conflict, coercion.<br />
In-group—group to which people feel that <strong>the</strong>y belong (out-group—group to which<br />
people feel that <strong>the</strong>y do not belong).<br />
Primary group—group characterized by intimate, warm, cooperative, and face-to-face<br />
relationships (secondary group characterized by limited participation and<br />
impersonal and formal relationships). See Table 5.1 (Kind, length, scope, purpose,<br />
and typical examples)<br />
Reference group—group whose values, norms, and beliefs come to serve as a standard for<br />
one's own behavior.<br />
Leadership—a person who can consistently influence <strong>the</strong> behavior <strong>of</strong> group members and<br />
<strong>the</strong> outcomes <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> group. Three styles <strong>of</strong> leadership: authoritarian, democratic,<br />
laissez-faire.<br />
Instrumental leader—a group leader whose activities are aimed at accomplishing <strong>the</strong><br />
group's tasks.<br />
Expressive leader—a group leader whose activities are aimed at promoting group<br />
solidarity, cohesion, and morale.<br />
Organization—three characteristics: 1) it is deliberately constructed; that is, someone or<br />
some group <strong>of</strong> people decided to create <strong>the</strong> organization for some purpose. 2) It is<br />
structured, with well-defined roles and positions. Typically, <strong>the</strong> roles differ in<br />
prestige and power. 3) It has rules, and it has sanctions for violations <strong>of</strong> those<br />
rules.<br />
Bureaucracies—a form <strong>of</strong> organization based on explicit rules, with a clear, impersonal,<br />
[ Williams 68 ] [ this is a draft. do not cite. ]
and hierarchical authority structure. Negative consequences <strong>of</strong> bureaucracy: 1)<br />
service without a smile, 2) rules are rules, 3) goal displacement, 4) work expands<br />
to fill <strong>the</strong> time available, 5) bureaucrats rise to <strong>the</strong> level <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>ir incompetence, 6)<br />
iron law <strong>of</strong> oligarchy, 7) invisible woman.<br />
From Giddens (2000) Ch. 10 “<strong>The</strong> Rise <strong>of</strong> Modern Organizations”<br />
Organization: a large grouping <strong>of</strong> people structured upon impersonal lines and set up to<br />
achieve specific objectives.<br />
Bureaucracy: <strong>the</strong> rule <strong>of</strong> <strong>of</strong>ficials.<br />
Ideal type <strong>of</strong> bureaucracy: <strong>the</strong>re is a clear-cut hierarchy <strong>of</strong> authority, written rules govern<br />
<strong>the</strong> conduct <strong>of</strong> <strong>of</strong>ficials at all levels <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> organization, <strong>of</strong>ficials are full-time and<br />
salaried, <strong>the</strong>re is a separation between <strong>the</strong> tasks <strong>of</strong> an <strong>of</strong>ficial within <strong>the</strong><br />
organization and his life outside, and no members <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> organization own <strong>the</strong><br />
material resources with which <strong>the</strong>y operate.<br />
Formal relations:<br />
Informal relations:<br />
Surveillance: <strong>the</strong> visibility <strong>of</strong> authority determines how easily subordinates can be subject<br />
to this.<br />
Timetables: for regularizing activities across time and space.<br />
Surveillance society: refers to how information about our lives and activities is<br />
maintained by organizations.<br />
Oligarchy: rule by <strong>the</strong> few<br />
iron law <strong>of</strong> oligarchy: states that large organizations tend toward centralization <strong>of</strong> power,<br />
making democracy difficult, if not impossible (Robert Michels)<br />
Clans: groups having close personal connections with one ano<strong>the</strong>r.<br />
Pr<strong>of</strong>essionals: those who specialize in <strong>the</strong> development or application <strong>of</strong> technical<br />
knowledge.<br />
Information technology: computers and electronic communication devices like <strong>the</strong><br />
internet.<br />
Networks: involve bottom-up decision making, ra<strong>the</strong>r than hierarchies.<br />
Kendall (1999), Ch. 5: Groups and Organizations<br />
Groups<br />
Aggregate<br />
Category<br />
Primary and secondary groups<br />
ingroups and outgroups<br />
reference groups<br />
Small grouping<br />
Dyad<br />
Triad<br />
Leadership functions<br />
Leadership styles<br />
Conformity<br />
Groupthink<br />
Normative organizations<br />
Coercive organizations<br />
[ Williams 69 ] [ this is a draft. do not cite. ]
Utilitarian organizations<br />
Bureaucracy<br />
rationality<br />
Ideal type<br />
Characteristics <strong>of</strong> bureaucracy:<br />
Division <strong>of</strong> labor<br />
hierarchy <strong>of</strong> authority<br />
Rules and regulations<br />
Qualification-based employment<br />
Impersonality<br />
Shortcomings <strong>of</strong> bureaucracies<br />
inefficiency and rigidity<br />
resistance to change<br />
perpetuation <strong>of</strong> race, class, and gender inequalities<br />
Anarchistic <strong>The</strong>ories <strong>of</strong> Organization<br />
Herein two <strong>the</strong>ories <strong>of</strong> “ideal types” <strong>of</strong> organizations will be reviewed, which are ra<strong>the</strong>r<br />
anarchistic in nature. <strong>The</strong> first is from Rothschild-Whitt (1979) called “collectivistdemocratic<br />
organizations” and <strong>the</strong> second is from Fitzgerald and Rodgers (2000) called<br />
“radical social movement organizations”. <strong>The</strong>se two models <strong>of</strong>fer a compelling look at<br />
alternatives to both bureaucratic-rational organizations and moderate social movement<br />
organizations.<br />
Rothschild-Whitt (1979) argues that <strong>the</strong>re are eight characteristics <strong>of</strong> collectivistdemocratic<br />
organizations. She bases her model upon worker collectives, and generally<br />
does not imply such a structure for social movement organizations.<br />
1. Authority: “Authority resides in <strong>the</strong> collectivity as a<br />
whole; delegated, if at all, only temporarily and subject<br />
to recall. Compliance is to <strong>the</strong> consensus <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
collective which is always fluid and open to<br />
negotiation.”<br />
2. Rules: “Minimal stipulated rules; primacy <strong>of</strong> ad hoc,<br />
individuated decisions; some calculability possible on<br />
<strong>the</strong> basis <strong>of</strong> knowing <strong>the</strong> substantive ethics involved in<br />
<strong>the</strong> situation.”<br />
3. Social Control: “Social controls are primarily based on<br />
personalistic <strong>of</strong> moralistic appeals <strong>the</strong> election <strong>of</strong><br />
homogeneous personnel.”<br />
4. Social Relations: “Ideal <strong>of</strong> community. Relations are to<br />
be wholistic, personal, <strong>of</strong> value in <strong>the</strong>mselves.”<br />
5. Recruitment and Advancement: “(a) Employment based<br />
on friends, social-political values, personality attributes,<br />
and informally assessed knowledge and skills. (b)<br />
Concept <strong>of</strong> career advancement not meaningful; no<br />
[ Williams 70 ] [ this is a draft. do not cite. ]
hierarchy <strong>of</strong> positions.”<br />
6. Incentive Structure: “Normative and solidarity incentives<br />
and primary; material incentives are secondary.”<br />
7. Social Stratification: “Egalitarian; reward differentials, if<br />
any, are strictly limited by <strong>the</strong> collectivity.”<br />
8. Differentiation: “(a) Minimal division <strong>of</strong> labor;<br />
administration is combined with performance tasks;<br />
division between intellectual and manual work is<br />
r<strong>edu</strong>ced. (b) Generalization <strong>of</strong> jobs and functions;<br />
wholistic roles. Demystification <strong>of</strong> expertise; ideal <strong>of</strong><br />
amateur factotum.” (p. 519)<br />
Arguably, <strong>the</strong> best pre-existing model for understanding anarchist movement<br />
organizations is <strong>the</strong> radical social movement organization (RSMO). In fact, <strong>the</strong> three<br />
examples <strong>of</strong>fered by Fitzgerald and Rodgers (2000) (specifically <strong>the</strong> IWW, SNCC, and<br />
women's liberation groups) are not only anarchistic in nature, but explicitly anarchosyndicalist<br />
in <strong>the</strong> case <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> IWW. 65 <strong>The</strong>y focus on five “ideal characteristics” <strong>of</strong><br />
RSMOs, all <strong>of</strong> which perfectly fit anarchist organizations.<br />
1. Internal structure: “Nonhierarchical leadership;<br />
participatory democratic organization; egalitarian;<br />
“membership” based upon involvement; support<br />
indigenous leadership”.<br />
2. Ideology: “Radical agenda; emphasis on structural<br />
change; flexible ideology; radical networks; global<br />
consciousness and connections; antimilitaristic stance”.<br />
3. Tactics: “Nonviolent action; mass actions; innovative<br />
tactics”. 66<br />
4. Communication: “Ignored/misrepresented by media;<br />
reliance on alternative forms <strong>of</strong> communication (music,<br />
street <strong>the</strong>ater, pamphlets, newsletters)”.<br />
5. Assessment <strong>of</strong> success: “Limited resources; may be<br />
purposefully short-lived; substantive rationality;<br />
contribute to larger radical agenda; subject to intense<br />
opposition and government surveillance”. (p. 578)<br />
In all <strong>the</strong>se characteristics, anarchist values can be seen. In fact, Fitzgerald and Rodger's<br />
usage <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> term “radical” can nearly be seen as a synonym for “anarchist”. However,<br />
<strong>the</strong>ir methodology requires that radical organizations must be studied in terms <strong>of</strong><br />
organization, not as a collection <strong>of</strong> individuals. It <strong>of</strong> primary importance to research how<br />
organizations are structured, identify, operate, communicate, and evaluate <strong>the</strong>mselves.<br />
65 Incidentally, Farrow (2002) argues that “Feminism practices what anarchism preaches. One might go as<br />
far as to claim feminists are <strong>the</strong> only existing protest groups that can honestly be called practicing<br />
<strong>Anarchists</strong>” (p. 15).<br />
66 North American anarchists most frequently use exclusively nonviolent tactics, but frequently do not<br />
preempt or restrict <strong>the</strong>mselves to such tactics (particularly in <strong>the</strong> case <strong>of</strong> self-defense), nor do <strong>the</strong>y<br />
universally criticize armed insurrection when it takes place simply for that reason. Again, see <strong>the</strong><br />
Violence chapter for more detail.<br />
[ Williams 71 ] [ this is a draft. do not cite. ]
[approach organizations are greater than <strong>the</strong> sum <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>ir parts—not organizations are<br />
merely collections <strong>of</strong> individuals]<br />
Anarchistic North American Organizations<br />
Finally, we look at <strong>the</strong> geographic dispersion <strong>of</strong> predominantly American-flavored<br />
anarchist organization concepts that have spread throughout <strong>the</strong> world, or what cynical<br />
might call “franchise anarchism”. I have selected four <strong>of</strong>t-found organizations, none <strong>of</strong><br />
which are explicitly anarchist, yet owe an undeniably huge debt to anarchism: Anti-Racist<br />
Action (ARA), Critical Mass 67 , Earth First! (EF!), and Food Not Bombs (FNB). <strong>The</strong>re are<br />
recent books about two <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>se groups that are very good: “Critical Mass”, Carlsson<br />
(2002) and “Food Not Bombs”, Butler & McHenry (2000). McGowan (2003) wrote a<br />
good article on ARA 68 ; see Knutter (1995) for a European precursor to ARA (<strong>the</strong><br />
“autonomen”). <strong>The</strong> best primary source for info on Earth First! is <strong>the</strong>ir magazine <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
same name, although <strong>the</strong> organization has also had substantial academic study directed at<br />
it, particularly in <strong>the</strong> 1990s (CITE ALL).<br />
O<strong>the</strong>r examples <strong>of</strong> franchise activism/anarchism are <strong>the</strong> ACT-UP!, Anarchist Black Cross<br />
(ABC), Animal Liberation Front (ALF), CopWatch, Earth Liberation Front (ELF),<br />
Homes Not Jails, Independent Media Center (IMC; discussed in an upcoming section<br />
called “Indymedia”), Industrial Workers <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> World (IWW), and Reclaim <strong>the</strong> Streets.<br />
[A FUTURE PAPER HERE??] ALF and ELF are unique franchise activist<br />
organizations, being completely underground. <strong>The</strong> only above-ground organization to<br />
<strong>the</strong>se groups is <strong>the</strong> public mouthpieces and mediums that “actions” are reported through.<br />
<strong>The</strong>re is no centralized authority that determines whom is an <strong>of</strong>ficial<br />
collective/chapter/event, but <strong>the</strong>re are principles that are generally accepted for all.<br />
Although <strong>the</strong>y are autonomous <strong>of</strong> each o<strong>the</strong>r, many interact and share information, ideas,<br />
and resources with each o<strong>the</strong>r, and provide solidarity in campaigns. Regional, national,<br />
and sometimes international ga<strong>the</strong>rings <strong>of</strong> group members helps to spread ideas and<br />
sometimes leads to <strong>the</strong> creation <strong>of</strong> more formal links, like networks and federations.<br />
Table 6. “Power fists” in <strong>the</strong> logos <strong>of</strong> anarchist and anarchistic organizations<br />
67 As will be explained below, Critical Mass is actually more <strong>of</strong> an “event” than an “organization”. This<br />
distinction is important, and is interesting from a sociological view.<br />
68 Wong (1994) also points to Lorenzo Kom'boa Ervin's criticism <strong>of</strong> white anarchists (alluding to ARA?)<br />
for going after “obvious” (but marginal) racists like <strong>the</strong> Klan and neo-Nazis, but overlooking <strong>the</strong> more<br />
common, systemic (but perhaps less obvious) racism <strong>of</strong> society (such as <strong>the</strong> prison system, schools,<br />
courts, police, <strong>the</strong> economic system, etc).<br />
[ Williams 72 ] [ this is a draft. do not cite. ]
Anarchist Black Cross Earth First! Food Not Bombs<br />
All are based upon strong anarchist principles, a main component being direct action, in<br />
terms <strong>of</strong> ei<strong>the</strong>r providing for/addressing a very specific need or creating visible protest <strong>of</strong><br />
current societal problems.<br />
It is impossible to know how many chapters/collectives <strong>of</strong> any <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>se groups are active<br />
throughout <strong>the</strong> world, let alone have existed. Numbers will vary based upon access to<br />
first-hand accounts, duration <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> group's existence, definition <strong>of</strong> a group itself, and so<br />
forth. In fact, all that can be said about existing groups is that <strong>the</strong>y must at least take to<br />
heart <strong>the</strong> general values <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> group/movement, as a concept. By identifying as a Food<br />
Not Bombs group or an Earth First! collective, people are defining <strong>the</strong>ir own involvement<br />
and organizational mission – much like Mead's “I” is what determines which “me” a<br />
group will collectively show at any given moment.<br />
Table 7. Radical Social Movement Organizations (RSMOs)<br />
RSMO Characteristics Anti-Racist Action Critical Mass Earth First! Food Not Bombs<br />
1. Internal Structure<br />
Nonhierarchical leadership Yes No <strong>of</strong>ficial<br />
leadership or<br />
structure<br />
Participatory democratic<br />
organization<br />
Popular vote for<br />
routes<br />
Yes Yes<br />
Consensus Consensus<br />
Egalitarian Yes More or less Yes Yes<br />
“Membership” based upon<br />
involvement<br />
Support indigenous<br />
leadership<br />
2. Ideology<br />
Radical agenda<br />
Emphasis on structural<br />
change<br />
Flexible ideology<br />
Yes Yes; no<br />
“membership”<br />
All-local No <strong>of</strong>ficial<br />
leadership<br />
Yes Yes<br />
All-local All-local<br />
Yes Yes<br />
[ Williams 73 ] [ this is a draft. do not cite. ]
RSMO Characteristics Anti-Racist Action Critical Mass Earth First! Food Not Bombs<br />
Radical networks<br />
Global consciousness and<br />
connections<br />
Yes Yes Yes Yes<br />
Antimilitaristic stance Indirectly Yes Indirectly Yes<br />
3. Tactics<br />
Nonviolent action Belief in selfdefense<br />
Belief in<br />
nonviolence<br />
Belief in<br />
nonviolence<br />
Mass actions mass actions mass actions support mass<br />
actions<br />
Innovative tactics Yes Yes<br />
4. Communication<br />
Ignored/misrepresented by<br />
media<br />
Reliance upon alternative<br />
forms <strong>of</strong> communication<br />
5. Assessment <strong>of</strong> Success<br />
Demonized in<br />
media<br />
Demonized in<br />
media<br />
ARA Bulletin Xerocracy Earth First!<br />
magazine<br />
Limited resources No<br />
organizational<br />
resources<br />
May be purposefully shortlived<br />
Substantive rationality<br />
Contribute to larger radical<br />
agenda<br />
Subject to intense<br />
opposition and government<br />
surveillance<br />
Most resources<br />
donated<br />
Not usually Absolutely Possibly Not usually<br />
Yes Yes<br />
Subject to<br />
harassment and<br />
arrest<br />
Subject to<br />
harassment<br />
and arrest<br />
Source: Fitzgerald and Rodgers (2000).Analysis by author.<br />
Subject to<br />
harassment and<br />
arrest<br />
Anti-Racist Action is a direct action organization that confronts racism, sexism, and<br />
homophobia in <strong>the</strong>ir communities. Critical Mass is a leaderless, monthly event where<br />
bicyclists take to <strong>the</strong> streets en masse to draw attention to issues <strong>of</strong> sprawl, oil<br />
consumption/auto-culture, and alternative transportation. Earth First! is commonly<br />
engaged in eco-defense, usually <strong>of</strong> old-growth forests by <strong>the</strong> techniques <strong>of</strong> blockades,<br />
tree-sits, tree-spiking, etc. Food Not Bombs is a vegetarian, food-sharing organization<br />
that commonly aligns itself with <strong>the</strong> homeless and anti-war organizations.<br />
Food Not Bombs is a mutual aid organization, and – along with Critical Mass – may be<br />
seen as dual power organizations/movements. 69<br />
Table 8. Summary <strong>of</strong> Anarchist organizations<br />
69 Earth First! and Anti-Racist action are not dual power organizations, but ra<strong>the</strong>r protest organizations.<br />
[ Williams 74 ] [ this is a draft. do not cite. ]
Started Minneapolis, MN<br />
1987<br />
Slogans/mission 1. Go where <strong>the</strong>y go,<br />
2. no cops, 3.<br />
defense <strong>of</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r<br />
anti-fascists, and 4.<br />
fight o<strong>the</strong>r<br />
discrimination<br />
Institutional<br />
targets<br />
ARA CM EF! FNB<br />
San Francisco, CA<br />
1992<br />
“We're not blocking<br />
traffic, we are<br />
traffic!”<br />
LOCATION<br />
198x<br />
“No compromise in<br />
defense <strong>of</strong> Mo<strong>the</strong>r<br />
Earth!”<br />
White supremacy Car culture Environmental<br />
devastation, overconsumption<br />
Specific targets Racists, fascists, and<br />
police<br />
Direct action Blocking/attacking<br />
racists and fascists<br />
Dual power Self-policing <strong>of</strong><br />
communities to keep<br />
fascists out<br />
Oil consumption,<br />
poor urban planning,<br />
environmental<br />
pollution, and wars<br />
for oil<br />
Exerting cyclists<br />
rights, slowing down<br />
traffic,<br />
demonstrating<br />
alternative forms <strong>of</strong><br />
transportation<br />
Creating safe spots<br />
for cyclists,<br />
supporting<br />
alternative means <strong>of</strong><br />
transportation<br />
Logging<br />
corporations, US<br />
Forest Service<br />
Impeding logging<br />
through blockades,<br />
lawsuits, etc.<br />
Creating an<br />
alternative vision <strong>of</strong><br />
land-stewardship<br />
Boston, MA<br />
1981<br />
1. Nonviolence, 2.<br />
consensus, 3.<br />
vegetarianism<br />
Militarism,<br />
homelessness/hunger<br />
/poverty<br />
Real estate<br />
gentrifiers, warmongers<br />
Meeting human<br />
needs without <strong>the</strong><br />
market system or<br />
hierarchical<br />
volunteerism<br />
Circumventing<br />
traditional “charity”<br />
organizations<br />
Mutual aid Sharing food<br />
Organization “Crews” An event, no<br />
organizational<br />
structure<br />
Solidarity/allies With oppressed<br />
communities,<br />
punk/skinhead<br />
scenes<br />
Voluntary<br />
association<br />
With alternative<br />
transportation and<br />
environment<br />
activists<br />
Closed collectives Often transparent,<br />
operates on<br />
consensus<br />
In <strong>the</strong> case <strong>of</strong><br />
IWW/EF! Local 1,<br />
timber workers<br />
Sources: Carlsson 2002, Butler and McHenry 2000, McGowan 2003, Shantz and Adam 1999.<br />
1. Anti-Racist Action<br />
ARA has four principles that all members adhere to:<br />
1. We go where <strong>the</strong>y go: Whenever fascists are organizing<br />
or active in public, we're <strong>the</strong>re. We don't believe in<br />
ignoring <strong>the</strong>m or staying away from <strong>the</strong>m. Never let <strong>the</strong><br />
nazis have <strong>the</strong> street!<br />
[ Williams 75 ] [ this is a draft. do not cite. ]<br />
With anti-war,<br />
homeless, and<br />
animalrights/environment<br />
organizations
2. We don't rely on <strong>the</strong> cops or courts to do our work for<br />
us: This doesn't mean we never go to court. But we must<br />
rely on ourselves to protect ourselves and stop <strong>the</strong><br />
fascists.<br />
3. Non-Sectarian defense <strong>of</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r Anti-Fascists: In ARA,<br />
we have lots <strong>of</strong> different groups and individuals. We<br />
don't agree about everything and we have a right to differ<br />
openly. But in this movement an attack on one is an<br />
attack on us all. We stand behind each o<strong>the</strong>r.<br />
4. We support abortion rights and reproductive freedom.<br />
ARA intends to do <strong>the</strong> hard work necessary to build a<br />
broad, strong movement against racism, sexism, anti-<br />
Semitism, homophobia, discrimination against <strong>the</strong><br />
disabled, <strong>the</strong> oldest, <strong>the</strong> youngest and <strong>the</strong> most oppressed<br />
people. We want a classless society. WE INTEND TO<br />
WIN! (ARA Network webpage “About”)<br />
O'Brien (2001) compares ARA with People's Institute for Survival and Beyond (PI),<br />
ano<strong>the</strong>r predominantly white anti-racist organization. She sees significant differences in<br />
how <strong>the</strong>se two groups (one anarchistic, <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r not) frame and define racism. She sees<br />
<strong>the</strong>se differences as stark opposites.<br />
McGowan (2003)<br />
2. Critical Mass<br />
ARA seems more focused on raising <strong>the</strong> sheer numbers <strong>of</strong><br />
ARA members and is not as concerned about <strong>edu</strong>cating<br />
<strong>the</strong>m into any particular framework, provided that <strong>the</strong>y<br />
agree to <strong>the</strong> four principles... ARA members tends to be<br />
selectively race cognizant, ... [which means] ARA members<br />
recognize how “racists” use race as a way <strong>of</strong> dispensing<br />
power and privilege but strive not to notice race in <strong>the</strong>ir<br />
own interactions... For ARA members, colorblindness is a<br />
desired goal for all ... [and] prejudice in any form is <strong>the</strong><br />
target, and <strong>the</strong> race <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> perpetrator is <strong>of</strong> no concern...<br />
ARA members challenge institutions such as <strong>the</strong> police<br />
force which <strong>the</strong>y explicitly advocate in <strong>the</strong>ir principles<br />
should not be considered allies, much less should ARA<br />
members consider being police <strong>of</strong>ficers... ARA members<br />
point to high attendance at protest events as a success. (pp.<br />
136-139, all emphasis in <strong>the</strong> original)<br />
[Also add new Critical Mass rides, as cataloged by critical-mass.org (also check<br />
Carlsson's book for additional rides in appendix). Blickstein, Susan & Susan<br />
Hanson. 2001]<br />
[ Williams 76 ] [ this is a draft. do not cite. ]
Critical Mass's only real credo is <strong>the</strong> saying: “We're not blocking traffic, we are traffic!”<br />
Blickstein and Hanson (2001) explain that Critical Mass has been<br />
referred to as a protest, a form <strong>of</strong> street <strong>the</strong>ater, a method <strong>of</strong><br />
commuting, a party, and a social space. Difficult to pin<br />
down, CM is <strong>of</strong>ten easier to define by what it is not than by<br />
what it is. It is not, for example, a formal bicycle advocacy<br />
organization. It has no dues-paying members, provides no<br />
particular services, and has no stated mission... most<br />
Critical Mass groups share a number <strong>of</strong> common elements,<br />
including a decentralized network <strong>of</strong> organizers and <strong>the</strong> use<br />
<strong>of</strong> both traditional and cyber-facilitated methods <strong>of</strong><br />
communication. Critical Mass' open form allows movement<br />
issues to be framed in ways that encompass multiple<br />
geographic scales and that mobilize supporters with a wide<br />
range <strong>of</strong> motivations for participating in <strong>the</strong> monthly rides.<br />
(p. 352)<br />
Table 9. Top 6 U.S. states or Canadian provinces with Critical Mass Rides<br />
State<br />
Cities with<br />
Rides<br />
California 21<br />
Illinois 9<br />
Texas 7<br />
New York 6<br />
Ontario 6<br />
Ohio 5<br />
Source: criticalmassrides.info, Date accessed: ? Author's analysis.<br />
Toge<strong>the</strong>r <strong>the</strong>se top 5 states (minus Ontario) compose over 37 percent <strong>of</strong> all U.S. rides<br />
from all 50 states, with California being far-and-away <strong>the</strong> largest practicing grounds for<br />
Critical Mass.<br />
Critical Mass: US (127), Canada (16)<br />
3. Earth First!<br />
Earth First! groups adhere to <strong>the</strong>ir well-known slogan “No Compromise in Defense <strong>of</strong><br />
Mo<strong>the</strong>r Earth!”.<br />
As already mentioned, a fair number <strong>of</strong> articles have been written about <strong>the</strong> activities <strong>of</strong><br />
Earth First!, likely because <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>ir prominence (and <strong>the</strong> focus on <strong>the</strong> environmental<br />
movement generally). A number <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>se articles, however, look at groups based in <strong>the</strong><br />
United Kingdom; <strong>the</strong>se articles have been surveyed, but are not commented on here.<br />
[ Williams 77 ] [ this is a draft. do not cite. ]
O<strong>the</strong>r anarchist/anarchistic organizations do not receive much publicity (in ei<strong>the</strong>r<br />
academic journals or <strong>the</strong> mainstream press), which results in few things written about<br />
<strong>the</strong>m. Thus, with only a few exceptions, <strong>the</strong> organizations referenced hereafter (except<br />
EF!) mainly come from activist sources.<br />
According to Ingalsbee (1996), Earth First! may be best understood through a symbolic<br />
interactionist analysis. Unlike <strong>the</strong>ories <strong>of</strong> resource mobilization, he argues Earth First!<br />
activists seek to mobilize symbolic resources that “represent socially-constructed<br />
cognitive frameworks that help to psychologically and physically organize, unify, and<br />
empower actors for collective action” (p. 264). This is done through a biocentric<br />
philosophy that identifies Earth First!ers with an “ecological self” and “<strong>the</strong> wild within”.<br />
<strong>The</strong>se symbolic resources aid in activist identification and mobilization. As such, “EF!<br />
symbolic actions are both means and ends <strong>of</strong> subverting <strong>the</strong> dominant technocratic<br />
worldview and constructing alternative ecotopian worldviews” (p. 273), or function to<br />
create and utilize “dual power”.<br />
Shantz discusses what he calls “green syndicalism” 70 (1999, 2002) and <strong>the</strong> attempts made<br />
by Earth First! To unite with exploited lumber workers in Nor<strong>the</strong>rn California. Judi Bari 71<br />
helped to create <strong>the</strong> IWW/Earth First! Local 1, to help organize <strong>the</strong>se workers, who were<br />
<strong>of</strong>ten without union representation (or those in <strong>the</strong> IWA 72 who <strong>of</strong>ten found <strong>the</strong>ir union<br />
making concessions). Bari argued that workers <strong>the</strong>mselves were in <strong>the</strong> best position to be<br />
environmentalists, but that <strong>the</strong>y had to be approached first on <strong>the</strong> basis <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>ir own<br />
workplace-based disputes and issues.<br />
Get a recent issue <strong>of</strong> Earth First! Journal and compare “current” chapters with my<br />
list (in org_a.sxc) from a 2001 issue (maybe get <strong>the</strong> Sept 2004 to match up 3 full yrs?<br />
Mac's Back's Paperbacks in Cleveland Heights has 'em).<br />
4. Food Not Bombs<br />
Food Not Bombs collectives usually proclaim three or four general principles that<br />
include:<br />
1. Nonviolence<br />
2. Consensus decision making<br />
3. Vegetarianism (if a fourth is declared, it is frequently<br />
akin to this principle: food-recycling)<br />
While engaged in Akron FNB activities I have observed police surveillance <strong>of</strong> our<br />
70 “Green syndicalism” may be yet ano<strong>the</strong>r philosophy to create a more environmentally-sound world,<br />
perhaps complementing o<strong>the</strong>r “eco-city” philosophies cited by Roseland (1997), that include two<br />
anarchist-influenced <strong>the</strong>ories: social ecology and bioregionalism.<br />
71 Bari is also well-known for having survived an anonymous pipe-bomb attack and subsequent police/FBI<br />
smear-campaign. After she had died <strong>of</strong> cancer in 199x, she was exonerated (posthumously) in court for<br />
<strong>the</strong> bomb attack in 2002 (year?-- check Bay Area IMC archives),<br />
72 IWA stands for International Woodworkers <strong>of</strong> America, not <strong>the</strong> International Workingmen's<br />
Association!<br />
[ Williams 78 ] [ this is a draft. do not cite. ]
actions, cut up thousands <strong>of</strong> potatoes, peppers, and carrots, broken up fights, wheatpasted<br />
and stickered both public and private spaces, shared food at a number <strong>of</strong> political protests,<br />
scalded my eyes with jalapeño juices, cut my fingers, broken stirring spoons, composted<br />
dozens <strong>of</strong> pounds <strong>of</strong> food scraps/refuse, and had to explain at least one hundred times that<br />
we are NOT with a church.<br />
<strong>The</strong> top 9 states account for over 57 (recalc) percent <strong>of</strong> all U.S. collectives, <strong>of</strong> 181 total.<br />
Table 10. Top 9 States with Food Not Bombs collectives<br />
State Collectives<br />
California 37<br />
New York 11<br />
Florida 11<br />
Illinois 10<br />
Texas 9<br />
Pennsylvania 7<br />
Michigan 7<br />
Ohio 7<br />
North Carolina 7<br />
Source: foodnotbombs.net; Date accessed: December 12, 2003. Author's analysis.<br />
Interviews/questionnaires/surveys for FNB activists:<br />
● general vision for FNB as a movement?<br />
● positions taken and values held by FNB collectively?<br />
● how long has FNB been operating/active?<br />
● cross-participation in o<strong>the</strong>r activist organizations?<br />
● campaigns run by FNB (homeless, gentrification, war, globalization, animal rights)?<br />
● is FNB an anarchistic organization?<br />
● rate <strong>of</strong> turnover?<br />
● Ever a lull in FNB activity? (personally and overall as a group)<br />
● food sharing locations?<br />
● Number <strong>of</strong> times per week food is shared?<br />
● Ever tried sharing more times per week?<br />
● Number <strong>of</strong> people food is shared with every week?<br />
● ever "catered" at an activist event?<br />
● how many times and what events?<br />
● primary subcultures represented (hippie, punk, activist, student)?<br />
● how many anarchists in FNB?<br />
● how <strong>of</strong>ten hold meetings?<br />
● use consensus?<br />
● how well does consensus work?<br />
● problems internal to FNB?<br />
● police harassment?<br />
[ Williams 79 ] [ this is a draft. do not cite. ]
● sexism in/at FNB?<br />
Criticalmassrides.info<br />
foodnotbombs.net<br />
aranet.org<br />
earth first! (www?? -- Earth First journal!)<br />
anarchist organization via webpages -- [Lynn & Palmer (Dec 2003 Critical Studies in<br />
Mass Communication?)] <strong>The</strong> inner-connection <strong>of</strong> anarchist webpages. Facilitates <strong>the</strong><br />
easy exchange <strong>of</strong> info about <strong>the</strong>se organizations, and also allows <strong>the</strong> sharing <strong>of</strong> contact<br />
info for each collective?<br />
It needs to be said that, although <strong>the</strong>se findings are interesting, <strong>the</strong>y are not a snapshot <strong>of</strong><br />
<strong>the</strong> present anarchist organizations in North America, but ra<strong>the</strong>r paint a picture <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
overall historic anarchist organizations that have existed on <strong>the</strong> continent. Since <strong>the</strong>se are<br />
autonomous groups, <strong>the</strong>re is no centralized authority for tracking active and inactive<br />
groups, although certain individuals have taken it upon <strong>the</strong>mselves to attempt <strong>the</strong> task. As<br />
a result, <strong>the</strong>re is no method for knowing which groups are active (and just how active) or<br />
inactive. Thus, take <strong>the</strong> following with a grain <strong>of</strong> salt. Interesting salt, <strong>of</strong> course!<br />
How many [estimated] chapters internationally for each? Trying to calculate a<br />
figure for this, but many listings are out-dated, missing, or overlapping.<br />
Map locations <strong>of</strong> North American chapters (ARA, FNB, CM, IMC [also international -<br />
see below], maybe EF!)<br />
Compare chapters to city populations (ratio)<br />
Compare # <strong>of</strong> chapters per state to state population<br />
Total population % <strong>of</strong> NA that has/had a group "serving" <strong>the</strong>m... for ex. If Cincy,<br />
Columbus, Akron, Cleveland, and Dayton have had FNB chapters, <strong>the</strong>n <strong>the</strong>se might apply<br />
to roughly 30% <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> state <strong>of</strong> Ohio (etc). Use actual cities [not metro areas] and most<br />
recent [2000 census] data.<br />
[Get ahold <strong>of</strong> ARA Bulletin/newsletter... if can't mailorder it, maybe Labadie<br />
Library at UM, Ann Arbor]<br />
[Insert new analysis on IWW groups -- find a way to distinguish between GNB (??),<br />
contacts, and o<strong>the</strong>r groups, such as workplaces]<br />
Do regression analysis comparing IMC locations to <strong>the</strong> concentration <strong>of</strong> anarchistic<br />
franchises (or even straight-up anarchist projects?). Might have to base <strong>the</strong> IMC(s)<br />
in individual states and do <strong>the</strong> same for organizations. [But, state-based IMCs (like<br />
[ Williams 80 ] [ this is a draft. do not cite. ]
Michigan for example) might skew this, since <strong>the</strong>y cover <strong>the</strong> entire (ra<strong>the</strong>r sizable)<br />
state.]<br />
[ Williams 81 ] [ this is a draft. do not cite. ]
INDYMEDIA<br />
Don't hate <strong>the</strong> media,<br />
become <strong>the</strong> media.<br />
- Jello Biafra<br />
Chuck D <strong>of</strong> Public Enemy once said that rap was Black America's CNN. 73 In a similar<br />
light, <strong>the</strong> Independent Media Center (IMC) movement could be seen as <strong>the</strong> anarchist<br />
movement's CNN. Like rap, IMCs were formed out <strong>of</strong> lack <strong>of</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r expressive avenues.<br />
<strong>The</strong>y also are enjoyed by o<strong>the</strong>rs outside <strong>of</strong> Black America and <strong>the</strong> anarchist movement—<br />
IMC websites are visited by o<strong>the</strong>r radicals, liberals, <strong>the</strong> curious, <strong>the</strong> trolling right-wing,<br />
and police agents.<br />
<strong>The</strong>re are two important intersections <strong>of</strong> anarchism with <strong>the</strong> recent Independent Media<br />
Center movement: 1) <strong>the</strong> common presence <strong>of</strong> anarchist participation in local IMCs and<br />
2) <strong>the</strong> anarchistic nature, structure, and behavior <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Global IMC Network and <strong>of</strong> local<br />
IMCs. Although <strong>the</strong> first intersection is interesting, I will spend most time discussing <strong>the</strong><br />
second intersection.<br />
<strong>The</strong> IMC grew out <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> anti-WTO demonstrations that took place in Seattle,<br />
Washington during late November 1999. 74 Media activists suspected that once again <strong>the</strong><br />
message <strong>of</strong> demonstrators (especially those with <strong>the</strong> Direct Action Network) would be<br />
blacked-out <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> media or distorted beyond recognition 75 , and thus took it upon<br />
<strong>the</strong>mselves to set-up various mechanisms for distributing news about both <strong>the</strong><br />
demonstrations <strong>the</strong>mselves and <strong>the</strong> WTO itself. <strong>The</strong>se mechanisms took <strong>the</strong> form <strong>of</strong> a<br />
central, clearinghouse webpage where anyone could get up to date developments from <strong>the</strong><br />
streets, share photographs, video footage, and first-hand accounts. <strong>The</strong> IMC broadcast a<br />
30-minute TV program each <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> five days <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> demonstrations and put out a<br />
newspaper each day. <strong>The</strong>se TV broadcasts were carried on many independent<br />
television/cable programs, such as Paper Tiger TV and have been collected in <strong>the</strong> video<br />
“Showdown in Seattle” available from <strong>the</strong> Seattle IMC.<br />
This model was so effective and inspiring that o<strong>the</strong>r anti-corporate globalization activist<br />
decided to emulate <strong>the</strong> Seattle IMC in subsequent mass mobilizations in <strong>the</strong> US, <strong>the</strong> anti-<br />
IMF/World Bank demos in Washington DC during April 2000 being <strong>the</strong> first. 76 Since<br />
<strong>the</strong>se decisions grew primarily out <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Direct Action Network and <strong>the</strong> spokescouncil<br />
model, it is predictable that many anarchists would become involved in <strong>the</strong> functioning<br />
and design <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> IMCs.<br />
73 Reference for Chuck D's “Black CNN” quote!! or whomever else said this...<br />
74 See <strong>the</strong> coverage <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> 1999 WTO demos from <strong>the</strong> Seattle IMC (now an independent/autonomous<br />
entity) at <strong>the</strong>ir webpage: http://seattle.indymedia.org/wto/ (???what is <strong>the</strong> new correct c/site???)<br />
75 Whe<strong>the</strong>r in <strong>the</strong> past (Hong 1992, Cobb-Reiley 1988) or in <strong>the</strong> present (McLeod & Detenber 1999),<br />
media distortion has been a consistent dynamic during <strong>the</strong> entire history <strong>of</strong> anarchism in <strong>the</strong> United<br />
States.<br />
76 From comments by DC anarchist organizer Chuck Munson – a.k.a. “Chuck0” – about <strong>the</strong> spokescouncil<br />
decision to emulate <strong>the</strong> success <strong>of</strong> Seattle's IMC for <strong>the</strong> “a20” demos (Radio4All.net syndicated<br />
program named “041700chuck0.mp3”).<br />
[ Williams 82 ] [ this is a draft. do not cite. ]
Since many anarchists were engaged in <strong>the</strong> construction <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> early IMCs and later <strong>the</strong><br />
Global IMC Network, it is also entirely predictable that its structure would contain many<br />
anarchist values. I will try to briefly detail <strong>the</strong>se values now.<br />
Table 11. Anarchistic Values <strong>of</strong> Local IMCs and Global IMC Network<br />
Local IMCs Global IMC Network<br />
● Autonomy: Collectives each have <strong>the</strong>ir own<br />
principles <strong>of</strong> unity, missions, policies<br />
● Consensus: Decisions are made in a cooperative<br />
and non-hierarchical fashion<br />
● Direct action: Instead <strong>of</strong> asking <strong>the</strong> existing<br />
media to reform itself, IMCs do-it-<strong>the</strong>mselves.<br />
Utilize and publicize direct action as a method<br />
for social/political change<br />
● Freedom: Open-publishing newswires allow for<br />
personal expression and individual<br />
empowerment to tell one's own story<br />
● Solidarity: Integrated into local activist<br />
communities; <strong>the</strong>y are involved, yet fair and<br />
honest<br />
● TAZs: Editorial policies <strong>of</strong> local collectives keep<br />
freedom on newswire, ins<strong>of</strong>ar as<br />
racist/sexist/homophobic/classist/anti-<br />
Semitic/etc. speech does not appear—definitely<br />
a pro-active, anti-authoritarian practice <strong>of</strong><br />
keeping a “safe space” for activist news [quote<br />
from <strong>the</strong> Rogue IMC's editorial policy?]<br />
● Transparency: Users have <strong>the</strong> ability to<br />
comment on newswire posts, which encourages<br />
active dialogue, debate, discussion, information<br />
sharing (information is free; challenge/criticism<br />
is accepted)<br />
● Voluntary association: IMC volunteers network<br />
<strong>the</strong>mselves amongst existing alternative media—<br />
not as a centralized power, but as a conduit for<br />
collaboration, resource sharing, cross-pollination<br />
<strong>of</strong> mediums, etc.<br />
● Anti-authoritarian: S<strong>of</strong>tware used is open source<br />
code that is transparent, and open to both<br />
criticism and improvement; no one controls <strong>the</strong><br />
code<br />
● Autonomy: All work for <strong>the</strong> Network is done in<br />
independent committees/working groups (via<br />
open-to-<strong>the</strong>-public listserves)<br />
● Cooperation: S<strong>of</strong>tware encourages collaboration<br />
between developers and users<br />
● Decentralization and federation: <strong>the</strong> Network is<br />
a collection <strong>of</strong> dozens <strong>of</strong> independent, local<br />
collectives<br />
● Mutual aid: Share resources, such as tech skills:<br />
website set-up, web-hosting<br />
● Solidarity: Network volunteers practice strong<br />
multi-lingual solidarity, bringing new IMCs<br />
through beginning (“New IMC”) process<br />
● Voluntary association: Working groups must<br />
sync <strong>the</strong>ir decisions toge<strong>the</strong>r—via consensus—in<br />
order to make global decisions<br />
As fur<strong>the</strong>r evidence <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Network's anarchist sympathies, witness <strong>the</strong> “New-Imc”<br />
working group's description <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>the</strong>ory and practice <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Network:<br />
NETWORK OVERVIEW - THEORY AND PRACTICE<br />
<strong>The</strong> strength <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> IMC as a concept comes directly from<br />
its organizational structure; namely, a decentralized<br />
network <strong>of</strong> autonomous collectives whose shared resources<br />
allow for <strong>the</strong> creation <strong>of</strong> a social and digital infrastructure<br />
that is independent <strong>of</strong> state and market forces. It is our<br />
intention as a media movement to build out this structure so<br />
[ Williams 83 ] [ this is a draft. do not cite. ]
that, on <strong>the</strong> one hand, we have local IMC's throughout <strong>the</strong><br />
world that are autonomous in <strong>the</strong>ir decision making while,<br />
on <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r hand, we are united in a network form <strong>of</strong><br />
organization that allows for collaboration on a level<br />
previously reserved for state and corporate interests. To <strong>the</strong><br />
extent <strong>the</strong> network is effective in challenging abusive<br />
systems <strong>of</strong> power is directly related to our ability to create<br />
decentralized structures. It is our ability to be flexible and<br />
simultaneously united that has proven effective.<br />
However, it cannot be understated that in order for<br />
collaboration to occur network wide, <strong>the</strong>re needs to exist a<br />
set <strong>of</strong> guidelines and a process by which we all agree to<br />
work. Quite frankly, it is necessary to resist any efforts by a<br />
local collective, for example, that wishes to develop a nonparticipatory,<br />
top-down structure, or would like to create a<br />
corporation out <strong>of</strong> a local IMC. To this end, we have<br />
developed guidelines for network participation in <strong>the</strong> form<br />
<strong>of</strong> two crucial documents: <strong>the</strong> Principles <strong>of</strong> Unity and <strong>the</strong><br />
Criteria for Membership. <strong>The</strong>se documents, in a sense, are a<br />
pact amongst media activists that allow for <strong>the</strong> network to<br />
exist. It is under <strong>the</strong>se assumptions that we are united yet<br />
autonomous. (newimc.indymedia.org)<br />
Usage <strong>of</strong> language such as “ a decentralized network <strong>of</strong> autonomous collectives” and “we<br />
are united in a network form <strong>of</strong> organization that allows for collaboration” reinforce <strong>the</strong><br />
increasingly obvious tendencies <strong>the</strong> network has retained.<br />
It is clear that <strong>the</strong> success <strong>of</strong> Indymedia, particularly in revealing to thousands<br />
internationally <strong>the</strong> brutality <strong>of</strong> police in response to nonviolent protest, has brought upon<br />
additional repression. Baghdad, et al. (2001) detail some <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> violence and political<br />
tricks <strong>of</strong> repression brought upon <strong>the</strong> Seattle (original), Washington D.C., Philadelphia,<br />
Los Angeles, and Cincinnati IMCs, in forms varying from macing, assault, revoked<br />
freedom <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> press, raids, fake bomb threats, gag orders, and subpoenas. Since <strong>the</strong><br />
writing <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> piece, additional repression has been visited upon <strong>the</strong> Indymedia<br />
movement, particularly in Genoa, Italy during a G-8 summit (where Italian police beat<br />
dozens to a pulp in an IMC site) and in <strong>the</strong> harassment <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Bay Area IMC (San<br />
Francisco area) by <strong>the</strong> Diebold Corporation, for publishing “secret” documents showing<br />
<strong>the</strong> flaws in <strong>the</strong>ir electronic voting machines. [check www.indymedia.org/fbi for more<br />
news??]<br />
Beckerman (2003) observes:<br />
Indymedia's reporter-activists believe that no journalism is<br />
without bias... [and] that <strong>the</strong>y are not afraid to admit <strong>the</strong>ir<br />
own bias: journalism in <strong>the</strong> service <strong>of</strong> upending <strong>the</strong> status<br />
quo. <strong>The</strong>y make <strong>the</strong> argument that this unabashed<br />
[ Williams 84 ] [ this is a draft. do not cite. ]
commitment does not conflict with fairness and accuracy.<br />
(p. 28)<br />
In early 2001 (check date in org_a.sxc) <strong>the</strong> idea was floated on <strong>the</strong> imc-process working<br />
group list to create a new working group that would deal exclusively with <strong>the</strong> task <strong>of</strong><br />
assisting newly-forming IMCs to work through a formalized “new IMC” process. In<br />
creating ano<strong>the</strong>r working group to accomplish this task, <strong>the</strong> IMC network was fur<strong>the</strong>r<br />
decentralizing and preventing against imc-process becoming a centralized power. Soon<br />
after this decision was formalized, <strong>the</strong> admittance <strong>of</strong> new IMCs became much more<br />
streamlined (not to say <strong>the</strong>re were not problems, but <strong>the</strong>y were much more clearly dealt<br />
with) and <strong>the</strong> IMC expanded more internationally beyond <strong>the</strong> Euro-American domain.<br />
(cite <strong>the</strong> growth <strong>of</strong> non-Euro-American IMCs during this time period to present – a<br />
line graph <strong>of</strong> time progression would be cool (# <strong>of</strong> approved IMCs)).<br />
[“Indymedia: Between Passion and Pragmatism”, Gal Beckerman, Columbia<br />
Journalism Review]<br />
[Mackley 2002]<br />
[Chuck0 2002. “<strong>The</strong> Sad Decline <strong>of</strong> Indymedia”.]<br />
[Chynoweth 2003]<br />
[Shumway 2003]<br />
[Morris, 2003] !!<br />
According to Table xxx, <strong>the</strong>re are roughly 121 total IMCs in <strong>the</strong> world (although new<br />
IMCs are frequently being added to <strong>the</strong> global network). It should be noted that “North<br />
America”, were is a category, would consist <strong>of</strong> 58 IMCs, nearly half <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> entire world.<br />
Additionally, if one were to consider <strong>the</strong> “West” (i.e., North America and Europe), 91 <strong>of</strong><br />
121 (or roughly three-fourths) would be counted. Clearly <strong>the</strong> “digital divide” and Eurocentrism<br />
have a great deal to due with this imbalanced distribution.<br />
Table 12. Global Independent Media Centers per Region<br />
[ Williams 85 ] [ this is a draft. do not cite. ]
Region IMCs<br />
United States 47<br />
Europe 33<br />
Latin America 15<br />
Canada 11<br />
Oceania 8<br />
West Asia 3<br />
Africa 3<br />
South Asia 2<br />
East Asia 1<br />
Total 123<br />
Source: www.indymedia.org. Accessed: December 5, 2003. Author's analysis.<br />
[expand this table overtime to show changes in IMC regionality... i.e. Remember to check every few<br />
months or so.]<br />
In addition to <strong>the</strong> IMC movement, o<strong>the</strong>r digital tools have facilitated <strong>the</strong> dissemination <strong>of</strong><br />
anarchist information and news, specifically <strong>the</strong> “a-infos news service” which is a multilanguage<br />
news, information, and announcement exchange service run by TAO<br />
Collective. 77 O<strong>the</strong>r sources <strong>of</strong> anarchist information come from <strong>the</strong> Mid-Atlantic<br />
Infoshop, <strong>the</strong> A-Infos Radio Project (Radio4All.net) 78 , and dozens <strong>of</strong> smaller message<br />
boards and hundreds <strong>of</strong> emailing lists.<br />
Various North American collectives also provide electronic service free <strong>of</strong> costs (read:<br />
mutual aid) to radical activists, including email, listserves 79 , and web-hosting.<br />
Mutualaid.org, tao.ca, riseup.net, and resist.ca are <strong>the</strong> major North American projects<br />
providing <strong>the</strong>se services. Indeed, it has been frequently noted (cite) by anarchists, that <strong>the</strong><br />
Internet itself is structured and operates on anarchist principles. It is logical, <strong>the</strong>n, that <strong>the</strong><br />
Internet has been a useful tool for <strong>the</strong> dissemination <strong>of</strong> anarchist ideas and for anarchist<br />
communication.<br />
Ano<strong>the</strong>r major form <strong>of</strong> independent media that has a long North American history is <strong>the</strong><br />
self-published pamphlet, or zine (short for “magazine”). Kucsma (2003) writes about <strong>the</strong><br />
importance <strong>of</strong> zine culture to providing an undercurrent <strong>of</strong> resistance to social<br />
movements.<br />
org_a.sxc: (1) collect individual IMC dates from imc_process (and new-imc). (2) goto<br />
77 TAO = <strong>The</strong> Anarchy Organization.<br />
78 Hosts thousands <strong>of</strong> free mp3s <strong>of</strong> speeches, debates, conferences, and radio broadcasts from all over <strong>the</strong><br />
world, all <strong>of</strong> a Left-leaning or anarchist nature.<br />
79 For a deeper look at <strong>the</strong> electronic methods <strong>of</strong> organizing by anarchists, <strong>the</strong> chapter Organization details<br />
<strong>the</strong> various email listserves operated by and for anarchists.<br />
[ Williams 86 ] [ this is a draft. do not cite. ]
each IMCs webpage to “about” pages to find specific dates <strong>of</strong> admittance. (3) view an<br />
IMCs listserv for hints on when <strong>the</strong>y were admitted. (4) last resort: contact IMC's contact<br />
email and listserv asking if anyone knows when it was first admitted.<br />
To see rise-n-fall, compare my master list <strong>of</strong> IMCs with dates w/ <strong>the</strong> <strong>of</strong>ficial “active”<br />
IMC list. For those who are no longer active, try to determine when <strong>the</strong>y were removed.<br />
Possibly contacting people like Jay, Sheri, Boud, Bart, etc. for info on <strong>the</strong>se deletions (or<br />
even additions) may be helpful.<br />
Do regression analysis on IMC locations (at least N. American) to see what factors<br />
influence where <strong>the</strong>y are. Hypo<strong>the</strong>sis: IMCs are ei<strong>the</strong>r positively correlated with or are<br />
dependent upon <strong>the</strong> concentration <strong>of</strong> anarchist/anarchistic organizations in <strong>the</strong> same city<br />
or state. Dependent variable: IMC city/state; Independent variables: cities/states<br />
containing a “franchise” anarchist organization (i.e. ABC, ARA, CM, EF!, FNB, IWW)<br />
or maybe even any anarchist organization (use Anarchist Yellow Pages for this, although<br />
it tends to be ra<strong>the</strong>r patchy and incomplete). ??<br />
IMC geographical delineations - region, city, state/province, country, [etc.]: how many <strong>of</strong><br />
each, which differs, service to each region, etc.<br />
Chronological rise <strong>of</strong> each new IMC - use Wiki database and new-imc list [and imcprocess]<br />
or cities.inc file [?] to determine [+ inactivity/death <strong>of</strong> IMC]<br />
Line chart <strong>of</strong> IMC growth (horizontal axis = time, vertical axis = # <strong>of</strong> global IMCs)<br />
Pie charts (each for a time period - year?) <strong>of</strong> percentage <strong>of</strong> continent for total IMCs [e.g.<br />
2000 = 100% NA IMCs; 2001 = 80% NA, 20% = European; etc.]<br />
Read IMC page on FBI activity/crack-downs/legal-attacks. Combine into text. Affecting<br />
large convergences or o<strong>the</strong>r things too?<br />
Do left wing bibliography search for IMC movement. Integrate major findings, analysis,<br />
and <strong>the</strong>ory into text. [IMC's "Indymedia in <strong>the</strong> news" page (?), Z-Net, alternet.org,<br />
commoncause.org, infoshop.org, a-infos (en), etc. Do Nexis-Lexis database search on<br />
"Independent Media Center" and "IMC" over last 5 years.<br />
Integrate Shumway, Chuck0, Beckerman, Naomi Klein (?), et al. into text.<br />
Almeida, et al. 2003<br />
Kidd 2003<br />
Van Aelst, et al. 2002<br />
[ Williams 87 ] [ this is a draft. do not cite. ]
VIOLENCE<br />
If we speak honestly, we must admit that<br />
everyone believes in violence and practices it,<br />
however [one] may condemn it in o<strong>the</strong>rs.<br />
In fact, all <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> institutions we support<br />
and <strong>the</strong> entire life <strong>of</strong> present society are based<br />
on violence.<br />
- Alexander Berkman<br />
This would indeed be a poor primer on anarchism if it failed to mention “violence”. In <strong>the</strong><br />
modern era, anarchists have always been associated with violence. <strong>The</strong>re is, <strong>of</strong> course, a<br />
good reason for this—namely <strong>the</strong> early “propaganda by <strong>the</strong> deed” movement within<br />
anarchism, which intended to incite popular uprisings by <strong>the</strong> assassination <strong>of</strong> visible<br />
political figures, such as prime ministers, czars, police chiefs, or corporate executives.<br />
This rarely happened as intended, and in fact, <strong>the</strong> closest it ever got to an “uprising” was<br />
provoking <strong>the</strong> First World War by <strong>the</strong> assassination <strong>of</strong> Archduke Ferdinand. <strong>The</strong><br />
assassinations <strong>of</strong> railroad thug Henry Clay Frick (attempted) by Alexander Berkman and<br />
<strong>of</strong> President William McKinley by Leon Czolgosz did not bring about any great rebellion<br />
in America, just a lot <strong>of</strong> state repression. Yet, anarchists have always held that selfdefense,<br />
including defense by force (<strong>of</strong>ten including armed defense), is a right <strong>of</strong> people<br />
resisting oppression. Of course, countless people from all over <strong>the</strong> political spectrum have<br />
carried out assassinations and advocated self-defense, including governments.<br />
Thus, <strong>the</strong>re is a more important reason why anarchists have been perceived as violent.<br />
<strong>The</strong> threat posed by <strong>the</strong>ir revolutionary rhetoric to <strong>the</strong> status quo is itself seen as violent—<br />
or at least has been framed as violent by elites and <strong>the</strong>ir lapdogs in <strong>the</strong> media.<br />
Sociologically-speaking, since <strong>the</strong> state (and capitalism) attempts to portray itself as <strong>the</strong><br />
only sane, logical form <strong>of</strong> social order, than those opposed to <strong>the</strong> state and capitalism<br />
must be pro-disorder (or so <strong>the</strong> argument goes). Thus, to be opposed to order, one must<br />
surely be deranged, sinister, vengeful, and evil. By insinuation, anarchists have always<br />
been portrayed to <strong>the</strong> general public as people who wish to carry out <strong>the</strong>ir agenda by<br />
violent overthrow, to install nothing but a “system” <strong>of</strong> “chaos”. 80<br />
In recent times, anarchists have been derided for <strong>the</strong>ir direct action against corporate<br />
property, particularly during black bloc marches (especially during 1999's anti-WTO<br />
actions in Seattle) and pro-environmental “monkey-wrenching”. Not only <strong>the</strong><br />
establishment reacts harshly to such actions, but also organized “liberal/left” movements,<br />
who have a strong foundation in nonviolence in North America. It is indeed ironic that<br />
<strong>the</strong> similarities are not seen more <strong>of</strong>ten to those <strong>of</strong> people like <strong>the</strong> Plowshares movement<br />
and <strong>the</strong> Berrigan bro<strong>the</strong>rs—pacifists who actively destroyed property to directly and<br />
symbolically impede US war-making capacity.<br />
80 A great article on <strong>the</strong> “construction” <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> “anarchist beast in American periodical literature” may be<br />
found in Hong (1992).<br />
[ Williams 88 ] [ this is a draft. do not cite. ]
A look at <strong>the</strong> December 1999 archives <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> “SOCIAL-MOVEMENTS” listserve<br />
archives 81 bores out this academic failure to distinguish property destruction from<br />
violence. People in Seattle (and many who did not live <strong>the</strong>re) posted to this academic list,<br />
repeatedly associating “graffiti”, “vandalism”, and “property destruction” with violence.<br />
Despite what one thinks <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> tactic <strong>of</strong> property destruction or “trashing”, it is not<br />
inherently violent according to anarchist thinking. This is a very key component <strong>of</strong><br />
anarchist <strong>the</strong>ory, so it bears repeating: property destruction is not violence. 82 It also<br />
illustrates a divide between radical and liberal analysis within <strong>the</strong> Left. 83<br />
“brook@california.com” posted this account:<br />
Most <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> violence was caused by a vigilantee [sic] group<br />
that joined <strong>the</strong> protests after <strong>the</strong> start <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> march who were<br />
anarchist. <strong>The</strong>se groups also were <strong>the</strong> ones that slashed tires<br />
ad [sic] spray painted. <strong>The</strong> peacful protestors [sic] used<br />
chalk for graffiti. (date)<br />
(This response is especially noteworthy for not assigning any responsibility for <strong>the</strong><br />
violence to <strong>the</strong> police. It also seems to suggest that <strong>the</strong> quasi-permanency <strong>of</strong> spray-paint is<br />
violent, whereas less-than-permanent chalk is nonviolent.)<br />
Doug Hunts [check last name] stated:<br />
Peter Bergel wrote:<br />
“rkmoore@iol.ie” mused:<br />
a very few whackos despite everyone's best efforts got out<br />
<strong>of</strong> line and resorted to violence, even beating down<br />
demonstrators that tried to get <strong>the</strong>m to stop -- <strong>the</strong>re are<br />
really a total <strong>of</strong> about 50/200 roudies [sic] (date)<br />
Demonstrators moved immediately to quell property<br />
damage and equally determinedly to break up conflicts.<br />
O<strong>the</strong>rs immediately began to chant "Nonviolent protest!<br />
Nonviolent protest!” (date)<br />
I continue to _suspect PGA 84 as being <strong>the</strong> instigator <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
81 Archives at: http://www.iol.ie/~mazzoldi/toolsforchange/sm.html<br />
82 <strong>The</strong> author has himself participated in so-called “black bloc” marches (in which no one has ever been<br />
hurt except from police violence), and has experienced first-hand <strong>the</strong> rejection by liberals who have<br />
strong (and inaccurate) preconceptions <strong>of</strong> what <strong>the</strong> bloc is about, even when absolutely no property<br />
destruction was committed. As a result <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>se preconceptions, liberals have consistently attempted to<br />
distance <strong>the</strong>mselves from anyone using radical rhetoric, wearing masks or all-black clothing, or daring<br />
to refuse <strong>the</strong> order <strong>of</strong> a police <strong>of</strong>ficer or event organizer.<br />
83 Or as some, like Jason McQuinn and Anarchy magazine would suggest, <strong>the</strong> notion <strong>of</strong> “post-leftist”<br />
anarchism.<br />
84 PGA is <strong>the</strong> People's Global Action, a network <strong>of</strong> anti-capitalist throughout <strong>the</strong> world that includes<br />
anarchists, peasant groups, labor unions, and o<strong>the</strong>r grassroots social movements. It is organized on<br />
[ Williams 89 ] [ this is a draft. do not cite. ]
demonstrator-violence, but I'm not sure. (date)<br />
Smith (2001), writing in a premiere social movement journal called Mobilization, mars<br />
her o<strong>the</strong>rwise great article by conflating <strong>the</strong> property destruction and [police] violence in<br />
Seattle: “Anarchist groups... did not use violence first” (p. 13, my emphasis). She would<br />
have been right in saying that anarchists did not act first to provoke <strong>the</strong> police violence<br />
with property destruction.<br />
It is, unfortunately, not just a failure <strong>of</strong> liberal scholarship to see <strong>the</strong> distinction, but <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
activist Left, too. This is born out by <strong>the</strong> intense debates after “Seattle” amongst those<br />
active in <strong>the</strong> anti-corporate-globalization movement, and even those at its periphery,<br />
apparently hell-bent on sanitizing and controlling it.<br />
Plainly put, anarchists define violence as harm caused towards people, and—unless glass<br />
windows or brick walls are actually human beings—property destruction is not (in and <strong>of</strong><br />
itself) violent. Of course, it can be reckless, indirectly violent, a poor tactic, and so forth.<br />
But, as anarchist Chuck0 states: “ [find Chuck0 quote re: property destruction] “.<br />
Thus, by associating property destruction with violence, property is elevated to <strong>the</strong> level<br />
<strong>of</strong> human beings. By such logic, smashing a window would be as violent as smashing<br />
someone's face, or spray painting a wall as violent as etching words into someone's skin<br />
with a razor blade. Proudhon, <strong>the</strong> first “anarchist”, declared that property itself was <strong>the</strong>ft,<br />
thus claiming that property was in fact also a form <strong>of</strong> violence, since one can possess it to<br />
<strong>the</strong> detriment <strong>of</strong> ano<strong>the</strong>r.<br />
<strong>The</strong> ACME Collective (part <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Seattle “N30” black bloc), clarified this difference in a<br />
communique:<br />
Private property should be distinguished from personal<br />
property. <strong>The</strong> latter is based upon use while <strong>the</strong> former is<br />
based upon trade. <strong>The</strong> premise <strong>of</strong> personal property is that<br />
each <strong>of</strong> us has what s/he needs. <strong>The</strong> premise <strong>of</strong> private<br />
property is that each <strong>of</strong> us has something that someone else<br />
needs or wants. In a society based on private property<br />
rights, those who are able to accrue more <strong>of</strong> what o<strong>the</strong>rs<br />
need or want have greater power. By extension, <strong>the</strong>y wield<br />
greater control over what o<strong>the</strong>rs perceive as needs and<br />
desires, usually in <strong>the</strong> interest <strong>of</strong> increasing pr<strong>of</strong>it to<br />
<strong>the</strong>mselves. (ACME Collective 1999)<br />
It is also worth noting, in passing, <strong>the</strong> failure <strong>of</strong> liberals (let alone <strong>the</strong> media) to<br />
understand what <strong>the</strong> black bloc was (a group? a sect? a tribe from Eugene, Oregon?) and<br />
that it was not a new tactic, but had been used for many years in <strong>the</strong> US and in Europe.<br />
strong anarchist principles, as indicated in its organizational principles, which include a rejection <strong>of</strong><br />
capitalism/imperialism/feudalism and all o<strong>the</strong>r forms <strong>of</strong> domination, a belief in direct action and civil<br />
disobedience, and an organizational philosophy based on decentralization and autonomy. See Routledge<br />
(2003) for more on multi-scalar grassroots globalization networks. Also, see Ford (1999) for a<br />
pre-“Seattle” take on <strong>the</strong> PGA, contrasted with <strong>the</strong> NGO “insider” symposium on environment and<br />
sustainable development.<br />
[ Williams 90 ] [ this is a draft. do not cite. ]
Fur<strong>the</strong>r, <strong>the</strong> focus upon anarchists after N30 centered only on <strong>the</strong> black bloc (and property<br />
destruction), and not, as Crass (2001) noted, all <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r activities anarchists were<br />
involved in:<br />
While <strong>the</strong> media obsessed over anarchists who destroyed<br />
property – <strong>the</strong> real story was that anarchists were simply<br />
everywhere doing a hundred different things. <strong>Anarchists</strong><br />
were doing jail support, media work, making meals for<br />
thousands, doing dishes, facilitating strategy meetings,<br />
leading workshops and discussion groups. <strong>Anarchists</strong> were<br />
doing medical support work, security at <strong>the</strong> warehouse<br />
space, communications between affinity groups and<br />
clusters, organizing marches and blockades and lock downs<br />
and tripod sits and forming human chains. <strong>Anarchists</strong> were<br />
making puppets, banners, signs, leaflets, press releases,<br />
stickers, and costumes (like <strong>the</strong> lovable sea turtles).<br />
<strong>Anarchists</strong> were starting chants, designing posters and<br />
newspapers, playing music, negotiating with <strong>the</strong> police and<br />
jailers to get our comrades out <strong>of</strong> jail. <strong>Anarchists</strong> were<br />
squatters occupying an empty building and attracting<br />
national media to <strong>the</strong> issues <strong>of</strong> property, poverty and<br />
homelessness. <strong>Anarchists</strong> were held in solitary confinement<br />
for being such effective organizers <strong>of</strong> mass non-violent civil<br />
disobedience that rocked Seattle and ignited <strong>the</strong><br />
imaginations <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> world. <strong>Anarchists</strong> organized child<br />
care!!! And yes anarchists targeted corporate chainstores.<br />
Simply put, anarchists significantly contributed to one <strong>of</strong><br />
<strong>the</strong> most effective mass actions in recent US history. (p. 9)<br />
Gillham and Marx (2000) detail various structural and protester-police interaction-related<br />
ironies and ten effects which <strong>the</strong>y argue helped produce <strong>the</strong>m in Seattle: spill-over or fly<br />
paper, reciprocal and neutralizing, escalation, non-enforcement, excitement, role reversal,<br />
strange bedfellows, secrecy, prior reform, and value conflict effects. <strong>The</strong>y write:<br />
“Authoritarian societies are defined by order without liberty. Yet democratic societies can<br />
only exist with both liberty and order” (p. 229, emphasis in <strong>the</strong> original). As such, <strong>the</strong>y<br />
suggest that not all demonstrations must end in violence or a revocation <strong>of</strong> civil liberties.<br />
However, <strong>the</strong>ir general premise overlooks <strong>the</strong> fact that in Seattle DAN knowingly risked<br />
police violence and <strong>the</strong> removal <strong>of</strong> its “rights” in order to physically stop <strong>the</strong> WTO<br />
meetings. For example, Gillham and Marx suggest that <strong>the</strong> authorities could have<br />
established “clearly defined (reasonably contiguous) protest and no-protest zones before<br />
<strong>the</strong> event” (p. 227) in order to ensure <strong>the</strong> “delegate's freedom <strong>of</strong> movement”. DAN<br />
intended to stop <strong>the</strong> meetings and in <strong>the</strong> process to deny delegates <strong>the</strong> freedom <strong>of</strong><br />
movement, since <strong>the</strong>y thought that allowing delegates to meet would produce a more<br />
violent result that <strong>the</strong> revocation <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>ir freedom <strong>of</strong> movement. Thus, Gillham and Marx<br />
ignore that <strong>the</strong> compromises <strong>the</strong>y advocate clearly conflict with <strong>the</strong> goals <strong>of</strong> DAN, just as<br />
<strong>the</strong> goal <strong>of</strong> police is to repress dissent that endangers capital and State. <strong>The</strong> above<br />
suggestion would benefit capital and State more than DAN.<br />
[ Williams 91 ] [ this is a draft. do not cite. ]
Moving outside <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> relatively easy-to-understand distinction between vandalism and<br />
violence, <strong>the</strong>re is a deeper analysis present in anarchist thought: authority wields—and in<br />
fact is based upon—violence. And why <strong>the</strong> violent response from police to mere property<br />
damage? Graeber (2002) observes “governments simply do not know how to deal with an<br />
overtly revolutionary movement that refuses to fall into familiar patterns <strong>of</strong> armed<br />
resistance” (p. 66).<br />
McLeod's work (1992, 1995) on media-generated perception <strong>of</strong> protest (particularly in his<br />
study <strong>of</strong> anarchist protests in Minneapolis during <strong>the</strong> mid-1980s), are useful in<br />
understanding <strong>the</strong> impact that <strong>the</strong> mass media has in <strong>the</strong> perception <strong>of</strong> violence in protest.<br />
He found (1995) that TV news stories <strong>of</strong> clashes between protesters and police (already a<br />
faulty dichotomy, he claims 85 ) caused less criticism <strong>of</strong> police and more criticism <strong>of</strong><br />
protesters when one-sided, but <strong>the</strong> opposite result with less one-sided stories. <strong>The</strong> less<br />
one-sided story also provoked greater identification with protesters than <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r. <strong>The</strong><br />
study also showed that women viewing <strong>the</strong> news program tended to have more criticism<br />
<strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> police, less criticism <strong>of</strong> protesters, and more identification with protesters than<br />
men. Conservatives viewing <strong>the</strong> same TV stories were less likely to see <strong>the</strong> utility in<br />
protest and identified less with protesters than non-conservatives (in <strong>the</strong> study called<br />
“liberals”). McLeod states: “To <strong>the</strong> extent that one-sided portrayals predispose audience<br />
members to reject protesters and <strong>the</strong>ir ideas, <strong>the</strong> media narrow <strong>the</strong> boundaries <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
marketplace <strong>of</strong> ideas” (p. 18).<br />
Cobb-Reiley (1988) discusses <strong>the</strong> suppression <strong>of</strong> anarchist speakers, writers, and<br />
publishers in <strong>the</strong> early 20th century. In hearing legal cases against anarchists concerning<br />
“freedom <strong>of</strong> speech”, judges<br />
made it clear that belief in anarchism, was by definition, an<br />
abuse <strong>of</strong> freedom and, in all <strong>the</strong> cases, that belief was<br />
evidence enough to conclude anarchists intended to do<br />
harm and could, <strong>the</strong>refore, be punished (p. 57).<br />
Unsurprisingly, <strong>the</strong> US government classifies anarchist and anarchistic organizations as<br />
“terrorist” groups—now a quasi-<strong>of</strong>ficial designation for any group <strong>of</strong> people that opposes<br />
US hegemony. A 1999 FBI report (prior to “9/11” fervor) on terrorism stated that <strong>the</strong><br />
largest domestic threats were “animal rights and environmental extremists”, specifically<br />
<strong>the</strong> ALF and ELF (FBI 1999, p. 1). Ironically, <strong>the</strong> report clearly suggests that none <strong>of</strong><br />
<strong>the</strong>se “terrorist” attacks resulted in <strong>the</strong> death <strong>of</strong> any human beings (you can guarantee <strong>the</strong><br />
FBI would mention deaths from anarchists, were <strong>the</strong>re any!). However, a number <strong>of</strong><br />
deaths resulted from <strong>the</strong> acts <strong>of</strong> “rogue right-wing extremists”—which <strong>of</strong> course prompts<br />
<strong>the</strong> question: who are <strong>the</strong> non-rogue/establishment right-wing extremists (maybe <strong>the</strong><br />
government itself)? 86 In Congressional testimony, James Jarboe, Domestic Terrorism<br />
85 When stories are framed in terms <strong>of</strong> “protesters vs. police”, <strong>the</strong> political message (and motivations) <strong>of</strong><br />
protesters is lost or glossed-over. McLeod states that this “transference <strong>of</strong> protesters' intended opposition<br />
is significant because a group that challenges government policy is political, while a group that<br />
challenges police is criminal” (McLeod 1995, p. 6).<br />
86 See Gibbs (1989) for an attempt at sociologically defining “terrorism”, a definition that fails horribly—it<br />
never even mentions “state terrorism”!<br />
[ Williams 92 ] [ this is a draft. do not cite. ]
Section Chief <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> FBI stated that <strong>the</strong> “ALF/ELF is at <strong>the</strong> top <strong>of</strong> my list as far as<br />
domestic terrorism issues to address, and I can ensure <strong>the</strong> members here that this issue<br />
will be addressed” (Jarboe 2002, p. 49). Just prior to Jarboe's comments to <strong>the</strong><br />
Congressional committee, Craig Rosebaugh, former press <strong>of</strong>ficer <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> ELF was<br />
questioned. Rosebaugh not only had been subpoenaed, but also took <strong>the</strong> 5 th amendment<br />
and refused to answer questions 54 times, not answering a single question directed at him<br />
regarding <strong>the</strong> ELF. It was a performance in true anarchist fashion—refusing to<br />
acknowledge <strong>the</strong> ability <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> State to ga<strong>the</strong>r intelligence from or on “its” citizens.<br />
To <strong>the</strong>ir credit, later in <strong>the</strong> FBI's report (1999), <strong>the</strong>y bring up <strong>the</strong> core question: is this<br />
“vandalism or terrorism” (p. 21)? But, since <strong>the</strong>se “special interest” organizations<br />
(curiously not described as “left-wing”) holds such a prominent place in <strong>the</strong> report, I will<br />
let <strong>the</strong> reader guess how <strong>the</strong> FBI answers its own rhetorical question. <strong>The</strong> report goes on<br />
to state: “<strong>Anarchists</strong> and extremist socialist groups—many <strong>of</strong> which have an international<br />
presence—also represent a latent but potential terrorist threat in <strong>the</strong> United States” (FBI<br />
1999, p. 19). In ano<strong>the</strong>r report, Reclaim <strong>the</strong> Streets and Carnival Against Capitalism are<br />
deemed “terrorist” organizations (CITE??). This demonstrates <strong>the</strong> inherent flexibility in<br />
<strong>the</strong> US definition for “terrorism”—or as Noam Chomsky puts it, “it's terrorism if <strong>the</strong>y do<br />
it to us, but not if we do it to <strong>the</strong>m” (GET EXACT QUOTE AND CITE).<br />
US foreign policy and US military power is by far <strong>the</strong> most violent force operating in <strong>the</strong><br />
world today. <strong>The</strong> skeptical (or <strong>the</strong> naïve), would benefit from reading Blum's startling and<br />
well-researched tome (1995) on <strong>the</strong> subject <strong>of</strong> US military and CIA interventions since<br />
WWII. By Blum's analysis, <strong>the</strong> US “intervened” militarily roughly 168 times prior to<br />
WWII (Blum 1995, pp. 444-452). Churchill (2003) also puts toge<strong>the</strong>r a dizzying<br />
collection <strong>of</strong> US military actions (domestic and foreign) in his chapter entitled “That<br />
'Most Peace-Loving <strong>of</strong> Nations'” (Churchill 2003, pp. 43-79). <strong>The</strong> quantity <strong>of</strong> episodes is<br />
shocking and <strong>the</strong> methods are shameful, particularly when done by a supposedly<br />
“democracy-loving” country. <strong>Anarchists</strong>, <strong>of</strong> course, argue that states (<strong>of</strong> any size) cannot<br />
be democracy-loving, since <strong>the</strong>y embody <strong>the</strong> consolidation <strong>of</strong> political power in <strong>the</strong> hands<br />
<strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> few and obscure <strong>the</strong> rest in tides <strong>of</strong> bureaucracy. Thus, states are by <strong>the</strong>ir very<br />
nature violent institutions, and <strong>the</strong> romanticization <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>ir behavior is little but selfdelusion.<br />
Thus, anarchists universally oppose militarism. (See Goldman's “Patriotism”) But not<br />
have always been opposed; Kropotkin is a key example (and one <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> few) <strong>of</strong> an<br />
anarchist supporting WWI, much to <strong>the</strong> chagrin <strong>of</strong> many <strong>of</strong> his anarchist comrades<br />
(Glassgold 2001), which most termed as a war amongst imperialist powers.<br />
<strong>Anarchists</strong> also strongly believe in self-defense, and thus supported <strong>the</strong> anarchists in <strong>the</strong><br />
Spanish Civil War against <strong>the</strong> fascists and Stalinists. Many also vocally support <strong>the</strong><br />
Ejército Zapatista de Liberación Nacional (EZLN). Anarchist people <strong>of</strong> color (APOC)<br />
have argued <strong>the</strong> benefits <strong>of</strong> some kinds <strong>of</strong> nationalism for self-liberation, and see this as a<br />
form <strong>of</strong> self-defense. As such, anarchists have historically defended (despite<br />
philosophical or applied short-comings) <strong>the</strong> actions <strong>of</strong> self-defense by recent liberation<br />
movements within <strong>the</strong> US, such as <strong>the</strong> American Indian Movement (AIM), <strong>the</strong> Black<br />
Pan<strong>the</strong>r Party (BPP), and <strong>the</strong> Puerto Rican independence movement (<strong>the</strong> Puertoriquenos<br />
[ Williams 93 ] [ this is a draft. do not cite. ]
(sp?)).<br />
Anti-Racist Action would seem to be partially inspired by <strong>the</strong> “autonomen” <strong>of</strong> Germany,<br />
autonomous groups <strong>of</strong> anti-fascists who would physically attack fascists, in public or<br />
private (Knutter 1995). <strong>The</strong>refore, although most anarchists act nonviolently, some in fact<br />
do ascribe to aggressive violence. But, why hold anarchists up to higher standards than<br />
<strong>the</strong> State or capitalism?<br />
<strong>The</strong> Burning River Collective (2002) <strong>of</strong> Cleveland stated on an anti-war flier prior to <strong>the</strong><br />
invasion <strong>of</strong> Iraq in 2003 that <strong>the</strong>y were “appalled by <strong>the</strong> blatant disregard for humanity<br />
that imperialist war, imperialism and capitalism entail. We want to see a lively, militant,<br />
creative movement emerge that paves new ground on <strong>the</strong> road to liberation”. (See<br />
Williams 2004a for more on <strong>the</strong> Nor<strong>the</strong>ast Ohio anti-war movement)<br />
Thus, anarchists realize that it is <strong>the</strong> state, capitalism, patriarchy, et al. that are <strong>the</strong> most<br />
violent forces in society. <strong>The</strong> more centralized a state is, <strong>the</strong> more violent. <strong>The</strong> US has<br />
one <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> largest power differentials in <strong>the</strong> world and is very centralized. It thus follows,<br />
as with all empires, that <strong>the</strong> US would conduct itself—ra<strong>the</strong>r, has thus far based itself—<br />
upon <strong>the</strong> presumption <strong>of</strong> violent neo-/colonialism internationally, and repressively<br />
domestically. As Chomsky observes, <strong>the</strong> place where <strong>the</strong> imperial societies may be<br />
overthrown is from within (CITE).<br />
[Violence: reference Bleiker (2002)]<br />
[Albertani 2002]<br />
[ Williams 94 ] [ this is a draft. do not cite. ]
TEACHING<br />
Everywhere not only <strong>edu</strong>cation<br />
but society as a whole needs “deschooling”.<br />
- Ivan Illich<br />
Introduction:<br />
I am struck by how <strong>of</strong>ten “exerting authority” is mentioned by <strong>the</strong> graduate students<br />
writing in Hare, et al. (1999). <strong>The</strong>y accepted <strong>the</strong> same premise that many o<strong>the</strong>rs have<br />
recommended to me about maintaining “control” and “authority” over students in class.<br />
This is fascinating to me and also pretty disturbing. Although I see <strong>the</strong> functional reasons<br />
for this power differential, I wonder if <strong>the</strong>re is evidence to show that this translates into a<br />
conducive learning environment. I wonder because I know from my own student<br />
experiences that teachers who pushed us around brought out more rebellious tendencies<br />
in myself and o<strong>the</strong>r students; we would spend more time battling with <strong>the</strong> instructor than<br />
learning from <strong>the</strong>m.<br />
<strong>The</strong>re might also be an important distinction to make between being “authoritative”<br />
(knowing your topic) and being “authoritarian” (demanding submission to your rule). As<br />
someone who is almost medically-allergic to authority (ego-maniacs, presidents, and<br />
despots make my skin break out!), I am struggling with <strong>the</strong> advice I receive (“exert your<br />
authority in class”) and my preexisting ideology and leanings. I have no problem with<br />
following a syllabus and demanding adherence to it, but I have never liked lecturing as a<br />
hierarchist.<br />
This topic bleeds into ano<strong>the</strong>r interesting thread: gender and race. Being a white male, I<br />
am typically viewed as having less “to prove” to o<strong>the</strong>rs and already command respect<br />
based upon my skin color and gender. O<strong>the</strong>rs who do not have this birth-derived<br />
privilege, may need to find o<strong>the</strong>r ways <strong>of</strong> exerting <strong>the</strong>mselves in a classroom. Getting<br />
respect (i.e. that an instructor knows what <strong>the</strong>y are talking about) and being paid attention<br />
to may be more difficult for o<strong>the</strong>rs than for me, due to <strong>the</strong> illogical respect paid to white<br />
males. In a sense, I might have <strong>the</strong> luxury <strong>of</strong> not having to “exert my authority” because<br />
my presence may command more respect than o<strong>the</strong>rs'.<br />
McKeachie (2002) writes in chapter 23 <strong>of</strong> “teaching students to learn”. <strong>The</strong> process <strong>of</strong><br />
teaching goes far beyond just conveying ideas, information, and thoughts, and asking<br />
students to regurgitate <strong>the</strong>m back to <strong>the</strong> teacher. McKeachie emphasizes <strong>the</strong> importance<br />
<strong>of</strong> active agency on <strong>the</strong> part <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> student—increasing <strong>the</strong>ir “self-awareness”, defining<br />
<strong>the</strong>ir own learning goals, self-evaluation, wanting to learn, etc. Helping students to think<br />
through <strong>the</strong>se processes (<strong>the</strong> means), instead <strong>of</strong> just providing or forcing one's own<br />
answers on <strong>the</strong>m (<strong>the</strong> ends), seems to be what he encourages. And I am in agreement with<br />
those conclusions, too.<br />
<strong>Sociology</strong> may be an easier topic than most (in some respect) because people come to<br />
most introductory courses with widely varying degrees <strong>of</strong> interest and prior knowledge.<br />
This discipline may make it easier because everyone has prior knowledge about society<br />
[ Williams 95 ] [ this is a draft. do not cite. ]
and social interactions within it... no one approaches it with a blank slate or no<br />
experience. On <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r hand, I imagine that <strong>the</strong>re may be suitable resistance to many<br />
conclusions within sociology, due to preexisting biases that people have (“class doesn't<br />
exist”, “poor people are just lazy”, “women aren't oppressed anymore”, etc.). I am<br />
looking forward to teaching to see how people respond and react with <strong>the</strong>ir prior<br />
knowledge.<br />
Values <strong>of</strong> teaching:<br />
I cannot say I was vastly shocked by Roberts' (1986) piece on <strong>the</strong> development <strong>of</strong><br />
intellectual development, where he notes that large numbers <strong>of</strong> college students and o<strong>the</strong>r<br />
adults never gain full operational thinking ability. I did appreciate his examples <strong>of</strong> how<br />
<strong>the</strong> teacher-student relationship can go awry when this is not considered, however.<br />
Primarily, I liked his focus upon <strong>the</strong> structuralist <strong>the</strong>ory <strong>of</strong> teacher:<br />
If we view our role as one <strong>of</strong> simply transmitting<br />
knowledge, we conform to <strong>the</strong> expectations <strong>of</strong> our dualistic<br />
students by playing <strong>the</strong> role <strong>of</strong> 'Authority'. Playing this role<br />
may <strong>the</strong>n serve as a barrier to <strong>the</strong> development <strong>of</strong><br />
independent thinking, for dualistic students assimilate that<br />
role into <strong>the</strong>ir own cognitive structure and fail to think for<br />
<strong>the</strong>mselves. (p. 214)<br />
My own favorite classes (in retrospect, at least) were those that provoked me to think and<br />
challenge my own beliefs. When “knowledge” was handed to me on a platter I was far<br />
less likely to retain it long-term. Thus, even when I rejected <strong>the</strong> leanings or style <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>se<br />
more challenging instructors, I still appreciate what <strong>the</strong>y did for/to me (intentionally or<br />
inadvertently): causing me to think for myself. “Cognitive Dissonance” is not only a great<br />
idea for a band name, but is a pretty damn cool thing, too.<br />
In this same light, O'Brien and Kollock (1991) call for us (as teachers) to “empower our<br />
students by demonstrating <strong>the</strong> relevance <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> sociological perspective to everyday<br />
modern life” (p. 140). I cannot think <strong>of</strong> a more on-point statement than that, in regards to<br />
making <strong>edu</strong>cation “stick”. Probably <strong>the</strong> only reason I continue in academics is that I can<br />
still find a way to make it relevant to understanding everyday life. <strong>The</strong> day I get stuck in<br />
some abstract, arcane, and o<strong>the</strong>rwise silly irrelevancy <strong>of</strong> “knowledge pursuit”, is <strong>the</strong> day I<br />
need to get out. Even for students who only take “Introduction to <strong>Sociology</strong>” as a general<br />
<strong>edu</strong>cation requirement, making <strong>the</strong> ideas/concepts relevant to <strong>the</strong>m seems like a great way<br />
to engage <strong>the</strong>m and possibly interest <strong>the</strong>m outside <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>ir gen-ed needs.<br />
I liked <strong>the</strong> application <strong>of</strong> social exchange <strong>the</strong>ory (SET) to teaching, and although a bit<br />
tedious, I thought <strong>the</strong> discussion drove home <strong>the</strong> authors' point ra<strong>the</strong>r well—allowing<br />
students to construct for <strong>the</strong>mselves just how sociology (or social psychology) is relevant<br />
to <strong>the</strong>m, at <strong>the</strong> most immediate level (such as intimate relationships). SET is a decent way<br />
<strong>of</strong> bridging this personal experience with more formal knowledge.<br />
Best, however, was how <strong>the</strong>y tackled <strong>the</strong> subject <strong>of</strong> “values” in <strong>the</strong> classroom. It reaffirms<br />
[ Williams 96 ] [ this is a draft. do not cite. ]
my own attitudes that we should not pretend we are “neutral” or “unbiased” about <strong>the</strong><br />
issues <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> day. Sure, we should be fair and respectful in considering our students’<br />
values, beliefs, and opinions. But, to pretend we ourselves do not have any is absurd, and<br />
I think removes credibility from our presence. I think <strong>of</strong> Howard Zinn's excellent<br />
autobiography called You Can't Be Neutral On A Moving Train (1995), which is <strong>the</strong><br />
statement he would use at <strong>the</strong> beginning <strong>of</strong> all his history classes at Boston <strong>University</strong>. To<br />
inspire students to use <strong>the</strong> things <strong>the</strong>y learn (whe<strong>the</strong>r from us teachers or from<br />
<strong>the</strong>mselves) is what higher <strong>edu</strong>cation should be about; it ain’t a diploma factory (or at<br />
least, that’s not its best utility). <strong>The</strong> passion we display in class is important to show<br />
students that action is possible. For me, this last point is very important; as an activist I<br />
am constantly confronted by <strong>the</strong> need to be critical <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> dominant institutions <strong>of</strong> society<br />
and <strong>the</strong> horror <strong>the</strong>y frequently wreck upon humanity and <strong>the</strong> earth, but at <strong>the</strong> same time to<br />
remain positive about <strong>the</strong> ability for people to organize <strong>the</strong>mselves in a way that allows<br />
for both resistance to <strong>the</strong>se problems and for <strong>the</strong> creation <strong>of</strong> more positive ways <strong>of</strong><br />
organizing society. <strong>The</strong>ir article brought this point out well, in my opinion.<br />
Preparing for class:<br />
Some <strong>of</strong> McKeachie's (2002) suggestions seem useful and appropriate. I particularly<br />
appreciate things that encourage greater student participation in <strong>the</strong> process <strong>of</strong> learning—<br />
and somehow he managed to mention two suggestions linked in with pre-course<br />
planning. First, <strong>the</strong> idea <strong>of</strong> democratically selecting a textbook never dawned on me, but<br />
it's a fascinating idea! For some reason we (<strong>the</strong> well/over-<strong>edu</strong>cated few) seem to think<br />
we've got <strong>the</strong> best humdinger <strong>of</strong> a book/assignment/whatever in mind, and don't <strong>of</strong>ten<br />
consider consulting with those who will be reading or doing that task. Not sure how it<br />
would work in practice, but I'd be intrigued by <strong>the</strong> process. I suspect-- and it's been my<br />
experience with non-academic, activist work-- that people generate more enthusiasm<br />
about things when <strong>the</strong>y have an active role in determining <strong>the</strong> outcomes <strong>of</strong> a certain group<br />
(or in this case, a class).<br />
Secondly, I appreciate <strong>the</strong> suggestion McKeachie made (almost in passing) that we try to<br />
create alternative assignments (or at least alternative readings) that will allow students to<br />
pursue <strong>the</strong>ir interests more closely. My experience very much matches his thought that<br />
“students who have options and a sense <strong>of</strong> personal control are likely to be more highly<br />
motivated for learning.” (p.17) <strong>The</strong> clearest example <strong>of</strong> this is where instructors give<br />
students <strong>the</strong> choice on a variety <strong>of</strong> topics to do a report on, opposed to assigning everyone<br />
to do it on <strong>the</strong> same damn thing. Sure, a homogeneous assignment might make it easier to<br />
grade, but it doesn't allow students to pursue <strong>the</strong>ir particular interests in a subject, nor<br />
empower <strong>the</strong>m a sense <strong>of</strong> ownership over <strong>the</strong>ir learning processes.<br />
First day <strong>of</strong> class:<br />
I appreciate McKeachie's suggestions about <strong>the</strong> first day <strong>of</strong> class, and how it makes sense<br />
to use <strong>the</strong> time productively. It's a great chance to deal with non-content stuff like getting<br />
to know <strong>the</strong> class, <strong>the</strong>ir expectations, develop some trust, etc. Although I sometimes<br />
dreaded it, instructors who kept my classes longer on <strong>the</strong> first day <strong>of</strong> class actually helped<br />
to calm me about <strong>the</strong> course and its expectations. When everyone is kicked out after 15<br />
[ Williams 97 ] [ this is a draft. do not cite. ]
minutes, you're left with a bunch <strong>of</strong> uneasy questions and get <strong>the</strong> feeling that <strong>the</strong><br />
instructor is nervous or unprepared, too.<br />
I agree that [seemingly] straight white males get on-sight respect and trust from students.<br />
I have continuously received this treatment (from both men and women), and I <strong>of</strong>ten felt<br />
undeserving <strong>of</strong> it, particularly when contrasted with female or colleagues <strong>of</strong> color. I have<br />
also, regrettably, seen <strong>the</strong> academic flip-side <strong>of</strong> this coin: I’ve seen lecturers repeatedly<br />
prefer calling on students who are <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> aforementioned privileged background and<br />
taking <strong>the</strong>ir opinions more seriously (<strong>the</strong> same goes for <strong>the</strong> “older” students, sometimes).<br />
I’ve even seen pr<strong>of</strong>essors pass-up women holding <strong>the</strong>ir hands up for long periods <strong>of</strong> time<br />
while <strong>the</strong>y wait for <strong>the</strong> varying male opinions to be expressed.<br />
<strong>The</strong> issue <strong>of</strong> dressing pr<strong>of</strong>essionally and not wearing revealing clo<strong>the</strong>s is interesting. I<br />
personally prefer to dress-down (not to look grubby, but to not look snazzy). I think I’d<br />
have a hard time trying to dress revealingly or provocatively. Any attempts to wear<br />
clo<strong>the</strong>s that showed <strong>of</strong>f my body figure would likely be met with relative indifference<br />
(although I’m told I look good in dresses), mainly because female body image is<br />
objectified in ways that male bodies aren’t. So, in a way, I have <strong>the</strong> benefit <strong>of</strong> not being<br />
judged upon <strong>the</strong> clothing I wear, or being taken less seriously for <strong>the</strong>m (within some<br />
reason—I’ve got a few t-shirts in my dresser that would and have raised some eyebrows<br />
and angry fists).<br />
Just being yourself seems crucial. Students can totally tell when instructors are<br />
uncomfortable or putting on an act. I think being pr<strong>of</strong>essional yet approachable, honest<br />
yet knowledgeable, respectful, interested in students, and comfortable are <strong>the</strong> keys to<br />
putting <strong>the</strong> students in a like frame <strong>of</strong> mind. Playing <strong>the</strong> role <strong>of</strong> teacher doesn’t mean<br />
becoming superwo/man or becoming a boring cinder block.<br />
“Active learning”:<br />
I read <strong>the</strong> Atwater (1991) piece first, and I was mainly struck by <strong>the</strong> pronouncement that:<br />
“My role has been transformed from 'lecturing pr<strong>of</strong>essor' to 'group facilitator'” (p. 484). It<br />
was reaffirming to hear this value stated by a teacher. I think we far too <strong>of</strong>ten get stuck in<br />
<strong>the</strong> frame <strong>of</strong> mind that WE know more than o<strong>the</strong>rs about <strong>the</strong> things we teach; sometimes<br />
we do, but <strong>of</strong>ten that knowledge is merely latent in <strong>the</strong> “student” or can be developed by<br />
group and individual reflection. It reminds me very much <strong>of</strong> how <strong>the</strong> various radical<br />
political organizations I've been part <strong>of</strong> (S.T.A.N.D. at UA mainly, but also Akron Food<br />
Not Bombs or <strong>the</strong> American Friends Service Committee), <strong>the</strong> emphasis is upon groupcentered<br />
leadership, learning, and decision-making—as opposed to individual-centered<br />
leadership. 87 We have a person or persons who play <strong>the</strong> role <strong>of</strong> “facilitator” in meetings,<br />
not to lead or dictate <strong>the</strong> direction <strong>of</strong> discussion or decision-making, but to make sure that<br />
everyone can participate equally, keep things on track, and o<strong>the</strong>rwise facilitate <strong>the</strong> group<br />
in its goals. In no way is <strong>the</strong> facilitator “in charge” <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> meeting or group. In a similar<br />
way, I think Atwater is asserting that <strong>the</strong> instructor ought to view <strong>the</strong>ir role as helping <strong>the</strong><br />
class (both collectively and individually) acquire <strong>the</strong> skills and understandings necessary<br />
to learn <strong>the</strong> topical matter <strong>of</strong> a given class.<br />
87 Crass (2001) discusses Ella Baker as a <strong>the</strong>orist and practitioner <strong>of</strong> “group-centered leadership”.<br />
[ Williams 98 ] [ this is a draft. do not cite. ]
<strong>The</strong> methods elaborated by McKeachie, such as “learning cells” and team learning, also<br />
bolster my conviction that <strong>the</strong>re should not be blatant learning hierarchies. I think it IS<br />
true that we can learn just as much from each o<strong>the</strong>r as we can from an instructor. This<br />
makes sense in a ma<strong>the</strong>matical/probability sense (more people exchange ideas, discussing<br />
and sharing thoughts), but also in terms <strong>of</strong> equity. I think most people who have been at<br />
universities for long enough to enter graduate school can learn <strong>the</strong> subject matter in most<br />
texts if we are interested in it, and <strong>the</strong>n teach it to o<strong>the</strong>rs (thus reinforcing that<br />
knowledge). <strong>The</strong>re's no reason to assume that students are not just as capable <strong>of</strong> doing<br />
that for o<strong>the</strong>rs as we are. “Learning cells” as McKeachie describes would seem to be a<br />
good partnering tool when done by pre-class question writing and random formations (it<br />
would help students learn to ask and answer questions <strong>of</strong> what interests <strong>the</strong>m, and to meet<br />
and engage with o<strong>the</strong>rs <strong>the</strong>y normally wouldn't, and thus to learn and teach from varying<br />
viewpoints/styles).<br />
I think that class size if very important. We all know that <strong>the</strong>re can be more discussion in<br />
smaller classes (not to mention individual instructor attention), but that doesn't mean that<br />
large classes will be incompatible with this type <strong>of</strong> learning. I've seen a sociology<br />
pr<strong>of</strong>essor (John Zipp) use small groups in a very positive way that I think helps a great<br />
deal. That said it's important to note that <strong>the</strong> primary issue is <strong>the</strong> size <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> learning unit<br />
itself—in large classes, <strong>the</strong> size <strong>of</strong> groups must not be larger than those within smaller<br />
classes. (In many ways, it reminds me <strong>of</strong> “affinity groups”—ano<strong>the</strong>r activist configuration<br />
—how <strong>the</strong>re is an ideal size that should not be superceded, or else <strong>the</strong> ability <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> group<br />
to function will be rendered useless).<br />
I appreciate that “active learning” and group work is not <strong>of</strong>fered as a panacea to all o<strong>the</strong>r<br />
types <strong>of</strong> learning and instruction, but also how it is not a way to avoid for class<br />
preparation. Much deliberation and thought needs to go in how to use <strong>the</strong>se varying group<br />
structures to make <strong>the</strong>m useful, o<strong>the</strong>rwise <strong>the</strong>y could be a total waste <strong>of</strong> time. Also,<br />
combining smaller groups with large groups (like “clusters”, which are what anarchists<br />
call collections <strong>of</strong> affinity groups) or a whole class, will require our adept facilitation <strong>of</strong><br />
<strong>the</strong> discussion (and <strong>of</strong> course a mastery <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> material in order to help focus discussion<br />
on what appears to be important to <strong>the</strong> class). It's sometimes claimed that group learning<br />
requires student participation and interest in order for it to work. On <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r hand,<br />
individual learning (being lectured to) also requires active student participation and<br />
interest, yet it is far more difficult to convince students to dedicate <strong>the</strong>mselves to learning<br />
in such a passive environment and mode <strong>of</strong> learning.<br />
Dealing with controversial topics and despair:<br />
Moore's (1997) piece echoed what I and o<strong>the</strong>rs have already noted in our own experiences<br />
in classes. Personally, it annoys <strong>the</strong> shit outta me when I get more “respect” for equally<br />
“radical” ideas than female colleagues or colleagues <strong>of</strong> color, just b/c I'm a white man. I<br />
loved <strong>the</strong> experiment she did with her classes and how it was able to provoke a discussion<br />
about her student's preconceptions <strong>of</strong> what she was teaching and why <strong>the</strong>y might be<br />
considering it less valid due to <strong>the</strong> source. (Just to toss out <strong>the</strong> <strong>of</strong>fer: I'd be happy to do<br />
<strong>the</strong> same for my female colleagues who will be teaching in <strong>the</strong> near future, particularly<br />
[ Williams 99 ] [ this is a draft. do not cite. ]
when teaching about gender.) I love <strong>the</strong> idea <strong>of</strong> comparing/contrasting <strong>the</strong> speakers'<br />
positions and forcing listeners to reconcile why we see some as more important than<br />
o<strong>the</strong>rs.<br />
Moulder (1997) confirms many <strong>of</strong> my apprehensions about how many things are taught—<br />
not just sociology—and how things are set-up beforehand for debilitating results for<br />
students. Whenever I open intro sociology texts, I find just <strong>the</strong> LAST chapter deals with<br />
“social movements and collective behavior”. While, I'm glad that <strong>the</strong> chapter exists and<br />
that it does make sense in a way for it to be at <strong>the</strong> end (“now that you know this, here's<br />
what people have and can do about it”).... I think that it still sets people up for depressing<br />
failure. How can we expect students to sit through nearly 14 weeks <strong>of</strong> “downer”<br />
sociology, and <strong>the</strong>n be picked up by one measly chapter at <strong>the</strong> end?<br />
I've been considering for <strong>the</strong> duration <strong>of</strong> this course to insert at <strong>the</strong> end <strong>of</strong> each lecture<br />
suggestions, ideas, antidotes, or webpages about movements and social change related to<br />
<strong>the</strong> topic discussed. I appreciate <strong>the</strong> focus upon exploring and learning <strong>the</strong> problems<br />
within society, but without providing a form <strong>of</strong> counter-expression or hope (as Moulder<br />
puts it) we guarantee depression, apathy, avoidance, or rejection.<br />
Also, I know a social work pr<strong>of</strong>essor at UA who commonly invites in local activists to<br />
her community organizing classes to discuss what <strong>the</strong>y do, why, how, etc. I've spoken in<br />
her class about half a dozen times, and my impression is that <strong>the</strong> students WANT to know<br />
how to do things locally that will have an impact about things <strong>the</strong>y care about. (And that<br />
such learning is just as valid as anything <strong>the</strong>y learn from textbooks.) I've been invited to<br />
present in “Intro to <strong>Sociology</strong>” classes on social movements, because teachers know I'm<br />
active and might have some personal impressions to contribute. Afterward I've been told<br />
that a teacher was very pleased and surprised that some students who had not spoken for<br />
nearly four months spoke up in class for <strong>the</strong> first time and were interested in <strong>the</strong> subject.<br />
It seemed to me that if we can find ways to make every lecture/class period more relevant<br />
and useful to students, <strong>the</strong> more <strong>the</strong>y'll want to learn and engage in class. From my own<br />
experiences in activist organizations, things start to stagnate—or people who are<br />
concerned about various issues move away from <strong>the</strong> group—when too much time is spent<br />
on complaining and debating <strong>the</strong> problems <strong>of</strong> an issue/society, and less time is spent in<br />
action. To counter this, I and o<strong>the</strong>rs have tried focusing discussion on particular problems<br />
(that are more “bite-sized”) and <strong>the</strong>n direct <strong>the</strong> group toward discussion about how to<br />
resist <strong>the</strong>se problems actively (and to create alternative, counter-actions that behave in<br />
ways more egalitarian, democratically, and liberating than <strong>the</strong> problems <strong>the</strong>mselves). In<br />
this respect, I liked Moulder’s suggestion for “action steps”.<br />
In many ways, my experiences in activist groups (particularly those with a radical<br />
focus/objective) have been <strong>the</strong> driving force toward sociology in my life. Activists <strong>of</strong>ten<br />
have a very equivalent interpretation <strong>of</strong> society that is shared by sociology as a discipline.<br />
And during <strong>the</strong> last 10 years <strong>of</strong> my life (much <strong>of</strong> which has been spent in or around<br />
colleges), I've been surprised that <strong>the</strong>re isn't a higher degree <strong>of</strong> participation in social<br />
movements by sociologists. It seems a very logical avenue for expressing dissent for<br />
those who have a very good understanding <strong>of</strong> what requires dissent. That said, I'm<br />
planning on speaking in Jean Anne (and Michelle's) intro classes later this semester; and<br />
[ Williams 100 ] [ this is a draft. do not cite. ]
I'd be happy to do <strong>the</strong> same for o<strong>the</strong>rs. I’m hoping to be able to invite o<strong>the</strong>r outside<br />
“experts” and activists in to speak during lectures <strong>of</strong> related topics when I teach, too.<br />
Lecturing<br />
Lecturing seems very akin to “presenting”, but <strong>the</strong> audience and reason are a bit different.<br />
This is a big distinction to me since most <strong>of</strong> my “lecturing” experience has been in <strong>the</strong><br />
form <strong>of</strong> giving “lectures” to o<strong>the</strong>r classes at <strong>the</strong> request <strong>of</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r instructors and<br />
pr<strong>of</strong>essors. In that sense, I was more likely giving a “presentation” on <strong>the</strong> topic and I was<br />
usually <strong>of</strong>fering a specific viewpoint and approach. Also, most <strong>of</strong> my activist speaking<br />
involves “presenting” (and sometimes debating), more than lecturing. At one point, I was<br />
also tempted to transcribe entire lectures. But nowadays I'm CONVINCED that if I do it<br />
I'll at some point try to read it, and get hopelessly lost. As a result, I only draft an outline<br />
with a few comments or lists <strong>of</strong> examples. For me, <strong>the</strong> most important thing is <strong>the</strong> order<br />
<strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> subjects. If I get out <strong>of</strong> order or discuss something before something that should<br />
come precede it, I get all trapped up in back-pedaling. Whenever I do this, I'm nearly<br />
positive I confuse part <strong>of</strong> my audience.<br />
Regarding using current examples during lectures, things like <strong>the</strong> My Lai 4 massacre are<br />
(unfortunately) out <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> knowledge <strong>of</strong> today's students' backgrounds. (Of course, this is<br />
deliberate on part <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> media and <strong>edu</strong>cation system, and is why some institutional<br />
behaviors can continue without much problem from generation-to-generation.) Using<br />
contemporary examples (perhaps BACKED-UP by previous ones) is more useful. Still, I<br />
sometimes get <strong>the</strong> feeling that I talk “over” or “beyond” audiences, even when using<br />
contemporary examples. Everything about our society tries to convince people that <strong>the</strong>y<br />
are learning things, or keeping up with “<strong>the</strong> news”, or have information/facts... but in fact<br />
are being deceived and distracted. As such, I <strong>of</strong>ten assume that my audience knows what<br />
I'm talking about or knows how things that I think are very simple to understand work.<br />
I've got to continually remind myself that I am (and we all are) much more in touch with<br />
rigorous research and analytical tools than <strong>the</strong> general population—and <strong>the</strong>refore I have<br />
to slow-down and take <strong>the</strong> time to explain things.<br />
Keeping things relevant is super important to do. McKeachie's comment that he can’t be<br />
as good a teacher because he can’t keep up with current trends/media makes a lot <strong>of</strong><br />
sense. I'm completely frickin' worthless in all conversations around TV. Also, even<br />
though I'm really into music, I couldn't probably name a single musical act on <strong>the</strong> Top 40<br />
charts at <strong>the</strong> moment. I also have no clue about current sports athletes or teams. Like<br />
McKeachie, I've got to realize that this is a true deficit on my part. Even though I know<br />
more about sociological stuff, I'm a dummy when it comes to popular culture. However,<br />
that's how most people our age are socialized or symbolically transmit values. <strong>The</strong>se<br />
mediums also have huge sociological implications and dynamics at work that are<br />
incredible useful for picking apart—if only I knew what was on <strong>the</strong> tube!! <strong>The</strong>refore, I<br />
<strong>of</strong>ten speak very abstractly about popular culture and will ask <strong>the</strong> audience to fill-me-in<br />
about what's popular. I think treating <strong>the</strong> audience like experts in something helps <strong>the</strong>m to<br />
feel empowered, will bring <strong>the</strong>ir interests into <strong>the</strong> conversation, and will allow me to<br />
make important connections with <strong>the</strong>ir knowledge and my knowledge.<br />
[ Williams 101 ] [ this is a draft. do not cite. ]
Discussing and writing assignments<br />
Focusing on facilitating discussion in addition to lecturing seems only logical from an<br />
anarchist perspective, and <strong>the</strong>re's probably few teachers who'd say that discussion cannot<br />
be helpful to learning. It takes a skilled teacher to fairly, justly, and dynamically facilitate<br />
discussion, and I've been in awe <strong>of</strong> more than a few in my life. It takes skill and<br />
experience to not just talk over students and to wait for <strong>the</strong>m to give feedback—it's<br />
teachers who usually monopolize <strong>the</strong> discussion. Keeping that in mind is important.<br />
Finding ways to gain <strong>the</strong> trust <strong>of</strong> students, empower <strong>the</strong> quieter students, and to inspire<br />
<strong>the</strong>m to find an interest in <strong>the</strong> topics taught probably takes a lot <strong>of</strong> vigilance and planning.<br />
It reminds me <strong>of</strong> McKeachie's earlier comments about how some might view group work<br />
as being lazy and an attempt to get out <strong>of</strong> lecture planning work; but that in fact it's even<br />
more work to plan group work. I imagine discussion facilitating takes just as much preplanning<br />
and discipline. I've facilitated meetings before, and it's a lot <strong>of</strong> work—to allow<br />
for a diverse participation in discussion, to keep <strong>the</strong> discussion on-track and oriented<br />
toward <strong>the</strong> group's goals, and to help <strong>the</strong> group reach it's goals. Facilitating a class<br />
discussion has to be just as much work. But, as with <strong>the</strong> organizations I've been a part <strong>of</strong>,<br />
<strong>the</strong> class would probably really benefit and feel very useful, empowered, active, and<br />
engaged as a result.<br />
Learning student interests and finding out <strong>the</strong>ir opinions (possibly at <strong>the</strong> beginning <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
course) seems crucial for discussion in class. For me, I think we should be tailoring a<br />
large part <strong>of</strong> our discussions and lectures to things that are ei<strong>the</strong>r important to students<br />
(whe<strong>the</strong>r all <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>m articulate it or not—e.g. many students are political, but intentionally<br />
avoid talking about it) or things that interest <strong>the</strong>m. Not to suggest that we avoid <strong>the</strong> core<br />
concepts we teach, but to make <strong>the</strong>m relevant and to ei<strong>the</strong>r integrate <strong>the</strong>ir interests into<br />
our lectures OR to integrate our lectures into <strong>the</strong>ir topics (that'd be bold, huh?).<br />
I appreciated Bidwell's (1995) practice <strong>of</strong> not necessarily feeling <strong>the</strong> need to grade all<br />
writing assignments and that we should focus upon helping (to a limit) students improve<br />
writing skills. <strong>The</strong> informal writing students do can be really helpful, especially if <strong>the</strong>re's<br />
a relationship <strong>of</strong> exchange with <strong>the</strong> instructor that is focused upon improving <strong>the</strong>ir ideas,<br />
but at <strong>the</strong> same time removes <strong>the</strong> pressure <strong>of</strong> students to do mediocre, acceptable, and by<strong>the</strong>-book<br />
work. She's probably correct in arguing that an instructor might not want to<br />
outright say that such assignments won't be graded, o<strong>the</strong>rwise students might not take<br />
<strong>the</strong>m seriously (I imagine I might not, in certain circumstances), and view <strong>the</strong>m instead as<br />
a learning opportunity.<br />
Teaching social movements<br />
I would like to (and have already) teach social movements. I feel that social movements<br />
are <strong>the</strong> one place that intersect (as Alain Touraine argues) with all <strong>the</strong> various subdisciplines<br />
<strong>of</strong> sociology. <strong>The</strong> topic is <strong>of</strong>ten found at <strong>the</strong> end <strong>of</strong> introductory textbooks<br />
because it summarizes <strong>the</strong> efforts to deliberately (or inadvertently and spontaneously)<br />
address <strong>the</strong> issues <strong>of</strong> class, race, gender, sexuality, power, capitalism, et al.<br />
[ Williams 102 ] [ this is a draft. do not cite. ]
<strong>The</strong> main points I would like <strong>the</strong> students <strong>of</strong> such teaching to take from it is <strong>the</strong> belief that<br />
knowledge should lead to action, and fur<strong>the</strong>r, that action is not only possible, but is<br />
always occurring. Many students walk away from subjects like sociology with <strong>the</strong> feeling<br />
that <strong>the</strong> world's problems are so insurmountable that we ought to lapse into depression.<br />
Ra<strong>the</strong>r, I would hope to inspire students into taking an optimistic (yet critical) view <strong>of</strong><br />
change and to not assume that everything that beats-down humanity and <strong>the</strong> earth is<br />
inevitable, un-defeatable, or justified.<br />
In such teaching I have tried to portray this positive (and pragmatic) outlook, while<br />
adding my own personal insights, stories, and motivations for participation in social<br />
movements and o<strong>the</strong>r forms <strong>of</strong> resistance. Informing students that <strong>the</strong>re are possibilities,<br />
indeed possibilities that exist with movements and organizations within <strong>the</strong>ir own local<br />
areas is crucial, as to facilitate a more easy transition from apathy into action.<br />
In-class exercises and pop-culture:<br />
It's important to use various media to teach. I am pleased to see how many different ways<br />
<strong>the</strong>se media may be utilized. Doing such things EVERY week (like a poetry reading<br />
every week) might be a bit much, but using <strong>the</strong>m where it’s useful seems practical. Or,<br />
having a general assignment for <strong>the</strong> whole class to do: like having class members each<br />
select a sociological song to share. (<strong>the</strong> ex-radio DJ in me somehow fantasizes about<br />
turning such a collection <strong>of</strong> songs into a mix CD, with liner notes detailing <strong>the</strong><br />
sociological significance <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>m, that <strong>the</strong> whole class can have a copy <strong>of</strong>!)<br />
As noted already, we have to find ways to make <strong>the</strong> material relevant, pertinent, and<br />
current for students!<br />
I’ve experienced “role-playing” exercises such as in a global environmental politics class<br />
we had all sorts <strong>of</strong> interests, like huge insurance firms, <strong>the</strong> Union <strong>of</strong> Concerned Scientists,<br />
and British Petroleum (all apparently equal in power) trying to negotiate ways to deal<br />
with contemporary environmental problems. What you find out (obviously) is that this is<br />
impossible, even if ignoring that powerful interests (like BP and insurance firms) ain’t<br />
gonna compromise <strong>the</strong>ir position <strong>of</strong> privilege and pr<strong>of</strong>it. Same for <strong>the</strong> Palestinian-Israeli<br />
example -- clearly Arafat has zero power compared to <strong>the</strong> IDF, Sharon, and <strong>the</strong> US. But,<br />
with <strong>the</strong> “Monopoly” example, it’s very clear that not all parties are equal to begin with,<br />
which more directly simulates <strong>the</strong> real world than <strong>the</strong> environmental or Middle East<br />
exercises seem to.<br />
I view myself as very “hip” in-terms <strong>of</strong> music, but I have NO CLUE about any <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
bullshit played on <strong>the</strong> corporate radio stations (i.e. <strong>the</strong> Clear Channel Empire), which is<br />
what students primarily listen to. Thus, even if I have great examples <strong>of</strong> sociological<br />
messages in music, who in my class is going actually be able to identify with Ani<br />
DiFranco, Anti-Flag, dead prez, or Le Tigre?<br />
A parting note: revolution is <strong>the</strong> only answer we all have to solving <strong>the</strong> world’s problems,<br />
and we can’t look for salvation from anyone but ourselves. Even though I’m not a huge<br />
poetry fan, some <strong>of</strong> it is very inspirational, and may warrant use in <strong>the</strong> classroom. Like<br />
[ Williams 103 ] [ this is a draft. do not cite. ]
<strong>the</strong> notorious Crimethinc folks say: imagine if “Henry Miller had gone to fight with <strong>the</strong><br />
anarchists in Spain [in <strong>the</strong> Spanish Civil War] while Orwell sought <strong>the</strong> caresses <strong>of</strong><br />
beautiful women in France... [or] if Lenin had remained in Zurich at his apartment by <strong>the</strong><br />
Cabaret Voltaire and <strong>the</strong> Dadaists sent one <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>ir number in his place to preside over <strong>the</strong><br />
Russian revolution”... think <strong>of</strong> how different <strong>the</strong>se things might have turned out.<br />
Community Service Learning<br />
McKeachie’s (2002, ch. 20) discussion <strong>of</strong> service learning does a good job explaining <strong>the</strong><br />
benefits <strong>of</strong> experiential or service learning. I think it’s a great idea. I’m not surprised,<br />
however, that it’s not done more <strong>of</strong>ten. I think <strong>the</strong> overhead time <strong>of</strong> setting up such a<br />
program is probably intimidating or considered un-worthwhile to most lecturers.<br />
Additionally, I’m unsure that everyone shares <strong>the</strong> value <strong>of</strong> it, and would prefer students to<br />
have a purely academic approach to sociology.<br />
<strong>The</strong> one pr<strong>of</strong>essor who I’ve met who does this and does it well (or so I think) is Priscilla<br />
Smith in Social Work. Obviously Social Work is more <strong>of</strong> an “active” discipline, but<br />
Smith takes it to ano<strong>the</strong>r level <strong>of</strong>ten (particularly in her community organizing classes)<br />
and has students goto <strong>the</strong> meetings <strong>of</strong> local community organizations (like block clubs,<br />
service agencies, advocacy groups, and activist organizations) and <strong>the</strong>n participate with<br />
those groups. It seems—to me at least—that this would be equally as valuable to<br />
<strong>Sociology</strong>. We read about things like poverty, but how many privileged academics really<br />
live amongst it or work within it? <strong>The</strong>re’s a real qualitative benefit to being able to talk<br />
with people who are actually those we study or discuss. Sure, it’s intimidating sometimes,<br />
but we need to get <strong>of</strong>f our privileged asses more <strong>of</strong>ten anyway!<br />
<strong>The</strong> problems that Hondagneu-Sotelo and Rask<strong>of</strong>f (1994) discuss seem very real, and for<br />
that reason alone I think that community service learning is NECESSARY. <strong>The</strong> fact that<br />
problems arise is a strong indicator that students need to have <strong>the</strong>ir cages rattled a bit. I’ve<br />
seen <strong>the</strong> exact same things with a community group I work with called Food Not Bombs.<br />
We’re always having new people contact us and start helping out. But, <strong>the</strong>y come from a<br />
worldview where <strong>the</strong>y think that <strong>the</strong> people we work with (overwhelmingly poor and<br />
homeless) are supposed to see <strong>the</strong>m as saviors. Many also have unreasonable assumptions<br />
<strong>of</strong> people’s abilities (that all homeless are drunk, un<strong>edu</strong>cated bums) and o<strong>the</strong>r stereotypes<br />
(<strong>of</strong>ten racist in nature) that are brought about when <strong>the</strong>y are thrust into stark situations<br />
where <strong>the</strong>y must deal with people who are not as privileged, wealthy, or as White as <strong>the</strong>y<br />
are.<br />
Since <strong>the</strong>se problems are REAL and, I think, worthwhile challenges, I like Hondagneu-<br />
Sotelo and Rask<strong>of</strong>f’s suggestions for overcoming <strong>the</strong>m. <strong>The</strong> ability to link sociological<br />
<strong>the</strong>ory and concepts directly to <strong>the</strong> things <strong>the</strong>y experience, <strong>the</strong> ability to re-emphasize <strong>the</strong><br />
macro-factors at work instead <strong>of</strong> individualistic anecdotes, and giving constructive<br />
feedback on observations are great ways to help steer students (or anyone, really) towards<br />
a better, more sociological understanding <strong>of</strong> how things in <strong>the</strong> real world link to <strong>the</strong><br />
things <strong>the</strong>y learn in <strong>the</strong>ir classes.<br />
[ Williams 104 ] [ this is a draft. do not cite. ]
Amster 2002<br />
Carswell 2001 - clamor<br />
Craige 1993<br />
Daniels 1993<br />
Dixon 2001 - clamor<br />
Ehrlich 1991<br />
Elias 2001 - clamor<br />
Hart 2001 (writing about Illich 1970)<br />
Illich 1970<br />
Suissa 2001<br />
Paul Goodman's “Growing Up Absurd”??<br />
[ Williams 105 ] [ this is a draft. do not cite. ]
REFERENCES<br />
<strong>The</strong> fur<strong>the</strong>r I go<br />
<strong>the</strong> less I know.<br />
- Fugazi<br />
Aberle, David. 1966. <strong>The</strong> Peyote Religion Among <strong>the</strong> Navaho. Chicago: Aldine Press.<br />
* Abu-Lughod, Janet. 1994. “Diversity, Democracy, and Self-Determination in an Urban<br />
Neighborhood: <strong>The</strong> East Village <strong>of</strong> Manhattan”. Social Research, 61 (1): 181-203.<br />
ACME Collective (1999). “N30 Black Bloc Communique”.<br />
http://www.infoshop.org/octo/wto_blackbloc.html [Collected in <strong>the</strong> Green Mountain Collective<br />
edition?]<br />
Adams, Jason. ?. “Nonwestern Anarchisms: Rethinking <strong>the</strong> Global Context”.<br />
http://www.infoshop.org/texts/nonwestern.pdf<br />
Albert, Michael. 2001. “Anarchism?!”. http://www.zmag.org/anarchism.htm<br />
Albert, Michael. 2000. Moving Forward: Program For A Participatory Economy. San Francisco: AK<br />
Press.<br />
* Albertani, Claudio. 2002. “Paint It Black: Black Blocs, Tute Biance and Zapatistas in <strong>the</strong> Anti-<br />
Globalization Movement”. New Political Science, 24 (4): 579-595. Translated by Rosanna M.<br />
Giammanco Frongia.<br />
* Almeida, Paul D. and Mark Irving Lichbach. 2003. “To <strong>the</strong> Internet, from <strong>the</strong> Internet: Comparative<br />
Media Coverage <strong>of</strong> Transnational Protests”. Mobilization: An International Journal, 8 (3),<br />
October: 249-272.<br />
* Amster, Randall. 1999. “Ethnography at <strong>the</strong> Margins: Vagabonds, Transients, and <strong>the</strong> Specter <strong>of</strong><br />
Resistance”. Humboldt Journal <strong>of</strong> Social Relations, 25 (1): 121-155.<br />
* Amster, Randall. 2002. “Anarchist Pedagogies for Peace”. Peace Review, 14 (4): 433-439.<br />
* Amster, Randall. 2003. “Restoring (Dis)order: Sanctions, Resolutions, and “Social Control” in<br />
Anarchist Communities”. Contemporary Justice Review, 6 (1): 9-24.<br />
Anarchy FAQ. 2004. An Anarchist FAQ. Version 10.0. http://www.anarchyfaq.org.<br />
<strong>The</strong> Anarchy Organization. n.d.?. “Taoism and Anarchism”.<br />
http://www.tao.ca/thinking/texts/taoanarch.html<br />
* Apter, David E. 1970. “<strong>The</strong> Old Anarchism and <strong>the</strong> New – Some Comments”. Government and<br />
Opposition: A Journal <strong>of</strong> Comparative Politics, 5 (4), Autumn: 397-409.<br />
* Armitage, John. 1999. “Ontological Anarchy, <strong>the</strong> Temporary Autonomous Zone, and <strong>the</strong> Politics <strong>of</strong><br />
Cyberculture: A Critique <strong>of</strong> Hakim Bey”. Angelaki: Journal <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>The</strong>oretical Humanities, 4 (2):<br />
115-128.<br />
[ Williams 106 ] [ this is a draft. do not cite. ]
* Atkinson, Ian. 2001. “May Day 2001 in <strong>the</strong> UK, <strong>the</strong> News Media and Public Order”. Environmental<br />
Politics, 10 (3), Autumn: 145-150.<br />
* Atton, Chris. 1995. “Policing Electronic Information: Threats to Freedom <strong>of</strong> Expression”. New<br />
Library World, 96 (1122): 5-9.<br />
Atton, Chris. 2003. “Infoshops in <strong>the</strong> Shadow <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> State”. Pp 57-69 in Contesting Media Power:<br />
Alternative Media in a Networked World, edited by J. Curran and N. Couldry. Lanham, MD:<br />
Rowman and Littlefield.<br />
* Atwater, Lynn. 1991. “Trading Places: Teaching With Students in <strong>the</strong> Center and Pr<strong>of</strong>essors on <strong>the</strong><br />
Periphery <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Principles Course”. Teaching <strong>Sociology</strong>, 19, October: 483-488.<br />
* Bagguley, Paul. 1992. “Social Change, <strong>the</strong> Middle Class and <strong>the</strong> Emergence <strong>of</strong> ‘New Social<br />
Movements’: A Critical Analysis”. <strong>The</strong> Sociological Review, 40 (1), February: 26-48.<br />
Baghdad, Ryan, Mark Burdett, Otto Nomous, Becky Perrine, Jeff Perlstein, and Michelle Steinberg.<br />
2001. “Targets <strong>of</strong> Repression”. clamor, July/August: 38-43.<br />
* Bain, Christian Arthur. 1999. “A Short History <strong>of</strong> Lesbian and Gay Labor Activism in <strong>the</strong> United<br />
States”. Pp. 58-86 in Laboring for Rights: Unions and Sexual Diversity Across Nations, edited by<br />
G. Hunt. Philadelphia: Temple <strong>University</strong> Press.<br />
Bakunin, Michael. [1916] 1970. God and <strong>The</strong> State. New York: Dover. Originally from a French<br />
translation.<br />
* Barnes, Donna A. 1987. “Organization and Radical Protest: An Anti<strong>the</strong>sis?”. <strong>The</strong> Sociological<br />
Quarterly, 28 (4): 575-594.<br />
Barr, Brian J. 2002. “<strong>The</strong> New Radicals”. <strong>The</strong> Burr, Spring. Kent State <strong>University</strong>.<br />
* Bass, Bernard M. 1967. “<strong>The</strong> Anarchist Movement and <strong>the</strong> T Group: Some Possible Lessons for<br />
Organizational Development”. <strong>The</strong> Journal <strong>of</strong> Applied Behavioral Science, 3 (2), April-June: 211-<br />
227.<br />
* Bates, Stanley. 1972. “Authority and Autonomy”. <strong>The</strong> Journal <strong>of</strong> Philosophy, 69 (7): 175-179.<br />
Beallor, Angela (2000). “Sexism and <strong>the</strong> Anarchist Movement”, Onward, 1 (2),<br />
http://www.onwardnewspaper.org/archives/3-2000/sexism.html<br />
Beckerman, Gal. 2003. “Indymedia: Between Passion and Pragmatism: Edging Away from Anarchy:<br />
Inside <strong>the</strong> Indymedia Collective, Passion vs. Pragmatism”. Columbia Journalism Review,<br />
September 17: 27-30. http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=16762<br />
* Beckwith, Dave. 1996. “Ten Ways to Work Toge<strong>the</strong>r: An Organizer's View”. Sociological<br />
Imagination, 33 (2): 164-172.<br />
Berkman, Alexander. 1999. Prison Memoirs <strong>of</strong> an Anarchist. New York: New York Review Books.<br />
Bey, Hakim. [1985]1991. T.A.Z.: <strong>The</strong> Temporary Autonomous Zone, Ontological Anarchy, Poetic<br />
Terrorism. New York: Autonomedia.<br />
* Bharadwaj, L. K. 1998. “Principled Versus Pragmatic Nonviolence”. Peace Review, 10 (1): 79-81.<br />
[ Williams 107 ] [ this is a draft. do not cite. ]
* Bidwell, Lee D. Millar. 1995. “Helping Students Develop A Sociological Imagination Through<br />
Innovative Writing Assignments”. Teaching <strong>Sociology</strong>, 23, October: 401-406.<br />
Bierce, Ambrose and Chaz Bufe. 1995. <strong>The</strong> Devil's Dictionaries: <strong>The</strong> Best <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Devil's Dictionary<br />
and <strong>The</strong> American Heretic's Dictionary. Tucson, AZ: See Sharp Press. Expanded edition.<br />
* Bittner, Egon. 1963. “Radicalism and <strong>the</strong> Organization <strong>of</strong> Radical Movements”. American<br />
Sociological Review, 28 (6), December: 928-940.<br />
Black, Bob. 1985. <strong>The</strong> Abolition <strong>of</strong> Work and O<strong>the</strong>r Essays. Port Townsend, WA: Loopmaniacs.<br />
Black, Bob. ?. “<strong>The</strong> Abolition <strong>of</strong> Work”, http://www.spunk.org/library/writers/black/sp000156.txt<br />
Black, Robert. 1998. “Beautiful Losers: <strong>The</strong> Historiography <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Industrial Workers <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> World”.<br />
March 6. http://www.infoshop.org/texts/iww.html<br />
* Blau, Peter M. 1963. “Critical Remarks on Weber's <strong>The</strong>ory <strong>of</strong> Authority”. <strong>The</strong> American Political<br />
Science Review, 57 (2), June: 305-316.<br />
* Blaug, Ricardo. 1999. “<strong>The</strong> Tyranny <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Visible: Problems in <strong>the</strong> Evaluation <strong>of</strong> Anti-Institutional<br />
Radicalism”. Organization, 6 (1), February: 33-56.<br />
* Blaug, Ricardo. 2000. “Blind Hierarchism and Radical Organizational Forms”. New Political<br />
Science, 22 (3): 379-395.<br />
* Bleiker, Roland. 2002. “Rawls and <strong>the</strong> Limits <strong>of</strong> Nonviolent Civil Disobedience. Social<br />
Alternatives, 21 (2), Autumn: 37-40.<br />
* Bleiker, Roland. 2002. “Activism After Seattle: Dilemmas <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Anti-Globalisation Movement”.<br />
Pacifica Review, 14 (3), October: 191-207.<br />
* Blickstein, Susan & Susan Hanson. 2001. “Critical Mass: Forging a Politics <strong>of</strong> Sustainable Mobility<br />
in <strong>the</strong> Information Age”. Transportation, 28: 347-362.<br />
* Block, Walter. 2003. “Decentralization, Subsidiary, Rodney King and State Deification: A<br />
Libertarian Analaysis”. European Journal <strong>of</strong> Law and Economics, 16: 139-147.<br />
Blum, William. 1995. Killing Hope: U.S. Military and CIA Interventions Since World War II.<br />
Monroe, ME: Common Courage Press.<br />
* Bockmeyer, Janice L. 2003. “Devolution and <strong>the</strong> Transformation <strong>of</strong> Community Housing Activism”.<br />
<strong>The</strong> Social Science Journal, 40: 175-188.<br />
* Boehrer, Fred. 2000. “<strong>The</strong> Principle <strong>of</strong> Subsidiarity as <strong>the</strong> Basis for a Just Community”.<br />
Contemporary Justice Review, 3 (2): 213-224.<br />
* Boehrer, Fred. 2003. “Anarchism and Downward Mobility: Is Finishing Last <strong>the</strong> Least We Can<br />
Do?” Contemporary Justice Review, 6 (1): 37-45.<br />
* Bonacich, Edna. 1998. “Reflections on Union Activism”. Contemporary <strong>Sociology</strong>, 27 (2), March:<br />
129-132.<br />
Bookchin, Murray. ?. “What is Social Ecology?”. Original full cite<br />
http://dwardmac.pitzer.<strong>edu</strong>/anarchist_archives/bookchin/socecol.html<br />
[ Williams 108 ] [ this is a draft. do not cite. ]
* Boyle, Michael P., Michael R. McClusky, Narayan Devanathan, Susan E. Stein, and Douglas<br />
McLeod. 2004. "<strong>The</strong> Influence <strong>of</strong> Level <strong>of</strong> Deviance and Protest Type on Coverage <strong>of</strong> Social<br />
Protest in Wisconsin from 1960 to 1999". Mass Communication & Society, 7 (1): 43-60.<br />
* Bradshaw, Patricia. 1998. “Power as Dynamic Tension and its Implications for Radical<br />
Organizational Change”. European Journal <strong>of</strong> Work and Organization Psychology, 7 (2): 121-<br />
143.<br />
* Branagan, Marty. 2003. “<strong>The</strong> Art <strong>of</strong> Nonviolence”. Social Alternatives, 22 (3): 50-55.<br />
* Brecher, Jeremy. 1984. “Labor and <strong>the</strong> Left: <strong>The</strong> Long View From Below”. Political Power and<br />
Social <strong>The</strong>ory, 4: 271-279.<br />
Brecher, Jeremy. 1997. Strike!. Cambridge, MA: South End Press.<br />
* Breitbart, Myrna. 1975. “Impressions <strong>of</strong> an Anarchist Landscape”. Antipode, 7 (2): 44-49.<br />
Brieines, Wini. 1982. Community and Organization in <strong>the</strong> New Left: 1962-1968: <strong>The</strong> Great Refusal.<br />
South Hadley, MA: J. F. Bergin Publishers.<br />
Broke, K. ten. 1991. "Anarchism in <strong>the</strong> USSR: <strong>The</strong> Late 1980's and <strong>the</strong> KAS". Green Left Weekly.<br />
VOL (NO): pp-p.<br />
Bufe, Chaz. ?. “Listen Anarchist!”. http://flag.blackened.net/daver/anarchism/listen.html<br />
Bufe, Chaz. 2000. A Future Worth Living: Thoughts On Getting <strong>The</strong>re. Tucson, AZ: See Sharp Press.<br />
* Buhle, Paul. 1983. “Anarchism and American Labor”. International Labor and Working Class<br />
History, 23, Spring: 21-34.<br />
Burawoy, Michael. 1979. Manufacturing Consent: Changes in <strong>the</strong> Labor Process Under Monopoly<br />
Capitalism. Chicago: <strong>The</strong> <strong>University</strong> <strong>of</strong> Chicago Press.<br />
Burning River Revolutionary Anarchist Collective. 2002. “Stop <strong>the</strong> War, Fight <strong>the</strong> System!”. Handout<br />
flyer. http://www.burningriver.org.<br />
Butler, C. T. and Keith McHenry. 2000. Food Not Bombs. Tucson, AZ: See Sharp Press.<br />
* Cahill, Damien. 2001. “<strong>The</strong> Anti-WEF Protests and <strong>the</strong> Media”. Social Alternatives, 20 (1), January:<br />
63-67.<br />
Carlsson, Chris. 2002. Critical Mass: Bicycling's Defiant Celebration. Oakland, CA: AK Press.<br />
Carswell, Sean. 2001. “Teaching <strong>the</strong> History <strong>of</strong> All Wars: Dissent and Controversy in <strong>the</strong> Classroom”.<br />
clamor, September/October: 9-12.<br />
* Carter, Alan. 1998. “Fettering, Development, and Revolution”. <strong>The</strong> Heythrop Journal, 39 (2): 170-<br />
188.<br />
* Caruth, Hayden. 2001. “Clarification”. American Poetry Review, 30 (4), Jul/Aug: 9-10.<br />
Center for Human Resource Research. n.d. “NLSY 79 Codebook Supplement Geocode File 1979-<br />
2000”. http://www.bls.gov/nls/79quex/r19/y79r19geocodsup.pdf<br />
[ Williams 109 ] [ this is a draft. do not cite. ]
* Checkoway, Barry, Katie Richards-Schuster, Shakira Abdullah, Margarita Aragon, Evelyn Facio,<br />
Lisa Figueroa, Ellen Reddy, Mary Welsh, and Al White. 2003. “Young People as Competent<br />
Citizens”. Community Development Journal, 38 (4), October: 298-309.<br />
* Cheney, George. 2001/2002. “Mondragon Cooperatives”. Social Policy, Winter: 4-9.<br />
Chirot, Daniel. 1986. Social Change in <strong>the</strong> Modern Era. San Diego: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.<br />
Chomsky, Noam. 1970. For Reasons <strong>of</strong> State. Full cite<br />
Christodoulidis, Emilios A. 2002. “Law's Iconoclasts”. Social & Legal Studies, 11 (3), September:<br />
371-374.<br />
Chuck0. 2002. “<strong>The</strong> Sad Decline <strong>of</strong> Indymedia”. Infoshop.org News, December 8.<br />
http://www.infoshop.org/inews/stories.php?story=02/12/08/2553147<br />
Churchill, Ward. 2003. On <strong>the</strong> Justice <strong>of</strong> Roosting Chickens: Reflections on <strong>the</strong> Consequences <strong>of</strong> U.S.<br />
Imperial Arrogance and Criminality. Oakland, CA: AK Press.<br />
Chynoweth, Danielle. 2003. “Organizing Indy/Alternative Media at <strong>the</strong> Local Level”. Infoshop.org<br />
News, November. http://www.infoshop.org/inews/stories.php?story=03/11/10/8558477<br />
* Clark, John Bates. 2002. “Anarchism, Socialism, and Social Reform”. Journal <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> History <strong>of</strong><br />
Economic Thought, 24 (4): 451-461.<br />
* Clark, John P. 1975. “On Anarchism In An Unreal World: Kramnick's View <strong>of</strong> Godwin and <strong>the</strong><br />
<strong>Anarchists</strong>”. <strong>The</strong> American Political Science Review, 69 (1), March: 162-167.<br />
Clark, John P. 1997. “<strong>The</strong> Dialectical Social Geography <strong>of</strong> Élisée Reclus”. Philosophy and<br />
Geography I: Space, Place, and Environmental Ethics. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield,<br />
117-142. http://melior.univ-montp3.fr/ra_forum/en/clark_j/reclus_geography/reclus.geography.doc<br />
Clark, Marjorie Ruth. 1930. “French Syndicalism <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Present”. <strong>The</strong> Journal <strong>of</strong> Political Economy,<br />
38 (3), June: 317-327.<br />
Class War Federation. 1992. Unfinished Business: <strong>The</strong> Politics <strong>of</strong> Class War. Edinburgh: AK Press.<br />
* Cleveland, John. 2003. “Does <strong>the</strong> New Middle Class Lead Today’s Social Movements?”. Critical<br />
<strong>Sociology</strong>, 29 (2): 163-188.<br />
* Cobb-Reiley, Linda. 1988. “Aliens and Alien Ideas: <strong>The</strong> Suppression <strong>of</strong> <strong>Anarchists</strong> and <strong>the</strong><br />
Anarchist Press in America, 1901-1914”. Journalism History, 15 (2-3), Summer/Autumn: 50-59.<br />
Cockles, Wispy. n.d. “<strong>The</strong> Free S<strong>of</strong>tware Movement and Anarchist Practice”. Dualpower.net<br />
* Cohen, Jean L. 1985. “Strategy or Identity: New <strong>The</strong>oretical Paradigms and Contemporary Social<br />
Movements”. Social Research, 52 (4): 663-716.<br />
Collins, Randall. 1988. “<strong>The</strong>oretical <strong>Sociology</strong>”. San Diego, CA: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich,<br />
Publishers.<br />
Collins, Randall. 1994. Four Sociological Traditions. New York: Oxford <strong>University</strong> Press.<br />
[ Williams 110 ] [ this is a draft. do not cite. ]
* Corbridge, Stuart. 2003. “Countering Empire”. Antipode, 35 (1): 184-190.<br />
* Cornfield, Daniel B. and Randy Hodson. 1993. “Labor Activism and Community: Causes and<br />
Consequences <strong>of</strong> Social Integration in Labor Unions”. Social Science Quarterly, 74 (3),<br />
September: 590-602.<br />
* Corning, Peter A. 2000. “<strong>The</strong> Sociobiology <strong>of</strong> Democracy: Is Authoritarianism in Our Genes?”.<br />
Politics and <strong>the</strong> Life Sciences, 19 (1): 103-108.<br />
* Couch, Jen. 2001. “Imagining Zapatismo: <strong>The</strong> Anti-globalisation Movement and <strong>the</strong> Zapatistas”.<br />
Communal/Plural, 9 (2): 243-260.<br />
* Coy, Patrick. 2001. “An Experiment in Personalist Politics: <strong>The</strong> Catholic Worker Movement and<br />
Nonviolent Action”. Peace & Change, 26 (1), January: 78-94.<br />
* Craige, Betty Jean. 1993. “<strong>The</strong> Pursuit <strong>of</strong> Truth is Inherently Disruptive and Anti-Authoritarian”.<br />
Chronicle <strong>of</strong> Higher Education, January 6: A56.<br />
Crass, Chris. 2001. Collective Liberation on My Mind. Montréal: Kersplebedeb.<br />
[http://www.infoshop.org/texts/crass_supremacy.html]<br />
* Creagh, Ronald. 2001. “Marx Moves Over To Make Room For New Lot Of Rebels”. <strong>The</strong> Times<br />
Higher Education Supplement, October 12: 19.<br />
CRIFA. 1983. “Manifeste Anarch<strong>of</strong>éministe”. Bulletin C.R.I.F.A., No. 44.<br />
http://www.powertech.no/anarchy/maf.html<br />
CrimethInc. 2000. Days <strong>of</strong> War, Nights <strong>of</strong> Love: Crimethink For Beginners. Atlanta, GA: CrimethInc.<br />
Curious George Brigade. 2003. Anarchy in <strong>the</strong> Age <strong>of</strong> Dinosaurs. Mosinee, WI: Yellow Jack<br />
Distro/CrimethInc.<br />
* Curran, Goirel. 1999. “Murray Bookchin and <strong>the</strong> Domination <strong>of</strong> Nature”. Critical Review <strong>of</strong><br />
International Social and Political Philosophy, 2 (2), Summer: 59-94.<br />
* Daniels, Arlene Kaplan. 1999. “Finding One's Footing in <strong>the</strong> Pr<strong>of</strong>ession: Learning <strong>the</strong> Ropes While<br />
Protesting <strong>the</strong> System in <strong>Sociology</strong>”. Contemporary <strong>Sociology</strong>, 28 (3), May: 259-262.<br />
Dark Star Collective. 2002. Quiet Rumours: An Anarcha-Feminist Reader. Edinburgh, UK: AK Press.<br />
* David, Erik. 1998. “Three Forms <strong>of</strong> Spontaneous Order and <strong>The</strong>ir Place within Civil Society”.<br />
Journal for Institutional Innovation, Development, and Transition, 2: 19-34.<br />
* Davis, James H.; Mark Stasson, Kaoru Ono, Suzi Zimmerman. 1988. “Effects <strong>of</strong> Straw Polls on<br />
Group Decision Making: Sequential Voting Pattern, Timing, and Local Majorities”. Journal <strong>of</strong><br />
Personality and Social Psychology, 55 (6): 918-926.<br />
Day, Christopher. [1994] 2003. “Love and Rage in <strong>the</strong> New World Order”. Pp. 55-64 in A New World<br />
in Our Hearts: Eight Years <strong>of</strong> Writings from <strong>the</strong> Love and Rage Revolutionary Anarchist<br />
Federation, edited by R. San Filippo. Oakland: AK Press.<br />
* Dean, Hartley. 2000. “Social Rights and Social Resistance : Opportunism, Anarchism and <strong>the</strong><br />
Welfare State”. International Journal <strong>of</strong> Social Welfare, 9: 151-157.<br />
[ Williams 111 ] [ this is a draft. do not cite. ]
Debord, Guy. ??. <strong>The</strong> Society <strong>of</strong> <strong>The</strong> Spectacle. Full cite<br />
* DeAngelis, Massimo. 2000. “Globalization, New Internationalism and <strong>the</strong> Zapatistas”. Capital and<br />
Class, 70: 9-35.<br />
* DeLeon, David. 1973. “<strong>The</strong> American as Anarchist: Social Criticism in <strong>the</strong> 1960s”. American<br />
Quarterly, 25 (5): 516-537.<br />
DeLeon, David. 1978. <strong>The</strong> American as Anarchist: Reflections on Indigenous Radicalism. Baltimore:<br />
<strong>The</strong> Johns Hopkins <strong>University</strong> Press.<br />
DeLeon, David. 1996. “For Democracy Where We Work: A Rationale for Social Self-Management”.<br />
Pp. 192-210 in Reinventing Anarchy, Again, edited by H. J. Ehrlich. Edinburgh: AK Press.<br />
Dewey, Clayton. 2004. “Anarchism and Unitarian Universalism”. Infoshop.org Newswire.<br />
http://www.infoshop.org/inews/stories.php?story=04/01/26/2904407<br />
DiFranco, Ani & Utah Phillips. 1996. “<strong>The</strong> Past Didn't Go Anywhere”. Buffalo, NY: Righteous Babe<br />
Records.<br />
Dixon, Chris. 2001. “Substituting as a Subversive Activity: Reflections From a Radical Sub”. clamor,<br />
September/October: 54-56.<br />
Dolg<strong>of</strong>f, Sam. 1977. <strong>The</strong> Relevance <strong>of</strong> Anarchism to Modern Society. Minneapolis: Soil <strong>of</strong> Liberty.<br />
* Dom<strong>of</strong>f, G. William. 1999. “State and Ruling Class in Corporate America. Critical <strong>Sociology</strong>, 25<br />
(2/3): 266-277.<br />
* Donati, Pierpaolo. 1995. “Identity and Solidarity in <strong>the</strong> Complex <strong>of</strong> Citizenship: <strong>The</strong> Relational<br />
Approach”. Innovation: <strong>The</strong> European Journal <strong>of</strong> Social Sciences, 8 (2): 155-173.<br />
* Dority, Barbara. 2000. “Resistance is Not Futile”. <strong>The</strong> Humanist, March/April: 18-20.<br />
* Downer, William Merrill. 1979. “A Psychological Justification <strong>of</strong> Anarchism: <strong>The</strong> Case <strong>of</strong> Paul<br />
Goodman”. <strong>The</strong> Psychohistory Review, 7 (3), Winter: 29-37.<br />
* Downey, Gary L. 1986. “Ideology and <strong>the</strong> Clamshell Identity: Organizational Dilemmas in <strong>the</strong> Anti-<br />
Nuclear Power Movement”. Social Problems, 33 (5), June: 357-373.<br />
Downing, John D. H. 2003. “<strong>The</strong> Independent Media Center Movement and <strong>the</strong> Anarchist Socialist<br />
Tradition”. Pp. 243-257 in Contesting Media Power: Alternative Media in a Networked World,<br />
edited by J. Curran and N. Couldry. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.<br />
* Dugger, William M. 1984. “Veblen and Kropotkin on Human Evolution”. Journal <strong>of</strong> Economic<br />
Issues, 18 (4): 971-985.<br />
* Duncan, Lauren E. 2003. “Understanding Leaders <strong>of</strong> Repressive Social Movements”. Analyses <strong>of</strong><br />
Social Issues and Public Policy, 3 (1): 181-184.<br />
Ehrlich, Howard. 1991. “Notes from an Anarchist Sociologist: May 1989”. Pp. 233-248 in Radical<br />
Sociologists and <strong>the</strong> Movement: Experiences, Lessons, and Legacies, edited by M. Oppenheimer,<br />
M. J. Murray, and R. F. Levine. Philadelphia: Temple <strong>University</strong> Press.<br />
Ehrlich, Howard J. 1996. Reinventing Anarchy, Again. Edinburgh: AK Press.<br />
[ Williams 112 ] [ this is a draft. do not cite. ]
Ehrlich, Howard. 2002. “On <strong>the</strong> Way to Peace: <strong>Anarchists</strong> and <strong>the</strong> Anti-War Movement”. Infoshop<br />
News. http://www.infoshop.org/inews/stories.php?story=02/10/11/8165513<br />
Elias, Basil. 2001. “I Want to Change <strong>the</strong> World: Social Change and Free Speech in <strong>the</strong> Classroom”.<br />
clamor, September/October: 28-31.<br />
Elliott, Michael. 1999. “<strong>The</strong> New Radicals”. Newsweek, December 13: 36-39.<br />
* Ennis, James G. 1987. “Fields <strong>of</strong> Action: Structure in Movements' Tactical Repertoires”.<br />
Sociological Forum, 2 (3): 520-533.<br />
* Epstein, Barbara. 1985. “<strong>The</strong> Culture <strong>of</strong> Direct Action: Livermore Action Group and <strong>the</strong> Peace<br />
Movement”. Socialist Review, 15 (4-5), July-October: 31-61.<br />
Epstein, Barbara. 1991. Political Protest and Cultural Revolution. Berkeley, CA: <strong>University</strong> <strong>of</strong><br />
California Press.<br />
* Epstein, Barbara. 2001. “Anarchism and <strong>the</strong> Anti-Globalization Movement”. Monthly Review.<br />
September, 53 (4): 1-14 (?)<br />
* Epstein, Barbara. 2003. “Notes on <strong>the</strong> Antiwar Movement”. Monthly Review, VOL (NO): 109-116.<br />
Ervin, Lorenzo Komboa. ?. “Authoritarian Leftists: Kill <strong>the</strong> Cop In Your Head!”.<br />
http://www.infoshop.org/texts/auth_leftists.html<br />
* Etzioni, Amitai. 2000. “Creating Good Communities and Good Societies”. Contemporary<br />
<strong>Sociology</strong>, 29 (1), January: 188-195.<br />
Farrow, Lynne. 2002. “Feminism as Anarchism”. Pp. 15-20 in Quiet Rumours, edited by Dark Star.<br />
Federal Bureau <strong>of</strong> Investigation. 1999. “Terrorism in <strong>the</strong> United States in 1999”. Counterterrorism<br />
Threat Assessment and Warning Unit Counterterrorism Division.<br />
http://www.fbi.gov/publications/terror/terroris.htm<br />
Fendrick, James Max and Robert W. Turner. 1989. “<strong>The</strong> Transition from Student to Adult Politics”.<br />
Social Forces, 67 (4), June: 1049-1057.<br />
Fernandez, Frank. 2001. Cuban Anarchism: <strong>The</strong> History <strong>of</strong> A Movement. Translated by Chaz Bufe.<br />
Tucson, AZ: See Sharp Press.<br />
Finnegan, William. 2000. “After Seattle; <strong>Anarchists</strong> Get Organized”. <strong>The</strong> New Yorker, April 17: 40-?.<br />
* Fitzgerald, Kathleen J. and Diane M. Rodgers. 2000. “Radical Social Movement Organizations: A<br />
<strong>The</strong>oretical Model”. <strong>The</strong> Sociological Quarterly, 41 (4): 573-592.<br />
* Foldvary, Fred E. 2001. “<strong>The</strong> Completely Decentralized City: <strong>The</strong> Case for Benefits Based Public<br />
Finance”. American Journal <strong>of</strong> Economics and <strong>Sociology</strong>, 60 (1), January: 403-418.<br />
* Ford, Lucy H. 1999. “Social Movements and <strong>the</strong> Globalisation <strong>of</strong> Environmental Governance”. IDS<br />
Bulletin, 30 (3), July: 68-74.<br />
* Foster, Thomas W. 1987. “<strong>The</strong> Taoists and <strong>the</strong> Amish: Kindred Expressions <strong>of</strong> Eco-Anarchism”.<br />
<strong>The</strong> Ecologist, 17: 9-14.<br />
[ Williams 113 ] [ this is a draft. do not cite. ]
* Foster, Thomas W. 1997. “American Culture Through Amish Eyes: Perspectives <strong>of</strong> an Anarchist<br />
Movement”. Social Thought & Research, 20 (1-2): 89-108.<br />
* Fox, Dennis R. 1985. “Psychology, Ideology, Utopia, and <strong>the</strong> Commons”. American Psychologist,<br />
40 (1), January: 48-58.<br />
Freeman, Jo. [c.1970] 2002. <strong>The</strong> Tyranny <strong>of</strong> Structurelessness. Pp 54-61 in Dark Star.<br />
* Fuller, Abigail A. 1996. “Producing Radical Scholarship: <strong>The</strong> Radical <strong>Sociology</strong> Movement, 1967-<br />
1975”. Sociological Imagination, 33 (1): 37-54.<br />
* Galtung, Johan. xx. “<strong>The</strong> State, <strong>the</strong> Military and War”. Journal <strong>of</strong> Peace Research, 26 (1): 101-105.<br />
* George, Donald A. R. 1997. “Self-management and Ideology”. Review <strong>of</strong> Political Economy, 9 (1):<br />
51-62.<br />
* Gezerlis, Alexandros. 2000. “<strong>The</strong> 'Objectivity' <strong>of</strong> a Liberatory Project and <strong>the</strong> Issue <strong>of</strong> 'Leaders':<br />
Preliminary Notes—in <strong>the</strong> Sequel <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Marx-Proudhon Exchange”. Democracy & Nature, 6 (3):<br />
463-476.<br />
* Gibbs, Jack P. 1989. “Conceptualization <strong>of</strong> Terrorism”. American Sociological Review, 54 (3),<br />
June: 329-340.<br />
Giddens, Anthony and Mitchell Duneier. 2000. Introduction to <strong>Sociology</strong>, Third Edition. New York:<br />
W. W. Norton.<br />
* Gillham, Patrick F. and Gary T. Marx. 2000. “Complexity and Irony in Policing And Protesting:<br />
<strong>The</strong> World Tradae Organization in Seattle”. Social Justice: A Journal <strong>of</strong> Crime, Conflict, 27 (2),<br />
Summer: 212-236.<br />
* Glassman, Michael. 2000. “Mutual Aid <strong>The</strong>ory and Human Development: Sociability as Primary”.<br />
Journal for <strong>the</strong> <strong>The</strong>ory <strong>of</strong> Social Behaviour, 30 (4): 391-412.<br />
Glassgold, Peter. 2001. Anarchy!: An Anthology <strong>of</strong> Emma Goldman's Mo<strong>the</strong>r Earth. Washington,<br />
D.C.: Counterpoint.<br />
* Goehlert, Robert. 1981. “Tolstoy and Anarchism”. <strong>The</strong> Journal <strong>of</strong> Religious Thought, 38, Spring-<br />
Summer: 54-61.<br />
Goldman, Emma. 1923. My Fur<strong>the</strong>r Disillusionment with Russia. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, Page<br />
& Co. http://dwardmac.pitzer.<strong>edu</strong>/anarchist_archives/goldman/disillusion/toc.html<br />
Goldman, Emma. [original publication?] 1969. Anarchism and O<strong>the</strong>r Essays. New York: Dover.<br />
Goldman, Emma (?). “Syndicalism: Its <strong>The</strong>ory and Practice”. Workers Solidarity Alliance.<br />
Goodman, Paul and Percival Goodman 1960. Communitas: Means <strong>of</strong> Livelihood and Ways <strong>of</strong> Life.<br />
New York: Vintage Books.<br />
* Goodwin, Jeff, James M. Jasper, and Francesca Polletta. 2000. “<strong>The</strong> Return <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Repressed: <strong>The</strong><br />
Fall and Rise <strong>of</strong> Emotions in Social Movement <strong>The</strong>ory”. Mobilization: An International Journal, 5<br />
(1), Spring: 65-84.<br />
[ Williams 114 ] [ this is a draft. do not cite. ]
* Gordon, Linda. 2002. “Social Movements, Leadership, and Democracy: Toward More Utopian<br />
Mistakes”. Journal <strong>of</strong> Women's History, Summer: 102-117.<br />
* Graeber, David. 2002. “<strong>The</strong> New <strong>Anarchists</strong>”. New Left Review, 13, Jan/Feb: 61-73.<br />
Green, Archie. 1993. Wobblies, Pile Butts, and O<strong>the</strong>r Heroes: Laborlore Explorations. Urbana, IL:<br />
<strong>University</strong> <strong>of</strong> Illinois Press.<br />
Grosscup, Ben and Doyle. 2002. “An Open Letter to <strong>the</strong> Anti-Authoritarian Anti-Capitalist<br />
Movement”. WWW<br />
* Guillet de Monthoux, Pierre. 1978. “Action and Existence: <strong>The</strong> Anarchoexistentialist View <strong>of</strong><br />
Organization”. Munich Social Science Review, 4: 5-38.<br />
* Gundelach, Peter. 1989. “Effectiveness and <strong>the</strong> Structures <strong>of</strong> New Social Movements”.<br />
International Social Movement Research, 2: 427-442.<br />
* Hall, John R. 1988. “Social Organization and Pathways <strong>of</strong> Commitment: Types <strong>of</strong> Communal<br />
Groups, Rational Choice <strong>The</strong>ory, and <strong>the</strong> Kanter <strong>The</strong>sis”. American Sociological Review, 53,<br />
October: 679-692.<br />
Hare, Sara C., Walter R. Jacobs, and Jean Harold Shin. 1999. “Entering <strong>the</strong> Classroom from <strong>the</strong> O<strong>the</strong>r<br />
Side: A Conversation on <strong>the</strong> Life and Times <strong>of</strong> Graduate Associate Instructors”. Pp. 507-516 in<br />
<strong>The</strong> Social Worlds <strong>of</strong> Higher Education: Handbook for Teaching in a New Century, edited by B.<br />
Pescosolido and R. Aminzade. Thousand Oaks: Pine Forge Press.<br />
* Harney, Stefano. 2002. “Fragment on Kropotkin and Giuliani”. Social Text, 20 (3): 9-20.<br />
* Harrison, Paul M. 1960. “Weber's Categories <strong>of</strong> Authority and Voluntary Associations”. American<br />
Sociological Review, 25 (2): 232-237.<br />
* Harriot, Howard H. 1993. “Defensible Anarchy?”. International Philosophical Quarterly, 33 (131),<br />
September: 319-339.<br />
* Hart, Ian. 2001. “Deschooling and <strong>the</strong> Web: Ivan Illich 30 Years On”. Education Media<br />
International, 38 (2/3), June/September: 69-76.<br />
* Hartung, Beth. 1983. “Anarchism and <strong>the</strong> Problem <strong>of</strong> Order”. Mid-American Review <strong>of</strong> <strong>Sociology</strong>, 8<br />
(1): 83-101.<br />
* Haugaard, Mark. 1997. “<strong>The</strong> Consensual Basis <strong>of</strong> Conflictual Power: A Critical Response to 'Using<br />
Power, Fighting Power' By Jane Mansbridge”. Constellations, 3 (3): 401-406.<br />
* Heckscher, Charles. 2001. “Participatory Unionism”. Labor Studies Journal, 25 (4), Winter: 3-18.<br />
* Herrada, Julie. 2000. “Continuing a Legacy: Collecting for a Special Collections Library”.<br />
Collection Building, 19 (4): 163-165.<br />
* Hertog, James K. and Douglas M. McLeod. 1995. “<strong>Anarchists</strong> Wreak Havoc In Downtown<br />
Minneapolis: A Multi-level Study <strong>of</strong> Media Coverage <strong>of</strong> Radical Protest”. Journalism & Mass<br />
Communication Monographs, Issue 151, June: 1-47.<br />
* Higgins, Mat<strong>the</strong>w and Mark Tadajewski. 2002. “Anti-corporate Protest as Consumer Spectacle”.<br />
Management Decision, 40 (4): 363-371.<br />
[ Williams 115 ] [ this is a draft. do not cite. ]
* Hirsch, Eric L. 1990. “Sacrifice For <strong>the</strong> Cause: Group Processes, Recruitment, and Commitment in a<br />
Student Social Movement”. American Sociological Review, 55, April: 243-254.<br />
* Hodgson, James F. 2001. “Police Violence in Canada and <strong>the</strong> USA: Analysis and Management”.<br />
Policing: An International Journal <strong>of</strong> Police Strategies & Management, 24 (4): 520-549.<br />
* Hogan, Patrick Colm. 1994. “Why We Should Not Set Out To Politicize <strong>the</strong> Classroom: An<br />
Anarchist Response to <strong>the</strong> Debate Over Pleasure and Critique”. College Literature, 21 (3),<br />
October: 56-61.<br />
* Holton, R. J. 1980. “Syndicalist <strong>The</strong>ories <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> State”. Sociological Review, 28 (1): 5-21.<br />
Holtzman, Ben. 2003. “Anarchism and <strong>the</strong> Movement Against Globalization in <strong>the</strong> United States”.<br />
Saint Anselm College: <strong>The</strong> New Hampshire Institute <strong>of</strong> Politics. Global Topics E-Journal, Vol. 2,<br />
Article 2. http://www.anselm.<strong>edu</strong>/NR/rdonlyres/CFA16C8E-F103-4C2C-B362-<br />
B89BBF98842F/1241/Article20032.pdf<br />
* Hondagneu-Sotelo, Pierrette and Sally Sak<strong>of</strong>f. 1994. “Community Service-Learning: Promises and<br />
Problems”. Teaching <strong>Sociology</strong>, 22, July: 248-254.<br />
* Hong, Nathaniel. 1992. “Constructing <strong>the</strong> Anarchist Beast in American Periodical Literature, 1880-<br />
1903”. Critical Studies in Mass Communication, 9: 110-130.<br />
Howard, Joy. 2001. “Sam Tylicki: Guerrilla Gardener”. Cleveland Free Times, June 20-26.<br />
* Hueglin, Thomas O. 1985. “Yet <strong>the</strong> Age <strong>of</strong> Anarchism?”. Publius: <strong>The</strong> Journal <strong>of</strong> Federalism, 15<br />
(2), Spring: 101-112.<br />
* Hunold, Christian and John S. Dryzek. 2002. “Green Political <strong>The</strong>ory and <strong>the</strong> State: Context is<br />
Everything”. Global Environmental Politics, 2 (3), August: 17-39.<br />
Hurd, Richard, Ruth Milkman, and Lowell Turner. 2002. Reviving <strong>the</strong> American Labour Movement:<br />
Institutions and Mobilization. Discussion paper from <strong>the</strong> Labour and Society Programme <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
International Labor Organization. DP/132/2002.<br />
Illich, Ivan. 1970. Deschooling Society. New York: Perennial Library.<br />
* Ingalsbee, Timothy. 1996. “Earth First! Activism: Ecological Postmodern Praxis in Radical<br />
Environmentalist Identities”. Sociological Perspectives, 39 (2): 263-276.<br />
* Isaac, Larry. 2002. “In Search <strong>of</strong> American Labor's Syndicalist Heritage”. Labor Studies Journal, 27<br />
(2), Summer: 21-37.<br />
* Jacobs, Struan. 2000. “Spontaneous Order: Michael Polanyi and Friedrich Hayek”. Critical Review<br />
<strong>of</strong> International Social and Political Philosophy, 3 (4), Winter: 49-67.<br />
Jarboe, James F. 2002. Testimony to Committee on Resources, U.S. House <strong>of</strong> Representatives. From<br />
“Eco-Terrorism and Lawlessness on <strong>the</strong> National Forests”, Y4.R 31/3: 107-83. U.S. Government<br />
Printing Office. February 12.<br />
* Jaworski, Gary Dean. 1993. “Pitirim A. Sorokin's Sociological Anarchism”. History <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Human<br />
Sciences, 6 (3): 61-77.<br />
[ Williams 116 ] [ this is a draft. do not cite. ]
* Johnson, Ana Gutierrez and William Foote Whyte. 1977. “<strong>The</strong> Mondragon System <strong>of</strong> Worker<br />
Production Cooperatives”. Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 31 (1), October: 18-30.<br />
* Johnston, Robert D. 2000. "Where Have All <strong>the</strong> Tenured Radicals Gone?". Social Policy, Summer:<br />
19-22.<br />
* Joll, James. 1970. “Anarchism – A Living Tradition”. Government and Opposition: A Journal <strong>of</strong><br />
Comparative Politics, 5 (4), Autumn: 541-554.<br />
* Jones, Bernie. 1994. “A Comparison <strong>of</strong> Consensus and Voting in Public Decision Making”.<br />
Negotiation Journal, 10 (2): 161-171.<br />
Kahn, Joseph (2000). “Anarchism, <strong>the</strong> Creed That Won't Stay Dead”. New York Times, August 5.<br />
* Katsiaficas, George. 2001. “<strong>The</strong> Necessity <strong>of</strong> Autonomy”. New Political Science, 23 (4): 547-555.<br />
* Katz, Neil H. and David C. List. 1981. “Seabrook: A Pr<strong>of</strong>ile <strong>of</strong> Anti-Nuclear Activists, June 1978”.<br />
Peace and Change, 7 (3), Spring: 59-70.<br />
Kendall, Diane. 1999. <strong>Sociology</strong> In Our Times. Second edition. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing<br />
Company.<br />
* Kidd, Dorothy. 2003. “<strong>The</strong> Independent Media Center: A New Model”. Media Development, 50 (4):<br />
7-11.<br />
* Kimeldorf, Howard. 1985. “Working Class Culture, Occupational Recruitment, and Union Politics”.<br />
Social Forces, 64 (2), December: 359-376.<br />
* Kinna, Ruth. 1995. “Kropotkin's <strong>The</strong>ory <strong>of</strong> Mutual Aid in Historic Context”. International Review<br />
<strong>of</strong> Social History, 40: 259-283.<br />
Klein, Naomi. 2000a. “Prague: <strong>The</strong> Alternative to Capitalism Isn't Communism, It's Decentralized<br />
Power”. From Fences and Windows: Dispatches From <strong>the</strong> Front Lines <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Globalization<br />
Debate, 2002, New York: Picador: 34-36.<br />
Klein, Naomi. 2000b. “<strong>The</strong> Vision Thing”. <strong>The</strong> Nation, July 10.<br />
* Knowles, Rob. 2000. “Political Economy From Below: Communitarian Anarchism as a Neglected<br />
Discourse in Histories <strong>of</strong> Economic Thought”. History <strong>of</strong> Economic Review, 0 (31), Winter: 30-47.<br />
* Knutter, Hans-Helmuth. 1995. “<strong>The</strong> 'Antifascism' <strong>of</strong> 'Autonomen' and <strong>Anarchists</strong>”. Telos, 105, Fall:<br />
36-42.<br />
* Krieger, Leonard. 1977. “<strong>The</strong> Idea <strong>of</strong> Authority in <strong>the</strong> West”. <strong>The</strong> American Historical Review, 82<br />
(2), April: 249-270.<br />
Kropotkin, Peter. [original date?]. ACTUAL DATE. Mutual Aid. City: Publisher.<br />
http://dwardmac.pitzer.<strong>edu</strong>/anarchist_archives/kropotkin/mutaidconclu.html<br />
Kucsma, Jason. 2003. Resist and Exist: Punk Zines and <strong>the</strong> Communication <strong>of</strong> Cultural and Political<br />
Resistance in America. M.A. <strong>The</strong>sis, Department <strong>of</strong> American Studies, Bowling Green State<br />
<strong>University</strong>, Bowling Green, OH.<br />
* Lachmann, Richard. 2002. “<strong>The</strong> Political <strong>Sociology</strong> <strong>of</strong> Nader and Chomsky”. Sociological Forum,<br />
[ Williams 117 ] [ this is a draft. do not cite. ]
17 (4), December: 707-716.<br />
* Lamy, Philip and Jack Levin. 1985. “Punk and Middle-Class Values: A Content Analysis”. Youth &<br />
Society, 17 (2), December: 157-170.<br />
* Lange, Jonathan I. 1990. “Refusal to Compromise: <strong>The</strong> Case <strong>of</strong> Earth First!”. Western Journal <strong>of</strong><br />
Speech Communication, 54 (4), Fall: 473-494.<br />
Lerner, Warren. 1994. A History <strong>of</strong> Socialism and Communism in Modern Times: <strong>The</strong>orists, Activists,<br />
and Humanists. Engelwood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.<br />
* Levine, Arthur & Jeanette S. Cureton. 1998. “Student Politics: <strong>The</strong> New Localism”. <strong>The</strong> Review <strong>of</strong><br />
Higher Education, 21 (2): 137-150.<br />
* Lindenfeld, Frank and Pamela Wynn. 1997. “Success & Failures <strong>of</strong> Worker Co-ops: <strong>The</strong> Role <strong>of</strong><br />
Internal and External Environmental Factors”. Humanity and Society, 21 (2), May: 148-161.<br />
Linebaugh, Peter. 2004. "<strong>The</strong> Incomplete, True, Au<strong>the</strong>ntic and Wonderful History <strong>of</strong> May Day". Pp.<br />
45-62 in Serpents in <strong>the</strong> Garden: Liaisons with Culture & Sex, edited by A. Cockburn and J. St.<br />
Clair. Petrolia, CA: Counterpunch. http://slash.autonomedia.org/article.pl?sid=02/05/02/1029240<br />
* Lipsky, Michael. 1968. “Protest as a Political Resource”. <strong>The</strong> American Political Science Review,<br />
62 (4), December: 1144-1158.<br />
* Little, Mark. 1999. “Practical Anarchy: An Interview with Critical Art Ensemble”. Angelaki:<br />
Journal <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>The</strong>oretical Humanities, 4 (2): 193-201.<br />
* London, Jonathan K. 1998. “Common Roots and Entangled Limbs: Earth First! And <strong>the</strong> Growth <strong>of</strong><br />
Post-Wilderness Environmentalism on California's North Coast”. Antipode, 30 (2): 155-176.<br />
* Lott, Anthony. 2003. “<strong>The</strong> Mobilizing Aes<strong>the</strong>tics <strong>of</strong> Street Protests”. Peace Review, 15 (2): 195-<br />
199.<br />
* Lott, Eric. 2000. “After Identity, Politics: <strong>The</strong> Return <strong>of</strong> Universalism”. New Literary History, 31:<br />
665-680.<br />
* Luke, Timothy W. 1994. “Ecological Politics and Local Struggles: Earth First! As An<br />
Environmental Resistance Movement”. Current Perspectives in Social <strong>The</strong>ory, 14: 241-267.<br />
Mackley, Stephanie. 2002. “Democracy From <strong>the</strong> Ground Up: An Illustrative Analysis <strong>of</strong> Decision-<br />
Making at <strong>the</strong> Independent Media Center”. Global Independent Media Center.<br />
http://global.indymedia.org/front.php3?article_id=1114&group=webcast<br />
* Mac Laughlin, Jim. 1986. “State-Centered Social Science and <strong>the</strong> Anarchist Critique: Ideology in<br />
Political Geography”. Antipode, 18 (1): 11-38.<br />
* Mahlstedt, Deborah. 1999. “Power, Social Change, and <strong>the</strong> Process <strong>of</strong> Feminist Research”.<br />
Psychology <strong>of</strong> Women Quarterly, 23: 111-115.<br />
* Mansbridge, Jane. 1994. “Using Power/Fighting Power”. Constellations, 1 (1): 53-73.<br />
* Mansbridge, Jane. 1997. “Taking Coercion Seriously”. Constellations, 3 (3): 407-416.<br />
* Mansbridge, Jane. 2003. “Consensus in Context: A Guide for Social Movements”. Research in<br />
[ Williams 118 ] [ this is a draft. do not cite. ]
Social Movements, Conflicts and Change, 24: 229-253.<br />
* Manion, Mark and Abby Goodrum. 2000. “Terrorism or Civil Disobedience: Toward a Hactivist<br />
Ethic”. Computers and Society, June: 14-19.<br />
Marshall, Gordon. 1998. A Dictionary <strong>of</strong> <strong>Sociology</strong>. Oxford, UK: Oxford <strong>University</strong> Press.<br />
* Martin, Brian. 1990. “Democracy Without Elections”. Social Alternatives, 8 (4), January: 13-18.<br />
* Martin, Brian. 2001. “Nonviolent Futures”. Futures, 33: 625-635.<br />
* Martin, Brian. 2002. “Nonviolence Versus Capitalism”. Philosophy and Social Action, 28 (4),<br />
October-December: 31-46.<br />
* Martin, Brian. 2002. “<strong>The</strong> Difficulty with Alternatives”. Social Alternatives, 21 (3), Winter: 6-10.<br />
* Martin, Michael. 1990. “Ecosbotage and Civil Disobedience”. Environmental Ethics, 12 (4), Winter:<br />
291-310.<br />
Marx, Gary T. 1998. “Some Reflections on <strong>the</strong> Democratic Policing <strong>of</strong> Demonstrations”. Pp. XX in<br />
<strong>The</strong> Policing <strong>of</strong> Protest in Contemporary Democracies, edited by D. della Porta and H. Reiter.<br />
Minneapolis, MN: <strong>University</strong> <strong>of</strong> Minnesota Press.<br />
* Mason, Andrew. 1991. “Community and Autonomy: Logically Incompatible Values?”. Analysis, 51<br />
(3), June: 160-166.<br />
* Matejko, Alexander. 1973. “<strong>The</strong> Self-Management <strong>The</strong>ory <strong>of</strong> Jan Wolski”. International Journal <strong>of</strong><br />
Contemporary <strong>Sociology</strong>, 10 (1), January: 66-87.<br />
Mbah, Sam and I. E. Igariwey. 1997. African Anarchism: <strong>The</strong> History <strong>of</strong> a Movement. Tucson, AZ:<br />
See Sharp Press.<br />
* McAdam, Doug. 1983. “Tactical Innovation and <strong>the</strong> Pace <strong>of</strong> Insurgency”. American Sociological<br />
Review, 48, December: 735-754.<br />
McAdam, Doug, Sidney Tarrow, and Charles Tilly. 1996. “To Map Contentious Politics”.<br />
Mobilization: An International Journal, 1 (1), March: 17-34.<br />
* McBride, Keally. 2000. “Citizens Without States? On <strong>the</strong> Limits <strong>of</strong> Participatory <strong>The</strong>ory”. New<br />
Political Science, 22 (4): 507-527.<br />
* McCarthy, John D. and Mayer Zald. 1977. “Resource Mobilization and Social Movements: A<br />
Partial <strong>The</strong>ory”. American Journal <strong>of</strong> <strong>Sociology</strong>, 82 (6): 1212-1241.<br />
* McCarthy, John D., Clark McPhail, and Jackie Smith. 1996. “Images <strong>of</strong> Protest: Dimensions <strong>of</strong><br />
Selection Bias in Media Coverage <strong>of</strong> Washington Demonstrations, 1982 and 1991”. American<br />
Sociological Review, 61, June: 478-499.<br />
McGowan, Rory. 2003. “Claim No Easy Victories: Anarchist Analysis <strong>of</strong> ARA and its Contributions<br />
to <strong>the</strong> Building <strong>of</strong> a Radical Anti-Racist Movement”. Nor<strong>the</strong>astern Anarchist, 7, Summer: PP?.<br />
* McHoskey, John W. 1996. “Authoritarianism and Ethical Ideology”. <strong>The</strong> Journal <strong>of</strong> Social<br />
Psychology, 136 (6): 709-717.<br />
[ Williams 119 ] [ this is a draft. do not cite. ]
McKeachie, Bill. 2002. McKeachie's Teaching Tips, Eleventh Edition. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.<br />
* McKinley, Blaine. 1982. “'Quagmires <strong>of</strong> Necessity': American <strong>Anarchists</strong> and Dilemmas <strong>of</strong><br />
Vocation”. American Quarterly, 34 (5), Winter: 503-523.<br />
* McLeod, Douglas M. and James K. Hertog. 1992. “<strong>The</strong> Manufacture <strong>of</strong> 'Public Opinion' by<br />
Reporters: Informal Cues for Public Perceptions <strong>of</strong> Protest Groups”. Discourse & Society, 3 (3):<br />
259-275.<br />
* McLeod, FIRST. 1995. “Communicating Deviance: <strong>The</strong> Effects <strong>of</strong> Television News Coverage <strong>of</strong><br />
Social Protest”. Journal <strong>of</strong> Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 39 (1), Winter: 4-19.<br />
* McLeod, Douglas M. and Benjamin H. Detenber. (1999). “Framing Effects <strong>of</strong> Television News<br />
Coverage <strong>of</strong> Social Protest”. Journal <strong>of</strong> Communication, 49 (3): 3-23.<br />
* McNitt, Andrew D. 1995. “Government Coercion: An Exploratory Analysis”. <strong>The</strong> Social Science<br />
Journal, 32 (2): 195-205.<br />
* McPhail, Clark. 1983. “Individual and Collective Behaviors Within Ga<strong>the</strong>rings, Demonstrations,<br />
and Riots”. Annual Review <strong>of</strong> <strong>Sociology</strong>, 9: 579-600.<br />
* McVeigh, Rory and Christian Smith (1999). “Who Protests in America: An Analysis <strong>of</strong> Three<br />
Political Alternatives—Inaction, Institutionalized Politics, or Protest”. Sociological Forum, 14 (4):<br />
685-702.<br />
* Mecartney, John M. 1967. “Civil Disobedience and Anarchy”. Social Science, 42 (4): 205-212.<br />
Meltzer, Albert. 1996. Anarchism: Arguments For and Against. San Francisco: AK Press.<br />
* Melucci, Alberto. 1992. “Liberation or Meaning? Social Movements, Culture and Democracy”.<br />
Development and Change, 23 (3): 43-77.<br />
Men Against Sexist Shit. n.d. Men, Sexism, and <strong>the</strong> Class Struggle. Self-published.<br />
* Michael-Matsas, Savas. 2003. “Seattle, Prague, Nice and Beyond”. Critique, 34, May: 79-89.<br />
* Miller, Mike. 2001/2002. “Mondragon: Lessons For Our Times”. Social Policy, Winter: 17-20.<br />
* Mieszkowski, Peter and Edwin S. Mills. 1993. “<strong>The</strong> Causes <strong>of</strong> Metropolitan Suburbanization”.<br />
Journal <strong>of</strong> Economic Perspectives, 7 (3), Summer: 135-147.<br />
Milstein, Cindy. ?. “Reclaim <strong>the</strong> Cities”. http://www.infoshop.org/rants/cindy_reclaim.html.<br />
Milstein, Cindy. 2000. “Democracy is Direct”. Pp. 8-13 in Bringing Democracy Home. Plainfield,<br />
VT: Institute for Social Democracy. http://www.infoshop.org/rants/cindy_demos.html<br />
* Mittleman, James H. 2000. “Globalization: Captors and Captive”. Third World Quarterly, 21 (6):<br />
917-929.<br />
* Moglen, Eben. ??. “Anarchism Triumphant: Free S<strong>of</strong>tware and <strong>the</strong> Death <strong>of</strong> Copyright”. First<br />
Monday, vol (no): pp.<br />
* Moore, Gwen, Sarah Sobieraj, J. Allen Whitt, Olga Mayorova and Daniel Beaulieu. 2002. “Elite<br />
Interlocks in Three U.S. Sectors: Nonpr<strong>of</strong>it, Corporate, and Government”. Social Science<br />
[ Williams 120 ] [ this is a draft. do not cite. ]
Quarterly, 83 (3), September: 726-744.<br />
* Moore, Melanie. 1997. “Student Resistance to Course Content: Reactions to <strong>the</strong> Gender <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
Messenger”. Teaching <strong>Sociology</strong>, 25, April: 128-133.<br />
* Morawski, Stefan. 1977. “<strong>The</strong> Ideology <strong>of</strong> Anarchism – A Tentative Analysis”. <strong>The</strong> Polish<br />
Sociological Bulletin, 1: 31-47.<br />
Morris, Aldon D. and Carol McClurg Mueller. 1992. Frontiers in Social Movement <strong>The</strong>ory. New<br />
Haven, CT: Yale <strong>University</strong> Press.<br />
Morris, Douglas. 2003. “Globalization and Media Democracy: <strong>The</strong> Case <strong>of</strong> Indymedia”. Pp. ?? in<br />
Shaping <strong>the</strong> Network Society, edited by D. Schuler and P. Day. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.<br />
* Morris, <strong>The</strong>resa. 2003. “Unionization Matters: An Analysis <strong>of</strong> Post-World War II Strikes”.<br />
Sociological Inquiry, 73 (2), May: 245-264.<br />
Moulder, Frances V. 1997. “Teaching About Race and Ethnicity: A Message <strong>of</strong> Despair or a Message<br />
<strong>of</strong> Hope?”. Teaching <strong>Sociology</strong>, 25, April: 120-127.<br />
Mumm, James. 1998. “Active Revolution”. Infoshop.org. WWW<br />
* Munch, Peter A. 1974 “Anarchy and Anomie in an Atomistic Community”. Man, 9 (2): 243-261.<br />
* Nandrea, Lorri. 1999, “'Graffiti Taught Me Everything I Know About Space': Urban Fronts and<br />
Borders”. Antipode, 31 (1): 110-116.<br />
Nettlau, Max. 1996. A Short History <strong>of</strong> Anarchism. London: Freedom Press.<br />
Nomous, Otto. 2001?. “Race, Anarchy, and Punk Rock”. Self-published. www<br />
* O'Brien, Eileen. 2001. Whites Confront Racism: Antiracists and <strong>The</strong>ir Paths to Action. Lanham,<br />
MD: Rowman & Littlefield.<br />
* O'Brien, Jodi A. and Peter Kollock. 1991. “Social Exchange <strong>The</strong>ory as a Conceptual Framework for<br />
Teaching <strong>the</strong> Sociological Perspective”. Teaching <strong>Sociology</strong>, 19, April: 140-153.<br />
* O'Connor, Alan. 1999. “Whos Emma and <strong>the</strong> Limits <strong>of</strong> Cultural Studies”. Cultural Studies, 13 (4):<br />
691-702.<br />
* O'Connor, Alan. 2003. “Punk Subculture in Mexico and <strong>the</strong> Anti-globalization Movement: A<br />
Report from <strong>the</strong> Front”. New Political Science, 25 (1): 43-53.<br />
* O'Connor, Alan. 2004. “Punk and Globalization: Spain and Mexico”. International Journal <strong>of</strong><br />
Cultural Studies, 7 (2): 175-195.<br />
* O'Connor, James. 1994. “A Red Green Politics in <strong>the</strong> United States?”. Capitalism, Nature,<br />
Socialism, 5 (1), March: 1-19.<br />
* Offe, Claus. 1985. “New Social Movements: Challenging <strong>the</strong> Boundaries <strong>of</strong> Institutional Politics”.<br />
Social Research, 52 (4): 817- 868.<br />
O'Hara, Craig. 1999. <strong>The</strong> Philosophy <strong>of</strong> Punk: More Than Noise. San Francisco: AK Press.<br />
[ Williams 121 ] [ this is a draft. do not cite. ]
* Ol<strong>of</strong>sson, Gunnar. 1988. “After <strong>the</strong> Working-class Movement? An Essay on What's 'New' and<br />
What's 'Social' in <strong>the</strong> New Social Movements”. Acta Sociologica, 31 (1): 15-34.<br />
Olson, Mancur. [1965] 1994. “Public Goods and <strong>the</strong> Free Rider Problem”. Pp. 162-170 in Collins<br />
1994.<br />
* Olzak, Susan and S. C. Noah Uhrig. 2001. “<strong>The</strong> Ecology <strong>of</strong> Tactical Overlap”. American<br />
Sociological Review, 66, October: 694-717.<br />
* Opp, Karl-Dieter and Wolfgang Roehl. 1990. “Repression, Micromobilization, and Political<br />
Protest”. Social Forces, 69 (2), December: 521-547.<br />
* Oppenheimer, Martin and Evan Stark. 1999. “<strong>Sociology</strong>”. Critical <strong>Sociology</strong>, 25 (1): 30-35.<br />
* Orenstein, David M. and Paul C. Luken. 1978. “Anarchistic Methodology: Methodological Anti-<br />
Authoritarianism as a Resolution to Paradigmatic Disputes in <strong>the</strong> Social Sciences”. Sociological<br />
Focus, 11 (1), January: 53-68.<br />
* Owens, Lynn and L. Kendall Palmer. 2003. “Making <strong>the</strong> News: Anarchist Counter-Public Relations<br />
on <strong>the</strong> World Wide Web”. Critical Studies in Media Communication, 20 (4), December: 335-361.<br />
* Paris, Jeffrey. 2003. “<strong>The</strong> Black Bloc's Ungovernable Protest”. Peace Review, 15 (3): 317-322.<br />
Pateman, Carole. 1970. Participation and Democratic <strong>The</strong>ory. London: Cambridge <strong>University</strong> Press.<br />
* Pellow, David N. 1999. “Framing Emerging Environmental Movement Tactics: Mobilizing<br />
Consensus, Demobilizing Conflict”. Sociological Forum, 14 (4): 659-683.<br />
* Pepinsky, Harold E. 1978. “Communist Anarchism as an Alternative to <strong>the</strong> Rule <strong>of</strong> Criminal Law”.<br />
Contemporary Crises, 2 (3), July: 315-327.<br />
* Pichardo, Nelson A. 1997. “New Social Movements: A Critical Review”. Annual Review <strong>of</strong><br />
<strong>Sociology</strong>, 23 (1): 411-430.<br />
* Polletta, Francesca. 1997, “Culture and Its Discontents: Recent <strong>The</strong>orizing on <strong>the</strong> Cultural<br />
Dimensions <strong>of</strong> Protest”. Sociological Inquiry, 67 (4), November: 431-450.<br />
* Polletta, Francesca. 2001. “'This is What Democracy Looks Like': A Conversation with Direct<br />
Action Network Activists David Graeber, Brooke Lehman, Jose Lugo, and Jeremy Varon”. Social<br />
Policy, 31 (4), Summer: 25-30.<br />
* Porton, Richard. 1999. “<strong>Anarchists</strong> on Film: From Mad Bombers to Secular Saints”. Cineaste, 24<br />
(2/3): 10-16.<br />
Price, Wayne. 2004. “Class War, Industrial Capitalism, and Civilization”. From ainfos.ca, November<br />
5.<br />
Proudhon, Joseph Pierre. ?. “What is Property?”. http://dhm.best.vwh.net/archives/proudhonproperty-is-<strong>the</strong>ft.html<br />
* Pruijt, Hans. 2003. “Is <strong>the</strong> Institutionalization <strong>of</strong> Urban Movements Inevitable? A Comparison <strong>of</strong><br />
<strong>the</strong> Opportunities for Sustained Squatting in New York City and Amsterdam. International<br />
Journal <strong>of</strong> Urban and Regional Research, 27 (1), March: 133-157.<br />
[ Williams 122 ] [ this is a draft. do not cite. ]
* Przeworski, Adam. 2003. “Freedom to Choose and Democracy”. Economics and Philosophy, 19:<br />
265-279.<br />
Puckett, Scott (2002). “What <strong>the</strong> Fuck Are You Saying?: How <strong>the</strong> Left has Failed to Communicate its<br />
Message to a Mass Audience”. clamor, March/April: 34-35.<br />
Purchase, Graham. YEAR?. <strong>The</strong> Anarchist Revolution. New Anarchy Series, Pamphlet #6.<br />
Purchase, Graham. 1997. Anarchism and Ecology. Montréal: Black Rose.<br />
* Rathke, Wade. 2001. “Tactical Tension”. Social Policy, Fall: 10-15.<br />
* Reichert, William O. 1969. “Anarchism, Freedom, and Power”. Ethics: An International Journal <strong>of</strong><br />
Social, Political, and Legal Philosophy, 79 (2), January: 139-149.<br />
Revolutionary Anti-authoritarians <strong>of</strong> Color [RACE] (2003). “Stop War and Empire: Enlist In Your<br />
Own Revolution”. Flyer handout.<br />
Restivo, Sal. 1993. “Science, <strong>Sociology</strong> <strong>of</strong> Science, and <strong>the</strong> Anarchist Tradition”. Pp. 21-40 in<br />
Controversial Science: From Content to Contention, edited by T. Brante, S. Filler, and W. Lynch.<br />
Albany: NY: State <strong>University</strong> <strong>of</strong> New York Press.<br />
Restivo, Sal. 1994. “Science, Society, and Progress”. Pp. 49-69 in Science, Society, and Values:<br />
Toward a <strong>Sociology</strong> <strong>of</strong> Objectivity. Cranbury, NJ: Associated <strong>University</strong> Press.<br />
* Rigby, K. and E. E. Rump. 1982. “Attitudes Toward Authority Authoritarian Personality<br />
Characteristics”. <strong>The</strong> Journal <strong>of</strong> Social Psychology, 116: 61-72.<br />
Ritz, Dean. 2001. Defying Corporations, Defining Democracy: A Book <strong>of</strong> History & Strategy. New<br />
York: Apex Press/POCLAD.<br />
* Roberts, Keith A. 1986. “<strong>Sociology</strong> in <strong>the</strong> General Education Curriculum: A Cognitive Structuralist<br />
Perspective”. Teaching <strong>Sociology</strong>, 14, October: 207-216.<br />
* Robinson, J. Gregg. 1988. “American Unions in Decline: Problems and Prospects”. Critical<br />
<strong>Sociology</strong>, 15 (1), Spring: 33-56.<br />
Rock Bloc Collective. 2001. “Stick it to <strong>the</strong> Manarchy”. Onward, 1 (4).<br />
http://www.onwardnewspaper.org/archives/1-2001/manarchy.html<br />
Rocker, Rudolph. [1938] 1990. Anarcho-Syndicalism. London: Phoenix Press.<br />
Rosebraugh, Craig. 2002. Testimony to Committee on Resources, U.S. House <strong>of</strong> Representatives.<br />
From “Eco-Terrorism and Lawlessness on <strong>the</strong> National Forests”, Y4.R 31/3: 107-83. U.S.<br />
Government Printing Office. February 12: 20-47.<br />
Roseland, Mark. 1997. “Dimensions <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Future: An Eco-city Overview”. Pp. 1-12 in Eco-City<br />
Dimensions: Healthy Communities, Healthy Planet, edited by M. Roseland. Gabriola Island, BC:<br />
New Society Publishers.<br />
* Rosenthal, Naomi and Michael Schwartz. 1989. “Spontaneity and Democracy in Social<br />
Movements”. International Social Movement Research, 2: 33-59.<br />
* Rothschild-Whitt, Joyce. 1976. “Conditions Facilitating Participatory-Democratic Organizations”.<br />
[ Williams 123 ] [ this is a draft. do not cite. ]
Sociological Inquiry, 46 (2): 75-86.<br />
* Rothschild-Whitt, Joyce. 1979. “<strong>The</strong> Collectivist Organization: An Alternative to Rational-<br />
Bureaucratic Models”. American Sociological Review, 44, August: 509-527.<br />
* Rothschild, Joyce & Raymond Russell. 1986. “Alternatives to Bureaucracy: Democratic<br />
Participation in <strong>the</strong> Economy”. Annual Review <strong>of</strong> <strong>Sociology</strong>, 12: 307-328.<br />
* Rothschild, Joyce. 2000. “Creating a Just and Democratic Workplace: More Engagement, Less<br />
Hierarchy”. Contemporary <strong>Sociology</strong>, 29 (1), January: 195-213.<br />
* Routledge, Paul. 2001. “'Our Resistance Will be as Transnational as Capital': Convergence Space<br />
and Strategy in Globalising Resistance”. GeoJournal, 52: 25-33.<br />
* Routledge, Paul. 2003. “Convergence Space: Process Geographies <strong>of</strong> Grassroots Globalization<br />
Networks”. Transactions <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Institute <strong>of</strong> British Geographers, 28 (3), September: 333-349.<br />
* Routley, Richard and Val Routley. 1982. “<strong>The</strong> Irrefutability <strong>of</strong> Anarchism”. Social Alternatives, 2<br />
(3): 23-29.<br />
* Rubin, Paul H. 2000. “Hierarchy”. Human Nature, 11 (3): 259-279.<br />
* Ruggiero, Vincenzo. 2000. “New Social Movements and <strong>the</strong> 'Centri Sociali' in Milan”. Sociological<br />
Review, 48 (2), May: 167-185.<br />
* Ryan, Romar. 2004. “Days <strong>of</strong> Crime and Nights <strong>of</strong> Horror”. Perspectives on Anarchist <strong>The</strong>ory, 8<br />
(2), Fall: 17-21.<br />
San Filippo, Roy [ed]. 2003. A New World in Our Hearts: Eight Years <strong>of</strong> Writings From <strong>The</strong> Love<br />
and Rage Revolutionary Anarchist Federation. Oakland, CA: AK Press.<br />
Scher, Abby. 1999. “Anarchism Faces <strong>The</strong> '90s”. Dollars & Sense. March/April: 30-35.(?)<br />
* SchNEWS. 2000. “Space is <strong>the</strong> Place: Direct Action and Geography”. Antipode, 32 (2): 111-114.<br />
* Sch<strong>of</strong>ield, N. 1985. “Anarchy, Altruism, and Cooperation”. Social Choice and Welfare, 2: 207-219.<br />
* Schryer, Frans J. 2001. “Multiple Hierarchies and <strong>the</strong> Duplex Nature <strong>of</strong> Groups”. Journal <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
Royal Anthropological Institute, 7 (4), December: 705-721.<br />
Severino. 2003. “Has <strong>the</strong> Black Bloc Tactic Reached <strong>the</strong> End <strong>of</strong> its Usefulness?”. Red and Black<br />
Revolution, 7: pp-p.<br />
* Seymour, Benedict. 2001. “Nationalize This! What Next for Anti-Globalization Protests?”. Radical<br />
Philosophy, 107, May/June: 2-5.<br />
* Shantz, Jeff. 2002. “Fighting To Win: <strong>The</strong> Ontario Coalition Against Poverty”. Capital & Class, 78,<br />
Autumn: 1-8.<br />
* Shantz, Jeffrey A. and Barry D. Adam. 1999. “Ecology and Class: <strong>The</strong> Green Syndicalism <strong>of</strong><br />
IWW/Earth First Local 1”. International Journal <strong>of</strong> <strong>Sociology</strong> and Social Policy, 19 (7/8): 43-72.<br />
* Shantz, Jeff. 2002. “Green Syndicalism: An Alternative Red-Green Vision”. Environmental Politics,<br />
11 (4), Winter: 21-41.<br />
[ Williams 124 ] [ this is a draft. do not cite. ]
* Shantz, Jeffrey. 2002. “Judi Bari and '<strong>the</strong> Feminization <strong>of</strong> Earth First!': <strong>The</strong> Convergence <strong>of</strong> Class,<br />
Gender and Radical Environmentalism”. Feminist Review, 70: 105-122.<br />
* Shantz, Jeff. 2003. “Scarcity and <strong>the</strong> Emergence <strong>of</strong> Fundamentalist Ecology”. Critique <strong>of</strong><br />
Anthropology, 23 (2), June: 144-154.<br />
* Shantz, Jeff. 2003. “Beyond <strong>the</strong> State: <strong>The</strong> Return to Anarchy”. disClosure: A Journal <strong>of</strong> Social<br />
<strong>The</strong>ory, 12: 87-103.<br />
Shantz, Jeff. 2004. “Developing Workers' Autonomy: An Anarchist Look At Flying Squads”. MFD.<br />
January 22. http://www.ufcw.net/articles/doc/2004-01-22_developing_workers_autonomy.html<br />
Shantz, J. 2004. “A Marriage <strong>of</strong> Convenience: Anarchism, Marriage and Borders”. Feminism &<br />
Psychology, 14 (1): 181-186.<br />
Sharp, Gene. 1973. <strong>The</strong> Politics <strong>of</strong> Nonviolent Action. Boston: Porter Sargent Publishers.<br />
* Shefner, Jon. 1995. “Moving in <strong>the</strong> Wrong Direction in Social Movement <strong>The</strong>ory”. <strong>The</strong>ory and<br />
Society, 24: 595-612.<br />
Sheppard, Brian Oliver 2002a. “Anarchism and <strong>the</strong> Labor Movement”. Z-Net, August 5.<br />
http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=5&ItemID=2188<br />
Sheppard, Brian Oliver 2002b. “Is Anarchism Suitable for Complex Societies”. Z-Net, December 8.<br />
http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=5&ItemID=2717<br />
Sheppard, Brian Oliver. 2003a. <strong>The</strong> Inefficiency <strong>of</strong> Capitalism: An Anarchist View. Tucson, AZ: See<br />
Sharp Press.<br />
Sheppard, Brian Oliver. 2003b. Anarchism vs. Primitivism. Tucson, AZ: See Sharp Press.<br />
* Shoemaker, Pamela J. 1984. “Media Treatment <strong>of</strong> Deviant Political Groups”. Journalism Quarterly,<br />
61 (1), Spring: 66-75, 82.<br />
* Short, Brant. 1991. “Earth First! and <strong>the</strong> Rhetoric <strong>of</strong> Moral Confrontation”. Communication Studies,<br />
42 (2), Summer: 172-188.<br />
Shumway, Christopher A. 2003. Democratizing Communication Through Community-Based<br />
Participatory Media Networks: A Study <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Independent Media Center Movement. M.A. <strong>the</strong>sis,<br />
Media Studies, New School <strong>University</strong>, Columbus, OH.<br />
http://chris.shumway.tripod.com/papers/<strong>the</strong>sis.htm.<br />
Sigal, Brad. [1995] 2003. “Demise <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Beehive Collective: Infoshops Ain't <strong>the</strong> Revolution”. Pp. 69-<br />
76 in San Filippo.<br />
* Silvey, Rachel. 2002. “Sweatshops and <strong>the</strong> Corporatization <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>University</strong>”. Gender, Place and<br />
Culture, 9 (2): 201-207.<br />
Sinker, Daniel. 2001. We Owe You Nothing: Punk Planet: <strong>The</strong> Collected Interviews. New York:<br />
Akashic Books.<br />
* Siqueira, Kevin. 2003. “Participation in Organized and Unorganized Protests and Rebellions”.<br />
European Journal <strong>of</strong> Political Economy, 19: 861-874.<br />
[ Williams 125 ] [ this is a draft. do not cite. ]
Skirda, Alexandre. 2002. Facing <strong>the</strong> Enemy: A History <strong>of</strong> Anarchist Organization from Proudhon to<br />
May 1968. Edinburgh, UK: AK Press. Translated by Paul Sharkey.<br />
Smelser, Neil J. 1963. <strong>The</strong>ory <strong>of</strong> Collective Behavior. New York: Free Press.<br />
* Smith, Jackie. 2001. “Globalizing Resistance: <strong>The</strong> Battle <strong>of</strong> Seattle and <strong>the</strong> Future <strong>of</strong> Social<br />
Movements”. Mobilization: An International Journal, 6 (1): 1-19.<br />
* Smith, Jill, John Wheeler and David Bone. 2001. “Anarchy and Assessment <strong>of</strong> Complex Families:<br />
Order Not Disorder”. Clinical Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 6 (4): 605-608.<br />
* Smith, Robert B. 2003. “Political Extremism—Left, Center, and Right”. <strong>The</strong> American Sociologist,<br />
Spring/Summer: 70-80.<br />
Snyder, Gary. 1961. “Buddhist Anarchism”. Journal for <strong>the</strong> Protection <strong>of</strong> All Beings, 1.<br />
* Sohlberg, Peter. 2000. “Social Resistance and <strong>the</strong> Absent Utopia: Comments on Hartley Dean's<br />
article Social Rights and Social Resistance”. International Journal <strong>of</strong> Social Welfare, 9: 322-326.<br />
* Son, In Soo, Chiu-Wai Tsang, Dennis M. Rome, and Mark S. Davis. 1997. “Citizens' Observations<br />
<strong>of</strong> Police Use <strong>of</strong> Excessive Force and <strong>The</strong>ir Evaluation <strong>of</strong> Police Performance”. Policing: An<br />
International Journal <strong>of</strong> Police Strategy and Management, 20 (1): 149-159.<br />
* Spencer, M. E. 1970. “Weber on Legitimate Norms and Authority”. <strong>The</strong> British Journal <strong>of</strong><br />
<strong>Sociology</strong>, 21 (2): 123-134.<br />
* Starr, Amory and Jason Adams. 2003. “Anti-globalization: <strong>The</strong> Global Fight for Local Autonomy”.<br />
New Political Science, 25 (1): 19-42.<br />
* Stranack, Kevin. 2004. “Revolution in <strong>the</strong> Stacks: A Bibliography <strong>of</strong> Selected Multimedia Anarchist<br />
Resources in English”. Collection Building, 23 (3): 110-117.<br />
* Suissa, Judith. 2001. “Anarchism, Utopias and Philosophy <strong>of</strong> Education”. Journal <strong>of</strong> Philosophy <strong>of</strong><br />
Education, 35 (4): 627-646.<br />
* Sullivan, Dennis, Larry Tifft, Georgia Gray, John Laub, and Michael Buckman. 1980. “Let <strong>the</strong><br />
Water Be Wet, Let <strong>the</strong> Rocks Be Hard: Anarchism as a <strong>Sociology</strong> <strong>of</strong> Quality <strong>of</strong> Life”. Humanity<br />
and Society, 4 (4), December: 344-362.<br />
* Tarleton, John. 2000. “Protesters Develop <strong>The</strong>ir Own Global Internet News Service: '<strong>The</strong> IMC Was<br />
An End-Run Around <strong>the</strong> Information Gatekeepers....'”. Nieman Reports, Winter: 53-55.<br />
Tarrow, Sidney. 1998. Power in Movement: Social Movements and Contentious Politics, Second<br />
Edition. Cambridge: Cambridge <strong>University</strong> Press.<br />
* Taylor, Bron. 2003. “Threat Assessments and Radical Environmentalism”. Terrorism and Political<br />
Violence, 15 (4), Winter: 173-182.<br />
* Taylor, Jeremy. 1966. “Anthrocracy: An Anarchist Ideology in Outline”. Catalyst, 2, Summer: 75-<br />
90.<br />
* Taylor, Verta. 2000. “Mobilizing for Change in a Social Movement Society”. Contemporary<br />
<strong>Sociology</strong>, 29 (1), January: 219-230.<br />
[ Williams 126 ] [ this is a draft. do not cite. ]
* Thies, Clifford F. 2000. “<strong>The</strong> Success <strong>of</strong> American Communes”. Sou<strong>the</strong>rn Economic Journal, 67<br />
(1): 186-199.<br />
* Thomas, Lyn. 2002. “Interview with Naomi Klein”. Feminist Review, 70: 46-56.<br />
* Tifft, Larry L. 1979. “<strong>The</strong> Coming Redefinitions <strong>of</strong> Crime: An Anarchist Perspective”. Social<br />
Problems, 26 (4), April: 392-402.<br />
Tilly, Charles. 1978. From Mobilization to Revolution. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.<br />
* Tjosvold, Dean and Richard H. G. Field. 2001. “Effect <strong>of</strong> Concurrence, Controversy, and Consensus<br />
on Group Decision Making”. Journal <strong>of</strong> Social Psychology, 125 (3): 355-363.<br />
Tokar, Brian. 1987. <strong>The</strong> Green Alternative: Creating an Ecological Future. San Pedro, CA: R. & E.<br />
Miles.<br />
Tolstoy, Leo. ?. “Thou Shalt Not Kill”.<br />
http://dwardmac.pitzer.<strong>edu</strong>/Anarchist_Archives/bright/tolstoy/notkill.html<br />
Training/Action Affinity Group <strong>of</strong> Movement for a New Society. 1979. Building Social Change<br />
Communities. Philadelphia: Visionworks.<br />
* Truscello, Michael. 2003. “<strong>The</strong> Architecture <strong>of</strong> Information: Open Source S<strong>of</strong>tware and Tactical<br />
Poststructuralist Anarchism”. Postmodern Culture, 13 (3), May: PP.<br />
http://www.iath.virginia.<strong>edu</strong>/pmc/current.issue/13.3truscello.html<br />
* Tucker, Scott. 1995. “Fighting Words”. Humanist, 55 (4), July/August: 43-45.<br />
* Turner, Royce Logan. 1991. “Anarchism – A Political Philosophy for <strong>the</strong> Age?”. Contemporary<br />
Review, 258 (1504), May: 248-250.<br />
* Tyler, Robert L. 1963. “<strong>The</strong> I.W.W. and <strong>the</strong> Brainworkers”. American Quarterly, 15 (1): 41-51.<br />
Umrigar, Thritty. 2000. “<strong>The</strong>y all want to change <strong>the</strong> world”. Akron Beacon Journal, November 12<br />
(Sunday Beacon Magazine section).<br />
* Van Aelst, Peter and Stefaan Walgrave. 2002. “New Media, New Movements? <strong>The</strong> Role <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
Internet in Shaping <strong>the</strong> 'Anti-Globalization' Movement”. Information, Communication & Society, 5<br />
(4): 465-493.<br />
* Vasi, Ion Bogdan and Michael Macy. (2003). “<strong>The</strong> Mobilizer's Dilemma: Crisis, Empowerment, and<br />
Collective Action”. Social Forces, 81 (3): 979-998.<br />
* Walsh, Edward J. and Rex H. Warland. 1983. “Social Movement Involvement in <strong>the</strong> Wake <strong>of</strong> a<br />
Nuclear Accident: Activists and Free Riders in <strong>the</strong> TMI Area”. American Sociological Review, 48<br />
(6), December: 764-780.<br />
Ward, Colin. 1996. Anarchy in Action. London: Freedom Press.<br />
Ward, Colin. 1985. Peter Kropotkin's 'Field, Factories, and Workshops Tomorrow'. London: Freedom<br />
Press.<br />
* Watts, Ronald. 2001. “Models <strong>of</strong> Federal Power Sharing”. International Social Science Journal, 53<br />
[ Williams 127 ] [ this is a draft. do not cite. ]
(167), March: 23-32.<br />
* Weber, Max. 1958. “<strong>The</strong> Three Types <strong>of</strong> Legitimate Rule”. Berkeley Publications in Society and<br />
Institutions, 4 (1): 1-11.<br />
* Weber, Thomas. 2003. “Nonviolence is Who? Gene Sharp and Gandhi”. Peace & Change, 28 (2):<br />
250-270.<br />
* Weiss, Thomas G. 1975. “<strong>The</strong> Tradition <strong>of</strong> Philosophical Anarchism and Future Directions in<br />
World Policy”. Journal <strong>of</strong> Peace Research, 12 (1): 1-17.<br />
* Welsh, Ian. 1995. “Green Anarchism: Peter Marshall's Nature's Web”. Environmental Values, 4 (1):<br />
73-78.<br />
Welsh, Ian. 1997. “Anarchism, Social Movements, and <strong>Sociology</strong>”. Anarchist Studies, 5 (2), October:<br />
162-168.<br />
* Weltman, Burton. 2000. “Revisiting Paul Goodman: Anarcho-Syndicalism as <strong>the</strong> American Way <strong>of</strong><br />
Life”. Educational <strong>The</strong>ory, 50 (2), Spring: 179-199.<br />
* Williams, Christopher R. and Bruce A. Arrigo. (2001). “Anarchaos and Order: On <strong>the</strong> Emergence <strong>of</strong><br />
Social Justice”. <strong>The</strong>oretical Criminology, 5 (2): 223-252.<br />
Williams, Dana. 2004a. “Feeder Marches and 'Diversity <strong>of</strong> Tactics' in Nor<strong>the</strong>ast Ohio's Antiwar<br />
Movement”. Paper Presentation at North Central Sociological Association conference in<br />
Cleveland, Ohio, April 2.<br />
Williams, Dana. 2004b. “<strong>Anarchists</strong> and Labor Unions: Applying New Social Movement <strong>The</strong>ory to<br />
<strong>the</strong> Characteristics <strong>of</strong> Contemporary <strong>Anarchists</strong>”. <strong>Sociology</strong> 753: Secondary Data Analysis.<br />
<strong>University</strong> <strong>of</strong> Akron. Presentation to <strong>Sociology</strong> Department, August 23.<br />
Williams, Dana. 2004c. “Red vs. Green: Regional Variation in Anarchist Ideology in <strong>the</strong> United<br />
States”. Paper presentation at East Lakes Division <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> American Association <strong>of</strong> Geographers<br />
conference in A<strong>the</strong>ns, Ohio, October 16.<br />
Williams, Kristian. 2000/01. “<strong>The</strong> Cop and <strong>the</strong> Crowd: Police Strategies for Keeping <strong>the</strong> Rabble in<br />
Line”. clamor, December/January: 9-14.<br />
Williams, Kristian. 2002. “<strong>The</strong> Criminalization <strong>of</strong> Anarchism: Guilt by Association, Questionable<br />
Confessions, and Mandatory Minimums”. clamor, March/April: 17-22.<br />
Williams, Matt. 2002. “A Radical Failure to Communicate?” clamor, March/April: 58-61.<br />
Winstaley, Asa. 2003. “<strong>The</strong> Free S<strong>of</strong>tware Movement – Anarchism In Action”. A-Infos News Service<br />
(en). December 24.<br />
* Winthrop, Henry. 1967. “<strong>The</strong> Meaning <strong>of</strong> Decentralization for Twentieth-Century Man”. <strong>The</strong><br />
American Journal <strong>of</strong> Economics and <strong>Sociology</strong>, 26 (4), October: 351-366.<br />
* Wittfogel, Karl A. 1970. “Marxism, Anarchism, and <strong>the</strong> New Left”. Modern Age, 14 (2), Spring:<br />
114-128.<br />
* Wong, Ken. 1994. “Against Half-Assed Race and Class <strong>The</strong>ory and Practice”. (Dis)Connection: A<br />
Networking Journal, 2, November: PP.<br />
[ Williams 128 ] [ this is a draft. do not cite. ]
Wood, Lesley J. 2004. “Bridging <strong>the</strong> Divide: <strong>The</strong> Case <strong>of</strong> People's Global Action”. Pp. ??? in<br />
Coalitions Across Borders: Negotiating Differences and Unity in Transnational Struggles Against<br />
Neoliberalism, edited by J. Smith and J. Bandy. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.<br />
Wortman, Roy T. 1985. From Syndicalism to Trade Unionism: <strong>The</strong> IWW in Ohio, 1905-1950. New<br />
York: Garland Publishing.<br />
* Wray, Stefan. 1999. “On Electronic Civil Disobedience”. Peace Review, 11 (1): 107-111.<br />
* Wright, Talmadge. 2000. Resisting Homelessness: Global, National, and Local Solutions".<br />
Contemporary <strong>Sociology</strong>, 29 (1), January: 27-43.<br />
* Wrong, Dennis H. 1968. “Some Problems in Defining Social Power”. <strong>The</strong> American Journal <strong>of</strong><br />
<strong>Sociology</strong>, 73 (6), May: 673-681.<br />
* Yarros, Victor S. 1936. “Philosophical Anarchism: Its Rise, Decline, and Eclipse”. <strong>The</strong> American<br />
Journal <strong>of</strong> <strong>Sociology</strong>, 41 (4), January: 470-483.<br />
* Zerai, Assata. 2002. “Models for Unity Between Scholarship and Grassroots Activism”. Critical<br />
<strong>Sociology</strong>, 28 (1-2): 201-216.<br />
Zerzan, John. xx. xxxxxxxxxx.<br />
Zinn, Howard. 1995. You Can't Be Neutral On A Moving Train: A Personal History <strong>of</strong> Our Times.<br />
Boston: Beacon Press.<br />
Zinn, Howard. 1997. <strong>The</strong> Zinn Reader: Writings on Disobedience and Democracy. New York: Seven<br />
Stories.<br />
(* = in an “academic” journal (peer-reviewed); citation style = American Sociological<br />
Review)<br />
(Internet-based)<br />
http://www.infoshop.org/survey2002_results_community_problems.html<br />
http://www.infoshop.org/news/ainfos_radio.html<br />
David Miller (1984), Alan Ritter (1980)<br />
[ Williams 129 ] [ this is a draft. do not cite. ]
APPENDIX: ADDITIONAL ESSAYS ON ANARCHISM<br />
By Dana Williams<br />
Red vs. Green: Regional Variation in Anarchist Ideology in <strong>the</strong> United States, 2004.<br />
Presented at East Lakes Division <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Association <strong>of</strong> American Geographers annual<br />
meeting, A<strong>the</strong>ns, Ohio.<br />
Feeder Marches and “Diversity <strong>of</strong> Tactics” in Nor<strong>the</strong>ast Ohio Anti-war Activism, 2004.<br />
Presented at North Central Sociological Association annual meeting, Cleveland, Ohio.<br />
Some Counterproductive and Ineffective Tendencies in Anarchism, 2003. Self-published.<br />
How To Put Anarchy Into Your Daily Life, 2003. Self-published.<br />
What Does Anarchist Philosophy Suggest About..., 2001-03. Self-published. [Note: also<br />
partially appears in this text as “Glossary”.]<br />
Still Better Dead Than Red?: An Anarchist and Anti-Authoritarian Evaluation <strong>of</strong> Native<br />
American Mascots and Symbols, 2002. Self-published.<br />
Eliseé Reclus: A Review, 2002. Published for “History <strong>of</strong> Geographic Thought” at <strong>the</strong><br />
<strong>University</strong> <strong>of</strong> Akron.<br />
What's So Scary About Anarchism?, 2002. Published by VastLane.org.<br />
Anarchism and Revolution -- Taking a Second Look, 2000. Published by Stand Not Run.<br />
Anarchism, 1999. Published for “Political Science: Socialism” at <strong>the</strong> <strong>University</strong> <strong>of</strong> North<br />
Dakota.<br />
[ Williams 130 ] [ this is a draft. do not cite. ]
APPENDIX: GLOSSARY<br />
What does anarchist philosophy suggest about <strong>the</strong> following?<br />
[Note: this is one individual's perspective only! Disagreement is healthy! This is braincandy<br />
only! Anti-Copyright 2001-2003] [This glossary previously appeared as a half-page<br />
handout]<br />
Activism: doing things that attempt to change society; not for direct personal benefit.<br />
Autonomy: not being under <strong>the</strong> control <strong>of</strong> any o<strong>the</strong>r person or thing. Drawing<br />
conclusions, making decisions, and taking action independent <strong>of</strong> outside forces.<br />
Capitalism: a system <strong>of</strong> class stratification, unequal power, greed, and human<br />
indifference.<br />
Coercion: <strong>the</strong> use <strong>of</strong> force to make a person do something against <strong>the</strong>ir will.<br />
Collective: toge<strong>the</strong>rness. Emphasizing <strong>the</strong> ability to complement o<strong>the</strong>rs for a mutually<br />
beneficial goal.<br />
Colonialism: a practice in which people <strong>of</strong> one state control, suppresses, and benefit at<br />
<strong>the</strong> detriment to <strong>the</strong> people <strong>of</strong> ano<strong>the</strong>r land.<br />
Corporations: artificial entities that have taken on <strong>the</strong> “rights” <strong>of</strong> living human beings.<br />
Non-democratic, unanswerable to <strong>the</strong> public, exploitive <strong>of</strong> class stratification,<br />
motivated by greed and pr<strong>of</strong>it, and largely unpunished for <strong>the</strong>ir widespread crimes.<br />
Democracy: a political philosophy that suggests that all people should have an active<br />
voice and ability to control <strong>the</strong> things that affect <strong>the</strong> things in <strong>the</strong>ir lives.<br />
Direct Action: personally doing something based upon a deeply held conviction, even if<br />
against <strong>the</strong> law. Not letting or demanding that o<strong>the</strong>rs do on your behalf.<br />
Diversity: variety <strong>of</strong> perspectives, identity, life-experience, ideas, and goals. A useful,<br />
just, worthwhile, and rewarding goal.<br />
Egalitarianism: to be innately equal in self-worth and strive for equitable empowerment.<br />
Environmentalism: concern, defense, and championship <strong>of</strong> all living things on <strong>the</strong> earth<br />
that are harmed by human action.<br />
Fascism: <strong>the</strong> oppression <strong>of</strong> minorities, repeal <strong>of</strong> civil liberties, jingoistic foreign policy,<br />
and authoritarian rule. <strong>The</strong> union <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> state and corporation.<br />
[ Williams 131 ] [ this is a draft. do not cite. ]
Feminism: perspective that stands for female self-empowerment, dismantling <strong>of</strong> malesupremacy<br />
and patriarchy, and an equalization <strong>of</strong> gender power.<br />
Freedom: <strong>the</strong> ability to do and be whatever wanted ins<strong>of</strong>ar as <strong>the</strong> ability for o<strong>the</strong>rs to do<br />
what <strong>the</strong>y want is not impaired.<br />
Hierarchy: a structural method for giving some people power over o<strong>the</strong>rs.<br />
Humanism: considering human empathy, compassion, justice, and self-worth to take<br />
precedence over artificially contrived concerns.<br />
Militarism: using state violence to force o<strong>the</strong>rs to accept political and economic<br />
objectives. Usually is devoid <strong>of</strong> democratic oversight, self-restraint, humane-methods,<br />
or public honesty.<br />
Monarchy: <strong>the</strong> practice <strong>of</strong> One having unique (<strong>of</strong>ten inherited) power over o<strong>the</strong>rs an<br />
entire society. Synonym for “dictatorship”.<br />
Mutual Aid: helping o<strong>the</strong>rs who need and ask for help, even when <strong>the</strong>re is no foreseeable<br />
self-benefit or reward, except for <strong>the</strong> knowledge that everyone at some point needs<br />
help from o<strong>the</strong>rs.<br />
Neo-Liberalism: attitude that champions un-restricted freedoms for individuals and<br />
entities concerned only with capital-accumulation and criticizes those who would<br />
interject human and environmental concerns.<br />
Organization: something that is intentionally formed, structured, or decided for a<br />
specific purpose.<br />
Patriarchy: male values take precedence over female values, leading to <strong>the</strong> subjugation,<br />
marginalization, and oppression <strong>of</strong> women. Male domination.<br />
Power: strength (can be political, economic, cultural, physical, emotional, or mental).<br />
<strong>The</strong> least desirable kind is “power over o<strong>the</strong>rs”. “Power from within” and “power<br />
toge<strong>the</strong>r” are <strong>the</strong> ideal.<br />
Presidents/Prime Ministers: useless at best, apocalyptic at worst. Kings that are voted<br />
for.<br />
Radical: to get at <strong>the</strong> “root” <strong>of</strong> something.<br />
Religion: structure for belief in a greater power without true knowledge and <strong>the</strong> historical<br />
tendency to use this belief as justification for oppression.<br />
Self-Determination: <strong>the</strong> ability to decide and act for oneself, unrestricted by <strong>the</strong> desires<br />
<strong>of</strong> o<strong>the</strong>rs.<br />
[ Williams 132 ] [ this is a draft. do not cite. ]
Sexuality: thought, identity, and act that involve emotion, human interaction, or<br />
intercourse.<br />
Solidarity: active support for o<strong>the</strong>rs whose freedoms are at risk.<br />
Unionism: forming into groups <strong>of</strong> like-minded workers to use collective power to ensure<br />
just, safe, and empowered work. To lead to worker self-management and collectivepr<strong>of</strong>it.<br />
War: <strong>the</strong> result <strong>of</strong> militaristic attitudes that assume that conflict must be resolved with<br />
large-scale violence, usually against innocent and uninvolved persons.<br />
Violence: harm caused to human beings (not “corporate beings” or property). Includes<br />
police brutality, war, poverty, domestic abuse, etc.<br />
Xenophobia: hatred embodied as active discrimination against people strictly because <strong>of</strong><br />
<strong>the</strong>ir ethnicity or national origin. A ludicrous idea.<br />
My phrases:<br />
Anarchistic<br />
Franchise anarchist/ic organizations<br />
[ Williams 133 ] [ this is a draft. do not cite. ]
APPENDIX: MODELS OF ANARCHISM<br />
<strong>The</strong> word “anarchism” is used in many ways. <strong>Anarchists</strong> <strong>the</strong>mselves <strong>of</strong>ten give varied<br />
explanations <strong>of</strong> what anarchism means to <strong>the</strong>m. As such, it is commonly viewed as an<br />
adaptable and robust philosophy that includes a wide range <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>ory and application.<br />
Consequently, <strong>the</strong> word frequently eludes a widely-accepted definition and is frequently<br />
argued about.<br />
What follows is an attempt to categorize <strong>the</strong> different ways “anarchism” may be<br />
explained. It by no means a perfect or comprehensive list, but merely a starting point for<br />
those interested in understanding <strong>the</strong> philosophy holistically. <strong>The</strong>se categorical models<br />
sometimes overlap and could be seen as somewhat contradictory—even so, <strong>the</strong>y are<br />
included here as portals into <strong>the</strong> diversity <strong>of</strong> anarchist thought.<br />
Action model: usually a rejection <strong>of</strong> electoral politics,<br />
anarchism favors direct action to accomplish immediate<br />
goals and needs, as opposed to utilizing a “representative”<br />
structure to indirectly obtain <strong>the</strong>m. Instead <strong>of</strong> authoritarian<br />
dictate as a means to mobilize social change, a “good<br />
example” <strong>of</strong> action is entrusted instead.<br />
Anti-authoritarian model: anarchism is a refutation <strong>of</strong> all<br />
forms <strong>of</strong> domination and oppression, whe<strong>the</strong>r<br />
institutionalized (capitalism, patriarchy, racism, <strong>the</strong> State,<br />
etc.) or abstract. It sees <strong>the</strong> challenge and subsequent<br />
removal <strong>of</strong> authoritarian power to be <strong>of</strong> prime importance.<br />
88 See an interesting article by <strong>The</strong> Anarchy Organization [TAO] (n.d.) called “Taoism and Anarchism”.<br />
[ Williams 134 ] [ this is a draft. do not cite. ]
Compatibility model: anarchism intersects directly with<br />
<strong>the</strong> <strong>the</strong>ories <strong>of</strong> democracy and humanism (and in many<br />
respects feminism, ecology, and even Taoism 88 ) as positive<br />
affirmation <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> role <strong>of</strong> people in control <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>ir own<br />
lives and decisions. Anarchism's compatibility with <strong>the</strong>se<br />
<strong>the</strong>ories is not incidental—<strong>the</strong>y are predominantly (Taoism<br />
excluded) outgrowths <strong>of</strong> Enlightenment thought and<br />
classical Liberalism, and subsequently, radicalism.<br />
Decision-making model: anarchism asserts that “no one is<br />
more qualified to make decisions on your behalf than<br />
yourself” and that “<strong>the</strong>re is no authority but yourself”. It<br />
intends to self-empower people to place <strong>the</strong> decisions that<br />
affect <strong>the</strong>ir lives under <strong>the</strong>ir own influence. Thus, people<br />
should have a say in decision-making to <strong>the</strong> extent that<br />
those decisions affect <strong>the</strong>m.<br />
Etymology model: <strong>the</strong> word “anarchy” taken at face value<br />
means “no authority” or “no rule”. It infers that <strong>the</strong>re are no<br />
authority figures or organizations that human subservience<br />
is owed. Importantly, however, this does not indicate a<br />
rejection <strong>of</strong> “rules” per se, only <strong>of</strong> rulers; rules<br />
collectively/non-hierarchically agreed upon may be<br />
acceptable.<br />
Historical Tendency model: anarchism may be viewed as<br />
a liberatory tendency within humankind to throw-<strong>of</strong>f <strong>the</strong><br />
chains <strong>of</strong> oppression overtime. Whe<strong>the</strong>r it is <strong>the</strong> rejection<br />
<strong>of</strong> slavery, feudalism, monarchism, gender inequity, etc.,<br />
anarchism may be viewed as <strong>the</strong> gradual emancipation <strong>of</strong><br />
life from dominant authority. It is thus a philosophy <strong>of</strong><br />
movement and <strong>of</strong> optimism.<br />
[ Williams 135 ] [ this is a draft. do not cite. ]
Individual/Collective model: anarchism is <strong>the</strong> tension<br />
between individual freedom and collective responsibility<br />
and <strong>the</strong> tension between individual responsibility and<br />
collective freedom.<br />
Means and Ends model: similar to <strong>the</strong> idea <strong>of</strong> a yardstick,<br />
anarchism is primarily a proposition <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> desirable means<br />
in which to carry out political and social r/evolution, not<br />
<strong>the</strong> ends <strong>the</strong>mselves. This differs from o<strong>the</strong>r revolutionary<br />
movements which view <strong>the</strong> ends as <strong>the</strong> most important<br />
value (regardless <strong>of</strong> whatever atrocity and dictatorship<br />
must occur to obtain it).<br />
Power model: anarchism is a <strong>the</strong>ory about power, which<br />
notes three kinds <strong>of</strong> power: power over (authoritarian),<br />
power within (inner-strength), and power amongst<br />
(collectivity). Anarchism is committed to eliminating <strong>the</strong><br />
first kind <strong>of</strong> power and equally expanding <strong>the</strong> second and<br />
third kinds.<br />
Pro-active vs. Reactive model: In <strong>the</strong> vacuum <strong>of</strong><br />
oppressive power, <strong>the</strong>re is a need for non-oppressive power<br />
to exist. Anarchism thus is a reactive and pro-active<br />
philosophy, intending to react to oppressive/hierarchical<br />
power/institutions and to be pro-active for nonoppressive/non-hierarchical<br />
power/institutions.<br />
[ Williams 136 ] [ this is a draft. do not cite. ]
Socialist model: anarchism has traditionally been a subset<br />
<strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> socialist/communist tradition. It differs from classic<br />
Marxism in <strong>the</strong> sense <strong>of</strong> its anti-authoritarian nature, which<br />
rejects <strong>the</strong> State, centralized power, dictatorship, Parties,<br />
and vanguardism.<br />
Values model: anarchism proposes various desirable<br />
values for a society, including (but not limited to) antiauthoritarianism,<br />
direct action, liberty, mutual aid, selfdetermination,<br />
solidarity, and voluntary association.<br />
Yardstick model: anarchism is a “yardstick” which can be<br />
used to evaluate existing conditions and potential actions<br />
based upon <strong>the</strong> criteria <strong>of</strong> a) resisting domination and b)<br />
increasing liberty. In this respect, anarchism is a lens in<br />
which to measure and gauge things. Fur<strong>the</strong>r, anarchism<br />
may be viewed in terms <strong>of</strong> a “spectrum”, ranging from<br />
oppression to liberty, with <strong>the</strong> ability to place given<br />
situations or dynamics upon this spectrum.<br />
[Inter-link reference to <strong>the</strong>se models?]<br />
[ Williams 137 ] [ this is a draft. do not cite. ]
activism<br />
ACT-UP<br />
affinity groups<br />
Amish<br />
Anarchist Black Cross<br />
(ABC)<br />
Animal Liberation Front<br />
(ALF)<br />
anti-nuke movement<br />
Anti-Racist Action (ARA)<br />
apathy<br />
a<strong>the</strong>ism<br />
authoritarian<br />
authority<br />
autonomy<br />
black bloc<br />
borders<br />
Buddhism<br />
bureaucracy<br />
capitalism<br />
Catholic Worker<br />
chaos<br />
circle-A<br />
civil disobedience<br />
class<br />
class war<br />
cluster<br />
coalitions<br />
cohesion<br />
collective<br />
communism<br />
conflict <strong>the</strong>ory<br />
consensus<br />
consumerism<br />
cooperation<br />
corporations<br />
CopWatch<br />
copyright<br />
anti-copyright<br />
copyleft<br />
councils<br />
Crimethinc.<br />
Critical Mass<br />
decentralization<br />
decision-making<br />
deep ecology<br />
democracy<br />
classical<br />
direct<br />
INDEX<br />
Freedom remains a word<br />
without meaning.<br />
- Pope John Paul II<br />
participatory<br />
representative<br />
demonstration<br />
direct action<br />
Direct Action Network<br />
(DAN)<br />
do it yourself (DIY)<br />
dual power<br />
dumpstering<br />
Durkheim, Emile<br />
Earth First!<br />
Earth Liberation Front<br />
(ELF)<br />
economic anarchism<br />
efficiency<br />
elites<br />
exchange <strong>the</strong>ory<br />
fascism<br />
federations<br />
feeder march<br />
feminism<br />
flags<br />
Food Not Bombs<br />
franchise organization<br />
freedom<br />
free rider problem<br />
free s<strong>of</strong>tware<br />
function/functionalism<br />
globalization, corporate<br />
Green movement<br />
guerrilla gardening<br />
hierarchy<br />
history [herstory]<br />
Homes Not Jails<br />
homophobia<br />
humanitarianism<br />
ideology<br />
imperialism<br />
Independent Media<br />
Center (IMC)<br />
individual<br />
Industrial Workers <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
World (IWW)<br />
infoshops<br />
institution<br />
internationalism<br />
Internet<br />
justice<br />
kinship<br />
labor<br />
law<br />
leaders[hip]<br />
Leftism<br />
liberalism<br />
Libertarian<br />
Party<br />
classical<br />
libertarian municipalism<br />
liberty<br />
lifestylism<br />
manarchy<br />
Marxism<br />
Marx, Karl<br />
media<br />
military<br />
Mondragón<br />
mutual aid<br />
nationalism<br />
neo-colonialism<br />
neo-liberalism<br />
network<br />
nonviolence<br />
norms<br />
obedience<br />
oppression<br />
order<br />
organization<br />
pacifism<br />
Participatory Economics<br />
(ParEcon)<br />
parties (political)<br />
patriarchy<br />
peace<br />
people <strong>of</strong> color (POC)<br />
pirate radio<br />
police<br />
political science<br />
politics<br />
power<br />
presidents<br />
primitivism<br />
privilege<br />
pro-choice<br />
propaganda<br />
propaganda-by-<strong>the</strong>-deed<br />
property<br />
property destruction<br />
protest<br />
[ Williams 138 ] [ this is a draft. do not cite. ]<br />
punk rock<br />
queer liberation<br />
radical<br />
Rainbow ga<strong>the</strong>ring<br />
rational choice <strong>the</strong>ory<br />
rebellion<br />
Reclaim <strong>the</strong> Streets<br />
reform<br />
religion<br />
resource mobilization<br />
revolution<br />
rights<br />
riot<br />
rules<br />
self-defense<br />
self-determination<br />
self-management<br />
situationist<br />
social ecology<br />
socialism<br />
social movements<br />
sociology<br />
solidarity<br />
Spanish Civil War<br />
spokescouncils<br />
spontaneous order<br />
squat<br />
state, <strong>the</strong><br />
symbolic interaction<br />
syndicalism<br />
tactics<br />
taoism<br />
technology<br />
temporary autonomous<br />
zones (TAZ)<br />
terrorism<br />
unions<br />
Utilitarianism<br />
vegetarianism<br />
violence<br />
voluntary association<br />
voting<br />
war<br />
Weber, Max<br />
white supremacy<br />
work<br />
Zapatistas<br />
zines
Index will be too huge and unwieldy to finish until much, much later...<br />
[ Williams 139 ] [ this is a draft. do not cite. ]