Department of Philosophy

In this paper, I argue that Deleuze's political writings and Derrida's early (pre-1985) work on deconstruction affirms the tactical orientation which Todd May in particular has associated with 'poststructuralist anarchism.' Deconstructive philosophy, no less than Deleuzean philosophy, seeks to avoid closure, entrapment, and structure; it seeks to open up rather than foreclose possibilities, to liberate rather than interrupt the flows and movements which produce life. To this extent, it is rightfully called an anarchism-not the utopian anarchism of the nineteenth century, perhaps, but the provisional and preconditional anarchism which is, and will continue to be, the foundation of postmodern politics.

In this essay I argue that what has been called "philosophical anarchism" in the academic literature bears little to no relationship with the historical anarchist tradition and, for this reason, ought not to be considered a genuine form of anarchism. As I will demonstrate, the classical anarchism of the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries is to be distinguished from other political theories in regarding all hierarchical institutions and relationships-including, but not limited to, the stateas incorrigibly dominative or oppressive and, for this reason, immoral. Lastly, I argue that defenders of such institutions and relationships must take the challenge posed by classical anarchism seriously by engaging substantively with actual anarchist positions.

Concepts such as ethics, values, and normativity play a crucial – if subtle and easily overlooked – role in Deleuze’s overall philosophical project. The essays in this collection uncover and explore the ethical dimension of Deleuzian philosophy along diverse trajectories and, in so doing, endeavour to reclaim that philosophy as moral philosophy.

This essay critically examines one of the dominant tendencies in recent theoretical discussions of anarchism, postanarchism, and argues that this tradition fails to engage sufficiently with anarchism's history. Through an examination of late nineteenth-century anarchist political thought--as represented by one of its foremost exponents, Peter Kropotkin--we demonstrate the extent to which postanarchism has tended to oversimplify and misrepresent the historical tradition of anarchism. The article concludes by arguing that all political-theoretical discussions of anarchism going forward should begin with a fresh appraisal of the actual content of anarchist political thought, based on a rigorous analysis of its political, social, and cultural history.

This chapter is concerned with two distinct but related questions: (a) does Deleuzian philosophy offer an account of moral norms (i.e., a theory of normativity)? (b) does Deleuzian philosophy offer an account of moral values (i.e., a theory of the good)? These are important questions for at least two reasons. First, the moral- and value-theoretical aspects of Deleuzian philosophy have tended to be ignored, dismissed, overlooked, or otherwise overshadowed in the literature by the ontological, historical, and political aspects. Second, Deleuze – along with other alleged “postmodernists” such as Foucault and Derrida – has occasionally been accused of moral relativism, skepticism, and even nihilism. The aim of what follows is to demonstrate the value and importance of Deleuze's (and Guattari's) contributions to ethics and to defend Deleuzian philosophy from the charges just mentioned.

In this essay, I argue that there are two more or less distinct theories of the State in Hegel. The first, and better known, is developed in the Philosophy of Right, wherein Hegel endorses the notion of a coercive, centralised, and hierarchical 'Ideal State'. Th is is precisely the theory which certain radical Hegelians of the nineteenth century (e.g., Marx and Bakunin) viewed with such deep suspicion. The second, which has not received as much attention by commentators, appears in the Phenomenology and other early writings. Although this theory introduces many of the key components of Hegel's later political philosophy, it is nonetheless far more radical in its political implications-most important, in its gesturing toward a society which makes room for the realisation of the stateless, classless vision of anarchist communism. Th e point is not to demonstrate that Hegel is inconsistent or self-contradictory, but show that there are elements of creative tension within his political theory which are not only suffi cient to vindicate him from the criticisms of Marx and Bakunin, but also to re-contextualise him as a radical precursor. As I shall argue, the kind of society that emerges in the fi nal chapters of the Phenomenology need not contain the elements of coercion and class struggle which appear in the Philosophy of Right and repulse Marx and Bakunin. On the contrary, such a society may be understood as prefi guring the classless, stateless society which both Marx and Bakunin ultimately endorse.

How we define the anarchist canon-let alone how we decide which thinkers, theories, and texts should count as canonical-depends very much on what we take the purpose of the anarchist canon to be. In this essay, I distinguish between thinkers, theories, or texts that are "anarchist," by virtue of belonging to actually-existing historical anarchist movements, and those which are "anarchist" in virtue of expressing "anarchistic" (or "anarchic") ideas. I argue that the anarchist canon is best conceived as a repository of historically-expressed anarchistic ideas and, for this reason, should include both kinds of theories, thinkers, and texts.

Cinema, like art more generally, is both an artistic genre and a politicoeconomic institution. On the one hand there is film, a medium which disseminates moving images via the projection of light through celluloid onto a screen. Individual films or "movies," in turn, are discrete aesthetic objects that are distinguished and analyzed vis-à-vis their form and content. On the other hand there is the film industry-the elaborate network of artistic, technical, and economic apparatuses which plan, produce, market, and display films to audiences. Since its inception, both the aesthetic and political aspects of cinema have been subject to various forms of theoretical analysis which have been subject to critique in turn. In this paper I offer a brief survey of these analyses and critiques followed by a sketch of an alternative approach to film theory. Drawing upon the ideas of Foucault and Deleuze, this "anarchist" film theory seeks to present a viable critical methodology while at the same time elucidating the liberatory potential of film.

When central authority fails in socially crucial tasks, mutual aid, solidarity, and grassroots organization frequently arise as people take up slack on the basis of informal networks and civil society organizations. We can learn something important about the possibility of horizontal organization by studying such experiments. In this paper we focus on the rationality, care, and effectiveness of grassroots measures to respond to the pandemic and show how they illustrate core elements of anarchist thought. We do not argue for the correctness of any version of anarchist politics, nor claim that the bulk of this grassroots work was done with anarchist ideas explicitly in mind. Nonetheless, the current pandemic, like many social crises before it, serves as a sort experiment in political implementation.

Two things have been striking in the US response to the COVID-19 pandemic: the chaos, incompetence, irrationality, and often cruel misguidedness of the centralized government response; and the rationality, care, and effectiveness of grassroots measures in many parts of the country. In this paper we focus on the latter—especially the case of Washington, DC—to illustrate core features of anarchist politics. We do not argue for the correctness of any version of anarchist politics here, but merely illustrate guiding ideas that have been a part of anarchist theory and practice for well over a century. We also do not claim that the bulk of this grassroots work was done with anarchist ideas in mind, or explicitly out of a commitment to anarchist politics. Some was, and some arises out of related ideological commitments, but most simply functions out of no more than a desire to support one another.

The current pandemic, like many social crises before it, rather than providing a stand-alone argument or functioning as an implementation of any political theory, serves as a sort of laboratory experiment. When central authority fails in socially crucial tasks, mutual aid, solidarity, and grassroots organization frequently arise as people take up slack on the basis of informal networks and civil society organizations. We can learn something important about the possibility of horizontal organization by studying such experiments, including how it arises through spontaneous action. If political thought is best illustrated through its implementation in practice, the functioning of grassroots individuals and organizations in a time of crisis is one way to understand the political mechanisms core to anarchist thought.

Many anarchists of the late 19th and early 20th expressed a deeply anti-romanticone might even say chauvinisticattitude marked by hostility toward artists, intellectuals, bohemians, and other "sentimentalists"; an unwavering commitment to austerity and personal self-denial; and contempt for non-political feelings and relationships, including family relationships. To this extent, many anarchists were simultaneously "romantic" (in the sense of being idealistic) as well as "anti-romantic" (in the sense of being austere, pragmatic, and opposed to sentimentality). In this essay, I argue that the "anti-romantic" tendency exemplified by some anarchistswhich I will call "Romantic asceticism"is actually profoundly Romantic (upper-case 'R') insofar as it draws upon various political and philosophical ideas associated with 19th-century Romanticism. At the same time, I will explore the existence of an alternative and countervailing tendencywhich I will call "Romantic aestheticism"which, although it is at least as indebted to Romanticism, stands in fundamental opposition to the former tendency. Further, I will argue that the latter tendency is not only more prevalent among the anarchists of this period but also more inf luential and significant in the history of anarchist thought and practice.

Anarchist philosophy has often played and continues to play a crucial role in interventions in working-class and labor movements. Anarchist philosophy influenced real-world struggles and touched the lives of real, flesh-and-blood workers, especially those belonging to the industrial, immigrant working classes of late nineteenth-and early twentieth-century America. Too often the writings, which were disseminated to, and hungrily consumed by, these workers are dismissed as "propaganda." However, insofar as they articulate and define political, economic, and social concepts; subject political, economic, and social institutions to trenchant critique against clear and well-defined normative standards; offer logical justifications of their own positions; and advance positive alternative proposals, why should these writings not be regarded as philosophical texts and analyzed accordingly? Obviously they should, and the fact that they have been so long ignored by political philosophers, historians, and other scholars reflects academic prejudice rather than the intellectual and philosophical merit of the writings. This article is a preliminary step toward giving anarchist philosophy the hearing it so richly deserves.

Fredegisus of Tours was an Anglo-Saxon scholar who studied under Alcuin of York and later served at the court of Charlemagne. Although he was apparently well respected by his peers, specific details concerning his life are scarce. His only surviving work is a brief epistle entitled De Nihil et Tenebris. This article provides a new translation of the letter, based on Migne 1851 edition, along with biographical information about its author, a brief critical history of the text, and a commentary on Fredegisus’s significance in the history of Western philosophy. The author argues, against extant critical accounts, that Fredegisus evinces a much higher level of philosophical sophistication than is usually attributed to him. This is evidenced by certain crucial similarities between the De Nihil and Augustine’s De Magistro, as well as the decidedly Platonic overtones of Fredegisus’s doctrine of nothingness.

The notion that Deleuze is an ‘anarchist’ thinker – or, at the very least,
that his thought may be interpreted in whole or in part as an expression
of ‘anarchistic’ sensibilities – is said to originate with Todd May’s formative volume The Political Philosophy of Poststructuralist Anarchism
(1994).Since that time, May’s thesis has become something of a truism
among certain students of Deleuze, especially those who identify with
the broad and loosely defined movement known as ‘postanarchism’,
and has inspired similar claims regarding Lacan, Derrida, Foucault,
Lyotard, Levinas, Rancière and other thinkers (Koch 1993; Jun 2007;
Verter 2010; May 2011; Absensour 2013). One of the most often cited
criticisms of such claims is that the figures in question were not associated in any meaningful sense with the historical anarchist movement and did not identify themselves as anarchists. The underlying assumption here is that the term ‘anarchist’ is anchored in a specific tradition characterised by a fixed set of principles, in which case it is incorrectly applied to Deleuze and other thinkers who at best express an affinity with some of these principles or else are interpreted as doing so. For some critics, at least, this further implies that the thinkers in question are completely unrelated to anarchism and, by extension, that it is altogether inappropriate to discuss them in this context. Drawing on ideas from Michael Freeden’s theory of ideology, I contend that the anarchist tradition is better understood as a constellation of diffuse and evolving concepts than as a fixed set of principles. This, in turn, invites a crucial distinction between what I call ‘anarchist’ thought – that is, thought that emerges within and in response to historical anarchist movements – and ‘anarchistic’ thought – that is, thought that emerges outside such movements but is conceptually proximate to core anarchist commitments. Inasmuch as the latter has often played a significant role in the historical development of the former, and vice versa, neither can be fully understood apart from the other. As I will argue, this is precisely how we ought to understand Deleuze in relation to the broad anarchist tradition.