![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small}
Anarchism 101: Introduction to Anarchism
Mar. 1st, 2007 | 06:36 pm
mood: 
calm
music: Desmond Williams: "Eastwest Highway"
Anarchism is a set of ideas, ranging from philosophical to political to economic to sociological and further, with the common idea that unequal power relations are Bad Things. Different anarchists say different things about exactly how or why hierarchical structures are bad, how they should be abolished, and even what constitutes a hierarchy, but all1 agree that they should, whenever possible, be avoided. Indeed this is simply the etymology of the word "anarchy", which is derived from the Greek word "anarchos", meaning "without ruler", and not having rulers is essentially what anarchism is about.
As a theory, anarchism had its beginnings in the middle of the 19th century. Anarchistic thoughts can be seen much earlier, such as in the writings of Gerrard Winstanley, and some trace anarchistic writings as far back as the Stoic philosopher Zeno of Citium (though I haven't read anything particularly anarchist in Greek writings yet). Most agree that four men in the 19th century set out basic anarchist thought: Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, Max Stirner, Mikhail Bakunin, and Peter Kropotkin. They didn't so much invent anarchism as much as give a theoretical basis for anarchist ideas, fleshing out concepts that had been tossed around society for who knows how long, probably since the ideas of social power and authority were first conceived (invented or recognized). They didn't all agree with one another either—Stirner refutes some of Proudhon's writings in The Ego and Its Own and elsewhere. But each influenced later anarchists in various ways, even if only by way of refutations.
While spanning many spheres, anarchism is more of a philosophy, a way of looking at things, than anything else. There is no orthodoxy, as opposed to Marxism, although individual schools might be more or less dogmatic. But as a whole, anarchism can be compared to the philosophy of the Greeks, who saw their actions guided by their philosophies. Anarchism is a way of approaching the various facets of life, social and individual, and it is generally agreed that anarchism is useless without practical applications; most anarchists are activists in one way or another. Many anarchists, though definitely not all, embrace the variety of interpretations; one could only think that, "after the Revolution", there would not be one society but a multitude, all living out anarchistic ideas in their own ways.
Next week: Proudhon's views on property
1 I use "all" in this sense as meaning all who self-identify as anarchists. However, this is not quite true; there is, in fact, a set of ideas called "anarchocapitalism". It is a variant of right-wing libertarianism, the economic ideal of which is a completely free market with no government to interfere with it. All industries, all services, would be privately owned. They take "anarchism" as meaning strictly "no government", where all other anarchists (to my knowledge) take it in the more general sense of "no rulers" or "no authority" of any kind.
As a theory, anarchism had its beginnings in the middle of the 19th century. Anarchistic thoughts can be seen much earlier, such as in the writings of Gerrard Winstanley, and some trace anarchistic writings as far back as the Stoic philosopher Zeno of Citium (though I haven't read anything particularly anarchist in Greek writings yet). Most agree that four men in the 19th century set out basic anarchist thought: Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, Max Stirner, Mikhail Bakunin, and Peter Kropotkin. They didn't so much invent anarchism as much as give a theoretical basis for anarchist ideas, fleshing out concepts that had been tossed around society for who knows how long, probably since the ideas of social power and authority were first conceived (invented or recognized). They didn't all agree with one another either—Stirner refutes some of Proudhon's writings in The Ego and Its Own and elsewhere. But each influenced later anarchists in various ways, even if only by way of refutations.
While spanning many spheres, anarchism is more of a philosophy, a way of looking at things, than anything else. There is no orthodoxy, as opposed to Marxism, although individual schools might be more or less dogmatic. But as a whole, anarchism can be compared to the philosophy of the Greeks, who saw their actions guided by their philosophies. Anarchism is a way of approaching the various facets of life, social and individual, and it is generally agreed that anarchism is useless without practical applications; most anarchists are activists in one way or another. Many anarchists, though definitely not all, embrace the variety of interpretations; one could only think that, "after the Revolution", there would not be one society but a multitude, all living out anarchistic ideas in their own ways.
Next week: Proudhon's views on property
1 I use "all" in this sense as meaning all who self-identify as anarchists. However, this is not quite true; there is, in fact, a set of ideas called "anarchocapitalism". It is a variant of right-wing libertarianism, the economic ideal of which is a completely free market with no government to interfere with it. All industries, all services, would be privately owned. They take "anarchism" as meaning strictly "no government", where all other anarchists (to my knowledge) take it in the more general sense of "no rulers" or "no authority" of any kind.
Link | Leave a comment {4} | Add to Memories | Tell a Friend
Anarchism 101: Introduction to New School
Feb. 7th, 2007 | 04:15 pm
mood: 
hopeful
music: Mawglee - "Sienna"
A few years ago I started teaching a class (more correctly, "facilitating a learning band") at Dawson CEGEP in their New School program. I've now facilitated four classes, three on the topic of "anarchism". Dawson's New School is a small subdepartment, an experiment in alternative pedagogy. About 35 years ago, Dawson students were asked to come up with ideas to improve college education. One way or another (I don't know the details), what emerged was the idea of a small class with an emphasis on discussion and participation on all levels—students having control over their class, selecting topics and the tools for evaluation. The founders dubbed this approach to pedagogy "critical humanism".
The teacher in New School is replaced by a "facilitator"; this role varies slightly according to the class, but it is essentially being a guide to discussion, both in the senses of presenting material to discuss and of facilitating the discussion itself. In some classes, I essentially lecture for half the time, and in others I merely participate in a discussion. I am officially, according to Dawson, a "teacher in training", though I'm not paid more than a $100 honorarium per semester. However the administration has recently decided that even unpaid facilitators need Master's Degrees, but I have essentially been grandfathered in with help from the fact that I'm taking courses in philosophy at Concordia, ostensibly with the goal of obtaining some sort of graduate degree in something or other someday in the future.
A very interesting facet of New School is the concept of a "band". Up to a few years ago, New School had a class, which all were encouraged (and earlier forced) to take, just called "Band". The class was of a standard New-School size, usually no more than 13 or 14 and often less, and met twice a week for 3 hours each time. There was mostly no other work, and the grade was 100% participation. The class would be spent in discussion on a variety of topics, usually suggested by the students themselves. The goal of the class was to improve communication skills in many ways, to learn how to relate to a number of other people, presumably most of whom you didn't really know before the class. As in all New School classes, everything said was confidential, and students would admit surprising things after the group had formed an "identity", as they say in New School.
Dawson's administration of late has been, well, shall way say hostile to the ideas and activities of New School. Apparently New School has always had its ups and downs over its 30-plus-year life, but I would be surprised if this wasn't one of the worst. Not only have Bands been entirely eliminated, but learning bands (originally called learning groups, when Band was a separate class) have had their maximum participation grade reduced from 50% to 30% and now to 20%. I think the classes are functioning essentially the same for now, but with the reduced participation mark it's conceivable that the priority, and thus the quality, of discussions will deteriorate.
But not to be too negative, if New School classes continue to function well (as all of mine have), it would be heartening to see that participation would still be valued despite its lack of enforceability. Perhaps that's closer to the heart of New School anyway, that people can come together and have intelligent conversations about a variety of topics without being forced to.
I don't know of any good anarchist "textbooks" out there, although there are a number of decent but limited surveys, and the curriculum of New School is supposed to be at least somewhat fluid, so I find and sometimes edit readings each week. I have a few "standards", but I change many of the readings from semester to semester. Sometimes I do this for clarity, if I've had a chance to study a topic more on my own and find a better piece, but also because the class has input on what specifically they want to study.
So I figured that, hey, not everybody can be in a New School class, so why not put the readings up on the web? Obviously this is not a real substitute, since the discussions are irreplaceable, but I plan to write a short commentary on each one, essentially what I would be presenting in the "lecture" part of the class.
We'll go through anarchist ideas, thinkers, events, and activists from the 19th century to today. The fact that anarchism is about as far from orthodoxy as possible means several things however. It is impossible to represent the entire spectrum of anarchistic ideas, since they range from the sociological to the economic and even to the aesthetic. Furthermore, I have my own biases, although I do not agree with all aspects of the chosen topics; in fact, many of the ideas are contradictory. But I've tried to give a fairly faithful survey of some of the important aspects of the theory and practice of anarchism.
Next time: Introduction to anarchism
The teacher in New School is replaced by a "facilitator"; this role varies slightly according to the class, but it is essentially being a guide to discussion, both in the senses of presenting material to discuss and of facilitating the discussion itself. In some classes, I essentially lecture for half the time, and in others I merely participate in a discussion. I am officially, according to Dawson, a "teacher in training", though I'm not paid more than a $100 honorarium per semester. However the administration has recently decided that even unpaid facilitators need Master's Degrees, but I have essentially been grandfathered in with help from the fact that I'm taking courses in philosophy at Concordia, ostensibly with the goal of obtaining some sort of graduate degree in something or other someday in the future.
A very interesting facet of New School is the concept of a "band". Up to a few years ago, New School had a class, which all were encouraged (and earlier forced) to take, just called "Band". The class was of a standard New-School size, usually no more than 13 or 14 and often less, and met twice a week for 3 hours each time. There was mostly no other work, and the grade was 100% participation. The class would be spent in discussion on a variety of topics, usually suggested by the students themselves. The goal of the class was to improve communication skills in many ways, to learn how to relate to a number of other people, presumably most of whom you didn't really know before the class. As in all New School classes, everything said was confidential, and students would admit surprising things after the group had formed an "identity", as they say in New School.
Dawson's administration of late has been, well, shall way say hostile to the ideas and activities of New School. Apparently New School has always had its ups and downs over its 30-plus-year life, but I would be surprised if this wasn't one of the worst. Not only have Bands been entirely eliminated, but learning bands (originally called learning groups, when Band was a separate class) have had their maximum participation grade reduced from 50% to 30% and now to 20%. I think the classes are functioning essentially the same for now, but with the reduced participation mark it's conceivable that the priority, and thus the quality, of discussions will deteriorate.
But not to be too negative, if New School classes continue to function well (as all of mine have), it would be heartening to see that participation would still be valued despite its lack of enforceability. Perhaps that's closer to the heart of New School anyway, that people can come together and have intelligent conversations about a variety of topics without being forced to.
I don't know of any good anarchist "textbooks" out there, although there are a number of decent but limited surveys, and the curriculum of New School is supposed to be at least somewhat fluid, so I find and sometimes edit readings each week. I have a few "standards", but I change many of the readings from semester to semester. Sometimes I do this for clarity, if I've had a chance to study a topic more on my own and find a better piece, but also because the class has input on what specifically they want to study.
So I figured that, hey, not everybody can be in a New School class, so why not put the readings up on the web? Obviously this is not a real substitute, since the discussions are irreplaceable, but I plan to write a short commentary on each one, essentially what I would be presenting in the "lecture" part of the class.
We'll go through anarchist ideas, thinkers, events, and activists from the 19th century to today. The fact that anarchism is about as far from orthodoxy as possible means several things however. It is impossible to represent the entire spectrum of anarchistic ideas, since they range from the sociological to the economic and even to the aesthetic. Furthermore, I have my own biases, although I do not agree with all aspects of the chosen topics; in fact, many of the ideas are contradictory. But I've tried to give a fairly faithful survey of some of the important aspects of the theory and practice of anarchism.
Next time: Introduction to anarchism