Abstract
‘What do you call an anarchist in grad school?’ queries an old joke in anarchist circles. The punch line: ‘An autonomist Marxist!’ This humor referenced the necessity for anarchists in the academy to align themselves with the Marxist tradition to be taken seriously, alluding to the long absence of attention to anarchism as a valuable, legitimate school of intellectual thought. However, over the past decade, this is no longer the case as anarchist studies has gained a foothold across disciplines, from economics and anthropology to political science and geography, and regional and international networks of anarchist scholars have begun to thrive. Anarchy and Society: Reflections on Anarchist Sociology is evidence of the shift toward taking seriously the radical propositions anarchism brings to the study of society.
Jeff Shantz and Dana Williams are anarchists; that is, adherents to the social and political theory against imposed authority of the state and other institutions and relationships of domination. They aim to anarchize sociology in this book because they believe in a radical transformation of society that centers values of autonomy, anti-authoritarianism, self-organization, voluntary association, solidarity, and mutual aid. The authors make the case that although both anarchists and sociologists study society, operationalizing sociological findings typically translates into reform while anarchist analysis leads to a radical transformation.
Comparing the Enlightenment left-intellectual origins of anarchism and sociology, the common practitioners, and the differences, Shantz and Williams are able to synthesize the most useful and radical aspects of each. They tease out some distinctions in the intertwined traditions drawing from classics like Weber and Marx, and contemporaries such as Patricia Hill Collins, skillfully weaving together sociological and anarchist traditions – historically existing alongside one another – into a colorful fabric with more potential for societal transformation.
The social sciences have dismissed anarchism because of mischaracterizations that it is ‘chaos’ and ‘disorder,’ and that its aims are ‘idealistic’ and ‘utopian.’ The authors attempt to explain how this misunderstanding comes from an assumption that the state is synonymous with social order but that order does not have to be imposed by an external authority. They provide many examples of ‘everyday anarchy,’ or anarchistic organization and structure that exist presently and in the past, to show how they are realistic. These include media collectives, cooperatives for providing food and medical services, and disaster response.
The authors introduce the sociological ideas of anarchist Colin Ward, who grounded anarchist ideas in the social phenomena happening around him, demonstrating that anarchy is already in action in society. As contributor and editor of British anarchist magazines following the Second World War, Ward analyzed social problems in work, housing, and education to develop practical anarchist solutions. This legitimized anarchist ideas with the public and inspired people to get involved in the decisions that affected their daily lives. They also reflect on the ideas of Emma Goldman, especially her sociological analysis of class and labor, family and marriage, and women’s sexual and bodily autonomy, and the conspicuous absence of Pierre-Joseph Proudhon from criminology. The authors demonstrate how revisiting Proudhon could contribute to the development of contemporary radical yet pragmatic responses to crime, building on restorative justice and peacemaking criminology.
Shantz and Williams home in on two areas of sociological concern – inequality and socialization. They argue that sociological analysis is focused on the effects, not the causes of inequality. In contrast, anarchist thought examines relationships of domination, of which inequality is merely a symptom. They provide an excellent breakdown of how domination underlies intersectional oppressions across macro-, meso-, and micro-levels, and the necessity of ongoing performance of domination for inequality to continue. A focus on ‘haves’ versus ‘have nots’ misses an opportunity to more deeply explore relationships of domination. The authors argue that remedying instances of inequality does not point toward a better world. For example, policy shifts to help people make more money do not fundamentally alter an unequal system by lessening the degree of inequality of individuals within that system. Instead, the authors propose a Grand Theory of Domination, a controversial move for anarchists, yet a useful one, because anarchism critiques general patterns of domination as consequences of authority. Shantz and Williams could benefit from more attention to distinguishing between hierarchy and domination as the elision can obscure the way power operates. Alternatives to hierarchical models have become popular in many everyday realms but do not necessarily contest domination. Blurring can lead to fetishization of structure and therefore more resistance to challenging the relations occurring within that structure. The authors do cite Jo Freeman (1972), of course, to warn of unchecked tyranny in nonhierarchical structures. But without a more nuanced discussion, they imply that nonhierarchical structures are preferable to hierarchical ones, as long as formal mechanisms are present to ensure the sharing of power. However, scholars are finding that complex formal mechanisms can also lead to more marginalization and relationships of domination (Leach, 2013).
Shantz and Williams also explore anarchist and sociological ideas about socialization as a barrier and potential avenue for social change. The authors discuss how current societal norms reinforce domination, rather than anti-authoritarian relations or mutual aid, and touch on current anarchist strategies for resocialization. This is a nice introduction for anarchists to useful sociological concepts such as mores, folkways, rewards, sanctions, taboos, and the ways family, schools, and the media foster socialization. For sociologists, it illustrates anarchist thinking about how norms perpetuate nonliberatory relations. For example, even positive rituals, such as lobbying an authority figure instills a complacency at odds with empowering ourselves to take action. However, this section could be strengthened by a discussion of the ways anarchist norms are already integrated into our lives, as alternatives to hierarchy, in ways that maintain the underlying structures of oppression. For example, the ‘sharing economy’ sells us capitalistic forms of mutual aid and corporations are decentralizing their structures, selling it as greater worker autonomy. But the goal is to extract greater productivity, as the lines between work and leisure blur. This recuperation facilitates less overt forms of domination.
As anarchism is a sociopolitical philosophy and a movement, Shantz and Williams speak directly to social movement scholars about ways to study anarchist action, and the complications of doing so. These include how to identify anarchists, how to achieve validity and generalizability, and how to operationalize research questions. This chapter is useful not just for sociologists who study anarchists but also for anarchists unfamiliar with sociological concepts of analysis, how measurement works, and why it is important in analyzing patterns. They demonstrate ways anarchy needs sociology, too, as it could help anarchists develop a more rigorous critique of inequality, its development and perpetuation, why people put up with subordination, limitations to resistance, and how social movements function. These intellectual skills can strengthen movement evaluation and strategy.
Although they do discuss the problem of how studying the dynamics within anarchist movements can undermine those movements and contribute to government repression, I would have appreciated more discussion on ethical matters for anarchist sociologists studying anarchists. For instance, although it is the case that anarchists might be better suited to interview other anarchists because they can provide a more nuanced analysis than a researcher who is new to anarchist ideas, the special access anarchist researchers may have, gaining trust and eliciting privileged information due to their seeming credibility and the unlikelihood of ‘getting it wrong,’ does this cross an ethical line? Is it perhaps safer for research subjects to be wary of how the information will be used? It is the responsibility of anarchist sociologists to instill caution and regularly remind their interviewees of the professional lines (a researcher still has much more power and control than the research subject) and the dangers of how that information could be used. Although a better understanding of anarchist movements could be interesting and useful to social movement scholars, perhaps a better understanding of the hidden dynamics of state and capitalist agents, and other opponents of a freer, more equitable world, would be more useful to those interested in radical transformation. In other words, anarchist scholars could be of more use to anarchist movements by focusing their examination on such things as the police or white supremacists.
Consistent with their reflexive approach, the authors also consider the challenges and possible contradictions anarchists face in struggling to transform society and they explore problems for anarchists in the academy, including taking on authoritative ‘expert’ roles, writing in styles that are inaccessible to those outside the academy, and falling into the trap of uncritical cheerleading of anarchist ideas or the application of those ideas to high theories that do not directly affect people’s lives. They also suggest paths of transformation for anarchist academics, including the extension of collaborative projects that can manifest in department restructuring, provide mutual aid in teaching resources, and engage in struggles against increasingly precarious work situations.
Overall, Shantz and Williams put forth a clear, straightforward proposal for strengthening the transformative potential of sociology. This is an excellent book for sociologists who want to better understand anarchism and is especially useful for social movement scholars unaware of the insights to be gained from studying anarchist movements or anarchistic franchise organizations that are often overlooked in movement scholarship. For example, the authors explain the source and aim of confrontational approaches in anarchist projects, which could clarify misunderstandings often dismissed as nonstrategic. Considering the similarities of these groups’ aims can also help the nonanarchist left move beyond limiting violence/nonviolence dichotomies and gain insight into the logics underpinning tactical choices and strategies, expanding tactical repertoires.
This book might speak the most to public sociologists or activist academics. It might also inspire sociologists to lessen the power differentials in the field, for example, not relying so heavily on funding from hierarchical institutions, or involving people under study directly in research. It provides a solid entrée for anarchist sociologists interested in building on the conversations in the growing field of anarchist studies.