This book attempts to convey the different sociological contexts for how contemporary anarchist theory and practice is to be understood. It concentrates on the issue of broadening the parameters of how anarchist theory and practice is conceptualized. The book compares the major philosophical differences and strategies between the classical period (what Dave Morland calls 'social anarchism') and the contemporary anti-capitalist movements which he regards as being poststructuralist in nature. It also documents the emergence of the now highly influential anti-technological and anti-civilisational strand in anarchist thought. This offers something of a challenge to anarchism as a political philosophy of the Enlightenment, as well as to other contemporary versions of ecological anarchism and, to some extent, anarcho-communism. The book further provides a snapshot of a number of debates and critical positions which inform contemporary anarchist practice. The specific areas covered offer unique perspectives on sexuality, education, addiction and mental health aspects of socialisation and how this can be challenged at a number of different levels. The fact that anarchism has largely premised its critique on a psychological dimension to power relations, not just a material one, has been an advantage in this respect. Ecological anarchism, which has been the driving force behind much contemporary anarchist theory and practice, has been committed to thinking about the relationships between people and 'nature' in new ways.
Stirner, anarchy, subjectivity and the art of living
attempt to initiate a total transformation of life are completely
absent from Foucault’s discussion.
John Carroll’s seminal study Break out from the crystal palace: the anarchopsychological critique: Stirner, Nietzsche, Dostoevsky provides an invaluable
corrective to Foucault’s failures, and indicates the centrality of the Stirnerian –
or what Carroll more broadly calls the anarcho-psychological – critique to both
the anarchist project and modernity/postmodernity. Although he does not frame
his analysis in Foucauldian terms, Carroll’s study
Hannah Jones, Yasmin Gunaratnam, Gargi Bhattacharyya, William Davies, Sukhwant Dhaliwal, Emma Jackson, and Roiyah Saltus
between the postliberal critique of economics and the psychologicalcritique of
economics, which has produced behavioural and happiness economics. Goodhart
claims that postliberalism ‘has a view of human nature that aims to
capture people in their messy reality rather than reduce them to a single,
dominant drive such as self-interest or a desire for autonomy’ (2014: 1).
Yet he also claims that group attachments are ‘hard
most cherished ideals of equality, liberty and belonging. Such
ongoing processes grew from the prevalence of self-conscious individuals with flexible ego
boundaries who were open to change and fellowship (another echo of the interwar
social-psychologicalcritique of competitive individualism), and from the growing capacities
of centralized government to control resource use and social development. According to
Etzioni, particularistic economic interests were bound to play ever less of a role in
governance, and the trend