The problem is <...> to give one's self the rules of law, the techniques of management, and also the ethics, the ethos, the practice of self, which would allow these games of power to be played with a minimum of dominatron.
Foucault, M. (1987). The ethic of care for the self as a practice of freedom
This section is dedicated to interdisciplinary exploration of contemporary anarchism — and all related phenomena, currents, and practices. We are not focused exclusively on self-reflection and academic research: we welcome all those interested in the topics of decentralization, horizontalism, self-organization, and so forth. Below, we outline the issues we propose to emphasize at this year’s section.
During the last decades, the development of libertarian thought is marked by a shift towards micropolitics. As Richard Day (2005) and Todd May (1994) note, in the second half of the XX century much of anarchism has closely intermingled with poststructuralist philosophy, according to which power is reproduced and can be challenged on the level of everyday interactions. Meanwhile, the “post-left” strains of anarchism have been rising in prominence, rejecting millenarism, progressism and other Marxist legacies in favor of the expansion “of local spaces of situated freedom” (ibid, 77) like temporary and permanent autonomous zones (Bey, 1991). Even though not every anarchist has “left the Left” in this manner, micropolitics nevertheless became an important part of overall anarchist culture, manifesting itself, for example, in the critique of interpersonal hierarchies.
However, such micropolitics of “mainstream” anarchist movements gave rise to new problems. Evolving in tandem with the “New Left” and critical theory, this micropolitics has been heavily influenced by intersectional analysis and identity politics. These instruments allowed one to criticize discrimination in activist organizations and laid the foundation for coalition-building among subaltern groups (Combahee River Collective, 1978). However, some anarchist authors point out new forms of coercion which have flourished as a result (Yaga, 2019). Demonstrative self-flagellation, identity essentialism, fear of violating unspoken norms and taboos and incurring the wrath of the collective (Žižek, 2020) – these phenomena are particularly worth interrogating when it comes to anarchist groups aspiring to deconstruct micro-level power relations.
Such trends were criticized as postmodernist “lifestyle anarchism” by “old-school” libertarian socialists (Bookchin, 1995), but this kind of rollback to modernity-era anarchism doesn’t seem expedient to us, since it carries a risk of once again reducing anarchism to the macro-level of parties, platforms and institutions. New modes of bridging micro- and macro- are required. If leftist millenarism loses primacy, which anarchist macro-politics is to replace it? Should there be only experimental “pockets” of autonomy connected by spontaneous acts of solidarity (Day, 2005, 208), or should we aspire for something more elaborate like a bottom-up equivalent of de Puydt’s panarchy (1860)? How ought one handle interaction and cohabitation among different groups, including conservative-leaning ones?
We regard all of the above as meaningful challenges for contemporary libertarian theories and practices. Not considering a rollback to classical Marxism – as proposed by Mark Fisher (2013) and Slavoj Žižek (2020) – nor the ideologems of the “New Left” viable options, we are inclined to look for a new conceptual autonomy for anarchism.
At last year’s section, we set the task to start assembling “our own local project of anarchism”. Today, we observe that this project is characterized by a tendency for multiplicity and hybridity of currents, e.g. the neighbourship of Anarcho-Indigenism with Christian anarchism and left libertarianism. Very much in a poststructuralist vein, such an approach demands both a refusal of cemented categories of “Left” and “Right” and a search for new and more flexible alliances.
This year we once again invite you to contribute to creative discovery, multiplication, criticism and synthesis of the diverse forms of the libertaire. Last years’ presentations highlighted the previously unnoticed anarchist potentials in culture and art, e.g. in theatre, design and cinema – and this line of thought remains highly relevant to our cause. We will also be glad to see praxis-oriented presentations – talks by and on cooperatives, libraries, ecovillages, communes and the like (especially if one succeeds in articulating their experience with consideration for proposed themes and challenges).