newman - from bakunin to lacan - anti-authoritarianism and the dislocation of power

8/12/2019 Newman - From Bakunin to Lacan - Anti-Authoritarianism and the Dislocation of Power

1/197

FROM BAKUNIN TO LACAN:

Anti-authoritarianism and the dislocation of o!er

"aul Ne!man


2/197

For Suzy, with love

iii


3/197

iv


4/197

Contents

Foreword by Ernesto LaclauAcknowledgmentsIntroduction

viiix1

1 Marxism and the Problem of Power 1! Anarchism "" #tirner and the Politics of the Ego $$% Foucault and the &enealogy of Power $$ 'he (ar)Machine* +eleu,e and &uattari -. +errida and the +econstruction of Authority 11$

Lack of the /utside0/utside of the Lack*Mis23eading Lacan 1"

4 'owards a Politics of Postanarchism 1$

5ibliogra6hy 1 -Index 14-About the Author 1-

v


5/197

Fore!ord

7ontem6orary 6olitical analysis is increasingly centered on the com6lexities thatthe multifarious forms of the relation 6ower0resistance show in 6resent daysocieties8 &one are the times in which the locus of 6ower could be referred to ina sim6le and une9uivocal way:as in the notion of ;dominant class8< 'oday= the

6roliferation of social agents and the increasingly com6lex fabric of relations ofdomination have led to a66roaches which tend to stress the 6lurality of networksthrough which 6ower is constituted= as well as the difficulties in constructingmore totali,ing 6ower effects8 'his= in turn= has led to a transformation of thediscursive logics attem6ting to gras6 such 6lurality and com6lexity8

/ne of the merits of +r8 >ewmanewman


6/197

Ac#no!led$ments

'here are a number of 6eo6le who have advised and guided me along the way=and without whose hel6 this book would never have gotten off the ground8 Iwould like to thank E6hraim >imni and ?ohn Lechte who have worked closelywith me over the 6ast few years= and for whose friendshi6= su66ort= warmth= andencouragement I am eternally grateful8 I am also greatly indebted to ErnestoLaclau= who kindly wrote the foreword to this book and whose groundbreakingwork in the area of contem6orary 6olitical theory has had a great im6act on myown thinking8 I would also like to thank 'odd May and Paul Patton for theirinvaluable advice and feedback8 A s6ecial mention must go to Aree 7ohen forhis technical wi,ardry and assistance in 6re6aring the manuscri6t8 I would alsolike to thank 'revor Matthews for com6iling the index8 &ratitude must also goto a certain government de6artment where I worked for a little while= whichmade my life so miserable that I decided to go back to academia= for better orfor worse8 Most im6ortantly= I want to thank #u,y 7asimiro who has always

been there for me= and who has ins6ired= hel6ed= and encouraged methroughout8

viii


7/197

Introduction

The Return of %o!er

Ultimo da del despotismo y primero de lo mismo

(The last day of despotism;the first day of the same thing). 1

(e are always being told that we are living in a time of dramatic= swee6ing 6olitical and social change8 /n the one hand this is undoubtedly true8Everything from relatively recent colla6se of communist systems in 3ussia andEastern Euro6e= the emergence of a distinctly Euro6ean 6olitical identity= andthe ex6losive growth of new technologies and forms of communication= to thewides6read revival of national and ethnic identities= and the wars and genocidesthat seem to be the conse9uence of this= would all seem to suggest that ours is atime of radical change8

5ut on the other hand= one could be forgiven for thinking that things havenot really changed that much at all8 'he same forms of domination andinstitutional hierarchies seem to a66ear time and time again= only in differentgarbs and ever more cunning disguises8 (ith every 6o6ular u6rising against thestate and with every overthrow of some re6ressive regime or other= there alwaysseems to be a new and more subtle form of re6ression waiting to take its 6lace8'here is always a new discourse of 6ower to take the 6lace of the old8 Forinstance= what does it matter to the Australian Aboriginal= or the townshi6dweller in #outh Africa= or the 6risoner in a 3ussian @ail= or the Latino illegalimmigrantB in the Cnited #tates= whether he or she has a new set of mastersD/ne is still dominated by a series of institutional 6ractices and discursiveregimes which tie him to a certain marginali,ed and= therefore= sub@ugatedidentity8 Increased technology seems to go hand in hand with intensified socialcontrol and more so6histicated and com6lex ways of regulating individuals8Freedom in one area always seems to entail domination in others8 #o there isstill= des6ite these 6rofound global changes= the raw= brutal inevitability of

6ower and authority8 Maybe Friedrich >iet,sche was right when he saw historyas merely a ha,ardous 6lay of dominations8B !

'his is not say= of course= that there have not been significant advancementson a world scale8 >or is it to say that all regimes and modes of 6olitical andsocial organi,ation are e9ually o66ressive8 'o argue that the 6osta6artheidregime in #outh Africa= or the now not so new governments in the former #oviet

bloc= are as dominating as the ones they re6laced= would be ludicrous andinsulting8 Moreover= we must once and for all sto6 falling into the 6erniciouserror of advocating a 6urer or more universal revolutionary theory that would

1


8/197

Introduction

seek to be more com6lete and swee6ing in its 6aroxysm of destruction8 #uch arevolutionary strategy only reaffirms= 6aradoxically= the very 6ower andauthority that it seeks to overthrow8 'he 5olshevik revolution is a good exam6leof this8 I will be arguing that the very notion of revolution as a universal=cataclysmic overriding of current conditions should be abandoned8 Also I amnot trying to be excessively 6essimistic or fatalistic by talking about theinterminable reaffirmation of 6ower at every turn8 owever the reality of 6oweris something that cannot be ignored8

For too long 6ower was shrouded in ob@ectiveB ex6lanations offered by 6hiloso6hies like Marxism= or dressed u6 in some theory or other which allowedit to be neglected8 owever= 6ower can= and should= now be seen as 6ower8 Itcan no longer be seen as an e6i6henomenon of the ca6italist economy or classrelations8 Power has returned as an ob@ect of analysis to be studied in its ownright8 I use returnB here in the Lacanian sense of repetition for Lacan= the 3ealis that which always returns to the same 6laceB [my italics ]8" 'he real= forLacan= is that which is missing from the symbolic structure= the indefinable=elusive la!" that always resists symboli,ation by returningB* ere the real isthat which always comes back to the same 6lace:to the 6lace where the sub@ectin so far as he thinks= where the res !ogitans = does not meet it8B%

'he com6lexities of the 3eal and lack will be discussed later= yet we may 6erha6s say here that 6ower is like the real 6ower inevitably returnsB to thesame 6lace= des6ite various attem6ts to remove it8 It always haunts= by its sheerinability to be defined= by its resistance to re6resentation within 6oliticaldiscourse= the very 6olitical discourses that have as their aim the overthrow of

6ower8'he 6oint of this discussion is not really to offer a definition of 6ower that

has hitherto eluded us= but on the contrary to recogni,e that 6ower is abstractand indefinable= and to construct a definition 6recisely through this veryresistance to definition8 3ather than saying what 6ower is= and 6roceeding fromthere= it may be more 6roductive to look at the ways in which theories and ideasof revolution= rebellion= and resistance reaffirm 6ower in their very attem6t todestroy it8 'his logic which inevitably re6roduces 6ower and authority= I willcall the pla!e of power 8 PlaceB refers to the abstract 6re6onderance= andceaseless reaffirmation= of 6ower and authority in theories and movements thatare aimed at overthrowing it8 'he real always returns to the same 6lace=B and itis this pla!e = or more 6recisely this logic of return, that I will be talking about8 Itis a cruel and malicious logic= but a logic that is nevertheless crucial to the waywe think about 6olitics8

#o= in light of this= how should we look at the 6olitical and social changesthat have characteri,ed our recent 6ast and continue to structure the hori,ons ofour 6resentD /n the one hand= one might argue that= dramatic as thesedevelo6ments are= they signify that we are still tied to the same essentialist ideasand 6olitical categories that have dominated our thought for the 6ast twocenturies8 For instance= we do not seem to be able to esca6e the category of thenation state which has been with us since the 'reaty of (est6halia in 1.%4= andmore s6ecifically= since the French 3evolution8 'he outbreak of wars fought

!


9/197

'he 3eturn of Power "

over ethnic identities indicates= in a most violent and brutal manner= how muchwe are still tied to the idea that it is best for ethnic and national identities to havetheir own state8 Perha6s in this sense= then= the idea of the state may be seen as amanifestation of the 6lace of 6ower8 Moreover= we are still= 9uite clearly=tra66ed in essentialist ethnic identities8 'he idea that one is essentially 7roat or#erb or Albanian or utu or Euro6ean= and that one defines oneself ino66osition to other= less 6ure=B less educatedB or enlightened=B less

rational=B less clean=B less hardworkingB identities= is still all too evidenttoday8 'he changesB that are ceaselessly 6romulgated have only succeeded insolidifying these essentialist nationalist ideas8

owever= the 6roblem of essentialism is broader than the 6roblem ofnationalism8 Essentialist ideas seem to govern our 6olitical and social reality8Individuals are 6inned down within an identity that is seen as true or natural8Essentialist identities limit the individual= constructing his or her reality aroundcertain norms= and closing off the 6ossibilities of change and becoming8 'hereis= moreover= a whole series of institutional 6ractices which dominate theindividual in a multitude of ways= and which are brought into 6lay byessentialist logics8 /ne has only to look at the way in which social and familywelfare agencies and correctional institutions o6erate to see this8 'he identity ofthe delin9uent=B welfare de6endent=B or unfit 6arentB is carefully constructedas the essence of the individual= and the individual is regulated= according to thisessential identity= by a whole series of rational and moral norms8

'he changes that have taken 6lace on a global scale seem only to havedenied the individual the 6ossibility of real change8 >ot only does essentialistthinking limit the individual to certain 6rescribed norms of morality and

behavior= it also excludes identities and modes of behavior which do notconform to these norms8 'hey are categori,ed as unnaturalB or 6erverse=B assomehow otherB and they are 6ersecuted according to the norms theytransgress8 'he logic of essentialism 6roduces an o66ositional thinking= fromwhich binary hierarchies are constructed* normal0abnormal= sane0insane= hetero)homosexual= etc8 'his domination does not only refer to individuals who falloutside the category of the norm [homosexuals= drug addicts= delin9uents= theinsane= etc] it is also suffered by those for whom certain fragments of theiridentity:for identity is never a com6lete thing:would be condemned asabnormal8 (e all suffer= to a greater or lesser extent= under this tyranny ofnormality= this discourse of domination which insists that we all have anessential identity and that that is what we are8 (e must not think= though= thatthis domination is entirely forced u6on us8 (hile this is no doubt true to acertain extent:think of 6risons= mental institutions= the army= hos6itals= thework6lace:an essentialist identity is also something that we often willinglysubmit to8 'his mode of 6ower cannot o6erate without our consent= without ourdesire to be dominated8 #o not only will this discussion examine the dominationinvolved in essentialist discourses and identities:the way they su66ortinstitutions such as the state and the 6rison for exam6le:it will also look at theways in which we 6artici6ate in our own domination8


10/197

Introduction

'he 6roblem of essentialism is the 6olitical 6roblem of our time8 'o say thatthe 6ersonal is the 6olitical= clichGd and hackneyed though it is= is merely to saythat the way we have been constituted as sub@ects= based on essentialist

6remises= is a 6olitical issue8 'here is really nothing radical in this8 5ut it is stilla 9uestion that must be addressed8 Essentialism= along with the universal=totali,ing 6olitics it entails= is the modern 6lace of 6ower8 /r at least= it issomething around which the logic of the 6lace of 6ower is constituted8 It will beone of the 6ur6oses of this discussion to show how essentialist ideas= even inrevolutionary 6hiloso6hies like anarchism= often re6roduce the very dominationthey claim to o66ose8 Modern 6ower functions through essentialist identities=and so essentialist ideas are something to be avoided if genuine forms ofresistance are to be constructed and if genuine change is to be 6ermitted8 'hechanges of recent times= dramatic as they were= were still tied to theseessentialist ways of thinking= 6articularly with regard to national identity= and toforms of 6olitical sovereignty like the state8 'hey did not at all challenge ordisru6t these categories= often only further embedding them in 6oliticaldiscourse and social reality8

owever= modernity= like everything= is a 6aradox8 It is o6en to a 6lurality ofinter6retations and characteri,ed by different im6lications= voices= and dreams8'he changes that I have s6oken about can be seen= at the same time= in adifferent light8 (hile they have consolidated the 6olitical categories thatcontinue to o66ress us= they have also discovered ways they may be resisted8(hile they have tightened the 6arameters of our identity= they have also shownus extraordinary 6ossibilities of freedom hitherto undreamt of8 Freedom= I willargue= is a dia6hanous idea= often involving its own forms of domination8 5ut itis also something indefinable= like 6ower* it remains constitutively o6en= and its

6ossibilities are endless8Like 6ower= freedom may be seen in terms of the real* it always exceeds the

boundaries and definitions laid down for it= and the 6ossibility of freedomalways returns=B des6ite the most ardent attem6ts to su66ress it8 #o our time

6resents us with an o6en hori,on= a hori,on that allows us to construct our ownreality= rather than having it constructed for us8 #lavo@ Hi,ek talks about thecolla6se of communist states as characteri,ed by an ex6erience of o6enness=Bof a symbolic moment of the absence of any kind of authority to re6lace the one

@ust overthrown8$ It is a su#lime moment= a moment of em6tiness 6regnant with 6ossibility a truly revolutionary moment caught in that infinitesimal lack between one signifying regime and the next8 'his is the moment in which the 6lace of 6ower becomes an empty 6lace8 'here is no inevitability aboutdomination= but there is always its 6ossibility8 . 'he same goes for freedom8Perha6s we too are caught in this em6ty 6lace= this chasm between one world of

6ower and the next8Although we are still very much tied to the old 6olitical categories= we are

beginning to see their limits8 (e are beginning to see how we can move beyondthem8 'he 9uestion is where are we going to nextD If we think that we can move

to a world without 6ower= then we are already tra66ed in the world thato66resses us8 'he dream of a world without 6ower is 6art of the 6olitical

%


11/197

'he 3eturn of Power $

language of this world8 It is based on essentialist ideas about humanity= ideaswhich render it nothing more than that:a dream= and a dangerous one at that8(hile there is no moving com6letely beyond 6ower= there are= however=

6ossibilities of limiting 6ower= or at least organi,ing it in such a way that therisk of domination is defused8 /ne of these ways= I will argue= is through acriti9ue of essentialist and totali,ing logics8

'he idea that we can be com6letely free from 6ower is based on ano66ositional Manichean logic that 6osits an essential division between humanityand 6ower8 Anarchism is a 6hiloso6hy based on this logic8 It sees humanity aso66ressed by state 6ower= yet uncontaminated by it8 'his is because= accordingto anarchism= human sub@ectivity emerges in a world of natural lawsB whichare essentially rational and ethical= while the state belongs to the artificialBworld of 6ower8 'hus man and 6ower belong to se6arate and o66osed worlds8Anarchism therefore has a logical 6oint of de6arture= uncontaminated by 6ower=from which 6ower can be condemned as unnatural= irrational= and immoral8 Inthe 6ast= radical 6olitical theory has always relied on this uncontaminated 6ointof de6arture in order to 6resent a criti9ue of 6ower= whether it be the 6ower ofthe state= the 6ower of the ca6italist economy= the 6ower of religion= etc8(ithout this 6oint of de6arture= it would seem that any kind of resistanceagainst 6ower would be im6ossible8 (here would resistance or revolution comefrom if this were not the caseD #urely it must come from a rational= ethical formof sub@ectivity which is somehow uncorru6ted by the 6ower it confronts8

>ow here is the 6roblem:the 6roblem that will haunt our discussion8 Let usimagine that the natural human essence= the essential= moral= and rationalsub@ectivity su66osedly uncontaminated by 6ower= is contaminated= and indeed=!onstituted = by the 6ower it seeks to overthrow8 Moreover= not only is thissub@ectivity= this 6ure 6lace of resistance= decidedly im6ure it also constitutes=in itself= through its essentialist and universalist 6remises= a discourse ofdomination8 'o 6ut it sim6ly= then= would this not mean that the 6lace ofresistance has become a 6lace of 6owerD Csing the argument that one needs a

6ure agent to overthrow 6ower= the 6ossibility of a contaminated agent wouldonly mean a reaffirmation of the 6ower it claims to o66ose8 In anarchistdiscourse humanity is to re6lace the state8 5ut if we were to suggest thathumanity is actually constituted by this 6ower and that it contains its owndiscourses of domination= then the revolution that the anarchists 6ro6ose wouldonly lead to a domination 6erha6s more 6ernicious than the one it has re6laced8It would= in other words= fall into the tra6 of 6lace8 'his would seem to leave usat a theoretical im6asse* if there is no uncontaminated 6oint of de6arture fromwhich 6ower can be critici,ed or condemned= if there is no essential limit to the

6ower one is resisting= then surely there can be no resistance against it8 Perha6swe should give u6 on the idea of 6olitical action altogether and resign ourselvesto the inevitability of domination8

owever= the 9uestion of the 6ossibility of resistance to domination iscrucial to this discussion8 'he work will ex6lore= through a com6arison of

anarchism and 6oststructuralism= the 6aradox of the uncontaminated 6lace ofresistance8 I will suggest that the 6oint of de6arture central to anarchist


12/197

Introduction

discourse:the essential human sub@ect and its concomitant morality andrationality:cannot o6erate in this way because it is actually constituted by

6ower8 Moreover= because it is based on essentialist ideas= it forms itself into adiscourse of domination:a 6lace of 6ower8 I will use the arguments of variousthinkers:#tirner= Foucault= +eleu,e and &uattari= +errida= and Lacan:toex6lore the logic of the 6lace of 6ower8 'hey will be used to show that thehuman sub@ectivity of anarchist discourse is constructed= at least 6artially= by avariety of institutions and discursive regimes= and that therefore it cannot beseen as an uncontaminated 6oint of de6arture8 'he 6olitics of 6oststructuralismis the 6olitics of dislo!ation the meta6hor of war= rift= and antagonism is usedto break down the essentialist unity of human sub@ectivity= showing itsde6endence on the 6ower it claims to o66ose8 'his idea of dislocation develo6sthe argument u6 to the logical im6asse mentioned before* how can there beresistance to 6ower without a theoretical 6oint of de6arture outside 6owerD Itwill remain of the discussion to argue= des6ite these limits= that a discourse ofresistance can be constructed through a non)essentialist notion of the /utside8

5roadly s6eaking= then= the aim of this work is to ex6lore the logic of the 6lace of 6ower in various 6olitical discourses and ideas= and to develo6 a way ofthinking about resistance that does not reaffirm domination8 It could be seen asan exercise in anti)authoritarian thought because it tries to resist the tem6tationof 6lace8 It resists= in other words= the desire to find an essential 6oint ofresistance= because this will inevitably form itself into a structure or discourse ofauthority8 'he discussion tries to develo6 anti)authoritarian thinking relevant toour time8

It may seem strange= however= that this thinking will be develo6ed through acom6arison between anarchism and 6oststructuralism8 At first glance it wouldseem as though anarchism and 6oststructuralism have little in common* theformer is a revolutionary 6hiloso6hy born out of nineteenth century humanistideals= while the latter:can it really be said to be a 6hiloso6hyD:would a66earto re@ect the very foundations u6on which anarchism is based8 owever it is

6recisely for this reason that the two are brought together8 'he fundamentaldifferences between them= 6articularly on the 9uestions of sub@ectivity= morality=and rationality= ex6ose= in a most crucial way= the 6roblems of modernity8 (hileanarchism as a revolutionary 6hiloso6hy would seem to have very little to dowith our time= it is based on various essentialist categories which still conditionour 6olitical reality= and which must be ex6lored if we are to ever move beyondthem8

Moreover= anarchism is= as I will argue= a 6hiloso6hy of 6ower8 It is=fundamentally= an unmas"ing of 6ower8 In contrast to Marxism= anarchism wasrevolutionary in analy,ing 6ower in its own right= and ex6osing the 6lace of

6ower in Marxism itself:its 6otential to reaffirm state authority8 For our 6ur6oses= anarchism is the 6hiloso6hy that invented the 6lace of 6ower as a 6olitical conce6t8 I will also argue that anarchism itself falls into the tra6 of the 6lace of 6ower= and this is ex6lored through the 6oststructuralist criti9ue of

essentialism8 And it is through this criti9ue that the 6roblems central to radical 6olitical theory are brought to the fore8 Poststructuralism too is an unmasking of

.


13/197

'he 3eturn of Power

6ower:an unmasking of the 6ower in discourses= ideas= and 6ractices that wehave come to regard as innocent of 6ower8 In this sense= then= anarchism and

6oststructuralism= as different as they are= can be brought together on thecommon ground of the unmasking and criti9ue of 6ower8 owever= as I said

before= what really makes this com6arison interesting and useful is not whatthey have in common= but rather in the crucial ways in which they differ8 #o thiswork is not really a com6arison of anarchism and 6oststructuralism= but rather a

bringing together of certain contrasting ideas in order to highlight the 9uestionsfacing radical 6olitical theory today8 'his com6arisonB is merely a device usedto think through these 9uestions and 6roblems and= ho6efully= to find solutionsto them8

It is= however= undoubtedly an unusual com6arison= and it is a com6arisonnot often made8 I am only aware of one work:'odd Mayiet,sche


14/197

Introduction

Cha ter Outline

'he first cha6ter is a discussion of the anarchist criti9ue of Marxism8 It uses

the arguments of the classical anarchists= such as 5akunin and ro6otkin= tounmask the authoritarian currents in Marxism8 It looks at the ideas of Marx andEngels= as well as those of modern Marxist theorists such as Althusser=Poulant,as= and 7allinicos= and contends that Marxist theory ignored the

6roblem of 6ower= 6articularly state 6ower= by reducing it to an economicanalysis8 'his would lead to the fate of every ?acobin revolution* as theanarchists 6redicted= the structure= or pla!e of state 6ower would be left intact=and even 6er6etuated in an infinitely more tyrannical way8 'he cha6ter alsolooks at the broader 6roblem of authority in Marxism:the authority of thevanguard 6arty and the 6rivileging of the industrial 6roletariat:and it argues

that although Marx himself regarded authority as 6ernicious= he was inesca6ablyindebted to a egelian logic which allowed authority to be 6er6etuated8'he anarchist criti9ue of Marxism= then= is used to construct a theory of the

6lace of 6ower:which anarchists detected in the state:which will become the 6oint of de6arture for the discussion8 Moreover= the dialogue between anarchismand Marxism is im6ortant= because it introduces anarchism as a 6hiloso6hy of

6ower8 Anarchism sought to study 6ower in its own right= without shrouding itin an economic or class analysis8 'his unmasking of 6ower and authority makesit 6articularly relevant to our discussion8

'he second cha6ter looks at anarchism= not merely as a criti9ue of Marxism= but also as a 6hiloso6hical system in its own right8 It is based on a notion of anatural human essence= and a morality and rationality which emanate from thisessence8 I suggest that anarchism is a radical humanist 6hiloso6hyfundamentally influenced by Feuerbach


15/197

'he 3eturn of Power -

essence8 I a66ly this argument to anarchism= suggesting that in its criti9ue of 6olitical authority= it has dis6laced this authority only to reinvent it within theidea of human essence8 'his 6lace of resistance to 6ower has become= then= a

6lace of 6ower itself8#tirner= in talking about the links between 6ower and sub@ectivity= 6rovides

an obvious but hitherto unex6lored connection with 6oststructuralism8 #tirner istherefore the link in this discussion between the 6olitics of classical anarchismand the 6olitics of 6oststructuralism to which it is being com6ared8 'he 6ossibleconnections between #tirneriet,sche= and for this reason it is all the more curious that he has been almostentirely ignored by contem6orary theory8 - 'he contribution of #tirner to

6oststructuralist thought remains largely unex6lored= and I ho6e that thisdiscussion of #tirner in this context will ins6ire some interest in the to6ic8

'he 6lace that #tirner has in this discussion of 6ower and resistance ise9ually im6ortant8 e shows that there can be no world outside 6ower= and thatthe 6olitics of resistance must be engaged within the limits of 6ower8 'herefore=the fourth cha6ter looks at Michel Foucault


16/197

Introduction

the structure of hierarchy:the 6lace of 6ower:intact8 +errida does= however=incor6orate a notion of the /utside:as an ethical realmB of @ustice:which=while it is seen as being constituted by the Inside= is still 6roblematic in thecontext of the 6oststructuralist argument8 #o where does this leave usD (e canno longer 6osit an essential 6lace of resistance outside 6ower= but it seems thatthere needs to be some notion of an outside= no matter how momentary= forresistance to be theori,ed8

7ha6ter seven 6roceeds to address the 6roblem of this non)essentialistoutside through the ideas of ?ac9ues Lacan8 Like #tirner= Lacan will be seen as a

6ivotal 6oint in the discussion8 is arguments about sub@ectivity= signification=and 6articularly his notion of lack= will be used as a way of breaking through thetheoretical im6asse that has arisen8 e allows us to go beyond the limits of the

6oststructuralist 6aradigm:the limits of difference and 6lurality:to ex6lorethis 9uestion of the outside8 I use the conce6t of the lack at the base ofsub@ectivity to formulate a notion of the outside that does not becomeessentialist or foundational:which does not become= in other words= a 6lace8 Ialso use Lacanian ideas such as the real to contest abermas< ideal of rationalcommunication8 'his criti9ue of abermas is relevant here= not only because theideal of rational communication= and the communitarian 6hiloso6hies foundedon this= is similar to anarchism it is also im6ortant to show that the universaland essential categories that this communication is based on amount to atotalitarian discourse that is embroiled in the very domination it claims toeschew8 Moreover= this Lacanian terminology is a66lied to the identity ofsociety= and I attem6t to reconstruct the notion of 6olitical and social identity onthe basis of its own im6ossibility and em6tiness8 'he social is shown to beconstructed by its limits= by what makes its com6lete identity im6ossible: namely 6ower8 owever= the identity of 6ower itself is found to be incom6lete=so there is a ga6 between 6ower and identity8 5ut this lack is not from another=natural world= as anarchists would contend8 /n the contrary= it is 6roduced bythe 6ower it limits8 'his would allow us to conce6tuali,e an outside to 6ower=

6aradoxically on the inside of 6ower:in other words= a non)essentialist 6oint ofresistance8

I argue that resistance must not refer to essentialist foundations if it is toavoid reaffirming domination8 'his is because= as I will have shown= the 6laceof 6ower is inexorably linked to essentialism* universal and totaling 6olitics thatdeny difference inevitably flow from essentialist notions8 #o the next cha6ter[cha6ter eight ] will try to delineate= using the non)essentialist 6lace I have @ustdevelo6ed= a 6olitics of resistance without foundations:a 6olitics which re@ectsuniversali,ing and totali,ing tendencies8 'he ethical 6arameters of this 6oliticsare 6rovided by the anarchist moral discourse of freedom and e9uality= whichhas been freed from its essentialist)humanist foundations8 'he ethical limits thatI am trying to develo6 remain constitutively o6en to difference and 6lurality=while= at the same time= restricting discourses which seek to deny difference and

6lurality8'he 6ur6ose of this cha6ter= and indeed the whole discussion= is 6erha6s to

show that 6olitics can be thought in both a non)essentialist= non)universal way=

1J


17/197

'he 3eturn of Power 11

and in a way which is 6roductive and not nihilistic8 'o say this may not soundall that radical or contentious= but it must be remembered that 6olitical theory isstill= to a large extent= tra66ed within essentialist and foundational discourseswhich limit it to certain norms and modes of sub@ectivity= while dominating andexcluding others8 'he 6olitical 6ro@ect that I attem6t to outline is an o6en

6ro@ect= a 6ro@ect defined by its fundamental incom6leteness8 I can only offer afew suggestions here8 'he 6oint of this discussion is not really to construct a

6olitical 6ro@ect= but rather to show how this 6olitical 6ro@ect arises through thelimitations of modern 6olitical discourse8

'his has been nothing more than a brief outline of the argument:the threadI will draw through the discussion8 As I said before= the cha6ters can be read

both as stages in an argument= and as se6arate discussions with their ownthemes and digressions8 I would feel ha66ier if they were taken as both8

I am also aware that there are certain issues that could have been= and 6erha6s should have been= raised in the discussion= but due to limitations ofs6ace were not8 /ne of these is the 9uestion of libertarianism8 In my discussionof anarchism I mention its 6ossible connection with libertarian 6hiloso6hy8 Ialso mention this connection with reference to Foucault8 I do not go into greatlength for the reason @ust mentioned8 Libertarianism is an anti)authoritarian=antistate 6hiloso6hy= which sees 6olitical 6ower as an insufferable burden u6onthe individual= and which seeks to maximi,e 6ersonal freedom and minimi,e the

6ower of institutions8 1J (hat is more= it is a 6hiloso6hy that= if its advocates areto be believed= is becoming more relevant and more 6rominent in 6olitics today8It is a 6hiloso6hy= moreover= which cuts across both the left and right= andwhich informs the radical= anti)authoritarian elements of both8 It clearly haslinks with both anarchism and 6oststructuralism which= although they a66roachthe 6roblem of authority in radically different ways= still seek to minimi,e

6olitical domination= and maximi,e 6ersonal freedom8 5oth anarchism and 6oststructuralism may be seen as forms of left libertarianism8 5ut the 6roblemwith this similarity is that= although certain as6ects of the libertarian traditiona66eal to those on the left:if leftB or rightB still means anything today: libertarianism is= more often than not= considered a right wing 6hiloso6hy in thesense that it ideali,es free market individualism and wants to liberate societyfrom the o66ressive burden of the welfare state and its taxes8 'his cannot easily

be dismissed8 It must be remembered that anarchists also saw the state as a burden on the natural functioning of society= and they would be e9uallysus6icious of welfare= and Foucault= for instance= was interested in= or at leastdid not discount= liberalism= which forms the basis of libertarianism= as acriti9ue of excessive government8 11

Anarchism and 6oststructuralism both re@ect the ideali,ed notion of theindividual that libertarian 6hiloso6hy is founded on8 For anarchists= theindividual cannot be taken out of the context of the natural society that createshim= and= moreover= the free market= which libertarians see as a mechanism thatex6ands individual freedom= anarchists see as a fundamental site of o66ression8

For 6oststructuralists= to 6osit such an abstracted notion of individuality aslibertarians do= is to ignore the various dominations that are involved in its


18/197

Introduction

construction8 In this sense= then= anarchism and 6oststructuralism= while they are both anti)authoritarian 6hiloso6hies= and while they both aim at increasingindividual freedom= still 9uestion the abstracted notion of individuality:wherethe individual exists in a kind of vacuum of the free market in which he hasabsolute free choice:that libertarianism 6ro6ounds8 >evertheless= there are stillundeniable links that can be established here with a 6hiloso6hy that easily givesitself over to right wing 6olitics8 Perha6s libertarianism can be seen as a dark

6otentiality of the criti9ue of authority8 'o deny this 6otentiality would beagainst the s6irit of theoretical o6enness that I ho6e is imbued in this book8 /nthe other hand= I do not want to em6hasi,e this link too much because thediscussion is not about libertarianism8 I only mention it here to indicate that theanti)authoritarian categories of anarchism and 6oststructuralism are notwatertight8 'heir meanings and im6lications cannot be contained in narrow=clear cut definitions= but rather are contaminated= and very often overflow indirections they might not have counted on= and which they might be o66osed to8(ithout this un6redictability of meaning there would be no such thing as

6olitics8

&efinitions

Political definitions are a difficult thing= and rightly so8 >evertheless= Ireali,e that I had better define certain terms that I will be using throughout thediscussion8 Many of the terms that I have used already like the lackB and thereal=B are Lacanian terms= and will be defined in the cha6ter devoted to Lacan8

owever there are other terms that need some ex6lanation8

$ower, &omination, and %uthorityI reali,e that I have= to a certain extent= been using these terms

interchangeably8 >ow because these ideas are seen in radically different ways by the different thinkers I am discussing= it will be im6ossible to offer an overalldefinition for them here8 Moreover= power in this discussion= is an intentionallyabstract conce6t8 'he 6roblem is that although I will be using theseinterchangeably= by the time we get to Foucault= 6owerB and dominationBhave somewhat different meanings8 Although relations of domination arise fromrelations of 6ower= domination [and authority ] is something to be resisted= while

6ower is something to be acce6ted as unavoidable8 For Foucault and= to a certainextent= #tirner= 6ower relations are inevitable in any society= and this is 6reciselywhere the 6roblems for anarchism= which 6osits an essential division between

6ower and society= emerge8 #o the confusion that arises from Foucault


19/197

'he 3eturn of Power 1"

the state and the 6rison= etc8 it also refers to authoritarian discursive structureslike rational truth= essence= and the sub@ectifying norms they 6roduce8

'ssentialismEssentialism is the idea that beneath surface differences= there lies one trueidentity or character8 'his essential identity= it is claimed= is concealed orre6ressed by forces external to it8 1! For exam6le= anarchism claims that theessential identity of the individual= defined by a natural morality and rationality=is concealed and distorted by the 6ower of the state and religion8 /nce theseinstitutions are destroyed= according to this argument= human essence willflourish8

(e can see that this argument= which views 6olitical forces as external tothis essence= constructs this essence as an uncontaminated 6oint of de6arture= a

moral and rational 6lace from which these 6olitical forces can be resisted8 Myargument against this will be twofold8 First= I will try to show= using the 6oststructuralist thinkers mentioned above= that the logic of the uncontaminated 6oint of de6arture is flawed* in reality= the essential human identity thatconstitutes this 6oint of de6arture is already constructed by= or at least infinitely

bound u6 with= the 6ower regimes it claims to o66ose8 Indeed its identity ofo66osition to these 6ower regimes is itself constructed by 6ower8 #econd=essential identity= far from being an identity of resistance= actually becomes anauthoritarian signifier* it becomes the norm according to which other identitiesare 6ersecuted8 It becomes the basis of a whole series of binary o66ositions thatrestrict other identities by constructing them as somehow a failure or 6erversionof the norm8 'hese arguments are develo6ed from the 6oststructuralist criti9uethat eschews the very idea of an essential identity= seeing identity as nothingmore than a dis6ersed series of surfaces= 6luralities= and antagonisms8

$oststru!turalismPoststructuralism is an ambiguous area that re9uires some ex6laining8 For a

start= there is considerable debate as to whether there is any such thing as 6oststructuralism at all8 Many of the 6oststructuralistB thinkers I will bediscussing would have re@ected the title8 Poststructuralism is merely acatch6hrase= a term of convenience= which grou6s together a whole series ofthinkers and ideas which= in many res6ects= are 9uite diverse8 #o it must beremembered that 6oststructuralism by no means signifies a unified theory or

body of thought8 'here are= however= among these thinkers= certain sharedstrands of thinking and 6hiloso6hical traditions which can be brought out anddevelo6ed= and it is this which may be termed poststru!turalist 8

Poststructuralism has its origins in the structuralism of 5arthes= Levi)#trauss= Althusser= etc8 1" 5roadly= structuralism subordinated the signified to thesignifier= seeing the reality of the sub@ect as constructed by structures oflanguage that surround it8 'hus essentialist ideas about sub@ectivity are re@ected=and in their 6lace is 6ut a wholly determining structure of signification8 Forinstance= Althusserian Marxism saw the sub@ect as overdetermined by thesignifying regime 6roduced by ca6italism= the sub@ect becoming merely an


20/197

Introduction

effect of this 6rocess8 'he 6roblem with this re@ection of essentialism was thatthe all)determining structure of language became= in itself= an essence8 'hestructure becomes @ust as determining as any essence= @ust as totali,ing and asclosed an identity8 As +errida argues= the structure became a pla!e the entirehistory of the conce6t of the structure 8 8 8 must be thought of as a series ofsubstitutions of center for center= as a linked chain of determinations of thecenter8B1% In other words= the all)determining structure becomes merely asubstitution for the essential centers:like &od= man= consciousness:that itsu66osedly resisted8

'his criti9ue of structuralism may be broadly characteri,ed as 6ost)structuralist8B Poststructuralism goes one ste6 beyond structuralism by seeingthe structure itself= to a certain extent= as affected by other forces8 At least theidentity of the structure is not closed= com6lete= or 6ure:it is contaminated= as+errida would argue= by what it su66osedly determines8 'his makes its identityunde!ida#le 8 'here can be no notion= then= of an all)determining= centrali,edstructure like language8 For 6oststructuralists= the sub@ect is constituted= not by acentral structure= but by dis6ersed and unstable relations of forces:6ower=discursive regimes= and 6ractices8 'he difference between structuralism and

6oststructuralism is that* first= for 6oststructuralists= the forces which constitutethe sub@ect do not form a central structure:like ca6italism= for instance:butremain decentrali,ed and diffused second= for 6oststructuralists= the sub@ect is!onstituted by these forces= rather than determined8 /ne is constituted in such away that there is always the 6ossibility of resistance to the way one isconstituted8 It must be remembered= then= that for 6oststructuralism= as o66osedto structuralism= forces= like 6ower= which constitute the sub@ect= are alwaysunstable and o6en to resistance8

Poststructuralism may be seen as a series of strategies of resistance to theauthority of 6lace8 Poststructuralists sees structuralism as falling into the tra6 of

6lace by 6ositing= in the 6lace of &od= or man= a structure which is @ust asessentialist8 #o 6oststructuralism is not only a re@ection of the essentialism ofEnlightenment humanism= but also the essentialism of the structuralist criti9ueof humanism8 A6art from this= I am not 6re6ared to define 6oststructuralism anyfurther8 Its definition will be brought out in the discussion8 owever= as Isuggested before= the 6ur6ose of the discussion is really not to define ordescribe= but to use= and this is how I will a66roach 6oststructuralism8

It may be noticed that I refer to poststru!turalism and not postmodernism 8'he two terms are often e9uated= but they are not the same8 Poststructuralistslike Foucault would wholly re@ect the descri6tion 6ostmodernist=B and in factFoucault said that he did not know what 6ostmodernityB actually meant8 1$ For?ean)Francois Lyotard= 6ostmodernity refers not to a historical 6eriod= but ratherto a condition of criti9ue of the unities and totalities of modernity: an

incredulity towards metanarratives8B 1. 'his would seem to e9uate 6ostmodernism with 6oststructuralism8 owever= the word 6ostmodernB has become so clichGd: (e all live in a 6ostmodern worldB etc8:that it comes to

be seen as an actual stage in history beyond modernity8 It is for this reason that I 6refer to use the term poststru!turalism 8

1%


21/197

'he 3eturn of Power 1$

Poststructuralism is a strategy= or series of strategies= of resistance to theunities and totalities of modernity:its essentialist categories= its absolute faithin rational truth= morality= and the 6ractices of domination which these are oftentied to8 owever= 6oststructuralism does not see itself as a stage beyondmodernity= but rather a criti9ue conducted u6on the limits of modernity8Poststructuralism o6erates within the discourse of modernity to ex6ose its limitsand unmask its 6roblems and 6aradoxes8 It 6resents us with a 6roblem ratherthan a solution8 Modernity is not a historical 6eriod but a discourse to which weare still heavily indebted8 (e cannot sim6ly transcend modernity and revel in anihilistic 6ostmodern universe8 Is this not to fall once again into the tra6 of 6lace

:to re6lace one discourse= one form of authority= with anotherD 3ather= wemust work at the limits of modernity= and maintain a critical attitude= not onlytoward modernity itself= but toward any discourse which claims to transcend it8'his is what I understand 6oststructuralismB to mean8 It means that our work isyet to be done8

Notes

18 AgustKn 7ueva= 'l pro!eso de la &omina!on $olti!a en '!uador uito*#olitierra= 1- 2= 8 uoted in Peter (orsley= The Three orlds London* (eidenfeld

>icholson= 1-4%2= !. 8!8 Michel Foucault= >iet,sche= &enealogy= istory=B in The Fou!ault eader, ed8

Paul 3abinow >ew Nork* Pantheon= 1-4%2= .)1JJ8

"8 ?ac9ues Lacan= The Four Fundamental *on!epts of $sy!hoanalysis, ed8 ?ac9ues)Alain Miller London* ogarth Press= 1- 2= !4J8

%8 Lacan=The Four Fundamental *on!epts of $sy!hoanalysis, %-8$8 #lavo@ Hi,ek=Tarrying with the +egative ant, -egel, and the *riti ue of

/deo logy +urham* +uke Cniversity Press= 1--"2= 18.8 'he fact that what c ame after these communist state s was even worse:the

recurrent 6attern of ethnic clea nsing=B for exam6le:illustrates this 6oint88 #ee 'odd May= The $oliti!al $hilosophy of $oststru!turalist %nar!hism

Cniversity Park= Pa8* Pennsylvania #tate Cniversity Press= 1--%28 #ee also May=Is Post)structuralist Political 'heory AnarchistDB in $hilosophy and So!ial

*riti!ism 1$= no8 " 1-4-2* 1. )141 and Andrew och= Poststructuralism and the

E6istemological 5asis of Anarchism=B $hilosophy of the So!ial S!ien!es !"= no8 "1--"2* "! )"$1848 Michel Foucault= Prison 'alk=B in $ower0 nowledge Sele!ted /nterviews

and 1ther ritings 234562344, ed8 7olin &ordon 5righton= #ussex* arvesterPress= 1-4J2= " )$%8

-8 'his is not= of course= to diminish the im6ortance of >iet,sche= who 6lays anim6ortant role in this discussion= although there is no single cha6ter devoted tohim8 In the same way that +errida sees Marx as the s6ecter that continues to hauntour 6resent= 6erha6s one could see >iet,sche as the s6irit who haunts ourdiscussion8 #ee ?ac9ues +errida= Spe!ters of 7ar8 The State of the &e#t, the

or" of 7ourning, 9 the +ew /nternational, trans . Peggy amuf >ew Nork*3outledge= 1--%2= %8

1J8 For a fuller account of libertarianism see +avid 5oa,= :i#ertarianism a $rimer>ew Nork* Free Press= 1-- 2 and #te6hen L8 >ewman= :i#eralism at it s 'nds The


22/197

Introduction

:i#ertarian evolt %gainst the 7odern State Ithaca= >8N8* 7ornell Cniversity Press=1-4%28

118 #ee Andrew 5arry= ed8= Fou!ault and $oliti!al eason :i#eralism, +eo6 :i#eralism and the ationalities of ew #ocial Movements=


23/197


24/197

7ha6ter /ne

owever= this would be transcended= according to egel= by the modern statewhich would instigate a universal system of law= and unite consciousness= sothat the egoism of civil society would be ke6t out of the 6olitical s6here8 14 Inother words the 6articular state:the state that governs on behalf of 6articularinterests in society must be re6laced by a universal state:one which governsfor the general good8 For egel= the modern liberal state is the overcoming ofcontradictions and divisions in society8 It is the culmination of morality andrationality8 1- 'his idea that the state can exist for the general good= for the wholeof society= was re@ected by Marx8 According to Marx= the state is always a

6articular state that 6aints itself as universal8 Its universality and inde6endencefrom civil society are only a mask for the 6articular economic interests:such as

6rivate 6ro6erty:that it re6resents8 !J Marx was later to develo6 from this the 6osition that the state re6resented the interests of the most economicallydominant class:the bourgeoisie8 For Marx= then= unlike egel= the state cannotovercome the tensions and contradictions in civil society and must= therefore= betranscended8 'hus= Marx talks about the abolition of the state through universalsuffrage8 !1

It is this 6oint that those who want to em6hasi,e the anti)authoritarian=antistatist as6ect of Marx


25/197

Marxism and the Problem of Power 1-

'his was a res6onse to an article by 5runo 5auer in which he suggested that thestate should be used to combat religious alienation8 'he state= according to5auer= could emanci6ate society from the gras6 of religion by becomingsecular8!$ Marx argued= in res6onse= that if the state became secular and religion

became a 6rivate matter for the individual= this would not necessarily mean thatsociety would be freed from the hold of religion* 'o be 6olitically emanci6atedfrom religion is not to be finally and com6letely emanci6ated from religion=

because 6olitical emanci6ation is not the final and absolute form of humanemanci6ation8B !. 'he politi!al emanci6ation that 5auer advocates would onlyfurther entrench religion in society and exacerbate the division between generaland 6rivate interests= between the state and civil society:a division that Marxwanted to overcome8 It would not do anything to weaken religion


26/197

7ha6ter /ne

Marx was unable to see the state as anything but an instrument of economicforces* e Marx2 says ;Poverty 6roduces 6olitical slavery= the #tate=< but hedoes not allow this ex6ression to be turned around to say ;Political slavery= the#tate= re6roduces in its turn= and maintains 6overty as a condition of its ownexistence so that in order to destroy 6overty= it is necessary to destroy the#tate


27/197

Marxism and the Problem of Power !1

institution in the sense that it is not essentially beholden to class interests= it can be used against ca6italism and the economic dominance of the bourgeoisie8 'hesecond 6osition !b2= on the other hand= because it sees the state as essentially a

bourgeois state= an instrument of class domination= demands that the state bedestroyed as 6art of a socialist revolution8 "" 'his is the 6osition exem6lified byLenin8"%

'his traditional inter6retation of the relation between the 9uestion of theautonomy of the state and its role in a socialist revolution may be bestre6resented by a table*

The 7ar8ist model 1 a2 Autonomous state)))))))))) 1 b2 #tate as tool of revolution! a2 +etermined state))))))))))) ! b2 #tate to be destroyed in revolution

>ow it is this dichotomy of state theories and their concomitantrevolutionary strategies that could be 9uestioned8 It may be argued that it is

6recisely the second 6osition 1b2:the view of the state as an instrument ofclass:that entails the first revolutionary strategy !a2 which allows the state to

be used as a revolutionary tool of liberation8 Furthermore= one could see the first 6osition 1a2 which allows the state relative autonomy:as entailing the secondrevolutionary strategy !b2 which calls for the destruction of the state in asocialist revolution*

%n %nar!hist model 1 a2 Autonomous state)))))))) ! b2 #tate to be destroyed in revolution! a2 +etermined state)))))))))) 1 b2 #tate as tool of revolution

'he reason for this rather radical overturning of the acce6ted logic is that thefirst 6osition 1a2 comes closest to an anarchist theory about the state8Anarchism sees the state as a wholly autonomous and inde6endent institutionwith its own logic of domination8 It is 6recisely for this reason that the statecannot be used as a neutral tool of liberation and change during the time ofrevolution8 Even if it is in the hands of a revolutionary class like the 6roletariat

:as Marx advocated:it still cannot be trusted because it has its owninstitutional logic above and beyond the control of the ruling class8B 'he timeof revolution is when the state institution can least be trusted= as it will use theo66ortunity to 6er6etuate its own 6ower8 'o regard the state as neutral= then= asstrategy 1b2 does= is fatal8 According to this anarchist logic= moreover= 6osition

!a2:that which sees the state as an instrument of the bourgeoisie:is the mostdangerous because it is this which im6lies that the state is merely a neutralinstitution subservient to the interests of the dominant class8 It is this 6ositionwhich would actually entail revolutionary strategy 1b2:the use of the state as atool of revolution when in the hands of the revolutionary class8 It is really adis6ute over the meaning of neutrality * according to the Marxist logic= neutralitywould mean autonomy from class interests= whereas for anarchists neutralitywould im6ly 6recisely the o66osite: su#servien!e to class interests8 'his is


28/197

7ha6ter /ne

because the view that the state is determined by class interests does not allowthe state its own logic it would be @ust a humble servant of class interests andcould= therefore= be used as a neutral tool of revolution if it was in the hands ofthe right class8 /n the other hand= it is Marx


29/197

Marxism and the Problem of Power !"

domination and ex6loitation of the 6roletariat8 'his inter6retation would allowthe state a large degree of 6olitical autonomy* it could work against the 6oliticalwill of the bourgeoisie= but it still would have to 6rotect the long)term economicinterests of the bourgeoisie8

#o rather than saying that= for Marx= the state is the instrument of bourgeoisie= it may be more accurate to say that the state is a refle!tion of bourgeois class domination= an institution whose structure is determined byca6italist relations8 According to al +ra6er= the state rules in a class)distortedB way8 "- Its function is to maintain an economic and social order thatallows the bourgeoisie to continue to ex6loit the 6roletariat8 5y maintaining theconditions of the ca6italist economy in the name of the common good= the stateserves the interests of the bourgeoisie8 'his is what Marx meant by saying thatthe state was derivative of 6articular interests in society8

/ne can see in Marx


30/197

7ha6ter /ne

the transitional 6eriodB between ca6italist and communist society= will exercise 6olitical 6ower through the instrumentality of the state* 'here corres6onds tothis Qtransitional 6eriodR also a 6olitical transition in which the state can benothing but the dictatorshi6 of the 6roletariat8B %! Marx called= furthermore= in his

%ddress of the *entral *ommittee to the *ommunist :eague for the workers tostrive for the most decisive centrali,ation of 6ower in the hands of stateauthority8B%" 'he coercive 6ower of the state may be used by the 6roletariat tosu66ress class enemies and swee6 away the conditions of the old bourgeoissociety8 'hus Marx says in the *ommunist 7anifesto * 'he 6roletariat will useits 6olitical su6remacy to wrest= by degrees= all ca6ital from the bourgeoisie= tocentrali,e all instruments of 6roduction in the hands of the state8B %% #o the state=controlled by the 6roletariat= has become= for Marx= albeit tem6orarily= thevehicle which would liberate society from bourgeois domination by re6resentingsociety as a whole8 'hus the aim of the revolution= for Marx= was not to destroystate 6ower= but rather to sei,e hold of it and to 6er6etuate it in the transitional

6eriod8B It must be remembered that Marx sees this 6roletarian state as atem6orary arrangement= and Engels argued that it would wither awayB when nolonger necessary8 %$ owever= the anarchists argued that to ex6ect the state to @ustdisintegrate on its own was naive8 'he reason for this will become clear later8

#o Marx


31/197

Marxism and the Problem of Power !$

the Marxist revolutionary 6rogram= more centrali,ed and 6owerful than it everwas in bourgeois society= or in any other society8 'his claim that theincreasingly dominant transitionalB state no longer exercises 6olitical 6ower is=argued the anarchists= dangerously naive8 It neglects what they see as thefundamental law of state 6ower [or= for that matter= any form of institutional

6ower ]* that it is inde6endent of economic forces= and that it has its own logic: that of self)6er6etuation8 >ow it is true that= as we have shown before in thecase of the 5ona6artist state= Marx allows the state some inde6endence fromclass will= but the 9uestion is whether he has allowed it enough8 'he anarchistswould argue that he has not= and that the evidence for this is 6recisely Marx


32/197

7ha6ter /ne

obstacle to the social revolution8B $1 /66ression and des6otism exist in the verystructure and symbolism of the state:it is not merely a derivative of class

6ower8 'he state has its own im6ersonal logic= its own momentum= its own 6riorities* these are often beyond the control of the ruling class and do notnecessarily reflect economic relations at all8 For anarchists= then= 6olitical 6owerrefers to something other than class and economic relations8

'he modern state has its own origins too= inde6endent of the rise of the bourgeoisie8 Cnlike Marx= who saw the modern state as a creation of the French3evolution and the ascendancy of the bourgeoisie= 5akunin saw the state as thechild of the 3eformation8 According to 5akunin= the crowned sovereigns ofEuro6e usur6ed the 6ower of the church= creating a secular authority based onthe notion of divine right:hence the birth of the modern state* 'he #tate is theyounger brother of the 7hurch8B $! ro6otkin= in his discussion of the state= alsoattributes the rise of the state to noneconomic factors such as the historicaldominance of 3oman law= the rise of feudal law= the growing authoritarianismof the church= as well as the endemic desire for authority8 $"

Furthermore= it could be argued that the 6olitical forces of the state actuallydetermine and select s6ecific relations of 6roduction because they encouragecertain forces of 6roduction which are functional for the state= allowing thedevelo6ment of the means of coercion needed by the state8 'his turns the base)su6erstructure model of the state on its head= seeing the determining forcesgoing from to6 to bottom rather than from the bottom to the to68 According toAlan 7arter= then= because many Marxists have neglected the 6ossibility of

6olitical forces determining economic forces= they have fallen into the tra6 ofthe state*

Marxists= therefore= have failed to reali,e that the state always acts to 6rotect itsown interests8 'his is why they have failed to see that a vanguard which sei,edcontrol of the state could not be trusted to ensure that the state would witheraway8B (hat the state might do= instead= is back different relations of

6roduction to those which might serve the 6resent dominant economic class if it believed that such new economic relations could be used to extract from theworkers an even greater sur6lus:a sur6lus which would then be available tothe state8$%

#o for the anarchists= to view the state= as some Marxists do= as derivative ofclass 6ower= is to fall victim to the state


33/197

Marxism and the Problem of Power !

the state a66aratus does not mean= as Marx claimed= an end to 6olitical 6ower8/n the contrary= the Marxist 6rogram only meant a massive increase in 6olitical

6ower and domination= as well as new lease of life for ca6italism8 Indeed=5akunin believed that Marx


34/197

7ha6ter /ne

state a66aratus= may be used to facilitate the transition to the new society8Cnlike the anarchists= who did not distinguish between ty6es of states= andconsidered all states to be e9ually o66ressive whatever form they took= Marxsaw some 6rogressive and 6otentially liberating as6ects in the modern liberalstate8 Marx considered bourgeois re6resentative democracy= for instance= to bean im6ortant stage in the develo6ment of human emanci6ation8 .1 Anarchists= onthe other hand= regarded the modern liberal state with scorn:it was seen asanother insidious attem6t to mask the brutal= des6otic character of the state andwas= for this reason= even more 6ernicious than the autocratic state8 .! 'hereforeMarxism= unlike anarchism= sees it as 6ossible= and indeed essential= that thestruggle for a new society be articulated within the terms and institutions of theold society8

'he anarchist res6onse to this is that the forms and institutions of the oldsociety will not sim6ly fall away* they will become entrenched= denying the

6ossibility of genuine liberation8 'hey must therefore be removed straight away :their destruction must be the first revolutionary act8 Anarchism is= in thisres6ect= anti) egelian8 5akunin re@ected the egelian tracheotomy* there was noreconciliation between thesis and antithesis= between the Positive and the

>egative8 ." In 5akuninegative8 owever= in this victory both the Positive and the

>egative are destroyed8 For egel= and indeed for Marx= on the other hand= thethesis and antithesis are transcended:however elements of both are 6reservedin the synthesis8 In the same way= elements of the old society are 6reserved andform a necessary 6art of the foundations of the new8 For Marx= then= thecommunitarian= 6ublic essence that the state ex6resses should survive thedestruction of the existing society8 For anarchists= on the other hand= the newsociety was to emerge only with the com6lete destruction of the old8 .%

In contrast to the egelian dialectical framework= anarchism works within adualistic or even Manichean view of the world= seeing the state as essentiallyevil and society as essentially good8 Anarchism is based= to some extent= on these6aration central to liberal theory= between the state and society:the verydivision that Marx wanted to overcome dialectically8 Anarchists argue that thestate o66resses society= and that if only the state was destroyed= then societycould flourish8 Marx= on the other hand= argued that the domination is not in thestate but in society itself= and that if the state were to be destroyed beforesocialist economic relations could be established= society would not flourish or

be liberated:it would be even more at the mercy of the forces of economicauthority8

For anarchists= the liberation of human society must be made by societyitself:through libertarian means8 Freedom can never come through the agencyof authority8 .$ For Marx= on the other hand= 6ower and authority are notnecessarily something to be embraced= but something to be used in a certainway= with a view to their own transcendence8 owever= if one takes account ofthe anarchists< analysis= 6articularly of state 6ower= 6ower and authority can

never be transcended unless they are destroyed immediately8

!4


35/197

Marxism and the Problem of Power !-

The Broader %ro(lem of Authorit)

'he anarchist res6onse to Marxism has shown that Marx is tra66ed within an

authoritarian bind:a statist= centralist framework8 ?ohn 7lark argues that whilethere are certainly some elements of Marxist theory which have anti)authoritarian and decentralist im6lications= if the totality of his thought isconsidered= Marx was attached to centralist and authoritarian structures whichare inse6arable from statist and bureaucratic forms of domination8B .. +es6iteMarx


36/197

7ha6ter /ne

fact 5akunin 6refers not to call this a class at all= but a mass8B 7lassB im6lieshierarchy and exclusiveness8 1

Anarchists argued= moreover= that not only is the industrial 6roletariat

actually numerically small com6ared to other grou6s and classes in society[thisis obviously more so today ]= but that it is also thoroughly imbued with bourgeois

ethics8 5akunin believed that the small elite of class)consciousB 6roletariansconstituting the u66er echelons of the working class= lived in a relativelycomfortable and semibourgeois fashion= and had been= in fact= coo6ted into the

bourgeoisie8 ! Murray 5ookchin= a modern day anarchist= argues that Marxist 6rivileging of the 6roletariat over other grou6s in society is obsolete and= moreim6ortantly= counterrevolutionary8 'his is because the 6roletariat has become

an imitation of its masters=B ado6ting the worst as6ects of ca6italist society* thework ethic= bourgeois morality= and a res6ect for authority and hierarchy

conditioned by the disci6line and hierarchy of the factory milieu8"

'herefore=anarchists argue that the Marxist 6rivileging of the 6roletariat above othergrou6s as the most revolutionary is a 6ractice which is itself born of a bourgeoismentality and is doomed= as a conse9uence of this= to 6er6etuate bourgeoissystems of domination8 'he category of class= for anarchists= is authoritarian initself* it is a form of sub@ectivity that ties the worker to the work 6lace and toauthoritarian industrial hierarchies8

The $arty'he Marxist desire for a unified= disci6lined 6roletariat is= anarchists

suggest= a thoroughly authoritarian desire8 'ied to this is the re9uirement for adisci6lined= authoritarian 6arty controlling the 6roletariat8 % 'he communist 6arty was subse9uently built on hierarchical and authoritarian 6remises8 'herole of the communists was defined by Marx in terms of leadershi6 and control8

e says* they have over the great mass of the 6roletariat the advantage ofclearly understanding the line of march8B $ As anarchists argue= this is clearlyelitist* the most class)consciousB of the industrial 6roletariat leads others insociety= and this elite= in turn= is led by the communist 6arty= 6laying thevanguard role8

'he vanguard role of the communist 6arty= furthermore= is based on ane6istemological authority:on the claim that it is the sole 6ossessor ofknowledge of the movement of history8 It is seen as having a mono6oly onscientific knowledge that no one else can gras68 5akunin often critici,edMarxists as doctrinaire socialists whose strategy would culminate in adictatorshi6 of scientists and ex6erts:a domination of science over life85akunin believed that scientific dogma= 6articularly when it was 6art of therevolutionary 6rogram was an authoritarian discourse that mutilated thecom6lexity and s6ontaneity of life8 'he Marxist 6rogram= he argued= wouldo6en the way for a society governed by a new class of scientists and

bureaucrats* It will be the reign of the scientific mind= the most aristocratic=des6otic= arrogant and contem6tuous of all regimes8B .

"J


37/197

Marxism and the Problem of Power "1

Te!hnologyAnother as6ect of Marx


38/197

7ha6ter /ne

logic8 'o reduce everything to economics is to neglect the 6roblem ofdomination8

Marxism is tra66ed in an authoritarian framework for this very reason8 It isnot because Marx believed that authority was necessarily good* indeed Marx

believed that domination was dehumani,ing and would be transcended8 3ather itwas the conviction that all forms of domination= 6articularly 6oliticaldomination= could be reduced to economic domination= which led Marx into thisauthoritarian bind8 Even those who want to em6hasi,e the libertarian as6ects ofMarx give some credibility to the anarchist view6oint8 According to 3a66a6ort=even within the framework of historical materialism 5akunin was right to

6redict that socialist authority would become tyrannical8 4" #he also argues that*is [Marx


39/197

Marxism and the Problem of Power ""

multi6licity of social 6ractices that cannot be diale!ti!ized back into an originalunity84 It is this 6otential o6enness to the notion of difference and 6lurality=according to 7allinicos= which has caused the crisis of Marxism8B Instead whatmust be reaffirmed is the classical Marxist notion of the social totality= centrallydetermined by the economy8 It is only this 6ers6ective= 7allinicos argues= thatallows for the 6ossibility of the class struggle8 owever= it is 6recisely this

6ers6ective which negates the 6ossibility of other sources of 6ower in society=that is being challenged by anarchism8

5ob ?esso6 tries to develo6 within the Marxist framework a contingenttheory of 6olitical 6ower and the state8 e argues that in Marxist theory thereare three main ways of a66roaching this 9uestion* the first sees the relationshi6

between economic interests and institutional systems 6urely in terms offunction the second a66roach stresses the way in which the institutional form ofdifferent systems reflects or corres6onds to the structural needs of economicsystems the third a66roach re@ects the economic determinism of the last twoand sees the relationshi6 between institutions and economic systems to be basedon !ontingent arti!ulatory pra!ti!es.B 44 'he second= and 6ossibly even thefirst= a66roach is re6resented by 7allinicos who sees the social and 6olitical ascentrally determined by economic relations8 'he third strand of Marxist thoughtis 6erha6s best reflected by Althusser who= on the surface= seems to 6ut forwarda contingent a66roach to the relationshi6 between the 6olitical and the economicwhich allows the 6olitical considerable autonomy8 owever= as we have seen=even in this sort of analysis the 6olitical is still= ultimately= dominated by theeconomy8 'herefore= it could be argued that for a genuinely contingent andautonomous theory of 6olitical and noneconomic 6ower= it means going beyondMarxism8 'he 6roblem of 6olitical 6ower cannot be ade9uately answered withinthe Marxist theory8 As 3a66a6ort says* It does 8 8 8 re9uire going beyond Marxin develo6ing a theory ca6able of ex6laining 6olitical relationshi6s which do nothave their foundations in material scarcity8B 4- ence the im6ortance ofanarchism today8

#ome Marxists have in the 6ast been too ready to blame things likebureaucratic deformationB and bourgeois revisionismB for what ha66ened in

the #oviet Cnion8 Foucault= for instance= condemns those Marxists who refuseto 9uestion the actual texts of Marx when looking at what ha66ened in theC##3= and who try to ex6lain away the 6ersecutions and the &ulag by 6utting itdown to a betrayal of the true theoryB through deviationB or misunderstanding8B /nthe contrary=B says Foucault= it means 9uestioning all these theoretical texts=however old= from the stand6oint of the &ulag8 3ather than searching in thosetexts for a condemnation in advance of the &ulag= it is a matter of asking whatin those texts could have made the &ulag 6ossible8B -J

In other words= although Marx obviously cannot be held res6onsible forwhat ha66ened= one must nevertheless 9uestion his ideas:they must be studiedfor 6ossible links8 'here can be no absolute se6aration between theory and

6ractice* one clearly informs the other= even if not directly8 As we have seen=

there are links which can be made= certain connections to be found= sometimesex6licit= sometimes more subtle= between the authoritarian tendencies in Marx


40/197

7ha6ter /ne

work and the growth of totalitarianism in 3ussia8 It is these connections= theseauthoritarian undercurrents= which I have tried to unearth in this debate betweenMarx and the anarchists8

'his debate has revolved around the 9uestion of the 6lace of 6ower8Marxism= through its economic reductionism= has neglected the 6lace of 6ower8It dismantles one form of 6ower= the bourgeois state= but re pla!es it with anotherkind of 6ower= the workers< state8 'hus= 6ower itself:its mechanisms= itso6eration:remains unhindered8 In fact= 6ower is only reaffirmed and

6er6etuated by Marxism8 'his is what one learns from the anarchist criti9ue ofMarxism8 Marxism failed to revolutioni,e 6ower8 It has failed to overcome the

6lace of 6ower:it has succeeded only in renaming it8 A Marxian revolution is=therefore= only a changing of the guard= the anarchists argue8 5ecause Marxismreduces social 6henomena to the ca6italist economy= it neglects= to its 6eril=other autonomous sources of 6ower in society8 Moreover= this economicreductionism has its roots in a egelian historicism* state 6ower cannot bedestroyed immediately in a socialist revolution because its existence is anecessary 6art of the historical 6rocess8 Anarchism= on the other hand= tries toesca6e= to some extent= this dialectical determinism by establishing a moral

6lace of sub@ectivity8 'his moral 6lace will be the sub@ect of the next cha6ter8

Notes

18 #ee Michel Foucault= ed8= 3evolutionary Action* ;Cntil >ow=< B in :anguage,*ounter67emory, $ra!ti!e /xford* 5asil 5lackwell= 1- 2= !14)!""8

!8 Paul 'homas= arl 7ar8 and the %nar!hists London* 3outledge egan Paul=1-4J2= !!8

"8 &eorg (ilhelm Friedrich egel= The $hilosophy of ight, trans . '8 M8 nox7hicago* Encyclo6aedia 5ritannica= 1-$!2= 1$$)1$.8

%8 arl Marx= *riti ue of -egel s ;Philoso6hy of 3ight=< ed8 ?ose6h /


41/197

Marxism and the Problem of Power "$

1 8 eld and rieger= 'heories of the #tate* #ome 7om6eting 7laims=B %8148 #ee Oladimir Ilich Lenin= The State and evolution The 7ar8ist Theory of the

State and the Tas"s of the $roletariat in the evolution Moscow* Progress Publishers=1-.$28

1-8 >icos Poulant,as= $oliti!al $ower and So!ial *lasses London* Oerso= 1- 42= !$48!J8 3al6h Miliband= The State in *apitalist So!iety >ew Nork* 5asic 5ooks= 1-.-2= $8!18 arl Marx= 'he &erman Ideology=B in The 7ar86'ngels eader, !d ed8= 14 8!!8 arl Marx= Manifesto of the 7ommunist Party=B in The 7ar86'ngels eader, !d

ed8= %.-)$JJ8!"8 al +ra6er= arl 7ar8 s Theory of evolution, vol.2 State and ?ureau!ra!y >ew

Nork* Monthly 3eview Press= 1- 2= !%-8!%8 'homas= arl 7ar8 and the %nar!hists, 18!$8 arl Marx= 7ontribution to the *riti ue of -egel s $hilosophy of ight

Introduction=B in The 7ar86'ngels eader, !d ed8= 1.)!$8!.8 arl Marx= 7riti9ue of the &otha Program=B in The 7ar86'ngels eader, !d ed8=

$!$)$%18! 8 arl Marx and Friedrich Engels= Address to the 7entral 7ommittee of the7ommunist League=B in The 7ar86'ngels eader, !d ed8= $J1)$118

!48 Marx= Manifesto=B %-J8!-8 Friedrich Engels= %nti6&uhring Moscow* Progress Publishers= 1-.-2= """8"J8 Marx= Manifesto=B %-J8"18 arl Marx= After the 3evolution* Marx +ebates 5akunin=B in The 7ar86'ngels

eader, !d ed8= $%!)$%48"!8 3obert #altman= The So!ial and $oliti!al Thought of 7i!hael ?a"unin 7onnecticut*

&reenwood Press= 1-4"2= .-8""8 'his 6oint of difference is summari,ed by Engels* 5akunin maintains that it is the

state which has created ca6ital= that the ca6italist has his ca6ital only #y the gra!e of the state 8 As= therefore= the state is the chief evil= it is above all the state which must be doneaway with and then ca6italism will go to bla,es of itself8 (e= on the contrary= say* +oaway with ca6ital 8 8 8 and the state will fall away of itself8B #ee Friedrich Engels= Oersusthe Anarchists=B in The 7ar86'ngels eader, !d8 ed8= !4) !-8

"%8 Mikhail 5akunin= $oliti!al $hilosophy S!ientifi! %nar!hism, ed8 &8 P8 MaximoffLondon* Free Press of &lencoe= 1-4%2= !!18

"$8 Peter ro6otkin= The State /ts -istori! ole London* Freedom Press= 1-%"2= -8".8 Mikhail 5akunin= From 1ut of the &ust#in ?a"unin s ?asi! ritings 2CD362C42,

ed8 3obert M8 7utler Ann Arbor= Mi* Ardis= 1-4$2= !J8" 8 ro6otkin= The State, !48 Also 5ookchin elaborates an anarchist criti9ue of the

Marxist conce6tion of the #tate and its relation to class* Each #tate is not necessarily aninstitutionali,ed system of violence in the interests of a s6ecific ruling class= as Marxismwould have us believe8 'here are many exam6les of states that were the ;ruling classL5= 1- 2= 1J18

J8 Louis Althusser= 'he /b@ect of *apital =B in eading *apital, eds8 Louis Althusser andEtienne 5alibar London* Oerso= 1- -2= 1)1-48

18 Alex 7allinicos= /s There % Future for 7ar8ismE London* Macmillan Press= 1-4!2= .!).%8

!8 5ob ?esso6= State Theory $utting *apitalist States in their $la!e. 7ambridge=C8 8* Polity Press= 1--J2= 4J8

"8 3a66a6ort= Anarchism and Authority=B "%"8%8 Michel Foucault= Power and #trategies=B in $ower0 nowledge, 1"%)1%$8

".


43/197

Chapter Two

Anarchism

'he 6revious cha6ter discussed the anarchist criti9ue of Marxism andintroduced an anarchist theory of 6ower8 'he anarchist criti9ue ex6osedMarxism


44/197

7ha6ter 'wo

The Uncontaminated %oint of &e arture

Natural and Artificial Authorit)

'his struggle can be understood only through the conce6t of naturalauthority and its o66osition to artifi!ial authority. Anarchists do not re@ect allforms of authority as the old clichG would have it8 /n the contrary= they declaretheir absolute obedience to the authority embodied= as Mikhail 5akunin argues=in natural laws8B >atural laws are essential to manothingcan free him= from their domination he is their unconditional slave8B -! owever=anarchists argue that this is not a form of slavery because these laws are notexternal to man8 'hey are= on the contrary= what constitute man:they are hisessence8 Man is constituted in a natural system he is 6art of nature and is thussub@ect to its laws8-" Man is inextricably 6art of a natural= organic society* Mandid not create society society existed before Man=B claims ro6otkin8 -%

'herefore= natural authority [natural laws ] is not external to human beings*those laws are not extrinsic in relation to us= they are inherent in us= they

constitute our nature= our whole being 6hysically= intellectually and morally8B -$

>atural laws make u6 human nature according to 5akunin8 'hey determinehuman essence8

Anarchism is based on a s6ecific notion of human essence8 For anarchiststhere is a human nature with essential characteristics8 'his human nature isdistinguished by two faculties according to 5akunin* the thinking faculty andthe urge to rebel=B as well as free will8B -. Moreover= morality has its basis inhuman nature= not in any external source* the idea of @ustice and good= like allother human things= must have their root in man


45/197

Anarchism "-

liberate man from slavery and ignorance8 For 5akunin= then= 6oliticalinstitutions are hostile and fatal to the liberty of the masses= for they im6oseu6on them a system of external and therefore des6otic laws8B 1JJ

In 5akunin


46/197

7ha6ter 'wo

celestial #tate8B 1J" 5akunin shows the way in which 7hristianity


47/197

Anarchism %1

addressed8 As we have seen in the 6revious cha6ter= Marxism was unable tocome to terms with this 9uestion and ended u6 reaffirming state 6ower8 For theanarchist ro6otkin= all 6olitical struggles must have an end in mind* >odestruction of the existing order is 6ossible= if at the time of the overthrow= or ofthe struggle leading to the overthrow= the idea of what is to take the 6lace ofwhat is destroyed is not always 6resent in the mind8B 1J-

For ro6otkin= anarchism can think beyond the category of the state= beyondthe category of absolute 6olitical 6ower= because it has a 6lace= a ground fromwhich to do so8 Political 6ower= according to this anarchist logic= has an outsidefrom which it can be critici,ed and an alternative with which it can be re6laced8'his is 6recisely the 6ro6osition that will be 9uestioned8 owever= anarchism is

based on a radical 6icture of human nature and human society8 ro6otkin is thusable to envisage a society in which the state no longer exists= nor is needed asociety in which all mutual relations of its members are regulated= not by laws=not by authorities= whether self)im6osed or elected= but by mutual agreements

between members of that society8B 11J #uch a society is 6ossible= according toanarchists= because of the fundamental morality= goodness= and coo6erativenesslatent in human nature8 111

Mutual Aid: Anarchist Moralit)

For anarchists= then= man is born with essential moral and rational ca6acitiesand it is this 6otential which ro6otkin sets out to ex6lore in his study= 'thi!s 8

ro6otkin argues that to discover the true basis of morality one must a66lyscientific learning to it* morality must be studied as a science so that it can befreed from meta6hysical su6erstition8 11! ro6otkin argues that it was +arwinwho first discovered an instinctive sociability in animals= a 6ermanent instinctBfound in most animals= 6articularly in humans8 11" 'his instinct ro6otkin callsmutual aid= the instinct of coo6eration amongst s6ecies8 11% 'hus= ro6otkinargues that Mutual aid is the 6redominant fact of >ature8B 11$ 'his= however=

6uts him at odds with various social +arwinists who= ro6otkin argues=misa66ro6riate +arwin to su66ort their claim that warfare and selfishcom6etition: survival of the fittestB:are the natural condition of animal andhuman society8 For ro6otkin= on the contrary= mutual aid does not run againstthe 6rinci6le of self)6reservation rather it is its most effective wea6on8 11.

ro6otkin a66lies these arguments to human society8 e argues that thenatural and essential 6rinci6le of human society is mutual aid= and that man isnaturally coo6erative= sociable= and altruistic= rather than com6etitive andegotistic8 'his is the 6rinci6le that naturally governs society= and it is out of thisorganic 6rinci6le that notions of morality= @ustice= and ethics grow8 Morality=

ro6otkin argues= evolves out of the instinctive need to band together in tribes=grou6s:and an instinctive tendency towards coo6eration and mutual assistance8As ro6otkin says then* >ature has thus to be recogni,ed as the first ethi!altea!her of man 8 'he social instinct innate in men as well as in all the social


48/197


49/197

Anarchism %"

theories based on the notion of the social contract8 obbesian theories of thesocial contract rely on a singularly negative 6icture of human nature8 'hey arguethat individuals are naturally selfish= aggressively com6etitive= and egotistic andthat in a state of nature they are engaged in a war of every man= against everymanB in which their individual drives necessarily bring them into conflict withone another8 1!! Let us call this= for the moment= the !onfli!t model of society= aso66osed to the harmony model of society which anarchists 6ro6ound8 'he twomodels would a66ear to be diagrammatically o66osed8 According to the socialcontract theory= society= in a state of nature= is characteri,ed by a radicaldislocation* there is no common bond between individuals there is in fact a

6er6etual state of war between them= a constant struggle for resources8 1!" #ocietyis therefore characteri,ed by a lack:a lack of social order= an absence of anykind of authority or even common social ground u6on which it can be built8'here is no pla!e for authority8 In order to 6ut a sto6 to this state of 6ermanentwar= individuals come together to form a social contract u6on which some kindof authority can be established8 'hey agree to sacrifice at least 6art of theirfreedom in return for some kind of order= so that they can 6ursue their ownindividual ends more 6eacefully and= therefore= more 6rofitably8 'hey agree onthe creation of a state with a mandate over society= which shall arbitrate betweenconflicting wills and enforce a state of 6eace and order8 'his would heal the riftin society:the lack that rends society a6art8

'he extent of the state


50/197

7ha6ter 'wo

society8 'he state is based on violence* it is a disru6tion of= and an im6ositionu6on= a harmoniously functioning= organic society8 1!$ #ociety has no need for asocial contract8 It has its own contract with nature= governed by natural laws*

#ociety is the natural mode of existence of the huma

newman - from bakunin to lacan - anti-authoritarianism and the dislocation of power

Documents