Feminism is a social theory and political movement primarily informed and motivated by the experience of women. While generally providing a critique of social relations, many proponents of feminism also focus on analyzing gender inequality and the promotion of women's rights, interests, and issues.
Feminist theory aims to understand the nature of inequality and focuses on gender politics, power relations and sexuality. Feminist political activism campaigns on issues such as reproductive rights, domestic violence, maternity leave, equal pay, sexual harassment, discrimination and sexual violence. Themes explored in feminism include discrimination, stereotyping, objectification (especially sexual objectification), oppression and patriarchy.
The basis of feminist ideology is that society is organised into a patriarchal system in which men are privileged over women.
Modern feminist theory is predominantly, but not exclusively, associated with western middle class academia. Feminist activism, however, is a grass roots movement which crosses class and race boundaries. It is culturally specific and addresses the issues relevant to the women of that society, for example, genital mutilation in Sudan (see also: female circumcision), or the glass ceiling in North America. Some issues, such as rape, incest, mothering, are universal.
| Contents [hide] |
Main article: History of feminism.
The earliest works on 'the woman question' criticized the restrictive role of women without necessarily claiming that women were disadvantaged or that men were to blame. A Vindication of the Rights of Woman, written by Mary Wollstonecraft, is one of the few works written before the 19th century that can be called feminist. By modern standards, her metaphor of women as nobility, the elite of society, coddled, fragile and in danger of intellectual and moral sloth, does not sound like a feminist argument. Wollstonecraft believed that both sexes contributed to this situation and took it for granted that women had considerable power over men.
However, there has probably always existed other works about the equality between the sexes. For example, the Declamation on the Nobility and Preeminence of the Female Sex, written by the occult philosopher Heinrich Cornelius Agrippa in the year 1529.
Feminism is generally said to have begun in the 19th century as people increasingly adopted the perception that women are oppressed in a male-centered society (see patriarchy). The feminist movement is rooted in the West and especially in the reform movement of the 19th century. The organized movement is dated from the first women's rights convention at Seneca Falls, New York, in 1848.
Emmeline Pankhurst was one of the founders of the suffragette movement and aimed to reveal the institutional sexism in British society, forming the Women's Social and Political Union (WSPU). After many members were jailed repeatedly under the Cat and Mouse Act for trivial misdemeanours in activism, they were inspired to go on hunger strikes. The resultant force feeding caused these members to be very ill, serving to draw attention to the brutality of the legal system at the time and, thus, further their cause.
Over a century and a half the movement has grown to include diverse perspectives on what constitutes discrimination against women. Early feminists and primary feminist movements are often called the first-wave and feminists after about 1960 the second-wave. There is a so called third-wave, but feminists disagree as to its necessity, its benefits, and its ideas. These three "waves" are called so because like ocean waves, each wave comes on top of the one before, drawing on each other.
A very important supportive factor in modern feminism was the publication of a book by anthropologist Margaret Mead, entitled "Sex and Temperament in Three Primitive Societies" (1935). She was a professor at Columbia University, where Bella Abzug studied (Abzug eventually became one of the main leaders of American feminism). In Mead's book, women were reported to be dominant in the Tchambuli tribe, without causing any problems. Among intellectuals of Abzug's era, the book inspired the belief that European ideas of masculinity and femininity were very much cultural, rather than being indelibly instinctive.
The name "feminism" suggests a single ideology, but in reality the movement has many subgroups. Due to historical precedents, the current legal status of women in certain countries, and other factors, feminist ideology has been compelled to move in different directions to achieve its goals. As a result, there are many different kinds of feminism.
One subtype of feminism, Radical feminism, considers patriarchy to be the root cause of the most serious social problems. This form of feminism was popular in the so-called second wave (a "wave" being a large major change in general feminist ideas), though it is not as prominent today. However, many still equate the word "feminism" to mean solely the ideas proposed by Radical feminism. Some find that the prioritization of oppression and the universalization of the idea of "Woman", which was part of traditional Radical feminist thinking, too generic, and that women in other countries would never experience the same experience of being "woman" than women in Western countries did. Western women may find gender oppression to be the root oppression that they face, but women in other parts of the world may be able to trace their oppression to their race or economic status, rather than their status as females.
Some radical feminists advocate separatism—a complete separation of male and female in society and culture—while others question not only the relationship between men and women, but the very meaning of "man" and "woman" as well (see Queer theory). Some argue that gender roles, gender identity, and sexuality are themselves social constructs (see also heteronormativity). For these feminists, feminism is a primary means to human liberation (i.e., the liberation of men as well as women, and men and women from other social problems).
Other feminists believe that there may be social problems separate from or prior to patriarchy (e.g., racism or class divisions); they see feminism as one movement of liberation among many, each affecting the others.
Although many leaders of feminism have been women, not all women are feminists and not all feminists are women. Some feminists argue that men should not take positions of leadership in the movement, because men, having been socialized to aggressively seek positions of power within a leadership hierarchy, would apply this tendency to feminist organizations. This would make the feminist movement a male-controlled movement, and not fulfill the feminist ideal of representing women. However, most feminists do accept and seek the support of men. Compare pro-feminist, humanism, masculism.
Feminism has been principally a movement in 20th century Western societies. Some limited advances have been made in non-Western countries; but the movement has been principally Western in origin and effects. Feminists hope that their movement will have an equal effect across the rest of the world in the 21st century.
Most feminists take a holistic approach to politics, believing the saying of Martin Luther King Jr., "A threat to justice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere". In that belief, some feminists usually support other movements such as the civil rights movement, the gay rights movement and, more recently Fathers' rights. At the same time many black feminists such as bell hooks criticise the movement for being dominated by white women. Feminist claims about the disadvantages women face in Western society are often less relevant to the lives of black women. This idea is the key in postcolonial feminism. Many black feminist women prefer the term womanism for their views.
However, feminists are sometimes wary of the transsexual movement because they challenge the distinctions between men and women. Transsexual women are excluded from most "women-only" gatherings and events and are rejected by some feminists who say that no one born male can truly understand the oppression women face. On the other hand, transsexual women are quick to retort that the discrimination and various struggles (such as that for legal recognitions) that they face due to asserting their gender identity, more than makes up for any they may have "missed out on" growing up, and that discrimination against gender-variant people is another face of heterosexism and patriarchy. See transfeminism.
Feminists such as Rosi Braidotti (1994), interviewed by Judith Butler, criticized gender studies as, "the take-over of the feminist agenda by studies on masculinity, which results in transferring funding from feminist faculty positions to other kinds of positions. There have been cases...of positions advertised as 'gender studies' being given away to the 'bright boys'. Some of the competitive take-over has to do with gay studies. Of special significance in this discussion is the role of the mainstream publisher Routledge who, in our opinion, is responsible for promoting gender as a way of deradicalizing the feminist agenda, re-marketing masculinity and gay male identity instead."
Feminism has effected many changes in Western society, including women's suffrage; broad employment for women at more equitable wages ("equal pay for equal work"); the right to initiate divorce proceedings and "no fault" divorce; the right of women to control their own bodies and medical decisions, including obtaining birth control devices and safe abortions; and many others. Some feminists would argue that there is still much to be done on these fronts, while third-wave feminists would disagree and claim that the battle has basically "been won". As Western society has become increasingly accepting of feminist principles, some of these are no longer seen as specifically feminist, because they have been adopted by all or most people. Some beliefs that were radical for their time are now mainstream political thought. Almost no one in Western societies today questions the right of women to vote or own land, a concept that seemed quite strange only 100 years ago.
In some cases (notably equal pay for equal work) major advances have been made, but most feminists still struggle to achieve their complete goals.
Feminists are often proponents of using non-sexist language, using "Ms." to refer to both married and unmarried women, for example, or the ironic use of the term "herstory" instead of "history". Feminists are also often proponents of using gender-inclusive language, such as "humanity" instead of "mankind", or "he or she" in place of "he" where the gender is unknown. Feminists in most cases advance their desired use of language either to promote an equal and respectful treatment of women or to affect the tone of political discourse. This can be seen as a move to change language which has been viewed by some feminists as imbued with sexism - providing for example the case in the English language the word for the general pronoun is "he" or "his" (The child should have his paper and pencils), which is the same as the masculine pronoun (The boy and his truck). These feminists purport that language then directly affects perception of reality (compare Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis). However, to take a postcolonial analysis of this point, many languages other than English may not have such a gendered pronoun instance and thus changing language may not be as important to some feminists as others. Yet, English is becoming more and more universal, and the issue of language may be seen to be of growing importance.
Opponents of feminism claim that women's quest for external power, as opposed to the internal power to affect other people's ethics and values, has left a vacuum in the area of moral training, where women formerly held sway. Some feminists reply that the education, including the moral education, of children has never been, and should not be, seen as the exclusive responsibility of women. Paradoxically, it is also held by others that the moral education of children at home in the form of homeschooling is itself a women's movement. Such arguments are entangled within the larger disagreements of the Culture Wars, as well as within feminist (and anti-feminist) ideas regarding custodianship of societal morals and compassion.
The feminist movements have certainly affected the nature of heterosexual relationships in Western and other societies affected by feminism. While these effects have generally been seen as positive, there have been some negative consequences.
In some of these relationships, there has been a change in the power relationship between men and women. In these circumstances, women and men have had to adapt to relatively new situations, sometimes causing confusions about role and identity. Women can now avail themselves more to new opportunities, but some have suffered with the demands of trying to live up to the so-called "superwomen" identity, and have struggled to 'have it all', i.e. manage to happily balance a career and family. Instead of the onus of childcare resting solely on the female, it has shifted somewhat, and men are expected to assist in managing family matters more than in previous times. In response to the family issue, many Socialist feminists blame this on the lack of state-provided childcare facilities, but this lack is not evident in all societies.
Men in some circumstances have also felt a loss of power and identity, and have struggled to come to terms with the changing social environments and differing demands made upon them.
There have been changes also in attitudes towards sexual morality and behaviour with the onset of second wave feminism and "the Pill": women are then more in control of their body, and are able to experience sex with more freedom than was previously socially accepted for them. This sexual revolution that women were then able to experience was seen as positive as it enabled women and men to experience sex in a free and equal manner. However, some feminists felt that the results of the sexual revolution only was beneficial to men.
Marriage has also suffered, with some women of the opinion that marriage is an institution that oppresses women, thus opting for cohabitation instead. Many feminists do disagree with this, however.
Feminism has had a great effect on many aspects of religion. In liberal branches of Protestant Christianity, women are now ordained as clergy, and in Reform, Conservative and Reconstructionist Judaism, women are now ordained as rabbis and cantors. Within these Christian and Jewish groups, woman have gradually become more nearly equal to men by obtaining positions of power; their perspectives are now sought out in developing new statements of belief. These trends, however, have been resisted within Islam and Roman Catholicism. All the mainstream denominations of Islam forbid Muslim women from being recognized as religious clergy and scholars in the same way that Muslim men are accepted. Liberal movements within Islam have nonetheless persisted in trying to bring about feminist reforms in Muslim societies. Roman Catholicism has historically been seen to abuse women (for example, the Magdalen Asylum system in Ireland) -- one example given is that does not allow women to hold any positions as clergy except as nuns; they are excluded from entering the main Church hierarchy.
Feminism also has had an important role in creating new forms of religion. Neopagan religions especially tend to emphasise the importance of Goddess spirtuality, and question what they regard as traditonal religion's downgrading of women. In particular Dianic Wicca is a religion whose origins lie within radical feminism. Discussion of these views leads to critics of the view that traditional religions degrade women, suggest examining positive Christian and Islamic views and ideals of Mary, Islamic views of Fatima Zahra, and especially to the Catholic belief in the Coredemptrix, as counterexamples. However, there has been further discussion in response to this. With respect to Mary especially, it has been argued that she, with her status as mother and virgin, and as traditionally the main role model for women, sets women up to aspire to an impossible ideal, and also thus has negative consequences on a woman's sexuality.
There is a separate article on God and gender; it discusses how monotheistic religions reconcile their theologies with contemporary gender issues, and how modern feminism has influenced the theology of many religions.
| Sweden | 40.4 |
| Norway | 39.4 |
| Finland | 33.5 |
| Denmark | 33.0 |
| Netherlands | 31.3 |
| New Zealand | 29.2 |
| Austria | 26.8 |
| Germany | 26.2 |
| Iceland | 25.4 |
| UK(Commons) | 18.2 |
Despite advances made by women, who have successfully created change towards
equality in the West, there is still a very long way to go to true equality,
according to those who provide the following statistics:
Most feminists believe discrimination against women still exists in North American and European nations, as well as worldwide. How much discrimination and whether it is a problem is a matter of dispute.
There are many ideas within the movement regarding the severity of current problems, what the problems are, and how to confront them. Extremes on the one hand include some radical feminists such as Mary Daly who argues that the world would be better off with dramatically fewer men. There are also dissidents, such as Christina Hoff Sommers or Camille Paglia, who identify themselves as feminist but who accuse the movement of anti-male prejudices. Many feminists question the use of the "feminist" label as applying to these individuals.
Many feminists, however, also question the use of the term feminist to refer to any who espouse violence to any gender or who fail to recognize a fundamental equality between the sexes. Some feminists, like Katha Pollitt (see her book Reasonable Creatures) or Nadine Strossen (President of the ACLU and author of Defending Pornography [a treatise on freedom of speech]), consider feminism to be, solely, the view that "women are people." Views that separate the sexes rather than unite them are considered by these people to be sexist rather than feminist.
There are also debates between difference feminists such as Carol Gilligan on the one hand, who believe that there are important differences between the sexes (which may or may not be inherent, but which cannot be ignored), and those who believe that there are no essential differences between the sexes, and that the roles observed in society are due to conditioning. Modern scientists sometimes disagree on whether inborn differences exist between men and women (other than physical differences such as anatomy, chromosomes, and hormones). Regardless of how many differences between the sexes are inherent or acquired, feminists agree none of these differences is a basis for discrimination.
This mostly Western debate about feminism should not distract from the fact that the major goal of the feminist movement in the 21st century is to improve the situation of women in non-Western countries.
Feminists disagree over the role of men as participants within the movement. Kaja Silverman (1992), among others, argues that, "masculinity impinges with such force upon femininity [that] to effect a large-scale reconfiguration of male identification and desire would, at the very least, permit female subjectivity to be lived differently than it is at present." Calvin Thomas (2000) points out that this would most likely require feminist-informed men.
Some female feminists feel that it is inappropriate to describe self-named "feminist men" as "feminist" and instead prefer the title "pro-feminist men"; however, this usage has not caught on in most of American society. Others think that the imposition of a label like "pro-feminist male" on people who prefer another label like "feminist" is comparable to the imposition of racial epithets that are not preferred by the groups they name.
In February 2003, history was made at Oxford University when students elected a man, second year English student Adam Webster, to the position of their Women's Officer.
Feminism has attracted attention due to its large effects in social change in Western society. While feminism in some forms is generally accepted, dissenting voices do exist.
Some critics (both male and female) find that some feminists are effectively preaching hate against males or claiming male inferiority, citing that if the words "male" and "female" were replaced by "black" and "white" respectively in some feminist writings, the texts could be viewed as racist propaganda. While some feminists generally disagree with the view that men are equally oppressed under patriarchy, other feminists, especially third-wave feminists agree that men are similarly oppressed and that gender equality means oppression of neither gender.
Some find that because of feminism, males are beginning to be oppressed. While this view is rejected by many sociologists, those who make this claim often note that males die from suicide 4 times more frequently than females attempting suicide in the USA; rates climbed dramatically during the 1980s and early 1990s; 72% of all suicides are white males; slightly over half of all suicides are adult men, aged 25-65; critics conclude that the USA is becoming a country where males especially white males are severely oppressed. (See statistics here (http://www.who.int/mental_health/media/en/374.pdf)) The global statistics are similar (See statistics for [1] (http://www.who.int/violence_injury_prevention/violence/global_campaign/en/selfdirectedviolfacts.pdf)). There could be various reasons for these suicide rate increases, and they may not indicate a greater level of male oppression. Some studies of the 20 year increase in male suicide rates (ending in 1998, when the rate began to decrease) have found only a correlation between it and: local economic health and employment rates, suicide methods preferred by men, male isolation if divorced, women seeking treatment for depression in far greater numbers than do men, and (especially) aging populations. It should be noted that during the same approximate period (1952 to 1995) the rates for teen and elder suicide nearly tripled.
Many people object to the feminist movement as trying to destroy traditional gender roles. They say that men and women have many natural differences and that everyone benefits from recognizing those differences. For example, children are thought to benefit from having a masculine father and a feminine mother; in this view, divorce, single parenthood, or non-traditional gender roles are all seen as harming children more than do conflict in the home, dual but poor role models, or new definitions of masculinity, femininity, or family. The traditional nuclear family is now an exceptional background in the US, and has been the subject of many critiques characterizing it as a racist or culturally ignorant or nostalgic idealized model.
Arguments have been made that social change and legal reform have gone too far and now negatively affect men and families with children. For example, it has been suggested that custody hearings in divorces are biased towards the mother, and several organizations have formed to fight for fathers' rights.
Some men also express worry that a belief in the glass ceiling for women has led to women being promoted more than men for the purpose of public relations than for their merit. This could be compared to affirmative action; thus, feminists who favour such a method of reform usually present arguments similar to those used for defending affirmative action (i.e. that such a system is required to offset the results of previous discrimination).
Although efforts to curb sexual harassment against women in the workplace are normally applauded, there are those who note that the situation is such that the concern directed towards women in resolving disputes of sexual harassment is indirect discrimination, in that less concern is given to men when they are the subject of the claims, or when they are claiming a case of sexual harassment. Sexual harassment can occur towards men in different ways than towards women. It is claimed that women are more empowered to make claims towards men of sexual harassment, whilst male victims of sexual harassment are not encouraged to make claims themselves, are derided by others, or widely go unnoticed by others. Since the 1990s, proving sexual harassment in the United States (by either men or women) has been made much more difficult by Supreme Court decisions.
Postcolonial feminists criticise Western forms of feminism, notably radical feminism and its universalization of female experience. These feminists argue that the assumption of a global experience as a woman is based on a white middle-class experience in which gender oppression is primary, and cannot apply to women for whom gender oppression may come second to racial or class oppression.
Today, young women most commonly associate "feminism" with radical feminism, and this has put off a lot of these women from being active in feminism, spurring a move away from second-wave labels. However, the basic values of feminism (gender equality of rights and opportunities) have become so integrated into Western culture as to be accepted over-whelmingly as valid, and non-conformity to those values characterized as unacceptable, by the same men and women who reject the label "feminist".
Many believe that feminism ceased being about equality long ago, and is now about preferential treatment and extra rights for women only. It is unlikely, for example, that one would see traditional feminist groups campaigning for equal father's rights in the family court, or against a perceived lighter sentencing of women occuring with crimes such as murder and statutory rape.
Sexual objectification is, in some circumstances, the fetishistic act of regarding a person as an object for erotic purposes. Allen Jones' sculptures Hat Stand and Table Sculpture, made in 1969, which show semi-naked women in the roles of furniture, are clear examples of the depiction of the fantasy of sexual objectification. (This particular interest, a form of sexual bondage that involves making furniture designed to incorporate a bound person, is also known as "forniphilia".)
Some feminists have long argued that traditional attitudes to women in many societies constitute non-consensual sexual objectification of women.
A desire to be objectified occurs in many men and women's masochistic sexual fantasies. Objectification for fetishistic purposes may provide erotic humiliation for the person so regarded, whether male or female. As with most sexual activities, it is generally viewed as abusive if it is not part of a consensual arrangement, such as in BDSM play.
Queer theory is a theory about sex and gender within the larger field of Queer studies. It proposes the theory that one's sexual identity and one's gender identity is partly or wholly socially constructed, and therefore individuals cannot really be described using broad terms like "homosexual" or "woman." It challenges the common practice of compartmentalizing the description of a person to fit into one particular category.
In particular, it rejects the creation of an artificial and socially assigned categories and group-entities based on the division between those who share some habit or lifestyle and those who do not, The Other. Instead, queer theorists suggest building up categories and groups by voluntary and especially aesthetic associations.
| Contents [hide] |
Earlier historical influences include Jacques Lacan, Louis Althusser, and Jacques Derrida. The primary influence in the development of Queer theory was Michel Foucault; later theorists include Judith Butler and Eve Kosofsky Sedgwick.
The first known use of the phrase "queer theory" in print was byTeresa de Lauretis. In 1994, however, she criticized queer theory as a marketing ploy which had "quickly become a conceptually vacuous creature of the publishing industry."
Like those in some branches of feminism, many scholars in Queer theory view prostitution, pornography and BDSM as legitimate and valuable expressions of human sexuality. For example, Patrick Califia in Feminism and Sadomasochism (ISBN 1573440965) writes about how sadomasochism encourages fluidity, and questions the naturalness of binary dichotomies in society:
This point of view places them in conflict with branches of feminism that view prostitution, pornography, etc. as mechanisms for the oppression of women.
Critics of queer theory hold that a vast and growing body of physiological, genetic and sociological evidence shows that, scientifically speaking, sexual orientation and sexual classification are more than just social constructs. In this view, various biological characteristics (some of which are genetically heritable) play an important role in shaping sexual behavior. (Part of the larger nature versus nurture debate.) Many scientists hold that deconstructionist claims about science (not only on this topic) are pseudoscience.
Many different commentators respond to these claims by noting that not all individuals are clearly classifiable as either "male" or "female", even on a strictly biological basis. For example, the sex chromosomes (X and Y) may exist in atypical combinations (as in Klinefelter's syndrome [XXY]). This complicates the use of genotype as a means to define exactly two distinct genders. Intersexed individuals may for many different biological reasons have ambiguous genitalia.
The way the question of the innateness of sexual identity and gender identity has played out in the work of one serious researcher can be investigated by following the many works on sexology of the Johns Hopkins University researcher, Dr. John Money. Early works indicate that he was much impressed by the argument that one's gender identity is a social construct, but in later works he develops a highly nuanced account of all the inputs that research implicates in the formation of any individual's gender identity.
The biological aspects are not as relevant to those who view the process of construction as taking place within natural language and categories it forms by frequent reinforcement in minds - pronouns for instance that make gender or formality distinctions. In Jacques Lacan's model of psychology, the mirror stage (around age 3 where a child sees themselves in a mirror and believes that image to be their "self") and development of language occur at approximately the same time. Indeed, it may be language that constructs the entire idea of self, and gender/sex distinctions as well. Ferdinand de Saussure's ideas of sign-signifier relationships in language are used to demonstrate this concept as well. It is seen that although some biological truths may exist, our knowledge and conceptualization of them is always mediated by language and culture.
Hybrid theories which combine the notions of innate characteristics and social constructs also exist. For example, one might hypothesize that social customs, expections, identities, are shaped by certain "facts of life." This might include innate structures ranging from the obvious (like differences between reproductive organs) to the controversial (such as the existence of a sexual orientation which is fixed in early life with genetic, environmental, and other factors determining the outcome). Empirical (scientific) investigation might be used to separate truth from conjecture and explain how these "facts of life" interact with social norms. The role of Queer theory would be to examine the biological notions of sexual orientation and gender in the context of culture and history.
Sexually-liberal feminism, also known as sex-positive feminism, is a branch of feminism that values the sexual gratification of females. Freedom of expression, narcissism and scopophilia are all valued as potential methods by which females may gain sexual gratification. Pornography, exhibitionism and prostitution are all acceptable to sexually-liberal feminists so long as the health, safety, permission and respect of all participants is maintained.
Sexually-liberal feminists view radical feminism as a potential cause of guilt in females which may lead to sexual repression and negative self-imagery. Radical feminism is seen as a potential cause of female-centric problems such as eating disorders, and the inability to experience orgasms.
Sexual objectification is, in some circumstances, the fetishistic act of regarding a person as an object for erotic purposes. Allen Jones' sculptures Hat Stand and Table Sculpture, made in 1969, which show semi-naked women in the roles of furniture, are clear examples of the depiction of the fantasy of sexual objectification. (This particular interest, a form of sexual bondage that involves making furniture designed to incorporate a bound person, is also known as "forniphilia".)
Some feminists have long argued that traditional attitudes to women in many societies constitute non-consensual sexual objectification of women.
A desire to be objectified occurs in many men and women's masochistic sexual fantasies. Objectification for fetishistic purposes may provide erotic humiliation for the person so regarded, whether male or female. As with most sexual activities, it is generally viewed as abusive if it is not part of a consensual arrangement, such as in BDSM play.
This page is protected from editing
until disputes have been resolved on the discussion page. Protection is not an endorsement
of the current version. To see other versions, use the page
history. (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Anarchism&action=history)
Anarchism is a generic term describing various political philosophies and social movements that advocate the elimination of the state. These philosophies use anarchy to mean a society based on voluntary cooperation of free individuals. Philosophical anarchist thought does not intend to advocate chaos or anomie — it intends "anarchy" to refer to a manner of human relations that is intentionally established and maintained.
While individual freedom and opposition to the state are primary tenets of anarchism, most anarchists insist that anarchism is much more than that. There is also considerable variation among the anarchist political philosophies, to the point that groups with radically different views may consider themselves anarchist, at the same time denying that other points of view should be called anarchist. Two areas where opinions vary are the role of violence in society, and the role of property and/or economics. Egalitarianism is a present, but lesser subject of debate.
One common use of the English word anarchy is "a state of lawlessness or political disorder", otherwise known as anomie. This use of the word implies a broad definition: usually, any situation where there is no internationally recognized government is considered anarchy. The current political situation in Somalia, for example, is referred to as a state of anarchy using this definition, since it is in a state of chaos [1] (http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/so.html#Govt).
However, in anarchist philosophies, anarchy means an "anarchist society", that is, a society where individuals are free from coercion. Few anarchists would point to Somalia as an example of "anarchy". They would argue that Somalia's warlord system is merely another face of despotism, characterized by brutal use of force by self-appointed rulers. Anarchists do not believe, as Jean-Francois Revel wrote in Democracy against Itself, that "... anarchy leads to despotism ... despotism leads to anarchy ..." [2] (http://www.modulaware.com/a/?m=select&id=0029263875).
Anarchist theories have a fundamental critique of government, a vision of a society without government, and a proposed method of reaching such a society. The details of the political, economic, and social organization of an anarchist society vary among different branches of anarchist political thought, as do the proposed means to achieve a society organized along those lines. All anarchists, however, share certain principles, most notably non-hierarchy (in an anarchist society there cannot be any kind of social hierarchy) and its derivatives, such as the principle of equal decision-making power (all people must have equal decision-making power in an anarchist society; if some have more power than others, then a hierarchy is formed).
Historically, the word "anarchist" has been applied to political opponents as a derogatory term with the meaning of "advocating chaos". For instance, the Levellers of the English Civil War and the Enragés of the French Revolution were referred to as anarchists by their opponents. These leftist parties advocated social equality and universal suffrage. Still today, social movements may be dismissed as "anarchist" without further comment, and the term still inspires in many an image of a black clad "mad bomber", terrorist, or other troublemaker. Although such anarchists do exist, anarchists also include a number of intellectual and philosophical anarchists, including many who abhor the use of violence.
Anarcho-primitivists assert that, for the longest period before recorded history, human society was organized on anarchist principles. However, there is debate over the anthropological evidence to support this.
Some anarchists have embraced Taoism, which developed in Ancient China, as a source of anarchistic attitudes [3] (http://www.toxicpop.co.uk/library/taoism.htm). Similarly, anarchistic tendencies can be traced to the philosophers of Ancient Greece, such as Zeno, the founder of the Stoic philosophy, and Aristippus, who said that the wise should not give up their liberty to the state [4] (http://www.blackcrayon.com/page.jsp/library/britt1910.html). Later movements – such as the Free Spirit in the Middle Ages, the Anabaptists, and The Diggers – have also expounded ideas that have been interpreted as anarchist.
The first known usage of the word anarchy appears in the play Seven Against Thebes by Aeschylus, dated 467 BC. There, Antigone openly refuses to abide by the rulers' decree to leave her brother Polyneices' body unburied, as punishment for his participation in the attack on Thebes, saying that "even if no one else is willing to share in burying him I will bury him alone and risk the peril of burying my own brother. Nor am I ashamed to act in defiant opposition to the rulers of the city (ekhous apiston tênd anarkhian polei)".
Ancient Greece also saw the first western instance of anarchism as a philosophical ideal, in the form of the stoic philosopher Zeno of Citium, who was, according to Kropotkin, "[t]he best exponent of Anarchist philosophy in ancient Greece". As summarized by Kropotkin, Zeno "repudiated the omnipotence of the state, its intervention and regimentation, and proclaimed the sovereignty of the moral law of the individual". Within Greek philosophy, Zeno's vision of a free community without government is opposed to the state-Utopia of Plato's Republic. Zeno argued that although the necessary instinct of self-preservation leads humans to egotism, nature has supplied a corrective to it by providing man with another instinct — sociability. Like many modern anarchists, he believed that if people follow their instincts, they will have no need of law courts or police, no temples and no public worship, and use no money (gifts taking the place of the exchanges). Zeno's beliefs have only reached us as fragmentary quotations. [5] (http://www.blackcrayon.com/page.jsp/library/britt1910.html)
In Athens, the year 404 BC was commonly referred to as “the year of anarchy”. According to the historian Xenophon, this happened even though Athens was at the time under the rule of the oligarchy of "The Thirty", installed by the Spartans following their victory in the second Peloponnesian war, and despite the presence of an Archon, nominated by the oligarchs, in the person of Pythodorus. However, Athenians refused to apply here their custom of calling the year by that archon's name, since he was elected during the oligarchy, and “preferred to speak of it as the 'year of anarchy'”.
The Greek philosophers Plato and Aristotle used the term anarchy negatively, in association with democracy which they mistrusted as inherently vulnerable and prone to deteriorate into tyranny. Plato believed that the corruption created by democracy loosens the "natural" hierarchy between social classes, genders and age groups, to the extent that “anarchy finds a way into the private houses, and ends by getting among the animals and infecting them”. ('Republic', book 8). Aristotle spoke of it in book 6 of the 'Politics' when discussing revolutions, saying that the upper classes may be motivated to stage a coup by their contempt for the prevailing “disorder and anarchy (ataxias kai anarkhias) in the affairs of the state. He also connected anarchy with democracy when he saw “democratic” features in tyrannies, namely “license among slaves (anarkhia te doulôn)" as well as among women and children. “A constitution of this sort”, he concludes, “will have a large number of supporters, as disorderly living (zên ataktôs) is pleasanter to the masses than sober living”.
The Anabaptists of 16th century Europe are sometimes considered to be religious forerunners of modern anarchism. Bertrand Russell, in his History of Western Philosophy, writes that the Anabaptists "repudiated all law, since they held that the good man will be guided at every moment by the Holy Spirit...[f]rom this premiss they arrive at communism...."
Gerrard Winstanley, who published a pamphlet calling for communal ownership and social and economic organization in small agrarian communities in the 17th century, is considered one of the forerunners of modern anarchism. The first modern author to have published a treatise explicitly advocating the absence of government was William Godwin in An Enquiry Concerning Political Justice (1793); though he did not use the word anarchism, some today regard him as the "founder of philosophical anarchism"[6] (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/godwin/). The term "anarchist" was used during the French Revolution as an insult against the left, but Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, adopted the term to describe his political philosophy in the 1840s.
Liberals were often labeled "anarchists" by monarchists, even though they did not call for the abolition of hierarchy. Still, they did promote the idea of human equality, individual rights, and the responsibility of the people to judge their governments, which provided a groundwork for the development of anarchist thought. As American political society developed along the liberal model, anarchist thoughts were expressed in the writings of Henry David Thoreau (Civil Disobedience). Anarcho-capitalism arose later as some liberals attempted to reform the ideology of anarchism to make it compatible with capitalism. Many anarchists, however, consider anarcho-capitalism an oxymoron, arguing that capitalism is a hierarchal system and anarchism is non-hierarchal.
In 1793 William Godwin published An Enquiry Concerning Political Justice, in which he presents his vision of a free society alongside a critique of government. Some consider this the first anarchist treatise, crediting Godwin with founding modern philosophical anarchism, though he never used the word anarchism. He is also considered a forebear of utilitarianism. It wasn't until Pierre-Joseph Proudhon published What is Property? in 1840 that the term "anarchist" was adopted as a self-description. It is for this reason that some claim Proudhon as the founder of modern anarchist theory.
Individualists, taking much from the writings of Max Stirner, among others, demanded the utmost respect for the liberty of the individual.
Later in the 19th century, Anarchist communist theorists like Mikhail Bakunin and Peter Kropotkin built on the Marxist critique of capitalism and synthesized it with their own critique of the state, emphasizing the importance of a communal perspective to maintain individual liberty in a social context.
Mikhail Bakunin saw a need to defend the working class against oppression and overthrow the ruling class as a means to dissolve the state. Peter Kropotkin's anarchist communism developed from his scientific theory based on evolution in which co-operation equaled or surpassed competition in importance, as illustrated in Mutual Aid (1897).
Some revolutionaries of this time encouraged acts of political violence such as bombings and the assassinations of heads of state to further anarchism. However, these actions were regarded by many anarchists as counter-productive or ineffective (see "Violence and non-violence", below).
In the late 19th century Anarchosyndicalism developed as the industrialized form of libertarian communism, emphasizing industrial actions, especially the general strike, as the primary strategy to achieve anarchist revolution, and "build the new society in the shell of the old".
Anarchists played a role in many of the labour movements, uprisings, and revolutions of the late 19th and early 20th centuries, including the Russian Revolution (1917). In the United States, many new immigrants were anarchists; an especially notable group was the large number of Jewish immigrants who had left Russia and Eastern Europe during the late 19th and early 20th centuries. These groups were disrupted by the Red Scare of 1919.
Emma Goldman was a very influential anarchist and feminist during this period. She traveled the country and the world spreading anarchist ideas and attempting to live an anarchist life.
The anarcho-syndicalist orientation of many early American labor unions played a large part in the formation of the American political spectrum. The United States is the only industrialized former British colony to not have a labor-based political party.
In Europe, in the first quarter of the 20th century anarchist movements achieved relative, if short-lived, successes and were violently repressed by states. However, in the 1920s and 1930s the conflict between anarchism and the state was eclipsed by the one among liberal democracy, fascism and communism, which ended with the defeat of fascism in World War II. During the Spanish Civil War (1936-9), a widely popular anarchist movement supported by militias loyal to the republic took control of rural areas of north-east Spain in 1936-1937 and collectivized the land, being crushed in short order by the Communist-controlled republican army.
At the end of World War II Europe was mostly divided into a liberal region under United States influence and a communist region under control of the Soviet Union, and the major political dichotomy became that between capitalism and communism. The philosophical influence of anarchism remained latent until it resurfaced in the 1960s.
From a very different perspective but also in North America, primitivists like John Zerzan proclaimed that civilization — not just the state — would need to be abolished to foster liberty and a just social order. A rejection of modern Technology is also prominent in the views of many primitivists, such as Theodore Kaczynski (the Unabomber).
A surge of popular interest in anarchism occurred during the 1960s and 1970s. In the UK this was associated with the punk rock movement; the band Crass is celebrated for its anarchist and pacifist ideas; of note is also the Sex Pistols' hit "Anarchy in the UK" In Denmark, the Freetown Christiania was created in downtown Copenhagen. The housing and employment crisis in most of Western Europe led to the formation of communes and squatter movements like the one still thriving in Barcelona, Spain.
Through the 20th century anarchists were actively involved in the labour and feminist movements, and later in the fight against fascism. The influence of this on anarchist thought is apparent, as most of the traditional anarchist philosophies emphasize the economic implications of anarchism or arrive at anarchism from economic arguments. Since the mid-1960s, anarchists have been involved in student protest movements, peace movements, squatter movements, and the anti-globalization movement, among others.
Today, traditional anarchist organizations continue to exist across the globe.
Feminism has always been a part of the anarchist movement, in the form of anarcha-feminism. North American anarchism also takes strong influences from the American Civil Rights Movement and the movement against the war in Vietnam. European anarchism has developed out of the labour movement, and both have incorporated animal rights activism. Globally, anarchism has also grown in popularity and influence as part of the anti-war, anti-capitalist, and anti-globalisation movements. Recently, anarchists have been known for their involvement in protests against World Trade Organization and Group of Eight meetings, and the World Economic Forum; protests which are generally portrayed in mainstream media coverage as violent riots. Many anarchists are part of the black blocs at these protests and some engage in rioting, vandalism, and violent confrontations with police. Others peacefully protested, upholding non-violent principles.
Anarchists and others might say that recent technological developments have made the anarchist cause both easier to advance and more conceivable to people. Many people use cell phones or the Internet to form loose communities which could be said to be organized along anarchist lines. Some of these communities have as their purpose the production of information in a non-commodified or use-value format, a goal made attainable by the availability of personal computing, desktop publishing and digital media. These things have made it possible for individuals to share music files over the Internet, without economic incentive, and even with a certain amount of risk. There are also open source programming communities, who donate their time, and offer their product freely as well. Examples include Usenet, the free software movement (including the GNU/Linux community and the wikiwiki paradigm), and Indymedia. A book analyzing how this new "anarchic" mode of production is possible is Eric S. Raymond's The Cathedral and the Bazaar. Traditional historical materialist analysis, used by many libertarian socialists, is one means of interpreting the above, and would describe it as a "political economy of non-commodity information production".
In recent history there have been numerous instances of collapse of state authority, sometimes prompted by war but also often due to implosion of the state. In some cases, state collapse is followed by lawlessness, rioting, looting and, if disarray lasts long enough, warlordism; present-day Somalia is often cited as one example. Although such societies are often described as anarchy, they are not organised according to anarchist principles.
However, there are instances in which a society peacefully organizes itself without a government or other form of centralised power, along philosophical anarchist lines. A functioning anarchy would then be a society maintaining stability and civil society without hierarchies. There are some examples, usually small and/or short-lived (many were overrun by outside forces), which are considered successful anarchies in this sense.
In 1936, against the background of the fight against fascism, was a profound libertarian revolution throughout Spain.
Much of Spain's economy was put under worker control; in anarchist strongholds like Catalonia, the figure was as high as 75%, but lower in areas with heavy Socialist influence. Factories were run through worker committees, agrarian areas became collectivized and run as libertarian communes. Even places like hotels, barber shops, and restaurants were collectivized and managed by their workers. George Orwell describes a scene in Aragon during this time period, in his book, Homage to Catalonia:
"I had dropped more or less by chance into the only community of any size in Western Europe where political consciousness and disbelief in capitalism were more normal than their opposites. Up here in Aragon one was among tens of thousands of people, mainly though not entirely of working-class origin, all living at the same level and mingling on terms of equality. In theory it was perfect equality, and even in practice it was not far from it. There is a sense in which it would be true to say that one was experiencing a foretaste of Socialism, by which I mean that the prevailing mental atmosphere was that of Socialism. Many of the normal motives of civilized life – snobbishness, money-grubbing, fear of the boss, etc. – had simply ceased to exist. The ordinary class-division of society had disappeared to an extent that is almost unthinkable in the money-tainted air of England; there was no one there except the peasants and ourselves, and no one owned anyone else as his master."
The communes were run according to the basic principle of "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need," of course without the attached Marxist dogma. In some places, money was entirely eliminated. Despite the critics clamoring for maximum efficiency, anarchic communes often produced more than before the collectivization. The newly liberated zones worked on entirely libertarian principles; decisions were made through councils of ordinary citizens without any sort of bureaucracy (it should be noted that the CNT-FAI leadership was at this time not nearly as radical as the rank and file members responsible for these sweeping changes).
In addition to the economic revolution, there was a spirit of cultural revolution. Oppressive traditions were done away with. For instance, women were allowed to have abortions, and the idea of "free love" became popular. In many ways, this spirit of cultural liberation was similar to that of the "New Left" movements of the 1960s.
Freetown Christiania is a quarter of Copenhagen that became independent and self-governing in the 1970s after an anarchist commune took over army barracks in the center of the city. While in theory governed by the laws of Denmark, it is left alone by the authorities. For a third of a century, this self-described social experiment has successfully resolved conflicts threatening its continued existence, arising both internally and from the Danish state. However, it is alleged that Christiania derives income from the sale of illegal drugs such as Hashish and Marijuana to non-residents. This has created problems for the community, notably between supporters and opponents of recreational drug use.
Amongst the instances in which anarchism arose there are many examples that share some of the qualities of anarchist organizations.
The Hungarian Revolution of 1956 can be seen as an excellent example of a functioning anarchy, perhaps even of successful communism. From October 22 1956 Hungarian workers refused to obey their managers or their government. Claiming sovereignty for their own workers councils they organized economic, military and social production on an increasing scale. An example of the anarchic social organization was that vast sums of money were freely donated for injured revolutionary fighters; and that this money was left unattended in the street for days at a time. Peasants supplied the workers with food on a voluntary basis. Between October 22 and December 14 Hungary's economy and society was governed by the democratic opinion of workers councils and voluntary associations. These councils constantly increased in scope and depth, eventually forming a Central Workers Council of Greater Budapest (CWC-GB), with intellectual and student associations affiliated to the body. The attempts to form a national Workers Council were crushed by Soviet military violence. The workers councils fought off one invasion by the Soviet Union between October 23 and 28, and fought a second invasion to an armistice of exhaustion between November 3 and November 10. After this time the Soviet Union negotiated directly with the Workers Councils. However, arrests of the primary and reserve leaderships of the CWC-GB, and massive reprisal executions and deportations of Hungarian revolutionaries lead to voluntary dissolution of the CWC-GB as it was no longer able to uphold its aims and ideals. Sporadic resistance by Hungarian revolutionaries and workers continued until mid 1957. Only one self-proclaimed anarchist, the Marxist playwright Julius Hay (Hay Gyulia), was involved in organizing the revolution. Most revolutionary Hungarians adopted their own "anarchist" way of organizing spontaneously.
The indigenous peoples of Southern Mexico rebelled in 1994, partially in response to the signing of NAFTA, reclaiming their lands in what is called "a war against oblivion." They established various municipalities which are, in practice, outside the realm of Mexican law.
Laws in the Zapatista Autonomous Municipalities are not passed by "leaders," as such, but by "Good Government Councils" and by the will of the people (representatives in these councils are truly representative of their communities, rather than professional politicians). They serve not as traditional governing bodies but as instruments of the people to provide medicine, education, food, and other essentials. The "laws" passed by the Good Government Councils are not enforced with policemen and prisons, but in a way that respects "criminals" as members of the community. For example, it was decided to ban alcohol and drugs, due to their nefarious influence on Indians in the past. Violation of this law is surprisingly rare; those who do may be required, for example, to help build something their community needs. Some anarchists believe this to be a decentralized, non-authoritarian style similar to what they advocate, having always loathed prisons, police power, and capital punishment.
The Zapatistas do not claim to be anarchists, but through their actions and words, have shown some similarities to self-proclaimed anarchists and have become a cause célebre of the global left and the "anti-globalization movement".
After the non-violent collapse of the Argentinean government in 2001/2002, the social and economic organization of Argentina has undergone major changes, though how important these changes are remains to be seen. Worker occupations of factories and popular assemblies have both been seen functioning in Argentina, and both are the kind of action endorsed by anarchists: the first is a case of direct action and the latter a case of direct democracy. An alternate description by the CIA of present-day Argentinean politics is available here [7] (http://cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/ar.html#Govt). Approximately 200 "recovered" factories (fábricas recuperadas) are now self-managed and collectively owned by workers. In the large majority of them, pay is completely egalitarian ; generally no professional managers are employed, or managers are collectively controlled in the other cases. These co-operatives have organised themselves into networks. Solidarity and support from external groups such as neighborhood assemblies and unemployed (piquetero) groups have often been important for the survival of these factories. Similar developments have taken place in Brazil and Uruguay. [8] (http://www.americaspolicy.org/citizen-action/series/12-factories.html) In 2004, Avi Lewis and Naomi Klein (Author of No Logo) released the documentary The Take (http://www.nfb.ca/thetake/), which is about these events.
The Free Software movement is an example of an emergent movement with anarchist characteristics. The nature of the GPL and many other Open Source licenses is such that there is a collective sharing of resources (in this case, source code) between all developers, thus putting into practice the theories behind anarcho-socialists' perspective on private property and economic organization.
Although not an anarchist project, some have pointed out that Wikipedia has many anarchist qualities: Wikipedians co-operate freely for their own benefit as well as the benefit of all (mutual aid), it is self-managed with little hierarchy, copyleft licence restricts private property rights and guarantees public use. [9] (http://yozzee.com/wikipedia.html)
See also: Past and present anarchist communities
From William Godwin's utilitarian anarchism to Pierre-Joseph Proudhon's mutualism, to Max Stirner's egoism, to Benjamin Tucker's radical individualism, to Peter Kropotkin's anarchist communism, the roots of anarchist thought in modern political philosophy are varied, with many different views of what a society without government should be like. Anarcho-capitalism has roots in classical laissez-faire liberalism but also draws inspiration from the individualist anarchists, despite the latter's rejection of capitalist economics. Primitivism, advocating the dissolution of civilization, is reminiscent of, if not inspired by, the early 19th century Luddite movement. Some would argue that ecoterrorism is an expression of anarchism. There are also a number of feminist anarchist theories, including anarcha-feminism, eco-feminism, and individualist feminism. Grouping any of these together in one category is a difficult endeavor at best. For instance, there are very few similarities in belief between a libertarian socialist and an anarcho-capitalist. Indeed, the two groups are probably more radically different from each other than either one is from mainstream political thought. There is a small but growing group who claim no adjective to their anarchism. While they reject the implicite hierarchy in anarcho-capitalism, they don't have a problem with forms that conform with the basic principles of Anarchy.
Main article: Anarcho-syndicalism
Anarcho-syndicalism is the anarchist wing of the labor union movement. Its primary aim is the end of the wage system. It functions on principles of workers solidarity, direct action, and self-management.
Workers' solidarity means that anarcho-syndicalists believe all workers, no matter what their race, gender, or ethnic group are in a similar situation vis-a-vis their bosses. Furthermore, it means that, within capitalism, any gains or losses made by some workers in their relation to bosses will eventually impact all workers. Therefore, it says that in order to gain liberation, all workers must support one another in their struggle against bosses.
Anarcho-syndicalists only believe in direct action – that is, action directly designed to confront a problem. Direct action can range from traditional strikes to active sabotage.
Furthermore, anarcho-syndicalists believe that workers' organizations – the organizations which struggle against the wage system and which, in anarcho-syndicalist theory, will eventually form the basis of a new society – should be self-managing. They should not have bosses or "business agents"; rather, the workers should be able to make decisions that affect them amongst themselves.
The International Workers Association is an international anarchosyndicalist federation of various labor unions from different countries. The Industrial Workers of the World, a once-powerful, still active, and again growing labor union, is considered a leading organ of the anarcho-syndicalist philosophy in the United States. The Spanish Confederación Nacional del Trabajo played a major role in the Spanish civil war. Other major anarcho-syndicalist organizations include the Workers Solidarity Alliance, and the Solidarity Federation in the UK.
Some critics of anarcho-syndicalism contend that its focus on proletarian class struggle overlooks the needs of some segments of society (parents or others occupied with child-rearing or domestic labor, for example), although some anarcho-syndicalist thought attempts to address other sectors of economic life. Some primitivist authors, notably Bob Black, contend that an anarcho-syndicalist revolution would leave in place social systems they find oppressive (work and workplaces, for example), although anarcho-syndicalists contend that worker self-management would render those systems fundamentally more humane.
Anarcho-capitalism is an ideology which rejects the state and unlike traditional anarchism, embraces capitalism. Anarcho-capitalists see human freedom as paramount, both as a means to a just and prosperous society and as an end in itself, and think the free market is both the most free and the most efficient method of organizing society. They reject the traditional anarchist labelling of capitalism as an unjustified hierarchy. Prominent anarcho-capitalists include Murray Rothbard and David Friedman.
There is a significant anarchist element to the environmental movement, including those that are known as eco-anarchists and green-anarchists. These two, though similar, are not quite the same because the political label 'Green' has implications beyond ecology (see Green Party). Green anarchists accept some restrictions on individual freedom as a means of preserving natural capital (for example, farmland and water) and often promote limited forms of social ecology. Eco-anarchists, by contrast, are more extreme and advocate a sort of fusion with nature (see also: eco-village and primitivism). Green anarchism, in North America at least, is also linked with anarcho-primitivism. Eco-feminism is also sometimes considered a form of anarchism.
Some anarchists see information technology as the way to replace hierarchy, defeat monopoly, and prevent war, and support culture jamming in particular as a way to do so. Some writers — particularly Iain M. Banks, who has written quite extensively in the science fiction genre about The Culture, a futuristic society which has disposed of government — have theorised that anarchism would be inevitable with the technological advances that would make travelling and living in space plausible [10] (http://www.cs.bris.ac.uk/~stefan/culture.html).
It has also been argued that the free software movement is an example of anarchist organization, this being an example not of hierarchical business, but of voluntary association for the production of a good.
See also Crypto-anarchism and Cypherpunk.
Radical feminism espouses the belief that patriarchy is a fundamental problem in our society. Feminist anarchism, or anarcha-feminism (a term allegedly created during the 1960s' second-wave feminism), views patriarchy as the first manifestation of hierarchy in human history; thus, the first form of oppression occurred in the dominance of male over female.
Anarcha-feminism is most often associated with early 20th-century authors and theorists such as Emma Goldman and Voltairine de Cleyre, although even early first-wave feminist Mary Wollstonecraft held proto-anarchist views. In the Spanish Civil War, an anarcha-feminist group, "Free Women", organized to defend both anarchist and feminist ideas.
Wendy McElroy is an example of a contemporary individualist anarchist feminist.
Many political philosophers justify support of the state as a means of regulating violence, so that the destruction caused by human conflict is minimized and fair relationships are established. Anarchists argue that pursuit of these ends do not justify the establishment of a state, and in fact many argue that the state is incompatible with those goals. Much effort has been dedicated to explaining how anarchist societies would promote these values. While anarchists recognize that the use of violence is ultimately an individual decision, some have proposed mechanisms by which an anarchist society could influence that decision.
Anarchists who have renounced violence in all forms have the simplest answer. Since the state relies on violence to enforce all of its laws, even those that promote its own survival such as taxation, if a large proportion of a society ceases to provide moral or material support to any use of violence, then the state would inevitably collapse, resulting in anarchy. Since this view of anarchy presupposes the renunciation of violence by the bulk of a society, the problem of discouraging the use of violence is not an issue. From this perspective, the main challenge facing anarchists is not to devise institutions, but to convince individuals to renounce the use of violence.
However, other anarchists believe that violence is an unfortunate but inevitable part of human existence. These anarchists emphasize that violence is only justified in self-defense, though the definition of self-defense can vary widely. Various institutions have been proposed to ensure that aggressive violence is met with an overwhelming response. These institutions seek to encourage the community to intervene on behalf of the wronged person, or at least not intervene on behalf of the aggressor. For civil disputes, juries or mediators may be called upon to rule on the dispute. Refusal to submit to the decision of the jury or mediator would reflect poorly on that individual.
Larger conflicts would be addressed with larger organizations. Confederation is a popular model for such organization. Any such organization would have a "bottom up" structure, recognizing the right of individuals and small groups to leave the larger group at any time. In such a situation, it is unlikely that everyone in a country would decide to participate in the same organization. Anarchists hope that this would result in the co-existence of multiple associations with individuals changing their associations as they saw fit. Robert Paul Wolff represents those who argue for a unanimous consent democracy.
By rejecting existing political structures, anarchists also reject many of the practices that have been designed with the intent of promoting social cohesion. How anarchists propose that an anarchist society would replace these practises varies widely. Some anarchists believe that the society only needs to be concerned with the use of violence. Others believe that more extensive rules of conduct are necessary, but that these should be enforced by passive punishments, such as economic or social exclusion. Still others take a deontological stance on the issue, arguing that the practical tasks of promoting social cohesion are beside the point, and that anarchism is a moral imperative that should be pursued regardless of consequence.
The modern state is deeply involved in society's economic activities, ranging from the protection of property, to the regulation of markets, and even the provision of goods. Most anarchists would agree that radical restructuring of existing economic systems is necessary. For example, Bob Black proposed that anarchy would allow for "the abolition of work"[11] (http://www.zpub.com/notes/black-work.html).
Socialist anarchists advocate the use of collectives and co-operatives for organizing small-scale production. These units would be coordinated by voluntary associations that could range from market arrangements to tightly coordinated confederacies. An example of a large-scale communist system is "The Industrial Commonwealth" proposed by the Industrial Workers of the World. Workers, through unions organized by type of product, would democratically govern output. The model assumes that benefits arise by organizing workers based on the type of good produced (health, agricultural goods, communication, domestic labour). Means and tools of production would be held in common, through the unions. The Industrial Commonwealth was initially focused on the six sectors of Agriculture, Transport, Construction, Manufacturing, Government Services and Non-Government Services: a model which omitted to recognise particular industries like domestic labour or sex work. The contemporary model of the Industrial Commonwealth more explicitly recognises this work.
The new "Industrial Commonwealth" economy was to grow within the old capitalist one. As unions became more powerful, and more workers worked in worker controlled industries, society would be gradually transformed by a constant struggle.
While the day-to-day methods of accounting and resource allocation for the Industrial Commonwealth have never been proposed, the IWW's suggestion that workers learn how to run their factories indicates that workers would largely take over firm management and allocation strategies.
Whereas Marxism wants to get away from the entire structure of capital, believing that it is a dangerous form of control, the anarcho-capitalists believe that free market capitalism is a necessary part of freedom.
Even leftist anarchism and Marxism are two very different political philosophies, although there is some similarity between the methodology and ideology of some anarchists and some Marxists, and the history of the two have often been intertwined.
The International Workingmen's Association, at its founding, was an alliance of socialist groups, including both anarchists and Marxists. Both sides had a common aim (stateless communism) and common political opponents (conservatives and other right-wing elements). But each was critical of the other, and the inherent conflict between the two groups soon embodied itself in an ongoing argument between Mikhail Bakunin, representative of anarchist ideas, and Karl Marx himself. In 1872, the conflict in the First International climaxed with the expulsion of Bakunin and those who had become known as the "Bakuninists" when they were outvoted by the Marx party at the Hague Congress.
Marxism has a very precise definition of the state: that the state is an organ of one class's repression of all other classes. To Marxists any state is necessarily a dictatorship by one class over all others. Within this definition the idea of a "dictatorship of the proletariat" can mean anything from the monopoly of force by armed working people's councils, to a monopoly of force by a party composed of intellectuals claiming to be the leadership of the working people. Within Marxist theory, should the differentiation between classes disappear, so too will the state disappear.
Anarchism has a broader series of definitions of the state, ranging from the bourgeois state formation of army, bureaucracy, and representative parliament, to an idea of the state as a monopoly of violence. Left-wing anarchists disagree amongst themselves if democratic workers councils with a monopoly of violence constitutes a state or not.
While left-wing anarchists and Marxists both agree on the desirability of a stateless Communism, they have deep arguments about phases of a revolution between now and that ideal. Anarchists often wish to "smash" the state, replacing it with workers' councils, syndicates and other methods of organisation that are not a governmental body as such. Marxists often wish to "smash" the bourgeois state, but they wish to replace it with a new kind of state run by the workers. This Marxist desire is often referred to as "seizing state power." These arguments are often seen as critical, because they involved the autonomy of workers councils, the existence of secret police, and the transparency of justice. As the argument between these conceptions often hides an argument about whose ideas lead the revolution, Anarchists and Marxists have on a number of occasions tried to eliminate each other during revolutions.
The issue of the state, and the idea of seizing the state for a party, brings up the issue of political parties, which also often divides Anarchists and Marxists. In general, anarchists refuse to participate in governments, and so do not form political parties. Marxists, on the other hand, see political parties as tools for seizing power, which they believe is necessary to effect any meaningful political change.
Marxism uses a form of dialectical analysis of human societies called historical materialism. At the crux of historical materialist analysis is the idea that people find themselves in a predetermined material world, and act to produce changes upon that world within the limits of what changes they can conceive of. An example of historical materialism would be that feudal peasants would find themselves with a lord above them, and imagine religious, instead of political, solutions to the problem of their unfree status. Underlying these processes is an idea that contradictions and opposed social groups will naturally form and drive social progress.
However, Marxism also contains another method of analysis called dialectical materialism. This method claims that all physical and non-physical elements of the world have contradictory properties within them, driving things forward through change. Dialectical materialism claims that all natural phenomena, not simply human society, are governed by dialectics. This analysis is more tenuously established than historical materialism, and is often associated with Frederick Engels and Stalinism.
Anarchists use a wide variety of tools of social analysis. However, most anarchists recognise the value of historical materialism as a tool for social analysis. Some anarchist organisations like the Irish Workers Solidarity Movement make agreeing with the historical materialist method's value a central point of unity. Anarchists use historical materialism for the same reason that Marxists do: it gives them a materially supportable insight into how society currently works.
Anarchists were one of the first groups to criticise the dialectical materialist trend, on the basis that it dehumanises social and political analysis, and is not sustainable as a universal methodology. Anarchists have, however, pointed out when dialectics seem to govern the behaviour of natural phenomena, as Peter Kropotkin does in Mutual Aid: A Factor in Evolution regarding the structure of bee hives and rabbit populations.
Marxism and anarchism are not always incompatible. At the beginning of the 20th century many Marxists and Anarchists were united within syndicalist movements for militant revolutionary trade unions (see: De Leonism, IWW). Many Marxists have participated honestly in anarchist revolutions, and many Anarchists have participated honestly in Marxist revolutions. More over, a large number of political groups attempt a synthesis of Marxist and Anarchist traditions with the aim of a liberated workers society. Examples would include Autonomist Marxism and Situationism.
Like socialism, communism and even fascism, Anarchism has a plethora of imagery and symbolism which have become associated with a variety of groups and movements, and co-opted (or "recuperated") by capitalist industry. The influence of anarchism is not always directly a matter of specific imagery or public figures, but may be seen in a certain stance towards the liberation of the total human being and the imagination.
Anarchism had a large influence on French Symbolism of the late 19th century, such as that of Stéphane Mallarmé, who was quoting as saying "La vraie bombe c'est le livre" (the true bomb is the book) and infiltrated the cafes and cabarets of turn of the century Paris (see the Drunken Boat #2).
More significantly, anarchists claim that 'strains' may be found in the works of the Dada group, whose anti-bourgeois art antics saw them wreaking havoc in war neutral Switzerland during World War I. However on closer analysis the Dadaists were much closer to the Council Communists, having much of their material published in Die Aktion.
Many American artists of the early 20th century were influenced by anarchist ideas, if they weren't anarchists themselves. The Ashcan School of American realism included anarchist artists, as well as artists such as Rockwell Kent and George Bellows that were influenced by anarchist ideas. Abstract expressionism also included anarchist artists such as Mark Rothko and painters such as Jackson Pollock, who had adopted radical ideas during his experience as a muralist for the Works Progress Administration. Pollock's father had also been a Wobbly. J.R.R. Tolkien, the famous author of the Lord of the Rings, was a self-declared Anarchist.
In the late 20th century, anarchism and the arts could primarily be associated with the collage works by James Koehnline, Freddie Baer, Johan Humyn Being, and others, whose work was being published in anarchist magazines, including Anarchy: A Journal of Desire Armed and Fifth Estate. Freddie Baer is noteworthy for her work as a book designer for AK Press and for her contributions to the feminist science fiction milieu. Baer has contributed art to the annual WisCon conference, a convention featuring feminist science fiction which awards the James Tiptree, Jr. Award. Freddie Baer has been nominated several times for the Hugo Award for her work as a fan artist. Also, The Living Theatre, a theatrical troupe headed by Judith Malina and Julian Beck, were outspoken about their anarchism, often incorporating anarchistic themes into their performances.
In the 1990s, anarchists were involved in the mail art movement, which can be described as "art which uses the postal service in some way." This is related to the involvement of many anarchists in the zine movement. And many contemporary anarchists are involved in making art in the form of flyposters, stencils, and radical puppets.
See also: anarchist symbolism
"An anarchist world... a surrealist world: They are the same." --Andre Breton.
Anarchism has traditionally emphasized the liberation of the imagination and subjectivity from the constraints of the present social order, so it no surprise that many anarchists are attracted to the work of the surrealists.
Surrealism is both an artistic and political movement aimed at the liberation of the human being from the constraints of capitalism, the state, and the cultural forces that limit the reign of the imagination. The movement developed in France in the wake of WWI with Andre Breton as its main theorist and poet. Originally it was tied closely to the Communist Party. Later, Breton, a close friend of Leon Trotsky, broke with the Communist Party.
A number of performers and artists have either been inspired by anarchist concepts, or have used the medium of music and sound in order to promote anarchist ideas and politics.
Punk rock is one movement that has taken much inspiration from the often potent imagery and symbolism associated with anarchism and situationist rhetoric, if not always the political theory. In the past few decades, anarchism has been closely associated with the punk rock movement, and has grown because of that association (whatever other effects that has had on the movement and the prejudiced pictures of it). Indeed, many anarchists were introduced to the ideas of Anarchism through that symbolism and the anti-authoritarian sentiment which many punk songs expressed.
Anarcho-punk, on the other hand, is a current that has been more explicitly engaged with anarchist politics, particularly in the case of bands such as Crass, Poison Girls, (early) Chumbawamba, The Ex, Flux of Pink Indians, Rudimentary Peni, Riot/Clone, Conflict, Propagandhi, etc. Many other bands, especially at the local level of unsigned groups, have taken on what is known as a "punk" or "DIY" ethic: that is, Doing It Yourself, indeed a popular Anarcho-punk slogan reads "DIY not EMI", a reference to a conscious rejection of the major record company. Some groups who began as 'anarcho-punk' have attempted to move their ideas into a more mainstream musical arena, for instance, Chumbawamba, who continue to support and promote anarchist politics despite now playing more dance music and pop influenced styles.
Techno music is also connected strongly to anarchists and eco-anarchists, as many of the events playing these types of music are self-organised and put on in contravension of national laws. Sometimes doors are pulled off empty warehouses and the insides transformed into illegal clubs with cheap (or free) entrance, types of music not heard elsewhere and quite often an abundance of different drugs. Other raves may be held outside, and are viewed negatively by the authorities. In the UK, the Criminal Justice Bill (1994) outlawed these events (raves) and brought together a coalition of socialists, ravers and direct actionists who opposed the introduction of this 'draconian' Act of Parliament by having a huge 'party&protest' in the Centre of London that descended into one of the largest riots of the 1990s in Britain. Digital hardcore, an electronic music genre, is also overtly anarchist; Atari Teenage Riot is the most widely recognized digital hardcore band. It should be noted that both Digital Hardcore, Techno and related genres are not the sole preserve of anarchists; people of many musical, political or recreational persuasions are involved in these musical scenes.
There is a great divide among the modern schools of anarchism about the question of private property and economic organization. The debate is most frequently engaged in between anarcho-socialists and anarcho-capitalists, with socialists claiming that the existence of property results in wage slavery, while capitalists assert that self-ownership is impossible without property.
Anarcho-socialists argue that private property is a fiction enforced by illegitimate institutions which do not account for the needs and desires of the individuals they affect, and that beyond "personal possession" of immediate goods, the idea of property is only maintained by institutions which enforce property laws. When a business hierarchy enforces these rules, it is no different than a government enforcing such rules.
They propose that beyond personal possession, resources should be collectively managed, particularly capital goods used as means of economic production. The form of this collective management can vary greatly, but in all cases those affected by economic decisions have some representation in them. On one end of the spectrum lie the syndicalists, who propose a planned economy based on a series of collectives that rely fundamentally on consensus and free association. On the other end are the individualists, who advocate a free market without the constraints of usury, wage, and rent. They believe that property beyond personal possession should be handled by mutualist banks which print their own money and loan it free of interest.
Anarchists of other traditions vary in their appreciation of the respective socialist and classical liberal arguments. Some of them will consistently side with some of the above arguments, thus adopting the socialist or classical liberal tradition, though without forcibly doing it formally. Others will mildly side with some of the arguments above, though without considering them a defining stance for their flavor of anarchism, and will consider the question as secondary. Still others do not care about this debate, and consider it a waste of time; they think that by getting rid of government, such problems find a natural solution.
Like private property, the concept of wage labor is hotly debated between within anarchist circles.
Most anarcho-socialists believe that the employer-employee relationship is based on employer coercion. They argue that the oppressive restrictions of public and private property, upheld variously by states, corporations, and individuals, allow employers to blackmail employees into working for use of resources that they would otherwise have free access to either individually through mutualist banks or collectively through voluntarily associated communes and syndicates. Anarcho-socialists claim that such oppression should be resisted. However, they generally follow Kant in maintaining that freedom can not be given as a privilege by some third party, but must instead be won through the struggles of the oppressed themselves. As such, anarcho-socialists encourage employees to resist and obstruct economics based on hierarchical power and what they consider to be wage slavery. This is known as direct action. Many also believe that anarchists are obliged to aid such groups when they call for help in their struggles. Ultimately, anarcho-socialists believe that all forms of hierarchy must be resisted, because of their coercive nature.
Anarcho-socialists argue that as no ordinary person (as opposed to someone who is independently wealthy) can refuse to work, so there is no freedom involved in the negotiation of a contract with an employer who has the ability to dictate the terms of any contract to dispossessed employees who amount to little more than wage slaves living at the whim of the wealthy.
Anarcho-socialists reject the claim that their objection to capitalist economics is based on the necessity of labor. They almost universally agree that some form of manual labor (which they often distinguish from work) is currently necessary. However, they do not agree that the necessity for manual labor requires that the form of this labor be dictated by privileged individuals who control the wealth and resources of the society. Instead, they argue that individual liberty requires that the laborers themselves control the means and mode of their labor, rather than having their actions dictated by others. Thus, those who are required to labor for survival should have representation in the use and distribution of the resources they interact with and distribute. Anarcho-socialists do not believe that the mere ability to disassociate from a given employer is an adequate form of representation, given that the employers as a class can continue to dictate use of resources and compel others into wage-slavery once the association is disbanded.
Furthermore, anarcho-socialists argue that being a servant with the "freedom" to choose your favorite master does not represent actual "freedom" in any meaningful sense. Often, they also argue that a worker's "freedom" to choose his employer is no different than that same worker's "freedom" to choose what state he lives under (by moving to another country if necessary), so anarcho-capitalism is inconsistent, because there is no real difference between the coercion of private companies and the coercion of the state - and thus it makes no sense to abolish one while preserving the other.
However, there are some anarcho-socialists who are anti-capitalist and pro-free market, such as Benjamin Tucker (who identified his Individualist Anarchism as Anarchistic Socialism) who did not see a problem with wage labor as long as the employers and employees were paid equally for equal hours worked (a similar approach was put into action through Time Store which was organized by Josiah Warren) thus eliminating the economic parasitism of the boss class and therefore being anti-capitalist. Benjamin Tucker described the non-exploitive employer-employee relationship as "the workers natural wage, being their full product."
Within the realm of anarchist labor issues is the issue of the monetary system. While all anarchists are against the current monetary system, there is disagreement as to whether or not there should be a monetary system. Alexander Berkman was an anarchist against the monetary system. In his book What is Anarchism? (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html), Berkman argues that in an anarchist society, money would become unnecessary. Within anarchy, all occupations are viewed as equally beneficial to society. Since the concept of value is different for everyone and cannot be determined, it is argued that it should not be set and one's contribution to society through their occupation entitled them to be a part of it. Within this system, there is a free exchange of goods, without the need for money. Money in its current form is a hierarchical system, the exception being when all people are paid equal salaries. The argument goes further, however, to question the purpose of money if people are paid equally. Certainly those who agree with this would also note that a monetary system would open a vulnerability for some to acquire more of it and create a class system. Not every anarchist, however, is totally against the idea of money. Others see money as simply an index for exchanging goods and that its existence wouldn't necessarily create a class system.
Anarchists have often been portrayed as dangerous and violent, due mainly to a number of high-profile violent acts including riots, assassinations, and insurrections involving anarchists. Since the 1970s, the punk image of irresponsible youths has also been associated with anarchist symbolism, so furthering the association with violence.
The use of terrorism and assassination, however, is condemned by most anarchist ideology, though there remains no consensus on the legitimacy or utility of violence.
Some anarchists share Leo Tolstoy's Christian anarchist belief in non-violence. These anarcho-pacifists advocate non-violent resistance as the only method of achieving a truly anarchist revolution. They often see violence as the basis of government and coercion and argue that, as such, violence is illegitimate, no matter who is the target. Some of Proudhon's French followers even saw strike action as coercive and refused to take part in such traditional socialist tactics.
Other anarchists advocate Marshall Rosenberg's non-violent communication that relates to peoples fundamental needs and feelings using strategies of requests, observations and empathy yet providing for the use of protective force while rejecting pacifism as a compromising strategy of the left that just perpetuates violence.
Other anarchists, such as Mikhail Bakunin and Errico Malatesta saw violence as a necessary and sometimes desirable force. Malatesta took the view that it is "necessary to destroy with violence, since one cannot do otherwise, the violence which denies [the means of life and for development] to the workers" (Umanità Nova, number 125, September 6, 1921[12] (http://flag.blackened.net/revolt/anarchists/malatesta/rev_haste.html)).
Between 1894 and 1901, individual anarchists assassinated numerous heads of state, including:
Such "propaganda of the deed" was not popular among anarchists, and many in the movement condemned the tactic. For example, McKinley's assassin, Leon Czolgosz, claimed to be a disciple of Emma Goldman, but she disavowed any association with him.
Goldman included in her definition of anarchism the observation that all governments rest on violence, and this is one of the many reasons they should be opposed. Goldman herself didn't oppose tactics like assassination until she went to Russia, where she witnessed the violence of the Russian state and the Red Army. From then on she condemned the use of terrorism, especially by the state, and advocated violence only as a means of self-defense.
Depictions in the press and popular fiction (for example, a malevolent bomb-throwing anarchist in Joseph Conrad's The Secret Agent) helped create a lasting public impression that anarchists are violent terrorists. This perception was enhanced by events such as the Haymarket Riot, where anarchists were blamed for throwing a bomb at police who came to break up a public meeting in Chicago.
More recently, anarchists have been involved in protests against World Trade Organization (WTO) and International Monetary Fund (IMF) meetings across the globe, which have often turned violent (being described by some as "riots"). Traditionally, Mayday in London has been a day of marching, but in recent years the Metropolitan Police have warned that a "hardcore of anarchists" are intent on causing violence. Anarchists often respond that it is the police who initiate violence at these demonstrations, with the anarchist intent being only to defend themselves. The anarchists involved in such protests often formed black blocs at these protests and some engaged in property destruction, vandalism, or in violent conflicts with police, though others stuck to non-violent principles.
Most anarchists consider Pacifism (opposition to war) to be inherent in their philosophy. Some anarchists take it further and follow Leo Tolstoy's belief in non-violence (note, however, that these anarcho-pacifists are not necessarily Christian anarchists as Tolstoy was), advocating non-violent resistance as the only method of achieving a truly anarchist revolution.
Anarchist literature often portrays war as an activity in which the state seeks to gain and consolidate power, both domestically and in foreign lands. Many anarchists subscribe to Randolph Bourne's view that "war is the health of the state"[13] (http://struggle.ws/hist_texts/warhealthstate1918.html). Anarchists believe that if they were to support a war they would be strengthening the state — indeed, Peter Kropotkin was alienated from other anarchists when he expressed support for the British in World War I.
Just as they are critical and distrustful of most government endeavours, anarchists often view the stated reasons for war with a cynical eye. Since the Vietnam War protests in North America and, most recently, the protests against the war in Iraq, much anarchist activity has been anti-war based.
For most anarchists, marriage and sex are private matters to be resolved between consenting adults. In their opinion, authorities like governments, lawmakers, churches and mullahs have no business meddling with private affairs of individuals who do not voluntarily desire to follow their commands — at which point they are no longer authorities and have no power to command those who dissent, only the opportunity to advise those who consent.
Others, however, believe that the concept of marriage is a fundamentally coercive institution, pointing to the wealth of assumptions about what gender pairings can be acceptable partners, the number of people that can be involved in a relationship, and the proper roles for members of a relationship to have. They argue that marriage is ultimately a heteronormative concept, and that it is a particularly subtle form of control.
Some anarchists in Spain viewed love as a dangerous concept and advocated "change of commune" for those experiencing "the sickness of love." This, however, is a small minority view. Many anarchists, including Emma Goldman, believe that love between people is at the core a powerful and benign force, though possibly corrupted by institutions or traditions.
Classics
While all of these organizations have anarchists as members, many are inclusive beyond anarchist and include anti-authoritarians and greens.
