A Society in Revolt or Under Analysis? Investigating the Dialogue Between 19th-Century Anarchists and Sociologists

Williams, Dana M.

doi:10.1177/0896920512471219

Cited by 5 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 43 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…However, most historians identify the period of the 1870s through the 1920s as anarchism's highest period of activity. Although classic anarchism has many premodern ancestors, it is a decidedly modern phenomenon, evolving during the industrial revolution of Europe (Purkis, ; Williams, 2014a). Anarchism involved not only revolutionary anticapitalist struggles, and attempted soviets and attentats (attempted assassinations of elites), but also peasant and student struggles, countercultural movements, nationalist and anticolonialist movements, and intersections with many movements throughout the world from the mid‐1800s to early 1900s (Marshall, ).…”

Section: Anarchist Movement Historymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Historians have been anarchism's most common scholars—referencing an over‐century‐old past—although political scientists and anthropologists have also dedicated attention to anarchism. In the social sciences, sociology may be the least common discipline for analysis but also one of the best analytical fits (Williams, 2014a; Williams & Shantz ; Shantz & Williams, ; Bamyeh, ). While anarchism fits all the criteria for a social movement prominently described by both Diani () and Tilly and Wood (), anarchist movements are typically smaller than other major movements.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Contemporary anarchist and anarchistic movements

Williams

2018

Sociology Compass

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Although the period of highest activity for anarchist movements peaked in the early 1990s, such movement continues in the present. Contemporary antiauthoritarian movements are a product of the 1950s and New Left, as well as the USSR's demise. Antiauthoritarian movements are either explicitly anarchist or implicitly anarchist (thus, simply “antiauthoritarian,” “autonomist,” or “libertarian‐socialist”). Anarchist identity is diverse, although anchored around an opposition to dominant culture, institutions, and hierarchical norms. The values and goals pursued revolve around a principled adoption of horizontalism, direct action, antiauthoritarianism, decentralization, anticapitalism, and mutual aid. These anarchist movements are unique movements, yet they also run parallel to certain movements—in both the adoption of anarchist strategies and membership overlap—such as antifascist, global justice, and squatter movements. Confrontational and playful street tactics combine with strategies of reclamation of radically egalitarian space, in opposition to hierarchical society. Despite their association with violence, contemporary anarchist movements are fairly nonviolent; however, many anarchists do not disavow the selective use of violence. Thus, massive efforts of social control through police and mass media attempt to moderate, disrupt, and suppress anarchist movements.

show abstract

Section: Anarchist Movement Historymentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Contemporary anarchist and anarchistic movements

Williams

2018

Sociology Compass

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The belief that people can undertake direct action in order to challenge dominant practices indicates a form of prefigurative politics strongly linked to anarchist movements (Day, 2005;Franks, 2003;Springer, 2011;Williams andShantz, 2011). Frenzel (2014) suggests that prefigurative politics is a process orientated approach to questions of political action and organisation.…”

Section: (De)politicisation and Prefigurative Organisingmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Meanwhile, reflecting the anti-authoritarian approach of some anarchist theorists (Williams, 2014), actors from the antic@p also adopted an uncompromisingly 'radical' position in orientation to LVC, who they saw as collaborating with the Mexican state (Russell et al, 2012). LVC coordinated with the Mexican authorities to secure the physical space for their camp site; agreed protest routes with the Mexican police; as well as hosting a speech by Bolivian President Evo Morales.…”

Section: Challenges To Action: Tensions and Divisionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Depoliticised activism? Ambivalence and pragmatism at the COP16

Sealey-Huggins

2016

IJSSP

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to interrogate the forms of activist organisation at the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change COP16 in Cancún and reveals their attempts to create alternatives to a seemingly “depoliticised” response to climate change. The paper argues that existing attempts to challenge depoliticisation face problems in the form of governmental opposition, limitations on forms of organising, and internal conflicts between activists. Design/methodology/approach This paper utilises “scholar-activist” engagement with actors at alternative “popular” spaces established outside the COP16 in Cancún, Mexico. It draws upon extensive participant observation and in-depth interviews with 20 English-speaking activists. Findings Common among activists was a concern to try and model alternative forms of social relations, to the depoliticised and hierarchical forms found in the formal Conference of Parties, via forms of anarchist-influenced “prefigurative” practice. In spite, or perhaps because, of perceived challenges to attempts to organise their political praxis along non-hierarchical lines, many people were ambivalent about the scope of their action, revealing highly reflexive accounts of the limitations of these whilst simultaneously remaining pragmatic in trying to make the most of their involvement. Originality/value The paper helps us to better understand the potential to politicise climate change. Understanding the challenges faced by activists is important for trying to organise more effective political responses to climate injustice. It is suggested that we must understand activists’ responses to these challenges and limitations in terms of the pragmatism in response that allows them to continue to invest in activism in the face of unsuccessful actions.

show abstract

“…For those that have surveyed this debate before, the reasons for this omission are conventional and twofold. First, anarchism barely features in the canon of sociology, despite the fact that the anarchists were arguably instrumental in the establishment of sociology as a field of study (Purkis, 2018 ; Williams, 2014 ). Like in Geography, IR (Prichard, 2011 ; Springer, 2014 ), and elsewhere, anarchist theorists were sidelined when their theories and politics were insufficiently statist.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Taking the state back out: bringing anarchism back in

Prichard

2021

Int Polit Rev

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A Society in Revolt or Under Analysis? Investigating the Dialogue Between 19th-Century Anarchists and Sociologists

Cited by 5 publications

References 43 publications

Contemporary anarchist and anarchistic movements

Contemporary anarchist and anarchistic movements

Depoliticised activism? Ambivalence and pragmatism at the COP16

Taking the state back out: bringing anarchism back in

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About