Anarchism and cosmopolitanism

Levy, Carl

doi:10.1080/13569317.2011.607293

Cited by 11 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 14 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Other recent reassessments of anarchist transnationalism have stressed the relative ease with which anarchist internationalism and expressions of individual and collective attachment to the nation (understood as a bottom‐up community and detached from state authority) could be reconciled, even in notorious examples such as Peter Kropotkin's injunction for anarchists to join the war effort from 1914 (Adams & Kinna, 2017; Bantman & Altena, 2015; Kinna, 2016). While much has been written about the high politics and theories of the period—including anarchist conceptions of the nation and cosmopolitanism (Levy, 2011)—considerable scope remains to investigate practices and their meanings. Confronting ideology and practice in situ, in exilic, migratory contexts, has been key in evidencing how expressions of cosmopolitanism coexisted with forms of national and linguistic entrenchment in transnational settings.…”

Section: Theoretical Framework: the Anarchists' ‘Everyday’ Nationalismmentioning

confidence: 99%

Banal and everyday (inter)nationalism: French and Italian anarchist exiles in London, 1870s–1914

Bantman

Paola

2022

Nations and Nationalism

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article explores the anarchists' multilayered theoretical and practical engagement with the concepts and performance of nations, nationalism and national belonging, by applying the frameworks of banal nationalism (understood as an ideology) and everyday nationhood (the daily practices in which nation and nationhood are enacted) as analytical categories, to investigate the Italian and French anarchist exile groups in London between 1870 and 1914. Adopting these theoretical categories proves fruitful in probing the anarchists' perception and enactment of the idea of nation and national belonging, contributing to the literature on the relationship between pre-1914 socialist movements and (inter)nationalism and highlighting the specificity of anarchism therein. Using Fox and Miller-Idriss's four categories of everyday nationhood, we show that while the anarchists explicitly subverted the everyday performance of nationhood, redeploying it along internationalist lines, some forms of attachment to the national did endure and were in fact not always contradictory with anarchist internationalism.Looking at the exilic rituals of this intensely diasporic group thus complicates the simplistic but still pervasive view of a monolithic ideological internationalism and rejection of the national on the part of anarchists.

show abstract

Section: Theoretical Framework: the Anarchists' ‘Everyday’ Nationalismmentioning

confidence: 99%

Banal and everyday (inter)nationalism: French and Italian anarchist exiles in London, 1870s–1914

Bantman

Paola

2022

Nations and Nationalism

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Anarchists regularly defended the autonomy and self‐determination of “nationalities,” and often gave conditional support to national independence movements, but never held the creation of new nation‐states to be an appropriate or desirable long‐term goal—at best, it was a means to an end that would entail a new state's own dissolution, and the sooner the better (Bantman & Altena, 2014; Gutiérrez & Ferretti, 2020; Levy, 2011; Zimmer, 2017). Canary Island‐born anarchist deportee Ramon Sanchez, for example, articulated a vision of anarchism rooted in ideas of nationality: “I do not believe in or agree with the present government or governments … I believe that the different nations should live in communities and be ruled in [an] anarchistic manner.” 4 His view might be described as an antistatist form of “inter‐nationalism,” insofar as Sanchez appeared to agree with the socialists of the Second International that “the nation represented the constitutive building block of any internationalism” (Callahan, 2010, p. 54), but he severed the connection between “the different nations” and states.…”

Section: Anarchist Conceptions Of the Nationalmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Anarchists regularly defended the autonomy and self-determination of "nationalities," and often gave conditional support to national independence movements, but never held the creation of new nation-states to be an appropriate or desirable long-term goal-at best, it was a means to an end that would entail a new state's own dissolution, and the sooner the better (Bantman & Altena, 2014;Gutiérrez & Ferretti, 2020;Levy, 2011;Zimmer, 2017).…”

Section: Anarchist Conceptions Of the Nationalmentioning

confidence: 99%

National subjects and subversive subjectivity: Deportation and the paradox of the anarchist citizen in the era of theFirst Red Scare

Zimmer

2022

Nations and Nationalism

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

According to the Westphalian system of international law, all people are meant to be citizens or subjects of territorially bounded and sovereign nation‐states, which in turn guarantee certain rights to, and impose certain duties upon, their members. Anarchism, by contrast, is predicated upon a rejection of the legitimacy of state sovereignty, and a refutation of the justness and practicability of representative government. Anarchists took individual and collective “self‐determination” to their logical extremes—and in the process confounded state legal regimes and bureaucracies that understood national belonging and individual rights only in terms of citizenship. From the perspective of the United States, alien anarchists “belonged” back in their countries of origin, but from those European states' perspective, anarchists had no place in their national communities. This article examines how both radicals and governments in the era of America's “First Red Scare” engaged with the rules governing the interstate system. As individual radicals, government functionaries, and international diplomats wrestled to define where anarchists belonged in the international order of nation‐states, the solutions they found simultaneously reinforced the boundaries of the Westphalian system and revealed contradictions and fissures within it.

show abstract

“…Prichard 2010) or for cosmopolitan theories (e.g. Levy 2011), but more specific scholarship on the anarchist principle of prefiguration has generally focused on nonglobal alternatives.…”

Section: Toward New Forms Of Transnational Non-state Representationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Occupy representation and democratise prefiguration: Speaking for others in global justice movements

Teivainen

2016

Capital & Class

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper seeks an articulation between Marxist and anarchist approaches to representation in social movements. A generalised dismissal of representational politics leaves power with too many places to hide and sets unnecessary limits to political imagination. Prefigurative politics should not exclude political representation, as the exclusion can imply a class bias. The paper explores two different paths beyond strict assumptions of horizontality. Using mostly Latin American examples, a distinction is made between more classical state-centric paths and less theorised alternatives of non-state representation. Finally, the article approaches global democratisation from a non-state-centric perspective, tentatively called transnational libertarian socialism.

show abstract

Anarchism and cosmopolitanism

Cited by 11 publications

References 14 publications

Banal and everyday (inter)nationalism: French and Italian anarchist exiles in London, 1870s–1914

Banal and everyday (inter)nationalism: French and Italian anarchist exiles in London, 1870s–1914

National subjects and subversive subjectivity: Deportation and the paradox of the anarchist citizen in the era of theFirst Red Scare

Occupy representation and democratise prefiguration: Speaking for others in global justice movements

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About