Closed access until after publication. The publisher's website is at: http://www.brill.com/ ; This chapter examines anarchist feminism as a politics that has emerged through critical engagements with both anarchism and non-anarchist feminisms. As a current within anarchism, anarchist feminism is rightly linked to the writing of leading anarchist women, typically neglected in anarchist canons. Yet in different historical moments anarchist feminism has emerged as a critique of feminism as well as an assessment of anarchist movement practices and principles. The argument is that contemporary anarchist feminism is contextualized by a powerful historical narrative which has both marginalized anarchism within feminism and described feminism???s intersection with anarchism as a transformative moment. This narrative is described by a wave theory which stresses the successive disruptions of feminism, each building on the earlier disturbance to advance a modified politics. The first section gives an account of feminist wave theory, to show how the boundaries of feminism have been constructed in ways that are neglectful of, if not antithetical to, anarchism. It then sketches two anarchist responses to wave theory, showing how activists have sought to find tools within anarchism to develop anarchist feminism or, alternatively, turned to feminism for anarchism???s re-invention as an anarchist feminist politics. The final two sections examine the impact of wave narratives on contemporary anarchist feminisms and consider what the writings of prominent anarchist women contribute to anarchist feminist thinking.
Closed access for 36 months after publication. Permission is strictly limited for personal use only and the material is not to be re-published or distributed for commercial purposes without prior permission of the author and the publisher. This work is part of a collection titled Kropotkin: Reviewing the classical anarchist tradition. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2016) http://www.euppublishing.com ; The primary aim of this book is to rescue Kropotkin from the framework of classical anarchism and to highlight aspects of his political thought that have been lost as a result of the interest that his science has generated, particularly the theory of mutual aid. The chapters situate his thought in the context of late nineteenth-century debates and show how he helped shape anarchism as a distinctive politics which was quite different to the philosophy ascribed to him. Like his friend Elis??e Reclus, Kropotkin was part of a European movement that, as Marie Fleming argues, ???developed in response to specific social-economic grievances in given historical circumstances???. Kropotkin contributed enthusiastically to the formation of an anarchist tradition and even endorsed Paul Eltzbacher???s dispassionate, analytical study Anarchism: Seven Exponents of the Anarchist Philosophy. However, his understanding of anarchism was more fluid and open than Elzbacher's and instead of seeking to define set of characteristic core concepts, Kropotkin identified anarchism with a tradition of political thought and a set of political practices. By presenting an analysis of Kropotkin's work that does not treat the science of mutual aid as the key to this anarchism, the discussion shows how he understood this tradition and located himself within it. A second aim of this book is to explain Kropotkin's politics. As well as being regarded as one of the key theorists of classical anarchism, Kropotkin is remembered for his controversial decision to support the Entente powers against Germany. This choice is often described as a betrayal of principle which reflects his virulent Germanophobia, on the one hand, and potent Russian nationalism on the other. I argue that Kropotkin's alignment, and his subsequent defence of constitutionalism in Russia in 1917 is explicable in terms of his anarchism and that his consistent application of principle exposes some important differences within anarchism about internationalism and the idea of the state. These differences support very different ideas about the nature of solidarity and anti-militarism, for example, as well competing conceptions of class. The analysis builds on the existing political biographies and studies of Kropotkin???s political thought to contextualise Kropotkin's thought and provides a textual analysis of published and unpublished work to offer an interpretation that highlights the revolutionary impetus and political thrust of his writing.
This book chapter is under embargo until eighteen months after publication. ; In a book called Free Speech for Radicals, Herber Newton, a heretical priest active in New York in the late nineteenth century, claimed that 'Anarchism is in reality the ideal of political and social science, and also the idea of religion' (in Schroeder 1916: 14). Newton's assertion, that anarchism is fundamentally religious, is deeply contested but from a twenty-first century perspective his coupling of anarchism and political science is also striking. Even accepting that the link he makes between these two terms is mediated by the reference to an ideal, hinting at a utopian aspiration that many anarchists would embrace, the conjunction jars. This chapter considers some reasons why, looking within both at conceptions of political science adopted in American and British academia in the course of the twentieth century and at anarchist literatures. The discussion considers how debates about the relationship between the analysis of politics and the legitimation of established power relations contextualize anarchist engagements with political science, how differences about the scope, application and character of scientific method have complicated this engagement and how overlaps between these two currents of argument help explain some very different anarchist approaches to the field. My argument is that Newton's view is a productive one, from which anarchists have much to gain. And the final section of the chapter examines some examples of anarchist political science, drawing on the work of C. Wright Mills and Peter Kropotkin.