From: swilbur-AT-wcnet.org Subject: Re: Re : [postanarchism] Kropotkin-Newman (Sasha's review) Date: Thu, 8 Apr 2004 12:56:08 US/Eastern philip says: > I sometimes wonder, in fact, if so many of these > critiques which pull at one thread in the hopes > to unravel the whole bloody garment, if these > deconstructionist-minded critics do not, in fact, > expose the very inadequacy of most critique to > properly adress its subject. Is this a fair characterization of deconstruction? It seems, in some ways, more characteristic of more mainstream, analytic forms of philosophy. Deconstruction is always concerned with the "more than one voice"/"no more one voice" that appears to haunt the most authoritative of texts. "There is unraveling," we might say. But there's a difference between paying attention to the other ways in which a text might speak and simple unraveling. Recall the passage on the pharmakon where Derrida refers explicitly to garments and "seams holding." We've been debating for a long time now just what the aim of Newman's critique is. It does not seem to me to be deconstructive, really. Instead, Newman seems to feel he has found something like unsound premises at the basis of "classical anarchism," and wants to reinvent anarchism on the basis of other basic assumptions. > There is something valid in an investigation of > marginalization and supplementation, but at > what point does a de-construction become exactly > what its name implies, and thus nothing but a > negation. Again, this doesn't really sound like the work of deconstruction. On the other hand, the kind of analytic work which Newman appears to be up to has obvious uses. If it were the case that the "root" of "classical anarchism" was "essential human goodness" tied to a manichaean notion of power, some reinvention would certainly seemed called for. To the extent that we have *inherited* the "classical" texts along these lines, some reinvention certainly *is* called for. > Constructing "a straw man in order to knock > it down and to put" something else "in its place", > as you say, but without really putting anything else > there. I don't know. I seem never to have answers. > > You say Newman does not adress the proper historical > context of Kropotkin and his endeavor (vis à vis the > intellectual currents of his time, in which K. is to > be seen as an "outsider", someone thinking in contrast > and in opposition to those of his time). I think if we take the historical context really seriously, we find that "those of his time" had a range of beliefs. Insider/outsider doesn't seem to address the real range of approaches to questions like human nature and evolution. Also, as several of us have noted, Kropotkin is "opposed" only to specific threads of Darwinian thought. > If we consider K. and his work as a historico-specific > product, then, may we be forced to view him as a > "stage" within a broader context? I think sasha is correct in saying that this implies a teleology. Specific historical grounding should lead us away from vague, inadequate models - like the broad- stroke "bad enlightenment" approach. There is also the fact that Kropotkin's work is still only partially appreciated and understood within anarchist circles. If there is a "stage" involved there, it is one which is in some sense still ongoing. [snip] > With Kropotkin, then, we have an individual/ideas within > the intellectual stratum of the fin de siècle; and/or > individual/ideas as perversion (development) of Marxism > and, at the same time, classical anarchist ideologist; > and/or the various concepts of expropriation, mutual aid, > human nature as positive instinct of creation and > development, etc. When you argue against Newman's > reductionism, you argue against his development of > only the third element of this historical triad (which may > as well be four or fifteen, as I'm sure I have left out > other arrangements) - but we cannot react by a complete > dismissal of Newman's critique, because we need to find a > way to satisfy as many elements as possible (I think this > is something of what Shawn had in mind when he spoke of > scholarly rigour, but I don't know). A big part of what i'm calling for is a clarification of what our projects and problems are. With that goes a process of clarifying what's at stake in our arguments. For the same reason that Newman's argument *could* have importance for us, if his analysis of the "poison at the root" was correct, it is possible that Newman's apparent misreadings of one significant aspect of "classical anarchism" may pretty well torpedo his whole project. I have yet to find the place where Newman's strong claims against "classical anarchism" are supported convincingly. Obviously, others see things differently. > Still, however, even as arguing only from the conceptual > point of view, Newman's critique is still incomplete - > I assume, as only arguing the point of human nature as > good, he does not develop K's thoughts on expropriation > or, what I think is at the heart of K's attempt, a > desire for the abolition of representative society. Perhaps Newman's critique is complete, and simply does not touch those elements. His project lies elsewhere. That's fine, as long as we are clear on the limits of the project. [clip] > Thus, I don't see how an argument against human > nature as essentially good (which K. does repeat > time and again, "the good sense and instinct for > justice which animates the masses", etc.) can > properly dismiss K's theories. Here is one of those places where extreme care in interpretation seems called for. The most damning claim against Kropotkin is the "essential goodness" of human nature, by which the critics seem to mean "goodness (and not also essential badness.") We know that Kropotkin believed "mutual aid" was a greater factor in evolution that struggle. It appears that he was optimistic that the "fecundity" of human nature (using Guyau's term) would manifest itself in predominantly positive ethical terms. (It's at this point, thinking about the "economies" of human existence, that we might bring the "Ethics" and works like "Conquest of Bread" into closer contact.) It just isn't clear that what Kropotkin said, given what he said about other human instincts, really amounts to the "good (and not bad)" characterization of the postanarchists. -shawn --------------------------------------------- This message was sent using Endymion MailMan. http://www.endymion.com/products/mailman/
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005