Docsity
Docsity

Prepare for your exams
Prepare for your exams

Study with the several resources on Docsity


Earn points to download
Earn points to download

Earn points by helping other students or get them with a premium plan


Guidelines and tips
Guidelines and tips

Exploring Anarchist-Sociology: Defining a New Approach to Social Order, Study notes of Sociology

This essay delves into the concept of 'anarchist-sociology', a potential intersection of anarchist and sociological perspectives. With an increasing influence of anarchist ideas in social movements and academia, the need for a clear definition of anarchist-sociology becomes crucial. The essay explores various possible meanings, compares anarchist and sociological traditions, and proposes a basic definition. It also advocates for re-conceptualizing sociology along anarchist values.

Typology: Study notes

2021/2022

Uploaded on 09/12/2022

lilylily
lilylily 🇬🇧

4

(8)

218 documents

1 / 2

Toggle sidebar

This page cannot be seen from the preview

Don't miss anything!

bg1
CHAPTER ONE
DEFINING AN ANARCHIST-SOCIOLOGY: A LONG
ANTICIPATED MARRIAGE
Introduction
Anarchism is of increasing significance in the world of social movements
(Graeber 2002). There are anarchist currents running through many of
modern social movements, such as the global justice movement (Epstein
2001). But, this influence is not isolated to movements. The influence of
the anarchist movement has also infiltrated the academy and has
linked anarchist scholars across discipline into something called “anar-
chist studies” (Amster et al. 2009). This development is of fortuitous
importance to the discipline of Sociology (especially in the United
States),which has been going through an identity crisis as of late, as many
sociologists seek out activist currents and “public sociology” (Clawsonetal.
2007). These factors crucially illustrate the need for a clearly-stated
anarchist-sociology.
Numerous authors (Griffin 1991, Ehrlich 1971, Purkis 2004, Welsh 1997)
have written of an “anarchist-sociology,” but almost always in the abstract,
never referencing a specific set of ideas or scholarship. For example,
Griffin’s (1991) chapter is a mere explication of classical sociological the-
ory, written for an anarchist audience, and he does not introduce any dis-
tinct anarchist elements. Purkis (2004) comes closer than most by seeing
anarchist-sociology as a potential tradition to grow and build, but does not
describe it as a means to analyze society as well as transform it. Welsh
(1997) is principally concerned with critiquing sociological social move-
ment theories, particularly the work of Alberto Melucci.
This essay will establish the groundwork for the ontological under-
standing of anarchist-sociology—what it is or, more importantly, what it
could be? The major goal is to answer: What does “anarchist-sociology”
mean to the discipline of Sociology? There are lots of potential under-
standings to the phrase “anarchist-sociology”; it is a rather flexible noun,
particularly since it lacks any prior definition. We do not claim that
anarchist-sociology is exclusively any of these, but offer the following as
descriptions of possible meanings.
<UN><UN> <UN>
pf2

Partial preview of the text

Download Exploring Anarchist-Sociology: Defining a New Approach to Social Order and more Study notes Sociology in PDF only on Docsity!

CHAPTER ONE DEFINING AN ANARCHIST-SOCIOLOGY: A LONG ANTICIPATED MARRIAGE Introduction Anarchism is of increasing significance in the world of social movements (Graeber 2002). There are anarchist currents running through many of modern social movements, such as the global justice movement (Epstein 2001). But, this influence is not isolated to movements. The influence of the anarchist movement has also infiltrated the academy and has linked anarchist scholars across discipline into something called “anar- chist studies” (Amster et al. 2009). This development is of fortuitous importance to the discipline of Sociology (especially in the United States), which has been going through an identity crisis as of late, as many sociologists seek out activist currents and “public sociology” (Clawson et al. 2007). These factors crucially illustrate the need for a clearly-stated anarchist-sociology. Numerous authors (Griffin 1991, Ehrlich 1971, Purkis 2004, Welsh 1997) have written of an “anarchist-sociology,” but almost always in the abstract, never referencing a specific set of ideas or scholarship. For example, Griffin’s (1991) chapter is a mere explication of classical sociological the- ory, written for an anarchist audience, and he does not introduce any dis- tinct anarchist elements. Purkis (2004) comes closer than most by seeing anarchist-sociology as a potential tradition to grow and build, but does not describe it as a means to analyze society as well as transform it. Welsh (1997) is principally concerned with critiquing sociological social move- ment theories, particularly the work of Alberto Melucci. This essay will establish the groundwork for the ontological under- standing of anarchist-sociology—what it is or, more importantly, what it could be? The major goal is to answer: What does “anarchist-sociology” mean to the discipline of Sociology? There are lots of potential under- standings to the phrase “anarchist-sociology”; it is a rather flexible noun, particularly since it lacks any prior definition. We do not claim that anarchist-sociology is exclusively any of these, but offer the following as descriptions of possible meanings.

2 chapter one This essay explores possible meanings of “anarchist-sociology,” com- pares the two traditions of anarchism and sociology, establishes a basic definition of anarchist-sociology, and re-conceptualizes Sociology along anarchist values. Against the State: Anarchy is Order As Hartung (1983) notes, any suggestion that the state and other forms of imposed authority might be replaced by a decentralized network or fed- eration, as contemporary anarchists propose, is likely to be met with a sus- tained and vocal opposition. This is especially likely given that those who find current systems of imposed authority much to their liking are often those with the resources to mobilize public opinion in support of their preferences. There is certainly no doubt the opposition to the state and other systems of imposed authority “undermines the dominant mode of political organization and the number of vested interests within it” (Hartung 1983: 83). Thus the mighty force of resources, both material and ideological, that have been mobilized to condemn and discredit “the beast of anarchy.” As anarchists ranging from Murray Bookchin to Colin Ward suggest, anarchism as a practical approach to social transformation has been neutralized to a certain extent by its designation as “radicalism.” Any social or political theory that suggests possibilities for social trans- formation is almost certain to be set upon quickly with claims that it is merely an expression of idealism or naïveté. As a social theory, or perhaps more accurately, a cluster of social theories, anarchism has been subjected “to a great deal of pejorative analysis and gross misunderstanding” (Hartung 1983: 87). Partly this charge relates to the extreme difficulty the modern mind, ensconced in statist social structures and ideologies, has in envisioning a society held together without the “cement” of government in the form of the state. The accumulated experiences, histories and mythologies of centuries of nation-state hegemony make it difficult to even imagine anything that suggests alternative means of arranging soci- ety. So ingrained is the worldview of nation states that many conflate the notion of society with the notions of state or nation-state. There is a ten- dency, even within some critical theories, to assume a correspondence between the state and society. The idea that the state is the means to social order, even to the extent that it can be equated with social order, has made it very difficult for non- statist visions of social order to be heard. Indeed such visions are most