User:Eleanorg/RWR 1.1/Annotations/Is Poststructuralist Theory Anarchist?: Difference between revisions

Latest revision as of 19:47, 31 October 2011

ANNOTATION: Is Poststructuralist Theory Anarchist?

Toddy May

May's essay considers a key problem for politically engaged poststructuralists: the accusation that they have failed to offer a coherent political philosophy, which is grounded in values upon which we can act (1). Poststructuralism, he summarizes, has undermined the humanist value base upon which all 19th century political philosophies are founded - from anarchism, to Marxism and liberalism. Hence, poststructuralist theories invite accusations of nihilism.

However, for May the intention of poststructuralism has never been to construct a general theory or paradigm; rather, poststructuralists have focused on "micropolitics" - studies of the specific operations of oppression in particular historical instances. "For the poststructuralists," he says, "there is a Stalin waiting behind every general political theory: either you conform to the concepts on which it relies, or else you must be changed or eliminated in favour of those concepts" (May, p.42). Poststructuralists clearly do invoke (leftwing) values in their analyses of oppression, he says, but in refusing to construct general theories, their work is deeply compatible with anarchism in its privileging of localism and autonomous self-determination. In fact, for May, poststructuralism can be "more anarchist" than the 19th century strain of anarchism which relies on essentialist humanism to make its claims.

May thus articulates a productive middle ground between the apparent need for (humanist) foundationalism and the all-destroying tendencies of poststructuralism. He quotes Foucault to illustrate how poststructuralism might lend its tools to anarchist struggles, without impinging upon the need for locally articulated values: "The project, tactics and goals to be adopted are a matter for those who do the fighting. What the intellectual can do is to provide the instruments of analysis." (Foucault, p.62).

1. May cites Foucault, Deleuze and Lyotard as the prime suspects.

Foucault, M. (1980) Power/ Knowledge
May, T. (2011) 'Is Poststructuralist Theory Anarchist?' in Post Anarchism: A Reader, by Rouselle, D & Evren, S. (eds.) (London: Pluto).

@@ Line 5: / Line 5: @@
 May's essay considers a key problem for politically engaged poststructuralists: the accusation that they have failed to offer a coherent political philosophy, which is grounded in values upon which we can act (1). Poststructuralism, he summarizes, has undermined the humanist value base upon which all 19th century political philosophies are founded - from anarchism, to Marxism and liberalism. Hence, poststructuralist theories invite accusations of nihilism.
-However, for May the intention of poststructuralism has never been to construct a general theory or paradigm; rather, poststructuralists have focused on "micropolitics" - studies of the specific operations of oppression in particular historical instances. "For the poststructuralists," he says, "there is a Stalin waiting behind every general political theory: either you conform to the concepts on which it relies, or else you must be changed or eliminated in favour of those concepts" (May, p.42). Poststructuralists clearly do invoke (leftwing)values in their analyses of oppression, he says, but in refusing to construct general theories, their work is deeply compatible with anarchism in its privileging of localism and autonomous self-determination. In fact, for May, poststructuralism can be "more anarchist" than the 19th century strain of anarchism which relies on essentialist humanism to make its claims.
+However, for May the intention of poststructuralism has never been to construct a general theory or paradigm; rather, poststructuralists have focused on "micropolitics" - studies of the specific operations of oppression in particular historical instances. "For the poststructuralists," he says, "there is a Stalin waiting behind every general political theory: either you conform to the concepts on which it relies, or else you must be changed or eliminated in favour of those concepts" (May, p.42). Poststructuralists clearly do invoke (leftwing) values in their analyses of oppression, he says, but in refusing to construct general theories, their work is deeply compatible with anarchism in its privileging of localism and autonomous self-determination. In fact, for May, poststructuralism can be "more anarchist" than the 19th century strain of anarchism which relies on essentialist humanism to make its claims.
 May thus articulates a productive middle ground between the apparent need for (humanist) foundationalism and the all-destroying tendencies of poststructuralism. He quotes Foucault to illustrate how poststructuralism might lend its tools to anarchist struggles, without impinging upon the need for locally articulated values: "The project, tactics and goals to be adopted are a matter for those who do the fighting. What the intellectual can do is to provide the instruments of analysis." (Foucault, p.62).