Content area
Full Text
ABSTRACT
Difficulties in defining anarchism arise from there being different ways of conceptualising anarchism. Instead of trying to develop one common definition for every conceptualisation of anarchism, it is better to define each conceptualisation separately. It is also important to distinguish between providing a philosophical basis for any conception of anarchism and defining it. The differences between philosophical anarchism conceived as scepticism toward authority and anarchism conceived as a political theory are examined in order to illustrate these points. Then, using a historical-conceptual approach focusing on anarchism as a political theory, anarchism is defined as a political doctrine based on anti-authoritarianism, anti-statism, anti-parliamentarianism, voluntary association, libertarian methods and direct action.
Keywords: Anarchism, scepticism, anarchy, politics, anti-authoritarianism, anti-statism, anti-parliamentarianism, voluntary association, libertarianism, direct action, federalism
Anarchism is frequently misunderstood and misrepresented, not only in popular culture but also in academic discussions. Pundits and political opponents describe the Republican Party in the United States as having been taken over by 'anarchists', becoming 'a neo-anarchist party' intent on dismantling the government. Academics have serious discussions regarding whether al Qaeda and other Islamic militant groups fit within the category of 'anarchism'.1
While anarchists can only shake their heads, these kind of discussions demonstrate both a lack of conceptual clarity and a lack of historical awareness. But the two are intertwined, for one cannot talk intelligently about anarchism, including in historical terms, without some basic idea about what one is talking about. This raises questions regarding the nature of anarchism and how to go about defining it. Is anarchism simply advocacy of terrorism by non-state actors? Government deregulation? Laissez-faire capitalism? Anti-governmentalism? Anti- statism? Chaos and destruction? Can it be defined as any doctrine that advocates any of the above?
There are many different ways of defining anarchism. One of the reasons for this is that there are many different ways of conceptualising anarchism. Anarchism can be conceived very esoterically, for example as a kind of anti-metaphysic, denying any ordering principles to the universe, with the so-called laws of physics being nothing more than human constructs being projected onto a primordial, ineffable chaos. More typically, it is conceived as a political (or anti-political) doctrine emerging from nineteenth-century socialist and working-class movements in Europe (e.g., Schmidt and van der Walt, Miller,...