Anarchism and Nationalism

15 Pages·2016·0.21 MB·English

AnarchismandNationalism:OntheSubsidiarityofDeconstruction
UriGordon
ForthcomingInTheBrillCompaniontoAnarchismandPhilosophy,ed.N.Jun.Leiden:Brill(2017)
Anarchistsareagainstnationalism;everyoneknowsthat.Insteadofsolidarityacrossbordersand
anti-hierarchicalantagonismwithinthem,nationalismengendersloyaltytothestatewithitsarmed
forcesandpublicsymbols,encouragestheoppressedtoidentifywiththeircompatriotoppressors,
scapegoatsminorities,andpitsworkersofdifferentcountriesagainstoneanotherineconomic
competitionoropenwarfare.Oppositiontonationalismisanalmosttrivialstartingpointfor
anarchistpolitics,reflectedinantimilitaristactions,antifascism,andmigrantsolidaritytonamea
few.Besides,ifanarchism“standsforasocialorderbasedonthefreegroupingofindividuals”
(Goldman1911a/2014:41),thenanarchistscanonlyrejectthepropositionthatindividualsowetheir
loyaltytoapre-existingcollectiveofmillionsofstrangersintowhichtheyneverchosetobeborn.
Anarchistsworktowardsasocietythatwouldseetheendofnationsandnationalism,alongwith
socialclassesandallformsofdomination.
Somuchforthepropagandaline.Thischapter,however,seekstoelaboratesomephilosophical
questionsthatarise,notfromtheanarchistoppositiontonationalchauvinismassuch,butfromthe
engagementwithraceandethnoculturalidentitymorebroadly.1Unliketheanarchistconceptofthe
nationasastateconstruct,theideaofagroupidentityextendingfromimmediatekinshipthrough
commonancestryandmediatedthroughlanguageandculturesurvivesthecritiqueofnationalism.
Yetthisideabringsoutverysharplythetensionbetweenthedeconstructiveimpulseofanarchist
thoughtandthedemandsofdecolonialsolidarityintheanarchistmovement.Ontheonehand,
whilesomeanarchistshaveadoptedanaturalistunderstandingof“peoples”asconstituentsofthe
humanrace,othershaveexplicitlysoughttoproblematiseethnoculturalidentity–eitherdismissing
itinfavourofclassor,moreinterestingly,throughthedeconstructionofclaimstoethnicand
linguisticcontinuityandaffinity.Themovetodeconstructethnoculturalpeoplehood,apartfromits
poststructuralistattractions,remainsappealinginthecritiqueofethno-nationaliststateideologies
andintheconfrontationwiththefarright.
Ontheotherhand,ethnoculturalidentityiscentraltomovementsinwhichanarchistsare
participantsoraccomplices,fromindigenousandblackliberationinNorthAmericatonational
liberationmovementsinChiapas,PalestineandRojava.Inthiscontext,doesthedeconstructive
impulsenotriskattackingtheveryparticularismsthatmakeclaimsonanarchists’solidarities?Are
appealstoethnoculturalidentitysubjecttodeconstructivecritiqueselectively,onafriend-or-foe
basis?Oristhisaninevitabledisjunctureoftheoryandpracticewhichcanonlybeapproachedasa
recordofthesocialantinomiesthatunderlieit,andresolvedthroughtheireventualtransformation?
Mycentralargumenthereisthatthedeconstructiveimpulsetowardsethnocultural(andgender,
andother)identityisvaluableandshouldbesustained;nevertheless,aprincipleofsubsidiarity
1Thisisnottooverlookeithertheopenanti-SemitismofProudhon(1847/1961:2.337-8)andBakunin(1870;
cf.Eilgad2015),ortheanti-GermanprejudicesofBakunin(Shatz1990:xxix-xxi)andKropotkin(Kinna1995:261-
4).Yetthesewererootedinpersonalbigotryratherthananarchistideology,andwereneverinfluentialinthe
widermovement.
shouldbeappliedtoitsdeployment.Thiscreatesanethicalfilterwhichtakespersonalstakesand
asymmetriesofpowerintoaccountinthepracticeofanarchistphilosophy.Bysettingupthe
discussionintheseterms,Iamusingthelensofnationalismtoreadbetweentheoreticaland
politicalcommitmentsandtosuggestanewstartingpointfordiscussionsofdecolonialsolidarity.
Ibeginbybrieflyhighlightingtheanarchistmovement’stransnationalcomposition,anditsdiffering
responsestonationalliberationmovements,ascontextsforthedebate.Then,startingwiththe
traditionalanarchistcritiqueofthenationasastateconstruct(asopposedtotheideaofpeoples),I
identifythreedifferentapproachestotheroleofethnicityincollectiveidentity.Thesearethe
naturalistapproach(whichseesspecificpeoplesaspartofahumanfamily);aclass-centricapproach
(whichdismissesethnoculturalidentity)andtheculturalistapproach.Thelatter,expressedmost
fullybyRudolfRocker,deepenstheattackonnationalismbysystematicallyunderminingthestability
andsignificanceofkinshipandlanguage,asfoundationsforthepeoplehoodthatnationalismclaims
toown.Reviewingthedecolonialcritiqueofuniversalismasappliedtotheformertwoapproaches,I
arguethatthelatter’santi-foundationalistimpulsemayalsofallafouloftheparticularismsthatally
withanarchismindecolonialstruggles.Iftheanarchistethicofrecognitionentailsprimafacie
acceptanceofoppressedpeople’s–andpeoples’–ownarticulationoftheiridentitiesandgoals,
thendeconstructionmaydisruptthebalancebetweenconceptualcoherenceandpolitical
solidarities.Asaproposedresolution,Isuggestanethicsofdeconstructioninformedbytheprinciple
ofsubsidiarityandbyattentiontopositionality.Iclosewithacommentondecolonising
bioregionalism.
Nation,People,ClassandCulture
Anarchistengagementswithnationalismwereinfluencedbythemovement'sowntransnational
compositionandcosmopolitanethos(Levy2011,Bantman2013).Anarchismdevelopedfromthe
startacrossborders,markedby“supranationalconnectionsandmultidirectionalflowsof…ideas,
people,financesandorganisationalstructures…oftenbuiltuponmigratorydiasporas
and…reinforcedbythemovement'spressandthetravelsofmajoractivists”(vanderWaltand
Hirsch2010:xxxii).ThecommonplaceEurocentricviewnotwithstanding,anarchistswereactivein
Argentina,CubaandEgyptasearlyasthe1870s,whereasthefirsttwodecadesofthe20thcentury
sawsophisticatedanarchistmovementsemergefromthePhilippines,PeruandJapantoSouth
Africa,ChileandTurkey(Anderson2005,Turcato2007,Shaffer2009,Khuri-Makdisi2010,Ramnath
2011).InBritainandinNorthandSouthAmerica,theinfluxofJewish,ItalianandIrishimmigrants
createdmulticulturalworkingclasscommunitiesinwhicharadicalcosmopolitanoutlooktookhold,
embracingdiversityandsolidarityacrossethnicandculturallines(Fishman1975,Moya2004,Katz
2011,Zimmer2015).Thesetransnationalencounterscontinuetoanimatetheanarchistmovement
today(CuevasHewitt2007,KalichaandKuhn2010).
Anarchistswerealsoearlyandconsistentopponentsofracismandslavery.JosephDéjacque,an
earlyFrenchanarchistactiveinNewOrleansinthe1850s,lookedforwardtoarevolutionaryalliance
betweenblackslavesandwhiteproletarians,andfavourablycomparedJohnBrowntoSpartacus.He
expectedthatthe“monstrousAmericanUnion,thefossilRepublic,willdisappear”inthecataclysm
ofrevolution,creatinga“SocialRepublic”wherein“Blacksandwhites,creolesandredskinswill
fraternize…andwillfoundonesinglerace.ThekillersofNegrosandproletarians,theamphibiansof
liberalismandthecarnivoresofprivilegewillwithdrawlikethecaymans…tothemostremoteparts
ofthebayous”(Déjacque1858/2013).Later,attheheightoflynchingmurdersintheAmerican
South,theanarchistJamesF.Mortonwroteanextensivepamphletagainstracismanditsuseto
dehumaniseandjustifyatrocities.“Theblindstupidityofracialprejudiceissimplyunfathomable”,he
wrote,“itactsinmaddisregardofalllogicalconsiderations,andwhenchallengedcangiveno
coherentaccountofitself…itstopsitsearsinblindrage”(Morton1906:31.Cf.Damiani1939).
JeanGrave,aspartofhiscritiqueofnationalismandmilitarism,disparagedboththeirrationalityof
notionsofracialandculturalsuperiority,andtheirinsidiousroleincausingworkerstolegitimate
theirownexploitation.InMoribundSocietyandAnarchy(1899)hestronglycondemnedcolonisation
asrobberyandmurderwritlarge,pouredderisiononitsclaimstobea“civilising”force,and
supportedtherevoltsofcolonisedpeoples.Inachaptertitled“Therearenoinferiorraces”,he
repudiatesaseriesofthen-commonargumentsabouttheinferiorityofnon-Europeansanddrawsa
parallelbetweenracismandtheself-servingbourgeoisdesignationofthepoorasinherentlyinferior.
Anotherimportantcontextforanarchistresponsestonationalismhasbeentheengagementwith
nationalliberationmovements.Ontheonehand,ProudhonandBakuninbothopposedthePolish
insurrection,whichdespitesignificantdifferencesofapproachtheybothsawasanelite-ledeffort
thatsidesteppedthesocialquestionandthreatenedtoemboldeneitherFrenchorPrussian
expansionism(Kofman1968).Others,however,offeredsupporttotheliberationstrugglesof
peoplesunderforeignrule,withinthecontextofarevolutionaryprojecttoabolishdominationand
theinstitutionsthatmaintainit.Landauer(1912/2010:232)supportedthewarsof“revolutionary
peoples”againstforeignoppression,whilebuilding“solidarityamongallpeoplesinstruggleagainst
warandthestate.Earlier,Kropotkinarguedthattheremovalofforeigndominationwasa
preconditiontosocialrevolution,andsupportedthenationalliberationof“theArmeniansinTurkey,
theFinnsandPolesinRussia”aswellas“theblacksinAmerica“,whosesituationheconsidered
equivalenttoforeignoccupation(Kropotkin1897/2014:140).ForKropotkin,genuine
internationalismhadtoopposeimperialismandto“proclaimthecompletelibertyofeachnation,
howeversmallitmightbe,anditsabsoluterighttodevelopalongthelinesitwished”,while
anarchistssupportingnationalliberationstrugglesshouldaimto“enlargethemeaningoftheir
revolt,raiseupamongthemaflagwhichrepresentsasuperiorideal”(qtd.inCahm1978b:56).
Inthelater20thcentury,anarchistsdistancedthemselvesfromMarxists’oftenuncritical
championingofcentralisingstatesintheformercoloniesofAfricaandsouthAsia.IntheAlgerian
context,“FrenchanarchistslikeCamus,Joyeux,Guerin,andthoseinNoiretRouge,openlycriticized
actionsandorientationsoftheFLNwhilealsosupportingtheprincipleofendingcolonialrule[and]
Algerianautogestion“(Porter2011:487).Morerecently,HakimBeyhasdrawnattentiontonew
nationalliberationmovementswhichare“bothnon-hegemonic&anti-Capitalist”includingKurdish,
Sahrawi,HawaiianandPuertoRicanmovements,thoseseeking“maximumautonomyforNative-
american‘nations’”,theMexicanZapatistas,and“atleastintheorythebioregionalistmovementin
theUS”(HakimBey1996:49).
Inalloftheseresponsestonationalism,adistinctionhasprevailedbetween“thenation”understood
asanartificialentityconstructedbythestate,andtermslike“nationalities”,“peoples”,“folks”and
“races”,whichwereeitherconstruedasfactualentitiesorthemselvessubjecttodestabilising
critique.Nationalism,inthiscontext,isdefinedandrejectedasanideologyofloyaltytoanexisting
nationstate(cf.Goldman1911b,Tolstoy1990).RudolfRocker’scentralargumentinNationalism
andCulturewasthatnationalismhadreplacedreligioninthemoderneraasthechiefideological
tooloflegitimationfortherulingclasses.Thenation“isnotthecause,buttheresultofthestate.Itis
thestatethatcreatesthenation”whichis“theartificialresultofthestruggleforpoliticalpower,just
asnationalismhasneverbeenanythingbutthepoliticalreligionofthemodernstate”(Rocker
1937:200-1).Asforethnoculturalidentityandpeoplehood,wecandistinguishbetweenthree
approaches.Iwillcallthesethenaturalist,classistandculturalistapproaches.
Anaturalistapproachseespeoplesasfactualentitiesrootedincommongeographical,cultural,
linguisticand/orancestralfeatures.ForBakunin,thehomeland(patria)representeda“mannerof
livingandfeeling”whichis“alwaysanincontestableresultofalonghistoricdevelopment”.Loveof
homelandamongthe“commonpeople...isanatural,reallove”while“politicalpatriotism,orloveof
theState,isnot[its]faithfulexpression”butone“distortedbymeansoffalseabstraction,alwaysfor
thebenefitofanexploitingminority”(Bakunin1953/1871:324;cf.Cahm1978a).Inhisarticleonthe
risingFinnishnationalism,Kropotkinemphasisedalongsideheritageandlanguagetheroleof“union
betweenthepeopleandtheterritoryitoccupies,fromwhichterritoryitreceivesitsnational
characterandonwhichitimpressesitsownstamp,soastomakeanindivisiblewholebothmenand
territory”(Kropotkin1885).Whileopposedtothenationalismpromotedbyexistingstates,
Kropotkincontinuedtoregardthehumanraceascomposedofmoreorlessterritorially-defined
ethnoculturalgroups,whilecelebratingdiversityinthe“internationalfamily”andseeking“to
developlocal,individualcharacteristics.”(qtd.inCahm1978:53.Cf.Kropotkin1897/2014).Suchan
approach,whilepositivelyencouragingculturaldiversity,setsupacontinuumleadingfromthe
individualthroughtheethno-culturalgroupandontothehumanspecies.SimilarlyforJeanGrave
(1899:105-110),
Certainlywedonotwanttoassertthatallracesareabsolutelyidentical;butweare
persuadedthatallhavecertainaptitudes,certainmoral,intellectual,andphysical
qualities,which,hadtheybeenallowedtoevolvefreely,wouldhaveenabledthemto
taketheirpartinthelaborofhumancivilization.
Thenaturalistapproachisthusoftengroundedinauniversalist,humanistethics–the“beliefinthe
sharedhumanityofpeopleregardlessoftheirmembershipindifferentcultural,ethnicandgender
groups,andtheircomplementaryaffinitiesinafreesocietyasrationalhumanbeings”(Bookchin
1995).
Asecondapproachdeniesethnoculturalidentityanyvalidityasapoliticalpointofreference,
supplantingitwithclass.Thoughnotveryprevalentintheanarchisttradition,ithasmorerecently
beenheardfromself-identified“classstruggleanarchists”.SchmidtandvanderWalt,whosee
ethnicity(aswellasgender)astheoreticallysubsidiarytoclass,placenationalismandethnocultural
identityonparwith“identitypolitics”,thelatterconstruedasnecessarilyessentialistand
fragmentary.Instead,theypromotetheunifyingpotentialof“classpolitics”whichcanmobilise
“ordinarypeople…acrossraciallines”(2009:305).Here,raceorethnicityareaccordedanentirely
negativefunction,rejectingtheloyaltiestheyimplyasfalseconsciousnessandrefusingtoseethe
powerrelationstheyencodeasconstitutive.InthecontextofPalestine,thisapproachoftenleadsto
statementsaboutthe“realinterests”of“theproletariatofGazaandtheWestBank”,whichlienot
inself-determinationwithintheexistingsystembut“incombiningwithworkerseverywheretoend
allexploitation”(TheFreeCommunist2014;cf.SolFed2002,McCarthy2002,AnarchistCommunist
Initiative2004).
AmorerarefiedvariationofclassismappearsinAlfredoBonanno’sessayonnationalliberation.
Bonannoarguesthat“anarchistsrefusetoparticipateinnationalliberationfronts;theyparticipate
inclassfrontswhichmayormaynotbeinvolvedinnationalliberationstruggles”(1976:16).Indoing
so,headoptsthepremiseoftheFronteLibertairethat“ethniccultureisclassculture,andforthis
reasonisrevolutionaryculture”(15).Therefore,
Theethnicbaseoftodayconsistsofthewholeoftheexploitedpeoplewholiveina
giventerritoryofagivennation,therebeingnocommonethnicbasebetweenexploiter
andexploited.Itislogicalthatthisclassbasiswillbedestroyedalongwiththe
destructionofthepoliticalstate,wheretheethniclimitwillnolongercoincidewiththe
exploited…butwiththewholeofthemenandwomenlivinginthatterritorywhohave
chosentolivetheirlivesfreely(ibid.).
Bonannogoesbeyondarejectionofethnicityasidentity–theconceptisinsteadontologically
absorbedintoclass.Thelogicproceedsthroughtherecursiveapplicationofaspecificaccountof
revolutionaryaccomplishmenttopre-revolutionaryconditions.Sinceitisonlyclassconsciousness
thatcandefineapost-capitalistreconstructionofterritorially-boundpopulations,the“ethniclimitof
therevolutionaryprocessoffreefederations”correspondstothatofaproletariatintheprocessof
self-abolition.Asidefromtheblatantmystificationofidentifyingclasswithethnicity,thisformulation
cannotaccountforrealitiessuchasethnicdivisionswithinexploitedpopulations,asseenbothin
colonialcircumstancesandinthemultiethnicglobalnorth.
Thethird,culturalistapproachisalsocritical,butinsteadofsupplantingethnicidentitywithclass,it
destabilisesappealstocommonkinship,languageandheritageasconstitutiveofhumangroups.
Whatremainsisaneffectivelyanti-foundationalistconceptoffolkculture,identifiedwithlocalised
patternsofhumaninteractionwhichremaininfluxastheyrelaypopulations,practicesandideas.
ThisapproachispresentalreadyinGustavLandauer’saccountofthefolk,whichisinfact
constructedincompletedetachmentfromethnoculturalsignifiers.AsGrauerpointsout,Landauer
perceivedthefolk“notasapoliticaloreconomicstructure,anddefinitelynotasabiologicalentity
determinedbyfixedandunalterablebloodties…[N]eitheracommonlanguagenorameasureof
geographicalunity”werenecessaryfeaturesoffolkspirit(1994:8-9).Landauer’smythicalfolkisa
spiritualentity,"anequalityofindividuals–afeelingandreality–whichisbroughtaboutinfree
spirittounityandtounion"(qtd.inGrauer1994:6).Anarchicapriori,thissubalternfreeculture
existsunderneathandas-againsthierarachicalsocialrelations.Theorganicandfreeunfoldingof
spiritamongthepeopleiscontrastedtothemechanisticandcompulsivestate,andpoisedtoreplace
itwithvoluntarismandmutualaid.TheabsenceofethnoculturalreferencesinLandauer’saccount
ofthefolkisimportantinallowinghisorganicismtoresistidentificationwiththeVolkischright.But
theresultisaconceptofthefolkclearlyremovedfromanynaturalistpresumptionofan
ethnoculturalbasisforpeoplehood.
RudolfRocker,inNationalismandCulture(1937),ismoreexplicit.Inthefirstpartofthebookheis
concernedwithahistoricalandideologicalcritiqueofthemodernnationstate,andinthiscontext
setsupthedistinctionbetweenthenationandthepeopleinfamiliarnaturalistterms:
Apeopleisthenaturalresultofsocialunion,amutualassociationofmen[sic]brought
aboutbyacertainsimilarityofexternalconditionsofliving,acommonlanguage,and
specialcharacteristicsduetoclimateandgeographicenvironment.Inthismannerarise
commontraits,aliveineverymemberoftheunion,andformingamostimportantpart
ofitssocialexistence(200-1).
Yetthisformulationismisleading,sinceinthesecondpartofthebookRockerrebootsthecritiqueof
nationalism,extendingittoanattackonthestabilityandsignificanceoflanguageandethnicties.
Whiletheprimaryaimistoattacknationalismatitsbaseassumptions,Rocker’scritiqueendsup
destabilisingthenaturalistaccountofpeoplehoodaswell.Afterdemonstratingthatthereisno
“communityofmaterialinterestandidentityofmorals,customsandtraditions”(275)withinexisting
nations,Rockerturnstolanguage.Describingmanyborrowingsandloan-translationsamong
Europeanandmiddle-easternlanguages,andcasesofpopulationschangingtheirlanguage,he
concludesthat“languageisnottheresultofaspecialfolk-unity.Itisastructureinconstant
change…alwaysinflux,proteaninitsinexhaustiblepowertoassumenewforms”(288).Itisthus“no
characteristicofanation:itisevennotalwaysdecisiveofmembershipinaparticularnation.Every
languageispermeatedwithamassofforeignspeechelementsinwhichthemodeofthoughtand
theintellectualcultureofotherpeopleslives”(297).
Rocker’snextchapteronrace,writtenintheshadowofNazism,islargelyconcernedwiththe
baselessnessof“scientific”racism.Yetinintroducingthiscritiquehepointsbeyondthemere
rejectionofracialsupremacismtoaquestioningofethnoculturaldistinctivenessinitself.Notonlyis
therenoconnectionbetween“mental,moralandculturalqualities”andthe“realorimaginary
physicalcharacteristicsofarace”(298),butthesecharacteristics–likelanguage–arethemselves
theresultofpopulationsmixingandmigrating.Asaresultthereareno“pureraces”,noteven
“amongtheso-calledsavagepeoples”suchas“theEskimosortheinhabitantsofTierradel
Fuego…racedoesnotdescribesomethingfixedandunchangeable,butsomethinginaperpetual
stateofflux,somethingcontinuallybeingmadeover”(301).
Wewillreturntothecommentonindigenouspeoplelateron.Forthemoment,itshouldbenoted
thatwithhisemphasisonfluxandchange,Rockerisseekingtoexciseanystableethnic
characteristicsfromhisculturalaccountofpeoplehood.Peoplesare,inthissense,localsnapshotsof
aworldwideprocessofculturalunfolding,whichatoncedisplays“endlessdiversity”andis
everywheredrivenby“theaspirationforworthierorganizationandloftierspiritinsocialand
individuallifethatisdeeplyrootedinthesocialsentimentofman”(345).Rocker’sconceptofculture
thusreliesontheoppositeofisolationandself-containment:
culturalreconstructionsandsocialstimulationalwaysoccurwhendifferentpeoplesand
racescomeintocloserunion.Everynewcultureisbegunbysuchafusionofdifferent
folkelementsandtakesitsspecialshapefromthis...acultureisbornorfertilisedonlyby
thecirculationofnewbloodintheveinsofitsrepresentatives…Inallthegreatepochs,
culturehasmarchedhandinhandwiththevoluntaryunionandfusionofdifferent
humangroups(347-350)
IwouldliketoarguethatRockerapproachesananti-foundationalistpositioninhisdeconstructionof
languageandraceasanchorsfornationalism,andinhispreferenceforfluxandmutabilityinthe
culturalconceptionofpeoplehood.Inoptingforanontologicalratherthannormativecritiqueof
nationalism,hisapproachbearsthemarkofthenegating,conceptuallynihilisticimpulsewhichruns
throughtheanarchisttradition,fromStirner’siconoclasmandBakunin’s“destructiveurge”to
Goldman’scallsforatransvaluationofsocialmores.Thisimpulsehassustainedanarchism’scritical
edgeandexperimentalapproachtosocialreconstruction,andmarksitasaforerunnerof
poststructuralistthought(Jun2012,Newman2015).Tobesure,Rockerdoesnotdeconstructallthe
way–hestillfinds“theessentialanduniversalwhichuniteallhumanbeings”(436)intheaspiration
tocultureassuch.Yetthisisaverythinuniversalism,whichleavesthesubstantivecontentof
culturalarticulationopenandinherentlymutable.Rocker’sdeconstructionofethnicitytherefore
prefigureswidercritiquesofontologicalessentialism,epistemologicalfoundationalismand
constructsofthesubject(Rouselle2012:215ff).
DecolonialDestabilisations
Alongsidenaturalistaccountsofethnoculturalidentity,anarchistshavealsoquestioneditsstability
andsignificanceintheircritiquesofnationalism.Whathappenstothesequestionings,however,in
thecontextofanarchists’membershiporsupportofmovementswhosecollectiveidentityis
constructed,amongotherthings,aroundcommonlanguage,heritageanddescentasconstitutive
features?Iwouldliketoarguethatanarchistsolidaritieswithinadecolonialpoliticscallinto
questionallthreeoftheapproachesreviewedabove.
Decolonialthinkinghasbeendescribedasanactof"epistemicdisobedience"wherebypeoplewho
sharethe"colonialwound"cancarryouta"politicalandepistemicde-linking"fromwestern
dominanceandthewaysofthinkingitimposes(Mignolo2009).Decolonialapproachesthusplace
systemicracismatthecentreofsocialcritique,andinthecontextofpastandpresentdispossessions
ofpeoplesfromtheirlandthroughconquest,slavery,genocideandmoderncorporatepower.Racial
stratificationinbothsettler-colonialstatesand“multicultural”Europe,aswellaseconomicand
militarydominanceovertheglobalSouth,pointtothesignificanceofcolonialismnotmerelyasa
historicalevent,butasasetoflogicsthatcontinuetomaintainanddeepenglobalinequalities.For
radicalsocialmovements,adecolonialapproachmeansthatstrugglesforsocialtransformation
shouldbecarriedoutwithexplicitattentiontothecolonialandthusracialiseddimensionof
inequality,ratherthanuncriticallyreproducingthesamewesternuniversalistformulasthathave
maskedthecolonialproject,andthatpoliticaldecolonisationshouldbeintegratedintotheir
programmeforsocialchange.
Naturalistapproachesneedtorespondtothiscritique,atleasttotheextentthattheyappealto
universalisthumanism.Butitposesthemostseriousproblemsfortheclassistapproach,especiallyin
itsfirstversionabove.AmericananarchistofcolourRogerWhitearguesthatclaimsabout“the
universalityandprimacyoftheclassstruggle”are“partofthephilosophicalresidueofAnglo-
Europeancolonialism”(White2004:16).Thisisbecausetheydenynon-whitepeoplehistorical
subjectivityassuch,bracketingtheethnicbasisoftheirstruggleswhileprojectingontothema
Eurocentricconceptionoftheproletariat.Thisamountstoaproject“tostripthemassesoftheir
nationalandcommunalidentitiesinexchangeforaworkeristone”(ibid.,cf.Alston1999).Instead,
anarchistsshouldholdraceonparwithgender,class,ageandotherirreducibleaxesofdomination.
Anintersectionalapproach,whichavoidsgrantinganyoftheseregimesanalyticalprimacy(Shannon
andRogue2009),isthereforemoretheoreticallysoundandpoliticallyinclusivethanclass
reductionism.
Thethinneruniversalismofculturalistapproachesmightescapethisspecificcritique.However,the
wayinwhichRockermovesfromarejectionofthenationtoarejectionoftheethnicityofpeoples
stillleavesacasetobeanswered.Hisattempttoundercutthevalidityofethnicandlanguage
groups,understandableinthecontextofhisontologicalattackonEuropeannationalismandracism,
wouldalsounderminetheconstitutiveroleofcommonancestryandlanguageinthestrugglesof
indigenouspeoplesandotheroppressedethnicgroups.IndicativehereisRocker’s
instrumentalisationofindigenouspeoplestoscoreapointagainstracialism.Whilelinguisticsand
populationgeneticsmayprovidevariousassessmentsofgroups’isolation,theargumenteffectively
deniesthesegroupstheirheritageandleadstonon-recognitionintheirclaimstoselfdetermination.
However,asRamnath(2011:21)argues,
Whereethnicityisbrutalizedandculturedecimated,itiscalloustodiscountthevalueof
ethnicpride,assertingtherighttoexistassuch…inthecolonialcontext,thedefenseof
ethnicidentityandculturaldivergencefromthedominantisakeycomponentof
resistance.
Rocker’scuturalistanddeconstructivecritique,directedasitisatEuropeannationalisms,cannotbe
generalisedwithoutsomefurtherfilterthatwouldallowustoaccountfortheasymmetrybetween
ethnoculturalexpressionsthataresupportedbystatesandonesthatstatesseektorepress,
assimilateorco-optwhiledenyingtheirbearersself-determinationontheirownterms.Justas
anarchistshaveanobligationtotakeintoaccounttheirownpositionalityintheirrelationshipwith
ethnoculturally-constructedmovements(cf.BarkerandPickerill2012),somustanarchistthought
findawaytoreconcilethedeconstructiveimpulsewithitspoliticsofrecognition.2Iwouldliketo
2Thephilosophicaldilemmacentraltothischapterismorebasicthantheoneraisedbynationalliberation
movements.Inthelattercase,thedilemmaisnotsomuchabouttherecognitionofstatelessgroups’
ethnoculturalidentity,norisitraisedbytheirclaimstobefreedofdomination.Instead,itisaboutthe
likelihoodofanationalliberationtakingastatist(andcapitalist)formandthusreplacingoneoppressive
systemwithanother.However,asIhavearguedelsewhere(Gordon2008:154-6),anarchistscansupport
nationalliberationmovementseveniftheyaspiretostatistindependence.First,whilenewstatesmay
maintainoppressivesocialrelationsofdifferentkinds,thiswillmostoftenbepreferabletoastatusquothatis
evenmoreoppressiveanddeadly.Second,statelessgroupsalreadyliveunderoccupyingstates,betheyIsrael,
TurkeyorIndonesia,andtheformationofanewnationalstatecreatesonlyaquantitativechange,nota
qualitativeone.Third,supportforastatistsolutionmaybeavalidstrategicchoice,totheextentthatitwould
createmorespaceforworkers’,women’sandenvironmentalstrugglesinbothsocieties,andhelpdevelopa
formerconflictzonetowardseventualsocialtransformation.
suggestaprovisionalresponsetothisdilemma,whichratherthanrevertingbacktonaturalism,
appliestheprinciplesofsubsidiarityandleadership-takingtothedeconstructivetaskitself.
Subsidiarityistheprinciplethatpeopleshouldhavepoweroveranissueinproportiontotheirstake
init.Itisabasicfeatureofanarchistorganisationalthinking,tiedtovaluesofdecentralisationand
autonomy.Appliedinadecolonialcontext,subsidiarityplacesleadershipindecolonialstrugglesin
thehandsofindigenousgroups,andhasimplicationsforthewayinwhichnon-nativesorcitizensof
anoccupyingstatecanofferthemsupportandsolidarity.AccordingtoWalia(2012),
Takingleadershipmeansbeinghumbleandhonouringfront-linevoicesof
resistance…offeringtangiblesolidarityasneededandrequested…takinginitiativefor
self-education…organizingsupportwiththeclearconsentandguidanceofan
Indigenouscommunityorgroup,buildinglong-termrelationshipsofaccountabilityand
neverassumingortakingforgrantedthepersonalandpoliticaltrustthatnon-natives
mayearnfromIndigenouspeoplesovertime.
InIsrael-Palestine,wherearmedconflictison-goingandsegregationisthenorm,Israelianarchists
havealsodevelopedprinciplesfortheirengagementinjointstrugglewithPalestinianpopular
committeesintheWestBank.AccordingtoSnitz(2013:57-8),
Thefirstprincipleisthatalthoughthestruggleisjoint,Palestiniansareaffectedmoreby
thedecisionstakenwithinit,andthereforearetheoneswhoshouldmakethe
importantdecisions.Second,IsraelishaveaspecialresponsibilitytorespectPalestinian
self-determination,includingrespectingsocialcustomsandkeepingoutofinternal
Palestinianpolitics.
Thisdecoloniallogicisnotonlyrelevanttosettler-colonialsocieties,butalsotoEuropegivenits
absorption,limitationandsecuritisationofmigrationfromformercoloniesandcurrentconflict
zones.Inthiscontext,Europeanactivistsagainstbordersanddeportationsshareanethosoftaking
leadershipfromself-organisedmovementsofrefugeesandmigrants,andofavoidingbothasaviour
mentalityandthecondescensionofrevolutionarytutelage.
Asaparalleltothesepoliticalorientations,Iwouldliketosuggesttheideaofphilosophical
subsidiarityasanethicalfilterforthedeconstructiveundertaking,colouringitwithanawarenessof
theasymmetriesofpowertowhichdecolonialcritiquespoint.Thisapproachcanremain
philosophicallycommitted,inthelastinstance,toananti-foundationalistpositionthatdenies
ultimatevaliditytoethnicity(ortoanyothersupposedabsolute).However,thecritiqueisappliedin
viewofthecritic’sownpositionality–itshouldnot“punchdown”.Thetaskofdeconstructingan
identitybelongstothosewhobearit,ortothosewhoareoppressedinitsname.Formembersof
groupsseekingself-determination,thismeans“notforgettingthatculturalexpressionmustinclude
therighttoredefinethepracticesofone’sowncultureovertime…thedecolonizationofculture
shouldn’tmeanrewindingtoa‘pure’originalconditionbutinsteadrestoringtheartificiallystunted
capacityfreelytogrowandevolve”(Ramnath,ibid.).
Topersonaliseforamoment:asanIsraeliJewishanarchisttakingadeconstructivepositiontowards
ethnicity,mystakeliesprimarilyinquestioningJewishnationalismandtheideaofJewish
peoplehoodasconstructedthroughbothreligiousandpoliticalinstitutions(andmyownnationalist
education).Thisdoesnotmeanthate.g.HebreworJewishculturenolongerplayapartinmy
identity.Butitdoesdenythewayinwhichthesefeaturesareconstructedinhegemonicreligious
and/orZionistaccountsofJewishpeoplehood.Sincemyownanti-foundationalistpositionwould
tendtodeconstructpeoplehoodingeneral,Iamalsocomfortablewithenterprisestoradically
deconstructJewishpeoplehoodinparticular(cf.Sand2010).However,itisnotformetoapplythis
critiquetoPalestinians’ethnoculturalidentity,evenifsuchapplicationisavailableinprinciple.By
thesametoken,itisnotforwhitePalestinesolidarityactiviststoundermineJewishpeoplehood,a
taskthatismoreappropriatelyundertakenindirectPalestinian-Jewishpartnership.
Thesubsidiarityofdeconstructioncanfurtherbesituatedwithintheethicofencounterbetween
settlerandindigenousactivistspromotedbyAbdouetal.(2009).DrawingonLevinas,theysuggesta
modeofradicalalliancewhichbuildssolidaritythroughhonestyandmutualresponsibility.Inthis
ethic,recognition
requiresthatthesettlerdisrupthisorhercolonial(dis)orientationtotheother"andadopta
dispositionthatincludes"acceptanceoftheunknown—alackofanticipationoftheother’sessence;
aknowledgeofself-identityincorporatinganunderstandingofinfiniteresponsibility;awillingnessto
acceptdifferenceandavoidthetendencytosubsumetheotherintothesame;andfinally,ahumility
inthefaceoftheother,whichimplieshavingthecourageandwillingnessnecessarytolearnfrom
theother(215-216).
Iwouldfinallyliketohighlighttheconsequencesofadecolonialapproachfortheideaof
bioregionalism,withitsalternativemodeloflocalbelonging.Abioregioniscommonlydefinedasa
continuousgeographicareawithuniquenaturalfeaturesintermsofterrain,climate,soil,
watersheds,wildlifeandhumansettlementsandcultures(Andrussetal.1990).Whilerootedin
environmentalconcerns,bioregionalismisattractivetoanarchistsbecauseitspoliticalimplications
lookbeyondnationalismandthenationstateintheterritorialdimensionofsocialorganisation.
Sincebioregionsdonotrecognisearbitrarypoliticalboundaries,andareunsuitableformanagement
fromadistantcentre,abioregionalmodelisconsistentwithastatelesssocietyanditsassociated
sustainablepracticesaremorelikelytopromoteanethosofcooperationandmutualaidinthe
stewardshipofregionalenvironments.
Asanalternativetonationalism,bioregionalismoffersamodelofbelongingthatisnotboundtothe
state,andremainsopentointerpolationwithmultiplepersonalandcollectiveidentitiesintermsof
ethnicity,language,spirituality,gender,sexualpreference,vocation,lifestyleetc.However,the
discussionabovepointstoanunderstandinglessoftenexpressedbybioregionalistadvocates,
namelythatanytransitiontosuchamodelwouldrequireadecolonisationofsocialrelationsinthe
bioregionalspace.Suchaprocess,moreover,islikelytoinvolveconflictsovertheredistributionof
powerandresourcesalongracial(aswellasgender,andother)lines.Seenthroughadecolonialand
revolutionarylens,bioregionalismmustthereforeseeknotonlydecentralisationalongecological
linesbutanegalitarianagendawithinthebioregion.Fromsuchaposition,discussioncouldprogress