Political Media Review – PMR

Saul Newman
Manchester University Press (2007)
Reviewed by Lewis Call
Reprinted with Permission from Anarchist Studies

Thanks largely to the efforts of Saul Newman, we now refer to the site where poststructuralism intersects anarchist politics as “postanarchism.”  The term postanarchism appears to derive from the works of Hakim Bey, via Jason Adams (Day 160).  (With an irony appropriate to our postmodern e-mail culture, it is sometimes abbreviated post-@.)  The postanarchist philosophy and practice have been developed in the U.K. by Newman, in Canada by Richard Day, in the United States by Todd May and myself, and in Turkey by Sureyyya Evren and others associated with the post-@ journal Siyahi.  Despite the growing popularity of postanarchism (or perhaps because of that), the term remains a lightning rod for controversy.  Some critics denounce post-@ for its tendency to fetishise incomprehensible jargon.  Others reject it as a desire to be done with anarchism altogether.  Some see post-@ as an elitist form of high theory, disconnected from anarchist social movements.  While these critiques have probably been true of some postanarchisms at some times, none of them apply to Saul Newman’s excellent new book, Unstable Universalities.

Newman’s project is an important one.  Rather than simply rejecting postmodernism or embracing it uncritically, he seeks a third way, which would “take a kind of critical distance from, or at least a measured attitude towards, postmodernity, while at the same time taking account of its very significant implications for politics today” (10).  He also addresses another major issue in post-@ politics, namely the tension between an ominously totalizing consensus politics and a dangerous political fragmentation.  Newman again tries to identify a viable third way, namely “a notion of universality–an idea of a common political imaginary that transcends particular political perspectives and identities” (10-11).  This is similar to what I have called the “postmodern commons.”  It is an attempt to respect vital elements of difference and diversity within the community of postmodern radicals, while simultaneously recognizing that such radicals must constitute themselves as a coherent community if they wish to develop an effective politics.

Newman focuses mainly on the postanarchist position, and he ably demonstrates that the meaning of postanarchism need not be obscure.  “Postanarchism is simply the attempt to renew anarchist theory and politics through a deconstruction of its original foundations in the rationalist and humanist paradigms of the Enlightenment” (195). Newman’s description of the postanarchist project is clear, concise and remarkably modest.  Postanarchism represents a desire to interrogate the origins of modern anarchism–not to reject the modern, but to expose the hidden tensions within it.  We do this in order to gain a better understanding of the political and psychological worlds in which we operate.

In his editorial for AS 16.2, Newman argued that postanarchism does not see itself as being “after” anarchism.  Similarly, Unstable Universalities demonstrates that postanarchism is not an abandonment of the anarchist tradition; rather, it is simply the latest phase of anarchist theory.  “Post-anarchism should not be taken to imply a theoretical move beyond anarchism or as saying that the anarchist moment has passed.” (195).  Newman’s analysis also indicates that postanarchism is not just a mysterious creature lurking in the high tower of theory.  In fact, post-@ is thoroughly engaged with contemporary anarchist social and political movements.  Newman argues convincingly that post-@ is deeply relevant to discussions of the contemporary “security state,” but he also finds post-@ elements in the anti-globalisation movement, Zapatistism, Brazil’s landless movement, anti-racist groups, and Reclaim the Streets.  In this analysis, post-@ is a strikingly straightforward assessment of the symbolic and subjective environment in which contemporary anarchists operate.  Newman concludes optimistically that “perhaps anarchism. . .is becoming the new ‘paradigm’ for radical politics today” (191).

I admire Newman’s optimism and enthusiasm, and I agree with him that an anarchist moment is arriving.  However, Newman sometimes seems a little too sure that he knows the precise shape of that moment.  He is right to suggest that the postmodern proliferation of identities “does not necessarily equate with liberation” (42).  Neither, however, can we assume that such an existence will not lead to liberation.  Although he admires poststructuralism and postanarchism, Newman is surprisingly critical of posthumanism, arguing that “these developments should not be fetishised or seen as a form of liberation, as those harbingers of the ‘post-human’ cyber age are wont to do” (43).  I have been such a harbinger in the pages of this journal, and I remain convinced that the posthuman represents a potential figure of liberation.  Newman is right to argue that “there is nothing emancipating, necessarily, about the disappearance of man or the loss of reality” (43), but posthumanism and simulation were always just possibilities, tactics that were useful for a time and may be again, interesting openings in the symbolic field of late modernism.

Newman’s skepticism about the posthuman leads him to overlook the interesting ways in which postmodern sexualities may challenge traditional power structures.  He dismisses “a lesbian mother, an S/M practitioner, a gay preacher” as “’subject positions’ which remain unpoliticised” (88).  Yet Foucault observed that the homosexual was automatically at war with the state:  this is a politicised position, and an anarchist one.  The practice of S/M is based upon a careful ethical distinction between the non-consensual power which is the enemy of every anarchist, and power used consensually, for mutual erotic fulfillment.  The sadomasochist could be a kind of natural anarchist.

None of these issues detract significantly from what is fundamentally a very fine book.  I hope that Unstable Universalities will be read widely by those who love postanarchism, and by those who fear it.

REFERENCES

Call, Lewis (2002), Postmodern Anarchism, Lanham, Maryland, Lexington Books.  Chapter four reprints “Anarchy in the Matrix:  Postmodern Anarchism in the Novels of William Gibson and Bruce Sterling,” Anarchist Studies 7 (1999):  99-117.

Day, Richard J. F. (2005), Gramsci is Dead: Anarchist Currents in the Newest Social Movements, London, Pluto Press.

Evren, Sureyyya (6 September 2008), “Modernity, Third World and Anarchism,” Anarchist Studies Network Conference, Loughborough University.

May, Todd (1994), The Political Philosophy of Poststructuralist Anarchism, University Park, The Pennsylvania State University Press.

 This review originally appeared in Anarchist Studies, Vol 14 No 1.