What do you think?
Rate this book
Become Ungovernable: An Abolition Feminist Ethic for Democratic Living
Become Ungovernable is a provocative new work of political thought setting out to reclaim 'freedom', 'justice', and 'democracy', revolutionary ideas that are all too often warped in the interests of capital and the state.
Revealing the mirage of mainstream democratic thought and the false promises of liberal political ideologies, H. L. T. Quan offers an alternative an abolition feminism drawing on a kaleidoscope of refusal praxes, and on a deep engagement with the Black Radical Tradition and queer analytics.
With each chapter anchored by episodes from the long history of resistance and rebellions against tyranny, Quan calls for us to take up a feminist ethic of living rooted in the principles of radical inclusion, mutuality, and friendship as part of the larger toolkit for confronting fascism, white supremacy, and the neoliberal labor regime.
Revealing the mirage of mainstream democratic thought and the false promises of liberal political ideologies, H. L. T. Quan offers an alternative an abolition feminism drawing on a kaleidoscope of refusal praxes, and on a deep engagement with the Black Radical Tradition and queer analytics.
With each chapter anchored by episodes from the long history of resistance and rebellions against tyranny, Quan calls for us to take up a feminist ethic of living rooted in the principles of radical inclusion, mutuality, and friendship as part of the larger toolkit for confronting fascism, white supremacy, and the neoliberal labor regime.
328 pages, Paperback
Published February 20, 2024
24 people are currently reading
596 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 6 of 6 reviews
November 26, 2024
I came into this book largely unsettled because the term “democracy” has always been either the carrot the state dangles in front of those they’ve marginalized during election time OR a term used to justify brutal genocidal violence and global control. But by the time I got to about pg. 60 I had become invested in what Quan positions as "liberatory praxis of democratic living".
I clearly understand what she had sought to do with the idea of the ungovernable and why she chose “antidemocracy” as the frame through which they can unpack the long lineage of violence, control, and the removal of the people from the “governing structures”.
I appreciate Quan centering Black feminist scholars and organizers as the way forward. One of my favorite parts was the excavation of Jeffersonian antidemocracy and his successors Madison and Johnson. Situating them as early architects of what we now know as white dominions processes of annihilation, erasure and displacement which laid the groundwork for American racial capitalism and democratic elitism to exist in the way it does.
While the first part was particularly dense and it’s not a light read- I loved the challenge. Furthermore I absolutely respected what it brings us to in the end. There’s so much more I can say but my only advice is stick with it, it gets good. It’s an important text ESPECIALLY right now (November 2024).
I clearly understand what she had sought to do with the idea of the ungovernable and why she chose “antidemocracy” as the frame through which they can unpack the long lineage of violence, control, and the removal of the people from the “governing structures”.
I appreciate Quan centering Black feminist scholars and organizers as the way forward. One of my favorite parts was the excavation of Jeffersonian antidemocracy and his successors Madison and Johnson. Situating them as early architects of what we now know as white dominions processes of annihilation, erasure and displacement which laid the groundwork for American racial capitalism and democratic elitism to exist in the way it does.
While the first part was particularly dense and it’s not a light read- I loved the challenge. Furthermore I absolutely respected what it brings us to in the end. There’s so much more I can say but my only advice is stick with it, it gets good. It’s an important text ESPECIALLY right now (November 2024).
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
September 26, 2024
I enjoyed reading this book but found, like many of its type, it to be heavy on pointing out problems and light on solutions.
"Abolition feminism...insists on a comprehensive, multimodal, and intergenerational approach to contest, improvise and transform the very meanings of what it means to have safety and security." OK, but beyond friendships, relationality and cooperation, what do the mechanics of such a system look like. For instance, how do we deal with dissent in our egalitarian, nonviolent, noncarceral system
This book doesn't explain how to BECOME ungovernable, only that the author believes that abolition feminist democracy is the solution to the problems of the Hegemony, while never defining or explaining how the theory would work in practice.
"Abolition feminism...insists on a comprehensive, multimodal, and intergenerational approach to contest, improvise and transform the very meanings of what it means to have safety and security." OK, but beyond friendships, relationality and cooperation, what do the mechanics of such a system look like. For instance, how do we deal with dissent in our egalitarian, nonviolent, noncarceral system
This book doesn't explain how to BECOME ungovernable, only that the author believes that abolition feminist democracy is the solution to the problems of the Hegemony, while never defining or explaining how the theory would work in practice.
May 31, 2024
The positives, there are some great ideas in here and I learnt a lot about American history around slavery. Negatives, at times the text was impenetrable. This made it a difficult book to pick up and read. Obfuscating, as one of my ironic friends stated.
August 16, 2024
I really wanted to love this book. I even had my highlighter out and everything. And while this book isn’t bad – there is nothing to be lost by reading it and some important information to be gained, in particular the final chapter is strong – I felt like I kept hitting theoretical lacunae in the development of the main argument.
The first part of the book in particular focuses on a critique of democracy “as a form of governance,” arguing that what is often described as democratic should be better understood as antidemocratic. What is desirable is democracy “as a way of life,” which is the focus of the second part of the book, and embodied by the practice of abolition feminism.
All that is clear enough, but the issues emerge in the details and terms. For example, “democratic living” is to be ungovernable, which is distinct from anarchist, but possibly anarchic, and certainly anti-authoritarian. Anarchism is unsatisfactorily dismissed by Quan because of its belief in individual autonomy and potential connections to “order,” the argument being that anarchy is simply another form of being governed and to truly to ungovernable is to be outside of order. But what “order” and “ungovernable” are precisely is not thoroughly excavated.
Quan cites an uprising in Wukan, China, where residents ran a village themselves for a brief period as an exemplar of becoming ungovernable. Quan says they created an “independent governing structure” and they were also “ungoverned.” How can both be true? Autonomous communities, in order to maintain community, almost always develop their own norms (or rules or laws) to manage (or govern) themselves. This also implies a form of ordering society. So those that Quan lifts up as ungovernable and existing outside order are actually just creating their own forms of governance and order. This is fine, but by not clarifying terms confusion is created, and it also muddies Quan’s dismissal of anarchism.
Another concern regards democracy, that famously undefined term. A major goal of the text is to rescue democracy from antidemocrats. However, it is unclear why that is necessary. According to Quan’s argument, all forms of democratic governance since the creation of the term democracy have actually been antidemocratic. This raises the question of if democracy is worth redeeming if it has never really existed. “Ah! But democratic living has existed,” the reply might go. Yet to bring it back to anarchism, Quan also critiques the European origins of classical anarchism, pointing to anarchic practices that existed long before the mid-1800s. That’s fair. Anarchism has never existed, but anarchic living has. But then wouldn’t the same argument hold true of democratic living? Has it not existed long before Athens (where it didn’t really exist anyway)? Would it not be more productive (and accurate and less Eurocentric) to argue that practices of anarchism and democracy have existed long before Europeans gave them names and claimed them as their own inventions? Is democracy (or anarchism) the hill we want to die on? If our commitments – and I believe Quan and I share similar ones – are for collective liberation, do the terms we append to it even matter?
Clearly, this book has given me much to think about, which is a value in and of itself. I feel it could have been stronger via a more thorough and consistent use and clarification of terms. At the same time, I also appreciate its appeal to abolition feminism and to the lifting up of various histories of rebellion, resistance, and refusal.
The first part of the book in particular focuses on a critique of democracy “as a form of governance,” arguing that what is often described as democratic should be better understood as antidemocratic. What is desirable is democracy “as a way of life,” which is the focus of the second part of the book, and embodied by the practice of abolition feminism.
All that is clear enough, but the issues emerge in the details and terms. For example, “democratic living” is to be ungovernable, which is distinct from anarchist, but possibly anarchic, and certainly anti-authoritarian. Anarchism is unsatisfactorily dismissed by Quan because of its belief in individual autonomy and potential connections to “order,” the argument being that anarchy is simply another form of being governed and to truly to ungovernable is to be outside of order. But what “order” and “ungovernable” are precisely is not thoroughly excavated.
Quan cites an uprising in Wukan, China, where residents ran a village themselves for a brief period as an exemplar of becoming ungovernable. Quan says they created an “independent governing structure” and they were also “ungoverned.” How can both be true? Autonomous communities, in order to maintain community, almost always develop their own norms (or rules or laws) to manage (or govern) themselves. This also implies a form of ordering society. So those that Quan lifts up as ungovernable and existing outside order are actually just creating their own forms of governance and order. This is fine, but by not clarifying terms confusion is created, and it also muddies Quan’s dismissal of anarchism.
Another concern regards democracy, that famously undefined term. A major goal of the text is to rescue democracy from antidemocrats. However, it is unclear why that is necessary. According to Quan’s argument, all forms of democratic governance since the creation of the term democracy have actually been antidemocratic. This raises the question of if democracy is worth redeeming if it has never really existed. “Ah! But democratic living has existed,” the reply might go. Yet to bring it back to anarchism, Quan also critiques the European origins of classical anarchism, pointing to anarchic practices that existed long before the mid-1800s. That’s fair. Anarchism has never existed, but anarchic living has. But then wouldn’t the same argument hold true of democratic living? Has it not existed long before Athens (where it didn’t really exist anyway)? Would it not be more productive (and accurate and less Eurocentric) to argue that practices of anarchism and democracy have existed long before Europeans gave them names and claimed them as their own inventions? Is democracy (or anarchism) the hill we want to die on? If our commitments – and I believe Quan and I share similar ones – are for collective liberation, do the terms we append to it even matter?
Clearly, this book has given me much to think about, which is a value in and of itself. I feel it could have been stronger via a more thorough and consistent use and clarification of terms. At the same time, I also appreciate its appeal to abolition feminism and to the lifting up of various histories of rebellion, resistance, and refusal.
July 20, 2025
Become Ungovernable reads less like a call to action and more like a stage for the author to showcase how clever they think they are. Rather than trying to communicate, persuade, or even connect, the book leans hard into posturing—self-aware, ironic, and deliberately opaque. It’s the kind of writing that mistakes being “edgy-smart” for being insightful, substituting mood for meaning.
There’s a particular strain of online-left and post-left writing that treats argumentation as passé. This book exemplifies that. It assumes the reader is already ideologically aligned, so it skips the hard work of building a case. Instead, we get a stream of declarative, vaguely poetic pronouncements—like someone handing out stone tablets in a black turtleneck while picturing themselves lobbing a molotov.
It’s Marxist only in the sense that it doesn’t feel compelled to source any of its claims. There’s none of the rigor of Capital, just the performance of radicalism without the responsibility. It wants to feel urgent and galvanizing, but undermines itself at every turn with smugness, aloofness, and a refusal to be accountable to the reader.
At times, it feels like word jazz: a freeform cascade of theoretical buzzwords, tonal affect, and pseudo-intellectual flow that sounds cool until you realize you’ve forgotten what the book is even supposed to be about. I consider myself pretty smart and politically literate—and I had no idea what half these sentences were trying to say. If your revolutionary text reads like it was workshopped on a Discord server in a fugue state, maybe you’re not writing for the working class after all.
If you’re looking for something to inspire, inform, or even provoke thoughtful disagreement—this isn’t it. This is a vibe in vain search of praxis.
There’s a particular strain of online-left and post-left writing that treats argumentation as passé. This book exemplifies that. It assumes the reader is already ideologically aligned, so it skips the hard work of building a case. Instead, we get a stream of declarative, vaguely poetic pronouncements—like someone handing out stone tablets in a black turtleneck while picturing themselves lobbing a molotov.
It’s Marxist only in the sense that it doesn’t feel compelled to source any of its claims. There’s none of the rigor of Capital, just the performance of radicalism without the responsibility. It wants to feel urgent and galvanizing, but undermines itself at every turn with smugness, aloofness, and a refusal to be accountable to the reader.
At times, it feels like word jazz: a freeform cascade of theoretical buzzwords, tonal affect, and pseudo-intellectual flow that sounds cool until you realize you’ve forgotten what the book is even supposed to be about. I consider myself pretty smart and politically literate—and I had no idea what half these sentences were trying to say. If your revolutionary text reads like it was workshopped on a Discord server in a fugue state, maybe you’re not writing for the working class after all.
If you’re looking for something to inspire, inform, or even provoke thoughtful disagreement—this isn’t it. This is a vibe in vain search of praxis.
January 15, 2026
Really good breakdown of neoliberalism. Though, every time I see or hear the word, I'm ready to fight someone.
Displaying 1 - 6 of 6 reviews