Politics of Individualism

by Susan Brown, L. Susan Brown

In The Politics of Individualism L. Susan Brown argues for a new vision of human freedom which incorporates the insights of feminism and liberalism into a form of anarchism based on what she calls 'existential individualism.' The work focuses specifically on the similarities and differences of these political philosophies, by critically examining the liberal feminist writings of John Stuart Mill, Betty Friedan, Simone de Beauvoir and Janet Radcliffe Richards, paying special attention to the issues of employment, education, marriage and the family, and governmental politics. These works are, in turn, compared and contrasted to the anarcho-feminism of Emma Goldman. Finally, as feminism as a whole movement is subjected to a rigorous critique, in terms of its overall liberatory potential, what emerges is a compelling look at feminist anarchism, describing 'what ought to be--and what could be.'

Genres: Feminism, Politics, Nonfiction, Philosophy

198 pages, Paperback

First published February 1, 1994

About the author

Librarian Note: There are more than one author in the Goodreads database with this name.

Reviews

[Matthew Fellows · Rating 5 out of 5]

Though Brown's treatment of Marxism is superficial to the point of caricature, she still presents some remarkably important and brilliant points about the intersection of anarchism, feminism, and existentialism. Her argument for differentiation between existential and instrumental conceptions of the individual provides a helpful way of thinking about radical approaches to subjectivity.

Though in some cases Murray Bookchin's differentiation between lifestyle and social anarchism is helpful and necessary, the fact that he placed Brown in the lifestyle category betrays a deep misunderstanding of the philosophical and political ramifications of her work. Indeed, her nuanced approach to subjectivity is far more compelling than the Kropotkin-esque essentialism propounded by Bookchin.

[Josh Rhodes · Rating 3 out of 5]

I both really like and have reservations about this. A lot of Brown's analysis hinges on applying her concepts of "existential individualism" vs. "instrumental individualism" to liberal and feminist thinkers/philosophy, and it comes off as insightful but occasionally specious. Or, as somewhat of a highly constructed dichotomy in the first place?

The basic premise of the book is that the individualism of classical liberalism and the commitment to equality of feminism are best reconciled by an existentialist-influenced version of anarchism that opposes "all forms of oppression" (including the subordination of women) as equally undesirable. I'm always sympathetic to anyone making any variant of this argument which should be much more well known: that classical anarchism is the obvious heir of classical liberalism, or in other words, that "libertarian socialism" is the ultimate expression of the promise of "equal liberty" inherent in liberalism. This point has been made before, probably most famously by another "anarcha-feminist," Voltairine de Cleyre, in her essay "Anarchism and American Traditions" at the beginning of the 20th century.

But, well, it's kind of flabbergasting that Murray Bookchin (in his infamous get-off-my-lawn screed "Social Anarchism or Lifestyle Anarchism: An Unbridgeable Chasm") took aim at this book as emblematic of the "lifestylism" he saw as problematic or uncomradely or bourgeois or whatever the hell the problem was, because Brown spends all of like three pages on individualist anarchism, rejecting it as too similar to liberalism (as Benjamin Tucker put it, that version of anarchism is just "unterrified Jeffersonianism") in favor of a narrow insistence that only anarcho-communism (*sigh*, of course) can fully achieve "existential individualism"; it says a lot about Bookchin that what he found to object to in that was not the sectarianism but being TOO individualistic.

(While we're at it, Brown's obvious familiarity with the anarchist, uh, pantheon—Emma Goldman, Bakunin, Kropotkin and Proudhon are all in here, in about that order of frequency—makes the total exclusion of Max Stirner in a book on individualism a wee bit strange. That's not really much of a problem, it's not like we're all contractually obligated to mention every single big shot anarchist in every single book...but it just seems like it would have made sense to bring him in, at the very least for a kick or two, much as she did with Proudhon for his glaring sexism.)

[Zak · Rating 4 out of 5]

Un très bon texte sur l'individualisme, le féminisme, l'anarchisme, le libéralisme et les différents rapports entre ces courants/idéologies.

Cette lecture vaut le coup peut importe le niveau de connaissances qu'on possède de ces sujets: si on est déjà à l'aise avec les thèmes abordés cela permet de relier d'une façon très pertinente des idées entre elles; si on ne l'est pas cela permet d'apprendre beaucoup d'informations fondamentales.
Les concepts et réflexions ne sont pas approfondis à l’extrême (le livre fait seulement 200 pages), mais chaque chapitre est abondamment sourcé si on veut creuser plus loin.

L'unique mauvais point est le chapitre 6 portant sur l'existentialisme, c'est lourd, ça cite énormément sartre et simone de beauvoir (on a franchement l'impression que ces deux là écrivaient du vide) ce qui rend certaines parties du chapitre encore plus creux.

[ryan bears · Rating 1 out of 5]

one of the worst approaches to anarchism or feminism i have ever had to read. im considering writing a full critique but im not sure its worth it.